Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread

 
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 War in Europe >> RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/6/2018 4:48:36 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 2478
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Loches France (but properly part of England)
Status: offline
Is one allowed more than 1 tourney game at a time?

_____________________________

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?

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 31
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/6/2018 5:00:28 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Is one allowed more than 1 tourney game at a time?


Just one at a time. Else it could get a bit chaotic tracking players' ranking.

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 32
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/7/2018 11:09:57 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 2478
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Loches France (but properly part of England)
Status: offline
I'm ignorant about spreadsheets etc, but I don't see why . Surely rankings are only affected by finished games, and it would only be potentially confusing if there are 2 or more concurrent games vs the same opponent.

_____________________________

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?

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 33
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/7/2018 11:56:43 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I'm ignorant about spreadsheets etc, but I don't see why . Surely rankings are only affected by finished games, and it would only be potentially confusing if there are 2 or more concurrent games vs the same opponent.


Player 1 is at level 2. He challenge player 2 at level 3. While this is ongoing, player 1 receive a challenge from player 3 from level 1. Player 1 has already one loss at level 2, so one more loss sends him back to level 1. Now let's say he wins vs player 2 he technically gets promoted to level 3... but what if he loses vs player 3... technically he supposed to be sent down to level 1. Now let's say he finishes his game vs player 2 first than proceeds to challenge a player on level 4 before the game with player 3 is concluded...

Now imagine all players doing the same.

Like I said, it would be a mess. Nothing stops you from playing exhibition games if there's not enough SC 3 in your life. But for simplicity sake, let's keep it one tourney game at a time. Also raises the stakes of all tourney games since you can't spam them.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 3/7/2018 11:57:27 AM >

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 34
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/7/2018 4:58:44 PM   
LLv34Mika


Posts: 230
Joined: 12/29/2017
Status: offline
what everyone is free to do (if you ask me)

play a mirror game!
The overall winner is the one who wins with both sides. Time is tie breaker. so one win by august 1943 and one loss by summer 44 are better than one win by summer 43 and one loss by somewhere later than summer 44.

Still love it how many players we already motivated playing ranked games!

_____________________________

"Oderint, dum metuant."

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 35
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/7/2018 5:01:25 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

what everyone is free to do (if you ask me)

play a mirror game!
The overall winner is the one who wins with both sides. Time is tie breaker. so one win by august 1943 and one loss by summer 44 are better than one win by summer 43 and one loss by somewhere later than summer 44.

Still love it how many players we already motivated playing ranked games!


Yeah mirror game are fine. Both games would be considered 1 match.

Personally I'd save those for special events (Grand finale or top rung matches) but I'm not opposed leaving the option open for players.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 3/7/2018 5:03:08 PM >

(in reply to LLv34Mika)
Post #: 36
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/7/2018 9:29:09 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 2478
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Loches France (but properly part of England)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I'm ignorant about spreadsheets etc, but I don't see why . Surely rankings are only affected by finished games, and it would only be potentially confusing if there are 2 or more concurrent games vs the same opponent.


Player 1 is at level 2. He challenge player 2 at level 3. While this is ongoing, player 1 receive a challenge from player 3 from level 1. Player 1 has already one loss at level 2, so one more loss sends him back to level 1. Now let's say he wins vs player 2 he technically gets promoted to level 3... but what if he loses vs player 3... technically he supposed to be sent down to level 1. Now let's say he finishes his game vs player 2 first than proceeds to challenge a player on level 4 before the game with player 3 is concluded...

Now imagine all players doing the same.

Like I said, it would be a mess. Nothing stops you from playing exhibition games if there's not enough SC 3 in your life. But for simplicity sake, let's keep it one tourney game at a time. Also raises the stakes of all tourney games since you can't spam them.


I get it now


_____________________________

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?

