One Mans Opinion

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

Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

After playing several PBEM games of SC2 (and winning most of them) it is my opinion that it is an excellent game that I enjoyed immensely; but it has a couple flaws that in the end caused me personally to become disillusioned with the game. But before I state what these flaws are I first want to go on record with some of the great strengths of the game:

1. The game support offered by Hubert and his team is incredible. They respond quickly to all bugs (or perceived bugs) and should be given full marks for the many improvements they have made to the game since its initial launch.
2. The game is fun to play.
3. The game is easy to play. Even a novice can learn the game mechanics and get started playing the game relatively quickly. Of course, learning to play the game well takes a lot of time. But that is as it should be.
4. The game is balanced, sort of. Learning how and where (hint North Africa) to conduct a proper offence takes time and skill to master. Since the Axis have to do most of the early attacking this means that in games between novice and even moderate players I believe the Allies have the edge. But with expert players I would give the edge to the Axis. But regardless, it is primarily the players skill and not the side he is playing that will determine the victor in most games.

So if you have not yet tried this game I encourage you (notwithstanding my subsequent comments) to buy the game. You will not be disappointed.

So what I consider the flaws of the game are:

1. To achieve balancing the game gives the Axis an equal chance to win the War. Historically this was not the case. So the Axis are overpowered and the Allies are underpowered compared to what they were historically. I suspect that for many players this is not a flaw; so long as the game is balanced they don't care how this balancing was achieved. My own view is that it would be a better game if the Axis stood a much reduced, but still possible, chance of winning the War, while still standing an equal chance of winning the game by holding out until the summer of 45.

2. Airpower is too powerful. I won't go into any detail on this as it is covered in a separate post. But in my opinion the ability to mass air power needs to be restricted and the ability of air units to destroy strength points needs to be very much reduce. Air units should operate like artillery and naval bombardment to reduce unit morale and effectiveness, not destroy units. Some don't see this as a flaw. Their argument is that their are effective counters to this. But for me that is not the point. It is like saying that the counter to the Axis using napalm and tactical nukes is for the Allies to deploy their Surface-to-air missiles.

Again this is all just my 2 cents.

Robert Harris
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by KorutZelva »

My preference would also to make air some kind of 'flying artillery' (make it that it can shave off action points of bombarded units so you can pin units in place!) but I know this is not a realistic change given the age of the game. That said, I like the tweak in the coming patch to shift some build limit to medium bombers, after all Tac bombers are the great offenders regarding airpower nukes.
Ktonos
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:25 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Ktonos »

When the Allies declared war on Germany in September of 1939 everything could happen. I'd say that at that moment both the Allies and the Axis had a fairly balanced probability for victory. And the game starts at that moment.

Also there is a false perception that people of the time thought the war was over after Germany DoWed USSR, or Stalingrad, or Kursk or Overlord. In fact by 1942 it was common belief that Soviet Union is about to crumble. Even after D-Day nothing was sure. It was only after operation Bagration that Axis days were numbered. Here in Greece when the Germans evacuated people were dead certain they would eventually come back.

I haven't played the 1944 scenario. If a German decisive victory is possible there, yes this would be a problem. But starting the 1939 scenario the possibilities are limitless and they ought to be so.
GiveWarAchance
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:42 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by GiveWarAchance »

I was thinking the exact opposite of that 2nd flaw (I somewhat agree with the first flaw in my unwanted rubbish opinion).

In both world wars, artillery & air caused 75% of casualties but in the game it is very unusual for arty to cause hp loss, and bombers often have a proposed hp damage of 0 to most targets when mousing over enemy units even when bombers are upgraded. Bombers do good damage in game to exposed units in open terrain which is very realistic. In WW2, bombers were horrifically damaging to German units like powerful divisions like Lehr, Das Reich and 12th SS were very badly reduced before even reaching the front lines, while German bombers did huge damage especially in battles like Kursk where tanks were brewed on mass by Stukas. So keeping bombers the same but cranking up the hp damage by artillery would good cause now people most probably don't make much arty at all cause the morale & de-entrenchment benefits may not equal having a fresh new infantry army on the board instead of the arty.
User avatar
nnason
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:47 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by nnason »

At the scale of SC almost all of the arty in factored into the units themselves. The few arty units in the game represent arty above Army group which if I remember correctly was a Russian tactic not so much with Axis.
Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by KorutZelva »

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

1. To achieve balancing the game gives the Axis an equal chance to win the War. Historically this was not the case. So the Axis are overpowered and the Allies are underpowered compared to what they were historically. I suspect that for many players this is not a flaw; so long as the game is balanced they don't care how this balancing was achieved. My own view is that it would be a better game if the Axis stood a much reduced, but still possible, chance of winning the War, while still standing an equal chance of winning the game by holding out until the summer of 45.

