Feedback from a new player

Feedback from a new player (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I

Message

MVP7 -> Feedback from a new player (7/26/2020 6:33:56 PM)
Hi! I bought the Strategic Command games on the latest Steam sales and thought I'd write some feedback after finishing the 1914 campaign on Entente and Central side in about 70 hours total. First of all I have really enjoyed the game! It really hits the sweet spot for me in terms on depth, scope and historical accuracy. The battles feel authentic but are fast and easy to play. There's just enough depth in research, production and diplomacy mechanics to give the player plenty of strategic options but I it doesn't bother the player with mundane non-military matters. I especially enjoyed the supply system that very smartly makes the war in France, Russia and Middle-East play completely differently without feeling artificial. I also enjoyed the balance of research system that mostly encourages very historical development and progress of the war in the entire game. I think the game really succeeds at making it feel like the Great War. --- I also have a few gripes about the game. Probably the most significant is a small AI weakness that has huge impact on its overall ability to wage the war: The AI loves, repeatedly, putting corps into some really bad locations. The worst offenders are the two mountain hexes north of Belfort and Mülhausen. In both campaigns the AI would send a new corps to the hex every turn and every turn I would destroy the unentrenched corps with with minimal losses. This must have cost the enemy about 20 corps in both campaigns and was the single largest contributor to my victory at the western front in both cases. This constant self induced attrition resulted in my completely breakthrough and victory in late 1916 in the Entente campaign and late 1917 in the Central campaign. Even if the AI was just specifically scripted to avoid those two unimportant mountain hexes, the AI would probably have held out for a year longer in the West. --- Another significant shortcoming in the Entente AI strategy is the French declaration of war on Netherlands: The French declaring war on Belgium if Germany hasn't is a smart move. It widens the front and allows the French and British to better utilize their numbers in the West while preventing the Germans from moving more troops to the East. The Belgian army is little more than a speed bump for the Entente forces. Declaring war on Netherlands soon after makes no sense though. It barely widens the front while bringing NL on Germany's side with their HQ, 3 corps, Detachment and even an Artillery unit and Submarine! There's not really even need to move more German troops into the area as the French so kindly gift the Germans 1500 MPPs worth of Dutch units in easily defensible positions. Thanks to the Dutch units it took me months less to gather a critical mass for the breakthrough in my Central campaign. This move just makes no sense at all for the Entente and isn't demanded by history so I really think the script should be off by default. --- I also have some feedback regarding Artillery and Naval Warfare (especially submarines and non-capital ships) but I'll cover that in another post. Thanks for reading and thanks for this great game. [:)]

mdsmall -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/26/2020 7:32:40 PM)
Hi - interesting feedback. I have not noticed that issue with the AI repeatedly occupying the Vosges mountain hexes north of Belfort when I have played - but perhaps I was not smart enough to exploit it. At times on the Western Front, playing either side, when I decided to leave a hex unoccupied that could be attacked from three sides, the AI would do the same. Overall, I have found its ability to organize a defensive line is pretty strong. And it is very crafty in exploiting the human weakness to rush into hexes after combat without spotting what might be sitting in the second line, leading to surprise combat which always work out badly for the attacker. What has puzzled me is the AI's recklessness exposing units that can't defend themselves in combat - i.e. artillery pieces, HQs and aircraft. I have repeatedly seen the AI leave these units exposed to attack when gaps appear in a line. Sometimes, when there are no other corps that can fill a gap that makes sense (e.g. on the Russian front in the late stages of a campaign). But often the AI could just move these pieces by a hex and ensure they don't get attacked. I will be interested to read replies by other players. Michael

