Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 5:55:10 PM   
itkotw2000

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/27/2005
Status: offline 		First off, I love old school, hex based, turn based, strategy games. I consider NATO counters a must have too. Needless to say, I love this game, but there are some things I don't like.

A lot of issues I have with the game did not become apparent until I invaded Russia. As I write this post, I looked back in the manual and I see a few things work as intended, so they are not really bugs per se. They are just a wish list of changes

My review is based off of play as Germany.


1. Circling units and cutting them off has no great impact - When my units invade Russia, my fast divisions create pockets and the slower divisions mop up. I have about 2/3 of my units advancing and 1/3 mopping up. But at a one to one ratio with the enemy, my units have a hard time. From the first day of my invasion I have had supply problems, because supply seems to radiate from cities and not from rail lines.

So in my current game I have two good examples. First, I have a Russian division surrounded in the Pripyat marshes, it has been under attack since July of 1940. I have two german divisions and two Italian divisions attacking, but they can not kill that one division. When I click on the division, it shows zero supply for them, 19% readiness, 7% morale. BUT NOW IT IS JANUARY 1941! My four divisions still cant crack that one unit in 6 months. Sure, I could use all of my air power on the Eastern front or use armored divisions, but why? How is that one unit surviving? To add insult to injury, that Russian unit gains much more experience than my units, so now that unit has 3 exp and I only have 2 units with 1 exp. THE ENEMY, SURROUNDED, HAS THREE TIMES THE EXPERIENCE! Insane. One of my divisions took part Poland and the Western Front (3 honors total), but this Russian unit is three times as experienced? I call BS.

In my other example, similar to the Pripyat marsh, I have surrounded units (west and south-west of Riga), but they just wont die. Once again, it is January 1940. One pocket is at the town Ventspils. When I highlight the enemy units it shows they get 3 supply from the town and the unit beside the town gets 2 supply. My unit is 3 hexes west of Riga (I own Riga). Riga has supply of 5, so my unit has a supply of 2 (one less per hex). The supply from the south is no better. My unit has the same level of supply as the enemy. Unbelievable. My unit is sitting on a rail hex from Riga or you could say it is beside the rail hex from Liepaja (which leads straight to Berlin), but that doesn't matter because supply doesn't come from rail hexes, only towns. From what I can tell, my Army will have to fight that Russian division until the end of time, or until I can spare more units.

2. Enemy can reinforce units in pockets, this happened to me when I surrounded units in north Africa. Two British armies kept reinforcing faster then I could kill them. I had to turn my tanks around to kill them fast enough. A part of me thinks units should be able to reinforce some because pockets usually have broken, routed, troops running around that could be reorganized, but this should not be allowed turn after turn, for weeks.



This post is getting too long. I will go to the lightning round and just list some thoughts -

1. Unit morale should matter. Low morale units should shatter. I have see a surrounded division with less than 10% morale hold out against four attacking divisions for months. Morale drops but doesn't really matter.
2. Rail lines should carry supply at a higher rate. Roads should carry supply so so and hexes with no rail or roads should be limited (greatly). This is a problem in Russian, where a surrounded unit getting supply from a town will get better supply than a unit sitting on a rail line that leads straight back to Berlin. Another example - I have units in central Greece getting supply from Bulgarian capital (Sofia), OVER A BARE MOUNTIAN HEX, because Sofia has supply of 10 (unit is 7 hexes away giving supply of 3). The next closest town is 2 hexes away (even has a road link), but it only has a supply of 4 (my unit would only have 2 supply from the near by town).
3. Units not surrounded should recover readiness much faster than surrounded units.
4. Units surrounded should not be able to reinforce.
5. Units adjacent to enemy unit should be allowed to upgrade. Currently, you have to withdraw the unit (1 turn), upgrade (another turn), then move the unit back (yet another turn). It would take months to upgrade a few units. It might be faster to build new units, with upgrades, then kill off old units, instead of rotating units. Expensive, but faster.
6. Paratroopers should have a chance of defeating a unit if they are dropped on top of one. It took 6 months to take Malta, after a long air/sea bombardment. Paratroopers cant attack the hex they land on, they have to land beside. I agree that dropping paratroopers on top of an enemy division is not a good idea in most cases, but in the case of Malta, I had the British AA division down to 1 strength, and single digit readiness and morale. I know Malta is a special case because it is only a single hex, but it should be possible. I think with the British unit down to 1 strength, the paratroopers should have had a great chance for success.
7. Partisan units should have lower strength, maybe 3, but slightly more numerous. I have to send infantry divisions to fight partisans because garrison divisions aren't strong enough.


I will come back later and post more. I am going to restart my game from an earlier save
Post #: 1
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 6:14:58 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline 		1. You need to watch out for your own units. If they attack with low supply, they won't achieve to much. But every combat grants experience. That is why your Russian units gets more and more experienced.
There are many factors which influence the combar results. Is the enemy entrenched? In this case the entrenchment will protect is for heavy losses. You need to bring down the entrenchment level to zero. Only then you will really start to hurt the defender. Terrain and weather have an influence on combat results too.
Move an HQ toward the attacking units, which should always help, and remember that winter is the worst time for attacks.

5. Units often were withdrawn from the front to receive new euqippment (and training for it). This is actually historical correct.
7. Watch out for the partisan spawning hexes (press the P key). It is far better to prevent partisans instead of fighting them. Garissons are ment to garrison, not to fight.

