suggestion for some changes (Full Version)

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



Message

LLv34Mika -> suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 3:25:42 PM)

Hi

I don't want to have it changed right away... I just think it's worth discussing it.

- But I really would love to see: increasing the possible number of AT units.
Investing in AT science is almost pointless until there is nothing else to do. Not sure about the German max number but for soviets it is three and increasing that to 5 would be nice and not too much. (same counts for Germans of course)

- reducing diving chance and/or giving destroyers a bit more punch
The manual says that there is a 60% chance but I still think that can't be true or it is a bug. I've seen subs dive away 5, 6 or even 7 times in a row. Six times in a row is a 5% chance. I know you can reduce it via ASW but that is by far too high. And I still would prefer to see that subs can not dive anymore if out of supply (or below a certain supply level).

- long range aircraft
For bombers... ok, could be. But tactical bombers shouldn't fly across half Europe I think. It also makes it impossible to hide your HQ somewhere near your units. Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit.

- research speed
You might have noticed it in your own games. If you want you can have tech level 5 in long range aircraft, tanks, advanced aircraft, industrial research, production in 1943 with Germany and if you are dedicated enough also in some of these categorie with Russia, GB or the USA. For my taste that is a bit too early for all sides. Increasing the required % for research breakthroughs and/or decreasing the %-advance in research per turn slightly might do the trick. Having some high end weapons in 1944 would be more suitable if you ask me. If you manage to get one or two of these earlier you can be lucky but facing level 5 weapons in almost every category is a bit strange. In my game vs KZ he has level 5 aircraft, level 5 range, level 5 rockets and level 4 (or already 5?) tanks. Can't say what the industrial level is.

Anyone wishes to add something to the list? Feel free. I think some (or even most) of the changes affect boh sides. Some only one side. In general the game balance should stay almost (!) as it is.

Any opinion welcome... just wanted to toss in my 2 cent.



Elessar2 -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 4:16:59 PM)

Or let A-T be applied to infantry. Might require that each unit type gets 4 upgrade slots, vs. the current 3, but that doesn't seem too hard.

Sub diving should be reduced by 10% per dive. In any event I've never been too crazy about tactical actions being done on a strategic scale.

I already suggested that the breakthrough percentage not be an automatic advance (just a sudden jump, 25% being my suggestion), only to get shot down in flames for my temerity. But in AAR after AAR I've seen breakthroughs being utterly crucial in making or breaking the balance of a given match.



crispy131313 -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 5:47:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

Hi

I don't want to have it changed right away... I just think it's worth discussing it.

- But I really would love to see: increasing the possible number of AT units.
Investing in AT science is almost pointless until there is nothing else to do. Not sure about the German max number but for soviets it is three and increasing that to 5 would be nice and not too much. (same counts for Germans of course)

- reducing diving chance and/or giving destroyers a bit more punch
The manual says that there is a 60% chance but I still think that can't be true or it is a bug. I've seen subs dive away 5, 6 or even 7 times in a row. Six times in a row is a 5% chance. I know you can reduce it via ASW but that is by far too high. And I still would prefer to see that subs can not dive anymore if out of supply (or below a certain supply level).

- long range aircraft
For bombers... ok, could be. But tactical bombers shouldn't fly across half Europe I think. It also makes it impossible to hide your HQ somewhere near your units. Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit.

- research speed
You might have noticed it in your own games. If you want you can have tech level 5 in long range aircraft, tanks, advanced aircraft, industrial research, production in 1943 with Germany and if you are dedicated enough also in some of these categorie with Russia, GB or the USA. For my taste that is a bit too early for all sides. Increasing the required % for research breakthroughs and/or decreasing the %-advance in research per turn slightly might do the trick. Having some high end weapons in 1944 would be more suitable if you ask me. If you manage to get one or two of these earlier you can be lucky but facing level 5 weapons in almost every category is a bit strange. In my game vs KZ he has level 5 aircraft, level 5 range, level 5 rockets and level 4 (or already 5?) tanks. Can't say what the industrial level is.

