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

hellraiser1973
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:57 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by hellraiser1973 »

Titan , i was not referring necessarily to your post but rather I got this feeling after reading a lot of other threads. Sorry if you felt singled out by my remarks ;)
Keenan
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:42 pm

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Keenan »

ORIGINAL: Titan
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.
You could not go more wrong than that. But this is just my very personal opinion.

Maybe re-reading your own comment, you might recognize that claiming you had "given him Kudo's for his acheivements" followed by the implicit judgement that he is not a "strategic grandmaster" but rather one of those individuals who exploit game weaknesses does not sound really classy. Maybe I just got you wrong here....

I think Sugar mentioned the ingredients that currently make him the most difficult opponent for SC3 in this forum before: Experience with SC2. Detailed knowledge on SC3 game mechanics and additionally the 1939 scenario (events, event triggers). That`s why he is currently winning games on Axis and Allied side. And this is why this is still the case even though opponents mimik his playing style or come up with random prone strategies. And that does not require this game to be broken or strategically one dimensional.

To not revise history to extremes, in this game there are not too many strategies that allow an Axis Victory against a competent Allied player. Using operational movement (not only for air units) properly is a necessary tool for most of them. "Teleporting" Air units costs MPP, unit combat strength (readiness) and attack moves. In addition weather poses risks to it too. Done properly it gives you a extra local boost a few times per game. Yes, it can cripple a coastal invasion, yes it can crush the defenses of an strategic objective. But it`s not the Swiss army knife to save the day under any circumstances. To know when and where to enable and apply which tactics is more strategy than tactics to me.

Just my two cents.

hellraiser1973
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:57 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by hellraiser1973 »

Very good point, Keenan.

Since its debut with SC1, this strategic series employed certain abstractizations and concepts which more or less remained unchanged to this day and which, IMO, provide us with a very enjoyable game.
Both sides benefit of certain tools to try to achieve their objectives:

Axis
1. Stronger starting position and stronger economy early on
2. Being a continental power they make better use of inner lines of communication/transport which allow rapid redeployment of units across the territory they control. Here we got the so called "teleporting" of units - if we think a SC turn is 2 weeks (correct me if i am wrong), maybe it doesn't sound that far fetched. Okay, IRL, if you operate 4 panzergruppen, 5 armies, 3 HQs from Kiew to Paris in 2 weeks - that is not gonna happen not because trains are too slow but because there ain't no rails and trains to accomodate that in the first place :D - but in the game both sides can do it - UK/USA can operate from washington/london all the way to Arabia or Persia, in one turn as well. If both sides can do it, it is more or less balanced (admittedly Germany can employ it more efficiently, but it is not a game breaker by any means). OFC there are ways around it like going for 1 week turns and halving the operational movement to make it look more real but I, frankly, don't have a problem with it.
Operating a unit, besides the visible mpp cost and readiness/morale hit, also has an opportunity cost associated with it - what would the unit have achieved if it stayed and fought on site versus what it may achieve once it is operated on a new front.
3. Troops/HQs experience is high - the benefit of fighting since 1939 - this is quite a challenge for the Allied player, many times the combat rolls are ridiculous in favour of Axis so the allied player has to go the long way in order to kill them - got for supply, go for HQs, fight in low Axis supply areas, etc.
4. Ability to apply massive force in an area of its choosing - this last item more or less sums up the main Axis tactics in this game after all.

Allies

1. Slower economic start, ramping up collosally after USA and Russia are in the game - by design, Allies favourite strategy will be drawing Germany into an attrition war she cannot win. Allies will win, not by employing super experienced troops but by employing lots of them and having the ability to replace quickly anything Axis kills.
2. Ability to act in virtual any corner of the map via amphibious landing supported by their powerful navies. A very strong tool, almost on par with germany's use of inner lines for operational movement. And modelled as abstract as the op move is, as well - can you imagine embarking in NYC on a landing ship and crossing the Atlantic and land and conduct combat? Or going thru a wormhole in the middle of the ocean and appearing in the red sea/persian gulf? :) Certain concepts have to be abstractized, there is no way around it.
3. Ability to employ the "total air war" strategy. In contrast to Axis, which can build just a couple of strategic bombers, the Allies can use scores of them to ruin the Axis mpps and wreck their lines of communication/supply. The strategy is less likely to work in a fast game but once the game stalled a little bit, this can be a decisive factor.
4. Op movement - yes this tool is available to them as well - Russia makes use better of it first, then once the Wallies gain ground in europe, they can employ efficiently as well.