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 2
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 6:27:38 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		You make all good points, many of which I saw when I started. Everything depends on destroying units, and some appear impossible to eliminate. Once you get into determining what is needed for each type of situation it gets better. Here is some brief stuff:

HQ's are the queens of the board - they give you higher supply, morale and combat bonuses. Keep them close to important areas.

The supply value of cities and towns will go down each turn IF two enemy units are adjacent [unless it's a capital or industry center].

Reduced supply means less replacements plus lower morale and readiness.

Bombers are very effective in increasing the effectiveness of follow up ground attacks.


That unit in the Pripyet won't be able to hold against two Inf and one Bomber attack per turn, or one Tank and one Bomber. Unless the Soviet has an HQ near, in which case you must kill it first.

Malta is a two turn operation but you need to commit the Italian Navy and some German air support to help ward of the UK Navy. Bomb Malta with BB's to reduce it to 0 supply, keep the Italian navy next to the ports so that will cut supply, then bomb the UK unit on Malta for two turns, it will evaporate, and then drop the para or Amphib Assault a unit to the vacant island.

Now my post is getting too long, so I will stop.

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 3
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 8:01:42 PM   
itkotw2000

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/27/2005
Status: offline 		During the Malta attack, I was too scared to leave the Italian navy surrounding the island. I would bombard with every heavy ship every turn and bomb every turn, but I could not eliminate the British AA unit. At best, my bombers could only cause 1 damage per turn (for a total of 3 damage each turn) and the larger ships only have like a 10% chance of causing damage to the unit. Each turn I would bombard and the British could reinforce. It took months of bombarding, luck (sometimes the stars would align and my 4 battleships would cause some damage), and neglect from the AI, to eventually wear down that one British AA unit. I thought about surrounding the island to reduce supply, but, as I mentioned in my original post, reducing supply doesn't matter that much. Units can still be reinforce while surrounded and the AA division with very low entrenchment, morale, and readiness, was able to EASILY fend off the Italian infantry division trying to land. The British AA division was usually at 0 entrenchment, ~10% readiness, and ~10% morale, but the Italians couldn't touch it.

The British sent light ships at first, then their whole Mediterranean fleet. My caution paid off some, besides eventually capturing Malta, I destroyed quite a few British ships - 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 2 battleships, 1 sub, and 1 carrier. I think I only lost a couple Italian ships (and the Italian infantry divisions was destroyed by the British AA in a failed amphibious landing).

For Malta I used - 1 Italian infantry division, the whole Italian navy, 1 Italian fighter and 1 Italian bomber, 2 German medium bomber, 1 German naval bomber, and 1 German Paratrooper Division.


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 4
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 9:08:44 PM   
Magpius


Posts: 1632
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		First Thoughts: Taking forever to download!

_____________________________


(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 5
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 9:34:44 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline 		Never forget the HQ, even the air units will benefit from their presence.

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 6
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/18/2016 10:38:52 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Each turn I would bombard and the British could reinforce.


And this is the key. There is no sense in beating your head against the wall, your assets are needed elsewhere. You need to block that port. Bomb Malta so that it is supply = 0, then block the port. This way the best that Malta can do is to repair to 1, and reinforce to 4. If you don't want to leave the RM exposed, bomb the ports to 0 [although they will also repair].

Malta should take a significant effort to capture, and it does. But if you plan it well, it is a quick grab so that you can move on to other things.

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 7
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/19/2016 9:44:07 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		In addition to reducing Malta's supply, this is best done before using Medium and (most importantly) Tactical Bombers upgraded with Ground Attack to bomb Malta's defending unit.

This will not only render the defending unit less able to withstand the bombardment, but if its supply level is lower then it will be less able to reinforce in the next turn.

As some have mentioned above, HQs are the most important land unit as without their presence commanding and supplying units, no offensive will be likely to succeed.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 8
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/19/2016 4:51:47 PM   
itkotw2000

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/27/2005
Status: offline 		I restarted my save from an earlier save to try some new tactics. You mention using tactical bombers because they are better. I am using my, more important, tactical bombers for the invasion of Russia. I was able to capture Malta a lot quicker by purposely bombing the port hexes. And the AI decided not to send the British fleet to help. They sent no ships this time. So, I captured Malta faster, but I didn't get a chance to destroy any British ships this time.


As for the Eastern Front ...

I have thought it through on why it is so hard to kill enemy units. In my second play through, I still cant crack that unit at Pinsk. I sent a German army and one division this time (and later the two Italian divisions). Of course, I could devote bombers for a few turns and another HQ (my Italian troops have a HQ at Pinsk and it doesn't matter much). I have already bombed them some, but now my other troops are one hex away from Smolensk. I have to either support the attack on Pinsk or Smolensk. It seems silly to think a swamp town could hold out for so long. But this got me thinking about the AI in general:

Since the game treats every town like a supplied fort, I just realized that this is the biggest crutch for the AI (or lack of AI programing). While historically the Russians did try to delay the Germans as much as they could, in this game, the AI's only option is to sit in a town. That is it. The AI lets you encircle unit after unit, with no thought to any sort of preservation. Once again, I know to Russians weren't afraid of losing troops, but the AI in this game is unable to fight a "fighting retreat". It uses the "every-town-is-a-supplied-fort" mechanic to give the illusion of a fighting retreat. The AI does not, and I would argue can not, make battle lines. The AI only builds it troops around towns (but does not guard in between).

