complete Allied failure in my PBEM game

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

complete Allied failure in my PBEM game

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: World at War >> complete Allied failure in my PBEM game

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/25/2019 11:10:57 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

I just lost a PBEM game against Christolos (AXIS). He played masterfully, I ... did not. This post is not worthy of the AAR sub-forum.

My overall strategy was:
1) Soviets - research all infantry advances, otherwise build every possible infantry unit that I could;
2) UK - try to upgrade ASW, build destroyers and escort carriers, try to rule the Atlantic first, later worry about Japan; research air advances
3) US invest heavily in research, otherwise build and upgrade destroyers, escort carriers, air units; less focus early on concerning building infantry or armor
4) China - build infantry, try to get at least one infantry research advance
5) Inda - build infantry, infantry advances, focus on defense early on

I did succeed in dominating the Atlantic by early '42, and as far as I could tell the German/Italian sub force was destroyed. However, The Italian fleet was dominant in the Med, and my Eastern Med fleet was destroyed or driven away.

After taking Malta, the AXIS had its way in North Africa and the Middle East. All my forces had retreated to Iran/India, and the remnants of the navy to India/Australia.

Japan defeated China by early '42, then declared war on the Soviets. Up till then, the Soviets had done a quite good job of defense against the AXIS - still holding onto Odessa, Smolensk, etc. By the summer of '42, Leningrad was in serious danger, but Moscow and the Ukraine were still secure.

Neither the US or UK were able to build much of a land force - almost all UK PPs were invested in reinforcements/upgrades. I never was able to build new carriers, other than escorts. My air power was well researched, but not enoough numbers.

Japan proceeded to take the historical gains in the Pacific, and then invaded Australia and destroyed the entire US and UK Pacific carrier forces, and about half of the US Pacific Fleet. With nothing in the pipeline in that regard, Japan effectively had complete control of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Japan had no opposition in the Soviet Union, and was proceeding to march west against weak garrison units. I had no capability to build Soviet armor or air units, spending every PP on infantry.

After the loss of the UK/US Pacific Fleets, and no future builds in the pipeline, I surrendered.

I have never figured out SC3 naval action. Christolos is a master of it, and even where I dominated in the Atlantic, he could savage my fleets with inferior German naval forces at will. Thus the constant drain on UK/US PPs.

I had 5 carriers defending Australia, all set to air cap. They were all destroyed in one turn by the Japanese carriers, and one maritime bomber unit.

I'm a bad player. Truly. However, I do think the scenario is unbalanced in favor of the AXIS. I say that NOT intending to take anything away from Christolos' play - he is indeed a master of SC3.

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 6/25/2019 11:14:57 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 8:52:38 AM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

Wow, he took China by 42? It take 1/2 a year to traverse China! You used the engineer to build fortifications around the capital right away? I am curious what strategy was used by Christolos there.

When did he take Malta? If you were doing well in the Atlantic, could you have sent some of your carriers and ships to the Mediterranean? Italy's economy is very weak and they cannot afford to replace ships easily.

You should have some long range planes in the Pacific to scout for you so you don't get surprised. Even a couple of subs to act as scouts. While all the glory goes to the carriers, the allied subs really hurt Japan's convoys in WWII. As far as naval in the Pacific, think of Midway. Whoever spots the other one has a MASSIVE advantage. Think Battle of Midway.

Did you ask Christolos for some advice? I am not trying to talk you down. Playing against a top player is tough, but you can learn a lot.

Better luck next time.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 2

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 10:44:44 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

He took Malta in '41. By then he had savaged my Med fleet, and knocked down my Atlantic fleet. I was able to repair the Atlantic fleet, but it takes forever and all my PPs to do that.

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 3

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 2:25:58 PM

ThunderLizard11

Posts: 573
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

A couple ideas:

* In China - first turn uninvest all techs (arty, fighter, etc.) and put two chits each on infantry weapons and infantry warfare (may be second turn before you can invest in level 2). Then by turn 3 or 4 invest in command and control. Consider pulling back units from Changsa so they all don't get destroyed while your tech is upgrading. Possibly pull back in north as well. Move an HQ and a few units from north to south.

