Malta Suppression (Full Version)

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



Message

Etzel -> Malta Suppression (2/20/2020 3:19:46 PM)

Version 1.16.02 introduced a feature to suppress the Malta supply reduction event by reducing the unit's strength placed in Malta to a value <5. I would be interested to kow, whether anybody has ever used this feature instead of a plain invasion of the island?



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 11:55:40 AM)

I have not nor has anyone attempted it against me. Wouldn't it involve keeps a Strat bomber (or two) and Battleships near Malta for the entire time? Seems like a short term remedy.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 12:04:09 PM)

I will say that the new bomber rules have made taking Malta much more difficult and maybe too difficult given the importance.


Not sure how this could be amended.






Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 12:30:37 PM)

Why a Strat bomber and not a usual one?



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 3:32:14 PM)

Maybe I'm unclear on the rule does the unit just have to be below 5 once or stay below 5?

If stay below 5 then you need to keep Malta & ports @ 0 (Strat) so it cant be reinforced.

If just below 5 once you may be better off keeping it there and that adjusts for weaker bombers. Is 15pts a turn & port access worth taking a turn or two more (w/damage), probably but not definitely.

1.16 update says

" SUPPLY SCRIPT events such as the Malta Supply Reduction event for Axis resources in North Africa, will require #SOURCE_POSITION units to have a strength >= 5 or the event will not fire.
• Suppression as opposed to outright capture of locations such as Malta will now be possible in order to negate the supply reduction effects."

So my impression is that the unit has to STAY below 5, if thats the case taking out the unit is the best option.






Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 5:46:40 PM)

My understanding is the same, the effect is cancelled only as long as the unit strength is below 5. If I don't miss something, it's much more expansive to bring the Malta AA down from 10 to 5 than from 5 to 0. So if you managed to do some major damage, why stop here? If the AA is down to 4 or less, you probably need 1 turn only to finish the job and destroy the AA plus an invasion corps to take Malta. In the other case you have to blockade the ports and execute nearly constant attacks on Valetta itself. This doesn't look like a sound plan. So would you agree that the Malta suppression feature is quite useless or is there smoething I don't see?



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 6:06:33 PM)

Yes I agree its pretty much useless. I think an accommodation should be made because the bomber strength was lowered, its currently too hard to take Malta. You say one extra turn, if you get bad weather it could be 3 or 4, thats two important months in the early Axis timeline.

Maybe if the Malta unit gets at 3 or less at anytime the Malta supply constraints no longer exists for the rest of the game.





Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 6:43:08 PM)

Sorry, but in one point I disagree. IMHO it's not so difficult to take Malta, since against a resolved Axis player the Allies have no chance at all to hold Malta. But I agree, the Axis player has to carefully judge whether he is willing to pay the price (in MPPs and time). And I think you're right, some accomodation would be a good idea. You have already made a proposal and I think other options might be possible. For example, if the Axis brings a certain amount of ships close enough to Malta, the suppression effect is cancelled for the next turn. This would give the Axis a real chance to cancel the effect at a moment when the supply is urgently needed in North Africa, without having to commit to much of its airforce. And the Allies have options too and can counter by driving away the Italian Navy.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/21/2020 8:14:49 PM)

I only play the Allies I just see the Malta capture taking longer. Its important for game balance that the Axis has to move their planes first to take Malta then elsewhere. It just shouldn't take to long. I'm currently playing a skilled player and he had to give up on Malta, but it was a perfect storm of weather.



BillRunacre -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/25/2020 4:31:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Maybe I'm unclear on the rule does the unit just have to be below 5 once or stay below 5?

If stay below 5 then you need to keep Malta & ports @ 0 (Strat) so it cant be reinforced.

If just below 5 once you may be better off keeping it there and that adjusts for weaker bombers. Is 15pts a turn & port access worth taking a turn or two more (w/damage), probably but not definitely.

1.16 update says

" SUPPLY SCRIPT events such as the Malta Supply Reduction event for Axis resources in North Africa, will require #SOURCE_POSITION units to have a strength >= 5 or the event will not fire.
• Suppression as opposed to outright capture of locations such as Malta will now be possible in order to negate the supply reduction effects."

So my impression is that the unit has to STAY below 5, if that's the case taking out the unit is the best option.


You're correct, as a check is made each turn, so a unit's strength being below 5 at one point will not prevent the script from firing in a future turn.

So what this means is that the Malta effect on Axis supply in North Africa can be reduced, even if the island itself doesn't fall.



Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/25/2020 6:18:59 PM)

Yes, but to reduce the Malta AA from 10 to 4 is much more costly than to destroy this unit, when it's already below 5. So why should the Axis player be content to just suppress, which means he has to constantly attack to hold the AA below 5?



