Evasion Exploit Biggest Problem with the Game

[Beatrix Kiddo]

Just did some testing in Summer '42:

Ten German 10-10 Armor vs 20 Russian 6-8 Infantry:

10.5 expected Russian casualties (but you have to consider I only got the evasion up to 6 instead of 8 - it should be lower).

3.72 German casualties.

So my estimate of half a hit with the Infantry is wrong. It's not even 40% of a hit.

Still, I stand by my view that 8-8 Infantry isn't really obselete in the presense of 10-10 armor. Manpower is the problem with masses of Infantry and their casualties - not inability to score a hit.

[pyrhic]

actually, i still use infantry offensively to force retreats and defensively to prevent them...but i also use them with armor...

[Uncle_Joe]

Unfortunately, it doesnt work out that way. For one thing, it cost more to even get Infantry to 8-8 than Tanks to 10-10. 8-8 Infantry are realistically being opposed by 11-10 Tanks for the same research cost (in general). In that situation, you are likely to lose a unit and unlikely to do anything in return. Also note that Arty that is still around can still hit the Infantry (assuming 8 or 9 attack) while they cant really do much to the Tanks.

But in practice, the tank (11-10) gets one shot with about a 75% chance of a hit. The first Infantry fires with about a 4% and the second gets a shot with about 13%.

Another note: Being hit in the same 'range bracket' doesnt reduce your chance to hit. Only being hit by a Range 2 unit (ie, Arty or Air) does that. So two infantry only 'gang up' when firing, but neither will benefit when the tank fires back.

Any which way you slice it, in the middle to end game (after multipliers kick in), Production cost is overshadowed by Population points. Tanks are already more efficient at that point because of this. It will prevent the Infantry from outnumbering the Tanks at 2:1 or especially 3:1.

If there were no population limits, then MAYBE going with Infantry in the face of superior tanks might work due to the 'winning' of battles that you mentioned. But the game DOES have population limits so you'll never be able to attain those kinds of ratios (and certainly not if you have to continue to research while building the Infantry).

So lets say that there was no pop limit. Even then, the research cost of Infantry becomes prohibitive (and too time consuming) compared to armor. If an opponent has only 10 armor (which is not a lot for later game), then you need 30 Infantry for that ratio. This is even assuming you can move and mass 30 Infantry in one area (which is certainly not realistic compared to 10 armor, but I'll grant this too...). The research cost to get the same amount (3) above World Standard while having 30 Infantry is 12 higher than for the Tanks. Meaning, its going to take more time and more resources...there goes a large chunk of the savings. Also, sending 30 Infantry into a fight takes 30 supplies (and 30 rail cap). Sending 10 tanks only takes 10 of each. There goes the rest of the savings...

At any rate this is all just theory. But plenty of people (myself included) have put theory to test and found that other ground units just cant withstand tech'ed up armor. Its just not mathematically possible given the game system and the costs involved. Tanks are better across the board in the middle and late game.

Now with changing the WS to 7 for Evasion, its all of a sudden possible to keep up in at least attack research with their defense. Tanks and Arty can definately do so, so there is a LOT less return on the investment in Tank Evasion. In fact, thats what it really comes down to...return on investment. There is NO other ground unit that can begin to produce the same return as you can get from Tank Evasion in the stock game. Infantry would be close (due to their 4 Durability), but the Tank WS is 2 higher so the Infantry have some climbing to do. But to top it off, Infantry are FAR more numerous than tanks for most of the war, so the cost is driven well beyond the positive return range.

Look at some of the examples posted around or try it yourself in solo games. Try pitting a combined arms force of 8-8 Infantry, 8-7 Arty, and 7 attack aircraft against 11-10 tanks. Now note that you spent a LOT more to get to those stats than the tanks player did. Note that you will still lose a LOT more units too. There is no pay-off for combined arms at this point (at all). So, you have to go with a 'counter unit'. The only one that really makes sense is the tank. Its possible to get Arty attack up to do some good (although its more expensive than Tank Attack). But Arty is extremely vulnerable to even mediocre air power (low defense and always targeted first). So, to compensate, you have to bring Fighters or AA, neither of which contributes much vs the Tanks and both of which are strugging for the same pop slots. In the end, you just cant come out ahead that way, so you have no choice but to ALSO research Tanks up. Now you are fighting on even terms again and the crux of the problem is shown...build Tanks, Tanks, and more Tanks. Nothing else matters at that point for land combat.

