Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

[traemyn]

I am finished with the game until something is done to balance it. It is no fun to play a game, knowing before you start that there is no way you can win as axis, if the allies research heavy.

[8|] Im not defending the game (because there could very well be problems with research), but how many games do you think the playtesters played? How can you come to a conclusion like that when you have probably played wayyyyy less than HALF as many games as all the playtesting combined. I think before we "nerf" anything we all need to PLAY some more. This happens with EVERY single game when it comes out.. "nerf this, nerf that".

And yea im a little PO'd b/c your playing a PBEM with me and 2 other guys and now your quiting till further notice? [:-] [:D]

[Scott_WAR]

I have tried both, but its still early, so I will try some other things before giving up. There is probably some small thing I am overlooking that will make a difeerence.


Hitting russia early isnt bad, however, trying to fight russia, hold off the WA, AND keep up in research is impossible. So while russia may take it on the chin early, they wont be in any real danger of falling due to the fact that germany just cant defend itself from the WA on the west and mount a good enough offensive to press deep enough.

I dont know what the answer is. So far, in certain games, where I can tell my opponent knows what they are doing, the allies are able to adapt to whatever I try. Research is most definately the key.


I have won a couple of games, but in one neither of us did much research, in the other I did a good bit, and my opponent didnt.


Hmmm, I wonder what a game with no research allowed would be like..........



Edit---- You posted while I was typing traemyn. No, I am not quitting any game prematurely. If I cant figure SOMETHING out to counter the overwhelming advantage the allies have because of research, then I wont be starting any new games.

I have no idea how many games the playtesters played. I have looked at the AAR's, and I havent seen the amount of research I am talking about in any of them.

But I do know the effects of it. I have seen it in 2 games. The first made me realize the importance of tech. The second I tried to keep up research wise, and found out, it just couldnt be done.

Maybe I played badly. I dont think I did, but it is a possibility.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: traemyn

I am finished with the game until something is done to balance it. It is no fun to play a game, knowing before you start that there is no way you can win as axis, if the allies research heavy.

[8|] Im not defending the game (because there could very well be problems with research), but how many games do you think the playtesters played? How can you come to a conclusion like that when you have probably played wayyyyy less than HALF as many games as all the playtesting combined. I think before we "nerf" anything we all need to PLAY some more. This happens with EVERY single game when it comes out.. "nerf this, nerf that".

This is the best solution I think - to wait and test things out.

Perhaps players should edit out the bomber armour rating of 1 and see how that plays out.

It does seem odd, however, for bombers to become tougher through tech, when in actuality, it was fighter escorts that cut down on the number of bombers being shot down.

[aletoledo]

I'm convinced that they only way to cut down on the research advantage the WAlllies have is to strike early and hard (as they really had to do). Threatening Britain with extinction will make the WAllied player have to play for defense. Pushing into Africa and into the Middle East towards the Russian oil fields can threaten auto-victory and force the Allies to come out and play before heavy research can completely pay off.

I agree that even against the AI, leaving russia alone is suicide. I think the easiest way for the axis to win is in the first 2-3 years, after that its a matter of survival.

IMO if the objective of 70 production points is aimed at and not world domination, then its not unreasonable to win as axis.

[Warfare1]

Before fighter escorts, the Allies were losing so many bombers (and their crews) that they were afraid that morale would plummet and that they would run out of air crews!

They actually had to stop bombing completely for a short period until they came up with another strategy.

[Scott_WAR]

Its possible that fighter escorts are considered the result of researching the evasion of a bomber. BUT a unit that can do its primary role of destroying ground units/infrastructure, AND also be able to defend themselves against units designed specificallyto shoot them down, well, that may be a little too much for one unit considering it costs very little more than an infantry or a tac fighter, and LESS than a tank.......

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Its possible that fighter escorts are considered the result of researching the evasion of a bomber. BUT a unit that can do its primary role of destroying ground units/infrastructure, AND also be able to defend themselves against units designed specificallyto shoot them down, well, that may be a little too much for one unit considering it costs very little more than an infantry or a tac fighter, and LESS than a tank.......

Is there a way in the files to increase the cost of research for a bomber?

[Scott_WAR]

heh, ale... [:@] This all started becasue of what we just finished. Thats my example here. Anything you think I could have done differently, aside from atacking earlier?

Its nearly impossible to attain 70 production points. Sure I can grab up territories and have the actual factories and resources to win. Sadly half of them wont be functional because I cant afford to repair them if I take them too fast. Meaning I dont get credit for owning them. They must be functional.

[Scott_WAR]

As for a solution, IF there is a problem. Like I said, I may be missing something.

But if it really does become obvious its a problem how can it be fixed?

Historically, the allies did not develop tech as fast as is possible in GGWAW. I believe Germany was making more technical advances than the allies.

