Warsaw in 2/3 turns? Paris in 3/4 turns? (Full Version)

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



Message

Rongor -> Warsaw in 2/3 turns? Paris in 3/4 turns? (4/20/2019 5:35:37 PM)

Is it possible?

Please understand the question as being "did you do it?"

Single player, intermediate difficulty. No matter how hard I try, FOW ob or off, I manage to kill off the Warsaw garrison in turn 2 but I then just don't have any unit left being able to march into the city. Reason for that is that as long as there is any enemy unit adjacent to Warsaw, the cost to enter that one's ZOC is just one step to high.

I flattened the Modlin forts, I mopped up the area south of Warsaw, but I don't have enough forces to also clean away that unit north of town...
http://prntscr.com/nembzq

Any idea? Or can I stop trying for good?



LLv34Mika -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/20/2019 5:57:48 PM)

well... I even think it is a MUST to take Warsaw in turn 2. Simply bypass some troops with your tanks and use your bombers to soften targets or make the final kill. Try it several times in a hotseat game vs yourself and you will figure it out pretty soon.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/20/2019 6:31:33 PM)

quote:

Reason for that is that as long as there is any enemy unit adjacent to Warsaw, the cost to enter that one's ZOC is just one step to high.

If the enemy unit is reduced below 5, it has no ZOC, so you don't have to eliminate it, and that sometimes helps. And yes, I have got Warsaw on turn 2, but not every time. I think you need to get your tanks as close as possible to Warsaw on turn 1, then they might have enough movement to get into the vacant city on turn 2 [:)]



Rongor -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/20/2019 10:44:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
If the enemy unit is reduced below 5, it has no ZOC, so you don't have to eliminate it, and that sometimes helps. And yes, I have got Warsaw on turn 2, but not every time.

Thanks for that, this was exactly what did the trick for me. Didn't pay attention before to reduce units only below 5 to clear the way, now I had way enough attacks left to concentrate on the target.

Thanks guys!



hellraiser1973 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/22/2019 8:15:45 AM)

Definitely possible though kinda rolls dependent. I'd say it works 35-40% of the time.
TBH, I wouldn't make it a priority - since my usual strategy is to force march west after Poland is conquered (so no hurry to attack west in 39) I rather prefer to score as many good hits on polish troops as possible so as to increase the experience for my combat units and HQ. I think, in the long run, the xp gains matter more than shaving off 1 turn of war against Poland. Killing off too many polish units also might decrease your plunder but I think the xp gains offset that as well.



LLv34Mika -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/22/2019 8:19:26 AM)

Poland in two turns --> earlier war in the west --> better weather --> Netherlands surrender --> Belgium falls earlier --> France is unprepared --> earlier assault on France --> France surrenders in June (if you are fast)

That is almost impossible if you lose time in Poland and force march instead of operating troops to the west. Sure, you save money and it is a valid strategy but the other option is not so bad.



hellraiser1973 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/22/2019 10:09:07 AM)

Mika, France is unprepared by default no matter when you decide to attack her :P
Even with forced march option, the result is pretty much the same - France falls june-july - with the mpps not spent on operating units, you can buy Manstein, naval bomber, spec ops (if you wanna try something funny), some diplo, tech, upgrades to existing units - frankly I never understood why Axis would rush to get France. Going the chillax route reaps more benefits i think.



nnason -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (4/22/2019 3:50:08 PM)

This discussion is why SC3 is such a good game:
1. Active Forum participation
2. Active modding
3. A new person poses a question and two players chime in with two very different strategies.
4. AND very very good developer support!




Rongor -> Westfeldzug completion within 3 or 4 turns? (5/5/2019 5:46:58 AM)

Hey guys, since I started it, I'll allow myself to hijack the thread.
From now on - turning to the West - the question is: how fast can the Axis get to (and into) Paris?
I am playing the 1939 Storm over Europe grand campaign on intermediate difficulty.

Regardless if I DoW NL+BE+LX or BE+LX only, those countries obviously can be overrun within one turn, leaving France to conquer subsequently. Now, I mostly manage to conquer Paris in the 3rd turn after the fall of Belgium (so it is turn number 4 after commencing hostilities in the West). The question remains, can it be done a turn earlier? Can anybody achieve the conquest of Paris regularly in the 3rd turn of Fall Gelb, meaning the second turn after the fall of Belgium?

Additional question: For those who have MP experience, can one expect to regularly need more than 4 turns for the entire campaign in the west?



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Westfeldzug completion within 3 or 4 turns? (5/5/2019 10:48:25 AM)

In PBEM a top player with perfect weather conditions may take France by April but its very rare. It really depends on the weather.

Generally France falls in June.

