Rating the Units

[Desert Dave]

Now that I have played 18-20 games, I have a pretty good feel for the value of various units, though I admit that a few of these will likely better serve certain purposes in the full-length game. Here I am mostly concerned with cost-benefit ratio.

HQ - A+ Without these nothing much good happens, as evidenced by France (and even Italy, with their very low-rated leaders :eek: ).

Air Fleet - A This is the Queen of the chess board. Versatile, mobile, and excellent cost ratio.

Tank Detachment - A- Slasher that has great impact, in movement and punch.

Army - B+ Solid, dependable, like Bill Mauldin's Willie & Joe :cool: .

Corps - B Great for interior defense, and lurking about to snatch those depleted cities.

Subs - C+ Can do heavy havoc to Brit armada, if deployed properly.

Carrier - C+ Similar to Air Fleet, but vulnerable and expensive.

Cruiser & Battleship - C All ships would receive one HIGHER grade if they would be altered to survive longer and/or were less expensive. Potentially, GREAT naval battles might ensue.

Rockets - D The jury is still out on these, but I never buy them -- maybe later in full game.

Bombers - F If somoeone has figured a good, justifiable use for these, let me know. I never buy any.

Sure we have explored much of this, but it never hurts to provide more input. Units I would like to see: Para, Destroyer flotillas.

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Rockets - D The jury is still out on these, but I never buy them -- maybe later in full game.

Bombers - F If somoeone has figured a good, justifiable use for these, let me know. I never buy any.

Both are excellent for reducing enemy entrenchment & cohesiveness... Handy when trying to 'open up' a line. Both must have friendly air cover to have any hope. Also have had great luck with bombers with depleted enemies that just need that one more point to damage to force into incoherancy.

Both have their uses (I suspect that rocket's uses will increase with tech upgrades, as it is they are still too close to the front) and cautions. Of the two, I have more experience with bombers and find that help in blitz warfare quite a bit so long as local air superiority can be retained.

[ June 06, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[pzgndr]

Naval combat needs tweaking to bring the ratings up. We're seeing big battles between subs and capital ships that are unrealistic. Subs should be more difficult to spot and more difficult to engage during the early years, and likewise less likely to inflict damage on capital ships. Their strength was being able to inflict heavy convoy losses and evade contact with the surface fleets. That's not happening in SC. Let sonar/radar advances change the spotting and engagement probabilities over time. If the sub issues can be resolved, we should see more historical naval strategies rather than the gamey strategies we have now. We don't need major changes, just some "tweaking" of the current probabilities in the code.

Rather than try to add new destroyer/ASW units to the game, just let the cruisers have a stronger ASW role than battleships, which should have the stronger surface role for ship-to-ship battles and shore bombardment. Again, some tweaking can make this happen.

[Desert Dave]

Sometimes I worry that Hubert will regard these suggestions as a kind of slow water-drip torture, and become all tweaked-out. (... similar to freaked-out only the freakee not so liable to reach for the lager or Prozac).

WHATEVER the final decisions, I am very satisfied with this game -- I have been waiting an awful long time for a turn-based Grand-Strategy model, and will be glad to get it.

[rleete]

Too true. Hubert must feel like the French garrison in Paris, getting hit from all sides!

But I think we all agree this will be a great game, and we're just trying for that little extra something which will make it a classic. He has been listening to us, and making changes/tweaks where they have shown to be for the good of the overall game.

Kudos go both to him and to Battlefront for picking just the right kind of game designer to partner with.

Edit: forgot to reply to the original post!

Yes, I agree with the assesment of rockets, at least for the first year. They only seem to serve as a draw for British air power, and between repairs to defending fighters and themselves, can become a big drain on resources.

Bombers, as was stated, must have escorts.

All your other "grades" are really pretty spot-on.

[ June 06, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: R_Leete ]

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Compassion:

Also have had great luck with bombers with depleted enemies that just need that one more point to damage to force into incoherancy.

Yes, but you'd have even greater luck with Air Fleets which are cheaper as well. The point is not that Strategic Bombers are completely useless, it's just that there's little they can do that the less expensive Air Fleets can't do better.

I've said it before, Strategic Bombers need to be able to hit cities/mines/oil even if there have units on them. I'd be far more likely to purchase them if I could bomb London rather than just the ports, or make my enemies devote Air Fleets to defend the Ploesti or Caucasus oil fields instead of just a couple of corps.

Also, Air Fleets are far too weak when escorting or intercepting, and probably too strong otherwise.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Yes, but you'd have even greater luck with Air Fleets which are cheaper as well.

Bombers reduce entrenchment levels. Two bomber attacks on a city, followed by two air attacks will completely devastate any defenders. Usually a tank attack followed by an army (or corps) will be enough to finish off the defender, and take the city.