RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided



Message

WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/7/2007 1:55:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
As I said, if its taken this long for anyone to find out and even the beta-testers and tournament players didnt notice, its not some major issue that is going to swing balance at all.


I think that the change in balance is that now everyone knows ... I really thought CA was an important reason for Russia to build infantry, now infantry doesn't seem all that important to Russia until the offensive is completely recaptured, and then mostly to reduce supply and rail expenditure.

BTW, I really don't know what the original intent was. I don't remember it ever discussed. I'm pretty sure that the CA code was written long before the targeting was changed to lump inf/mil/airborne together, although maybe it was updated after the fact.

Joel was ambivalent on this issue and left it up to me. No surprise I'm sure, but I think that the arguments against militia in CA are far more convincing.

I plan to change it so that undropped airborne is included in CA, and militia are excluded from CA. the changes will apply to both offense and defense.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/7/2007 3:15:16 AM)

Well, as I said above, I dont think it really going to matter a whole lot either way. If thats the way you want to change, thats cool with me. I think its going to be a VERY minor change at worst.

Of more interest to me is the A-bomb change. Any word on that? ;)



WanderingHead -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/7/2007 9:51:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Of more interest to me is the A-bomb change. Any word on that? ;)


I've coded it up and tested it. It is mod-able, so a scenario can either incorporate it or not. This capability, at least, will be in the next version.

When I mentioned it to Joel he didn't really say anything, but it might not have really registered with him (probably buried in one of my lengthy emails). I'll have to clarify what he wants to do here.

He is very reluctant to change the released scenarios. I recently pinged him again on German NMRC and he said he didn't want to change it. I think his motivation is just not changing things that people are used to, and when in doubt don't make the released manual inaccurate.

I think he can be convinced on the a-bomb since it is partly a balance issue and there was a lot of agreement, but he hasn't budged on NMRC.



Forwarn45 -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/7/2007 8:10:57 PM)

I agree with Uncle Joe. I don't think removing militia from CA is a huge change - so I don't feel too strongly about it (but would probably keep it as is and just add paratroops to CA if left to me). But I really, really hope the A-bomb change is included as a standard change for the scenarios in the next patch. As you mentioned, there was broad agreement and I think extensive discussion when schury raised the issue of balance.



Lebatron -> RE: Paras don't help combined arms? (7/7/2007 10:42:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I think that the change in balance is that now everyone knows ...



Exactly. It may not have been an issue before but now that it's clear an all Militia no Infantry army can get CAM, it needs to be changed, otherwise we may begin to see the opposite of what CAM was intended to create. It was added into AWD to encurage more balanced builds. But in Russia's case, if Mil continued to get the bonus and players learned to abuse that, then CAM as intended fails, and might as well be removed from the game.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625