Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

[Paul Vebber]

I think to reproduce what this thread is really about: make a game, agree that the axis can't attack the russians until 1943 and see what happens.

I would agree with that - and it backs up my argument that the "meat" of the game (and the real war in historical terms) is what the Axis side does between mid 41 (whenever the Germans invade) and the end of 43 when the WA are in in force and an unneutralized SU begins to turn the tide.

IF teh Germans have damamged the economies and logisitics networks of teh THe SU and WA by the end of 43, then they will be able to hold out the last 12 turns and get the draw, if not minor victory.

If the SU and WA's economies and logisitics netorks can be brought to bear in 44, then it is doubtful that axis will live through 45. If teh Allies have enough 'excess capcity' to get the bomb, they will win an auto victory, bombing the Axis economies into dust.

A lot can happen to send the game pro-axis or pro-allied in hose 9-11 key turns between Sp-Fa 41 and the end of 43.

"Killer strategies" that basically assume the Allies win that mid-game, are "mopping up" strategies that can typically be drailed if the axis can "win" in the mid game.

[Scott_WAR]

The techs in question start to show up in late 41, meaning the axis have to deal with them then, meaning they have less resources to hurt the allies with. If the WA starts pushing at germany in the med, and on the fench coast, Germany cant afford to mess with russia, they have to defend themselves. I think you have both played the allies more, and just dont appreciate how not having an excess of resouces constricts what you want to do.

I wish I could buy 15 units per turn, research 15 beakers, and buy the supplies I need, but the axis just cant do it. If I try to keep up in research, I fall behind in units....units I need to hit russia with, ESPECIALL if I hit them early. If I ignore research, and build units, then when I hit russia, my units are so far behind tech wise my units get slaughtered, even when they have a numerical advantage.

Its a lose- lose situation, as you will see.

[Paul Vebber]

Well, the guy who "invented the strategy" appears to disagree. If he won't put it to the test and you won't put it to the test, then is it real, or just one of those things that "when it works...works, but its REALLY hard to get it to work..."

The story of my wargame life...perfect strategies, that are undefeatable if I can get them to work...its just I can never seem to get them to work...[:'(]

[aletoledo]

I have a couple games as Axis finally starting today! I'll put up an AAR on my progress against the tech laden allies!

I'm not saying that the allies won't out-tech the axis, I'm saying that the axis can still win despite this.

[Scott_WAR]

He thinks that you are going to attack Russia early, and isnt sure he can handle it. Having attacked Russia early in a few games, and seeing the result, I know he can handle it.


Also, he doent say he isnt willing to test it, he stated he doesnt think its as bad as I say and doesnt think it will do any good.. Of course he hasnt played as the axis yet either..............


So, We will be waiting to hear what happens in the game.

If you two just refuse to play each other, dont worry, I am going to play a little as the allies, just to get a feel for them, then I will play you Paul. One word of warning, its going to be simple supply. The games I have played with advanced supply seem to only be a headache. There is nothing I can do with simple supply that I cant manage to do somehow with advanced supply, its just more of a headache and a waste of time to me.


Which brings another question,... which side does advanced supply benefit more, if it benefits either at all??

[Uncle_Joe]

ORIGINAL: sveint

In my PBeM games research seems to work very well. If I or my opponent don't watch each other's research or "forget" to research a necessary technology, it will hurt.

To me this post falls into the category of Axis-wannabewroldconquerors yelling...

Partisans are too much, I cannot conquer the world!
Russian tanks are too much, I cannot conquer the world!
Allied heavy bombersare too much, I cannot conquer the world!

Like Pail Vebber showed in his example, there is always a counter. You just have to find it.

You know, crap like this just really pushes my buttons. Why dont you try READING THE INFO PRESENTED rather than making snippish comments. I dont care a whit for 'conquering the world as the Axis' and I'm not 'whining' because I cant do so. I see the same problem when I play as the Allies...Its far more profitable to research and then use a very limited selection of units that to go with a more combined arms approach.

And THAT is the essence of the post that now has been lost in all of gibberings about whether either side can win. The issue has never been that for me. Why cant you accept that there ARE people out there who are interested in bettering the game and can discuss merits of doing so without considering their win/loss ratio....[8|]

So, back to the original point that I havent seen truly addressed so far:

What is the incentive to continue to use combined arms in the presence of specialized (teched up) units. I just dont see the money in doing so. Are you really going to try and use 7-7 Infantry and 8-6 Arty to counter 9-9 Tanks? That is where the World Standards are going to lead you to (and that is discounting the fact that since Infantry/Arty are cheaper to build and need to be used in larger numbers, the research cost will be even higher still). So which are you going to do? Try and run uphill researching Infantry AND Arty to a level which can hurt the tanks and go bankrupt doing so, OR research tanks of your own that can compete?

And once you do so, what is your incentive to build those inferior Infantry/Arty for anything but garrison duty? Answer....nothing. So, you end up cranking out more and more tanks because they are simply better. They cost more, but they will still win against opposing inferior units that outnumber them (you might 'lose' a battle or two by not having the 2/1 advantage, but your opponent will suffer FAR heavier losses). Better but more expensive units are also a LOT easier on the limited resource of Population.