This is partly because of the game's supply mechanic. Since supply ONLY flows from towns and does not flow down rail lines, the AI has no incentive to move back a single space, even if it would save an army or two or three. Example - The AI has a unit on a town with a supply of 8. The next hex, in all directions, is 7, and then 6. The AI will pile units in the highest supply zone it can and wait. There is a 100% chance it will get surrounded. The end. This is also why the game map is sprinkled with little towns I have never heard of before (I have been WWII gaming since the 1990's). Close towns are the only way the AI can survive and function. The AI sits on towns like sitting on sand castles in a rising tide, surely to be washed away. If supply flowed from rail lines at least the AI could prioritize something else besides towns.

Because supply only flows from towns (town with a rail/road/port link to you home land), this gives the German player a good tactic for the eastern front. In the past I spent a lot of time try to break pockets (and advance down a logical path), now I fight down a single path, linking towns as I go, and leaving enemy divisions and armies in pockets behind me. This allows the play to have good supply, pretty deep into Russia. Once you see behind the AI's curtain, I worry about pockets a lot less, I will break them up in the winter. I let them sit on their sand castles. The AI will not cause much mischief behind my lines because the AI only thinks about supply sources. If I guard the towns down my path the AI will never leave their town hex to attack me. This push-down-a-single-path tactic also works because the AI doesn't have enough troops to guard every town. I am to the point where less than half of the towns I encounter have troops. And as I write this I got thinking, I bet if I left the troops in pockets I could impact the total number of units Russia is able to build in the future, because of the build limits. In the future I will try to pocket their armored and mechanized units (smaller unit caps), and leave them sit until I hit Moscow.


Besides supply, the other revelation I had was that all units are the same, no matter what country they come from (I just logged on as Allies and I see Russian units are slightly weaker). The only things that make a unit better is the "upgrades". So I can have a German division, a Bulgarian Division and a Italian Division, and they all fight the same. This makes the game a little bit boring knowing my Romanians are the same as my Germans. Since a lot of the axis powers share research, the minor powers can upgrade the same as the Germans (at a slightly higher cost it seems). Maybe there are other differences. I will have to check the manual. It just makes me sad a little.

From a certain point of view you could say that, historically, the German troops were "better" because they had more battle experience. I just loaded my turn right before my invasion of Russia to see how many of my troops had experience points. I have 35 units on the border with Russia, and can you guess how many of them have at least 1 exp point? Zero. That's right, zero. Many of these units have been fighting in Poland and France. I tried to find a unit that surely was involved in major actions and I found one of my panzer units had 10 honors - destroyed 5 units, occupied three French towns, and has the "French" and "Polish" campaign honors. This panzer unit has less than one exp. Needless to say, there is room for a lot of improvement in the exp department. For one thing, the game does not reward attacks that do not cause damage, but soooo many of the attacks in this game are to reduce entrenchment and readiness. As I mentioned in my original post, the Russian unit sitting in Pinsk has three times the exp of the divisions attacking them. Even if my troops are not causing damage, are they not learning anything ?

< Message edited by itkotw -- 11/19/2016 4:58:00 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 9
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/19/2016 8:11:49 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks for the feedback itkotw and glad to hear that you've found some improved results after further experimentation and playing of the game. I think you'll find things will continue to get easier as you become more comfortable with the system and features of the game.

It's an interesting idea to have supply flow from the rail lines as well and something to consider but we'd have to consider it carefully as part of the lack of supply in the USSR is purposeful as we wanted to recreate the notion that the Germans could at certain points outrun their supply lines and that it took time to have supply recover from scorched earth and adapting the to the different rail gauge lines and so on.

This is also one of the main reasons that HQs do not have the same mobility as other units on the map (HQs also provide supply) and this is to reflect prolonged German thrusts eventually needing to halt (in order to remain effective) until their supply catches up to them. This also gives the Soviet side, as in real life, the chance to withdraw, rebuild and refresh for the eventual solidified lines near Moscow, Stalingrad etc., and ideally eventually the ability to push back.

That being said, and as you correctly noted, even cutoff resources still provide some supply and if there are pockets of Soviet units in cutoff towns/cities either those towns/cities need to be reduced to 0 supply and/or the defenders destroyed with units that are strong enough on your side to get the job done. One thing to note is that since morale and readiness are strongly linked to a unit's supply level, your own units will need to be in good supply in order to have high enough morale and readiness in order to be effective to that all important task. Nearby friendly HQs definitely help in this regard and they too need to be in good supply as well. One strategy is to link HQs together and there is a description in the manual on how to do this effectively to maximize supply, especially in the USSR as supply lines are very critical as they get stretched.

For unit experience, it is definitely gained from combat and from the destruction of enemy units, but it is not automatic and needs to be carefully managed as reinforcements will result in experience losses for that unit. So in effect, units that have engaged in high amounts of combat but have also faced significant losses and reinforcements may indeed have very little experience in the end to show for it.

Defenders can also gain experience from combat and if the defender is only defending without taking any losses then it can indeed gain experience at a rapid rate as in a sense you are simply giving the defender experience for free. Ensuring defender losses from any combat will mitigate this effect in the long run and of course result in defender destruction.

