Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

Hi

I don't want to have it changed right away... I just think it's worth discussing it.

- But I really would love to see: increasing the possible number of AT units.
Investing in AT science is almost pointless until there is nothing else to do. Not sure about the German max number but for soviets it is three and increasing that to 5 would be nice and not too much. (same counts for Germans of course)

- reducing diving chance and/or giving destroyers a bit more punch
The manual says that there is a 60% chance but I still think that can't be true or it is a bug. I've seen subs dive away 5, 6 or even 7 times in a row. Six times in a row is a 5% chance. I know you can reduce it via ASW but that is by far too high. And I still would prefer to see that subs can not dive anymore if out of supply (or below a certain supply level).

- long range aircraft
For bombers... ok, could be. But tactical bombers shouldn't fly across half Europe I think. It also makes it impossible to hide your HQ somewhere near your units. Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit.

- research speed
You might have noticed it in your own games. If you want you can have tech level 5 in long range aircraft, tanks, advanced aircraft, industrial research, production in 1943 with Germany and if you are dedicated enough also in some of these categorie with Russia, GB or the USA. For my taste that is a bit too early for all sides. Increasing the required % for research breakthroughs and/or decreasing the %-advance in research per turn slightly might do the trick. Having some high end weapons in 1944 would be more suitable if you ask me. If you manage to get one or two of these earlier you can be lucky but facing level 5 weapons in almost every category is a bit strange. In my game vs KZ he has level 5 aircraft, level 5 range, level 5 rockets and level 4 (or already 5?) tanks. Can't say what the industrial level is.

Anyone wishes to add something to the list? Feel free. I think some (or even most) of the changes affect boh sides. Some only one side. In general the game balance should stay almost (!) as it is.

Any opinion welcome... just wanted to toss in my 2 cent.

quote:

Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

Or let A-T be applied to infantry. Might require that each unit type gets 4 upgrade slots, vs. the current 3, but that doesn't seem too hard.

Sub diving should be reduced by 10% per dive. In any event I've never been too crazy about tactical actions being done on a strategic scale.

I already suggested that the breakthrough percentage not be an automatic advance (just a sudden jump, 25% being my suggestion), only to get shot down in flames for my temerity. But in AAR after AAR I've seen breakthroughs being utterly crucial in making or breaking the balance of a given match.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit

Yes, the wet dream of any allied commander: beat the Luftwaffe out of safe range.

quote:

Or do you see no need for any change concerning that topic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeriKuk

I like Elessar2's very sensible suggestion. Drop the silly AT units, (They do not make sense at scale of the game.) ...and incorporate AT capabilities into other land units. AA units deserve a similar treatment, although the capability is already incorporated in units and locations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Or do you see no need for any change concerning that topic?

No. Equal chances for both sides. At least you have to be in range to strike, as well as your opponent. My only complain is the range of strat. bombers; if you're placing a fighter half the way to Berlin, he couldn't intercept at max. range nor attack directly the airfield the bomber starts at.

Typical impressions of your latest experience imho. There's no need to buy AT at all, and subs are annoying, but no real threat.

Considering KZ was eminently lucky by conquering all of France and getting Spain very early without any trouble, you`re doing quite well; but don`t blame the mechanics if you don`t succeed.

quote:

reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way)

quote:

And even with Berlin is bombed... so what? That won't win the match

quote:

The other way around hording air groups to strike at once at anything that can fly or move seems a bit "gamey"

quote:

ORIGINAL: room

Well I love this game but the unit that bugs me the most is the highly important HQ.

HQ is way overpowered imho, and hardly sensical when it comes to supply. Reducing their supply enhancement abilities would also make strategic cities in low supply areas more important and maybe slightly counter the mass airforce deployment in difficultly suppliable areas. It will nerver happen in this game but the worst aspect of it is the supply mechanic and making HQs less powerfull would also means they are a slightly less juicy target for bombers.

Then I really don't get the overstrengh either... How can it make any sense to reinforce past 100% unit? and with no XP cost. XP is precious enough without overstrengh, I'll get rid of overstrengh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: norvandave

Fleet repairs to Battleships, Cruisers, etc. should take longer. SC2 is supposed to be a strategic game and the naval fleets represent large formations of ships. I think it would be better to restrict ship repairs to 1 point per term (or 2 points perhaps). I know some of the repairs are represented in the lower readiness after you rebuild the fleet, but you should not be able to limp your Battleship into port with 1 factor and then instantaneously increase it to 10 in the next turn.

Reducing the rebuild speed would put a lot more onus on strategic planning regarding the use of naval forces.

I also think that some of the ideas put forward really should not apply to a strategic level game, e.g. Tank Destroyers.

My two cents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.

quote:

Since the Axis start with air superiority

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.

This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.

This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.

Spot on Harry. The Axis air force (if played correctly) is completely invincible by late '41 -'42. It absolutely dominates the game. The skilled Axis player will group most to all airforce in one area and control the game. This alone gives the skilled Axis player the ultimate advantage.

I'd propose either reducing the possible bomber strength/range (when experienced) or increase the possible AA level of troops to level 3 (maybe at a later date like '42). If bombers can be level 3 why AA only lv 2?


The only question is if this is done does if flip the balance of power to the Allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Its probably late for any significant change to the air. I hope in future games the authors consider some type of air base so entire air forces aren't in one arbitrary spot.

To use the tourney results are indicative of game parity is BS and you both know it. Many of the players had almost no experience, Mika aggressively recruits new players for slaughter. When recognized players battle the Axis wins handily.

Sugar I would like to see you play the Allies against Irish Guards, that would be interesting.