RE: The Sugar war machine (Full Version)

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



Message

James Taylor -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/3/2018 2:10:54 AM)

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.



Christolos -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/3/2018 3:59:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.


Exactly! For every strategy/tactic, there is a counter strategy/tactic. It’s called, trying to outsmart and defeat your opponent within the context of the game mechanics where each side has the possibility of winning, using the game mechanics. I particularly agree with the comments that mention that the game is not designed to simply replay history, as this would be very boring indeed, and we all know the history.

C



Titan -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/3/2018 11:13:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.


Exactly! For every strategy/tactic, there is a counter strategy/tactic. It’s called, trying to outsmart and defeat your opponent within the context of the game mechanics where each side has the possibility of winning, using the game mechanics. I particularly agree with the comments that mention that the game is not designed to simply replay history, as this would be very boring indeed, and we all know the history.

C




Your missing the point!!!. The counter strategy thoughts are fine...But in this case it is very cost to build enough anti air to protect every HQ from Air attack...Which make air power even more effective if is going to consume huge amounts of MMP's to protect everything, Also Tac bombers generally get the jump on everything for the first turn as since the get teleported around the map and placed behind the lines, the victim in a lot of cases has no idea until the first attack is over. Your rational is fine...but Air power in the hands of someone who knows how to manage it well as in Sugars case negates alot of the counter strategy options.....that is why he is beating you all up. Negate the air power rules to something a little more realistic and i think you will see he will start to lose games. Example leaving the coast of France unprotected by a decent ground army and flying over Airfleets to wipe the invader out should give you an idea what a WW2 game is not...If only hitler could of done that on D-day. As a fine a game this it is could be a game of a much better strategic contest between players if it did something about the gamey nature of Airpower



Markiss -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/3/2018 2:04:37 PM)

Originally posted by James Taylor:
quote:

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.


I think you are over-estimating the effectiveness of AA in this game. Do you not think that everyone who has played against this style has tried that? When your HQ gets attacked by the air armada, it is facing 12-14 attacks. Your fighter will not protect you, nor will your AA. You may do a few pips of damage to the incoming aircraft, but your HQ is just as dead.
Currently, there is no counter to the air armada. That is why everyone is adopting that playing style, and why I fear that the PBEM incarnation of this game is broken, or at least not very fun.



Titan -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/3/2018 6:32:54 PM)

Right on Markiss, hence why i dont play multi much...it's a little gamey in that respect. Even the operating vast armies across Europe in the blink of an eye needs to be revised. How long would it take to move just one Corp from Russia to France in WW2 and then be ready to fight? Anyway some changes to Air and that i think the game would be more of a strategic players masterpiece than what it is now....And players would certainly have to think about their plans a bit more other than relying there airpower prowess



sillyflower -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/6/2018 11:17:48 AM)

FWII mod goes some way to reduce airpower with 1 less tac (but 1 more med bomber I think) and a reduction in ground attack effectiveness. Still OP'd IMHO but not as badly.

The remaining bugbear is the 1 mentioned several times: instant transport around the globe. The a/c can do it time span of a 2 or 3 week turn IRL, but not the infrastructure + specialist support and supplies for sustained ops.



LLv34Mika -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/7/2018 10:16:32 AM)

That's something that should be easy to change.

Operating units reduces their readiness. If that would be increased it takes many turns to get the full strength again. Until then they are rather useless. The other idea (a bit more complex) would be to limit operating units as it works with transports. If you can only operate a number of X units (could work like transports so you can upgrade it with logistics) it would take a much longer time to operate 5 fighters, 8 bombers and 2 HQs.

Another penalty could be reducing XP when operating. As you can see there are many ways to tweak around. Would be interesting what Hubert or Bill think about that. Actually I really like my own idea about limiting the number of units that can be moved that way each turn. ;)

Mika



PJL1973 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/7/2018 10:59:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

That's something that should be easy to change.

Operating units reduces their readiness. If that would be increased it takes many turns to get the full strength again. Until then they are rather useless. The other idea (a bit more complex) would be to limit operating units as it works with transports. If you can only operate a number of X units (could work like transports so you can upgrade it with logistics) it would take a much longer time to operate 5 fighters, 8 bombers and 2 HQs.

