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: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis)

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/11/2018 4:52:29 PM   
Elessar2

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

quote:

Past a certain threshold (I'd say about tank tech 4), infantry armies can't do much offensively anymore and they take a backseat to the tank and bombers. With the Americans I had planned to max my air and use infantry and rely on UK tanks, that was a mistake. Basically you need to have numerical advantage in tanks as much as you need numerical advantage in air.

Sugar said before that this game is really one of attacks and counter attacks. It is very true. There are very few areas where a committed defense can be (somewhat viable). If your opponent attacks, you better give way. In NA and Southern Russia my two biggest disaster on the field happened when I stuck around too long when I should have withdrawn my units.

I think we saw an example on how rail allows you to skimp on garrisons. While Sugar's France was guarded by a single unit in Paris, I had corps in NA protecting my rear that would have been massively more useful bolstering the frontline (and protecting my air!).


I thus think that an argument and a means exist to remedy each of the above:

1. Allowing Infantry Tech to either go above 2, or give them anti-tank capability. Remove motorization as an applicable tech to infantry (give the fully motorized US/UK armies an extra move point, only allow the Axis/Russians to have their dedicated motorized inf. units, which was historical), allow A-T up to a certain level. Hubert added those 2 attacks to tanks early on in SC2, but with no countering boost to infantry.

2. Already discussed implementing limits on operational movement. Since there is already precedent in limiting amphibious units, would seem like a natural to me.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 301
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/11/2018 5:05:32 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
As I've said before make motorization an option at the build Q and let attachment of HQs signify the use of the army group motor pool.

Get rid of the anti-air/tank as well as artillery and make them upgrades denoting the attachment of the specific battalions to the various formations.


Let's clean up the map, fewer units makes for faster turns less distractions. This is a strategic game with operational overtones.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to Elessar2)
Post #: 302
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/11/2018 5:24:41 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

I thus think that an argument and a means exist to remedy each of the above:

1. Allowing Infantry Tech to either go above 2, or give them anti-tank capability. Remove motorization as an applicable tech to infantry (give the fully motorized US/UK armies an extra move point, only allow the Axis/Russians to have their dedicated motorized inf. units, which was historical), allow A-T up to a certain level. Hubert added those 2 attacks to tanks early on in SC2, but with no countering boost to infantry.

2. Already discussed implementing limits on operational movement. Since there is already precedent in limiting amphibious units, would seem like a natural to me.



For #1, I'm not sure there is anything to fix. That's just the way the game is balanced, I think it works well. Get those tanks together for some blitzkrieg!

For #2, it might be too big of a change for this iteration of the game. Operating is the super-power that holds Germany together. If you tone it down you'd have to toss them a bone or two either in unit limit and/or income.

I'd like a system where there's logistic slots that could be spent each turn, let's say 3 (For Germany) plus logistic tech. Operating air or HQ would take 3 slots, tanks and armies 2 slots, Corps and lower 1 slot. But to compensate operating would be free of charge. Over a couple of turn it would be still possible to mass troops but not in the fire brigade way it is now.

(in reply to Elessar2)
Post #: 303
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/11/2018 10:15:38 PM   
Elessar2

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
Welp, right now it's like the Axis (both sides really) have a Star Trek style transporter at their beck and call. To pack up just one corps, equipment/manpower/petrol/food/etc., is a pretty mind boggling enterprise if you think about it. With air, likewise--it isn't just the planes, it's the mechanics and the airfield engineering equipment. AND to get said unit all up and operational at the other end isn't a simple snap your fingers exercise either. Recently read a good overview of just hard it was for the Japanese to build up and maintain airfields in various Pacific islands, when both manpower and tractors and bulldozers and such were in very short supply. There SHOULD be a significant amount of operational inertia there, can't just fix a mistake with a few hundred MPP and you're good to go.

As for defense, I was kind of surprised to see anti-tank tech pretty much limited to a few dedicated units on each side. As I intimated, things WERE in balance, but not anymore.

Here's a thought: operational movement costs the usual, BUT puts all the units into the build queue. You get to place them the next turn, but only in the turn after that can they do anything offensively.

< Message edited by Elessar2 -- 6/11/2018 10:18:32 PM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 304
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/11/2018 10:39:45 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1097
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Note that they take a reasonably big Readiness and Morale hit when they are operated.

_____________________________

"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 Elessar2)
Post #: 305
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/12/2018 2:21:04 AM   
Christolos


Posts: 547
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

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

KZ, how did you lose so much of the Royal Navy?

I didn't notice much reporting of the Naval game during the AAR, so just wondering what happened.

Thanks again for this fantastic AAR!

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 306
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/12/2018 9:53:06 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

KZ, how did you lose so much of the Royal Navy?

