Few toughts about WaW (R)

Few toughts about WaW (R) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room

Message

kondor -> Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/9/2010 9:47:32 AM)
Am playing this scenario and besides bugs that happen and are already explained elsewhere, I would like to discuss few things: (Keep in mind that I so far only had experience with GE side in this scenario.) 1. IMO navy uses to much supplies (+ there should be much more usage of supply if navy moves far, than if stands at port/or moves few hexes, I am not sure if this is the case in this scenario but I think not) 2. I have a feeling that subs are made to strong vs destroyers. In multiple occasion I attacked subs II with destroyers II and to only get a bloody nose. Something like I sent 4 destroyers to sunk 1 sub, and sub kills two or three destroyers and run away... I don´t care they where unexperianced Italians- subs where not build to kill destroyers, in most cases they would run away or die trying... Even if one group of destroyers would be chasing few groups of subs. In real combat, smartest thing that sub captains would do-run for their lifes! In this game subs would chew that destroyer and go looking for more... 3. There should be more restrictions to research in view of timeline (year) In my game we are now in 1942? And WA is obliterating my towns with Level bombers guarded by long range fighters... Last turn Cveta bombed Munich that way from England! Ok, there where probably bombers in 1942 which could pull that off, but I do not think that there where fighters who could give them escort from London to Munich in 1942?! Correct me if I am wrong. (best thing was I had 8 Italians Ft-s on intercept in Munich and they managed to shot down 1 LB[:(] My suggestion is restrict research by time period. Long range fighters should be possible to research in say 1944? Or downgrade their range... 4. Partisans Well they are ok, maybe a little to strong... It is my first game in WaW, I played a Russia 1941 and liked more that approach... There are to many partisans in this scenario (even if u respect the conditions for them). And ultimatley they are to powerfull! I don´t care if I played something wrong, partisans should not be alowed to cut off complete AG from supplies... In best case scenarios they should blow some bridge, and make supplies scares... And if they appear already in such a numbers, why shouldn´t be possible to implement that they appear to fight for German/Romanian side to (in smaller numbers ofcourse)? There where a massive numbers of Ukranians, Russians, Kozacks etc, which surrendered/volunteered to fight for axis side... This way they seem to powerfull and are a very big help for SU. Yugo, France partisans are ok IMO. 5. Coastal fortress should not engage and destroy subs. Subs should not be affraied by them but the destroyers/planes... 6. Could it be implemented that ally in history sees what you have done last turn? Let say I am playing with GE and would like to see what has Japan done last turn? 7. Spamming of units As creation of unit does not cost 1PP as in Russia 1941, SU player is using that against me. In front of my units he spams massive number of empty units, or he crates unit with just 1 rifle... My units must engage and lose AP for and thus making them as road blocks... I do not agree with this and think that creation of unit must cost 1PP so that such behavior would not be viable... Of course I am saying this in light that this is scenario which simulates WWII, and that is not a fictional one... I like this scenario, it is fun, but I would like some changes to make it even more interesting.