Another penalty could be reducing XP when operating. As you can see there are many ways to tweak around. Would be interesting what Hubert or Bill think about that. Actually I really like my own idea about limiting the number of units that can be moved that way each turn. ;)

Mika


I think making a bigger readiness penalty and limiting operational movement the same way as the number of transports as you described would both be good solutions to the mass teleportation problem.



hellraiser1973 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/8/2018 10:07:36 AM)

Funny thread....brings back VERY old memories of SC1 and 2 - back then we had Terif, a very smart individual, endowed with a lot of patience, strategic sense and an amazing sense of timing. Yes , TIMING - the most important skill which differentiates a good SC player from a master.
At some point, certain people, who were losing all the time vs him, starting throwing punches under the belt - he was a game exploiter, he played the same "cookie cutter" axis strategy - ofc the game was broken!!! He also won pretty much all his games playing as the "weaker" side, the allies against a "broken" axis side. But the "broken" game was the reason for his 90%+ positive record in H2H...really...

To some extent it is happening again in SC3 it seems. The H2H scene has a player that has an impressive winning record (many congratulations to you, Sugar) that has a "cookie cutter" axis strategy but somehow wins his allied games as well. And some folks here talk about nerfing tac bombers or other various game parameters. So tweak them until he loses some games then the game is not "broken" anymore? :D
Is it not more simple to accept that a intelligent player who devotes time to study the game (and its mechanics), read the game documentation, probably tests stuff extensively, has a good strategic and timing sense, actually should have an upperhand in this game compared to folks who don't put in all the efforts?
To me this comes from a personal experience - i played Terif back in the day several times, had some close games but won only one of them (playing the allies vs his cookie cutter axis) and i won not because the game was broken but because i really upped my patience level, paid close attention to every details on the game map and took the right decisions. I think this should be the right attitude, not complaining about other things to find excuses for a loss.

So take it this way - this smart, knowledgeable, patient individual who is winning almost all his games in SC3, set the bar VERY high, developed sound strategies, within the game rules, and the players who wanna win against him really have to put in additional efforts. This should be a pleasant challenge not a reason to complain about how the game is broken.



Titan -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/8/2018 11:49:17 AM)

Hellraiser, Clearly you are referring to myself.....I have never made any of those comments regarding Sugar, in fact i have given him Kudo's for his acheivements. What i have said he has exposed a weakness in this games design with the winning strategy to be one dimensional. To win this game it boils done to the use of Air power and managing the teleporting from one place to another. That is all. That is as deep as this game really gets as far as a strategic game goes. In my book WW2 had alot more to it than that...I think there was such a thing as ground combat and involving large battles as a result of manouvering and out manouvering your opponent to get an advantage...Sugar has discovered that winning this game that is not as important as teleporting planes all over the map killing off hotspots and HQ's and allows him to even leave Europe ungarrisoned. That is all.....Therefore this from what i gather is themed to be a WW2 game and one would think a combination of ground air and sea is what won WW2 and leaving france unocuppied and have the ability to kill off an invasion by teleporting a mass of planes over should pretty much say it all. This game needs some fixing if it is a WW2 game...otherwise it might was well be strategic starcraft or some other fantasy game.

Some games do have a weakness and they tend to always attract one or two indivuals who have the time and are clever enough to work that weakness out and exploit it as is the case here. That has nothing to do with being a strategic grandmaster.



hellraiser1973 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/8/2018 11:52:18 AM)

Titan , i was not referring necessarily to your post but rather I got this feeling after reading a lot of other threads. Sorry if you felt singled out by my remarks ;)



Keenan -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/8/2018 7:43:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titan
To win this game it boils done to the use of Air power and managing the teleporting from one place to another. That is all. That is as deep as this game really gets as far as a strategic game goes.

You could not go more wrong than that. But this is just my very personal opinion.

Maybe re-reading your own comment, you might recognize that claiming you had "given him Kudo's for his acheivements" followed by the implicit judgement that he is not a "strategic grandmaster" but rather one of those individuals who exploit game weaknesses does not sound really classy. Maybe I just got you wrong here....

I think Sugar mentioned the ingredients that currently make him the most difficult opponent for SC3 in this forum before: Experience with SC2. Detailed knowledge on SC3 game mechanics and additionally the 1939 scenario (events, event triggers). That`s why he is currently winning games on Axis and Allied side. And this is why this is still the case even though opponents mimik his playing style or come up with random prone strategies. And that does not require this game to be broken or strategically one dimensional.

