remove the gamey artillery bounce

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

remove the gamey artillery bounce

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 >> remove the gamey artillery bounce

Page: [1]

[Poll]

remove the gamey artillery bounce

1. CONTROL: after combat, art can take control if no mil/inf/arm/para

25% (3)

2. FIRING (1): attacking art fires only if at least 1 friendly m/i/a/p

8% (1)

2b. FIRING (1/a): art fires only if 1 friendly m/i/a/p *per* art

8% (1)

4. same as 2. but include defending

0% (0)

4b. same as 2b. but include defending

25% (3)

3. MOVE (1): art can only enter enemy region if at least 1 m/i/a/p

8% (1)

3b MOVE (1/a): art can only enter enemy region if 1 m/i/a/p *per* art

8% (1)

00. NOTHING: no changes to current implementation

16% (2)

Total Votes : 12

(last vote on : 12/10/2009 6:57:08 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/8/2009 5:16:49 AM

WanderingHead

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

SGT Rice mentioned the gamey all artillery attack, kill, and return tactic.

Three options to fix it:
1) after combat, if neither side has "taking ground" units (mil/inf/arm/para), then the side with the most remaining land units (artillery+flak) gets control of the region. I.e., artillery would take ground and not bounce back.
2) artillery can only fire if there is at least 1 friendly ground-taking unit (or (3b) similar to (2b)).
3) artillery or flak can only move into an enemy region if there is already at least one friendly "taking ground" unit in the region.

(2) & (3) are effectively the same, except (2) allows the player to screw up, and if desired then (2) could be extended to defense as well as offense.

As far as unit balancing goes, one could even go further with (2) or (3) and have (2b) or (3b): require one taking-ground unit for *every* artillery/flak unit, which would leave massed artillery as an effective defense but not offense.

It would be easiest to implement (1). Next would be (2). One of the hard things about (3) is that it will impact undoing movement (no good if you move in infantry, then artillery, then undo the infantry), so I will have to be more careful in the implementation.

Hey, I just though of something ... I should make it a poll!

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/8/2009 5:25:15 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/8/2009 5:42:54 AM

WanderingHead

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

FYI - I edited the poll several times to try to clean it up and make it clear. You can't preview polls.

You also have a character limit. So be aware that "art" is a stand in for both artillery and flak. And "m/i/a/p" is a stand in for any ground taking unit, militia/infantry/armor/paratrooper.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/8/2009 5:44:08 AM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 2

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/8/2009 6:13:11 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

I would suggest that options 2 and 3 also include option 1 (e.g., if the occupying units are destroyed by combat).

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 3

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/8/2009 6:35:09 AM

WanderingHead

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
I would suggest that options 2 and 3 also�include option 1 (e.g., if the occupying units are destroyed by combat).

Now that you mention it, you could meaningfully do all three (if you make 2 apply on defense as well as offense).

I changed it so you can vote for more than one thing. For the two people who have already voted, I don't think you can change your vote but you can try and see.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/8/2009 6:36:27 AM >

(in reply to Lucky1)

Post #: 4

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/8/2009 7:35:11 AM

runyan99

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline

I kind of like the 2b rule. It makes artillery a supporting arm, and not a primary weapon.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 5

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/9/2009 7:19:15 AM

WanderingHead

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

The relative support for all the "b"s, 2b, 3b, 4b is interesting.

The implementations of 2b and 4b are essentially the same as the Combined Arms suggestion I had elsewhere, except here we are talking about penalizing pairs (art+inf) instead of rewarding triplets (arm+art+inf).

I've thought through these some and decided they are more complicated than what I would like to do for this patch. I may explore some of these combined arms ideas later.

Having thought through this I think I will take the easiest course ... artillery or flak which attacks without a ground taking unit (mil/inf/arm/para) will not fire. Hence, you can bounce if you want but it won't do you any good.

Also, I've thought about letting flak/artillery take ground, and I just don't think it really makes sense. I could be persuaded if lots of people really want it, but I'm not currently planning to implement it.

Thanks for the feedback.

(in reply to runyan99)

Post #: 6

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/9/2009 8:32:59 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

I haven't voted yet because I've been mulling it over and am still somewhat undecided. The idea of not having artillery fire unless there is a ground unit (militia, armour, or infantry) per artillery is very interesting as it indirectly addresses what some have felt is a problem with too much artillery. Personally, I think the current system is close to getting it right. If so, the rule shouldn't make a huge change except to encourage grouping and attacking with both artillery and ground units.

