Those are good Ideas Uncle Joe.
I'm hoping folks will post more game results to the thread I started in the AAR section. It sounds like you modded the scen files? Please post them in a zip file and I'll give them a sticky so folks can try them out.
Part of the beuty of the game design is that so much can be done to tweak the game to better meet indivividual play styles and historical opinions.
If after 25 or 30 game results get posted, it appears that tweaks along the lines you suggest might improve things, I'm sure the 2by3 guys will consider making mods to the "official scenario" in the mean time there is PLENTY of room for alternative scens to be tweaked and shared!
a couple hnadfuls of playtesters can only play so many games. The base of gamers ut there with the game now can play more games in a month than the tersters can the rest of their lives [:'(]
So If we can sample a portion of those, and continue to have constructive discussions like this, the game can only improve!
Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
ORIGINAL: 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
I think this is too much. Taking down the ground attack of armor reduces on their strength, namely to attack in force at a weak point in the enemy lines. As a start, i think taking down evasion by 1 would do.
2) Lower Battleship AA by 1
This i agree with
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).
If we manage to make artillery an atractive unit (by reducing the evasion of armor), tacs will again become attractive. I dont really like the idea of bomber killing off land units though (except artillery). Getting in that first hit, reducing their evasion, should be more than enough.
I do agree, though, that heavy bombers are too attractive compared to tacs for the western allies. As stated earlier, i think the heavy bombers toughness should be 3 for all powers. This would make tac bombers relatively more durable (like they already are for the axis).
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.
I dont think it is neccessary to increase world standard for flak, as long as the toughness for heavy bombers is decreased. Flak is already a good defence unit in situation where you cannot have air supremacy through fighters. Making flak too powerfull is dangerous because of their first shot capability. (If you have enough of them, no air would get through.)
Summary of my suggestions:
1. Decrease evasion of armor by 1
2. Decrease BB air attack by 1
3. Decrease toughness of heavy bombers to 3 (for those that have 4).
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
hakon,
Some good input there.
On Tanks:
Yes, its possible that only the Evasion needs to come down by one. I was erring on the side of a heavier reduction because right now, I see little reason to build much else for actual ground combat. Arty is far too vulnerable and often dies in droves. Arty also has a hard time killing Tanks. Even if they have a high enough attack, minimal airpower will soak off the Arty before it can effectively engage enemy armor. I just dont see why one unit (armor) needs to have the best offense, defense, and mobility in a game at this scale. Lowering both ratings gives other units a chance to shine. I will test my next game with 7-8 Tank WS and see what happens.
On Tac Air:
Well, I believe large portion of the vehicles killed by the WAllies in WW2 was by airpower. I think this should be reflected in the late war, but unfortunately in the game, by late war, Tac Air is not able to keep up with opposing defenses. Remember that building Tac Air has an opportunity cost. Why build them to hunt down Arty or just get the first hit when instead, you could have units that WILL hit the enemy, not just make it easier for another unit to hit. They have to be effective enough to want to build them INSTEAD of a given ground unit in certain situations as that is the choice you have to make. Unanswered tactical airpower should be unpleasant. It was historically (Germany in 39-40, Allies in 44-45) and is countered by having air assets of your own.
On Heavy Bombers:
Heavy Bombers seem to pull double duty because they are equally effective at killing units, infrastructure, and planes on the ground. They also have longer range and are generally more survivable. It makes the role of Tac Air very limited IMO.
I think the Durability of bombers is probably OK in the early game. They do take losses and they are expensive to build/rebuild. Its once they get a few levels of Evasion that the math combines to make them so hard to take down. On top of that, they can do the tactical jobs of wiping out coastal defenses and/or air power.
My original suggestion was to lower the WS for Heavy Bomber's Ground attack by 1. Since Infrastructure cant increase in Evasion, their 'primary target' will still alway be vulnerable. Allowing Heavy Bombers to crank their Ground Attack means that they become land unit killing machines that they never were historically (which is also what usurps the Tac Air's role). Unfortunately, as Paul pointed out, tinkering with this means that A-Bomb will be nigh impossible to attain.
So, I feel that lowering the WS for Bomber Evasion might do the trick instead. They will still have a chance of survival in the early/mid game (if properly escorted), but developing 'self escorting' bombers will be considerably more costly.
At any rate, thanks for the input. Let me know if you test any of this and what your results are.
Some good input there.
On Tanks:
Yes, its possible that only the Evasion needs to come down by one. I was erring on the side of a heavier reduction because right now, I see little reason to build much else for actual ground combat. Arty is far too vulnerable and often dies in droves. Arty also has a hard time killing Tanks. Even if they have a high enough attack, minimal airpower will soak off the Arty before it can effectively engage enemy armor. I just dont see why one unit (armor) needs to have the best offense, defense, and mobility in a game at this scale. Lowering both ratings gives other units a chance to shine. I will test my next game with 7-8 Tank WS and see what happens.
On Tac Air:
Well, I believe large portion of the vehicles killed by the WAllies in WW2 was by airpower. I think this should be reflected in the late war, but unfortunately in the game, by late war, Tac Air is not able to keep up with opposing defenses. Remember that building Tac Air has an opportunity cost. Why build them to hunt down Arty or just get the first hit when instead, you could have units that WILL hit the enemy, not just make it easier for another unit to hit. They have to be effective enough to want to build them INSTEAD of a given ground unit in certain situations as that is the choice you have to make. Unanswered tactical airpower should be unpleasant. It was historically (Germany in 39-40, Allies in 44-45) and is countered by having air assets of your own.
On Heavy Bombers:
Heavy Bombers seem to pull double duty because they are equally effective at killing units, infrastructure, and planes on the ground. They also have longer range and are generally more survivable. It makes the role of Tac Air very limited IMO.
I think the Durability of bombers is probably OK in the early game. They do take losses and they are expensive to build/rebuild. Its once they get a few levels of Evasion that the math combines to make them so hard to take down. On top of that, they can do the tactical jobs of wiping out coastal defenses and/or air power.