In terms of balance, the game might be to your liking now. As I write this, the only two players that managed to win as Axis in the tourney are Sugar and I. [X(] I have to say I didn't see that one coming.
Trump2016
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:54 am

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Trump2016 »

As a follow up question for victorious players, did you feel that your victory was largely based on manipulating the rules to your advantage, perhaps exploiting abilities that the game designer allows for WW2 units in this game to achieve that were not possible in that time frame? or was it really better game play against your opponent and my concern is not relevant.
GiveWarAchance
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:42 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by GiveWarAchance »

ORIGINAL: nnason

At the scale of SC almost all of the arty in factored into the units themselves. The few arty units in the game represent arty above Army group which if I remember correctly was a Russian tactic not so much with Axis.

I was thinking this same thing. In war games I always try to used combined arms of all types but in this game having no artillery units is okay I think unless you are Russia but I still like to have a rocket arty and if possible an Anzio Annie type rail gun but I think the superguns are more like the short fat Dora type in game rather than the monstrous Anzio Annie.
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

When the Allies declared war on Germany in September of 1939 everything could happen. I'd say that at that moment both the Allies and the Axis had a fairly balanced probability for victory. And the game starts at that moment.

I disagree. Just because "everything can happen" does not mean that there is an equal chance of anything happening. If WWII were re-fought 100 times (with different strategies but assuming the US and USSR will join the Allies at some point) the Allies would win virtually every time.

Also there is a false perception that people of the time thought the war was over after Germany DoWed USSR, or Stalingrad, or Kursk or Overlord. In fact by 1942 it was common belief that Soviet Union is about to crumble. Even after D-Day nothing was sure. It was only after operation Bagration that Axis days were numbered. Here in Greece when the Germans evacuated people were dead certain they would eventually come back.

Peoples perceptions are irrelevant; the truth is all that matters. The war was lost by the Axis long before DDay.



Robert Harris
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

ORIGINAL: GiveWarAchance

I was thinking the exact opposite of that 2nd flaw (I somewhat agree with the first flaw in my unwanted rubbish opinion).

In both world wars, artillery & air caused 75% of casualties but in the game it is very unusual for arty to cause hp loss, and bombers often have a proposed hp damage of 0 to most targets when mousing over enemy units even when bombers are upgraded. Bombers do good damage in game to exposed units in open terrain which is very realistic. In WW2, bombers were horrifically damaging to German units like powerful divisions like Lehr, Das Reich and 12th SS were very badly reduced before even reaching the front lines, while German bombers did huge damage especially in battles like Kursk where tanks were brewed on mass by Stukas. So keeping bombers the same but cranking up the hp damage by artillery would good cause now people most probably don't make much arty at all cause the morale & de-entrenchment benefits may not equal having a fresh new infantry army on the board instead of the arty.

I partially agree with you. I believe the statistics show that artillery did cause the most combat casualties. I don't believe the evidence supports that air attacks caused significant casualties though. And I am certainly not aware of any case where air power alone destroyed the combat ability of even an entire regiment, let alone an entire corps or army, which is the scale of this game. I further believe that the evidence is that even the tank killer aircraft (like the typhoon) were in fact far less effective than the pilots claimed. In Normandy for example, more German tanks were destroyed by the almost useless PIAT than by air attack. I'm not saying air power should not be important. I am just saying in the game it is too powerful at destroying units.
Robert Harris
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by PvtBenjamin »

My opinion is the game should give each side a chance of winning in 1939.

It is true that by D-day the war was over but Nutball Hitler made a series of very stupid decisions, especially from Stalingrad on. With some better decisions, weather etc the war might have been far from over by D-day.
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

1. To achieve balancing the game gives the Axis an equal chance to win the War. Historically this was not the case. So the Axis are overpowered and the Allies are underpowered compared to what they were historically. I suspect that for many players this is not a flaw; so long as the game is balanced they don't care how this balancing was achieved. My own view is that it would be a better game if the Axis stood a much reduced, but still possible, chance of winning the War, while still standing an equal chance of winning the game by holding out until the summer of 45.

