Available playersTop players Chat Forum External sites: Wiki

«

previous 1 2 3 next

Shulgin

Tank

Offline

spadequack wrote:I'll look into how hard it would be to introduce a deep sea tile. I like that idea, but new tiles have not been added for years, if ever.

bridges

McMonster wrote:I think you should try either deep sea tiles OR cruisers on the test server, not both at the same time, as it would be difficult to determine what was changing the balance of combat at sea in what ways if both changes were simultaneously implemented.

i absolutely agree to that. however, i'd say addressing the heli v. subs issue simultaniously would be feasible. i like nosaj's opinion (2.) here.

Nosaj wrote:
1. Berserkers - Why do we need a significantly improvement here? The question should be whether land combat in general needs to be tweaked, not how we can make a particular unit more useful. As it is, heavy tanks/artillery fit the bill fine. Perhaps giving zerks repair 2 is warranted, but I wouldn't go much beyond that. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

you certainly have a point with the unintended consequences, but i'd say giving the zerk 2 repair can't do much harm. one reason why i suggested something different is that the zerk is the strongest land unit and as such should have some special feature, like the strongest sea unit has with its double fire. maybe that's a bad idea...

madmike

Raider

Offline

Until I play test heli's versus subs, I believe they will be useless. Heli's don't have the range to hit a sub when the player is fielding Destroyers. With a Destroyers move 4 range 3. They can easily get to a heli(move 6) before it ever gets into sub range. Even if you are able to successfully damage a sub, a destroyer still gets the option to move in to kill the heli. I just don't think it will be economically feasible to have heli's attack subs. Unless your just trying to kill the sub from "sub squatting". If that is the case, then I rather see a land unit be able to attack a sub(when in harbor only).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 15/06/2010 18:56:56

jeye

Tank

Offline

First I have to say i am a fan of the rock-paper-scissors method and I am a fan of specialized units and no allrounders and my suggestions for balancing follow this approach.

For the Berserker i think setting repair to 2 is a good start but not enough. The berserker is to slow to be a good offensive unit except for close up maps like rubicycle.
Therefore i suggest also to add +1 or +2 to the berserker defense.

I think giving heli the ability to attack subs does make sense to break sub blocks. But damage should be low (attack 3 to 4). The subs need a compensation for being attacked by Helis. I would suggest reducing the sub price from 1000 to 900.

The current destroyer is very versatile (good vs aircraft, subs, land units, ok against other ships) and therefore it is imo necessary to split this unit.

One of these naval units should focus on anti air another one on anti sub and maybe a third one on anti ship use (there is the battleship already which as not bad against ships). Anti ship ships have to compete with battleships. Therefore they need to deal enough damage that 2 of them can kill a destroyer in one round.

Imo a specialed sub counter boat and a specialed air counter boat are more important than another ship counter boat as there is the battleship already.

If you need some statistics I would suggest the following:

Anti Sub Ship: ("Destroyer"(?))
price: 700
type: boat
hard:6
soft:6
sub: 16
boat: 6
amphibic: 10
air: 6
speedboat: 10
Defense: 12 - Moves 4 hexes - Range 1-2

Anti Air Ship: (could be named "Frigate" or whatever)
price: 650
type: boat
hard:6
soft:6
sub:4
boat:6
amphibic:10
air:11
speedboat:10

Defense: 10 - Moves 4 hexes - Range 1-3 vs air, Range 1-1 vs sub, Range 1-2 vs everything else


Anti Ship Ship: ("Cruiser"(?))
price: 900
type: boat
hard:10
soft: 10
sub:4
boat: 13 (2 of these ships need to be able to kill a destroyer, otherwise build a battleship)
amphibic:12
air:6
speedboat:12

Defense: 12 - Moves 3 hexes - Range 1-1 vs sub, Range 1-3 vs everything else.

