Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

[James Ward]

It depends on what you are looking to simulate.

I think the idea is to prevent super weapons that unbalance the game.
Given all the other limits that are in the game (Allies never surrender, factory multipliers go up automatically etc) setting a limit on how well you can develop a particular trait on an item doesn't seem out of line.

[MrQuiet]

IMO, there is no reason to cap the levels. If people want to break the mold, let them, just as long as the COST for doing so is appropriate.

I was in the 'cap evasion so no unit is unkillable' school of thought also. But I think Uncle Joe is right. (he does make his points very well) Do not hard limit the player just make it more expensive to go uber, to the point that they have to make the hard choices of neglecting other important units to get the uber unit that they think 'might' win them the war.

-MrQuiet

[QBeam]

Firstly, I think hakon's basic point, that each unit should still have some counter unit, even when out-teched by one level, is a sound observation. However, I'm not sure about the specific conclusions drawn. For one thing, they appear to be based on the assumption that hitting 1/3 to 1/4 of the time renders the counter-unit "ineffective." It's not great, but it's not useless, either, and seems to recreate the historical periods when one side came out with a new generation of weapon that put the other side on their heels, until the inevitable counter-technology came out.

Actually, I find it interesting that so many people are worried about "super tanks," since I reached exactly the opposite conclusion. When I analysed the tech system, I noted that the "gun-armor spiral" was nicely represented by giving tanks a point of armor, but a toughness of three, compared to infantry's toughness of four. Coupled with the higher WS on tank evasion, this makes it cheaper and easier to research super-tanks than it does to research modern infantry, but the effects are always easily countered by counter-research into ground attack on the other guy's tanks. (3.5 attack per level, compared to 3.0 defense, as others have noted)

Secondly, I'm not sure why people think that artillery should be the counter to armor--in point of fact, artillery is somewhat less effective against armor than it is against infantry, for the obvious reason that HE shells don't do much to armor, and the mobility of AFVs makes it easier for them to get out from under FFE. Based on the historical facts, the counter to armor should be air and other armor.

Finally, regarding the fear of super-bombers, I note that the concern appears to be largely academic, because in all the games in which people complain about them, the Allies lost. Apparently if the Allies goof around researching toys, instead of building tools for war, they loose. It might be amusing to be able to fly your B-52s around with impugnity, but it doesn't get your boys into Berlin. (I'm presently experimenting with the strat bomber strategy in a few of my current games, but I'm busily building arty and infantry at the same time.)

[James Ward]

I was in the 'cap evasion so no unit is unkillable' school of thought also. But I think Uncle Joe is right. (he does make his points very well)

Isn't it already expensive to make a 10 evasion tank? I doesn't appear to discourage them judging from posts.
Certain things you just can't say can be researched forever. I mean how far could a bomber fly back then, even with all the research in the world? Certainly not half way around the world yet a 10 range would let it go pretty dang far.
How evasive could a bomber be made compared to a fighter?
How much could you improve infantry's evasion? You can only dig so deep.
Certainly you can say there would be some limits in some areas without ruining the game. I would at least like to see it settable somehow.

[QBeam]

I don't see why an unkillable unit is such a big deal to people. I don't care about killing my opponents' units, except to the extent that helps me achieve my ultimate goal of taking his territory away from him. I don't need to kill them to do that--I just need to get 2x as many units in the province as he has.

Obviously, super-tanks are an appealing strategy for the Germans, who are limited more by their population than their production. But I think super-infantry to be an equally viable option for the Germans. It costs more to research, but the benefits are greater, thanks to their inherently superior toughness. And the extra two build points you save per unit is a nice subsidy on the cost of the research.

With a tech system like this one, in which the combat stats of units are advanced with no relation to to those of any of your other units (not exactly realistic), the important thing is that other game mechanics discourage the use of mono-type forces, because the tech system rewards you for relying on as few different types of units as possible. For the most part, the system does this well--tanks can move two areas, artillery can fire twice, and infantry has an inherently superior toughness. Air power has flexibility due to its range, but can't take or hold ground very well, so, as a whole, it fits with the ground units well.

