WW2-Global
- Thread starter Rocoteh
- Start date
I agree completely with Sasebo. AA needs to be toned down...alot. If anyone out there doesn't see a problem with AA, try bombing London as the Germans. I did a test myself. I sent 20 He-111's to bomb London, every single one of them was shot down by AA. You should bring the power of them down at least 60%.
I have an idea for a new unit. Give the Russians Katyusha rockets. You could probably find the sound effect for them somewhere on the internet. Another thing, it's really small but could you edit the Stuka sound effect? I heard the Stuka screaming sound effect when one of my Stukas shot down an enemy interceptor. You should make it so that Stuka siren sound effect plays every time they bomb something.
I have an idea for a new unit. Give the Russians Katyusha rockets. You could probably find the sound effect for them somewhere on the internet. Another thing, it's really small but could you edit the Stuka sound effect? I heard the Stuka screaming sound effect when one of my Stukas shot down an enemy interceptor. You should make it so that Stuka siren sound effect plays every time they bomb something.
oljb007
Warlord
I think AA at its current level is only a good option for the "Special" versions of the game where the AI needs assistance against the human players.
oljb007
Warlord
riley555 said:
first off I agree they are too strong. Let me "correct" my previous post a tad, I would say to reduce them a little in a any "special version" and not leave them as is.
However, I dont think bombers are rendered obsolete by them. there are still a lot of viable targets. Even so, you can still hit cities, 100% losses as was previously stated is RARE. from my experience and that of what others have posted I think 60-70% bomber loss is more true. Cities are still an "option" I wouldn't attack. I plan around avoiding attacking cities.
Sasebo
Prince
Since the AA is a hot button topic atm, let me make sure Rocoteh knowa where I stand on that. It is only the AA batteries, not AA from units, etc. that is the problem. Even in vast quantities like major naval groups, unit based flak produces acceptable loss levels. If Riley555 spies on London, you will see they start with the AA battery in place. I wish there was some way to edit the improvement, but I don't think that is possible? There was an earlier version that required the airport to be built before you could build it, that might be one way to go. I still think removal is the best option at this point. Especially since my last report the Japanese did about 15 more sorties and the batteries shot down at least 12 of them.
The Japanese are completely stalled, and I am considering counterattacks...and it is still 1939.
Sorry to beat on the dead horse Rocoteh, I just wanted to make sure you knew I think the unit AA is just fine the way it is.
I've been thinking about artillery too. In that, like armies, a few in the hands of a player are far more potent then they should be. Have you ever considered eliminating pure artillery units altogether? Leaving defensive and naval bombard on units, maybe even adding a bit of defensive bombard to regular ground units if you still want to represent artillery that way. I mean how many great big independant artillery groups were actually running around? I know something like this would completely change the flow of the game, but I think it might be interesting! Taking cites would be far more costly for sure, attrition in your ground units would be heavy.
As far as lethal land bombard goes, after a lot of experience with bombing I am not sure if it is too powerful or not. Taking out units in the open is certainly pretty easy, but killing units in cities is awfully hard; you can hit improvements or flat out miss a lot too. There are plenty of countermeasures to air power, fighters and flak can really tear them up. You might think losing a few every turn isn't much, but your bomber force will be attritioned to death before you know it that way.
Speaking of bombers, I really think the basic bomber needs to have its ROF raised by one. As they are now,they are truly pitiful units. One more ROF is not going to turn them into the terror of the skies, but at least they would be marginally useful.
The Japanese are completely stalled, and I am considering counterattacks...and it is still 1939.Sorry to beat on the dead horse Rocoteh, I just wanted to make sure you knew I think the unit AA is just fine the way it is.
I've been thinking about artillery too. In that, like armies, a few in the hands of a player are far more potent then they should be. Have you ever considered eliminating pure artillery units altogether? Leaving defensive and naval bombard on units, maybe even adding a bit of defensive bombard to regular ground units if you still want to represent artillery that way. I mean how many great big independant artillery groups were actually running around? I know something like this would completely change the flow of the game, but I think it might be interesting! Taking cites would be far more costly for sure, attrition in your ground units would be heavy.
