Suggestions for next update

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

User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Taxman66 »

If you take a closer look, 1.16 helps the axis more than you will realize. The reduction of Corps to weak ZOC and the research change allows the axis to keep the tech edge far longer (too long).
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by PvtBenjamin »

I agree with Taxman. I initially thought the changes to bombers & subs would sway the game to the Allies but its quite the opposite.

Sugar you are correct v1.15 was perfectly balanced, it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts of 1.16 if you were to play both sides against a good player like Taxman or Ktonos.

IMO v1.16 would have been better served with just the 0 supply & sub changes and a major overhaul to naval. The 0 supply & sub changes are great improvement to the game.

Attacking via the Maginot line is now the standard so it definitely needs to be strengthened. A proper attack via the historic route gives the Axis plenty of time.







User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Taxman66 »

I don't consider myself a good player. Just a noisy one. I'm nowhere near Sugar of Fafnir's league.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by PvtBenjamin »

The true great ones are always modest Taxman [&o]


I'm not in their league either
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Sugar »

It's not the question of the quality of the players, but the general approach. For every issue there's a solution, if someone doesn't get it on its own, he might watch the better players to find out before demanding changes. Of course everyone should report what's remarkable, but should also ask at first how to deal with it. I never made a secret about the tactics I'm using.

I won`t return to this game in the near future, I happily play Breakthrough SoE. This game offers far better combat mechanics, because the attack values are generally higher, thereby offering the Allies far better chances to counterattack (and being able to destroy german units from the start); and the forcepool fits far better with 6 Stukas, 10 tanks, 8 fighters on german side and the whole of the russian units costing 2/3 of the german. I reduced the downsides of this game by editing, but that's of course not the solution for MPPs.
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by PvtBenjamin »

whats breakthrough SoE?

I just started advanced tactics gold which looks pretty cool, older game is guess
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Taxman66 »

Have you seen my sub .500 record? :p
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Hubert Cater »

Just wanted to quickly pop in and once again say thanks for all the feedback, it is always much appreciated.

WWI and a few other items are keeping us quite busy but we have been preparing a patch for WiE as well, and in order to make sure we've included all the changes we would like (need) to make, I just had a few comments and questions to throw out there for everyone.

1) Regarding the Maginot line and the lack of French entrenchment there, this was not actually a change for v1.16, at least as far as I can tell, as v1.15 also has 0 at start entrenchment for units there. Presumably then this goes right back to the release of the game and is just being caught now. This is something we have corrected and are not really considering it a one sided fix as it's just one of those that simply should be corrected.

2) The 0 supply units, especially those in the Low Countries, as well as those that arrive at Barbarossa, and the respective effects everyone has noticed for combat against these units was not our intention and is essentially an introduced error there. This has already been corrected for our World at War release, and is already corrected for the next build of WiE as well.

There might have been a few other key points here, I will have to spend some time examining the research progression concerns, but those two for now caught my eye and I wanted to address those first and foremost.

* * *

There will be a few more changes coming to how supply is handled in WiE, namely the recent changes we also implemented for WaW whereby HQs can act as Mulberries, and the reduced HQ distribution supply that will be in effect when HQs are in low supply. This has been changed to better address the notion that surrounded pockets should have lower supply and should be easier to destroy, but as a result it will require more careful planning on HQ positioning and how to deal with low supply areas for both sides going forward.

Soviet pockets, for example, will be potentially easier to deal with, but overstretched Axis lines will likely require more careful HQ linking and so on. Amphibious assaults will now benefit from increased supply for the first few turns if a resource is not captured but an HQ is employed, and the Malta effect can now be nullified by simply reducing the Malta defender to a strength below 5 and no longer requiring its destruction and assault/capture by Axis forces.

North Africa will be a bit more challenging for both sides due to low supply, and since scorched earth will now be a bigger factor in the USSR, there have been slight changes there to reduce its impact slightly and only due to the recent supply rule changes on our end. We've also slightly reduced the impact of the Malta effect as well, just slightly, as testing indicated it would also be required to balance out the supply changes that are coming.

There is more, but if we've got all the changes just right, it should be just the right amount positives and negatives for both sides while improving the realism just a little bit at the same time.