MVP7 -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/26/2020 8:05:16 PM)
Generally I think the research and technology are balanced greatly in the SC:WW1. After fast start of the war the trench technology quickly bogs down war. The important infantry technologies appear at believable rate. Tanks and Air technologies are cheap sideshow that are nice to have when you have the time and MPPs but falling behind in them is not fun either. The only thing I feel doesn't really work that great is the Artillery Weapons and Gas/Shell production: Tier 0 artillery is useless. It doesn't de-entrench and it does no damage. Even the morale damage is practically a non-factor as the ammo production is usually at Level 0 as well. Tier 1 artillery is good for de-entrenching. With level 0 or 1 ammo production it allows an artillery unit to soften up a town or fortification every few turns. This tech seems to appear and quickly become widespread around 1915 and makes attacking slightly less suicidal prospect. A planned use after multiple turns of ammo stockpiling can even crack open one of the big fortresses. Tier 2 artillery is incredibly powerful. It de-entrenches, it does damage, it eats away morale. The ammo production is usually at level 2 or 3. The artillery units are veteran and can be overstrenghtened for even better damage. An artillery unit can reduce one entrenched unit into demoralized mess every turn. By waiting two turns a single artillery unit can reduce even Verdun or Paris so that they can be taken by a single infantry corps! A fully loaded artillery unit can sometimes even destroy a full strength infantry unit while it's bombing away. This pinnacle of artillery is reached by late 1916 (and you'd better not lag behind). Honestly that feels really early as it makes trenches very vulnerable and makes it hard not to cause major breakthroughs by 1917. The big French fortifications can be brought from full strength, full entrenchment and maximum morale to zero in a single turn without any chance for input from the other side. I don't know how things play out in multiplayer but at least against AI this level of destructiveness would seem far more fitting for mid to late 1917 at earliest. --- Personally I'd like to see the artillery power-ceiling lowered very slightly and that level being reached closer to 1918 rather than the current mid/late 1916. Maybe the Gas/Shell Production research could be capped at level 2 to make artillery ammo slightly less abundant? At the same time maybe a third level of Artillery Technology could be added with the level 3 artillery being about the same as current level 2 artillery? This 3rd level would probably be reached by mid 1917 at earliest. To add another level without making the tier 0 artillery even more impotent the base moral damage of the artillery could be slightly increased. The effects on key-specs at various tech levels could be something like this [I'm not sure if max shells is something that can change]: Level 0: De-Ent: 0, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 5] Level 1: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 6] Level 2: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 7] Level 3: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 1, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 8] With increased base morale damage the artillery would be more useful at Tier 0. Lowered max shells count would further discourage just stockpiling ammo while waiting for the upgrade. New Tier 1 artillery would be pretty much the same as current Tier 1 with lower max shell count (but still enough to de-entrench anything short of a fortress with single gun). New Tier 2 would be in between the current Tier 1 and Tier 2. The artillery would deal damage to soft targets but not hard which would reduce Cavalry's and Detachment's ability to hold positions but keep the trench lines and forts less fragile. New Tier 3 artillery would be pretty much the same as Current Tier 2 but with slightly lower Max shell count it would take at least 2 artillery units to completely cripple the strongest fortifications. Also by late 1917 the infantry would also start to be at tier 2 which makes them a little more resilient against max tier artillery fire. --- Those were my thoughts on the artillery, thanks for reading. I'll still write a separate post about my experiences with the naval combat and especially subs and non-capital ships.

MVP7 -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/26/2020 8:29:25 PM)
Hi mdsmall! I agree the AI generally does great work when it comes to maintaining defensive lines and punishing weaknesses in the player's lines. Especially the AI's quick reactions to my force concentrations on the Eastern front repeatedly impressed me and I also liked how the AI sometimes falls back from the front to establish new defensive lines at better positions (often the AI would actually benefit from doing this sooner). Regarding the Vosges deathtrap hexes, in both campaigns the AI did ultimately stop pushing new units into the hexes but not before losing something like 20-30% of their entire force on the western front and leaving the entire front decisively depleted. Had I allowed the AI even a single turn of respite to dig trenches the hexes would certainly have stabilized and would have been the last to fall on the entire front (which is why I made sure that never happened). There were a few other deathtrap hexes here and there but nothing as dramatic and consistent as the couple mountain hexes. I also noticed the AI sometimes leaving its supporting units at peculiarly vulnerable positions. Then again I made the same mistake couple times myself and almost lost an Astro-Hungarian HQ that accidentally ended up "guarding" the flank of my army as I started my push against Russia. What I actually consider a worse exposure related mistake by AI is that sometimes it reinforces nearly dead, low morale and zero entrenchment units without moving them into the rear. This is a huge waste of MPP as the reinforced unit is still incapable of any meaningful resistance.

