The Sugar war machine

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

Bolko
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:06 pm

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Bolko »

I don't know, its pretty expensive to teleport air units around the board. I don't think the cost is the issue. By the way, I am currently being toasted by Sugar while I am playing the Axis and yes he is doing this with his air. And we are only in France. But I made a ton of mistakes that I don't normally make. Probably because I knew I was up against Sugar!

Maybe a greater readiness penalty for air that is operated. This should last a turn with a faster recovery. That might be more realistic but I don't know how it would effect play.

I think the way the game handles operating units is just right. It is good "design for effect". I have played tons of wargames (you know, real old timey wargames with paper maps usually covered in hexes and cardboard counters and charts etc.) and its hard to get that soupcon of the unknown where suddenly the Russians have mustered a new army and just as suddenly the Germans have a reposite. The games that work best have something akin to operating units. The context is definitely there for this mechanic.
Titan
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: new Zealand
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Titan »

He has mastered that aspect of the game, then zaps your Hq's which effects am even bigger part of your army. If the Airpower was bought more into line where it should be and this operating units one end to another turn aftr turn and perhaps a few other sensible tweeks that would bring this game more towards a game of manouvre and strategic thinking i think you would find your opponent is not to be feared as much as you may think..
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Sugar »

You're asking the wrong question. If Sugar can do this on either side, and everyone knows he does and succeeds, why don't they do it themselves?
The only answer is: self restraints. Look at my game against KZ, he had more aircraft in France than the Axis, but decided to not attack. Same in Russia on ground units, when the Luftwaffe was committed in the Middle East.
Dmondragon75
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:55 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Dmondragon75 »

He s just a best player by a mile(s).
Update 1 on his tactics - using tons of diplochits on USA, in our current game its october 42 and USA still on cca 60% which would historicaly be impossible, but still-this is not a ww2 simulation as someone noted🙃
Update 2 - he s sending heavy axis troops on Voronezh, obviously trying to cut USSR in 2 (railway) parts
User avatar
Markiss
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Location: US Midwest

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Markiss »

Originally posted by Sugar:
Breakthrough SoE shifts the focus to aircraft. I would prefer the opposite

Does this mean that you would be willing to play a game with limited aircraft? In the most fun game I ever had against the AI, I was playing Allied, put the Axis on "hard", and did not allow myself to buy any aircraft or aircraft tech, with soft build limits. It took forever to win!
I think it would be a blast to play a PBEM game the same way. It would be a knock-down, drag-out, bare knuckles brawl, decided by "push-of-pike" in the battle line rather than who can kill whose HQ with an air armada.
It could not be part of the tournament, of course, but it would be a riot. Maybe after the tournament is over, we can set-up a few games like this and see how people like it. I know I would.
The rules could be: You may keep any aircraft you start with, but may not buy more.
You can keep any aircraft tech that you start with(including tech already purchased), but you may not buy more.
Soft build limits(because you will need more tanks and such).
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Sugar »

Does this mean that you would be willing to play a game with limited aircraft?

No. This means, in Breakthrough Germany could have 10 tanks and 6 tac., heavy tanks or med. bombers weren't part of the game. Now Germany can have 7 + 1 tanks (and 3 heavy tanks, when it's too late), and 9 + 1 tac. and med. bombers. Tanks in Breakthrough had a speed of 6 instead of 5, and could be upgraded (mot.) twice; on a far smaller map than SC3. 10:6 versus 8:10 shifts the focus to bombers, and those russian infantrymen in Breakthrough weren't immune to tank attacks like they are now on the 3. lvl, hehe.
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by James Taylor »

A game of limited aircraft is not conducive to a WW2 style combat model, a variant of, sure, but not a realistic approach which is what my suggestion was about.

Logistics is what dictates the armed conflict, always will, IRL, it is undeniable, which is what the HQs in SC simulate. The limitations of what the HQs represent is the way to bring about a more accurate representation of WW2 combat mechanics.


And Sugar puts his pants on one leg at a time. As far as I know he's not an alien from outer space, if he's human the playing field is equal.


He's just our new Terif.
SeaMonkey
User avatar
Markiss
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Location: US Midwest

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Markiss »

Originally posted by James Taylor:
A game of limited aircraft is not conducive to a WW2 style combat model
I did not say that it was conducive to a WW2 style combat game, I said that it was conducive to fun. Nor did I suggest this as a way to beat Sugar, I'm sure that it would not effect the outcome, but it would be more fun getting to the outcome. I find titanic clashes of ground forces more fun to play-out than teleporting air armadas.
I suppose it was selfish of me to try to get someone to play a style I would enjoy more. As I play some PBEM games, it is occurring to me that in order to enjoy any success, I am going to have to adopt a gamey style of play that I deplore. I bet Sugar could win just buying aircraft and garrisons. Is THAT realistic?
Oh well, it's my problem.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by James Taylor »

The post wasn't a personal poke at you, Markiss, but a further support of the facts that govern the scenario I envision for more realism in SC air unit deployments.

