Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (Full Version)

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



Message

SamSlitherine -> Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/18/2018 11:17:52 AM)

Hello Everyone

We have a new Beta update for Strategic Command WWII War in Europe

It is available for download on both the Members Area and Public area

v1.12.02 Changelog

-Fixed a Submarine diving error that could possibly have the Sub dive off the accessible area of the map.
-Fixed a PBEM++ replay error that would sometimes show the wrong weather during the replay.
-A major power that is not yet at 100% mobilization will no longer have its research levels apply to the catch up bonus if applicable.
-Fighters and Carriers in Fighter mode will now have their escorts reduced by 1 point when performing a recon or any other fighter sweep.

Campaigns
-The Neva River south of Leningrad converted from a River to a Major River to make it easier to defend the city.
-Tactical Bomber Build Limits reduced: USA, USSR and Germany 6 ? 5, Italy 3 ? 2.
-Medium Bomber Build Limited increased: USA, USSR and Germany 3 ? 4, Italy 1 ? 2.
-The USSR now starts with 1 chit invested in Anti-Tank Weapons in the 1939 campaign, and level 1 in the 1940 campaign.
-The cost of Diplomacy against a Major Power has been increased from 150 to 175 MPPs.
-MOBILIZATION_1 scripts amended to severely increase the penalties for an Axis declaration of war against Algeria: Vichy France, Tunisia and Syria will now swing 40-55% towards the Allies (it was previously 10-15% for the first two, and 20-35% for Syria).
-Additionally, a new MOBILIZATION_1 script has been added so that the USA will now swing 8-15% towards the Allies if the Axis declare war on Algeria.
-MOBILIZATION_1 script amended so that an Axis declaration of war against Yugoslavia will now swing Greece 30-45% towards the Allies (it was previously 10-15%).
-Pro-Allied Algerian UNIT script amended for when they join the Allies so that their Corps will deploy at strength 5 rather than 3.
-Spain must now have a pro-Axis leaning of 60% for DE 603 to fire.

Happy Gaming!



Christolos -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/18/2018 5:39:19 PM)

Many thanks! [:)]

Could you remind me why the MOBILIZATION_1 scripts were amended to severely increase the penalties for an Axis declaration of war against Algeria?

I tried searching this and couldn't find anything.

Thanks,

C



Hubert Cater -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/19/2018 1:52:27 PM)

In the Mass Air Groups thread there was some discussion about the Axis DoW on Algeria and if it was too easy with limited consequences and the above changes are simply an attempt to re-balance that accordingly.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4464731



Christolos -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/19/2018 7:25:52 PM)

Thanks Hubert.

There was a lot discussed in that thread...and so seem to have I missed that aspect...[8|]

Cheers,

C



Taxman66 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/19/2018 7:40:27 PM)

Honestly, the only one change there that really matters is the US Mobilization hit.

The increase to a strength 5 Corps only helps stop cheap invasions, though that is something in itself I guess.
Non cheap invasions will go through Tunisia, so the increase in their pro-Allied swing is meaningless if they're conquered on the way to Algeria.
Syria doesn't swing enough to make it a worthwhile investment for diplomacy to bring into the Allies (even more so if the Allied player chose to attack the Vichy fleet). I guess it would remove it as even a remote consideration for the Axis to get diplomatically.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/19/2018 8:05:53 PM)

Spain Diplo for DE603 30%=>60% also a big deal.

So US mobilization goes +8-15% when Algeria is invaded & +8-15% when DE603 is accepted (+16-30%)correct?

AT for USSR also.


Fighter change good


-Fighters and Carriers in Fighter mode will now have their escorts reduced by 1 point when performing a recon or any other fighter sweep






Taxman66 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/19/2018 8:36:46 PM)

Yeah, but he was asking specifically about the mobilization changes for Algeria.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/19/2018 8:41:45 PM)

ahh Didn't read that far back

[8|]


These are great improvements to the game.



Christolos -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/20/2018 4:07:36 AM)

Regarding: "Spain must now have a pro-Axis leaning of 60% for DE 603 to fire." , will the manual eventually be updated to reflect this?