* Pacific naval. Keep all units in port until you get a least flight level two and antiaircraft. Upgrade Pearl fighter and move a second fighter and maritime bomber there after US enters war. Try to get ships out of Pearl back to west coast. Garrison all islands - use anti air on Wake and 1 on Midway. After you have built up carefully seek out and engage Japan. Use subs to scout. For Australia, not typical for Axi to attack but upgrade and reinforce units in Sydney and Canberra.

* For med naval, move at least one CV, CC, DD and BB to med. Also move a fighter and all tacs to med after fall of France. Keep UK garrisoned to block Sea Lion.

* In Russia, invest in infantry techs, c&, armor and fighters. Move all corps/armies back from frontlines. Build garrisons and place on front line in one area to attempt to save units that spawn after Barbarrosa starts.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 4

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 7:14:45 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

Hi gwgardner,

I can understand your frustration with the loss of your carriers (wasn't it 4 in the Pacific and one in the North Sea...?) as I had this done to me playing the Allies, by ruskicanuk, where he sank 4 US carriers (I think it was 4...but it could have been 3..., I don't remember at the moment), with Jap carriers, all in one turn.
At the time I thought my mistake was that I had all my carriers set to Naval/Tactical mode instead of on Cap mode...but according to your post, your carriers were set to Cap mode...so I don't know what to make of that. I would have thought that being in Cap mode should have made it harder for me. What level were your aircraft at? Mine were at advanced level aircraft 2.

What I think really enabled me to do your carriers in, was that I was able to spot them first. I had my carrier fleet concentrated in support of my invasion of Australia, and suspected that your carrier fleet would be somewhere nearby lingering in the Coral sea. To that end, I operated (re-based) a Maritime bomber (Naval weaponry 2 and long range aircraft 2, which gave me a 6 hex spotting range! ) to Rabaul, and low and behold, spotted your CV taskforce in range of my CV fleet. I also had a Maritime bomber (naval weaponry 2) in range.

In the end, it was with intuition and pure luck that I spotted your carriers before you spotted me. Concentrating carriers can be very effective if they can strike first, but they also present a bigger target if they are hit first. What I now try to do, is to be sure my carriers are on Cap mode until I know where the enemy is, and I try to spread them out into two or more task forces to minimize losses if hit first.

I have to also say that the game was very tough and quite enjoyable. Your naval game was excellent as you caused me considerable naval losses as well.

Thanks for the game and no problem with you resigning.

Fyi, I am currently playing a mirrored game with ruskicanuk, and losing badly in both...so I'm not sure about the game being unbalanced...

Cheers,

C

_____________________________

�Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.�

-Aristotle-

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 5

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 7:52:10 PM

nnason

Posts: 502
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline

Sounds like Midway in reverse.

_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 6

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 9:50:29 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason

Sounds like Midway in reverse.

Exactly. I would have continued notwithstanding that disaster, but for the fact that my production pipeline for US and UK was nil. I just don't understand how the Allies can possibly build up, given the constant need for reinforcing, upgrading, and at least some research.

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. Different strategies are certainly in order for any future attempts. I wish there were a single house rule of some kind severely restricting the possibility that Malta can be taken. Seems so completely ahistorical and has such deep impact on the whole game.

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 6/26/2019 9:55:44 PM >

(in reply to nnason)

Post #: 7

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 10:41:27 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

I have found that taking Malta is not always so easy, especially if the Italian Navy has been crippled, and it usually results in a delay in getting enough airpower in place for an effective and early enough Barbarossa. That said, a determined Axis player can usually always take Malta...but the price can sometimes be steep and may not even ultimately effect the outcome in NA if the UK is determined to hold it...

Also, and this is what I try to do as much as possible (depending on what my opponent seems to be doing...), Malta's AA defences (the ports and the Island itself) should be brought up to Tech level 2 ASAP.

