|
explorer2 -> RE: WAW 4T (5/14/2010 12:43:05 AM)
|
Responses
Most Significant Complaint: All the changes have made it too easy for GE:
I don't believe this has been demonstrated at all!
I think the example people are thinking of is Tom's successful Sea Lion, followed by cveta’s successful Sea Lion. Neither of these prove anything - yet!.
a) On successful Sea Lion:
1.If it's not possible, the game is not historically plausible.
2. Tom and cveta were able to gain control of sea and air early. This was through game play I believe, not through game design issues. Without this control, Sea Lion would have failed. Nobody has said to now that West’s navy is too weak, or that their air is not historically in the ballpark. From what I could tell from the AAR's, their opponents had not placed land units in key English positions and had not taken adequate care of their navies.
3. To take a little bit of the edge off of future Sea Lions that aren’t major offenses, in 5T, if playing Historical Western Blitz, I’m adding
a) Calais gets a stronger unit in it which should make it exceedingly difficult for GE to take Calais. Thus, a Dunkirk type evacuation from the mainland is easier.
b) Grumpy Mel's suggestion to put a few immovable, low attack units in key places: North of Paris, Southampton, Plymouth, Manchester and York.
If future games clearly demonstrate that there is no adequate defense against Sea Lion anymore, I will be more than happy to make adjustments. But I think it's game play, not game design, that has made that difference.
b) On GE steamrolling SU:
Of course they are. They should! They did in history. That's just not the point. Because they couldn't finish the job.
Until we have seen an AAR where not only have they steamrolled SU, but they have also conquered and held it for 18 months, initial GE advances prove nothing. In Barthheart and my game, GE steamrolled SU, then the partisans and winter cut him to pieces and by early 1942 he had nothing left and had to surrender. I know of another game as well where the exact same thing occurred. So initial successes mean absolutely nothing.
Now the problem is, the winter historically did not kill the GE army (if they had the war would have ended like our game). Nor did the Soviet counter attack significantly kill GE forces. In fact, they didn’t even cause much of a withdrawal from positions. The winter just stopped Hitler “cold” (pun intended). And regarding Partisans, Oxford Companion to WWII states like 5 times in an article about them that their only effect was on communication lines in 1944. Partisan activity in SU was “sparse” and “extremely limited” in effect.
So clearly, I need to make adjustments. And these adjustments need to be such that it is possible, though very difficult, for GE to conquer SU AND hold it for 18 months. I haven’t seen anybody do this yet. If this becomes commonplace, I will gladly and immediately make adjustments to some of the settings to reign GE in. I just don't think it's warranted yet.
Partisan Supply: with the exception of the French and Yugos, partisans did not stay intact groups. They would meet for a mission or two then disperse themselves or be killed. They should not have long lives to be historically accurate.
BB & CA bombard strength: a much argued point. Who knows what’ best. I’m trying to find a “sweet spot” but I don’t think any setting will be perfect.
Bridge building: I could give you all the historical evidence I have found for restoring original setting, but I won’t, because I’m going to defer to Barthheart’s game play argument. Keeping it unchanged. (at least for now).
Extra GE subs: Not implemented at this time. There is an imbalance here, since West has 20K worth of shipbuilding capability and GE only 8K, and subs took very little dock space and GE could have built as many as they chose to. But again, I’ll leave that one alone.
North Atlantic Winter: I still think this is a good idea, but not going to take the trouble to implement it at this time. I know of no naval combat engagements (not counting convoy interdictions) in the winter. The seas were very rough typically. Though yes, there were calm times, it was not the norm. Hard to aim and hard to fly off a carrier deck when the decks are tossing too and fro.
West extra supply: This would require JA to be able to go to war to take them prior to war with USA. Just too ahistorical for my tastes, though a clever idea.
Japanese Extra Supply: An excellent idea, implemented (oops, I forgot to add that to the list of changes). I just couldn’t bear to do put it on one of the outer islands, too ahistorical for me, sorry. So added one of the JA oil refining cities to the map.
Home Guard Units: I still think experienced players can deal with this without extra “help” but I’m conceding and implementing Grumpy Mel’s suggestion.
Sub Changes: I’m still not convinced this is a problem. There are 2 fairly simple defenses to being surrounded by subs, and capital ships were in fact, until 1944 or so, quite vulnerable to subs. One of the major problems with AT and naval combat is the inability of subs to avoid combat (dive down). IMHO, when we see entire navies (West or GE) be destroyed quickly, it’s more about game play than game design. And subs have to have a way of killing DD’s or the game play will quickly devolve to the point of just making lots of DDs and then not even worrying about subs. Again, I’m willing to be shown the error of my ways.
So, those are my opinions. As always, I’m happy to be corrected and willing to make changes based on good evidence.
I'd also like to take this opportunity, if anyone is still reading this, to give great thanks to Barthheart and 82nd, who have given lots and lots of help to me for many many months. [&o]
|
|
|
|