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 37
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/14/2018 6:32:33 PM   
BPINisBACK


Posts: 180
Joined: 10/30/2016
Status: offline
Game against Sugar finished.
As it was clear since spring 1942, Axis wins and get a Total Victory in July, 1943.
So, Sugar: CONGRATULATIONS! A new victory for you.
In 1943, almost all the axis fleets were moved to the French border next to the English Chanell (also in BENELUX) and they obliterate the south and center of England.
As it was said before. A very unwavering game for Sugar.
His axis focused on Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (remember that 4th level tanks in 1942!!!) despising Kriegsmarine.
His forces advance at all times gently but forever. He never breatk throught the soviet lands asymmetrically, the border was homogeneous. With no rush.
So, he made very well. A perfect plan, i guess.
What could i do?
Well, Sugar thinks that nothing. And i must confess that if the German Commander don't make mistakes, Germany must win the war. But my duty, as the Allied Commander, is to "force" him to make mistakes. And i never could.
Maybe, in the beggining of the game i spend a lot of british money in naval war (i guess that more than 2.000 MPP). Of course, I didn't know that Sugar will not fight the Atlantic war. Only in late 1940 i focused on earth and air tech. What could i do with that money? Yeah, more diplomacy on Spain (sooner) and maybe less disavantage in air war. But, who knows...
Regarding my soviets, I think i did my best. I think i build more units than ever (before Barbarrosa), i focus on AA, infantry, armor & industrial tech. No research on air or naval (of course) tech. I could made many fortifications and any of the main cities fall in the first year (probably because Sugar didn't want to). I never had more than 80 units. But the technology gap (and experiece) with german was so huge...
In 1942, i was ready to make "something" to temp Sugar... I started my traditionally bombing campaing with the western allies with five SB (lvl 3 for US, lvl 2 for British). It was quite succesfull, but very short... I was thinking in double operation: to bomb Germany and France and, at the same time, to land in Norway. My focus was to force Sugar to move back some units of his Luftwaffe to France/Germany and that this was a "light" relief for soviets.
I was trying to land in Norway because it's an easy target for British and because i wanted to try a "Scadinavian Gambit" as Sweden was "quite" easy to joing the allies if i put more diplomatic chits on the country. That's the reason because i sent 1/2 of the Siberians to the north of Finland, to cut the land communications from Finland and Sweden and to prevent a CA over the country once it joins the allies. Soviets did well (it's was easy) and they get some cities in the north of Filand.
But... after some bombing i discovered (it was shocking) that there was ANY GERMAN FORCES in BENELUX and western GERMANY.
Of course, i had any chance to make a deep offensive over Germany with my little western forces. But i cancelled the land in Norway and i land in Holland and France. I thoung i will head off more axis forces in this way that with my previous plan.
What was the problem...? That Germany had sooo many good units that Sugar could take a bunch of planes and tanks and mech units back to Germany and kill quickly my little expeditionary force and, on the other hand, he made a big advance in Russia, conquering the three main cities in a few weeks.
Since that, war was lost (more than ever).
I tried to hold in Caucasus, and some other eastern places in order to receive more soviet forces (and to get more tech advances) and i tried to build a real threat for the axis planes in Britain. But, of course... it was too late.
Well, maybe with a better investment of that British MPP and some other changes in tech with the western allies i could made more, but... if the German Commander don't make ANY significant mistake and he is able to play calmly. War is lost for allies.
Your way of playing, Sugar, remember me to Terif and the big players of SC1 and SC2... Do you know them?

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 38
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/15/2018 6:45:16 PM   
LLv34Mika


Posts: 230
Joined: 12/29/2017
Status: offline
Any conclusions? I only read a bit of your game but it sound similar to what I experienced when playing vs sugar.

I think there is one thing worth trying it. Usually I build up a good air force with the USA first. In my next game I will try to research a bit less and build some infantry instead. Maybe it works if someone manages to attack with US infantry in 1942. I don't know where but you can try the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, France, Algeria --> then to the east to threaten Italy or even Egypt. In any case these troops should be more competitive and should be a distraction for any Axis player.

