Bug: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List

[JCrowe]

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS

DESTROYERS
Why do I want to nerf the ability of destroyers to shoot down jets? For one, because Destroyers in v1.08 make Carriers next to irrelevant. A couple destroyers are enough to protect a fleet against air attack, so who needs carriers? Where’s the value argument for adding them to your fleet? There isn’t one, especially when fighter jet range is usually enough to strike across continental divides. The enhanced range you get from using a carrier as a platform doesn’t do much good in WS – unless you have a really massive ocean in your game.

Secondly, in real life, destroyers ARE used as air defense, but – they suck. Think “Pacific Theater” in WW2. Destroyers are nice, but they mean $#!^ against air power. Any fleet that’s gone to sea since 1942 without the benefit of air cover and has been attacked by air power has lost. (Well, the Sharnhorst, Gneisneau, & Prinz Eugen made it, but that was pure luck.)

Basically, destroyers are meant to act as a cheap shield for the ships that really matter. They can shoot planes, but their primary function is hitting subs or ‘getting in the way’. THAT’s where they ought to be ‘enhanced’ for naval pleasure – in the detecting and sinking of subs.

SUBS
Value argument all over again. What’s the point of the Attack Sub in WS? As it stands: target practice. High initiative is cute, but you need more than cute to win fights or establish a role in the game. Computer loves ‘em. I sink ‘em with jets. From shore. As an afterthought.

The strength of a sub comes from its ability to surprise, to attack without warning. T’ain’t no good if you can see the thing waltzing in from a country mile off. They’ve got to be hidden from prying eyes, or they’re useless.

And so are ASW units. Who needs ‘em if you can ‘see’ the subs with non-ASW forces and kill them with … just about anything else in range. ASW has a real point, a real value, when they’re the only game in town for spotting these underwater bushwhackers and putting them in their place.

Finally, in the real world, attack subs are often used to attack targets on land. And if our cruisers can bombard, why not subs?

And this is how it all comes together:

Sneaky sub steals up to the enemy coastline. He targets a squadron of enemy bombers and prepares to shoot. Team Blue is just one click away from invasion! But wait – Team Blue has ASW choppers based nearby. One runs a patrol and picks up Mr. Unfriendly from the deep blue sea – and says “hello”, with anti-sub torpedoes as he calls in support from a nearby attack sub...

And only after writing this did I realize that, like, this is right out of “Red Storm Rising”.

And this is what creates a real game dynamic. If you don’t have ASW, you risk having attack subs (or boomers) surfing your coasts and picking off your best units on land, or surprising unguarded transports. Put up a ‘net’, and you might catch them first. Or not. Cat & Mouse.

ROCKET ARTILLERY
Statistically, they seem useful / relevant. Operationally, they seem near useless for the $10 mil they cost. It seems like tanks can move three times for every one move the artillery gets. I might be wrong, because it’s hard to tell, but it seems like artillery either dies before it can shoot, or gets to shoot once if other units are dying slower than normal. If a tank unit in one-on-one combat can frag an artillery without even taking a hit, the artillery is way too weak. Boosting range might be the easiest fix.

TACTICAL MAP
Units have to stack by type, even if those units have different tech. Having Level 1 Fighters and Level 2 Fighters as different units on the Tac Map is too much of an advantage, and in a game between humans (or with a good AI), will inevitably lead to an overkill of unit proliferation or ‘sacrificial lambs’.

So, I suggest stacking them, even if the tech level is different. Stacking won’t affect their attack strength, and damage, when received, can be applied to the lower-tech units in the stack first.

I also think that a unit who chooses to pass up its turn (no move, no attack) ought to have that initiative held in ‘reserve’. So if an enemy unit moves into range after the ‘pass’ is made, the passing unit can immediately (automatically) shoot. Adds dimension to the game, and makes it harder for some units to exploit their overwhelming advantages without cost. Basically, instead of moving, the unit has chosen to hold back at the ready to spring the moment the enemy comes into view.

FORTIFICATIONS
Currently, they only confer a very modest benefit to the defender’s initiative. But it seems to make more ‘sense’ if they can offer protection from Bombardments and mitigate damage received in the Tactical Map. That is, so long as they stick to the defender’s side of the board. Seems wrong / odd that a unit that moves out into the attacker’s zone or the middle ground is covered by fortifications built waay back over yonder.

