Advancements (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

apec -> Advancements (10/19/2019 9:20:50 AM)

How exactly advancements work? When you buy a new unit do you have to select 1 advancement or you benefit from both (e.g. infatry units get both benefit from Assault and AntiTank advancements).
In case you have benefit just from one advancement, would be possible to have this shown on the unit counters so that you can say at glance which one of your infantry corps has Assault or AntiTank?

Thank you.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Advancements (10/19/2019 1:24:38 PM)

Each unit can select one advancement.

It is not shown on the counter. It is shown on the unit panel.



apec -> RE: Advancements (10/19/2019 7:37:44 PM)

Thanks Alvaro. Re: advancements, I realised that the information was already in the unit panel, I was considering that the same info on the unit counter would be immediate to spot and would simplify the units management.
Thank you again for putting together this fantastic game.

Kind regards



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Advancements (10/19/2019 7:57:13 PM)

I had to decide what to show on the counter that was most important. The advancement is a small adjustment. But knowing if a unit in supply is more important.



Harrybanana -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 4:10:10 PM)

Is there anyway to change a units advancement? For example, if all of my Panzers have the 1941 Breakthrough Advancement but I want to switch some of them to the 1942 Heavy Armor advancement is there anyway to do this manually. If not, is there any chance that the program will do so automatically? If the answer to both of these is "No:, than am I correct that the only way for me to get Panzers with Heavy Armor advancement is to build some from scratch?

Does this also mean that when choosing your research it is better to choose only one advancement for each unit type and max it out quickly rather than researching them all equally? In other words try to have 10 Panzer corps all with 1945 Breakthrough rather than 5 with 1943 Breakthrough and 5 with 1943 Heavy Armor.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 7:14:01 PM)

Most players like heavy armor over breakthrough. Just depends.

It doesn't change. You would sell the unit and get back 50% of the value + manpower + logistics then build the new one. I have been thinking about this as an option and how to do it better than selling your unit.



sveint -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 8:30:17 PM)

Problem with selling is that specialization is lost (elite, etc)



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 8:35:05 PM)

Experience gained too, right?



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 8:35:49 PM)

yes



Harrybanana -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 9:22:54 PM)

So what is the best strategy for Advancement tech than? Should you go all-in on one type of advancement for each type of unit or should you split your research points between all types of advancements? For example, Germany starts with 1940 Breakthrough and 1939 Heavy Armor. This means that both of their starting Panzers will have "Breakthrough" as their starting and locked in advancement. Assuming they have 4 Research points they want to invest in panzer advancements, is it generally recommended that they:

a) Invest all 4 in Breakthrough, because they already have at least 2 units with this advancement and this will maintain their tech lead.
b) Invest all 4 in Heavy Armor, because it is the better advancement. Of course this will mean that their 2 starting panzers will never advance beyond 1940 Breakthrough (unless they are sold and rebuilt).
c) Invest 2 points in each. This will allow them to diversify the type of Advancements for their panzers, but at the expense of being technologically behind an opponent who puts all his eggs into one basket.

This is even more of an issue with fighters that have 3 possible advancement options (interceptor, escort or fighter bomber). Is it best to spread out your research points more or less equally between all 3, or is it better to specialize in just one?




sveint -> RE: Advancements (5/22/2020 11:12:01 PM)

It's a choice. If you specialize you become good at one thing.

But for example interceptors have short range and no support capabilities.



Harrybanana -> RE: Advancements (5/23/2020 3:26:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

It's a choice. If you specialize you become good at one thing.

But for example interceptors have short range and no support capabilities.


I understand it is a choice, but surely some choices are better for some nations than others. For example, almost all of France's infantry start with 1939 anti-tank. Since it is unlikely the French will get the opportunity to produce large numbers of new infantry I assume it makes more sense for them to specialize in the anti-tank tech advancement rather than assault. As for fighters, I can see why investing in the 'escorts" advancement may be useful; they get substantial increases in range with only a modest decrease in air combat compared to interceptors. But is it worth investing in the fighter bomber advancement? They are worse at air combat than escorts and not as good as even tactical bombers at tactical bombing.

In any event, as a newbie I was just wondering if some of the more experienced players had any strategies they could share in terms of how they spend their research points for the different countries.



sveint -> RE: Advancements (5/23/2020 3:58:34 AM)

If there were a clearly superior option, what would be the point of playing?

But you are right of course that some options are better/worse. Personally I never invest in armor tech for Italy, for example.



sillyflower -> RE: Advancements (5/23/2020 7:50:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

In any event, as a newbie I was just wondering if some of the more experienced players had any strategies they could share in terms of how they spend their research points for the different countries.