My original suggestion was to lower the WS for Heavy Bomber's Ground attack by 1. Since Infrastructure cant increase in Evasion, their 'primary target' will still alway be vulnerable. Allowing Heavy Bombers to crank their Ground Attack means that they become land unit killing machines that they never were historically (which is also what usurps the Tac Air's role). Unfortunately, as Paul pointed out, tinkering with this means that A-Bomb will be nigh impossible to attain.
So, I feel that lowering the WS for Bomber Evasion might do the trick instead. They will still have a chance of survival in the early/mid game (if properly escorted), but developing 'self escorting' bombers will be considerably more costly.
At any rate, thanks for the input. Let me know if you test any of this and what your results are.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Hi, joe.
It may well be that taking down armor evasion by 1 is in fact not enough. I havent tested it yet. Taking it down by 1 would make them quite vulnerable to arty (which should be their counter unit, along with tac air). If it isnt enough, my view is that it is better to reduce evasion by 2 levels than reducing attack. Having high attack, lower defence arm keep them usefull when you you are on the offensive, but less so on the defensive (the way the game work where like unit fire at like unit first), and they are still very efficient at flanking manouvres.
Keeping arty alive, is all about using them correctly. Whenever you attack a stack, try to include whatever kind of unit the nemy has in your own stack. In that case, only enemy arty will shoot at your arty, so if you have more arty than him, you will not loose much. Arty is best employed in quite big stacks, where you include some flak unless you have total air supremacy. If you do that, the enemy will be hesitant to send air against them. Otherwise, you should keep some fighters with the arty. Emplying just 1-3 arty in flank forcess is useless, since, as u note, minimal air can take them out. Keeping 15-20 arty in your centre stack, along with about 5 (teched) flak, is very good economy. Btw, note that if your are playing germany, and loosing artillery to russian militia, researching 1 more level of artillery evasion could be a very good idea.
Regarding ground attack on tac air, i agree with you that they should be more effective vs vehicles. On the other hand, they are already more than strong enough vs infantry and artillery, and much too strong vs infrastructure. The problem is that the game does not destinguish between strategic attacks and tactical attacks. Given this limitation, i think it is ok that strategic and tactical bombers have the same land attack. In the current system, it would be more accurate (as stated earlier) to name the unit types long range and short range bombers. Long range bombers have longer range, but lower evasion. For germany and japan, i think this works pretty well. Long range bombers can be very flexible, especially for taking out militia and resources on the flanks, as well as for taking out enemy transports. For the allies it breaks down, though, which is because of the increased toughness.
If you think taking down the toughness to 3 is too harch, remember that they are still better than japanse bombers, which dont have armor. You could consier, though, to up increase evasion by 1. The problem with 4 toughness, is that it increses the efficiency of technology, which is wrong for bomber evasion, imo. Note that decreasing WS does not have such a huge effect. 1 level difference just means that each tech level cost 5 more, but does not take any longer (in fact, i think it could actually be quicker, since you are allowed to spend more production points while researching). From level 4 to 8, that is just 20 more production points, which is not such a big deal. Taking down toughness just means 1 level of evasion when evasion is 4 (4 eva 3 tough = 3eva 4 tough), but at level 11 it means three levels of evasion( 11 eva 3 tough = 33, 8 eva 4 tough = 32).
It may well be that taking down armor evasion by 1 is in fact not enough. I havent tested it yet. Taking it down by 1 would make them quite vulnerable to arty (which should be their counter unit, along with tac air). If it isnt enough, my view is that it is better to reduce evasion by 2 levels than reducing attack. Having high attack, lower defence arm keep them usefull when you you are on the offensive, but less so on the defensive (the way the game work where like unit fire at like unit first), and they are still very efficient at flanking manouvres.
Keeping arty alive, is all about using them correctly. Whenever you attack a stack, try to include whatever kind of unit the nemy has in your own stack. In that case, only enemy arty will shoot at your arty, so if you have more arty than him, you will not loose much. Arty is best employed in quite big stacks, where you include some flak unless you have total air supremacy. If you do that, the enemy will be hesitant to send air against them. Otherwise, you should keep some fighters with the arty. Emplying just 1-3 arty in flank forcess is useless, since, as u note, minimal air can take them out. Keeping 15-20 arty in your centre stack, along with about 5 (teched) flak, is very good economy. Btw, note that if your are playing germany, and loosing artillery to russian militia, researching 1 more level of artillery evasion could be a very good idea.
Regarding ground attack on tac air, i agree with you that they should be more effective vs vehicles. On the other hand, they are already more than strong enough vs infantry and artillery, and much too strong vs infrastructure. The problem is that the game does not destinguish between strategic attacks and tactical attacks. Given this limitation, i think it is ok that strategic and tactical bombers have the same land attack. In the current system, it would be more accurate (as stated earlier) to name the unit types long range and short range bombers. Long range bombers have longer range, but lower evasion. For germany and japan, i think this works pretty well. Long range bombers can be very flexible, especially for taking out militia and resources on the flanks, as well as for taking out enemy transports. For the allies it breaks down, though, which is because of the increased toughness.
If you think taking down the toughness to 3 is too harch, remember that they are still better than japanse bombers, which dont have armor. You could consier, though, to up increase evasion by 1. The problem with 4 toughness, is that it increses the efficiency of technology, which is wrong for bomber evasion, imo. Note that decreasing WS does not have such a huge effect. 1 level difference just means that each tech level cost 5 more, but does not take any longer (in fact, i think it could actually be quicker, since you are allowed to spend more production points while researching). From level 4 to 8, that is just 20 more production points, which is not such a big deal. Taking down toughness just means 1 level of evasion when evasion is 4 (4 eva 3 tough = 3eva 4 tough), but at level 11 it means three levels of evasion( 11 eva 3 tough = 33, 8 eva 4 tough = 32).
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
In addition to everything mentioned so far, perhaps the number of pp needed for each new level of tech could be increased more (instead of the 5 needed for each new level).
Thus, the higher in tech you go, the more pp you will need to pay for it.
Thus, the higher in tech you go, the more pp you will need to pay for it.
