Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Game Balance Offsets

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Game Balance Offsets Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Game Balance Offsets - 6/1/2017 12:01:58 AM   


Posts: 150
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline
Is there a general list of game balance offsets that I can access?

I know the pace of the game is faster than RL because I have read in a prior post that
building and improving existing bases is quicker than in real life.

What were there advantages given to the Japanese side? Example, the durability number
for Japanese aircraft seems to be relatively high, considering the lack of cockpit armor
and self-sealing fuel tanks. Was this intentional or simply an artefact of the way
the game had to be written?

I've noticed on some of the threads that the Japanese have more merchant shipping than
in RL history. Again, is that a game balance decision to keep the game moving?

Incidentally, I really love this but I am a detail freak. Any info will be gratefully accepted.


Post #: 1
RE: Game Balance Offsets - 6/1/2017 7:21:05 AM   

Posts: 2486
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Hi, welcome aboard.
As to your questions.

A) Base building - I would say that the base building is about right for the allies - they were able to pour men and materiel onto any field and make it a base in no time - few days for fighter strip (lvl 1/2 AF), a week or two for medium bomber base (lvl 4-5 AF) and month for heavy bomber base with hardstands, revetments and all (lvl 5-7 AF), or throw around an airfield complex like Torokina/Nadzab/etc. Japan has the going much difficult because of lack of mechanized force (bulldozers, etc). This is reflected in the game.

B) Durability is not the only factor - first you have hit the target and then to defeat armor. Hitting nimble Jap fighters is not that easy, but there are ways. So basically you can shoot down (destroy) any 0 armor aircraft with light MGs (+/-7,7mm, those with armor 1 would be damaged at most. For Armor 1 you need heavy MGs (+/-12,7mm) to have a chance to kill (destroy), yet even that would cause a majority of allied aircraft damaged (high DUR), while the Jap planes would mostly be destroyed (low DUR). Using cannons (+/-20mm) would most probably result in destroyed opponent.
So you need light weapons to destroy airplanes without armor (Ki-43-Ic 0 armor, 23 DUR), heavier weapons to destroy planes with armor (P-40E 1 armor, 29 DUR), and even then you would need a hell of a luck to down allied heavy bomber (B-24D armor 1, but DUR about 60).
Actually some people consider allied heavy bombers as best fighters in their inventory - lot of defensive fire shooting down Jap fighters, hard to kill and they carry bombs!

C) Japan has about the correct number of merchant shipping than IRL. There are two things that are altering the RL picture:
- IRL a number of merchant shipping was used to carry things around, the amount of resources/supplies to be transported in the game seems to be a little low for that
- IRL the Navy and Army got their separate ships assigned - that were not able to be used by the other, nor by carrying general freight around. So ships tended to carry just troops/supply there and empty back, while in the game you can carry troops/supply there and resources back.

For better feeling of the game, I can advise you to check DaBabes-C scenarios. DBB as a whole has taken airplanes and their stats, AA stats and ToE changes (better modeled planes, AA that actually works deadly, ToE revision). -C scenarios has reduced cargo capacity for all ships by about 1/3rd.


(in reply to jmolyson)
Post #: 2
RE: Game Balance Offsets - 6/1/2017 8:35:18 PM   


Posts: 150
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

My question about the durability of Japanese aircraft is because they already have a maneuverability advantage that
takes into account the "nimble" factor. In terms of reading history I've never read that any Japanese aircraft could stand
up to 0.50 caliber, let alone 20mm, fire - at least in the 19412-43 world. I agree they should get a hefty maneuverability
allowance, at least the fighters.

If the DaBabes scenarios do a better job with TOE and lethality issues that's great. Is the order of battle info accurate?

Thanks again for address this issue.



(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 3
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Game Balance Offsets Page: [1]
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