Anyone wishes to add something to the list? Feel free. I think some (or even most) of the changes affect boh sides. Some only one side. In general the game balance should stay almost (!) as it is.

Any opinion welcome... just wanted to toss in my 2 cent.


Anti-Tanks - Isn't their a very brief window to build AT before receiving 3 via Decision Event. This would provide a total of 6 per side at least until they begin to get destroyed.

Subs/Diving - No comment, I still play the old way of Destroyer trumps subs if found.

Bombers - I agree with all of this and have play tested it for a long time to say it feels right. (Increased Bomber range, Increased HQ Air Defense, Max equivalent of level 3 Bomber Tech.)

Slow down research speed - Multiple mods are reflecting this now, (i.e. Battlefield Europe, Fall Weiss II). Play tested and feels right.



Sugar -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 6:27:26 PM)

quote:

Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit


Yes, the wet dream of any allied commander: beat the Luftwaffe out of safe range.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 6:56:05 PM)

The anti tank research is close to useless in my opinion because it effects so few unit types. I don't even research it until late in the game. Also anti tank units don't fall under armored warfare so they only attack once. Anti-tank was an important component of WW2 not so much here.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

Or let A-T be applied to infantry. Might require that each unit type gets 4 upgrade slots, vs. the current 3, but that doesn't seem too hard.

Sub diving should be reduced by 10% per dive. In any event I've never been too crazy about tactical actions being done on a strategic scale.

I already suggested that the breakthrough percentage not be an automatic advance (just a sudden jump, 25% being my suggestion), only to get shot down in flames for my temerity. But in AAR after AAR I've seen breakthroughs being utterly crucial in making or breaking the balance of a given match.




Good idea of AT being applied to infantry and other units. If I recall SC or Commanders used to be that way.





LLv34Mika -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 7:42:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Two possible solutions: reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way) or just reduce the tactical bomber strike range a bit


Yes, the wet dream of any allied commander: beat the Luftwaffe out of safe range.


Well, at the moment it is the wet dream to beat any unit south of Manchester with high expecience fighters/bombers. Destroying HQs and air units regrouping for a possible attack. Rinse and repeat until the allies run out of money. Then have some subs blocking your own ports and start sending troops to the Island.

Takes a bit longer than just coming from above (if there is too much AA and fighter support) but is the safer way.

I could also live with reducing tactical bomber range for both sides. I just wanted to give it a more historical touch. Only allowing the USAF real long range aircraft is ok for me. I could also live with long range escorts and heavy bombers.

I only think that it is not really such big fun as it is right now. Or do you see no need for any change concerning that topic?

@Crispy

yup, building AT guns before the event fires might be an option. But NOT being able to replace three units is also a bit strange. That just means you have to "hide" those units until level 3 or better what would be useless to. If you don't hide them in 1942 three of the AT guns won't see 1943.



Sugar -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 8:42:34 PM)

quote:

Or do you see no need for any change concerning that topic?


No. Equal chances for both sides. At least you have to be in range to strike, as well as your opponent. My only complain is the range of strat. bombers; if you're placing a fighter half the way to Berlin, he couldn't intercept at max. range nor attack directly the airfield the bomber starts at.

Typical impressions of your latest experience imho. There's no need to buy AT at all, and subs are annoying, but no real threat.

Considering KZ was eminently lucky by conquering all of France and getting Spain very early without any trouble, you`re doing quite well; but don`t blame the mechanics if you don`t succeed.



room -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 10:30:58 PM)

Well I love this game but the unit that bugs me the most is the highly important HQ.

HQ is way overpowered imho, and hardly sensical when it comes to supply. Reducing their supply enhancement abilities would also make strategic cities in low supply areas more important and maybe slightly counter the mass airforce deployment in difficultly suppliable areas. It will nerver happen in this game but the worst aspect of it is the supply mechanic and making HQs less powerfull would also means they are a slightly less juicy target for bombers.

Then I really don't get the overstrengh either... How can it make any sense to reinforce past 100% unit? and with no XP cost. XP is precious enough without overstrengh, I'll get rid of overstrengh.



