RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (Full Version)

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



Message

Sugar -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/20/2017 2:03:31 PM)

Well, to say the germans can have Britain and/or NA, if they set their focus, does not mean that they automatically win the war. Britain is able to make them pay a high price in costs and time.

The other issue is, that the SU is not able to defend their key cities in 41, and also not able to counterattack decisevely in 42. The differences to the predecessors are the DAK-DE, which is a nobrainer due to the limited costs and the lacking danger of a transfer through the mediterranian sea; and the high buildlimits of bombers.

I`m not yet totally convinced that the Axis is able to win every time, if he doesn`t make huge mistakes, since the numbers of MPs and the forthgoing updates allow no complete judgement, but I tend to guess so.

I`m still working on a comparison between SCWWII and Breakthrough SoE - I guess I`ll be ready next week - and give some hints in terms of balancing.

But the MPs always have the highest priority, despite balancing issues this game is so much fun!




Leadwieght -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/20/2017 4:02:13 PM)

I agree that even a reasonably competent Allied player can safeguard against a "smash-and grab" Sealion involving paras and 1-2 amphib only. But if a German player who wants to take Britain, he can, and doing that will almost certainly win him the game, even if he takes heavy losses doing it. That seems like a structural advantage for the Axis.

I'm in a game now in which I have killed off 2 German paras, 1 PZ, a Mech unit, 2 Armies, a corps, and a Fighter unit, all killed during Sealion. It's July 1941 and he's still throwing troops across the Channel and is on the bring of taking Egypt. Of course, he has not set up for Barbarossa, but Soviet mobilization is still only 37%, USA's is 52%, so it's not like I can build colossal strike forces of American ships or Russian troops. I'm not saying I haven't made some mistakes, but playing against this same player as the Axis, I forced a resignation in late 1941.

THAT's what I mean by a structural advantage.




Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/20/2017 5:04:49 PM)

The Dak event is for sure a big bonus for the Axis which I don't see the reason for it



sPzAbt653 -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/20/2017 8:39:02 PM)

It could be moved to occur only for the computer Axis. I think something should be done about reinforcement for the computer, though. As it is now, I know that when the DAK deploys to Africa and I am playing the Allies, there will be an initial horror and shock factor, but if I keep my wits about me I can overcome it by focusing on eliminating one unit at a time, because the computer never reinforces Africa. It will rebuild units lost in Africa but sends them to Russia.



Leadwieght -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/20/2017 10:19:56 PM)

I don't mind giving an Axis (Human) player the Afrikakorps event. It makes for more interesting play. It's the weird supply situation for the Allies in NA that screws things up, IMO.

Something that always drives me nuts is how you can have a level 10 allied HQ in Alexandria and the supply level for the Allies just one hex south or west of El Alamein will be 5 or 4, while the German and Italian units in adjacent hexes will be at supply 6 or 7. It's been explained to me that this is WAD in 1.03, but it just violates common sense. In the real war, by the time they got to El Alamein, the DAK was at the end of a very long supply line and they had barely enough ammo and fuel (esp. fuel) for one last push in Sept. 42. When that failed, they had to hunker down and wait for the Eighth Army to clobber them. Playing vs. a human, one can almost never reproduce this situation because even if a German offensive near EA fails initially, they can always refresh back up to max strength in a turn and try again

I haven't tried 1.03.02 yet, but it sounds like the revised supply rules may make it harder for the Afrika Korps to just roll over everything on the way to Cairo. Anybody have any experience with the new version?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 5:34:54 AM)

quote:

how you can have a level 10 allied HQ in Alexandria and the supply level for the Allies just one hex south or west of El Alamein will be 5 or 4, while the German and Italian units in adjacent hexes will be at supply 6 or 7.