The problem, as others have noted, is that there's no important difference between the abilities (aside from combat values) of tac-bombers and strat-bombers (and, to a lesser extent, nav-bombers), so the only smart choice is to pick one early on, and go with it. Personally, I think the Allies' only sensible choice is the strat-bombers, but I can make a realistic case for either for the Germans. I like the idea of knocking down strat-bombers anti-ship and anti-sub ratings to zero, but question whether it would be appropriate to make them unresearchable. (At the end of the war Germany was making ship-wrecker cruise missles to fire from Condor bombers, which would seem to me to be strat-bombers, though I suppose you might just as well argue that they were nav-bombers with their range massively increased.)

Anyway, it would be hard to give a game-mechanics differentiation to bombers, because, even if someone could think up a non-combat-stat mechanism to make tac- and strat-bombers work more differently from one another, it would probably be hard to code. So I think the most workable solution would be to link the stats of tac- and strat-bombers, so that research in one helps the stats of the other. That way, you make a decision about researching your bombers generally, and are then left with a viable option about which kind to build based on your situation. As a first cut, the rule might be that, for each point you spend researching a stat in one of the bomber types, you get a free point in the same stat for the other bomber type. Leave the calculations for the results of that research as is, so the effect of your spending will have different results for the two bomber types. If people think that this makes research into bombers too good of a buy (I don't), you could tone it down by giving each point spent a percentage chance of generating a "sympathy point" for the other bomber type.

I think the toned-down version would be a nice way to make carriers more attractive, too. As it stands, I think nav-bombers are too expensive to justify much research in them. They cost a fortune to build, than that's ignoring the cost of the carrier to put them on. On top of that, they're fragile. Worse, they're supposed to be multi-roll aircraft, which means that in order to improve them proportionally, you'd have to research them in every category. If you gave them a fraction of the anti-air and evasion research you put into fighters, then they'd be a lot more appealing purchase for Wallies and Japanese alike.

[MrQuiet]

Isn't it already expensive to make a 10 evasion tank? I doesn't appear to discourage them judging from posts.

Yes it prabably is but it could be much more expensive. Just lowering the World Standard instantly makes it more expensive. Lowereing there starting levels also makes it more expensive. And finaly hiking the cost of going over world standard makes it even more expensive.

Do you see that you really could not research such a superweapon with the above changes without the rest of your empire suffering significantly?

Certainly you can say there would be some limits in some areas without ruining the game. I would at least like to see it settable somehow

It is setable, all you have to do is agree with your opponent(s) at the start of the game what the max is. You could say something like "1 over world standard is max on all evasion" You have then guaranteed no unit will be unkillable.


-MrQuiet

[MrQuiet]

I like the idea of knocking down strat-bombers anti-ship and anti-sub ratings to zero, but question whether it would be appropriate to make them unresearchable.

I mostly agree with that idea. I would say heavy bombers have zero ASW and zero Torp and maybe 2 or 3 anti ship at game start (HB could hurt tranny fleets but almost useles against armored fleets, except it would decrease the enemys surface fleets evasion though for when your own navy opens up, very important). If you make ASW and Torp researchable for the HB then set World standard at zero.

This would at least make tac bombers better at 'something' then Heavy Bombers and give a reason for a player to produce, research, and use both.

Just $.02
-MrQuiet

[kverdon]

Though I do support the idea of caps on certain unit's attributes I do not support the idea of capping attributes based upon nationality. WAW is quite a "what if" game and part of the fun is changing the course of the countries' choices. You can leave in a variable start value but the cap should be the same for all.

Kevin

[QBeam]

Two complaints with your argument, one specific, and one general:

Why would you assume that the starting stats are B-17 stats? They barely existed at the start of the war, and proved a dramatic improvement over pre-war bombers, like the Liberator.

Why would you assume that fighters should always shred equal leval bombers? The kill ratio between German fighters (pre Me-262) and unescorted American bombers was about 1-1. That's hardly "shredding," though it's a really unpleasant economic exchange for the Americans, since a heavy bomber is vastly more expensive than a fighter.

