Minors on steroids? (Full Version)

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



Message

Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> Minors on steroids? (6/5/2017 9:41:55 PM)

Axis minors, like Hungary, Romania et ceteris have all much larger forces than historically, is that made for play balance?



Sugar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/5/2017 11:56:16 PM)

For balancing reasons as well as to fill the larger scale, I guess. Earlier minors were nearly useless, with worse combatvalues and much higher prizes; the only way to make use of them was to connect them to german HQs (since the minor HQs had CR 4 at max.), what`s no longer possible.

The prizes are still a little more expensive, since minors don`t benefit from production research; and HQs are still mediocre, but with more Inf.-Armies than the average german armies and supporting artillery they`ll be able to fill the gaps.

The greatest advantage is the expanding of the HQ- and fighterpool , without minor armies Germany wouldn`t be able to cover the whole eastern front by itself.

Historically Germany decideded not to deliver the latest equipment to their confederates, at least not in huge numbers, but this game leaves this decision to the player.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/6/2017 11:24:28 AM)

But the Germans have plenty of infantry units they could build, this plays into the German strategy of not building anything but air and tank units



vonik -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/6/2017 1:13:38 PM)

Well historically Romania had a quite large participation in the Heeresgruppe Süd with 2 armies (3rd and 4th) .
When one takes 42, the front from Voronezh to Elista was held by minors (Hungary, Italy and Romania) - Germany was only at Stalingrad and Caucasus far South .
So the proportion (in nb of units) in the game seems to me not very far from history .

If anything, what is out of proportion is the DAK compared to the Italian forces where the DAK represents 3/4 of the NA troups in game .



Sugar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/6/2017 5:58:13 PM)

quote:

But the Germans have plenty of infantry units they could build, this plays into the German strategy of not building anything but air and tank units


Exactly. And it`s also exactly what the Allies will do, in much larger scales. The Axis has to win before the Allies can keep up, Rusia will never surrender by the lack of NM. It`s the only way to win for them...



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/7/2017 4:37:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonik

Well historically Romania had a quite large participation in the Heeresgruppe Süd with 2 armies (3rd and 4th) .
When one takes 42, the front from Voronezh to Elista was held by minors (Hungary, Italy and Romania) - Germany was only at Stalingrad and Caucasus far South .
So the proportion (in nb of units) in the game seems to me not very far from history .

If anything, what is out of proportion is the DAK compared to the Italian forces where the DAK represents 3/4 of the NA troups in game .

Yes, but in the game Romania have 3 armies, not too.
An take Hungary, it starts Barbarossa with 2 armies, 1 Corps and 1 HQ, but historically it has just the "Carpathian Group" under command of 17th army, (1 Mountain Brigade, 1 Border garrison brigade and the "Rapid Corps" of 2 motor brigades and one Cav brigade,) in all in game terms, a single Army Corps,



tog34 -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/7/2017 8:12:46 PM)

Honestly I find the Minors to be well balanced, These country's really did put a lot on the line and I feel like it fits well, Romania should have a large army because in real life they wanted to get up to a million man army. I haven't looked what Canada can get but they should be able to build a decent amount because we played a big role. overall I feel like it's fine and there shouldn't be any changes made.



Sugar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/8/2017 9:35:08 AM)

quote:

Yes, but in the game Romania have 3 armies, not too.
They have what the game calls army. In fact they can build 1 "army", consisting of 1 HQ, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 4 "Inf.-Armies", 1 corps; Hungary can do nearly the same, the Finns lack tanks and Inf.-Armies.

In our game the Spanyards add 1 strong army, but that`s naturally not always the case, and Germany has build 6 complete armies, with 2 further being built in 42. If you take it in your account, Germany adds 7-8 armies, the confederates 2 and a half without Spain.

Canada can also build a strong army; their troops can be commanded by american and brit. HQs, but 1 can. HQ is already in the prod.-queue. If one doesn't buil more canadian troops, that HQ is nearly wasted. Same for the Axis confederates.



vonik -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/8/2017 10:05:11 AM)

quote:

Yes, but in the game Romania have 3 armies, not too. An take Hungary, it starts Barbarossa with 2 armies, 1 Corps and 1 HQ, but historically it has just the "Carpathian Group" under command of 17th army, (1 Mountain Brigade, 1 Border garrison brigade and the "Rapid Corps" of 2 motor brigades and one Cav brigade,) in all in game terms, a single Army Corps,







That's why I said in proportion of the number of units .
A real army has several army corps .
In the game an army is just a chip a bit stronger than a corps .
So the number of units in the game regardless if they are called armies or corps is relatively well in proportion .

