Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Panzers and Game Balance

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Panzers and Game Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/1/2012 2:56:59 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Lets just throw out some SR numbers which may make more sense:
Looks like the designers gave everyone 3 so they could transport an infantry corps.

Looking primarily at transportation infrastructure and GDP for my guide
USA 20 (just for the ETO portion total would be at least 40)
GE 14
USSR 10
UK 10
FR 9
IT 6
PO 4
Everyone else 3 or 1 if really small practically speaking the minors would be using an allied major's capacity.

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 31
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/1/2012 4:28:24 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
SR is an abstraction for transportation infrastructure. Primarily rail but other types as well. Effectively the US could fly long range aircraft to re-base. The game allows ftrs which was not as accurate but you can get a fighter to or for that matter any light aircraft to Europe its been done with Cessna 150's which are pretty limited performance aircraft. In ToF the most common use of SR for UK and US is aircraft re-positioning which really cost's more than it should in game terms and is really more of supply issue than a unit movement issue in any case.

Razz, Your statement "Romania built most of the trains in the war." makes no sense as written it implies Romania made more than half of all trains in the world. To even imply they made more than either USSR or USA of course is not accurate. Locomotive or rolling stock production is not particularly relevant to this except as a secondary indicator. The idea that Romania had 150% of Soviet transportation capability (by any measure) is BEYOND ABSURD.


The main area where this breaks down is looking at USSR vrs German transport capacity 4 vrs 16 which is absolutely silly.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

No big deal.. UK has several trains. Romania built most of the trains in the war.
France also uses several trains.

USA.. there's no place to use trains.. Besides they have enough PP's to buy anything.

Also SR does not represent trains. It represents all forms of strategic movement, barge boats ships etc...

This is why it costs SR to move planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Just took a look at the SR numbers in ToF Wow what an eye opener. See below:

Germany 16
Italy 9
France 9 (really same as Italy???)
Romania 6
UK 6 (you got to be kidding same as Romania... REALLY)
USA 4 (this is the most amazing number I have seen in this game and there are some doozies but WOW four Wow California likely had 10 not to mention the remaining 47 states)
USSR 4 Seriously 66% of Romania
Slovakia 3 Wow almost as much as the USA

I had no idea Romania was such a transportation super power (my best guess is actual capacity was about 2-3% of US capacity to haul freight) so relative to US Romania should get about a tenth of a SR point if US gets 4.

Does anybody proof this stuff?





_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 32
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/1/2012 1:34:12 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3195
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Just took a look at the SR numbers in ToF Wow what an eye opener. See below:

Germany 16
Italy 9
France 9 (really same as Italy???)
Romania 6
UK 6 (you got to be kidding same as Romania... REALLY)
USA 4 (this is the most amazing number I have seen in this game and there are some doozies but WOW four Wow California likely had 10 not to mention the remaining 47 states)
USSR 4 Seriously 66% of Romania
Slovakia 3 Wow almost as much as the USA

I had no idea Romania was such a transportation super power (my best guess is actual capacity was about 2-3% of US capacity to haul freight) so relative to US Romania should get about a tenth of a SR point if US gets 4.

Does anybody proof this stuff?




Just to address some of those points:

I believe the listings of country resources at start of the Grand Campaign scenario are not accurate. In the Case Gelb game I'm currently playing (later in the war), for instance, Romania has 4 SMPs, Russia 6, Germany something like 24.

It was a design decision to give minors, such as Slovakia, a minimum of 3 SMPs to allow for the rail movement of at least 1 corps. Having a corps, and not being able to move it anywhere, is no fun.

Romania has 4 because of that design decision mentioned above, and I guess the developers gave it one more because of a higher production capacity than some of the other minors?

Why Russia has only 6: again, design decisions, reflecting less efficiency in rail movement, NOT simply how many miles of track were available. Perhaps because of the much longer distances of transport, poorer upkeep, etc. I do know that the scenario designers spent a lot of time trying to make OOBs and resources on map as historically realistic as possible. The SMP totals were not chosen out of thin air, but had multiple factors built into them.

I've never noticed how many SMPs the US has early in the game. It's insignificant because only a tiny portion of the US is on the map, and strategic movement within the US is simply not part of the game. If it were, then of course the SMPs for the US would be far higher. For later in the war, when the US is on the ground in Europe, that lower SMP figure makes sense. To get more, the US player/planner has to budget for more in his invasion planning.

