Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

suggestion for next patch

 
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: World at War >> suggestion for next patch Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
suggestion for next patch - 1/3/2019 5:17:22 PM   
Rodimstev

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 5/16/2012
Status: offline 		hi all,

is it possible to forbid forest/swamp/moutain hex for plane?

because 1000 planes in swamp hex, are not very realistic….the same think for mountain or forest….

kinds regards

Rodim



_____________________________

"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
Post #: 1
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/3/2019 6:42:03 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodimstev

hi all,

is it possible to forbid forest/swamp/moutain hex for plane?

because 1000 planes in swamp hex, are not very realistic….the same think for mountain or forest….

kinds regards

Rodim




+1

I think this is a great idea and is very realistic. Maybe forest hex is ok but swamp and mountain for sure. Or at least just mountain. Would solve a lot of MP problems as well...


< Message edited by Tanaka -- 1/4/2019 7:11:15 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Rodimstev)
Post #: 2
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/3/2019 7:12:07 PM   
Xenocide

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline 		While I like the idea for historical reasons would this cause problems due to the unavailability of stacking in any theaters? I am wondering if it would make air operations in places like Burma and in some regions of Russia (and possibly others) too difficult.

Any thoughts?

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 3
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/3/2019 7:59:12 PM   
MrLongleg

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline 		I don't agree, due to map scale and no stacking that would take air power away, especially in the pacific. Since a hex is 100km or more there is certainly some space for airbases, even in swamps.

_____________________________

MrLongleg

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

(in reply to Xenocide)
Post #: 4
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/7/2019 7:28:26 PM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline 		I've been in the real life equivalents of many of the forest, swamp, and mountain hexes in the game. There is still plenty of space in them for major airbases.

_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to MrLongleg)
Post #: 5
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/12/2019 3:45:30 PM   
Rodimstev

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 5/16/2012
Status: offline 		steely,

i am sorry but your analyse is false.

have you got any exemple of airbase in bielorussia swamp or the moutain Caucase for more 1000 planes?

the response is no more 100 planes...not 1000..
the scale on Strategic for one unit of plane is more 50O planes (luftflotte/air army ....)

so i think it is a good idea to forbid this hex




_____________________________

"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 6
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/12/2019 4:02:32 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodimstev

steely,

i am sorry but your analyse is false.

have you got any exemple of airbase in bielorussia swamp or the moutain Caucase for more 1000 planes?

the response is no more 100 planes...not 1000..
the scale on Strategic for one unit of plane is more 50O planes (luftflotte/air army ....)

so i think it is a good idea to forbid this hex





That would be true if we would be talking about a single air field. But as always in Games likes Strategic Command, even though we only see one unit on the map, this unit could easily be stationed on 1 to 10 air fields.
At least that is my point of view on this matter. There are already quite a lot of regulations which will effect the effectivness of (air) units, like supply, readyness and morale. Usually you get not the best supply in wood, mountain and swamp hexes. This is more or less a good and already existing way to help you in your decision where to place an air unit (or not).


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rodimstev)
Post #: 7
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/12/2019 4:07:10 PM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodimstev

steely,

i am sorry but your analyse is false.

have you got any exemple of airbase in bielorussia swamp or the moutain Caucase for more 1000 planes?

the response is no more 100 planes...not 1000..
the scale on Strategic for one unit of plane is more 50O planes (luftflotte/air army ....)

so i think it is a good idea to forbid this hex



Junior, that wasn't an analysis, it was field experience. And yes, areas that include worse swamps that the White Russian one and worse mountains than the Caucausus have had large airfields in them. Consider hex size.


_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to Rodimstev)
Post #: 8
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/12/2019 9:46:49 PM   
room

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline 		Well one thing at least is illogical: planes on bad terrain hex get a bonus when attacked on the airfields by planes! Why should the airfield be more protective there?

It's actually more important to place your planes in bad terrain for defensive purposes (where they actually fare better than in plains) than for offensive ones. It's one of those not very instinctive plays.

Maybe planes should at least not benefit from terrain defensive bonuses (or less so than normal units)

< Message edited by room -- 1/12/2019 9:47:09 PM >

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 9
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/12/2019 10:03:42 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline 		I have a different suggestion: introduce the stacking of air units with the land units and make them automatically relocate to a different location, when attacked by enemy ground units ( with some attritional loses of course )

As for the current system - aren't there penalties for placing air units in the swaps and forests?

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to room)
Post #: 10
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/13/2019 11:53:01 AM   
boudi

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline 		Playing in PBEM++ with an ELO filter should be good.

