Flames and Steel (official thread)
-
If Gibraltar's garrison is limited, that means it can't be defended against Allied attack.
To be clear, if you can have at most X land units in Gibraltar (which would need to be decided based on a guess of how many infantrymen is an infantry units and the broad assumption that the other land units take about the same space when deployed or in reserve but ready for immediate deployment), you can also attack Gibraltar with at most X land units. (No other rules for land units here.) This would make Gibraltar actually more defensible, possibly much more defensible.
(Obviously, this is an approximation: you should realistically be able to attack with infinite land units but only Y at the same time, with Y lower than X, then, when you win, every land unit exceeding X goes back to the transports (because it never left them), but I'm not proposing front-line based limits or anything else other than a max X both stacking and attacking for a few very small territories like Gibraltar and Midway. Ideally, every territory for which X would be greater than 10 gets infinite - so no limit - for simplicity (yes, an arbitrary upper limit over which not to bother): this would likely include Malta and every island bigger than Malta depending on how many men an infantry unit is representing.)
Moving on to air limits, Gibraltar would also have a maximum air unit limit to land (like an aircraft carrier) (again, arbitrary and limited only to a few extremely small territories like Midway etc.). In this case, however, there is no limit for attacking air units over Gibraltar. (Again, I'm not claiming this is very realistic.)
Practically, the land limit would favour the defenders, and the air limit would favour the attackers.
In case of paratroopers, the limit would be total on land units. For example, if Gibraltar has a land unit limit of 2, you can offload 2 land units, or para-drop 2 land units or 1 of each, no more. (Again, a simplification.)
My point is not that this would be highly realistic, just that it would be more realistic than nothing, everything else being the same (and it is meant to be limited to Gibraltar, Midway and at most a few other similar cases if not just these two).
Whether or not something like Gibraltar could be attacked with paratroopers at all is of course a disputable matter. Personally, I would say that a simple rule that Gibraltar can never be attacked with paratroopers unless completely undefended would be a good special rule to add for Gibraltar and anything else about as small as Gibraltar (as an approximation of how insanely borderline suicidal would such a thing be). An arguably more realistic rule would be limiting it to the unused stacking limit. For example, if Gibraltar has a limit of 2, then you cannot para-drop if there are 2 defenders, can paradrop at most 1 if there is 1 defender and can paradrop at most 2 if it is undefended by land units. In any case, the total attacking land units would never be more than 2.
In the early part of WWII, Japan's best tank was the Chi Ha. It later created an upgraded version of that tank: the Kai Shinhoto Chi Ha. But even this upgraded version proved inferior to America's Sherman tanks: inferior armor, inferior main gun. Even a Kai Shinhoto Chi Ha could not successfully attack a Sherman from the front, and so needed to attack from the side or rear. Japan had a tank under development which it believed would equal or exceed the Sherman. Meanwhile, the United States was looking to upgrade from the Sherman, and towards the end of the war a small number of Pershing heavy tanks were produced.
To what extent is this dynamic captured by Flames and Steel? The game starts off with Japan and Italy being able to produce light tanks only. A light tank attacks on a 2, defends on a 1, and has one hitpoint. Whereas, the U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S., and Germany all start with the ability to produce either light tanks or medium tanks. A medium tank attacks and defends on a 3 and takes two hits to kill. Japan and Italy can research tanks tech, which would allow them to produce this kind of tank also. But they have other techs they would rather research first, so it probably won't be until rather deep into the game when they gain the ability to produce medium tanks.
All five of Germany, Japan, the U.S.S.R., the U.K., and the U.S. are able to build special production centers (SPCs). All except Japan are able to use SPCs to produce heavy tanks (or Panthers for Germany, which are basically heavy tanks by another name). A heavy tank attacks and defends on a 4, and has four hitpoints. Late game, Germany can research the King Tiger. This tank fires on a 4 + 4 and has six hitpoints. All of these heavy tanks, Panthers, and King Tigers are considered advanced units. They cannot be purchased with PUs, but can only be received by building SPCs. Your normal units--those purchased with PUs or with manpower points--will generally be much larger in number than your advanced units.