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
hakon:
Armor:
That would work too. I would just like to see them reduced somewhere to bring them back into line with the other units. At game start, they feel OK, but they are, by far, the easiest and cheapest unit to upgrade into an independent force. So whether its Evasion by 1 or by 2 or reducing attack and evasion each by 1, I'd just like to see some different research paths be viable other than going for 10-10 tanks. I just currently dont see any reason NOT to go down that path and largely ignore the other arms for ground combat.
Tac Air et al:
Yeah, I agree they are effective enough against Arty and Infantry, so again, the problem is the tanks. Perhaps if they are brought into line, then the need to change Tac Air is alleviated.
Heavy Bombers:
Yes, reducing all Bomber's Durability to 3 would probably correct the problem, but then you'd have to fiddle with more stats to make it seem right. The current stats reflect the differences in design philosophies between the Axis and Allies. Allied Bombers should be harder to bring down, especially as the war moves on. I dont have a big problem with survivable bombers per se, but I think the cost of getting there should be high...very high in fact because of the way Land Attack doubles for strategic and tactical uses.
WS for bomber evasion is already 4. And to get the bombers into the 'unkillable' range means you have to get to around 7. That means you have to research for 2 levels at the increased costs. Essentially, to get to 5 costs 5, then 10 to get to 6 and 15 to get to 7 for a total of 30 points (assuming you dont have any bombers). Is you drop the WS to 3, the cost to get to 5 becomes 10, then 15 to get to 6 and then 20 for level 7 for a total of 45. Thats 50% more cost and it means that you have to delay mass production of them for even longer if you dont want to paying yet more. That makes it much less likely to have the time/resources to get to the unkillable range in most games (at least one where the Axis is putting any pressure at all).
If you reduce the Durability by 1, Allied bombers would have a 12 defense, making them more vulnerable the German bombers (18 defense and no armor is better than 12 with 1 armor). In all honestly, I think the bombers are fine until they hit that target 7 where the cost to get Fighters or Flak to be able to hit them becomes astronomical. But if the WS for Evasion is set to 3, then at least you had to pay an astronomical cost yourself to get there.
Historically, of all the units, bombers should be the one that can eventually be close to unkillable. By war's end, there really wasnt much that the Axis could do to bring down B29 formations. They were just too high, too tough, and too well armed for the war-torn Axis to compete with. The problem in the game is that they are also a heck of a lot more effective at leveling their targets than they were too...But the fact remains that nearly unkillable bombers were a reality, but not until the very end of the war and not without great expense.
Warfare1:
That could work too, but it would require a LOT more testing and rebalancing than simply adjusting a few of the 'offending' units. Essentially, lowering the WS in certain categories IS simply increasing the cost to reach the higher levels. But by doing with WS instead of a blanket increase, we can target the units that need the adjustments and leave the other units alone.
Armor:
That would work too. I would just like to see them reduced somewhere to bring them back into line with the other units. At game start, they feel OK, but they are, by far, the easiest and cheapest unit to upgrade into an independent force. So whether its Evasion by 1 or by 2 or reducing attack and evasion each by 1, I'd just like to see some different research paths be viable other than going for 10-10 tanks. I just currently dont see any reason NOT to go down that path and largely ignore the other arms for ground combat.
Tac Air et al:
Yeah, I agree they are effective enough against Arty and Infantry, so again, the problem is the tanks. Perhaps if they are brought into line, then the need to change Tac Air is alleviated.
Heavy Bombers:
Yes, reducing all Bomber's Durability to 3 would probably correct the problem, but then you'd have to fiddle with more stats to make it seem right. The current stats reflect the differences in design philosophies between the Axis and Allies. Allied Bombers should be harder to bring down, especially as the war moves on. I dont have a big problem with survivable bombers per se, but I think the cost of getting there should be high...very high in fact because of the way Land Attack doubles for strategic and tactical uses.
WS for bomber evasion is already 4. And to get the bombers into the 'unkillable' range means you have to get to around 7. That means you have to research for 2 levels at the increased costs. Essentially, to get to 5 costs 5, then 10 to get to 6 and 15 to get to 7 for a total of 30 points (assuming you dont have any bombers). Is you drop the WS to 3, the cost to get to 5 becomes 10, then 15 to get to 6 and then 20 for level 7 for a total of 45. Thats 50% more cost and it means that you have to delay mass production of them for even longer if you dont want to paying yet more. That makes it much less likely to have the time/resources to get to the unkillable range in most games (at least one where the Axis is putting any pressure at all).
If you reduce the Durability by 1, Allied bombers would have a 12 defense, making them more vulnerable the German bombers (18 defense and no armor is better than 12 with 1 armor). In all honestly, I think the bombers are fine until they hit that target 7 where the cost to get Fighters or Flak to be able to hit them becomes astronomical. But if the WS for Evasion is set to 3, then at least you had to pay an astronomical cost yourself to get there.
Historically, of all the units, bombers should be the one that can eventually be close to unkillable. By war's end, there really wasnt much that the Axis could do to bring down B29 formations. They were just too high, too tough, and too well armed for the war-torn Axis to compete with. The problem in the game is that they are also a heck of a lot more effective at leveling their targets than they were too...But the fact remains that nearly unkillable bombers were a reality, but not until the very end of the war and not without great expense.
Warfare1:
That could work too, but it would require a LOT more testing and rebalancing than simply adjusting a few of the 'offending' units. Essentially, lowering the WS in certain categories IS simply increasing the cost to reach the higher levels. But by doing with WS instead of a blanket increase, we can target the units that need the adjustments and leave the other units alone.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Joe
Bombers
I think our understanding of what is correct historically diverges when it comes to bombers.
Early war, the allies (england) relied on the lancaster class heavy bomber. My expericen (based on other other wargames, admittedly), is that these are not durable at all, compared to (say) Junker 88s. (Germany didnt have any real heavy bombers, which is why i interpret their 3-range heavies as Ju88s.) Toughness 3 evasion 4 with 1 armor should make the Lancasters pretty unkillable by anything but fighters and flak.