To not revise history to extremes, in this game there are not too many strategies that allow an Axis Victory against a competent Allied player. Using operational movement (not only for air units) properly is a necessary tool for most of them. "Teleporting" Air units costs MPP, unit combat strength (readiness) and attack moves. In addition weather poses risks to it too. Done properly it gives you a extra local boost a few times per game. Yes, it can cripple a coastal invasion, yes it can crush the defenses of an strategic objective. But it`s not the Swiss army knife to save the day under any circumstances. To know when and where to enable and apply which tactics is more strategy than tactics to me.

Just my two cents.




hellraiser1973 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 7:40:54 AM)

Very good point, Keenan.

Since its debut with SC1, this strategic series employed certain abstractizations and concepts which more or less remained unchanged to this day and which, IMO, provide us with a very enjoyable game.
Both sides benefit of certain tools to try to achieve their objectives:

Axis
1. Stronger starting position and stronger economy early on
2. Being a continental power they make better use of inner lines of communication/transport which allow rapid redeployment of units across the territory they control. Here we got the so called "teleporting" of units - if we think a SC turn is 2 weeks (correct me if i am wrong), maybe it doesn't sound that far fetched. Okay, IRL, if you operate 4 panzergruppen, 5 armies, 3 HQs from Kiew to Paris in 2 weeks - that is not gonna happen not because trains are too slow but because there ain't no rails and trains to accomodate that in the first place :D - but in the game both sides can do it - UK/USA can operate from washington/london all the way to Arabia or Persia, in one turn as well. If both sides can do it, it is more or less balanced (admittedly Germany can employ it more efficiently, but it is not a game breaker by any means). OFC there are ways around it like going for 1 week turns and halving the operational movement to make it look more real but I, frankly, don't have a problem with it.
Operating a unit, besides the visible mpp cost and readiness/morale hit, also has an opportunity cost associated with it - what would the unit have achieved if it stayed and fought on site versus what it may achieve once it is operated on a new front.
3. Troops/HQs experience is high - the benefit of fighting since 1939 - this is quite a challenge for the Allied player, many times the combat rolls are ridiculous in favour of Axis so the allied player has to go the long way in order to kill them - got for supply, go for HQs, fight in low Axis supply areas, etc.
4. Ability to apply massive force in an area of its choosing - this last item more or less sums up the main Axis tactics in this game after all.

Allies

1. Slower economic start, ramping up collosally after USA and Russia are in the game - by design, Allies favourite strategy will be drawing Germany into an attrition war she cannot win. Allies will win, not by employing super experienced troops but by employing lots of them and having the ability to replace quickly anything Axis kills.
2. Ability to act in virtual any corner of the map via amphibious landing supported by their powerful navies. A very strong tool, almost on par with germany's use of inner lines for operational movement. And modelled as abstract as the op move is, as well - can you imagine embarking in NYC on a landing ship and crossing the Atlantic and land and conduct combat? Or going thru a wormhole in the middle of the ocean and appearing in the red sea/persian gulf? :) Certain concepts have to be abstractized, there is no way around it.
3. Ability to employ the "total air war" strategy. In contrast to Axis, which can build just a couple of strategic bombers, the Allies can use scores of them to ruin the Axis mpps and wreck their lines of communication/supply. The strategy is less likely to work in a fast game but once the game stalled a little bit, this can be a decisive factor.
4. Op movement - yes this tool is available to them as well - Russia makes use better of it first, then once the Wallies gain ground in europe, they can employ efficiently as well.

So each side has certain strengths and weaknesses, make use of abstract concepts which may seem unrealistic but are totally necessary in a game like this - all in all a pretty well done game and enjoyable experience.



Titan -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 8:28:21 AM)

That all sounds very impressive from the pair of you....However, regardless of that thoughtfulness of trying to justify something strategically deep into this, it still comes down to over powered air armada's having far to much influence on the results and those that have mastered the management of that have a huge advantage over the rest and as we see rarely lose. All i need to do is read the top two threads and it says it all (Luftwaffe everywhere etc). Any WW2 game that will allow a player to leave large strategic areas unmanned with the knowledge that the rapid teleportation of Air power and some ground units to wipe out a D-Day or some other ground offensive has missed the mark. The game has just about everything else spot on but really needs to rethink Air power once that is done then we will find out who the strategic field marshals are around here, to date we just have some experienced players who know the system and how to take advantage of it.



hellraiser1973 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 9:12:02 AM)