I'm not sure if it is the right way to do but the distraction is a MUST. If you let players like sugar do what they want they go for a victory in 1943. Same pattern. slow but steady advance until Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad are done. Meanwhile the DAK captures Egypt and then massive bomber attacks soften up everything around London and finally the paratroopers come in and take the city. Deceisive Victory!

The only way to survive a bit longer is to distract the German forces. If any Axis player has to deal with a second front early enough that might be the time the USSR needs to get strong enough.

That's theory so far...

I'd love to hear what sugar would do to himself if he wants to speak about it. In fact I'm asking to tell us how to beat him. Not sure if that is his first intention ;)

(in reply to BPINisBACK)
Post #: 39
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/15/2018 7:25:16 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
If no counter is found to that strategy, then either game designers will need to take a look at it, or the game will be all but unplayable.

_____________________________

"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 LLv34Mika)
Post #: 40
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/15/2018 8:59:00 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I think this ties in with my suggestion of normalizing the USSR prewar MPP.
That and/or other means to encourage/force Germany to be a bit more aggressive/risky.


Additionally, I don't think it's cool to get an auto victory by dropping a paratrooper on hex that has been
annihilated by the whole Luftwaffe in one turn. Perhaps Germany should have to hold all the victory hexes at the start
of Germany's turn. That way the Wallies would at least have a chance to take it back.

I also don't think fighters should get to strike/recon and escort on the same turn.


Going back to the main point, I think the biggest problem is the inability of the USSR to stop Germany from taking
the big 3 cities if Germany goes at the steady/careful pace and has kept the USSR from having much prewar prep MPP.

-----
I'd too like to see an AAR of Sugar (or someone who's just as good implementing that method) vs. one of the developers or other experts.


_____________________________

"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 Taxman66)
Post #: 41
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/15/2018 10:45:30 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
At first, defense is impossible in this game; attack or counterattack, nothing in between. If it`s impossible to keep London, why ever try? What are you doing against this deployment in Aug. 42:

[image][URL=http://www.bild.me][/URL][/image]

Not much, I guess. SU is also indefendable, simply because their units are not able to counterattack in 42 (IW-Research, you know). At least they'll be heavily outnumbered by 6 german, one hungarian and romanian completed army groups and half of a finnish. Not to mention the Spanyards.

Allowing a counterattack the following turn wouldn`t make much sense, but could grant some time. At least any unit able to counterattack would be wiped out at first.

Invasion in Algeria without controlling Gibraltar? Moskau and Cordoba are just 1 turn away. Takes years to get from Casablanca to Cairo or Rome without Gibraltar. Good luck.

Forget about England and Russia, Cairo is where war is won, and the Germans are weak during their deployment-phase (sadly enough their only weakness). No guaranteed success of course, but your only hope.



(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 42
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/15/2018 11:15:05 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
And if that is all true and non contestable, then there is a huge problem with either the design or the mechanics.

_____________________________

"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 Sugar)
Post #: 43
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 12:07:03 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
Well, not that huge. At first change the Spain-DE: if the Axis wants Spain, it has to decide to take "all of France". Also decrease diplo hits slightly to make it highly unlikely to get Spain.

Modify russian IW back to anyone elses, give them 1 add. HQ, 3 inf.-armies and 1 fighter, and decrease german tac. bomber's build limit by 3 in favour of med. tanks. This will also favor operational manouevre warfare. Alltogether the reduction of attack values compared to the predecessor is not the best decision imho.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 44
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 2:19:34 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
quote:

Well, not that huge. At first change the Spain-DE: if the Axis wants Spain, it has to decide to take "all of France". Also decrease diplo hits slightly to make it highly unlikely to get Spain. Modify russian IW back to anyone elses, give them 1 add. HQ, 3 inf.-armies and 1 fighter, and decrease german tac. bomber's build limit by 3 in favour of med. tanks. This will also favor operational manouevre warfare. Alltogether the reduction of attack values compared to the predecessor is not the best decision imho.


