So, I'm back for the weekend... Starting monday, I have a few busy days ahead, but I'll try and squeeze in a few replies here and there. Let's see.
the_iron_duke wrote:I'm using the stock equipment file. I think I had decided to give units an initial starting experience of 50 points (half a star) so a unit would lose a bit more than just prestige if it took damage. I think I might have forgotten to implement this and so everyone started with zero. On that subject, do you think giving 50 initial prestige a good or bad idea? You have told me before how experience has big effects at high levels so I went with something small, but not zero.
Half a star doesn't give any bonuses, but because your scenarios are large and feature many units it might be possible for some units to gain enough experience to get one, esp. strategic bombers and artillery. During campaigns, I've regularly seen freshly bought units of those types ending scenarios with a star, my record is nearly 2 I believe, with that E.555 bomber thing.
Before discussing the A.A. issue, are there any other unit/unit types in the standard equipment file that you feel similarly might be in need of revision for multiplayer purposes?
I haven't played that many multiplayer matches, but enough to notice that some units are much more desirable over others.
mostly anti-tank & switchable units, and there are some strange anomalies scattered about. Some examples: some units are overly tough (BA-64, SiG38(t), Sexton, others as well). Stats are sometimes inconsistent, for example the early Soviet KV tanks have large amounts of fuel and ammo and are quite fast. Some recon units have huge fuel/ammo stats, and won't need supply for an entire scenario. Soviet SU-artillery models have range 3, too much.
Some particular units I feel are a bit unbalanced for multiplayer, either too good or too bad. Note that some MP maps seem a bit more balanced by design (heroes added to some units), but I find myself buying the same ones and avoiding certain units. Such as:
Jagdpanzer IV (German AT, did you ever buy one? It's very bad, there are even multiple threads about this)
Valentine series (UK tank). Although they received a small (move) boost in a patch, they are still way too vulnerable. They had decent armor, generally more on the front than the Panzer III and about double on the sides. Yet it has only GD=8, while a comparable Panzer III has 10-15, some early Panzer III also have GD=8, but this is for the models which only have 30mm all around. The Valentine has more than double the armor.
Some units which I usually buy over others:
KV-1 series (Soviet tank) are very tough, which is ok, but they also have a lot of fuel and ammo. The early versions were actually very unreliable and should have less. Now I can go on a killing spree, because Panzers are unable to catch up quickly enough, until the weather clears and the Stukas move in.
SU-series (Soviet artillery/anti-tank). Switchable, range 3, very tough, luckily they have low ammo.
155mm M12 GMC (US mobile artillery). It's cheaper than its towed variant + halftrack transport (367 vs. 290 + 100). And carries more ammo (10 vs. 6). And is less vulnerable. Available from 3.10.1942, which is correct, but there were only 100 made.
Churchill series (UK tank). I buy nothing else, these are the only survivable British tanks. Available far too early, (too) mobile, and it seems most Allied Corps players build their core around them as well.
I see three ways of progressing in my scenarios project regarding A.A.:
There may be a fourth one, see below.
1) Use a modded equipment file.
PROS:
- It would be excellent to have the game accurately reflect historical unit capablities and be balanced for multiplayer play.
The gaming system is a bit too simple to make things really accurate, but improvements are certainly possible. I think MP balance is a good goal, this will require carefully tweaking the unit costs.
CONS:
- Historical/game mechanics expertise required
Not a con for me personally, but I've made some write-ups about equipment for other modders already. The really hard part is translating all that knowledge into a set of consistent stats, which depends on what design goal you have. One of my own goals is to make some neglected unit types more attractive, which will require some stat boosts which are not very realistic.
Requires challengers to download and mod their game (I presume) so it might make it more difficult to find opponents
Yep. At that point, you have a full-blown mod, so you will have to promote its use to exploit the benefits.
2) Use less A.A. units.
Accept the over-powered A.A. and use less of them, especially the attached heavy anti-aircraft units, like 88 mm guns.
