Super-heavy units?

[Alcibiades73]

Perhaps there should be an extra "super-heavy" category for certain military hardware? The two chief examples I am thinking of are the German Tiger tanks (I guess the Soviet IS classes work, too) and the Japanese Yamato class battleships (but perhaps the American Iowa classes qualify, too?). These weapon platforms were specifically designed to take on multiple opponents of the same class and thus serve to especially compensate the Axis' weakness in manpower and material and would add new and historically accurate dimension to the game.

[Platoonist]

There already is a 'heavy tanks' subcategory of armor in addition to regular armor you can purchase when you reach a certain level in Advanced Tanks research. The Soviets actually start the game in 1939 with the ability to purchase heavy tanks, but it's rather expensive.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

There already is a 'heavy tanks' subcategory of armor in addition to regular armor you can purchase when you reach a certain level in Advanced Tanks research. The Soviets actually start the game in 1939 with the ability to purchase heavy tanks, but it's rather expensive.

Yeah, I realize that, but that category of tanks is available to most major nations, it seems - including even countries such as Japan. In contrast, I don't think anyone but the Germans and the Soviets should have access to such units, because nobody else employed them en masse.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Perhaps there should be an extra "super-heavy" category for certain military hardware? The two chief examples I am thinking of are the German Tiger tanks (I guess the Soviet IS classes work, too) and the Japanese Yamato class battleships (but perhaps the American Iowa classes qualify, too?). These weapon platforms were specifically designed to take on multiple opponents of the same class and thus serve to especially compensate the Axis' weakness in manpower and material and would add new and historically accurate dimension to the game.

Both of these are already in the game. The Tigers are the heavy tank graphic for the Germans and the Yamato starts out as an elite 12 strength battleship...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

There already is a 'heavy tanks' subcategory of armor in addition to regular armor you can purchase when you reach a certain level in Advanced Tanks research. The Soviets actually start the game in 1939 with the ability to purchase heavy tanks, but it's rather expensive.

Yeah, I realize that, but that category of tanks is available to most major nations, it seems - including even countries such as Japan. In contrast, I don't think anyone but the Germans and the Soviets should have access to such units, because nobody else employed them en masse.

Well I think the Germans and Soviets have the easiest route to them. If you are spending to get heavy tanks as Japan you will pay for it big time haha...

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Yeah, I realize that, but that category of tanks is available to most major nations, it seems - including even countries such as Japan. In contrast, I don't think anyone but the Germans and the Soviets should have access to such units, because nobody else employed them en masse.

Yes, but what would have stopped the USA or GB fielding them if they had wanted to? If the war had continued into 1946 for some reason then you'd have ended up with battalions of M26 Pershings.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Perhaps there should be an extra "super-heavy" category for certain military hardware? The two chief examples I am thinking of are the German Tiger tanks (I guess the Soviet IS classes work, too) and the Japanese Yamato class battleships (but perhaps the American Iowa classes qualify, too?). These weapon platforms were specifically designed to take on multiple opponents of the same class and thus serve to especially compensate the Axis' weakness in manpower and material and would add new and historically accurate dimension to the game.

Both of these are already in the game. The Tigers are the heavy tank graphic for the Germans and the Yamato starts out as an elite 12 strength battleship...

As for Tiger, I want more than a graphic though. On Yamato, I did not realize it starts at strength 12. That is welcome news indeed - albeit it would still max at the same strength as other battleships, and that is not fully representative of its power.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: The Land


Yes, but what would have stopped the USA or GB fielding them if they had wanted to? If the war had continued into 1946 for some reason then you'd have ended up with battalions of M26 Pershings.

Yes, US could have built comparably mammoth tanks - and perhaps the British, too (I am not sure how many Centurions could have been fielded by 1946). So it may be permissible for them to have top-tier tanks. But even Italy has them in this game (I just checked in-game, and I couldn't believe it)! ;(

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Yes, US could have built comparably mammoth tanks - and perhaps the British, too (I am not sure how many Centurions could have been fielded by 1946). So it may be permissible for them to have top-tier tanks. But even Italy has them in this game (I just checked in-game, and I couldn't believe it)! ;(

I don't think it really matters if you turn them off for Italy and Japan - those countries will never build them unless someone is engineering a kind of alternate history fantasy against the AI - and if someone really WANTS to play a game where the Italians take Washington DC with a heavy tank unit, why stop them doing so?

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: The Land
...if someone really WANTS to play a game where the Italians take Washington DC with a heavy tank unit, why stop them doing so?