tweber -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/9/2010 2:08:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kondor Am playing this scenario and besides bugs that happen and are already explained elsewhere, I would like to discuss few things: (Keep in mind that I so far only had experience with GE side in this scenario.) 1. IMO navy uses to much supplies (+ there should be much more usage of supply if navy moves far, than if stands at port/or moves few hexes, I am not sure if this is the case in this scenario but I think not) Right now, the supply model does not take into account movement so this is not possible. So, use the movement if you have it. quote: 2. I have a feeling that subs are made to strong vs destroyers. In multiple occasion I attacked subs II with destroyers II and to only get a bloody nose. Something like I sent 4 destroyers to sunk 1 sub, and sub kills two or three destroyers and run away... I don´t care they where unexperianced Italians- subs where not build to kill destroyers, in most cases they would run away or die trying... Even if one group of destroyers would be chasing few groups of subs. In real combat, smartest thing that sub captains would do-run for their lifes! In this game subs would chew that destroyer and go looking for more... I felt the same way but getting the perfect balance is really tough. If you go too far the other way, then players might never bother with subs. quote: 3. There should be more restrictions to research in view of timeline (year) In my game we are now in 1942? And WA is obliterating my towns with Level bombers guarded by long range fighters... Last turn Cveta bombed Munich that way from England! Ok, there where probably bombers in 1942 which could pull that off, but I do not think that there where fighters who could give them escort from London to Munich in 1942?! Correct me if I am wrong. (best thing was I had 8 Italians Ft-s on intercept in Munich and they managed to shot down 1 LB[:(] My suggestion is restrict research by time period. Long range fighters should be possible to research in say 1944? Or downgrade their range... This could be done but I am generally opposed to time frame driven scenarios. I want players to have options that they can take or pass on. I am not a fan of scenarios that are too heavily scripted quote: 4. Partisans Well they are ok, maybe a little to strong... It is my first game in WaW, I played a Russia 1941 and liked more that approach... There are to many partisans in this scenario (even if u respect the conditions for them). And ultimatley they are to powerfull! I don´t care if I played something wrong, partisans should not be alowed to cut off complete AG from supplies... In best case scenarios they should blow some bridge, and make supplies scares... And if they appear already in such a numbers, why shouldn´t be possible to implement that they appear to fight for German/Romanian side to (in smaller numbers ofcourse)? There where a massive numbers of Ukranians, Russians, Kozacks etc, which surrendered/volunteered to fight for axis side... This way they seem to powerfull and are a very big help for SU. Yugo, France partisans are ok IMO. 5. Coastal fortress should not engage and destroy subs. Subs should not be affraied by them but the destroyers/planes... 6. Could it be implemented that ally in history sees what you have done last turn? Let say I am playing with GE and would like to see what has Japan done last turn? 7. Spamming of units As creation of unit does not cost 1PP as in Russia 1941, SU player is using that against me. In front of my units he spams massive number of empty units, or he crates unit with just 1 rifle... My units must engage and lose AP for and thus making them as road blocks... I do not agree with this and think that creation of unit must cost 1PP so that such behavior would not be viable... Of course I am saying this in light that this is scenario which simulates WWII, and that is not a fictional one... I like this scenario, it is fun, but I would like some changes to make it even more interesting. This one is easy to change either by house rule or increasing the unit cost. I kind of like the free unit shells but this is my preference

Bombur -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/17/2010 1:04:35 AM)
I also have the feeling subs are too strong against warships in general. On the other hand, carrier air groups are too strong against subs. If were to make some change in subs I would do... 1-Subs harder to detect, less powerful against warships, more effective in naval interdiction, improved evasion capacity 2-Carrier groups less effective against subs (ASW weren´t the primary mission of these planes), at least until level IV 3-Long range patrol aircraft able to detect and sink submarines

explorer2 -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/19/2010 12:28:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kondor 1. IMO navy uses to much supplies (+ there should be much more usage of supply if navy moves far, than if stands at port/or moves few hexes I agree navy uses too much, BUT naval supply in reality is different from supply for air units which is different from supply from land units. The best way to model this would be separate types of supply for naval, air, and land (Vic, are you listening?) I have done a research on the comparative amount of supply between types of naval vessels and I think comparative amount of supply is as accurate as possible (each individual ship was somewhat different), and I've also tried to get some rough approximation between naval and armor divisions, but this is of course not really possible in the current system. quote: 2. I have a feeling that subs are made to strong vs destroyers. I don't tend to agree historically here. It usually took a group of destroyers to accompany either a fleet or cargo, even when just one or small wolf pack were attacking. Based on accounts and stats I have looked into the general rule of thumb here is 2 destroyers for 1 sub to make it even, WHEN all other factors are even (AP, Readiness, XP, etc...) The aspect of subs running once found that you point out is accurate I think, but again, AT combat model you can't do a good job of forcing that result without taking away its attack initiative. quote: 3. There should be more restrictions to research in view of timeline (year) It is of course accurate that the long range fighters did not begin accompanying bombers until 1944. That's why they are level III. Level IV should be late 1944. I agree with Tom that having flexibility in a strategy game is important, even when it allows historical inaccuracies. What I seek is "historical plausibility" Meaning, is it plausible that if all efforts were focused on developing long range fighters could it have been accelerated? I think it's at least possible. This could also be slowed down by a more complex tech tree, which would be more historically accurate, but I wanted to preserve a relatively simple tech tree. All this being said, it really bites to have Fighter III by West in 19942 if you're Axis. Level Bomber ranges were heavily researched and accurate. quote: 4. There are to many partisans in this scenario (even if u respect the conditions for them). And ultimatley they are to powerfull! I fully agree. Fixed in version T. But still, if you don't kill the ones that do come in, they can do some pretty bad supply damage. quote: 5. Coastal fortress should not engage and destroy subs Agreed. This was already fixed. What version are you playing? quote: 6 Could it be implemented that ally in history sees what you have done last turn? Not that I know of. quote: 7. Spamming of units In a game of this scale, I think it is necessary to allow 0 pp for creation of units, though that is very much an arguable point. To create units that are empty, or even have less than say 5 pp to start, seems gamey, and I would prefer a house rule against such things, IMHO.