MVP7 -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/26/2020 10:37:38 PM)
The third area of the game where I had some gripes is the naval war. Subs and ASW strategic balance First balance related issue is that submarines are really hard to destroy and there are numerically very few destroyers (or other anti-sub units) in every fleet. Most navies seem to have about as many destroyers as they have Dreadnoughts. That ratio seems a bit off especially when you consider that Destroyers tend to be the first ships to sink. All it takes to destroy a destroyer is two or three larger ships while sinking a single submarine generally takes multi-turn effort from several destroyers, even after ASW updates. In both campaigns I played, both the enemy's and my own destroyers suffered the highest losses of any naval unit. This mostly happened as the destroyers were searching enemy subs and ran into other ships or mines. During my entire Entente campaign I don't think I actually sunk more than one enemy submarine and lost none myself. The rest of the enemy naval units (that were not permanently moored at Baltic or Marmara sea) I destroyed without too much trouble or losses (Destroyers being first to go). In my Central campaign the enemy first brought a few destroyers too close to my shores and when my U-Boat fleet was ready the enemy ASW capable units (even with level 2 upgrades) did little more than tickle my submersibles. Basically the entire Angle-French fleet was slaughtered by combination of mines and Submarines with my other ships doing little more than occasionally finishing off crippled stragglers. Half of the enemy capitals were sunk by run-ins with my subs alone. In the end I even sunk the Entente's (presumably) last ASW destroyer with submarines alone! By early 1916 there wasn't a single convoy going into Britain as my submarines (barely even scratched from sinking the grand fleet) were positioned at the objective hexes. In short, submarines are incredibly survivable and even more deadly. It takes a big concentrated force of ASW units to sink just a single sub. No other naval unit can deal 5 damage to a full strength Deadnought from ambush without taking any damage itself. This wouldn't really be an issue if all sides had more Destroyers from the start or in production, and if destroyers weren't so extremely vulnerable to run-ins with heavier ships. --- Subs and ASW strategic balance - Suggestions This apparent mismatch in the number of Subs and ASW units could simply be mitigated by giving various nations some extra starting units. If the British and French had a Torpedo Boat or two at the start, that would already greatly increase their ability to protect the Channel and trade routes from the Central submarine menace. Furthermore a unit of Maritime Bombers would really help the British AI deal with the subs. Ottomans and Astria-Hungary would also benefit from having an extra Torpedo Boat each. --- Role of Different Naval Units Another area of issues regarding Naval War is the roles of various units. This also touches some oddities of the ASW warfare. This is how I see the various unit types in SC:WW1 involved in naval combat (other than the Submarine the excellence of which I already covered): Dreadnoughts (BB), Pre-Dreadnoughts (B) and Battle-Cruisers (BC) are the hard hitters. No questions here. Armoured Cruiser (CA) and Light Cruiser (CL) are virtually pointless. They are only usable for blockade duty, risky recon and occasional finishing blow in larger naval engagement. I would never ever purchase even one of these ships. Destroyers (DD) have great utility as they can lay mines and survive contact with submarines. Paradoxically they are terrible ships for recon and screening as they are rare, strategically valuable and extremely fragile. What is also weird is that these are the least efficient ASW option at player disposal. Torpedo Boat (PT) is the ersatz destroyer. It oddly has high sub-attack even without updates and can lay mines while lacking any real ability to find and pursue subs. Naval Bomber (VMB?) is another area where things get a bit iffy. These have base sub-attack of 3. Compared to PT and especially DD this value seems incredible high considering that without updates these are presumably armed with a couple hand grenade size bombs that are dropped without any specialized bomb sights. As a result instead of planes searching for subs for destroyers to sink, it makes more sense to search subs with destroyers so they can be attacked by the far more damaging float-planes. [Also worth mentioning here are the Aircraft Carrier, Seaplane Carrier and Airship that more in line with what I would expect from WW1 air-ASW capability and role as primarily spotters]. --- Role of Different Naval Units - Suggestions I'm aware there's a popular naval overhaul mod for the WW2 iterations of Strategic Command (I'll definitely be testing the games and mod in the near future[:)]). I think the overall feel of the SC:WW1 naval warfare could be greatly improved with some far less dramatic changes: Part 1 - ASW From what I have read, Destroyer should be the primary submarine killer of the great war. It has the best endurance in terms of fuel and ammo. PT boats high base attack I can understand as they would probably have decent chance of surprising a sub (and it makes sense balance-wise) but VMB planes' high attack at base technology level seems extremely optimistic. What I would suggest is increasing the base sub-attack of DD to 2 and reducing the base attack of VMB to 1. This way Destroyer would be the deadliest sub killer through the war and aircraft would grow into the role with advancing technology and focus more on the spotting especially early on. This would also give all nations a small ASW buff as the limited number of destroyers would be a bit more effective at the role. Part 2 - Survivability and CL/CA role When you move a ship (other than silent sub) in SC:WW1 what usually happens it collides with an unseen enemy ship, engages in combat (taking heavy losses most of the time) and is then stuck near the enemy ships without AP and is destroyed the next turn which makes sensible naval recon and screening pretty much impossible. In some situations that kinda makes sense but what seems hard to believe is that BB, B or BC(?) would have the speed to force a CL, CA or DD to a fight. As far as I know the cruisers and destroyers would generally be faster than the capital ships of the time. So what I would suggest is a simple rule change that when CA/CL/DD sails into waiting BB/B/BC it doesn't automatically start combat. Instead the CA/CL/DD player is given an option to attack or not. This would make using CL/CA/DD for recon actually viable as the first spotted enemy wouldn't necessarily take off half their strength and eat their AP. Furthermore since CL/CA/DD running into CL/CA/DD would still automatically get dragged into combat just like they currently do, the CL and CA would now actually work as screening ships that have the ability to slow down or stop other fast ships that could otherwise spot the capitals and flee with ease. The new role of CL and CA as screening ships could further be highlighted by reducing the naval attack (or defense) of DDs as they would no longer have to deal with constant unavoidable fights with far stronger ships. So to summarize the key rules: CL/CA/DD sailing into BB/B/BC => NO auto-combat (unless they were in cruise mode) CL/CA/DD sailing into CL/CA/DD => auto-combat (unless the existing rule about unit at advantage being given the option overrides this) --- Again, thanks for reading. Other than these few areas I discussed I think SC:WW1 does many things spectacularly. I have really enjoyed playing it and I'm currently getting into the SC:WW2 with very high expectations. --- EDIT: Amended the text regarding Seaplane Carrier Sub-attack value. Somehow I thought it was 3 when in reality it was already 1.