PROS:
- The simplest solution
- Uses the vanilla game equipment file
CONS:
- The anti-aircraft component can look a little under-represented
- Means anti-aircraft is concentrated in little spots rather than weaker but covering a wider area
Your PROS are important, but although it looks like a simple solution you will still have to test to find some balance point. Looks are important too, but the lack of coverage is a bigger problem, and the effects might not show up until after quite a few games. Especially as people become more aware of approximate locations and AA 'dead zones' and start attacking only units which are not covered by AA. Then you will have to rely on the fighters, which will become more important, and if you are not careful, slowly the balance will shift towards the air component. I have no doubt you can work out a nice middle ground, but it might take a while to get there.
3) Under-strengthening A.A.
One could reduce the set maximum strength of the scenario's anti-aircraft units.
As it is now, the medium A.A. guns typically inflict 2 damage points, while the heavies (like 88 mm) inflict four points. This means a couple of heavies together can protect a lot of units from air-attack and, with good dices rolls, take out a full-strength enemy aircraft in a single turn.
PROS:
- Easy to do
- Uses the vanilla game equipment file
Important cons
CONS:
- Makes the A.A. a bit more vulnerable to ground units
I like this one better, it's a bit like changing the rate of fire (RoF). Like you said, it will increase vulnerability, but not just by ground units. Be careful a strat bomber won't become able to supress an AA unit fully.
One fourth point, which might help (complicate?) your decision: Since purchasing units plays no role on your map, because the forces are fixed, why not change the stats of some units by adding heroes to some units in your scenario?
This way, you can still tweak some units which are in need of simple boosts or nerfs, but you won't need a custom eqp file. The heroes are part of the scenario, so they will come with the map. There are plenty of stock scenarios (even multiplayer) which rely on this system to provide some particular balance.
For example, you add a -5 attack hero to the heavy AA. The downside is that all attack stats will be -5, but you can make them less vulnerable by making the hero a -5 attack/ + 4 defense or something. Or add a +1 (or more...) range hero, to increase area of coverage.
PROS
- uses stock equipment file
- different maps can use different tweaks for the same units
CONS
- some knowledge/testing required to get decent values
- changing stats is all-or-nothing, so not suitable for all problems (every attack/defense stat gets affected when adding a hero)
- only works for pre-placed units
I hope this is a bit of a fair assessment?
What sort of values do you think the A.A. units should realistically inflict? I was thinking of halving the amount of damage they do, so around one point damage for regular and two points for heavies. Despite their reduced strength, their ability to protect ground units in adjacent hexes is still highly potent and presents the same level of deterrence. So perhaps set the maximum strength of A.A. units to 5 or 6.
I put this one separate, as it is a bit complicated. Airplanes usually have around 20 ground defense, so it might seem easy to mod figures to get your desired loss rate, but there are hard-coded mechanisms in the game which help determine the effectiveness of AA:
- Stats: easy, there is Air Attack (AA) for the AA and Ground Defense (GD) for the aircraft. Initiative doesn't play a role, AA always gets INI=100.
- Weather: if it's cloudy, AA units fire with half their strength points (a 10-str unit will only fire with 5 attacks). Planes also fire with half-strength.
- Low Altitude Attack penalty: this is when a fighter or tactical bomber attacks a ground target. During the attack, if it is fired at by AA, the GD gets reduced by 5 (this figure is moddable, BTW). Example: a fighter with GD=20 attacks a tank, and AA fires at it. At that moment, the fighter doesn't use its normal GD, but suffers a -5 penalty, so the effective GD is 15 instead of 20. This penalty is only during attacks made by fighters and tactical bombers, during the following opponents turn they can only be shot at using their normal GD, because they have finished their attacks runs.
This is why I sometimes elect not to attack when I've flown a fighter over a target that is unexpectedly well defended. If I do nothing, the fighter will get shot at the following turn, but if I attack anyway in my own turn (to try and cause some damage) I will be extra vulnerable because of the penalty and get shot at the following turn anyway.
As for realistic losses to FlaK, that depends on a lot of factors. Allied fighter-bombers losses to FlaK over France in 1944 were relatively high. But with strategic bomber losses (about 5% was shot down), only about half of those was due to FlaK. A link for the USAAF losses per plane class over Europe:
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t159.htm, you can compare that with the amount of sorties they made:
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t119.htm.
So I would suggest that you look/use Deducter's or my (or else's) historical stats mod and you look for the results.