TRANSPORTS
Again, just seems ‘wrong’ that a transport loses all movement points, whether loading just one unit or a dozen. Cargo jet moves four per turn; why not let it fly one, load one unit, and fly one more space? Why penalize it all four points to load one unit when it has the capacity to load two?

CARRIERS
Should ‘Unfriend’ the cargo button entirely. Launch and / or recovery of jets is a triviality. Having to manage jet fuel capacity AND the carrier’s ‘load status’ is a bear and a short step to tragedy. I’d skip the load / launch penalties entirely and make carriers the equivalent of ‘floating land’ for jets. The limited range of fighters is a penalty enough – your carrier can’t move very far out of the area without risking the whole squadron.

TECH
Seems odd that the only penalty you pay for fancier toys is the investment in research. Production stays the same, whether we’re talking about Level 2, 3, or 4. Makes more sense (and adds to the game’s dynamic) if all those fancy, high-tech toys cost more. When the pressure’s on, players might find themselves opting for lower tech as a cheaper option to fill the gaps.

In fact, it would be really clever (a la “Master of Orion”) if obtaining high tech made lower tech LESS expensive. Develop Level 2 jet tech, and level 1 bombers drop from $36 mil to $32. Level 2 bombers cost $36M. Develop Level 3 jet tech, and Level 1 bombers drop to $28 mil; Level 2 bombers drop to $32 mil; Level 3 sits at $36M... etc.

It’s also “totally wrong” that a Level 1 Stealth Bomber or Stealth Jet costs the same as its conventional counterpart.

FIGHTERS & BOMBERS
Yes, maybe they should be limited to one combat mission per turn. Even with the rebalancing, they are a devastatingly powerful tool. You can have a squadron of fighters sitting on the edge of enemy turf, and when the ‘bell’ rings, that one squadron can be an active participant in up to FOUR battles. Which means you can stomp defending forces in four territories – WITH bomber support – and let the ground guys walk in to hold it ... and still have fuel left in the bombers to nail one or two more targets.

The presence of AA units might be enough to mitigate this strength. Hard to say, since the AI is not forceful enough in deploying these units or in leveraging its own fighters. And the presence of AA units tends to stop all but the most powerful air groups cold. But still. Damn. Maybe a one-mission limit is enough and would make battles more ground-unit intensive. About time the ground-pounders fought a few of their own battles already.

AUGMENTED INFANTRY
Again, the value argument. Infantry is better than it used to be, but they still end up becoming targets in a shooting gallery. Not a credible threat, unless packed into groups of 20 or so, which is expensive. I also find the APCs problematic – they don’t contribute much of anything to the infantry in terms of firepower or survivability, and usually end up being a unit that needs to BE protected from attack. So they have no real battlefield purpose beyond moving troops quicker on the strategic map – for a relatively high price. (Cargo jets are faster / much better.)

So I wonder if it might not be better to just “merge” the APCs with the infantry and have three “infantry” units available for play.

Standard infantry would be the guys we’ve got now – move one on the strategic map, 2 in battle, range of 2. Cannon fodder or a distraction – unless protected by those new forts, in which case, dislodging them might be a small process.

But for A Few Dollars More ... you can buy yourself “mechanized” infantry. Guys in APCs represented by an APC icon. More firepower, more speed, and a higher initiative.

And if you really want to get fancy, drop $6 or $8 mil to get “Air Cav”. Ground troops who can move on the strategic map like chopper units and have better initiative, range, and hitting power in battle than even the mechanized infantry.

Just a suggestion, but it seems as if they would plug a ‘void’ in the current setup and add exponentially to the dynamics of the game, without becoming too complicated, burdensome, or overly redundant.

[JCrowe]

PS - Afterthought on the Air Cav: they would not be considered an 'air unit' and thus uber-vulnerable to AA units.

[spillblood]

Thanks JCrowe. Good, detailed suggestions again. Regarding the tactical map, I'd say it would be better if you could divide unit stacks in combat, eg a group of 10 tanks into two groups of 5 tanks or so, instead of having predefined groups of tech level 1, tech level 2 units and so on (which doesn't really make sense). That would make combat more tactical (but probably more difficult for the AI to handle).

