Making this a great, not a good game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold



Message

Irish army63 -> Making this a great, not a good game (8/15/2007 11:04:27 PM)

Yesterday I posted about how easily Berlin fell. (To the Brits in early 1944 and the Germans pulled none of their army back from Russia to defend it, nor they did surround it with new units).

Here are a few more observations (in no particular order) based on almost three weeks of play. This is from the point of view of a soft-core as opposed to a hard-core war-gamer and I suspect I'm the target market.

1. Russia folds a bit too easily either when computer controlled or player controlled.
2. Germany's supply of oil at the start of the game is about 100 points too low.
3. Italy has way too many troops available for the Russian campaign and even though they are a lot less good than the Germans, they are still too good.
4. The German army isn't big enough. It was able to cover almost all of the Russian front on its own and still leave a decent enough force in France.
5. Either make planes cheaper or allow them to be produced faster, same with U-boats. In particular it is hard to generate enough U-boats to really threaten the convoys without making a huge sacrifice somewhere else. Also, by 1944 German industries were being pulverised from the air. To do this, you'd have to overinvest in planes and underinvest in your army.
6. In 1943/44 the British army is way too powerful in relation to the US army.

That's all for now.




targul -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 1:55:55 AM)

You seem pretty correct here.  I think if the Russians would move there capital to either Baku or Stalingrad it would make it much more difficult.  Reason is it is simple to just rush your entire army to Moscow and Baku is directly behind it.  If Stalingrad was a target after they would need to spread out the forces more.  Personally I would prefer Lenningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow would have to fall for the Russians to surrender.

The oil is about right but I would only add maybe 50 if any.

Italy has to many troops due to the lack of any action in the Med and Africa.  Once that is fixed I doubt Italy will be able to afford much if any troops in Russia.

I would also like to see more German troops.  It would be nice if all the cities had a garrison to start and Berlin an corps.

Planes are too expensive.  I would like to see fighters reduced to 80 and tac bombers to 90. 

U Boats should drop to 50.  Additional there should be at least one more at start.

British Army seems okay my only complaint is the carriers which should not be allowed to bomb inland targets.  US army still needs more bucks.  I would like to see them building Strat Bombers instead of just invading in 42/43 but with the carriers being allowed to bomb inland targets there is no reason for them to wait.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 5:10:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irish army63

1. Russia folds a bit too easily either when computer controlled or player controlled.


Play with a higher handicap then - I can't get to Moscow playing on the highest Axis handicap!!

quote:

2. Germany's supply of oil at the start of the game is about 100 points too low.


Why?

quote:

3. Italy has way too many troops available for the Russian campaign and even though they are a lot less good than the Germans, they are still too good.


Well that's the fault of the allies for not tying up troops in Nth Africa. them's the choices you make....or hte AI doesn't mke as appropriate.


quote:

4. The German army isn't big enough. It was able to cover almost all of the Russian front on its own .


Except for all those massive gaps in its lines and the big areas covered by allies (can you say "Stalingrad"?).

.
quote:

and still leave a decent enough force in France.


Well there's no need in CEAW to represent a lot of the lower-level stuff - tehre's no ned to Garrison France at all really - unlike real life - so this is definitely a snortcoming of the game as a simulation IMO.

The "decent enough force" in France was 9 Pz divisions (3 Corps), 1 motorised division and 15 Infantry divisions, plus 33 or so coastal and training divisions (on 6 June 44, see http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwarii_europe_maps_map53_largerview.htm)

Well the choice is yours - what are you going to spend your points on? the size of hte German army is in your hads.....make your choices.

quote:


5. Either make planes cheaper or allow them to be produced faster, same with U-boats. In particular it is hard to generate enough U-boats to really threaten the convoys without making a huge sacrifice somewhere else.


well DUH!! Of course you can't do everything - that's the point!![8|]

you have to make some choices.

the Axis can easily put 8-10 u-boats into hte Atlantic and give teh convoys a real good working over.....but htey can't do that AND develop all the heavy tanks they want - make a choice!!

why should planes be cheaper?

the Luftwaffe was outnumbered on every front by mid-1942.

quote:


Also, by 1944 German industries were being pulverised from the air. To do this, you'd have to overinvest in planes and underinvest in your army.


Yes indeed...yuo are quite right......so what?

quote:


6. In 1943/44 the British army is way too powerful in relation to the US army.


Unless the Brits invest heavily in strategic aircraft and pund Axis industry...