If these naval units get in it could lead to interesting naval / air battles where (given equal spending on both sides):
Destroyers beat Subs
Cruisers & Battleships beat Destroyers
Subs beat Cruisers, Battleships and Frigates
Frigates beat Aircraft (Bombers striking first might prevail in 1on1 but Frigate is cheaper)
Battleships beat Cruisers if they have the first strike
Cruisers beat Battelships if the Cruisers have first strike
Bombers beat Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships
Helis beat Subs
Jets beat Helis and Bombers

RockyDog

Berserker

Offline

+1 to EITHER zerk repair 2 OR zerk auto-repair 1 plus any other normal action OR zerk gets 2 attacks
-1 to splitting DD. it was atrocious on the test server when it was tried IMO.
neutral on helis with ZOC on subs, as pointed out here, it makes them useful, but still
too vulnerable to DD or jets, or even BB. who would really spend that much.

+1 to ZOC for helis AND making them cheaper. 500 credits, maybe even 400. I'd defer to stirling on this.


jeye

Tank

Offline

RockyDog wrote:
-1 to splitting DD. it was atrocious on the test server when it was tried IMO.
neutral on helis with ZOC on subs, as pointed out here, it makes them useful, but still
too vulnerable to DD or jets, or even BB. who would really spend that much.


Imo the problem with the cruiser on the testserver was that it did only do 10 damage and therefore it normally made more sense to build 1 BB than 2 cruisers and a speedboat.

Currently naval battles are done with mainly destroyers and maybe a few BB and subs. My suggestions give much more options to counter.

Casaubon

Tank

Offline

agreed. more ships please I want to have options what to build on sea and not be forced to play the same strategies over and over again.

Shulgin

Tank

Offline

This comes from the public chat. thought it might be relevant here, so i copied it before it disappears
jeye
i think switching the current destroyers into 2 or 3 units is more useful than just having naval battles mainly with destroyers
#
Shulgin
i see your point. i still want my deep water tiles tho
#
jeye
it is not that these things exclude each other
#
McMonster
exactly jeye. despite me saying that i think spade should isolate the variable on the test server by trying one sea unit/terrain change at a time, i think that a broader naval
#
McMonster
experiment that included several new units and the deep sea tile would allow us to just play and see what the new dynamics were like. i for one am very interested in making weewar
#
McMonster
at sea more diversified and strategically interesting. I think most people underestimate the diversity subs already add, but there's lots of room for improvement!
#
andydog
I guess the relative simplicity of the game is what appeals to a lot of people. Perhaps there could be levels of strategic involvement

i think the bold part is important to bear in mind

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 16/06/2010 15:37:56

spadequack

Heavy Tank

Offline

bump.

@jeye, unfortunately, two new units might be a bit too much. We still want to keep the game pretty simple and also not change it too drastically.

@all, a second water tile would be interesting, but it would only change naval battles on new maps with those tiles. I think the destroyer is still too strong and versatile in the sea, and it would be best to change naval battles in existing maps as well as future maps, so let's just think about changes without another water tile for now.

What about introducing the cruiser and making it the low-end anti-ship ship with the following specs:

Cruiser, 800 credits, moves 4, range 1-3, defense 12, repairs 2/turn
hard:10
soft:10
sub:4
boat:12
amphibic:12
air:6
speedboat:12

Destroyer, 800 credits, moves 4, range 1-3, defense 12, repairs 2/turn
hard:6
soft:6
sub:16
boat:6
amphibic:12
air:12
speedboat:12

See http://weewar.com/forum/posts/list/789.page for what used to be on the test server (changes against those are in bold here).

The goal is to diversify naval battles away from any one strategy being extremely dominant, such as the one now of amassing lots and lots of destroyers until it is safe enough to buy a battleship, with very occasional subs thrown in. It's not easy to get balancing done well but I think the last test was on the right track in trying to open up more possible strategies and counter builds. Unfortunately, the cruiser wasn't in any of those. What do you all think about the above stats?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 13/07/2010 08:18:43

McMonster

Tank

Offline

this will be very interesting. i like the combo of changes - especially the idea of making both 800. i do wonder if making the cruiser cheaper, longer range AND higher damage (compared to the version on the test server last year, as discussed in the informative thread you linked to) all at the same time will make it a wee bit too powerful vs. BBs? if others think so, perhaps a compromise of 11 attack would do the trick? i am up for trying 12 however. we just want to get this as close to balanced as possible or else folks have a bad experience and think the whole idea of a new naval unit is rubbish. which, of course, would be rubbish.

