RE: balancing national capability offsets

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: balancing national capability offsets

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> RE: balancing national capability offsets

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/10/2009 6:47:06 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: runyan99
I think you are jumping the shark a little bit, and are on the verge of making rules for rules sake. Know when to say when.

I'm trying not to go to far, that's why I let you know what I am thinking about. So you can stop me :).

But they aren't rules for rules sake. They are rules to attempt to achieve an objective (national forces tend to operate in regions of national interest, and minor nations don't specialize in building just 1 specific unit type). It sounds like you are saying "the objective is not worth the effort and complication".

The thing is, after this thread I added the national capability offsets to allow Axis minors to build a greater variety of units. And I think it may lead to certain unnatural play patterns. Or really, the patterns are already there to some extent but less obvious before you can easily see all the unit nations. Mostly I would like to avoid having minors focus on specializing on building a specific unit type.

The easiest fix would be to expand the minor builds to include reduced capability infantry, but not flak and maybe not artillery.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/10/2009 6:48:18 PM >

(in reply to runyan99)

Post #: 31

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/10/2009 7:25:35 PM

runyan99

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline

I mainly object to the 'areas of national interest' rules.

As for the potential problem of specializing, implement what you already suggested.

1) any artillery or flak unit in combat without at least one infantry/para/armor of the same nationality in that combat will suffer a -3 penalty on land attack.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 32

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/10/2009 8:55:10 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

As far as the areas of interest go - so what would exactly areas of interest be for Romania, or the other nations? I think this is the wrong path...

If you attempt to "clump" units together, you render single units useless, militia or already weakened minor arty are not worth even producing. Most minor nations have a very low production, so you only can have one stack of Romanian units somewhere, another of Hungarian units elsewhere. What is the "improvement"?

I am not in agreement with this at all. Of course there were certain difficulties when mixed nationality units operated together but that is nothing I would try to discourage. IMO the -1/-2 penalty on minor units just because they are of minor nationality is more than enough.

The only rule I could be sold on is the -3 attack penalty for artillery/AA units without infantry/armour support.

(in reply to runyan99)

Post #: 33

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/10/2009 9:04:10 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

1) On the attack - the first unit of a given nation to move from a region expends an extra supply. If you move 10 units from one nation, it costs 11 supplies. 10 units from 5 nations, costs 15 supplies.

2) on the defence - instead of expending just 1 supply per region, expend 1 supply per represented defending nation.

I do not see a rationale - 2 units of different nationality have a different "mileage" than those of the same nationality? Same for defending units - one German and one Romanian unit expend 2 suplies while 2 German ones expend just one?

As you were not in favour of altering the way defending unit's supply was deducted previously I wonder why these ideas are better then others previously rejected.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 34

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/11/2009 5:00:30 AM

joe_canadian

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/7/2006
Status: offline

I dont like the area of intrest idea, it seems like it would weeken the axis to much, pushing deep into russia would be that much harder

_____________________________

History is written by the winners

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 35

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/11/2009 5:51:05 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joe_canadian
I dont like the area of intrest idea, it seems like it would weeken the axis to much, pushing deep into russia would be that much harder

I agree. It was something I was experimenting with, but I don't like it. It is too broad and odd of in effect.

I'm beginning to think that I will be satisfied with the simple "artillery in combat without support of at least infantry of the same nation in that combat is penalized" rule.

Still, I suspect that the common approach will be Hungarian, Rumanian, and Italian troops manning the Atlantic wall. It is simply the best thing to do with subpar units. It's what I have always done with those nation's militia, now you'll be able to do it with their infantry, artillery and flak (at the expense of fewer supplies and less research).

(in reply to joe_canadian)

Post #: 36

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/11/2009 6:25:57 AM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
[Still, I suspect that the common approach will be Hungarian, Rumanian, and Italian troops manning the Atlantic wall. It is simply the best thing to do with subpar units. It's what I have always done with those nation's militia, now you'll be able to do it with their infantry, artillery and flak (at the expense of fewer supplies and less research).

I just finished a beta test game with the new rules and thought I'd comment on this. The reduced evasion artillery capability of minor Axis units made a noticeable difference in picking them off by air before invasion. And unsuppressed German flak can be deadly to invading ground units - Italian flak were not so scary, due to the weaker ground attack value. In fact, I can recall that in at least one invasion - looking at the combat die rolls, etc. - I thought at the time that it would have been a failure if not for a couple weaker Axis units on the defense. So I think it is still a bit of a balance. The Germans might also want to commit some minor Axis troops in Russia because they will suffer more regular casualties and can draw from the population pools of those countries instead of solely from Germany's population.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 37

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/11/2009 6:26:04 AM

runyan99

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline

I don't see why Germany could not have sent the Italians and Romanians to France instead of Russia. Perfectly plausible.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 38

RE: balancing national capability offsets - 2/11/2009 6:48:21 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: runyan99
I don't see why Germany could not have sent the Italians and Romanians to France instead of Russia. Perfectly plausible.

I didn't mean to say I thought it was a problem. Just that I thought it would be common.

In fact, as I recall a lot of the units in France at the time of D-Day were actually conscripts from eastern Europe.

From everything all the comments I've seen I'm beginning to think things are in decent shape. Don't worry, no "regions of national interest" modifiers :).

(in reply to runyan99)

Post #: 39