Which raises an interesting point--if you assume all air units have an equal number of planes in them, it seems odd that heavy bombers are only twice as expensive as fighters. A heavy bomber uses four times as many engines, more than four times as much metal/wood, and a dozen times as many crew members. The only conclusion I can reach is that there must be quite a few more planes in a fighter unit than in a heavy bomber unit. Given the fact that the average fighter had a much lower contact ratio (time in contact with the enemy / total time), it probably makes sense to have such a scale difference, but I wonder if that was in fact considered, and what implications it has for our historical arguments.

[QBeam]

Frankly, I think anti-ship rating of 2 over-rates the effectiveness of heavy bombers against ships. Whole fleets of B-17s could drop bombs and get zero hits. And transports are harder to hit than carriers; so, oddly, transports should have a higher defense against to high-level bombers than capital ships.

Also, I don't think the idea of making tac-bombers the naval-bombing verson of strat-bombers is very satisfactory. If you want naval bombing, build nav-bombers without the carriers.

Since the game doesn't distinguish between strat-bombing and tac-bombing, I just don't see a very satisfactory way of distinguishing heavy bombers from tac-bombers. I'd just as soon assume that tac-bombers are single-engine bombers, like stukas, which ultimately proved to be an unsuitable design, in the absence of air supremacy. That way, it's historically defensible for people to use what they have to begin with, but for no one to ever really bother developing them and building more.

[kverdon]

Qbeam,

1. I was using the B-17 as an speculative example. It does hold up well though. The US in 1939 had the B-17B which, not the true "Fying Fortress" it was to become was certainly better armed that any other heavy bomber of its contemporaries. The British started the war with Wellingtons and Hallifaxes which were certainly less well armed than the B-17 but better armed than say a Dornier or Heinkel. Suffice to say that the defensive armament of WA Heavy Bombers was superior to that of the Germans. I am not sure however why you insist on stating that the Liberator (B-24 series) was inferior and a "pre-war" bomber. The B-17 protoype first flew in 1935 and went into production in 1936. The B-24 prototype first flew in 1939 and went into production in 1941. Though I am a HUGE B-17 fan, I have to admit that there were some attributes, namely range and payload that the B-24 had over the B-17. Suvivabiltiy probably has to go the B-17 but the B-24 was no wimp. Perhaps you are confusing the B-24 Liberator with the failed B-18?

2. My arugument about fighters "Shredding" bombers has to do with advanced fighter designs. If you take a "9" fighter as a Me-262/P-80 and a 10 as a F-86/Mig-15 then the analogy holds. Take a look at the Korean air war and you will find that even B-29s escorted by F-86's suffered losses to the point that daytime bombing of Korea was pretty much abandoned. Even keeping WWII in context I think that I would not be too far out of bounds in stating that even FW-190's vrs B-17s is going to be a heavy lossing proposition for the B-17's in the long run. The campaign over Germany proved that unescorted Heavy Bombers could not adequately defend themselves against sustained fighter attack. My point is that it was not possible to make a bomber that could defend itself against enemy fighters. Even B-29's were not immune from the best IJA fighters.

3. On Tactical Bombers. Depends on the Tac Bomber. For the Germans it was the Stuka. For the Allies it was the Beaufighter and the B-20/25/26 A-26 and the Typhoon/Tempest. For the Russians it was the highly sucessful IL-2 twin engined attack aircraft. The problem in the game is that their is no difference. Historically Heavy Bombers did not do so well in the Tactical mode. Opperation Cobra was the exception rather than the rule. This is why the powers contined (and continue) to research the tactical bomber (today the A-10 / Su-25). The problem the game presents that since they both essentially have the same effect, then its much cheaper and more versitle to just research heavy bombers. To remedy this the developers would have to separtate out land units from industry/infrastructure.

As a last note, I'm also not sure why you think a freighter is a harder target than a Carrier. The carrier is bigger but it is also about 3-4 times faster, most likely has a tighter turning radius and has bigger guns that can shoot back!.

best,

Kevin

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: QBeam

Firstly, I think hakon's basic point, that each unit should still have some counter unit, even when out-teched by one level, is a sound observation. However, I'm not sure about the specific conclusions drawn. For one thing, they appear to be based on the assumption that hitting 1/3 to 1/4 of the time renders the counter-unit "ineffective." It's not great, but it's not useless, either, and seems to recreate the historical periods when one side came out with a new generation of weapon that put the other side on their heels, until the inevitable counter-technology came out.