Maybe the cost of research needs to be increased. Research beakers get placed in the second box, with infantry and artillery, intead of in the top box with milita.

Maybe the effect of having a 1 tech level advantage needs to be reduced in combat.

Maybe more testong needs to be done.

Regardless, more games need to be played using the research out the wazoo strategy for the WA and russia, to see if somebody can find an effective defense against it.

[Espejo]

I think the problem isn´t limited to bombers. They are only are good examples. Super subs, super bombers etc.

I don´t think the WW2 was all about super weapons. As Uncle Joe said it research should be important but not all important.

Possible first fixes:

- Make it way harder to research beyond world standart and make it easier to catch up on world standart,

The moment anonther player has developed a new tech first it is a tremendous advantage because all his units have already the tech and he can wipe the board with them.

On the other hand when the cat is out of the sack=> It should be easier to catch up my suggestion:

Trying to be the tech leader

world standart researching world standart +1 normal research costs
world standart +1 already researching world standart +2 should be 3 x (4x research costs)
going for +3 to the world standart =>6xresearch costs (or even more)

Being the research underdog (fast follower)

Being behind 1 point to the world standart trying to research world stand 3/4 of research costs
Being two points behind world standart researching world standart -1 half of normal research costs


Additionally you could think about revamping the costs of evasion or changing the combat system to make techdavantages not as important as they are now..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a great game at hand only for me the research system is right now unbalancing an doesn´t reflect what happened . The soviets didn´t invent the unkillable tank. they had simply unending numbers of them etc.
Make numbers more important and research please scale it back

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think germany should be produced to death, resources shortage should be limited / decivise for them but not always in the end research!!! I hpoe teh way to win in this game we be combiend arms again in the near future and not Superfighters, supertanks, supersubs etc....

[Uncle_Joe]

Playing with Fog of War off really does help. When I now see 9 Heavy Bombers in the WAllied queue, I have time to react and build up a defensive Fighter force. No, it wont stop it, but I'm hoping it will kill some off here and there if I keep the research up. I'll keep you posted on what happens. But simply having advance warning on stuff like that is keeping it from being a guessing game.

One thing that I mentioned above IS happening though...Russia is specializing in Tanks with the WAllies specializing in Heavy Bombers (with CAGs and ASW thrown in for the naval campaigns). This is making it exceedingly difficult for Germany to build more than one type of land and one type of air unit. Once Tank defense hits 9, 'regular' stuff cant hurt 'em anymore. So its pointless to build Arty that cant hit them or Infantry that cant either. Researching both of them up is not going to happen with the need for Fighters, Flak, and Tanks so they are not being built anymore. I'll see what happens. The Eastern Front is going to seem like OGRE with huge battle tanks shooting it out! [;)]

I thought of another possible 'solution' if one is deemed necessary: Why make the -1 Evasion for being previously shot at a one time thing? Why not let it accumulate? This might allow swarms of lesser units to actually take down powerful ones. It might not help vs the Bomber swarms, but it WILL help against unescorted Tanks and it will make Arty more useful for the 2 shots. Or if that is too much, maybe only have it accumulate within one battle and reset to -1 Evasion after each battle. That way you cant just 'wear away' at units (I'm thinking mostly sea battles here).

Anyways, that is just some food for thought. FWIW, I'm still enjoying the game very much despite what the appearances might be. I just want the game to be as good as it can be and not pigeon-holed into one 'correct' strategy. I'm really hoping that research is not as big as it looks and that the trade offs are good enough. As stated above, I did actually WIN the game when I was getting hosed by B1's because I dont think he had enough land techs to take Germany out quickly enough. Even once my econ was trashed, I had enough troops (and Tanks that his bombers couldnt hurt [:'(] ) to survive. I'm not convinced I'll do as well in Russia this game as he is gunning for 'super tanks' as well. Last game he tried developing planes, guns, and infantry a bit and his tanks were squashed by mine which were much more focused. I wont have that luxury this game...

[traemyn]

the best thing is if a lot of people think its bogus we can prolly make a mod for it.

but I would like one of the playtesters to comment on this issue and see what they say

[aletoledo]

heh, ale... This all started becasue of what we just finished. Thats my example here. Anything you think I could have done differently, aside from atacking earlier?

Its nearly impossible to attain 70 production points. Sure I can grab up territories and have the actual factories and resources to win. Sadly half of them wont be functional because I cant afford to repair them if I take them too fast. Meaning I dont get credit for owning them. They must be functional.

