Mixed Questions
-
-
So how could we give reasons to seemingly losing side to continue to fight? Any good ideas? Maybe giving an income bonus only once if their income significantly lowered and introducing draw option other than losing or winning?
-
@Schulz what would your goal with this be?
-
@Schulz so people won't quit as soon as things go bad ? If so, I'd have a tiered victory system. TKO. Major, Minor, Draw. It would work best in a league system or tournament. Deciding what the requirements of each are would be the challenge. Could go by X rounds and X territories controlled, number of PUs or resources. etc...
You still need to crunch that all out. Lots of test games or just games in general would be the way to go. You should be able to start out with something basic and adjust accordingly.
You could also give a Mulligan of one redo of a battle. Or 3 rerolls per game. I'd say only one reroll per battle though. I've seen people who play that way, or something similar, but don't remember who. Personally when things go bad, I look at it as a challenge.
I may have misunderstood you though
-
The purpose is preventing anti climatic ends because currently even if losing side lost slighly it momemtum it becomes clear that nothing can turn the tide of war. Even a few mistake in initial rounds can lead unavoidable defeat it may be good for people expecting the course of war decided in a few rounds but I wouldn't want it.
-
@Schulz
I think an aspect that might help is high maintenance costs, something like 50% of the cost to build. I also don't like how often a single loss in a large battle of just one theater decides a long game on a very large board.Maintenance costs would make losing units less bad. Like if someone killed 10 of my fighters while losing 5, on a typical map that's a 50 TUV loss for me. But with 50% maintenance costs, I would save 25 PUs by the next turn, it could help a nation recover after a serious loss.
-
@Schulz You could have the territories commonly under contention not be worth nearly as much (or zero). Then you could take the time to fall back and regroup without it costing that much.
-
I've decided to implement a few things actually to achieve that but they are still not enough.
-No building new factory
-No using captured factory
-Even if nations lost their capital, they still continue to collect incomes and mobilize units as long as they are still controlling their original factories.Its good idea keeping values low as much as possible in battle fronts to flexibilty but everything still revolving around incomes. I like maintenance too but not really higher than %10 to achieve that we need fractional numbers.
By simplifying, for example in a WWII scenario Axis has no chance to avoid total defeat ( I emphasize avoiding total defeat not pursuing total victory) if they are pushed back Jun41/Dec41 borders even if they start exactly with the same position.
I am going to agree that triggering a bonus incomes for nations once or twice depends on their positions and differet results like total victory/lose conditional victory/surrender and draw. I am welcome to more idea.
-
@Schulz I am not really sure what your goal is with this. If I were playing against the axis and pushed them back, i wouldn't want them to suddenly get some boost or other that might let them get back into that game. The whole goal of the game is to do just that too them. Just having the game balanced well at the start is probably the best way to build the game. I could see higher maintenance costs relative to unit cost maybe helping, as if you lose a bad fight, you would be able to build back relatively quickly.
-
If I would want to create a Falkland War scenario, should Argentina really has to invade Britain to end the war?
-
@Schulz I would try victory conditions then. There is a civil war map that has some different style victory conditions, that might work well.
-
I wonder what should be the correct costings between naval and air units for medium sized WWII maps that using v3 rules?
Basically should fighters be more cost efficient at destroying cruisers, carrier/fighters and battleships or not?
In Anniversary edition, I feel cruiser's and battleship's naval bombardment abilities no not outweight destroyer/carrier/fighter combo, the naval bombardment even became less effective if bunkers are exist.
-
@Schulz I have been giving some thought to unit interactions now that have "cannot target" as an option. I was thinking that we could use this to have more realistic interactions at sea. My idea is:
- Bombers can't target ships except for transports and can't target air units
- Fighters can only target destroyers, transports and other aircraft
- Tactical Bombers can target everything except fighters
- Subs can't target or be targeted by air units.
- Destroyers have an AA like capability against subs. Destroyers can't target bombers
- Cruisers/Battleships/Carriers can't target fighters or subs
Note not targeting can be advantage in some circumstances. Bombers are perfect for destroying transports and are otherwise useless at sea.