When the flying fortresses were enternig the ware, they were designed to be so heavily armed and armored, that they would net need escorts. We all know what kind of casualty rates these suffered. German fighters, armed with 20mm and 30mm cannons, as well and later, rockets, would have no troubel penetrating the armor, and while flying high will give good protection vs flak, enemy fighters will still get to you.
Imo, the low casualty rates of the allies late in the war, is due mostly to their fighter's ability to maintain air supremacy, and the allies (in the game) should have to bring along fighters (that would have to have range of 3) if they want to bomb western germany.
If it disturbs you that bombers take too high casualties from flak, it is possible to decrease air attack for flak by 1 (and increase evasion by 1-2 to compensate).
The tech system in general
In order for the tech system to support a combined arms approach, it is important that every unit's counter unit is still effective against the unit, even if the unit has a 1 level tech lead (with respect to world standard). They dont have to be superior in this case, but should be able to hold their own. This means:
Figthers at world standard attack should be effective against bombers 1 level above world standard. (They are not)
Artillery at world standard attack should be effective against armor with evasion 1 level above world standard. (They are not)
Bombers at world standard attack should be effective vs artillery with 1 level above world standard evasion, etc, etc.
I would be willing to make an excpetion when it comes to asw weapons, as subs were very hard to counter historically. CV-planes could perhaps get another ASW-factor. Basically you dont really want to force germany to use mixed unit types in the battle for the atlantic.
If this general rule is followed, taking one unit type way ahead in tech will just make the enemy start to tech up and produce the counter unit to that unit, and the initial techer will loose that race. This will cause both sides to tech up more broadly.
Bombers
I think our understanding of what is correct historically diverges when it comes to bombers.
Early war, the allies (england) relied on the lancaster class heavy bomber. My expericen (based on other other wargames, admittedly), is that these are not durable at all, compared to (say) Junker 88s. (Germany didnt have any real heavy bombers, which is why i interpret their 3-range heavies as Ju88s.) Toughness 3 evasion 4 with 1 armor should make the Lancasters pretty unkillable by anything but fighters and flak.
When the flying fortresses were enternig the ware, they were designed to be so heavily armed and armored, that they would net need escorts. We all know what kind of casualty rates these suffered. German fighters, armed with 20mm and 30mm cannons, as well and later, rockets, would have no troubel penetrating the armor, and while flying high will give good protection vs flak, enemy fighters will still get to you.
Imo, the low casualty rates of the allies late in the war, is due mostly to their fighter's ability to maintain air supremacy, and the allies (in the game) should have to bring along fighters (that would have to have range of 3) if they want to bomb western germany.
If it disturbs you that bombers take too high casualties from flak, it is possible to decrease air attack for flak by 1 (and increase evasion by 1-2 to compensate).
The tech system in general
In order for the tech system to support a combined arms approach, it is important that every unit's counter unit is still effective against the unit, even if the unit has a 1 level tech lead (with respect to world standard). They dont have to be superior in this case, but should be able to hold their own. This means:
Figthers at world standard attack should be effective against bombers 1 level above world standard. (They are not)
Artillery at world standard attack should be effective against armor with evasion 1 level above world standard. (They are not)
Bombers at world standard attack should be effective vs artillery with 1 level above world standard evasion, etc, etc.
I would be willing to make an excpetion when it comes to asw weapons, as subs were very hard to counter historically. CV-planes could perhaps get another ASW-factor. Basically you dont really want to force germany to use mixed unit types in the battle for the atlantic.
If this general rule is followed, taking one unit type way ahead in tech will just make the enemy start to tech up and produce the counter unit to that unit, and the initial techer will loose that race. This will cause both sides to tech up more broadly.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
While what you are proposing might work, it would be a complete redesign of the unit mix and I dont that it something that is going to happen at the stage. It also assumes that they are looking for a 'rock, paper, scissors' counter system like many RTS games have, and again, I dont think that is the case.
I dont believe units should necessarily have a 'counter-unit' as much as each unit should have a role to play. I think the current system does a pretty good job of that until the costs of research are factored in at the higher end. From there, it become fairly easy to deduce where the problems are.
So far, as I've played more and more in single player (but playing all sides to experient and not abuse the AI) and in multi-player, I'm becoming convinced that the only real screws are the Tanks and Battleship AA. Both of these are far too cheap to research for the benefits that they provide. Tanks in particular tend to obsolete nearly every other ground unit by '44 (at least in my experience). In my current MP game, neither of us has put a ground unit in the queue other than Tanks or the occasionaly garrision Infantry in almost a year (we are in Fall '43). Tanks are at 10-9 each with both sides still going higher. For the Germans, Population is the bottleneck (replacing Uboats and Fighters takes up a lot). So, each point has to be made to count. What better way than with the best unit available to either side? Tanks... They are good in combat, rarely die (so the need to be replaced is less), and they are the most efficient use of population.
I just dont see ANY downsides at all to embracing the tank strategy whole-heartedly. They are the most efficient in terms of cost, research, supply, population...you name it. They REALLY need to be toned down a bit in terms of their long-term potential. REALLY.
On the Aircraft front, I dont think much need to change at all. At least not without adding a new stat of 'infrastructure attack' or something. That way Heavies could not pull double duty they way they do now. It also doesnt cost any more to give them ASW as it does any other plane, so it makes sense to have them get the 2nd die too. When that happens, its pretty much over for Germany's Uboat campaign as Patrols of Bombers outside of the sub bases keeps them from leaving and any that are out are hammered to death by the numerous bombers.
But since the addition of another stat isnt likely to happen, I think the best way to reign in the heavies is to either make them more vulnerable (as you mentioned) or else make them more expensive to research up. The trouble with making them more vulnerable is that then massing Flak kills them off much better than Fighters (which can be counter-air'ed). Reducing Flak efficiency is opening up a larger can of worms that can impact the Russian Front and the Pacific as well. It might work out fine as well, but would require a lot more in-depth balance testing than simply making bombers less cost effective to 'over'-research.
I dont believe units should necessarily have a 'counter-unit' as much as each unit should have a role to play. I think the current system does a pretty good job of that until the costs of research are factored in at the higher end. From there, it become fairly easy to deduce where the problems are.
