Feedback after a couple of play-throughs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Feedback after a couple of play-throughs

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: World War I >> Feedback after a couple of play-throughs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 1:07:50 PM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

1) Straight off, I really like this game, keep working on it.

2) Germany noticeably pulls back from the western front in 1915-ish. I'm not sure why this is. Originally I thought it was about upgrading the units but now I think maybe it has more to do with filling gaps on the eastern front, especially if Russia collapses.

3) Albania should be a Serb minor (yes I know they hate each other but this is about gameplay).

4) Minor countries should be dynamically assigned to major countries. A minor should not be locked into having a particular major as "boss" if it joins a particular side. Maybe make it dependent on which major country does the most influencing?

5) Artillery needs balancing better. Early artillery is too weak, late artillery is too powerful, ten shells is probably too many - maybe reduce it to six? Unit damage should probably be rarer so that the main use of artillery is to de-entrench the enemy and disorder them prior to assault, not destroy them. At the moment you can completely destroy a full-strength, dug-in infantry corps with two fully upgraded artillery units.

6) No-one should be building pre-dreadnoughts. Maybe reduce the pre-dreadnought build limit to zero and increase the dreadnought build limit?

7) Western Romania (including Bucharest - i.e., all the area shaded grey in this map) should be occupied by A-H or Germany after it gets knocked out of the war by the Central powers.

8) France should gain morale if it recaptures Verdun/Lille/Nancy/Epinal, but not as much as it lost when it originally lost them. At present you've got the situation where France can recapture all of these after losing them, and then quickly surrender because its out of morale.

9) Morale should be capped at 100%. Allowing it to go over 100% just allows the player to establish an early lead and then never look back. A-H and the Ottomans should probably have a bit lower starting morale as in all my play-throughs they outlasted the Germans.

10) Germany and Russia have nice chains of events that usefully foreshadow their surrender. Italy, France, and the UK should have similar chains of events - e.g., a fascist takeover in Italy, a mutiny and civil war in France, mutiny in the fleet and the deposing of the House of Windsor in the UK etc.

11) Getting Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, or other substantial minors on your side should boost morale a bit (~2%). At the moment they can join a side and then instantly lose without having fought at all because the side they join is out of morale.

12) Allow different countries on the same side to be played by different players formally in MP (i.e., they each get their "turn" and cannot control each other's units).

13) The UK appears not to reinforce either the Palestine or Mesopotamia fronts. Maybe give the UK a city in India from where troops can be deployed, and control over southern Persia as it historically had.

14) Greek war-entry needs to be re-worked. Historically Greece didn't actually declare war at the start, but instead Salonika was occupied by the Entente. Maybe have an event where the Entente gets control of Salonika and a couple of units there, whilst the rest of Greece remains neutral until a later event fires?

15) Gallipoli doesn't happen at the moment.

16) Germany doesn't seem to research fighters at the moment.

< Message edited by FOARP -- 4/11/2020 1:10:02 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 5:33:58 PM

eightroomofelixir

Posts: 123
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: offline

5) My speculation is that the super artillery in the late game is corresponding to the current end-game date of Nov. 11, 1918, or a prolonged war is anticipated.

6) Agree. Haven't really noticed this in game because as a player I rarely build new battleships (those given by scripts are enough), but it's interesting to point out.

8) Agree. Currently the best method to boost France moral is letting French navy to execute the last hit against CP naval units.

10) Also an interesting find - I didn't notice if the France Mutiny in 1917 is an in-game event or not.

15) I doubt the AI's ability to execute an all-out amphibious landing, especially when they need to hold the bridgehead and carefully expand the frontline after the initial assault.

< Message edited by eightroomofelixir -- 4/11/2020 5:43:42 PM >

_____________________________

No conquest without labor.

(in reply to FOARP)

Post #: 2

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 6:39:05 PM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eightroomofelixir

5) My speculation is that the super artillery in the late game is corresponding to the current end-game date of Nov. 11, 1918, or a prolonged war is anticipated.

Wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, but it is too powerful. Plus, making ten moves with an artillery unit really is over-kill in the realest sense of the term.

quote:

6) Agree. Haven't really noticed this in game because as a player I rarely build new battleships (those given by scripts are enough), but it's interesting to point out.

8) Agree. Currently the best method to boost France moral is letting French navy to execute the last hit against CP naval units.

I'd probably do this if I needed to boost a major power. It would probably make sense if all unit destructions, and not just those where the unit can't be rebuilt, gave a morale boost. I suppose the concern is that this might be exploited.

quote:

10) Also an interesting find - I didn't notice if the France Mutiny in 1917 is an in-game event or not.

Never saw it. I did see a single firing of a similar event for Italy, though, but none of the "colour" events describing the collapse of government etc. that you see for German/Russia.

quote:

15) I doubt the AI's ability to execute an all-out amphibious landing, especially when they need to hold the bridgehead and carefully expand the frontline after the initial assault.

Yeah, the AI really sucks at this, though they seem to have fixed it so that the AI in SC:WIE can basically do D-Day?

(in reply to eightroomofelixir)

Post #: 3

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 7:27:31 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

I agree with many points particularly 5,6 and 8!

(With an exception: The Ottomans should be allowed to build pre-dreadnoughts but not dreadnoughts... their shipbuilding capacity was that bad.)

8 is a good point and should be generalised to other powers but this is challenging to do in the event editor, there would need to be a structural change to this to make it take effect properly. Probably worth doing though.

Regarding 11, I understand the idea but I feel this would over-power diplomacy to minors. There are few ways to gain morale, adding this to an already-significant boost of troops and industry would arguably be overpowering.

Regarding 14, I think Greek war-entry is fairly modelled, you get Greece on side via event but only one Corps (arguably it is too productive in MPPs for the British though).

RE 15 and Gallipolli I assume the thinking here is that is Gallipolli was a stupid idea so the AI sensibly ignores it ;)

_____________________________

1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!

Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!

(in reply to FOARP)

Post #: 4

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 8:36:45 PM

eightroomofelixir

Posts: 123
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land
RE 15 and Gallipoli I assume the thinking here is that is Gallipoli was a stupid idea so the AI sensibly ignores it ;)

The Ottomans have a small NM pool, with lots of their NM Objectives within reach of the Entente forces. If the British take Baghdad, support Arab revolt, control Medina, Aqaba, and Jerusalem, about 48% of Ottoman NM will be blown away. Push into Transjordan and landing in Syria, about another 10% NM will be gone. Adding them together, that's nearly a guaranteed defeat for the Ottomans.

On the other hand, even with all of the NM Objectives in the Ottomans' west being taken - Gallipoli, Smyrna, Constantinople - the NM will only drop about 34%. And Constantinople is really hard to besiege.

Therefore from a in-game (NM-based) perspective all-in into Gallipoli is less effective than all-in into Palestine. I would suggest that the Entente AI could be more aggressive (also carefully aggressive due to supply problems) in Egypt.

< Message edited by eightroomofelixir -- 4/11/2020 8:37:06 PM >

_____________________________

No conquest without labor.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 5

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 9:07:48 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eightroomofelixir

On the other hand, even with all of the NM Objectives in the Ottomans' west being taken - Gallipoli, Smyrna, Constantinople - the NM will only drop about 34%. And Constantinople is really hard to besiege.

I believe Constantinople has a very high NM value - not enough to take the Ottomans out of the war on its own, but you still don't need that much else to do it.

I agree Constantinople is a thorny target. Also, a landing in Gallipolli does not help that much to *take* Constantinople, since you automatically get a friendly port at Salonika - a much better start to a campaign than a risky amphibious landing.

Gallipolli was a misconceived operation historically, and not a great option for a human player in-game. Quite right that the AI shouldn't do it. (Maybe there could be an AI-only event to simulate it...)