As far as lethal land bombard goes, after a lot of experience with bombing I am not sure if it is too powerful or not. Taking out units in the open is certainly pretty easy, but killing units in cities is awfully hard; you can hit improvements or flat out miss a lot too. There are plenty of countermeasures to air power, fighters and flak can really tear them up. You might think losing a few every turn isn't much, but your bomber force will be attritioned to death before you know it that way.
Speaking of bombers, I really think the basic bomber needs to have its ROF raised by one. As they are now,they are truly pitiful units. One more ROF is not going to turn them into the terror of the skies, but at least they would be marginally useful.
Baldurslayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2005
- Messages
- 130
Aloha
...
What, no artillery ... yes humans can make better use of these units but WWII without artillery ... why do we like this scenario? If it was all about balance and playability one would not need such detail and we'd be better of playing chess. Yes, artillery was hardly ever used as an independent unit but what about Sevastopol now that's real WWII flavour, some Karls or Lokis ....
Why not make artillery just more expensive and have more (as you proposed) defensive artillery?
Drushba
...
I've been thinking about artillery too. In that, like armies, a few in the hands of a player are far more potent then they should be. Have you ever considered eliminating pure artillery units altogether? Leaving defensive and naval bombard on units, maybe even adding a bit of defensive bombard to regular ground units if you still want to represent artillery that way.
What, no artillery ... yes humans can make better use of these units but WWII without artillery ... why do we like this scenario? If it was all about balance and playability one would not need such detail and we'd be better of playing chess. Yes, artillery was hardly ever used as an independent unit but what about Sevastopol now that's real WWII flavour, some Karls or Lokis ....
Why not make artillery just more expensive and have more (as you proposed) defensive artillery?
Drushba
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
My two cents on the AA issue.
Its all about restraint.
I don't build the AA battery in cities. It certainly gives the human too much of an advantage. However if you choose not to build it then the human player is forced to take protective measures. Thats fine. By not building the AA batteries in my cities I get fantastic bomber raids over Germany from the UK. You have to put up lots of CAP to protect units in the open. Its great!
If the AI builds an AA battery then fine. If it is one of the few things that gives the AI an advantage then fine leave it in. We shouldn't whinge about advantages that the limited AI gets. If your bombers get shot down then think up a new strategy for taking the city. Same goes for lethal bombard on aircraft. Let the AI have it. Let the human player show some restraint in using it.
As for the very slow tech research... hmmm. I am currently playing Germany on Diety. My research is averaging about 24-27 turns per tech. But since the human player is so much superior to the AI why do we need to speed up our research? Let the AI get superior technology and cool units before us! That will really make you work at winning the game.
If you want a cake-walk then play at Emperor or below. I have tested it at that level and by the time you hit 1941 your average tech research is 6-10 turns per tech. That is if you have control of all European and Scandinavian cities and have improved them. (You don't need masses of Soviet cities to improve tech speed)
Excuse my rant but please don't hamper the AI by taking things away or speeding tech/build times up. Increase the difficulty level and let it give you a good bashing. You will become a better player and the strategies you develop will give longevity to the scenario.
Its all about restraint.
I don't build the AA battery in cities. It certainly gives the human too much of an advantage. However if you choose not to build it then the human player is forced to take protective measures. Thats fine. By not building the AA batteries in my cities I get fantastic bomber raids over Germany from the UK. You have to put up lots of CAP to protect units in the open. Its great!
If the AI builds an AA battery then fine. If it is one of the few things that gives the AI an advantage then fine leave it in. We shouldn't whinge about advantages that the limited AI gets. If your bombers get shot down then think up a new strategy for taking the city. Same goes for lethal bombard on aircraft. Let the AI have it. Let the human player show some restraint in using it.
As for the very slow tech research... hmmm. I am currently playing Germany on Diety. My research is averaging about 24-27 turns per tech. But since the human player is so much superior to the AI why do we need to speed up our research? Let the AI get superior technology and cool units before us! That will really make you work at winning the game.
If you want a cake-walk then play at Emperor or below. I have tested it at that level and by the time you hit 1941 your average tech research is 6-10 turns per tech. That is if you have control of all European and Scandinavian cities and have improved them. (You don't need masses of Soviet cities to improve tech speed)
Excuse my rant but please don't hamper the AI by taking things away or speeding tech/build times up. Increase the difficulty level and let it give you a good bashing. You will become a better player and the strategies you develop will give longevity to the scenario.
