Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:52 pm
Quoted for truth.uran21 wrote: IMO Wiki is the first thing you do if you are finding something fast and you go elsewhere if you are finding something deep.
Page 4 of 7
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:56 pm
I agree, for something fast but it is remarkable that even the general information is wrong allot of times.
I use a ton of reliable sources, for the Navy Jane's is one of the best.
The Armed forces military sites for each country has allot of information too. Kind of hard to argue with the government, but if you see a mistake, send them an email they will double check and correct if you provide a source.
I use a ton of reliable sources, for the Navy Jane's is one of the best.
The Armed forces military sites for each country has allot of information too. Kind of hard to argue with the government, but if you see a mistake, send them an email they will double check and correct if you provide a source.
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:35 pm
I would not recommend this solution because of the ramifications it has on AD units. Rudankort and I discussed this in-depth, he should have our solution for you.uran21 wrote:On infantry shooting back in air I will increase GD for planes.
Here's the jist of it:
[4/27/2011 6:22:53 PM] rudankort: Probably the solution is just to increase AA air attack, so that they suppress more and take in a couple of kills too.
[4/27/2011 6:23:06 PM] Kerensky: I agree
[4/27/2011 6:23:22 PM] Kerensky: Possibly boost SA on small calibre AD units
[4/27/2011 6:23:36 PM] Kerensky: Or if AD units are 'transformers' (We still havent seen that BTW)
[4/27/2011 6:23:44 PM] Kerensky: Then AD transformed to be ground can have strong SA and HA values
[4/27/2011 6:23:52 PM] Kerensky: Leave the AD version of the AD weak
[4/27/2011 6:24:28 PM] Kerensky: Bottom line, boost AD attack power enough so that they are more threatening than an infantry unit with [1]
[4/27/2011 6:24:37 PM] Kerensky: Once we find that balance, AD will be good
[4/27/2011 6:25:01 PM] Kerensky: If Infantry with [1] looks like 2-3 when bombed by a stuka
[4/27/2011 6:25:16 PM] Kerensky: a 40mm should be 3-4
[4/27/2011 6:25:33 PM] Kerensky: As 40mm gets larger, 4-4, and maybe 5-4 for an 88 or 90mm
[4/27/2011 6:25:36 PM] Kerensky: Maybe
[4/27/2011 6:25:40 PM] Kerensky: 5 may be too much
[4/27/2011 6:25:51 PM] rudankort: I would say, if AA suppresses more than kills, probably other ground units should too.
[4/27/2011 6:26:29 PM] Kerensky: So inf should also switch to AA suppress? a stuka shoulda be 2-3 vs a [1] infantry?
[4/27/2011 6:26:37 PM] Kerensky: shouldNT
[4/27/2011 6:26:57 PM] rudankort: Well with attack rating of 1 and 80% going to suppression infy won't kill much any more.
[4/27/2011 6:27:05 PM] Kerensky: Exactly
[4/27/2011 6:27:17 PM] Kerensky: I think a good balance would be an infantry with [1]
[4/27/2011 6:27:24 PM] Kerensky: When a stuka bombs him
[4/27/2011 6:27:26 PM] Kerensky: Odds will be 1-X
[4/27/2011 6:28:00 PM] Kerensky: So the [1] gives a slim chance to dent the fighter and has meaning
[4/27/2011 6:28:09 PM] Kerensky: but isnt very strong or threatening
[4/27/2011 6:28:19 PM] rudankort: It can even be 0 to X. It is enough if infy suppresses some strength (so reduce its casualties) and occasionally kill a point.
[4/27/2011 6:28:32 PM] Kerensky: I would prefer 1-X honestly
[4/27/2011 6:28:33 PM] rudankort: This sounds like realistic.
[4/27/2011 6:28:38 PM] Kerensky: I see 0-X as just a waste of ammo
[4/27/2011 6:28:57 PM] rudankort: Well, 1-X means that you can kill 2-3, and this might be too much.
[4/27/2011 6:29:09 PM] Kerensky: yea, 1-x could mean 10% or 19%
[4/27/2011 6:29:31 PM] Kerensky: Well, its a lot better than current 2-3
[4/27/2011 6:29:32 PM] rudankort: It is just combats are too random.