DeriKuk -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/16/2018 11:51:54 PM)

I like Elessar2's very sensible suggestion. Drop the silly AT units, (They do not make sense at scale of the game.) ...and incorporate AT capabilities into other land units. AA units deserve a similar treatment, although the capability is already incorporated in units and locations.



LLv34Mika -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 4:19:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeriKuk

I like Elessar2's very sensible suggestion. Drop the silly AT units, (They do not make sense at scale of the game.) ...and incorporate AT capabilities into other land units. AA units deserve a similar treatment, although the capability is already incorporated in units and locations.


It was like that in SC2 and I have to say I'm much happier this way.



Rannug61 -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 12:20:24 PM)

Hi

I also find that research need to slow down a bit but not during the first years so much. My idea; If you have level 0 or 1 tech keep it as now. On level 2 lower the chance for a hit with 0,5%. On level 3 lower the chance for a hit with 1%. On level 4 lower the chance for a hit with 2%.

This will not change much in early/mid game but in most games we would have to wait for 1944/45 before we see Me 262 and other wunderwaffen.



Trump2016 -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 12:36:08 PM)

Air (Land and CV) not being able to intercept naval/subs units!

i mean they spot these units moving and coming into range, yet for some reason, do not attack?

the one huge advantage the allies have, is rendered virtually useless when needed most.



Rannug61 -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 12:40:50 PM)

I like the AT unit and think that build limits for Germany and Russia could be 4 (now it's 3) and increase the build limits for UK and US to 2 units. The unit gives flavor to the game and if you get level 3 tech or more it's very deadly against panzers. Keep the game fun!



LLv34Mika -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 2:38:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Or do you see no need for any change concerning that topic?


No. Equal chances for both sides. At least you have to be in range to strike, as well as your opponent. My only complain is the range of strat. bombers; if you're placing a fighter half the way to Berlin, he couldn't intercept at max. range nor attack directly the airfield the bomber starts at.

Typical impressions of your latest experience imho. There's no need to buy AT at all, and subs are annoying, but no real threat.

Considering KZ was eminently lucky by conquering all of France and getting Spain very early without any trouble, you`re doing quite well; but don`t blame the mechanics if you don`t succeed.


Concerning that fighter intercept thing... well, I know what you mean. The fighter should intercept while the bomber is on its way. A logical thing.

The only "latest experiences" are the same in many games. At the moment my air forces are located even some hex fields north of Manchester. That is ridiculous. And that is even worse than the example you made. And even with Berlin is bombed... so what? That won't win the match. But you can feel free to place a fighter squadron here and there to cover almost everything you want. And that is also what is more realistic.

The other way around hording air groups to strike at once at anything that can fly or move seems a bit "gamey". Everyone has to do it to be competitive and that is ok. But if that doesn't work anymore in such a simple way it changes nothing (balance) and gives the game a more strategic touch.

Just an opinion of course... if everyone likes it better that way it is also ok for me. I would prefer it a different way. Same with U-Boats. I could also live with giving Germany another tank unit or even one more tactical bomber (too!) if the strike range is reduced. If it helps balancing the game I'm fine with it.



Taxman66 -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 2:47:46 PM)

I wish air power was a (restricted) force multiplier instead of a force in and of itself.

In a traditional war game it would be added to the attacking ground units to generate better odds. They would also be limited in how much you could use (say a maximum value equal to the ground units). Because of the way odds work addidng more also becomes a diminishing returns situation. In this game you get the opposite effect where concentration provided stronger, not weaker, benefits.

This game has the same basic mechanics as the old Panzer General (or the newer Panzer Corps) game. However, in those games generally a unit can only be bombed once (or twice if 1 air unit started its turn over the defender).



Sugar -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 3:40:52 PM)

Seems I don`t get the point of your suggestion:
quote:

reducing the research level to max3 for Germany, (GB) and Russia (what is a bit more the historical way)


This reduction would just mean the Air Forces would be 2 hexes nearer than now. Makes no difference at all I guess. Would also be unhistorical, since Manchester was target of several german bombing raids, and guess what kind of bombers they used.

quote:

And even with Berlin is bombed... so what? That won't win the match


It`s an example for being able to keep them out of strike range of fighters. This is not only advantageous in case of bombing Berlin...

quote:

The other way around hording air groups to strike at once at anything that can fly or move seems a bit "gamey"


Roughly as gamey as destroying any other unit I guess.

