Balancing the game/rocket, tactical bomber and infantry criticism

    • Venicethemenace wrote:

      Some people are never happy.

      Nothing wrong with wanting the game you like to be as good as it can be I supose...

      dioglaert wrote:

      I should have clarified what I meant by effective strategic bombing not being historically accurate. What I meant was that the cost of the strategic bombing in WWII was much greater than the damage it did to the German war effort.
      ''The effect of strategic bombing was highly debated during and after the war.[23][24][25][26] Both the Luftwaffe and RAF failed to deliver a knockout blow by destroying enemy morale.''

      ''Strategic bombing failed to reduce German war production. There is insufficient information to ascertain how much additional potential industrial growth the bombing campaign may have curtailed.[26]''

      ''The Oil Campaign of World War II was, however, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case.''

      Above citations are all from the wikipedia article I mentioned in my previous reply. Though I think Restriko said it all.

      Restrisiko wrote:


      Always remember that this is not an action game or a simulation, but an (animated) board game.
      So even if you would have been right about the allies pervertedly dropping more than 50% of their bomb loads despite it being not effective there is no reaseon why this should also be the case in the game. Damaging someone's economy is already a potential part of strategy in the game as it is now. I would just like it to be more viable than it is at the moment and have an extra unit to help in this by dividing a now overpowerd unit into two that have balanced pros and cons. Thats all.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • Why not start with some things that are practical (and IMO obvious)?

      The most obvious change, towards both realism and balancing, is to have rockets do friendly damage. Then the method of locking troops will be way more difficult.

      (Btw, yes of course I agree there is also a problem with the planes - but I believe the problem is in the mechanism of patrol rather than in the stats of the units.)
    • atreas1 wrote:


      The most obvious change, towards both realism and balancing, is to have rockets do friendly damage. Then the method of locking troops will be way more difficult.

      (Btw, yes of course I agree there is also a problem with the planes - but I believe the problem is in the mechanism of patrol rather than in the stats of the units.)
      I agree, I'm willing to go even a step further and say that this should also be the case with artillery. Though the main problem with rockets are their mechanic and raw power output. No one is online 24 hours a day, so there is always time for rockets to find their target.

      As for planes I'd say its the same. The main problem is with their mechanics. It gives them a very unique status in the game that is somewhat unmatched by other units.
    • The easiest solution for rockets would be to make them what they were in WW2 times (a strategic weapon) by correcting their stats:
      * Damage against units: -75%
      * Damage against buildings: +40%
      * Damage to morale of targeted province: +100%
      * Production costs: -50%
      * Upkeep costs: -75%
      * Military points gained from destroying a rocket: -50%.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      The easiest solution for rockets would be to make them what they were in WW2 times (a strategic weapon) by correcting their stats:
      * Damage against units: -75%
      * Damage against buildings: +40%
      * Damage to morale of targeted province: +100%
      * Production costs: -50%
      * Upkeep costs: -75%
      * Military points gained from destroying a rocket: -50%.
      Wouldn't those changes make it way too powerful over the actual strategic bomber?
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • Is hard to compare the two, as Strats aren't one-time use, have larger range and an additional use as meatshields for other planes.
      Anyhow the values I chose are estimations and would require balancing indeed.
      Outcome should be: If you have air superiority, Strats should always be the better choice.
      While if you have inferior airforce, rockets might be an option as your strategic weapon.
      Strats should be the better choice in more situations, as they were way more often seen and 100% more often successfully used in WW2 than rockets.