* * *

All this aside, and before we wrap things up for the next update, would it be possible for those that have issues regarding other changes in v1.16 to itemize them for us and to add any additional notes or concerns for our final review?

It so that would be great, thanks!
Hubert
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Taxman66 »

Hubert, if you haven't already I suggest you look at the following thread where the research change is discussed in more detail. tm.asp?m=4659126&mpage=1&key=�

I also suggest further testing (with intended patch changes) just how vulnerable Metz and Strasbourg are to an early assault on the Maginot (where all Axis air minus 1 ftr, all HQ except 1 and all Tanks) don't participate in Poland and head for a Maginot assault on Axis turn 3, turn 1 spent upgrading infantry near maginot) Poland will still go down by the end if Axis turn 4.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
sad ham
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by sad ham »

Hubert Cater: Have you fixed the Algerian/Tunisian issue I did send you the file?
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Hubert Cater »

Thanks Taxman, taking a look at these now.
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Hubert Cater »

Sad_ham,

If this was for the new unit placements, then yes this should now be fixed on our end for the next build as well.

Hubert
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Sugar »

Just to clarify: I didn't uninstall the game because the update to V 1.16 has been a major concern, but to install V 1.15 again to continue my PbEMs (and because I couldn't find the serial number I couldn't reinstall the game; it's been a free review version of the game, and I will undoubtly buy the game I spent more than 2 years playing intensely on next occasion).

I was referring to the new strategy of some Axis players to prioritize an immediate attack in the West by operating the strongest units and just leave what's absolutely necessary to reach Warsaw in the East.

Whether or not the entr.-lvls were intended, upping them and the supply of units appearing the first turn of a DoW affects only one side (and not forget to mention that these 0-supply-units already appeared in the predecessor SC Breakthrough SoE; the strength of these units like in Norway or Tunesia of 1 or 3 leaves the impression they were indeed meant to be destroyed by the first attack).


User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Hubert Cater »

Thanks Sugar, much appreciated all around, and especially so for your long time support and posts of feedback for the game [:)]

For the immediate attack in the West strategy, like most strategies, we don't necessarily want to completely eliminate them, but if it is too powerful due to an oversight on our part by not having Maginot units start entrenched (this was the same for our WaW release and now corrected in the latest patch), on our end we simply view this as a correction. Initial testing on our end indicates players can still try and employ this type of assault, but it will be more challenging, and even, (arguably as it should be) if the Maginot units are correctly entrenched in their positions.

For zero supply units issue, i.e. those appearing from a first turn DoW, you are correct that these have always been in place, and with v1.16 the initial intention was to make it slightly (just slightly) easier to destroy them than what was previously the case. They were supposed to receive 50% more damage from a successful attack against them, however we introduced a bug that went even beyond that which is now corrected on our end and also corrected in the latest WaW patch. So in the end, we are not actually making any changes here for the next patch other than correcting the initial change we wanted to introduce in v1.16.
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by PvtBenjamin »

deleted comment thnx Etzel



User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Taxman66 »

Not sure if USSR gets a catch up bonus (vs. GE) while neutral. I do know that active powers don't get catch up bonus vs neutrals that are ahead of them (e.g. GE/IT don't get Industrial Tech carch up vs. USA while USA is neutral).
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Etzel
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:52 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Etzel »

Is research performed at every turn or on the respective side's turn only? This is the way I read manual 7.9, penultimate point (but I'm really not sure of).
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by PvtBenjamin »

deleted comment thanks Etzel
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Taxman66 »

Etzel, indeed only at the end of your turn.

Ben, I did just discover an increase that seemed below the minimum the manual/current understanding indicates and reported it.

Have you figured out the number of turns in a year?
I suppose I could just hand record turn dates and figure it out myself.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Etzel
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:52 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Suggestions for next update

Post by Etzel »

With version 1.16 a year has about 15 turns per side (less than before 1.16!). To me it looks as if in Ben's caluculations every turn would count and not the respective side turns only, e.g. one year with minimum 3% is 15 x 3% = 45%. Or maybe I don't understand something correctly?
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”