Research points are limited and IMHO its best to focus. I reckon any country can only afford eg 1 type of fighter specialisation. Ftr bomber is widely thought to be pointless. Int or escort is a real choice. I always get escorts for the USA and scrap the 1 interceptor. They make much better bomber escorts as the get great range. Interceptors are better air-air but very short range. However, when you start with a lot, there is a high cost of scrapping and replacing them. You lose half the production points when scrapping.

I always invest in heavy armour only. The combat values get much higher than for breakthru' with only 1 AP in return for a weaker unit. Heavies will win more battles.

If there is an optimal research pattern for each country, I don't know what it is. I doubt it exists (any more than the perfect build queue) because games can be extremely different. I have my preferences which have evolved over time and I'm sure yours will too.



Uxbridge -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 10:21:16 AM)

As for changing advancement mid-game, why not just make sure the unit is in an 7-9 supplied hex within range of a friendly HQ with its full movement allowance left. Click the advancement text and have the unit turned inactive. Half of normal the cost for producing the unit is drawn from the economy (as if it was disbanded and reproduced), but the next turn it has its new advancement with retained values of experience and so on. It could symbolize the formation getting an allotment of artillery units or drop tank conversion for the fighters.

Another solution could–if a retrain time should be added–that the unit is put in the reinforcement cue as "forming".



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 1:32:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Another solution could–if a retrain time should be added–that the unit is put in the reinforcement cue as "forming".


In the Deployment window, you mean? Not a bad idea, like this you are creating hole in your frontline to change your advancement (training time).



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 2:00:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Ftr bomber is widely thought to be pointless.


Any idea to improve this? I see fighter bombers like Typhoon, Fw190 or P-47 type planes. These planes must not be pointless.


EDIT: Here are the current values for those advancements in 1.00.07 patch:
[image]local://upfiles/46661/4C72FEFA804E4B08B37469E6CFD67487.jpg[/image]

As per manual:

Firearms – Rifles, machine guns, heavy mounted machine guns
Guns – Anti-tank weapons, tank destroyers, assault guns
Artillery – Mortar, howitzers, large siege artillery guns
Tanks – Light, medium, and heavy tanks
Air Combat – Machine guns, cannons, and maneuverability
Tactical – Precise bombing of land units and airfields
Strategic – Bombing of strategic targets such as production and oil
Naval Air – Navigation and targeting of naval assets at sea or in a port
Surface – Naval gunnery for surface combat or shore bombardment
Anti-Sub – Sonar, hedge hogs, and convoy escort tactics for attacking submarines
Anti-Air – Anti-aircraft artillery, radio proximity shells, spotting, chaff, radar
Defense – Armor, detection, and maneuverability of a unit
Range – How far a unit can move or attack in one operation point



stormbringer3 -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 3:21:24 PM)

This fighter bomber issue has been brought up before but for some reason the stats are never changed. Too bad, because that means that the Axis Minor aircraft are disbanded instead of being used.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 3:48:12 PM)

Because I am thinking of what to do that's why.



Uxbridge -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 4:31:10 PM)

"In the Deployment window, you mean?"

Yes, that was the thought, if it is really necessary. I would prefer that the unit must be out of enemy ZoC; in an 7-9 supply hex; close or next to an HQ, and will suffer loss of entire conversion turn. Even if the actual conversion is done in a fortnight, the total procedure takes much longer. Think that would suffice.

Regarding fighter-bomber, I never build them, but they're not totally useless. If low on oil they pay only one point for operations, for example. And if you're low on assetts in a region, this unit can both attack ground targets and defend against incoming bombers. Maybe they should have a slightly better range (here I see Bf 110's and Mosquitos). If there's anything that would be nice, I would give them better ability to cause interdiction on enemy units. But that is probably beyond the present game engine.



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 4:50:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

"In the Deployment window, you mean?"

Yes, that was the thought, if it is really necessary. I would prefer that the unit must be out of enemy ZoC; in an 7-9 supply hex; close or next to an HQ, and will suffer loss of entire conversion turn. Even if the actual conversion is done in a fortnight, the total procedure takes much longer. Think that would suffice.


I see. Major change indeed, let's see what Alvaro will propose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Regarding fighter-bomber, I never build them, but they're not totally useless. If low on oil they pay only one point for operations, for example. And if you're low on assetts in a region, this unit can both attack ground targets and defend against incoming bombers. Maybe they should have a slightly better range (here I see Bf 110's and Mosquitos). If there's anything that would be nice, I would give them better ability to cause interdiction on enemy units. But that is probably beyond the present game engine.


If we consider the P-47 in the fighter-bombers category, I also thought to give them a better range. Like this, there is a better dilemma between interceptors, escort fighters and fighter-bombers.

