Some reflections on the game

[gamer78]

I think you should be respectful and re-read my post first. I didn't mention changing game system&fixes or anything... I'm playing SC games when it was in Battlefront. SC Breakthrough still my favourite. I'm not new player either.

"This forum and the comments above are very tame in criticism compared to most. Every game forum has crusty veterans who give new players grief. "

This was my point. PvtBenjamin wrote.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin


Don't blame the game because you are new to the game, learn how to be better. Ask serious questions and you'll get serious answers.

But didn't understand this part. Not new player, Didn't blame game. Well I know how to ask questions as a serious matrix trooper.. [;)]

[Emporer]

Hi

Another solution to limit the abuse of an attacker is to limit the swap thing. The swap thing should only be allowed if the frontline unit haven’t attacked yet. If the frontline unit already attacked the swap should not be allowed. To withdraw units of the sizes as in the game, take a lot of time. The swap thing should only be allowed if the frontline unit haven’t attacked yet. If the frontline unit already attacked the swap should not be allowed.
Two things can happen when you commence an attack with ground units.
1. The defender withstands your attack and remain in the hex and the attacker are bogged down. This can be changed if another unit dislodge or eliminate the same defending unit. Than the former attacker can continue their move, otherwise it’s a halt with no more movement points. Remember all things happens within the game turn.
2. The defender is dislodged or eliminated, then the attacker can continue their move.
This limitation will also make the support units as air support, artillery etc to be of higher importance for the warefare than today.

The navy battles are in my opinion a little weird and I think they can improve it to.
After the fight has started the two combatants are locked into each other and no one else other than support units as carrier should be allowed to attack the defending unit in that turn. This will give the defender a chance to retreat from the battle and have some chance to survive instead of being overwhelmed. It also gives the game a better pace on naval warfare in my point of view.
The retreat should then be able to execute through enemy lines with half of the unit’s movement points before it should be stopped by other vessels.
Other naval issue is that the retreat path looks weird, many times the unit retreat it’s moving deeper into enemy areas.

This is my suggestions to improve this game, feel free to comment this subject.

Cheers

[PvtBenjamin]

As I mentioned I think the ground battle component of the game works very well.

You need to focus on entrenchment, morale, readiness, experience, HQs & supply. Many of these 6 are intertwined, once you master them the ground game will work much better.

The Axis air component is the strongest part of the game and doesnt need to be any stronger.


We agree on the naval component.

The naval game isn't the best, it could use some work. The submarines are silly strong even with 0 supply in v1.15, as mentioned above much of this is improving in v 1.16. IMO the naval game is at the lower end of the games importance in the European game (blocking convoys - supporting amphibs- reducing ground supply - protecting AF from carriers). If the convoy is being blocked just shut it down to 0. The rest of the game is fantastic so I overlook the shortcomings of the naval game and just try to make sure it isn't a large detriment.

Blind running into other units and taking massive damage (especially when they are 0 supply subs) is very annoying. You have to use the subs to locate. I'm impatient and cant move all my naval units one hex at a time.

The Carriers and Maritime bombers are awesome if used correctly.


Just a few thoughts.

enjoy

[Emporer]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

As I mentioned I think the ground battle component of the game works very well.

You need to focus on entrenchment, morale, readiness, experience, HQs & supply. Many of these 6 are intertwined, once you master them the ground game will work much better.

The Axis air component is the strongest part of the game and doesnt need to be any stronger.


We agree on the naval component.

The naval game isn't the best, it could use some work. The submarines are silly strong even with 0 supply in v1.15, as mentioned above much of this is improving in v 1.16. IMO the naval game is at the lower end of the games importance in the European game (blocking convoys - supporting amphibs- reducing ground supply - protecting AF from carriers). If the convoy is being blocked just shut it down to 0. The rest of the game is fantastic so I overlook the shortcomings of the naval game and just try to make sure it isn't a large detriment.

