Counter techs are way too powerful.

[zappsweden]

Anti-Tank Weapons and Anti-Aircraft weapons effectively cuts down on the strategies you can choose from.

For example, I have only been successfull using bombers with UK only when Germany has L0 in Anti-Aircraft. If Germany has put 1 chit on AA in 1940 I will have wasted my investments for nothing.

The "bomber vs resource" and the "tank vs infantry" advantages even out already at L1 Anti-Aircraft and L1 Anti-Tank.

Why would u even attack a L1 AA Port with a bomber when it means taking 1-2 points of damage to the Bomber?

Why would u even attack a "L2 Anti-tank corps" with a tank when it means taking 2-3 expensive tank damage points.

The anti technologies are already dominating at L2, so only a moron would attack a fresh unit or resource with those kind of odds.

[ April 03, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

You're right, "Heavy Tanks" are a joke.

[ April 03, 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by zappsweden:

Anti-Tank Weapons and Anti-Aircraft weapons effectively cuts down on the strategies you can choose from.

Well, that is one of the coolest aspects of this game. :cool:

There is not a lot you can do with a typical WW2 game design, given the map and unit limitations, other than allowing for... some VARIATION in each strategic encounter.

****It's also true that Experience matters... which is why I NEVER play the +2 experience level... but that is another discussion.

So. Most games (... especially those with nearly equal opponents) will depend on WHICH side gets WHICH research advances, and WHEN.

But, this does not mean that the counter-techs are TOO POWERFUL... it merely means that you need be FLEXIBLE enough in your tactics so that you can take advantage of what is presented to you.

If you try to adhere to a "favored approach" too strictly, then you will likely miss subtle but genuine opportunities to exploit the opponent's relative weakness, even if that opportunity is fleeting.

In most cases, you will hop-scotch back & forth, always seeking the area where the opponent HAS NOT achieved their research advances.

Specifically, I mostly don't bomb cities or resources with my Strat Bomber (... though you can occasionally catch subs or fleets in port, if you have gotten the long-range advance)... and hopefully SC2 will improve this important area... instead, I use it to reduce entrenchment (... this makes a decided difference, AND no hits are taken by the Air Fleets) and to keep the sea lanes clear.

As for "anti-tank," you can invest in heavy tanks. Until you reach parity, or superiority, just utilize the armor for breakthroughs (... possibly attacking HQs, AFs, and decimated units pulled back for reinforcement) snatching cities that have been cleared, and as a kind of "super Recon unit."

Sometimes we fall into the habit of ASSUMING that a game parameter NECESSARILY should PERFECTLY MIMIC the real, or the Historical... of course it shouldn't! It is sufficient that the possibilities be reasonable, but MOSTLY... EXCITING to consider, and execute.

Serious credit is due the designer for providing a mechanism for making each game different... how many times have you CURSED the screen, or your cat or pet ferret, while you were waiting for a particular research advance... that REFUSED to happen... as though the program was quite literally and deliberately DEFYING you? And ONLY you! :eek:

From reading the posts on this forum I am satisfied that nearly everyone has complained about the "luck" factor in one way or another... that is a good sign.

It means that each game will offer new and fresh challenges... IMO, not enough has been written about how this variable research aspect of the game is actually... A GREAT EQUALIZER.

Kudos to Hubert for insuring that VARIATION will maintain considerable interest. The proof is easy to realize... I have NOT tired of trying to counter all these UNEXPECTED events, and apparently many of the other players would agree.

SC is the ONLY game I have played recently where that is mostly the norm, and not the exception.

[zappsweden]

Immer Etwas. I am not complaining at all that luck and flexibility should have their say on the game. Rather, the flexibility decreases if you can counter a whole grand strategy with just 1 chit.

I am complaining about the SHARP change that these anti-weapons are. The big difference from L0 to L1 and L1 to L2 make counter wars all to suddent and all too short i.e the bombing stops quite suddenly when Anti-Aircraft makes their first advance.

[KDG]

Anti-Aircraft is the only research available to counter the overpowered air. This gives Russia a chance to survive Germany's air attack.

Every research needs a counter research. I actually think anti-aircraft isn't powerful enough. I think it should also affect the hexes around cities and resources.

I've had level two anti-aircraft and still see my cities and resources getting bombed.

