It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (Full Version)

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



Message

majpalmer -> It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/20/2017 12:09:58 PM)

It took me a while to recognize this reality of the game. I couldn't make the sweeping armored encirclements that the Germans made in Russia, for example. The scale and mechanics are all wrong.

BUT! Only for an operational game, which this is not.

It's "Strategic" Command, so the key is strategy. How do you allocate your available resources? Diplomacy? R&D? New units? Upgrading units? Reinforcements? Replacements? How do you allocate these resources among the many fronts?

Once those units are there, the key becomes ATTRITION!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the name of the game. Inflict higher MMP cost casualties on the enemy than they can replace and eventually their force will hollow out and collapse--somewhere.

This game should be called MATERIALSCHLACT!



nnason -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/20/2017 2:28:13 PM)

I agree this is a strategy game and allocation of resources is key to objectives. For example if England reinforces Egypt before the Africa Corps shows up they could take Bengasi and really make taking Cairo tough without the Axis pumping up this front.

In addition to attrition I would add taking cities/resources to build up own MPs and take away your opponents.



xwormwood -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/20/2017 5:46:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: majpalmer

It took me a while to recognize this reality of the game. I couldn't make the sweeping armored encirclements that the Germans made in Russia, for example. The scale and mechanics are all wrong.

BUT! Only for an operational game, which this is not.

It's "Strategic" Command, so the key is strategy. How do you allocate your available resources? Diplomacy? R&D? New units? Upgrading units? Reinforcements? Replacements? How do you allocate these resources among the many fronts?

Once those units are there, the key becomes ATTRITION!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the name of the game. Inflict higher MMP cost casualties on the enemy than they can replace and eventually their force will hollow out and collapse--somewhere.

This game should be called MATERIALSCHLACT!


What is your point exactly?

Attrition has to be a big part of every war game. And it is possible to encircel units on the eastern front.
Germany lost WW2 because of attrition.

And in this game you have lots and lots of strategic decision, where to attack, where to defend, what to research, when and where to use diplomacy, etc. etc.



MemoryLeak -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/20/2017 9:07:31 PM)

Sorry Xwormwood, but it is strictly a slug-fest in Russia. Don't kid yourself, no tactical moves, it
is all attrition. You can move the units all over the map but once you get there and come up against a line
of enemy units you just slug it out. You can't make any meaningful flanking or encirclement moves. Whoever runs out
of MMP's first looses. It doesn't matter if you are a tactical genius you can't make any meaningful moves.



Numdydar -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/20/2017 11:18:48 PM)

I have to disagree as I have cut off large numbers of troops both as the Russians and as the Germans.

You also have to remember that even cutting off just ONE unit represents an entire corp/armie. So cutting off two or three units is an even bigger deal.

You may not have 20 units in a pocket, but it still makes a difference when just a few are cut off.



Guderian1940 -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/21/2017 5:50:39 PM)

I have to say that the Game allows for all three, Strategic, Operations, and tactics. The scope of the game has a place for all three. Each require a different mindset, military/game knowledge, for a player to be successful.

The strategic level focuses on defining and supporting national policy and relates directly to the outcome of a war or other conflict as a whole. This game with Research, Diplomacy, Unit build, etc. excels in that.

The operational level is concerned with employing military forces in a theater of war or theater of operations to obtain an advantage over the enemy and thereby attain strategic goals through the design, organization, and conduct of campaigns and major operations. This game does a good job of that.

In the traditional sense, the various operations that make up a campaign are themselves made up of maneuvers, engagements, and battles. From this perspective, the tactical level translates potential combat power into success in battles and engagements through decisions and actions that create advantages when in contact with or in proximity to the enemy. I think this is the weakest part of the game and results in many of the issues brought up.

Another weakness of the game is that you need experience with the game to figure out what works or not. Normal military expectations are not wholly realized. This requires many games of play to pickup the solutions which ruins many a game when playing someone who understand them and uses them. Some issues have been fixed and kudos to that.