Blind running into other units and taking massive damage (especially when they are 0 supply subs) is very annoying. You have to use the subs to locate. I'm impatient and cant move all my naval units one hex at a time.

The Carriers and Maritime bombers are awesome if used correctly.


Just a few thoughts.

enjoy

Sorry but you still don't have a clue what Im talking about.
About the game mechanics I know very well how it works and thats why I give some ideas to improvements.
I agree naval battles unfortunally really sucks, but beside that it has a potential to be a great game.


Cheers

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Emporer


Sorry but you still don't have a clue what Im talking about.
About the game mechanics I know very well how it works and thats why I give some ideas to improvements.


Cheers

Well so much for Mr Niceguy

Actually I completely understand what you are talking about and its idiotic and doubt you understand the mechanics.

[sPzAbt653]

I think you should be respectful

I was referring to the part I quoted, that veteran players have made some impolite answers. Just a misunderstanding, all is good.

[elxaime]

I think probably some of the frustration surfacing is due to the fact that differing skill levels can really make a huge difference, especially in the global war version. A smart person who is a student of WW2, but is new to Strategic Command, can stand aghast as they watch what seemed to be a solid strategy taken apart by an expert player who understands down to the mathematical level how game systems work. You could bring Viscount Montgomery of Alamein back from the dead and pit him against a 10 year old who knew how the game works and Monty would get demolished.

I think this is a strength of the game and a weakness. A strength, in that it encourages and rewards creativity and analysis and increases replay value. A weakness in that, I have found, when playing someone at expert level you feel less and less like you are simulating WW2 and more like you are playing "the game." You HAVE to do certain things a certain way or get left in the dust. For example, the way expert players will cannibalize research at the start of the game to pour it into infantry, tanks and aircraft. Or roll the dice on wild diplomatic offensives that, if they succeed, more or less can end the game in 1941.

Some of these issues can and are being debated, like this one. But the tension is natural. No one is "right" or "wrong" here. The system made some choices and not everyone can be satisfied. You make the game more complex or "realistic" (another loaded term) and you lose some of its playability and accessibility.

[Emporer]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

ORIGINAL: Emporer


Sorry but you still don't have a clue what Im talking about.
About the game mechanics I know very well how it works and thats why I give some ideas to improvements.


Cheers

Well so much for Mr Niceguy

Actually I completely understand what you are talking about and its idiotic and doubt you understand the mechanics.

PvtBenjamin, I don't really care what you think and it is completely irrelevant.

I was hoping for a constructive discussion on this thread but it looks like I'm wrong. The sad thing is that many comments here have nothing to do with the subject of this thread about some features in the game.
We can agree or disagree about ideas, but the important thing is that the forum is open to everyone and where we can express our ideas. I am convinced that the forum like this is a good source for the design team to improve the game.
Unfortunately, it looks like some people are trying to control this forum for themselves and that is not good. Every forum must be open to everyone and where we can share our ideas.

As elxamin said, "No one is" right "or" wrong "here. The only "idiotic" here are people who cannot accept others when expressing their ideas.

The good thing about the game is it's very easy to modify but not everything, so sometimes it ends with compromises that can be annoying.

Having said that, I have to ask you guys to stick the subject on this thread or leave it.

Cheers

[Edorf]

I`m a bit unsure what the op is trying to achieve with this attemt to discuss the game. If a single person is presenting issues with the game, that`s not reported from anyone else, I really doubt these reworks is really needed. Using words like "my biggest problem", "highly unrealistic" and telling that the game really needs to be improved is to me more like expression of dissatisfaction. Coming in like this is a sure way to ignite some unwanted responses I guess.

[MVokt]

Wargames are only games and I agree that terms like "realistic" or "unrealistic" are hardly appropriate to define anything in a wargame which is only that, a game. So playability and balance must count much more than "realism".

