Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ...

Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (Full Version)

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

Message

Rugens -> Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/19/2020 9:24:28 PM)
I should preface my comments by admitting I'm an old Grognard and my idea of a perfect game is still WITPAE. Since not many of my type of games are being published these days, when I received a nice 50% discount for having been around Matrix for 20 years I decided to use it on the SC bundle. I've always been curious about SC but never made the leap. I'm trying really hard to like SC WWI but there are some aspects that make it very hard to embrace. There are some things the game seems to do well. I really like the research and upgrade systems. One really needs to reconcile themselves to the abstract aspects of the game. This is especially true of the naval system. That being said, once you get used to it, there are some nice subtilties that can make the boats fun and at least in a general sense provide some historical flavor. The one thing I've not been able to reconcile myself with though is the land combat mechanics. I realize the game is an outgrowth of the WWII versions and the mechanics/system seems to fit much better with WWII. To summarize the mechanics in a simplistic manner, the way to inflict the maximum amount of damage on your foe is to focus on a single unit to the point of it's destruction. There are several significant benefits if you can destroy the unit vs killing the same amount of factors on a couple of undestroyed units. No problem. Makes some sense. The problem seems to come into being in the combat mechanics they have devised to overcome trenches which (as they should) with time become more and more difficult to crack. The way the system works as far as attacking an entrenched hex is to recon the hex and then pound it with a lot of artillery to lower the readiness and morale of the defending unit. That done the attacker then concentrates the attacks of 3 or 4 corps onto the single hex until the unit is destroyed. At the end of this process the total casualties in aggerate are usually higher for the defender and lower for the attacker. If this sounds a bit strange, that's because it is. Even a cursory familiarity with WWI should ring some warning bells that something is ass-backwards here. I can try several rationalizations about a turn or two being an abstract of attack/counter-attack but the inescapable numbers in the game are that on this WWI battlefield, the attacker usually outkills the defender in their offensives. Hmmm So the conclusion of course is that well, its a game, that's the system, and if my worthy opponent does it I simply need to do the same thing as well or better if I want to beat them. I can certainly do that but the problem for me is it gets difficult to use elements of strategy and tactics consistent with the history of the subject. In this game that means that in the era of the primacy of defense (at least through most of the war), defense has no real primacy nor, more importantly, does defense have the ability to inflict massive and unsustainable causalities on the attacker. Since massive and unsustainable casualties on the attacker were usually the reasons offensives were discontinued during WWI, this sets a bit uneasy with me.

Xsillione -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/20/2020 12:28:23 AM)
The problem with the massive and unsustainable cost of general offensive, is that we know this fact. Just as in a WWII game, we know that carriers and subs are better than the rest of the surface fleet, and we need cariers to counter the others carrier and destroyers to counter the subs, so no other ship will be built. Except the entente actually can do this to some degree, since their goal in the game is to knock out germany, not the cp, to achieve victory, so you only need to cause 50K morale loss against germany with the 40K+ morale of three nations, so you can trade 2:1 and still win, adding the blockade, and you can actually suffer 3:1 morale loss ratio and still win, and if you even manage some naval victory, maybe more. Same for art and other BS of the war, you know that art is good,, so you won't leave it home like the AH general attacking serbia, you know that attacking entrenched units in the mountains are bad idea, so you won't do 8+ general attack to the alps as an italian leader., most of them without any artillery support. You also can decide to have armor early, and field them a year before irl, with the ottomans or italy if you really want.

