HQ Air Defence/Movement

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

HQ Air Defence/Movement

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 >> HQ Air Defence/Movement

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/24/2017 5:37:59 PM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

Please let the HQ get more than 2 Anti Air Defense upgrades.
The problem is, if you had escorts you could bomb any HQ. If the germans take all there tactical and medium bombers they could kill one soviet HQ in each turn and you couldn't defend against that. HQs are very expensive and very important, so let the HQs be better protected. It is very frustrating, if you loose a HQ every turn and your units are without support.

Second made it possible that every unit could at least move one hex per turn. I had some units isolated in North Russia with all Citys taken by the germans and these units couldn't move because they had only one action point and the terrain needs more points to move. Hard, that you couldn't move them.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/26/2017 5:50:33 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi VigaBrand,

Thanks for the feedback and we'll look into the suggestion further.

For the issue of having units move at least 1 full hex per turn (in any direction) this is actually in place but only if the unit really could not move any hexes at all on its turn. If the possibility exists for the unit to let's say move back 1 single hex or similar then the adjustment is not applied. The reason for this is that otherwise units were using the 1 hex in any direction rule to push through zone of control front lines and it was too much of an exploit.

If this is not what you are seeing could you provide a screenshot so I can understand the situation better?

Thanks,
Hubert

_____________________________

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

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 2

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/26/2017 8:11:01 PM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

Dear Hubert,
I mean this.
But I didn't see the exploit at all. Maybe the shouldn't move into enemy ZoC but the rest is no exploit. If I had no units there, everybody should push zone of control.
Problem is:
I defend Leningrad and the Volchok Line. Finns capture the northern towns and paratroops capture the southern towns. I now had 0 supply units which couldn't escape.
After some turns he clean that pocket, but if I could move one hex per turn, maybe I could escape in the east.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 3

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/27/2017 1:03:37 AM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks again and if you ever encounter a similar situation please do send me a screenshot or even a saved turn as that will be the best way to paint me a full picture.

For example it is not always ZoC that is an issue but could also be terrain that if the penalty no longer applies and it is along a front with enemy units, then the 1 hex in any direction allows the unit to get past a defensive line that uses terrain as part of its blocking strategy. This specific example was an issue in our earlier Pacific release that allowed the Japanese to circumvent the difficult terrain near Chungking by blocking its own units in the rear (from being able to move backwards) and so the only way to move was forward and it became an exploit.

Essentially there seemed to be too many possible exploits so as mentioned above the safest rule was to only apply the 1 hex in any direction rule when the unit truly had no option to move at all (and not because of its own units blocking it and so on).

_____________________________

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 4

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/27/2017 4:47:41 AM

sPzAbt653

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

I can agree with Hubert on all these points, and additionally, once the player knows these things they are easy to avoid, or at least expected when they happen. It is similar to moving air units from England to the Isle of Lewis

I have tried to exploit this myself when playing, and moving a lone unit one hex at a time into the enemy rear does not work except in limited circumstances, and it never ends well. So I think it works as should be expected as it is.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 5

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/29/2017 10:46:05 AM

vonik

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline

Well it would make sense for me that a supply 0 unit may move 1 hex in ANY direction unless the target hex contains an ennemy ZOC .
That means that the terrain penalties indeed don't apply for 0 supply units .

Obviously, in reality if a battered, out of supply unit had to choose between a nice and easy road that leads to the death and to the ennemy and a marsh or a forest where they can hide and flee towards safety, they would choose the latter even if the going was more difficult .

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 6

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/29/2017 4:15:48 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Generally speaking this is the case for when a unit is in 0 supply, but again to prevent exploits if a unit can move at least one hex this will then not kick in. Primarily it is just one of those things where it is difficult to predict all exploits and even though the suggestion seems reasonable.

_____________________________

(in reply to vonik)

Post #: 7

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/30/2017 5:29:52 AM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

Yes, but if anybody made a strategic about terrain barriers, I always should be surprised. (see ardennes, hannibals alp crossing, ...).
If you know, that a unit could always walk at least one hex per turn, it is no exploit, because everybody knows it. Than you need some units. And a unit with zero supply should be an easy target to farm experience. So if my opponent use this "exploit" I could encounter it with some units and the raise of my experience and don't forget, this units wouldn't be cheaper if he wants to rebuilt it.

I didn't see the exploit. If you hadn't troops you should always think about an attack at this weak spots.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 8

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/31/2017 1:21:15 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi VigaBrand,

I can appreciate what you are after and as mentioned when we had something like this in the past it raised too many issues/concerns. It was found for the most part to be counterintuitive and for example it can be confusing if sometimes terrain plays a role and then it doesn't (because the immediate hex it does not but beyond one hex it does), and it negates the importance of roads (which negate terrain penalties) and then you can get into the situation that a unit can actually be more mobile at 0 supply versus a unit in regular supply.

The original inspiration of allowing a unit to move 1 hex in any direction was essentially to alleviate the issue of a unit being truly stuck, i.e. to get back into play, and then once it can start to move along a valid path the 1 hex in any direction bonus is lifted.

Ardennes is a possibility in this game due to the design of the map and if we were to go down the suggested route I suspect that there would be those (slipperly slope) that would want zones of control to not limit a unit's movement either. Essentially I think the argument can be made that terrain and zones of control either play a role in game or they don't sort of thing.