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Emporer

1. Limitation attack on each unit
There should be a limitation in how many attacks a unit need to absorb in one turn. 1 attack from each different branch unit on a single unit should be enough. This limitation should be valid for all units from different branches type of unit as, example ground units, artillery, air attacks and naval attacks. This because of the limitation in the game system, turn based system.
It´s highly unrealistic to have unlimited attacks on 1 single unit. This will also give other units than a single units more importance in the warfare.
This mean that a single unit can have the following attacks on it to absorb:
Attack from 1 ground unit (Inf, mech, armor, special, cav etc)
Attack from 1 support unit (artillery)
Attack from 1 Surface Naval unit or 1 submarine
Attack from 1 air units attack or 1 carrier unit

2. Encircled units
It should not be possibile to be reinforce Units that are encircled.

cheers

Hi Emporer,

Welcome to the game and I hope you are enjoying it.

1) As others have mentioned in this thread, what you've suggested here is likely to be too restrictive and as a result would in turn cause you some difficulty in maintaining an effective offensive and historical timelines.

Natural resistance to these suggestions would of course be coming from anyone that has played the game for a length of time, and many players that play head to head matches refer to game balance, and as developers, this is something we've worked hard to achieve since release over 2 years ago. Major changes like what you've proposed here would unfortunately take a long time to test and sort out, and this is not an excuse to not try something like this, but for those that have played for a long time, it is fairly conceivable that they would have a pretty good feel on what would work and what wouldn't, right off the bat sort of thing. As developers we would of course have our own opinions and are very careful of what we change as well.

And as others have mentioned here, it is not necessarily about right or wrong, but after years of discussion and debate on game rules/mechanics, and years of playing the game, it shouldn't be too surprising that some will feel strongly, and that some would have a pretty good idea of what would or would not work, or possibly be an improvement (or not) in game.

One suggestion I could make, and this may or may not change your opinion, would be to play test your proposed changes (with self restriction on attacks/swaps being applied as you've outlined) starting with the 1939 campaign in Hotseat mode and see how it goes. The battles for Poland, the Low Countries and France should quickly paint a better picture on your proposed mechanisms, versus the current defaults.

In the end you might still feel what you feel about the game, or perhaps, you might also then see some validity in what others have mentioned in their critiques of these suggestions.

2) This all depends on the definition of encircled as supply also plays a factor in game. Fully encircled and cut off from supply and this is indeed the case, i.e. a unit cannot reinforce unless it draws supply from an HQ, whereas if a unit can draw some supply from a city/town, then it will have limited reinforcement, and reinforcemnt can be further reduced through attrition and depending upon how many enemy units end up adjacent an encircled town/city as well.

This allows us to model a variety of things in game such as Leningrad, D-Day, as well as when a unit/resource is properly surrounded.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I think you should be respectful

I was referring to the part I quoted, that veteran players have made some impolite answers. Just a misunderstanding, all is good.

Thank you regards.

ORIGINAL: elxaime

I have found, when playing someone at expert level you feel less and less like you are simulating WW2 and more like you are playing "the game." You HAVE to do certain things a certain way or get left in the dust. For example, the way expert players will cannibalize research at the start of the game to pour it into infantry, tanks and aircraft. Or roll the dice on wild diplomatic offensives that, if they succeed, more or less can end the game in 1941.

I'm playing with expert player in World at War and feels like certain moves should be made at least in early turns. British economy destroyed from full navy raiding in Egypt&Australia and İndia etc..effected Russia and GB research in long run. This raiding is maybe difficult to prevent than to perform. Generally I like the WEGO turns the most.

[Emporer]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: Emporer

1. Limitation attack on each unit
There should be a limitation in how many attacks a unit need to absorb in one turn. 1 attack from each different branch unit on a single unit should be enough. This limitation should be valid for all units from different branches type of unit as, example ground units, artillery, air attacks and naval attacks. This because of the limitation in the game system, turn based system.
It´s highly unrealistic to have unlimited attacks on 1 single unit. This will also give other units than a single units more importance in the warfare.
This mean that a single unit can have the following attacks on it to absorb:
Attack from 1 ground unit (Inf, mech, armor, special, cav etc)
Attack from 1 support unit (artillery)
Attack from 1 Surface Naval unit or 1 submarine
Attack from 1 air units attack or 1 carrier unit

2. Encircled units
It should not be possibile to be reinforce Units that are encircled.

cheers

Hi Emporer,

Welcome to the game and I hope you are enjoying it.