[aletoledo]

hehehe, yes pyrhic, I think I was refering to my game with you on my tech'd up AA. but I'm doing it now every game as germany. I'm actually surprised I got them to 10, I don't honestly remember it even being a strain to get them there.

I agree with you uncle_joe, the problem is not the tech'd up units, but the non-tech'd up units. I just realized in the same game with pyrhic his bomber force has aa antisub of 4! why in the world would he bother using his surface ships to fight my subs now?

However I can't imagine a 'fix' to make the non-tech'd units useful.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Beatrix Kiddo

Infantry *isn't* made obselete by 10-10 Armor. 11-11 Armor does make 8-8 Infantry pretty unappealing, but maybe I have 3 Infantry for every Armor you have then. And that means I win every single battle we have because you can never take a territory from me and you can never hold a territory either. Even if you kill one and I miss with 3 - I still have a 2:1 ratio and you must retreat.

I think uncle joe's point is that if _you_ have both 8-8 inf and 11-11 armor, _you_ will stop producing inf. The enemy may have 7-7 inf and 10-10 armor at that time.

Taking this forther, if you plan to focus on armor, it is no point takint inf to 8-8 at all (8-8 inf is expensive), but much better to go for 12-12 armor).

My response to this, as stated in an earlier thread, is that if you face an opponent that researches just one unit type, you should always be able to respond by building _another_ unit type, and even have the advantagage in doing so. As far as i can see, even taking WS down to 7 evasion for armor, will make armor so fragile, that massed artillery will be death for them (given the same tech in artillery as the enemy has in armor).

Say you have 10 units 10-8(atk/eva) artillery vs 10 units 11-10 armor. For simplicity, assume that the side with artillery has 10 milita that will not score hits, but that can be taken as fodder.

Range 2: 10 artillery shoot first. They have 9 attack dice of 3.5 each that is 31.5 average vs 30 defence for the artillery. A little more than half will hit. Assume 6hits
Range 1: 10 artillery shoot again, they still attack with 31.5 average, but the defender has been fired upon already reducing defence to 7.5. Assume 8 hits.

The armor fires back. Half of them will totally kill 5 militia, the rest will fire at artillery. 11 attack vs 24 defence will score hits in almost all cases. Note that 6 of the armor were damaged in the first combat round, increasing defenders evasion by 1. In total, i would say that the armor would damage 3, kill 1 and miss 1 artillery, for 5 hits.

The side with artillery looses 15 manpower and 10 production points. The side with tanks looses 14 manpower and 28 production points, as well as the battle.

In the a above situation, the side with artillery has slightly smaller forces than the opponent. Additionaly, russia has free militia for the first 2-3 battles (at least). (And the US may as well spend some of that early manpower on militia, if germany is going pure armor).

Artillery otoh, can be easily countered by air, if someone tries pure artillery. Air can again be countered by armor.

So for every unbalanced build, there is a response unbalanced build that beats it. If your opponent is smart enough to watch your tech, the only way to go is some kind of balanced build. If you fall behind in just one category, the opponent will be likely to take advantage, and start boosting the unit that you dont have a counter unit for.

[aletoledo]

I like the idea of increasing the WS of infantry to promote their use. it still doesn't solve tac air though. I suppose adjusting the WS is really thebest solution I've heard so far.

[aletoledo]

good post hakon, but like uncle_joe mentioned, the problem is not necessary the ability to counter, I think we can prove there is a counter to every tech'd up unit.

the important question is what becomes of the non-tech'd up units? perhaps like pyrhic mentioned, use the non-tech'd units in ancillary or fodder roles?

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

good post hakon, but like uncle_joe mentioned, the problem is not necessary the ability to counter, I think we can prove there is a counter to every tech'd up unit.

the important question is what becomes of the non-tech'd up units? perhaps like pyrhic mentioned, use the non-tech'd units in ancillary or fodder roles?

I think you miss my point, altoledo.

The point is that if there is always the ability to counter specialized build, (good) players would use the only strat that could not be countered, that is to tech up all their units. Fear of the counter-move would keep both sides from specializing.

Some specialization will still happen of course, but it should only mean being 1 level ahead, not the game-breaking 3 levels ahead, and it would mostly be based on the strengths of that particular country. (Ie russia building artillery and flak to go with their free militia, germany getting some more tanks to compensate for low manpower and to threaten surronds early, etc, but hard speaciaization will not be beneficial.