For supply and AI reactions, the AI does indeed know that being in good supply is ideal for it overall and as mentioned this helps to maximize its own morale and early on we did actually have the AI play more of a fighting withdrawl and use rivers to defend behind (for the early portion of Barbarossa) but the feedback was that it was too difficult for the Axis side to reach any sort of historical objectives timeline so we made adjustments that will have the Soviet AI perform this type of defensive line and withdrawl system post 1941 only... well more or less. There will also be more Soviet units at that point as well so it makes more sense for it to attempt formed lines from there until the end of the war.

So yes the AI will attempt to hold key cities as those are significant supply connection sources for not only for itself, but also for your own units, and overtime I suspect it will only be problematic if you don't pursue their capture behind your lines as your own supply will suffer. It is also an interesting thought to simply encircle and not destroy Soviet units behind the lines and I'd be curious to see how that works out for you as I suspect eventually those units will come back to haunt you. I only suggest this as eventually the USSR is able to build more units, and the AI also understands when it should go on the OFFENSIVE and when it should go on the DEFENSIVE based on a fuzzy logic of potential threat to itself.

All this means is that if you have enough of your own units engaged with these pockets the AI is likely to feel it should hold back, especially at low supply, but if you disengage and just leave them be, the internal threat numbers that it considers will re-adjust and at that point the AI will likely go on the OFFENSIVE, or at least attempt to break out to a certain degree.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 10
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/19/2016 8:21:54 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		I'd just like to add to Hubert's post that most cut off resources have a maximum supply level of only 3, and this considerably limits the ability of units occupying them to be reinforced. It also means that their occupants will have low morale and readiness, rendering them less capable of fighting well.

In addition, the presence of 2 enemy units adjacent to a resource that isn't a capital or fortress will reduce the strength of that resource by 1 per enemy turn, so within just a few turns the supply level of a cut off unit can be reduced to zero, and then it can be destroyed within a turn or two as it will fight much less effectively than it would have been able to when in good supply, and it won't be able to reinforce either.

In your initial offensive I would definitely not worry about somewhere like Pinsk, concentrate on capturing enemy cities and any pockets can be cleared up later on.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 11
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/20/2016 10:51:34 PM   
itkotw2000

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/27/2005
Status: offline 		Now I am up to summer 1942.

The Russians have gone on the offensive, but Pinsk still remains. I brought up Pinsk earlier, not because I was worried about the path through the Pripyt marshes, but because it was hard to clear. The maximum forces I had against it was 1 German army, 1 German corps, 2 Italian corps, and 1 Italian HQ. With some bombers thrown in when they could be spared. Now I only have one Italian unit babysitting (the Russian unit is back to 8 strength), but I could never clear the town. This is just an example of the difficultly of destroying surrounded troops. Once again, I know I could send a HQ and bombers and a tank corps, but it should be possible to clear a surrounded town without the maximum force possible. A German corps facing the Russians in Pinsk, who have been surrounded for a month or two, are treated as having equal combat strength (a 0:0 attack). Even a 0:1 attack would still be considered pretty equal combat strength.

This got me thinking, because I have certainly killed a few Russian units, why are some units so hard to kill? (I have killed 37 ground units by Dec 31 1941, I probably have another 10 units in pockets that I am trying to clear). I think mostly it has to do with supply. I loaded my June 21, 1942 save to check some things and I see that the Russian unit in the cut off town is 3 and my Italian unit has a supply of 4 (the Italian unit is 2 hexes from Brest-Litovisk which has a supply of 6). The Italian unit is in a location that has been under Axis control for over a year (I invaded in late May), but its supply is only one point higher than a cut-off (starving?) Russian unit. This goes back to my other post that mentions that rail lines (or roads) have no impact on supply. Road and rail does help supply flow through bad terrain, but has no effect on clear hexes. Another way to look at it is that the cut off town (with a supply of 3) has 50% of the supplies as a "fully" supplied town. This is even worse if my unit is getting supplied from average "occupied" town that has a max supply of 5. If my unit was 3 hexes away from a level 5 supply source, I would have a supply of 2, which is less that a unit that is cut off in a town (it has 3). Once again, I know HQs increase my unit's supply level, but the supply mechanic is to the point where I need a supply "bonus" from a HQ just to equal a cut off town? I would like to see a system where HQs are used for offensive pushes, while the supply situation "behind the lines" improves as time goes on.

I mentioned that the Russian offensive has started now that I am into spring/summer of 1942. As I mentioned in my other post, that all units are the same (only Russian units are slightly weaker) and that only thing that separates unit combat quality is upgrades, I was shocked to see the Russians attacking me with units that have the infantry weapons II upgrade. Now they are they practically equal. If the Russians have equal quality and a greater quantity, the game is getting boring fast. I was so interested in how the Russians got to have equal technology as me, I restarted the save game, but this time I played as allies (to "cheat" and see what is going on). The Russians, in general, have research all of the technologies that the Axis has, and I thought I was doing well in my research. My highest is advanced aircraft, I have 4/5, which I thought was not bad for spring 1942. I think the game has a lot, and I mean a lot, of balancing that needs to be done to differentiate between countries, showing their historic strengths and weaknesses. As of now, because all units are the same (pretty much), the minor countries and Russia, don't have to catch up. By the looks of my spring 1942 save, the Russian research level is equal to the Axis. They have no catching up to do. I think ideally, from a Axis player point of view, the minor countries should be lumped together and separate from Germany. This minor nation group would need MPPs of it own. I also think major nations should be able to "gift" MPPs, but that is just on my wishlist.

