A modest suggestion

[Forwarn45]

I have a very modest suggestion for modders and, with support, that hopefully could be added to a patch. I would suggest taking away the one lighbulb the WA have toward infantry evasion at the beginning of the 1940 scenario. The only real effect of this would be to delay by one turn the WA progress throughout the game toward super infantry. This is a small change, but I think a good one. I would hope that it would not affect the AI, if that is a concern, as I would think getting their infantry up to par would be a priority even if they don't already have research toward it. What do you guys think?

[mcaryf]

Hi Forwarn 45

I understand your small step to slow down super infantry but how about being a bit more radical. After a while in WW2 the development of infantry was not so much in lethality but in mobile lethality with SP Guns and TD's to augment their firepower and an array of vehicles that they could travel in.

How about this - infantry should get no more lethal after say 8,8 or 9,9 but thereafter a very substantial amount of extra research might allow them to get a speed of 2 instead of 1. Plainly this would be more useful to the attacking Allies on the external lines of communication and would mean that the German resistance in pure combat terms would stay comparable as indeed it did irl.

Mike

[Lebatron]

Forwarn that is certainly an idea I would have considered before I put a new US P.M. in place. But now in my mod there is less reason to be concerned about UN super inf. In the standard 1940 scenario I would suggest that you use it on a case by case basis. If your opponent agreed to it, you and your opponent could just edit the research40.txt file for that game only. Then when its done undo your change. Just put // in front of the infantry evasion line to bleep out the one lightbulb.

Another thing to consider when you do this is that it would effect any other new games you start since you made the change to the 1940 campaign. It may be best to install a separate copy of the game so that you can have one that is virgin, and another with your tweeks. Of coarse you could just make up an entirely new scenario to avoid installing a separate copy, but for a change as small as removing a lightbulb its probably easiest to just make changes to the stock 1940 campaign.

[JanSorensen]

Hmm, when I play the Allies I never seem to have enough production to raise INF non-stop right from the start. Between raising ASW, FTRs, building supply and land units to defend London and the Med etc I definitely seem to take atleast a couple of turns if not more without upgrading INF. Its not really untill I have stalled the Axis for certain that I can focus on making "super-inf".

Is the experience of others that the Allies upgrade INF non-stop from the very first turn? If so this suggestion makes sense - if not, well, then its only really hurting the WA defend London and has no real effect on the socalled super-inf later on.

[aletoledo]

Hmm, when I play the Allies I never seem to have enough production to raise INF non-stop right from the start. Between raising ASW, FTRs, building supply and land units to defend London and the Med etc I definitely seem to take atleast a couple of turns if not more without upgrading INF. Its not really untill I have stalled the Axis for certain that I can focus on making "super-inf".

I don't play as much allies, but when I do I almost always go non-stop on infantry. the only time I wouldn't is if I planned an a-bomb victory and went non-stop strat bomber research (that takes a lot of effort). the nice thing about getting super-infantry is that once you've hit your mark of 8/8 or 9/9 then you can devote the rest of production to supplies and infantry up to the pop limit. after amassing even ten 9/9 infantry there isn't much that can stand in its way in 1943.

even as germans I have taken to destroying my infantry down to around 20, then max research. this will give 9/9 in winter43

[a511]

good pt Forwan. in fact, i will say yes to any suggestions that serve to delay (or even better, eliminate) super infantry ...

its esp true if u are playing the GER and in Sp45 u found 35+ WA 9-10 super infantry supported by 35+ WA 8-9 (w/ land attack at 5) waiting on the Isles ...

AN

[Avatar47]

How about a simple house rule to limit Inf to no more than 8/8? Tanks to 10/10, etc? Or at least make it incredibly incredibly costly to attain higher limits than that. The game is actually not so imbalanced. What imbalances it is that you humans (i'm an alien) are constantly looking for the 'cheapest' way to victory. Just hearing that altoledo sends German Inf to the depths of hell so that he can get 9/9 inf by Win43 makes my blood curdle . Seriously, if people just learned not to be SO cheap, the game would be a lot more enjoyable.

[Daykeras]

Eh... we just need to solve the whole vaccum effect. Once we get that solution coded in everything else will be fixed.