lwarmonger -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/20/2020 4:52:04 AM)
I actually think the western front is where this game shines when it comes to representing history. Think about it. 1914, mobile warfare with massive casualties. Winter of 1914 things settle down into entrenched positions that gradually become thicker. 1915, if the Germans or Entente launch major offensives, at least until towards the end, they are likely suffering massive casualties as they attack trench lines without upgraded artillery. 1916, widespread artillery level 1 means that you can break 2 or 3 hexes of trench at a time, but your enemy can do the same, leading to an "offensive-counteroffensive" dynamic that leaves you with equal casualties and back where you started (Verdun and Somme offensives both fall under this category). Late 1916 early 1917 is when you are getting to artillery level 2 with ammunition level 2, so now massed artillery is permitting large scale offensives and the advantage is beginning to move towards the offense. All of this is with and against a human player, so the timelines are a little sped up... if you play historically and divert resources into unimportant areas, things should be right on track. This game does have its problems, like submarines being overpowered in surface combat and cavalry being far too free to maneuver, but in the west I think it is pretty faithful to how things turned out.

FOARP -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/20/2020 4:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lwarmonger I actually think the western front is where this game shines when it comes to representing history. Think about it. 1914, mobile warfare with massive casualties. Winter of 1914 things settle down into entrenched positions that gradually become thicker. 1915, if the Germans or Entente launch major offensives, at least until towards the end, they are likely suffering massive casualties as they attack trench lines without upgraded artillery. 1916, widespread artillery level 1 means that you can break 2 or 3 hexes of trench at a time, but your enemy can do the same, leading to an "offensive-counteroffensive" dynamic that leaves you with equal casualties and back where you started (Verdun and Somme offensives both fall under this category). Late 1916 early 1917 is when you are getting to artillery level 2 with ammunition level 2, so now massed artillery is permitting large scale offensives and the advantage is beginning to move towards the offense. All of this is with and against a human player, so the timelines are a little sped up... if you play historically and divert resources into unimportant areas, things should be right on track. This game does have its problems, like submarines being overpowered in surface combat and cavalry being far too free to maneuver, but in the west I think it is pretty faithful to how things turned out. Have to agree here. This is still the best WW1 game I've seen and I've tried a few (e.g., C:TGW where it's possible to practically carry out blitzkrieg, AGEOD's WW1 game with its clunky phase system). Whilst destruction of the units entirely is a bit ahistorical (though you can reform units if they are "killed" whilst in supply them so you can imagine that they aren't fully destroyed) it is actually very historical that offensives tend to achieve a small advance which is then lost in the counter-attack. What gave the defender such an advantage in WW1 is not simply the cost of taking trench-lines but the fact that the defender could then counter-attack and retake the ground lost faster than the attacker could reinforce their success. Cambrai in 1917 was also a classic example of this. In the game you tend to blast a hole in the front line (by dedicating multiple artillery units and corps to a single dug-in enemy unit) but your unit that advances into the gap created is then typically destroyed on the next turn, especially if it cannot dig in. The result can be a very credible stale-mate. For example in my last AAR the Western Front saw 50+ corps destroyed on both sides in the 1915-1917 period without the front moving very far at all. TL:DR - there's this idea that every WW1 battle was basically people getting mowed down by machine-gun fire whilst attacking and it's basically wrong. Even on the first day of the Somme the German front line was taken in several place (e.g., on the 36th Ulster division's sector) - the Germans then had to counterattack to taken them back and that's what made the battle a stale-mate.

Rugens -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 1:28:44 AM)
Undoubtedly we all have our favorite WWI games. Sadly most have significant flaws. IMHO the best by far is/was WWI CE. I cannot disagree that the overall feel and pattern of the war can generally be created by the game. The mechanics certainly enable a stalemate and some other things. It gets to some of the end-points but the way it does it seems to ignore a pretty bedrock aspects of WWI. My point is simply that there is no place for a historic defensive or holding strategy in the game. As long as the mathematics nearly always result in an attack/offensive out-killing the the defense, defense is not viable which was simply not the case in WWI. Not saying the game cannot still be enjoyable. It's just disappointing that defense, during a period that should be it's primacy, is nearly completely ineffective.