I am not saying that the counter unit should have an advantage, if it behind in tech, but it should be able to inflict as many losses as it takes. And if one side is heavily teching one unit (that has a counter unit), the other side should have the advantage in the long run, provided they tech up and mass produce the counter-unit. This will stop _any_ single unit tech races. Some units typically dont have good counter units though, like the submarine.

Actually, I find it interesting that so many people are worried about "super tanks," since I reached exactly the opposite conclusion. When I analysed the tech system, I noted that the "gun-armor spiral" was nicely represented by giving tanks a point of armor, but a toughness of three, compared to infantry's toughness of four. Coupled with the higher WS on tank evasion, this makes it cheaper and easier to research super-tanks than it does to research modern infantry, but the effects are always easily countered by counter-research into ground attack on the other guy's tanks. (3.5 attack per level, compared to 3.0 defense, as others have noted)

This is true, and would be very much so if u teched up to say, level 15. Even at 10 evasion, infantry starts to get very hard to hit. (I was playing a world conquest game as axis once (on challenging), where i wasnt able to invade the USA until 51 or 52. By that time the AI had researched infantry up to 10/11 or something, and they were getting tough to beat with my 11/12 armor.

Even at 8/8, though, infantry is still pretty vulnerable to simmilarily teched up armor. On top of that, only german inf starts with WS evasion, and inf is pretty expensive and time consuming to tech, since you have so many of them.

Secondly, I'm not sure why people think that artillery should be the counter to armor--in point of fact, artillery is somewhat less effective against armor than it is against infantry, for the obvious reason that HE shells don't do much to armor, and the mobility of AFVs makes it easier for them to get out from under FFE. Based on the historical facts, the counter to armor should be air and other armor.

Some artillery can fire AP-shells instead of HE ones. IRC, these AT-guns killed more tanks in WW2 than tanks did. Also, they are the unit that is currently the best counter unit to tanks. The problem with tanks, is that they have _all_ the advantages. Better attack, better defence, less supply and increased movement. Historically, armor was not so great for punshing holes in the strongest points of the enemy defences. Their strength was rather in the ability to exploit the weak points. (Heavy motorised assault guns, though they look somewhat like tanks, would typically be attached to infantry divisions).

It all has to do with balance. If you want a 1-unit-system, just take away the other units. (It would be realistic for napolenic warfare games to have just ship-of-the-line as fleet unit, for example, since there was no real counter unit to it.) Otoh, if your have 3 different "main" units, like inf/art/arm in W@W, they should be balanced out, reflecting their strengths and weaknesses. Arm has its movement, inf its staying power, and art its damage potential. This basic setup should be maintained imo, and it is, if armor has WS evasion reduced to 7.

Finally, regarding the fear of super-bombers, I note that the concern appears to be largely academic, because in all the games in which people complain about them, the Allies lost. Apparently if the Allies goof around researching toys, instead of building tools for war, they loose. It might be amusing to be able to fly your B-52s around with impugnity, but it doesn't get your boys into Berlin. (I'm presently experimenting with the strat bomber strategy in a few of my current games, but I'm busily building arty and infantry at the same time.)

Good for you. I have tried to tech heavy bombers, and it worked very well (against AI, only, but I was playing on hard).

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Isn't it already expensive to make a 10 evasion tank? I doesn't appear to discourage them judging from posts.

Somewhat expensive. With a WS of 8, that means that you dont pay extra for level 9. At level 10, there is an extra cost of 5 production points. Not too bad.

Certain things you just can't say can be researched forever. I mean how far could a bomber fly back then, even with all the research in the world? Certainly not half way around the world yet a 10 range would let it go pretty dang far.

10 is 6 above WS for bomber range. Exceedingly expensive. (It is like an evasion of 14 for tanks.) Still, it will only let you fly over the atlantic and back, not at all half way around the world.