My opinion and you're certainly aloud to have your own and I'm sure your version would be fun to play, evident the massive following of SC.

Imagine my restricted deployment as applied to the German early game. 17 air units possible in the build Q(F, TAC, Mdm)and 7 HQs with infrastructure upgrade.

That limitation demands that 5 HQs must be deployed to operate 15 aircraft and the map spacing allows for a greater dispersion which requires expenditure in the LR tech along with the infrastructure and the MPPs to manage the HQs' positioning.

It all means a greater commitment of resources to accomplish the same thing that is allowed now, which in real life Germany didn't have, but might have been able to pull off with more efficiency that hindsight graces us with.
SeaMonkey
Titan
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: new Zealand
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Titan »

I don't know if limiting aircraft etc is the answer, It would be interesting to see a game played with soft build etc...But since Tac is just so lethal and has too much influence on a game....perhaps have a house rule no tech advances allowed in ground attack or range so tac is always at 0 tech...That would limit the assassination of HQ's and limit the ability of tac a bit I would think....and perhaps you may have a WW2 game where the primary focus has shifted back to large scale ground combat and less of less of the Air fleets shifting around the globe wrecking destruction. Be interesting to see how that would go?...Just a thought.
Think of how much harder it would be for Germany to take out Malta..and as it should be. Just that alone would have an impact on game i would think
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by James Taylor »

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.
SeaMonkey
User avatar
Christolos
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Christolos »

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.

Exactly! For every strategy/tactic, there is a counter strategy/tactic. It’s called, trying to outsmart and defeat your opponent within the context of the game mechanics where each side has the possibility of winning, using the game mechanics. I particularly agree with the comments that mention that the game is not designed to simply replay history, as this would be very boring indeed, and we all know the history.

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-
Titan
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: new Zealand
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Titan »

ORIGINAL: Christolos

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.

Exactly! For every strategy/tactic, there is a counter strategy/tactic. It’s called, trying to outsmart and defeat your opponent within the context of the game mechanics where each side has the possibility of winning, using the game mechanics. I particularly agree with the comments that mention that the game is not designed to simply replay history, as this would be very boring indeed, and we all know the history.

C


Your missing the point!!!. The counter strategy thoughts are fine...But in this case it is very cost to build enough anti air to protect every HQ from Air attack...Which make air power even more effective if is going to consume huge amounts of MMP's to protect everything, Also Tac bombers generally get the jump on everything for the first turn as since the get teleported around the map and placed behind the lines, the victim in a lot of cases has no idea until the first attack is over. Your rational is fine...but Air power in the hands of someone who knows how to manage it well as in Sugars case negates alot of the counter strategy options.....that is why he is beating you all up. Negate the air power rules to something a little more realistic and i think you will see he will start to lose games. Example leaving the coast of France unprotected by a decent ground army and flying over Airfleets to wipe the invader out should give you an idea what a WW2 game is not...If only hitler could of done that on D-day. As a fine a game this it is could be a game of a much better strategic contest between players if it did something about the gamey nature of Airpower
User avatar
Markiss
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Location: US Midwest

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Markiss »

Originally posted by James Taylor:
You want to limit HQ assassination? Simple, park an anti-air unit with level 2 next to your HQ, cover it with a fighter with adv-air and upgrade your HQ to level 2 anti-air.

Oh, and I forgot, deploy said HQ in a city or fortification that also has level 2 anti-air.

I think you are over-estimating the effectiveness of AA in this game. Do you not think that everyone who has played against this style has tried that? When your HQ gets attacked by the air armada, it is facing 12-14 attacks. Your fighter will not protect you, nor will your AA. You may do a few pips of damage to the incoming aircraft, but your HQ is just as dead.
Currently, there is no counter to the air armada. That is why everyone is adopting that playing style, and why I fear that the PBEM incarnation of this game is broken, or at least not very fun.
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
Titan
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: new Zealand
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Titan »

Right on Markiss, hence why i dont play multi much...it's a little gamey in that respect. Even the operating vast armies across Europe in the blink of an eye needs to be revised. How long would it take to move just one Corp from Russia to France in WW2 and then be ready to fight? Anyway some changes to Air and that i think the game would be more of a strategic players masterpiece than what it is now....And players would certainly have to think about their plans a bit more other than relying there airpower prowess
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by sillyflower »

FWII mod goes some way to reduce airpower with 1 less tac (but 1 more med bomber I think) and a reduction in ground attack effectiveness. Still OP'd IMHO but not as badly.