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 11
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/13/2019 12:14:01 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		My suggestions are to allow naval interception in the same manner as air interception, and allow each air unit to do one free recon each turn without using up it's ability to also do a regular mission.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to boudi)
Post #: 12
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/13/2019 12:25:34 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline 		The interception logic in SC is something to think about, to be improved or changed in future releases. It is the only game feature which a player can't play himself, which he can't influence, and it is limited in its options (like there is only one interception even though there are several air units and flak around).
From my point of view the interception should leave the entire game, or it should be introduced for all kind of combats. Right now its a solution for represent air war. Maybe not the best one. But I have to admit that this question is a trickery one.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 13
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/15/2019 7:03:45 PM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: room

Well one thing at least is illogical: planes on bad terrain hex get a bonus when attacked on the airfields by planes! Why should the airfield be more protective there?



Because it's harder to damage things in bad terrain and often harder to find them to damage them at all. There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.


_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to room)
Post #: 14
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/16/2019 10:09:28 AM   
Saturn V

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 9/12/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.


For ground assaults by infantry and armour, that makes sense. But an airfield requires large, flat areas for runways, taxiways, revetments, hangars, and an array of operations buildings. Indeed, it is difficult to locate an airbase on bad terrain because of the engineering that has to be done to prepare that terrain for the requirements of an airbase. And all that flat ground needed makes an airbase easy enough to spot from the air.

So airfields should not be gaining a defensive benefit from bad terrain when attacked from the air.

(If it's a land assault, then the defensive benefit makes sense as it would indicate the terrain surrounding the airfield which the ground forces have to move through to assault it.)

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 15
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/16/2019 10:44:34 AM   
room

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Saturn V


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.


For ground assaults by infantry and armour, that makes sense. But an airfield requires large, flat areas for runways, taxiways, revetments, hangars, and an array of operations buildings. Indeed, it is difficult to locate an airbase on bad terrain because of the engineering that has to be done to prepare that terrain for the requirements of an airbase. And all that flat ground needed makes an airbase easy enough to spot from the air.

So airfields should not be gaining a defensive benefit from bad terrain when attacked from the air.

(If it's a land assault, then the defensive benefit makes sense as it would indicate the terrain surrounding the airfield which the ground forces have to move through to assault it.)


My thoughts exactly. I also second Boudi suggestion of having an elo ranking. It would add both motivation and interest in some games.

(in reply to Saturn V)
Post #: 16
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/16/2019 7:05:41 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Saturn V


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.


For ground assaults by infantry and armour, that makes sense. But an airfield requires large, flat areas for runways, taxiways, revetments, hangars, and an array of operations buildings. Indeed, it is difficult to locate an airbase on bad terrain because of the engineering that has to be done to prepare that terrain for the requirements of an airbase. And all that flat ground needed makes an airbase easy enough to spot from the air.

So airfields should not be gaining a defensive benefit from bad terrain when attacked from the air.

(If it's a land assault, then the defensive benefit makes sense as it would indicate the terrain surrounding the airfield which the ground forces have to move through to assault it.)


I hate to bust your bubble but I can tell you that as a pilot it can be extremely hard to find an airfield even when you need to. It was even harder during WWII. Plus none of these airfields were lit up at night nor had visible landing lights. I've had to find airports with three+ major runways after their normal operational hours (i.e. all lights were turned off) and it was not easy at all. Especially when you forgot the com code to turn on the runway lights

So the terrain modifier for air attacks could simple be the 'cost' in fuel/airtime for attacking aircraft to actually locate the airfield. Also local weather, haze, etc. all play a part so I see no reason to change this at all.

(in reply to Saturn V)
Post #: 17
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/16/2019 8:35:50 PM   
room

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline 		Why are you talking about night? That is irrelevant. Until you send me a map with most WW2 airfield in forest, marsh and mountains, you are wrong.

For simple logistical problems, it was much easier to buld airfield near roads and in plains.

Basically you re saying in WW2 the best place to build airfield and then place airplanes was in marshes, forest and mountains

Even nowadays, they are not built there when avoidable

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 18
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/17/2019 3:00:03 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Just to jump in here as I think there is a valid point about the defensive bonuses, not that I would want to take things too much the other way either, but what I'm planning is reducing the defensive bonus if air units are attacked by Infantry or Armour while they are in a Marsh or Mountain hex.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to room)
Post #: 19
RE: suggestion for next patch - 1/17/2019 4:02:11 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: room

Why are you talking about night? That is irrelevant. Until you send me a map with most WW2 airfield in forest, marsh and mountains, you are wrong.

For simple logistical problems, it was much easier to buld airfield near roads and in plains.

Basically you re saying in WW2 the best place to build airfield and then place airplanes was in marshes, forest and mountains

Even nowadays, they are not built there when avoidable


A few minutes with Google.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to room)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> suggestion for next patch 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

0.797