BillRunacre -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/25/2020 7:45:48 PM)

I'm not sure if I understand correctly, as if you can destroy the unit then doing so will always be better, both before this change and now. But if you can only damage it then now there is a strategic benefit to doing so, whereas before there wasn't.

I hope that makes sense?



Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/25/2020 8:19:38 PM)

To destroy the unit, you need a significant part of the Axis air force for n turns. To suppress it, you need the same air force for n-1 or n-2 turns (if the weather is bad, the difference might be a bit larger), plus some air force and/or some of the axis navy in that which follows. I'm sorry, I can't see the sense.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/25/2020 9:09:34 PM)

The benefit is from the time Malta unit is <5 until destroyed. The Axis NA operations won't be impacted for that period of time. Its a short term benefit to continue NA operations not a long term strategy.

[sm=00000436.gif]



Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/25/2020 10:17:04 PM)

Yes, but a benefit which is close to zero. I would love to see an option which reduces the Malta effect with less troops involved. So the Axis has the choice 1) ignore Malta, 2) capture Malta 3) limited effort to reduce the Malta effect.



James Taylor -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/26/2020 2:39:06 AM)

Perhaps the two enemy naval units reducing port supply should be extended to land cities where they can complete the blockade.

If enacted, then two naval units adjacent to a land supply hex would reduce its supply 1 per turn, simulating a constant bombardment/blockade condition.

Would be an historic simulation for Pacific islands also.

This would be a passive way to slowly erode the fighting abilities of island garrisons over time since they would eventually have their combat strength reduced to 1 through attrition losses if supply is <= 1.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (2/26/2020 10:25:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Etzel

I would love to see an option which reduces the Malta effect with less troops involved. So the Axis has the choice 1) ignore Malta, 2) capture Malta 3) limited effort to reduce the Malta effect.



IMO this isn't a viable change because it would tip the scales considerably towards the Axis . The axis airforce would then go directly to NA (spending much less) and overwhelm the Allies. Currently its impossible (a-historic) for Allies to hold Egypt against a skilled attack, with the extra time the game would become very un balanced.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Etzel

Sorry, but in one point I disagree. IMHO it's not so difficult to take Malta, since against a resolved Axis player the Allies have no chance at all to hold Malta.



I mentioned earlier I'd support a change to compensate for weaker bombers in Malta but to be able to reduce the impact of Malta without air units is a poor idea. If its not that difficult why the change?

Amended






Etzel -> RE: Malta Suppression (3/8/2020 5:44:26 PM)

quote:

Currently its impossible (a-historic) for Allies to hold Egypt against a skilled attack, with the extra time the game would become very un balanced.

quote:

to be able to reduce the impact of Malta without air units is a poor idea. If its not that difficult why the change?


I think this is a misinterpretation of what I proposed. I don't want to make it easier to take Malta or to cancel the Malta effect completely. And you're right, it's very difficult for the Allies to hold Egypt, if the Axis takes Malta and throws additional troops/air force to NA. But for the Axis it's nearly impossible to take Egypt without taking Malta, if both players are skilled and the Middle East is in allied hands. So the Axis has to take Malta at some point. And it becomes boring to that in each and every game without an alternative. Again, I don't want to make a Malta invasion easier or faster. But maybe there could be a way to do things in a more historic way. In reality the Axis never tried to invade Malta, but they tried to support their supply convois to NA by using a combination of their navy/air force. This way they could improve Rommel's supply situation from time to time, but they never found a lasting remedy for their supply situation. And all I advocate is somthing which simulates this and comes closer to history. This way the Axis could cancel the Malta effect for 1 or 2 turns ONLY and would have to invest something. Maybe a few ships (something which would be in line with the proposal of James Taylor) which have to be at sea. But the superior Royal Navy could attack and drive them away/sink them (as in history). So (a limited) air support for these ships would be necessary, too.

[sm=00000436.gif]



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Malta Suppression (3/8/2020 7:29:21 PM)

I agree with most you are saying my issue is the game currently is set that the Axis AF needs to go to Sicily so the Allies can prepare in Egypt. Any change would have to accelerate the Allies preparation.

With all due respect the games DE's are very boring for experienced players. A vast majority are always answered the same because of the mobilization issues. DE's now are really just there to trip up new players.

Much more dynamic/balanced DE's with unpredictable outcomes would greatly improve the monotony of the game.

Maybe : DE XYZ Axis "Would you like to invest 150MPP to possibly gain control of Malta? Yes: 75% chance of immediately gaining control of Malta but the Allies get an AA and Army in Egypt. No: Same as it is now.

This is just an example off the top of my head but DE's that aren't so lopsided and predictable would improve things.









Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.796875