Frustrated with tech

[a511]

Again, down the road we'll consider the optional rule I mentioned above,

while i can feel Scott_War's pain and understand Joel's intention to fix the issue under the proposed optional rule but i just dont feel good about the proposed optional rule.
u are not talking about a lucky hit at a platoon level, the size of each unit is huge in WAW ... taking the most extreme example, u just cannot expect a corp of militia armed with sharpened bamboo sticks can damage an armor corp in any situation, right?

imo, move up the cost and time of research, esp for those +2 world and above std research. under the current system, the cost is doubled for research above world std (1+ world std?), but it remains doubled for +2, +3, +4 ... research over world std. (let me know, if otherwise.) with the doubled research pt u can spend for such research, "super units" are created for those with superior PP in a relatively short period of time. its always true for the allies (i have 10 9 armor, 8 8 fighter and 8 8 infantry in one of my pbem allies campaignby Sp44) but its also possible for a skilled axis player (the ev4 sub encountered by Scott_War is a good example).

my suggestion is to either:
1) increase the cost of research by increasing the cost with the levels above world std, say, (2+(Y-1)*.5), where Y is the levels above world std; or
2) increase the time required by removing the doubled research pt u can spend for research above world std.

hows that?

AN

[Uncle_Joe]

Well 2 tech vs 5 is a pretty steep gap. That doesnt do much to back up the statement that one tech level is devastating. [;)] I also dont see how he can get 3 levels above you if you are making a dedicated effort to keep up. The WAllies should have more points to dump into tech (especially naval techs) than Germany (unless they are already close to winning). Also keep in mind that each level of 'attack' is adding 3.5 to the average while each level of 'defense' is adding 3 (in general) to the average. As techs go up, the balance swings more to the damage than the protection.

I will again reiterate my suggestion for playing with FoW OFF. It becomes just too much of a tech vs tech guessing game with it off. I dont like 'gotchas' at this scale...its pretty silly and not a very accurate simulation of what is going on. Even if one side DID manage to get a significant tech advantage somewhere, by the time it would be fully implemented, the other side has time to catch up or develop countermeasures (be they improved tactics or equipment).

When you are playing with FoW off, you can see the progress your opponent is making in various techs and have time to take appropriate measures. Without that, your first indication that you are behind could be when you are losing critical battles and you might have a much harder time keeping up if your opponent has the econ to sustain pouring his own money into the tech.

[5cats]

>I vote for more "swingy" combat, use d8 or d12, or even 2d6. That way there's a chance, however small, of hitting those "super units".
>Have units support other units. Insted of 2 units firing at terrible odds (for example 2 dice vs a 12 to hit) have them combine to make 1 attack with better odds (like 3 dice) although the AI for that might be impossible
>I totally agree that a 2nd & 3rd attack should continue to lower evasion. Not from Arty though, or long-range Hvy Fleet fire either. Just to keep it a little better balanced, arty is strong enough as it is.
>I don't know why, but it seems that tech 4 evasion subs are way too strong, even vs tech 3 ASW. They sail around killing everything in their path, with only the occasional damaged sub as a result. MEANwhile it's 3 supply PER Lt Fleet to fight them.
>And GGWaW2 should have LOTS more land and sea zones [:'(] And cool new units! I got plenty of ideas
> oh yeah, the increased time for higher techs is THE way to go! Right now it's just as quick to up it from 2-3 as it is from 1-2, since you can add double the research into it. How about double -1? 1, 3, max 5 (as opposed to 2,4, max 6) Even a little change like that would go a long way, IMHO.

[Scott_WAR]

I just looked at the game. My opponent was wrong, his subs are at torp 4 and evasion 4, not 5. So its a 2 level difference.

Studying everything about the game I mentioned, there are some things I could have done to lessen the problem. Looking back naturally. I built a few light fleets, which made it require even more points to advance, when I probably should not have built any at all.

Still, tech plays entirly too large a part in the game. While higher tech should definatley give an advantage, it shouldnt be the dominating factor it currently is.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well no real arguments there. I was one of the original people to point out the 'uber tanks and bombers'. I think the changing of the WSs has made it far better.