Baldurslayer said:Aloha
...
I've been thinking about artillery too. In that, like armies, a few in the hands of a player are far more potent then they should be. Have you ever considered eliminating pure artillery units altogether? Leaving defensive and naval bombard on units, maybe even adding a bit of defensive bombard to regular ground units if you still want to represent artillery that way.
What, no artillery ... yes humans can make better use of these units but WWII without artillery ... why do we like this scenario? If it was all about balance and playability one would not need such detail and we'd be better of playing chess. Yes, artillery was hardly ever used as an independent unit but what about Sevastopol – now that's real WWII flavour, some Karls or Lokis ....
Why not make artillery just more expensive and have more (as you proposed) defensive artillery?
Drushba
Baldurslayer,
To make artillery more expensive is one way to go.
I will consider it for version 2.1.
Rocoteh
Sasebo,
"Since the AA is a hot button topic atm, let me make sure Rocoteh knowa where I stand on that. It is only the AA batteries, not AA from units, etc. that is the problem. Even in vast quantities like major naval groups, unit based flak produces acceptable loss levels. If Riley555 spies on London, you will see they start with the AA battery in place. I wish there was some way to edit the improvement, but I don't think that is possible? There was an earlier version that required the airport to be built before you could build it, that might be one way to go. I still think removal is the best option at this point. Especially since my last report the Japanese did about 15 more sorties and the batteries shot down at least 12 of them. The Japanese are completely stalled, and I am considering counterattacks...and it is still 1939."
Sasebo
Removal will be implemented.
"I've been thinking about artillery too. In that, like armies, a few in the hands of a player are far more potent then they should be. Have you ever considered eliminating pure artillery units altogether? Leaving defensive and naval bombard on units, maybe even adding a bit of defensive bombard to regular ground units if you still want to represent artillery that way. I mean how many great big independant artillery groups were actually running around? I know something like this would completely change the flow of the game, but I think it might be interesting! Taking cites would be far more costly for sure, attrition in your ground units would be heavy."
Sasebo
Yes I have considered it.
However this reminds of the WWII (from S.P.I. and James Dunnigan)
versus The Third Reich (from Avalon Hill and John Prados) discussion
30 years ago.
WWII was very realistic and well designed in many aspects.
The Third Reich had flavour and "chrome"(well at least in relative terms).
It was realistic but not so realitic as WWII.
Now the problem is that WWII was very boring to play!
I am sure you understand I mention this because I do not
want to make WW2-Global more realistic if the price is that the
scenario will lose flavour.
"As far as lethal land bombard goes, after a lot of experience with bombing I am not sure if it is too powerful or not. Taking out units in the open is certainly pretty easy, but killing units in cities is awfully hard; you can hit improvements or flat out miss a lot too. There are plenty of countermeasures to air power, fighters and flak can really tear them up. You might think losing a few every turn isn't much, but your bomber force will be attritioned to death before you know it that way.
Speaking of bombers, I really think the basic bomber needs to have its ROF raised by one. As they are now,they are truly pitiful units. One more ROF is not going to turn them into the terror of the skies, but at least they would be marginally useful."
Sasebo
Notes have been taken.
Thinking back in time again:
The early "wargames" had no air-units!
Its strange that people accepted that.
Rocoteh
"Since the AA is a hot button topic atm, let me make sure Rocoteh knowa where I stand on that. It is only the AA batteries, not AA from units, etc. that is the problem. Even in vast quantities like major naval groups, unit based flak produces acceptable loss levels. If Riley555 spies on London, you will see they start with the AA battery in place. I wish there was some way to edit the improvement, but I don't think that is possible? There was an earlier version that required the airport to be built before you could build it, that might be one way to go. I still think removal is the best option at this point. Especially since my last report the Japanese did about 15 more sorties and the batteries shot down at least 12 of them. The Japanese are completely stalled, and I am considering counterattacks...and it is still 1939."
Sasebo
Removal will be implemented.