[Uncle_Joe]

The beauty of changing the WS for Armor Evasion to 7 is that combined arms is restored. Yes, equal tech Arty will trade very well vs lone tanks. So, it behooves you to bring something else to absorb hits too...like Infantry. Arty of your own isnt bad, because it 'counter-batteries' the enemy arty and prevents them from getting two shots. It then encourages the enemy to bring aircraft to hit your arty so you want AA and Fighters to defend.

Increasing WS for Infantry Evasion could make them worse than armor was IMO. Infantry has a 4 Durability so you are getting more out of each Evasion point. With a WS of 7, its realistic to see a 9 Evasion Infantry by 44. That means in order to actually hit it 50/50, you have to have a unit with a 10 attack. Only Armor can realistically attain that value in the game (by that point at least). Infantry at that point would be largely immune to Arty and Air as well (and very hard for opposing Infantry to kill). IMO, no unit should have its WS for Evasion be higher than its WS for Attack of the same type if it has either and an armor value or a Durability higher than 3. It leads to 'unkillable' units.

[DerekP]

I don't believe fear of a counter move in special tech is going to stop people from specialising. The boost you can get from leaping a couple (or even three) points ahead is always going to be worth it, particularly if the cost to respond is prohibitive (eg Russia)

Rather than making the cost of earning a tech more expensive, can't we reduce the cost of teching up the further you are behind the world vaerage (or even behind the best in the world).

It should be far easier to catch up by copying existing designs/doctrines than to research them from scratch. A slegehammer approach to this could be that every time someone gets three points ahead in a specific attribute, the rest of the world get a boost of one level in ths tech the next turn. I'd rather a more elegant solution but this would at least stop some of the scissors-paper-stone games which are all over in a few turns due to the "wrong" tech choices.

[Espejo]

Well, essentially an catch up system in tech....[8D]

[Uncle_Joe]

A 'catch up' system is only necessary if someone gets way too far out ahead in something. Lowering the World Standards makes that possibility much less likely and it requires no fundamental changes to the game rules.

In essence, here is the problem:

In the early game, all arms are useful and, indeed, necessary for the most effective force. As the game goes on and certain units get ahead in defensive tech (ie Evasion), then it requires research in attack in ALL of the opposing units in order to preserve the initial game balance of combined arms. However, this is not feasible or even beneficial. The 'better' move is to make SOMETHING of your own as good or better as a 'counter'.

Currently, the best unit to crank for defense OR offense is the tank, by virtue of it's World Standards being 2 higher than other units' in the critical stats of Evasion and Ground Attack. Once Tanks are researched up a bit, combined arms fails. Units other than Tanks are no longer contributing in proportion to their cost (in production and especially, manpower). So, Tanks become the way to go. Sure, its possible to develop a different unit to counter Tanks, but its not anywhere near as cost effective to do so.

Lowering the Evasion WS means that other units CAN kill Tanks so their worth in proportion to their cost goes down considerably. The thing that makes them so good in the current model is that you rarely have to replace them, freeing up your pop and production for other units, supplies, research (or simply more tanks). Once they are vulnerable again, it pays dividends to escort them with something to take the heat off.

[Drax Kramer]

I am curious why does the game compares technological advance with some arbitrary "world standard" instead of opposing players' technology advance?

In old board game "Hitler's War", each player can spend one or two production points on researching various items. However, once a player achieves a superiority in say, tanks he could invest only one production point on tanks until some other player caught up with the reasearch.

In GGWAW, that would mean that once a player achieves a superior technology, further research should become cost prohibitive until an enemy catches up. Historically, major powers researched things to be better than opposing ones, rather than chasing some artificial "world standard". Panthers and Tigers did not appear out from thin air but after reports from the front indicated a need for better tanks than Soviet ones.


Drax

[dapamdg]

I still contend that part of the problem is that, even though research costs go up the higher you exceed the WS, the amount you can spend each turn increases also. Since Germany and the WA by midgame tend to hit the Population wall, they tend to have large quantities of production that can only be spent on supply or research. Thus, the increased cost of researching above the world standard is tempered by the ability to spend more and the resources Germany and the WA must direct into research.

If one wants to limit how high above the WS one can go, simply cap the amount that can be spent each turn. If you did not increase the multiplier, leaving one free to spend only three points per turn per characteristic, it would be very difficult to exceed the WS by much more than one. Also, since Germany and the WA have so much extra production to devote to research, if they can only spend three on one characteristic, they will be more likely to upgrade other characteristics. Spreading the wealth, as it were, will cause greater parity between unit types -- instead of throwing, say, 12 points into armor evasion, I might put 3 points in armor evasion, infantry attack, and artillery attack and evasion. This would make specialization both more difficult and less attractive.

