Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (Full Version)

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



Message

Sugar -> Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/11/2018 10:51:49 AM)

This will be the first part of a series of critizing some - imho - poorly designed mechanics and conditions of this on the other hand fantastic game.

1. Coastal towns and cities: from Kopenhagen to Bayonne there are 26 coastal towns, cities and even capitals; either directly at or within 1 hex from the coast. Another 13 of those ressources are in Spain, Italy`s got another 26 - including many NM-Objectives, Alternates and primary or secondary supplies; Albania 2, and Libya 9. Another 4 ressources are in Sardinia and Rhodos.

Both Germany and Italy are starting the game with less units than required to place at least 1 unit in every ressource; not to speak of the necessary air defence to protect units and ressources from enemy air attacks.

Leaves the question: how to defend against amphib. landings? Simple answer: you don't, nobody can achieve a sufficient number of units to occupy all, in case of Italy not even the most threatened.

Instead you'll have to keep a quick reaction force in action, or to operate the required troops from current theatres. It's nevertheless quite expensive to operate at purpose, because you'll need sufficient power to destroy the enemy unit in 1 turn, usually requiring 1 tank and 1 army or equal compositions.

An opponent using partisan tactics can easily cause major damage with minimal effort: use the cheapest unit to invade (cavalry), occupy a city, wait for the opponent to react or continue occupying the next city, and try to evacuate the unit before being wiped out. It`s possible to reduce Italy's NM by more than 80% this way, and additionally to the far larger costs the Germans have to spend to operate including the damege done to the ressources.

To be continued...




LLv34Mika -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/11/2018 5:15:05 PM)

very good point... on the other hand many players use almost ALL Italian units in North Africa leaving Italy empty. Why? Noone is forced to do so. But I would agree. Giving Italy at least a few garrisons would be a nice tweak.

For Germany I don't see that problem. There is an DE to build coastal guns to give some protection. You can buy a maritime bomber to place it somewhere near Denmark or in northern Holland to scout the sea for invading forces. You can patrol with subs and the Kriegsmarine. And at least after 1941 you should be "rich" enough to place a few cheap units in key areas. Again I have to say that nobody is forced to use ALL units in the east (or wherever).

In fact it is a little bit gamey to leave everything unprotected. And then it seems also a bit strange to complain (well... not really complain... let's say "mentioning" some things) about this. You know best that when you play the Axis you drive east like a steamroller. So would it be so strange to spend maybe 300 - 500MPPs (over more than two years) to put a cheap unit in some areas here or there? Actually that would make the situation a bit more realistic. At least more realistic than leaving everything open for a small invasion.

Sure, these units would be a great target for air attacks but again I can also say that keeping some air units in the West is realistic too.

Doesn't mean that there is no way to improve the game but here I don't see a big problem. If THAT is the key strategy to beat the Axis in a very cheap way we could discuss changing some things for the allies too but somehow I doubt that this is necessary.



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/11/2018 6:25:50 PM)

First point: you'll have to react to every single landing, you can't just sit and watch the enemy maching on. Next point: this is not only regarding to the Axis, it`s the same issue for the Allies, and it's completely unrealistic: the smallest possible unit to use as amphib can occupy a city like Berlin, Paris, Rome or London? Simply compare the damage to the costs, even if you'd place some units anywhere,they won`t be enough to destroy a single enemy unit, and placing even 1 garrison in every ressource would cost 1200 MPPs in case of Germany and 1300 in case of Italy, just for the mainland. By the way, Norway is showing how it could be much better, and if that would

Leads to the next point on my list: NM-Objectives. Okay, losing the capital to the enemy would probably lead to public disturbance, that would be fine. Not comprehensible is the fact recapturing won't lead to restoring the fate.

quote:

Doesn't mean that there is no way to improve the game but here I don't see a big problem. If THAT is the key strategy to beat the Axis in a very cheap way we could discuss changing some things for the allies too but somehow I doubt that this is necessary.
For Italy that's obviously the case.

To be continued...




LLv34Mika -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/11/2018 8:30:04 PM)

there are 12 ports from France to Kiel so you need 12 units to guard these positions. Most of these positions are not very useful for landings (no air cover from GB for example). 12 small units are worth how much? Not 1200... and you don't have to be everywhere. You can not be everywhere and that still sounds realistic to me.

