Matrix Games Forums

Yep, those who visits the forum from time to time probably seen a thread about how powerful those German tanks are.
In other thread (tm.asp?m=2997479) we are deliberating, would it be wise to reduce speed of gathering experience by the units.

Except my proposition to just reduce the amount of XP gained by the units after each combat from 3 to 1 XP, we have got following proposition until now:
1. change the methodology of counting to:

hould be a percentage.. 100 - current = X ... that figure, lower exp results in larger .. multiplied by .1 thus 50 experience unit would gain
100 - 50= 50 multiplied by .1 = 5 gained.. but a 90 would only get 1 100-90=10 multiplied by .1 = 1

2. Introduce the XP cap.

3. Implement slow decrease of XP with every passing turn

4. Allow to gain experience only once per turn


All above are worth to consider.

But what about pure reducing of the Armored Units basic strength for about 30% ?

What do you think about that?

ORIGINAL: doomtrader


But what about pure reducing of the Armored Units basic strength for about 30% ?

What do you think about that?

Assuming that basic strengths of units are in some way reflective of historical strengths, relative to each other, then that would not be good.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: doomtrader


But what about pure reducing of the Armored Units basic strength for about 30% ?

What do you think about that?

Assuming that basic strengths of units are in some way reflective of historical strengths, relative to each other, then that would not be good.

I agree...unless I'm missing something here, I don't think the basic historical strength is the issue but rather the unhistorical increase in strength based on experience effects.

I too agree. Personally, I still favor an XP cap. SImple & easy to implement.

Experience is already capped at 100%. Can't go higher.

I don't think it's an experience problem. The Germans over all have too high of an effectivity to start with and then it gets larger and larger.

When you play other countries you don't have that problem with experience. It's just that the effectiveness is too high to start with as Germany.

However if you wanted to play with experience, number 1 looks as a good option.

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I too agree. Personally, I still favor an XP cap. SImple & easy to implement.

I agree, like a 20 or 30% cap, with no more than a 1 experience gain per turn of combat. These mega units are a new phenomena in the RtV, ToW, ToF series. We don't need them.

agreed, whatever the methedology, a 35-55 power unit of any type vs "strong " enemy corps in the 9-15 range ends up a slaughter
 

ORIGINAL: freeboy

agreed, whatever the methedology, a 35-55 power unit of any type vs "strong " enemy corps in the 9-15 range ends up a slaughter

Are there any historical precedents to draw on? Was there ever a superbly-equipped, exquisitely-trained, incredibly-motivated armor corp that blew apart a better-than-average front-line defending corp in a single week? Maybe there is justification for a 50 point unit in the attackers arsenal but I agree that it should be the exception rather than the rule.

The real problem is that as your strength goes up...the easier it is to gain exp. I have been fighting a brutal air war with the british, and my exp cannot go up on my fighters, as I lose the exp when I reinforce. A natural brake.

There is no brake on the armour.

Depends. Some of the German armoured formations were pretty damn good ... but, I believe, one important aspect of the problem has not yet been recognised ...

German armour did not operate alone when it was maximally effective ... even in the Blitzkrieg phase of Fall Gelb and Barbarossa it was intened to operate in conjunction with advancing infantry ... which would do most of the actual fighting even if it was seen to be mainly "mopping up" ...

When operating in post-Blitz periods ... after 1941, largely, the Panzers operated even more closely with the Infantry ...

Maybe the Panzers should only get experience when operating close to Infantry ... or, since that probably isn't possible, maybe they should get a much reduced experience bonus applied when attacking without Infantry.

Thus, at the beginning of an offensive, you could easily organise things so that armour attacks in conjunction with infantry initially ... but the breakthrough attacks wouldn't get the same benefit. And every turn after, as the Armour gets further and further ahead of the supporting infantry, it becomes more and more fragile ... which would, amongst other things, reflect reality much more closely.

Phil

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Maybe the Panzers should only get experience when operating close to Infantry ...

How then do you handle experience for Panzergrenadier ?

the corps represents armor and infantry look at the troop numbers..
but we are trying to look at the hystory... one drawback is the game allows us to change things.. granted in great abstraction.. but If I research tanks.. my armor quality goes up...
remember its a game...
I was thinking about this thread as in a recent game france fell and I have armor gobling up little french units, I actually thought my unit might gain streangth right before my eyes as I wolfed down a meal of tiny inf... small satisfaction after my oponent  killed two panzer divisions! lol
 

Not sure what higher levels of Infantry Tech would or should do... Think they should also improve their anti-tank capabilities.

From ATG Rifles and Simple Sappers to handheld bazookas...To simple tactics like Molotov Cocktails on the driver's head.

Panzergrenadier and Panzer, at this level, are really the same. One has more tanks and less mechanised infantry, the other the other way around.

Historically, of course, there were Panzer Corps that had no Panzer or Panzergrenadier units and were all Infantry, and Infantry Corps that had tanks ... things got confused during the Russian Campaign, especially in 1943-45.

