I suspect that much of the theoretical disagreement we have comes from a different opinion about what each unit type represents, in terms of a TO&E. I figure a tank unit is pretty much a Panzer corps, including everything that entails. That means about 2/3 of its divisions are mechanized/motorized infantry divisions.
On the other hand, you seem to think that the artillery units include AT guns. By my thinking, they wouldn't (though they would include some AA guns, which turned out to make pretty good impromptu AT guns.) By my thinking, you'd find hoards of AT guns in both infantry and armor units (especially armor).
But we can creatively rationalize a lot of stuff--and we ought to, in service to making the game work well. Your basic complaint is that tanks have all the advantages, but I don't think that's correct. They do have the advantages you note--they have an extra movement point, and they have higher combat stats, which means they're slightly more supply efficient, at least when you're not using their higher movement ability. But I was making the point that they have a crucial disadvantage--namely, they cost twice as much to produce. Germany's population issues might make that seem irrelevant, but I disagree. There are useful things for Germany to do with that extra production--though I agree that the super-tank strategy is a fine one for the Germans. The same is certainly not true of the Soviets, and for them I very much like the super-infantry or super-artillery strategy, and, as I said, I've found the super-infantry strategy to work for the Germans, as well.
But that's not to say there's not a sub-optimum situation in the game, though. Even accepting my argument, it still appears that the best strategy appears to be to pick a unit type and tech it as much as you can, while ignoring research for your other units. It does seem a shame that one is encouraged to stop building either infantry or armor, whichever one you pick to tech up.
Elsewhere I suggested that the problem with the poor differentiation between heavy and tac bombers could be helped by making reasearch "bleed over" from one to the other. Perhaps the same ought to happen between types of ground units. (And between types of naval units, you might think.)
Another possibility is that the problem is rooted in the math of the combat system, which makes it possible to build units that you can use essentially without cost. What this leads me to suspect is that the probability curves are just too steep around the mean, resulting in too much of a practical advantage for technological advantage, at least in the air and ground battles. Maybe the solution is to "smear out" the gaussian curve. The simplest way to do that, I think, would be to simply change the combat mechanics from being based on 6-sided dice to being based on, say 12-sided dice. Obviously, unit's toughnesses would need to be increased--I'd recommend they would become 5.5 and 7.5, respectively (1.0 above and the below the mean, respectively.) I believe that this would slightly decrease the value of evasion tech, too, which seems to be the direction most people want to go in, because of the problem that one point of evasion in one unit type requires a point of firepower in lots of different unit types to fully counter.
Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Carthago Delinde Est
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
What are you researching when you research infantry stats?
Both offense and defense could be improved with advances in training techniques. In the heat of battle, most people freeze and do nothing--if twice as many of your boys don't, you're going to own the battlefield. Likewise, both offense and defense could be improved by a zillions of tiny things, such as replacing metal equipment with plastic/nylon. Infantry with a plentiful supply of jeeps will perform better. At this scale, the list of things that could account for unit's stats is endless.
But even focusing on more concrete, major innovations, there is no shortage of explanations for differences in unit performance. When you research ground attack, you might be developing either better weapons or better doctrine. Infantry weapons that were developed during WWII that improved their offensive capabilities included higher caliber AT guns (including those mounted on the AFVs you mention) and sub-machine guns. 1939 German infantry was predominantly armed with bolt-action rifles--although that wasn't much of a problem for them, since German infantry doctrine centered on the effective use of machine-guns and grenades--the rifles were more of a security blanket than a real weapon. Which, incidentally, points up how doctrinal improvements could account for massive improvements in performance.