In terms of balance, the game might be to your liking now. As I write this, the only two players that managed to win as Axis in the tourney are Sugar and I. [X(] I have to say I didn't see that one coming.


Actually, I think the Tourney results to date support my position. In fact as the game currently stands the Axis, if played well, stand a better than equal chance of winning. But if the Axis are not played well than the Allies will probably win, even if they also are not played particularly well. By "played well" I mean the Axis player:

1. Concentrates on building and teching up his air units.

2. Masses his air power.

3. Takes steps to keep US and USSR mobilization low. This means: no premature Sealion, no invasion of Yugoslavia until after it joins the Allies, invading the Netherlands prior to Belgium (so that Belgium DOWs the Axis rather than vice versa), making sure minimum garrison requirements are met, making sure not to exceed 18 units within 10 hexes of Warsaw, etc.

4. Getting Spain as Axis either by Diplomacy or event (preferably the former).

5. Capturing Cairo and the Middle East.

How many Axis players in the Tourney have followed this formula? Judging by the AARs not too many.


So if I was trying to predict the winner of any game and assuming I knew the Skill Ranking (from 1 to 10) of every player I would ask myself the following questions:

1. Is one player more skilled than the other player by at least 2 points? If so, I would pick that player to win regardless of which side he played.

2. If the Players are of roughly equal skill I would ask: Does the Axis player have a Skill Rating of 7 or better? If No, than I will bet on the Allied Player; if Yes I will pick the Axis player to win.

Robert Harris
Trump2016
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:54 am

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Trump2016 »

Agree that the Axis could have won a decisive victory through 1941-1942, but once the USA entered the conflict, it was just a matter of time. I think both sides knew it, though few on the Axis side had the guts to say this of course.

After 1942, would it not be a an Axis minor victory to not surrender unconditionally?
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by KorutZelva »

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Actually, I think the Tourney results to date support my position. In fact as the game currently stands the Axis, if played well, stand a better than equal chance of winning.

Well if this guy here ends up beating Sugar's Axis... surely you will reconsider! [;)]
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by PvtBenjamin »

ORIGINAL: YohanTM

Hi, YohanTM2 (Axis) defeats PJL1973 (Allies)

It was an interesting game in terms of variant strategies but most of the UK had fallen before Russia could enter the game.





KV: Yohan won as Axis

I think its great people enjoy the tournament but I don't think its an indicator of parity. The best Axis opponents I have played don't participate in the tournament or the forum. A more robust ranking system with published results would be very interesting.


The victory conditions are too difficult for the Axis as it currently stands. London importance should be reduced.
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Actually, I think the Tourney results to date support my position. In fact as the game currently stands the Axis, if played well, stand a better than equal chance of winning.

Well if this guy here ends up beating Sugar's Axis... surely you will reconsider! [;)]


Yes I will. But I don't think you will (sorry).

P.S. If you go back and reread my post you will see that I have edited it.
Robert Harris
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

My opinion is the game should give each side a chance of winning in 1939.

It is true that by D-day the war was over but Nutball Hitler made a series of very stupid decisions, especially from Stalingrad on. With some better decisions, weather etc the war might have been far from over by D-day.

I would go further and say that the game should give each side an equal chance of winning. But I am talking about an equal chance to win the game, not an equal chance to win the War.

The 1927 New York Yankees (which many consider the best baseball team in history) swept the Pittsburgh Pirates in the World Series 4 games to 0. If someone developed a game based on this World Series would you want it to give the Pirates an equal chance to win the Series on the basis that "everything can happen." I wouldn't. But if Pittsburgh won even two games they should win the Game.
Robert Harris
GiveWarAchance
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:42 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by GiveWarAchance »

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: GiveWarAchance

I was thinking the exact opposite of that 2nd flaw (I somewhat agree with the first flaw in my unwanted rubbish opinion).

In both world wars, artillery & air caused 75% of casualties but in the game it is very unusual for arty to cause hp loss, and bombers often have a proposed hp damage of 0 to most targets when mousing over enemy units even when bombers are upgraded. Bombers do good damage in game to exposed units in open terrain which is very realistic. In WW2, bombers were horrifically damaging to German units like powerful divisions like Lehr, Das Reich and 12th SS were very badly reduced before even reaching the front lines, while German bombers did huge damage especially in battles like Kursk where tanks were brewed on mass by Stukas. So keeping bombers the same but cranking up the hp damage by artillery would good cause now people most probably don't make much arty at all cause the morale & de-entrenchment benefits may not equal having a fresh new infantry army on the board instead of the arty.