So in your estimation (adding up just the USSR changes):
350 1 HQ
450 3 Armies
250 1 Fighter
200 level 1 Infantry Weapons research (equivalent current game cost estimation of resetting USSR to 2 levels of INF Weapons like everyone else)
??? Free upgrade to level 1 for every USSR Corps and basic Army (equivalent current game cost estimation of resetting USSR to 2 levels of INF Weapons like everyone else)*

That's 1,250 MPP plus an unknown amount that probably runs well into the hundreds for the 'free' upgrades.
In addition it is also effectively skipping a year of wait time for the Soviet's #1 priority research category.

So rough guess:
1. Somewhere around 1,800 additional MPP (or equivalent) for the Soviets.
2. Better USSR defensive ability immediately.
3. Quicker time to USSR Infantry attack capability.

* If you actually mean that USSR Corps and Armies should also cost the same as everyone else's then this actually becomes a monstrous detriment to the USSR.

And that's not even counting the drawback costs/effects to Germany your changes suggest.
Those are not so easy to put MPP values on either by the way.

----
Wouldn't it be better to make Defense a little more viable?
Possible ideas:
1. Restrict the unit cycling attacks through the same hex. e.g. Only 1 attack allowed through a hexside (that would help the UK a ton in Egypt), so unit swap/exchanges can't multiple attack. Only by having multiple hexsides on target hex.
2. Restrict the number of bombing runs allowed on a target hex in a single turn.
3. Increase attacker damage and/or damage chances.
4. Reduce de-entrenchment to a %chance instead of automatic per attack/bombing. Perhaps even make %chance adjustable based on what type of unit is attacking, it's strength and tech level.
5. Limit the number of units a HQ can provide supply to, or change the mechanism so that HQ provide a total maximum value of supply points that has to be split up amongst individual units (2nd option is perhaps too much micromanagement).
This would prevent Germany from overloading Egypt with a silly number of units that could never, ever be really supported (Malta or no).
6. Add an Oil->Fuel mechanic/system that would restrict usage of Tanks/Planes/Mech/Motorized/Ships to some degree.

In addition, as I stated in another thread, I believe that the USSR pre Barbarossa MPP need to be normalized a bit.




_____________________________

"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 Sugar)
Post #: 45
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 4:33:10 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
The issue aren`t the defense-values, but the attack-values. I don`t want a WWI style game in WWII. Attacks should be more powerfull on both sides; now there's no danger to ever loose a unit on german side before 43, at least not against russian inf..

If you`re increasing defense, the only consequence is to slow the game even more. Keep in mind that the range is also decreased, on a larger map. That`s one reason why encirclements are very rare (the other is the lack of tanks).

I also don't see the necessity to artificially punish focussing (and in addition any artificial restriction related to fuel or supply consumption, Germans went into Caucasus in 42, that`s far more eastern than Libya. Malta sunk the transports, with it in Axis` hands there were no limits). The reason why Germany didn`t focus historically are known, and they were obviously wrong strategically. Should I repeat this failure? GB was on the edge in NA, one more tank div. and several squadrons of aircraft could have been enough in 41. After operation Torch Germany sent 2 more tank div., they weren`t starving despite Malta.

The reason why the Axis can focus on Libya is: there`s no real downside in doing so. The time frame is too generous, it simply doesn't matter when Barbarossa starts (the Russians can`t do a scratch even with IW 2, just takes a little longer). If necessary I'd wait until sept. 41 to start, if I want the last diplo-chit to fire on Spain. Gives them too much time to finish off the Brits in Egypt.

In Breakthrough SoE you had to beat the russian army, otherwise you were facing a serious threat. Now that`s not necessary, just keep going forward. There'll be no threat to ever loose one key city back to Russia, for known reasons, and that`s the issue.



(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 46
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 10:38:36 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
I'd like to hear the changes crispy made for his Fall Weiss II mod.

What unit stats did you change, Crisp? Income wise how much mpp you granted or removed from each country?