Just my $.02

[Delphinium]

dapamdg has hit a good point here, if you cap research into any single tech to say 3 RP's, then getting way above world standard would be time prohibitive. I feel this would also reflect reality, the throwing of infinite resources at a problem does NOT ever produce an infinitely better result.

I'll give this sort of solution a lot of support. It would cause a less dramatic tech increase, but particularly for the Wallies, I suspect you would get broad advances in tech with some focus for specialisation to counter the German players main effort, or to build bigger bombers etc.

[hakon]

Edit:

This post assumes that armor gets -1 to starting value and WS for evasion.



Uncle Joe:

Say that your german tanks have been researched up to 9-10 (eva-atk), and that I have countered as Russia with teching my artillery up to 7-9. As my previous example show, if you attack with only armor, i will have the edge, given that i still have some of my militia, and at least as many art as you have tanks.

Now suppose that you bring along 15 of those 6-6 infantry (not teched) that you started the game with, for "taking the hits", along with those 10 armor. I too have 15 infantry, teched up to 5-6 before i realized you were specializing in tanks, along with my 10 militia and 10 artillery.

What will happen here, is that our armor will take fewer losses at range 2 (probably 2 damaged), but those losses are translated directly into your infantry, with even higher chance of hitting. (probably 6 damaged infantry)

At range 1, my infantry and your infantry will fight each other, more or less on par (your tech advantage will be more or less cancelled by my range 2 shots). (Expect 4 infantry hits on each side). Your armor will fire at random on my militia and artillery (5 killed militia, 5 hits vs artillery) Expect 3 hits on your armor from my artillery and 5 more hits on your infantry.

Total losses for Germany will be roughly 5 damaged armor and 15 hits on infantry (5 damaged, 5 killed). That is 25 production points and 20 manpower.

Total losses for Russia is 4 damaged infantry, 5 damaged artillery and 6 killed militia. That is 15 production points and 21 manpower.

This is in a situation where you have higher tech (over all, because of better inf tech), and more expensive units (though i have a higher number of units).

When i counter-attack, you have 5 infantry and 5 armor, vs my 4 militia, 11 infantry and 5 artillery. After this battle, almost nothing remains of your force.

The reason this goes so much in my favor, is that you started specializing in one unit, and i specialized in the counter unit. You, on the other hand, have no counter-units to my teched up unit, so even in a mixed battle, i am winning. You could of course include a couple of bombers, but without any tech-upgrade, they will have trouble hitting my artillery. (17.5 average damage vs 21 defence, and this assumes that i done have any anti air, fighters, etc).

If you had combined the armor with teching up tactical bombers land attack, i would have to get some anti air defence, or try to go for an infantry-only or armor-only army (weaker vs tanks, but strong vs bombers). If you had included artillery, the counter-battery-effect would have saved your armor, and with a little tech, i would suffer pretty high artillery attrition. Of course, if you included artillery, i could again try to counter by building my tactical air.

------------

The purpose of this example, is that the tech system (after slightly nerfing the self-sustained units, like armor and heavy bombers), really forces the players to go for a mix of forces, and to continously adjust that mix according to what units the opponent is building/researching. The you specialize in one unit, the more vulnerable you get to you opponent specializing in the counter unit(s).

You will also find that for point defence/attack, a milia/infantry/artillery mix will give the most bang for the buck, while armor and air gives more flexibility and ability to strike in several places (without sacrificing bang too much).

As long as you react immediately, catch up is actually working to some extent. Say that I as russia started out teching for artillery, then discovered that you (germany) were not going armor heave at all, but instead were getting super tac bombers. If i react quickly, i can start churning out AA-guns or fighters to protect my artillery, as well as upping AA tech. If i do this the moment i notice that you build or research tac air, it can save me(though i will be at a disadvantage for a while), but waiting a few turns (just need to finisht those last 3 points of art tech to get to level 7, as well as those 10 art that i have in the production queue), it can quickly cost the game.

Otoh, if i did a more balanced build (starting out increasing infantry evasion, anti air attack, artillery attack and armor attack, instead of focusing all on 1 unit), i could have reacted a lot more quickly to the focused german air strategy, by continuing to research infantry techs (both evasion and attack) as well as AA tech (both evasion and attack)

The point is, that as long as you start out with a general approach, you can react to any specialized tech/build strategy, and pretty quickly come out on top. This will cause combined arms to have its proper effect.