FOARP -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 7:16:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rugens Undoubtedly we all have our favorite WWI games. Sadly most have significant flaws. IMHO the best by far is/was WWI CE. I cannot disagree that the overall feel and pattern of the war can generally be created by the game. The mechanics certainly enable a stalemate and some other things. It gets to some of the end-points but the way it does it seems to ignore a pretty bedrock aspects of WWI. My point is simply that there is no place for a historic defensive or holding strategy in the game. As long as the mathematics nearly always result in an attack/offensive out-killing the the defense, defense is not viable which was simply not the case in WWI. Not saying the game cannot still be enjoyable. It's just disappointing that defense, during a period that should be it's primacy, is nearly completely ineffective. I think we should be clear here that the historic defensive stance of, say, the Germans at Passchendale or the French at Verdun involved an awful lot of counter-attacking. One glance at the casualty statistics for the defenders shows that - in both cases mentioned above they suffered roughly equal casualties, which is what tends to occur in SC:WW1 after a round of attack and then counter-attack. That these counter-attacks play out at map-scale is not a terrible abstraction though obviously it could be more realistic - SC:WW1 is not a simulator for sure.

wodin -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 9:52:38 AM)
Try WW1 Gold. It shines as it really does the difference between open warfare at start and end of the War and trench warfare. Something most games struggle with.

FOARP -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 2:04:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Try WW1 Gold. It shines as it really does the difference between open warfare at start and end of the War and trench warfare. Something most games struggle with. Meh, there's some issues with that game: - The clunky and overly-complicated phase system. - Doesn't use hexes. - The wonky map orientation ("East" is "up") - Unrealistic "card-game" style combat. I bounced off it hard when I tried it when it first came out (admittedly this was a long time ago and it may have changed in the meantime - but this review basically says the same things as well as stability/CTD issues that I had forgotten about). I guess if you like AGEOD games then you'll like it, but they're not for me - if I wanted to play a province-move game I'd play HOI. One final thing: this game is still being supported by Bill and the Fury software team and so will improve from where it is. AGEOD have long since stopped maintaining their WW1 game (wasn't it the reason why they got bought by Paradox? Something about the game flopping leaving them in financial trouble?).

Tanaka -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 6:03:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rugens Undoubtedly we all have our favorite WWI games. Sadly most have significant flaws. IMHO the best by far is/was WWI CE. I cannot disagree that the overall feel and pattern of the war can generally be created by the game. The mechanics certainly enable a stalemate and some other things. It gets to some of the end-points but the way it does it seems to ignore a pretty bedrock aspects of WWI. My point is simply that there is no place for a historic defensive or holding strategy in the game. As long as the mathematics nearly always result in an attack/offensive out-killing the the defense, defense is not viable which was simply not the case in WWI. Not saying the game cannot still be enjoyable. It's just disappointing that defense, during a period that should be it's primacy, is nearly completely ineffective. I must say he kind of does have a point. Why is artillery so much more overpowered in this game compared to the others in the series? You can destroy entire units just with artillery. I've always thought it should be toned down a bit. I think it would help with this issue.

