Is this WAD? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

Ironclad -> Is this WAD? (5/11/2017 9:59:14 PM)

The Canada retreat option didn't appear and the loss of London/Manchester in the same turn has led to the UK surrender. Egypt had already fallen to the Axis. The surrender has resulted in the instant removal of all UK units in the home UK and in Iraq/Persia, the reduction of GB MPPs in that turn to 0 and the removal of the GB force pool and the allied research table is now restricted to just USA and Russia. Canada continues as a minor with its on map units and small force pool, together with the surviving on map RN and is receiving MPPS for itself and presumably the empire (minus committted SOE costs).



vonik -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/11/2017 10:06:13 PM)

Yes this is the bad case when the capital is automatically moved to Alexandria but Alexandria is occupied or falls later . UK surrenders .
This case should be removed . If UK looses Manchester, the capital should ALWAYS move to Canada and the Alexandria "option" (it is actually not a true option because the computer decides without asking your opinion) shouldn't even exist .
I hope that it will be removed in one of the next patches because this gives a HUGE advantage to Axis who generally doesn't really need additional advantages at this stage .



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/11/2017 11:28:29 PM)

Name one major power in WWI or WWII which continued to fight after its capital was taken. And count the major powers that surrendered even before their capital was taken.



Sugar -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 4:47:39 AM)

This is NOT a historical simulation. Keep in mind that this allows some tricky options an allied player couldn`t do anything about: conquering Manchester and Alexandria before taking London leads afaik to the UK-surrender without even asking the player to remove the capital.

And even more: in Breakthrough SoE the DE to create vichy or to take whole France implemented that this has been a one time option to invite Spain into the Axis. Now the invitation is even possible after creating Vichy and then taking Algier. I seriously guess this is not what it`s meant to be, since all these actions could be done with limited troops and risks; GB-units can`t be send to Egypt, they are produced in Britain and can`t be placed anywhere with London surrounded, and without reinforcements Egypt is undefendable. Strategically game over in May 42.




LiquidSky -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 7:02:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Name one major power in WWI or WWII which continued to fight after its capital was taken. And count the major powers that surrendered even before their capital was taken.



China. Lost Nanking...fought until the end.

Now count the major powers that moved or had plans to move their capital so they could continue to fight.



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 10:24:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Name one major power in WWI or WWII which continued to fight after its capital was taken. And count the major powers that surrendered even before their capital was taken.



China. Lost Nanking...fought until the end.

Now count the major powers that moved or had plans to move their capital so they could continue to fight.

I think your "exception" proves the rule.



Leadwieght -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 11:39:03 AM)

I agree with Ironclad. Forcing the shift to Alexandria gives the Axis a ridiculous advantage.



TheBattlefield -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 2:49:25 PM)

Even if I can understand the arguments in principle, I would like to deliberately take a counter position. Why does every strategic possibility resulting from the game design have to be patched from the game as an unjust "bug"? Especially since it is here an "advantage" of the axis, which is not given to the player just as a gift and can also be countered with the mechanisms of the game: simply not be defeated in North Africa and even additionally on the British island!
















sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 2:59:50 PM)

The computer has a 0% chance of choosing Egypt over Canada. Only a human player can choose to move the UK capital to Egypt. See DE 105.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 3:04:58 PM)

I was thinking about countries that surrendered when their capital fell, major or minor, and none came to mind. Most continued to fight after their capitals were taken, several surrendered before their capitals were taken, but none surrendered only because their capital was enemy occupied, were they ?



TheBattlefield -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 6:45:01 PM)

Everything right, I think. But with the loss of a capital and a country also a substantial part of the resources, economy and production power is lost. Of course, if possible, an exile government will be established and various units will continue the fight in one way or another. But what is the best way to illustrate this process? A few partisans and free units with an exile capital or the "takeover" of a whole country? From the point of view of the axis player, a territorial shift of England into the hardly accessible area of Canada (Surrender_1 - DE 105, and thus a de facto reestablishment of the already beaten major) could be felt as "somewhat unjust" after all the efforts of an invasion...just a thought.



