Hi all
It is about a year that I enjoy my newest toy game (in a very long series of similar strategic toys, spanning to many decades) and I thought of dropping here a few thoughts about the things I find simplistic or simply needing some adjustment. I will try to restrict myself to things that can easily be implemented, without changes in the game mechanism.
1. Infantry devaluation.
This is for me the most disturbing part of the game. The extreme increase in the attacking values of planes (esp. tac bombers), combined with the constant value of both hitpoints and AA defense of most infantry type units make the game completely "one-sided" after around Day 13 of the game. The plan "build planes and stack them" is far too dominant, and perhaps the most efficient.
I am not going to enter into historic debates on that, since it is a game and not a simulation (if I wanted, I would start by asking to increase the AT value of AA guns, having in mind the German 88 AA/AT), but I feel there probably are easy ways to change that:
a) Increase the AA value of infantry by 0.5 per upgrade level. I would prefer that to a decrease to the attack of bombers, as that would still make the bombers killers of any AT/arty they find unprotected.
b) A change in the way SBDE works on stacks (will come back to that later)
c) Gradual increase in the speed of infantry (after all, in the 30s they were marching on foot while in the 50s that was a long forgotten history). This speed increase should be even bigger for AT/AA/arty, as they were the main ones who benefited from the escorting trucks. On the other hand, their speed should continue to be very slow when crossing mountains.
NOTE: of course I know there are motorized/mechanized infantry in the game. And my firm personal belief is that they are perhaps the less useful units, due to (mainly) the extreme requirements on food/manpower/barracks. In fact, there is no such thing as a separate type of unit like that, but simply the old units were equipped with transportation. But, to return to game mechanisms only, since I dont want to expand in proposals about internal things, like food management, and how they (for example) make Barracks Lvl3 a killer of the economy, I will simply say that it is unfair to require to build a new infantry unit (to make motorized) while simultaneously you "accept" that a 1930 LT or bomber can be simply upgraded to a 1950 one.
2, Planes
Unfortunately, there is a unified mechanism for handling all plane types, which prevents serious adjustments (it would be great to have different attack value of AA versus tac bombers, but unfortunately we cannot easily have it). Acknowledging this, the only thing that might be changed easily, apart from the attack/defense values, is the way planes are used, in order to significantly devalue their dominance. They will still remain powerful, but will no longer be cruising at the later stages of the game. That is why i put this suggestion on a different section about SBDE.
3. SBDE - Stacking
For me, this is the main area where the game needs changes, and a successful change here will cure many of the other evils. The real problem is that currently overstacking in effect increases the damage control, with no practical limit. Instead of proposing a completely different mechanism, which might be tough to implement (I have made a hint in a different post), I suggest something very simple which can be implemented almost immediately:
change the SBDE values of units so as to drop very fast, and reach zero when you put more than 2*sbde units in the stack. For example, since the sbde for tac bombers is 5, if you add more that 10 tac in a stack then the 11th, 12th etc. tac doesnt add ANY attack or defense, and only increases the hitpoints of the stack. This is already happening in the game, but with a much higher value. Then the bigger stacks will lose much of their effectiveness, for all types of units - after all, if you claim that sbde represents a limit point after which units dont have a clear line of fire to fight, it is difficult to imagine that you can put twice as many units there in any useful way.
Wish you all happy gaming!
Please log in to post a reply.
I have the feeling (by your description) that most of the damage was due to rockets, and not due to planes. Still, the interesting question is what you said: how many interceptors would you need to take out a 5/5/5/5 stack?
Common logic would demand that 20 should be more than enough (at least, that would be the case in a real fight). You will be surprised by the game answer (it is what I suggested about the lack of a direct dogfight, to exploit the qualitative advantage).