I didn't notice much reporting of the Naval game during the AAR, so just wondering what happened.

Thanks again for this fantastic AAR!

C


Most of the losses occurred in '44.

I lost a couple of cruisers to maritime bomber when I was blockading the NA port when Italy joined in '40. Then some BBs and cruisers protecting Algeria in '41 (but then destroyed the entirety of the RM for my trouble).

In term of unit count, the UK navy was in the 20s until their UK's island was under attack. At that point, I wasn't sparing my forces anymore. Also when my air was mostly gone, ships started getting 'murderized' in ports by subs.

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 307
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/12/2018 9:54:51 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Early in my play I greatly under appreciated the Maritime Bomber.

I no longer do. Great weapon.





_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 308
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/19/2018 8:02:32 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
4 points I noticed during the match and to be discussed:

1. Breaking through the Maginot-Line isn't somehow benefitting the Axis` cause, in fact Mussolini is completely ignoring this event as well as the Frechmen. Since this line of defense was France` best hope, it could have a more decisive impact; especially if the Allies decide to leave the occupating troops at half strength.

2. A very early attack of the Brits in Libya (especially by using the B.E.F.) should lead to Italy mobilising some more troops.

3. Not particular in this match, but it`s common to completely suppress norwegian convoys to Germany. I'm just wondering if Bill and Hubert were considering this circumstance when calculating german income.

4. Many informations related to scripts are not contained in the manual. Seems awkward.

< Message edited by Sugar -- 6/19/2018 9:13:35 PM >

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 309
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/19/2018 8:27:46 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1097
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
The in game counter to #3 is the movement of Norway towards the Axis. However the Axis player has to decide to decline the take over event (as that will occur far before there is a danger of the Allied player pushing them over by themselves). Then it becomes a political game of chicken. Should the Axis invest diplomatic chits? Should the Allied player keep raiding? Should the Allied player risk US ire with a preemptive strike?

I haven't tested to see what the Norwegians get for forces.

Also when (if?) does the the convoy reroute script fire if the Axis decline the take over?

I have learned from games versus the AI, that with the last Subs/DD changes that to protect even the shortened convoy line that Germany has to invest in something to protect it if they want that money. Either station the maritime bomber, or invest in 1 level of ASW or build a MT or 2. Level 0 ASW DDs aren't going to cut it. Just like they don't cut it for the UK vs. German subs. Actually its slightly worse since the UK starts with the Naval Warfare research and Germany doesn't.

_____________________________

"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 #: 310
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/19/2018 8:34:04 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1097
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
The only consequence of #1 is that it supresses/delays US and USSR mobilization as the low countries don't need to be declared on. If I recall that is about 10% each. Yes, Germany is delaying the plunder and income themselves, but I suspect it may hurt the Allies more.

Remember standard play is for Germany to declare war on the low countries far earlier than historical, bringing Italy in early by doing so.

Just posting thoughts not suggesting anything needs to change just yet.

< Message edited by Taxman66 -- 6/19/2018 8:37:24 PM >


_____________________________

"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 #: 311
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/19/2018 9:09:45 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
quote:

Remember standard play is for Germany to declare war on the low countries far earlier than historical, bringing Italy in early by doing so.


That`s part of the time line: even with those early DoWs you won`t be able to beat France earlier than june, mostly july.

quote:

The only consequence of #1 is that it supresses/delays US and USSR mobilization as the low countries don't need to be declared on. If I recall that is about 10% each. Yes, Germany is delaying the plunder and income themselves, but I suspect it may hurt the Allies more.


I had to DoW Belgium anyway, since Italy wasn't moving at all. Can`t be right I guess.

Also added 1 point in my original thread.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 312
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/19/2018 9:34:17 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

4 points I noticed during the match and to be discussed:

1. Breaking through the Maginot-Line isn't somehow benefitting the Axis` cause, in fact Mussolini is completely ignoring this event as well as the Frechmen. Since this line of defense was France` best hope, it could have a more decisive impact; especially if the Allies decide to leave the occupating troops at half strength.

2. A very early attack of the Brits in Libya (especially by using the B.E.F.) should lead to Italy mobilising some more troops.

3. Not particular in this match, but it`s common to completely suppress norwegian convoys to Germany. I'm just wondering if Bill and Hubert were considering this circumstance when calculating german income.

4. Many informations related to scripts are not contained in the manual. Seems awkward.


For #2 I'd say that's what the DAK should be about. Rather than having the DAK arriving at a set date, make it so that it appears after the italians lose one of their three NA cities. Without UK success in NA the Italians wouldn't call for help.

If Barbarossa happens and they haven't been required yet, make them mobilise in Poland.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 313
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/19/2018 10:30:50 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
quote:

For #2 I'd say that's what the DAK should be about. Rather than having the DAK arriving at a set date, make it so that it appears after the italians lose one of their three NA cities. Without UK success in NA the Italians wouldn't call for help.


