Forum >>> General Discussion >>> General's Custom Units
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
General's Custom Units
Part 1
What should the point of building a General’s Custom Unit be? In my opinion there are only two valid reasons. 1) To provide a certain favored tactical ploy in every game and 2) To create a new tactical aspect not already included in the game. What a General Custom Unit should NOT be is a more powerful version of any other piece on the board.
1) Consistent Tactical Piece: Some Players may like Helicopters. They like the tactical advantages that a Helicopter provides and want to make sure that they can use Helicopters in any game, not just the ones where they are the European Union or the United States. The advantage they are gaining is consistency in their style of play. So the actual Helicopter itself should not be any better than the Specialty Ones already in play. Their advantage is TACTICAL CONSISTENCY.
2) Create New Tactical Aspect: Some Players may want to develop a new wrinkle to the game, one not already provided with the current units, that while not being better than the current units already in play allows a tactical innovation that used properly could be an advantage in the right circumstances but under normal conditions is the same as any standard or specialty unit. Their advantage is TACTICAL INNOVATION.
What is vital in both cases is that the General Custom Unit being built to achieve the tactical consistency or tactical innovation that the Player desires does not also in the process become a more powerful piece than any of the standard or specialty units in the game. This would lead to an unfair advantage for the Players who have achieved the status to build a custom piece as their custom built piece would be more powerful on a dollar per dollar basis than anything a lower ranked player could purchase.
Friday 7/30/2010 |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: General
Part 2
To be able to determine the power of the pieces being built in regards to the standard and specialty units we need to agree on a formula that allows us to compare the different pieces to one another. I would contend that there are four aspects that need to be considered. Ranked by importance they are:
Offensive Firepower (OF)
Cost of a Casualty
Defensive Firepower (DF)
Multiple Unit Flexibility
Offensive Firepower is simply the total “pips” that any one unit can expend in a single round of combat based on the number of dice it is rolling and the “to hit” number it is trying to achieve. A lone infantry attacks as a 1 and therefore has 1 pip or a firepower of 1. A tank attacks as a 3 and thus has 3 pips. Since this game is built around offense all of the General’s Custom Units focus on attacking. This makes sense and thus the greatest weight in our formula will be given to Offensive Firepower. A unit’s Offensive Firepower Cost (OFC) is determined by taking the cost of the unit divided by the amount of pips the unit provides. Thus the infantry has an OFC of $3 while the Tank has an OFC of $1.66, ignoring Technology and Generals.
The Cost of a Casualty takes into effect the amount of money that a player invests in a unit simply to be able to take it as a casualty. In other words, what amount of money would a player be willing to invest to buy a unit that has a zero attack value and a zero defense value and yet can be taken as a casualty to protect higher value units? This is not as easy to determine as it would seem as the cost of a casualty for a fighter that is protected by tons of infantry is far different than the cost of a casualty for a fighter involved in a sea battle. Thus the usual method of determining the cost of a casualty is to use the same class type pieces and to use the lowest cost unit available in that class to use as a zero attack/defend casualty. Therefore I would offer that the actual cost of any unit based on it being a casualty is about ½ of the least expensive unit you can buy of that class type. Based on that ships are $4 (or ½ a sub), and land units are about $1.5 (or ½ an infantry) and planes would be $5 (or ½ a fighter). Would you pay half the value for a unit that does not attack or defend but could be taken as casualty? Probably yes, maybe not so it is about right for all classes. So any monies over the Cost of a Casualty are now strictly for attacking, defending and board flexibility.
Defensive Firepower is the same as Offensive Firepower but just using defensive values instead of attacking values. Since this is a game of attack most of the General’s Custom Units have a minimum of defense and NONE of them have multiple defense dice like they do for attacking. Thus while I will consider this in the formula it is not going to have as much weight as Offensive Firepower.
Multiple Unit Flexibility relates to the advantage of numbers. If I have 5 helicopters I can attack 5 territories while if I have one massive helicopter I can only attack one area. This is not a large issue but it can occur at times in a game and thus should be considered.
Since the General’s Custom Units all are based on a single, bigger, stronger and more powerful attacking unit than any standard or specialty unit in the game they all have given up some Defensive Firepower and Multiple Unit Flexibility to achieve this. Thus when using the two main variables of Offensive Firepower and Casualty of Cost I would offer that as long as the General’s Custom Unit is not greater than 25% cheaper or stronger, depending on how you view it, then the unit is balanced and fair. Anything beyond that parameter and the piece is too powerful.
Friday 7/30/2010 10:09:57 AM |
AndrewAAGamer
Num Posts: 57 |
Re: General
Part 3
So let’s go back to Tactical Consistency and set a baseline with the specialty helicopter units. If we subtract the cost of casualty count out of a Specialty Unit Helicopter we get $1 left for the European Union Helicopter and $5 for the Apache. The Euro Helo defends at a mere 1 while the Apache a solid 3. Thus it seems reasonable that the Euro Helo gives you a firepower of 2 for every dollar while the Apache gives you 1.66. So the range is 1.66 for a well defended helicopter to 2 for a weakly defended helicopter.