When you research evasion, you might also be developing superior tactical doctrines. For example, using WWII infantry doctrine, urban assaults were grisly blood-baths. Modern infantry can assualt urban environments almost without losses, thanks to doctrines developed by the Israelis. German mobile defense applied to infantry and armor alike. (Best way not to get slaughtered by arty is not to be under the FFE.) You might also be developing weapon systems with primarily defensive applications. The development of the MG was a massive improvement to infantry evasion, for example. The development of the American system of artillery support would be a sort of combination of the two, since it required both doctrinal innovation, and the development of communications and supply systems to put that doctrine into use. Superior personal protective gear is another possibility--Lord knows how many German soldiers were saved simply by the fact that their helmets were better designed than ours were. (No accident that today's Army helmets look suspiciously like WWII German helmets.) So the idea of improving infantry evasion is quite sensible.
What is not sensible, on the other hand, is the idea that you could commit 100k men to a battle and not loose any of them, regardless of your technological advantage. (Iraq War I and II notwithstanding--again, I'm assuming we limit the debate to the range of technologies realistically available to the WWII combatants.) I think popular opinion is fairly well settled on the fact that research into evasion is too good a buy--the principle debate appears to be which units are the best ones to turn into super-weapons.
Both offense and defense could be improved with advances in training techniques. In the heat of battle, most people freeze and do nothing--if twice as many of your boys don't, you're going to own the battlefield. Likewise, both offense and defense could be improved by a zillions of tiny things, such as replacing metal equipment with plastic/nylon. Infantry with a plentiful supply of jeeps will perform better. At this scale, the list of things that could account for unit's stats is endless.
But even focusing on more concrete, major innovations, there is no shortage of explanations for differences in unit performance. When you research ground attack, you might be developing either better weapons or better doctrine. Infantry weapons that were developed during WWII that improved their offensive capabilities included higher caliber AT guns (including those mounted on the AFVs you mention) and sub-machine guns. 1939 German infantry was predominantly armed with bolt-action rifles--although that wasn't much of a problem for them, since German infantry doctrine centered on the effective use of machine-guns and grenades--the rifles were more of a security blanket than a real weapon. Which, incidentally, points up how doctrinal improvements could account for massive improvements in performance.
When you research evasion, you might also be developing superior tactical doctrines. For example, using WWII infantry doctrine, urban assaults were grisly blood-baths. Modern infantry can assualt urban environments almost without losses, thanks to doctrines developed by the Israelis. German mobile defense applied to infantry and armor alike. (Best way not to get slaughtered by arty is not to be under the FFE.) You might also be developing weapon systems with primarily defensive applications. The development of the MG was a massive improvement to infantry evasion, for example. The development of the American system of artillery support would be a sort of combination of the two, since it required both doctrinal innovation, and the development of communications and supply systems to put that doctrine into use. Superior personal protective gear is another possibility--Lord knows how many German soldiers were saved simply by the fact that their helmets were better designed than ours were. (No accident that today's Army helmets look suspiciously like WWII German helmets.) So the idea of improving infantry evasion is quite sensible.
What is not sensible, on the other hand, is the idea that you could commit 100k men to a battle and not loose any of them, regardless of your technological advantage. (Iraq War I and II notwithstanding--again, I'm assuming we limit the debate to the range of technologies realistically available to the WWII combatants.) I think popular opinion is fairly well settled on the fact that research into evasion is too good a buy--the principle debate appears to be which units are the best ones to turn into super-weapons.
Carthago Delinde Est
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
ORIGINAL: hakon
ORIGINAL: dapamdg
One suggestion I would make (apologies if someone has already mentioned this in this very long thread) would be to reduce the multiplier for number of research points that can be spent when above the WS. If one could never place more than three research points into a tech, then it would be very difficult, impossible in game time, to get very far above the WS. Also, since no more than three points can be placed in any given characteristic, then the WA and Germany (who often find they have a lot of research points because they have hit the population barrier) will be forced to broaden their research into many units/characteristics instead of just concentrating on one or two. This seems to me to be a simple yet elegant solution to the problem. Comments?
This idea is simple, and very, very good. Historically, research wasnt really very expensive. It was just very time-consuming.
Not exactly true, in the terms of this game. Note that the cost of research includes the cost to retrofit your entire military with the new technology. That would be quite expensive.