But don't the allies enjoy the same benefit as axis? Even more i may say.
Yes luftwaffe everywhere during the first 2 years of the war but once the allies start producing they outnumber axis airfleets massively and they can deploy their airwings anywhere on the map as well.
The better combat odds for Luftwaffe might be the issue but those are because of more experienced HQs and airunits (fighting since 1939 helps a ton).
Regarding the "ahistorical" behaviour of easily throwing into the sea a D-day - well, historical D-Day was on june 6th 1944. How many H2H games reach that point? Do you think that IRL if the Wallies attempted a D-DAY in 41, 42 or 43 they would have pulled it off?
OTOH if one really wants to experience a different air war, he can always either modify combat values of airfleets or even decrease the hardcap per country - the game allows you that. But don't be surprised if the game becomes unbalanced or a trench warfare type.



LLv34Mika -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 11:47:11 AM)

The only problem I see (of course both sides can do it) is that you can attack air units on ground too easily. Once the Germans have reached long range 3 - 5 it becomes harder and harder to hide. Once more or less every air technology is at max level (ground attack, fighter tech, long range) you can not even hide your HQs and air units in southern Scotland.

There might be one solution: let air groups retreat! What commander would sit there and wait for more and more attacks? If the attacked air group retreats two HEX that would be a great solution.

The HQ thing is another problem if you ask me. Considering that a HQ is a small group of less than 50 persons that should be a unit almost impossible to locate. They can move, they can hide, they can switch positions,... Of course everyone tries to take out an HQ if possible because the game allows to do so and it is the most effective way to beat your enemy. But it is not really what should be the primary objective in the game. The solution would be that HQs can not be spotted by air units. If a ground unit gets close enough that is something different.

We have to deal with the situation we have but I'd love so see/try a change in future games.



Sugar -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 1:29:02 PM)

HQs are representing the whole logistical component of an entire army as well, not only the staff. And do you really recommend to prevent the destruction of the most dangerous units? Why don't you do it to your opponent in the first place? I really don`t get it anymore.

It`s already very difficult to destroy units, should it be completely impossible?

An example from an ongoing game:

[image][URL=http://www.bild.me][IMG]http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3758303extra.PNG[/IMG][/URL][/image]

No HQ-support, nearly no xp, entrenchement 1, supply 2.

[image][URL=http://www.bild.me][IMG]http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/7935772casablanca.PNG[/IMG][/URL][/image]

Highly experienced, highly experienced HQ, good supply, fair weather, prediction 1:0 (not even 1:1, nor to speak of 0:1). That`s the issue of the game after diminishing all attack values compared to the predecessor (not to mention the action points). Guess what happens if you're additionally crippling the attack values- or opportunities of bombers. Finally, the Allies don`t lose units anymore, thanks to pure military genius.



nnason -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 1:39:24 PM)

Sugar,
Thanks for the excellent example.



Markiss -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/9/2018 1:42:07 PM)

There is nothing wrong with the game. No game of any complexity can be made completely exploit-proof. If the issues currently being experienced are addressed, players who are so inclined will simply find other rules to exploit.
Ultimately, it is up to the players to decide how they are going to play the game. Some will always exploit every possible rule to give them the best chance to win, even if it means ruining the other players gaming experience. Others will play within historical boundaries, regardless of the rules, because that is the way they feel the game should be played. Most of these are interested in exploring realistic alternative scenarios for WW2, not just winning.
When one of these types plays the other, neither is likely to enjoy the game. The ultra-competitive exploiter will be bored with an easy game, and the historical player is likely to feel cheated.
I believe the final solution is to separate these 2 groups. Maybe we could have a "historical" tournament with some basic house rules for the people who prefer to play that way, and an "unlimited" tournament for the people who prefer to play wide open. Both types of players could find opponents that would give them the kind of game they want, without having to deal with those who don't.
Or, as an alternative, we could keep having unsatisfying games and complaining about it on this forum.




LLv34Mika -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/11/2018 3:27:08 PM)

I don't see what you are trying to say

is this a Romanian Corps with 1 XP point and attached to a HQ with 3 XP? vs a low readiness unit with 1 entrenchment in a city with no experience at all? And your combat prediction was 0:1 against you?

What year is it in this game btw?



MrLongleg -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/14/2018 7:21:21 PM)

I still think the game is an excellent strategy game. The beaming around of air units is available to both sides. For example I can often rescue Egypt by sending the American air force in the last minute. The game is not a simulation, but overall is is quite well balanced. It is demanding and not easy to master and requires lots of tough decisions. Sugar is just somebody who really plays it well, and I was on the receiving end too. I hopefully learned a trick or two. I am playing this game for years now and it never grows boring. Right now I have 3 matches going on in parallel.