Flames and Steel does not have, and will not have, either coastal guns or paratroopers. If you impose a unit cap for Gibraltar, that unit cap means that it's no longer a competition of unit quantity, and turns into a competition of unit quality. In the latter type of competition Italy would be at a distinct disadvantage due to its inferior tanks tech. To hold Gibraltar, the Axis would need, say, two German tanks there. (Later in the game these could be replaced with Panthers, and eventually King Tigers.) Suppose Britain attacks these two German tanks with two tanks of its own. If amphibious, the two attacking tanks wouldn't get to fire on the first combat round. But Britain would get battleship bombardment instead.
Suppose that conflict ended with a German victory: Germany has one damaged tank left at the end of the battle. Injured units heal at the end of the game round. This means that for now, Germany's tank is still injured. Italy goes after Britain, so it uses the opportunity to ship in a heavy gun. A heavy gun defends on a 4, and has one hitpoint. So now America Atlantic attacks with two tanks, plus battleship bombardment. It brings four hitpoints to this battle, compared to only two hitpoints for the Axis. The Axis has a slight advantage in firepower due to the heavy gun, but America Atlantic is still very likely to win. Injured units heal at the end of the game round. In this case that benefits America Atlantic: any injured units it has will heal immediately after its turn.
On Germany's next turn it ships in two tanks to retake Gibraltar. At first this seems like the cycle starting all over again. But there is a problem. America Atlantic has enough strength to at least damage one of the invading German tanks, if not to kill it outright. This means that Britain will be facing a somewhat weaker defender when it launches its own two tank attack. Which allows Britain to win the battle with its two tank attack. Italy must now retake. It is barely able to do this, and then only because the British force got weakened in the attack. America Atlantic then takes it with two tanks, one tank takes damage, and that damage heals immediately after the end of the round.
I fail to see how any of this makes the game better. It does not increase the strategic depth of the game. It does not make the game more fun. What all this does do is make the game a lot more luck-based. Die rolls in the Gibraltar battle really start to matter. As far as I can tell, you are not actually arguing that a space limitation for Gibraltar makes the game more fun, or adds strategic depth. The sole argument in favor of this which you have made is that a space limitation increases realism.
I would argue that a space limitation decreases the strategic element of the game. If there is a space limitation for Gibraltar, and if it's contested, then on any given turn a nation should send the max number of its best unit to Gibraltar. No thought or strategy needed. Whereas if there is no space cap, then Italy must decide how many resources to use to harden Gibraltar, versus how many resources to use elsewhere. That is absolutely the kind of strategic choice I would want a player to have to make. A space limitation denies the game this strategic choice.
-
@Vendetta I think I've overly clarified very well that this limit is mean to be on par with the limits for transports being unable to load infinite land units and aircraft carriers being unable to land infinite aircraft.
Also in those case, we do not know how much is a land unit or how much is a transport (even worse for carriers and aircraft), so it is an approximation just like that. Gibraltar (and such) would be more or less the same thing.
Similarly, transports have (usually) zero water source, yet men can be loaded into them and stay into them forever: they do not need to drink, ever. It's the same concept.
Just think of Gibraltar like an immobile transport-to-transport platform unit or an immobile carrier unit.
This is an extension to extremely small land zones of already existent (and, yes, largely overly approximative) limits currently applying to units only based purely on available space (in one case, the area of the zone and, in the other case, the space inside and/or on the units). Not the addition of any other kind of OVER-TIME limits. So, this has nothing to do with starvation, water-deprivation, etc.
As I said:
If you then would still prefer no stacking limits at all over a very limited and arbitrary stacking limit system for a very few extremely small territories, that is fine. It's your preference.
This means that I get your point that having a 30,000 men limit for Gibraltar based on area makes little sense in the moment we should also have a similar limit for Malta and other realities (especially the Pacific islands) based on other different constraints (water, food...).
If your point is, I prefer no stacking limits over an incomplete stacking system, that's fine. I get that. It's your preference and is a resonable preference to have.
One could even go further with that and ask for transports to be able to load infinite units and carriers to be able to land infinite aircraft based on the same objections which you are making to have a stacking limit for extremely area-limited realities like Gibraltar and Midway. (Yes, obviously carrier deck capacity compared to aircraft on land is already way off (meaning excessive) in TripleA games in general.)