It's also a nice solution to a serious game-design problem. I've wrestled with the basic problem of how to handle research in games for a very long time, without a completely satisfactory result. The basic problem is that, for game-design purposes, what you want is to present the players with meaningful choices. But a realistic representation of technological research doesn't.
Game economic systems inevitably give you a choice between buying units (a bird in hand), or research (two in the bush). But in the real world, technological improvement in a weapon type is almost never inversely related to the number of them you build. To the contrary, it is the very act of building and using a weapon type that drived technological improvements. So, for example, it was Britain, with its massive fleets, that had the technological edge over France's ships, for hundreds of years. Rome's legions got better the more she built, not the other way around. (The quality of the men in those legions was another matter.) And so on. Exceptions aren't too hard to come up with, but historically there's been a strong positive correlation between how many of a given type of military force a nation has extant and the quality of that type of force, especially when those forces are getting used regularly.
German tanks in WWII are a fabulous example. Consider the Panther and the Tiger. It would have been completely impossible for Germany to have developed the Panther tank if it hadn't been for a year's worth of fighting with thousands of tanks on the Steppes of Russia. It was that experience that gave Guderian his insights that led to his successful development project. When you have a research project that is given lots of resources, but which is not guided by experience in the field with the use of the real thing, you get something like the Tiger project. The Tiger is inferior to the Panther in almost every way--except the ways that show up on paper. (Generations of gamers have been confused into thinking that Tiger tanks are better than Panthers, because, well, the Tiger's advantages show up well on paper.)
Carthago Delinde Est
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Well, regardless of what each unit represents and whatnot, the fact remains that the World Standards for Infantry Evasion and Ground Attack are 6/6, while the same stats for Tanks are 8/8. In the game, that means that you can NOT realistically research infantry that can keep up the tanks. So, over time tanks (which cost twice as much) will kill well over twice their number in Infantry (or will outsurvive them quite easily).
Remember that a 2 point spread in this game is a HUGE advantage. A 3 point spread is nearly insurmountable in combat. Its quite easy to get tanks 2 points over Infantry. The difference in research cost alone to get to a 1 point difference with Infantry will buy you a lot of tank (for Russia) or a lot supplies and/or other needed unit research.
So whether a particular unit is 'counter-able' or not is not really the problem that I see. What I see as the problem is that you must research down certain paths every game to be competitive. Now maybe that is historical, but I'd rather have a game where I can choose to divert some research away from the 'best' units and still have a good chance of winning. With tanks at 8/8, heavies bombers the way they are, and tac air having only a WS of 5 for GA, there isnt much variety to be seen. If your opponent invests in better tanks, you MUST follow suit as there is not much else you can research to compensate unless you are willing to accept a huge research penalty that your opponent is not paying.
At any rate, I think its time to wait and see what the next patch brings. 2by3 is aware of the 'problem' at this point and its up to them to decide where to go next with it (if anywhere).
Remember that a 2 point spread in this game is a HUGE advantage. A 3 point spread is nearly insurmountable in combat. Its quite easy to get tanks 2 points over Infantry. The difference in research cost alone to get to a 1 point difference with Infantry will buy you a lot of tank (for Russia) or a lot supplies and/or other needed unit research.
So whether a particular unit is 'counter-able' or not is not really the problem that I see. What I see as the problem is that you must research down certain paths every game to be competitive. Now maybe that is historical, but I'd rather have a game where I can choose to divert some research away from the 'best' units and still have a good chance of winning. With tanks at 8/8, heavies bombers the way they are, and tac air having only a WS of 5 for GA, there isnt much variety to be seen. If your opponent invests in better tanks, you MUST follow suit as there is not much else you can research to compensate unless you are willing to accept a huge research penalty that your opponent is not paying.
At any rate, I think its time to wait and see what the next patch brings. 2by3 is aware of the 'problem' at this point and its up to them to decide where to go next with it (if anywhere).
