Too much improvement?

[royson58]

In a recent game as Japan v. WA, it was apparent the the WA had developed the Super Soldier. 7 WA infantry attacked my combined force of 3 infantry (improved 1 point evasion), 2 artillary, 1 armor, 1 fighter and 1 tac bomber in Mandalay (rough terrain). My losses were 2 infantry and both artillary damaged, no allied losses. Two turns later, I attacked a single WA infantry in rough terrain with 1 armor, 2 artillary, and 6 infantry now upgraded one attack. I had one infantry damaged, but with this combined force could only get 1 hit on the WA infantry (damage v. destroyed).

I suggest that a Mech infantry be added to the mix for an upgraded infantry, with it's own advantages and disadvantages, and limit the Super Soldiers. Alternately, the Brits might have to do research independent of the US.

Regards,
Royson58

[Daykeras]

It'd probably just be better to put a cap on Infantry research. Technology only goes so far (especially in the 1940s) and you can't genetically engineer a better person to fight... especially not in 6 years.

[Toby42]

It's this kind of stuff that has ruined the game for me!!! I very seldom play it anymore and I'm sorry that I bought it....

[Tac2i]

You won the battle, correct? You just didn't destory the unit. I don't see a major problem here if that is the case. Very few units were totally destroyed in the war, except those that got surrounded with no retreat possible. In GGWaW a unit can get damaged and yet still be destroyed if it has no retreat available. If a nation is suffering lots of "damaged" units it is sometimes just as effective as destroying them because the nation doesn't have the population to rebuild all of them. I'd also say that you must observe what your opponent is researching and react accordingly. Research is one of the factors that helps you wage war and can't be ignored in this game.

[aletoledo]

if you think a 7 evasion infantry is tough, I had a game where I got my allied infantry up to 9 evasion! the german player had his at 8 (this was 1946 by then obviously). it was rare to have any infantry on either side even damaged. though he did have a few damages occasionally, it required 2 to one odds so that the second attack was against his reduced evasion. the only way things really moved was with superior numbers causing retreats.

I like the system though. early game the issues with technology aren't an issue and the late game is where people seem to complain about the tech'ing up of units. frankly though, if it wasn't for this element of tech'ing up units than the game wouldn't have a lot of "strategy" to it.

I enjoy having to watch my opponents moves not only on the tactical map, but in the production/research screens. It adds another dimension to the game that wasn't present in axis&allies. The super-soldiers, super-subs, super-tanks and super-planes can all be countered if planning is taken ahead of time. plus if everything is all in one basket, then the counter is easy to accomplish.

the more I play the more in-depth strategies I see developing to counter certain strats. a super-soldier may be the hardest unit in the entire game to kill, but the transports he comes in on can be stopped, the supplies strangled or they can be retreated by larger numbers.

[MrQuiet]

the more I play the more in-depth strategies I see developing to counter certain strats. a super-soldier may be the hardest unit in the entire game to kill, but the transports he comes in on can be stopped, the supplies strangled or they can be retreated by larger numbers.

Excellent remark!
Thats the kind of thinking that wins the game!

-MrQuiet

[royson58]

Webizen:

Thanks for the input. While I agree with you on a historical basis about units not being totally destroyed, in terms of gameplay, we're talking only 1 hit in 9 attacks vs. 1 hit in 1 attack for the super soldier; while when defending in the same terrain, the Japanese scored no hits although supported by armor, air and artillary.

Thanks again.
Royson58

[aletoledo]

believe me, I feel your pain. I play most games as axis and the supersoldier for the allies and the supertank for the russians are the bane of my existance. however I've learned to play around them.

I remember one game where it took an attack by 7 japanese infantry to overwhelm a russian tank and infantry stationed in manchuria, despite the fact that they were surrounded. I had made several attack previously and failed with using less than a full force. still today I make the same mistake many times in not using the best attack force and just hoping I can take the objective.

once you have the mechanics of retreat rules worked out though, you can usually defeat even the supertanks/soldiers by numbers. watch your terrain, so that if its rough, recognize that you (or he) will need to have twice the attacking force to capture the province. then assume you'll lose almost every time he shots at you and compensate. you'll sometimes end up sending in 7 units against his 2 (as I experienced), but if you surround them first those units are destroyed.

the superunits really make positioning your forces on the map essential in the late game. sure in the early game you can amass everyone in one region and then push forward, but in the late game with large numbers of superunits on each side, this will fail for the attacker. you'll then need to use some "strategy" and flank the heavily defended regions and force the defender to retreat or else lose his flanks.

IMHO without the superunits, we would lose a degree of strategy in the game.

[royson58]

Hi, Aletoledo.

Thanks for the input. I shouldn't complain too much, as I won the game. I also understand there are issues of balance.

Perhaps one solution would be to have new units introduced at a certain point. Example, infantry would have a limit, but at some point a MECH unit would become available to build.

Of course, raising the cost of researching the soldiers might be easier code to write.