As both you and Razz have discussed, the distances a unit can travel on rail in one turn are indeed not accurate in the game. I would like to see a distance per turn limit.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 33
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/1/2012 8:34:15 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Gary,

Dispute my opinions if you will this game is an abstraction after all. But you may have noticed that when it comes to verifiable facts I have a pretty good track record (find a factual error in any of my posts there may be some but I bet they are VERY RARE) Facts like "The road distance between between Cologne Germany (Far West) and Kazan Tatarstan" I used are easy to verify and I generally quote my sources when the information is a bit obscure.

See responses to your points after each point....

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner


quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Just took a look at the SR numbers in ToF Wow what an eye opener. See below:

Germany 16
Italy 9
France 9 (really same as Italy???)
Romania 6
UK 6 (you got to be kidding same as Romania... REALLY)
USA 4 (this is the most amazing number I have seen in this game and there are some doozies but WOW four Wow California likely had 10 not to mention the remaining 47 states)
USSR 4 Seriously 66% of Romania
Slovakia 3 Wow almost as much as the USA

I had no idea Romania was such a transportation super power (my best guess is actual capacity was about 2-3% of US capacity to haul freight) so relative to US Romania should get about a tenth of a SR point if US gets 4.

Does anybody proof this stuff?




Just to address some of those points:

I believe the listings of country resources at start of the Grand Campaign scenario are not accurate. In the Case Gelb game I'm currently playing (later in the war), for instance, Romania has 4 SMPs, Russia 6, Germany something like 24. - JLPOWELL sorry WRONG this is easy to verify just open up a new GC game and check (see below)

It was a design decision to give minors, such as Slovakia, a minimum of 3 SMPs to allow for the rail movement of at least 1 corps. Having a corps, and not being able to move it anywhere, is no fun. - JLPOWELL I addressed this point in my original post and agree

Romania has 4 because of that design decision mentioned above, and I guess the developers gave it one more because of a higher production capacity than some of the other minors? - JLPOWELL Romania has 6 like other small minors IMO even three is artificially high compared to Great Powers

Why Russia has only 6: again, design decisions, reflecting less efficiency in rail movement, NOT simply how many miles of track were available. Perhaps because of the much longer distances of transport, poorer upkeep, etc. I do know that the scenario designers spent a lot of time trying to make OOBs and resources on map as historically realistic as possible. The SMP totals were not chosen out of thin air, but had multiple factors built into them. - JLPOWELL I disagree the SMP totals were not given much thought IMP and again check your facts USSR has 4

I've never noticed how many SMPs the US has early in the game. It's insignificant because only a tiny portion of the US is on the map, and strategic movement within the US is simply not part of the game. If it were, then of course the SMPs for the US would be far higher. For later in the war, when the US is on the ground in Europe, that lower SMP figure makes sense. To get more, the US player/planner has to budget for more in his invasion planning. - JLPOWELL They are allocated 4 which is absolutely off the wall US had infrastructure and economy of the next two largest combined and then some why make someone 'budget for' something they already had in abundance? BTW IMO the US economy is underestimated in comparison to all others in the game by almost any measure

As both you and Razz have discussed, the distances a unit can travel on rail in one turn are indeed not accurate in the game. I would like to see a distance per turn limit. - JLPOWELL as I indicated Razz had some mathematical problems with his argument (500 miles per day somehow morphed into 500 miles per week) I included the math used in my post arithmetic like any fact is easy to check....







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/1/2012 8:40:11 PM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 34
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/2/2012 2:09:12 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
I don't know what you are trying to illustrate in your post.

The arrow is SR points. The picture of the transport is ship transport points.

Re-read my post. I suggested 500 miles per week based upon 60 mile a day concerning capacity problems

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 35
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/2/2012 7:45:41 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I skimmed through the Transport Capacity argument that arose here. I'd say stick the balance issues.

The only way to be realistic with Transporting is price. Penalizing a player for jumping around...limit movement too too much and you will have a very WW1 Style game. I admit it's very odd to see 500,000 --- a Million men relocate in a game turn. : )

If it cost 2 Turns with of PPs though : )

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 36
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/4/2012 4:36:26 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I have taken onto a new war more interesting than my past 4. A PBEM game again designed to see if the Axis can be thwarted on all Majors Hard vs JLPowell.