I was thinking of something like this (the yellow cells are the ones changed):
[image]local://upfiles/46661/F25ED168A55340F8BA94DCD901B7238E.jpg[/image]



Tejszd -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 4:57:08 PM)

I do not buy them because they are too much of a compromise. But I do like the point that Uxbridge made that in areas where you can only have 1 plane that they can do all roles just not well.... if they could be improved somewhere that could help make them get purchased/used....



Harrybanana -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 5:16:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Because I am thinking of what to do that's why.


Thank you Alvaro. My 2 cents is that you will need to increase the FBs Tactical rating if you want to make it worth it for anyone to use them. Fighters have a base Tactical of 2, so even with the +2 that the 1944 and 1945 FBs get, that still only gives them a 4 Tactical strength. This means they are only half as good at TAC as a 1939 ground attack group (though admittedly they have better defense and air combat ratings). I also personally think that their aircombat should be the same as an escorts.



Uxbridge -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 6:07:04 PM)

Increasing range and tac value a bit would certainly make them more interesting.



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 6:11:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I also personally think that their aircombat should be the same as an escorts.


Not sure about this. The whole question is which real WW2 plane should we compare them to?



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (5/24/2020 6:32:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Increasing range and tac value a bit would certainly make them more interesting.


New version, I don't want to create a Death Star either. [:D]
[image]local://upfiles/46661/32B2B5B38C3D4E54919056620E609C3C.jpg[/image]



LiquidSky -> RE: Advancements (5/26/2020 9:00:45 AM)



In my ongoing game as the allies, I am nearing the end of 1942.

I am trying an experiment. The British, I kept their fighters as Interceptors. So I disbanded their escort fighter and replaced it with an interceptor. I also built an extra interceptor for the Canadians. They are being used near invasions sites now.

The Americans, I am building Escort fighters. Some of them have arrived in theatre, and are mostly just sitting and (hopefully) protecting fleet elements at sea from Axis bombers.

The Russians, I disbanded their entire airforce and rebuilt 6 Fighter-Bombers and 6 Single Engine Ground Support.

Wherever their was a German fighter on the front, I would avoid it with the Russian air. There was always targets to bomb and fight against *somewhere* along the front....and indeed, I would credit retaking Moscow October 1941 with those 12 planes flying as much as possible against Axis armour that was too far ahead of his air. But overall, I would say the FB's were not very good bombers.

My FB tech is now 1943 and when rested, in good weather, they show a pretty good ground attack value...but it is snowing, and I am bombing but they seem to be about as good as early German Tactical bombers were. The tech is almost 1944, and should be by the time summer '43 rolls around, and I am hoping that my investment then pays off.




Harrybanana -> RE: Advancements (5/26/2020 3:39:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



In my ongoing game as the allies, I am nearing the end of 1942.

I am trying an experiment. The British, I kept their fighters as Interceptors. So I disbanded their escort fighter and replaced it with an interceptor. I also built an extra interceptor for the Canadians. They are being used near invasions sites now.

The Americans, I am building Escort fighters. Some of them have arrived in theatre, and are mostly just sitting and (hopefully) protecting fleet elements at sea from Axis bombers.

The Russians, I disbanded their entire airforce and rebuilt 6 Fighter-Bombers and 6 Single Engine Ground Support.

Wherever their was a German fighter on the front, I would avoid it with the Russian air. There was always targets to bomb and fight against *somewhere* along the front....and indeed, I would credit retaking Moscow October 1941 with those 12 planes flying as much as possible against Axis armour that was too far ahead of his air. But overall, I would say the FB's were not very good bombers.

My FB tech is now 1943 and when rested, in good weather, they show a pretty good ground attack value...but it is snowing, and I am bombing but they seem to be about as good as early German Tactical bombers were. The tech is almost 1944, and should be by the time summer '43 rolls around, and I am hoping that my investment then pays off.




If you are using the FBs primarily (and perhaps even solely) as bombers and avoiding enemy fighters, I believe you would have got more bang for your buck by purchasing 12 ground attack air groups (rather than 6 and 6). They cost the same and the same and have much better TAC bombing numbers.



Harrybanana -> RE: Advancements (6/10/2020 7:14:13 AM)

Oops, forget it I figured it out.



ncc1701e -> RE: Advancements (6/10/2020 8:37:18 PM)

Might be cool to have at least these conversions:

Infantry:
Assault <--> Anti Tank

When going on offense or defense...


Armor / Mechanized:
Breakthrough <--> Heavy Armor

When going from Pz II to Panther...


Strategic Bombers:
Detection & Electronics <--> Strategic Bombing

When Battle of Atlantic is done and you can concentrate on factories...




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625