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 47
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 11:16:41 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Some quick points, I don't want to get too far into discussing/arguing the real war events:
1. I'm not suggesting or intending to suggest making the game into a WWI style fight. However if as you say that 'Defense is meaningless', that is far too much; both historically and game mechanically.
2. I'll be honest, I'm not sure if there is a historical basis for not allowing massive focus bombing to the point of every tactical squadron of a nation being used on the same target in a 2 week period.
But it was never done by any (major) power at any time throughout the war. There must have been some logistical reasons for it.
3. Fuel restrictions on the axis powers would not be artificial in any way. There is more than ample proof that Germany's activities were limited (or at least not 'unrestricted') due to fuel and Italy's far more so.
4. If you want to 'only' blame Malta for Axis limitations in Libya/Egypt go ahead, I don't agree but it is impossible to prove either way. I will say that it is far, far, far too easy to take Malta in this game than it was in real life.
5. I do agree that Spain is too easy for the Axis. I suppose France could throw 3 chits at it instead of buying a unit to counter attack with, and with 3 chits from the UK might/probably/should get a hit or maybe 2 before Italy joins and France quiets; but even then, as you observed, the Axis still have the Algeria option open to them and it doesn't raise Soviet Mobilization that much.


_____________________________

"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 KorutZelva)
Post #: 48
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 3:32:55 PM   
LLv34Mika


Posts: 230
Joined: 12/29/2017
Status: offline
Some thoughts from my side:

we all agree that the German war machine is too strong.

First I think there should be a huge diplomatic problem if Germany attacks Algeria. Germany signed a truce not attacking Vichy territory. If they do it anyway I think ALL other minors should turn away from the Axis (except Spain). Ireland should join instantly, Turkey and Syria should swing towards allies again, Saudi Arabia too. Iraq should join the allies (if there was no pro axis coup before) and so on.

That way an Axis player would think twice about taking Algeria just to bring Franco into the war.



Another idea would be to give the UK one or two mines somewhere. I most of my games I had one big problem. Whenever I fight the Germans in North Africa my MPPs are spent on repairs. Period. I don't even have to think about diplomacy, research or production. There is no money to do so! Having one (20MPP) or two (40MPP) mines in GB would be a BIG help. In my current game vs Amadeus I sent really really really many troops to Egypt, several fighters and bombers too. Result: Egypt was just conquered in April 1942. Of course that is not really soon and I was able to take Iraq back and set up a defense there (with US help) but it is still by far to easy for the Germans to bring more reinforcements.


Another idea would be making the Russians a bit stronger. I still like the idea of having three inf upgrades instead of two but maybe you should get more units via events. I guess that would help the most. Russia did not win because of superior technology (in fact it was not so bad at all) but they simply outnumbered Germany when it comes to infantry and tanks. That's what we should see here too. In my game vs Amadeus I'm collecting MPPs like never before. We have April 1942 and I have 72 USSR units. The Germans already have 120 units. Not a good balance if you ask me. If you give the USSR a few free unit after the first "shock" after the start of Barbarossa that might slow down the Germans a bit. If you make the first winter a bit more dangerous that might help too. Additional troops during that first winter is the second thing. Last but not least it might be a nice thing to have more fighters and tanks coming with the Sibirian units.

It is ok for me to see two USSR units trading for just one German unit. But in most games it is something like 5:1. In one of my games vs Sugar it was something like 25:1. I think the easiest way to re-balance the war in the east would be reducing the morale via events.

Something like "mud endless space drains German morale" (--> all troops east of Leningrad/Smolensk/Odessa lose 15 - 25% morale) Using such an event in fall 41, spring 42 (rain is coming and going) and fall 42 could work too.

With a lower morale Germany would see higher losses on the battlefield and there would be a chance for the USSR troops to cause some damage. I have a few games in which I was standing in front of German units (prepared attack) and the combat predictions showed 0:3. Makes no sense to attack. You just sit there and wait to die. If it is 1:2 or 2:3 it would be ok for me. Then I could send in unit after unit, again and again, until the Germans are slowed down and need some time to get reinforcements from the production queue.

What do you say?