So far, as I've played more and more in single player (but playing all sides to experient and not abuse the AI) and in multi-player, I'm becoming convinced that the only real screws are the Tanks and Battleship AA. Both of these are far too cheap to research for the benefits that they provide. Tanks in particular tend to obsolete nearly every other ground unit by '44 (at least in my experience). In my current MP game, neither of us has put a ground unit in the queue other than Tanks or the occasionaly garrision Infantry in almost a year (we are in Fall '43). Tanks are at 10-9 each with both sides still going higher. For the Germans, Population is the bottleneck (replacing Uboats and Fighters takes up a lot). So, each point has to be made to count. What better way than with the best unit available to either side? Tanks... They are good in combat, rarely die (so the need to be replaced is less), and they are the most efficient use of population.
I just dont see ANY downsides at all to embracing the tank strategy whole-heartedly. They are the most efficient in terms of cost, research, supply, population...you name it. They REALLY need to be toned down a bit in terms of their long-term potential. REALLY.
On the Aircraft front, I dont think much need to change at all. At least not without adding a new stat of 'infrastructure attack' or something. That way Heavies could not pull double duty they way they do now. It also doesnt cost any more to give them ASW as it does any other plane, so it makes sense to have them get the 2nd die too. When that happens, its pretty much over for Germany's Uboat campaign as Patrols of Bombers outside of the sub bases keeps them from leaving and any that are out are hammered to death by the numerous bombers.
But since the addition of another stat isnt likely to happen, I think the best way to reign in the heavies is to either make them more vulnerable (as you mentioned) or else make them more expensive to research up. The trouble with making them more vulnerable is that then massing Flak kills them off much better than Fighters (which can be counter-air'ed). Reducing Flak efficiency is opening up a larger can of worms that can impact the Russian Front and the Pacific as well. It might work out fine as well, but would require a lot more in-depth balance testing than simply making bombers less cost effective to 'over'-research.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
It seems to me that whether we are talking about bombers or tanks or battleships, the only problem is with units that are unkillable. There is no real balance problem with units that score a kill almost every time they fire.
I can see a number of ways to adjust this.
1.) lower the WS on evasion for several unit types.
2.) change the way that evasion above WS factors into combat. Instead of another level of evasion giving you (1-6)xdurability. Would it not work better if evasion just gave a flat bonus of 2xdurability. This would allow fighters to keep up with bombers or other ground units to have a chance to kill tanks.
The big drawback here, is that it would take a rewrite of the combat engine rather than just a simple mod to stats.
3.) alternately, you could just double the cost of researching evasion. This would give similar results to lowering the WS on evasion and would again have the downside of requiring a patch rather than just a mod.
4.) as someone pointed out a few pages back, make it so the -1 for a unit having already been fired at is cumulative withing a given battle. If numerical superiority can result in super units getting -2 or -3, enough of the super units will die to give quantity a chance vs quality.
I can see a number of ways to adjust this.
1.) lower the WS on evasion for several unit types.
2.) change the way that evasion above WS factors into combat. Instead of another level of evasion giving you (1-6)xdurability. Would it not work better if evasion just gave a flat bonus of 2xdurability. This would allow fighters to keep up with bombers or other ground units to have a chance to kill tanks.
The big drawback here, is that it would take a rewrite of the combat engine rather than just a simple mod to stats.
3.) alternately, you could just double the cost of researching evasion. This would give similar results to lowering the WS on evasion and would again have the downside of requiring a patch rather than just a mod.
4.) as someone pointed out a few pages back, make it so the -1 for a unit having already been fired at is cumulative withing a given battle. If numerical superiority can result in super units getting -2 or -3, enough of the super units will die to give quantity a chance vs quality.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
It's too bad that the game doesnt distinguish between hard and soft attack, or tactical vs strategic strikes. The addition of morale could also have helped with some of these problems. Before I continue, i must say the developers are definately on the right track with the game: I can't recall a game whose results so consistently resemble the outcomes of the real conflict. Given how abstractly the game is handled, this accomplishment is even more remarkable. The problem now, as i see it, is to prevent 'gameyness' from encroaching...
the problems i see:
1) No unit should be mathematically unkillable. If an uber-unit exists, it encourages players to develop towards that uber-unit. While it's true the other side can develop an uber-unit to compensate, this reduces the number of elements in the game and generally takes away from the game. Remind me of the "20 always hits". I would say the percentage chance should be lower, but regardless how large or small the advantage, there should always be a chance to hit(or to miss!). Don't forget, alot of the RL high tech wonders were prone to mechanical or user failures.
2) As we all have seen, heavy bombers are just too effective at everything. Maybe they should have a 0 attack against shipping and subs that is unresearchable? It's too bad that there isn't a seperate stat differentiating a tactical and and strategic attack. I think we all think of heavy bomber formations as the levelers of city and industry and tactical bombers as army/navy attackers. Maybe research could be capped? Maybe heavy bombers could have a max damage? or tactical can have higher ground/sea attacks but limited to one/two speed?
3) A wonder if a bonus could be applied for 'combined arms'? Say if your attack/defense incorporated armor and infantry, you'd get a +1, add in artillery, +2, add in air +3 (i'm not sure what the + would be to, this is all theoretical).
4) Armor should have its partisan value removed. That way ground troops would be needed to hold territory.
5) Maybe the cost of armor units in terms of supply should be greater? perhaps 2 per move and extended? They should logically consume more than reg infantry
6) Don't think we talked about it in this thread, but damaged units should go to their place of manufacture for repair, not their closest applicable factory. Logically, the men and material would come from the place that built them, not the closest country. New planes and crews for the damged 8th AF came from the states, not britain. Theoretically, you could have 50 pp(10x5), and be repairing 50 units in just one of the bases(so it backlogs), meanwhile the other 9 still produce their 45 pp....doesnt see right. Not sure if this actually works like this, but it seems to....
the problems i see:
1) No unit should be mathematically unkillable. If an uber-unit exists, it encourages players to develop towards that uber-unit. While it's true the other side can develop an uber-unit to compensate, this reduces the number of elements in the game and generally takes away from the game. Remind me of the "20 always hits". I would say the percentage chance should be lower, but regardless how large or small the advantage, there should always be a chance to hit(or to miss!). Don't forget, alot of the RL high tech wonders were prone to mechanical or user failures.