Bill has explained this before, you need to have two Allied HQ's in Egypt in order to compete with the Axis.



vonik -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 9:26:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

how you can have a level 10 allied HQ in Alexandria and the supply level for the Allies just one hex south or west of El Alamein will be 5 or 4, while the German and Italian units in adjacent hexes will be at supply 6 or 7.

Bill has explained this before, you need to have two Allied HQ's in Egypt in order to compete with the Axis.


Allied HQs and supply are irrelevant for the outcome in Africa .
What is relevant is that the German has more Pz&bombers&fighters&armies that he can commit. He has also more XP, MPP and better techs .
Because of that he wins in Egypt every single time if he decides so and the Allied can do absolutely nothing against it .

Actually the DAK is almost enough by itself but if the German adds 1 or 2 Pz and 1 or 2 bombers, the only intelligent thing to do for the Allied is to evacuate immediately all he can before loosing everything .



Leadwieght -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 10:47:32 AM)

Hi sPzAbt653,
I recall the explanation and as I said, I know it's WAD, but the result is strange from a historical standpoint: Allied troops just west of El Alamein, only three hexes from Alexandria, (a major port and base) in worse supply than Axis troops 10+ hexes from their nearest port (Tobruk). And this while the Malta air force is supposedly hitting Axis supply convoys to Libya.

I guess I find it confusing because there I can't see a mechanism that takes into account the whole tenuous length of the Axis supply line from Italy to Libya to the front in the Western Desert. No matter what happens to the Libyan ports, supply at the Axis front line will be above 5 all the way to EA, as long as the Axis has 2 HQs. And yes, I know one should try to hit the HQs with air and naval attacks, but these seldom even dent them. And one extra German fighter (not needed in France if there will be no Sealion) will pretty much nullify any Allied attempt to hit the HQs with air.

I really like the game, don't get me wrong. And I have had considerable success as the Axis in NA using unconventional strategies. But I still feel this is a theater where the game mechanics yield odd results.




Guderian1940 -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 10:50:28 AM)

I concur Vonik / Leadweight. I have had 2 Allied HQ's in Egypt and was still forced back, with all the extra units received and extra fighters bombers all was not enough. My strategy now is to withdraw from Egypt or just lose them. As I mentioned before there is a Railroad along the coast in Egypt so why do the Axis have such a high supply level and Allies not.

I have even tried defending Iraq with most of the Egypt units withdrawn, 2 HQ's Armies, Corps, Tanks, Fighters Tac bombers and cannot even slow them down. How can the Axis have a superior supply line through Jordan. I end up having to withdraw them. Even trying to defend Persia is useless. The Axis Air pounds you and the DAK rolls over what is left. The losses are so high that you can barely replace them if they survive.

The only time the Axis are vulnerable is when there is no HQ. You can whittle down the Italians but it takes a lot of resources and when the DAK shows up you better get out of dodge, Sauve qui peut.

Will the new supply rules in North Africa make a difference. I hope so. The same issues in Russia.



vonik -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 11:26:41 AM)

While Germany is invincible in Africa and in Russia, I am still careful before calling for a nerf .
Indeed, there is often an error of perspective .
From 39 through 42 the Allied is simply stomped over wherever he is and whatever he tries .
From that follows a feeling for the Allied player that he can do nothing against the behemoth and turn follows turn with only defeat and destructions .

However 39-42 is not the whole war . The US with its 20% industrial tech and 2 years of no war starts building up a HUGE air and naval force with techs equivalent to Germany already in 43 .
So it becomes a run for MPPs&research and Russia mostly still resists in 1943 .
The real challenge starts only after 43 and the situation can get massively asymetrical - US (and the UK cannon fodder) much stronger in air and sea than Germany but Germany still strong on land .
With a strategically well playing Allied, the German will have to struggle with putting out small (or big) invasion fires all over the place and the final Victory doesn't appear so sure anymore .

So I am afraid that if Germany gets nerfed in 39-42 just because the Allied player can do nothing during this period, it is the US which could very well become invincible after 43 .



