Anymore balancing for WAW?

[Sombra]

SC2 is a very good game and in the end nearly perfectly balanced regarding units and game mechanics.

WAW introduced new units, concepts etc. unfortunately for multiplayer its IMHO not as well balanced as SC2. Is WAW finished or will there me more balancing done?

Foremeost in my mind is the building of "Wunderwaffen" aka Stukas which take away the fun of the game if they reach a certain level.

For example I would like to see to take away from the power of Stukas:

- AA technology would work against Sukas too.

- Stukas could not be escorted by fighter

- AA cannons could fire more than once

What are your worst nightmares in WAW?

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I agree that the Tac Bombers are very strong.. an upgrade of the AA technology would help.. may it be range increase or multiple attacks per turn.

A single AA unit doesn`t help against a concentrated attack.. it just shoots once, and then everything around it gets killed.. and even if the AA scores a hit, it doesn`t make much damage.

[SeaMonkey]

So I'm assuming Sombra you think WaW is unbalanced, advantage Axis, correct?

If so, then maybe you should play Minty. He seems to think that the Allies have the edge.

I would like to hear from the WaW tourney participants. I realize, at least IMO, that the verdict is still out, but I am leaning towards the Axis.

Hopefully the new games I have started will dispel that assumption, emphasis on Allied strategies.

[Sombra]

With good weather advantage Axis..raining advantage Ally...

[SeaMonkey]

Ha! That's a pretty random conclusion Sombra. Don't forget the snow and sand storms.

"It takes a little luck to win a war."

That surely has to be a quote from some great general....anyone?

[lparkh]

I don't understand this remark:

"- AA technology would work against Sukas too."

I thought AA worked against all aircraft. Please explain.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Ha! That's a pretty random conclusion Sombra. Don't forget the snow and sand storms.

"It takes a little luck to win a war."

That surely has to be a quote from some great general....anyone?

Simply my comment shows taht I think with the overblown (IMO) importance of the aircraft the game gets to dependend on luck...good weather STukas will blow away everything...with bad weather well you are stuck

[Sombra]

Originally posted by lparkh:

I don't understand this remark:

"- AA technology would work against Sukas too."

I thought AA worked against all aircraft. Please explain.

The AA defense value of cities , mines fortresses. IT protects your unit but doesnt increase damage on the stuka trying to hit the city for example

[The K Man]

I would give a slight edge to the axis at this point. But its still too early for me to say absolutely. Need more time, & games to see more results.

I would agree & like to see AA guns get 2 hit (defense) against planes.

I disagree on the escorts. I like having the option to escort the stukas as it happened historically.

Weather does play a much bigger role in WAW. A few well placed storms in a row, can slow an attack down by a couple of months...It can also work the opposite way...Just a nice variable of the game.

[MJY]

I would like to echo support for the idea of AA units getting multiple shots. At present, AA defences can be partly bypassed/minimized by attacking a target first with a relatively expendable (and often relatively ineffective) unit (e.g., an inexperienced bomber unit) which takes the brunt of the flak and opens the way for the killer Tac air units to attack unopposed. That seems kind of gamey to me. One would expect that AA units would continue to fire at all units within range in the same way that units in a city or port are currently protected by AA upgrades every time they are attacked.

Of course as is often the case, many a proposed solution opens up new problems. For example, one would have to tweak the speed with which flak units gain experience points (and transfer experience to HQ units) or else we will have to open up a new thread about "killer flack."

Also, how would air interception fit into the mix. If AA fires every time, your interceptors will not have a chance to attack (as the current engine seems to only permit one or the other -- not both per each enemy attack). Perhaps the system could be altered so that flack would alternate with available interceptors until all interceptors are exhausted.

Better yet, I think interceptors and flak should both be available with each attack. For example, a German bomber and escorts wish to attack a British corps next to London in preparation for Sealion. The British have fighters within range and the target corps is adjacent to a AA unit. The first order of business would be for the interceptors to do battle with the bombers and their escort. And if there are any survivors, they would be attacked by the flak unit. And only then would the corps be attacked. (And this would be replicated with each round of combat in a similar fashion.)

Of course, I am not very knowledgeable with regard to software design, so I cannot say whether such a system would work with the current engine.

[SeaMonkey]

This is where we could get some definition out of the menus. In regards to fighters, choosing "intercept" means first priority mission, selecting "auto" infers secondary status.

For AA, I agree a resource upgrade should be first priority to respond to air attack, no matter what the unit(bomber, ftr, TAC), this is the integral defense. Secondary responders would be a fighter selected as "intercept", or an AA unit selected as "priority", which ever has the highest readiness.

Third responder would be the "auto" setting for fighters or "secondary" mode selection for AA units, again, highest readiness.

Now that provides for a potential of three different mediums for air defense, I think that's enough and it only allows one response per unit.

I can only imagine an upgrade as being a designated tile co-ordinate for the target of air defense forces and that means additional microM.

[Lars]

How about just have the AA fire every time, but computer checks first for whichever defending unit will do the most damage? If you have a good fighter unit, up he goes. If you don't, the flack shoots. Menus will take fighters out of the equation if you wish.

Can still get around it by ordering your attacks, but better. The sacrifice unit will take heavier losses, and the follow-ups will still get hit by something.