[Beatrix Kiddo]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Unfortunately, it doesnt work out that way. For one thing, it cost more to even get Infantry to 8-8 than Tanks to 10-10. 8-8 Infantry are realistically being opposed by 11-10 Tanks for the same research cost (in general). In that situation, you are likely to lose a unit and unlikely to do anything in return.

So esssentially you are agreeing that your earlier post that 10-10 armor made 8-8 infantry obselete was incorrect? My post convinced you, eh?

[Uncle_Joe]

Beatrix Kiddo:

10-10 is not a fair comparison to 8-8 Infantry. If you somehow have both, they are probably close, with the tanks holding the edge in population in supply usage. You can still find usese for 8-8 Infantry vs 10-10 Tanks, but they are already at a disadvantage and it will get worse as the game progresses. What I was saying that is that:

1) For the same cost of 8-8 Infantry, you can easily have 11-10 Tanks which DO invalidate the Infantry.

2) There is no reason to try and develop both. If you do so, your opponent will be looking at 12-11 Tanks which basically invalidates your Infantry COMPLETELY and still leaves your Tanks at a disadvantage.

[Uncle_Joe]

hakon:

A couple of things in your analysis:

1) 9-10 Tanks (Evasion/Attack) are a sub-par build in the basic game. Much better off going for 10-9 for the same cost. That will lower casualties while not losing much in return.

2) Its more expensive to get Arty to 7-9 than Tanks to 10-9.

3) The Arty/Militia force takes up significantly more pop to build. Yes, you get free Militia with Russia, but you cant compare apples to oranges. This is not a Russia vs Germany situation but Tanks vs non-Tanks. So, considering the cost structure in the game (where cost is subordinate to pop), its not really possible to get that type of numerical advantage from the mid-game on (where those techs are likely) except for Russia.

4) The randomness of combat means that you cant count on the right things shooting the right targets. If an Arty 'double targets' a unit, it does not benefit from the 'previously shot at' modifier. Also, even if an Arty targets a 10 Evasion Tank, it has a less than 40% chance of hit. Afterwards, it takes a DIFFERENT Arty targeting the same Tank to have a better chance of a kill. Even with 'pre-shelling', 6 Attack Infantry have less than a 1% chance of hit (same for Militia). So, unless you are extremely luck with targeting and hits, very few 10-9 Tanks will die in the battle.

5) Once you have 10-9 Tanks in that situation, building 15 Infantry is a waste. Better to get more Tanks as Pop is the bottleneck and the Tanks wont die as easily. Lets say you can get 10 more Tanks instead for the same true cost (counting Prod AND Pop). Now re-run that battle with 20 Tanks insted of 10 Tanks, 15 6-6 Infantry. The results will be quite different and is, indeed, my point...Once get Tanks to that level, large investements in Infantry are largely wasted. Note also that 10-9 Tanks are NOT very tech'ed up for a typical stock game. And with each point above those levels, the comparison will get worse and worse for the Arty force.

At any rate, if you are arguing that AFTER changing the WS of armor evade to 7 that this is valid, then you are preaching to the converted and I agree. Thats why I was proposing the change in the first place. If you are saying that with the WS at 8 that its possible to overcome the Tank force in any cost-effective way, then I still disagree due to the above.

[Beatrix Kiddo]

ORIGINAL: hakon
I think uncle joe's point is that if _you_ have both 8-8 inf and 11-11 armor, _you_ will stop producing inf. The enemy may have 7-7 inf and 10-10 armor at that time.

I understand this, hakon - but note that he *changed* his argument after I rebuted it. His point originally was that if you had 10-10 armor you'd never build your 8-8 infantry anymore. I showed him he was wrong so he changed it to 11-10 or 11-11 armor. Fair enough.

I also pointed out to him his best argument was the manpower one and he's using that argument now. Fair enough.

Uncle Joe pointed out I was wrong to say that if a unit took damage in a phase, then it's attack dropped during that same phase. I was wrong there and appreciate him educating me.

What no one has been able to rebut is my position (supported by pyrrhic) that you need infantry to take and hold regions. It's the classic problem that armor is sexy and kills things, but the grunts do the real work. You need 2:1 to take regions. Hard to do when your armor production costs are then four-fold my infantry (2 armor * 2 PP vs 1 infantry * 1 PP for 2:1).