Guderian1940 -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 11:56:55 AM)

Vonik I agree with your observations. That the Germans should be strong at the start and that the tide could change in 43 once the US come in. That being said I do believe there should be some semblance of chance if not reality in the first years for the Allies. NA is just ridiculous and Russia is also. It is very hard to keep interest in a game when NA, Persia, Moscow and Leningrad are all taken by 42 and maybe England as well. This all possible when a VG and/or bold player are the Axis. No matter how good you are as the Allies it is difficult to stop this scenario. Different skill levels as the Axis will make some of these things harder for the Axis but they still run over whatever they focus on. Only mistakes in timing and focus by the Axis give the Allies a chance i.e an interest in keeping playing. The Allies will make mistakes also which may counter the Axis mistakes.

Yes the Allies can land almost anywhere on the Coast they have access to but they do not have very much strength till the US come in.

All I wish for at this time, and it may be enough with the new changes coming, that the Allies can stop the Axis in NA (if they fight hard), can hold on to Moscow if they concentrate and can make a fight of it (not just get rolled over whether you have a hundred Armies or not in front of Moscow or Alexandria.

The choices made for production, Tech, Diplomacy and strategy should have long term effects. Right now there is little money for anything else but rebuilding your losses for the Allies. In Russia, you buy tech, you do not have enough troops, which in the end make little difference as they are cannon fodder no matter how many you have. You can't afford HQ's or extra anything for the most part as the Allies. The Axis choices are important too but they have a lot more wiggle room in regards to choices.

All of my observations are with a 39 start and against a Human. The other scenarios are different.



Leadwieght -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 1:09:20 PM)

I appreciate the design challenge that this game represents. My feeling is that it needs only a slight tweak to lessen the Axis powers' ability to dominate EVERYWHERE in 39-41. Then the rest is up to good Allied generalship.

My suggestion is that the tweak needs to happen in North Africa, but there may be other ways. Maybe simply giving the Brits another half-strength HQ via auto-script after the fall of France would be enough.

I notice in 1.03.02, Soviet mobilization automatically goes up with a Sealion attempt (as opposed to it being a possibility. That will probably help.
Truth be told, I have probably won several of my games as the Axis almost entirely because I got lucky and this event didn't fire. It can be frustrating to lose on a coin-flip!



Capitaine -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 1:38:21 PM)

If the Germans hadn't campaigned in the Balkans in 40-41, could they have devoted more strength to NA? Are German players in the game also doing this, in addition to NA? The point being, had Hitler also done this (ignored the Balkans) could he have easily won in NA? Players want to alter history yet object when history is altered. Seems many want a "story board" game. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't eat your cake, yet still have it.



Leadwieght -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 4:58:44 PM)

Capitaine,
It's exactly the alternative possibilities that make this game fun for me. Not sure how calling for a slight adjustment to the force balance or the supply rules amounts to expressing a desire for a "storyboard" game. SC3 is a good simulation of decision making at the grand-strategic level. The interaction of the opposing players' choices is what gives the game it's great replay value. But both sides should be faced with real choices, or it becomes stale. If the Axis has several sure-fire paths to victory in 39-42, barring VERY bad, luck, then the number of interesting game permutations is rather small.
BTW, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but so far the Axis really seems to have too much of the upper hand.



Capitaine -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 10:24:03 PM)

Well, folks keep saying Brits can't hold NA is wrong, because: history. Well, I'm just asking if there's an unhistorical reason for that happening in the game. If the German forces cited in the posts above are available to the Germans because of "other choices", then why the complaints? Historically the Germans had reasons why they didn't have the resources to devote more force to NA. I get the feeling Allied players feel they should be able to win in NA just "because". Yet historically if the Germans had committed what these players have they, too, WOULD have won in NA. Trying to make NA an unwinnable struggle for Axis doesn't sound like a good idea. More like a story board.