mdsmall -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/27/2020 6:08:52 AM)
Subs at full supply are hard to kill. But like all other naval units, they lose one supply per combat action. They also lose one supply point per turn of raiding convoys and one for each turn when they naval cruise. Throw in a couple of accidental surprise combats when they are moving and it is not hard to get German subs in Atlantic below 5 supply after a few turns. At that point, they need to think about running the gauntlet to get back to base to resupply. They take hits more easily when below 5 supply and are quite easy to kill at 1 or 0 supply. So, you are right, as the Entente you need a substantial fleet of ASW capable vessels with tech levels of 1 or better - DDs, CLs, seaplane carriers, maybe even a few CAs. But once you have that, you can start to degrade them and sink them in quite an orderly fashion. In my last 1917 campaign playing the Entente, I managed to sink five German subs in two turns as they tried to return to base through the English channel.

MVP7 -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/27/2020 4:12:37 PM)
I never had too much trouble with supply on my subs in either campaign. At least when my German subs were parked on the objective hexes West of Britain their supply didn't go down even if they were on trade routes as well. Does the objective hex override the raiding supply cost or did it stop reducing when the Convoys stopped? On the few occasions my subs ran out of supply they had usually either caused several hundred MPPs wort of damage on enemy ships or survived several attacks from destroyers and cruisers. No other ship would be floating (not to mention near full strength) at that point. No other ship could hope to pass through the Channel or survive near enemy harbors when there are still hostile ships around. The subs aren't indestructible but the amount of additional ASW investment required from the player (at least in 1914 campaign) is really high. For example in both campaigns I could operate the Tier 0 subs at Mediterranean with complete impunity because I knew there wasn't enough enemy Destroyers and Seaplane tenders in the region to sink a full health sub in less than 3 or 4 turns. In my Entente campaign I did suppress the German sub fleet in the Atlantic by rushing ASW tech and striking at every sub I spotted with every ASW capable unit in the range but even that usually left it with few strength points and they would limp back towards Germany to where I would never pursue because it would have quickly cost me my entire ASW fleet. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with submarines being hard to kill in early war and player can definitely build and upgrade a force that can deal with submarines. My main point on Sub/ASW balance of the 1914 campaign was that the various navies have relatively few destroyers, couple seaplane tenders, oddly no torpedo-boats/gunboats and no Maritime bombers in the initial force or on the production line. At least the AI never buys Torpedo Boats or Maritime bombers (not that it really has the MPP to spare) and the destroyers are rather underwhelming at ASW before extensive updates. If the ASW capable ships are sunk the rest of the fleet is completely at the mercy of the submarines in the open and not even safe in the harbors.

