Looking at SF expansion

[Iron Knight]

Howdy, I was wondering what people thought of the current SF mix. I am working on a mod for my scenarios to expand the set of SFs and would like to know what are the current feelings about the balance of SFs (including research costs). I’d also like to know if players feel a unit type is missing that they’d like to see included.



What I’m currently looking at adding:
Paratroops II-IV
Airborne version of support weapons, artillery, light tanks, and trucks
Levels to transport units (trucks, tracks, cargo ships, and transport planes)
Supply depot units (hold more supplies, consumes little)
Light variants of artillery units (can be towed by tanks)
Light tank destroyers and light and heavy assault guns
Premium/elite infantry and elite scouts
More aircraft; Interceptors, escorts, recon, tactical bombers (heavier dive bomber with more range less AT firepower), and naval bombers
More ships; frigates (recon/picket), light cruisers (AA focus, switching cruiser to more of a smaller BB), protected cruisers (light anti ship raider), armored cruisers (better PC), scout cruisers (heavy recon that can house 1 recon plane group), battlecruisers, light carriers, super-heavy battleships (slightly better BB, stronger bombardment value)
More ‘0 level’ units for balance (I’m thinking a weak fighter and a few weak ships, maybe cannons and cavalry)
Rearranging the techs to a tiered system, i.e. Naval Tech I opens up most ships level I, Naval tech II opens most ships level II etc…

[zook08]

More is not always better. More unit types also mean more complexity for the experienced player and a steeper learning curve for the beginner. If you add a feature, ask yourself if it makes for a better game - is it worth the cost? Do you really want to confront the player with a purchase screen listing 50 unit types to choose from, instead of 20? Would chess be a better game if you had 12 types of pieces?

Here's my 2 cents:

Paratroops II-IV

Not worth it.

Airborne version of support weapons, artillery, light tanks, and trucks

Too powerful (or very hard to balance), too modern.

Levels to transport units (trucks, tracks, cargo ships, and transport planes)

Definitely not worth it. And what's a truck with +25% hit points supposed to be?

Supply depot units (hold more supplies, consumes little)

Use HQs, set the Supply Reserve level to the desired amount.

Light variants of artillery units (can be towed by tanks)

Maybe heavy mortars as range 1 artillery, but it's not necessary. I could find a place in my heart for super-heavy or long-range artillery, but it'd have to be quite expensive.

Light tank destroyers and light and heavy assault guns

Not worth it.

Premium/elite infantry and elite scouts

Not worth it.

More aircraft; Interceptors, escorts, recon, tactical bombers (heavier dive bomber with more range less AT firepower), and naval bombers

Not worth it. I don't *want* three types of fighter planes, as they have essentially the same function.

More ships; frigates (recon/picket), light cruisers (AA focus, switching cruiser to more of a smaller BB), protected cruisers (light anti ship raider), armored cruisers (better PC), scout cruisers (heavy recon that can house 1 recon plane group), battlecruisers, light carriers, super-heavy battleships (slightly better BB, stronger bombardment value)

Six cruiser types? Definitely not worth it. The differences would be so small that in a grand strategy game, I simply wouldn't care. And if you'd make a mistake in balancing, players would figure out the most cost-effective type and then buy nothing else. Oh, and having 20 ship types in that rather small listbox would be annoying.

More ‘0 level’ units for balance (I’m thinking a weak fighter and a few weak ships, maybe cannons and cavalry)

Militia maybe, nothing else.

Rearranging the techs to a tiered system, i.e. Naval Tech I opens up most ships level I, Naval tech II opens most ships level II etc…

That's OK.

Sorry if that sounded too harsh, but I think that's typical game featuritis. I'm fine with the system as it is, it strikes a fine balance between complexity and playability. That's what makes good games. What we need is changes to the core system, e.g. naval interception, not more unit types.

IMO the game would also benefit more from subtle changes to the exiting types. For example, more advanced unit types should consume a little more supplies. Cruisers should have lower AA ratings. Halftracks should have limited combat value at higher tech levels. Stuff like that.