I am suggesting that only destroyers can target subs because the specialized ASW aircraft were not suitable for other combat purposes, so they can be included in the capability of the destroyers.
-
Its correct but I wouldn't want to have a unit that has only one purpose like strategic bombing. I have been toying with these ideas after discussings what would you think?
AAgun is removed and instead all units get AA ability except transports and submarines. Fighter becomes 2/3/4 with 6 cost. Bomber 3/1/6 8 cost.
Submarine: 2/2/2 6 cost same features with v3.
Destroyer: 2/2/2 8 cost same featrues with v3
Crusier: 3/3/2 10 cost, bombard
Carrier: 1/2/2 16 cost 2 cap.
B.Ship: 4/4/2 20 cost bombard.Sounds like it became way harder to perform amphibious invasion but it can be compensated by increasing handicapped side's production.
There is also trench with 0/1/0 'HP, it gives various options but it totally negates bombardment abilities when cruiser is already realtively bad unit.
Could there be way to make them useless against naval bombardment?
-
Bombers were an odd thing in WW2. They weren't effective against ships who could evade their high-altitude attacks (except for slow moving transports). Doctrine dictated their use against strategic targets but when used against operational or tactical targets (as happened in the Normandy campaign) they were effective.
I would think that you could use cannotTarget with bombardment attacks, but I would test to make sure. Bombardment isn't all that effective in TripleA, as ships are more expensive then planes and only get to fire the first round.
Amphibious attacks are too easy in TripleA, Consider the huge effort to put 7 divisions ashore in Normandy. On the other hand transporting units in non-combat situations is too hard.
All units having AA is not a bad idea (operational losses were significant) but you should make planes more effective or cheaper. Planes having an AA-type attack could be interesting.
Give your ideas a try and see how they work.
-
What about this unit set-up?
Infantry: 1/4/1 AA 3Pu
Trench: 0/1/0 2HP, free placement, 3Pu
Artillery: 2/4/1 AA 4Pu
Armour: 4/4/1 AA 5Pu
Fighter: 2/3/4 (2/3 for bombing campagins too) 5Pu
Bomber: 2/1/6 (2/1 for bombing campaigns too) 6Pu
Transport: 0/0/2 5 cap 7 Pu
Destroyer: 2/2/2 anti-stealth, AA 8 Pu
Cruiser: 3/3/2 bombard, AA 10 Pu
Carrier: 1/2/2 2 cap, AA 16 Pu
B.Ship 4/4/2 bombard, AA 2HP 20PuSpecial units:
Tiger: 5/5/1 2HP AA, 9Pu Germany only (to preserve HP because there is neither building new factory nor using captured factories)
Submarine: 3/3/2 stealth 6Pu Germany only (To give reasons to invest them for Germany instead just fighter coverage)
Tankette: 1/4/2, AA 3PU Italy only (to help in the Eastern front)
L.Cruiser: 2/2/2 AA 6PU Japan only (to compensate Japan's low income and to use it more cost effectively in blockade zones.
Kamikaze: 4/0/3 4PU suicide unit, attacks both air and land, ignores trench, 1 carrier cost, suicidal bomber. Japan only (to give more stragic options to Japan)Siberian 3/4/1 AA 3PU, Russia only can be placed only in the east of Urals (Slowing down Japan in the East Asia)
Boat 1/2/1 AA, transport 6PU Russia only (Reinforcing Leningrad via Ladoga, Same for Stalingrad via Caspian.I know Axis special units are too good but I would want to achieve the balance with this way rather than buffing Japan and Italy too much.
-
Why the engine does not accept setting up an air unit with having less air defence than air attack?
-
@Schulz With infantry having a defense of 4, do you really need trenches?
I suggest build capping the special units so they don't dominate the game.
-
They give some tactical options to all nations considering it is the only unit without factory requirements. but I can still consider to remove them.
-
Is there any way to immiadetaly end games after taking enogh victory cities before waiting to finish the round?
Also any way to bypass the "do you want to continue" text after achieving the victory city condition and making it default no?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login