Elessar2 -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/27/2020 4:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 To add another level without making the tier 0 artillery even more impotent the base moral damage of the artillery could be slightly increased. The effects on key-specs at various tech levels could be something like this [I'm not sure if max shells is something that can change]: Level 0: De-Ent: 0, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 5] Level 1: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 6] Level 2: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 7] Level 3: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 1, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 8] You can do upgrade increments in 0.5 of a point. So De-Ent can go from 0 to 0.5./1.0/1.5/2.0.

MVP7 -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/27/2020 4:42:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elessar2 quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 To add another level without making the tier 0 artillery even more impotent the base moral damage of the artillery could be slightly increased. The effects on key-specs at various tech levels could be something like this [I'm not sure if max shells is something that can change]: Level 0: De-Ent: 0, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 5] Level 1: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 6] Level 2: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 7] Level 3: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 1, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 8] You can do upgrade increments in 0.5 of a point. So De-Ent can go from 0 to 0.5./1.0/1.5/2.0. I don't think De-Entrenchment above 1 is really needed or even desirable in WW1 setting [:)]. That being said, how does 0.5 de-entrechement work? It doesn't seem to be chance based but if I were to use two units with 0.5 de-entrenchment each would the target lose 1 point of entrenchment from the second attack?

The Land -> RE: Feedback from a new player (7/27/2020 5:01:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 I don't think De-Entrenchment above 1 is really needed or even desirable in WW1 setting [:)]. That being said, how does 0.5 de-entrechement work? It doesn't seem to be chance based but if I were to use two units with 0.5 de-entrenchment each would the target lose 1 point of entrenchment from the second attack? If a strike has a de-entrenchment of 0 or 0.5 it does no de-entrenchment. If 1 or 1.5 it does one level. If 2, 2 levels. There is no chance (unlike the damage logic), it does not look at the unit's Readiness, and there is and no adding different strikes. I've often wondered if making it probabilistic would be an improvement

d4n13l -> RE: Feedback from a new player (8/2/2020 6:46:32 PM)
I also wanted to leave some feedback, so I guess I'll leave it here instead of opening a new thread (hope that's OK for the OP) I have played and won 2 games of the 1914 campaign as Central Powers, one game vs AI, one vs another player via PBEM, which amounted to 67h according to Steam. First of all, I really like the game. It's a very good implementation of the "Easy to learn, hard to master" paradigm, as the basic gameplay is 95% moving your own counters on a hex grid and attacking enemy counters, but giving your counters the best odds takes quite some finesse in allocating your MPP wisely, assigning them to the right HQ, researching the right things, etc. What could be better in my opinion: - French AI: As the OP had mentioned, the AI sometimes does not recognize an obvious "meatgrinder" tile, i.e. a hex, where I'm already adjacent in three tiles. In my game, I think it was the hex with a forest which is labeled "Vogesen". I think I've destroyed 10+ units there until I stopped doing it to not make the game to easy, but I presume I could have done it a lot more often, unless MPP constraints or sth else would make the AI stop doing it. In a game vs another player, such hexes would of course just remain empty - Replay after end of a game: Once a win condition is met, the game ends, and all information is revealed - this is a nice feature, but what would be even better would be the ability to review the whole game, kind of like you review the moves of your opponent in PBEM. The games can take some time, so chances are, you have already forgotten what your opening moves were etc, so I think having the possibility to review the complete game would be a great way to learn what maneuvers in hindsight made sense and which didn't. - Enemy naval moves: When the enemies make their moves, most of the time you can briefly see there ships as they come in range of your own, their strength values, and in which direction they leave. This is all valuable information for making sound decisions for your own ships - but you only get this information one time and then you lose access to it - so when I go from theater to theater to make my moves, once I get to the naval side of things, I only have a vague recollection what had occurred and thus the moves are mediocre at best I would say. I could surely work around this issue by making screenshots or just recording the screen while the enemy moves are happening to have that info for later review, but I'd much prefer an ingame solution