"I've been thinking about artillery too. In that, like armies, a few in the hands of a player are far more potent then they should be. Have you ever considered eliminating pure artillery units altogether? Leaving defensive and naval bombard on units, maybe even adding a bit of defensive bombard to regular ground units if you still want to represent artillery that way. I mean how many great big independant artillery groups were actually running around? I know something like this would completely change the flow of the game, but I think it might be interesting! Taking cites would be far more costly for sure, attrition in your ground units would be heavy."
Sasebo
Yes I have considered it.
However this reminds of the WWII (from S.P.I. and James Dunnigan)
versus The Third Reich (from Avalon Hill and John Prados) discussion
30 years ago.
WWII was very realistic and well designed in many aspects.
The Third Reich had flavour and "chrome"(well at least in relative terms).
It was realistic but not so realitic as WWII.
Now the problem is that WWII was very boring to play!
I am sure you understand I mention this because I do not
want to make WW2-Global more realistic if the price is that the
scenario will lose flavour.
"As far as lethal land bombard goes, after a lot of experience with bombing I am not sure if it is too powerful or not. Taking out units in the open is certainly pretty easy, but killing units in cities is awfully hard; you can hit improvements or flat out miss a lot too. There are plenty of countermeasures to air power, fighters and flak can really tear them up. You might think losing a few every turn isn't much, but your bomber force will be attritioned to death before you know it that way.
Speaking of bombers, I really think the basic bomber needs to have its ROF raised by one. As they are now,they are truly pitiful units. One more ROF is not going to turn them into the terror of the skies, but at least they would be marginally useful."
Sasebo
Notes have been taken.
Thinking back in time again:
The early "wargames" had no air-units!
Its strange that people accepted that.
Rocoteh
Hornblower,
"My two cents on the AA issue.
Its all about restraint.
I don't build the AA battery in cities. It certainly gives the human too much of an advantage. However if you choose not to build it then the human player is forced to take protective measures. Thats fine. By not building the AA batteries in my cities I get fantastic bomber raids over Germany from the UK. You have to put up lots of CAP to protect units in the open. Its great!
If the AI builds an AA battery then fine. If it is one of the few things that gives the AI an advantage then fine leave it in. We shouldn't whinge about advantages that the limited AI gets. If your bombers get shot down then think up a new strategy for taking the city. Same goes for lethal bombard on aircraft. Let the AI have it. Let the human player show some restraint in using it."
Hornblower
I think you have a real point here!
Should the removal of AA have the result that the human player
reduce large number of cities to ruins at the a low cost AA will have
to be reintroduced.
"As for the very slow tech research... hmmm. I am currently playing Germany on Diety. My research is averaging about 24-27 turns per tech. But since the human player is so much superior to the AI why do we need to speed up our research? Let the AI get superior technology and cool units before us! That will really make you work at winning the game."
Hornblower
I guess that its thought to work that way when one plays
at high levels. I mean that is the way AI is constructed.
"If you want a cake-walk then play at Emperor or below. I have tested it at that level and by the time you hit 1941 your average tech research is 6-10 turns per tech. That is if you have control of all European and Scandinavian cities and have improved them. (You don't need masses of Soviet cities to improve tech speed)
Excuse my rant but please don't hamper the AI by taking things away or speeding tech/build times up. Increase the difficulty level and let it give you a good bashing. You will become a better player and the strategies you develop will give longevity to the scenario."
Hornblower
That is very important information!
Thank you.
Since I assume most people play at emperor level this mean
that no great changes should be done with regard to research-time.
Rocoteh
"My two cents on the AA issue.
Its all about restraint.
I don't build the AA battery in cities. It certainly gives the human too much of an advantage. However if you choose not to build it then the human player is forced to take protective measures. Thats fine. By not building the AA batteries in my cities I get fantastic bomber raids over Germany from the UK. You have to put up lots of CAP to protect units in the open. Its great!
If the AI builds an AA battery then fine. If it is one of the few things that gives the AI an advantage then fine leave it in. We shouldn't whinge about advantages that the limited AI gets. If your bombers get shot down then think up a new strategy for taking the city. Same goes for lethal bombard on aircraft. Let the AI have it. Let the human player show some restraint in using it."
Hornblower
I think you have a real point here!
