Discuss
Topics
Ok in several games there's locking horns of artillery walls facing each others. It takes forever to get anywhere. 1 HA is ok, but when you start to invest a position defended by 2 rows of 5 HA it's like... hmm... long. I'm even wondering if the game CAN end. And somehow when you play 30+ turns you don't feel like a draw.
Some maps like Cruel Intentions, etc. have good income and narrow fronts. It's entirely possible for a player to build a considerable quantity of HA, thus 'blocking' a front. 2 HA turn a HT into swiss cheese. 3 HA can sometimes destroy a HT.
IMO at $600 this is the best ROI. ok less acronyms... In my opinion at $600 this is the best return on investment.
I'm starting to think that HA *could* be too cheap. Wondering is $800 wouldn't be the price? That would render L-ART more useful.
What do you guys think?
Artillery's weakness is that it's slow moving and has 0 melee capabilities, using other units to support it is called strategy 
That said, it can be a game decider - I once had a group of bases spitting out 2 HTs in every 3 turns and it wasn't enough because my opponent was spending his cash on artillery instead.
Past a certain threshold there's really not much you can against it, but reducing the cost wouldn't really help, just make it take longer to set up and discourage people from buying much artillery until they realised that it's useful (and until then they would be at the mercy of those who do know about it).
This I am in agreement with. Games with *ahem* semi-competent players will often devolve into lines of HA, which is not the strategio I am looking for.
There are possible factors to this conclusion:
1) HA does too much damage at too little expense.
2) The maps are too small.
The latter is the more provocative conclusion in my eyeball. The game as it is (war, often, in a shoebox) limits creativity and bottlenecks confrontation (that's from the latin verb bottleneckus), thus penalizing daring and ambitious movement of armies. While I send X guys on foolish raid to conquer Y city, my opponent obliterates me with artillery and my dead and/or injured units are out of the battle. Maybe that's the lesson here — it's a game of front lines, build-up and caution. I am just unsure if that's what the game wants to exclusively be.
Tangentially, this brings me to another discussion point: base incomes. I believe all bases should generate equal income across all maps. On current smaller maps with large-income bases, I think the base incomes should be lowered to a standard, across the board value, and the number of bases should increase (if need be). Create a gold standard for the game, and let there be single bases or concentrations of bases that have implied/intuitive value universally, across the entire game. Also, looking into a game will not require retuning our minds to understand the situation through base value. One base, 100 credits. Five bases, 500 credits. Let the hexagonal size of the urban area determine the value of the area, not an arbitrary number.
Also, artillery trained on a base wouldn't make it's production value worthless.
Train derailed. I'll get back to this. Allegedly.
Brief On-Topic PS: Artillery Strength Modifier idea
Lower artillery strength on first strike, raise strength on second strike to same hex, then max attack power on third strike (-2, 0, +3). Current bonuses function within a turn. This bonus would operate through a series of (3 or so) turns. Operates like locking in a target, accounts for real life aiming recalibration and finally pinpointing target. Bonus applies to hex, not unit, so if a fired-upon then vacated hex is occupied by a new unit during opponents next turn, bonus parlays.
^ I like your PS a lot, re. Art locking in over 3 turns. This way if you wound an enemy art and he pulls it out of the line to replace it with another (new) one, it takes time to rebuild the uber punch. I'd say -3, -2, -1. but what do you mean, +3? You'd make them more deadly?
I also like the idea of larger maps. I like what the map at http://www.tangler.com/group/7466/ looks like before you load a thread in the page. (Tangler background). I like bigger maps with good income (Cruel Intentions, Badlands), but the problem in some maps is the lack of manoeuvering room.
About 'Artillery's weakness is that it's slow moving and has 0 melee capabilities, using other units to support it is called strategy''. Exactly. Only problem is when you play another dude with a good sense of strategy, and a bottleneckus (wow I'm getting learned here) map; stagnation may ensue. When you have $2000 income a turn and can't break the other guy, there's a problem.
I was dramatizing for effect (no pun intended), but i think in reality something like (-3, 0, +1) or (-3, -2, -1) are two horns on the same bull. I like the idea a lot.
does anyone else find that their eyes going buckwild after looking at the tangler for too long? total burn-in. borderline migrainitis.
I would be willing to beta test that "homing period" thing.
And: I have stated in the past that I'd like to see larger maps combined with an overall movement boost to nearly all units. This would open the game up more, so that the war is made up of battles on several fronts, defense points, and choke points. Right now, many of the small to medium maps are simple one or two battle fronts, which seems less interesting to me than a many-front war.
ditto.