Another thing I noticed when the Russian started their offensive in spring of 1942 is that they seemed to have a lot of units. I figured since there was little difference between units of difference countries, maybe the unit count would balance it out. I was wrong. I am flooded with Russian units that are technologically the same as my units. They all of at least infantry weapons II. Since none of my units ( 0 out of 35 units) gained any exp points from the invasion of Poland and France, my units have no chance against the newly formed Russian units. We are equally in quality. I knew I would be outnumbered by the Russians, but when I restarted the save game as the Allies, I see that the Russians have produced so many units, they have maxed out their unit pool. I think cavalry, garrison, and artillery were the only unit they were capable of making. Due to unit experience, technology, and unit pools, I am basically fighting the 1945 Russian army in early 1942.

The good news is that I am kicking butt in North Africa, I have the port of Alexandria and I am a couple hexes from Cairo. Germany is not the only country to suffer from "all country's units being the same", my Italian troops (with Afrika Corps help) are doing ok against the British. I transferred a German Paratrooper unit to Africa and it has really helped out. Paratroopers are great for those times when you stretch and attack, and destroy an enemy unit, but have no movement points left. Dropping in paras has lead to the surrounding and destruction of many british units. I am currently also finishing up in Greece and those troops will be on their way south.

< Message edited by itkotw -- 11/20/2016 11:05:33 PM >

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 12
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/21/2016 11:22:55 AM   
Asberdies

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 6/20/2009
Status: offline 		Hello and really great game .
I agree completly with Itkotw points as i am facing about the same things.
One thing to add : It would be really great if there where some ui for the upgrade of units instead of having to look at proporties for each units to see its status.
Continue the good work :)

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 13
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/21/2016 1:02:11 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		Asberdies, one thing that might help is that the smaller numbers on the unit (to the right of its strength) show the level of its various upgrades so you can tell at a glance what a unit's upgrade status is. The upgrade numbers are shown, left to right, in the order of their listing on the upgrade popup from top to bottom. This was helpful to me once I figured it out.

(in reply to Asberdies)
Post #: 14
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/21/2016 1:02:59 PM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline 		Pinsk can be a hard nut without air support. That's right. But I hardly notice this in the game as my tactical bombers cover the Kowel area in the first turn. In the second turn they're able to attack Pinsk if needed and then move on towards Minsk-Smolensk. In this game there is (almost) for every problem also a solution approach.

< Message edited by TheBattlefield -- 11/21/2016 1:03:41 PM >

(in reply to Asberdies)
Post #: 15
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/21/2016 3:41:28 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: itkotw

the Russian unit is back to 8 strength


Hi itkotw

Does Pinsk have a connection to Soviet controlled territory further east? Only if Pinsk is fully cut off then its supply level of 3 should mean that its defender can only reinforce to strength 6, suggesting that it may be, or have been temporarily, re-connected with Soviet territory.

I'd be happy to take a look if you want to email me a saved turn to Bill.Runacre@Furysoftware.com

quote:

ORIGINAL: itkotwI am flooded with Russian units that are technologically the same as my units. They all of at least infantry weapons II.


Soviet Corps and Armies are weaker than everyone else's, so their units with Infantry Weapons level 2 are inferior to everyone else's on the same level. Therefore if they are on level 2 then they will be equal to Axis forces on level 1.

< Message edited by Bill Runacre -- 11/21/2016 3:43:42 PM >

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 16
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/21/2016 11:14:40 PM   
itkotw2000

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/27/2005
Status: offline 		Once again, I want to stress Pinsk is just an example. I don't care about the city of Pinsk, it is not part of my strategic plan. I was just using it as an example. Yes, Pinsk did eventually regain supply for a time, after my 3 corps and 1 army couldn't break it, after a while I had to move the troops elsewhere, and I only left one Italian Corps to "guard" it (one corp has a ZERO percent chance of taking even a cut off town). I am just using Pinsk as supply system thought experiment. Even when there were 4 units attacking, I see that my units, in Axis held territory ("in supply"), were worse off than the town that was surrounded (sort of "out of supply", but not really)(the enemy would have 3 supply, of the 6 hexes surrounding the town - 1 hex has 4 supply, 2 has 3 supply, 2 has 1 supply, and one hex has 0 supply). I used the town of Pinsk to highlight the fact that the general supply system creates situations where a cut off town has better supply than units being "in supply" for a year. I think that, maybe, entrenchment could be used to give troops surrounded in towns a chance for a bit, but reduce the supply for a unit in a surrounded town to one. Also, make entrenchment slower to gain and slower to breakdown in attack. This would allow a unit to prepare in a town, get surrounded, have its entrenchment broken down over a turn or two, and then succumb to a final attack.