If any change were to be made, make anti-aircraft increase the damage given back with the first level, then decrease damage taken with the second level, and so on, instead of just causing more damage back in return. This would be more realistic, in my opinion.

I agree somewhat that anti-tank can be very effective. It affects 20-30 units while tank research usually only helps 5-6 units, which is a slight inbalance. I've yet to use my tanks effectively. You might want to modify the same way as above, increase the damage given back with the first level, then decrease damage taken with the second level, and so on.

[ April 03, 2003, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by KDG:

Anti-Aircraft is the only research available to counter the overpowered air. This gives Russia a chance to survive Germany's air attack.

Every research needs a counter research. I actually think anti-aircraft isn't powerful enough. I think it should also affect the hexes around cities and resources.

I've had level two anti-aircraft and still see my cities and resources getting bombed.

KDG, when u say u had L2 AA and got bombed u must remember that mines have air defence = 0 from the beginning so they are the most vulnerable. However, ports and cities HAVE very good defence with L2. Germany can spend 1 chit on AA when France falls and have no problems with bombing.

I just ran some tests with L3 Bombers attacking L2 ports and cities. As I suspected, the attacker suffered the most MPP losses (I have taken into acount both Immediate resource MPP losses and "per turn resource Losses" versus Bomber Losses). If a bomber worth 500 MPP does not even pay off when having a realistic L3 vs L2 lead then no way I am spending on any bombing campaigns. Only ungarrisoned mines are worth to attack and Germany has 2 of them in the west. Ofcourse a good strategy of a bombing is following up the attack every turn so that the resource is kept at low values (i.e reducing the enemies income) but even then the bomber seem to take equal losses

Example:

Attacker: losing 1 bomber point every 3 turns will be worth 25 MPP to reinforce.

Defender: Having a resource at value=0 will cost the country 8 MPP per turn i.e 3*8=24 MPP in 3 turns.

If Russia survives Germany does not depend on AA at all. Luftwaffe will ofcourse not attack cities but rather attack damaged units on the front lines. If u are using chits on AA for Russia, reconsider. Spending them on Anti-Tank or sometimes tanks will be much more helpful.

I STILL THINK THE ANTI-TECHS ARE TOO POWERFUL. Bombers worth 500 MPP should be able to pay off. I also do not like Tanks becoming moving shields that are uncapable of attacking infantry already when enemies are at L2 anti-tank.

[ April 03, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[scrapking]

First let me say that I am a rookie at this game, so my opinion only counts for that much, but, that being said...

Strat bombing is not supposed to be a zero sum game. Part of the logic is that it might cost the UK 10 to cost the Germans 5 (or whatever it actually amounts to). But if the Hun isn't attacking the UK aggresively at the time, i.e. Barbarossa before a proper Sea Lion, paying 10 to cost you 5, helps the Soviets out alot, and if there is a Sea Lion, you have no business bombing Germany anyhow.

Not that I don't sympathize with your point, and in the case of anti-tank, agree. It is unbalanced that one tech helps 20 units while another helps 5. Then again, barring luck, if you pound 5 chits in antitank in an effort to reach 15 asap, you sacrifice some other tech. And if tanks don't progress past at least 11 or 12, they are utterly useless. Sacrificing their mobility carries a cost in itself.

Zapp, please do not read this as a flame, because in spirit I agree with you. But as Immer Etwas stated, this is a game, and playability, balance, enjoyment, etc.., are all paramount to realism or historicity. Try to think of it as a fun game with WW2 window dressings, and purely as fan of the genre you can enjoy it.

If realism and historicity are your desires, I'm not sure when it will be released (only one programmer is working on it for like 3 years now), but a game called "World in Flames" (a port of a 10000 chit board game) is under construcion, and betas are already quasi playable. If anyone's interested in it , I may still have weblinks to where you can download the beta.

[JerseyJohn]

This is why I suggested allowing the HQs to be used as stacking agenst and to have them move as mobile units with a separate supply/reinforcement unit combined with attack and retreat after combat. The idea was to allow a concentration of attacking strength at a specific point, forcing a retreat with looses and advance with losses where the stacked unit would hold the captured ground against counterattacks.

The way SC is currently set up the ground units tend to become deadlocked and the air fleets are the only way to destroy defenders and open an advance. To an extent this is true to history, but not to the extent represented in SC.