2) As we all have seen, heavy bombers are just too effective at everything. Maybe they should have a 0 attack against shipping and subs that is unresearchable? It's too bad that there isn't a seperate stat differentiating a tactical and and strategic attack. I think we all think of heavy bomber formations as the levelers of city and industry and tactical bombers as army/navy attackers. Maybe research could be capped? Maybe heavy bombers could have a max damage? or tactical can have higher ground/sea attacks but limited to one/two speed?
3) A wonder if a bonus could be applied for 'combined arms'? Say if your attack/defense incorporated armor and infantry, you'd get a +1, add in artillery, +2, add in air +3 (i'm not sure what the + would be to, this is all theoretical).
4) Armor should have its partisan value removed. That way ground troops would be needed to hold territory.
5) Maybe the cost of armor units in terms of supply should be greater? perhaps 2 per move and extended? They should logically consume more than reg infantry
6) Don't think we talked about it in this thread, but damaged units should go to their place of manufacture for repair, not their closest applicable factory. Logically, the men and material would come from the place that built them, not the closest country. New planes and crews for the damged 8th AF came from the states, not britain. Theoretically, you could have 50 pp(10x5), and be repairing 50 units in just one of the bases(so it backlogs), meanwhile the other 9 still produce their 45 pp....doesnt see right. Not sure if this actually works like this, but it seems to....
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
I like this idea, but rather make it the (already implemented) reduction in evasion. instead of the maximum reduction to evasion of -1, make it so that every different unit class will add a -1. so a ship, plane and tank attack will give a -3 evasion to the following infantry attack. it can't be such an abusive suggestions, because if there are enough units attacking that there are 4 units (ship, plane, tank, infantry) for every defender, then it should be overwhelming.3) A wonder if a bonus could be applied for 'combined arms'? Say if your attack/defense incorporated armor and infantry, you'd get a +1, add in artillery, +2, add in air +3 (i'm not sure what the + would be to, this is all theoretical).
as far as the rest of the thread, I agree most with reducing the durability of all strat bombers to 3. it still gives the allies a -1 to armor accounting for their heavier planes and it gives a reason to contruct tac bombers for the higher defense/durability.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
I especially like the idea that amor units could need 2 supply for moving and attack.
I still thing lowering the WS in some key areas could help to balance the units anew. As suggested raise the cost to research way above wolrd standart could help.
IMHO research is tad to important in this game. I think in teh beginning the unists are ballanced nicely only with the focused research there are suddely theese problems.
[quote")]
No unit should be mathematically unkillable. If an uber-unit exists, it encourages players to develop towards that uber-unit. While it's true the other side can develop an uber-unit to compensate, this reduces the number of elements in the game and generally takes away from the game. Remind me of the "20 always hits". I would say the percentage chance should be lower, but regardless how large or small the advantage, there should always be a chance to hit(or to miss!). Don't forget, alot of the RL high tech wonders were prone to mechanical or user failures.
2) As we all have seen, heavy bombers are just too effective at everything. Maybe they should have a 0 attack against shipping and subs that is unresearchable? It's too bad that there isn't a seperate stat differentiating a tactical and and strategic attack. I think we all think of heavy bomber formations as the levelers of city and industry and tactical bombers as army/navy attackers. Maybe research could be capped? Maybe heavy bombers could have a max damage? or tactical can have higher ground/sea attacks but limited to one/two speed?
3) A wonder if a bonus could be applied for 'combined arms'? Say if your attack/defense incorporated armor and infantry, you'd get a +1, add in artillery, +2, add in air +3 (i'm not sure what the + would be to, this is all theoretical).
4) Armor should have its partisan value removed. That way ground troops would be needed to hold territory.
5) Maybe the cost of armor units in terms of supply should be greater? perhaps 2 per move and extended? They should logically consume more than reg infantry
6) Don't think we talked about it in this thread, but damaged units should go to their place of manufacture for repair, not their closest applicable factory. Logically, the men and material would come from the place that built them, not the closest country. New planes and crews for the damged 8th AF came from the states, not britain. Theoretically, you could have 50 pp(10x5), and be repairing 50 units in just one of the bases(so it backlogs), meanwhile the other 9 still produce their 45 pp....doesnt see right. Not sure if this actually works like this, but it seems to....
"
[/quote]
I think all of these are very good suggestions which could be at least considered. Perhpas if a unit is improved in two areas althoug its production time could be prolonged refelcting the more complicated units.
I still thing lowering the WS in some key areas could help to balance the units anew. As suggested raise the cost to research way above wolrd standart could help.
IMHO research is tad to important in this game. I think in teh beginning the unists are ballanced nicely only with the focused research there are suddely theese problems.
[quote")]
No unit should be mathematically unkillable. If an uber-unit exists, it encourages players to develop towards that uber-unit. While it's true the other side can develop an uber-unit to compensate, this reduces the number of elements in the game and generally takes away from the game. Remind me of the "20 always hits". I would say the percentage chance should be lower, but regardless how large or small the advantage, there should always be a chance to hit(or to miss!). Don't forget, alot of the RL high tech wonders were prone to mechanical or user failures.
2) As we all have seen, heavy bombers are just too effective at everything. Maybe they should have a 0 attack against shipping and subs that is unresearchable? It's too bad that there isn't a seperate stat differentiating a tactical and and strategic attack. I think we all think of heavy bomber formations as the levelers of city and industry and tactical bombers as army/navy attackers. Maybe research could be capped? Maybe heavy bombers could have a max damage? or tactical can have higher ground/sea attacks but limited to one/two speed?
3) A wonder if a bonus could be applied for 'combined arms'? Say if your attack/defense incorporated armor and infantry, you'd get a +1, add in artillery, +2, add in air +3 (i'm not sure what the + would be to, this is all theoretical).
4) Armor should have its partisan value removed. That way ground troops would be needed to hold territory.