Well, instantly both ran into normal hurdles. Long War with France, great fun. Balanced enough. Early Russian Invasion(he crashed his moral too early and stalled) Events started firing, left right and center. Issue is now that the events are following a history we have changed a little too closely. I was winning in North Africa got DAK(not complaining, I can hold the whole continent of Africa with that and without it I'd be out)

Secondly, I have found that Tac Air is too powerful for this reason. You own all coastal waterways and since the map is only so big, that is most of the map. I shall post up in our AAR how many Naval losses to ship on ship or Carrier based. Tac Air is the Sniper of the Navy in TOF. I attribute at least 50 Navy deaths to it of Surface ships on all sides or 100 by games end if we make it there.(which is nearly every ship but the few that wander out to do other business)

Most importantly and finally a stalemate has erupted. I wonder though is this historical. Germans penetrated deep enough on the Eastern Front(near original borders with Poland mud in Ukraine), but due to scripts we both have dug in and hold the line. He's getting units he doesn't need and I'm only killing what I figure I need to. I cannot penetrate in Russia in 1941, impossible... Panzer Korps can get a few cities but they and they alone own the field. Masses of other units are fodder. Without Russian Panzer Korps he cannot mount any offensives, so it will be up to the Western Allies to develop this super weapon or 20 bombers could win?

So my point is partially proved. Panzers own the field and they do break the monotony of WW1 style trenches and I can see how the scripts were invented to prevent that from happening and keep the game from getting frozen. Even they cannot run forever but the other units don't do much. The Russians have no Back Breakers. Wonder if they later develop these?

I would think that to even the game up, as our game looks like a stalemate until an Atom Bomb, I would suggest a similar weapon for the Allies at some point plus self choice in Multi player at least for the very very decisive events.

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/4/2012 4:40:30 AM >

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 37
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/4/2012 9:16:20 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Pretty much what I see . CRAAAAzy events only subtracting from the game (Don't care much for fighting the 'instant UBER level 3 panzer teleported into Africa)but on overall balance its not the main problem.

Ships are sitting ducks to tac air (Germany hardly sunk ANYTHING during the war). What is worse ships can't kill other ships. Takes about 10 carrier airstrikes to kill a single surface ship beyond silly. Sure subs were hard to find. But CV attacks were absolutely deadly during WW2. Carriers are mostly harmless in ToF and surface ships vrs surface ships is like watching toddlers fighting with pillows absolutely no harm done whatsoever for weeks in the same zone. What was Raider thinking during the actual war why was the Bismark not shelling London. OH I remember it got blasted when it poked its nose out (effectively in a single ToF turn). In ToF you can park the RM in the channel with a bit of ftr cover and essentially camp out without fear of surface attacks. And yes the US is near the second 'star' for 'the bomb'. If the Germans can't break a line of Russian infantry corps in 41 who is going to push thru a row of German level 4 infantry corps later in the game. Like BattleVonWar says the only solution may be the 'Los Alamos' solution... I do have a few ideas I want to try however so stay tuned...

BTW we are playing on Hard and are awash in cash (I don't have an exact count but I have Killed 3-4 German armor corps and still see about 6 or so with more building I am sure. I expect to see 50 or so by 1944 LOL just don't trip that infantry size limit or you will go bust.... LMAO. I notice that Germany has given up on offensive operations in the USSR. They have attacked Switzerland and Greece 'for the PP' no doubt.

I am fortifying the UK pretty heavily as Germany could still try an invasion (Heck I worry they could invade the US Invasions ALWAYS get thru. If a few (perhaps only one?) essentially unescorted German divisions can take (then loose to counter attacks as as I had quite a few units nearby as well) a defended Alexandria with 4 aircraft carriers and a lot of BB CA and SS (not to mention 3 ftrs to cover did I mention we have plenty of $$ on hard?) in the zone NOTHING will stop an invasion.



quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I have taken onto a new war more interesting than my past 4. A PBEM game again designed to see if the Axis can be thwarted on all Majors Hard vs JLPowell.

