RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (Full Version)

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



Message

Elessar2 -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/11/2018 4:52:29 PM)


quote:

Past a certain threshold (I'd say about tank tech 4), infantry armies can't do much offensively anymore and they take a backseat to the tank and bombers. With the Americans I had planned to max my air and use infantry and rely on UK tanks, that was a mistake. Basically you need to have numerical advantage in tanks as much as you need numerical advantage in air.

Sugar said before that this game is really one of attacks and counter attacks. It is very true. There are very few areas where a committed defense can be (somewhat viable). If your opponent attacks, you better give way. In NA and Southern Russia my two biggest disaster on the field happened when I stuck around too long when I should have withdrawn my units.

I think we saw an example on how rail allows you to skimp on garrisons. While Sugar's France was guarded by a single unit in Paris, I had corps in NA protecting my rear that would have been massively more useful bolstering the frontline (and protecting my air!).


I thus think that an argument and a means exist to remedy each of the above:

1. Allowing Infantry Tech to either go above 2, or give them anti-tank capability. Remove motorization as an applicable tech to infantry (give the fully motorized US/UK armies an extra move point, only allow the Axis/Russians to have their dedicated motorized inf. units, which was historical), allow A-T up to a certain level. Hubert added those 2 attacks to tanks early on in SC2, but with no countering boost to infantry.

2. Already discussed implementing limits on operational movement. Since there is already precedent in limiting amphibious units, would seem like a natural to me.



James Taylor -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/11/2018 5:05:32 PM)

As I've said before make motorization an option at the build Q and let attachment of HQs signify the use of the army group motor pool.

Get rid of the anti-air/tank as well as artillery and make them upgrades denoting the attachment of the specific battalions to the various formations.


Let's clean up the map, fewer units makes for faster turns less distractions. This is a strategic game with operational overtones.



KorutZelva -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/11/2018 5:24:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

I thus think that an argument and a means exist to remedy each of the above:

1. Allowing Infantry Tech to either go above 2, or give them anti-tank capability. Remove motorization as an applicable tech to infantry (give the fully motorized US/UK armies an extra move point, only allow the Axis/Russians to have their dedicated motorized inf. units, which was historical), allow A-T up to a certain level. Hubert added those 2 attacks to tanks early on in SC2, but with no countering boost to infantry.

2. Already discussed implementing limits on operational movement. Since there is already precedent in limiting amphibious units, would seem like a natural to me.



For #1, I'm not sure there is anything to fix. That's just the way the game is balanced, I think it works well. Get those tanks together for some blitzkrieg!

For #2, it might be too big of a change for this iteration of the game. Operating is the super-power that holds Germany together. If you tone it down you'd have to toss them a bone or two either in unit limit and/or income.

I'd like a system where there's logistic slots that could be spent each turn, let's say 3 (For Germany) plus logistic tech. Operating air or HQ would take 3 slots, tanks and armies 2 slots, Corps and lower 1 slot. But to compensate operating would be free of charge. Over a couple of turn it would be still possible to mass troops but not in the fire brigade way it is now.



Elessar2 -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/11/2018 10:15:38 PM)

Welp, right now it's like the Axis (both sides really) have a Star Trek style transporter at their beck and call. To pack up just one corps, equipment/manpower/petrol/food/etc., is a pretty mind boggling enterprise if you think about it. With air, likewise--it isn't just the planes, it's the mechanics and the airfield engineering equipment. AND to get said unit all up and operational at the other end isn't a simple snap your fingers exercise either. Recently read a good overview of just hard it was for the Japanese to build up and maintain airfields in various Pacific islands, when both manpower and tractors and bulldozers and such were in very short supply. There SHOULD be a significant amount of operational inertia there, can't just fix a mistake with a few hundred MPP and you're good to go.

As for defense, I was kind of surprised to see anti-tank tech pretty much limited to a few dedicated units on each side. As I intimated, things WERE in balance, but not anymore.

Here's a thought: operational movement costs the usual, BUT puts all the units into the build queue. You get to place them the next turn, but only in the turn after that can they do anything offensively.



Taxman66 -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/11/2018 10:39:45 PM)

Note that they take a reasonably big Readiness and Morale hit when they are operated.



Christolos -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/12/2018 2:21:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

[image][URL=http://www.bild.me][IMG]http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/2394560Mini-AAR_3.PNG[/IMG][/URL][/image]

KZ, how did you lose so much of the Royal Navy?

I didn't notice much reporting of the Naval game during the AAR, so just wondering what happened.