1) As others have mentioned in this thread, what you've suggested here is likely to be too restrictive and as a result would in turn cause you some difficulty in maintaining an effective offensive and historical timelines.

Natural resistance to these suggestions would of course be coming from anyone that has played the game for a length of time, and many players that play head to head matches refer to game balance, and as developers, this is something we've worked hard to achieve since release over 2 years ago. Major changes like what you've proposed here would unfortunately take a long time to test and sort out, and this is not an excuse to not try something like this, but for those that have played for a long time, it is fairly conceivable that they would have a pretty good feel on what would work and what wouldn't, right off the bat sort of thing. As developers we would of course have our own opinions and are very careful of what we change as well.

And as others have mentioned here, it is not necessarily about right or wrong, but after years of discussion and debate on game rules/mechanics, and years of playing the game, it shouldn't be too surprising that some will feel strongly, and that some would have a pretty good idea of what would or would not work, or possibly be an improvement (or not) in game.

One suggestion I could make, and this may or may not change your opinion, would be to play test your proposed changes (with self restriction on attacks/swaps being applied as you've outlined) starting with the 1939 campaign in Hotseat mode and see how it goes. The battles for Poland, the Low Countries and France should quickly paint a better picture on your proposed mechanisms, versus the current defaults.

In the end you might still feel what you feel about the game, or perhaps, you might also then see some validity in what others have mentioned in their critiques of these suggestions.

2) This all depends on the definition of encircled as supply also plays a factor in game. Fully encircled and cut off from supply and this is indeed the case, i.e. a unit cannot reinforce unless it draws supply from an HQ, whereas if a unit can draw some supply from a city/town, then it will have limited reinforcement, and reinforcemnt can be further reduced through attrition and depending upon how many enemy units end up adjacent an encircled town/city as well.

This allows us to model a variety of things in game such as Leningrad, D-Day, as well as when a unit/resource is properly surrounded.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

Hi Hubert

Thanks for a constructive answer and absolutly it's a good game but still there are room for improvments but I enyoy it a lot.

The swap thing can be stoped easy. It's modable to what I want to achive but it comes to a cost. If an increase enogh in the attack cost it wont any longer be possible to swap the unit in the front because of the cost for the attack (but it looks that weak defending unit dosn't block this wich is good I assume the brakeven for this parameter is also unit strenght of 6 and above.). But cost is the attacker wount be able to occupy the vacant hex. So in short shouldn't it allways be possible for an attacker to occupy the vacant heax after the the attack regardless how many action points a unit has left?
If that would be possible it should solve the problem.

Today is the parameter for cost of attack limited to only 8 action points, would it possible to change that to say 25-50 instead. It wouldn't give any impact to the normal game but it would help in modding the game.

Cheers

[Sugar]

Hi Emperor,

sorry if my reaction has been too harsh, in general everybods suggestion are highly welcome, rookie or not. At least I didn't had the impression of a very thoutful demand, since it would seriously limit the attacking side in its opportunities. Personally I try to avoid swapping units anyway because of the already given downsides.

My tension had already been raised after reading the changes in V 1.16, where after long discussions the efficiency of bombers will be strongly reduced (not to mention the downgrade of subs, both hurting balancing especially for one side), and that after former changes were made very carefully, with minor but obviously satisfying outcomes. After not taking part in the belonging discussions I felt triggered to raise my voice again to prevent further catastrophes in balancing, especially since my own suggestions had not been considered.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Sugar,

Thanks for your posts as well, and sometimes despite the case for balance, there are some changes that we felt needed to be made due to them being perceived on our end as valid criticisms, that if we adjust just right can ideally improve gameplay for both sides. Your point on it potentially affecting balance is also valid, but we do feel that overall the changes will even out while at the same time fix a few areas that we felt could be implemented a little bit better.