As for the Russian units, yes they are somewhat weaker. They have, in general, one point less in each category. I was thinking about doing the math to see how that one point difference impacts the battle calculations (with identical morale, experience, readiness, and supply). If my Axis troops didn't gain any real experience in the Polish and French campaigns (I though both of those actions went ok and pretty historical), and the maximum morale and readiness is the same as a Russian unit, the battle out come would be practically equal. A German army (with infantry weapons II) has a max soft attack of 7, while a Russian army (with the same upgrade) has a soft attack of 6. So the Russian unit is 86% as good as the German unit, in the spring of 1942. This advantage the German unit has gets even worse when you compare units with equal morale, readiness, and supply. When this is added to the fact that Russia is at an equal technology level and has maxed out it unit pool (remember, this is in spring of 1942), there seems like no give and take. There is not sense of suspense or danger for the Russian side, they have won in the spring of 1942. I also see that the Russians have 1777 mpp left in their pool, so every unit I destroy will come back in a few turns. As I mentioned above, my 1942 level army is fighting a 1945 level Russian army.

Maybe there needs to be a "manpower" and "equipment" type resource. Losing units should impact the game somehow. I have destroyed 14 corps and 4 armies (and 14 ships) of the British (and the minor allied nations), but Britain happily creates more corps to throw at me. Besides other resources, maybe unit destruction could impact nation morale too (and then make national morale effect other things like mpp output and maximum unit morale). In single turn, I destroyed 4 new Russian tank corps in the spring of 1942, but I am sad knowing I can never destroy enough units. The 4 Russian tank units I destroyed is like 50% of their total tank force (I am not 100% sure of the Russian build limits). I think the real life affect of 50% of the Russian's tanks vaporizing would be pretty great in real life.


< Message edited by itkotw -- 11/21/2016 11:39:39 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 17
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/22/2016 2:01:26 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Hi itkotw

I am interested, partly because I would have thought that the siege rule would render the enemy's defence of any isolated towns impossible in the long run, to recap:

The presence of 2 enemy units adjacent to a resource that isn't a capital or fortress will reduce the strength of that resource by 1 per enemy turn, so within just a few turns the supply level of a cut off unit can be reduced to zero.

Germany does have some other benefits that the USSR will likely only catch up with at a later date, if at all, like Command and Control, Armored and Infantry Warfare research. These will also tilt the combat calculations.

I hear what you said about your units starting Barbarossa without any experience. I am not aware of an issue with this from other sources, e.g. during beta, but I am open minded and if we find that experience gains for particular unit types are too slow, or not enough for say Germany during the early years of the war then we might be able to make some tweaks. I'll await further feedback from more games, as I'm sure plenty will roll in over the coming weeks.

Pinsk may actually be a very good example to have chosen, given the surrounding terrain, and if we find that it is an outstandingly difficult place to capture then I can always consider removing it from the map.

Please do keep the feedback coming as progress thrives on discussions like these.

< Message edited by Bill Runacre -- 11/22/2016 2:02:25 PM >

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 18
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/22/2016 2:12:32 PM   
FroBodine


Posts: 872
Joined: 5/5/2007
From: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

One strategy is to link HQs together and there is a description in the manual on how to do this effectively to maximize supply, especially in the USSR as supply lines are very critical as they get stretched.



Hubert, could you please point me to the page in the manual that explains this, please?

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 19
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/22/2016 2:19:55 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Hi itkotw,

Looks like Bill responded just before me here, but I wanted to provide some feedback to the game, as is, in case it will be helpful as well.

I just took a closer look at the map and I see that Pinsk is a town that is deep in the Pripet Marsh, i.e. effectively surrounded by at least 1 marsh hex and on the eastern, northeastern and southern sides by 2 or more marsh hexes, so it would make a lot of sense why your supply is very low and could very well be as low as zero depending on where you position your units around the town. In this sense Pinsk could be a tough nut to crack if not taken on the first turn of Barbarossa and if not subsequently supported by air and an HQ on follow up turns, and especially so if your units are positioned at the lowest possible supply positions.

This would not be dissimilar to a town like Brasov in Romania, or Pilsen in Germany which are both deep in the mountains, i.e. an equal potential for less than optimal supply for the any attacking units and especially if in poor supply.

Essentially, while your units are "in supply" by being in friendly territory, the nature of the terrain (and the terrain supply penalties) eventually puts your units out of supply as they are out of range of either a rail head or a friendly HQ.

Using the show supply options, either the UI panel button or the 'S' hotkey can help paint a better picture of supply and either pressing the button a second time or the S key a second time will show you what your predicted supply will be on your subsequent turn.

In general though, and in response to an earlier query, supply in the USSR will slowly increase after any initial scorched earth damage from the retreating Soviet forces and if you think it might be helpful, I'd even suggest taking a look at Michael Kollman's wonderful Barbarossa AAR, linked below, as there are quite a few good tips on how to manage your units in order to gain maximum experience as well.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4170855

Unit destruction does indeed impact national morale and the secondary effects to that also lower the combat effectiveness of units as their national morale begins to drop. However, if your enemy is destroying your units, then their national morale can begin to move upwards as there is loss and gain in national morale for both sides during combat, i.e. just as there is an ebb and flow to combat and combat results, there will be a reflection of this in national morale over the entire course of the war.