Attacking early has the obvious advantage that the French/GB are less prepared but so are the Axis. If the weather changes dramatically you could be in trouble and remember US/SU mobilization go up when you attack Holland & Belgium.

I would imagine that 4 turns for the entire west conquest is the best one could do at intermediate AI.

Maybe its time to try PBEM?



Sugar -> RE: Westfeldzug completion within 3 or 4 turns? (5/5/2019 11:46:30 AM)

Itīs really questionable imho if a very early occupation of Paris is a benefit in itself:
- without the destruction of main parts of the french army and/or navy the occupation won`t probably lead to an immediate capitulation
- in that case the capital moves to Bordeaux, which for obvious reasons is bad, and further more by staying the french capital
- you'll miss a lot of combat xp
- at least against a competent opponent, an overstretching of your core units will give the opportunity to counterattack. Occupying Paris in May p.e. is probably not worth losing 2 tanks or stukas

Against the AI you can do whatever you want to, but that's teaching bad habits.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Westfeldzug completion within 3 or 4 turns? (5/5/2019 12:41:30 PM)

I think given the risk/reward a traditional Spring '40 assault with an early Lux DOW is the best long term strategy.

In PBEM that is.




Tanaka -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/5/2019 6:30:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

well... I even think it is a MUST to take Warsaw in turn 2. Simply bypass some troops with your tanks and use your bombers to soften targets or make the final kill. Try it several times in a hotseat game vs yourself and you will figure it out pretty soon.


A must? You lose out on so much farming experience for your troops. The wars in Poland and China gave the Axis something the Allies did not have. Training grounds. I soak up every ounce of experience I can get for those elite troops you are going to need later. And I much prefer spending those OP points on research and upgrades for even better elite troops. Trade offs I think!



hellraiser1973 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/6/2019 8:17:36 AM)

With the new 1.16 bomber nerfs I think it is even more difficult to get warsaw in turn 2 than in previous patches.

As for an early french campaign - frankly I still fail to see too many benefits.
Get Poland in turn 3, force march west and use the mpps (otherwise spent on operating units west) to buy stuff. Get Manstein, maritime bomber, get some diplo going on - early Manstein means you will have almost all your troops in the west under HQ command plus Manstein starts racking up xp which will prove invaluable later on. Maritime bomber comes out of the production queue soon enough so you can employ it in the Med, for example. Diplo - well now you got 250 mpp to start with so there you got your 5 chits. Also unit upgrades (tanks planes) for the french campaign.

The early french campaign which eats up mpps for operating units - less units to buy, you might draw Italy into the war too soon (you might not have time to refit your half strength ships and the allies will wipe them out in 2 turns not to mention maybe not enough time/mpps to ship units to Africa and refit your troops/planes). The only real benefit i see for an early french surrender is that you got more fair weather turns to hit Malta, or if you want to go the no Vichy route.



Christolos -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/6/2019 3:44:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Killing off too many polish units also might decrease your plunder but I think the xp gains offset that as well.



Interesting discussion, but does anyone know for sure if the amount of MMP plunder one gets, is proportional to the number of undestroyed enemy units at the time of surrender?

C



Tanaka -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/6/2019 4:54:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Killing off too many polish units also might decrease your plunder but I think the xp gains offset that as well.



Interesting discussion, but does anyone know for sure if the amount of MMP plunder one gets, is proportional to the number of undestroyed enemy units at the time of surrender?

C


I've also wondered this and if you capture all of Poland do you get even more MPP's?



hellraiser1973 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/7/2019 11:11:44 AM)

I think the plunder is affected by how many units are alive when they surrender. I am not sure exactly about the formula though.



hellraiser1973 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/7/2019 11:17:11 AM)

Btw I tested the 2 turns Poland in 1.16 - yeah it works even with the bomber nerfs, provided you knock the fortified northern polish army out and you place something adjacent to Warsaw during the first turn. Rolls dependent but doable.



Rongor -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/7/2019 2:01:50 PM)

I now manage Warsaw in 2 turns without problems, leaving the Fort Modlin and the unit at the northern Polish border entirely intact.



hellraiser1973 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/8/2019 7:52:16 AM)

oh nice, you optimized the opening



Hartmann301 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/8/2019 12:56:51 PM)

Paris taken in 3 turns by May?? Would like to see how that's done.



Tanaka -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/8/2019 5:18:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

I think the plunder is affected by how many units are alive when they surrender. I am not sure exactly about the formula though.


Wait so it is actually more beneficial to not destroy units and not capture everything? It is better to avoid everything and just capture the capital?



crispy131313 -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/8/2019 6:40:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

I think the plunder is affected by how many units are alive when they surrender. I am not sure exactly about the formula though.