I recognized they were all from our games. I don't have all the answers, but I'm hoping we can come up with a strategy that works within the rules of the current game.

unfortunately I'm only axis in a single PBEM that I'm involved with and 6-7 others I'm allies. I can at least give a perspective of what slows me, if not really of how the axis should play.

it seems clear that racing against the allies with tech is a losing proposition. I can't envision hardly any situation where production will be equal, so the assumption is everything I can produce above you is going to research. so eventually axis combat troops will be losing more than winning due to tech (assuming that no major blunders or strategic failures in the playing)

therefore the only options I can imagine working is a swift victory (by production points)or a long drawn-out delaying action just to survive until 1946. fighting the allies to a draw doesn't seem realistic, the axis will always lose.

[Espejo]

Uncle Joe I think you got it right. Only IMHO the player who researches only the "one" weapon system and directs all his resources to one unit or two should be punished and loose a game to someone who directs sufficient resources to research but diversifies.

Having battlemech infantrie on the one side and ogretanks on the other side shooting it out does´t remember me of the second world war. Combined arms where the way to go....

Perhaps another way could be found besides making research much much more costly if you want to go the the way of superweapons.

In one PBEM game in one round my "supersubs" have taken out without damage in one 3 allied carriergroups without damage so far. Fun for me . Ok he didn´t spend enough attention to my sub development but still what fun is this game if you won´t use 75% of the units because they we be totally useless in a few turns?

I love the scope of this game. I think there are alot of tremendous concepts worket in but right now the research system drops for me the game quite fast from strategy game to "cheesey" strategy.

I am no way a master and haven´t played to much surley I will loose against much more expereinced players but I will nearly bet this will be because of research in the first place not because of brilliant military campaigns....

[aletoledo]

- Make it way harder to research beyond world standart and make it easier to catch up on world standart,

The moment anonther player has developed a new tech first it is a tremendous advantage because all his units have already the tech and he can wipe the board with them.

On the other hand when the cat is out of the sack=> It should be easier to catch up my suggestion:

Trying to be the tech leader

world standart researching world standart +1 normal research costs
world standart +1 already researching world standart +2 should be 3 x (4x research costs)
going for +3 to the world standart =>6xresearch costs (or even more)

Being the research underdog (fast follower)

Being behind 1 point to the world standart trying to research world stand 3/4 of research costs
Being two points behind world standart researching world standart -1 half of normal research costs


Additionally you could think about revamping the costs of evasion or changing the combat system to make techdavantages not as important as they are now..

your suggestion of making it easier to be second, it supposed to be in to a degree with "the world standard". I'm not 100% sure, but I thinks its supposed to increase as players advance their research. I suspect it doesn't change a lot because usually only 2 of the 5 players will have researched a certain atribute, which might not be enough to raise the standard.

irregardless, making it easier to follow along others research doesn't solve the problem that has been brought up. along your lines of thought, the germans aren't looking to have better bombers, they're looking for better AA/fighters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a great game at hand only for me the research system is right now unbalancing an doesn´t reflect what happened . The soviets didn´t invent the unkillable tank. they had simply unending numbers of them etc.
Make numbers more important and research please scale it back

Also, the soviets make some pretty impressive tanks near the end of ww2, which lead in to their cold war tanks directly. saying they never made an unkillable tank is thus a matter of opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think germany should be produced to death, resources shortage should be limited / decivise for them but not always in the end research!!! I hpoe teh way to win in this game we be combiend arms again in the near future and not Superfighters, supertanks, supersubs etc....

I think you're essentially asking what a few others have in other threads. eliminate the need for supplies and research, with endless turns and bring the units on-par with each other. then people can move and counter-move.

this of course takes away 2 of the 3 'strategy' portions of the game (supply, research and unit selection being the 3 I refer to).

personally I like the current systems. I'll admit I haven't played axis against humans, but I clearly see the frustrations. However I also see a few possible strategies I believe would work against humans, that worked against the AI also.

I'd be glad to play against anyone to test these ideas out, which esentially amount to forcing the allies into unit production over research.

[aletoledo]

In one PBEM game in one round my "supersubs" have taken out without damage in one 3 allied carriergroups without damage so far. Fun for me . Ok he didn´t spend enough attention to my sub development but still what fun is this game if you won´t use 75% of the units because they we be totally useless in a few turns?

so basically what you're saying is that you've used research as AXIS to win your PBEM game? it would seem that research cuts both ways then.

[Espejo]

I don´t want a game where research isn´t important. I only want that players are punished for trying always be techleader or having weapons way beyond the wolrd standart. It should still be possible for the US to direct incredible ammounts of resources to develop a superweapon.

Regarding the bombers: If nobody else researches bombers and I want to have world standart +2 or + 3 superbombers 6x-9x (or however) research cost would be very hard to research. if at the same time he tries stay ahead in other tech areas it would give the german player the possibility to fast follow in some areas cutting costs in research and still be able to do damage. I At least in other areas you will be lacking behind. These research level are simply to cheap to produce (besides the amor issue). Unit costs are not increasing (besides the modest increase in research costs)

right now there are to many superweapons running around on the board for me. Yeah I have supersubs killing my I could research them to a level he won´t be able to counter them for a while wreacking havoc.