_____________________________

1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!

Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!

(in reply to eightroomofelixir)

Post #: 6

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/11/2020 9:42:58 PM

Hubert Cater

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

For Gallipoli, the AI will only attempt it if the immediate area is free of Central Power naval units, and it has available units in and around Alexandria for the task. Which admittedly can be rare in game when playing against the AI. Essentially it would have to be just the right conditions or it won't try.

Edit: I did notice one change I could make to hopefully have it try more often by amending one check that is a little too strict when it comes to assessing its safety.

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 4/11/2020 9:54:45 PM >

_____________________________

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 The Land)

Post #: 7

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/12/2020 2:49:07 PM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

I agree with many points particularly 5,6 and 8!

(With an exception: The Ottomans should be allowed to build pre-dreadnoughts but not dreadnoughts... their shipbuilding capacity was that bad.)

8 is a good point and should be generalised to other powers but this is challenging to do in the event editor, there would need to be a structural change to this to make it take effect properly. Probably worth doing though.

Regarding 11, I understand the idea but I feel this would over-power diplomacy to minors. There are few ways to gain morale, adding this to an already-significant boost of troops and industry would arguably be overpowering.

I don't think just adding a few percent is going to make that much difference. At the end of the game you can see the losing major powers (e.g., Germany) losing 1-2% of national morale each turn, so this won't delay the defeat of a country by much, not by enough to be worth doing simply to farm morale-gain. Historically, if countries were cheered up by major allies taking their side, then minor allies should also have a modest impact as well.

quote:

Regarding 14, I think Greek war-entry is fairly modelled, you get Greece on side via event but only one Corps (arguably it is too productive in MPPs for the British though).

The issue is that, as the CP player, you can quickly occupy the entirety of Greece, when historically Greece did not even join the Entente until later in the war. Historically the Entente simply occupied Salonika and tried to advance in-land from there - the Greeks were theoretically neutral. Yet in-game you can quickly advance on Athens and screen Salonika whilst doing so as Athens is the main prize.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 8

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/13/2020 3:49:52 PM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

I think Greece was more than theoretically neutral. It was always protected by British, say early independence and islands they seized from Ottoman. Part of it Ottoman was practically has no navy.

(in reply to FOARP)

Post #: 9

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/13/2020 5:38:02 PM

eightroomofelixir

Posts: 123
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: offline

Greece was practically neutral under King Constantine, or Venizelos wouldn't be dismissed after Entente landed at Thessaloniki (Venizelos asked them to do so in private and did not inform Army/King).
Greek government eventually began the demobilization of the already partially mobilized Greek army in June 1916; as a result it would take Venizelist a military coup d'�tat to regain the control of military (and the country, eventually).

The neutrality of Greece had been heavily debated in the steam forums, and I do think current in-game situation is representative of historical events. However as FOARP pointed out, the CP can still easily advance to Athens, without strong military resistance (not many units spawn there) or penalty for violating Greece neutrality (it technically joined the Entente in-game), and kick Greece out of the war.

_____________________________

No conquest without labor.

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 10

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/14/2020 8:32:41 AM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

If so Armenian militia could be represented in Eastern Turkey. But no need in this scale. King doesn't represent Greek people but Venizelos does.Remember Greek forces in Odessa in Russian Civil War, what they are promised. Constantinople.

(in reply to eightroomofelixir)

Post #: 11

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/14/2020 12:40:44 PM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78

If so Armenian militia could be represented in Eastern Turkey. But no need in this scale. King doesn't represent Greek people but Venizelos does.Remember Greek forces in Odessa in Russian Civil War, what they are promised. Constantinople.

You're mixing political scale and unit-scale.

The simple issue is that the Greeks weren't officially at war. Instead the Entente occupied Salonika and tired to advance inland from there. Why not just transfer Salonika to France/UK by event and auto-deploy British/French units there?