Link to the Expanded HQ Combat Role / Unit Stacking Thread.

[ April 03, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

Ok (to all), I am not saying we need a 100% realistic games, rather i think it is a compromise between realism and playability (fun) in most computer games. My point is, why making the game narrower (fewer choice) than reality instead of making it wider?

Some tactics will never happen if the game is too unbalanced. That is the point of many of the topics discussed here on this forum.

The very few options in the mediterranean due to the axis dominance is just one example. I do not belive in using the "this is a game" argument to defend inbalances.

[KDG]

Good stuff from you guys. The harassing idea to help the Russians is sometimes lost on many of us. Costs don't have to be 1 for 1 to make it worthwhile. Here are the actual numbers from manual, and some examples:

Air defense values:

Mine and Oil – 0 air defense;

Ports - 1 air defense;

Cities - 2 air defense.

Air defense bonus value:

Mine - 0 air defense bonus,

Oil and city - 1 air defense bonus,

Port - 2 air defense bonus for corps.

Examples: (assumes HQ for attackers, none for defenders, one attack vs. hex, each later attack would reduce damage taken by about 10% while increasing damage by about 5%)

Bomber hitting port deals 2.5, takes .67.

Bomber hitting oil, deals 2.5 and takes 0.

Bomber hits units on oil & cities at .17, takes .67.

Jets hit ports at 1.67, take .67. Hit oil at 1.67, take 0.

Jets hit units on oil & cities at 1, takes .67.

Jet w/ 1 exp. hit units on oil and cities at 1.42, take .25.

Level 1 jets w/ 1exp. hit units on oil and cities at 2.25, take .25.

Adding AA bonus of 1 give us:

Bomber hitting port deals 2.5, takes 1.33.

Bomber hitting oil, deals 2.5 and takes 67.

Bomber hits units on oil & cities at .17, takes 1.33.

Jets hit ports at 1.67, take 1.33. Hit oil at 1.67, take 67.

Jets hit units on oil & cities at 1, takes 1.33.

Jet w/ 1 exp. hits units on oil and cities at 1.42, take .92.

Level 1 jets w/ 1exp. hit units on oil and cities at 2.25, take .92.

Results:

Bombers are good only for hitting unoccupied hexes, reducing entrenchment, or attacking ships only, they don’t gain experience like jets(usually no kills), bomber research yields lower pct. increase of help, and cost more to rebuild. Attacking a unit on a city or on a resource kill them. AA hurts them as they lose there main advantage, hitting unoccupied hexes. Research gains additional damage, but not enough to counter AA.

Jets are decent for hitting unoccupied hexes, gain experience much quicker, and are good vs. units as well. Less to rebuild, and gain in experience and research provides nice counter to AA.

Suggestion - Bump up Bomber research to make it more worthwhile to research and use bombers(or as suggested by myself in other discussions - Change the whole bomber fighter attack and defend numbers).

[pzgndr]

I am relentless

I am always there

Now and forever

I am the Infantry!

FOLLOW ME!!

Ah, the epic poem "I am the Infantry!" Memories of Bldg. 4 at Fort Benning. Memories ...

As for the rest, I'm trying to understand what this discussion is REALLY about. Grand strategy decisions about research may possibly affect your options later in the game. Surprise? Hmmm. That is, like, so unfair, you know? Gag me with a spoon!

[Liam]

Bombers are useless! Most of the good players, invest in range and jet techs for fighters cash in the bomber and you never see one again in the game.

Tanks were the backbone of blitz style warfare. They do lose their value and it's not right. What the Soviet's modeled towards war end was a German Tiger with a 88 as a main turret. You can't imagine how powerful this sort of armor would've been achieved in 1944-45! I don't usually spend on tank tech, and I don't know many that bother. Better to have 2 tanks and a few more corps than the wasted tech money.

[scrapking]

If more variety, more strategic options are your aim, then I agree. Give me more game, more fun, more tech, more units, make every tech worth developing, and include parity amongst this.

I'm an American, of course I want more.

However, do you suggest that the game is unbalanced? Including the bid adjustment? My most recent perusal of the AAR's seem to indicate that the Allies win more often. (I don't have the numbers, but that was the feel)

It would be nice if all the techs had the same degree of benefit to their development. How many people ever develop rockets? At least before you've maxed out jets, long range air, anti tank...you get the idea. Same for sonar. Pretty much the same for subs.