One tip I can also add is that if you manage to destroy enemy units with a supply value < 5, then those units cannot be "reformed" at a reduced cost and rate of re-production. Reformed units can be bought back at 60% of their original cost and re-built at 50% of their normal production time, so the strategy of encircling and destroying enemy units in low supply certainly has its benefits

Hope this helps,
Hubert

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 11/22/2016 2:21:46 PM >

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 20
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/22/2016 2:24:19 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Hi jgalzier,

It can be found on page 84, but here is the relevant text below:

7.25.9. Linking HQs
Friendly HQs can be linked in a chain to supply
other HQs over extended distances. Normal HQ
supply based on resources is calculated first. Then
if an HQ can increase another HQ’s supply in its
vicinity, using the same rules governing how HQs
supply other units, the linked HQ can receive an
increased supply value.
Through this the HQ could provide better
supply to nearby units, increasing their combat
effectiveness, Action Points for movement and
maximum reinforcement ability.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 21
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/22/2016 3:27:34 PM   
Asberdies

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 6/20/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Asberdies, one thing that might help is that the smaller numbers on the unit (to the right of its strength) show the level of its various upgrades so you can tell at a glance what a unit's upgrade status is. The upgrade numbers are shown, left to right, in the order of their listing on the upgrade popup from top to bottom. This was helpful to me once I figured it out.

Yep right now i understand what those numbers mean and it helps, thanks :)

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 22
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/22/2016 4:17:20 PM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: itkotw

Once again, I want to stress Pinsk is just an example. I don't care about the city of Pinsk, it is not part of my strategic plan. I was just using it as an example. Yes, Pinsk did eventually regain supply for a time, after my 3 corps and 1 army couldn't break it, after a while I had to move the troops elsewhere, and I only left one Italian Corps to "guard" it (one corp has a ZERO percent chance of taking even a cut off town). I am just using Pinsk as supply system thought experiment. Even when there were 4 units attacking, I see that my units, in Axis held territory ("in supply"), were worse off than the town that was surrounded (sort of "out of supply", but not really)(the enemy would have 3 supply, of the 6 hexes surrounding the town - 1 hex has 4 supply, 2 has 3 supply, 2 has 1 supply, and one hex has 0 supply). I used the town of Pinsk to highlight the fact that the general supply system creates situations where a cut off town has better supply than units being "in supply" for a year. I think that, maybe, entrenchment could be used to give troops surrounded in towns a chance for a bit, but reduce the supply for a unit in a surrounded town to one. Also, make entrenchment slower to gain and slower to breakdown in attack. This would allow a unit to prepare in a town, get surrounded, have its entrenchment broken down over a turn or two, and then succumb to a final attack.

As for the Russian units, yes they are somewhat weaker. They have, in general, one point less in each category. I was thinking about doing the math to see how that one point difference impacts the battle calculations (with identical morale, experience, readiness, and supply). If my Axis troops didn't gain any real experience in the Polish and French campaigns (I though both of those actions went ok and pretty historical), and the maximum morale and readiness is the same as a Russian unit, the battle out come would be practically equal. A German army (with infantry weapons II) has a max soft attack of 7, while a Russian army (with the same upgrade) has a soft attack of 6. So the Russian unit is 86% as good as the German unit, in the spring of 1942. This advantage the German unit has gets even worse when you compare units with equal morale, readiness, and supply. When this is added to the fact that Russia is at an equal technology level and has maxed out it unit pool (remember, this is in spring of 1942), there seems like no give and take. There is not sense of suspense or danger for the Russian side, they have won in the spring of 1942. I also see that the Russians have 1777 mpp left in their pool, so every unit I destroy will come back in a few turns. As I mentioned above, my 1942 level army is fighting a 1945 level Russian army.

Maybe there needs to be a "manpower" and "equipment" type resource. Losing units should impact the game somehow. I have destroyed 14 corps and 4 armies (and 14 ships) of the British (and the minor allied nations), but Britain happily creates more corps to throw at me. Besides other resources, maybe unit destruction could impact nation morale too (and then make national morale effect other things like mpp output and maximum unit morale). In single turn, I destroyed 4 new Russian tank corps in the spring of 1942, but I am sad knowing I can never destroy enough units. The 4 Russian tank units I destroyed is like 50% of their total tank force (I am not 100% sure of the Russian build limits). I think the real life affect of 50% of the Russian's tanks vaporizing would be pretty great in real life.



I guess what you mean. But I also fear that your conclusions will ultimately lead in a way to flank your personal strategic concept by means of technical changes in order to get expected game results that fits exactly your kind of gaming. Please don't get me wrong, mate. Your observations of the game are absolutely correct. In certain areas of a hostile territory the supply of your own units could be so catastrophic that even a distressed opponent can theoretically have a better one. The different combat strength of the individual combatants is indicated only gradually, but not with differences which are necessarily effective in the course of the game. And almost all resources of the game are reduced to the virtual MPP. Yes, all this is true. But it's all well balanced (at least for the current campaigns against the AI) and for nearly any problem (beyond a theoretically conceivable bug) the game also offers (at least) one solution variant. Even if it may be difficult for comprehensible reasons (I finally know my own frustrations) actually try to counteract exactly the opposite. Do not fundamentally question the existing mechanisms, but try to adapt your approach to the identified circumstances. Easy said: In a well-made game a "historical" gaming should lead sooner or later to a "historical" result. Downfall! At least for the the powers of the axis...