As it is the CP player very quickly conquers Greece because they can simply ignore/contain Salonika and march on Athens, when historically they could not do this because Greece wasn't officially at war.

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 12

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/14/2020 1:00:48 PM

BillRunacre

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

There should be Greek units mobilizing in response to such a Central Powers invasion, is this not happening, or is it happening too late?

_____________________________

(in reply to FOARP)

Post #: 13

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/14/2020 2:59:21 PM

Xsillione

Posts: 212
Joined: 1/18/2019
Status: offline

Both, if you can reach the Greek border with a cav, you can just move into Athens before the end of the turn, so nothing stops you, and even if you have only infantry, you are halfway into Greece before the troops pop up, so you can start the Athens Siege and knock out Greece easily.

Of course it could be understood that the King allowed the CP units to reach and "take over" after token resistance so they are not joined the CP officially but did not even tried to defend themselves to prevent it really. Probably Greece should have a bunch of events depending on the situations in the balkan, and join one side or the other, even switching side, if CP or Entente get better position or at least it seems like that. If the CP could have shown any force against the British blockade of Athens they could easily joined on the side of the CP.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 14

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/14/2020 6:39:13 PM

eightroomofelixir

Posts: 123
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78
If so Armenian militia could be represented in Eastern Turkey. But no need in this scale. King doesn't represent Greek people but Venizelos does.Remember Greek forces in Odessa in Russian Civil War, what they are promised. Constantinople.

You didn't get my point there. Anyway FOARP's reply states the point I hope to make very clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xsillione
Of course it could be understood that the King allowed the CP units to reach and "take over" after token resistance so they are not joined the CP officially but did not even tried to defend themselves to prevent it really. Probably Greece should have a bunch of events depending on the situations in the balkan, and join one side or the other, even switching side, if CP or Entente get better position or at least it seems like that.

Currently Greece has two in-game event for switching side (DE 121 and DE 207), depending on UK's choice (DE 121 is UK landing on Salonika; if refuse, Greece may join the CP.)
More requirements for Greece switching side could be an interesting addition, although the problem here is still that "Entente presence in Salonika" and "rest of Greece stay neutral" are not really co-exist, Greece will always join the war as a whole country, resulted in the "neutral" part of the Greece undefended. If Greece did join either side, that part the country should not be neutral anymore.

_____________________________

No conquest without labor.

(in reply to Xsillione)

Post #: 15

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/15/2020 1:26:32 AM

gamer78

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

I did get your point and FOARP too. Issue does seem to be related to be a bug Greece not ready enough for CP or ENT invasion. I agree. What I mention was king can be pro-German and Venizelos opposite but it shouldn't trigger military conflict in country itself. If represented it can be represented like Van uprising in eastern Turkey in game.

Balkan politics very slippery remember first and second Balkan wars. They quarrel each other after the first. Even Turkey could be pro-Entente but dismissed by British for low military power in Balkan wars.

(in reply to eightroomofelixir)

Post #: 16

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/15/2020 7:22:50 AM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

On a slightly related Greece issue - When the Salonika event triggers, Greece technically enters the war - thus meaning a Greek convoy to the UK starts, which is worth something like 40MPP. That always struck me as too high - especially for a situation where Greece was completely divided and partially under British blockade. I think the convoy should appear only when Greece is in the war 'properly', so to speak, or perhaps not at all....

_____________________________

1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!

Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 17

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/15/2020 8:10:02 AM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78

I did get your point and FOARP too. Issue does seem to be related to be a bug Greece not ready enough for CP or ENT invasion. I agree. What I mention was king can be pro-German and Venizelos opposite but it shouldn't trigger military conflict in country itself. If represented it can be represented like Van uprising in eastern Turkey in game.