And if you look at modern tech (actually 80's tech), the B1 _is_ capable of flying with full payload almost halfway around the world (to iraq, for sure), and land back in the US. All this _without_ being refueld in the air, i believe. If anything, heavy bomber range is probably slightly too hard to research. Incidentally, the B1 would be practically unkillable by any WW2 era fighter, since it would just fool their radar and outfly them when going back (and the B2 would have even higher evasion).

IMO, we dont need fixed limits. Just balance the costs so that there will be no _advantage_ in pushing just 1 tech.

How evasive could a bomber be made compared to a fighter?
How much could you improve infantry's evasion? You can only dig so deep.
Certainly you can say there would be some limits in some areas without ruining the game. I would at least like to see it settable somehow.

All tech break down at some point. Durability of 3 units would be sitting ducks, and durability of 4 will be impossible to hit. That can be viewed as a flaw in the system. Still, within the timeframe of 43-44, only tanks and bombers really become unstoppable super units.

[James Ward]

Don't get me wrong, I like the game. I just think it is far to easy to research improvement in areas that were really un-improvable by research.
For example infantry evasion. What are you researching, body armor? Yet boost that up as Germany a bit and it's tough to get you out of Fortress Germany. Even ground attack increases are hard to imagine researching. It's not like there were huge adva'snces made to infantry weapons during the war. I can see one advance for integrating AFV into infantry units but after that I'm not sure what you are researching.
Certain nations only need to concentrate on a few things so super units are almost a given. Germany can get by just researching Fighters, Armor and Infantry. They may not conquer the world but they will hold on to the end and have a good chance of 'winning'. Russia is another one that doesn't need to research many areas, usually Artillery and Armor will do. And the WA generally can get any two units they want up to super unit levels across the board. Even the AI will do it. If you give the AI 100 supply help per turn and you most certainly will see many traits get to 8 or 9 because they have nothing else to spend their PP's on except research.

[dapamdg]

One suggestion I would make (apologies if someone has already mentioned this in this very long thread) would be to reduce the multiplier for number of research points that can be spent when above the WS. If one could never place more than three research points into a tech, then it would be very difficult, impossible in game time, to get very far above the WS. Also, since no more than three points can be placed in any given characteristic, then the WA and Germany (who often find they have a lot of research points because they have hit the population barrier) will be forced to broaden their research into many units/characteristics instead of just concentrating on one or two. This seems to me to be a simple yet elegant solution to the problem. Comments?

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: dapamdg

One suggestion I would make (apologies if someone has already mentioned this in this very long thread) would be to reduce the multiplier for number of research points that can be spent when above the WS. If one could never place more than three research points into a tech, then it would be very difficult, impossible in game time, to get very far above the WS. Also, since no more than three points can be placed in any given characteristic, then the WA and Germany (who often find they have a lot of research points because they have hit the population barrier) will be forced to broaden their research into many units/characteristics instead of just concentrating on one or two. This seems to me to be a simple yet elegant solution to the problem. Comments?

This idea is simple, and very, very good. Historically, research wasnt really very expensive. It was just very time-consuming.

[Paul Vebber]

I find it odd that its is always know when a "breakthrough" will iccur. Adding a random element that becomes tougher the higher you go would seem to me the way to go.

Say something like roll a d15 < (15-new techlevel) That way you wold have a 1/3 chance per turn to get tech 10, two thirds chance per turn for tech 5. 50-50 for the 7/8 range.

A failed roll would reduce the beaker by 5 (you have to redo the "base research" to try again).

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: James Ward
It's not like there were huge adva'snces made to infantry weapons during the war. I can see one advance for integrating AFV into infantry units but after that I'm not sure what you are researching.

While i tend to agree that research is too critical in W@W (though a good fun-factor), the development of infantry weapons was quit big during WWII, if you include all equipment traditionaly part of an infantry division.

Examples:

Trucks: Good for moving troops around, taking them out of danger (evasion), and inserting them were they can do a lot of damage (ground attack).

Submachineguns: Self explaining

Assault rifles: Self explaining

AT guns (includint the self propelled variants): Remember that ground attack includes attacking tanks. Also very important for defence. These were going through a huge development during WWII, to counter increased armor on tanks.

AA guns. Without AA, infantry becomes pretty voulnerable enemy aircraft. AA capability is just as much about keeping the aircraft away as actually killing them (same goes for AT, btw). So AA should contribute to evasion.