[4/27/2011 6:29:36 PM] Kerensky: We dont want to over-nerf
[4/27/2011 6:29:43 PM] Kerensky: ANd yes, they are very very random
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Hmm, realized to my horror that even Anti-Air units can't even re-supply if there is one single enemy airplane in an adjacant hex.
Yet another reason the 88 is one of the worst investments in this version.
Yet another reason the 88 is one of the worst investments in this version.
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:45 pm
How the presence of an AA unit effects trucks from being strafed by enemy aircraft when trying to resupply that AA unit? Of course those trucks are not shown in the game, but they are there somewhere.Obsolete wrote:Hmm, realized to my horror that even Anti-Air units can't even re-supply if there is one single enemy airplane in an adjacant hex.
Yet another reason the 88 is one of the worst investments in this version.
However, what we have now is, AA is a 100% defensive unit which not useful on your own turn. Not sure it is a good thing. Any ideas how to improve this aspect?
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:07 pm
Sure... implement that 9th 'transformer' button! Turn that 88 AA into a Matilda killing machine!
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:20 pm
AA is always a defensive unit. If want to make them better, let the move two hexes.Rudankort wrote:How the presence of an AA unit effects trucks from being strafed by enemy aircraft when trying to resupply that AA unit? Of course those trucks are not shown in the game, but they are there somewhere.Obsolete wrote:Hmm, realized to my horror that even Anti-Air units can't even re-supply if there is one single enemy airplane in an adjacant hex.
Yet another reason the 88 is one of the worst investments in this version.
However, what we have now is, AA is a 100% defensive unit which not useful on your own turn. Not sure it is a good thing. Any ideas how to improve this aspect?
Now you have to watch out because they can cover a larger area.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:21 am
The 88 in PG-III was the one unit I ALWAYS kept in my core. It was able to not just attack air (and defend at a good range), but you were allowed to hit other land targets with it as well.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 5:29 am
Oh jeeze, I just tried to attack a B-17G with my AUXILIARY 88. It's only 1% chance to kill per pip in that situation.
I also find it humorous that an 88 can shoot at small targets 3 hexes away, yet can only see a range of 1.
I also find it humorous that an 88 can shoot at small targets 3 hexes away, yet can only see a range of 1.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:02 am
It also seems the allied air units are overpowered, or the axis are underpowered.
Found out the hardway after doing that allied scenario in the 1943 campaign. Even the fuckwulf gets destroyed in just a single pass by allied air. There is no way I saw to possibly combat air. All the ground AA are useless, so that leaves no recourse.
I made it through a couple more scenarios but just quit in frustration with no possible way to make any more headway.
Found out the hardway after doing that allied scenario in the 1943 campaign. Even the fuckwulf gets destroyed in just a single pass by allied air. There is no way I saw to possibly combat air. All the ground AA are useless, so that leaves no recourse.
I made it through a couple more scenarios but just quit in frustration with no possible way to make any more headway.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:16 am
German unit prices may have gone up too much. 1939 campaign mode on impossible, after Moscow 41 I went to USA with 9k prestige, but this was not nearly enough for all of my upgrading needs.
This is good, I shouldn't turn 7 109E into 7 ME262 (I ended up with 4 262s and 3 109Gs) and I shouldnt turn 7 PZ IVF into 7 King Tigers (I ended up with 2 King Tigers and 6 PZ IVJs), but all the prestige numbers should be lowered. I shouldn't enter a scenario with 9k prestige, but I should end up with the core I was forced to end up with (mix of 109s and 262s, mix of King Tigers and PZ IVs).
This is good, I shouldn't turn 7 109E into 7 ME262 (I ended up with 4 262s and 3 109Gs) and I shouldnt turn 7 PZ IVF into 7 King Tigers (I ended up with 2 King Tigers and 6 PZ IVJs), but all the prestige numbers should be lowered. I shouldn't enter a scenario with 9k prestige, but I should end up with the core I was forced to end up with (mix of 109s and 262s, mix of King Tigers and PZ IVs).
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 10:35 am
Yea, German armor completely decimates American and British units, no contest. Berlin West only took 8 turns to completely wipe all Allied units, mostly achieved by King Tigers, Panthers, and Jagdpanthers.
High end German units need less GD and AD, need to cost slightly less, and American/British guns need better HA values.
As a side note, Berlin West in it's current form is definitely stacked in favor of the Germans.
High end German units need less GD and AD, need to cost slightly less, and American/British guns need better HA values.