But I could be wrong and I'd need a pretty strong consensus from the majority before I would consider the change because as mentioned in the past most were unfortunately not favorable of it at all.

Hubert

_____________________________

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 9

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 5/31/2017 1:53:25 PM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

Hi,
thanks for the long answer and I unterstand your point.
What about HQ Air upgrades?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 10

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/1/2017 5:47:57 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

For HQ upgrades I'd be hesitant to make any changes at this time as the next update will have some effect on the Axis side, i.e. tougher supply in the USSR for the Axis as well as an additional AA units for the Soviets.

It's a tough call for us as well, since we can certainly appreciate the negative effects of concentrated firepower from the Axis side, but at the same time there should be some reward and vulnerability under such circumstances as well.

If the default protection for an HQ were inadequate I'd be more inclined to adjustments, but considering that interceptors can now potentially also do some damage to an attacker (despite escorts), and that the numbers seem reasonable enough for attack/defense versus an HQ, if we adjust for the extreme cases, then the default circumstances could be significantly thrown out of balance. My preferential leaning would be to reduce the likelyhood of extreme concentrations if possible instead which I think the next build will help towards.

Here are some examples of the defaults as I had to double check just to be sure.

HQ with Level-0 AA:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 6/1/2017 5:57:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 11

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/1/2017 5:55:35 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

HQ with Level-1 AA:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 12

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/1/2017 5:56:16 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

HQ with Level-2 AA:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 13

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/1/2017 5:58:54 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

HQ with AA unit protection:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 6/1/2017 5:59:19 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 14

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/1/2017 5:59:50 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

HQ unit with Interceptor protection:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 15

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/1/2017 6:00:15 PM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

Don't forget that I could upgrade my tactical and medium bombers to level 3 and the aa only to level 2.
And you could only reinforce the HQ in waves. So with three or four bombers, it takes me 2 or 3 turns to eliminate your HQ.

I had one question, which is important for these question.

If I built fortifications and I upgrade the fortification with AA, did this protect my unit from air attacks?
We discuss about defending swamps. Swamps had the problems, that your air defence will be reduced, so some player suggest fortifications with additional AA. My question is, did this really help my combat unit against air attacks?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 16

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/5/2017 5:39:05 AM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi Vigabrand,

Thanks again for the feedback and to answer your last question here, currently you will not be able to apply AA upgrades to Fortifications but this will change with the next build.

Also, and currently speaking, AA upgrades to a resource will not help towards defensive combat for a unit against air attacks.

But going forward, AA upgrades to any resource that has a unit on top of it, including Fortifications, will now also improve the default defensive values that are applied to the unit from that resource.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

_____________________________

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 17

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/5/2017 2:41:55 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

These changes should help quite a bit

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 18

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/6/2017 6:04:44 AM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

The Interceptor didn't work, becaue if you had escorts, than you will destroy something.
Please show us the HQ with 2 AA and the bomber with Ground Attack 3. My impression is, that the AA didn't reduce the HQ losses. It only increase the losses from the bomber.
So what happend, if the bomber had more strinking power (GA 3)?

_____________________________

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 19

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/6/2017 2:18:20 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi Vigabrand,

Regarding Interceptors, I just meant that at one time for our previous games, if a bomber was escorted, the interceptor only attacked the escorts, but now they also have a chance to do some damage to the bombers as well that is taken into account prior to the bomber attacking the defender.

Here is a screenshot of an HQ with 2 AA and a bomber with Ground Attack 2 and you'll see that the two techs cancel each other out to produce the same result as an HQ with 0 AA and and bomber with Ground Attack also at 0.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 20

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/6/2017 2:21:25 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

This screenshot shows an HQ with AA level 2, and a bomber with Ground Attack level 3. The first two levels are cancelled out giving the bomber a 1 tech advantage, i.e. the same if the bomber only had Ground Attack level 1 and the HQ AA level 0.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 21

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/7/2017 10:13:41 AM

VigaBrand

Posts: 303
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline

Hi,
for the escort, I didn't play the new betas. So if there is a massiv change, you could ignore me.
In the current games, your interceptor losses some strength against the escort and after that, the bomber didn't receive much damage against the interceptor.
One question, did the escort fighter take some handicaps in the escort against interceptor fights?
The last one shows my problems. You need four bombers and could destroy a HQ with that. (if you had luck with the dice). The HQ is so damned important and if you had luck, you couldn't reinforce the HQ to full strength, which made it very vulnerable in the coming turn.
Maybe (if it will be not to hard), lets give the HQ a AA upgrade to 3 (or 4). So you had in the end the 1:2 odds like in the default version and you need 5 or 6 bombers to kill a HQ serious.
This provide a more tactical game.
Thanks for all the screens and responses, I hope I could help a little with my questions. But for sure, you help me with your answers.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 22

RE: HQ Air Defence/Movement - 6/7/2017 7:07:44 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

My pleasure VigaBrand and there was no massive change during the Betas, this is the default starting with this particular game versus our older games that didn't allow for an interceptor to partially breakthrough escorts to the bombers.

It has also given us some food for thought and we'll see what other changes might need to be implemented. But that being said I suspect the current changes in the official v1.04 update will see some improvement on your end and at least a step in the right direction.

_____________________________

(in reply to VigaBrand)

Post #: 23