The one thing which is not very well in proportion is the size of the Red Army and the size of the German Army especially from 42 onwards where the Russians very largely outnumbered the Germans (Minors included) .
In the game in fall 41, the Red Army can be as little as a third of the German Army and to make it even worse, has much lower techs .
In one game where my Axis opponent went strongly on research and must have had quite a big luck with breakthrough, the Red Army was half of the Wehrmacht and "fought" (well mostly died :)) with lvl 2 tanks against lvl 4 tanks and lvl 1 fighters against lvl 4 fighters already start 43 .
Useless to add that Russia was wiped out pretty fast .



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/8/2017 10:08:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Yes, but in the game Romania have 3 armies, not too.
They have what the game calls army. In fact they can build 1 "army", consisting of 1 HQ, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 4 "Inf.-Armies", 1 corps; Hungary can do nearly the same, the Finns lack tanks and Inf.-Armies.

In our game the Spanyards add 1 strong army, but that`s naturally not always the case, and Germany has build 6 complete armies, with 2 further being built in 42. If you take it in your account, Germany adds 7-8 armies, the confederates 2 and a half without Spain.

Canada can also build a strong army; their troops can be commanded by american and brit. HQs, but 1 can. HQ is already in the prod.-queue. If one doesn't buil more canadian troops, that HQ is nearly wasted. Same for the Axis confederates.

But that is an Army Group. The Tank units in the game scale are more PzArmies than PzKorps, and both Hungary and Romania can build each one, when in fact they had only one armour division each made up of obsolete tanks.
The Hungarian Army Group in the game can take an important offensvie role, something that historically was well beyond the capabilities of the country or the desires of its government.
Wouldnīt it be better if we had a game with realistic OOBs and realistic tactics working?



IrishGuards -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/8/2017 4:38:44 PM)

The OoB in War in Europe .. WiE
then you get a good representation of units and minors especially ..
scale is way off, but just the combining process doesnt fully represent units
mountain units are vital and production from minors is massive
IG









Sugar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/8/2017 10:20:53 PM)

quote:

Wouldnīt it be better if we had a game with realistic OOBs and realistic tactics working?


Better, yes, in terms of historical accuratesse. But who wants to play a game where the Alliies are fixed as winners?

The decision to strengthen and deliver newest equipment to the confederates is in players hand, as well as the decision to focus on the mediterranian theatre. This is imho perfectly reflecting alternate strategies. War was lost by the Axis when Germany declared war on the SU, at latest without beating GB.

One has to consider that declaring war on the SU is not an option in this game, it is a necessarity, since if one doesn`t, the SU is doing it herself (as it happened in our game).

So what's the point in playing, if everything is fixed and no decisions to make? And by the way, the rules are the same for both sides.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/8/2017 11:21:20 PM)

quote:

Wouldnīt it be better if we had a game with realistic OOBs and realistic tactics working?

SC3 is not advertised to have nor intended to contain historical OOB's,
yet there is an Historical OOB Mod [653H] that has also made changes to other game aspects. I am curious if you have tried it or not ?



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/9/2017 8:26:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Wouldnīt it be better if we had a game with realistic OOBs and realistic tactics working?


Better, yes, in terms of historical accuratesse. But who wants to play a game where the Alliies are fixed as winners?

The decision to strengthen and deliver newest equipment to the confederates is in players hand, as well as the decision to focus on the mediterranian theatre. This is imho perfectly reflecting alternate strategies. War was lost by the Axis when Germany declared war on the SU, at latest without beating GB.

One has to consider that declaring war on the SU is not an option in this game, it is a necessarity, since if one doesn`t, the SU is doing it herself (as it happened in our game).

So what's the point in playing, if everything is fixed and no decisions to make? And by the way, the rules are the same for both sides.



But I don't want a game in which everything is fixed, only a game with an historical OOB in which realistic tactics do work. Btw I am not complaining about play balance, that I think it is Ok.




Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/9/2017 8:30:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Wouldnīt it be better if we had a game with realistic OOBs and realistic tactics working?

SC3 is not advertised to have nor intended to contain historical OOB's,
yet there is an Historical OOB Mod [653H] that has also made changes to other game aspects. I am curious if you have tried it or not ?

Yes, I tried it but stopped when I found some problems I reported to you. I tried to install it again after v1.04 was out but failed, I didn't find the campaign file when I unzipped the file.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/9/2017 11:17:19 AM)

Sorry you had trouble with it. I just downloaded it myself from the DropBox link that has been there since February and all the files are there. TheBattlefield has lately suggested that each time a new version is released, that I should re-save the file here and then re-post it on DropBox. That sounds like a good idea and I will do that in the future.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Minors on steroids? (6/10/2017 9:11:21 PM)

I have managed to finally install your mod and I love it! I see you have implemented great ideas



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375