Well, instantly both ran into normal hurdles. Long War with France, great fun. Balanced enough. Early Russian Invasion(he crashed his moral too early and stalled) Events started firing, left right and center. Issue is now that the events are following a history we have changed a little too closely. I was winning in North Africa got DAK(not complaining, I can hold the whole continent of Africa with that and without it I'd be out)

Secondly, I have found that Tac Air is too powerful for this reason. You own all coastal waterways and since the map is only so big, that is most of the map. I shall post up in our AAR how many Naval losses to ship on ship or Carrier based. Tac Air is the Sniper of the Navy in TOF. I attribute at least 50 Navy deaths to it of Surface ships on all sides or 100 by games end if we make it there.(which is nearly every ship but the few that wander out to do other business)

Most importantly and finally a stalemate has erupted. I wonder though is this historical. Germans penetrated deep enough on the Eastern Front(near original borders with Poland mud in Ukraine), but due to scripts we both have dug in and hold the line. He's getting units he doesn't need and I'm only killing what I figure I need to. I cannot penetrate in Russia in 1941, impossible... Panzer Korps can get a few cities but they and they alone own the field. Masses of other units are fodder. Without Russian Panzer Korps he cannot mount any offensives, so it will be up to the Western Allies to develop this super weapon or 20 bombers could win?

So my point is partially proved. Panzers own the field and they do break the monotony of WW1 style trenches and I can see how the scripts were invented to prevent that from happening and keep the game from getting frozen. Even they cannot run forever but the other units don't do much. The Russians have no Back Breakers. Wonder if they later develop these?

I would think that to even the game up, as our game looks like a stalemate until an Atom Bomb, I would suggest a similar weapon for the Allies at some point plus self choice in Multi player at least for the very very decisive events.


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 38
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 12:33:20 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 699
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Given that we have an AI that is ... less than stellar ... perhaps one way of making that work to make the game more historical in gross outcomes is to increase the detection and combat values of allied warships massively and let the German AI produce lots of ships that will get sunk quickly.

For human vs human games, well, the Axis characters will soon realise that they are simply wasting PP and stop building anything but Subs, at least the canny ones will

The wasted PP will, at least, not be spent on uber-panzers, and may make the game more believable.

As for the DAK, have the event make it appear in Rome, and require the Italians to transport it across in the face of the improved Allied Navies

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 4/5/2012 12:34:52 AM >


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 39
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 4:52:46 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3195
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
If you've killed 3 or 4 of his Panzer Corps, and you see six more in the field now, then you can be assured your opponent is failing to spend elsewhere as needed.

I'm playing on hard level as Germans. I've never had more than 8 Panzer corps, because I cannot afford to build them. I have to spend on reinforcements, subs, occasional STPs. After that, in order to afford a Panzer corps, I have to save every other available PP for at least 5 turns to get enough to purchase a Panzer Corps. And then there's a 16 week production cycle.

So let him have his extra Panzer corps or two, and go exploit whatever else he is failing to purchase that he desperately needs, like subs.

And this bit you guys keep mentioning about 'uber panzers.' I have level three Panzers at full strength, with 30 experience points and a good commander, and their strength is around 30. That goes down quickly as the unit takes losses or gets reduced supply. My level 3 infantry is at about 10 strength points. So my Panzers are around 3 times the strength of my infantry - exactly where Doomtrader said was reasonable.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 40
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 5:34:27 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I have never been able to perform Barbarossa because I was forced into a war with Russia in 1940. Odessa and Lviv are the only two USSR cities to have fallen. That accounts for the great amount of PP. I would be reinforcing those assaulting armies if I was using them but there is a river, entrenched Reds and more and more.

Panzer Korps really didn't count quite as much here. Full Strength, full moral Russian Mass Infantry 2-3 deep in places and easily replaceable.

However, I still have killed over 3 million Russians... Fun but I do not think Panzer Korps will survive an A-bomb. I should have performed Sea Lion but I doubt that would be possible now. It's the only way to beat the Allies.

Here it's PPs vs PPs

Kriegsmarine is quite unstoppable, since ship on ship battles are rare. They are great raiders(surface ships) who needs U-boats?



quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

If you've killed 3 or 4 of his Panzer Corps, and you see six more in the field now, then you can be assured your opponent is failing to spend elsewhere as needed.

I'm playing on hard level as Germans. I've never had more than 8 Panzer corps, because I cannot afford to build them. I have to spend on reinforcements, subs, occasional STPs. After that, in order to afford a Panzer corps, I have to save every other available PP for at least 5 turns to get enough to purchase a Panzer Corps. And then there's a 16 week production cycle.