If you have a significant tech advantage, your units are not killed annymore no attrition, starting to pile up this effect alone will make only wothwhile to produce the same unit all over agin and again. I want a game where it is a sound startegy to have a lot of differnet units with a light edge and not concentrate on a a very few units. Sure perhaps there are some tactics out there to counter this but I think it will lead to a research focused games.



Perhaps I will loose in the end on the ground against the rusians. Can happen. Subs are usally quite easy to kill he should bw able to writtel them down with numbers. It bugs me that many units are going obsolete in the game and will never be of any use regarding of tech. Research should give your army the cutting edge. Right now sometimes there are tanks, bombers from outer space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am working in research and development for a living. 95% of the industry tries to be a fast follower in tech (it is the most cost effective way) . Sometimes a breakthrough can give you a cutting edge for a while and lets you dominate the market but within short time me too products will appear though you can´t fall to much behind either if you want to stay competive.

Right now being the tech leader gives you to way much of an edge in WAW it is to cheap, predicatable and cost effective. Making significant improvements above world standart should be much much harder.

[Uncle_Joe]

Research definately cuts both ways. If you can get an unanswered advantage somewhere, its brutal. I believe that is intended.

I think the idea is to make sure you are at least competitive in some aspect of Land and Air for some Powers and Land, Air, AND Sea for others. You dont have to be competitive in all aspects of Land, Air, or Sea though. I am doing quite well now with no Infantry research and just using my Tanks to smash through. I have not lost one yet, but I have had a few hit by his Tanks. I pretty much only build Infantry to hold territory and give me 'push' for winning battles.

My productions is almost exclusively now Tanks, Fighters, U-Boats with Germany. I havent put an Artillery, Flak, or Infantry in the queue in quite some time (although I will usually allow the damaged units to go through and come back).

This game, I am fighting a MUCH more aggressive battle in the Atlantic. We are constantly having air battles over the North Sea and off the coast of France. It costing me planes left and right, but I am slowing down his capacity to make bombers by whittling away the Fighters or (if they dont come out to play), by using my bombers and surface groups to raid the heck out of his convoys. Lend Lease appears to be a thing of the past (no Transports heading to Russia yet in Fall of 41). I have killed a ton of Transports. I just hope they are clogging up his queues!

The cost for all of this is that I only have about numeric parity with Russian instead of an advantage and his tech in about the same as mine making it much more difficult to cause real damage on the Eastern Front.

So far, he doesnt seem to be teching to super bombers yet although he has a lot of bombers in the queue or already built in the US and awaiting entry. I'm hoping to kill enough transports to slow the influx down. I have no illusions of getting to 70 this game (my Japan is doing horribly...a few failed attack on China has really cut into my production and for ZERO gain). I'm hoping by staying even with the bomber curve and just grinding it out in Russia that I can hold out until '46 again.

[PDiFolco]

Yes, it just seems wrong to have bombers manage by themselves opposing fighters, even when they are in equal numbers. The bombers were not that sturdy to survive long the quad 30mm of Me-262s [X(] !
Additionaly heavy bombers proved totally ineffective at a tactical level, and never were thay able to deal any serious damage to flak or any ground units. Even againts infrastructure I think they were not half as effective as in game !

Yeah you can point out the Cobra exception, where the Strat bombers were used to flatten german defenders in Normandy, but even there their effectiveness was dubious given the huge number of crafts.

=> Remove the H Bomber Armor (did you also notice that ONLY allied bombers - even Chinese ! -get it and not Germany ? That can be rationalized through the different concepts of bombers on both sides, but nothing would have prevented Germany from making B-17 type craft !)
=> AND reduce their Ground attack and the corresponding WS. Don't have the game right now to check numbers, will come back later

[Espejo]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

[
I'd be glad to play against anyone to test these ideas out, which esentially amount to forcing the allies into unit production over research.

well more or less my point in all the ranting.

regarding the fixes i suggested increasing dramatically the research costs for researching way above world standart. Researching bombers evasion 7-8 would be very very costly. Without fighters to protectect them up to date they coulb be very well less effective
Though they would still be possible to be destroyed by fighters, if the german players develops fighters in some way.

The catch would be if only one player researches bombers they will be though costly in the end because the world standart doesn´t rise.




Fast follower:

some techs will be most probably developed by more then one side: tanks, fighters for example . Being the underdog and trying to copy a tech should be way more effective costwise then develop totally new weapons.This would lead to an even more enjoable research system leading to an even more interessting game. You could ake it a tactic to fall behind in tech deciding to fall behind on purpose to spend less resoures on researchand spread them around.