Ironclad -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 7:12:13 PM)

Its the multitude of advantages gained by the Axis that is the unbalancing factor; especially given that historically the move to Canada was a definite possibility and the self governing dominions already in the war were remote from German attack unlike the French North African possessions.

A loss of all MPPs held would seem a legitimate penalty (with reduced MPP income thereafter) but to remove all the British forces (land and air plus naval units in ports) in UK and Mid-East is a massive bonus for the Axis as it instantly allows them to fully redeploy and reinfoce eastwards to Russia and Persia. Game experience suggests these units would swiftly be overcome or forced to flee, by transport or air operation, but as long as they continue they distract the Axis. The removal of the GB force pool may be justified but shouldn't Canada's be supplemented to reflect other Empire force potential. The final killer is the ending of any further British research thereby condemming what's left (mainly RN) to soon to be obsolesence.



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 8:10:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I was thinking about countries that surrendered when their capital fell, major or minor, and none came to mind. Most continued to fight after their capitals were taken, several surrendered before their capitals were taken, but none surrendered only because their capital was enemy occupied, were they ?

What about Germany?

Countries surrendering before their capitals fell (most) counsel especially against these "never die" capital shifts. By the time a capital falls, a country likely is (or should be if it's a game) in pretty bad shape.



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 8:13:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

Everything right, I think. But with the loss of a capital and a country also a substantial part of the resources, economy and production power is lost. Of course, if possible, an exile government will be established and various units will continue the fight in one way or another. But what is the best way to illustrate this process? A few partisans and free units with an exile capital or the "takeover" of a whole country? From the point of view of the axis player, a territorial shift of England into the hardly accessible area of Canada (Surrender_1 - DE 105, and thus a de facto reestablishment of the already beaten major) could be felt as "somewhat unjust" after all the efforts of an invasion...just a thought.

Right. That would be a gov't in exile. Where would be the industry to resupply ammunition? Uniforms? Armaments? Replacement troops? Ships? Etc.?

Any such "gov't" would be a subset of the U.S. or Canadian government like the Free French. Not a continuing economic nation.



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 8:15:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its the multitude of advantages gained by the Axis that is the unbalancing factor; especially given that historically the move to Canada was a definite possibility and the self governing dominions already in the war were remote from German attack unlike the French North African possessions.

A loss of all MPPs held would seem a legitimate penalty (with reduced MPP income thereafter) but to remove all the British forces (land and air plus naval units in ports) in UK and Mid-East is a massive bonus for the Axis as it instantly allows them to fully redeploy and reinfoce eastwards to Russia and Persia. Game experience suggests these units would swiftly be overcome or forced to flee, by transport or air operation, but as long as they continue they distract the Axis. The removal of the GB force pool may be justified but shouldn't Canada's be supplemented to reflect other Empire force potential. The final killer is the ending of any further British research thereby condemming what's left (mainly RN) to soon to be obsolesence.

Games are won or lost. That is the point of the game. Not to have it continue come what may. I don't understand the desirability of never surrendering nations.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 9:06:34 PM)

quote:

What about Germany?

Captured on the 2nd but fighting didn't stop until the 7th. By the 7th most of Germany was occupied and their remaining units were a shambles, so that plus Hitler's death are the reasons for Germany to surrender, not Berlin.
In game terms each country should be looked at separately, because not one rule would cover them all. For 1990's Third Reich I can see why a capital would have such programming significance, but these days not so much. I have read of Germany and Russia making provisions for moving the governments so that the loss of Berlin or Moscow would not cause a surrender, but I don't recall ever reading about Britain and what they historically had planned. Has anybody else ? I would be interested to incorporate something into the 653H mod. As it is now, if Sealion is successful, I have the UK taking control of Nova Scotia as a base of operations and seat of new government [no Egypt option].



vonik -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/12/2017 9:52:35 PM)

Sure UK capital transferred to Alexandria doesn't make any sense gamewise nor historically .
On the other hand if it happens, that means that Sealion has succeeded and then UK surrender is irrelevant because Axis won the game anyway .
It is not Russia which will stop the Germans to get Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad and then the game is over .