So let him have his extra Panzer corps or two, and go exploit whatever else he is failing to purchase that he desperately needs, like subs.

And this bit you guys keep mentioning about 'uber panzers.' I have level three Panzers at full strength, with 30 experience points and a good commander, and their strength is around 30. That goes down quickly as the unit takes losses or gets reduced supply. My level 3 infantry is at about 10 strength points. So my Panzers are around 3 times the strength of my infantry - exactly where Doomtrader said was reasonable.


(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 41
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 6:03:19 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Re the DAK How about no magical appearance of the uber (above current tech level) DAK at all the player controls the German army and production if he wants to build a corps and deploy to N Africa he is free to do so no need for dealing a joker out of the wild and craaazy events deck.... you can even assign Rommel to it if you feel nostalgic.



quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Given that we have an AI that is ... less than stellar ... perhaps one way of making that work to make the game more historical in gross outcomes is to increase the detection and combat values of allied warships massively and let the German AI produce lots of ships that will get sunk quickly.

For human vs human games, well, the Axis characters will soon realise that they are simply wasting PP and stop building anything but Subs, at least the canny ones will

The wasted PP will, at least, not be spent on uber-panzers, and may make the game more believable.

As for the DAK, have the event make it appear in Rome, and require the Italians to transport it across in the face of the improved Allied Navies

Phil



_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 42
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 6:15:10 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Your comment about carriers is exaggerated.

Here is a game where in 14 turns I have sunk 8 submarines. Most by carriers.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Razz -- 4/5/2012 6:22:15 AM >

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 43
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 6:20:45 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Here is a game where you can see twice as many ships sunk via sea battle over air bombardment and this is only part of the list.

Ship battles work fine. Reading the manual again to learn how to use your units may help improve your results.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 44
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/5/2012 5:40:20 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
I think we are on the same page. Razz is on another planet talking about subs when we are talking about surface ships (likely he is playing the AI which is from what I can see an even match his defense in the game I played him was the only PBEM I have seen weaker than an AI...). I have hit surface ships with probably a 100 carrier strikes and killed maybe 5?!?!. Damage happens but sinking is rare. You need 7 CV's and a bit of luck to kill a BB. The RM can sail laps around the British Isles (and ARE)

Subs on the other hand look about right, its hard to tell as the game does not report 'dice rolls' only results so the players can't tell if its a run of bad luck or that what the odds are. One or two hits sink a sub. Surface ships run wild particularly individual ships. Get a 'Fleet' together and you could get hurt. (The result of 7 CV on the entire RM would be LOTS of hits. Attack a single ship with the same force and you are VERY UNLIKELY to sink it.

Surface actions are different from sub encounters. If a CV unit (or surface unit or surface and CV together) attack as sub they either 'kill it quick' or it escapes and cannot be found. Subs can 'loose themselves' even in daylight with enemy air and surface searching. A surface ship cannot disengage so easily surface ships cannot escape detection as easily and when damaged they get 'finished off' by followup airstrikes and or surface ships. Surface actions are decisive damaged ships 500 km out so sea don't limp home when enemy has superior air and surface units THEY DIE. Not so in ToF BB's take a hit or three then scoot back to port (often past more enemy units and like as not right up the channel. The actual odds of a single BB or a BB and a CA surviving an encounter with a 7 CV battle group were effectively zero. In ToF the odds are they will get away.

As BattleVonWar states Tac is way too powerful vrs ships. The game needs a dedicated Nav air unit with the investment that entails (which were pretty deadly) German Tac air was very ineffective vrs warships compared to others (pretty deadly vrs convoys however but Tac cannot attack a convoy at all in ToF)

Normally I don't engage in a flame, but Razz's condescending remarks about 'reading the manual' so 'I could properly deploy my ships' are insulting enough to beg a response. >quote> Ship battles work fine. Reading the manual again to learn how to use your units may help improve your results <quote< He apparently plays the AI for the most part, I have played 7 opponents in this game and he was by far the least challenging (hard to tell as he dropped out fairly early my guess was because Paris would be lost in 1939). I make a comment (supportable based on some notes I have taken and corroborated by my opponent) about surface ships and he replys I am exaggerating and gives an irrelevant example involving subs. This in the face of posts by my opponent (BattleVonWar) who essentially is saying the same thing I am re surface actions.