I vote for Pistos.
Maps too small!! Concur. Larger maps good. Though not being able to see the entire map on the screen can be an annoyance.
Fixed income for bases. Disagree. Base income is one of the elements that a map designer can use to speed up or slow down force development. I map with many low income bases requires s very different tactical approach than does a map with few high income bases. Harkening back to an earlier suggestion by Ho clustered bases might generate income bonus. Examplar: 3 base cluster with a per base income of 100: own 1 - income = 100, own 2 - income = 250, own three - income 400.
HvyArty cost, acquired Arty targets, a question and a note:
(first a question, does artillery gain a bonus if the target was previously fired on by another artillery?)
[second a note: LtArty, HvyArty & AckAck should be SOFT targets not HARD targets. An Arty emplacement is a bunch gents in fatigues standing around in the open, loading guns and pulling lanyards. Even truck mounted Arty is not armoured.]
The price of HvyArty is too low. Concur. It should cost between 700 & 800 - I favor 725, 750 or 775. Fractional costs are good they make purchase decisions a bit more important - war is logistics.
OTOH, as we have previously commented nearly all of the big ticket units are underpriced.
Unit Cost Suggested
HvyArty 600 725 - 775
Zerk 900 1000 - 1250
BFG 1200 1500 - 1750
Bomber 1200 1500 (make rmobility 21-9 & give it two attacks or a range of 2)
BB 2000 2700 - 3000 (make range 2-5)
And some units are overpriced.
Unit Cost Suggested
HvyInf 150 125 (or increase its defensive value to 8)
Helicopter 600 525 -550 (give it anti-sub ability)
Fighter 800 700 (make mobility 18-9, allow repairs at base, airbase or port)
DD 1100 925 - 975
Submarine 1200 650-750 (lower its defensive value to 9, increase range to 2, allow move through enemy units.)
Lastly, acquired Arty. Let me suggest something that most likely will not be implemented. At the end of movement by LtArty or HvyArty they target a hex. This is their acquired hex. Fire into an acquired hex gains a +1 bonus. Fire outside an acquired hex takes a -1 penalty. Once a hex has been fired into by a unit it becomes that unit's acquired hex.
Artillery Barrage Fire: Once an Arty has fired into a hex any subsequent attacks of that hex by OTHER Arty gain a +1 bonus (cumulative).
Having a clickable map thumbnail would be nice (for map panning). Either that or a zoomable or draggable map. 
Or all three!
I was thinking they meant that the artillery bonus applies only to the same art firing, since it is a simulation of using previous shots to get a better handle on aiming for a relatively stationary target (incremental adjustment).
Um, why give heli's anti-sub? I think dest and BShip need to be anti-sub, on account of depth charges. The sub's strength should be torpedoing from afar (range 2-5).
I would be willing to test your "acquired/target hex" suggestion.
The current rules already give a +1 bonus for subsequent art attacks.
Oh because Helis are a current primary anti-sub unit.
It's possible that subsequent Arty already does receive a bonus but I would like confirmation from the Devs.
Oh and one more thing. With the new option to limit available units we really do need an AVAILABLE UNITS: <list>. Perhaps an icon list above the map near the Round counter.
Don't tell me heli's can attack subs right now. I did not know that!!
I agree that HA need some adjustments...even if they are slight.
I would prefer is they simply did less damage to vehicles. I say let their infantry damage stay the same and lower their damage verses vehicles. This would make advancing on them much more achievable.
Sorry, π-man, I meant in the (and I use the term loosely) Real World. Helicopters are the primary anti-sub weapon.
Didn't mean to scare ya!! £8^)
slugthog: I still did not know that. What sort of weaponry do they use? Bombs which descend into the water?
Homing torpedoes, depth charges, acoustic sensing devices, magnetic detection devices.
Yeah, and I can't see a sub shooting water-to-air missiles... or can they?
As I recall subs did, for a short time carry shoulder launched Stingers for use if they were attacked while surfaced but generally modern subs have little or no AA capability.
Well, I suppose if the launch officer were really, really good he could put a Triton through the fuselage of an Orion.
Of course subs do launch cruise missiles.
slug is hijacking the suggestions with his excess of knowldedge.
slugthog: Hm, right... forgot about that.
Gee Ho, sorry, didn't mean to sneak any real information into the suggestions.
As for suggestions, how do you feel about my list above?
About unit costs: so far with Basic units I think HI should be $125 and HA $800. I really think all the other units are ok. HT are bubble gum, I wouldn't jack the price. Same with zerks.
Pro units: not sure about their scope. I see a cruiser unit (between DD and BB). DFA at $1500.