Sheesh - you seem to want to be able to do everything without having to make choices.

there are much bigger problems in CEAW - partisans that disappear when countries are conquered stands out immediately!



targul -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 5:54:10 AM)

Disagree with SMK in most cases here.  Not getting to Moscow at highest level is not really the point of his post or mine.

Oil okay I can live with as is but if you watch the boards many feel it is inadequate. 

Italy is obvious no AI in Africa but this will hopefully be solved next patch.

Germany simply has less planes then they did historically.  They were not outnumbered by the Allies they were equal.  Also with the British carriers that even makes the situation worse.  Carriers providing air support and air superiority to inland targets just didnt happen but it is common in this game.

At no point in the game can the Axis produce U Bosts to place the supply in jeapordy.  Now if only destroyers where able to attack the subs they could but with Battleships, Carriers and Destroyers doing convoy duty that is just overkill.  Destroyers are U Boat killers, Battleships attack all ships but U Boats and bombard, Carriers can handle both U Boats and surface ships.  They should also be able to assist in coastal attacks but inland is not there business and that really needs to be stopped.

Even with the changes the choices would remain difficult but more fun and balanced. 

To maintain the balance you should probably lower destroyer costs also.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 7:42:52 AM)

quote:

Germany simply has less planes then they did historically.  They were not outnumbered by the Allies they were equal.


I don't think you have any idea of the size of the relative airforces!!

quote:

On 31 December 1943 the Luftwaffe had 2395 single-engine pilots in combat squadrons deployed throughout Europe. Of these pilots only 1495 were fully operational (62 percent), 291 were partially combat-ready (12 percent), and 691 were not operationally ready under any circumstances (26 percent). This force lost no less than 2262 fighter pilots in the next five months—close to 100 percent of the number reporting for duty at the turn of the year.
(from http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/Mar-Apr/murray.htm)

At the same time the USAAF had 11,000 fighters worldwide - of which 15 fighter groups were in the 8th airforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_Air_Force#July_1942_-_January_1944), 7 in the 15th in Italy of which one had come from the 12th AF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Air_Force#15AF_organization_August_1944), 18-19 are in the 9th Airforce Tactical fighter wings (see http://www.publicenquiry.co.uk/history.html and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Air_Force#Ninth_Air_Force_Units_During_World_War_II), and 12 were in the 12th Airforce in Sept 43 (see http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/airforcetable.html) - that's 54 groups. 

USAAF fighter groups each had an official org of 48 aircraft (3 sqn's of 16 each) for 2600+ total fighters.........even allowing for shortages and unserviceability the USAAF probably outnumbered the LW in flying fighters all on its own.

then you can add in the RAF and the VVS......

Getting to Moscow is surely a prime measure of the strength of hte USSR - which is his point #1 - how is it not his point?[&:]



targul -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 9:16:43 AM)

I am not talking about 1943.  The number of planes where almost equal at the start of the war everyone knows the allies controlled the skies in 43.  The Allies did not have strategic bombers in 39.  When you added up all the planes for both France and England they were equal to the Axis.   Once France fell the Axis outnumbered the English in air.  But the mud hole English Channel prevented them from taking great advantage of that superiority and the English had radar which allowed them to be in the right places at the right times. 

Moscow is simple to take.  If you ignore the rest of Russia and place all your forces in a small front taking Moscow is easy.  Once Moscow falls moving those same force directly in front they run into the next target and complete the conquest of Russia.  Solution as I said is simple make the next city more random so that the Axis player does not know exactly what it takes to make Russia surrender.  I still think it would be best to require Lenningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad to fall to have the Russians surrender.

They beefed up Russia well in the last patch and it is almost correct but still too easy for the Axis due to the narrow victory conditions over Russia.




Irish army63 -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 12:24:04 PM)

In response to SMK, yes, you do have to make choices, but the Germans were able to invade Russia AND have a decent U-boat campaign in the Altantic. They had a decent garrison in France AND a big army in Russia, etc, etc.

(Incidentally, I did engage the Italians in N Africa and they never responded. All their forces were pushed into Russia.)



Bigfish -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 3:04:16 PM)

hi there,

quote:

In response to SMK, yes, you do have to make choices, but the Germans were able to invade Russia AND have a decent U-boat campaign in the Altantic. They had a decent garrison in France AND a big army in Russia, etc, etc.