So each side has certain strengths and weaknesses, make use of abstract concepts which may seem unrealistic but are totally necessary in a game like this - all in all a pretty well done game and enjoyable experience.
Titan
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: new Zealand
Contact:

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Titan »

That all sounds very impressive from the pair of you....However, regardless of that thoughtfulness of trying to justify something strategically deep into this, it still comes down to over powered air armada's having far to much influence on the results and those that have mastered the management of that have a huge advantage over the rest and as we see rarely lose. All i need to do is read the top two threads and it says it all (Luftwaffe everywhere etc). Any WW2 game that will allow a player to leave large strategic areas unmanned with the knowledge that the rapid teleportation of Air power and some ground units to wipe out a D-Day or some other ground offensive has missed the mark. The game has just about everything else spot on but really needs to rethink Air power once that is done then we will find out who the strategic field marshals are around here, to date we just have some experienced players who know the system and how to take advantage of it.
hellraiser1973
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:57 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by hellraiser1973 »

But don't the allies enjoy the same benefit as axis? Even more i may say.
Yes luftwaffe everywhere during the first 2 years of the war but once the allies start producing they outnumber axis airfleets massively and they can deploy their airwings anywhere on the map as well.
The better combat odds for Luftwaffe might be the issue but those are because of more experienced HQs and airunits (fighting since 1939 helps a ton).
Regarding the "ahistorical" behaviour of easily throwing into the sea a D-day - well, historical D-Day was on june 6th 1944. How many H2H games reach that point? Do you think that IRL if the Wallies attempted a D-DAY in 41, 42 or 43 they would have pulled it off?
OTOH if one really wants to experience a different air war, he can always either modify combat values of airfleets or even decrease the hardcap per country - the game allows you that. But don't be surprised if the game becomes unbalanced or a trench warfare type.
User avatar
LLv34Mika
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:18 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by LLv34Mika »

The only problem I see (of course both sides can do it) is that you can attack air units on ground too easily. Once the Germans have reached long range 3 - 5 it becomes harder and harder to hide. Once more or less every air technology is at max level (ground attack, fighter tech, long range) you can not even hide your HQs and air units in southern Scotland.

There might be one solution: let air groups retreat! What commander would sit there and wait for more and more attacks? If the attacked air group retreats two HEX that would be a great solution.

The HQ thing is another problem if you ask me. Considering that a HQ is a small group of less than 50 persons that should be a unit almost impossible to locate. They can move, they can hide, they can switch positions,... Of course everyone tries to take out an HQ if possible because the game allows to do so and it is the most effective way to beat your enemy. But it is not really what should be the primary objective in the game. The solution would be that HQs can not be spotted by air units. If a ground unit gets close enough that is something different.

We have to deal with the situation we have but I'd love so see/try a change in future games.
"Oderint, dum metuant."
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Sugar »

HQs are representing the whole logistical component of an entire army as well, not only the staff. And do you really recommend to prevent the destruction of the most dangerous units? Why don't you do it to your opponent in the first place? I really don`t get it anymore.

It`s already very difficult to destroy units, should it be completely impossible?

An example from an ongoing game:

Image[/img]

No HQ-support, nearly no xp, entrenchement 1, supply 2.

Image[/img]

Highly experienced, highly experienced HQ, good supply, fair weather, prediction 1:0 (not even 1:1, nor to speak of 0:1). That`s the issue of the game after diminishing all attack values compared to the predecessor (not to mention the action points). Guess what happens if you're additionally crippling the attack values- or opportunities of bombers. Finally, the Allies don`t lose units anymore, thanks to pure military genius.
User avatar
nnason
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:47 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by nnason »

Sugar,
Thanks for the excellent example.
Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired
User avatar
Markiss
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Location: US Midwest

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Markiss »

There is nothing wrong with the game. No game of any complexity can be made completely exploit-proof. If the issues currently being experienced are addressed, players who are so inclined will simply find other rules to exploit.
Ultimately, it is up to the players to decide how they are going to play the game. Some will always exploit every possible rule to give them the best chance to win, even if it means ruining the other players gaming experience. Others will play within historical boundaries, regardless of the rules, because that is the way they feel the game should be played. Most of these are interested in exploring realistic alternative scenarios for WW2, not just winning.
When one of these types plays the other, neither is likely to enjoy the game. The ultra-competitive exploiter will be bored with an easy game, and the historical player is likely to feel cheated.
I believe the final solution is to separate these 2 groups. Maybe we could have a "historical" tournament with some basic house rules for the people who prefer to play that way, and an "unlimited" tournament for the people who prefer to play wide open. Both types of players could find opponents that would give them the kind of game they want, without having to deal with those who don't.
Or, as an alternative, we could keep having unsatisfying games and complaining about it on this forum.

Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
User avatar
LLv34Mika
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:18 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by LLv34Mika »

I don't see what you are trying to say

is this a Romanian Corps with 1 XP point and attached to a HQ with 3 XP? vs a low readiness unit with 1 entrenchment in a city with no experience at all? And your combat prediction was 0:1 against you?