And I really like the idea that artillery can't deploy effectively without ground units because it really represents support units that are allocated to those ground units (for either attack or defense).

Another idea (a bit watered down from 4b):

= An artillery unit can only fire once (instead of twice) unless there is one ground unit for that artillery. The artillery would loses the initial bombardment attack. Again, this would apply to defense as well as attack. This would mean artillery would be exposed to loss if used for simple bombardment attacks (while still letting them do such attacks).

That being said, I am close to supporting 4b. I like that it is very simple and doesn't require any testing at all to balance it. Basically, all you have to do is make sure you don't overbuild artillery or defend territories with just artillery. The more I think about it, the more I think it makes perfect sense.

OK - I think I have convinced myself - I am voting for 4b although I'd also support implementing my watered down version on a trial basis.

< Message edited by Forwarn45 -- 3/6/2009 11:42:37 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 7

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/10/2009 10:21:37 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

I note that artillery and flak have been lumped together. How will this affect Flak defending against aerial attacks or combined aerial land naval attacks? E.g., France has 3 inf, 2 flak and 2 artillery. What would the permutations be in a defensive situation?

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 8

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/10/2009 6:51:30 PM

WanderingHead

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
I note that artillery and flak have been lumped together. How will this affect Flak defending against aerial attacks or combined aerial land naval attacks? E.g., France has 3 inf, 2 flak and 2 artillery. What would the permutations be in a defensive situation?

The change only applies on offsense. Neither artillery nor flak will fire on offense without mil/inf/arm/para. This includes both land-to-air and land attack (so you can't send a lone flak into an adjacent region to try to knock out air units).

(in reply to Lucky1)

Post #: 9

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/10/2009 9:15:53 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

If I understand correctly, (1) would allow Arty,and possibly AA (hint) to operate as regular units. At least for AA this would expand their very limited use, the relatively high land attack value of the German 8.8 for instance almost never can be brought to bear.

As we are discussing division or corps sized units, if can safely assumed that among a heavy artillery division there would be a regiment or so of infrantry ready to actually perform the capture of a region, much as an armour division surely does not only contain Tigers and nothing else.

So my vote goes to (1).

Actually why don't we go even further and count arty and AA just as every other unit for taking control or holding ground purposes? A strong Arty should be much more capable of holding territory than worthless militia?

< Message edited by Marshall Art -- 2/10/2009 9:16:16 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 10

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/11/2009 6:22:50 AM

runyan99

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline

Front lines are formed by infantry divisions, not artillery. Artillery without infantry would just be overrun.

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 11

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 2/11/2009 8:17:08 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

I haven't voted yet because I've been mulling it over and am still somewhat undecided.

Same here.

I never saw this exploit being used, so the whole thing is news to me.

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 12

RE: remove the gamey artillery bounce - 3/2/2009 7:18:29 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Whenever I had the opportunity I used the exploit myself. While not really liking it, it was a good way to kill off lone units when you had enough arty to get the job done without risking damage yourself. It's really only an exploit for the offensive player so why bother fixing it realitive to the defensive player? So options 4 and 4b are not needed. If the defensive player sets up his forces in such a way that it does him more harm than good than that's his fault. So if he defends with say 1 Mil and 4 arty and ends up losing alot to a small attack the problem does not lie with the battle mechanics in this case but in player error. On the other hand the offensive player using say 4 arty against 1inf to kill and then bonce is cheap and yes I do agree in this case the exploit should be addessed for the offensive player only. So having the arty take and occupy the region in just the same way it works in Axis and Allies would in effect discurage the use of lone arty to take cheap shots because then they would advance and take the territorythis leaving them exposed to counterattack. The other reason why this simple appoach should be the one selected is that I think player intuition just assumes that's the way it is. Esspecially if they ever played A&A. I think if you ask most beginners of this game what they would think would happen if they attacked with a stack of arty or AA against a lone Mil, I think they would expect the larger force to win and take the region. And for simplicity sake I think that's how it should be. No bounce unless there is still a surviving defender. The offensive player will then adjust he force composition accordingly.

My vote goes to 1 since it seems the closest to this very simple rule. No bounce unless there is still a surviving defender.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 13