Most of these points are absolutely good general advises, that can be put in good use in all forms of combat (outmaneuver in technology, intel about enemy army, distraction are all part of the necessary war strategy). As for strat (or naval bombers), I only say that especially strat can do miracles in bolstering an air stack, as they both increase the AA defense and the ground attack, with the only disadvantage to decrease the speed (which is tough if at all possible to exploit).VorlonFCW wrote:
FIrst part of the strategy is to start the war on your own timetable, taking out planes first. Players that invest heavily in planes are lost when they lose some at the beginning of the war. Particularly if they ever leave their planes vulnerable, that is the time to strike.I don't think I have ever built more than a handful of strategic or naval bombers in the past two years. Instead of 2 groups of 5/5/5 I would prefer to have 3 groups of 5/5 Interceptors/Tacticlal bombers. interceptors are much better in a patrol fight than any others. If they have 30 planes then I assume that it will cost me 30 planes to kill them. Better economy and supply lines, plus a high command subscription to keep the plane factories humming along is one key to victory here.
A second key is to make sure that I get interceptor research started on the next level within minutes of the day change where it is possible. If I can schedule a battle for the few hours where my planes might be a higher level than the other player then I have an advantage.
Another key for me is to try and determine with my spies what the enemy is building for planes, and produce my airforce accordingly. If someone builds a lot of planes, and you can tell this by how many airbases they build in their industrial cities, they I plan for even more planes.
Additionally I try and plan for a distraction. An invasion from an odd direction, or even a breakthrough in several places with ground units will force them to divert their attention. They should take some of their tactical bombers to deal with my invasion, leaving my planes to have free reign of their front lines. This also can make them refuel their planes to relocate, which might be within range of a well timed rocket. If we have equal numbers of planes or nearly equal, then they will be vulnerable if they split them to chase me down.
With all of your situations I keep it simple. I keep my several stacks of 5/5 (or maybe 5/6 or 6/5 if I have extras) in one single patrol circle, and let them do their thing. It is like a game of chicken, and I don't flinch. I fully expect to lose planes in each of those situations, and I figure that I build the planes to do their job. When the war is over and I still have my undamaged planes I figure I did something wrong. I go and get them scratched up, beat up, and killed. That serves my purpose. Sure when I get down so that the groups are 3/3 instead of 5/5 I will recall them and form new groups of 5/5. I also know that I will need more planes when the battle is over, and I plan ahead for building more.
The only thing that doesn't work is splitting your planes stacks when facing an overstacking opponent. It doesn't matter whether I add strat or not (I take them out for the moment, to show my point). If the opponent has one stack of 10 interceptors and 10 tacs, patrolling (without completing the cycle), then one thing that certainly fails is to patrol with two stacks of 5/5 - your planes will get slaughtered. You can even try with two stacks of 6/5 - the result is the same. The inefficiencies of SBDE are the reason behind this.
I'd like to make some assorted remarks on various issued raised in this thread.
As already stated in a different thread, I don't agree that overstacking planes is the way to go. This may be true in a laboratory environment (your planes patrolling the enemy at their leisure, taking all the time they need to kill them), it is a failure in a fluid battle situation. Enemy air may show up as well, the stack may move itself out of reach of your planes, your airfield may be threatened, different enemy stacks may require air attention as well, and more. 5-5 stacks are more effective in damage-per-timeunit, which is the defining stat, not damage-versus-losses.
AA is absolutely a unit which makes a stack unappetizing to air attack, but as already stated, you need some armored units as well in a majority-infantry stack. If you only use soft targets, your stack withers quickly; adding some vital armor makes it MUCH more durable, giving your AA more time to inflict losses on enemy air.
The battle calculator (http://dxcalc.com/cow) should be used with caution. It is fan-made, and the programmer who built it left the game over a year ago; hence the battle stats for units reflects the situation back then, neglecting various changes made since then.
Land units indeed have a decreasing relevance as the game progresses; yet they retain their only and most defining role: actually conquering terrain. No matter how much air and rockets you deploy, they can only destroy stuff; but without land units, they will be limited to the range of air bases you already control. Land units maintain their conquering role throughout the game, and since victory is tied to controlling land, they will always remain necessary.
Air-to-air is the single most misunderstood element of the game, and the mechanics update hasn't done much to clear it up. In particular, the difference between defending planes when PATROLLING and when MOVING is little known. I will write a synopsis shortly when I have the time.
I completely agree with infantry being broken. As suggested in a different thread, players should be encouraged to convert all excess manpower into infantry, as it was done historically, resulting in infantry being the predominating unit (at least numerically) an ALL battlefields. This could be achieved by reducing the food requirements and build times. No word of Bytro yet on this suggestion. As it is, building infantry after day 1 is very rare.