It's fun to have these techs, but it just isn't economical to develop anything but the "better" ones. And 9/10 times if you've maxed all the better ones, you've won the game by then. Or have a very obstinate opponent.

I question not the idea of having improvements to the game, but the idea of getting them. Did this game sell well? You certainly wouldn't gather that from this forum. Terif, world champion, is best amongst a community of fewer than 100, not to take anything away from his dominance. But we just don't represent enough of a profit to warrant further development. Or at least it seems that way to me. Maybe there's another 99,900 people out there who bought and love this game, but are afraid of Terif.

Fixing specific imbalances or bugs is a patch. Adding functionality or features would appear to to an upgrade, expansion pack or sequel.

[scrapking]

Macon:

2nd PLT C Co 2/58 "Mad Dogs"

I think I was in bldg. 4 if I'm not mistaken.

"Prepare to uncover"

"Uncover"

5

4

3

2

1

"Freeze"

hooah

[ April 03, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: scrapking ]

[Iron Ranger]

Nice post Zapp - I can only assume that part of the reason is our very long game and the different aproches we have gone through to reach early 45 (?). Three note on the history of the time that I can remember, this is a game that sumulates history and trys to reproduce it to some degree.

Allied Bombing of Germany (USA):

When reading several different books on this and the war in general I came across an interesting statistic. There were 100,000 USA casulities in the western front from 42-45. 25,000 of these were people involved in the air war against Germany. Thats in increadable 25%. In 1942-early 44 bomber crews were expected to complete 25 missions before returning home and taking up training positions - however 1-10 of every indivadule was injured in each mission. Do the math, none of them expected to go home in one piece. AA acounted for around 60% of the planes shot down, even in late 44 it was still very efective after the German air force was dead.

Battle at Kursk in 1943:

Axis armor ran into entrenched infanty with anti-tank guns. The best of the german army never lived to seen another battle that day, as you said, anyone who attacked high level anti-tank units is a moron (Hitler fits the bill nicely). Russia didn't advance in 1943-45 because they used great tank tactics but because they were willing to suffer huge losses and still keep attacking. They insead massed huge numbers of artillery (rockes?) and pulverised a gap several miles deap - then advanced. This is also why the King Tiger was deployed in the west only in 1944 - poor anti-tank guns of the western allies insured that it would survive a long time.

Aircraft Carriers in the Alantic:

The carriers used by the british in the alantic were not the fleet carriers used in the pacific. They were small (30-50 planes) and slow. The standard fighter was the King Fisher (?) a bi-plane from WW1 with very limited range. They were not able to sit in port and reach the western cities of germany and wipe out full combat units. It would be nice to see the LR reach of these toned down - increase thier strenght with each LR advance but not the spoting and attack range - leave that for the ground based units.

[scrapking]

Originally posted by Liam:

[ What the Soviet's modeled towards war end was a German Tiger with a 88 as a main turret. You can't imagine how powerful this sort of armor would've been achieved in 1944-45! ]

It's called the Tiger II, or Konigs Tiger, or King Tiger. I believe less than 300 were ever produced, but with 2 different turret styles, depending on whether Porsche or someone else (can't remember name) made them. Both utilized the 88L71 main gun and a beefed up Tiger chassis. Introduced in time for the Bulge campaign in December '44.

[KDG]

I believe the hope is that all techs could be used, thus allowing 15-20 different strategies and counterstrategies. If a tech has a problem, how do we fix (a full fledged editor that could change tech would be nice, as well as a unit editor - This would allow a WWI game to be modded, as well as a WWIII game)

Bombers are underutilized, thus you either change the basic unit(either unit cost or attack values) or you change the bomber research results to bump it up more when advancements are made.

The problem with tank research vs. anti-tank research is this:

Germany spends 500, buys two ticks, ends up with level two tanks, gets attack from 4 to 6, a 50% increase in attack value. This effects 4-8 units. If no tanks, then completely wasted tech.

Russia spends 500, buys two ticks, ends up with level two anti-tank, gets defense vs. tanks from 1 to 3, a 300% increase in defense value. This effects 20-30 units. If no tanks, then units still have a value of 12, which is very helpful.

