About the way R&D is translated into field units (Full Version)

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



Message

Nachtmahr667 -> About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 3:13:33 AM)

Hello all,

this is just a game design philosophical musing thread. I don't expect the game to change anything (although it would be nice, of course, if it did). I started this thread just to share what is on my mind and make people aware.

So... Warplan does a fantastic number of things right. It is definitely the best game of its kind / in its genre by far (I am going to write a steam review in the same vein), but even such games can have a few problems, and Warplan does. A quirk that rubs me the wrong way lately is the way R&D is translated into the units on the field. I have two problems with this: a realism/historicity problem and a playability problem.

Let's talk about realism/historicity first: We all know that all units need to be a specific subclass. For example, you cannot have a plain armored corps. It needs to be either "Breakthrough" or "Heavy Tanks". The problem is, corps are and were too large a formation to have had such narrow specializations. There were heavy tank battalions, but no heavy tank corps. Corps are actually the first military formation without a pre-defined size. They are basically miniature armies. They have all sorts of troops and equipment with them. Thus, pidgeonholing them into one and only one tech is unrealistic and unhistorical. Corps sized units should profit from more than just one tech.

Now let's talk about playability: All countries start with a more or less large number of units that, obviously, already have a pre-defined specialization. For example, Germany starts the game with about 20 or so infantry corps, all of which have the "Assault" specialization. As a consequence, it is a no-brainer decision into which tech you as a player should invest your rather limited R&D points. And as a consequence of that, it is another no-brainer decision which specialization the new infantry corps you are going to build are going to have. The restrictiveness and mutual exclusiveness of tech coupled with the scarcity of research points (together with the nature of the starting forces) forces any sensible player into a pre-defined research and build plan. In other words, it takes away decision-making and thus downgrades play experience. In my eyes, unit specializations shouldn't be fixed. They should be the natural sum of the various pertaining techs. This would give the player more sensible choices when building up his forces and thus enhance playability.

Have a great day,

Alex



Meteor2 -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 5:39:05 AM)

I have never looked at R&D that way, but I tend to agree with you.
Units should benefit from the overall development in every technology applicable for them.
Corps have all the capabilities from Heavy tank, anti air, anti tank, engineering or recce to motorisation levels.
Therefore it seems to be logical, that the overall level in each R&D category should add to the capability of the corps.
Air units are different, but vor land units that seems to be a good concept.



sveint -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 5:54:50 AM)

The advantage of the current system is that it is eminently playable.

There is always room for improvement of course.



sillyflower -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 9:53:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nachtmahr667

The problem is, corps are and were too large a formation to have had such narrow specializations. There were heavy tank battalions, but no heavy tank corps.


I understand your point, but better kit does not of itself translate directly into better performance. Never underestimate the importance of organisation, the balance between the various components of a formation, and doctrine.

I neverthought of 'heavy tanks' as being literally loads of Tigers ets. If so, perhaps APs should go down
I see it more as having more heavier tanks or more tanks, as opposed to lighter and more manoeuverable tanks. Also all tech affecting doctrine as well as inproving kit. To take an extreme case, Jap infantry were far better in defence than when attacking so fit the 'anti-tank' designation perfectly (apart from the fact that they had almost no A/T weapons[:'(])

Looking at this way, and in conjunction with the unit specialisation mechanism, it does work well IMHO.

The game doesn't stop you dividing your inf units into the 2 types ie more defensive or more offensive roles, but there is a price. I can't think of any army that had both types with different kit + doctrines, other than a few specialised troop types which we get in all games of this type.

The Wehrmacht did change unit composition and doctrine for more defensive roles as the war turned against them. Warplan allows the player to do something similar by buying AT inf when you want. The only other game I can think of is WiTE. However, there is no player agency. All unit composition changes are fixed to a historical date regardless of the strategic position. This was sometimes/almost always very annoying.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 3:22:19 PM)

Thanks for the post Nach. Let me go over some things here. Lillyflower is right in that the advancements mostly represent doctrine and not weapons per say for land units. The differences are minor between the levels also. The idea came out of deciding from a yearly force pool and typical technology you see in other games. I mixed the two together.

If I had to redo this... I might go in a different direction slightly. But the issue is that this is a corps level game that is above all the common games in complexity but below the monster games like WitE and HOI. WarPlan falls directly under these two.

So sometimes you have to make compromises to it fits the game mechanics and ease of use.