I think for as abstract of a game as WaW is, it works fine...as long as you know to counter it. I'm quite certain that this situation would probably not ever happen to you again! [;)]

Anyways, like I said, give it a few go's with FoW off and see if that helps. I really dont think the FoW is necessary at this scale (unless it was only going to estimate enemy troops even in adjacent areas). As it stands now, its just a nuisance and leads to silly effects IMO.

FWIW, my play time has substantially been reduced by a completely different angle...the whole Axis AV that ends the game before it every becomes WW2. Sure, it can be countered and sure its not a guaranteed Axis win, but it IS a guaranteed 'all or nothing' that prevents the more interesting aspects of the game from every occuring if the gambit is employed (and I dont see a lot of reason for the Axis NOT to employ it at the moment). I'm waiting for the TCP/IP to get moving along so they might have time to go back and re-address concerns like yours as (in the form of the optional rule) and like mine (in the form of changing the way AV works such that its substantially harder to do without attackign Russia, the US, or sitting in London.

[Scott_WAR]

LOL, oh no it wont happen to me again.

I probably will continue playing. The anger of spending days playing, just to realize the COMPLETELY unrealistic tech issue has ruined another game before it really got started good, is lessening, and I see ways to prevent it, but that is still just putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. I can work around the problem, by altering my playstyle to ONE startegy, tech, tech,tech, but that doesnt mean the problem is any less real. Any game that makes one aspect as dominate as tech is in this game, severely decreases the strategic options available to the playes. ALWAYS a bad thing. I shouldnt HAVE to tech my heart out. More troops should be as good as, if not better than, less, better equiped/trained troops.

It does not change the fact that tech is utterly unrealsitic in GGWaW. In the real war, the UK and USA was behind in tech nearly the entire war. Yet they managed to win. In this game, you CANT win under the same circumstances. That alone should show the devs how unrealistic it is.

In reality, if one side put so much into tech, that they are outnumbered 2 to 1, they almost always end up losing.

I hate to use this as an analogy, but consider the low tech level of those car bombing our troops in Iraq. Look at how many "tech levels" our troops are ahead of them. Yet, as you well know, we are still having difficulties. And yes. World war 2 was fought in the city streets as well as in the countryside, so its not all that different.



It seems to me the devs feel as if a 2 level tech advantage is like having an f-4 phantom fighting against spitfires. If thats the case, and the advantage 2 tech levels gives most certainly seems to indicate that, then it should take FAR LONGER to raise a tech 2 levels. If the tech levels arent supposed to be that drastic, then the devs need to make that the case in the game. They are that drastic now, and it doesnt take nearly long enough for a gap that big to develop. Even though it took 2 decades to actually make that kind of tech increase in reality.

[Uncle_Joe]

Again, I dont disagree that tech is perhaps over-favored in the game. Knowing that, part of the strategy is balancing that act between production and tech. All the the Uboat tech in the world wont save Germany if Russia overruns them because they invested too much trying to close the Atlantic.

One thing that has been debated back and forth and that I happen to disagree with is that the WAllies were somehow fighting with a tech disadvantage. This couldnt be further from the truth. The things they put their tech into were ahead of the Axis in many ways.

Sure, you can point out the obvious Panther and Tigers vs Shermans etc, but that had little to do with 'tech' and more with doctrine. Also, what percentage of Panthers or Tigers were servicable compared to the Shermans?

The Allies were well ahead at sea (radar, and by mid war, their carrier aircraft were far superior). The Allied aircraft were every bit the equal of the Germans in 95% of the cases and again they reflect differing roles.

Finally, the Allied ground forces were considerably ahead in artillery (communications, accuracy, timing, and advanced munitions like VT fuses etc). Allied C3 was miles ahead of the Germans as well.

Their infantry was quite well equipped except for the absense of a real squad LMG, but the fact remains that a US squad with its BAR and Semi-Auto rifles could pour out substantially more firepower than many German squads with their Bolt-Actions and single MG. Germany could also not even begin to match the level of mechanization that the Allies enjoyed. All of this would be included in the Infantry 'Attack' and 'Evasion'.

Allied tanks did lag behind in some regards, but their tank destroyers were decent and the prevalence of tungsten rounds gave them quite a bit of kill power. The upgunned Shermans (and Brit Fireflies) proved up to the task of fighting the German tanks. One must also remember that Allied doctrine allowed them to use airpower to smash the Axis armor, so the NEED to be able to fight 1 on 1 just wasnt there. I'm quite sure that the WAllies were quite capable of cranking out tanks to oppose the Panthers/Tigers but felt their resources would be better spent elsewhere (given total air supremacy and tank-busting aircraft available to them).