Phil

ORIGINAL: freeboy
the corps represents armor and infantry look at the troop numbers..

Yes, and if you look in the data files, that seems to be hard coded and have absolutely no game effect at all as far as I can tell.

AFAICT the only thing that has a game effect is the units actual Strength Points. Losses are a percentage of the nominal database strength, regardless. Infantry is infantry, armour is armour, mechanised is a mix of armour and mechanised infantry ... numbers of infantry, guns and tanks are irrelevant, purely colour.

Phil

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
Not sure what higher levels of Infantry Tech would or should do... Think they should also improve their anti-tank capabilities.

From ATG Rifles and Simple Sappers to handheld bazookas...To simple tactics like Molotov Cocktails on the driver's head.

Early in the war the average infantry unit had little to fight tanks with, hence the 'tank fright', especially in France 1940, when even the report of tanks could cause a panic. The German AAA '88' had to be pressed into service as a stopgap, because the normal infantry anti-tank weapons were so poor, but later in the war the weapons available to the infantry could match anything carried by the tanks.

Additionaly, later infantry units received capable individual weapons, such as the bazooka, panzer faust, etc., such that it was the tanks that became frightened to move without infantry support.

Therefore, whatever is added in infantry anti-tank capabilities should be progressive, improving as the game develops, or does tech level and/or doctrine cover this.[:)]

We're all focusing on XP, but since the real culprit is overall EFFECIENCY (for which XP is but one component), how about an (experimental) efficiency cap?? Is there one already and how could one change it (IIR from the manual, eff. has NO limits)? If we can find an appropriate effeciency cap, we could THEN perhaps fiddle with the individual efficiency components so that there wouldn't need to be an overt efficiency cap...

I still have a problem with the basic construct that if your unit strength is "10" based on hardware, numbers & basic processes, that it can become "30" (or more) through doctrine, XP, etc. That just seems to give way too much credit to these factors (cumulatively).

Change all "efficiency" to "effectiveness" -- sorry... [:)]

well.. the Germans ran over the French and English, using  beter tactics against more men and more TANKS and also more heavily armored and guned. They held teh edge in planes, but the real wow was the tactics and "blitz" employed.. so, I think 10 is a poor choice becasue it looks like 100%, but well lead and trained troops with superior tactics will beat better armed. or worse armed, troops.. again in 41 the red army lost stupid high numbers in part due to don't dig in  mindset...
So, what should be the factors making up the strength of formations ? Unity of comand?
Panzer Lehr fighting essentially to the death, under 1000 men in france and remaining  effective verses US divisions taking far less and being combat ineffective.. now everyone has there example, but this game shines in its simple use of combined arms.. trust me, those German tanks aren't going anywhere against dug in troops without air support.. IN THIS GAME..
So what is important???
 

Overall I think the game is broken until you reduce the power of individual units.

I have stopped playing the game completely due to 2 reasons:

1) The Soviet units are reduced to 1% effectiveness when war starts with Germany. This allows Germany to drive through the Caucaus oilfields completely within a few months of campaigning. It doesn't matter at all what sort of defense the Soviets put up along their advance because the German 15+ strength units are completely unstoppable. This is ahistorical in so many ways (supply chain, Soviet defense was actually much better than this, etc). It makes the realism of Babarossa a joke.

2) Individual units are way too strong. The 20 strength German units vs less than 1 strength Soviet units causes the German to be unstoppable by any defense even in fortified lines.....but far worse is that the Germans are barely attrited by the Soviet defenders. Their losses are extremely small. Historically for the Germans to drive their panzer beyond Smolensk they took huge losses and by the time they reached Moscow there were panzer divisions with less than 15 operational tanks and infantry regiments reduced to less than 100 effectives. This isn't modeled at all in the game because it is very easy to add replacements to units quickly in Russia and also because the very over-powered German units take very small losses in the game.

I hope you can fix this stuff because really I can't play the game as it is.

Cheers

Freeboy, I'm making no argument against a substantial impact, only that it's not x3, x4 , or potentially infinite. And I'm not disputing or wanting to change the basic combat values already determined. I think much of what you cite (intangibles) is covered in the land warfare doctirne advantage--and THAT is not part of the "basic strength" I was talking about, it's a modifier, and it's POWERFUL (and rightly so). After that, I think the cumulative effects of positive modifiers should be capped. Yes, you can die gloriously fighting until the last man (for ANY side)-- but you're just as dead. I don't dispute your Panzer Lehr example of dedication, but if they were down to 1000 men they shouldn't have a strength of "20" in this game just because they are in supply, have a great leader, great doctrine, lots of experience, and their one remaining tank in running condition is a King Tiger...

jjdenver: I agree. This also gets to my fundamental point about effectiveness. All the work gone into calculating the "base" combat value is completely overshadowed when you do something like making a unit "1% effective", OR "300% effective". The base values seem reasonable to me, they are just getting skewed by huge amounts.