In WarPlan 2 you will have a corps counter and fill it with divisions much like the SSI games of years past. Personally I really liked that system. I could micromanage as much as I wanted or just leave it alone. But in either case it didn't allow players to min-max the game. The only 2 negative reviews in steam weren't really negative. They just wanted a higher detail level.

So very likely next version advancements will be tech and configurations will be a division type selection. Like Germany using a 3 or 2 battalion division.

The players have been incredibly creative with strategies so far. I have played a good 6 PBEM games and every opponent plays completely differently. It's really refreshing. They use units in different ways. Also the players haven't discovered things I already know in how to use units but they will over time.

But your suggestions, if I am reading them right, should make it into the next version. I had to make WarPlan a proof of concept and start smaller before I made it larger. I can't build a Ferrari without engineering the Ford Model-T first. This game could have been a complete failure with it's different concepts.

Also thanks for the review and the kind words. Took about 6000 hours of work to profit from this. I am still adding to it. It will be the foundation for the next version.



willgamer -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 5:04:48 PM)

Just from my simplistic way of looking at it, when there are two choices, and one of the two is researching that starts in '39 and the other in '40, it's a no brainer.

Does anyone choose to go with giving up a year of research to pursue the '39 choice because you like it better??? [&:]



sillyflower -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 5:41:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Lillyflower


Lillyflower??????

That's close to libel, Alvarez [;)]



LiquidSky -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 6:34:14 PM)



I always research both AT and Assault as well as both Breakthrough and Heavy Tank as the Germans. I build only AT inf and Heavy Tank units though.....as the AT/HT get more and more advanced, I phase out the Assault/Breakthrough techs.

You can always merge an Assault division into an AT division and to turn the Assault unit into an AT one..although it will default to the lower tech year.

The two Breakthrough panzer corps I will have from start I use against the west in Africa and in Garrisoning france



AlvaroSousa -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 6:41:40 PM)

1st time anyone has down research this way. Prone to have issues. Assault and AT is evenly balanced and useful.

So let's look at armor. Which that I know of no one has done this...

Let's look at Breakthrough vs Heavy Armor

Base firepower for armor = ~14 total.
a 1942 breakthrough armor has 17 firepower + 1 operation point. And as the Axis you start 1 year ahead.
a 1942 breakthrough armor has 20 firepower + 1 defense.

Fire power difference is 17% but you get an extra operation point.
Which means you can cause a retreat one extra time per turn than the heavy armor.

So the question is how much value does that have?



sveint -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 7:21:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

So the question is how much value does that have?


Not much. Give Breakthrough a slight inherent +% to force a retreat?



AlvaroSousa -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 9:07:36 PM)

No it gives you an extra attack to make them retreat which is much better.



MorningDew -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/11/2020 10:04:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Just from my simplistic way of looking at it, when there are two choices, and one of the two is researching that starts in '39 and the other in '40, it's a no brainer.

Does anyone choose to go with giving up a year of research to pursue the '39 choice because you like it better??? [&:]


I make my decision on what to research based on whatbI think that country needs most.

Soviets won't have much naval research for example, Germans will research subs, not much other naval.

I could care less what year the research is currently in.



Meteor2 -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/12/2020 7:32:49 AM)

„So very likely next version advancements will be tech and configurations will be a division type selection. Like Germany using a 3 or 2 battalion division“

Of course, you mean regiments, not battalions...

I really appreciate, that you are willing to consider new or other ideas. So, your support for this game Is really world-class. [&o]

Happy eastern for everybody!





sillyflower -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/12/2020 9:45:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Let's look at Breakthrough vs Heavy Armor

Base firepower for armor = ~14 total.
a 1942 breakthrough armor has 17 firepower + 1 operation point. And as the Axis you start 1 year ahead.
a 1942 breakthrough armor has 20 firepower + 1 defense.




I know I'm getting old but I'm a bit lost here..............



PanzerMike -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/12/2020 12:19:30 PM)

Base firepower for armor = ~14 total.
a 1942 breakthrough armor has 17 firepower + 1 operation point. And as the Axis you start 1 year ahead.
a 1942 heavy armor has 20 firepower + 1 defense.

There, fixed that for ya [:D]



AlvaroSousa -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/12/2020 5:20:39 PM)

Yes regiment sorry.



sillyflower -> RE: About the way R&D is translated into field units (4/13/2020 8:55:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PanzerMike

Base firepower for armor = ~14 total.
a 1942 breakthrough armor has 17 firepower + 1 operation point. And as the Axis you start 1 year ahead.
a 1942 heavy armor has 20 firepower + 1 defense.

There, fixed that for ya [:D]


Obliged to y'all



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875