Self Propelled (SP) artillery and mortars : Very good in an attack situations vs fortified targets

Bulldozers, etc : Quick entrenchment, airfield construction, etc

Mines (anti-personell, anti tank). Slows enemy down, giving you time to regroup.

Doctrines (flexible defence vs static defence, etc)

Training (costs money, so can be simulated by tech)

Logistics organization (necessary for mobility)

Counter battery radar. The ability of artillery to shoot at enemy artillery. Good for defence and offence.

Also remember that most late war infantry formation did include some tanks.



IMO, the sum of these would total at least 1-2 points in both infantry evasion and infantry ground attack. Putting a late war infantry division up against an early war infantry divison would be very one-sided. Also note that if you research infantry only, and not, say armor and artillery, this could be interpreted as including both armor and artillery in the infantry units, while pure armor research could mean that your infantry was motorized, and included in armored and mechanized corps like organizations.

[James Ward]

While i tend to agree that research is too critical in W@W (though a good fun-factor), the development of infantry weapons was quit big during WWII, if you include all equipment traditionaly part of an infantry division.

Certainly there were some advances in infantry weaponry but not a lot, given the scale of the game.
For exmple the 75, 105 and 155 were still the main sizes for artillery at the end of the war. MG and rifles were still standard equipment. AT guns were certainly improved, which were only really useful against tanks, as were communications, mobility etc so a 1 or 2 improvement by research makes sense to me for infantry attack. Evasion I don't really see how research comes into it, it seems like it was more experience than something that was researched that allowed infantry to remain the main 'weapon' until the end of the war.
I like the idea of making it take longer by limiting how much you can put into research each turn or even failing in your research, like Paul suggested, as that would add some uncertainty.

[QBeam]

kverdon,

I generated some unnecessary confusion by referring to the Liberator, when in fact what I meant was the Albemarle. (It looks similar because of the tail section, but it's a twin-engine medium strat bomber.) Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that, while the B-17 existed at the start of the war, there weren't enough of them in service for them to really count as a pre-war bomber (in fact, of course there were zero of them in service in 1939, since the U.S. didn't join the war until 1941.) I would presume that the statistics for a nation's units correspond to the predominate type of unit at that time, rather than an uncommon but superior type. For that reason, I don't think a Mig-15 would be a 10 in this game--it would be more like a 15 or 20. Although the Me-262 existed at the end of the war, it never became the standard German fighter, and so it would have statistics superior to what Germany's fighters would have in a "game as history."

In the context of tanks, for example, I'd expect that the Panther has stats higher than 10/10, because in the game-as-history, I think Germany would have its tank stats at 9/10 or 10/10 at the end of the war, and yet the Panthers, Tigers, and all the other "super tanks" never made up more than the cream at the top of the German tank arm. (Perhaps, on the other hand, even the late model Mk-IVs would be a bit lower than that, since it would be fair to argue that the Germans got good effect out of their "combined arms" use of medium and heavy tanks, so that the Panthers and Tigers had a disproportionate effect in the field.) By the same token, since the FW-190D was never more than a tiny fraction of Germany's fighters, I'd expect its stats to be higher than any that Germany got for its fighters in the game-as-history. (I'm less sure about what that would be, but 8/8 seems a reasonable guess? If so, I'd put the FW-190D at 10/9. That would put the Me-262 at 13/12 or so, giving it credit for its rockets; 11/12 without.)

Anyway, returning to the fighter-vs-bomber issue, I think it's pretty clear that the balance of power between them took a radical departure with the Me-262. Not so much because of the jet speed, though of course that helped in the interceptor role, but because of the ability to carry rockets. Once rockets and missles became available to interceptors, their ability to take down heavy bombers went through the roof--hense the results you point out in Korea. But in the realm of WWII technology (which I presume this game is limited to, despite a bit of "what if"), even the ghastly losses of the daylight bombing raids were still about a 1-1 kill ratio. That means that, if a fighter unit and a bomber unit contain the same number of planes (which I'm not sure about), then I'd expect to see fighters and bombers be about equally likely to hit each other.