Matrix Games Forums

Do advancements cost too much? For certain things, bonuses in range and naval air are usually worth it, but, for example, I would rather have 4 x '39 subs or destroyers in lieu of 3 x '42+ ones. They serve their role by the counter existing. Similarly, if you were to build CV, you could get 4 older models.

Obvious exceptions include infantry units, but more and more I'm just looking at getting more chances to hit.

Well 10% is not "too" much overall in my eyes.

Are 4 39 subs better than 3 42? I bet not but it would require testing. Considering upgrading costs just 7 points for a sub that is pretty cheap.

I do know in WPE it makes a BIG difference.
Not really been able to tell in WPE...

In my experience, mid-late game (if it arrives to that) is determined by anemic fleets. At certain points, night resupply and blockade capability is a very precious resource, as both sides will want to avoid a definitive carrier fight. One more counter is much more worth 3-5 more total defense, in my opinion. Similarly, quantity trumps quality for certain things like (in main supply generally) bombers, where you're just gambling for that lucky hit or detection.

Wonder if a rebalance to say 8% for naval/air and 12% for ground troops would be reasonable.

I guess it would be interesting to test...

Say 5 1944 CVs vs 6 1942 CVs...

I suspect the 42's will get beat more often due to the higher combat and defense in the 44 CVs.

So what I see if the following based upon what I can read...

The 44 CV's will have:

10% better naval attack...that is minor overall...though still better
33% better anti air...which is really an upgrade.
17% better defense...

I think the 5 CVs will beat the 6...BUT this would have to be tested.

I'd love an option to turn ON reinforcements but OFF upgrades. I don't want to spend a million production on giving units a tiny bit more attack and defence.

I would rather have my navy advanced as much as possible, especially carriers.