If you are playing the AI many problems are not realized because the AI plays a normal game, not so against a human which will use every known advantage to move farther, faster and concentrate. AI does not. All the AI difficult settings do is make their units stronger not smarter. Won't help you gaining experience against human players.

Playing against a human is tough as you need to think outside the box most of the time.



kcole4001 -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/23/2017 2:46:29 PM)

There's no way around it.
To beat the Russians you have to kill their units faster than they can be replaced.

Drive around and encircle them all you want, you'll often be out of supply and they'll counterattack and damage or kill your armor.

You have to finish off your targets.
Damaging three units is much less effective than killing one, and sometimes that's the choice you have to make.
Choose targets you can kill that also make strategic sense, and kill them as efficiently as you can taking as little damage as you can.



MemoryLeak -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/23/2017 6:27:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

Playing against a human is tough as you need to think outside the box most of the time.

quote:

Playing against a human is tough as you need to think outside the box most of the time.


Translation -- "People who play a lot know how to game the system."

By the time you have finished playing them you wouldn't be able to describe your experience as having
just played a wargame. Winning by using rote moves game after game is more important to them than
trying to immerse themselves into the game and making realistic tactical moves.
Every time I play MP I think I'm up against a 12 year old who thinks he is playing DOOM.




Leadwieght -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/24/2017 1:47:47 PM)

Hi ML, sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. I have had a tremendously varied experience playing against humans.
As the Axis, I have, it's true, worked out a fairly effective set routine for the first 18 months of the war, but it only works against unwary players. I am currently having my butt kicked by someone who was alert enough to see what I was up to and was able to adapt and disrupt my plans. I'll almost certainly lose, but not to a routine set of moves out of a video game

I think that what is hard for many players to accept when playing a human is that a human player won't always follow the conventional, historical sequence (as the AI almost always does).

One person's "gaming the system" is another persons smart strategy, but all players have access to the same set of capacities and the DEs and scripts are there for all to see.



jjweatherby -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/31/2017 8:46:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: majpalmer

It took me a while to recognize this reality of the game. I couldn't make the sweeping armored encirclements that the Germans made in Russia, for example. The scale and mechanics are all wrong.

BUT! Only for an operational game, which this is not.

It's "Strategic" Command, so the key is strategy. How do you allocate your available resources? Diplomacy? R&D? New units? Upgrading units? Reinforcements? Replacements? How do you allocate these resources among the many fronts?

Once those units are there, the key becomes ATTRITION!!!!!! Sorry, but that's the name of the game. Inflict higher MMP cost casualties on the enemy than they can replace and eventually their force will hollow out and collapse--somewhere.

This game should be called MATERIALSCHLACT!


What is your point exactly?

Attrition has to be a big part of every war game. And it is possible to encircel units on the eastern front.
Germany lost WW2 because of attrition.

And in this game you have lots and lots of strategic decision, where to attack, where to defend, what to research, when and where to use diplomacy, etc. etc.


Speaking for myself, I think the issue is this is less like AH's Advanced Third Reich or Third Reich and more like Decisive Campaigns. Encirclements work at times but can put you behind due to the time scale. I have large problems trying to encircle French/British and/or Polish forces and still capture Warsaw or Paris on the historical time table. The main problem is with the scale the turns are too long of a length of time. You just don't have time to make major encirclement and move on. Instead either war is a slug fest of a broad front attack that destroys the enemy lines rather surgical cut in the line exploited by mobile units that cut lines of communication.

The system is just off. The major problem is the hexes represent too much territory to make the current 2 to 3 armor in Poland/France/Russia as viable tools of encirclement and bypassing troops to starve them into surrender. You don't have the units to cover the ground even if your infantry does punch through. In France the size of the hexes and number of units make it nearly impossible to pull off a historical feint into Belgium encircle the French/British and then turn south if and get into Paris at the historical date. Movement and lack of PZs doesn't allow this happen even when the French and British take the bait. The best you do is really the Von Scheiflin plan wheeling through Belgium. Because of hex size, number of units, limited number of armor, ZOC from infantry on armor instead of just from armor, major beautiful encirclement is near impossible. The game feels like WWI large frontal offensives to push the enemy back not WWII break the lines in limited areas and let your mobile units wreak havoc on the lines of communication causing the enemy to surrender or at least fall back.