So the point comes where its plain to see that you will eventually stop using units other than what you have researched up higher. Tac Air cant hurt those tanks, so why bother with them? Arty and Infantry don't fare much better unless you make a HUGE investment in research to allow them to compete. But why do so when you can just use the superior tanks of your own?

The same situation applies in the air war, but to a lesser extent because there are less unit types involved. But trying to research Flak AND Fighters is a far more expensive proposition than one or the other to counter opposing air. And again, I see little incentive to do so when one 'better' unit will do the job whereas the two lesser units will get mauled (or be ineffective).

The naval war doesnt seem to have the same problem because the entire class of torpedoes ignores armor and defense rating of ships in general are low compared to attack. But even there, a rank of AA or Aircraft evasion here or there means the difference between totally ineffective AA or AA that slaughters aircraft so efficiently that it makes Aegis cruisers jealous! [;)]

So, as you can see, its not about EITHER SIDE being 'better'. I would just like to see what incentives there are to try and balance research rather than specialize? The payoff for specialization is obvious...if you do it, and your opponent doesnt follow suit in some way, they are hosed. So, if there isnt nearly equal benefit to broad research (and at the moment, I dont see any), then the COST for specialization needs to match the benefit. Otherwise, what results will remove any semblance of historical strategy/tactics and becomes a race to out-tech rather than out-produce or out-maneuver.

[CommC]

If you're being attacked with US bombers of any tech, it already means your Axis strategy is flawed. You should win (auto-victory) as Axis within 2 turns of the US entering the war, by then it doesn't matter what they do, they can't materially impact your victory.

Attack Russia in mid to late 41, attack simultaneously with Japan, avoid attacking the US regions (southeast pacific) until Winter 42, to keep the US out as long as possible. Go right for the Caucasus to get the resources. Forget Moscow or Leningrad. I would also avoid getting bogged down in China as Japan.

I've yet to see an effective Allied counter to this Axis strategy. If anything, I think the game may be a little unbalanced in favor of the Axis. Of course, if you blow it, anything is possible.

[Uncle_Joe]

CommC:

True or not, that does not materially impact whether research produces screwy results. I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense, but Axis vs Allied balance is not what I'm questioning...its upgraded units vs cost of developing upgraded units vs trying to make due with swarms of 'lesser' units that I see a problem with.

[ratprince]

the fact that the WA can do approximatley TWICE as much research as the axis, and STILL keep churning out supplies and units. It doesnt take long before the axis can not even scratch the majority of the allies units.

Scott;

And thus the historic outcome.....the Axis lose. This game is about the "level" of that loss. If you are sitting in your bunker in Berlin in 1946, still fighting - well, you did well, better than historical. If you are still in the steppes of Russia in 1945, bravo! If you are astride a panzer on Pennsylvania avenue in 1942.....well....you're a strategic god.....

The point is that the allies won. period. If that does not happen, then the axis player is brilliant! If it does, but not as soon - you're good. If Germany falls in '40, well.....'nuff said.

Later

Mike

[CommC]

Uncle Joe,
I agree with you about the research issue. I put together a stack of 10 to 12, 8/8 German tanks in late 41/early 42 and went on a rampage through Russia. This stack was unstoppable, and the tanks took few losses. Russia had no unit with enough tech to stop it. Combined arms weren't necessary, the tanks by themselves could cut through anything.

This was against the AI, a good human player would probably be able to research his own tanks to counter this. So although I agree that this is an ahistorical quirk, it may be too soon to tell what effect this may ultimately have on play balance.

[Scott_WAR]

Ok, I understand. The thing I just cant get a grip on is the axis is supposed to lose. The way for the axis to "win" is to not lose completely. To not lose too badly. Then they get a "win"

I think that alone will prevent some people from playing. The person that plays the axis is going to get whipped the last few years of the war, and I just dont see that as "fun", even if I "win" because i prevented Berlin from falling.

[Uncle_Joe]

Scott_WAR:

Well, I think that was a design decision made early on and I dont think it will change for the 'standard' game. I expect you'll probably see a number of ahistorically based Scenarios being developed by folks that want to see a more balanced game where each side has a chance of actual military victory rather than a victory via score or whatnot.

I think that is fine too. I, for one, prefer the more historical outlay, because I like to see what I can do with the same positions as were recorded in history (which I love to read/watch). If too much tinkering is done with it, then it ceases to become history.

What I'm concerned about is that the game's research model seem to thoroughly encourage and reward creation of advanced units at the expense of researching multiple units. This isnt a good thing in a historical OR ahistorical game IMO. In historical games, it just out of place. The Allies did NOT win with overwhelming technical advantages. In ahistorical games, it still isnt good because it still encourages 'single unit' armies or at least heavily weighted armies. I, personally, dont find that anywhere near as satisfying as striving to maintain a good balance between the types of units.

CommC:

Yep, that is my contention. Lesser numbers of more advanced units will usually trounce quantities of inferior tech'ed units and thus are more efficient on multiple levels. So, it discourages historical tactics and becomes a war of balance between production/research rather than production/research/unit employment. Its not completely that cut and dried of course, but the trend is there...get one unit type cranked and then mass produce it. It feels wrong and isn't as much funs as trying to balance all the unit types.