Zarevic -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 6:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rugens I should preface my comments by admitting I'm an old Grognard and my idea of a perfect game is still WITPAE. Since not many of my type of games are being published these days, when I received a nice 50% discount for having been around Matrix for 20 years I decided to use it on the SC bundle. I've always been curious about SC but never made the leap. I'm trying really hard to like SC WWI but there are some aspects that make it very hard to embrace. There are some things the game seems to do well. I really like the research and upgrade systems. One really needs to reconcile themselves to the abstract aspects of the game. This is especially true of the naval system. That being said, once you get used to it, there are some nice subtilties that can make the boats fun and at least in a general sense provide some historical flavor. The one thing I've not been able to reconcile myself with though is the land combat mechanics. I realize the game is an outgrowth of the WWII versions and the mechanics/system seems to fit much better with WWII. To summarize the mechanics in a simplistic manner, the way to inflict the maximum amount of damage on your foe is to focus on a single unit to the point of it's destruction. There are several significant benefits if you can destroy the unit vs killing the same amount of factors on a couple of undestroyed units. No problem. Makes some sense. The problem seems to come into being in the combat mechanics they have devised to overcome trenches which (as they should) with time become more and more difficult to crack. The way the system works as far as attacking an entrenched hex is to recon the hex and then pound it with a lot of artillery to lower the readiness and morale of the defending unit. That done the attacker then concentrates the attacks of 3 or 4 corps onto the single hex until the unit is destroyed. At the end of this process the total casualties in aggerate are usually higher for the defender and lower for the attacker. If this sounds a bit strange, that's because it is. Even a cursory familiarity with WWI should ring some warning bells that something is ass-backwards here. I can try several rationalizations about a turn or two being an abstract of attack/counter-attack but the inescapable numbers in the game are that on this WWI battlefield, the attacker usually outkills the defender in their offensives. Hmmm So the conclusion of course is that well, its a game, that's the system, and if my worthy opponent does it I simply need to do the same thing as well or better if I want to beat them. I can certainly do that but the problem for me is it gets difficult to use elements of strategy and tactics consistent with the history of the subject. In this game that means that in the era of the primacy of defense (at least through most of the war), defense has no real primacy nor, more importantly, does defense have the ability to inflict massive and unsustainable causalities on the attacker. Since massive and unsustainable casualties on the attacker were usually the reasons offensives were discontinued during WWI, this sets a bit uneasy with me. I Understand what you mean... and I agree with you to a certain extent... However these offensive concentrations of 3-4 infantry corps, 1-2 upgraded hvy artillery and recon bombers are expensive, hard to prepare and even limited... so you should choose wisely the moment and the point to attack. Thats the key in my opinion... You�re allowed to do 2-3 attacks like this per turn (at most)... and of course your opponent could deffend that properly... maybe not a single hex, but for sure a front or a specific zone of a front if he has enough resources and troops at good shape. IMO this solves well the importance of deffensive warfare in WWI. And I think it fits (relatively) with historical events... In order to achieve victory attacking you have to surprise your opponent but at the same time you need big preparations! so nice game for me! Cheers

wodin -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 9:48:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FOARP quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Try WW1 Gold. It shines as it really does the difference between open warfare at start and end of the War and trench warfare. Something most games struggle with. Meh, there's some issues with that game: - The clunky and overly-complicated phase system. - Doesn't use hexes. - The wonky map orientation ("East" is "up") - Unrealistic "card-game" style combat. I bounced off it hard when I tried it when it first came out (admittedly this was a long time ago and it may have changed in the meantime - but this review basically says the same things as well as stability/CTD issues that I had forgotten about). I guess if you like AGEOD games then you'll like it, but they're not for me - if I wanted to play a province-move game I'd play HOI. One final thing: this game is still being supported by Bill and the Fury software team and so will improve from where it is. AGEOD have long since stopped maintaining their WW1 game (wasn't it the reason why they got bought by Paradox? Something about the game flopping leaving them in financial trouble?). Gold fixes map as well as many other issues. Certainly isn't meh I find the combat mechanics work well and give historical results. Though like to see casualties in men which neither game gives. I play the Centennial version. Come across no bugs. Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time.

Platoonist -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/21/2020 10:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time. Was that the Avalon Hill board game?