The tech comparison starts to be quite one-sided when compared to Japan, who by 43 was really starting to be outclassed across the board in equipment.

At any rate, I think its generally a myth that the Allies were somehow technologically inferior to the Axis. The technological acheivements were certainly different than the Germans, but their overall ground forces were not inferior in overall way.

[Joel Billings]

A few notes. First, I agree with uncle joe about fog of war. It was added for those that want it, but I would rather play without it myself given the scale of the game. Second, tech levels get harder to increase further as they go over the world standard. First double cost, then triple, etc. with each increase. Third, airpower is what eventually killed the submarine. Airpower is much cheaper to research ASW as you have less of them. Also, they can be used offensively to go after even heavy sub concentrations. The allies need ASW air platforms early on if Germany is going heavy into sub warfare (heavier than histrorical). Third, the US army in late 1941 was pretty minimal. Almost all of the US production in 1940/41 should go into supplies and research. The Allies should be able to keep important tech development going early on and then should be able to boost this later in the war with their insane production levels. They should be able to get a huge tech advantage over Japan in all kinds of things, as they did historically. Does anyone doubt that by 1943 and 1944 the US had a huge tech advantage over Japan in almost all areas. Against Germany, it was more even, with Germany still haveing the edge in some areas, but the WA should be right there fighting the R&D wars.

Tech may be too strong (mostly when surprised by it), but this is no simple adjustment to make in the game as it would impact all kinds of interrelationships of countries and units. I'm not quite sure what "easy" solutions there are without reinventing the game, and we're not going to do that in WaW. I'm off to Origins now. Hope to see some of you there.

[von_Schmidt]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

A postscript. We've talked about adding an optional rule that would give units a chance of hitting other units even when the tech difficiency would normally prevent it. However, this would be a major change and would likely change game balance tremendously (thus an optional rule). It's something we've considered for a future patch, but given our current workload isn't going to happen in the near future.

We've talked about adding an optional rule that would give units a chance of hitting other units even when the tech difficiency would normally prevent it.

Joel,

How about the following for units which are allowed to shoot at the target (so excluding sub v air etc):

- calculate the odds to hit
- if >10%, apply
- if <10%, apply 10% chance to hit

That way a unit has a 1-in-10 to hit a target irrespective of tech difference (or 15%, or 20%...).

I think that there should never be a situation that a unit is fully safe - Sod's Law won't allow for that!

Regards,

von Schmidt

[Agema]

Talking about Fog Of War, what about a tech for intelligence services? The Allies could pick apart the German codes virtually at will, particularly later in the war, an advantage that the Axis did not have. I appreciate it would probably be a tough thing to have to code, but a system where you could unravel a certain amount of your opponents hidden details would be pretty good.

Hiding tech is a tough issue. Bear in mind that plenty of the time in real life you found out how good your opponent's equipment was when the brand new Tigers rolled onto the battlefield and turned dozens of your tanks to smoking wrecks for almost no losses. Similarly, new tactical advantages had to be learnt the hard way.

Personally, I think tech should be hidden. Just like real life, it will thump you when you first encounter it. It *should* be about action and reaction. If you haven't bothered researching something likely to be pretty vital, like tanks and/or infantry, you deserve everything you get, frankly. But if the Germans decide they'd rather, say, use an air force to flatten the UK and fleets around West Europe rather than use subs, I think they deserve to be able to do that without the Allied player instantly spotting the fact and not bothering with anti-submarine warfare.

For ground forces however, usually the player had a pretty good idea where the enemy was. Even large historical mistakes (eg. the SS units at Arnhem) and diversions (e.g. DAK's first arrival, or Overlord) are 'below' the scale represented in the game. For the most part it was roughly known what was where. Finding where fleets were was historically much more tricky.