Naval rules are pretty BROKEN, no amount of 'cheer-leading' will fix this. Valid specific criticism is useful. I like a lot about the this game but posting how wonderful it is doesn't help Matrix / Wasteland improve it. The discussion has to be about flaws. Fortunately Matrix is pretty receptive, and clearly wants to improve the game.


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I have never been able to perform Barbarossa because I was forced into a war with Russia in 1940. Odessa and Lviv are the only two USSR cities to have fallen. That accounts for the great amount of PP. I would be reinforcing those assaulting armies if I was using them but there is a river, entrenched Reds and more and more.

Panzer Korps really didn't count quite as much here. Full Strength, full moral Russian Mass Infantry 2-3 deep in places and easily replaceable.

However, I still have killed over 3 million Russians... Fun but I do not think Panzer Korps will survive an A-bomb. I should have performed Sea Lion but I doubt that would be possible now. It's the only way to beat the Allies.

Here it's PPs vs PPs

Kriegsmarine is quite unstoppable, since ship on ship battles are rare. They are great raiders(surface ships) who needs U-boats?



quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

If you've killed 3 or 4 of his Panzer Corps, and you see six more in the field now, then you can be assured your opponent is failing to spend elsewhere as needed.

I'm playing on hard level as Germans. I've never had more than 8 Panzer corps, because I cannot afford to build them. I have to spend on reinforcements, subs, occasional STPs. After that, in order to afford a Panzer corps, I have to save every other available PP for at least 5 turns to get enough to purchase a Panzer Corps. And then there's a 16 week production cycle.

So let him have his extra Panzer corps or two, and go exploit whatever else he is failing to purchase that he desperately needs, like subs.

And this bit you guys keep mentioning about 'uber panzers.' I have level three Panzers at full strength, with 30 experience points and a good commander, and their strength is around 30. That goes down quickly as the unit takes losses or gets reduced supply. My level 3 infantry is at about 10 strength points. So my Panzers are around 3 times the strength of my infantry - exactly where Doomtrader said was reasonable.




< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/5/2012 7:03:05 PM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 45
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/6/2012 12:21:53 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
The Bismark was sunk by 1 torpedo you see.

Malay was a land based attack and was devastating.

Meanwhile Taranto? You won't sink a Battleship at full strength in this game with a single striking Carrier. Due to the HPs, you might get a Transport or Amphib(or very damaged Naval Unit) That's why it's so very hard. AN INTELLIGENT player will never post his ships up to get slaughtered, meanwhile me and Powell are Intelligent enough to run when we take a few HPs of damage and reinforce out of range of Enemy Carriers/Surface Ships. We both probably have about 2/3rds of Surface Fleet damaged and in port or on the way trying to fight for supply over North Africa.

Though Land Based Tac Air is a unique factor. If it's any hint the Designer cut back on the Damage the German Tac Air can do in a single strike.

Mediterranean is a narrow Funnel, not a Sea, The Ownership of these arteries are easy enough. Plus... Plus the North Sea, English Channels and Biscay regions are all easily monopolized along with the Baltic with plenty of Tac Air. Cheaper than Carriers, more powerful.

Not that I dislike any of these qualities, they make it very tough. U-Boats are not a major factor when you can bottleneck the opponent with Tac Air and spotting Surface Ships

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/6/2012 12:23:12 AM >

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 46
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/6/2012 12:54:28 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Land based Tac Air Kills RN 55-60
Sea Battles: 6
Sub Attacks: 3
(Fall Gelb PBEM)

I will omit the 30 other Kills by Tac Air on USSR/USA and Minor Navies.

Here is my experiences about exaggeration, I mean, if you want to break it down I lost count at 55 Royal Navy Ships Sunk. If you want a Chronological List I will add it up later for you.


(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 47
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/6/2012 1:20:46 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3195
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
Land-based air did historically rule the coastal seas. I see no problem with that. You did not have to place those ships in harms way, in range of German bombers. Or you could have suppressed those bombers with your own land-based fighter or CV-based fighter attacks.

As the German, I place subs in the Channel or North Sea, or Irish Sea in great peril- UNLESS I carry out a systematic air suppression campaign, forcing British bombers away from the coast.

There are tradeoffs in the game that a player has to make. The UK could invest in fighters to oppose my German suppression campaign, rather than pumping PPs into strat bombers or naval units.