The answer on the question "What to do when UK surrenders ?" is "Nothing, start another game ."
What is more important is that making UK surrender should be VERY difficult and not just an afterthought .



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 12:42:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

What about Germany?

Captured on the 2nd but fighting didn't stop until the 7th. By the 7th most of Germany was occupied and their remaining units were a shambles, so that plus Hitler's death are the reasons for Germany to surrender, not Berlin.
In game terms each country should be looked at separately, because not one rule would cover them all. For 1990's Third Reich I can see why a capital would have such programming significance, but these days not so much. I have read of Germany and Russia making provisions for moving the governments so that the loss of Berlin or Moscow would not cause a surrender, but I don't recall ever reading about Britain and what they historically had planned. Has anybody else ? I would be interested to incorporate something into the 653H mod. As it is now, if Sealion is successful, I have the UK taking control of Nova Scotia as a base of operations and seat of new government [no Egypt option].

With all due respect sPz, 5 days is essentially contemporaneous with the fall of the capital. Especially in terms of the length of a turn in the game. This is just a quibble in my view.



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 12:50:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonik

Sure UK capital transferred to Alexandria doesn't make any sense gamewise nor historically .
On the other hand if it happens, that means that Sealion has succeeded and then UK surrender is irrelevant because Axis won the game anyway .
It is not Russia which will stop the Germans to get Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad and then the game is over .

The answer on the question "What to do when UK surrenders ?" is "Nothing, start another game ."
What is more important is that making UK surrender should be VERY difficult and not just an afterthought .

Have you considered all options within the gameplay to insure that Britain doesn't fall easily? Keeping Britain well-garrisoned, even if foreign adventures must be curtailed? Expanding the already large RN to withstand an assault from a more formidable KM agenda? Same with RAF?

Also remember, Germany never attempted Sealion and most likely Hitler never had any plan or desire to invade Britain. No one really knows how difficult it would've been had Germany actually dedicated itself fully to that end as players can do in the game. Could the RN have been devastated by an extreme air and naval assault with much larger KM and LW forces than historically? I don't know. It is all speculation.

I just want to be sure that "easy" doesn't mean "I insist on making maximum efforts abroad and when I do that I can't prevent a successful Sealion."



vonik -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 1:44:28 PM)

quote:

Have you considered all options within the gameplay to insure that Britain doesn't fall easily? Keeping Britain well-garrisoned, even if foreign adventures must be curtailed?
Expanding the already large RN to withstand an assault from a more formidable KM agenda? Same with RAF?


I have played some 12 PBEM as Allied so be very sure that I have considered about everything .
Not that the number of options is large .
In 1940 UK has inf 0, inf warfare 0, ASW 0 and tanks 0 . It gets a handful of MPP which are not enough to build new units AND do the necessary research AND to reinforce its navy or air .
Now Sealion means that 2 german lvl 1 tanks with 2 strikes, 1 HQ and 2 paras land in 1 turn supported by 5 bombers, 4 fighters and 5-7 level 1 subs. The 5 or 6 inf 0 units in UK just evaporate .
And these Pz will land if and only if Germany has an early breakthrough in Amphibious . If Sealion doesn't take place it just means that the German player didn't get amhibious, not that his forces were not enough .
That is what I call easy and it shouldn't .

Hitler not only intended to invade England but ordered to plan it in his Weisung 16 on 16.7.1940 .
What you apparently ignore is that the transport fleet was already gathered on the invasion ports (some 300 ships and 2 000 transport barges) .
The condition was to eliminate the RAF what almost happened when Hitler surprisingly ordered to Attack towns instead of air fields what basically saved the RAF and prevented Sealion .
He would do the same error later in Russia ordering a priority on economical targets instead on the destruction of the ennemy armed forces .



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 2:03:44 PM)

quote:

With all due respect sPz, 5 days is essentially contemporaneous with the fall of the capital. Especially in terms of the length of a turn in the game. This is just a quibble in my view.

Yeah but I was trying to point out that Germany's surrender was based on other factors than Berlin falling.



Leadwieght -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 7:34:16 PM)

Have we lost the original point?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 8:01:41 PM)

I thought the original point was already well handled, the cure to the original woe being not to move your capital to Egypt.