-
As far as I can tell, you are not actually arguing that a space limitation for Gibraltar makes the game more fun, or adds strategic depth. The sole argument in favor of this which you have made is that a space limitation increases realism.
Correct. The increase in realism starting from infinite stack limit would be huge even if we have no idea about what a land unit is but could be made substantially greater by trying to define at least how many men an infantry unit is supposed to be on average around the map. (This concept is just the same as when deciding how many infantry units can be loaded into a transport (1, 2, 3...?) and how many aircraft can land on a carrier: it is not mean to be full realism, just reducing the relative irrealism range.)
If deciding how many infantry units can load onto a transport is based on absolutely nothing, also a stacking limit for Gibraltar can be based on absolutely nothing: in both cases, it would be (or at least feel) more realistic than the limit being infinite.
On the other hand, as @vendetta says, I can see that having stacking limits in a few cases for some reasons but not in many other cases for many other reasons can be seen as insufficient, so it would look arguably better not having stacking limits at all.
-
@KurtGodel7 Much better on the maps now. The Gibraltar box looks exactly how I pictured. That could also be a good way to depict other small enclaves like Singapore, Hong Kong, etc at their proper size if you choose.
With regard to coloring Vichy, I understand the logic of simplicity there. But it still looks wrong visually just because France was an actual wartime belligerent and its territories were major historical theaters of operations, so it feels off to see them in the same colors as Spain or Portugal (and also makes it look like they’re all owned by the same power).
I guess part of what’s off-putting about it is that Flames & Steel has generally added more detail and depth versus the base G40 scenario, while this is one of the few cases where it feels like it’s consciously downgrading from the original.
Okay, here is the direction I'm leaning.
Vichy France will get its own color. Of the income from Vichy French territories, half (rounded down) goes to Germany. The other half disappears. Income from Vichy French territory in Indochina goes to Japan, again reduced by 50% and rounded down. Anyone can attack Vichy French territory at any time, with no diplomatic repercussions whatever. This adds 10 PUs to Germany and 3 PUs to Japan, at least at the start of the game. As Vichy French territory gets conquered this will decrease over time.
I've consumed 90% of my weekly usage despite being only halfway through my usage week. So the implementation of Vichy France may need to wait a few days.
-
Anyone can attack Vichy French territory at any time, with no diplomatic repercussions whatever.
Pointing out that whatever rule for Vichy France is going to be not very realistic or very complex or both (so please nobody comes at me for not being "fully realistic"), I think it would be somewhat more realistic that there are no diplomatic repercussions for the Allies and the Japanese, whereas the Germans and the Italians attacking any part of Vichy France would cause all Vichy France to activate as a full fledged Allied power.
I also think that income giving can be simplified to Vichy France giving all its European production to Germany and nothing of the rest. There were some important shipments from North Africa, but, as a matter of agreements, losing any part of the empire would not have lowered the agreed payments due to Germany.
-
It can also be something less than its entire European production: I don't have much knowledge about how much the Germans were making in "real" terms after capturing the Free Zone as compared to before or whether or not they would have gotten more if they just conquered all European France instead of leaving French civil control and agreeing on a constant payment. Considering that the payments were reduced at some point (already happened if I understand the game starts right at the start of Barbarossa), it would make sense that Vichy France gives something less than its total European production (so long as this does not induce Germany to attack the Free Zone too early).
-
Anyone can attack Vichy French territory at any time, with no diplomatic repercussions whatever.
Pointing out that whatever rule for Vichy France is going to be not very realistic or very complex or both (so please nobody comes at me for not being "fully realistic"), I think it would be somewhat more realistic that there are no diplomatic repercussions for the Allies and the Japanese, whereas the Germans and the Italians attacking any part of Vichy France would cause all Vichy France to activate as a full fledged Allied power.
I also think that income giving can be simplified to Vichy France giving all its European production to Germany and nothing of the rest. There were some important shipments from North Africa, but, as a matter of agreements, losing any part of the empire would not have lowered the agreed payments due to Germany.
This game starts in June 1941, on the eve of Barbarossa. You could point out that as of that date, southern France was part of Vichy France. Germany annexed southern France in November 1942, as a response to Operation Torch. I decided to be a bit anachronistic here, and just treated all of France as already annexed as of the start of the game. For this map, "Vichy France" refers only to colonies controlled by the Vichy French as of June 1941.