Now one area that the player has no control over is where convoys go. I agree with JLPowell that a major enhancement to the game would be player designation of convoy paths. If the player chooses a circuitous, out of the way, long path, then it would cost more STPs. If he chooses to go direct, near coasts or where subs can hang out, then the convoy costs less STPs, but the risk is greater of raids. Again, player tradeoffs.

And finally - I think I'll start ending every post like this - EVERYTHING almost in the game is player configurable. If for instance you think land-based bombers are too powerful, go into the text-editable configuration file and reduce that power. It's quite simple. And then, for the benefit of other players, make a mod of the changes and upload it to the mod forum.

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 4/6/2012 1:21:47 AM >

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 48
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/6/2012 4:16:59 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
In all respect... I am no Historian, I love History but I was not the UK, I was Axis in this game. I will admit the opponent was neglectful of their Navy(and I think I lost 5-7 ships myself, he did not learn to use TacAir) I will also say no amount of Land Based Fighters or Carriers would stop me from sinking 100 Ships with Tac Air. (right now in my Current Game we have the whole Luftwaffe and RAF in Egypt and they have no impact on Preventing Naval Deaths, in fact seems Tac Air rarely takes damage on Ship Runs) HOWEVER in fairness the patch has made German Tac Air weaker. Also in every other game I have played kill totals on Navies are about 50+ by tac air, and primarily subs and surface ships are lucky to get in hits and finish off a job or chase down a wounded ship. So really I will say in my worst scenarios the kill total for Surface Ships is nearly zero UNLESS the opponent or myself is too busy to bother with the Navy. In this case a random hit or two destroys a wounded ship or a straggler gets killed while people's heads are in the clouds way out at sea.

I agree changing the course of Shipping would help and might make U-boats better. In that case you'd have to find the veins and arteries. Though in choke positions I stand by what I said... Also I am posting this here for you, sacrificially showing you what is completely not Historical at all. If Stukas and He-111s would have leveled the Royal navy with the Royal Airforce buzzing around, we would all be speaking German. At that kill rate.

To improve the game, Mods aren't needed. In the patch the whole overhaul is needed. This is a Balance Subject I created ;)

Onto more relevant issues:

I am actually in a stalemate, completely shocked. So are the Allies though, WW1 has erupted in our game of Balance. : ) When does the A-Bomb come.. Uber Panzer Korps hold the line in the South and in the North Rivers and entrenchments do.

Now in fairness dedicating my Air Power in this game has cost me A LOT in Russia, about 5-6 at least. The Reverse is I may have never invaded Egypt had I known that I wouldn't get a full collapse of the USSR's Army. I also have spent poorly and wasted lots of PPs. My opponent has done a great job at side showing me. With Production likely 3 to 1 vs my Axis let's see how long our game of Balance lasts. What UPKs do in Open territory when Russians invade...Plus pre-A Bomb what will happen? Allied Offensive or not.


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Land-based air did historically rule the coastal seas. I see no problem with that. You did not have to place those ships in harms way, in range of German bombers. Or you could have suppressed those bombers with your own land-based fighter or CV-based fighter attacks.

As the German, I place subs in the Channel or North Sea, or Irish Sea in great peril- UNLESS I carry out a systematic air suppression campaign, forcing British bombers away from the coast.

There are tradeoffs in the game that a player has to make. The UK could invest in fighters to oppose my German suppression campaign, rather than pumping PPs into strat bombers or naval units.

Now one area that the player has no control over is where convoys go. I agree with JLPowell that a major enhancement to the game would be player designation of convoy paths. If the player chooses a circuitous, out of the way, long path, then it would cost more STPs. If he chooses to go direct, near coasts or where subs can hang out, then the convoy costs less STPs, but the risk is greater of raids. Again, player tradeoffs.

And finally - I think I'll start ending every post like this - EVERYTHING almost in the game is player configurable. If for instance you think land-based bombers are too powerful, go into the text-editable configuration file and reduce that power. It's quite simple. And then, for the benefit of other players, make a mod of the changes and upload it to the mod forum.



< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/6/2012 4:26:03 AM >

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 49
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/26/2012 7:42:29 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
BattleVonWar and I have played out our game (thru turn 119) and it looks like an allied win likely in 1944. Some observations based on that game...