Should the removal of AA have the result that the human player
reduce large number of cities to ruins at the a low cost AA will have
to be reintroduced.
"As for the very slow tech research... hmmm. I am currently playing Germany on Diety. My research is averaging about 24-27 turns per tech. But since the human player is so much superior to the AI why do we need to speed up our research? Let the AI get superior technology and cool units before us! That will really make you work at winning the game."
Hornblower
I guess that its thought to work that way when one plays
at high levels. I mean that is the way AI is constructed.
"If you want a cake-walk then play at Emperor or below. I have tested it at that level and by the time you hit 1941 your average tech research is 6-10 turns per tech. That is if you have control of all European and Scandinavian cities and have improved them. (You don't need masses of Soviet cities to improve tech speed)
Excuse my rant but please don't hamper the AI by taking things away or speeding tech/build times up. Increase the difficulty level and let it give you a good bashing. You will become a better player and the strategies you develop will give longevity to the scenario."
Hornblower
That is very important information!
Thank you.
Since I assume most people play at emperor level this mean
that no great changes should be done with regard to research-time.
Rocoteh
Yea. But what I meant is bombing cities is pretty much an obsolete method of attack because all you have to do is stack flak and build an AA battery. So I guess bombers are half obsolete so to speak....I do agree with giving the AI "assistance" but this isn't just assistance, it ruins an entire aspect of the map. Also, 60-70% bomber loss is still massive, it might as well be 100% imo...oljb007 said:
I_batman
Emperor
Hi Rocoteh:
My two cents on AA, bombers, and tech.
I am playing my game as Japan, Demi-god, max aggression.
I think that the human is at a disadvantage in all aspects at this level, and that is precisely how it should be.
Given the weakness of the AI, the human player should have all the disadvantages that can be thrown at them to equal out game play.
I think someone else suggested it, but a house rule should be implemented where the human is not allowed to build AA batteries, but the AI is allowed to, and maybe preplaced in key cities.
Perhaps toning down the AA at that point would be more fair, but in my game I don't think the AI has built one battery, and my bombing losses have been minimal.
I would also suggest losing the lethal bombardment capabilities for bombers on ground units, and remove lethal bombardment for artilllery altogether, just to make it tougher for humans.
Only humans use artillery properly, and the game is too easy for me using bombers to wipe out ground units approaching my borders, or I will destroy every unit in a city with bombers before walking in with a weak infantry unit.
Now, a couple things I have found with the Japanese position.
It appears that the Japanese gain the 20.10.2 SNLF Marine fairly soon in the game, which is clearly the most lethal unit in the Asian theatre through 1941.
I believe later versions of the US Marine become much tougher, but if the US can't land the units due to a strong Japanese navy, then they are useless.
Once I can build the SNLF Marine, I see no point in building any other land unit. The 18.8.2 tank is inferior, and even though the basic Japanese infantry unit is 1/3 the cost of the Marine, I find 1 SNLF Marine much more powerful than 3 Japanese Infantry.
Perhaps the A/D values could be tweaked to make it more attractive to build a mix of all the units.
Some suggestions:
1. Increase the cost of the SNLF, so it becomes a true elite unit. Say, 50% more costly that now?
2. Adjust the SNLF stats to something like 20.8.2, same amount of HP as now.
3. Modify the Japanese infantry to something like 9.11.1 (originally 11.11.1), with one more HP.
The reason for that is simply to make it more attractive to build.
4. Modify the primary Japanese tanks's stats to something like 18.10.2, from 18.8.2, and give it 1 more HP, and increase its cost something like 25-30%.
Once again, this is merely to make it more attractive to build.
Now, I have no idea how these changes would play out with the AI playing the Japanese, but certainly I think they would make it more interesting for the human playing this position.
And one more note:
Below are two jpeg's, one depicting the best amphibious fleet I have ever seen, and one depicting the units they unloaded.
Stupid AI.
My two cents on AA, bombers, and tech.
I am playing my game as Japan, Demi-god, max aggression.
I think that the human is at a disadvantage in all aspects at this level, and that is precisely how it should be.
Given the weakness of the AI, the human player should have all the disadvantages that can be thrown at them to equal out game play.
