Option Change: Variable Variable Unit Credits

[graphain]

As it stands currently Variable Units is a toggled option that often results in not so much a customised force as a vastly greater force without comprimise with far too many buildings. I am wondering if at the very least the number of credits could be set by the host and perhaps in the future the weighting of buildings / ships could be altered by the host.

[daset]

Yes. This is an excellent idea. I tried Unit-trading in hopes that it would force me to make compromises on what I was to use. Unfortunately, it gave me enough credits to get everything, and too much of everything.

I would suggest 60 credits seems more fun, but that's just me.

[xander]

Yes. This is an excellent idea. I tried Unit-trading in hopes that it would force me to make compromises on what I was to use. Unfortunately, it gave me enough credits to get everything, and too much of everything.

I would suggest 60 credits seems more fun, but that's just me.

Agreed. A very good idea. However, in the normal game, you get:

Code: Select all

6 RADAR x 1 point apiece = 6
6 silos x 3 points apiece = 18
4 airbases x 2 points apiece = 8
12 battleships x 2 points apiece = 24
12 subs x 3 points apiece = 36
12 carriers x 2 points apiece = 24
--------------------------------------------
Total = 116

Thus, 120 points is really not that much different from the normal game. So, while I agree that it should be variable (i.e. the host selects the number of points), I think that the current balance is about right.

xander

[Gloworm]

... in the normal game, you get:

Code: Select all

6 RADAR x 1 point apiece = 6
6 silos x 3 points apiece = 18
4 airbases x 2 points apiece = 8
12 battleships x 2 points apiece = 24
12 subs x 3 points apiece = 36
12 carriers x 2 points apiece = 24
--------------------------------------------
Total = 116

xander

Has anyone played around with this much? Trading away a stealthy 5 MRBM launch platform for an anti-air/silo 10 ICBM launch platform does not appear to me to be a fair trade; nor does trading a carrier for an airbase. While some conventional offensive capability is lost in these trades, defense capabilities are greatly increased as are nuke inventories.

In example, a buddy of mine played a credit game against two non-allied AI opponents. Since he is not yet well versed in naval warfare, he chose to exchange the bulk of his navy for silo's and airbases. During the game, he sat back in defensive mode and simply watched the two AI opponents thump on each other for a while, comfortably safe within his own beefed up defenses. When the time seemed right, he mass launched ICBM strikes against both AI opponents, effectively mopping them up, resulting in an easy 200 point win with no casualties.

Looking at the above list, I get the sense that units and buildings should be adjusted in point values, although at this time I would not know what to recommend.

~Gloworm

[Gloworm]

Another way to look at this is:

Code: Select all

3 points per Silo    [10 ICBM]                    = 10 Nukes
3 points per Sub     [5 MRBM]                     =  5 Nukes
2 points per Airbase [5 Bombers + 5 SRBM Reloads] = 10 Nukes
2 points per Carrier [2 Bombers + 4 SRBM Reloads] =  6 Nukes


So the default nuke inventory is:

Code: Select all

 60 ICBM x  6 Silos
 60 MRBM x 12 Subs
 40 SRBM x  4 Airbases
 72 SRBM x 12 Carriers
----------------------
232 TOTAL NUKES


... but a credit traded inventory could be:

Code: Select all

180 ICBM x 18 Silos
160 SRBM x 16 Airbases
----------------------
340 TOTAL NUKES


~Gloworm

[graphain]

Well I generally get every building unless I am in Europe and then what ships I can manage after that. It certainly seems a more capable force than the standard allotment as your calculations may or may not reflect. Perhaps it just accomodates my play-style more but still I think credit limitations might be nice.

One further thing though that may disturb your calculations is that there is a limit on the number of each building (at 10 for silos I believe). Anyway either way I think that credit alteration by the host could be an interesting addition although I believe anything that allows more host customisation and thus game diversity is good.

[Gloworm]

One further thing though that may disturb your calculations is that there is a limit on the number of each building (at 10 for silos I believe).

I wasn't aware of building limitations - that's good to know. Additionally, when playing the small map, finding the room to place many buildings could become problematic depending upon the size of your nation.

...either way I think that credit alteration by the host could be an interesting addition although I believe anything that allows more host customisation and thus game diversity is good.

Can't argue with that.

~Gloworm

[xander]

Well I generally get every building unless I am in Europe and then what ships I can manage after that. It certainly seems a more capable force than the standard allotment as your calculations may or may not reflect. Perhaps it just accomodates my play-style more but still I think credit limitations might be nice.

One further thing though that may disturb your calculations is that there is a limit on the number of each building (at 10 for silos I believe). Anyway either way I think that credit alteration by the host could be an interesting addition although I believe anything that allows more host customisation and thus game diversity is good.

I don't know whose calculations you are replying to, but I will assume that you are replying to mine :)

I don't disagree that limiting the points for buildings on the server is a good idea. In fact, I think it should be an option. I was simply pointing out that, as things stand, a normal game and a variable game start out with the same number of points, based upon the current value of units at the moment.

xander

[graphain]

Yeh I think the problem is customising your force, while using the same points, grants you access to a much more formidable array of buildings at the relatively smaller cost of a decreased naval presence. Perhaps as I said it just accomodates my playstyle but yes as you've pointed out the point difference is miniscule and perhaps it just comes back to the weighting.