The latest 1.O3 patch now makes it possible to supress Malta rather than having to outright capture it...so this is another option for the Axis player to follow...but this may favour the Axis...

C

_____________________________

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 8

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/26/2019 11:23:23 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

I would be interested to know about your carriers gwgardner
Did they have naval weapons upgrade? As Chrisolos asked, what level of advanced fighters?

The naval weapons upgrade may actually helps carriers too. Christolos, what level were your carriers?

From the manual
Naval Weaponry increases the Naval Attack, Carrier Attack, Naval Defense, and Resource Attack values for Airships, Bombers (except Strategic Bombers), Kamikazes, all types of combat surface vessels except for Escort Carriers. It also increases the attack values of Carriers against all land targets by 0.5 per level, and by 10% the chance of a shore bombardment inflicting damage on a unit occupying a resource.

I am not sure if the increased carrier attack applies to the carriers planes or not.

Also I wonder if this entry in the patch note applies or not, since the AI is essentially in your place on your opponents turn.
- fixed a rare AI naval combat error that did not have AA guns or regular interceptors activate against some Carrier attacks.

Just spitballing here.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 9

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/27/2019 12:15:53 AM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

gwgardner mentioned, in a PM to me, that his carriers were in Cap mode and were Level 2...but I don't know if he meant Level 2 for both Naval Weaponry and advanced aircraft, which probably was the case, or just one of them. My carriers were level 2 for both.

The surprise to me was that I was able to so easily sink his carriers (with the aid of a Maritime bomber with level 2 Naval Weaponry, mind you) despite them being set to Cap mode. I would have thought this would have made them more able to repel the attacks launched against them by my carriers attacking in Naval/Tactical mode.

I too am not sure if the increased carrier attack from Naval Weaponry upgrades applies to the carriers planes or not. Could one of the developers weigh in here regarding this and the fact that carriers set to Cap mode are still relatively vulnerable to carrier based air attacks?

Good point about the patch note! Developers?

C

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 10

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 6/27/2019 1:21:28 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

My carrier air was level 2, but I believe I did not upgrade the carriers to navy 2.

I did have US fighters within range to protect those carriers also, at level 2.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 11

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/1/2019 3:15:13 PM

sapper32

Posts: 1197
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Warminster England
Status: offline

I don't get carriers either in my game as Allies I got 3 UK carriers plus BBs,CC,CA,CL then air attacked the Italian navy my aircraft losses were horrendous and in the ensuing naval battle I lost 2 carriers plus other heavy units so the Italian navy rules the Med ?

_____________________________

The battle of Medjerda is almost forgotten,but was fought against highly disciplined German troops and blasted a route straight to Tunis it was a perfect infiltration battle and should be remembered as the best fought British battle of the war.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 12

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 1:50:46 PM

Hubert Cater

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

quote:

Also I wonder if this entry in the patch note applies or not, since the AI is essentially in your place on your opponents turn.
- fixed a rare AI naval combat error that did not have AA guns or regular interceptors activate against some Carrier attacks.

This fix would only apply if the Carriers did not respond to intercept, but if they did then naturally the issue didn't apply.

_____________________________

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 Mercutio)

Post #: 13

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 1:52:17 PM

Hubert Cater

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

quote:

I too am not sure if the increased carrier attack from Naval Weaponry upgrades applies to the carriers planes or not. Could one of the developers weigh in here regarding this and the fact that carriers set to Cap mode are still relatively vulnerable to carrier based air attacks?

Good point about the patch note! Developers?

Naval Weaponry only applies to the Tactical side of Carriers, i.e. when in Tactical mode, or Mix mode, and Advanced Fighters would apply to the Fighter mode of the Carrier for intercepts and escorts.

As for vulnerability, difficult to say without knowing all the other factors, such as the definitive research level differences between both sides, the experience, strengths, morale and readiness etc.

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 7/2/2019 1:54:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 14

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 1:59:32 PM

Hubert Cater

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

quote:

The latest 1.O3 patch now makes it possible to supress Malta rather than having to outright capture it...so this is another option for the Axis player to follow...but this may favour the Axis...