I think someone else suggested it, but a house rule should be implemented where the human is not allowed to build AA batteries, but the AI is allowed to, and maybe preplaced in key cities.
Perhaps toning down the AA at that point would be more fair, but in my game I don't think the AI has built one battery, and my bombing losses have been minimal.
I would also suggest losing the lethal bombardment capabilities for bombers on ground units, and remove lethal bombardment for artilllery altogether, just to make it tougher for humans.
Only humans use artillery properly, and the game is too easy for me using bombers to wipe out ground units approaching my borders, or I will destroy every unit in a city with bombers before walking in with a weak infantry unit.
Now, a couple things I have found with the Japanese position.
It appears that the Japanese gain the 20.10.2 SNLF Marine fairly soon in the game, which is clearly the most lethal unit in the Asian theatre through 1941.
I believe later versions of the US Marine become much tougher, but if the US can't land the units due to a strong Japanese navy, then they are useless.
Once I can build the SNLF Marine, I see no point in building any other land unit. The 18.8.2 tank is inferior, and even though the basic Japanese infantry unit is 1/3 the cost of the Marine, I find 1 SNLF Marine much more powerful than 3 Japanese Infantry.
Perhaps the A/D values could be tweaked to make it more attractive to build a mix of all the units.
Some suggestions:
1. Increase the cost of the SNLF, so it becomes a true elite unit. Say, 50% more costly that now?
2. Adjust the SNLF stats to something like 20.8.2, same amount of HP as now.
3. Modify the Japanese infantry to something like 9.11.1 (originally 11.11.1), with one more HP.
The reason for that is simply to make it more attractive to build.
4. Modify the primary Japanese tanks's stats to something like 18.10.2, from 18.8.2, and give it 1 more HP, and increase its cost something like 25-30%.
Once again, this is merely to make it more attractive to build.
Now, I have no idea how these changes would play out with the AI playing the Japanese, but certainly I think they would make it more interesting for the human playing this position.
And one more note:
Below are two jpeg's, one depicting the best amphibious fleet I have ever seen, and one depicting the units they unloaded.
Stupid AI.
Attachments
Sasebo
Prince
I Batman: nice screenshots!
I've seen bigger escort fleets, but not three transports all together like that. If this was later in the war those tanks might be Matilda 2s, which would be a much nastier situation.
Rocoteh: I was reminded while playing China to ask about pillaging; is it still off the table in your new versions? I was pretty much helpless so far as stopping the Japanese early on, and they just roamed about my territory at will. The fact that they could not pillage made it rather pointless for them to do so. Piliaging is one thing I've found the AI is actually pretty good at. I remember you took it out for a reason, but I'm hazy on the details.
I have thought about it some more and I don't think lethal land bombard should be removed from the air units. Even with their emasculated air force in my China game they still manage to kill lots of my units and back in the games where I didn't use the AA batteries they pretty much use their air power to plow everything you put in their ground units way into dust. The British AI is especially viscious with that tactic. I am in agreement with Hornblower that it is up to the human player to use restraint. Call it another house rule perhaps. I don't mind the AI having the batteries so much because there is usually another way to take a city with one, and the AI does not build them very often.
I tried this China game with lowest aggression and at least in Japan's case I think it hurts them badly. I did cripple their air force, but they have not sent much in the way of attacks. I have a new Great Wall of forts from Foochow to Chengdu in the forests and they pretty much leave me alone now. I have yet to see a single tank or SNLF,and without an Intelligence Agency I don't have any spies in Japan, do they have the resources they need to build those at the start in version 2.0? It is mystifying that they don't build any otherwise, and without their air force being able to do much, they are completely stalled on my front. I am now shore bombarding THEM in Shanghai with DD flotillas.
I've seen bigger escort fleets, but not three transports all together like that. If this was later in the war those tanks might be Matilda 2s, which would be a much nastier situation.Rocoteh: I was reminded while playing China to ask about pillaging; is it still off the table in your new versions? I was pretty much helpless so far as stopping the Japanese early on, and they just roamed about my territory at will. The fact that they could not pillage made it rather pointless for them to do so. Piliaging is one thing I've found the AI is actually pretty good at. I remember you took it out for a reason, but I'm hazy on the details.
