Fighter bombers

[SGT Rice]

A follow on question for the designers (or anyone in the know) concerning less used tech advances ... at the start of the 40 campaign game, the "world standard" for fighter ground attack is set at "2", while all the major powers have their fighter ground attack values at "3".

What's the design rationale for these settings? During the war several major combatants enhanced the ground strike capabilities of their fighters to include aircraft such as the P47 and Fw190 that could deliver rockets and large bomb loads ... are these aircraft included in the W@W tactical bomber units?

There are 70 possible tech advances in W@W, but (it seems to me that) competitive play limits the players to using less than half of them. Are there any tweaks to the system under consideration to make the less-employed tech advances viable?

[Lebatron]

You have a point that competitive play limits our choices. Its almost imposible for a game like this to have all varieties of tech choices to have equal impact/value. In every game I ever tied, a core set of choices always stands above some others, and thus get used more. But there can be a few things done to increase the number of options. The world standard for fighter LA could be increased to 3 or 4 so that teching to 4 would not be out of the question. I don't think it would upset the balance since an LA of 4 really can't hit anything with a good evasion. A couple patches ago the world standard for a tactical bomber LA was increased to 7. It was a great change, because it opened up another choice for players. To create another choice, I'd like something done with German strategic bombers so that we don't have to live with the same choices German high command made, ie put no tech into HB. It has been suggested before to give German HB armor, or increase their range to 4, or something else to sweeten the deal. Then we just might see some German strategies involving the use of lots of HB. All it would do is make the game more interesting, so why not? Another tech we may start to use in the next patch could be transport amphibious capacity, if 2by3 reduced the number value, rather than the number of transports themselves.

There are a number of techs that I consider second tier, ie not worthy of wasting points on.
Some are:
Transport amphibious capacity (its just easier to build extra)
AA tech for infantry, tanks, and art (to expensive to consider)
Movement for subs (would like to try, but cost to prohibitive)

For these second tier techs why not bump the world standard up so that they are at least considered? It would only add variety to the game, and thats a good thing isn't it?

[SGT Rice]

I'm still sold on the idea that some tech buys should apply to multiple unit types in all the cases where the same hardware was used by multiple unit types. Some examples might include:

Torpedoes - SUBs, CBs, BBs, CAs - (same torpedoes)
ASW - All surface ships except BBs - (same sonar, depth charges, etc.)
Ship AA - All surface ships - (same AA guns/fire control)
Ship Speed - All surface ships except TRSs - (same refueling ships/equipment)
Naval Attack - BBs, CAs - (same radar/fire control)
Land Attack - BBs, CAs - (same radar/fire control)

Aerial Torpedoes - All aircraft except FTRs - (same torpedoes)
ASW - All aircraft - (same radar, depth charges, etc.)

Land AA - All land units except AA - (same AA guns/fire control)
Land evasion - Infantry & airborne - (same equipment)
Land attack - Infantry & airborne - (same weapons)

This should make it more likely that all of the technology advances are viable in some context.

[Lebatron]

Well that system could have worked fine too, but 2by3 choose something else. I find their aproach to be a smart design. Sure the other system may be more realistic, but its not about genuine realism in this game. WAW is IMHO a 'board game' that plays on a PC. The choices they made could have been pulled off in a board game, unlike the Hearts of Iron PC game. Keeping the upgrades for AA, as an example, separate for each unit is fine with me. If it had been rolled into one, then it would have had to quaduple in cost to upgrade AA. But that aside don't let yourself chase red herrings. 2by3 is not going to change the current system. Small tweeks like adjusting cost or world standards are the only changes 2by3 would consider.

What I would like to see them do is raise the world standard on the second tier techs I discussed above. Perhaps then we might see them get more attention. Is there any consensus out there? Do you guys want to see more techs getting use or is it fine the way it is?

[Uncle_Joe]

There are a number of techs that I consider second tier, ie not worthy of wasting points on.
Some are:
Transport amphibious capacity (its just easier to build extra)

As it works now, I think its a fair trade off...Research doesnt require population points, so in some cases, its actually better to crank up the Amphib tech. I agree that I tend to just increase the number Transports too, but strictly mathematically, that might not be the best play.

AA tech for infantry, tanks, and art (to expensive to consider)

Definately would not want to see this...at all. All it would take is for these units to add 1 AA and all non-upgraded Evasion Aircraft would become useless for GA. Its bad enough that you have to crank up GA on various Aircraft or else they quickly become nearly useless. If you had to crank Evasion just to survive Ground fire, I think Aircraft would become very underused for anyone except maybe the WAllies.

Movement for subs (would like to try, but cost to prohibitive)

I think the Movement for all Sea units should be bought at 2 for 1 except for Submarines. IMO, Subs are fine as is IMO. With more movement, it becomes too easy to move out, strike and move home without enduring attacks. People are already complaining about the US ability to cross the Pacific with Subs and wreck Japan's Transport fleet. I dont think making that easier is a good idea.

Sooo, at least for me, I dont think monkeying around with WSs like these are a good idea at this point. Let the next balance patch come out and then lets see what it plays like.

I do agree that there an awful lot of tech out there that will never be touched (like anything on the CVs, or anything but ASW on the Light Fleets), but I dont necessarily think that this is a bad thing. 2by3 could have just presented us with a list of techs that could be upgraded and arbitrarily decided on the historical or near historical advances. Instead, they simply allow players to try anything, even though many of them arent ever going to be worthwhile. But at least the option is there.

[SGT Rice]

Appreciate the commentary. I agree that the current research rules are an outstanding, elegant design; they provide lots of choices, even if some of them are poor choices against a quality opponent.

I'm just a WWII history fiend; it always enhances my gaming experience when I see something from the history books reflected in my cardboard/electronic legions. But I completely agree that play balance and clean, workable code have to take priority.