I just checked (with version v1.12.02 Beta) and the manual still mentions:

Event fires: If France has surrendered, Italy
has joined the Axis, Spain is neutral but with at
least a 30% leaning towards the Axis, Algiers and
Casablanca are in Axis hands, with a German
unit within 3 hexes of Algiers, and there are no
Allied troops in France, or within 5 hexes of Oran
or Casablanca.

Thanks,

C



Hubert Cater -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/20/2018 1:35:19 PM)

We'll try and get this updated for the release version, we just need to get the appropriate translations and updates handled for the various languages (PDF files) which sometimes take time. We realize this is mostly just a change in the %, but there is a process and team that handles this outside of us with the original docs etc.

Hubert



Taxman66 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/20/2018 1:53:33 PM)

Hubert,

Does:
-Fighters and Carriers in Fighter mode will now have their escorts reduced by 1 point when performing a recon or any other fighter sweep.

...also mean that Fighters & Carriers (in Fighter mode) that escort twice can't preform a strike (recon/fighter sweep) mission as well?



Dorky8 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/22/2018 2:00:17 PM)

These changes make the game better. Well done.



Hubert Cater -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/23/2018 2:48:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hubert,

Does:
-Fighters and Carriers in Fighter mode will now have their escorts reduced by 1 point when performing a recon or any other fighter sweep.

...also mean that Fighters & Carriers (in Fighter mode) that escort twice can't preform a strike (recon/fighter sweep) mission as well?


The idea here was to dissuade the tactic of drawing out enemy interceptors from recon sweeps, which would then give the ability of follow up bombers to attack without the fear of interceptions, i.e. if all enemy interceptors have been exhausted. So with that in mind it does not (at the moment) deny the ability of a fighter to escort twice and then perform a strike after the fact.



Amadeus -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/23/2018 4:20:23 PM)

Most of these changes are in favor for the Allies and Air Forces in general. If you watch the results of the tournament this is counterproductive to the gameplay and outcome there. I do not understand that.



Sugar -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/23/2018 5:34:14 PM)

I believe the results of the tourney to be misleading.

If any of the changes would be decisive, the DE 603 would be the one possibly influencing balancing, in a mostly appreciated and demanded matter. The other changes lack that potential.

The only way to prevent your fighters to react on a fighter sweep is to set them to escort/ground attack. This way they won't be able to protect units from being bombed, which is really no good idea; no commander would do that in reality.

On the other hand fighter sweeps are preparing following bombing runs; already damaged enemy fighters won't probably be able to do damage to the bombers after dealing with their escorts. I think this solution to be a good compromise.



Taxman66 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/23/2018 5:38:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hubert,

Does:
-Fighters and Carriers in Fighter mode will now have their escorts reduced by 1 point when performing a recon or any other fighter sweep.

...also mean that Fighters & Carriers (in Fighter mode) that escort twice can't preform a strike (recon/fighter sweep) mission as well?


The idea here was to dissuade the tactic of drawing out enemy interceptors from recon sweeps, which would then give the ability of follow up bombers to attack without the fear of interceptions, i.e. if all enemy interceptors have been exhausted. So with that in mind it does not (at the moment) deny the ability of a fighter to escort twice and then perform a strike after the fact.



Hubert,
Not arguing for or against, just 'thinking out load' the only good targets for Fighter strikes are either: bombers, beat up fighters or possibly ships without AA. Still letting them have a 3rd action provides more advantage to the side with air superiority... even more so if you have a range advantage.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/23/2018 6:37:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amadeus

Most of these changes are in favor for the Allies and Air Forces in general. If you watch the results of the tournament this is counterproductive to the gameplay and outcome there. I do not understand that.






The tournament is in no way is an indication of the Axis/Allied parity. Many of the tournament players have <10 PBEM games under their belt and only a few games have been played. There is absolutely no statistics of the level of expertise of each player and the total results aren't statistically significant.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

I believe the results of the tourney to be misleading.

If any of the changes would be decisive, the DE 603 would be the one possibly influencing balancing, in a mostly appreciated and demanded matter. The other changes lack that potential.

The only way to prevent your fighters to react on a fighter sweep is to set them to escort/ground attack. This way they won't be able to protect units from being bombed, which is really no good idea; no commander would do that in reality.