Seems reasonable.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 314
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 12:19:40 AM   
room

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
Wouldn't that be largely abusable by not advancing in Italian Africa even if you are winning? As the allies, you re happy to survive at this moment.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 315
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 12:50:22 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: room

Wouldn't that be largely abusable by not advancing in Italian Africa even if you are winning? As the allies, you re happy to survive at this moment.


It doesn't mean that if they don't go in offence mode that you can't. :0)

It's common for the Axis to ship stuff before DAK shows up. It's also not unusual to see elements from the DAK shipped back because they are superfluous because of the former.

There would still be an incentive to trigger it because you make Germany cough the mpp to make them appear rather than getting them for free in Poland.

(in reply to room)
Post #: 316
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 10:36:31 AM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

4 points I noticed during the match and to be discussed:

1. Breaking through the Maginot-Line isn't somehow benefitting the Axis` cause, in fact Mussolini is completely ignoring this event as well as the Frechmen. Since this line of defense was France` best hope, it could have a more decisive impact; especially if the Allies decide to leave the occupating troops at half strength.

2. A very early attack of the Brits in Libya (especially by using the B.E.F.) should lead to Italy mobilising some more troops.

3. Not particular in this match, but it`s common to completely suppress norwegian convoys to Germany. I'm just wondering if Bill and Hubert were considering this circumstance when calculating german income.

4. Many informations related to scripts are not contained in the manual. Seems awkward.





#4 is the only point here that has merit, KZ's solution to #2 seems logical. To argue more Italian troops when you took Egypt fairly easily doesn't make sense.


#1 If the Allied player leaves the Maginot line minimally unprotected it gives the Axis the option of attacking without attacking Holland/Belgium reducing US/USSR mobilization.

#3 You won as Axis basically in '43 why would you need more advantages.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 6/20/2018 10:40:05 AM >


_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 317
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 11:57:44 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
1. I guess you missed the point:
quote:

I had to DoW Belgium anyway, since Italy wasn't moving at all.
Alltogether it`s disadvantaging to break through the Maginot-Line, and has no impact on french morale nor italian mob. (in fact they're moving less than at Sichelschnitt).

2. I also agreed to KZ`s suggestions, equals 3 agreeing. Let`s make it a demand then.

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 318
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 12:23:11 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.


A bit of revisionist history there.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 319
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 12:42:34 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

1. I guess you missed the point:
quote:

I had to DoW Belgium anyway, since Italy wasn't moving at all.
Alltogether it`s disadvantaging to break through the Maginot-Line, and has no impact on french morale nor italian mob. (in fact they're moving less than at Sichelschnitt).

2. I also agreed to KZ`s suggestions, equals 3 agreeing. Let`s make it a demand then.

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.





1) In my opinion the French as it stands now works fairly well, I'm not really missing your point.

2) Agreed you start the thread or me?

3) Also in my opinion if the Axis is controlling all significant cities in Europe/Africa/Russia (including Kuybyshev/Baku etc) on the map except London by '44 it should be a Decisive Victory for Axis. The final London attack when the rest of the map in controlled by '44 is kind of lame.

< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 6/20/2018 12:43:42 PM >


_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 320
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 1:29:59 PM   
room

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
I do feel the french campaign is handdle pretty well and it's normal to incite not to go the Maginot route. Though it should def move Musollini as much as the Belgium way, Musollinni really shouyld get a large mobi boost once Geerman troops are 2 hex away from Paris.

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 321
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 2:03:59 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
quote:

A bit of revisionist history there.


Yay, the things, they are a`changing.

I`m just trying to make one point: everyone has got impressions from his last game, and discussing what was conspicious is quite obvious, but 1. sometimes misleading and 2. demanding changes often influencing balancing negatively.

Therefore I'm glad if one of my impressions leads to a minor change (relating the appearance of the DAK on Italy losing ground in Libya, otherwise deploying could follow the usual way). This shouldn`t lead to misbalancing, and most of us seem to agree.

(in reply to room)
Post #: 322
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 6/20/2018 2:42:06 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

3. I won as Axis basically in 42 before the use of AA around London became common (hehe), and I don`t demand major changes, just asking.


A bit of revisionist history there.






If you guys would switch sides it would answer a lot of balance questions.

I'll start a thread on the DAK deployment issue.



_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 323
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 7/1/2018 11:09:30 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
Oops wrong AAR!

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 7/1/2018 11:10:11 AM >

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 324
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 7/1/2018 11:33:07 AM   
room

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline
You nostalgic dude! That's cute

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 325
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> After Action Reports >> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
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

0.160