In real life, the Vichy French colonies had provided Germany with resources and food. Vichy French Indochina had likewise supplied Japan with needed goods. That is why Vichy French colonies provide partial income to either Germany or Japan. Well, at least until those colonies get neutral farmed.
-
@KurtGodel7 I think having all Colonial Vichy France turning Allied if Germany or Italy attacks any part of it would make more sense too (as opposed to letting itself getting farmed remaining neutral).
Of course, historically French North Africa joined the Allies after some time of being invaded by them - and fighting back (but also Germany had invaded Tunisia meanwhile).
-
@KurtGodel7 I'm reviewing your unit chart , I'd already noticed the Light Tank is a complete trash unit, and on closer examination, I think the standard Medium Tank is as well.
Light Tank attacks or defends against a standard Infantry at the exact same stats while costing five times more. If I played Italy or Japan, I would never, ever buy these. It is the most useless unit in your entire set. Light tanks should not be a very efficient unit, but they should not be a complete waste of money.
The Medium Tank is not much better. Priced at 8 PU, you could buy 8 x Mobile Infantry for the same price as 3 tanks. 3 tanks trying to attack 8 mobile infantry get slaughtered - they lose that fight 95% of the time. And when they're attacking, even completely unsupported at a value of 1 each, 8 mobile infantry will still beat 3 tanks around half the time.
The Light Tank is badly understatted, and both tanks are badly overpriced.
But even those mobile infantry are a terrible buy compared to your standard infantry, at 3 times the PU cost. In A&A, you can buy 3 Mechanized for the price of 4 Infantry. You lose 25% of your efficiency in buying combat power in exchange for double speed. Here you buy 1 Mobile for for the price of 3 Infantry - you lose 67% of your combat power instead for that extra movement point. With mechanized, it's a 1:5 ratio, which is awful even with their boosted speed and attack stats. Sturmtruppen? Lousy as well, triple the price for 1 extra attack point.
I don't think I'd buy anything but infantry, artillery, and planes, unless there's something I'm missing here that's balancing all of this (are tanks also firing multiple shots per round?). Infantry costing only 1 PU just destroys the efficiency of all these other land units.
-
@KurtGodel7 I'm reviewing your unit chart , I'd already noticed the Light Tank is a complete trash unit, and on closer examination, I think the standard Medium Tank is as well.
Light Tank attacks or defends against a standard Infantry at the exact same stats while costing five times more. If I played Italy or Japan, I would never, ever buy these. It is the most useless unit in your entire set. Light tanks should not be a very efficient unit, but they should not be a complete waste of money.
The Medium Tank is not much better. Priced at 8 PU, you could buy 8 x Mobile Infantry for the same price as 3 tanks. 3 tanks trying to attack 8 mobile infantry get slaughtered - they lose that fight 95% of the time. And when they're attacking, even completely unsupported at a value of 1 each, 8 mobile infantry will still beat 3 tanks around half the time.
The Light Tank is badly understatted, and both tanks are badly overpriced.
But even those mobile infantry are a terrible buy compared to your standard infantry, at 3 times the PU cost. In A&A, you can buy 3 Mechanized for the price of 4 Infantry. You lose 25% of your efficiency in buying combat power in exchange for double speed. Here you buy 1 Mobile for for the price of 3 Infantry - you lose 67% of your combat power instead for that extra movement point. With mechanized, it's a 1:5 ratio, which is awful even with their boosted speed and attack stats. Sturmtruppen? Lousy as well, triple the price for 1 extra attack point.
I don't think I'd buy anything but infantry, artillery, and planes, unless there's something I'm missing here that's balancing all of this (are tanks also firing multiple shots per round?). Infantry costing only 1 PU just destroys the efficiency of all these other land units.
It is not correct to say that an infantry costs 1 PU. The true cost of an infantry is 1 PU and one MP. An MP is a manpower point, and it represents the limited supply of men who could be conscripted into an army.
A conscript costs 0 PUs and 1 MP. It attacks on a 0, defends on a 1, and can receive support. Only China, the U.S.S.R., and Italy can buy conscripts. If China has, say, 8 MPs, then it's buying 8 conscripts. It will also have some PUs, and it will use these on things like trenches, field guns, or heavy guns.