So be faster. (Anyone who waits for the last snow is actually in June/July in Paris and will reach rather rare the city limits of Moscow at the end of '41)

Be more consistent. (Enemy units which can still move at the end of the (as early as possible) first round of war in the east or are not destroyed in bad supply in the further process, will be repositioned quickly by the AI and thrown back into the fight. They then appear in a game phase in which the Russian side can already set up various scripted and additionally purchased units)

Be flexible. (Who says Greece must be conquered? Who says that the Benelux states must be attacked one after the other? Who claims that Turkey is not a suitable partner in accessing the Caucasus?)

Set priorities. (Germany can lose the war in Africa, but in a failure on other battlefields will never win there. The number of core units purchased - tanks, fighters, artillery and tactical bombers - should be exhausted before a Barbarossa and, if possible, already set up. The infantry armies should then follow quickly. The first you need for the beginning of the attack. The latter from the spring of '42. Optimize and concentrate your research in the important core areas)

There are more strategic approaches for a successful campaign than I can enumerate here. And any experienced player could add more. Probably you will someday realize that there should be many more Pinsk ratios, much more and stronger allied units and even more abundant resources for the AI opponent, so that it can encounter your attack somewhat more "historically". If the game is well done - and I'm pretty sure it is - then much is reduced to a question of perspective and personal taste...and for that there is also a cool editor!

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 23
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/23/2016 11:02:21 PM   
itkotw2000

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/27/2005
Status: offline 		You are right that to win at this game I can/should choose to do some things and not others. I can choose not to invade smaller countries, I can choose not to follow a rough historical timelines, I can choose not to help my allies, I can choose not research technologies that will not help me defeat Russia. So you are saying I should do the minimum in some areas and max out other areas (unit pools and specific research) to win the game. In computer war gaming, they call that "min/maxing". In another ww2 game that just came out, HOI IV, people say that you should only build Marine and Mountain units, not plain infantry, just to beat the game. That is min/maxing. You notice I talk about "beating the game" and not "beating the Russians". Min/maxing tries to find flaws in a game and exploit them.

I restarted my save game at May 29, 1941 to try to see how fast I could make it to Moscow, min/max style. This involves exploiting the game mechanic that allows the player to capture a string of connected towns to get 100% supply (since 5 supply is the max from a captured town, I am considering 5 supply as 100%). Also I am exploiting the fact that a single string of towns down a single rail line can support an unlimited number of troops. In my restarted save, I did not have my troops lined up perfectly for a min/max strategy, but I started the attack down the Minsk/Smolensk/Moscow path. I captured Moscow on Nov 17, 1941. That is 11 turns. I had bad weather on the Oct 26 turn, so maybe I could have done it one turn faster. And I didn't just conquer it with one unit (meaning I didn't just rush a single unit ahead). The final assault involved 3 tank, 1 mech, and 3 infantry corp. I had enough troops around Moscow to almost take the other "industrial" hex to the NW of Moscow (I fought the Russian army unit down to one strength, captured that hex on the next turn).

Finding ahistorical, unrealistic exploits and min/maxing them is not my style of play. Your view of a historic game - "In a well-made game a "historical" gaming should lead sooner or later to a "historical" result. Downfall!". I would agree that if a player makes historic decisions, the game should have a historic outcome, but I always try to play every WWII game from a historic "what if" view point. I try to invade countries in their historic order, I try to advance and secure a "front line", guard areas that would realistically need to be guarded, etc. I know that my play style is my fault and all of my above posts represent that play style. But I am trying to judge the game on small scale realistic/historic outcomes, rather than whether or not the game has a historic end. I think it is more important for the little parts to make sense instead of having a predictable end. I would even go as far to say that most of my WWII gaming experience never gets to the "end". I always restart after awhile and try new things and see where those decisions lead. If a game does not take into account a players decisions, 100% of them would end historically and not be very fun. It is hard (impossible) for game makers to make everyone happy.

Even though I can "exploit" and get to Moscow by Nov 17, 1941, it is still the "small" things that bother me: Supply in general, units being reinforced in pockets, units being deployed in pockets that contain ports (can a port really support an infinite number of units?), technology levels (maxed out infantry weapons tech in 1941 means german soldiers have stg44, g41, g43, and panzerfausts ?), countries sustaining massive losses with little consequence ( in one of my games I surrounded 4 Bitish units in north africa - 1 armored, 2 corps, and 1 army. The next turn they were destroyed. If we guestimate 13000 troops per division, 2 div per corps, 3 div per army, and treat the armored unit as a corps, for a total of 9 divisions or 117,000 troops in that pocket now captured or killed. That is huge losses considering "historically" Britain lost less than 600,000 troops (casualties or captured) in the whole war).

During my last min/max rush for Moscow I did have something funny happen. The AI deployed a Greek corps on the Russian border with Romania, in the town of Cernauti.

< Message edited by itkotw -- 11/23/2016 11:19:35 PM >

(in reply to TheBattlefield)
Post #: 24
RE: First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist - 11/24/2016 2:14:21 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		An historical "storyboard" for a game is an important aspect of its efficacy at being a good simulation of its subject matter. So I don't think you're amiss by playing this way. I do it to some extent myself. But as the game goes on, the storyboard diffuses quite a bit so you're likely to get more departures from history the further you progress. I think it's most important to get the early blitzkrieg operations mostly right, with a reasonable ability to achieve the historical timetable. Particularly with optimal play.

(in reply to itkotw2000)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844