[Bombur]

I beg to disagree, actually more SF´s can add lots of fun to the game by giving the player more choices on how to develop and combine different pieces of equipment. I think that more specialized air units are very important, and also ships. The stock AT has very important imbalances on how air and sea units work. We need specialized anti tank aircrafts, antiship planes, fighter bombers and interceptors (they are not the same). We need carrier fleets with naval aircraft for campaigns with important naval components. It should be possible to develop strategic oriented air forces or tatically oriented ones. The question is how to redefine the balance between these new units. I´m actually working in a similar project for random maps. I hope Iron Knights mod will be a great success.

[BvB]

Instead of a new elite unit what about an option to pay extra for current units to make them elite?  Same with transport, instead of having levels pay extra for the elite version.  In a way you have this now in some games where the SS or Siberian people type fight better.
I am interested in multi level paras and engineers but not enough to think it is worth complicating the game. 
Maybe these suggested new units could be added by at the start when you are clicking the parameters to start the game, have an option to click for OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL UNITS and that way you can keep things simple for most players and still have these new things possible for the grognard type player.  It all comes down to how much does it add to the game vs how much does it complicate things for the casual or new player...
The purchase by levels is a nice idea to keep things simple...

[von altair]

Few things are needed for sure. I've tested this with few mod tunes and several games:
- SMG needs +20% defense bonus in urban/heavy forrest/forts + 10 cost to balance that.
- AT / Inf gun / Flak needs 10% power boost on offensive value to compromise lack of mobility.
- Engineer/Paratrooper/Armoured Cars needs tech upgrades
- Transport planes are too expensive (max 1000)
- Carrier Air needs Aircap versions (or to lower normal fighter weight 10 -> 3)

I tested all these things in my WaW balance mods and they had good success.

[Iron Knight]

ORIGINAL: zook08

More is not always better. More unit types also mean more complexity for the experienced player and a steeper learning curve for the beginner. If you add a feature, ask yourself if it makes for a better game - is it worth the cost? Do you really want to confront the player with a purchase screen listing 50 unit types to choose from, instead of 20? Would chess be a better game if you had 12 types of pieces?

Here's my 2 cents:

Paratroops II-IV

Not worth it. Odd, this was one of the first things I noticed when I played this game. Paras get weaker the longer the game goes on due to the technological inferiority.(I didn't want to create more boxes so I'm repling in red)

Airborne version of support weapons, artillery, light tanks, and trucks

Too powerful (or very hard to balance), too modern. Well I was going to make the level 3 techs for a unit give a level 1 strength airborne variant. Also, my tetrarch AAM mini was what gave me the idea. Weren't most of these things around by '44/45?

Levels to transport units (trucks, tracks, cargo ships, and transport planes)

Definitely not worth it. And what's a truck with +25% hit points supposed to be? Well I was thinking around 10% HP increase, but the big difference would be landcap increase and cost/supply cost reduction.

Supply depot units (hold more supplies, consumes little)

Use HQs, set the Supply Reserve level to the desired amount.

Light variants of artillery units (can be towed by tanks)

Maybe heavy mortars as range 1 artillery, but it's not necessary. I could find a place in my heart for super-heavy or long-range artillery, but it'd have to be quite expensive.

Light tank destroyers and light and heavy assault guns

Not worth it. Do you find the standard TD worth it?

Premium/elite infantry and elite scouts

Not worth it. This is also something I was suprised wasn't in the game.

More aircraft; Interceptors, escorts, recon, tactical bombers (heavier dive bomber with more range less AT firepower), and naval bombers

Not worth it. I don't *want* three types of fighter planes, as they have essentially the same function. I don't think that reflects reality in the scale I seem to play a lot though.