A nation like Germany needs a lot more cannon fodder than infantry purchases alone can provide. That's why there's the anti-tank gun. Cost 3 PUs, move 1, attack and defend on a 1, receives support on defense only. (Infantry can receive support on both offense and defense, making them a slightly better unit than an anti-tank gun.) All nations except China need anti-tank guns, because all of them have cannon fodder needs that exceed their ability to build infantry. Maybe America Pacific could get by with just infantry (no anti-tank guns) if it's pouring almost all its cash into navy. But that's a deliberate choice of small army, big navy.
So now compare a tank to an anti-tank gun. The 8 PU tank costs you 2.67 times as much as the 3 PU anti-tank gun. The tank gives you 2x as many hitpoints as the anti-tank gun, 3x the firepower, and 2x the mobility.
As for Sturmtruppen: the assault rifle tech adds +1 to the attack and defense of Sturmtruppen. Panzerfaust 60 allows a Sturmtruppen to provide +1 support to an anti-tank gun, on offense or defense. Panzerfaust 150 increases this to +2 support. The "unrelenting attack" tech allows anti-tank guns to receive support on offense. The offense part of the Panzerfaust doesn't actually help you until you've also researched unrelenting attack. The assault rifle and Panzerfaust techs are unique to Germany, but all nations except China can research unrelenting attack.
Some techs are standard techs (available to all but China) and some are nation-specific. I tried to include as many of both types of techs as possible. Late game, America Pacific and Japan will have the game's best torpedo bombers, America Atlantic's torpedo bombers will be the best at attacking subs, Britain and Japan will have the game's best medium bombers, and the Soviet Union will have by far the best recruitment tech. Late game, Britain will have the best tanks purchased with PUs (Comet tanks), while Germany's King Tiger tanks will be the best advanced unit tanks in the game. Britain and both Americas will have the best strategic bombers. America Pacific will have the Superfortress: an advanced unit strategic bomber that is very tough to kill and can do devastating economic damage.
Anyway, and getting back to your point: if one infantry is worth about one anti-tank gun, then that would mean that 1 MP is worth about 2 PUs. With this way of thinking, the true cost of an infantry is 3 PUs. Of course, a PU gives you flexibility to buy whatever you want, whereas an MP can be used only on infantry-type units.
-
@KurtGodel7 Yes, I recalled the MP division and that does put a cap on infantry production. I thought there was a chart somewhere in the thread that listed the starting MP/PU income rates for the different powers but I'm having trouble finding it again. That will be helpful to see again to figure out roughly what each power can buy per turn.
If I take your word that 1 MP should be treated as worth 2 PU, then we can compute 1 Infantry + 1 Field Gun as being equivalent in purchase value to 1 Tank.
In a 1 vs 1 + 1 matchup, the battle odds are pretty even - the tank has a good chance of winning if it manages to score a hit on its first roll. If it misses the first shot, it usually gets killed.
However, because of your sticky hits rule, the more you scale this up, the more likely the tanks are to lose because they don't get to spread hits out among themselves to preserve their firepower. In a battle of 5 Tanks against 5 Infantry + 5 Field Guns, the infantry and artillery win 70% of the time when they're attacking, and 84% of the time when they're defending.
The Medium Tank would probably become more viable at a price of 7 PU, or if it had its attack stat raised to 4 while defense was left at 3.
The Light Tank is in desperate need of way to justify its existence, and I think I've come up with a solution for that.
Keep the price at 5 PU, and and raise its default stats to 3 Attack / 2 Defense. However, give the Medium Tank (and the Heavy, Panther, King Tiger, etc) all a trait that causes enemy light tanks to drop by 1 attack or defense if they fight each other (to the 2/1 value they currently have).
Now the Light Tank can actually be dangerous against infantry that doesn't have heavy armor support, but when it does run into real tanks, it turns into fodder.
This gives Italy and Japan a reason to actually buy them, while still giving them a reason to want to unlock the Medium Tank as a replacement.
-
Only China, the U.S.S.R., and Italy can buy conscripts.