[spillblood]

Hey, a new full patch is available now. I'll try it out. Hmm, one thing I wanted to point out: I think Neutron bombs are pretty useless when they can only kill infantry (one of the fixes of the patch). Neutron bombs kill people, but leave buildings, vehicles etc intact. That means they should also be useful against vehicles etc, but not reduce the territory value and destroy factories like nukes (although a territory where all humans are killed should lose territory value, too).

[JCrowe]

Actually, the game's use of neutronic weaponry is pretty accurate. The silly things never really worked as billed, which was why the government cancelled the program and gave up the few we had to treaty.

They were designed to maximize the amount of radiation generated by a fissile reaction, which they did fabulously. (I think the figure was something on the order of 6,000 times the amount of gamma radiation released by a standard nuke of equivalent size.) But once they built a few prototypes and started scorching pigs in the desert (or whatever lucky animal got to play 'test subject'), they realized that they had missed a crucial part of nuclear physics.

And the problem is that radiation can only penetrate so much. Gammas have the best penetration, but whether you're talking about a foot of lead or 1,000 feet of open air, the physics are the same - X amount of mass will block 100% of the radiation. Every time. So it doesn't really matter if you vamp up the rads by 6, 7, or 20,000 times "normal" bomb strength. The gammas still get blocked. Every single time.

Which sunk the project. Because while air isn't very dense, it adds up over distance. And ducking behind some dirt or a hill or a brick wall or etc. does a lot to add to the level of protection a person has from the explosion's epicenter - and thus the source of the gammas. So in order for a neutron bomb attack to be "effective", you'd have to salt the target area pretty liberally with warheads. Which they realized was kinda dumb, when one hefty tactical nuke (migrane strength) would do the job just as well - probably better. So you lost the city. Big whup. Just try pitching that walkup 2 bedroom 3 bath on 5th Street after a neutronic holocaust.

"I know, but you have to IMAGINE it with paint and new carpet! And if you give me a moment with the dust buster, I'll even take care of the former owners for you - for no extra charge! And just THINK how low the heating bill will be for the next three years! Really, the place is an absolute STEAL."

Not
On
Your
%&#^)
Life

In any event, guys huddling in vehicles - even the thinly unarmored type - and spread out over a broad swath of land would prove fairly resilient to a neutron attack. Tank dudes even more so.

For the purposes of World Supremacy, neutrons, cobalts, and super hydros are probably just unnecessary. It could all be summed up under the standard nuclear missile. In terms of play, it might be more worthwhile to open the list of nuke options in terms of delivery system vs. warheads. The ability to launch from subs, mobile launchers, and even bombers might add more interesting dimensions (and urgency) to the game.

But if we were to go with the strange and bizarre, I'd vote for 20-80 megaton superbombs. Hit a target, watch it turn black, and noooo resource points from them forever. Might even turn it into 'cursed' land and deny units the ability to cross through or over it, or you might randomly 'off' units that do as a result of radioactive exposure.

.... or, you could have a darkened icon of a cow in the corner of your infobar. The more nukes that drop, the more the cow begins to glow. The brighter Bessie becomes, the less resource points you gather across the board. 5% ... 10% ... 15% ... Another way of limiting the nuclear option, as players would eventually starve themselves down to a state where they can barely support a few tank and infantry units. Hence, an incentive to ease up on the atom-tossing.

[spillblood]

Yeah, this global radiation level which reduces income when nukes are used sounds pretty good. I think there were some old strategy games that had similar systems.
About the new patch: Seems the version number just stands for the first official patch release after 1.06, there are no changes compared to version 1.08. I hope Malfador don't stop improving the game and listen to our suggestions.

[spillblood]

Man, I think the AI is still pretty weak. You can also win pretty easily without using nukes. You just have to build around 20 or 30 tanks and lots of infantry. The AI simply can't cope with big numbers of units. Tank rushes always work in this game, because with enough tanks you can easily destroy bombers, fighters etc. because the AI simply doesn't build enough. And it often even gives you some territories for free by retreating its troops from them. Man, it needs to learn some defensive measures and how to use its troops effectively. A simple method of defense: It needs to build lots of cheap infantry when attacked, especially along the border. I managed to overrun a whole AI enemy using only infantry and a few tanks and air transports in the last game. If built in great numbers, infantry is pretty effective now.
The AI still is absolutely no match for human players. I still haven't lost a single game.

