janh -> RE: Changing AFV equipment (2/15/2011 3:17:43 PM)
|
Very true, having both a lever to change AFV and TOE, as well as control over production would be awesome, but also should proceed within authentic "technical" possibilities. I like the complex WITP-AE model of production -- you can do a lot, it all costs various resources, and production changes reduce the output dramatically for a long time. Everything needs to be considered carefully, and not everything is sensible or possible. I don't know about the development costs to implement that still in this game, but I surely hope to see both in "War in Europe". quote:
ORIGINAL: alfonso -can lead to very gamey decisions, for instance, in turn 1 as Soviets you send all your T-34s to the pool so then can fight the Moscow battles, and let your T-26 to be massacred at the frontiers. So you need more programming to avoid it or you need House rules And TOE and AFV changes should require extra time (unready forces), cost experience (a tank/plane crew can't be trained for all vehicles equally well, though differences could be small if it is only minor model change), require supply and transport (rail & truck) expenditures consistent with the transport cost of such equipment, (and in some cases the old stuff back to pool). quote:
ORIGINAL: alfonso -you need some limits to the AFVs that can be exchanged. I gave up playing WIR 3.3 because it was possible to have PanzerDivisions equipped exclusively with Tiger tanks. It was quite insensible to have one division entirely equipped with heavies and weaken the other ones, because the combined arms worked better with them spread out. Besides, their advantage wasn't to extremely huge as a spearhead, and the would be blunted soon. One could also consider that those heavy tanks commonly were less available ("downtimes, breakdowns, maintainance"), and also the supply/support needs of the division would need to go up. Ideally it should be within the freedom of a player to try equipping whole divs with Tigers, or Stalins for that matter, but it should come with authentic disadvantages such as low average readiness state of the whole unit, higher supply cost etc. That would probably soon render such an approach impracticable -- though technically it was of course well possible. quote:
ORIGINAL: alfonso -Why aircraft yes and AFVs no? Well, we can assume that planes can be tele-transported, and AFVs cannot (we can assume they are now rail-transported by the AI during the logistic phase, hidden to the player). Including the AFVs exchange should include some rail payment to do that...more programming, more balancing.... Disagree on your first argument. Pilots were not in excess, and replacement aircraft usually came forward by rail as well... quote:
ORIGINAL: alfonso Similarly (and somewhat off-topic here), I liked the idea of production management, but in WIR many Axis players abused the system by changing ALL their aircraft production in turn 1 to FW-190A.... See the WiTP-AE production and R&D model. It is quite powerful, but you can only make changes within reason or else you could screw up the whole war economy... I think going that way would give authentic freedom, but would also show the costs. (if you wanted the Panthers early and numerous, you have a little room for advancement, but pay the price for it by slowing everything else; on the opposite you could stick to the PzIV and PzIII and Jagdpanzer, saving lots of resources on the development and building of other plattforms, maybe later make the PzIVG-H impact by sheer numbers...) I think there would be many ways to tackle gamey tactics, but give players sufficient freedom to play such a game out by going beyond the "Hitler mindstate". Yet the question is: how much development time would it cost, and would it be worth it for Matrix/2by3? I assume as a start they could adapt the routines from WiTP-AE, but still sounds like a lot of work...
|
|
|
|