5) Maybe the cost of armor units in terms of supply should be greater? perhaps 2 per move and extended? They should logically consume more than reg infantry
6) Don't think we talked about it in this thread, but damaged units should go to their place of manufacture for repair, not their closest applicable factory. Logically, the men and material would come from the place that built them, not the closest country. New planes and crews for the damged 8th AF came from the states, not britain. Theoretically, you could have 50 pp(10x5), and be repairing 50 units in just one of the bases(so it backlogs), meanwhile the other 9 still produce their 45 pp....doesnt see right. Not sure if this actually works like this, but it seems to....
"
[/quote]
I think all of these are very good suggestions which could be at least considered. Perhpas if a unit is improved in two areas althoug its production time could be prolonged refelcting the more complicated units.
-
mavraamides
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:25 pm
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I was playing against a human WAllied opponent. I am playing the Axis. He decided to recreate the Eighth Air Force and try to bomb Germany into the ground. I responded by cranking out a ton of Fighters and AA and cranking as much tech as a I could into them. But its a horribly losing battle.
By '44, he had his Heavy Bombers with a 7 Evasion (!). That couples with a 4 Durability to produce a 28(!!) defense. In addition, Heavy Bombers have 1 Armor which reduces the number dice by 1.
My Fighters are pretty cranked up there too (no skimping on research). They are 7 AA and 8 Evasion. His Fighters are 7/7. My Flak is now 8 (because 7 wasnt doing diddly doop).
End result...I cant hurt the Bombers. We fight huge Air-to-Air battles and Fighters drop like flies (I'm not convinced Fighter Evasion is really worth it past a certain point...3 points per level isnt enough to counter the 3.5 that you get for each attack). But the Bombers wont die.
Using the handy-dandy little table that Paul Vebber posted, it seems my Fighters have only a 6% chance of a kill and my AA guns, about 25% (was 6% as well until this turn). Now if he came in totally unescorted, my chances would improve, but with some Fighter cover, he is just suffering almost negligible Bomber losses.
After that, my econ just gets hammered as there is nothing to impede the Bombers. Since there is no Bomber attrition, every turn sees more and more of them. I seem to recall the losses in planes and crews as being horrendous...almost to the point of the Allies calling it off. But here, the B1B's are flying with near impunity.
So what exactly can you realistically do about it? I am still in possession of a large econ as I still own a lot of Russia. My production would be around 41, but the constant hammering is keeping it about 37 or so. I am also constantly clogged up having to replace Fighters, AA, and Arty that gets bombed into the dust. That doesnt leave much for anything else.
I am trying to get my Fighter's AA rating to 8, but even that isnt going to change all that much in the grand scheme. So, what are your options as Germany? Just suck it up? That seems odd that you cant realistically develop a counter to Allied bombings.
(Oh and poor Japan has no chance in this arena...a few bombers over there are trashing her Econ incessantly too, although that is easier to rationalize with her 13 or so Production).
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
One strategy I used as the Germans was to counterattack the bombers. I built up my fighters to range of 3 and launched massive air raids with fighters and my own heavy bombers against England's airfields. This cut down massively on their ability to launch attacks against me. Don't just sit back and take it on the chin, hit 'em back hard!
Meanwhile my subs were slowly but surely isolating England. That meant their factories were so tied up replacing damaged units that they couldn't build new ones and still crank out supplies.
Slowly but surely, I overwhelmed them to the point where they simply could no longer produce bombers. Then I took Scotland! [:D]
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
A couple of points from having read half of this last night while waiting for my game to download.
-- One point is that the "Tank" units here are probably really tank corps/panzer corps. There's a fair amount of combined arms built into these organizations. For instance, raising the anti-air of a "tank" unit probably doesn't mean putting missiles on the actual tank. It probably means developing new anti-air assets and making them poart of the corps TOE.
If you look towards the end of the war, most of the major militaries were moving more to having tank corps become more and more their major unit. Germany would have gone this way if they had enough tanks, and the Russians were most certainly going this way. Look at the big tank armies they used.
Now, I'm just playing my first game (when I get away from this silly place called work), so I don't know much about how the game feels. I do think from reading this that I wouldn't really want to see a game where each side is building just one super unit.
A couple of little things seem missing to me. And I think they impact on this discussion.
-- When the tech goes up, the cost to build the unit doesn't seem to go up. Designing the wonder tank is one thing. Mass producing them to make them major battlefield units is another.
--I don't seem to see any difference in the ability to attack soft land targets and hard land targets. Its usually this difference that forces combined arms tactics. This is where you usually get into the mode of using artillery to kill soft targets, armor to kill artillery, and infantry to protect the artillery, or something like that.
From this, I'd like to see the game such that a strategy of using infantry with strong anti-tank ratings and artillery to kill expensive tanks as something that works. This becomes more effective if the tanks have to research a soft-target kill along with a hard-target kill. If the tanks only research the hard-target kill to engage other tanks, then they need combined arms help to deal with infantry.
--Superior tech is probably too hard to kill. For a real-world example, I was reading lately that the US Army has had to send over 80 seriously damaged M1 tanks home from Iraq. Obviously these tanks aren't being damaged by an opposing super-tank.
-- One point is that the "Tank" units here are probably really tank corps/panzer corps. There's a fair amount of combined arms built into these organizations. For instance, raising the anti-air of a "tank" unit probably doesn't mean putting missiles on the actual tank. It probably means developing new anti-air assets and making them poart of the corps TOE.
If you look towards the end of the war, most of the major militaries were moving more to having tank corps become more and more their major unit. Germany would have gone this way if they had enough tanks, and the Russians were most certainly going this way. Look at the big tank armies they used.
Now, I'm just playing my first game (when I get away from this silly place called work), so I don't know much about how the game feels. I do think from reading this that I wouldn't really want to see a game where each side is building just one super unit.
A couple of little things seem missing to me. And I think they impact on this discussion.
-- When the tech goes up, the cost to build the unit doesn't seem to go up. Designing the wonder tank is one thing. Mass producing them to make them major battlefield units is another.
