|
ncc1701e -> RE: Balance Thread (12/30/2020 11:19:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
quote:
ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?
Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.
Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts
Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.
And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.
I agree with Oxfordguy's comments above. The UK and the US have already been considerably nerfed with the last few patches. Or more correctly, the nerfing of the CVs ability to sink subs has considerably increased the effectiveness of the U-Boats. If you have read MM's recent AARs you would know that from mid 1940 on almost all of the UKs (and Canada's) production is being spent on escorts and MMs. In my current game against MM where I am the Allies it is now September 27 1940. Canada has used 95% of its production on escorts. The UK did build some army units along with escorts and MM. I have not has any spare production to build new air units; which of course historically the UK did. I anticipate that most of the UKs production over the next couple years will be spent on escorts and MM.
IMHO this has gone too far. The Western Allies in 1943 should be very strong. Historically, by the summer of 1943 they had way more ships, planes, men and tanks in Western Europe than the Axis. So much so that the US wanted to invade France in 43 and they very nearly won this argument. But i don't think that will be the case in future games.
I agree with your post that in the game the UK does not build nearly as many combat ships as it did historically. But this is also true of the Axis. The next game where I see the Tirpitz sailing the high seas will be my first. Part of the problem with this is that they are just too damn expensive; especially compared to the bang you can get for your buck spending the production elsewhere. I agree with Oxfordguy that the cost of building an escort group represents the construction of both destroyers and frigates. I believe patrol groups area actually primarily light cruisers. I would like to see it where a each nation receives certain levels of production in each of the areas of army, naval, and air. In other words, instead of, for example, Germany starting with 200 production that it can spend on anything; it would receive 120 production to spend on army type builds (which would include supply trucks), 30 to spend on naval units and 50 to spend on air units. Meanwhile the UK's production would be split 50% naval, 30% army and 20% air. But if you did this then you would have to be able to spend on building units in stages. So if an armour costs 400 and takes 15 turns to build than you would spend 27 production per turn to build it. Players could also invest production to increase their capacity in each area (lie building shipyards).
In your game versus MM, I don't see you investing heavily in Merchants or in Escorts using UK production. Only Canadian are building escorts:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4928467
|
|
|
|