kondor -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/19/2010 2:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: explorer2 quote: ORIGINAL: kondor quote: 2. I have a feeling that subs are made to strong vs destroyers. I don't tend to agree historically here. It usually took a group of destroyers to accompany either a fleet or cargo, even when just one or small wolf pack were attacking. Based on accounts and stats I have looked into the general rule of thumb here is 2 destroyers for 1 sub to make it even, WHEN all other factors are even (AP, Readiness, XP, etc...) The aspect of subs running once found that you point out is accurate I think, but again, AT combat model you can't do a good job of forcing that result without taking away its attack initiative. I agree that lot's of destroyers where needed to guard convoys. No argument there, but in this scenario subs are chasing DD-s and hunt them down! In this scenario lets say that 10 subs attacks 10 DD-s (same XP, readiness lvl) I am not sure who would win, but in WWII best what subs can hope for would be that at least few of them survive the engagement... (They would not think of any kind of suicide attacks and would try to runaway in silent mode...) Therefore IMO subs should suffer penalty when attacking DD-s. Here is something I dug up on that subject: "Back in WWI & WWII Submarine engagement range was a max a 2-3 thousand yards, but typically 1-2 thousand (less than 1 mile). When the sub is at PD at these ranges, the scope could be seen, and Subs submerged where very slow (3-6 kts). If a destroyer spotted the scope they could quickly get to that area (>30kts) and commence depth charging the Sub. It would take a Destroyer at 30 knots only 2 minutes to be on top of a submarine at 2,000 yards. A submarine at 6 kts would only beable to move 400 yards at most by this time. But if it is 1000 yards and 3 knots the Destroyer would be on them in 1 minute and only travel 100 yards. This helped the destroyer get ordanance on top of the sub quickly due to short range encounters." quote: 3. There should be more restrictions to research in view of timeline (year) It is of course accurate that the long range fighters did not begin accompanying bombers until 1944. That's why they are level III. Level IV should be late 1944. I agree with Tom that having flexibility in a strategy game is important, even when it allows historical inaccuracies. What I seek is "historical plausibility" Meaning, is it plausible that if all efforts were focused on developing long range fighters could it have been accelerated? I think it's at least possible. This could also be slowed down by a more complex tech tree, which would be more historically accurate, but I wanted to preserve a relatively simple tech tree. All this being said, it really bites to have Fighter III by West in 19942 if you're Axis. Level Bomber ranges were heavily researched and accurate. Pls. slow it down [:D] quote: 5. Coastal fortress should not engage and destroy subs Agreed. This was already fixed. What version are you playing? As the title said, ver. R. Thx for answering.

explorer2 -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/19/2010 5:15:35 PM)
kondor- Destroyers vs Subs Really nice quote on destroyers. I'm not sure if the AT engine is complex to simulate this asymtric aspect of SS, DD, and capitol ship combat, I rather doubt it unless you create a whole new classification of ships, which is possible. I'll look into it. On the other hand, as Tom Weber pointed out, if all a player has to do is create DD's to accompany ships, making it very difficult for subs to score significant victories, nobody will ever produce subs, and essentially, the entire battle of the Atlantic won't occur. Though, based on your quote, I agree with your point histocially, I"m trying in game terms to simulate the basic feel of that aspect of the war. Long Range Fighters Considering moving Long Range Fighter to Level IV only. Still more thinking needed though.

kondor -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/22/2010 2:02:13 PM)
This are just mine opservations based on a few games in WaW (R) scenario. I wreally aprecciate the effort you guys (Tom and explorer2 here) put into this game (scenario)...[&o] It is really fun scenario and IMO that would make it even better... Ofcourse balancing is always tough... Donno if this kind of changes are possible or not, but I leave that to you-professionals[;)]

rjh1971 -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (2/26/2010 3:28:39 PM)
Dalibor I also reported aboutthe empty units: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2194235&mpage=4� How about banning that tactic, even when I was getting more benefit from it [;)]. We'll have to talk to I. and G. I'll send you all an email to discuss it.