[bud]

plz read my post on page 2 -- date - 6/16/05 -- FOG OF WAR -- there seems to be no way to play this game with the fog of war on -- joel make a point of exchanging passwords at the end -- but not sure what good that will do -- auto replay only goes back 1 turn i think -- -and even with fog of war off - you can still put in 1 or 2 extra units a turn many years down the road in the game in the production pipe line ---- hope note book can not be open before a game start with the online game -- thz[:-]

[JanSorensen]

If you exchange passwords at the end of the game you can inspect every single turn made - you just keep all the mails with the files covering the entire war.

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR
I hate to use this as an analogy, but consider the low tech level of those car bombing our troops in Iraq. Look at how many "tech levels" our troops are ahead of them. Yet, as you well know, we are still having difficulties. And yes. World war 2 was fought in the city streets as well as in the countryside, so its not all that different.

Thanks for starting this thread, Scott - fascinating reading with so many good points made by you and others. For my money, though, I just wonder if you have grasped just what a large strategic game this is. Your example above for Iraq is correct - but surely only at a platoon/company level. If Iraq 2005 was represented at the scale of WaW surely 140,000 American personnel would only be represented by a few icons? In that case the current conflict in Iraq would come no where near even damaging such units, let alone destroying them. The closest representation would be the partisan rules in WaW with the Americans as the Germans and the Iraqi insurgency as French partisans (no offence to anyone - I'm just trying to match game concepts to reality). The cost is then supply and the production points used up by that supply.
With reference to the Atlantic war, I believe that the Germans came pretty close to winning it (all hail Bletchley Park and the Enigma code crackers - worth at least 1 ASW tech level in WaW!). If Germany had really thrown all possible resources at their U boat fleet is it not possible they would have won the Atlantic battle with Allied shipping giving up and hiding in ports? But at what cost to the resources needed to fight the Eastern front where, let's face it, the war was essentially won and lost? Fat lot of use patrolling the Atlantic at will with the Red Army smashing into Berlin a year early. Does WaW match this possibility? I don't know - any accountants out there want to calculate how many units/supply/research Germany loses in the Eastern front to produce uber subs?
Lastly, many have suggested amended rules of a variety of complications. Careful boys (and girls?). Some of you grey haired folk (like me) must remember board wargames 20 years ago that sacrificed playability i.e. fun for apparent realism - yawn. Each to their own, but I don't think WaW wants to fit that mould. Currently, I'm having so much fun in this game it's threatening my marriage - my wife doesn't seem to understand that children, work, the garden and her really come second place to ensuring that my front line is not breached at this critical moment - who needs sleep!

[pyrhic]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
FWIW, my play time has substantially been reduced by a completely different angle...the whole Axis AV that ends the game before it every becomes WW2. Sure, it can be countered and sure its not a guaranteed Axis win, but it IS a guaranteed 'all or nothing' that prevents the more interesting aspects of the game from every occuring if the gambit is employed (and I dont see a lot of reason for the Axis NOT to employ it at the moment). I'm waiting for the TCP/IP to get moving along

ditto here...

[JanSorensen]

I just dont play with AV on - its simply too easy and too boring.

Its not hard to kick that particular problem in the groin

[Scott_WAR]

Tom. I remember those games. 5th fleet in particular. My god it took me a month to figure the rules out, and another few weeks to figure out that most normal people arent going to take the time to learn rules THAT complicated.

As for the tactics/strategy comment. Yeah, I know, different levels of operation, but some people forget that tactics is an extension of strategy. The tactics a unit is going to employ has to be considered as a part of my strategy. So tactics, while not represented except by tech levels, is actually a part of the strategy. I hope that makes some kind of sense to everyone.

Anyway, the tactics in detail dont matter, since tactics are considered a part of tech. So when a 2 tech level difference= invulnerability that means that the tactics/ weapons etc of the higher teched unit are so advanced over their enemy, that their really isnt any chance of their enemy to hurt them at all. Tanks against cavemen. At no point in world war 2, or any war EVER for that matter, was one side able to just walk all over the ther side with NO RISK WHATSEVER. Yet its a common occurence in this game. THAT is the PROBLEM.


So while the analogy of Iraq ia a different operational level, the truth is still there. Even with an EXTREME tech advantage, our troops are still taking casualties, and are still at risk. So its still a valid point.

[MrQuiet]

So while the analogy of Iraq ia a different operational level, the truth is still there. Even with an EXTREME tech advantage, our troops are still taking casualties, and are still at risk. So its still a valid point.

