RE: Balance analysis

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Balance analysis

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Balance analysis - 7/5/2017 7:38:13 AM

jlopez

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/5/2017
Status: offline

Given my PBEM gaming experience I would agree that Sealion, followed by the conquest of French Africa with a late Russian invasion seems like an almost unstoppable strategy. It takes practice to build the right troops and get them at the right place and the right time for Sealion but after that it's almost a formality.

The basic flaw, I feel, is the ease with which amphibious landings can be undertaken. Let's remember that it took the combined Allied resources years of preparation to land the SC equivalent of three armies in Normandy in 1944. Three armies.

Compare this with SC where Germany can pretty much do the same in 1940 with no dedicated amphibious landing ships. Historically, the intention was to use anything that more or less floated like canal barges for example. Let's even assume the Germans had got ashore, how would they have been supplied once ashore?

OK. Enough of the criticisms. Here's some potential solutions:

1. Drastically increase the cost and time it takes the Axis to research Amphibious Landings.
2. No one can undertake landings before June or after September in Europe and May-December in Africa. The weather is too unpredictable.
3. You can only block access to amphibious units at sea with ships and not submarines. These get moved sideways if necessary after inflicting the automatic casualty on ships moving through them.
4. You need to capture a port and not have it blockaded to have any supply. A German HQ occupying Dover would not provide any supply.
5. Create a new naval unit: Artificial harbour (Mulberry harbour). Available when Amphibious research is maxed out. It functions as a level 8 supply port.

The above should make amphibious landings much more hazardous and requiring lengthy preparation for both sides.

One last thing. I would like to see some player interaction with the convoy system even if it is only to cancel or postpone convoys on a particular route. This is particularly true after a successful Sealion where the UK is still sending help to the Soviet Union!

< Message edited by jlopez -- 7/5/2017 7:41:35 AM >

(in reply to James Taylor)

Post #: 31

RE: Balance analysis - 7/6/2017 2:36:08 AM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi Jlopez,

Thanks for the feedback and I'm just curious if this is with any games post v1.04 where we made the change to HQ linking/supply rules.

For Convoys, if you open up the Convoy Map screen you can adjust the convoy transfer percentages for Major to Major transfers and essentially shut down a convoy like the one where the UK is sending help to the Soviet Union.

Hubert

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to jlopez)

Post #: 32

RE: Balance analysis - 7/6/2017 6:49:58 AM

jlopez

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/5/2017
Status: offline

Hi,

We started in 1.03 but by the time we got to SeaLion it was well past 1.04.

Thanks for the tip on convoys. A clear case of RTFM. Duh!

One last thing. I'd have units on 0 supply lose a random number of strength points every turn. Otherwise, you get units stranded in the middle of nowhere for ever and they can't be rebuilt. Happened with a UK SF unit in Narvik that got trapped against the mountains and couldn't get out. The German corps couldn't inflict any casualties on it. Another case was a UK corps in Algeria that got stranded after the capture of Algiers and the surrender of France. The owner should at least have the option of surrendering the unit.

Julian

< Message edited by jlopez -- 7/6/2017 11:19:11 AM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 33

RE: Balance analysis - 7/6/2017 12:51:50 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi Jlopez,

Then the HQ supply rule change would have come into effect part way through your campaign but the additional balance changes that had been applied in the v1.04 campaigns would not have come into effect and these have seemingly also had some effect on play balance with some arguing that it now tilts the balance in the Allied favour.

I'd be curious to know what you think after a few PBEM++ games started with our latest version, v1.08, prior to any further changes as some of what you've outlined may no longer be an area of concern. But that being said some of the suggestions are still good ones and could apply either way.

Hubert

_____________________________

(in reply to jlopez)

Post #: 34

RE: Balance analysis - 7/6/2017 2:47:45 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Agree with the spirit of the suggestions as they relate to gameplay, but it gives me a few thoughts.

1. Drastically increase the cost and time it takes the Axis to research Amphibious Landings.
To be fair, the Allies would have had the same restrictions. Torch was their first amphib op, and it was all they could do to deliver the equivalent of 5 inf and 1 arm div to the beaches, and at the cost of shipping elsewhere, and due mostly to the influx of US shipping once they entered.

2. No one can undertake landings before June or after September in Europe and May-December in Africa. The weather is too unpredictable.
This would give both sides many worry free turns, so I might think it would be better if Storms would make it impossible to land.

4. You need to capture a port and not have it blockaded to have any supply. A German HQ occupying Dover would not provide any supply.
5. Create a new naval unit: Artificial harbour (Mulberry harbour). Available when Amphibious research is maxed out. It functions as a level 8 supply port.
Can you think of HQ's as representing these logistics efforts, rather than creating a new unit and new rules ? Maybe, but it still seems that a port should be necessary. This also speaks to the fact that one HQ and/or one resource can supply an infinite number of units.

(in reply to jlopez)

Post #: 35

RE: Balance analysis - 8/11/2017 7:56:20 PM

Goodmongo

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline

With the reduction in German MPP I think the changes to the bombers only means I'm going to research something else above level 2. The return for the MPP spent is not worth it unless I have no more units to upgrade, buy or reinforce. It seems the change forces us down a specific path of rushing level 2 ground attack and then skipping the rest for sometime.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 36