In other words, there should be more discussion of history and alternative history to analyze the issue you have raised. Not just the game differing from history and wanting nerfs.



Sugar -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/21/2017 11:30:56 PM)

Sorry, but that`s not the point. Of course the Axis should be able to beat the Brits in NA. The question is what that means gamewise, since the Russians also are easy to beat, and the occupation (or liberation) of Irak means the german income to increase to the later Allied level.

This is 1. historically not correct, since the production capacity of the Axis industry could not reach Allied (especially american) level, even if they`ve had enough oil to fullfill all requests; and second, despite operation Barbarossa caused 4.000.000 losses to the SU in 41, Germany suffered before Dec. 41 also 1 million casualties, together with half of it`s tanks. And that`s before the counterattack started. Will there be a counterattack in this game?

A victory in the desert should be a huge advantage to the Axis player for sure, but in this setting the confrontation with the SU is unavoidable. The predecessors managed to keep the balance of chances between both sides, if this game does is questionable.

As I already mentioned, it`s not yet the time to judge; but for my experience it`s a tough and long going for the Allied to win, even if they don`t loose NA.




Hubert Cater -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/22/2017 1:10:25 AM)

He everyone,

Been following the discussion a bit and just wanted to say thanks for the feedback. I posted the following in another thread but figured it would be suitable here as well.

With the next update we hope that any imbalance will be addressed (for the most part) as we've made a significant supply rule change in terms of how HQs link supply to one another.

With the previous implementation, linked HQs actually provided the possibility of higher supply distribution than would otherwise be possible for an HQ in normal and maximum supply. All this meant was that a linked HQ deep in the USSR or in bad supply in North Africa could still have a distribution supply level of 9 or 10 while a single HQ (non linked) but in the best supply distribution position possible under the current supply numbers/situation of the area could be much lower, i.e. at 5 or 8 at best. Essentially the bonus of linking HQs provided arguably unrealistically high supply which can have a spiraling effect when it comes to balance due to optimal combat results and so on.

For the next release (but already available in the current beta release v1.03.02) the supply distribution for HQs has been adjusted/remodeled to reflect our findings and while a linked HQ can still provide better supply, it will only do so if its distribution supply could be improved from the default and yet still lower than what we had before, i.e. not automatically maxed out to a maximum supply distribution level as in the past.

Here is the full list of changes and as a result we believe modifiers like the Malta Effect will now have a more realistic impact and driving deep into the USSR will be a bit more challenging now supply wise, and all of which can have a more critical effect on the overall game play and outcome of the war.

- HQ distribution supply has been changed to the following:
-> HQ supply < 3 will have a distribution supply value of 5.
-> HQ supply >= 3 and <= 5 will have a distribution supply value of 8.
-> HQ supply > 5 will have a distribution supply value of 10.

- HQs can now only be linked if the first HQ has a supply value >= 5, raised from a previous threshold of >= 3.
-> the HQ to be linked must have a supply value < 3 and is now automatically boosted to a supply value of 5 which caps its distribution supply at 8. Previously linked HQs could have a maximum distribution supply level of 10.

What the above changes will hopefully lead to is a situation whereby if the Axis commit enough to North Africa then they can still do well there, but it should be a longer and tougher fight and similar in effect in the USSR and especially once the Axis begin to push deeper and outrun their supply.

Ideally it leads us back to a better level of balance whereby the Axis need to make some tougher choices on where to apply and how much of their resources (to the various theaters) and less of an automatic guarantee of success in both NA and the USSR while still requiring the Allies to give a significant fight from their end as well.

Hubert



vonik -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/22/2017 8:16:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


Here is the full list of changes and as a result we believe modifiers like the Malta Effect will now have a more realistic impact and driving deep into the USSR will be a bit more challenging now supply wise, and all of which can have a more critical effect on the overall game play and outcome of the war.



