Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US WR & Transport loss

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> US WR & Transport loss Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 8:42:16 PM   
ArticFire

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I was wondering why the Axis is penalized so harshly for Germany conducting sub ops early on. 25% seems more then enough of a chance to raise US WR. I don't see why destroying a transport has twice the chance of increase WR then damaging one. Considering the investment it is for a the Axis player to conduct sub ops against the vast numbers of bombers / light fleets the allies have I don't see the need for this steep penalty for destroying a transport.

Right now it just feels like to me it's better for Germany not to bother with subs. You can't destroy enough transports to really hurt the allies early on without making it so the US gets massive WR boost. And doing that just throws the US to 2x even faster so the allied player is more likely to thank you for it then curse you.

Is there a mod available with this change?

_____________________________

"The true measure of a hero is one who would lay down their lives in full knowledge that the people they save would never know their sacrifice"
Post #: 1
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 10:13:12 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline 		I don't know if it's the best thing to do, but usually I postpone serious sub action until the US enter the war. Thus I agree with ArcticFire.

(in reply to ArticFire)
Post #: 2
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 10:26:12 PM   
Marshall Art

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline 		You could say that the penalty reflects growing US displease with neutral shipping getting sunk by accident by U-boats and US good being sunk aboard Allied ships. Until 1941, more or less until US ships received order to fire on German Uboats (long before Pearls Harbour!) on sight, the US reaction was rather an increasing annoance which eventually led to a swing in public opinion, of course fueled by appropriate propaganda.

Allowing the German player to sink shipping at no cost other than sub building would lead to an excessive sub output since this is the most effective way to hurt the WA player and prevent a swift Allied response after US entry. The price the German player has to pay for conducting total sub warfare is thus mirrowed by the historical events in a certain way. I also think that you still can train youe subs to gold standard while not causing too much backclash and conserve your elite subs until the US enters the war and then do some real damage.

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 3
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 10:51:11 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline 		I think we both understood the reasoning behind the WR increase, but are of the opinion that the WR increase makes early sub campaigns a bad idea in game terms because of the consequences on the US. This perception may be wrong, but elite training for the subs alone doesn't really convince me.

It would be a pity if there was a strong indication of not using subs pre-1941/42.

< Message edited by GKar -- 10/15/2007 10:58:56 PM >

(in reply to Marshall Art)
Post #: 4
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 10:54:45 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline 		- wrong button -

< Message edited by GKar -- 10/15/2007 10:57:54 PM >

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 5
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 10:56:43 PM   
ArticFire

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I didn't say no cost. I simply feel 25% is more then appropriate to mirror the effect you describe. It's growing annoyance shouldn't be "sink 4 transports and catapult the US forward a year in WR". Obviously this still has a chance of happening even with 25% for both damaging and sinking rather then 25/50 , but it would be more of a random event like romania not joining the Axis rather then a WA's not ever needing to really worry about early sub action from Germany.

Its the feel of it doing more harm then good to attack allied shipping that I believe is wrong. 25/25 would still prevent the Axis from obliterating allied shipping without consiquence but prevent the feeling of if you operate more then 2 or 3 subs before 1942 your just shooting yourself in the foot.

_____________________________

"The true measure of a hero is one who would lay down their lives in full knowledge that the people they save would never know their sacrifice"

(in reply to Marshall Art)
Post #: 6
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/15/2007 11:49:28 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		I'm already addressing this in the Uncommon Valor scenario for a 2.0 update. Over in the mods thread look for UV 2.0 beta, and read my hastily put together readme. I'm using a 20/40 percent chance of WR increase.

The reason why a strait 20 should not be used is because when you sink a transport vs only damaging it, you are in fact sinking twice as many ships. Your making the mistake of thinking that these transports represent one ship. Look at it this way, if you damage a transport that could represent 5 actual merchant ships sunk. Destroyed could represent 10. Therefore the chance of bumping the WR should go up when you get 2 hits.


_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to ArticFire)
Post #: 7
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/16/2007 12:11:59 AM   
ArticFire

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		20/40 does to little to change the overall effect imo. I would aim more for a 15/30. Might want to consider also 20/30. With 20/30 you encourage an Axis player who wishes to be sub aggresive to invest heavily in tech to provide kills rather then damages. It would also give the allied just that much more reason to invest in evasion.

I wasn't aware how flexible the actual values were which is why I was throwing out removing the doubling effect originally.




_____________________________

"The true measure of a hero is one who would lay down their lives in full knowledge that the people they save would never know their sacrifice"

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 8
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/16/2007 8:40:29 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
I'm using a 20/40 percent chance of WR increase.


These are the probabilities that were in use during most of pre-release testing. The bump up was a late change. I also prefer 20/40.

IMO 25/50 is too high. For every transport the Germans destroy, they do 2 production and 2 population worth of damage, but they move the USA closer to Factory multiplier 2 by 1/3 of a turn (0.5 WR points, versus an average WR increment of 1.5 per turn). The net impact of the earlier increased USA is a bonus of 6 production points, outweighing the 2 production point damage done.

In can be argued (and has been) that there is still an operational benefit of knocking out the British transports early and forcing the British to invest population in transports. But I don't really believe that it outweighs the increased USA production in most cases.

With 20/40, the change is not huge but I think big enough for a good tradeoff. It becomes 4/15 of a turn and a bonus of 4.8 USA early production points versus 2 lost in the transport. Is the operational benefit worth the 2.8 net gain in production by the WA? This is close enough that I think it can be. Also, it pushes back the FM=2 level just enough that now you can think of an early Japanese action that makes the production boost moot.