[Scott_WAR]

YEah, I agree Uncle, thats what I want, a balanced scenario.

As for the unit balance/combined arms thing. I agree also. I see russian players researching artillery and tanks and nothing else.
I see WA players researching bombers only.

[IDrinkBeer]

I think that alone will prevent some people from playing. The person that plays the axis is going to get whipped the last few years of the war, and I just dont see that as "fun", even if I "win" because i prevented Berlin from falling.

Yes, that is true but the Axis get to do the whipping in the beginning of the war!!!

If Matrix attempted to balance the game so each side would be equally balanced from start to finish it wouldn't be a game about WWII.


Also, In one of your previous posts you mentioned that you wanted to play with Simple Suppy. Were you playing with simple supply when you got crushed as the Axis? Simple Supply definitely favors the Allies. Lend Lease is a piece of cake. It also helps Japan some but no where near the amount it helps the WA.

[Scott_WAR]

Thanks Beer. The supply question, I kinda figured it helped the WA a good bit.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, simple supply kind of makes most of the Battle for the Atlantic not really as important. The Advanced Supply rules make it so that Britain MUST maintain that lifeline early one or else her units cant fight. Either that or Britain can produce supply, but then she isnt building much of anything else and can quickly fall.

No, the game really isnt set up for simple supply IMO. Too many of the 'balancing' mechanism are contingient on the need for those transports to keep the wheels moving. Remove that and you remove the WAllies chief vulnerability...and are left with a researching super machine which cant realisitically be impacted.

[Scott_WAR]

Well there you go. Thats part of the problem then. I guess I just have to use advanced supply. Thanx.

[MrQuiet]

Uncle Joe I think you have a very valid arguement. Personaly I think it all revolves around the 'evasion teck'. If one percieves any unit as 'unkillable' then that is the unit you are going to produce in hordes.

If evasion was capped at some point then at least the counter units could teck there offensive capabilty to damage the hordes.

-MrQuiet

[Paul Vebber]

Scott - IF you argument revolves around playing with simple supply then indeed that is 90% of the problem...THe whole issue with having to supply the WA via transports is thrown out!

In simple supply my experience playing hot seeat is that the germans need a MINIMUM of 25 "free supply" to balance out the fact the Allies only have to move UNITs and not SUPPLY around via transports.

[Uncle_Joe]

Paul:

I have been experimenting in solo games (playing all sides) with the following tweaks and have been getting great results:

Changes to World Standards:

1) Lower Armor Evasion and Ground Attack by 1

2) Lower Battleship AA by 1

This prevents the Tanks from hitting the near unkillable range early in the game (which is what renders the other forces more or less obsolete). By late war, its possible to have 10-9 or 9-10 tanks, but that is as it should be. The investment is tougher to make knowing you have to wait longer to see the pay off. With the current 8-8 World Standard for Tanks, the payoff comes too quickly and the 'counter' research in other arms is far too costly to be profitable compared with just researching tanks yourself.

Lowering Battleship AA by 1 means that they dont become 'self-escorting' by late '41 or early '42. I think a case could be made to lower their starting AA by 1 instead of changing the World Standard, but the change to WS has worked out fine as long as both Japan and the Allies research CAG Evasion once before commiting.

I am toying with raising Tac Air Ground Attack World Standard by one. Currently, I see little use for these units. Heavy Bombers can do the same work and have longer starting range. There isnt much benefit from redundant research in both, so I havent seen much reason to develop up the Tac Air (which often cant hit higher tech armor anyways). By upping the WS by 1, it becomes easier to keep these units up with the land based evasions. They are still EXTREMELY vulnerable to Fighter cover, so I dont see them getting out of hand (they are more vulnerable than Heavies IMO due to the lack of 'armor).

I am also looking at raising the World Standard for Flak AA by one. This would make them a possible complimentary research to Fighters. Currently, its just too costly to reseach both, so this one suffers. Increasing the WS by one will allow for cheaper 'co-habitation' with Fighter research. Also, since lowering the WS on Armor will benefit the WAllies who are using less armor for most of the game and thus can afford to pay the premium easier, I think the a minor change to Flak might help keep them on an even kiel. My only hesitation against increasing the WS of Flak AA is that it might encourage people to build them INSTEAD of Fighters. I'm not sure I would want to do so, but the possibility would certainly exist. Flak takes the same build time and is not vulnerable to Air Field attacks. If you 'pad' them with some Militia or Infantry, they dont go down anywhere near as often as Fighters do...This would be something to watch.

Anyways, I just wanted to fire this out there for some food for thought and testing. I dont think the research system per se is flawed, but what you can do with certain units within the current system is where the problems might lie. I dont think that anyone can argue that Tanks aren't clearly the way to focus your land research at this point. They are just more efficient across the board in every way even including the cost of building them AND transporting them (1 upgraded tanks does more than the job of two other units IMO). By tweaking them a tad, balance is restored and combined arms once again reigns supreme.

Thanx for reading and please let me know if you do give this a try.