Solutions:

1) Make tank research decrease the cost of tanks as well, or at least keep the same cost.

or

2) Increase the movement of tanks as extra bonus(faster and more powerful) during tech increases.

[Iron Ranger]

As for the rest, I'm trying to understand what this discussion is REALLY about. Grand strategy decisions about research may possibly affect your options later in the game. Surprise? Hmmm. That is, like, so unfair, you know? Gag me with a spoon!

Funny, so very funny. Had a nice laugh.

[Liam]

We want the diversity of technology and strategy that makes the game great...

As far as SC not being a big title, well it's not marketed like one and this type of game doesn't appeal to 100k crowd, it appeals the 10k crowd. It's always the fact of strategic wargames....

Technology is strategic. When the Germans started the War they didn't have a heavy tank relatively speaking. As the war progressed a lack of long range fighters hurt them in Britian and longe range bombers hurt them in Russia. What would a 1000 B-17s per sorti do against the Urals? Especially cause there was no air defence to speak of there<I know of> It would have been stripped off frontline units!

The Brits had leaps in radar, sonar and fighter technology early...that did make a heavy impact on German anti-shipping and strategic bombing. You may say that the Battle of Britian and the War was decided on one thing technology! Coastal Radar! It's a well disputed fact, but don't argue it... Also the U-boat fleet was decimated after advanced Sonar was developed. How many U-boat servicemen are still alive to argue that?

The American Airforce was deadly, there was not one point of the Reich that it didn't cover. So when people talk about recon, the Americans had freeflights shortly after the P-47s came into service in Europe as long range escorts. The P-51 is the best fighter of the war, hands up... Better than the ME-262<which isn't evolved enough for Jet technology to be a real threat to a well trained P-51 pilot>...

SO what more do you want???

[Shaka of Carthage]

The problem with tank research vs. anti-tank research is this:

Germany spends 500, buys two ticks, ends up with level two tanks, gets attack from 4 to 6, a 50% increase in attack value.

Russia spends 500, buys two ticks, ends up with level two anti-tank, gets defense vs. tanks from 1 to 3, a 300% increase in defense value.

Before we look at the proposed solution, lets take another look at the "problem". Isn't the problem really the relative effective that the tech increase has? Since the Armor starts at 4, and the Anti-Tank starts at 1, the tech increase of 1 is more advantegous for the Anti-Tank factor.

Solutions:

1) Make tank research decrease the cost of tanks as well, or at least keep the same cost.

or

2) Increase the movement of tanks as extra bonus(faster and more powerful) during tech increases.

I don't believe these are proper solutions, since it does not address the real problem. I would suggest that an Armor tech increase of 4 per level would be a more appropriate solution to balancing these two techs.

Regardless of the solution, I would like to thank KDG for illustrating the numbers, since I do believe he has pointed out why the Armor vs Anti-Tank techs appear to be a problem.

I'd also like to point out that the ability to have unlimited number of units also skews the effect of armor in SC. German motorized units were what, 20% of the total German military? I have yet to see an German player that has 20% of military in Panzer units.

A commerically successful wargame sells around 50,000 or so units. Major success if it goes over the 100,000 unit number. This was back in the days of retail outlets. The ability to market it over the Internet has lowered the numbers required for "success" (ie it is making you money). Wonder what that new "success" number is and how it compares to what SC has sold? Could it be as low as Liam's 10,000?

KDG's analysis on the bombers vs fighters effects is also very interesting. Maybe another simple "fix" for the Carrier problem, is to have the Carrier air act as a Bomber unit, not a Air unit.

As brought up somewhere in this thread, Air is used to eliminate the deadlock between units, since equal units cannot eliminate each other. Even if attacked a second time by another equal unit. SC does have a mechanism to break that deadlock, unit experience. But its overshadowed by the ease of purchasing more units that can appear that turn and by the use of Air as a "golden bullet" unit. Try playing a game with a cap on the number of units a nation can have. You'll notice the strategical differences right away.

And as Immer Etwas rightly points out, one of the strengths of SC is the variable effects that tech have on the game, making each game a different experience. But even so, some of the tech advances do not appear to be balanced relative to the others, especially the ones that are suppossed to balance each other.