RockyDog

Berserker

Offline

I think the utility of subs is going up as soon as you split the DD into two units.

You're changing rock-paper-SCISSORS (sub-bb-DD where DD has extra usefulness) now to
rock-paper-scissors-DYNAMITE (the last being the new sub). The sub's utility vs 3 of the 4 (over powers 2 and ties vs other subs) types will make it more worthwhile than the others.

Shulgin

Tank

Offline

first of all, i'd second that it's not easy to get balancing done well . especially in this case it seems...

prima facie the new cruiser and destroyer seem to be a pretty mighty combo. so i would disagree that the utility of subs is going up. quite the opposite. i don't really see an incentive to build BSes or subs anymore (unless you want to use the bs against land units on the shores). i would pump out cruisers & destroyers, presumably more cruisers than destroyers.

you are obviously right spade that a new water tile would only have an effect on new maps. i still like the idea, though. can't help it...

btw: is this the shape of things to come? after all it's tuesday

Tygerdave

Heavy Tank

Offline

Thought this might be helpful - bold is new:

Destroyer (BOAT)
hard:10 -> 6
soft:10 -> 6
sub:16
boat:10 -> 6
amphibic:12
air:12
speedboat:12
Defense:12
Movement:12(4)
Range:1 - 3
Cost: 900 -> 800

Cruiser, 800 credits, moves 4, range 1-3, defense 12, repairs 2/turn
hard:10
soft:10
sub:4
boat:12
amphibic:12
air:6
speedboat:12


Submarine (SUB)
hard:0
soft:0
sub:10
boat:16
amphibic:0
air:0
speedboat:0
Defense:10
Movement:9(3)
Range:1 - 2
Cost:1000

Battleship (BOAT)
hard:14
soft:10
sub:4
boat:14
amphibic:14
air:6
speedboat:14
Defense:14
Movement:6(2)
Range:1 - 4
Cost: 2000

Tygerdave

Heavy Tank

Offline

I would like to try the test server with these settings + the helicopter vs Sub mod. If we find that the sub is overpowered still then adding a anti-sub component the bomber is the next step I'd like to see taken.

spadequack

Heavy Tank

Offline

I forgot to mention that this would be with the heli vs sub mod. I like that we see two conflicting strategies already (build all destroyers and cruisers vs build all subs). Destroyers will still do more damage to a sub like they do now. With the build all destroyers and cruisers, I'd imagine the cruisers would be on the front line, in which case dropping a battleship or sub would be the best counter (or more cruisers).

Nothing finalized yet, but I'm trying to get closer to putting something onto the test server so that we can test for ourselves.

CaptainCupCake

Tank

Offline

Great ideas, great to hear feedback being requested by the developers. I like the heli-sub idea in particular (with a little something to the sub in return). I agree with whomever that subs are underestimated, and are more powerful than often realised. Destroyers aren't the be all and end all. Never convinced by the initial implementation of a split of that unit.

Zerks. Definitely. Don't think I've ever built one except as a joke.

I think experienced players and some people generally are looking to expand the [options/strategic depth of the] game. This may be at the expense of the immediacy and accessibility of what's there now. I guess I've never felt the need for loads more units and tiles, since there are plenty of more complex games out there. Always liked WW's simplicity. But, not saying a few tweaks here and there would go amiss.

I'm more against this because I think there are more useful things to be done first. I'd like to see the colour-blindness thing solved first, official team chat, better help for new users, a searchable forum before another set of units and tiles and more...but that may just be me.
---
Late edit: wanted to add that not adding too much stuff is just my view, quite understand the suggestions put forward. I guess I feel there is a certain irony in looking to balance the game by adding more variety and complexity and increasing the number of variables in the equation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 14/07/2010 05:38:08

previous 1 2 3 next