What year is it in this game btw?
"Oderint, dum metuant."
MrLongleg
Posts: 715
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Plymouth, MA, USA

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by MrLongleg »

I still think the game is an excellent strategy game. The beaming around of air units is available to both sides. For example I can often rescue Egypt by sending the American air force in the last minute. The game is not a simulation, but overall is is quite well balanced. It is demanding and not easy to master and requires lots of tough decisions. Sugar is just somebody who really plays it well, and I was on the receiving end too. I hopefully learned a trick or two. I am playing this game for years now and it never grows boring. Right now I have 3 matches going on in parallel.
MrLongleg

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)
Goodmongo
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:56 pm

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Goodmongo »

I have no problem with what Sugar is doing. He is playing a game and playing it to win. To try and change things up by saying he should play "historical" is kind of silly in my opinion. Any two players can agree on any house rules they want. But if there is no agreement then the game is what it is. This is especially true as he's willing to play either side.

Reminds me of other MP games like HOI and Starcraft. Just because I might want to prohibit certain things or play at a different speed doesn't mean I'm right. So I get into games where I agree on the rules beforehand and if not I don't play. There is nothing forcing you to play Sugar if you don't like his tactics.
Goodmongo
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:56 pm

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Goodmongo »

Sugar, if you read this what are your strategies for research? Also, do you take all air before HQ's and armor or is it mixed?
Hartmann301
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:12 pm
Location: USA

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Hartmann301 »

How does going slow and starting late in Russia work for him? Sorry but I didn't have time to read most of this thread.
User avatar
Rannug61
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:48 pm

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Rannug61 »

Very well, the Russians believe things are going fine but in 1942 the card house falls apart. Sometime during 1943 all the major Russian cities are axis and victory is only an index finger click away.
"En svensk tiger"
Hartmann301
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:12 pm
Location: USA

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Hartmann301 »

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Sugar, if you read this what are your strategies for research? Also, do you take all air before HQ's and armor or is it mixed?


I too would like to know how he does his research.
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Sugar »

I`m selling rockets and anti-tank, and log. with Italy. I`m using them to influence Spain and buy Int. with Italy. I don`t buy any units for France except a mar. b.. If I had enough money I'd buy 1 german HQ, but research has the first priority: tac. bombers, tanks, fighters, Inf., Ind., in this order.

This is exclusively regarding PbEM, in which case I tend to adjust my strategy on my opponent's behavior. There is no pattern to generalize under all circumstances. It's best to train flexibility to be able to counter all your opponents moves. Think quickly, and do whatever is necessary to achieve a specific goal. Of course your research has to follow your general strategy, if you're planning Seelöwe, amphib. warfare is necessary.

I´m buying units for Barbarossa in order of their duration, with the longest at first. All tac.b., fighters and tanks as well as 2 HQs should be ordered before the arrival of the DAK (or 1 HQ, if Log. 2 is ready before Barbarossa). Against experienced opponents an italian mar. b. is also required for spotting purpose.

I'm trying to get the med. bomb. also, but usually in PbEM you won't receive any finnish convoy income, and to reduce investments I'm possibly buying arty instead at first.

I'm planning for a very early Barbarossa in May 41, but more urgent is the diplo outcome in Spain. Once the SU is at war, US mob. will increase, and after their joining no further hits in Spain are possible. If necessary I'm waiting until Sept., during mud or snow the destruction of the mob. units is unlikely.
User avatar
rodney727
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Iowa

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by rodney727 »

Vanity, thy name is Sugar,
[8D]
ORIGINAL: Sugar
Has anyone ever played the Sugar plan against Sugar

Sure, and I won all my Allied games also. The plan is mainly to conquer the victory objectives asap, with some variants regarding a Mediterranian strategy and the general approach of air superioty.

The balancing's fine, like it was in Breakthrough SoE. The difference is my experience of more than 70 PbEMs SC3 and more than 200 of Breakthrough, including SoE, and of 12 years with SC alltogether.
"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943
User avatar
rodney727
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Iowa

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by rodney727 »

All of this is of course unrealistic, which is why I hardly ever play the vanilla game. Sugar has the same game plan. Wash rinse and repeat, no strategy in that. Just getting back into this game from years away. Enjoying the 1938 mod. For me it simulates the great oil problem of WW2. The German army was always 3 months away from total shutdown from lack of oil.
"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943
Schokolokos
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:16 pm
Location: Switzerland

RE: The Sugar war machine

Post by Schokolokos »

Tactical Bombers with tech 0 against any unit with AA upgraded are completely useless.

I dont think the Axis have higher chances to win games against good players.

Btw, in World at War this is not a problem at all, relocating airplanes cost the double, almost 100 MPP (depends on their tech lvl and logistic research)



Edit: this was a post replying to Titan, proposing German Tac bombers lvl 0 only, but this post vanished.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”