[aletoledo]

Just hearing that altoledo sends German Inf to the depths of hell so that he can get 9/9 inf by Win43 makes my blood curdle . Seriously, if people just learned not to be SO cheap, the game would be a lot more enjoyable.

you haven't been playing a lot of the better players.

the game is easy to play as axis when the allies send small groups of non-upgraded units against your prepared defenses. it makes it feel and seem a lot like ww2 when this happnes and it really plays out nicely, especially when combined arms are thrown in also. the problem is that it doesn't win games in that fashion.

the way that it mostly plays out is that the allied player focuses his forces onto a single region, which is lightly defended and uses the counter to whatever defense you have. when this happens the german empire starts to collapse and it takes everything the german player can do to stop it from happening too fast.

the japanese end game is even worse. within 2 or maybe three turns the japanese home islands are surrounded and its tough for the japanese to even mantaian a connection to the mainland for its supplies. any fleets used to try and take control of the southern resources must be immediately drawn back to japan in 1943 to defend while it can.

the only way I've found to win as axis is to fight fire with fire. the allies need to assemble troops to fight 8/8 infantry or 10/10 tanks in the open. if these units are in a fortified region, they'll need to be bypassed and have there supplies/retreat cut to be defeated. perhaps this is how modern warfare is fought more than how ww2 was fought, but its how to win a game as axis.

[Daykeras]

I'm all for a turtling Germany and an agressive Japan. I find the mix tends to work well. If Japan can take most of Russia while Germany is still in it's offensive stage then Japan can build up the needed research and troops for the assault. Then Japan has what it needs to keep it's life lines open while Germany holes up with advanced artillery and flak.

It's a bit more complicated and harder to play, but the reversed roles sometimes pays off very well.

[a511]

Just hearing that altoledo sends German Inf to the depths of hell so that he can get 9/9 inf by Win43 makes my blood curdle . Seriously, if people just learned not to be SO cheap, the game would be a lot more enjoyable.

the only way I've found to win as axis is to fight fire with fire.

i dont want to comment whether the strategy is cheap or not, but i think the effect of WA super units is affecting many players.

i did introduce the idea of tech cap for certain units (esp. infantry and fhts) in another thread, but the idea was not that well received. just as altoledo's idea of killing GER infantry to speed-up the research of 9/9 GER infantry. but in any event, altoledo and i are feeling the same pain ...

hse rule on capping certain units could be a soln but im sure some ppl will disagree.
in fact, im playing a 2v2 using Lebatron's mod v2.1 (with changes in WA and RUS multiplers) to see whether its a soln as well ... but im sure some ppl will disagree as well (esp Gary).

AN

[Forwarn45]

I think some people agree there's a bit of a problem. I have proposed this very modest change because I think there is some chance of it happening in an official manner (and in mods) with enough support. I think there are a lot of other good ideas that have been put forth about tech in various threads but I don't think there will be any major code changes at this point. I don't know if I like a cap per se, but it might make a good house rule. But 9-9 infantry and 10-10 tanks don't feel too wrong as long as they happen late enough in the game. I don't think the cost of tech is too out of whack - it's more of the research time aspect in cases of few units and important tech advances, like infantry evasion. If research took longer for high infantry evasion, the midgame (1942-1943) would feel more correct to me.

[Forwarn45]

One little note on the scrapping infantry idea for the Axis. I think only aletoledo has indicated he does this. I would recommend any new players be very careful with experimenting in this direction as they may find themselves in a prematurly bad situation with the WA running amock in Europe and the Germans lacking the troops to do much about it.

[a511]

I don't think the cost of tech is too out of whack - it's more of the research time aspect in cases of few units and important tech advances, like infantry evasion. If research took longer for high infantry evasion, the midgame (1942-1943) would feel more correct to me.

agree that research time is actually the heart of the problem.
there was a thread a couple of mths ago stating that the while the research cost is higher for tech over WS, the research time is the same (or iirc, enough less for certain scenario) dut to the research pt u can spend for each turn also increase. of course, it assumes that the world power got the PP to spend but we all know that WA does.

it will be nice to see a slight decrease in the max research pt to spend in one tech per turn for research over WS to slow things down a bit, say a max of 6 to 5 for, iirc, 2 lvl over WS, and a max of 9 to 7 for 3 lvl over WS ... but w/o the game in front of me now, im not sure whether this change will make it impossible for the WA to develop the A-bomb.

one side-note on A-bomb, i understand its probably the best way to simulate the research effort paid, but i still cant see the relationship btw HB land attack with A-bomb unless u think some kind of lesser A-bombs were used (apart from the two dropped in JP) as conventional weapon to wipe out armor and infantry units.

in fact, the way how bombers damaged or even destoryed land units is a bit unrealistic, esp in such a unit scale. i agree that tactical bombing helps, but its more likely to damage the supply lines, communication facilities and to wear down units so as to make the army's job easier. as such, imo its better to make airforce's presence an additional way to lower enemy's Att and/or Ev, instead of scoring hits as it is in the game.

AN