The next point is that amphibious landings are pretty expensive. And your unit will be destroyed. Probably on low supply. And you might get spotted too.
Sure, it can be a pesting thing if your opponent can land a cheap unit to occupy a location but if you guard your ports there are no more troops coming in and with forced march you have two or three units close very soon and they are enough to guard cities nearby. I still see no big advantage if that happens. Annoying yes but not more.

And as said before - leaving the coast unguarded (from Bordeaux to Kiel or even Kopenhagen) and still being able to win (what you have proved many times) is not much better. If we fix this "problem" it just makes the Axis stronger. IMHO the wrong way for a rebalancing.



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/11/2018 10:12:03 PM)

What part of "you'll have to react to every single landing" didn't you understand exactly? There's absolutely no need for a port, just a minimal supply base, and you can move on. Anyway, not worth to argue, I'm not talking about balancing, but flaws and misconceptions. The misconception is the relation between the possible damage economically and on NM.



LLv34Mika -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/12/2018 4:26:34 AM)

the only thing I still don't understand is what prevents you from placing a few units along the coast, especially in NM cities. You don't do it and complain about seeing a city captured? And with units there even such a suicide landing is a economic desaster for the invading force. Build costs, amphibious landing, replacing costs. While you have a smaller income in a few towns. There is a way to defend, you just don't do it because you want to spend your mpps on the eastern front.



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/12/2018 11:38:07 AM)

I don't do it, because they aren't of any use. They won't prevent landings elsewhere and are too weak to destroy single units itself. You can't even by enough garrisons to cover all the coastal line and the partisan spots, the force pool isn't big enough. That's why SC plays like the Cabinet Wars in parts.

The next thing you don`t understand: it's not about the Axis, but also the Allies (how many garrisons does GB get from the Homeguard? 2 afaik). And there'd be an easy solution, like they did in Norway.

And the third thing: you're underestimating the economic outcomes; just 1 city, if at lvl 0 after reoccupation, causes the loss of 10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1= 65 MPPs, probably additional losses during combat, costs for operating, and compared to the costs of 80 MPPs for a cavalry and some 30 for amphibs, and the opportunity costs of not facing those units elsewhere.

And you're completely neglecting the consequences for the NM. What's it worth to reduce national morale by 10, causing a serious decrease of combat power to whole armies?

Did you know that losing Rhodos causes Turkey to swing to the Allies? And that the loss of Palermo causes whole Sicily to produce only half of the former lvl? That any hex occupied in Albania causes another NM-hit to Italy? All those hits are irreversible for incomprehensible reasons.

You could have known by reading ingame scripts. Most of the points are not even mentioned in the Manual.

Leads to the next point: Scripts. Will be continued.




BillRunacre -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/12/2018 3:37:07 PM)

Are people launching lots of mini-invasions like this to capture unguarded resources?

I do it occasionally, but infrequently, normally as a diversion while I build up or launch a proper invasion.

To a certain degree I think this is fine, it's only if it becomes too frequent and beneficial to the player doing it that I think we might need to reconsider things.



LLv34Mika -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/12/2018 5:05:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar
And the third thing: you're underestimating the economic outcomes; just 1 city, if at lvl 0 after reoccupation, causes the loss of 10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1= 65 MPPs, probably additional losses during combat, costs for operating, and compared to the costs of 80 MPPs for a cavalry and some 30 for amphibs, and the opportunity costs of not facing those units elsewhere.

And you're completely neglecting the consequences for the NM. What's it worth to reduce national morale by 10, causing a serious decrease of combat power to whole armies?


You speak of a large cityworth 10 points (or more if it is a capital like rome or the hague). How many cities are there? In France there is Bordeaux and then we have the Hague. That's it. And you can not spare two units to protect these two cities? Italy has more of these large towns next to the coast but on the other hand Italy is far away from any point where the Allies can launch their amphibious ships.

I see your point but you are exaggerating. A single cavalry unit can not capture a large town without any help if you protect it. If you protect it you need much more air assistance. And then you may finally get those 65MPPs economical damage but at what cost? Amphibous costs, the unit lost and without air assistance it won't happen at all. And I am pretty sure that any defending fighters (better trained than the GB/US fighters and also with a better tech level) will cause more damage than you will receive.

And finally the last point:
why should Germany be able to cover ALL positions from France to Stalingrad and Cairo? A pretty large area.

One solution would be removing some smaller towns along the coast. The other solution would be some free cheap units. But that would be needed for both sides since that problem is much much bigger for GB.