Thanks again,
Royson58

[5cats]

You won the game? Well that's the answer then!
Too much tech-up and you're going to lose! All those points you poured into that one tech could have built units, supplies, repaired infrastructure & etc.
Oh sure it's FUN! nothing like sending 9/9 tanks all over the place! But if you only have 4 of them, and not much else, you're gonna get whupped!
The best idea IMHO, is to up your Arty Attack right off. That way you can at least dent those super-units with only 1 more tech advance. Easier to catch up that way than trying to match his unit.

[aletoledo]

I agree 5cats, its wierd how my strategies have changed during my games. I used to be a heavy research fiend. I would tech up everything and throw points into research while wiping out any production whatsoever.

now I'm playing the game with a different attitude. effiecency is the name of the game. its fun to have the highly tech units in W@W and its nice to always get a royal flush in poker, but neither of these are required to win in either game.

its amazing how much of a lead you can take over an opponent early in the game when they devote everything to research and you build a ton of units. with production modifiers so low in the early game anyone spending a lot on research will have no units, then at the end of the game when they try creating those high tech units, the population limits kill them.

[Battlebyte]

Layers upon layers of depth. Good job on this game!

I recall that in old board wargames (the ones with hexgridded maps and cardboard counters and lots of tables to look up in the rules), it was a standard design doctrine that 3:1 odds were needed for an attacker to have at least a 50/50 chance of success. (Defenders were considered to be dug in, etc, giving them natural advantages). Naturally, this wasn't just quantity (three attacking infantry divisions per defending infantry division) but quantity x quality...if theirs were better, you'd need more. Thus two defending '4's (8) would require at least 24 attacking points...if your infantry were '3's, you'd need 8 (4:1 numerical odds, but 3:1 when the ratings are taken into account). If their two defenders were '5's (10), then you'd need at least 10 of your '3's to give a 50/50 chance of success (5:1 numerical). IIRC, there was some historical basis for this fundamental 3:1 assumption. But anyway, the net effect was that, as the defending force increases, the attacker must increase his force -- not by the same amount, but by three times that amount, just to keep even.

[Maginot]

I find that the German Tanks, or any tanks for that matter, can get far too powerful. When the Axis throw 9 tanks against a stack of 20 Russians units, and not only win the battle, but destroy or damage 14 of those units with one 'damage' themselfs its a little too much.

[royson58]

What I'd much prefer is a variety of ways to deal with a variety of threats. Simply hit 'em with more if their bigger is a strategy, but somewhat limited and, frankly, boring.

I'd much prefer bonuses for combined arms, both offensively and defensively. There are tons of preferences a player could select that would make it much more than a numbers game for the opponent. Getting the right mix of units at the right spot in time.

But this will take extensive gameplay for playbalance, thus they're ideas I'll bounce around for W@W II.

Regards,
Royson58

[5cats]

The problem I see with bonus for combined arms (CA) on defence is that it's standard practice to try to knock out defending Arty before attacking. Thus the Attacker would get CA bonus but not the Defender
Anyhow, almost every attack has some CA already. It's pretty rare to see an attack by only Inf and Militia, nothing else.
Also, consider that the units are assumed to have a variety of CA already. No unit in WaW is "pure" they all have elements of other units incorperated into them.
Hey Maginot! How did 9 tanks kill 14 enemy? lol! I do know what you mean though. It's fun to send 6 tanks against 20 Militia, just to kill a few of them off. Militia that is, the Tanks are not going to take damage from Militia, eh?

[aletoledo]

I find that the German Tanks, or any tanks for that matter, can get far too powerful. When the Axis throw 9 tanks against a stack of 20 Russians units, and not only win the battle, but destroy or damage 14 of those units with one 'damage' themselfs its a little too much.

tanks are cool, but I learned a lesson with them. artillery even only up to 8 land attack will take out a 10 evasion tank. with two attacks per artillery, the chance of hitting is around 30% I believe. it may not sound like a lot, but chances are that you've had 6 or more turns to prepare and that gives you twice as many artillery as his tanks.

I've almost given up using tanks as germany since its not cost effective to lose a 10/10 tank. Now I just like getting tanks attack up to about 9 and use them for adding extra punch to an attack by infantry/artillery.

[Maginot]

Alright 5cats, maybe I was exagerating. Now no lend-lease for you next turn in the 2vs2quick.

[MarcelJV]

You know what is really cool about this game. The more you play it the more you realise the all powerfull strategy is not so all powerfull.[8D] It was not long ago that I read and used the all teched up tanks strategy, which works well if you opponent does not have a counter to this, which is lots of artillery or hordes of units (You can only kill so many). The strategies change and the more they change the more likely we are to get to a more balanced approach to the game, which is what was intended in the first place. You need to find a balance in the number of infantry/militia, artillery, flak, tanks, and air units you use based on the strategy you are using.

This is such a good game.[&o][&o][&o]

[5cats]

It IS a good game Which is why I keep playing dispite getting smacked around in PBEM all the ^$$#%%^ time.
Waaa! No supplies? lol! That's ok Maginot, I've been trading the supplies you send to the Germans for beer...

[Fazman]

The game forces you to think intuitively as much as strategically it seems.