But is the Brigade as a whole at great risk of being destroyed? or Damaged to a point of being re-fit?

-MrQuiet

[Big Lou]

Getting back to some of the original complaints expressed in this thread....

One thing that no one has mentioned is the difficulty in teching up ASW on light fleets. Because the WA have so many (and unfortunately most are frozen) the cost of going from ASW 1 to 2 is 12 points I believe. This enables Germany to have lvl 3 evasion subs for at least 2 turns before the WA can roll out ASW 2 light fleets. Likewise Germany can get to lvl 4 evasion on their subs several turns before the WA get ASW 3 (let alone 4) on their light fleets. This means that despite maximum effort the WA will always lag well behind in the ASW/sub evasion contest.

Joel brought up a good point about increasing the ASW of WA planes; and I agree it is needed but still fails to allow the WA to really maintain parity in the tech war. What follows is some of the key problems based on the premise that a major goal of German sub warfare is to destroy WA transports and break transport chains. This means that each transport within reach of German subs must be protected. German players typically hit and run back to port with their subs making offensive use of air power against them nearly impossible. Using planes defensively to protect fleets works, but means that you cannot use those planes offensively on the same turn. Whereas the light fleet could sally forth engage in naval combat and then with its 12 mps move back to cover the transports.

The next problem is the fact that you now are researching ASW on multiple units (burning lots of research points), while the German is only having to improve the evasion on a single unit. Another problem, what air unit or units do you increase ASW on? The CAG is a popular choice because of its natural ability to be stationed in a sea zone with a carrier (thus giving it the ability to both attack and provide defense on a single turn). But the WA start with only 2 of them unfrozen, they take a while to build, and get eaten alive by German fighters.

Well then maybe you use fighters. But your poor WA fighters are already at a disadvantage against German ones so you need to be getting your evasion up to 6 (or 7) pretty quick; you probably need to think about increasing your air attack to 7 (especially if the German gets his evasion to 7); you need to get your speed up to 2 or you will not be able to "cover" many of your transports; and you need to be researching ASW. That is alot of teching up required for the WA fighters to get them into the roll of ASW, without leaving them vulnerable to German fighters.

Many of these points also apply to trying to use bombers or tac air in the ASW roll. In short, if your are both maximizing light fleet ASW and trying to get one type of your planes teched up for ASW you are preety much burning through all the production of the US. Don't forget at some point you will need to fight a land battle, and the WA inf and armor tech starts off worse than their German counterparts. Can the ASW battle be won by the WA? I think so, but at an enormous cost compared to what Germany has to invest.

I actually like the tech system in this game. People complained about the super 10/10 tanks. But they never bothered me. That was a situation, where with some planning, it was fairly easy for Germany and Russia to keep on par with each other at relatively equal costs. I just think that somehow the stats for sub/ASW were modeled wrong, making it too easy for Germany to build a commanding lead. Perhaps changing world standards, starting tech levels, or research costs for one or more of the units could balance this struggle a little better.

I know this was long and thanks to anyone who wasted a bit of their life reading it. However, I feel that the blame "super sub" situation does not rest solely on lack of tech spending by the WA.

[Scott_WAR]

Its an analogy. The opposition is Iraq DOES NOT have superior numbers, and still inflict damage.

Look at it this way. If the opposition in Iraq HEAVILY outnumbered our troops, would they be able to completely destroy complete units. Yes they would, based on the amount of damage they are able to inflict currently, while being outnumbered AND outclassed tech and training wise.

This is NOT a new concept, and I dont understand why some are having a hard time grasping it. Higher tech can overcome superior numbers,.... but only to a point. That point is not represented in this game, meaning a few high tech units can completely overwhwhelm forces that outnumber them heavily.

[Scott_WAR]

Big Lou. That was well put. I WAS spending as much as I could on asw for light fleets, and couldnt keep up at all. Changing the starting value of the german subs evasion down a little, or even just giving the allied light fleets 2 asw to start with, or something to that effect could be the answer.

While its not the solution I would like (the drastic difference in 1 tech level on combat being lowered a little), but it is the beginning of a solution that I could accept. Naturally, more thought needs to be put into it, to ensure balance isnt dirupted, but I think it might be possible. It would be much easier than what I mentioned above.