Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums
Sign in to follow this  
brogan

new victory category

Recommended Posts

I have been thinking that of all the ways we count points, what we don't cover at all is counting CP destroyed. That is and should be a legit category. It is also one of the few things that can be destroyed by navy/land/air forces. Killing off industries, air base levels, city/provencial fortifications are all things that your end score does not reflect (especially if the air bases are nearly empty). Just an idea I think has some merit.

 

- Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this idea has a lot of merit. Especially if the new game makes SB planes more affordable and therefore increases the likelihood that the tactic will be used.

 

As has been said before, those planes that specialize in SB (HB's) should have their AIR points cost reduced by half. Yeah, you heard me right. Right now those planes are FAR too expensive considering they only have one real use and the tactic is utilized only sparingly in the vast majority of games and by very few players. This is a BIG divergence from what really happened during WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that it would make HB much better, in some ways it is indirectly included in the revenue metric as well as the Air Force, Navy, and Army size metrics. When you destroy industry, airbases, and fortifications that are rebuilt, it costs a lot of money, not to mention CP's, which require HVY factories rather than SHIP, AIR or ARM. So there is a cost, it simply doesn't show up directly. HB were really only employed effectively by the Americans in WWII, and the American unit string already has pretty solid aircraft from mid-game onward -- more than capable of scoring well in the current system. Also, using HB against Airbases does score points directly if there are air forces located in the base.

 

I'm not necessarily against the idea, I just think it is indirectly captured in the current system, and I would want to be careful about double dipping in a category that already has substantial impact on the game. Destroying CPs is particularly effective in weakening your enemy and allowing you to overrun their position, scoring in all the economic categories.

 

Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but I'd argue that very few people utilize the SB capability as a significant part of their war efforts over the course of the game, or even over a notable portion of it. Because of that, the impact of these attacks is very limited over the course of a game of Victory. Maybe there should be a separate victory condition that counts up the amount of CP destroyed in factories and air bases. That being said, I'd be very interested to hear from other players on their use of SB or the lack thereof in past games.

 

As for referencing 'real life', the Americans obviously did SB more than any other power, but the British did make it a very significant part of their air war against Germany. Then again, whether they used it a lot of not during the real war is limited in it's importance to be honest. How significant was the Russian's use of airborne assaults over the course of the war? While they did use it, they didn't even come close to using as much as the US and Britain and definitely not as much as players do in Victory. The German's did A LOT more airborne missions than the Russians, but we see very little of that in Victory.

 

In the end, my suggestions are made in an effort to better equalize not only the different types of forces, air forces, armies and navy's, but also rethink the impact of certain types of specific units, most notably air force units. They seem to be the linchpin of why navy units are considered so vulnerable and costly considering how easily they can be compromised by certain air units for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but I'd argue that very few people utilize the SB capability as a significant part of their war efforts over the course of the game, or even over a notable portion of it. Because of that, the impact of these attacks is very limited over the course of a game of Victory. Maybe there should be a separate victory condition that counts up the amount of CP destroyed in factories and air bases. That being said, I'd be very interested to hear from other players on their use of SB or the lack thereof in past games.

 

As for referencing 'real life', the Americans obviously did SB more than any other power, but the British did make it a very significant part of their air war against Germany. Then again, whether they used it a lot of not during the real war is limited in it's importance to be honest. How significant was the Russian's use of airborne assaults over the course of the war? While they did use it, they didn't even come close to using as much as the US and Britain and definitely not as much as players do in Victory. The German's did A LOT more airborne missions than the Russians, but we see very little of that in Victory.

 

In the end, my suggestions are made in an effort to better equalize not only the different types of forces, air forces, armies and navy's, but also rethink the impact of certain types of specific units, most notably air force units. They seem to be the linchpin of why navy units are considered so vulnerable and costly considering how easily they can be compromised by certain air units for example.

 

Yes, air units are far more effective at destroying naval units than they should be....but it is really due to the mathematics of the game. In the game, players build far more Ju-88's than Germany ever did. The same is true for other popular units such as Manchesters, Mustangs, etc. Unfortunately, with the effectiveness of the units published to all players, people want to maximize their results, and that leads to a very small number of different units built by most players. It will be hard to fix that in a new game unless Russ makes each and every unit have some unique reason why it should be built (i.e. make it better at something than other available units).

 

Naval units could be made much better with a few simple changes: (i) make maritime strikes turn back the same way ground strikes do when they take damage exceeding their morale, right now, that does not happen; (2) decrease the effectiveness of maritime strikes considerably, right now, a single dive bomber squadron (20 planes) might land 8-10 hits on a ship....that was not comparable to what happened in WWII; finally (3) allow Naval forces to CB armies that are in coastal provinces and port cities, while perhaps not realistic from a real-life standpoint, it would significantly improve their value in the game.

 

Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are indeed correct that only a few air units in most of the national tech packs are actually used in any numbers and some not at all. While it is true that the game can't and shouldn't force players to buy and use certain specific air units, it can blunt the overwhelming 'jack of all trades and YES master of all of them also' reality right now.

 

As as been proposed in recent posts, why not do the following:

 

1) Make all HDB and HGA with a 10 range or more into MB's.

2) Take away the MSD capability from MB, HB and don't allow any HF to have above a 90 MSD capability (Beaufighter X). I could even see taking away the MS capability from F and HF as well. I know it sounds crazy, but it would definitely give players a reason to build all the remaining planes that DO have a MSD capability and hence make ships as pitifully vulnerable to air attack as they currently are.

 

Making ships less vulnerable, but by no means invulnerable to air attacks would mean that more players would have to divert attention and effort to building and maintaining naval forces in order to contend with and counter other nations naval efforts against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with this is, that if you start tweaking some units this will change the balance between the nationalities.

 

A few examples:

 

Russ is working on improving the role of night fighters.(At least he was a year ago) to make it possible to defend against night SB's. I take this as a sign that in some games SB has been used as a valid strategy.

But if you strengthen night SB and night interception, you will weaken the Russians, who do not have any night fighers.

 

Much has been said about the uselesness of the Sturmovik. But if you make this plane more usefull by extending its range you strengthen the Russian Tech considerably.

 

You can strip the P-51B from the American tech, but the players using this tech have to wair 48 turns before they can build one.

 

I am all in favor of changing the units to give the game extra options and balance. But this is a lot of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that each and every change has the potential to cause unintended consequences.

 

It does seem clear that each nationality has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I am definitely not in favor of getting rid of any units. Just decreasing some units strength or versatility while increasing other units'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...