As a side note, Berlin West in it's current form is definitely stacked in favor of the Germans.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:51 pm
You didn't use Panthers? Strange, it was the best tank of the war, and was the best one in PG1, too.Kerensky wrote:German unit prices may have gone up too much. 1939 campaign mode on impossible, after Moscow 41 I went to USA with 9k prestige, but this was not nearly enough for all of my upgrading needs.
This is good, I shouldn't turn 7 109E into 7 ME262 (I ended up with 4 262s and 3 109Gs) and I shouldnt turn 7 PZ IVF into 7 King Tigers (I ended up with 2 King Tigers and 6 PZ IVJs), but all the prestige numbers should be lowered. I shouldn't enter a scenario with 9k prestige, but I should end up with the core I was forced to end up with (mix of 109s and 262s, mix of King Tigers and PZ IVs).
I would rather say, high-end German units should cost much more (or the middle-tier German tanks should be cheaper).Kerensky wrote:High end German units need less GD and AD, need to cost slightly less, and American/British guns need better HA values.
Tiger I was over 2.5 times more expensive (in real cost) than Panzer IV, 3.5 times more expensive than Stug III, and around 5-6 times more expensive than Panzer II.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 4:22 pm
I am really against dubbing down a lot of units units just to allow American units to CATCH-UP in an MP game. It just makes top units like any other unit and gets people hoping mad at the un-realism.High end German units need less GD and AD, need to cost slightly less, and American/British guns need better HA values.
Why not allow the addition (malus) of att/def values to be applied to specific units if a player wants? This is what the PG series already had anyway. Then you don't have to make the entire campaign system un-historic in order to balance our your human vs human games.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 4:28 pm
You know, a quick solution to MP balancing is to only allow a nation to play against itself.
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 6:15 pm
Hmm, another little issue.
I noticed the FuckWulf A is at a disadvantage to even a P-47D. Is that really normal? I had always been under the impression that the FW was the top fighter of the war (excluding jets here). Yet when I look at the current stats...
FW costs more than P047 (Ok I don't have a problem with this...)
P-47 has 50% more spotting range (What? How....!)
P-47 has higher initiative (mmmm...)
P-47 has better air to air attack (mmmm).
Theres some other things that seem a bit off in the stats as well... I thought the FW has special armoured plating to protect the pilot, and so on... If the current stats are correct, then I'd say the P-47 beyond a doubt has been one of the most under-rated fighters of the war.
Anyway, maybe it's too early to discuss it yet, there are probably better FW models available. I'm still surprised at the spotting range of 3 for a P-47, is that a typo?
I noticed the FuckWulf A is at a disadvantage to even a P-47D. Is that really normal? I had always been under the impression that the FW was the top fighter of the war (excluding jets here). Yet when I look at the current stats...
FW costs more than P047 (Ok I don't have a problem with this...)
P-47 has 50% more spotting range (What? How....!)
P-47 has higher initiative (mmmm...)
P-47 has better air to air attack (mmmm).
Theres some other things that seem a bit off in the stats as well... I thought the FW has special armoured plating to protect the pilot, and so on... If the current stats are correct, then I'd say the P-47 beyond a doubt has been one of the most under-rated fighters of the war.
Anyway, maybe it's too early to discuss it yet, there are probably better FW models available. I'm still surprised at the spotting range of 3 for a P-47, is that a typo?
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 6:27 pm
Not a typo but an old artefact. It existed among Italians too. Fixed.Obsolete wrote:I'm still surprised at the spotting range of 3 for a P-47, is that a typo?
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:48 pm
B-17G has the same air attack value as a FW-A? Oh really now... so why were the allies scrambling so hard to get fighter escourts for their bombers, not to mention the emergency of trying to find ways to get enough fuel into their fighters to extend their covering support of the bombers.
Naturally, all they had to do was buy more bombers!
Naturally, all they had to do was buy more bombers!
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:25 pm
I would not rush with conclusions.Obsolete wrote:B-17G has the same air attack value as a FW-A? Oh really now... so why were the allies scrambling so hard to get fighter escourts for their bombers, not to mention the emergency of trying to find ways to get enough fuel into their fighters to extend their covering support of the bombers.
Naturally, all they had to do was buy more bombers!
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:48 pm
Here is a typical situation on why I am so terrified of attacking ANY allied unit that has so much of an AA strength of just [1].