This is the point i'am talking about the last weeks. Yes germans have not much more forces in comparision to the allies, but look at the histrocial facts. With this few forces the germans conquerd europe. So two solutions could be realtistic: Either the germans get more units and oil or the germans start with much more technical advantage (especialy for the subs).



Syagrius -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 4:07:56 PM)

In my games I noticed that even if Moscow fall, and even if I managed to take Leningrad and Stalingrad, the Russian still have powerfull forces.  Taking Moscow is no garantee of victory in this game.



fatehunter -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 4:18:04 PM)

I guess I am not a very good player even I've played other games like Norm Koger's Operational Art of War for ten years.

Took Poland, took yugoslavia, took denmark, holland, belgium, france and then Sealioned England and Ireland. While finishing up England I invaded Russia in Early '41. By '43 i had Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, all the caucusus oil and was about to win but I ran out of troops. I was recruiting old men and boys and being pummeled by the Soviets. My last drive with 6 panzers from the south was halted 3-4 hexes from Baku.

I did not figure out that if you took the other soviet capital they would fall. I think I followed the historical german plan and it was close but i lost.

even difficulty

Thanks to the designer I played all day yesterday and did not get anything done!

Then I gave up. (loved every minute of it)



Syagrius -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 4:29:00 PM)

As the German you can't afford to build units like mad or you will run out of manpower eventually.  Same thing happened for me in my first game as Axis, when I ran out of manpower I was slaugthered.



Irish army63 -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/16/2007 4:49:32 PM)

In response to Fatehunter I'd definitely agree that your mistake was to go after Yugoslavia, and maybe even to invade England before Russia. Yugoslavia is of no strategic importance and historically the Germans only went in to rescue the Italians. After taking France I went straight after the Russians, took Perm in early 1944 had a gigantically powerful army with which to invade England.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 12:15:59 AM)

No - historically Germany went after Yugoslavia because a pro-allied coup had kicked out hte pro-axis Govt, and they didn't want to have a country in Europe that might join the war against them.

It was Greece and Nth Africa where Germany had to help out the Italians.



Major Victory -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 2:43:48 AM)

My initial impression of this game is very favourable.

I give high marks on the following systems.

Convoy
Production
Ground combat
Naval combat
Air combat

OK marks on Tech

Failing grades on the following

Weather (I assume Europe does not have year round summer)
Variable entry for minor/major powers (cannot have set entry dates)
Political system (there was always political ramifications when countries were attacked)

Bottom Line, I am really enjoying the game thus far, and hope with additional patches/add on's, this game could be a standard for WW2 computer strategy games




IrishGuards -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 3:02:37 AM)

Swine MV you forgot the invasion's ... I was reading WiF today and .. the amphs have range 2 ..
Y did not like our Tcp game the other night and called to vent ... He sent a very powerful force to the Med ..
So once France fell in April 40 .. I took 3 turns and then launched Sealowe .. His naval forces in Nor sea and Air in UK could not stop the invasion ... [:'(]
IDG



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 3:05:02 AM)

Targul wrote:
quote:

I am not talking about 1943.

you didn't give any date at all, so I chose a mid-war one before the allies had shot the LW out of the sky.

I suggest that if you mean a specific date, or date range, then it's probably a good idea to mention it!!

quote:

The number of planes where almost equal at the start of the war .


and at he start of the war in CEAW the Allies have 2 fighters and a bomber, and the Germans have 2 fighters and a tac bomber (ignoring the polish unit 'cos it gets killed quickly) so what's the problem?

quote:

everyone knows the allies controlled the skies in 43


rubbish.  by the END of 1943 the allies were BEGINNING to exert dominance over the LW in those parts of Europe they could reach, but it was by no means a done deal - think of Schweinfurt and Ploesti!

quote:

Once France fell the Axis outnumbered the English in air. 


An oft repeated myth.

most such statements look at the number of English fighters against the entire LW - so some 650-800 to 3300 and generally quoting a 4:1 superiority.

However that's a false comparison - the only planes that were of any importance were the fighters - so 650-800 (or so) RAF fighters to 700 (or so) Me-109's (see http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se280940.htm)  (both figures are serviceable a/c in units only - the English had at least 300 fighters in reserve at all times) and about 200 Me-110's (I believe, dont' ahve any stats for that).

The British always had more pilots, and always had more fighters total, since Germany didn't maintain a reserve as the Brits did.  By the end of hte BoB the LW was down to about 280 serviceable 109's - the RAf never had less than 600 serviceable Hurricanes and Spitfires (I can get the reference if you want - I got these figures several years ago when I did a paper on the subject)

so in fact the LW with it's 2 fighters is well over-represented compared to the RAF!