RufusTFirefly -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (5/29/2010 1:07:46 PM)
In our game we fixed the house rule that a unit must contain subunits of 2 rifles or adequate at minimum. 2 rifles were chosen because it is the amount of subunts that a destroyer can carry. It is up to the participants of a game to decide whether they want to fix a house rule or not.

cveta -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (6/26/2010 9:30:11 PM)
lol . wrong click. Dont know hoe to delete post?

cveta -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (6/26/2010 9:37:14 PM)
Anther idea which my improve WAW scenario - declaration of war for neutral countries like Sweden. Also - half track should have some fighting capability. And German 88 flak unit should be better against all targets. We all know how powerful this weapon was. Some ideas were given on beer by kondor and Cindra about making difference between tank units of Germany and of Su or West. Especially in 1940/41. Maybe give Su units small disadvantages but boost production ( something like Italians ). Also a chance that air units may fail to move or do anything because of bad weather ( sand storm in Africa, freezing or raining time in Europe ). Ships may be damaged by see storms randomly and especially if they are too long at see. I have subs in Atlantic from 1939 to 1942 without ever entering the port.

kondor -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (7/6/2010 1:32:26 PM)
How about changing victory conditions/Production for parties involved to make game feel more historical? It is not likely that SU in '42-44 is so weak... We know how the real thing ended. WA and SU meet in Berlin! How things stand now that is impossible for SU... I say let GE/JA have high watermarks... and let them be winners if they manage to hold on to specific date (depends on high watermark and can move few months here on there...). Let the SU have much more production and let there be war...[:D]. As things stand now, SU is not a very much fun to played with (ok it is[:D]), but it could be much more if they have a chance to beat the Yanks! Basically something like GG: AWD if any of u guys played it... It is a lot of work for someone to do this, and would require lots of testing to balance it, but IMO it would be worth it... It could be totally different scenario built upon WaW U3...

cveta -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (7/10/2010 12:23:50 AM)
Somebady sed that this forum is dying. I wonder who will make this briliant idea work if this is thrue? I am not a builder, I am player so I need somebady to make scenario for me. Come on people - you got us addicted and now you dont wont to give us dope. What kind of buissnes is that? My wife will be so dissapointed if I stop to play this game. She will have her normal fammily life back with a husbant allive. She alredy get over with loss of her dear husbant to a "stupid machine, and a stupid game". She dont wont to have me walking thru house again, making mess, jeling, farting and pissing near toilets. It is much better to have me sitting in front of PC with AT on.

kondor -> RE: Few toughts about WaW (R) (7/12/2010 2:11:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cveta Somebady sed that this forum is dying. I wonder who will make this briliant idea work if this is thrue? I am not a builder, I am player so I need somebady to make scenario for me. Come on people - you got us addicted and now you dont wont to give us dope. What kind of buissnes is that? My wife will be so dissapointed if I stop to play this game. She will have her normal fammily life back with a husbant allive. She alredy get over with loss of her dear husbant to a "stupid machine, and a stupid game". She dont wont to have me walking thru house again, making mess, jeling, farting and pissing near toilets. It is much better to have me sitting in front of PC with AT on. [:D] Maybe your wife will upgrade you to ver. 1.1. with a new patch... So that you can together watch mexican soap operas on TV... enjoy your afternoon together in a busy shopping malls, and evenings out on restaurants? [;)] Now a new hot operating system VACATION is coming maybe she is waiting just for that...[8D] Yea, I agree, this gents on forum are totally lame and uncompetant to make decent scenario, they are sooo laaazy...zzzz... especially those two Tweber and Explorer... so lazy... zzzz....[>:][:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.78125