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 49
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 3:57:22 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

First I think there should be a huge diplomatic problem if Germany attacks Algeria. Germany signed a truce not attacking Vichy territory. If they do it anyway I think ALL other minors should turn away from the Axis (except Spain). Ireland should join instantly, Turkey and Syria should swing towards allies again, Saudi Arabia too. Iraq should join the allies (if there was no pro axis coup before) and so on.

That way an Axis player would think twice about taking Algeria just to bring Franco into the war.


Not sure Ireland or Iraq were that invested in the welfare of Vichy France.

I am in favor of making the offer to Franco event dependent of going 'all of France'. There's just not enough of an incentive for the extra hassle of doing it right now. Make Germany work a bit for its extra income.

In this matter Spain and its income would be mostly out of reach except for the Sealioners and All of Francers.

(in reply to LLv34Mika)
Post #: 50
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 4:04:05 PM   
room

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
I'd like the idea that moving should decrease organisation of a unit. Just one percent per action point used on movement:the change would not be dramatic but would slghtly disatvantage units on the move compair to static units. The tweak needs to not made moving and attaking from the same hex by turning units a bad strategy just a sliglty less effective one and obviously it would however slightly disadvgantage the offensive side (so the axis at start).


As for Russia, I like a lot the GGWAW way of giving garrison the turn after Barbarossa in every town, it incites to go the further you can into USSR and give the player choices to make. Here it could be a free (not rebuildable) garrison with no thec 2 turn after Barbarossa in every town from the Leningrad/Stralingrad/Leningrad line to the front.
It would give choices to be made both for the russian player (should he upgrade those GAR?) and the Axis.

One of the problem in NA et one of the limitation of the game imho is that there is little supply implication to have many troops (basically there is no supply production and consumption nor transport) so it is about the same for germany to have 5 or 15 units in NA, 50 or 100 units in Russia... Nothing can really be done about that so I'd at least reuce the base supply in Italian NA by 1 but here the problem is more about how HQs work...

It s more minor but I d like France to have a a fortified frontier with Italy so that you could keep the frontier with 3 GAR if you want too cause Italy could not really dent the French there IRL and in the game France cannot let 3 corps or army there to keeps the frontier

(in reply to LLv34Mika)
Post #: 51
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 6:08:54 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
Okay, a short analysis why the Axis is so easily achieving their objectives: they'll never face the threat to loose an already occupied city, because the russian ability to counterattack in time isn`t existing; and the effort for the Brits to retake Cairo is too high and risky. Mostly they're completely wiped out in NA, then there`s nothing left to attack with.

The SU lacks competitive fighters, tanks, inf. and numbers, not morale, and certainly not more defense-value. Therefore there`s no use in decreasing german morale, this won`t stop them from pushing the Russians out of the cities. They don`t need to care about destroying units, as long as they're no threat at all.

No need to invent this game newly, just rely on what`s already existing in the predecessor. Is anyone here aware of the changes? Name only one who doesn`t favour the Axis, you`ll win an inflatable dishwasher. :)


(in reply to room)
Post #: 52
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/16/2018 9:49:17 PM   
room

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
Well I bought less than two weeks ago and SC1... one week ago so I'm closer to noob than anything else and obviously not aware of the changes.

However I have started 8 games 6 allies and 2 axis. Most are not yet played out but I lost one with the allies against nightwish (my first game) and I'd say i'm ahead in 3 out of the rest 5 allies games. With axis, one opponent has stopped sending back but I was not winning I think (first axis trial) and the other is going well.

At my level of play against most my opponents, allies are about ok I think.


The way you want to adress the problem is wrong I believe because it is not instintive gameplay ( thought I won't object it would repair the balance at high level play): I mean it is WRONG that defense is impossible as you say, how did Leningrad did IRL? Was there no front? Of course they were and so they were encirclement. It is this that should be adress because it is not understanable to most casual players. Defense should be a viable option and thus encirclement should a great way to success too.