I partially agree with you. I believe the statistics show that artillery did cause the most combat casualties. I don't believe the evidence supports that air attacks caused significant casualties though. And I am certainly not aware of any case where air power alone destroyed the combat ability of even an entire regiment, let alone an entire corps or army, which is the scale of this game. I further believe that the evidence is that even the tank killer aircraft (like the typhoon) were in fact far less effective than the pilots claimed. In Normandy for example, more German tanks were destroyed by the almost useless PIAT than by air attack. I'm not saying air power should not be important. I am just saying in the game it is too powerful at destroying units.

Thanks for your reply to my ideas. Yes I've seen the stats that showed how incredibly inaccurate rocket attacks from Typhoons were on AFVs although were still extremely terrifying to German units on roads and also blasted a lot of hapless trains, but very few people are aware of the monolithic damage caused by level bombers on German defenses in Normandy especially during the Canadian Operation Totalize and in Cobra in both cases there were basically no defending troops left cause they were all casualties and/or utterly dazed and immediately captured. Dive bombers were always dangerous, and the Russian Sturmovik was horrible with it's auto 20mm cannon ripping up hapless people on the ground whether troops or refugees they were all churned up by the thousands. Ya the Typhoon was not especially effective at hitting AFVs, but it's not fair to say all bombers were useless just because one British model using new rocket technology performed mediocre against tanks. Actually, the Typhoons were effective in an evil way at strafing civilians in German cities after level bombers had finished bombing and people were leaving shelters to dig around in the rubble to rescue people and valuables. I think Typhoons were quite a good design but lacked the targeting technology necessary to land their powerful rockets on targets.
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by Harrybanana »

ORIGINAL: GiveWarAchance

Thanks for your reply to my ideas. Yes I've seen the stats that showed how incredibly inaccurate rocket attacks from Typhoons were on AFVs although were still extremely terrifying to German units on roads and also blasted a lot of hapless trains, but very few people are aware of the monolithic damage caused by level bombers on German defenses in Normandy especially during the Canadian Operation Totalize and in Cobra in both cases there were basically no defending troops left cause they were all casualties and/or utterly dazed and immediately captured. Dive bombers were always dangerous, and the Russian Sturmovik was horrible with it's auto 20mm cannon ripping up hapless people on the ground whether troops or refugees they were all churned up by the thousands. Ya the Typhoon was not especially effective at hitting AFVs, but it's not fair to say all bombers were useless just because one British model using new rocket technology performed mediocre against tanks. Actually, the Typhoons were effective in an evil way at strafing civilians in German cities after level bombers had finished bombing and people were leaving shelters to dig around in the rubble to rescue people and valuables. I think Typhoons were quite a good design but lacked the targeting technology necessary to land their powerful rockets on targets.

It was strategic bombers that I believe were primarily used in the battles you mention. Ironically strategic bombers are not very good at causing combat casualties in the game. I am not saying that air power was not historically important as it clearly was. It was particularly useful, as you point out, in interdicting enemy movement, lowering enemy morale and disrupting enemy supply. But it was generally less effective than Artillery, AFVs and infantry at causing combat casualties. Accordingly I believe air craft should have increased effectiveness at causing the loss of enemy morale and effectiveness, but less ability to cause combat losses.

In playing the game I have just seen too many occasions where air power alone destroyed an entire Army, HQ or tank unit. I would hazard a guess that in the hands of an elite Axis player by 1941 his 15 or so TAC and Medium bombers probably cause close to 50% of the combat casualties he inflicts on his opponent.
Robert Harris
GiveWarAchance
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:42 pm

RE: One Mans Opinion

Post by GiveWarAchance »

Strat bombers in WW2 were extremely underrated for combat support cause the Air Marshals vehemently opposed any interruption to their program of sadistic bombing of cities. If they had been smarter and less bloodthirsty, their massive fleets of strat bombers could have very effectively blasted pathways through the German defenses all the way to Berlin. There was a big risk of friendly casualties but they were quickly improving their pathfinding skills to avoid that during the terrible bombings of the bewildered German troops in Normandy. But either way, I think using strat bombers on cities or armies is very cruel and on the same level as biological weapons, gas, cluster bombers etc cause of the terrible loss of life. Strat bombers were used effectively in Afghanistan too against the Taliban and you can see it in the movie '12 Strong' but the real B-52 bombers were an awful lot more brutal than what can be shown in a movie.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”