Russian Arttillery

[arado234]

I think in order to represnt Russias overall artillery strength its allowable builds should be increased to atleast 4(the amount Germany can build).Russia produced over 516,000 artillery pieces,more than the rest of the world combined.

I know you have to worry about play balance but the Russians referred to it as the God of war.I think they should be able to atleast match Germany.Germany only produced 159,000 artillery pieces.

[Scook]

You *can* get four currently if you are careful. Buid both artillery early, once Siberian Reinforcements show up, you get two more. Play balance leads me to three artillery for USSR, and the two from Siberia. Food for thought.

[SeaMonkey]

Don't forget and build the two AA units also, then you get 4 and 4.

Minty thinks the USSR gets too many currently and he seems to have a few H to H games under his belt. Not sure I agree about that, but have to respect his opinion.

I could see maybe 5 total, but that would be 3 max in the build Q, still a little early to be conclusive in my opinion. I'd like to hear from some players with >10 H to H games of FW.

[Scook]

I am leaning towards Minty's opinion on too many little units (as per Terif) to gum up the works. I can make a case for the AA and the artillery, but AT guns on this scale don't work too well. I like them, but not the right scale unless you are doing a scenario.

Artillery can become a killer. They can fire on both player's turns that experience gain comes quickly. Level 2 artillery 15 strength are quite powerful. Multiply that by the number of artillery on the map, you get the picture. What rockets were in SC2, artillery is in WaW, albeit a range of 2.

[arado234]

Maybe the way to go is that A.A.is just attached as a defensive feature to the regular ground units.As far as artillery goes, it could be included in a units ground attack ground defence capability.

The way it is now Russias artillery is way under represented in this game.You can talk about how much weaponry America produced but Russia built more artillery units than the rest of the world combined.No one did that with any other single weapon.

[Colin I]

I still think streamline - have AA tech - make it not very powerful per level but units can upgrade to it in the same way as AT tech. AA works when it is rear area, but in a game with Baron I'm defending London with it just fine. This is silly, London would be defended by conventional ground forces plus AA. I don't think stacking works for this game, attachment seems to complex and given we have a simple and elegant system of unit upgrades lets stick with that.

The specialised units are not appropriate strategically. However, they do currently give a greater degree of choice, esp is you don't have many MPP. In the same game with Baron, I had not many MPP to spend as UK, was expecting SeaLion, so choice of corps vs AT vs AA to defend with was an interesting one (more expensive unit types and long term tech planning not an option). Also, the WaW game now may be reduced in strategic surpises (guess that is the Terif view) but it plays much more like WWII - especially on the Russian front and 1944 Normandy and North Africa. In Russia higher unit density was needed over SC2, more continuous lines which may or may not degrade game play, but both sides did try to maintain for good reason.

Definately heading off topic - but I would like to see the military side streamlined and the next increase in strategic options to come from an improved diplomacy model.

[arado234]

Colin I agree with most of what you say but as far as stacking goes(I suggested this in an earlier post)I think that ONLY air fleets(1 per unit) can stack on top of ground units.This gives them maximum range both in spotting and attacking(not sure how hard this would be to add to the game).Some people may think this doesnt make much difference but those here who have played Third Reich know that it does.

When the ground unit with the airfleet stacked with it is attacked the ground unit would have to be destroyed then the airfleet could be attacked.

As far as your battle with Baron goes if you choose to defend London with your A.A.unit thats your choice(it does have its pitfalls).

[SeaMonkey]

I'm OK with the present evolution of SC. I find many ways to use the new units, AT and AA are great for partisan control early for Axis, garrisoning midgame and crucial in the endgame with experience and tech, both cheap.

The ART is appropriate for its historical role.

See at least Colin gets the defend at all costs against Sealion, which I think compels the players to embark upon an historical path, Terif likes the what if options more and it's a very good point. But more important(imo) is the significance of an early Sealion because it really keeps the UK from dabbling into Axis plans in other theaters perhaps letting the Germans gain entirely too much momentum.

Every human game I've played leads into a slow pounding of the USSR into submission. Sometimes it occurs as early as 44, but usually early 45, so I'm concluding, prematurely, that the Axis are easier to play.