Air units suck I think. You pay tons of money, bring them to the front, attack once, get wounded, fly back to base, repair, come back, by then the game is over.
I like the idea of Artillery being soft targets. Even mobile artillery have little armor per se. As a rule Artillery is a pape line. Even Wespe, Hummel, Maultier, etc (ww2 self-propelled artillery) was not made to withstand attacks.
Agreed about beefing up air units to some extent. For the most part, they should own ground targets, with HI being the ones who might be able to return fire.
LI, HA, LA, T, HT, R, Hov should all be incapable of returning fire on jets.
i agree with hug and slug as far as the basic units go. Beyond that, the units become sort of recursive though I find their costs are generally too low. Air power gets a big meh from where I sit.
If I remember right from the few games I've played with them, subs can't attack (or be attacked) by anything apart from Destroyer or Battleship (and maybe can't be attacked by battleship.. can't remember)
Makes them almost useless for trying to take control of the seas by any means other than obstruction unless your opponent is putting their cash into buying battleships
Subs and the various aircraft are just very specialized units that need to be used very carefully. They certainly shouldn't be a significant portion of your army unless your enemy is doing something very wrong.
Druhim teaches.
Subs can attack and be attacked by other subs, destroyers, and battleships. When parked in harbours or airfields, I think any unit can attack any other unit within range. e.g. a sub parked in a harbour can be attacked by infantry. I think.
Tally: You've hit on what I've been trying to gesticulate about for some time now. There should be many units with varying abilities, but not such drastically different strengths. Would make for a far more interesting game.
Right now, especially in basic games, you basically have only hard and soft units, with degrees of strength among those two types. Instead of two "skin/armour/weapon" types, there could be, say, six to eight. Just to throw out some examples: infantry could be specialized for specific terrain, where they'd get a bonus to offense and defense (forest rangers, desert troopers, mountaineers); armoured infantry (bulletproof vests, shields, kevlar, etc.); infantry specialized by weaponry (anti-tank, anti-air, anti-personnel). This would broaden the range of units, attacks and "skins", and would make things more interesting by requiring good decision making on what unit to build for what current battle context, enemy composition, placement, etc. To put it in other words, more "rock paper scissors" matchups among units.
Having units that could affect more than just HP (sorry -- subunit count) would be cool, too. Imagine "trapper" infantry which could throw nets to slow down other infantry for x turns (reduce their movement points); medic and engineer units to heal and repair other units (so that they themselves don't spend their action on repair/heal); leader units which could give a slight boost to adjacent units (improved morale, inspiration).
Imagine also being able to slightly terraform with units. Engineers to build bridges across water; temporary bases used to build limited unit types (say, LInf and Raiders only); fortification or trench hexes which give a bonus to defense; laying mines or other traps on hexes which would be invisible to other players.
Weewar's simplicity is nice, but I don't think we should be afraid to branch out or grow -- and I think that growth in the direction of "same gun, only bigger" is not really as good an improvement as some of the things I've listed above.
Yeah, more unit types would be cool - although more specialisation and tactical opportunities goes hand in hand with more opportunity to royally screw up my mass producing the wrong type of guy. Which would be frustrating for anyone new to the game or who loses track of what thing is rock to which other thing as scissors.
I think if specialisation happens, the current "basic" units should remain as reasonable all-rounders, at a disadvantage but not a massive one against the specialists (specialist of wrong type vs specialist of right type however...)
Would also want to be as intuitive as possible which units are good in which situations - even now it's hard to know what to counter with in certain situations.
I think we need to give a natural advantage to those who are willing to study the game a bit more deeply, like in chess. The core basics are easy to grasp (build, move, attack), but to be really good should take some effort and cunning, and we should reward that effort and cunning.
of course - give advantage to those who use the specialists correctly, just not a crushing advantage unless the opponent is actively misusing the specialist units
Well, yes. Advantages should generally be rather small. Contrast with the difference between an infantry unit and a berserker at the moment. I think that is just horribly imbalanced.
yeah, beserkers and DFA (not BFG as so many seem to be calling them recently) can unbalance a game pretty quickly.
I like how Pistos put it. 
+1 too.
BFG is more amusing than DFA
BFG = Big F*ing Gun?
yes.
and there I was thinking it was Big Friendly Gun....
Bio Force Gun 9000. Haven't you guys ever seen the Doom movie?
I think that if you increase Hvy Arts you should do the same to Hvy Tanks.
The reason being is that if you aren't pro the only thing that can take out a Hvy Tank is a Hvy Art
Just my thoughts