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 9
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/16/2007 9:27:17 AM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline 		I agree that 20/40 would be more balanced, just about right maybe.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 10
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/16/2007 11:41:13 PM   
Marshall Art

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline 		Well, with 2 starting subs and assuming one attack per sub per turn you can attack 4 trannies in 1939, making it 4 x 0.25 (~1) point towards US entry in 1939. Assuming that lucky sinkings and misses even each other out.. In 1940 you have maybe 4 subs that attack 8 times which may result in 2-3 points, factoring in some improved sub torpedo attack. Give it 10 subs (a major effort) in 1941 that add about 40 attacks and say 10-15 points, assuming the US stay out of the war until 1942 and no sub losses occur (not going to happen...). That results to something like 20 points from sub attacks at a rate of 0.25/0.5. With 0.2/0.4 you reduce the point by 20% to say 18. That is less than a turn later for the US to enter the war. I doubt this will be even noticed.

How about adding little early on to offer the German player early successes and later increase the diplomatic damage due to higher US sentitivity in this matter? Remember, 1940-41 were the "happy times" where Uboats sunk Allied ships at ease. From mid-1941 British convoys were fully operational including the US Navy being ordered to fire on Uboats at sight regardless where they were encountered.

e.g. make it 0.1/0.2 in 1939, 0.15/0.3 in 1940, 0.2/0.4 in 1941 and finally 0.25/0.5 from 1942 on? That would be a more realistic and also more tempting change to the German player.

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 11
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/17/2007 4:12:07 AM   
ArticFire

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I like that idea of escalating sensativity but I dunno how easy that would be to do code wise. I agree though that 20/40 is hardly going to be noticed from 25/50 , which is why I was saying 15/30 sounds like more of an actual change.

< Message edited by ArticFire -- 10/17/2007 4:14:55 AM >

_____________________________

"The true measure of a hero is one who would lay down their lives in full knowledge that the people they save would never know their sacrifice"

(in reply to Marshall Art)
Post #: 12
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/17/2007 6:28:08 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
That results to something like 20 points from sub attacks at a rate of 0.25/0.5. With 0.2/0.4 you reduce the point by 20% to say 18. That is less than a turn later for the US to enter the war. I doubt this will be even noticed.


20% of 20 is 4. With d3 WR/turn in 1942, 4WR points is a difference of 2 turns in DOW, which is actually huge IMO.

I don't think you should focus on USA DOW, but rather USA production.

At 15/30 destruction is 1/5 of a turn, or 1/5*18 = 3.6 production points, a new +1.6 for the WA.

At 20/40 destruction is 4/15 of a turn, or 1/5*18 = 4.8 production points, a net +2.8 for the WA.

Either way, it is still a net loss long term production wise. The more difficult thing to consider is the operational advantage. If the British are putting population into transports then they aren't putting into fighters or infantry or bombers then I think that can be worth about 2 long term WA production points.

IMO, either 15/30 or 20/40 could be about right, but I'm inclined towards 20/40. Psychologically, I don't think 15/30 would have much effect on the German. 20/40 still would, it would bother you. As it should.


(in reply to Marshall Art)
Post #: 13
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/19/2007 9:15:28 AM   
a511


Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline 		in fact i dont really care abt the effect on US production as its going to be huge anyway, what really matters to me is the US DOW. when US DOW matters on whether axis can achieve AV.

ito the population agrument, imo CW just have more than enough trannies in 1939 that no matter how good the GER u-boats are CW dont really need to build trannies in 1939 and even mid 1940.

as such, i really like Marshall ART's progressive sensitivity approach to also mirror such effect.

if such approach is not feasible, i prefer the odd of 15/30.

a511

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 14
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/20/2007 12:08:35 AM   
christian brown


Posts: 1441
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline 		This was a major point of contention during development and after a few months of the WA seeing itself devastated by an active U-Boat fleet it was agreed that the odds needed to go up to where they are now, originally, the percentages were 10/25 IIRC.  I am not sure it is worth anyone's time to recode this section of the rules for a mod, but if there is a volunteer to do it - it would be great if it could be retested by the larger community..............I stand by the earlier change to the higher odds but am equally interested in seeing how the game would work out if the German player was more easily tempted to try a real battle of the Atlanrtic along with all the other rules changes since the original, official public release.......

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to a511)
Post #: 15
RE: US WR & Transport loss - 10/21/2007 7:55:39 AM   
ArticFire

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		10/25 likely to low but if Germany attacks the shipping WA to a great degree consider the cost to the German player. The investment of a sub , and the German player would need many and tech to really cripple WA shipping early takes a huge commitment on Germany's part. Thats production the German player is not putting into fighting SU or building the forces to do so. Germany is on a huge time clock there are things that simply have to be done pre 42' otherwise SU will roll right over Germany on it's own merit. The serious gamble the German player does in sacrificing production that could be applied to Eastern front troops in building and teching a big sub force. WA have massive anti sub capability early on compared to Ger's start sub capability.

I feel that as it stands now Germany can never even threaten to slow Britain down nevermind put her in peril because Germany cannot even force WA to allocate resources to countering an effective u-boat force because using such a force just catapults WA to higher production sooner. Meanwhile the WA can happily churn out hords of fighters/infantry and whatever else their heart desires.

So Germany only hurts itself right now even attempting a uboat campaign which feel utterly wrong.

_____________________________

"The true measure of a hero is one who would lay down their lives in full knowledge that the people they save would never know their sacrifice"

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> US WR & Transport loss 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

1.047