"Discovery" combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command Classic: WWI



Message

Jimbonsx -> "Discovery" combat (7/31/2018 10:58:33 AM)

Hi all.
First I'm really glad I found this game: WWI is underrepresented in wargaming IMO, and this one beats CTGW hands down.
But.
I'm really getting frustrated by the game mechanics of what happens when you move a unit and it discovers a unit in the "Fog of War". No problem with that, that's why recon exists. My - very big - beef is with how this game requires you to then attack this unit even when your unit wouldn't have the Action points to do so.
I get the point about ambush combat but surely at this scale it would require a unit to try to physically enter a square rather than just amble up to it and suffer disproportionate losses just for turning up, so to speak.
I am happy with how FoW is enacted in this game but badly unhappy about the patently ridiculous combat rules associated with it.
Whilst we're on the subject, who on earth decided that HQ units perform better in defence that regular Army corps - wasn't a red-stripe-trousered REMF by any chance?



Hubert Cater -> RE: "Discovery" combat (7/31/2018 4:11:47 PM)

When you get ambushed the game performs an auto calculation to see if the hidden unit you ran into would inflict more damage to you than the other way around, it also takes into account a combat multiplier penalty you receive for being ambushed, and if this is the case you then get attacked with the normal combat sequence taking place, i.e. hidden attacker and your unit being the defender in this case.

If the hidden unit cannot inflict more damage to you then you have a choice to attack it or not.

HQs should have lower defensive stats than an Army, perhaps there were other factors in play here such as strength, supply, morale/readiness, experience and/or entrenchment differences?



Jimbonsx -> RE: "Discovery" combat (7/31/2018 5:35:20 PM)

In reverse order -
Absolutely not. The HQ was in regular supply, the attacking units are in regular supply (defender in Ploesti, attackers not crossing any rivers or having to deal with entrenchments etc).
The ambush combat mechanism is justified if I try to move a unit through the defenders tile, but it is not justified at all if there is no intent/capability of the moving unit to enter the tile. It's just a badly-thought-out rule.
Oh yeah, and the AI ignores it when it's turn comes round: I had a major fleet encounter in the North Sea where 15 (count 'em) encounters qualified for ambush combat and zero (again, count 'em) actually happened that way - the AI carried out the attacks it wanted to. As one of my ambushing units was a battleship and the AI unit was a cruiser I think the line about "If the hidden unit cannot inflict more damage to you then you have a choice to attack it or not." is not applicable.
This rule is broken as far as the AI is concerned and it's spoiling an otherwise good game. Bad luck I can legislate for; bad (I use this word as I can't swear here) programming (yes I'm in the business too) I can't.



Hubert Cater -> RE: "Discovery" combat (8/1/2018 12:46:19 PM)

Hi Jimbonsx,

None of this sounds correct and I'd be happy to take a look at any saved game turns where this is repeatable to either make a correction or clear up any misunderstandings with what you might be seeing. If you save turns prior to the AI turn I can then run the AI turn on my end to see exactly what is happening.

Please send to support@furysoftware.com

For ambushes, since the game does not force a player to enter another tile in order to engage another unit, it didn't feel offside at the time of design to implement things as they currently stand. For example, without even considering ambushes, you can already move your unit to maximum AP range and still engage an enemy unit positioned in an adjacent hex. But definitely fair enough if you disagree as not everyone will agree with all design decisions :)

Hope this helps,
Hubert



Jimbonsx -> RE: "Discovery" combat (8/1/2018 7:10:27 PM)

Thanks Hubert, I will do that when it occurs again in a future game.



wodin -> RE: "Discovery" combat (8/2/2018 1:06:27 PM)

WW1 Gold is superb aswell.



Rick402 -> RE: "Discovery" combat (6/8/2019 5:15:19 AM)

i cannot wait for the New and shiny one! im going through the "Classic" one now. and it is just awesome!



Rick402 -> RE: "Discovery" combat (6/8/2019 5:47:33 AM)

i d k man CTGW with the PotzBlitz mod is pretty good, its just really really hard, the AI is souped up!



Jimbonsx -> RE: "Discovery" combat (6/27/2019 11:33:41 AM)

My issue with CTGW is with the aircraft.
In CTGW, you can apply any number of attacking aircraft of any type to attack a single target hex. Think about that - these ground units are army-size (Regular, not Garrisons), and they can be reduced to quivering wrecks by being targeted by a bunch of stringbags (no offence to the pilots, this is a game design rule issue) with very rudimentary armaments.
Every other game of this type I've encountered (including SC) restricts the number of attacks by aircraft in a single turn.

When I raised this in the forum I got the strong impression that, because people had used this to their advantage, there was absolutely no appetite to change it - comments included things like "..only 7 aircraft, wasn't one of my games...", "...nothing wrong there...".

So I gave up on it.
Actually I had a few other issues but this is the wrong forum for those comments.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8291016