I feel there has to be some balance between game-play and historical fidelity in a game that is so heavily based on actual history!

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73


I feel there has to be some balance between game-play and historical fidelity in a game that is so heavily based on actual history!

This is a game that makes a lot of concessions to playability and intuitive, easy to understand mechanics which makes it simple and quick to get into.

However, there are things everyone is going to arch their eyebrows at. For me in this game it was that India, a British Crown Colony which relied on the mother country for all its kit, is having to do it's own R&D for better military equipment like any other major power. To me it should be a minor power like Australia or Canada, but hey. C’est la Guerre. In every game there oddities I learn to live with. Even your complex Gary Grigsby titles have issues that make me shake my head.

the Yamato starts out as an elite 12 strength battleship...

Frankly, I've always felt the Yamatos class BBs were over-hyped white elephants. Or, as Admiral Yamamoto once said, as about as useful as a samurai sword. When one of them ran smack into one of my submarine picket lines, lost half it's strength and got polished off by air power in my turn it seemed quite appropriate. I think one thing this game does well is demonstrate the relative futility of the battleship by World War Two [:D]

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist


This is a game that makes a lot of concessions to playability and intuitive, easy to understand mechanics which makes it simple and quick to get into.

However, there are things everyone is going to arch their eyebrows at. For me in this game it was that India, a British Crown Colony which relied on the mother country for all its kit, is having to do it's own R&D for better military equipment like any other major power. To me it should be a minor power like Australia or Canada, but hey. C’est la Guerre. In every game there oddities I learn to live with. Even your complex Gary Grigsby titles have issues that make me shake my head.

I totally agree on India's status in this game. It's one of the biggest sore thumbs for me. I don't get it - at all. Perhaps some concession to political correctness? (But then, the devs let people post racial slurs such as "Nips" and "Japs" repeatedly on this forum, so I doubt it.)

ORIGINAL: Platoonist


Frankly, I've always felt the Yamatos class BBs were over-hyped white elephants. Or, as Admiral Yamamoto once said, as about as useful as a samurai sword. When one of them ran smack into one of my submarine picket lines, lost half it's strength and got polished off by air power in my turn it seemed quite appropriate. I think one thing this game does well is demonstrate the relative futility of the battleship by World War Two [:D]

I agree and disagree. I obviously agree that battleships - even super battleships such as the Yamato class (or the planned Montana class) - were being out-dated in the context of World War II and the emerging dominance of naval air power. But in the context of relative power against peer battleships, Yamato was, well, without peer. And I feel this aspect should be represented by a whole new category, rather than just starting with more veterancy (which can be equalled later by any other battleships).

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: The Land
...if someone really WANTS to play a game where the Italians take Washington DC with a heavy tank unit, why stop them doing so?

I feel there has to be some balance between game-play and historical fidelity in a game that is so heavily based on actual history!

Hi Alcibiades73,

Often it is a careful balance between history and "what if?" and many players enjoy being able to re-write history within reason.

As others have mentioned, not everyone will agree on what is "historical" and even with the "what if?" options there are pros and cons as we've tried to ensure nothing is automatic or a sure fire path to victory. Balance is always kept in mind and we do our best to ensure this is the case.

The nice thing is that in the end the game is highly editable and if there are any options players would like to change, the game can certainly be amended to suit one's taste as preferred.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Alcibiades73,

Often it is a careful balance between history and "what if?" and many players enjoy being able to re-write history within reason.

As others have mentioned, not everyone will agree on what is "historical" and even with the "what if?" options there are pros and cons as we've tried to ensure nothing is automatic or a sure fire path to victory. Balance is always kept in mind and we do our best to ensure this is the case.

The nice thing is that in the end the game is highly editable and if there are any options players would like to change, the game can certainly be amended to suit one's taste as preferred.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

Understandable.

Now that you are here, could you answer my modding question, please?

Specifically, if I try to place extra units on the map, I keep getting a pop-up that says "some scripts need to be updated." Is this just a generic message I can ignore? Or do I actually have to touch scripts (which I have no idea how to even begin)?

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73
Perhaps some concession to political correctness?

All of our design decisions are for game play, and off hand I wouldn't even understand why making India it's own major would be considered politically correct? Just being honest here I wouldn't even know what that means within the context of this game.

For example, I know in our older versions of the global map India, and even Poland in our European maps were minors, but making them majors opens up certain design and balance advantages that might introduce other compromises such as having to research on its own etc. In the end the pros still outweighed the cons and Bill will likely pipe in to explain it further if needed.