[ April 03, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Rabtherab]

It seems to me that the real problem people have with armour, and ground combat in gerneral, is the difficulty in breaking dead-lock, and the tanks relative weakness vs. infantry.

If you employ the correct tactics, this has never been a problem with me. Frontal assults are simply idiotic, you must carefully scrutinize the enemy lines, choose a weak-point, soften it with air, followed with a massed infantry attack to open the gap, then pour your armour through it and cut off the ememy. Once the ememy units are cut off, you mop up with infantry on one side, and with your armour on the other. The tanks MOVEMENT factor is what really makes them a powerful unit. They aren't supposed to be used for frontal attacks. this is consitent with history, and has always resulted in a fast moving "fluid" game in my experience. Land-lock has never been a problem in my games.

I'm not saying that the lines don't become static from time to time, espesially when the tide is turning from one alliance to the other, but if you use the proper doctrine, even a stubborn defence can be broken, and a war of "movement" resumes.

In all the other strategic games of ww2 I've played, tanks are always given a special rule to simulate breakthroughs. I think these special rules are just short cuts, to help players engineer an armoured breakthrough without really knowing how to do such a thing.

Since breakthroughs are so important, players shoud be seeking opportunities to obtain them at all times.

The most refreshing aspect to SC for me was that it lacked such a rule, and you actually had to plan and execute (sometimes unsuccessfully) an armoured breakthrough.

This to me, is the most fun and exciting part of SC, nothing gives me greater anxiety while planning, and relief and joy when achieving, than a breakthrough. I hope Hubert doesn't change this aspect at least.

In my opinion, this game does an excellent job of presenting the chanllenges and simulating the mechanics of armoured warfare during ww2.

[zappsweden]

KDG and Shaka, You are wrong. Tanks only increase their TANK ATTACK and TANK DEFENCE values.

Heavy Tanks vs Anti-Tank

Tank L0 = soft attack 4, Army L0 = tank defence 2.

Tank L1 = soft attack 4, Army L1 = tank defence 3.

Tank L2 = soft attack 4, Army L2 = tank defence 4.

Tank L3 = soft attack 4, Army L3 = tank defence 5.

Tank L4 = soft attack 4, Army L4 = tank defence 6.

Tank L5 = soft attack 4, Army L5 = tank defence 7.

Add to this the entrenchment of the army and the higher cost of the tank and u will NOT attack an army with a tank if the army was at L2 Anti-tank. This is regardless of the tanks being L0 or L5 since it only gives some extra power due to larger number (15 instead of 10).

[ April 04, 2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Yeah, like I said before, Heavy-Tanks suck.

[Liam]

Yeah, heavy tanks are a waste of good money. I just played a game of SC, where tanks served one purpose. They were used more or less like Infantry<in a corp filled French Front> One tank died by a massive air, afterwards, for a blitz and I used them on two or three minors mainly as a mobile wedge unit. Not as an offensive power unit... I'd stick it somewhere a corps wouldn't do the job. As in Russia, you have a line of 3/4 corps you pound the front with armies, you push the tanks around the edges, and finalize it with a corps behind the lines and you've got an encirclement. Eventually this is impossible when they're is 3-4 layers of corps on one front. Air becomes the A-10 Warthog of SC WW2... <Anti-air, anti-tank needs modification in the game>

Historically Armor was a heavy pillbox on wheels with a cannon, machine guns and rolling death for all infantry men. Until Rocket Launchers, PanzerFaust even worse! They had Sappers that had to connect an explosive to the tank and blow it up with a chord attached!!! Suicide mission...

[zappsweden]

Yes, Liam.

The tanks become almost offensively obselete already on L2 anti-tank which is roughly in 1942.

In recent games i ALWAYS put 1-3 chits on Anti-tank for Russia. If the Axis opponent has bought tanks then i could not be more happy. If Axis bought tanks I also definitely put my 2 US chits on Anti-tank too.

The oberpowered counter-tech has to do with the low Integer numbers i.e the big increase in percentage. Increasing a corps Tanks Defence from 1->2 (L1)and 2->3 (L2)will on the current battle system be such a big increase. I do not know if SC uses Integers in battles but it sure could be better if some values could be increase by 0.7, 0.5 or whatever.

[ April 04, 2003, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]