Air superiority was the key to every single success during WWII, as well as in SC3.



LLv34Mika -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 6:37:10 PM)

sorry for having only that one single example at the moment but it is a good one. (and the same in every game anyway)

At the moment I can not have a single HQ anywhere 2 hex fields south of Carlisle/Newcastle

Another thing would be to decrease the attack value vs HQs or dramatically increase their defense value vs air attacks. The HQ are a few persons... killing them so easily (even know where exactly they are) is rather strange. If a tank force rushes in and kills something or an Army captures a city and a HQ is close enough to be attacked that makes more sense to me.



Sugar -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 7:12:18 PM)

Obviously an HQ is not only representing a few men in the staff, but also the whole logistical component of an army group. HQs have got a command range of up to 7 btw., and there's no need to place them nearer to the frontline, since towns and cities are providing good supply to the defender.

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/17/2018 9:05:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: room

Well I love this game but the unit that bugs me the most is the highly important HQ.

HQ is way overpowered imho, and hardly sensical when it comes to supply. Reducing their supply enhancement abilities would also make strategic cities in low supply areas more important and maybe slightly counter the mass airforce deployment in difficultly suppliable areas. It will nerver happen in this game but the worst aspect of it is the supply mechanic and making HQs less powerfull would also means they are a slightly less juicy target for bombers.

Then I really don't get the overstrengh either... How can it make any sense to reinforce past 100% unit? and with no XP cost. XP is precious enough without overstrengh, I'll get rid of overstrengh.




I agree, I'd like to see the HQ influence reduced some and more increases when units not attached but protecting key locations (London, Moscow etc)




norvandave -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/19/2018 12:01:42 AM)

Fleet repairs to Battleships, Cruisers, etc. should take longer. SC2 is supposed to be a strategic game and the naval fleets represent large formations of ships. I think it would be better to restrict ship repairs to 1 point per term (or 2 points perhaps). I know some of the repairs are represented in the lower readiness after you rebuild the fleet, but you should not be able to limp your Battleship into port with 1 factor and then instantaneously increase it to 10 in the next turn.

Reducing the rebuild speed would put a lot more onus on strategic planning regarding the use of naval forces.

I also think that some of the ideas put forward really should not apply to a strategic level game, e.g. Tank Destroyers.

My two cents.



KorutZelva -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/19/2018 12:37:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: norvandave

Fleet repairs to Battleships, Cruisers, etc. should take longer. SC2 is supposed to be a strategic game and the naval fleets represent large formations of ships. I think it would be better to restrict ship repairs to 1 point per term (or 2 points perhaps). I know some of the repairs are represented in the lower readiness after you rebuild the fleet, but you should not be able to limp your Battleship into port with 1 factor and then instantaneously increase it to 10 in the next turn.

Reducing the rebuild speed would put a lot more onus on strategic planning regarding the use of naval forces.

I also think that some of the ideas put forward really should not apply to a strategic level game, e.g. Tank Destroyers.

My two cents.


I like the idea for ship repairs. These things often took a long time. A single point might be considered too much micromanagement but maybe it could be done the at same rate as HQ.



James Taylor -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/20/2018 1:07:33 AM)

Let's remember how long it took to patch up the Yorktown and put her back in action.

I believe it depends on the port facilities and the motivation to "get'er done".



Energisteron -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/21/2018 11:09:09 AM)

Norvandave's suggestion for naval repairs to be slowed down is a very good idea.

I'd like to see armour / mechanised units lose readiness at a greater rate than at present. Simply by moving breakdowns would be a problem, let alone after combat!

Also, I'd like all air unit attack values to be toned down a bit, in fact quite a lot, but with all initial air units at experience level 1 (representing good peacetime training). Misuse would mean experience would quickly drop to zero representing the loss of trained pilots / crews.