Goodmongo -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/18/2018 4:26:13 PM)

I have no problem with what Sugar is doing. He is playing a game and playing it to win. To try and change things up by saying he should play "historical" is kind of silly in my opinion. Any two players can agree on any house rules they want. But if there is no agreement then the game is what it is. This is especially true as he's willing to play either side.

Reminds me of other MP games like HOI and Starcraft. Just because I might want to prohibit certain things or play at a different speed doesn't mean I'm right. So I get into games where I agree on the rules beforehand and if not I don't play. There is nothing forcing you to play Sugar if you don't like his tactics.



Goodmongo -> RE: The Sugar war machine (10/19/2018 4:53:27 PM)

Sugar, if you read this what are your strategies for research? Also, do you take all air before HQ's and armor or is it mixed?



Hartmann301 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (11/5/2018 8:58:01 PM)

How does going slow and starting late in Russia work for him? Sorry but I didn't have time to read most of this thread.



Rannug61 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (11/5/2018 9:13:39 PM)

Very well, the Russians believe things are going fine but in 1942 the card house falls apart. Sometime during 1943 all the major Russian cities are axis and victory is only an index finger click away.



Hartmann301 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (11/10/2018 10:08:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Sugar, if you read this what are your strategies for research? Also, do you take all air before HQ's and armor or is it mixed?



I too would like to know how he does his research.



Sugar -> RE: The Sugar war machine (11/10/2018 10:49:56 PM)

I`m selling rockets and anti-tank, and log. with Italy. I`m using them to influence Spain and buy Int. with Italy. I don`t buy any units for France except a mar. b.. If I had enough money I'd buy 1 german HQ, but research has the first priority: tac. bombers, tanks, fighters, Inf., Ind., in this order.

This is exclusively regarding PbEM, in which case I tend to adjust my strategy on my opponent's behavior. There is no pattern to generalize under all circumstances. It's best to train flexibility to be able to counter all your opponents moves. Think quickly, and do whatever is necessary to achieve a specific goal. Of course your research has to follow your general strategy, if you're planning Seelöwe, amphib. warfare is necessary.

I´m buying units for Barbarossa in order of their duration, with the longest at first. All tac.b., fighters and tanks as well as 2 HQs should be ordered before the arrival of the DAK (or 1 HQ, if Log. 2 is ready before Barbarossa). Against experienced opponents an italian mar. b. is also required for spotting purpose.

I'm trying to get the med. bomb. also, but usually in PbEM you won't receive any finnish convoy income, and to reduce investments I'm possibly buying arty instead at first.

I'm planning for a very early Barbarossa in May 41, but more urgent is the diplo outcome in Spain. Once the SU is at war, US mob. will increase, and after their joining no further hits in Spain are possible. If necessary I'm waiting until Sept., during mud or snow the destruction of the mob. units is unlikely.



rodney727 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (12/27/2018 11:53:25 PM)

Vanity, thy name is Sugar,
[8D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

quote:

Has anyone ever played the Sugar plan against Sugar


Sure, and I won all my Allied games also. The plan is mainly to conquer the victory objectives asap, with some variants regarding a Mediterranian strategy and the general approach of air superioty.

The balancing's fine, like it was in Breakthrough SoE. The difference is my experience of more than 70 PbEMs SC3 and more than 200 of Breakthrough, including SoE, and of 12 years with SC alltogether.




rodney727 -> RE: The Sugar war machine (12/28/2018 12:04:30 AM)

All of this is of course unrealistic, which is why I hardly ever play the vanilla game. Sugar has the same game plan. Wash rinse and repeat, no strategy in that. Just getting back into this game from years away. Enjoying the 1938 mod. For me it simulates the great oil problem of WW2. The German army was always 3 months away from total shutdown from lack of oil.



Schokolokos -> RE: The Sugar war machine (12/28/2018 5:27:54 AM)

Tactical Bombers with tech 0 against any unit with AA upgraded are completely useless.

I dont think the Axis have higher chances to win games against good players.

Btw, in World at War this is not a problem at all, relocating airplanes cost the double, almost 100 MPP (depends on their tech lvl and logistic research)



Edit: this was a post replying to Titan, proposing German Tac bombers lvl 0 only, but this post vanished.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125