I get that the conscript is just a label to identify particularly poorly trained, paid and/or equipped troops in general, but the word "conscript" itself just identifies everyone who has been forced to serve in the armed forces, meaning someone who is in the armed forces but has not voluntarily joined the armed forces (as a volunteer, professional, mercenary, contract...).
Asking the Google AI "During World War 2, what percentage of men from the United Kingdom itself who were serving in the British Army were conscripts?" (I'm trying to exclude the Indians and such, but I don't know if that did it.), the answer is
During World War II, conscripts made up approximately 80% of the men serving in the British Army.
For "During World War 2, what percentage of men who were serving in the United States Army were conscripts?", the answer is
During World War II, approximately 61% to 66% of all men who served in the United States Army were conscripts (draftees).
For "During World War 2, what percentage of men who were serving in the Japanese Army were conscripts?", the answer is
During World War II, approximately 90% of the men serving in the Imperial Japanese Army were conscripts.
Now, as I'm not sure exactly what a conscript is meant to be in your game, I'm not sure what would be a better word for it. I'm just saying "conscript" is not quite that word.
(I know this might sound like quibbling: if you want to call them conscripts, it's fine. As I said, I don't actually have a better word to suggest you.)
Also, I'm not sure if the German bodenständige Divisionen would fit into your idea of "conscripts" (guess not but just checking).
-
@KurtGodel7 Yes, I recalled the MP division and that does put a cap on infantry production. I thought there was a chart somewhere in the thread that listed the starting MP/PU income rates for the different powers but I'm having trouble finding it again. That will be helpful to see again to figure out roughly what each power can buy per turn.
If I take your word that 1 MP should be treated as worth 2 PU, then we can compute 1 Infantry + 1 Field Gun as being equivalent in purchase value to 1 Tank.
In a 1 vs 1 + 1 matchup, the battle odds are pretty even - the tank has a good chance of winning if it manages to score a hit on its first roll. If it misses the first shot, it usually gets killed.
However, because of your sticky hits rule, the more you scale this up, the more likely the tanks are to lose because they don't get to spread hits out among themselves to preserve their firepower. In a battle of 5 Tanks against 5 Infantry + 5 Field Guns, the infantry and artillery win 70% of the time when they're attacking, and 84% of the time when they're defending.
The Medium Tank would probably become more viable at a price of 7 PU, or if it had its attack stat raised to 4 while defense was left at 3.
The Light Tank is in desperate need of way to justify its existence, and I think I've come up with a solution for that.
Keep the price at 5 PU, and and raise its default stats to 3 Attack / 2 Defense. However, give the Medium Tank (and the Heavy, Panther, King Tiger, etc) all a trait that causes enemy light tanks to drop by 1 attack or defense if they fight each other (to the 2/1 value they currently have).
Now the Light Tank can actually be dangerous against infantry that doesn't have heavy armor support, but when it does run into real tanks, it turns into fodder.
This gives Italy and Japan a reason to actually buy them, while still giving them a reason to want to unlock the Medium Tank as a replacement.
I will mull your idea over.
Generally speaking, I believe that mobility should come at a price. Not an exorbitant price, but a price nonetheless. If more mobile units had the same raw combat power as slow, plodding units, players would be foolish to choose the slow, plodding units.
Take Japan for example. It has a very good unit mix for what it needs to do in China. It builds infantry and anti-tank guns for its cannon fodder. Field guns to provide some spice on attack. Heavy guns if it needs to defend something. Light tanks if it wants to mix offensive firepower with mobility. A light tank costs the same as a field gun, and they both have the same attack value. The light tank doesn't provide support, the field gun does. Offsetting that is the fact that the light tank gives you more mobility. I believe the field gun and the light tank are somewhat reasonably priced relative to each other.
There's tech which improves the field gun. Working women reduces its cost to 4. Creeping barrage increases its attack to 3. You could make the argument that if the field gun has these technological improvements in store for it, why not have something good under the Christmas tree for the light tank? During the actual war light tank designs certainly improved, so that could be added to the game as a technology to research.
At a cost of 5 and an attack of 2, a light tank gives you 0.4 attack per PU spent. Whereas a medium tank costs 8 and has an attack of 3, giving you 0.375 attack per PU spent. The medium tank gives you more hitpoints for the money than a light tank, as well as more defensive firepower for the money. But the light tank has an edge--however slight--for offense for the money.
