A possible solution for super infantry

[Joel Billings]

It only knows how much you have spent total to date toward the next advancement. It doesn't know how many you spent the previous turn.

[Forwarn45]

I don't see the +2 over WS limit limiting much in practice.

You'd have to look very carefully for exploits based on this limitation. Here's one possibility. Currently, the anti-air WS for heavy fleets is 4. The new limitation would then allow a 6 AA heavy fleet maximum. Compare this to the carrier air evasion world standard, which is currently at 5 = allowing a maximum of 7 for carrier air evasion. 6*3.5 average die rolls = 21 average roll compared to carrier air 7*3 evasion = 21. Usually, this means a hit. I think I would find it annoying that heavy fleets usually shoot down carrier air, and I had no ability to stop this because my evasion was maxed out. This may not be the best example, but I like that the current mechanics prevent such situations from arising. There is always a way to defeat something!

[Forwarn45]

I may be making a little out of a lot. But isn't easy for players to agree to a limit over the WS if they want to play that way, without hardcoding it into the game? Alternatively, you could make it an option you could check like the new fuel rule. Options are always cool. [:D]

[Forwarn45]

It only knows how much you have spent total to date toward the next advancement. It doesn't know how many you spent the previous turn.

I know - 3 posts in a row. But here goes. I think it's still possible to reduce research progress in the way Jan and others are suggesting. Let the program calculate the research limitation as it does now (based on research spent so far) and then subtract something from the allowance based on how far above WS you are. In other words, you don't get to spend the whole amount normally calculated. Let's say you could normally spend (3, 6, or 9) because you are researching something 3 above the world standard and you have previously spent what is needed to allow this (nothing for 3, more for 6 or 9). You could just knock off some points from the maximum normally allowed to slow progress down... I think this would be great.

[Lebatron]

I don't like just slowing down the appearance of super inf by a few turns as that does nothing to curb their appearance every game. If they aren't made more expensive to achieve then the method does nothing to fix the problem. The WA's will still have their super inf in 1944 when it really begins to matter.

When I tested out my second option, the one where I only change the WA's durabilty to 3, I realised I found a solution to another old problem thats been discussed before. Remember when some where suggesting that we add frozen infantry to the WA's so that the initial upgrade cost would increase? Germany has to pay around 13 to advance one level while the WA's get away with only 7. Well by using my second method the world standard has to stay at 6 since everyone else is using durabilty 4. Because I set the WA's at 7EV (7*3=21) starting out they are already at +1 WS. This places their first upgrade cost inline with what Germany has to pay without the need to give the WA's free frozen infantry. Assuming around 10 WA's infantry it will now take 14 points to achieve 24(8*3=24). It used to only take 7 points to hit 24 defense. Another thing that was pleasing was the timing of the upgrades between Germany and the WA's.
I wrote it all down while jumping through the turns, so I will share it with you. I will use the defense factor instead of the EV to reduce confusion.

Germans with about 40 inf..........................................................WA's with about 10 inf
Sp40 24def(0/13)................................................................................21def(0/14)
Wi41 24def(12/13)..............................................................................24def(3/21) Parity but Germany jumps ahead in 1or2 turns
Su41 28def(5/26)................................................................................24def(21/21) next turn WA's close the gap
Fa41 28def(11/26)...............................................................................27def(4/28)
Sp42 28def(23/26)...............................................................................27def(28/28)
Su42 28def(26/26)...............................................................................30def(5/35) would you pay 35points for next level? Maybe.
Fa42 32def(0/39) For Germany its optional to go further..........................

The WA's hit 30 before the Germans only because I was spending max. In real play that would most likely take a turn or two longer.
The table ends with Germany having a 2 point defense advantage. This creates the right feel IMO. The Allied player can try and trump Germany but it will take another 35 points to attain a 33def.
The total cost for Germany to attain 32def is 39 points.
The total cost for WA's to attain 30def is 63 points.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
I don't like just slowing down the appearance of super inf by a few turns as that does nothing to curb their appearance every game. If they aren't made more expensive to achieve then the method does nothing to fix the problem. The WA's will still have their super inf in 1944 when it really begins to matter.

Thats where I disagree. If the WA still only has 10 INF by the start of 44 then production time and manpower restrictions will make it harder to achieve victory in time. The problem isnt in itself the super inf - but the fact that it shows up early and in large numbers. If you can delay that its suddenly an option but no longer a clear cut one.

As for your example. Germany has 25, maybe 30 INF not 40. I believe this distorts your chart by no less than 3 turns making it somewhat misleading.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It only knows how much you have spent total to date toward the next advancement. It doesn't know how many you spent the previous turn.

You are correct, I misread the rules - obviously the game plays as you explain. My suggestion could be fixed to allow for this but I shall refrain from doing so. Instead I suggest that rather than make WS+2 a hard cap the following soft cap is introduced.

Currently part of the research rule is:

Code: Select all

      Max Spending = 3*FACTOR

I suggest changing this to

Code: Select all

     If FACTOR <= 2 then 
         Max Spending = 3*FACTOR
      else 
         Max Spending = FACTOR

This will severely slow down tech above +2 - the socalled super 9/9 INF would take a full year extra and even longer if the WA builds more INF during the time of research. It also has the virtue of not chagning anything at all except for the +3 tech research.

[Forwarn45]

I suggest changing this to

If FACTOR <= 2 then
Max Spending = 3*FACTOR
else
Max Spending = FACTOR

Jan - I like it! [8D]

[Joel Billings]

Nice idea, but it would still have to have an A-bomb exception.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Nice idea, but it would still have to have an A-bomb exception.

Absolutely.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

As for your example. Germany has 25, maybe 30 INF not 40. I believe this distorts your chart by no less than 3 turns making it somewhat misleading.

There are a few more German infantry in Franco's Alliance because of Spain. After France falls the starting total is 36. Then I added 4 more in the build cue. Thats where I get my 40. I could have stopped at 39 to save a research point but my example was not to show how you can min/max things. The number of turns to reach 8EV may fall by one because of this, but not buy 3. But anyway the rate at which Germany attains 8EV is not the issue.