FOARP -> RE: Feedback from a new player (8/3/2020 10:39:13 AM)
quote: To add another level without making the tier 0 artillery even more impotent the base moral damage of the artillery could be slightly increased. The effects on key-specs at various tech levels could be something like this [I'm not sure if max shells is something that can change]: Level 0: De-Ent: 0, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 5] Level 1: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 0, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 10, [Max shells: 6] Level 2: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 0, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 7] Level 3: De-Ent: 1, Soft: 1, Hard: 1, De-Mor: 15, [Max shells: 8] With increased base morale damage the artillery would be more useful at Tier 0. Lowered max shells count would further discourage just stockpiling ammo while waiting for the upgrade. New Tier 1 artillery would be pretty much the same as current Tier 1 with lower max shell count (but still enough to de-entrench anything short of a fortress with single gun). New Tier 2 would be in between the current Tier 1 and Tier 2. The artillery would deal damage to soft targets but not hard which would reduce Cavalry's and Detachment's ability to hold positions but keep the trench lines and forts less fragile. New Tier 3 artillery would be pretty much the same as Current Tier 2 but with slightly lower Max shell count it would take at least 2 artillery units to completely cripple the strongest fortifications. Also by late 1917 the infantry would also start to be at tier 2 which makes them a little more resilient against max tier artillery fire. --- Those were my thoughts on the artillery, thanks for reading. I'll still write a separate post about my experiences with the naval combat and especially subs and non-capital ships. Significantly reducing the number of shells is a (very necessary) nerf for artillery. It just shouldn't be possible for two artillery units to destroy an entire dug-in infantry corps. Consider that even the most intense of bombardments during the war (e.g., the preparatory bombardment on the Somme) did not simply blast a hole in the line. The role of artillery should be to soften up defences prior to the attack - as such de-entrench and de-moralisation should be the main effects, not destruction of the unit per se. Reducing the number of shells is also a QoL modification, since having the player repeatedly click ten times, and each time having the game pause briefly to do the sound/animation, just to fire out the weapons-load is obviously not optimal.