I have thought about it some more and I don't think lethal land bombard should be removed from the air units. Even with their emasculated air force in my China game they still manage to kill lots of my units and back in the games where I didn't use the AA batteries they pretty much use their air power to plow everything you put in their ground units way into dust. The British AI is especially viscious with that tactic. I am in agreement with Hornblower that it is up to the human player to use restraint. Call it another house rule perhaps. I don't mind the AI having the batteries so much because there is usually another way to take a city with one, and the AI does not build them very often.
I tried this China game with lowest aggression and at least in Japan's case I think it hurts them badly. I did cripple their air force, but they have not sent much in the way of attacks. I have a new Great Wall of forts from Foochow to Chengdu in the forests and they pretty much leave me alone now. I have yet to see a single tank or SNLF,and without an Intelligence Agency I don't have any spies in Japan, do they have the resources they need to build those at the start in version 2.0? It is mystifying that they don't build any otherwise, and without their air force being able to do much, they are completely stalled on my front. I am now shore bombarding THEM in Shanghai with DD flotillas.
I batman,
"I think that the human is at a disadvantage in all aspects at this level, and that is precisely how it should be.
Given the weakness of the AI, the human player should have all the disadvantages that can be thrown at them to equal out game play."
I batman
As a general rule I think that is right.
"I think someone else suggested it, but a house rule should be implemented where the human is not allowed to build AA batteries, but the AI is allowed to, and maybe preplaced in key cities.
Perhaps toning down the AA at that point would be more fair, but in my game I don't think the AI has built one battery, and my bombing losses have been minimal."
I batman
I have decided to remove AA, but will reintroduce them if the
result is large number of cities reduced to ruins.
"I would also suggest losing the lethal bombardment capabilities for bombers on ground units, and remove lethal bombardment for artilllery altogether, just to make it tougher for humans.
Only humans use artillery properly, and the game is too easy for me using bombers to wipe out ground units approaching my borders, or I will destroy every unit in a city with bombers before walking in with a weak infantry unit."
I batman
OK I will consider it. What you mention is no doubt a problem.
On the Japanese SNLF unit:
My solution is to make it auto-produced only.
In reality it was a elite unit and only a few existed.
The problem is that AI really likes to produce elite units
and will produce them even if the price-tag is very high.
On the jpeg's:
Yes I agree!
Rocoteh
"I think that the human is at a disadvantage in all aspects at this level, and that is precisely how it should be.
Given the weakness of the AI, the human player should have all the disadvantages that can be thrown at them to equal out game play."
I batman
As a general rule I think that is right.
"I think someone else suggested it, but a house rule should be implemented where the human is not allowed to build AA batteries, but the AI is allowed to, and maybe preplaced in key cities.
Perhaps toning down the AA at that point would be more fair, but in my game I don't think the AI has built one battery, and my bombing losses have been minimal."
I batman
I have decided to remove AA, but will reintroduce them if the
result is large number of cities reduced to ruins.
"I would also suggest losing the lethal bombardment capabilities for bombers on ground units, and remove lethal bombardment for artilllery altogether, just to make it tougher for humans.
Only humans use artillery properly, and the game is too easy for me using bombers to wipe out ground units approaching my borders, or I will destroy every unit in a city with bombers before walking in with a weak infantry unit."
I batman
OK I will consider it. What you mention is no doubt a problem.
On the Japanese SNLF unit:
My solution is to make it auto-produced only.
In reality it was a elite unit and only a few existed.
The problem is that AI really likes to produce elite units
and will produce them even if the price-tag is very high.
On the jpeg's:
Yes I agree!
Rocoteh
Sasebo,
"Rocoteh: I was reminded while playing China to ask about pillaging; is it still off the table in your new versions? I was pretty much helpless so far as stopping the Japanese early on, and they just roamed about my territory at will. The fact that they could not pillage made it rather pointless for them to do so. Piliaging is one thing I've found the AI is actually pretty good at. I remember you took it out for a reason, but I'm hazy on the details."
Sasebo
Its still off. The reason is that there is theory that allowing pillage
= more city-razing by AI. However should it not be that way I am prepared
to allow pillage.
