Matrix Games

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?

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?

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.