1. Turns represent too much time.
2. Movement is too limited for armor.
3. Air doesn't really have the punch it should to support the breakthrough.
4. Need more armor to really encircle. Some double attack armor should help break through but you need more than a couple of armor to make encirclements. It is hard to even encircle Pozan before you are at the gates of Warsaw.

This leads to every battle is being less of a rapier fight of quick strikes and strategy and more of a cutlass fight hit hard and head straight for the capital. No time to avoid a fight by starving your opponent into surrender. Attack now and attack everywhere like a kid playing AH's Third Reich series would do until someone points out he is missing a major part of the rules.



jjweatherby -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/31/2017 8:50:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kcole4001

There's no way around it.
To beat the Russians you have to kill their units faster than they can be replaced.

Drive around and encircle them all you want, you'll often be out of supply and they'll counterattack and damage or kill your armor.

You have to finish off your targets.
Damaging three units is much less effective than killing one, and sometimes that's the choice you have to make.
Choose targets you can kill that also make strategic sense, and kill them as efficiently as you can taking as little damage as you can.


But yet that is how the Germans advanced in 1941 and even 1942 by small surgical strikes where half sized PZ units made huge encirclements and many Russians surrendered not realizing death would be better than their fate as a German POW. The Eastern Front in WWII was not destroy all units on a massive front that was WWI. That is my major problem with the game right now it feels like the most viable option is the Von Scheiflin plan and the mechanics suit WWI tactics over WWII.



jjweatherby -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/31/2017 8:54:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

I have to say that the Game allows for all three, Strategic, Operations, and tactics. The scope of the game has a place for all three. Each require a different mindset, military/game knowledge, for a player to be successful.


The problem is the operation level feels WWI or Viking warfare. Kill everything in a crude broad frontal attack or lose. Encirclements slow you down too much to reach objectives on time and the lack of units, bigger hexes, and longer time for one turn work against you. This reduces the game to WWI operational level and forces in to Foch/Von Scheiflin type strategies not Von Rundestat/Zhukov/Patton/Montgomery strategies.



Numdydar -> RE: It's "Strategic" Command, not "Operational" Command (7/31/2017 11:06:55 PM)

This is not a tactical game. I would not even call it an operational game although it does have that 'feel' in certain areas.

I have encircled large pockets of both Russians and Germans in Russia. So it is very doable and does not slow my timetable down. Although It can delay Inf getting to the 'new' front at times. Of course that is what Op movement is for. [:)]

I have done the same thing in France as well as Germany. Basically punch a 2-3 hex hole, preferably North/NW of Paris, and run to the coast with your tanks. Obviously capture a town or two. Maybe even drop a Para since you have two. Pretty easy to stay in supply enough to prevent the Allies from doing much of anything. They may inflict a few points of damage, but so what. Their odd of killing anything are close to nil.

Against Russia, I can typically pocket a bunch of the starting units. After that the Russians usually run so it is hard to do it again in '41. Except at Leningrad when cutting that off.

In '42 you can do it again depending on where your main focus is. I typically cutoff everything around Moscow and the whole southern area by cutting the rail lines so no reinforcements can not arrive down there. I would not call it a pocket since it is still connected to the rest of Russia, but it acts as one since its very hard to reinforce once the RR lines are cut.

In this game you are not going to be doing pockets like War in the East does or other games like that. But it can be done and done successfully. Without losing units.

To be honest, given the scale of the game, even if I cutoff a single unit, I'm happy. Anything beyond that is just icing [:)]

Rather than trying to surround 6+ units, just try a smaller number and you will not risk getting cutoff yourself. Enough small bites will have the same effect as one large one [:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.375