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/22/2020 5:21:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time. Was that the Avalon Hill board game? I have that one, the board was really bland...I mean, Really Bland, and the counters were old school. Overall, imo, a good workman like game. I seem to remember there was lots of errata that came later. Now, if you really want to go back in time, there's Avalon Hill's '1914'. That ones a beauty and the planning of your moves had to be meticulous. There were map sheets provided so you could keep track of the fort hex sides that got demolished. It also had a counter step reduction mechanic which was pretty advanced for its time. I remember playing it 2 years after it came out with my uncle. Of course, these games were a secret back then because nerds were not cool...a few years later, they all got shelved for awhile as girls became the best thing around. [;)] One thing about this game that I think needs a little polishing, is that the artillery is a tad too powerful, as pointed out by Tanaka on this thread, and others elsewhere. One thing I've noticed playing pbem (I've done 16 with 2 others going now) is that between 2 relatively equal opponents, with the classic deadlocks in the usual places going on, that the games end around late 1916 when the lvl 2 art. starts showing up. I would of expected those weapons in mid 1917 and certainly 1918, not earlier. I've been in a few games where both sides were having success in local theaters offensively and secure defensively in others..then Bam!...things start folding up for one side quickly..as if its mid-late 1918, soon as the arty2's with max shell supply start doing their thing. Its rare in this case, to see Tanks deployed, because a collapse of epic proportion ensues too early...mainly caused by these dealers in Hell's Hurricane.

FOARP -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/22/2020 7:39:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Guns of August has it's fans but never gave it enough time. Was that the Avalon Hill board game? I have that one, the board was really bland...I mean, Really Bland, and the counters were old school. Overall, imo, a good workman like game. I seem to remember there was lots of errata that came later. Now, if you really want to go back in time, there's Avalon Hill's '1914'. That ones a beauty and the planning of your moves had to be meticulous. There were map sheets provided so you could keep track of the fort hex sides that got demolished. It also had a counter step reduction mechanic which was pretty advanced for its time. I remember playing it 2 years after it came out with my uncle. Of course, these games were a secret back then because nerds were not cool...a few years later, they all got shelved for awhile as girls became the best thing around. [;)] One thing about this game that I think needs a little polishing, is that the artillery is a tad too powerful, as pointed out by Tanaka on this thread, and others elsewhere. One thing I've noticed playing pbem (I've done 16 with 2 others going now) is that between 2 relatively equal opponents, with the classic deadlocks in the usual places going on, that the games end around late 1916 when the lvl 2 art. starts showing up. I would of expected those weapons in mid 1917 and certainly 1918, not earlier. I've been in a few games where both sides were having success in local theaters offensively and secure defensively in others..then Bam!...things start folding up for one side quickly..as if its mid-late 1918, soon as the arty2's with max shell supply start doing their thing. Its rare in this case, to see Tanks deployed, because a collapse of epic proportion ensues too early...mainly caused by these dealers in Hell's Hurricane. Second arty being OP. My suggested fixes are: - up the de-entrench value of base artillery to 1. At present it's 0.5 which in effect means zero so it cannot de-entrench at all which makes it kind of useless, meaning that there is no point buying artillery for, say, Serbia when you cannot afford to upgrade it, as the un-upgraded arty cannot do anything. - But lower the max number of shells to 6 and/or reduce the attack values of arty. The primary value of arty should be de-entrenching units, not destroying them. Destroying the enemy should be the work of the infantry and tanks. One additional comment: units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again.

BillRunacre -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/22/2020 10:24:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FOARP units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again. Could this be that players are investing more in their offensive arm (artillery) and less in Trench Warfare than they could, given that 4 chits can be invested into the latter? Another factor could be that when Infantry are upgraded with Infantry Weapons level 2 their Artillery Defense Bonus increases by 1.

