Balancing US research

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Balancing US research

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Why should Romanian and Italian Troops benefit from high quality infantry weapons when they couldn't have supplied them to themselves?
The Research Level attainable can be limited for Italy [but not for the Minors] but I don't feel like that is a good remedy. What if the Minors and Italy started with reduced Combat Data, similar to Russia ? Then when they are upgraded to levels the same as others, they will still be less effective ?
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Balancing US research

Post by Capitaine »

I'm speaking mainly of research. But my play experience isn't particularly extensive either so I'll let the rest of you decide if U.S. entry is properly measured. My play caused me to raise an eyebrow. That is all.
vonik
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:12 pm

RE: Balancing US research

Post by vonik »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I'm speaking mainly of research. But my play experience isn't particularly extensive either so I'll let the rest of you decide if U.S. entry is properly measured.
My play caused me to raise an eyebrow. That is all.

I agree with you and this was the purpose of my thread . As far as I am concerned, I have an extensive experience and it made me raise an eyebrow too .
When I play Allied and I have US researching about everything that is available already in 1940, it simply looks stupid because I will enter the war in 41 with research in every compartment on a par or better than Germany .
The game is finished, before it even began . If somebody thinks he can beat the Allied with Germany, I'll accept a PBEM as Allied.
For those who want to discuss the US historical mass production of average equipment, open your own thread and don't pollute this one .

My purpose is mainly balance because I find it boring when I know that I have won already in 1940 and that the German player hasn't got a chance regardless of what he will do .
That's why I propose only 3 research items for the US from 1939 to the entrance in the war and an linearily increasing MPP amount which starts at 0 in 1939 .
And even then I am not sure that it would be enough for an even approximate balance (by balance I understand 60/40 odds in favour of the allied because the history compells to give Allied somewhat better odds)
Mike Dubost
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

RE: Balancing US research

Post by Mike Dubost »

It is my thought that we should not be overly focused on actual history. For example, on the issue of US tanks, the Sherman's relatively poor performance against German tanks one-on-one was not really a failure of design, but of doctrine.
Under US doctrine before Pearl Harbor, the primary self-propelled anti-tank weapon was the tank destroyer, not the tank. The Sherman was designed for supporting infantry during the breakthrough and then exploiting the breakthrough. The emphasis was on standardization of parts, reliability of machinery, and cross-country mobility/speed (though wider treads would have been useful in mud).
I would say that an investment in research could be viewed as a significant change in doctrine and the expense of developing new prototypes.
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Balancing US research

Post by battlevonwar »

You really think that USA is that much of a deal breaker, you may be highly mistaken.(I've only lost once with Germany and that was cause I was exploring unique ideas, I think the Axis are favored more like 70/30 or 60/40 Again this is about timing and situations. I will take your challenge and you will be sadly mistaken what can be done with Germany. You want an AAR?

Let me show you what Forces in place, that Axis have, in the time that's available ... can do alone without being the Tech Monster(tanks and bombers alone are big, let alone the amount of HQs through 41-42)

P.S. I even switched sides and gave a guy my Axis and he beat me with them cause they were that OP.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Balancing US research

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
(though wider treads would have been useful in mud).

Pretty sure the max width of the tank was also limited by allotted space on ships. The bean counters and logistics guys wanted x number of tanks to fit in a ships cargo hull so designs had max size limits as to their overall area footprint. Though I could be miss-remembering something I read long ago in a forgotten book about cargo vessels and shipping manifests.

Cargo vessels had a sort of scaffolding system that allowed the interior space setup to be adjusted for different load types. The tanks had to fit within the predetermined box sizes of the grids these scaffolds could create.

Jim
vonik
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:12 pm

RE: Balancing US research

Post by vonik »

OK battlevonwar, make a game take Axis and send me a PM .
I base my experience on the fact that I have never lost with Allied so we shall see who is sadly mistaken . Perhaps all my opponents missed something important .
User avatar
IrishGuards
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:49 pm

RE: Balancing US research

Post by IrishGuards »

Maybe sew, well 1 thing is 4 sure.
You will eh'

Maybe I should set up a few games eh'
[8|]
IG
Trump2016
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:54 am

RE: Balancing US research

Post by Trump2016 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

It is my thought that we should not be overly focused on actual history. For example, on the issue of US tanks, the Sherman's relatively poor performance against German tanks one-on-one was not really a failure of design, but of doctrine.
Under US doctrine before Pearl Harbor, the primary self-propelled anti-tank weapon was the tank destroyer, not the tank. The Sherman was designed for supporting infantry during the breakthrough and then exploiting the breakthrough. The emphasis was on standardization of parts, reliability of machinery, and cross-country mobility/speed (though wider treads would have been useful in mud).
I would say that an investment in research could be viewed as a significant change in doctrine and the expense of developing new prototypes.

yes, in fact the prototype for the M26 Pershing heavy tank (T20) was actually in place in 1942! if a change in attitude/doctrine had happened sooner, the Pershing could have been fielded in 1944 instead of 1945.
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Balancing US research

Post by battlevonwar »

Great titanic struggle has begun.

The British were still fighting with outdated tank tactics as late as 1942. Allies took awhile to be taught how to use their weapons.
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Balancing US research

Post by battlevonwar »

Depends on factors. Skill level. Little tricks learned about the game engine. Does Vonik have a print out of the Scripts. Yes, it will be months since PBEM started so recently to know the player vs player balance.
ORIGINAL: IrishGuards

Maybe sew, well 1 thing is 4 sure.
You will eh'

Maybe I should set up a few games eh'
[8|]
IG
vonik
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:12 pm

RE: Balancing US research

Post by vonik »

I am playing Irish Guard as Allied too :)
Well when I say playing, it is more waiting because this guy does something like one turn per week . If that ....
I suspect that he actually doesn't even know what games and with whom he is playing .

And no, I have not a print out of the scripts .
I hate tinkering with settings - if the developpers didn't balance it enough, players touching at that would only make a hopeless mess with bias all over the place .
What leads me to the question - when somebody sets up a PBEM, is it possible for him to change the scripts and settings while his opponent doesn't know what has been changed ?
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

RE: Balancing US research

Post by battlevonwar »

No, once you start a campaign Vonik you're locked into it and all the settings and scripts that are there. Also there would be issues if your scripts didn't match their's I imagine causing all sorts of of imbalances. Anyways, anyone who programs that well and wastes it on a PBEM game is in serious need of a job.

IrishGuard may be slow but I am not. A lot of time on my hands I suppose and I have begun to learn the mechanics of the game engine. I had some overconfidence as Allies against a guy(was it Purger) I think it was. He mowed me down in Russia like fresh cut grass. That's after it took him till nearly October to defeat my French Defense. In the old Strategic Commands a game sometimes could be decided in France!

I hope to max out German Research pre-1940! Or close enough, it's an old Strategic Command tradition for the Axis giving them the tech edge till about 1943 in most fields that matter. Honestly the game is usually over before American Tech really is decisive but we will see what you got!
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”