Thanks again for this fantastic AAR! [:)]

C



KorutZelva -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/12/2018 9:53:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

KZ, how did you lose so much of the Royal Navy?

I didn't notice much reporting of the Naval game during the AAR, so just wondering what happened.

Thanks again for this fantastic AAR! [:)]

C


Most of the losses occurred in '44.

I lost a couple of cruisers to maritime bomber when I was blockading the NA port when Italy joined in '40. Then some BBs and cruisers protecting Algeria in '41 (but then destroyed the entirety of the RM for my trouble).

In term of unit count, the UK navy was in the 20s until their UK's island was under attack. At that point, I wasn't sparing my forces anymore. [;)] Also when my air was mostly gone, ships started getting 'murderized' in ports by subs.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/12/2018 9:54:51 PM)

Early in my play I greatly under appreciated the Maritime Bomber.

I no longer do. Great weapon.

[sm=happy0065.gif]

[sm=happy0065.gif]



Sugar -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/19/2018 8:02:32 PM)

4 points I noticed during the match and to be discussed:

1. Breaking through the Maginot-Line isn't somehow benefitting the Axis` cause, in fact Mussolini is completely ignoring this event as well as the Frechmen. Since this line of defense was France` best hope, it could have a more decisive impact; especially if the Allies decide to leave the occupating troops at half strength.

2. A very early attack of the Brits in Libya (especially by using the B.E.F.) should lead to Italy mobilising some more troops.

3. Not particular in this match, but it`s common to completely suppress norwegian convoys to Germany. I'm just wondering if Bill and Hubert were considering this circumstance when calculating german income.

4. Many informations related to scripts are not contained in the manual. Seems awkward.



Taxman66 -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/19/2018 8:27:46 PM)

The in game counter to #3 is the movement of Norway towards the Axis. However the Axis player has to decide to decline the take over event (as that will occur far before there is a danger of the Allied player pushing them over by themselves). Then it becomes a political game of chicken. Should the Axis invest diplomatic chits? Should the Allied player keep raiding? Should the Allied player risk US ire with a preemptive strike?

I haven't tested to see what the Norwegians get for forces.

Also when (if?) does the the convoy reroute script fire if the Axis decline the take over?

I have learned from games versus the AI, that with the last Subs/DD changes that to protect even the shortened convoy line that Germany has to invest in something to protect it if they want that money. Either station the maritime bomber, or invest in 1 level of ASW or build a MT or 2. Level 0 ASW DDs aren't going to cut it. Just like they don't cut it for the UK vs. German subs. Actually its slightly worse since the UK starts with the Naval Warfare research and Germany doesn't.



Taxman66 -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/19/2018 8:34:04 PM)

The only consequence of #1 is that it supresses/delays US and USSR mobilization as the low countries don't need to be declared on. If I recall that is about 10% each. Yes, Germany is delaying the plunder and income themselves, but I suspect it may hurt the Allies more.

Remember standard play is for Germany to declare war on the low countries far earlier than historical, bringing Italy in early by doing so.

Just posting thoughts not suggesting anything needs to change just yet.



Sugar -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/19/2018 9:09:45 PM)

quote:

Remember standard play is for Germany to declare war on the low countries far earlier than historical, bringing Italy in early by doing so.


That`s part of the time line: even with those early DoWs you won`t be able to beat France earlier than june, mostly july.

quote:

The only consequence of #1 is that it supresses/delays US and USSR mobilization as the low countries don't need to be declared on. If I recall that is about 10% each. Yes, Germany is delaying the plunder and income themselves, but I suspect it may hurt the Allies more.


I had to DoW Belgium anyway, since Italy wasn't moving at all. Can`t be right I guess.

Also added 1 point in my original thread.



KorutZelva -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/19/2018 9:34:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

4 points I noticed during the match and to be discussed:

1. Breaking through the Maginot-Line isn't somehow benefitting the Axis` cause, in fact Mussolini is completely ignoring this event as well as the Frechmen. Since this line of defense was France` best hope, it could have a more decisive impact; especially if the Allies decide to leave the occupating troops at half strength.

2. A very early attack of the Brits in Libya (especially by using the B.E.F.) should lead to Italy mobilising some more troops.

3. Not particular in this match, but it`s common to completely suppress norwegian convoys to Germany. I'm just wondering if Bill and Hubert were considering this circumstance when calculating german income.

4. Many informations related to scripts are not contained in the manual. Seems awkward.


For #2 I'd say that's what the DAK should be about. Rather than having the DAK arriving at a set date, make it so that it appears after the italians lose one of their three NA cities. Without UK success in NA the Italians wouldn't call for help.