< Message edited by room -- 3/16/2018 9:50:40 PM >

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 53
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/17/2018 6:49:23 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Some quick points, I don't want to get too far into discussing/arguing the real war events:
1. I'm not suggesting or intending to suggest making the game into a WWI style fight. However if as you say that 'Defense is meaningless', that is far too much; both historically and game mechanically.
2. I'll be honest, I'm not sure if there is a historical basis for not allowing massive focus bombing to the point of every tactical squadron of a nation being used on the same target in a 2 week period.
But it was never done by any (major) power at any time throughout the war. There must have been some logistical reasons for it.
3. Fuel restrictions on the axis powers would not be artificial in any way. There is more than ample proof that Germany's activities were limited (or at least not 'unrestricted') due to fuel and Italy's far more so.
4. If you want to 'only' blame Malta for Axis limitations in Libya/Egypt go ahead, I don't agree but it is impossible to prove either way. I will say that it is far, far, far too easy to take Malta in this game than it was in real life.
5. I do agree that Spain is too easy for the Axis. I suppose France could throw 3 chits at it instead of buying a unit to counter attack with, and with 3 chits from the UK might/probably/should get a hit or maybe 2 before Italy joins and France quiets; but even then, as you observed, the Axis still have the Algeria option open to them and it doesn't raise Soviet Mobilization that much.



Many Good points.

I have started and contributed to many threads that significant changes are necessary to the amphib component & mass air deployment for parity.

Amphibibious abilities should be a fraction that they are currently early ('39-'41) in the game. If they dont land in one turn they disappear.

Mass Air Deployment. In one of my recent games my Axis opponent had 14 air groups (yes 14) in Egypt, mainly around Siwa. He put them around Siwa because I took out a bomber with my carrier. There is absolutely no way that this even comes close to historic possibilities, its ridiculous. Siwa is in the middle of the desert with no fuel access. The Axis fighters/bombers & HQ's are far superior (experience) and the Axis has considerable more MPP's so the Axis player just picks apart the Brit air/naval and ground units. I had 2 AA's (lv 2), fortifications (lv 3aa), 2 HQs, entire Brit air force and 3 carriers. He just used a maritime bomber with a 16 range to reduce/destroy carriers and ships.

There should be a limit of air power in remote areas like Africa & Sicily. Say 3 bombers / 3 fighter (carriers) in Northern Africa in 1940 increasing slowly over time. Air bases (with capacity constraints) would be a great improvement.

Malta was held by the Allies for the entire war, in SC its indefensible by Allies. This is because of mass air deployment in Sicily. Without Mass deployment the Axis could still take Malta it would just take more time.

Mass air deployment is the key to success of many of the SC "inteligencia" so they cry bloody murder when some one suggests a change. I doubt it will ever change.








< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 3/17/2018 7:09:35 PM >

(in reply to room)
Post #: 54
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/17/2018 7:29:22 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
In Egypt it's not just axis air power.
I've lost Egypt and faced only 3 German fighters and 3 tactical bombers. It was the extra 2 German Armies, 1 extra Panzer and a Panzer Grenadier; and I believe 3 or 4 Italian Armies and the Italian tank.

Now, I admit I made some mistakes, the biggest was probably delaying investing in Infantry Weapons 2 by a few turns. However, I believe that if I didn't make them it would have only bought me 2 or 3 (at most) extra turns and some more MPP damage to the Germans.

Sugar is mostly right, the biggest stallers to Germany is when they had to pause to repair their units. The easiest way I did that was by punching them back when I could. Unfortunately, the UK doesn't have enough punching power and it gets used up and worn down (morale wise) in the face of better and more numerous German forces. On top of that Germany is in far better shape to support the fight economically than the UK is. So while some units rest and repair others keep beating on the defenders, even if they don't make much headway; and Germany wins via attrition. Which is ironic, because it is logistical attrition that doomed Rommel.



_____________________________

"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 PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 55
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/17/2018 7:47:14 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
My point is realism. Mass air deployments & Amphib ability aren't realistic and I believe without them the game is winnable against any player as Allies.

Air bases (maybe air HQ's?) would also add a new & interesting strategic component to the game.