There are four General Custom Unit Helicopters. What are their Offensive Firepower Costs (OFC) versus the Specialty Units using the formula we just generated?
Artillery Killer (weak defense) This unit has a total firepower of 15 (3x5) and costs $18. To achieve an OF of 15 would be 15x2 or $30. As we can see the Artillery Killer is a HUGE bargain at fully 40% less than a Specialty Unit Helicopter. It is over powered and a firepower of 12 (3x4) which would bring it down to an OFC of $24, versus its $18 cost, would be more reasonable so the Artillery Killer is only 25% less than a Specialty Unit.
AH-64D Longbow This unit has a total firepower of 12 (4x3) swith an OFC cost of $24. At $20 this unit is actually reasonably priced.
Sea King Why the Sea King costs $10 which is exactly the same as the Apache, has the same defense, and yet attacks at a 5 versus a 3 for the Apache is beyond me. This unit is underpriced and should be $13 (5 x 1.66 = 8 + 5 = 13) as it has not lost any DF or Cost of Casualty; though I would not argue about a $12 cost.
RAH-66 With a firepower of 12 (4x3) this is the only unit that is actually WORSE than the Specialty Units. It has the exact same attack as the AH-64D Longbow, has one less defense and costs $2 more. Go figure… I would change it to $20.
By making the minor changes as suggested the Custom General Unit Helicopters would be as powerful as the Specialty Units on a ratio basis and thus would only provide the Tactical Consistency that they should be providing.
Two of the units I see that fit into the Tactical Innovation category are the Terminator and Sea Shadow.
The Terminator has an OF of 12 (4x3) a DF of 2 and costs $11. Using an infantry OFC of .83 (1 firepower divided by $1.5 cost) we come up with an OFC of $10. At first I might say the unit is overpriced by $1 until you consider the niche this piece fills. While I have not seen it in use I am sure it is used as an amphibious landing piece as it brings tremendous firepower into a battle without the need of a General and yet uses only ¼ of a transport load. It would take 2 full transport loads of tanks to equal this piece and I am sure a normal transport load is 3 infantry and 1 Terminator. Since it cuts down on the need to purchase transports I think giving away $1 per terminator is a fair bargain. This piece, in my opinion, is a perfect example of what the General’s Custom Units should represent. Tactical Innovation in a niche role and yet in a large stand up fight it is actually worse than the equivalent infantry cost so it can not overpower a lower ranked player.
The Sea Shadow has two advantages that make it a niche piece. It fires at fighters and can move 3 spaces. Since fleets can only move 2 spaces the Sea Shadow can lurk 3 spaces away and threaten a fleet’s fighter coverage. The only units that can reach it are fighters which it can effectively combat. With an OF of 10 it is likely that in a battle where it was attacked by itself it would kill 2 fighters for a cost of $20 which compares well with its own $22 cost. However in a fight where it attacks with other fleet units is where it shines as it kills the best defending units first, the fighters, which defend at 4 and possibly 5. Since other lesser units like subs would be used as casualties the Sea Shadow can hurt a defenders chances of winning the battle as the supposedly last killed units are actually killed first. Thus the role it plays is already very powerful so let us check its OFC. We agreed that the Cost of Casualty for ships was $4 therefore a sub provides 2 OF for every $4 spent or a OFC of $2. With a firepower of 10 that equates to an OFC of $20 for the Sea Shadow. Again, just like the Terminator, this unit seems slightly overpriced when considering only OFC but when you consider the niche role it plays in a fleet action destroying fighters first it is actually reasonably priced.
The problem with the Sea Shadow is that it does not stop here. It also has built in Cruise Missiles which frankly is ridiculous. As we have already seen the unit is priced properly without the Cruise Missile ability. Adding it makes this unit horribly overpowered. This ability should be removed.
As I have already stated in regards to the Heavy Missile Cruiser NO TECHNOLOGIES should ever be given to any General Custom Unit; especially Cruise Missiles. The ability to immediately start paying for itself by destroying land units and being able to forgo the cost, time and risk of Teching give an unmatched advantage to any Player that has a unit with Cruise Missiles built in. It is by far the most unfair and unbalanced scenario I can contemplate.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this article.
Friday 7/30/2010 10:10:24 AM |
TacticalNinja
Num Posts: 47 |
Re: General
I built my first unit for fun, then I built my second unit to stop one situation that can not be overcome in a ffa. every argument you used, i used when I was lower in rank. i just played similar people. lower ranks get gang banged in diplo games anyway. not out of meanness, but simply becuase us generals have histories with each other and we have our own agendas. sometimes it is to stop a promo, try out a new strat, or even backstab someone as payback.
Friday 7/30/2010 07:41:45 PM |
Ahmed
Every momment you delay you die a little bit more
Num Posts: 115 |
Re: General
i will change my unit but not now
Saturday 7/31/2010 01:33:28 AM |
|
|
