Game Balance

[zappsweden]

I am adressing some of the most important SC problems just so that they hopefully wont show up in SC2 too.

1) The MPP balance:

Is it really fair that neutrals mean so much? Iraq and UK (without colonies) are both 8 resources with a maximum of 8*10 MPP. Should that really mean UK double the war production if Iraq join them? Similarily, Germany quadruple their MPP income from 1939-1942, hardly realistic and a reason for why UK is a sitting duck in the mid-game.

2) research impacts and costs:

Is it realistic that already L1 AT almost make a corps a non-attack option for heavy tanks?

Is it realistic that practically all high techs will get caught up already in 1942 and that in 1944 all nations have almost identical tech levels?

In real WW2, Germany had perhaps L5 vs L2 advantage in tanks in the west (UK and USA) despite in 1945.

3) Units:

Super Duper Landing units with 100% readiness are wrong. Also the load+unload+attack thing.

[ April 14, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

1) Agree

2) Agree

3) Agree

SC2 Development Forum is on fire! Time to get the old posts out.

[zappsweden]

4) Is it realistic that air units are used as "finish them off" units instead of their historical role as attack support?

I would suggest that air can not destroy ground units (but still destroy rockets, air units, naval units), only bring them to strength 1. This would also mean HQ's would survive at strength 1.

Hey, why not make HQ's work much worse when being below strength 5? It would still make it important to keep HQ's intact but would not be game killers when enemy get air+long range.

SOLUTION:

Ground units can only be destroyed by Ground Units. HQ's give no leadership bonus when below strength 5.

[ April 14, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[pzgndr]

We hope to get the WWII economics "just right" this time. That means making the majors relative strength more accurate, with growth driven by country-specific industrial modifiers plus events. Like USA gets +25% increases at 60%, 80% and 100% war readiness, etc. New lend lease rules will allow USA and USSR to be more realistic, with USA lending MPPs to keep USSR afloat during the early- and mid-game and then shifting domestic production into high gear for the end-game.

Relative strength of minors can also be adjusted. One way to do this is to reduce the MPP value of ports so we can still have them where we need them for shipping and supply but they don't add production value. Norway, for example, shouldn't have as much production value as it does currently. It's value is strategic location, not MPPs.

[Edwin P.]

with USA lending MPPs to keep USSR afloat during the early- and mid-game and then shifting domestic production into high gear for the end-game.

Looks like the campaign for the Atlantic is going to become much more important and more interesting.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

"I would suggest that air can not destroy ground units"

I concur. Air is powerful, but you need troops on the ground doing the final mop up in real life. I would like to see Air unable to hurt units past a certain strength level.

I would extend this limit to naval as well.

Want that last 3 steps, do it with ground units or forget it.

I abuse this situation currently myself, but I would rather see it turfed in favour of greater credibility.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:

I concur. Air is powerful, but you need troops on the ground doing the final mop up in real life. I would like to see Air unable to hurt units past a certain strength level.

I would extend this limit to naval as well.

I agree with the damage limit - maybe a limit of 3 strenght would be good? Beyond that the air attacks would only reduce entrenchment, readiness and supply (air attacks really should affect unit's supply).

But I don't agree on extending that to naval units. Aircraft were definitely able to sink ships as they were the most powerful ship-destroying weapons system in WWII, effectively ending the supremacy of battleships.

[Yohan]

Originally posted by Exel:

...

But I don't agree on extending that to naval units. Aircraft were definitely able to sink ships as they were the most powerful ship-destroying weapons system in WWII, effectively ending the supremacy of battleships. [/QB]

I think Sarge meant Naval units can't destroy land units. Air must certainly be able to destroy Naval.

[zappsweden]

How about this. Ground units can only be destroyed by ground units?

Then we do not have to curse over super-carriers that destroy ground units too.

[ April 14, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Night]

I agree that ground units should not be destroyed by Air Units. The model worked in Civ3

[KDG]

I agree completely that you shouldn't be able to make the final kill with jets, but there is one problem.

What do you do if you want to land on the coast, but the whole coast is littered with the enemy. Since you can't destroy that unit with air or Carriers, you have a wall that can't be broken. Your troops can't land anywhere. I know this would be difficult to do, but it could happen.

[Edwin P.]

In my opinion if 800 planes (1 Fleet = 100 planes) hit 1 unit in one turn its going to be destroyed as a functional combat unit.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by KDG:

I agree completely that you shouldn't be able to make the final kill with jets, but there is one problem.

What do you do if you want to land on the coast, but the whole coast is littered with the enemy. Since you can't destroy that unit with air or Carriers, you have a wall that can't be broken. Your troops can't land anywhere. I know this would be difficult to do, but it could happen.

If amfibious attacks exist so that you can land in same hex as an enemy unit. Alternatively, if retreat rules could force a unit to retreat when attacked by 4-5 air plus carrier then it would also work. I would like SC2 to be more about winning battles than of destroying units.

[Some_God]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

In my opinion if 800 planes (1 Fleet = 100 planes) hit 1 unit in one turn its going to be destroyed as a functional combat unit.

He's got a point there.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

In my opinion if 800 planes (1 Fleet = 100 planes) hit 1 unit in one turn its going to be destroyed as a functional combat unit.

I think the Soviet-Finnish wars proved this simple math wrong.