SC is one of the few WW2 games that there is virtually no ( at last minimal) limitation on air deployment.

< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 3/17/2018 8:01:13 PM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 56
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/17/2018 9:10:34 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
My point is balance in PbEMs, like Huberts and Bills.

Realism? Crete is 10 times the size of Malta, its garrison had double the strength. The reason the Brits "held" Malta is simple: there wasn`t an invasion. The Axis decided to use her efforts elsewhere, but there`s no doubt it would have fallen. Even Churchill had already written off Malta.


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 57
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/17/2018 9:20:02 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
From my prior post

Mass air deployment is the key to success of many of the SC "inteligencia" so they cry bloody murder when some one suggests a change. I doubt it will ever change.


Its impossible to hold Malta here and the Allies did. Sugar your Mass Air Deployment strategies are completely lacking in historic possibilities and the key to your success as Axis.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 58
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/18/2018 10:46:01 AM   
LLv34Mika


Posts: 230
Joined: 12/29/2017
Status: offline
the air deployment is ok for me. WW2 was decided because the allies had air superiority. So it is ok that it is as important as it is!

I agree with sugar, pbem balance is more important. I have another suggestion that might help. If the USSR start with one invested chit in infantry weapons that might help. That way the USSR can save some MPP, they get inf 1 a bit earlier, can research 2 and 3 earlier too and that means that it will slow down the Axis much more. If that doesn't help starting with one chit spy/intelligence would be the next tweaking.

But I'd prefer to make the British a bit stronger. One or two mines somewhere in northern England or Scotland would give them 20 - 40MPPs more every turn. It makes sea lion more important (for both... trying it and defending). British can deploy more units, research a bit more and start being a pain for the Germans much earlier.

At the moment that doesn't work because German fighters are too strong and the British can not repair all the time. In my games I needed ALL my MPPs to defend Egypt and repair units. And even if I only focus on repairing units the money is not enough. Giving the British more income might allow them to start bombing raids earlier. That probably hurts the Germans most. Once the British (later the US too) can start to bomb cities an mines the MPPs of Germany should go down significantly. Having 2 - 5 bombers deployed in southern England means you can target at least 6 mines in France/Germany. Bombing them to 0 - 3 means a lot production loss. The next thing is bombing den Haag, Brussels, Paris (as capitals) and other German cities. I guess it would be possible to decrease the German income by 200 - 300MPPs every turn. That would help much and it would force the Germans to invest in AA technology, deploy some fighters for defense and still lose some income.

Maybe the build limit for the allies should be even higher.

And one last thing. I live in Austria, near Vienna. I know that Vienna and Wiener Neustadt (where Me109 parts were produced) were bombed in WW2. In SC2 the bombers don't even reach these areas. No matter what long range technology they have. The allied bomber range should be increased. Not sure if via long range aircraft (add 4 or even 5 instead of 3) or if they just get a higher strike range. Maybe a mix of both. Not sure.

_____________________________

"Oderint, dum metuant."

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 59
RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread - 3/18/2018 2:33:47 PM   
room

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
Realism is not the thing, but the game needs to be instinctive enough (so folowing as close as possible to what people see WW2 as) to be played by anyone. It's not only about balance between expert players.
In my french forum, people complain axis are too weak!

So I do agree that it is Britain that should be stronger more so than USSR because an allied player should expect to be able to win Egypt if he plays well. Otherwise why not kust make a game about Barbarossa?

For egypt I see several problems:

1) to easy to reinforce for axis because transport can go there in one turn. Here the ot real time gameplay is the problem and it is mostly unsolvable I guess. Maybe it could take 2 turns so that there is always a chance fo the allied player to patrol and find
2) QG supply mechanic is too powerfull (and really incomprehensible from my point of wiew). That point should be changed so that QG are a lot less powerfull supply Wise, that would also decrease the overall german war machine because they held such a strong advantage in QGs and there are on the offensive.

(in reply to LLv34Mika)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Official Tourney Pyramid Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.214