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
ORIGINAL: QBeam
But that's not to say there's not a sub-optimum situation in the game, though. Even accepting my argument, it still appears that the best strategy appears to be to pick a unit type and tech it as much as you can, while ignoring research for your other units. It does seem a shame that one is encouraged to stop building either infantry or armor, whichever one you pick to tech up.
The question is: Given that player 1 researches land unit type A as much as he can. Is there another unit type B, different from A, in the game that will give player 2 an advantage if teched up( or at least not a disadvantage) ?
If the answer is no, for any land unit A, then all other land units are obsolete, and you are right in your above statement. If you do the math, you will find that A = armor. Armor with tech put into evasion is really the only land unit you need in the game. Infantry will simply be advanced militia, to be used as fodder until your armor is strong enough.
Now imagine that for every land unit A, there IS a unit type B that can put unit type A at a disadvantage, when both are teched up, and that is at least equal to A (in terms of cost efficiency). When that is the situation, player 2 will always research unit type B if player 1 goes for unit type A exclusively, and so player 1 will loose most games for doing so. As player 1 does not want to loose, he spreads his tech out, at least until it is clear that player 2 tries to tech another unit exclusively, which makes it possible for player 1 to research unit type C to counter it.
The only thing neccessary for this to happen for land units, in my opinion, is to reduce armor evasion by 1. My prediction, is that doing so will stop people from making super weapons of armor.
Super-infantry can be countered by a lot of weapons, including armor and bombers. Super infantry is also pretty expensive to tech up to, as you start the game with so many of them.
Super artillery is counterable by bombers.
As for the historical meaning of art being AT or heavy artillery, i tend to agree that most of the independent units of artillery were of the heavier type. Still, most countries included most of the heavy artillery in their infantry corps, just as they did with AT-weapons. The game doesnt differentiate between attacking soft and hard targets, though, and artillery is the unit type that is strongest in terms of land attack output (the only way to rationalize this, is to assume that artillery is in fact all kinds of land attack artillery, in a balanced mix).
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Probably the easiest way to remedy this situation is:
1) Each additional level of tech should be exponentially more expensive to achieve. While it might be possible, there should be few if any "super weapons".
During all of WWII Germany built only 1,300 Tigers, while it built tens of thousands of other armoured vehicles (PzIVs, StuGs, Hetzers, etc)...
America produced the Sherman en masse...
2) I like Paul's idea of a random factor to getting the tech or not. This is similar to A&A and involves some risk (as it should).
1) Each additional level of tech should be exponentially more expensive to achieve. While it might be possible, there should be few if any "super weapons".
During all of WWII Germany built only 1,300 Tigers, while it built tens of thousands of other armoured vehicles (PzIVs, StuGs, Hetzers, etc)...
America produced the Sherman en masse...
2) I like Paul's idea of a random factor to getting the tech or not. This is similar to A&A and involves some risk (as it should).
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
-
mavraamides
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:25 pm
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
ORIGINAL: hakon
If the answer is no, for any land unit A, then all other land units are obsolete, and you are right in your above statement. If you do the math, you will find that A = armor. Armor with tech put into evasion is really the only land unit you need in the game. Infantry will simply be advanced militia, to be used as fodder until your armor is strong enough.
I agree to some extent but there are some advantages to infantry:
1) You can crank them out cheaper and faster so they provide bulk for your army. For example, if Russia decides to produce nothing but armor, they run the risk of a quick strike by Germany before any of their units are ready.
2) They cost 1/2 as much to transport by sea and armor can't be transported by air at all. Armor is very effective in the Euro/Russian theater but in the Pacific, its too hard to move it around from island to island compared to inf.
3) When enemy territory is taken, you generally need to garrison it against partisans. Militia can work for that but when you need to garrison territory on or near the front, infantry is far superior. Armor is too expensive of a unit to waste on garrison duty.
So while I do think Armor is possibly too effective and possibly should be tweaked, I don't think infantry is completely useless or just cannon fodder.