Right now I am working with BETA 1.9 where a large numbers of
cities will be protected by wonders.
"I have thought about it some more and I don't think lethal land bombard should be removed from the air units. Even with their emasculated air force in my China game they still manage to kill lots of my units and back in the games where I didn't use the AA batteries they pretty much use their air power to plow everything you put in their ground units way into dust. The British AI is especially viscious with that tactic. I am in agreement with Hornblower that it is up to the human player to use restraint. Call it another house rule perhaps. I don't mind the AI having the batteries so much because there is usually another way to take a city with one, and the AI does not build them very often."
Sasebo
The lethal land bombard will probably be removed.
"I tried this China game with lowest aggression and at least in Japan's case I think it hurts them badly. I did cripple their air force, but they have not sent much in the way of attacks. I have a new Great Wall of forts from Foochow to Chengdu in the forests and they pretty much leave me alone now. I have yet to see a single tank or SNLF,and without an Intelligence Agency I don't have any spies in Japan, do they have the resources they need to build those at the start in version 2.0? It is mystifying that they don't build any otherwise, and without their air force being able to do much, they are completely stalled on my front. I am now shore bombarding THEM in Shanghai with DD flotillas."
Sasebo
That is very strange since they can build the units you mention.
Rocoteh
"Rocoteh: I was reminded while playing China to ask about pillaging; is it still off the table in your new versions? I was pretty much helpless so far as stopping the Japanese early on, and they just roamed about my territory at will. The fact that they could not pillage made it rather pointless for them to do so. Piliaging is one thing I've found the AI is actually pretty good at. I remember you took it out for a reason, but I'm hazy on the details."
Sasebo
Its still off. The reason is that there is theory that allowing pillage
= more city-razing by AI. However should it not be that way I am prepared
to allow pillage.
Right now I am working with BETA 1.9 where a large numbers of
cities will be protected by wonders.
"I have thought about it some more and I don't think lethal land bombard should be removed from the air units. Even with their emasculated air force in my China game they still manage to kill lots of my units and back in the games where I didn't use the AA batteries they pretty much use their air power to plow everything you put in their ground units way into dust. The British AI is especially viscious with that tactic. I am in agreement with Hornblower that it is up to the human player to use restraint. Call it another house rule perhaps. I don't mind the AI having the batteries so much because there is usually another way to take a city with one, and the AI does not build them very often."
Sasebo
The lethal land bombard will probably be removed.
"I tried this China game with lowest aggression and at least in Japan's case I think it hurts them badly. I did cripple their air force, but they have not sent much in the way of attacks. I have a new Great Wall of forts from Foochow to Chengdu in the forests and they pretty much leave me alone now. I have yet to see a single tank or SNLF,and without an Intelligence Agency I don't have any spies in Japan, do they have the resources they need to build those at the start in version 2.0? It is mystifying that they don't build any otherwise, and without their air force being able to do much, they are completely stalled on my front. I am now shore bombarding THEM in Shanghai with DD flotillas."
Sasebo
That is very strange since they can build the units you mention.
Rocoteh
IarnGreiper
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 191
I strongly disagree on removing lethal air bombardment. First I think this is the way airpower works. I am particular fond of my fighters "strafe-run" (their weak bombard) low health units. This feels right for me.
If the AI can t kill units by air, I can "kite" the AI better.
What is kiting? The expression comes from an other genre, MMORPGS like Everquest or daoc (or the kid version WoW). By kiting you lure the AI(or even human players) into chasing you while they can t reach you.
In WW2 leave something undefended (like a piece of artillery) which is out of reach of enemy land units. The AI will try to kill that lone artillery and move units in that direction which will cause them to loose good defensive position, air cover, being at a key spot etc.
If the AI can t kill units by air, I can "kite" the AI better.
What is kiting? The expression comes from an other genre, MMORPGS like Everquest or daoc (or the kid version WoW). By kiting you lure the AI(or even human players) into chasing you while they can t reach you.
In WW2 leave something undefended (like a piece of artillery) which is out of reach of enemy land units. The AI will try to kill that lone artillery and move units in that direction which will cause them to loose good defensive position, air cover, being at a key spot etc.
Similar threads
- Sticky