As for the whole airforces - I don't have figures for the whole RAF, so I'd be interested in knowing how many combat aircraft the RAF had total compared to the 3000+ usually quoted for the LW at the time.



IrishGuards -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 3:21:34 AM)

You dont seem to be counting the UK CV's as Air ... They are better than any Air unit on board ...
Also the French had some really crap planes .. And they all were not in France ...
You ever read the Fall of the Fourth Republic .. German air is not .. I repeat not represented properly on Sept 1 1939 .. [:-]
I guess this is a balancing issue .. Part of what you seem to not realize is the fact that German ATR and LR bombers .. both land and sea are not included in OOB ... [X(]
I could go on ..  [:'(]
IDG



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 3:31:05 AM)

nope - I was just counting the RAF - the FAA such as it is is additional.

the French had soem crap planes for sure - and some good ones too.  But ultimately it didn't matter 'cos their organisation was rubbish.

It's all very well to say that German air is not properly represented - but how about some indication of how you think it could be better done?



IrishGuards -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:12:27 AM)

NP .. Lets look at the total number of planes .. quality and new designs compared to obselete designs of both UK and France ...
This is the heart of the matter ... Its just crunching numbers ...
Available vs operational .. Start at Sept 1939 ... Go to say Fall of france ...
Scale is the ??? .. At this scale what do you represent each Unit as being ..????
2 UK CV's .. 2 German Ftr ... OK .. Cancel out .. I rate it this way because of the power given to CV's
In here is the apparent issue .. CV's in 1939/1940 had brutal air groups .. I posted this also ..
Germany had more Bmrs than Ftrs in both 1939 and June 40 .. operational and available ..
UK Strat Bombers in 1939 were a joke .. comparitively speaking .. By 40 .. some completely obselete ..
UK Ftr and Strat, Fr Ftr  .. German Tac .. Thats 3 to 1 ... Nay .. [:-]
This means that Allied air can dominate any given area on board from 1939 .. Germany must build a least a Ftr and Tac just to be even ..
I think scrap the Polish air .. no way they had a third the planes let alone quality of German Air ..
I posted and remember reading that once Czech was conq .. Poland did not receive Air units they had purchased .. I could be wrong .. and will read this section forthwith .. Book was Total War .. great book ..
Assuming that balance must be maintained .. Not easy in 1939 ... Leave Allied air as is .. curb the labs for CV's .. and there abilities .. This is an inherent problem when all units can be 10's ... You really need to stagger the units to the country ... Check post .. Spitfires over Warsaw ... No way were the Polish planes equal to UK ..
Germany 2 Ftr .. 2 Tac .. OOB 1939 .. Giving Germany a Strat that cant hit a unit in a city is useless ..
The most historical WW2 game out there is WiF .. [&o]
Check the OOB for German air 1939 .. I think you will get a real eye-opener ...
5 Ftr .. 6 Tac .. 1 Strat .. 1 Nav .. All different capabilities .. Now scale the units to there countries ..
And I also think UK should have Air unit in Med .. So .. limit the unit to the Med .. Up the Italian by 1 Ftr ..
Why would a UK CV that is allready well over represented be able to gain a Strategic Lab by Mid or Late 40 that means he can bomb even farther inland ... Nay makes sense .. [&:]
IDG





SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:15:24 AM)

so the problem comes down to the CV's - I agree they are overpowered.....but they have to be in some respects because air combat only ever occurs bwtween entire air units - mostly the CV's fought against much smaller air units than are reperesented in this game.

They should have much higher defence (IMO), and lower attack. And they should be much more expensive to repair.

I say get the CV's right, dont' screw up the airforces!!

In fact like in your other thread it comes down to an incorrect model for air and naval warfare based on the assumption that you can treat those 2 theatres as if they are just the same as land units.

CV's get extra range for the same reason other air units get extra range from strat labs......they developed longer range aircraft through the war - sheesh!![8|]



Major Victory -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:29:48 AM)

One thing to also consider is that so far, discussion has centered around UK Carriers.

Say the US decides to purchase a carrier or 2 late in the game. a couple of Essex class American carriers is a far superior air/ship weapon (numbers of planes/quality) than there much weaker British counterparts.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:33:17 AM)

sort of....remember they're largely using the same a/c - it was F6F's that escorted the Baracuda's that attacked the Tirpitz, and Seafires were considered the bee's knees anti-Kamikaze CAP!! :)

however such differences as did exist can be dealt with by different tech levels IMO.