Ironclad -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 8:40:17 PM)

I wasn't given the option of moving it anywhere.



Capitaine -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 9:39:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonik

Hitler not only intended to invade England but ordered to plan it in his Weisung 16 on 16.7.1940 .
What you apparently ignore is that the transport fleet was already gathered on the invasion ports (some 300 ships and 2 000 transport barges) .
The condition was to eliminate the RAF what almost happened when Hitler surprisingly ordered to Attack towns instead of air fields what basically saved the RAF and prevented Sealion .
He would do the same error later in Russia ordering a priority on economical targets instead on the destruction of the ennemy armed forces .

There is a difference between what the Army has plans to do and what Hitler really intended. Had Hitler really intended to invade England he would not have allowed the BEF to evacuate unmolested at Dunkirk. If you're planning on invading England then you go for kill with enemy's army in its most vulnerable position.

You would also not shift the focus of your air attack from military targets to terror bombing if planning to invade. Hitler wanted a political win against Britain, not a military campaign. Just as he believed would've happened in WWI had the Germans won in France then. Other than "keeping options open" and perhaps some deception with the gathering of transports, nothing Hitler did was consistent with launching an invasion.



jgsIII -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/13/2017 11:43:14 PM)

quote:

This is NOT a historical simulation


I sure wish I had read this before my purchase. Sure, the game has great graphics and so many historic connections to give it great flavor. I appreciate the time effort put into those areas. But they are just icing on the cake and they can't compensate for Risk-like game engine. The "keep rolling until their dead" kills me in a game with so much historic promise. To see a battle unfold where the adject enemy unit attacks, withdraws, then the next enemy unit moves into position, attacks, withdraws, and a third unit, now remember we are dealing with at least division size units, move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I am glad there are so many people who enjoy the game and I wish Fury continuing success.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/14/2017 12:11:42 AM)

quote:

I wasn't given the option of moving it anywhere.

Ok, thanks for re-clarifying. I looked at the script and see that if Egypt has surrendered, the option is not given.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/14/2017 12:17:03 AM)

quote:

move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I had the same opinion initially, but thinking about it some, there is no stacking, so instead of having multiple stacks attacking, or multiple units in one stack attacking, we have the 'Dynamic Movement and Combat' feature. It seems like an equal trade off, I think.



Sugar -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/14/2017 5:42:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jgs

quote:

This is NOT a historical simulation


I sure wish I had read this before my purchase. Sure, the game has great graphics and so many historic connections to give it great flavor. I appreciate the time effort put into those areas. But they are just icing on the cake and they can't compensate for Risk-like game engine. The "keep rolling until their dead" kills me in a game with so much historic promise. To see a battle unfold where the adject enemy unit attacks, withdraws, then the next enemy unit moves into position, attacks, withdraws, and a third unit, now remember we are dealing with at least division size units, move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I am glad there are so many people who enjoy the game and I wish Fury continuing success.


Sorry to hear that, but your description of the gamemechanic has been changed for this game, in the predecessors one could not do what you described, the units could either march and attack, or attack and then march.

Although I see your point, I feel this to be necessary, since with the ectended numbers of forces, scale and limited damage by inf.-units it is not very easy to destroy enemy units. Usually it takes several attacks to destroy a unit, this presupposes a combined armed warfare strategy.

I guess without these changes in gamemechanics, it would be more of a WWI-style combat, with little gains and nearly equal losses. So for my part, I highly appreciate those changes.

Maybe it would help to give you some hints improving your ability to defend more efficiently?



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Is this WAD? (5/15/2017 3:58:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar


I guess without these changes in gamemechanics, it would be more of a WWI-style combat, with little gains and nearly equal losses. So for my part, I highly appreciate those changes.



I agree, IMO it would take a complete change in game philosophy in which units would retreat much more easily, everytime they are "defeated" instead of remaining in place to be destroyed, so that game will consist much more about gaining strategic graound and not destroying units. Then air units could be greatly reduced in their destruction power limiting them to hit morale and reduce entrenchment.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625