I think that this is Worth trying and testing .
However forget Malta - Malta modifier has no and can have no impact for the simple reason that it gets destroyed in August 40 in 2 turns and there is Nothing the Allied can do to stop it .
But basically this kind of tweaks acts exactly where an action should be done - in the timeline .

Indeed as the Allied (well actually the US only) start to become powerful around 1943, the question which is in the heart of what has been discussed here is : "Has the German already accomplished everything in NA and Russia in 1943 or not ?"


In the current game the answer is yes so that when the US really starts to be able to invade (mid-end 43), Germany has all its forces free and available so that an invasion can mostly be succesfully countered .
Actually the game Germany succeds to realize the original Hitler's idea (which has also been the one of Hanibal or Napoleon) : if you have several ennemies, beat them one after the other .

By making fast advances harder now (I have my doubts because in the current game the German rarely/never outruns his supply and yet gets to Lenigrad and Moscow in Fall 41) this would mean that Germany is still fully committed in Russia in 43 so that any US invasion in 43 leads REALLY to the dreaded 2 front war which Germany can't win .

Amusingly (or not so amusingly) if the tweak leads to Germany never being able to win the war, it would miss its intent because the game would then become totally unablanced in favour of the Allied :)



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/22/2017 1:24:04 PM)

One question to Hubert, can the numbers of units supplied by a HQ be limited the same way the units that receive command bonus are? Because that would be really a good way to represent supply limits, as it is now supply limits are ververy easy to get around



BillRunacre -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/22/2017 4:29:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

I played Russian where the Winter war was not an option. Where the Irish ports were not an option



Hi Guderian

This doesn't sound right at all, as these Decisions should be presented in almost all circumstances, the only exceptions being if Ireland or Finland have being swayed diplomatically, or with the latter if the USSR has been declared war upon by the Axis before mid October 1939.

If that isn't the case and you or anyone else notices this again please be sure to let us know. [:)]

Thanks

Bill



Hubert Cater -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/22/2017 8:48:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar

One question to Hubert, can the numbers of units supplied by a HQ be limited the same way the units that receive command bonus are? Because that would be really a good way to represent supply limits, as it is now supply limits are ververy easy to get around


At the moment there is no limitation but something for us to consider perhaps in the future.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/22/2017 9:42:52 PM)

Another idea might be to limit the number of units that can trace supply to a port that has no connection to a friendly capitol. HQ limits would seem to be simpler, though.



Christolos -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/23/2017 1:24:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
Think outside the box. If you play predictably then you are letting the Germans 'do the math' and will probably win. Try and aggravate them. Invade Norway just after he gets it. Put an AA in London and surround it in Militia to prevent paratroopers from taking it. Park your subs in front of the ports so he can't move into them without using precious little DD's to bump them out.


I like this attitude/approach to a style of play the Allies could and probably should employ to aggravate the Axis. I myself thought about using the Allies naval superiority in carriers (with support BBs, CAs, Cls, and DDs) to raid the Norwegian convoy to Germany. The only issue with this is that the CVs (in convoy raiding mode), as the game is currently designed, need to be parked on or adjacent to the convoy line to be able raid. This of course puts the CV's in more danger.

I anxiously await consideration on this from Hubert and Bill (see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4288120 ), in terms of whether carriers should be able to raid convoys which they are in range of. In my opinion, I think this should be the case. It would also give the Allies an interesting/potentially effective way to convoy raid in the early years of the war.

C



Leadwieght -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/24/2017 10:58:32 AM)

Thanks for the response, Hubert!



Hubert Cater -> RE: are the Allies too weak in the early years? (5/24/2017 4:56:50 PM)

Thanks again everyone and with the next update we have put in place a few additional minor tweaks for the UK and the USSR to hopefully help address the balance issues for North Africa and the USSR even further. Again, nothing major, but hopefully enough to force the Axis to continue to fight hard in these areas, while giving the Allies a better chance to survive until late 1942 where the balance can then be tipped one way or the other.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.296875