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73
(But then, the devs let people post racial slurs such as "Nips" and "Japs" repeatedly on this forum, so I doubt it.)

If we can, I'd kindly ask to not go down this road please? The forums are managed by Matrix and ourselves and sometimes things are missed. Please do let us know, Matrix and ourselves, and we are happy to address any concerns and address any issues that need to be handled in the forums.

Scanning the forums once or twice a day and something might be missed or mistakes can happen, and while I agree that we can avoid certain words I don't ever remember anyone using the word "Nip", at least not in recent memory. If I'm wrong please point us in the direction of this and we would be happy to address it.

I agree on the word Japs and would just kindly ask everyone to please avoid using this going forward.

Thanks,
Hubert

[Torplexed]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

However, there are things everyone is going to arch their eyebrows at. For me in this game it was that India, a British Crown Colony which relied on the mother country for all its kit, is having to do it's own R&D for better military equipment like any other major power. To me it should be a minor power like Australia or Canada, but hey. C’est la Guerre.

I do get a kick out of the fact that Serbia-Montenegro is also a playable 'major power' in the WWI version of this game. It seems to work for as long as they last. [:D]

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

Understandable.

Now that you are here, could you answer my modding question, please?

Specifically, if I try to place extra units on the map, I keep getting a pop-up that says "some scripts need to be updated." Is this just a generic message I can ignore? Or do I actually have to touch scripts (which I have no idea how to even begin)?

Please use Campaign->Edit AI (or Event) scripts, and then click on the Update button. This will ensure the scripts have all been recompiled accordingly and if not there may be an issue that would need to be amended in the scripts to match any map changes as applicable.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


If we can, I'd kindly ask to not go down this road please? The forums are managed by Matrix and ourselves and sometimes things are missed. Please do let us know, Matrix and ourselves, and we are happy to address any concerns and address any issues that need to be handled in the forums.

Scanning the forums once or twice a day and something might be missed or mistakes can happen, and while I agree that we can avoid certain words I don't ever remember anyone using the word "Nip", at least not in recent memory. If I'm wrong please point us in the direction of this and we would be happy to address it.

I agree on the word Japs and would just kindly ask everyone to please avoid using this going forward.

Thanks,
Hubert

Hubert,

Thanks for the considerate and measured reply.

But two emphatic points.

First, racial slurs such as "Japs" or "Nips" are beyond the pale in modern discourse - at least in the United States (where many of your customers live). It is not in any fashion different from the "n" word in its implications and the hurt caused. This is even more so in today's environment, where there is a frenzy of anti-Asian violence in the West - where my elderly mother fears to even step outside. But really this is not even news for some Asian-Americans; I have had a knife pulled on me by skinheads - who kept yelling "we are going to skin you, chink" - in high school almost three decades ago.

Second, given that the instances where racial slurs against Asian-Americans occur on this particular forum are so frequent, I find it most difficult to believe you have not noticed it due to busy schedule. We are not talking about a once-in-a-blue moon event here. They are really that ubiquitous. And you don't "ever remember" someone using the world "Nip"? It's in an actual title of a thread, even!

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4899259

The said poster, by the way, is the most frequent offender - though not the only one. He is a prolific poster, and it seems that he uses racial slurs on every thread where he is a participant and where Japan comes up. It boggles the mind that no dev/moderator has noticed it.

Really, would this persistent outrage have been left to fester if the term used was the "n-" word or even something like "kike"? (See what happened to an NBA player who used this word in private time - he got released by his team!)

Honestly, the message I got from this forum was "it is okay to discriminate against 'dem yellow people - their 'model minority' asses don't care."

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater



Please use Campaign->Edit AI (or Event) scripts, and then click on the Update button. This will ensure the scripts have all been recompiled accordingly and if not there may be an issue that would need to be amended in the scripts to match any map changes as applicable.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

That does help. Thank you!

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: Alcibiades73

But in the context of relative power against peer battleships, Yamato was, well, without peer. And I feel this aspect should be represented by a whole new category, rather than just starting with more veterancy (which can be equalled later by any other battleships).

Maybe so, but from everything I've read both Yamato and her sister come across almost as a liability. Apparently, they drank so much fuel (each had 6,300 ton tanks) that operating them at sea strained the IJN's resources and limited their use. If there was a super battleship category in the game I think Japan should have to pay MPPs just to move these behemoths.

Actually, they weren't completely useless. They often acted as a floating fuel reserve in place of actual tankers. They were even used to ferry troops. Probably not the vaunted purpose the designers and admirals intended though.