SCWAW Strategic Bombers

[HarrySmith]

Hi guys,
I again ask the question when i am playing against an opponent that Axis turn 24th Sep 43 and the USA has strategic Bombers Level 5 (Jets) and Germany fighters are Level 3 with Research done straight away and spying at level 3. This creates a whole inbalance to the game as I have stated a number of times before. What I really dont understand is your reluctance to rectify so that the max research for strategic bombers can only be at 1 chit at a time like all other key research areas. I would appreciate a reply by the developer and a reason why this hasnt been rectified. Surely other players have seen this now as this has happened twice by 2 separate opponents.
PLEASE RECTIFY !!!!!

[CaesarAug]

That parameter, like so many others, can very easily be modified in the game’s editor.
Just launch the editor, open a default campaign, save as one of your own modded campaigns (requires a name-change),
then open the new campaign you just “saved as” (which is identical to the default campaign you originally opened),
go under Campaign/Country/Research/ (right now I’m using my
memory, these are approximate menu names, but are quite similar) and for each country, change the maximum chits for heavy bomber research to 1.
Save and you are good to go.

[LoneRunner]

Or you could ask for a gentlemen's agreement in your games where your opponent agrees not to double-chit strategic bombers. You would probably have to compensate your opponent by agreeing not to double-chit subs or anti-air or spying.

I think double-chit for strategic bombers is a legitimate strategy with an historical basis. If the USA or Germany had invested their considerable resources into developing a jet bomber, they could have done so by late 43.

USA can't do everything. When the USA double-chits strategic bombers, they have to give up something else, like advanced tanks or advanced fighters or an early second front. I'd rather not limit the options available in the game.

[BillRunacre]

Hi Harry

I recall posting about this a month or two back and asking for feedback, including on whether Axis players had good counter strategies to this heavy investment.

We aren't closed to the idea of changing it, but the feedback then was mixed and no clear consensus was reached, so the idea is currently still on the list as a potential change to make.

Now is as good a time as any to ask the community where we're at with this, is it a change we should make or should we hold fire?

Opinions are welcome. [:)]

Bill

[Marcinos1985]

Those lvl 5 bombers are big investment, and additionally you must buy them too. There must be some LRA research too. Unless US mobilization was mismanaged, this will come at cost in other areas. And if GER goes for AA lvl 3 and some Flaks bombers will have still some hard time.
In case of change, increasing limit for both UK and US would probably be necessary (as suggested by one of members), otherwise going bomber route could yield too little profits.

[DrZom]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Opinions are welcome. [:)]

Bill

I like having options as long as they would have been possible. So why not allow a player to spend his money as he wishes?

On that topic, why is Germany only allowed one engineer?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I have to agree to keep things as they are concerning Strategic Bomber research after a lot of thought on this. Seems to me if the Allied (USA) player spends his early MMP's on S&I and Strategic Bomber rsearch..there must be some deficits going on. If you guys decided to limit this research to one chit...then I would favor what Marcinos suggested.
The other option is to just house rule it in an MP match.

[SittingDuck]

3rd option is raise the cost for American heavy bomber research.

That way it becomes even more of a buy-in decision for USA.

[BillRunacre]

The cost is currently 175 MPPs a chit for all Majors, and the cost can be made higher for the USA.

Any price in mind?

[DavidDailey]

The United States and Great Britain built thousands of Strategic Bombers which they used to bomb Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II. This is not reflected in the current build limits. Powerful strategic bombers force the Germans and maybe the Japanese to devote some of their resources to defending their home countries and give the Allies a chance to strike back in a game that is already heavily tilted to the Axis. Do not change it.

[redrum68]

Yeah, I haven't seen this being used in high level ELO games and right now balance still seems pretty favored towards Axis at high level play so I don't see any reason to change it. USA would have to invest a lot of research and resources into strat bombers to get them that early which probably means they aren't doing much of anything else and USSR is probably already dead.

[petedalby]

There is a massive opportunity cost to the USA in pursuing this strategy. Personally I'd prefer to keep it as it is please. As has been noted elsewhere - the (much cheaper) counter measure is Axis AA - not fighters.

[LoneRunner]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The cost is currently 175 MPPs a chit for all Majors, and the cost can be made higher for the USA.

Any price in mind?

Thanks for asking Bill. Please leave double-chit for strategic bomber research and cost of strategic bomber research as is.

The cost of strategic bomber research is already large. And in addition to bomber research, you also have to research long-range aircraft in order to adequately use strategic bombers. Then you got the cost of purchasing strategic bombers and applying expensive upgrades.

Then double the cost to the Allies because UK must also research, purchase, and upgrade bombers. As a result, going with strategic bombers is an extremely expensive option. Adding more costs, slowing research by eliminating double-chit, would effectively eliminate strategic bombers as an option.

[ThunderLizard11]

I'd lean towards keeping as is. The opportunity costs is too large IMHO to be a good Allies strategy. Investment in industrial, flighters, tanks or ground would have to suffer.

Would be great to hear from other top players (I see a few have weighted in already) what they think on this one.

[BillRunacre]

An alternative change could be to reduce research progression to achieve level 5 tech as currently it defaults to an average of 4% per turn, so reducing that to say 3% is an option.

It might be a small change but it would delay obtaining level 5 slightly. However, this would affect all techs that go up to that level, so the desirability of that needs to be assessed too.

[LoneRunner]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

An alternative change could be to reduce research progression to achieve level 5 tech as currently it defaults to an average of 4% per turn, so reducing that to say 3% is an option.

It might be a small change but it would delay obtaining level 5 slightly. However, this would affect all techs that go up to that level, so the desirability of that needs to be assessed too.

IMO slowing down level 5 research would have a large impact on the game, way beyond strategic bomber research. German development of level 5 panzers would be delayed, which might impact the assault on USSR. USA research of level 5 amphibious transports would be delayed, which would impact creation of the second front (USA needs every transport to overcome German defenses). Full German and USA production would be delayed.

I'm not saying these are necessarily bad changes but such a huge change should involve wide support from the gaming community and a lot of play testing before implementation.