Major Victory -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:41:35 AM)

American CV battlegroups also had massive anti-air capabilty that British / German ships could not compete.

I still think a 1944 American CV Task Force could handle itself in say the "Med" theatre of operations (I agree that bombing inland targets would be very risky, and not undertaken in this game scale), but at sea, it would hold its own against anything the Axis could throw at it.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:51:49 AM)

Um...it's not really fair to compare battlegroup capabilities with ship capabilities!!

According to Wiki by the end of the war the RN Pacific fleet comprised 4 BB's, 18 carriers (with 300 a/c - 1 carrier was maintenance, most were "light" Colossus class carrying 50~ a/c (2/3rd fighters, 1/3rd attack), at least 2 were fleet class carrying 70+ a/c each), 11 cruisers and sundry smaller craft - the AA armament of the KGV BB's at that time was 8 8-barrelled 2 pound AA, 6 quad 2 pound AA (except KGV), 2 quad 40 mm AA, up to 65 single 20 mm AA.

I dont' see any reason why bombing inland targets would be inherently more risky than bombing any other type of target - carrier aircraft have a range, and are perfectly capable of attacking anything within that range.

It's a matter of how many enemy aircraft are within range to counterattack that is important - not how far a target is from teh coast.

If there's no enemy airforce nearby then you have no problem.

RN fleet carriers supported allied landings in Sicily and Salerno, and Escort carriers were sufficient to cover Dragoon in Sth France in 1944.

the problem with CV's in the game is, I maintain, a fundamental issue with the way the naval war is modeled, and nothing at all to do with their ability to strike inland - which is perfectly valid. Basiacally it's far to easy to repair and rebuild the damned things, so it's no great problem risking them if you have production points you're willing to invest.........imagine how people might play differently if, for example, yuo could only repair 1 pt of a carrier unit per turn???....



IrishGuards -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 5:02:40 AM)

Nay .. There is the issue .. When the CV's air group takes off .. the casualties .. they were unable to continue dog fights .. stay in combat for great lenghts of time ..
Example of this is 109's over Britain .. Had to return to base .. Nay fuel .. [X(]
As the unit composition is the key .. what kind of striking power do they have ... CV is a 10 ..
If the CV's air unit does not return to the ship in any fair shape .. CV is extremely vulnerable .. 
They dont have to intercept Air attack unless directly attacked .. [8|]
IDG



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 5:15:18 AM)

huh??  Ability to continue fighting is a direct correlation with range of a/c and distance to fight - some British naval a/c were notoriously short ranged - esp the Seafire, but the Fulmar and Firefly were fine and dandy with 3-4 hours endurance (800 miles for the fulmar, 100 for the Firefly)....although not much good against "real" fighters - the Fulmer remained in use as a long range recce a/c after it was withdrawn from use as a fighter!

US carrier aircraft had good ranges - 770 miles for hte F4F - vs about 340 miles for the Me-109E



IrishGuards -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 5:41:52 AM)

although not much good against "real" fighters .. Ftr needed speed ... [8|]
What ya need is some T34/85 .. Ftrs .. Just like them UK CV's ... [:'(]

Why not give Italy some Super Dreadnought Long Range Floatplane Heavy Bombers ... [&o]
IDG



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 7:12:45 AM)

[X(] Feel free to speek English.....or indeed any other language that is translatable by bablefish......at any time!!

note that the RN were fully aware of the problems that carrier based a/c would ahve within range of land-based fighters - the Fulmar was not expected to have to fight "real" fighters.  However like so many other pre war theories needs must often dictated otherwise.......



IrishGuards -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/17/2007 4:35:46 PM)

Oh Dear ..
Thats exactly what you fail to grasp ...
The RN knew what would happen .. And guess what ... Thats why it didnt happen..
The actual CV portion of the 10 factor unit is proportional .. The Air group is also proportional ..
Balance the OOB .. [X(]
CV's are being used as Ftrs and Bmrs .. To a massive extent .. Yet they do not intercept Air missions like Ftrs ..
Ask yourself why .. [&:]
IDG



SMK-at-work -> RE: Making this a great, not a good game (8/18/2007 7:39:14 AM)

Because the system is screwed if you simply make naval units the same as land units except they walk on water - sheesh!![>:]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.015625