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/13/2018 12:15:45 AM)

You didn't get it. All the unit needs is a first town to be able to continue to the next goal. And of course you can't let the enemy have a port.
Yes, it`s an issue for all nations, that's what I'm talking about. Very nice you agreed at least.




Schokolokos -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/16/2018 1:29:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

causes the loss of 10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1= 65 MPPs



This is pretty biased.
The whole coast from Danmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and France have only 3 citys with 2!!! or more MPPs income, which are: Copenhagen, The Hague and Bordeaux. (16MPP each)

for tactical reasons I place additional units in Cuxhavn, Brussels, Paris and in Cherbourg or Brest.
thats 7 units, easy to afford as germans.

In the end its a balance-question, but for me this game seems like balanced well at the moment, Axis are in time pressure to conquer key capitals before the Allies grow too much.


Are there any Statistics about percentage of Axis/Allies wins in PBEM games?



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/16/2018 3:20:54 AM)

quote:

This is pretty biased.


Sure. You'll know if you're playing opponents using this tactics. I guess you didn't so far.

[image][URL=http://www.bild.me][IMG]http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/9655174casablanca.PNG[/IMG][/URL][/image]

Buy a cav. for 80 MPPs, use amphib. for another 28. Occupy Flensburg or Cuxhafen. Use a strat. or mar. bomber to scout Hamburg. The cav. will have 5 actions points at 6+ supply, and 4 at 1-5. It can reach Hamburg in the next turn.

Of course you can operate a unit to Hamburg, but you can't ever leave it while the cav. is still around, and you'll need a bunch of troops to destroy it. Further operating and opportunity costs. You'll also probably lose some hitpoints in case of an attack on the cav.

If you don`t destroy it, it will move on and threaten the next target.

Same with Ypres in Flandres, but far more threats. And you'll have to occupy every port additionally, because you can't just let the enemy have it.

And here the situation in GB:

[image][/image][URL=http://www.bild.me][IMG]http://s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3490030extra.PNG[/IMG][/URL]

Not that much of a threat, as long as Britannia rules the waves. Still opportunity costs, you'll have to watch the Nordsee and keep some ships ready to sink an amphib.

Really devastating is the situation of Italy. Lots of NM-Objectives and other valuable targets, additional script related spots, and a mechanic not allowing to recover NM by reoccupation objectives.

This thread is not about balancing! Itīs about flaws and misconseptions ready to exploit. And to make it quite certain: I'm not blaming opponents using those flaws and misconceptions to their advantage. A strategy game played on tourney lvl will always show players using ingame possibilities, the question is if that's intended by the developers, or if it should be improved.

quote:

Are there any Statistics about percentage of Axis/Allies wins in PBEM games?


Sure. But it`s still discussed, whether the Allies really are in advantage on higher lvls of the competition.



James Taylor -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/17/2018 2:26:23 AM)

I always try and keep the quick reaction force in the build Q.

That will negate the need for operational costs. Obviously this strategy represents a lost combat force for other theaters, but gives the player a sense of security for the homeland.

There are other advantages with this strategy. The fact that the build Q force is not shown on the reports screen keeps your opponent in the fog.



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/17/2018 2:32:28 AM)

Yes, there are several ways to deal with it, but the complaint is about the cost/effort ratio, and the sustained effect on italian NM.



James Taylor -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/17/2018 2:40:14 AM)

I agree the cost to Italian NM can be devastating, all the more reason to preserve the fleet.


It sure helps to impress the two Axis nautical bombers into recon duty on the peninsula.



Sugar -> RE: Flaws, misconceptions, and why I don't defend France by keeping garrisons (11/17/2018 5:56:26 AM)

Sure, would be nice to preserve the fleet. But what you`re doing, if the entire brit.-french fleets attacks the first turn Italy joins? I won't have an italian mar. b. at this point, there's simply too much to do for Italy.

Would also be nice, if it wasn't that easy to sink ships in ports by battleships. They'll take some damage occasionally from major ports, but the ships in port won't retaliate for unknown reason.

The reason why the naval combat is that bad ingame, is the missing spotting ability like other strategy games have got (usually the lighter the unit, the wider the spotting range). One mar. b. without LR isn't able to scout and attack twice at the same turn.

Again, the cost/effort ratio is too high. Will you stay at home to protect your coastal lines? Then Libya will be unprotected, not to speak of offenses. And even 2 mar. bs. can't be at several places the same time.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.40625