[JCrowe]

The AI is very much a work in progress. It's light-years ahead of what it was in v1.05, but it still needs plenty of work.

For example, it doesn't invest very much in jets, bombers, or choppers, despite their predominance on the field. It doesn't build many air defense units, either, even when large air fleets menace its borders and gut its armed forces. And when it attacks, it has a tendency to overestimate the capabilities of the units in play. (Under v1.09 rules, you do NOT want to attack 3 cruisers with 2 subs and a destroyer. No.)

Those are relatively easy fixes to make. But there's an issue with the AI's modis operandi that might prove more challenging.

I find that the structure of gameplay in WS is dominated by two operational facts: 1.) Military units are expensive, and 2.) Military units are highly mobile.

Boil these two down into gameplay, and a clear dynamic emerges. Because units are expensive, there's simply no way any player can build a large enough army to guard and protect all points of vulnerability. In simple terms, you can't protect everything, and your empire will always have points of vulnerability. However, the extreme mobility of military units enables players to react quickly to emergent threats or to exploit gaps in enemy defense.

So what I find is that, no matter what strategy I try to follow, I always (ALWAYS) end up with military groups I refer to as Rapid Reaction Forces, or "RRAFs".

The composition of these RRAFs can vary widely - from strictly naval-borne teams to air-only teams to fighter/bomber/tank assault forces. But they are all concentrations of military force that I'll deploy to attack or defend along the line of battle. I can't defend the whole coastline of a large continent, but a RRAF made of a few bombers and some fighters can guard the whole place and threaten anybody who comes snooping around. I can't build enough units to roll a continent, but a strong RRAF can smash any opposition that forms while token "invasion" units seize the unguarded turf. Naval RRAFs configured for bombardment duties cruise hostile coasts and kill anything that moves, for the purpose of either bleeding an enemy through attrition or to thwart the emergence of a credible counter-attacking force.

However it rolls, it's all about tight concentrations of force. The only time I find it necessary (or wise) to disperse those teams is when threatened by nukes, who can stomp the entire RRAF in one shot. But even then, you only have to disperse a little - say, divide a RRAF in one territory into three, so the most at risk of nuclear annihilation in the next turn is one-third of your force (unless your enemy has lots of nukes, in which case, you're pooched no matter what).

THE COMPUTER, HOWEVER ... follows a very different philosophy of war in WS, and one that (in my opinion) doesn't work for a hill a beans. The AI values dispersement, and prefers to keep its forces evenly distributed among its territories - especially those at the front. Almost as if it expects to be under constant nuclear attack - even when it isn't. When the AI decides to strike, it uses the high mobility of its forces to attack the target from multiple surrounding territories. It also apparently values having defensive forces in each of those territories as a bulwark against attack.

In practice, though, what it means is that my RRAFs dominate the line of battle. The RRAF might be weaker or equivalent to the AI's firepower in the area, but because the AI's forces are so dispersed, my RRAF enjoys an overwhelming field advantage in any one given battle. I can target the most dangerous AI concentrations, eliminate them with ease in the first round of combat (first turn of encounter), and then mop up the remainder at leisure in round 2. The devastation of that first turn's attack is usually so devastating that the AI no longer has enough units in the area to sufficiently mass for a credible counter-attack. That and the fact that the AI won't respond to the devastation of this assault by building AAA units and more jets merely compounds the disaster. A nuclear strike would also work, but the AI appears reluctant to use nukes, and really, it's an inelegant solution to a problem that could have been much more easily avoided in the first place by concentrating the available forces into counter-RRAFs and fortifying the area with AAA and new jets or etc.

In simple terms, get there first with the most, instead of being a day late and a dollar short. Heck - if I saw a team of ground & AAA units backed up by 5 enemy fighters, 4 bombers, and 3 choppers, you better believe that I'm going to rush-order some Jets & AAAs for a defensive RRAF, and any RRAFs I might already have within the area are going to hot-foot it to the threat zone. I'm not waiting until a turn or two AFTER they've wiped my arse & handed it back to me on a silver plate before I decide it's time to push back - and have lost all the resource points I needed to do just that.