The remaining bugbear is the 1 mentioned several times: instant transport around the globe. The a/c can do it time span of a 2 or 3 week turn IRL, but not the infrastructure + specialist support and supplies for sustained ops.
web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
User avatar
LLv34Mika
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:18 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by LLv34Mika »

That's something that should be easy to change.

Operating units reduces their readiness. If that would be increased it takes many turns to get the full strength again. Until then they are rather useless. The other idea (a bit more complex) would be to limit operating units as it works with transports. If you can only operate a number of X units (could work like transports so you can upgrade it with logistics) it would take a much longer time to operate 5 fighters, 8 bombers and 2 HQs.

Another penalty could be reducing XP when operating. As you can see there are many ways to tweak around. Would be interesting what Hubert or Bill think about that. Actually I really like my own idea about limiting the number of units that can be moved that way each turn. ;)

Mika
"Oderint, dum metuant."
User avatar
PJL1973
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:47 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by PJL1973 »

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

That's something that should be easy to change.

Operating units reduces their readiness. If that would be increased it takes many turns to get the full strength again. Until then they are rather useless. The other idea (a bit more complex) would be to limit operating units as it works with transports. If you can only operate a number of X units (could work like transports so you can upgrade it with logistics) it would take a much longer time to operate 5 fighters, 8 bombers and 2 HQs.

Another penalty could be reducing XP when operating. As you can see there are many ways to tweak around. Would be interesting what Hubert or Bill think about that. Actually I really like my own idea about limiting the number of units that can be moved that way each turn. ;)

Mika

I think making a bigger readiness penalty and limiting operational movement the same way as the number of transports as you described would both be good solutions to the mass teleportation problem.
hellraiser1973
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:57 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by hellraiser1973 »

Funny thread....brings back VERY old memories of SC1 and 2 - back then we had Terif, a very smart individual, endowed with a lot of patience, strategic sense and an amazing sense of timing. Yes , TIMING - the most important skill which differentiates a good SC player from a master.
At some point, certain people, who were losing all the time vs him, starting throwing punches under the belt - he was a game exploiter, he played the same "cookie cutter" axis strategy - ofc the game was broken!!! He also won pretty much all his games playing as the "weaker" side, the allies against a "broken" axis side. But the "broken" game was the reason for his 90%+ positive record in H2H...really...

To some extent it is happening again in SC3 it seems. The H2H scene has a player that has an impressive winning record (many congratulations to you, Sugar) that has a "cookie cutter" axis strategy but somehow wins his allied games as well. And some folks here talk about nerfing tac bombers or other various game parameters. So tweak them until he loses some games then the game is not "broken" anymore? :D
Is it not more simple to accept that a intelligent player who devotes time to study the game (and its mechanics), read the game documentation, probably tests stuff extensively, has a good strategic and timing sense, actually should have an upperhand in this game compared to folks who don't put in all the efforts?
To me this comes from a personal experience - i played Terif back in the day several times, had some close games but won only one of them (playing the allies vs his cookie cutter axis) and i won not because the game was broken but because i really upped my patience level, paid close attention to every details on the game map and took the right decisions. I think this should be the right attitude, not complaining about other things to find excuses for a loss.

So take it this way - this smart, knowledgeable, patient individual who is winning almost all his games in SC3, set the bar VERY high, developed sound strategies, within the game rules, and the players who wanna win against him really have to put in additional efforts. This should be a pleasant challenge not a reason to complain about how the game is broken.
Titan
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: new Zealand
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Titan »

Hellraiser, Clearly you are referring to myself.....I have never made any of those comments regarding Sugar, in fact i have given him Kudo's for his acheivements. What i have said he has exposed a weakness in this games design with the winning strategy to be one dimensional. To win this game it boils done to the use of Air power and managing the teleporting from one place to another. That is all. That is as deep as this game really gets as far as a strategic game goes. In my book WW2 had alot more to it than that...I think there was such a thing as ground combat and involving large battles as a result of manouvering and out manouvering your opponent to get an advantage...Sugar has discovered that winning this game that is not as important as teleporting planes all over the map killing off hotspots and HQ's and allows him to even leave Europe ungarrisoned. That is all.....Therefore this from what i gather is themed to be a WW2 game and one would think a combination of ground air and sea is what won WW2 and leaving france unocuppied and have the ability to kill off an invasion by teleporting a mass of planes over should pretty much say it all. This game needs some fixing if it is a WW2 game...otherwise it might was well be strategic starcraft or some other fantasy game.

Some games do have a weakness and they tend to always attract one or two indivuals who have the time and are clever enough to work that weakness out and exploit it as is the case here. That has nothing to do with being a strategic grandmaster.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”