If Barbarossa happens and they haven't been required yet, make them mobilise in Poland.



Sugar -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/19/2018 10:30:50 PM)

quote:

For #2 I'd say that's what the DAK should be about. Rather than having the DAK arriving at a set date, make it so that it appears after the italians lose one of their three NA cities. Without UK success in NA the Italians wouldn't call for help.


Seems reasonable.



room -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 12:19:40 AM)

Wouldn't that be largely abusable by not advancing in Italian Africa even if you are winning? As the allies, you re happy to survive at this moment.



KorutZelva -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 12:50:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: room

Wouldn't that be largely abusable by not advancing in Italian Africa even if you are winning? As the allies, you re happy to survive at this moment.


It doesn't mean that if they don't go in offence mode that you can't. :0)

It's common for the Axis to ship stuff before DAK shows up. It's also not unusual to see elements from the DAK shipped back because they are superfluous because of the former.

There would still be an incentive to trigger it because you make Germany cough the mpp to make them appear rather than getting them for free in Poland.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 10:36:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

4 points I noticed during the match and to be discussed:

1. Breaking through the Maginot-Line isn't somehow benefitting the Axis` cause, in fact Mussolini is completely ignoring this event as well as the Frechmen. Since this line of defense was France` best hope, it could have a more decisive impact; especially if the Allies decide to leave the occupating troops at half strength.

2. A very early attack of the Brits in Libya (especially by using the B.E.F.) should lead to Italy mobilising some more troops.

3. Not particular in this match, but it`s common to completely suppress norwegian convoys to Germany. I'm just wondering if Bill and Hubert were considering this circumstance when calculating german income.

4. Many informations related to scripts are not contained in the manual. Seems awkward.





#4 is the only point here that has merit, KZ's solution to #2 seems logical. To argue more Italian troops when you took Egypt fairly easily doesn't make sense.


#1 If the Allied player leaves the Maginot line minimally unprotected it gives the Axis the option of attacking without attacking Holland/Belgium reducing US/USSR mobilization.

#3 You won as Axis basically in '43 why would you need more advantages.




Sugar -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 11:57:44 AM)

1. I guess you missed the point:
quote:

I had to DoW Belgium anyway, since Italy wasn't moving at all.
Alltogether it`s disadvantaging to break through the Maginot-Line, and has no impact on french morale nor italian mob. (in fact they're moving less than at Sichelschnitt).

2. I also agreed to KZ`s suggestions, equals 3 agreeing. Let`s make it a demand then.

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.



KorutZelva -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 12:23:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.


A bit of revisionist history there. [;)]



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 12:42:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

1. I guess you missed the point:
quote:

I had to DoW Belgium anyway, since Italy wasn't moving at all.
Alltogether it`s disadvantaging to break through the Maginot-Line, and has no impact on french morale nor italian mob. (in fact they're moving less than at Sichelschnitt).

2. I also agreed to KZ`s suggestions, equals 3 agreeing. Let`s make it a demand then.

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.





1) In my opinion the French as it stands now works fairly well, I'm not really missing your point.

2) Agreed you start the thread or me?

3) Also in my opinion if the Axis is controlling all significant cities in Europe/Africa/Russia (including Kuybyshev/Baku etc) on the map except London by '44 it should be a Decisive Victory for Axis. The final London attack when the rest of the map in controlled by '44 is kind of lame.



room -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 1:29:59 PM)

I do feel the french campaign is handdle pretty well and it's normal to incite not to go the Maginot route. Though it should def move Musollini as much as the Belgium way, Musollinni really shouyld get a large mobi boost once Geerman troops are 2 hex away from Paris.



Sugar -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 2:03:59 PM)

quote:

A bit of revisionist history there.


Yay, the things, they are a`changing. [8D]

I`m just trying to make one point: everyone has got impressions from his last game, and discussing what was conspicious is quite obvious, but 1. sometimes misleading and 2. demanding changes often influencing balancing negatively.

Therefore I'm glad if one of my impressions leads to a minor change (relating the appearance of the DAK on Italy losing ground in Libya, otherwise deploying could follow the usual way). This shouldn`t lead to misbalancing, and most of us seem to agree.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (6/20/2018 2:42:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.


A bit of revisionist history there. [;)]






If you guys would switch sides it would answer a lot of balance questions.[&:]

I'll start a thread on the DAK deployment issue.




KorutZelva -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (7/1/2018 11:09:30 AM)

Oops wrong AAR! [:'(]



room -> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) (7/1/2018 11:33:07 AM)

You nostalgic dude! That's cute [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125