With this latest release, the Axis, and without a second HQ in North Africa, are likely to suffer more severe supply shortages due to the recent supply rule changes, that it was felt/hoped that this change for Malta will act as more of a helpful counter balance than a shift in favouring the Axis.

That being said, a second HQ for the Allies will also help with supply in North Africa as the supply rule changes will have some effect on them as well. Essentially supply pinches will likely be more pronounced for both sides while the option to invest further in that particular front (for both sides) can be achieved by investing and sending down additional supply help via a second HQ. Just depends of course on priority and balance for either side when fighting there going forward with v1.03.

_____________________________

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 15

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 2:00:35 PM

Hubert Cater

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapper32

I don't get carriers either in my game as Allies I got 3 UK carriers plus BBs,CC,CA,CL then air attacked the Italian navy my aircraft losses were horrendous and in the ensuing naval battle I lost 2 carriers plus other heavy units so the Italian navy rules the Med ?

Having your Carriers in the right attack/defense mode would be critical. Were your Carriers in Naval Tactical mode when attacking the Italian Navy?

_____________________________

(in reply to sapper32)

Post #: 16

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 5:33:14 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

I too am not sure if the increased carrier attack from Naval Weaponry upgrades applies to the carriers planes or not. Could one of the developers weigh in here regarding this and the fact that carriers set to Cap mode are still relatively vulnerable to carrier based air attacks?

Good point about the patch note! Developers?

Naval Weaponry only applies to the Tactical side of Carriers, i.e. when in Tactical mode, or Mix mode, and Advanced Fighters would apply to the Fighter mode of the Carrier for intercepts and escorts.

As for vulnerability, difficult to say without knowing all the other factors, such as the definitive research level differences between both sides, the experience, strengths, morale and readiness etc.

If I read this correctly, when carrier are attacking (naval/tactical) ships the naval weaponry applies, not the advanced fighters. That only applies for CAP and intercept. Correct?

But does the advanced fighters apply to the defense of the attacking planes? So level 2 CAP intercepts a naval weapons 2 air assault. Does the attacking planes use the advanced fighter level for defense from the CAP?

Thanks

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 17

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 5:52:05 PM

Hubert Cater

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

Correct, and to answer your last question, no, and this is because they are in naval tactical mode. This is the trade off of using naval attack, i.e. higher potential attack damage, but you are exposed if you do not have air superiority, and especially so if you don't have any protective escorts to intercept the interceptors etc.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 18

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 6:21:29 PM

nnason

Posts: 502
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline

Thus simulating the challenge Japan faced at the Battle of Midway. Guess wrong and you are toast.

_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 19

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 11:03:16 PM

Taxman66

Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline

Just to throw a banana peel in the room, it is important to note that in real life the Japanese Carriers were far more vulnerable than the American Carriers. In just about all aspects, Armor, Support ship AA and often overlooked Fire Suppression.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to nnason)

Post #: 20

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 11:46:53 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Just to throw a banana peel in the room, it is important to note that in real life the Japanese Carriers were far more vulnerable than the American Carriers. In just about all aspects, Armor, Support ship AA and often overlooked Fire Suppression.

Very true even later in the war. The Taiho was sunk more by poor damage control then actual damage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taih%C5%8D

(in reply to Taxman66)

Post #: 21

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/2/2019 11:59:40 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Correct, and to answer your last question, no, and this is because they are in naval tactical mode. This is the trade off of using naval attack, i.e. higher potential attack damage, but you are exposed if you do not have air superiority, and especially so if you don't have any protective escorts to intercept the interceptors etc.

So what is used for the defense value of carrier planes in naval/tactical mod with no escort vs interceptors? Or heck, with escort as they are attacked either way.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 22

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/3/2019 1:22:39 AM

Hubert Cater

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

The defending Carrier in this case will defend with its base Bomber Defense or BD value (no researched upgraded values applied in this case), i.e. if the attackers are of target type Bomber which a Tactical Bomber would be, as well as a Carrier in Naval Tactical mode.