On the other hand fighter sweeps are preparing following bombing runs; already damaged enemy fighters won't probably be able to do damage to the bombers after dealing with their escorts. I think this solution to be a good compromise.





Get out your cameras folks, I agree





Amadeus -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/24/2018 5:43:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

The tournament is in no way is an indication of the Axis/Allied parity. Many of the tournament players have <10 PBEM games under their belt and only a few games have been played. There is absolutely no statistics of the level of expertise of each player and the total results aren't statistically significant.

How do you know? I played about 30 matches and lost my first tourny game as Axis. All in all I win 2/3 of my games. I have no statistic about it but I guess I won almost 90% of my games as Allie.

Anyway, the players who played the tourny should be respected too.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/24/2018 10:21:04 AM)

I know because several of them discussed their experience playing PBEM during tournament events, some had just started. Considering I was once new I have the highest respect for new players. My point is that the tournament has players of widely varying experience players playing each other and that the results aren't an indicator of the games parity.

The 12.02 are very welcome changes to the game and really only rectify "gimmicks", the game is still very winnable by Axis.



Amadeus -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/24/2018 5:04:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I know because several of them discussed their experience playing PBEM during tournament events, some had just started. Considering I was once new I have the highest respect for new players. My point is that the tournament has players of widely varying experience players playing each other and that the results aren't an indicator of the games parity.

The 12.02 are very welcome changes to the game and really only rectify "gimmicks", the game is still very winnable by Axis.

I think you are wrong. I would play you any time to show you my point of view. ;-) I still think that the game is in favor for Allies now more than before.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/24/2018 9:38:24 PM)

I'm waiting all new play until the official new version comes out. Let's set up a game then.



KorutZelva -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/25/2018 2:11:04 PM)

With the Algeria change giving the Allies a big boost, I'd nix the full strength fighter the UK get in April from the previous patch.

With carriers, the April free fighter (and possibly buying more) the German can face a very expensive Battle of France. I'd keep the half-strength fighter they not UK get in aug, this one arrive too late to factor in France but is still required for the UK to put a fight vs Sealion or in NA.

Even without the free april figther, the allies can still decide to make it a vigorous air war by buying more air assets... but at least they have have to spend the ducats from their pocket to do it.



Trump2016 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/30/2018 2:17:54 PM)

Just played 2 games as Allies to 1941 against the computer AI. noticed that the AI did not spend anything on diplomacy in either game. is this normal behavior? I was in the process of the Allies getting Spain in the war both times and quit as I did not think this was right.



nnason -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (4/30/2018 7:39:49 PM)

Hubert,
Can I suggest that all changes to the original manual be highlighted. This will make it easier for long term players to pick out the differences.
Thanks for a great Game,
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hubert,

Does:
-Fighters and Carriers in Fighter mode will now have their escorts reduced by 1 point when performing a recon or any other fighter sweep.

...also mean that Fighters & Carriers (in Fighter mode) that escort twice can't preform a strike (recon/fighter sweep) mission as well?




YohanTM -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (5/1/2018 6:43:18 PM)

in addition to upping the cost for diplomacy for majors I think the range of swing should drop to say the 5-7% range - it's killing too many games and a major would not be swayed anywhere near as much as a minor



Christolos -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (5/1/2018 11:18:15 PM)

I'm still wondering whether the Chits should still only be 50 MPP (like everything else) but the results of a hit cut instead, as first proposed by Taxman66 here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4466537

C



bullet911 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (5/13/2018 4:53:01 PM)

Any idea when this update will be finalised and released? days or are we talking a couple of weeks maybe



Hubert Cater -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (5/14/2018 4:00:10 PM)

It will unfortunately probably be a few weeks time at this point. Just due to some scheduling on our end.



Dorky8 -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (5/14/2018 8:02:51 PM)

Will be fun



KorutZelva -> RE: Strategic Command v1.12.02 Beta (5/25/2018 2:23:46 PM)

Might I suggest to increase the relation boost to Axis for Spain if the Axis does 'All of France'?

It would give a clear cut road to Spain for the Axis for the greater hassle of dislodging the French in Algeria.

As it is the change is going to make 'All of France' even less desirable because they keep France diplo chits in play longer, potentially stalling wooing Spain to the threshold to have the decision trigger.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.9375