|
vahauser -> RE: Rigging The Game (6/11/2007 8:43:22 AM)
|
Glenn,
My initial thought after reading your post is that you enjoy playing a certain way. And after the events of this weekend, I’m more certain than ever that the ‘enjoyment factor’ is more important than any other consideration when playing SPWAW. What follows is not a critique, but rather some explanations and observations.
Let’s start with the items you mentioned in your post.
Reduced Ammo ON hurts the computer because in the final analysis it is enemy artillery that can cause the most damage to your core. Since the computer does not know how to employ ammo dumps, then the computer will suffer from Reduced Ammo ON because the one weapon system that is most dangerous to the human (the enemy artillery) the computer will have fewer rounds to fire, which means less damage to the human player. I recommend Limited Ammo ON because it gives the computer more artillery rounds to inflict damage on the human player. All other considerations are minor compared to giving the computer plenty of artillery rounds to hurt the human player. So choosing Limited Ammo ON helps the computer and choosing Reduced Ammo ON hurts the computer. EDIT: Note that I only gave the human advantage for Reduced Ammo ON a 1 out of 10 so it isn't really a big deal one way or the other (on the other hand, adding up a lot of little advantages can still make a big difference overall).
The Japanese squads you face have between 13-20 men each. The USMC squads you start with are 9 men each, and become 13 men each later in the war. The average reduction is 1 man per squad using Reduced Squads ON. This means that the average reduction for the USMC is around 11% per squad (early war) and the average reduction for the Japanese is around 6% per squad. On the surface this would seem to indicate that the Japanese benefit and you suffer from Reduced Squads ON. However, if you play with AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2) like I do, then the computer will be purchasing twice or three times as many infantry units as you do. In this special case of early war in the Pacific Theater, the net effect of Reduced Squads ON is about even (with perhaps a very slight edge in overall points lost favoring the human). But it’s probably too close to call. However, as the campaign goes on, then the advantage becomes more and more in the human’s favor as the size of the USMC squads increase. Until, by 1944-45 the USMC will have a definite advantage over the Japanese using Reduced Squads ON. Bottom Line: In all situations where the size of opposing squads is roughly equal, then the computer suffers more than the human player using Reduced Squads ON. However, I realize that the ‘enjoyment factor’ is more important in some cases than what the numbers say. So even though the numbers say that Reduced Squads ON favors the human, the ‘enjoyment factor’ might be more important to some players. And since playing with Reduced Squads ON never favors the human player by very much (I only gave it a 1 on a 1-to-10 scale), then this is not a huge advantage for the human player, especially compared to some of the other ways the human player can rig the game.
We spent a whole thread discussing stacking. The photographic evidence is overwhelming that up to 6 units per hex in actual combat is absolutely historical. At least double that (12+ units) is historical in rear assembly areas. I have absolutely no problem with you choosing to handicap yourself by only allowing 4 units per hex. If you look at my Group Anders Long Long Road thread, you will note that I often operate with 2 units per hex, and rarely more than 3. So, I don’t have a problem with the way you choose to limit your stacking.
Turning Mines OFF is an enormous disadvantage for the computer. I leave Mines ON for the computer and I simply choose to never use mines (or barbed wire or dragons teeth) myself. Besides artillery, mines are one of the best killers the computer has. Depriving the computer of one of its best killers is a tremendous (possibly even overwhelming) advantage for the human player. [And on a related topic, I recommend always spending all your support points. You can deploy them in the rear and never use them, but when you spend all your support points it allows the computer to spend more points, too. This means that you can give the computer an advantage by spending, but not using, all your support points. And it means that you can call on those unused support points hiding in the rear if the situation ever gets desperate. Spend all your support points.]
American artillery is already overwhelming. Simply by choosing the US Army or USMC, the human player is giving himself a major advantage against the computer (or against another human for that matter). A single American battleship can wipe out an entire Japanese combat force all by itself. I personally try to limit myself to 81mm mortars or less on map (and 105mm howitzers, or 122mm if Soviet, off map). Since American artillery is so powerful, anything over 81mm is a tremendous advantage for the human player. Even American 81mm mortars are devastating enough.
I never use airstrikes. Never. Airstrikes are even more deadly than artillery. And American airstrikes are even deadlier than that. Further, airstrikes allow the human player to gain aerial reconnaissance over the enemy positions. Airstrikes are a tremendous advantage for the human player, especially when using strike elements that can make multiple attack runs.
A core size 3000 points or less is an excellent idea (I myself pretty much always choose a starting core between 2500 and 3000). However, even more important than the number of initial core points is the number of core units. If you divide your initial core points by the number of units in your core, and the result is 25 or less, then you are not giving yourself an advantage over the computer (indeed, a result of 20 or less is giving the computer a definite advantage). However, the larger your result is greater than 25 means the greater the advantage you are giving yourself over the computer. A result between 20 and 25 is fair and reasonable.
Against the Japanese, 20 AFVs is sufficient, especially given a starting core of 3000 points or less. Of all the ‘Big Six’ nations, the Japanese are by far the weakest. Indeed, I would rank the Japanese weaker than several ‘minor’ nations. The USMC against the Japanese is not a fair fight. I’m not saying this to anger you. I’m just pointing out that one of the reasons most players fight in the European Theater is because the level of competition is tougher and more balanced. Simply choosing to play the USMC against the Japanese is pretty much a guarantee that you will usually crush the computer. It’s practically built into the system. Once again, this is not meant as an insult, but rather it is just an observation. The ‘enjoyment factor’ is the bottom line. You enjoy playing the USMC against the Japanese. That is more important than pretty much any other consideration. One of my friends likes to come home from work and buy 20,000 points of ‘Experience 120’ Tiger tanks and then go overrun the Soviets. And while I think that’s ridiculous, it’s fun for him.
You and I have one thing in common at least. We are both in the minority on this forum. You are a Pacific Theater player on a predominately European Theater forum. And I’m a Cat2 player on a Cat1 forum (which makes me a minority of 1).
Before I make any decisions regarding what to do about your proposal concerning a possible USMC campaign (using your rules and core and guidelines), first I’m going to wait and see what Riun T is going to do about starting the thread I suggested.
--V
|
|
|
|