Also the light tank is the only unit in the game which can blitz. I'm not necessarily wedded to this idea. The thinking behind it is this: during the air phase, it's very easy for Germany to can opener against the Soviet Union. After the can opener, I didn't want some random Soviet stack to be hit hard by German tanks. If Germany wants to hit the Soviet stack with light tanks only, okay fine, whatever. I can live with that. But, it's possible my concerns in this area could be overblown.
The Soviet Union has a tech called "simplify the T-34" which reduces the cost of Soviet tanks by 1 PU. Other than that, I haven't handed out any cost reductions for tanks. One thing to be careful of is this: I don't want tanks to become cost competitive with anti-tank guns for hitpoints for the money. A player should get more cannon fodder for the money with a slow, plodding unit than with a more mobile unit like the tank. Britain's Comet tech allows British tanks to attack and defend on a 4. I sort of want to keep that unique to Britain, in recognition of the fact that its late war medium tanks were harder-hitting than other nations' medium tanks.
Whatever chart I gave earlier is probably obsolete by now. Here is a new one, describing incomes.
Germany: 148 PUs, 16 MPs
USSR: 210 PUs, 28 MPs
Japan: 89 PUs, 8 MPs
U.K. 95 PUs, 4 MPs
Italy 35 PUs 6 MPs
China 25 PUs 11 MPs
America Pacific 101 PUs, 4 MPs
America Atlantic 136 PUs, 10 MPsBear in mind that the Allies except for China receive an early game nerf to income. The nerf goes away rather quickly for the U.S.S.R. and Britain, and the nerf lasts the longest for America Atlantic. The above table lists nations at their full income values, while ignoring any early game income nerfs.
Also, those numbers understate the infantry/conscript production for Britain and the Soviet Union. Britain can research techs to give it free infantry each turn for Canada and Australia. Free colonial militia each turn for India. This maxes out at 8 free infantry or colonial militia per turn, 6 of which are for India.
The Soviet Union's conscription tech maxes out at Conscription 4. Conscription 4 generates 20 free conscripts per turn for the Soviet Union, over and above the 28 it can buy with its PUs. In order to get the full 20 bonus conscripts each turn, the Soviet Union would need to hold all five of Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky, Sverdiovsk, and Chelyabinsk. Each one lost removes 20% of the bonus. Operation Barbarossa is expected to reduce the Soviet MP income by about 7, from 28 down to 21.
The Soviet plan is basically to have huge numbers of conscripts, and then to combine them with tanks, field guns, and heavy guns to enhance their firepower. The Red Army is very fierce on this map.
Germany has some advantages also. At least initially it has air superiority over its eastern front. It can thin Soviet ranks a little by using dive bombers. The Soviets need to research some piston tech to realistically challenge Germany over the sky. Late game, Germany will have Speer's Industrialization. This causes German SPCs to produce a free Panther every other turn, in addition to their normal production. Germany's King Tiger tank is the best tank in the game--significantly better than the Soviet Union's IS-2. The assault rifle and Panzerfaust techs improve the quality of German Strumtruppen.
-
@KurtGodel7 I agree on not allowing Heavy Tanks a blitz move, I didn’t give it to them in my mod either. But the Medium not having it strikes me as a mistake.
If the only unit in your game that can blitz is a 1 defense light tank, then blitzing is hardly even a useful ability to have at all - they just get left exposed and easily destroyed by a counterattack on your opponent’s turns. Even one lone infantryman has a 50/50 shot at killing the light tank.
Infantry + Field Gun attacks at a 2 + 2 and defends at 3 +2 , while Infantry + Light Tank attacks at 2 + 1 and defends at 2 + 1. So the Light Tank is a loser both on offense and defense vs the Field Gun, and the extra speed isn’t making up for it if the unit is too weak to do anything once it has to fight. The only units a Light Tank can attack with an advantage at all are an unsupported AT Gun or another Light Tank.
If you think the Light Tank ends up too strong from my proposal, you could nerf it by giving the AT Gun that debuff bonus against it as well (but you could balance it making tanks and AT guns debuff enemy light tanks on a 1:1 basis, since the AT gun will be a common filler unit).
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