More ships; frigates (recon/picket), light cruisers (AA focus, switching cruiser to more of a smaller BB), protected cruisers (light anti ship raider), armored cruisers (better PC), scout cruisers (heavy recon that can house 1 recon plane group), battlecruisers, light carriers, super-heavy battleships (slightly better BB, stronger bombardment value)

Six cruiser types? Definitely not worth it. The differences would be so small that in a grand strategy game, I simply wouldn't care. And if you'd make a mistake in balancing, players would figure out the most cost-effective type and then buy nothing else. Oh, and having 20 ship types in that rather small listbox would be annoying. Well, I would like to see more ship types modeled in the game as sea combat isn't very interesting at the moment. The roles existed and a generic cruiser simply can't represent the types that existed (it also is pretty wierd that its a AA focused ship, as many crusiers were not). For instance, in my stoneage game I have access to a major sea zone but no good cities there. I'd really like to build a light offensive fleet but a battleship is out of the question. A small anti-ship focused ship is stongly needed, as is the light carrier. I do see the problem of the unit SF limit, though I don't expect that many to be used at once

More ‘0 level’ units for balance (I’m thinking a weak fighter and a few weak ships, maybe cannons and cavalry)

Militia maybe, nothing else. Cool, Militia, I forgot about that one

Rearranging the techs to a tiered system, i.e. Naval Tech I opens up most ships level I, Naval tech II opens most ships level II etc…

That's OK. I should also note that the tiers will take the bulk of the PP cost to allow SF diversity. I have seemed to note that some units are not used due to the expense of researching them individually (scout/bazookas)

Sorry if that sounded too harsh, but I think that's typical game featuritis. I'm fine with the system as it is, it strikes a fine balance between complexity and playability. That's what makes good games. What we need is changes to the core system, e.g. naval interception, not more unit types. No problem, I know some people favor that playstyle. I find often more options makes for more interesting gameplay in a lot of cases, IMO. It is harder to balance but this game is so easy to edit it won't take much to fix, and players can edit it themselves if they feel I have messed up a unit or two (or more I guess). I can't make core system changes, so I do what I can to make it interesting for me and hopefully some others like me will find my work useful.

IMO the game would also benefit more from subtle changes to the exiting types. For example, more advanced unit types should consume a little more supplies. Cruisers should have lower AA ratings. Halftracks should have limited combat value at higher tech levels. Stuff like that. I am going to add a machinegun's stats to the half-tracks or something close to it. I think the problems with the cruiser are due to the way sea combat is structured. I'd really like to see a separate system for sea units, as they are often somewhere between alive and dead (readiness doesn't really do it for me).

[Iron Knight]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

I beg to disagree, actually more SF´s can add lots of fun to the game by giving the player more choices on how to develop and combine different pieces of equipment. I think that more specialized air units are very important, and also ships. The stock AT has very important imbalances on how air and sea units work. We need specialized anti tank aircrafts, antiship planes, fighter bombers and interceptors (they are not the same). We need carrier fleets with naval aircraft for campaigns with important naval components. It should be possible to develop strategic oriented air forces or tatically oriented ones. The question is how to redefine the balance between these new units. I´m actually working in a similar project for random maps. I hope Iron Knights mod will be a great success.

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: BvB

Instead of a new elite unit what about an option to pay extra for current units to make them elite?  Same with transport, instead of having levels pay extra for the elite version.  In a way you have this now in some games where the SS or Siberian people type fight better.
I am interested in multi level paras and engineers but not enough to think it is worth complicating the game. 
Maybe these suggested new units could be added by at the start when you are clicking the parameters to start the game, have an option to click for OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL UNITS and that way you can keep things simple for most players and still have these new things possible for the grognard type player.  It all comes down to how much does it add to the game vs how much does it complicate things for the casual or new player...
The purchase by levels is a nice idea to keep things simple...

I really wish I could figure out how to make XP generate a resorce to use to create elite SF's or convert to research (battle experience was important to research). I'm not sure adding levels to anything creates complexity for players as long as they are balanced, some new units could though. I will look at that closely in tests.