Wait so it is actually more beneficial to not destroy and capture everything? It is better to avoid everything and just capture the capital?


I believe there is a percentage chance that a country will not surrender which is a multiplier of units left on the map. So it's a double edged sword, you could get more MPP but you could also allow the country to fight another day.



majpalmer -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/13/2019 4:46:28 AM)

One of the things I dislike about the game is how it handles TIME.

You should be able to take Warsaw in two turns. And you often can, although a bad roll and you're looking a three.

Paris fell on 14 June--35 days into Gelb. In game turns that's three turns. Unlikely.

The Balkan campaign is worse. The Germans struck on 6 April and by June 1 had taken Belgrade, Athens, and Crete--56 days? In game turns that's two spring turns! Lots of luck!It takes two turn to prep for, and land on Crete, and that assumes you can start in southern Greece!

I'm working on a Mod with 11 day-simultaneous turns. In other words each turn (the Allied and the Axis) covers 11 days, no matter the season, not the current minimum of 14, 28, or 42. (Why should winter turns pass faster in the North African Desert?)

Obviously, there are plenty of game balance considerations with such a change, and I'm working on them.



demyansk -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/13/2019 9:48:43 AM)

I agree, my timeline is off as well



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/13/2019 8:31:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: majpalmer

One of the things I dislike about the game is how it handles TIME.

You should be able to take Warsaw in two turns. And you often can, although a bad roll and you're looking a three.

Paris fell on 14 June--35 days into Gelb. In game turns that's three turns. Unlikely.

The Balkan campaign is worse. The Germans struck on 6 April and by June 1 had taken Belgrade, Athens, and Crete--56 days? In game turns that's two spring turns! Lots of luck!It takes two turn to prep for, and land on Crete, and that assumes you can start in southern Greece!

I'm working on a Mod with 11 day-simultaneous turns. In other words each turn (the Allied and the Axis) covers 11 days, no matter the season, not the current minimum of 14, 28, or 42. (Why should winter turns pass faster in the North African Desert?)

Obviously, there are plenty of game balance considerations with such a change, and I'm working on them.




Many excellent points.

I've come to terms with the timing because for the most part the end result is accurate (Balkan campaign is the exception). You are correct on the German attack of France timing but in the "game" the end result (PBEM) is France usually falls in June because the attack can start much earlier than historically.

Barbarossa and Soviet events do quite a good job at being in synch with the historic timeline.

It will be very interesting to see how your 11 day works out. I think there would have to be major changes so the Germans wouldn't be prepared to attack until late April/May. In PBEM games people often attack Holland/Belgium in the Winter, it took me quite a while to accept that. I think changing to 11 days might require much slower moving/operating/reinforcing/etc troops to compensate which might make the game tedious.

My bigger concern is that each side can have different weather, this makes no sense to me. If your turns are simultaneous it would correct that.

I believe the game is intended to represent "what ifs" so the timeline can deviate from history. To me the games complexity/results are very good and think its the best large scale WW2 strategy game out there. Maybe your results will make it even better. I've tried GGWE & GGWW which are exceptionally accurate but I find the games overwhelming.






Hubert Cater -> RE: Taking Warsaw in turn 2? (5/14/2019 1:57:47 PM)

quote:

My bigger concern is that each side can have different weather, this makes no sense to me. If your turns are simultaneous it would correct that.


I just posted a similar response in a Steam forum, so I thought I'd post it here as well.

This is something that comes up from time to time, and my arguments are that simultaneous turns/weather don't quite work out as one would hope for with a game that has one side start, and the other side go second under the same date.

For example, Axis goes first in most of the campaigns, so the Allies are always second under any specific date, i.e. before the date and weather advances to the next turn date and weather.

Essentially from 1939 to let's say 1941, when the Axis are on the offensive, the Allies can always be guaranteed to defend/respond to any Axis aggression with the same weather.

However, once the balance tips and the Allies go on more offensives later on in game, because the Allies go second under a specific date, the Axis, which is now on the defensive, is not guaranteed the same weather to respond to any Allied attacks.

Why? Because the date rolls over to the next date after an Allied turn, and the weather only possibly changes between Allied and Axis turns, whereas the weather is always guaranteed between an Axis and Allied turn when you play with same weather for both sides.

Playing with the same weather for both sides of a turn, is only the same weather for the Axis and then the Allies, but not necessarily the same for the Allies and then Axis.

Over time I would argue that this system actually gives an advantage to the side that goes second in game. This is because the side that goes second is guaranteed to have the same weather as the side that goes first (all game), while later on in game it will have an opportunity to have good weather (from time to time) on its offensive turn where the defending side is not necessarily going to have good weather when it comes time to initially respond on its follow up turn.

Hopefully that makes sense,
Hubert



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375