I'm not sure the US (Coast Guard?) Airship should permitted to leave continental America. I've seen it turn up in Egypt. Could it cross the Atlantic?

Naval Minefields - we really should have these represented especially on the NW German coast.

And finally, tech improvements happen too fast and have too great an effect on combat such that combat results become almost automatic with a level 2 Army beating a level 0 Army out of sight every time, and usually without the slightest loss.

I'm not sure National Morale should have such an influence either, especially seemingly on combat. I'd prefer a simple Trigger routine with a certain percent chance of surrender when various target cities are lost. For instance, losing Paris alone has a 50% chance of causing France to surrender.



Harrybanana -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/23/2018 11:56:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.



This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.



Sugar -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/24/2018 1:07:02 AM)

Take a look at production numbers, tells everything about the importance of aircraft/tanks/arty.

quote:

Since the Axis start with air superiority


Really? If you look at the potential damage versus ground forces perhaps, surely not versus aircraft.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/24/2018 10:40:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.



This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.





Spot on Harry. The Axis air force (if played correctly) is completely invincible by late '41 -'42. It absolutely dominates the game. The skilled Axis player will group most to all airforce in one area and control the game. This alone gives the skilled Axis player the ultimate advantage.

I'd propose either reducing the possible bomber strength/range (when experienced) or increase the possible AA level of troops to level 3 (maybe at a later date like '42). If bombers can be level 3 why AA only lv 2?


The only question is if this is done does if flip the balance of power to the Allies.






KorutZelva -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/24/2018 11:20:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.



This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.





Spot on Harry. The Axis air force (if played correctly) is completely invincible by late '41 -'42. It absolutely dominates the game. The skilled Axis player will group most to all airforce in one area and control the game. This alone gives the skilled Axis player the ultimate advantage.

I'd propose either reducing the possible bomber strength/range (when experienced) or increase the possible AA level of troops to level 3 (maybe at a later date like '42). If bombers can be level 3 why AA only lv 2?


The only question is if this is done does if flip the balance of power to the Allies.



Based on Tourney score board if we eliminate outliers (aka Sugar) we have 13 Allied wins to 5 Axis victories. I think we can agree the game shouldn't be made to counter the top 1%.

Germany could probably use a couple Infantry units in its production queue to help with Barbarossa (let's say 1 army - 2 corps?).



Sugar -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/24/2018 1:42:31 PM)

Not to mention I also won all my Allies games. Only thing you`ll need to know is how and when to break the Axis` air superiority.

Should the power of air forces be too strong in relation to ground forces, maybe they're too weak. Against a proficient opponent, in fortified position, with adjacent arty and AA, it takes a tremendous effort to destroy a single unit, not to speak of surviving the counterattack. Hasn't been the case in Breakthrough SoE, and follows the dimished attack values in SC3.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/24/2018 2:50:55 PM)

Its probably late for any significant change to the air. I hope in future games the authors consider some type of air base so entire air forces aren't in one arbitrary spot.

To say the tourney results are indicative of game parity is BS and you both know it. Many of the players had almost no experience, Mika aggressively recruits new players for slaughter. When recognized players battle the Axis wins handily.

Sugar I would like to see you play the Allies against Irish Guards, that would be interesting.



KorutZelva -> RE: suggestion for some changes (7/24/2018 3:07:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Its probably late for any significant change to the air. I hope in future games the authors consider some type of air base so entire air forces aren't in one arbitrary spot.

To use the tourney results are indicative of game parity is BS and you both know it. Many of the players had almost no experience, Mika aggressively recruits new players for slaughter. When recognized players battle the Axis wins handily.

Sugar I would like to see you play the Allies against Irish Guards, that would be interesting.


Tourney results are of more value as evidence than your opinion mate. [;)]

There's players of varying level of aptitude in it and that is representative of the landscape. You accuse Mika of being an good player (and he is) that baits rookies, well I guess the tourney attracted a lot of good players because Mika only managed a single win to his name so far. [;)]

Bill mentioned that steam comments are along the 'it's impossible to win as Axis in Pbem' also points in the an 'allies have the edge' direction.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.921875