A couple suggestions for Armor:
1) I think it should cost more to move armor 1 territory than infantry. I know there is already a penalty for moving 2 territories but I think it should be maybe 2 supply PER territory. This would make a player have to pick and choose more carefully where to use it in attack.
2) Rough terrain should provide a defensive bonus to infantry only. Perhaps rough terrain could reduce the number of die rolls by the attacker by 1. Also, I would add even a further supply penalty to Armor in rough terrain. Maybe 1 or 2 more supply per territory. In HOI2 for example, Armor is almost useless in mountain regions.
3) Armor should have even a bigger penalty than other units when caught out of supply. Without fuel to manuever it should be a sitting duck.
Tweaks like these could make Armor a more reasonable unit.
-
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?
I like the supply idea for armor. It would also make some sense to do it for heavy bombers too.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
Qbeam,
Actually it WAS the speed of the Me-262's that made them so deadly. The rockets helped but 4x30mm cannon were pretty powerful in themselves. The speed of the Me-262 enabled the jets to start their pass outside the bomber defensive range and then make their firing pass and zoom out before the bombers could hardly react. Their speed made them almost impossible to track with hand held guns or the power turrets of the time. Their speed also helped them evade the fighter escort. If you look closely you'll see that very few Me-262's were shot down by bomber defensive fire (I'd be surpised if there were really any and think their are only 1 or two claims). Most Me-262's were shot down either taking off or landing, when they were most vulnerable. I would take a squadron of Me-262's again a WING of B-29's and I would expect that you'd see losses of 10 - 1, maybe higher and thats without the rockets on the Me-262. The Mig-15 was an evolutionary step from the Me-262, not revolutionary and it was their speed which enabled them to devestate the B-29's over Korea. I believe it was Gabby Gabreski, in his book, that stated that there was no way for escorting fighters, even F-86's to protect the bombers from jet attatck.
thanks,
Kevin
Actually it WAS the speed of the Me-262's that made them so deadly. The rockets helped but 4x30mm cannon were pretty powerful in themselves. The speed of the Me-262 enabled the jets to start their pass outside the bomber defensive range and then make their firing pass and zoom out before the bombers could hardly react. Their speed made them almost impossible to track with hand held guns or the power turrets of the time. Their speed also helped them evade the fighter escort. If you look closely you'll see that very few Me-262's were shot down by bomber defensive fire (I'd be surpised if there were really any and think their are only 1 or two claims). Most Me-262's were shot down either taking off or landing, when they were most vulnerable. I would take a squadron of Me-262's again a WING of B-29's and I would expect that you'd see losses of 10 - 1, maybe higher and thats without the rockets on the Me-262. The Mig-15 was an evolutionary step from the Me-262, not revolutionary and it was their speed which enabled them to devestate the B-29's over Korea. I believe it was Gabby Gabreski, in his book, that stated that there was no way for escorting fighters, even F-86's to protect the bombers from jet attatck.
thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Verdon
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
I had my FLAK AA rating upto 9, it didn't stop _UN Heavies.
RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?
ORIGINAL: GordianKnot
I agree to some extent but there are some advantages to infantry:
1) You can crank them out cheaper and faster so they provide bulk for your army. For example, if Russia decides to produce nothing but armor, they run the risk of a quick strike by Germany before any of their units are ready.
2) They cost 1/2 as much to transport by sea and armor can't be transported by air at all. Armor is very effective in the Euro/Russian theater but in the Pacific, its too hard to move it around from island to island compared to inf.
3) When enemy territory is taken, you generally need to garrison it against partisans. Militia can work for that but when you need to garrison territory on or near the front, infantry is far superior. Armor is too expensive of a unit to waste on garrison duty.
Actually for russia, with their starting infantry tech, i believe that militia is a more effetive build than infantry untill your armor can begin to dominate. Cheaper than infantry, they can still hold land, provided you are numerically superior (which you should always be, since your manpower is so high.