Tanaka -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/22/2020 6:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillRunacre quote: ORIGINAL: FOARP units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again. Could this be that players are investing more in their offensive arm (artillery) and less in Trench Warfare than they could, given that 4 chits can be invested into the latter? Another factor could be that when Infantry are upgraded with Infantry Weapons level 2 their Artillery Defense Bonus increases by 1. I would say no. I always upgrade artillery, trench warfare, and infantry weapons as priorities all at the same time. Although the Germans already start with researching artillery at game start.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/22/2020 10:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka quote: ORIGINAL: BillRunacre quote: ORIGINAL: FOARP units start getting destroyed in 1916 by artillery but oddly if the war continues into 1918 you seem to see less of this as the entrenchment technology starts to catch up again. Could this be that players are investing more in their offensive arm (artillery) and less in Trench Warfare than they could, given that 4 chits can be invested into the latter? Another factor could be that when Infantry are upgraded with Infantry Weapons level 2 their Artillery Defense Bonus increases by 1. I would say no. I always upgrade artillery, trench warfare, and infantry weapons as priorities all at the same time. Although the Germans already start with researching artillery at game start. Agree with Tanaka's assertion. I do the same thing as he pointed out in a fashion...and the arty 2's show up before the entrenchment 4 and 5'S generally, even with S & I invested in, around early-mid 1916. 3 chits in arty in 1914 assures this, with the added bonus that you can redeem a chit at 50% when lvl 2 arty is done. On a side note: Tanaka was gracious enough to click the "little red X" to finish our last game, which allowed me to see his reports and research. With that, I can verify that his above assessment of this topic has a sound footing, as his research for all the Central Powers was rock solid imho. I PM'ed him my views in a short AAR a few days after that game that ended too soon after "The Bulgarian Gambit"

Taxman66 -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/23/2020 11:13:55 AM)
FWI, the AI gets to maxed out Arty at the same time as well. Maybe the best/easiest solution is to limit Arty to a maximum of only 2 investment chits?

Xsillione -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/23/2020 9:21:20 PM)
You can put two chit in art, four in trench and one in infantry, so you get art lvl 2 way before inf lvl 2 (and art is not on the front, so easily upgraded, while the front infantry can stuck with lower lvl for a few turn), and the trench tech simply cannot reach lvl 4 or 5 before art, maybe even lvl 3 won't be reached before art lvl 2, so at that point, artillery has a potential to be overperforming heavily, which will be mitigated to some point by higher trench and infantry tech as they arrive. But at that time the airpower can start show up with some results too, so the art can still clear units with the airboost, or at least prepare the units in the front for destruction to the infantry. But still, the most important difference is hindsight, you know what works and what not, so you won't do the bad ideas even once, and never redo a bad option, as it happened IRL for many generals, that clearly just tried the same failed attempt again and again, thinking this time it will work.

Rugens -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/23/2020 11:33:28 PM)
From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well. It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point. For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense. If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me.

Rugens -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/23/2020 11:51:59 PM)
I agree WWI Gold or it's update WWI CE overall provides the best "feel" of any WWI game for the period. It is a great game. The downsides as mentioned are that it is an area game and that as far as I can tell it is no longer supported. The CE version got rid of a lot of the clunky aspects of Gold but you need to save every turn in case it freezes up. Since my preference is hex based games though, that's one reason I want so badly to like this game. Actually that's not fair. I really do like this game. It's just there is a large hole in it when the historical gamer in me wants to use defense the way it was actually used. I want to delay while making the attacker bleed and feel the pain. I know I should be able to do it but the system will not allow it.

Tanaka -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/24/2020 2:26:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rugens From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well. It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point. For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense. If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me. Again if artillery were toned down just a bit I don't think the attacking would be such an advantage...

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/24/2020 3:04:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka quote: ORIGINAL: Rugens From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well. It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point. For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense. If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me. Again if artillery were toned down just a bit I don't think the attacking would be such an advantage... I feel the same way..toned down a tad, and this might address some of the aspects that Rugen pointed out in his initial post. Taxman66's idea is interesting: limit artillery to a maximum of 2 investment chits..slow the progress to lvl 2 a bit.

BillRunacre -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/24/2020 9:46:43 AM)
Thanks for the feedback everyone, I've got a few ideas from this to think about for the next patch. [:)]

Taxman66 -> RE: Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ... (9/24/2020 2:30:19 PM)
Note: If you do reduce the Max Arty Chit investment to 2, it should remain 3 for the USA (just like they are allowed to invest more chits in Infantry weapons).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.3125