Harrybanana
Posts: 2372
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
There have been several posts, both recent and old, where some one has complained about one nation or another (or all nations) building more of a particular unit type than historical. Before I started even playing the game I believe there was a complaint that the Axis were building too many air units. So air units were nerfed so that only the first attacking bomber can destroy strength points. Than there was a complaint that the British Strategic bomber was doing too much damage to the German industry early in the game. So it was taken away (and I believe strategic bombing was nerfed as well, but I am unsure of this). Later we had the complaint that the British and Americans were able to build too many armour too quickly. So the sub Rules were changed so that U-Boats are now harder to destroy, thus forcing the UK and US to devote early game resources to escorts and MS.
But the problem isn't that any particular nation has too much production but that the game allows a player to use his production as he wishes. There is no need to "retool" the industry (with the exception of naval units that require shipyards). So if a particular type of unit is found to be "overpowered" than everyone is going to concentrate production on that type of unit. At the moment armour and mechanized units seem to be the flavour of choice. So personally I don't think that the UK or US production was too high and I fear that forcing them to use almost all of their production on MS and escorts may turn out to be a mistake. The reason the UK and US had 10+ armour units in 1942 wasn't because they had too much production, but because they used that production (especially the US) to build nothing but amour and mechs. They don't build strategic bombers or destroyers because they are not cost effective and certainly don't build nearly as many ground attack air units as historical [If you load the 44 scenario you'll see that the Force size of both the US and UK's air forces is about the same as their land forces]. I have seen the same thing with the Germans and Italians concentrating on armour and mech and not building any new air units and very little, if any, infantry. In a game I am playing now the Axis had 20 armour and mech units for a 41 Barbarossa. To counter this certain Russian players are talking about scrapping a large chunk of the Russian air force.
I understand that it is very difficult with a game like this to get the right balance between all the different unit types and production costs. So my hat is off to Alvaro for doing as well as he has. But at the moment I believe that clearly some unit types are superior to others based on their respective costs. With respect to land and air units:
1. Armour and Mechanized: You get your best bang for your buck with these. Germany, the UK and the US will each probably want to build 10 to 15 of these by 43 or 44 (if the game goes that long). For the Russians it will depend on how many they lose. I understand that Alvaro will be reducing the effectiveness of late War armour, but the game is probably over one way or the other by 42 anyway.
2. Infantry: Absolutely necessary for the Allies in the beginning to stem the tide. The Germans and Italians need them for garrison duty.
3. Ground Attack Air Groups: Each side (Axis or Allies) only needs about 4 to 8 of these in total. So the Germans should build 2 to 4 (since they start with 2) and the Allies may want to build 4 to 8.
4. Fighters (of one variety or another): each of the Germans, British and US might build 1 to 3 of these.
5. Medium Bombers: Does anyone build these? If so, for which nation and why?
6. Strategic Bombers: Not worth the cost. AA will shoot these down in droves. Lets say a strategic bomber scores 2 hits on German industry while taking 1 hit of damage (I think this is less than average). The 2 hits will cost the Germans (assuming a production multiple of 1.5) 3 production until it is repaired. But repairing the SB costs at least 5 production (probably more depending on the SBs advancement). This doesn't even include the initial cost of the SB. You would be far better off buying an armour.
The net effect of the above is that in my gaming experience very little production for any side is "wasted" on building air units. Almost all production is funneled into ground units.
So how can this be fixed. I think nerfing armour and mechanized a little bit helps; though I would like to see it nerfed a little bit right from the beginning. Just reduce some of its starting numbers and then leave the advancements as is. But what really needs to happen is that air units need to be buffed. I like the idea that only the first air unit can destroy a strength point, but subsequent attacks should, imho, cause far more effectiveness loss than they currently are. Assuming clear weather, clear terrain, an entrenchment level of 1 and that the attacking air units are ground attack with good efficiency and effectiveness, it should only take 3 or 4 attacks to reduce the defending units to 50% effectiveness from what it had prior to the bombing. This will help the Germans out a lot in France (even if their armour is nerfed a bit) and will also help the Allies get a foothold in Europe (am I the only one who finds this to be a problem?). It will also help balance what I think is an inequality between ground (especially armour/mech) and air units.
Strategic bombers should also be made more effective. I understand that the intention is that the Allies can afford to waste some production if it causes the Axis to lose some (even if less). But at the moment the discrepancy is just too much. Also AA should be made less effective. It is just too deadly.
< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 1/11/2021 4:12:28 AM >
|
Printable Version
The Inequality of Unit Types - 
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