Upgrading regular infantry to "motorized" in some way is an interesting suggestion! It should require oil though, and thus be optional. (As a side note, most of the German infantry remained unmotorized for the entire war, mainly due to the structural oil shortages in Germany and controlled territory).
I am absolutely with you - overstacking should be at least severely discouraged in a strategy game - and I am somewhat disappointed the game mechanisms fail to do it properly when it comes to planes (they are much better for other types of units). I hope the promised post will shed some light in the defensive mechanisms, which might bring one idea or two.
I would also want to see more of land battles, even later in the game. Unfortunately, the way things are now I don't see it coming.
I said from the start that I would not go as far as proposing anything that looks to me as "tough to implement", but I am missing the upgrade mechanism of an old strategy game of two decades ago: infantry-type units could upgrade their transport mechanism (trucks or even armored vehicles), at a reasonable cost. The other unit types would have an even tougher way to upgrade - not only to research the appropriate technology, but also to completely replace the equipment (costly and much more realistic than the auto-upgrade, as it isn't obvious how suddenly without a serious cost in metal all your tanks or ships are upgraded). But perhaps this will be a different topic.
Yup, you need some Scout cars 3-5 to take empty land after you finish with your rockets and planesK.Rokossovski wrote:
Land units indeed have a decreasing relevance as the game progresses; yet they retain their only and most defining role: actually conquering terrain. No matter how much air and rockets you deploy, they can only destroy stuff; but without land units, they will be limited to the range of air bases you already control. Land units maintain their conquering role throughout the game, and since victory is tied to controlling land, they will always remain necessary.
I assume scout cars are the best because of their speed. After planes reach level 4 I think building something that is not a plane is just a waste of time and resources I assume that in real life 10 to 15 fighters should take down the stack we mentioned. In a game if you go with 20 fighters in one stack you will loose for sure. I am not sure what would happen if you go with 4 stacks with 5 interceptors each. I assume they would win but with heavy looses. I do not use calculator, I just assume. No time to check it so if someone can I would appreciate help.atreas1 wrote:
I have the feeling (by your description) that most of the damage was due to rockets, and not due to planes. Still, the interesting question is what you said: how many interceptors would you need to take out a 5/5/5/5 stack?Common logic would demand that 20 should be more than enough (at least, that would be the case in a real fight). You will be surprised by the game answer (it is what I suggested about the lack of a direct dogfight, to exploit the qualitative advantage).
This particular case doesnt even need a calculator: it is a complete massacre for the interceptors, unless you can have a significant numeric superiority (and also probably forget everything about SBDE). Since the opponent has an sbde-perfect stack, think what will happen in a few rounds of attack with 4 stacks of 5 interceptors (assuming all planes are Level3, not that it matters much
Round 1
Stack receives 35 HP damage
Interceptors receive 79.5 damage
Stack receives 35 HP damage
Interceptors receive 75.9 damage
Stack receives 35 HP damage
Interceptors receive 72.3 damage
Stack receives 35 HP damage
Interceptors receive 63.5 damage
Total for the first round (in HP stack lost 140, interceptors lost 291.2.
In other words, the stack (who had more HP initially) suffered half the damage. It doesnt take a magician to guess what will happen at the end.
Yes, these are deterministic figures, but in such a case you simply cannot hope.
So 20 interceptors can not defeat stack of 5/5/5/5, divided or not.... No sense to me.
That's when SBDE comes into play... 20 fighters in one stack are very inefficient. 4 stacks of 5 fighters each (or 3x7 to take losses into account) will MASSACRE the mixed stack.
Here we can agree to disagree. I gave the numbers for the first round of 4 stacks of 5 interceptors (yes it is estimations based on strength, and they even allow them that they dont get double hit by the patrolling stack). I can also give the numbers for 3x7 (no difference really).K.Rokossovski wrote:
That's when SBDE comes into play... 20 fighters in one stack are very inefficient. 4 stacks of 5 fighters each (or 3x7 to take losses into account) will MASSACRE the mixed stack.
Please log in to post a reply.