FOARP -> RE: Feedback from a new player (8/3/2020 10:46:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MVP7 The third area of the game where I had some gripes is the naval war. Subs and ASW strategic balance First balance related issue is that submarines are really hard to destroy and there are numerically very few destroyers (or other anti-sub units) in every fleet. Most navies seem to have about as many destroyers as they have Dreadnoughts. That ratio seems a bit off especially when you consider that Destroyers tend to be the first ships to sink. All it takes to destroy a destroyer is two or three larger ships while sinking a single submarine generally takes multi-turn effort from several destroyers, even after ASW updates. In both campaigns I played, both the enemy's and my own destroyers suffered the highest losses of any naval unit. This mostly happened as the destroyers were searching enemy subs and ran into other ships or mines. During my entire Entente campaign I don't think I actually sunk more than one enemy submarine and lost none myself. The rest of the enemy naval units (that were not permanently moored at Baltic or Marmara sea) I destroyed without too much trouble or losses (Destroyers being first to go). In my Central campaign the enemy first brought a few destroyers too close to my shores and when my U-Boat fleet was ready the enemy ASW capable units (even with level 2 upgrades) did little more than tickle my submersibles. Basically the entire Angle-French fleet was slaughtered by combination of mines and Submarines with my other ships doing little more than occasionally finishing off crippled stragglers. Half of the enemy capitals were sunk by run-ins with my subs alone. In the end I even sunk the Entente's (presumably) last ASW destroyer with submarines alone! By early 1916 there wasn't a single convoy going into Britain as my submarines (barely even scratched from sinking the grand fleet) were positioned at the objective hexes. In short, submarines are incredibly survivable and even more deadly. It takes a big concentrated force of ASW units to sink just a single sub. No other naval unit can deal 5 damage to a full strength Deadnought from ambush without taking any damage itself. This wouldn't really be an issue if all sides had more Destroyers from the start or in production, and if destroyers weren't so extremely vulnerable to run-ins with heavier ships. --- Subs and ASW strategic balance - Suggestions This apparent mismatch in the number of Subs and ASW units could simply be mitigated by giving various nations some extra starting units. If the British and French had a Torpedo Boat or two at the start, that would already greatly increase their ability to protect the Channel and trade routes from the Central submarine menace. Furthermore a unit of Maritime Bombers would really help the British AI deal with the subs. Ottomans and Astria-Hungary would also benefit from having an extra Torpedo Boat each. --- Role of Different Naval Units Another area of issues regarding Naval War is the roles of various units. This also touches some oddities of the ASW warfare. This is how I see the various unit types in SC:WW1 involved in naval combat (other than the Submarine the excellence of which I already covered): Dreadnoughts (BB), Pre-Dreadnoughts (B) and Battle-Cruisers (BC) are the hard hitters. No questions here. Armoured Cruiser (CA) and Light Cruiser (CL) are virtually pointless. They are only usable for blockade duty, risky recon and occasional finishing blow in larger naval engagement. I would never ever purchase even one of these ships. Destroyers (DD) have great utility as they can lay mines and survive contact with submarines. Paradoxically they are terrible ships for recon and screening as they are rare, strategically valuable and extremely fragile. What is also weird is that these are the least efficient ASW option at player disposal. Torpedo Boat (PT) is the ersatz destroyer. It oddly has high sub-attack even without updates and can lay mines while lacking any real ability to find and pursue subs. Naval Bomber (VMB?) is another area where things get a bit iffy. These have base sub-attack of 3. Compared to PT and especially DD this value seems incredible high considering that without updates these are presumably armed with a couple hand grenade size bombs that are dropped without any specialized bomb sights. As a result instead of planes searching for subs for destroyers to sink, it makes more sense to search subs with destroyers so they can be attacked by the far more damaging float-planes. [Also worth mentioning here are the Aircraft Carrier, Seaplane Carrier and Airship that more in line with what I would expect from WW1 air-ASW capability and role as primarily spotters]. --- Role of Different Naval Units - Suggestions I'm aware there's a popular naval overhaul mod for the WW2 iterations of Strategic Command (I'll definitely be testing the games and mod in the near future[:)]). I think the overall feel of the SC:WW1 naval warfare could be greatly improved with some far less dramatic changes: Part 1 - ASW From what I have read, Destroyer should be the primary submarine killer of the great war. It has the best endurance in terms of fuel and ammo. PT boats high base attack I can understand as they would probably have decent chance of surprising a sub (and it makes sense balance-wise) but VMB planes' high attack at base technology level seems extremely optimistic. What I would suggest is increasing the base sub-attack of DD to 2 and reducing the base attack of VMB to 1. This way Destroyer would be the deadliest sub killer through the war and aircraft would grow into the role with advancing technology and focus more on the spotting especially early on. This would also give all nations a small ASW buff as the limited number of destroyers would be a bit more effective at the role. Part 2 - Survivability and CL/CA role When you move a ship (other than silent sub) in SC:WW1 what usually happens it collides with an unseen enemy ship, engages in combat (taking heavy losses most of the time) and is then stuck near the enemy ships without AP and is destroyed the next turn which makes sensible naval recon and screening pretty much impossible. In some situations that kinda makes sense but what seems hard to believe is that BB, B or BC(?) would have the speed to force a CL, CA or DD to a fight. As far as I know the cruisers and destroyers would generally be faster than the capital ships of the time. So what I would suggest is a simple rule change that when CA/CL/DD sails into waiting BB/B/BC it doesn't automatically start combat. Instead the CA/CL/DD player is given an option to attack or not. This would make using CL/CA/DD for recon actually viable as the first spotted enemy wouldn't necessarily take off half their strength and eat their AP. Furthermore since CL/CA/DD running into CL/CA/DD would still automatically get dragged into combat just like they currently do, the CL and CA would now actually work as screening ships that have the ability to slow down or stop other fast ships that could otherwise spot the capitals and flee with ease. The new role of CL and CA as screening ships could further be highlighted by reducing the naval attack (or defense) of DDs as they would no longer have to deal with constant unavoidable fights with far stronger ships. So to summarize the key rules: CL/CA/DD sailing into BB/B/BC => NO auto-combat (unless they were in cruise mode) CL/CA/DD sailing into CL/CA/DD => auto-combat (unless the existing rule about unit at advantage being given the option overrides this) --- Again, thanks for reading. Other than these few areas I discussed I think SC:WW1 does many things spectacularly. I have really enjoyed playing it and I'm currently getting into the SC:WW2 with very high expectations. --- EDIT: Amended the text regarding Seaplane Carrier Sub-attack value. Somehow I thought it was 3 when in reality it was already 1. My preferred solution is giving destroyers some kind of "escort"/"intercept" ability against submarines to model their ability to escort larger units. As it is, it looks like you can basically win the naval war by building subs, using these to thump the larger units, and using you heavy units to whack any destroyers that get in the way.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.59375