--I don't seem to see any difference in the ability to attack soft land targets and hard land targets. Its usually this difference that forces combined arms tactics. This is where you usually get into the mode of using artillery to kill soft targets, armor to kill artillery, and infantry to protect the artillery, or something like that.
From this, I'd like to see the game such that a strategy of using infantry with strong anti-tank ratings and artillery to kill expensive tanks as something that works. This becomes more effective if the tanks have to research a soft-target kill along with a hard-target kill. If the tanks only research the hard-target kill to engage other tanks, then they need combined arms help to deal with infantry.
--Superior tech is probably too hard to kill. For a real-world example, I was reading lately that the US Army has had to send over 80 seriously damaged M1 tanks home from Iraq. Obviously these tanks aren't being damaged by an opposing super-tank.
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington
-
James Ward
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Maybe there could be an addition for researching a second attribute of the same thing, similiar to being over the world standard. Like if you increased land attack for tanks the base for researching evasion would increase. That way you could build up one attribute a lot but it would be harder to build up other areas. This would make for some hard choices like range , evasion or attack for your fighters.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
"When the tech goes up, the cost to build the unit doesn't seem to go up. Designing the wonder tank is one thing. Mass producing them to make them major battlefield units is another."
True, but to some extent this is reflected in the cost of research increasing as the number of units on the board / in production goes up.
True, but to some extent this is reflected in the cost of research increasing as the number of units on the board / in production goes up.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
True for one part. Leading to research first build later and the units lateron are still the same price.ORIGINAL: dobeln
"When the tech goes up, the cost to build the unit doesn't seem to go up. Designing the wonder tank is one thing. Mass producing them to make them major battlefield units is another."
True, but to some extent this is reflected in the cost of research increasing as the number of units on the board / in production goes up.
-
celebrindal
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:59 pm
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
I think there are three overall problems which this topic kinda touches base on and I think is what is causing the problems we see with research in general.
Firstly: population per unit. I know that they made it 2 for everything to make it simple from programming to playability but this is part of the problem folks are seeing.
Yes you'd tend to build the units which are going to die the least to preserve population, but only because 2 pop builds 1 tank or 1 inf... if 2 pop built 1 tank and 2 inf then even if your tanks were better someone might still throw the hoard of units at you just to kill them that way.
Second: units like battleships, tanks, airplanes, pretty much everything but inf should not get the benifit of the tech upgrade, or at the very least only get it partially. Why do I say that.. compare an at start panzer to the one's pumped out near the end of the war... there is no way that you could say i'll take my tank kicking round since 40 and convert it into a 44 or 45 nasty. The Iowa class battleships are another classic example.. compair them to the WWI and early war ships.. they had way more AA guns and better fuel range etc.. why because they were designed that way due to the war, why didn't they just refit the old ones.. well you can only refit so much
Last: the tech levels for units need to have a hard maximum to them. I don't care how much research your going to apply to inf units there is no way their effectivness should be able to go from 5-6's to 10+ ever .. you can only train and supply the ol lads so much.. now engineering designs on tanks, airplanes, etc...
Anyways just my 2cents.
Firstly: population per unit. I know that they made it 2 for everything to make it simple from programming to playability but this is part of the problem folks are seeing.
Yes you'd tend to build the units which are going to die the least to preserve population, but only because 2 pop builds 1 tank or 1 inf... if 2 pop built 1 tank and 2 inf then even if your tanks were better someone might still throw the hoard of units at you just to kill them that way.
Second: units like battleships, tanks, airplanes, pretty much everything but inf should not get the benifit of the tech upgrade, or at the very least only get it partially. Why do I say that.. compare an at start panzer to the one's pumped out near the end of the war... there is no way that you could say i'll take my tank kicking round since 40 and convert it into a 44 or 45 nasty. The Iowa class battleships are another classic example.. compair them to the WWI and early war ships.. they had way more AA guns and better fuel range etc.. why because they were designed that way due to the war, why didn't they just refit the old ones.. well you can only refit so much
Last: the tech levels for units need to have a hard maximum to them. I don't care how much research your going to apply to inf units there is no way their effectivness should be able to go from 5-6's to 10+ ever .. you can only train and supply the ol lads so much.. now engineering designs on tanks, airplanes, etc...
Anyways just my 2cents.
Order is nothing more than Chaos on a bad day.
Dave
Dave
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
I like the idea of upping the fuel/supply costs to two for the tanks and heavy bombers. That might cut down their appeal and require a bit more forsight in their employment. Historicall, fuel was a big damper on tank operations for both sides throughout the war. The same is true for the heavy bombers, though one seldom reads about the extravagant expense involved in supplying the 8th Air Force, which the air corps political lobby managed to overcome; "keep 'em flying" and all that.
"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
There are lots of good ideas here.
Some further suggestions:
1) Population: maybe 3 pop for tanks; 1 or 2 pop for infantry. This would help curb the one super unit syndrome.
2) The cost for techs should rise substantially for each additional level you want to research. PzIVs fought throughout the war; not every tank was a super tank. There should be substantial costs involved in trying to reach the higher tech levels.
3) When a new tech is reached, all existing units should NOT be automatically upgraded to the new tech level. Rather, all existing units should remain at their current level UNTIL the player places them in the production queue to be upgraded (if the player so desires). Thus, it would be far more historical to see a variety of levels of tanks, ships, planes, etc, rather than just a bunch of super units. The player would be forced to decide whether it's worth pulling some of his units out of the line to be upgraded.
Some further suggestions:
1) Population: maybe 3 pop for tanks; 1 or 2 pop for infantry. This would help curb the one super unit syndrome.
2) The cost for techs should rise substantially for each additional level you want to research. PzIVs fought throughout the war; not every tank was a super tank. There should be substantial costs involved in trying to reach the higher tech levels.
3) When a new tech is reached, all existing units should NOT be automatically upgraded to the new tech level. Rather, all existing units should remain at their current level UNTIL the player places them in the production queue to be upgraded (if the player so desires). Thus, it would be far more historical to see a variety of levels of tanks, ships, planes, etc, rather than just a bunch of super units. The player would be forced to decide whether it's worth pulling some of his units out of the line to be upgraded.
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....