For example, while the sub and air unit changes will potentially make things a bit more challenging for the Axis side, the additional encirclement and attrition changes will favour the aggressor, and the changes to the zones of control will potentially make things a bit easier for the aggressor and especially the Axis side a bit earlier on as well.

All of these changes have been in place for the World at War release and so far, at least there, it has muted most of the criticisms, while maintaining a fairly even game play experience throughout. We really do hope/feel it will be the same for War in Europe as well.

Hubert

[PvtBenjamin]

First Hubert & Bill thank you for your relentless pursuit to improve the game and listen to the players feedback.

IMO the zero supply & sub changes in v1.16 are excellent and definitely needed. They are great updates and improve the realism of the game, any changes in game parity can be remedied with new strategies.

Full disclosure I haven't played the new Beta but do share Sugar's concern about the changes to the bombers. Nmason has posted results from the new tournament that strongly point that the game is close to even. My concern is the new bomber rules will tilt the balance towards the Allies and may significantly. I appreciate that the new encirclement rules will help offset but I'm not sure if that will offset the bomber changes. To me the main issue with the Axis bombers is later in the game where after gaining experience they are invincible. Some changes there maybe but these changes may go to far.

It would be interesting to get feedback from people who have played the new version. Do the bomber & encirclement changes offset?

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks PvtBenjamin, and what I can add, and I realize this is not the same as head to head tests, is that in my AI vs AI testing that I've done (which I always use to help test and ensure general balance for any changes), it hasn't slowed the Axis AI down at all and general timelines have been maintained.

Granted, it is a bit of a change where air units will do a bit less damage on their own, but with the increased morale losses on the defender, it does enable ground units to do more damage in their follow up attacks.

It's a change from before for sure, but it feels like another imnprovement in realism (there is that loaded word again) this way and the tradeoff works out about the same as before despite the slight tactic changes required going forward.

But that being said, we too would be interested in hearing from those that have played the new version as well.

[MVokt]

Change in air units effectiveness was needed. I just realised of it after a few games with 1.15 in which I checked out that tactical bombers were just lethal taking too many steps when bombing ground units.

[Sugar]

Hi Hubert,

and thx for your reply, but I remember all the discussions around operating and amassing of bombers over a long period of time, and your first changes resulted in diminishing their attack value by 1, and the second has been to change the unit build limit by -1 tac. to +1 med. bomber. At least the second change is of minor result, and followed by very balanced results in the tourneys.

And now you're doubling the costs of operating and additionally diminishing their attack value again? Now that's a major change I suppose, and reconsidering the results of the tourney completely unnecessary. My suggestion always has been to reduce the force pool of bombers in favour of med. tanks, but also to reduce the sovyet inf. research to the same lvl of all nations, and to eliminate the heavy tanks completely (as if an army of heavy tanks has ever been realistic).

With the new changes I guess it will be very hard to take Malta, which results in buying even more bombers, because there's no other way to do the trick, and you're also still in need of something to break through and destroy the russian lines, especially as their infantry's hard defense values against tanks are 1.5 points higher than that of all other nations at the highest lvl, and that's also unrealistic.

At least it leads to a style of gameplay which no longer represents the typical operational manouevre warfare of WWII and the meaning of air superiority, because in addition to all the reduction of attack values the action points are also reduced, compared to the predecessor Breakthrough SoE, making encirclements already uncommon in WiE. Maybe some of the changes will force the Axis to try nevertheless, but that'll be the result of punishing other ways to get the necessary result, not of rewarding doing the right thing.

[PvtBenjamin]

Thanks Hubert

I'm still a little skeptical of the bomber changes but agree with MVokt that some changes are necessary. Perhaps the de-moralization changes will inspire new more "realistic" tactics that are just as effective.

My concern was always the ability to group the entire airforce in one place. Operational changes help that.

Looking forward to the new version.