Uber Panzers. I must concede they are not the unbalancing problem I expected. With the patch and an active opponent they can be held in check. NOTE this game was set to HARD so Germany was too cash strapped to make many. As USSR and Allies I bombed them relentlessly and was able to keep them from getting 'super sized' (full strength with experience) In supply limited areas like Africa they were still unstoppable, this was more a supply terrain issue than uber panzers however. 6+ inf corps pushed out of Egypt by DAK (driving thru the Qattara Depression) UK can't supply Egypt (should be a MSS or supply from Colonies)

Aircraft on defense... not too good you can do 'spoiling' and 'attrition' strikes but TAC air is really only good for attacks in ToF. Historically TAC air was best breaking up attacks. Air is offensive only in Tof. While this should be addressed I am not sure how.

AI and minors. AI is just plain useless. An option for players to 'take control' of all units in their faction should be added to PBEM (Perhaps set an event which changes control when a minor joins an alliance to player controlling that alliance). Best tactic you can use is attack the AI, only Switzerland gave any kind of fight. Finland folded to the USSR like a cheap tent (plenty of units but AI was just hopeless moving them) Also AI units just plain get in the way. I awarded a 'Hero of the Soviet Union' to a Croatian unit for its key role in the defense of Kiev (blocking German attack hex) Just to review AI worse than useless particularly for minors. Fun but sad to watch minor units 'dance' in and out of positions mindlessly exchanging positions instead of just staying put. Crowding around (effectively blocking) ports and other access routes.

Naval rules CV and surface units completely ineffective. (40 CV strikes to kill off a small task force chased for 7 weeks) Tac is vastly more effective and has the odd effect of killing more the more targets there are. I expect if you put 1000 CV in a hex and flew a TAC strike you would inflect 500+hits game engine seriously broken here....

Events... Still stand by my assertion they are out of control many qualify as completely 'wakadoodle' Giant instant cash prizes or penalties; Overpowered (plus tech) units like DAK 'materialize'. Events are 90% rubbish. This game is 'event driven' like poker with LOTS of wild cards. Lets not marginalize the players TONE THIS DOWN and give control in PBEM.


< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/26/2012 7:51:32 AM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 50
RE: Panzers and Game Balance - 4/28/2012 9:07:54 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
Uber Panzers:

I have to agree with you here, I have seen alterations in the patch and your game play that has made me a believer that they can be stopped.(you stopped them at The River Euphrates?) Mind you I didn't get to see a Red Army Collapse so I will be very curious if that event was some how lessened a bit(it was overpowered before) in that situation, The USSR is much like Africa. A Panzer Train.

Aircraft on the defense:

I watched you bomb me into the stone age, literally. I was close -%50 PPs at some point in the game. Fighters really do not accomplish very much. They are hardly worth much considering their price in comparison with an offensive Bomber or Tac. I will have to say I would double my Tacs as Germany next time and ignore Fighters. It is very rare they seem be either aerial umbrellas or defenders as they were historically.

AI and Minors: This part is going to be tough. They get in the way for certain, but if you can control them or streamline them??? Perhaps for Axis Minors in the future we could have all of them under 1 turn for PBEM and streamline their actions as all player controlled? Same for the Allies..1 unit in the wrong location could be a massive issue in multiplayer.

CVs: They are fun. They are pretty, but overpriced for the actual bang they deliver. The Attack...Power.... of a navy needs to increase to play a role in the game. CV Air Craft should be far more adept than Land based Tac Air. These guys were trained to do their missions at sea...

Events: Could be an issue, I have been wondering how one would fix them for PBEM play, don't think it will happen. Too much a part of the game engine. If they could be disabled it would be nice. The Civil Unrest event struck me as off totally. Any major in WW2 save perhaps the USA would have stomped their people into shape. WW2 was total war, it's not historical at all... Getting War Declared on me by the USSR who couldn't defeat the Fins was weird, a few months after that war had just ended, that's a pretty piece of fiction. DAK in N.Africa as a Panzer Korp at strength 23 I believe? I added 1 Korp and 1 Tank Div and the Whole of the UK couldn't stop me there. Supply lines were like a Giant Pipeline right up into Alexandria. That is a fictional piece, especially if you were posting any ships to cut the supplies coming through. Historically between Allied Air and Navy, I doubt Rommel had a chance to take Egypt at all. That aside.... I haven't discovered any other back breakers so far though will certainly continue to study them. Tried Peeking in the Event Files(they are near impossible to study)


(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Panzers and Game Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148