ORIGINAL: von altair

Few things are needed for sure. I've tested this with few mod tunes and several games:
- SMG needs +20% defense bonus in urban/heavy forrest/forts + 10 cost to balance that.
- AT / Inf gun / Flak needs 10% power boost on offensive value to compromise lack of mobility.
- Engineer/Paratrooper/Armoured Cars needs tech upgrades
- Transport planes are too expensive (max 1000)
- Carrier Air needs Aircap versions (or to lower normal fighter weight 10 -> 3)

I tested all these things in my WaW balance mods and they had good success.

Ooww, I left out Enginers and Souct Cars, those are on my agenda too. Your list is very helpful, thanks! (the INF guns seems to be especially ineffective for its cost and transport)

[BvB]

I wish the game had a "next" hot key or does it already? It would help for cycling through units to insure you havent forgotten some on larger maps. Like the = - key in CM or N P for next/previous unit.
Most of your unit ideas I like though.  Transport techs could do like you said, higher landcap or carry ability for each. 
Not sure if it would be worthwhile, but what about V1 or V2 rockets?  (maybe V3 and 4 could be nukes!)  Or an intel/counter intel tech to try and steal tech from the other side?  Actually never mind, that is stretching.  A salute to you efforts all the same!  ... Baron von Beergut

[serg3d1]

Actually I'd prefer some SF types removed. Bazooka could be abstracted into Rifels II -III. SMG infantry also just add unnecessary level of complexity, better give engineers some close assault and difficalt terraind bonuses and abstract SMG into them. MG - organic part of infantry. Shouldn't be  separate SF type IMO. Halftracks - they were used mostly for towing guns. Mech infantry in halftracks were very few during WWII, even panzergrenadiers used halftracks for guns and ammo mostly. So I'd just remake halftracks into trucks II.

More expensive elite infantry is a good idea though IMO. Elite infantry played prominent role both in Germans and Red Army.

Another possibility I'd like to have is upgrade to "friendly" SF type - lite tank to medium/heavy, armored car to tank

[Iron Knight]

You, know I agree a lot with that line of thinking for many scenarios, so I guess it comes down to scale. Because things like bazookas and MG's are separate SF's I see the generic scale as being smaller, but if veiw the scale higher I could definatily see the need to lose SFs like that.

[von altair]

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

Actually I'd prefer some SF types removed. Bazooka could be abstracted into Rifels II -III. SMG infantry also just add unnecessary level of complexity, better give engineers some close assault and difficalt terraind bonuses and abstract SMG into them. MG - organic part of infantry. Shouldn't be  separate SF type IMO. Halftracks - they were used mostly for towing guns. Mech infantry in halftracks were very few during WWII, even panzergrenadiers used halftracks for guns and ammo mostly. So I'd just remake halftracks into trucks II.

More expensive elite infantry is a good idea though IMO. Elite infantry played prominent role both in Germans and Red Army.

Another possibility I'd like to have is upgrade to "friendly" SF type - lite tank to medium/heavy, armored car to tank

I must heavily disagree about "some SF types removed". Unit complexity is what makes this game so good. There are a lot of light strategy games around with just infantry, panzer and air units. AT have many variations about these things and it makes it so great. System alows players to form units in different needs.

I agree with you about halftracks. They should be tech lvl 2 unit behind trucks, but leaving trucks in the field (no blocking flag on). I have considered that thing by myself on my earlier mods. After I finish my Roman Empire mod, I will edit WaW32.

Panzers needs some balance things. Medium tanks should be weaker before -42 for Germans and better for Russian (t-34). 42-43 medium tanks were quite even and 43+ the germans had clear advantage (Panther). Heavy Tanks tech model 1 should be awailable only for allies and russia. The German side didin't have heavy tank model at the start at all. 42+ they introduced the great tank Tiger and should earn clear advantage on models from this point.

[Joshuatree]

"The German side didn't have heavy tank model at the start at all."
Uh yeah well, they considered the PzKpf IV D as a heavy support tank. And even before that they had a few, two or three I think, heavy tanks. They used them in Norway for propaganda use mainly.