I don't think anyone was asking for the internal Greek conflict to be modelled with units on the map. The problem being discussed is the inaccuracy of the event chain that leads to Greek war-entry and the effect it has of making it easy as the CP to knock Greece out of the war.

quote:

More requirements for Greece switching side could be an interesting addition, although the problem here is still that "Entente presence in Salonika" and "rest of Greece stay neutral" are not really co-exist, Greece will always join the war as a whole country, resulted in the "neutral" part of the Greece undefended. If Greece did join either side, that part the country should not be neutral anymore.

The solution is that the "landing at Salonika" event should make Salonika and its surrounding hexes British territory, with Greece remaining neutral. Should Greece enter the war on the Entente side, then Salonika should be re-annexed by Greece. Should Greece enter the war on the CP side after the occupation of Salonika event has fired, then if Salonika is captured by the CP Salonika should be re-annexed by Greece.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

On a slightly related Greece issue - When the Salonika event triggers, Greece technically enters the war - thus meaning a Greek convoy to the UK starts, which is worth something like 40MPP. That always struck me as too high - especially for a situation where Greece was completely divided and partially under British blockade. I think the convoy should appear only when Greece is in the war 'properly', so to speak, or perhaps not at all....

Agreed that 40 MPP is too much and it should be 10MPP at most, particularly as you already get the MPP benefit of Greek cities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

There should be Greek units mobilizing in response to such a Central Powers invasion, is this not happening, or is it happening too late?

Basically if you have units standing ready on the Greek-Albanian/Serbian borders then you can quickly advance and the Greek units that do spawn won't stop you. Corfu and Larissa fell undefended in my campaign, and the Athens defence fell the turn after.

I don't really object to Greece being easy to conquer as historically it might well have been so had the CP ever really tried hard to do it. The issue I see with it is that you cannot take the historically-easier option of just bottling up the Entente in Salonika, as Salonika was the only area of Greece that the Entente could operate from, as Greece was not officially as war.

< Message edited by FOARP -- 4/15/2020 8:20:58 AM >

(in reply to gamer78)

Post #: 18

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/17/2020 4:00:53 PM

BillRunacre

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

On a slightly related Greece issue - When the Salonika event triggers, Greece technically enters the war - thus meaning a Greek convoy to the UK starts, which is worth something like 40MPP. That always struck me as too high - especially for a situation where Greece was completely divided and partially under British blockade. I think the convoy should appear only when Greece is in the war 'properly', so to speak, or perhaps not at all....

This isn't the case actually, as the Greek convoy, representing trade in the Eastern Mediterranean with the UK, runs from the start of the game, and is worth a maximum of 28 MPPs to the UK.

So the UK does not receive any economic benefit from Greece joining the Entente.

_____________________________

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 19

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 4/23/2020 6:18:41 PM

CommandoDude

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/21/2020
Status: offline

I've noticed that minor countries barely move on the diplo track. Is it even possible to get a country into the war? I invested 20% of chits into romania and they never joined the war (I was CP)

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 20

RE: Feedback after a couple of play-throughs - 11/25/2020 10:13:23 AM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOARP]

15) Gallipoli doesn't happen at the moment.

I am just spending some time going back and reading some of the old threads.

Gallipoli is one of those "iconic events" in WW1 and its representation in the game currently is a bit underwhelming. I was wondering if it could be handled like other historical options where the Entente player is given an option "Yes" or "No" to conduct the landings. Perhaps 2 full strength corps could land for an appropriate cost and the Entente player would need local naval superiority for the event to trigger at all. It would stop the rather gamey option of the Turks buying cheap detachments for their western border and then transferring the Corp units and the von Sanders HQ unit there at the start to the east.

quote:

16) Germany doesn't seem to research fighters at the moment.

They should certainly do this if it has not been already changed in the game. I collect DVD's of TV programmes I watched in my youth in the 1960s and 70s and one I have is a BBC drama production called "Wings". It shows in great detail the technological race between the British and German air forces throughout the war and its impact on various characters in the story, which clearly had some parallels with what happened in the naval arms race leading up to 1914. Highly recommended.

(in reply to FOARP)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Feedback after a couple of play-throughs

Page: [1]