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 7/3/2019 1:25:06 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 23

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/3/2019 1:28:12 AM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

The defending Carrier in this case will defend with its base Bomber Defense or BD value (no researched upgraded values applied in this case), i.e. if the attackers are of target type Bomber which a Tactical Bomber would be, as well as a Carrier in Naval Tactical mode.

I think you misunderstand me or I missed something. The CAP attacks the Naval/Tactical. It uses the Advanced Fighters level. What do the attacking planes use in defense.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 24

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/3/2019 10:31:34 AM

Hubert Cater

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

Ah yes, and in this case it would be the base Fighter Defense value or FD with no researched upgraded values applied.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 25

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/3/2019 6:21:39 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Correct, and to answer your last question, no, and this is because they are in naval tactical mode. This is the trade off of using naval attack, i.e. higher potential attack damage, but you are exposed if you do not have air superiority, and especially so if you don't have any protective escorts to intercept the interceptors etc.

Hi Hubert,

Thanks for your replies.

So what about carriers in mixed mode? Do they attack with the same higher potential attack with naval weaponry upgrades as when in full naval/tactical mode, or slightly lower because of being in mixed mode?
Are the Cap mode benefits also slightly lower than when in full Cap mode?

I'm trying to understand the benefits and trade offs for being in mixed mode versus full naval/tactical and full Cap mode.

Thanks,

C

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 26

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/4/2019 3:53:02 PM

celebrindal

Posts: 314
Joined: 2/26/2005
Status: offline

I have to admit, I'd like to know what the axis player did to kick butt so well. Granted I've only been playing AI games but so far the allies have always nuked the nuts out of the axis by mid to late 43. My current game I'm holding the US at bay in the Pacific, and am on the verge of killing the Chinese, but it's a moot point as my German AI partner is about to die.. I find it odd that the CPU has no problems landing this kinda force in France in mid 43. Is there something wrong with the AI's?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by celebrindal -- 7/4/2019 3:54:04 PM >

_____________________________

Order is nothing more than Chaos on a bad day.

Dave

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 27

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/5/2019 1:17:33 AM

Hubert Cater

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

quote:

So what about carriers in mixed mode? Do they attack with the same higher potential attack with naval weaponry upgrades as when in full naval/tactical mode, or slightly lower because of being in mixed mode?
Are the Cap mode benefits also slightly lower than when in full Cap mode?

Correct, full naval tactical is the best for a tactical strike, full fighter mode is the best for escorts and interceptions, and mix is literally half way between both settings where you get a bit of both.

_____________________________

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 28

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/5/2019 1:20:36 AM

Hubert Cater

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

quote:

I find it odd that the CPU has no problems landing this kinda force in France in mid 43. Is there something wrong with the AI's?

This is one area that I spent a lot of time ensuring it would do a good job since it is quite critical to the game play experience, so good to see that it is indeed doing a good job in your game as you've noted.

In terms of '43, this could be because it didn't do the Torch landings which provided additional units to land early for D-Day, or the AI simply had some luck with Research, i.e. Industrial Modifiers for both the UK and the US that allowed it to build up enough units to meet the minimum threshold of units needed to make that landing in 1943.

_____________________________

(in reply to celebrindal)

Post #: 29

RE: complete Allied failure in my PBEM game - 7/5/2019 3:56:57 AM

countrboy

Posts: 213
Joined: 9/26/2015
Status: offline

quote:

This is one area that I spent a lot of time ensuring it would do a good job since it is quite critical to the game play experience, so good to see that it is indeed doing a good job in your game as you've noted.

In terms of '43, this could be because it didn't do the Torch landings which provided additional units to land early for D-Day, or the AI simply had some luck with Research, i.e. Industrial Modifiers for both the UK and the US that allowed it to build up enough units to meet the minimum threshold of units needed to make that landing in 1943.

Just in this regard (and apologies for hijacking the thread), does the AI Axis ever attempt Overlord? Sometimes I have only 2 air units in the UK and still there's no Overlord.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 30

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> complete Allied failure in my PBEM game

Page: [1]