Some reflections on the game

[Emporer]

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

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

cheers

[Christolos]

In my opinion, in a game of this scale, limiting the numbers of attacks a unit can be subjected to in a turn, would lead to a stagnant trench warfare style game with no lightning breakthroughs.

I like to think of the ability to attack with multiple ground units that are swapping position with front line troops which have already attacked, so that they can now attack, as being equivalent to stacking for the attack. This of course raises the important question as to why can't this happen for the defending units in the sense that units in the rear swap with retreating forward units, as reinforcements, to defend the vacated hex of the retreating unit. Right now, units will not retreat backwards if there isn't a vacant hex behind them to do so. I think it would be a nice feature if they could swap positions with units directly behind them, but this would necessitate having the ability of units in the rear to be set or toggled to do so-like in TOAW.

C

[sPzAbt653]

1. Limitation attack on each unit

I've been playing this for over two years and see no reason for such a limitation.

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

Use the rules to your advantage, encircle the enemy and destroy his ability to reinforce. Otherwise, attack with multiple units and destroy the enemy before he reinforces.

[PvtBenjamin]

sPz... is correct.

[Emporer]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

sPz... is correct.

Sorry guys but there are no right or wrong in this. What I want with this is to highlight one of the biggest problem as I see with the game system. I really like the game in itself but there are some serius issue.
To limit the attack is for me the best way to have some impact to react on the enemy's movment othervise you are only observer in the game.
We have already a sitiation with a big limitations that you can't stack troops more than 1 units per hex and thats ONLY favour the attacker.
My suggestion was one way to solve that problem but there can be of course be other ways.

In real life there are no possiblity to swap around corps and armys so thats highly unrealistic. Within the timespan of the game turn you can't attack a single hex with unlimited units that is both logistic and practical impossible.

So my conclusion are that some change need to be done in this game to make it more realistic and playable. But the question is of course free for all but i hope something is changing in this good game.


Cheers

[Christolos]

The quasi-stacking like effect of being able to attack with multiple units may seem to favour the attacker, but that doesn't mean it favours one side over the other...just the side with the initiative. Both sides get to attack the same way when it is their turn.

As for encircled units...this has been discussed before; and within the scope and scale of the game, units can be reinforced if in good supply (like in a city), but this can deteriorate over time depending on enemy action and time.

Cheers,

C

[Emporer]

ORIGINAL: Christolos

The quasi-stacking like effect of being able to attack with multiple units may seem to favour the attacker, but that doesn't mean it favours one side over the other...just the side with the initiative. Both sides get to attack the same way when it is their turn.

As for encircled units...this has been discussed before; and within the scope and scale of the game, units can be reinforced if in good supply (like in a city), but this can deteriorate over time depending on enemy action and time.

Cheers,

C

Yes you are right, both side get the offensive turn in play IF the second side has anything left to use in the offensive:)
The gamesystem need to balancing the offensive and the defensive play. The one who have initiative will allways prevail becouse of the benefits in attacking vs defending. So Im still convinced that some limitation on the offensive side is needed to create a balanced play.

Vheers

[PvtBenjamin]

The land battle mechanics actually work very well once you get used to them.

I think it can be argued to zero supplied defenders in your example should have less strength, especially once they get experience.

Many of these zero supply issues are being addressed in v1.16 I believe.

[nnason]

Many good ideas. This type of discussion is good.

We must remember this is a grand strategic game with IGUG turns taking 14 days at a minimum. Lots can happen in 14 days.

Surrounded units were resupplied especially the Germans. But Russians had the advantage of it was their country.

Systems works for both sides. Any changes need to be playtested to ensure doesn't unbalance the game. In the ELO tournament, there are 36 Allied wins and 33 Axis wins.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: nnason


Systems works for both sides. Any changes need to be playtested to ensure doesn't unbalance the game. In the ELO tournament, there are 36 Allied wins and 33 Axis wins.

The ELO results are very interesting, thank you. I used to think the Axis had an advantage, I now think its very close to balanced perhaps the Allies have a small advantage.

[elxaime]

I think a possible middle of the road solution would be to enable a "support" order for a second line armor/mech unit to allow it to "swap" into a designated hex mid-turn where a friendly unit had just been retreated/destroyed.

[Emporer]

Another simple solution is as following and a little more realistic:
1. The attacker should not be allowed to "swap" unit in the front if they already attacked.
2. If the attacker fail to dislodge the opponent or eliminate them, the attacker lose all the movment points when they have done the last attack. This mean an infantry units lose movements after they attacked and failed and mech or tank unit lose there movments if they fail after the second attack.
This would make a little better balanced between attacker and defender.

We are here talking about mostley army corps or armys and you cant just switch target so easely as its in this game.

Cheers

[Sugar]

The balance between attacker and defender is quite right for WW2 imho. How should you ever be able to take out bottlenecks like El Alamein or Leningrad otherwise?

Alltogether the balancing with V 15.02 is commonly recognized as nearly perfect. Constant complaints of incapable players already lead to further restraints for the Axis, allthough the tourney results are showing absolutely no need to do so. In V 1.16 not only the subs are reduced in efficiency, also all tac. and med. bombers are, and their costs of operating are doubled.

And again a rookie comes along, has no clue how to play the game and doesn't feel the need to seek the issue in his gameplay, but demands unnecessary changes, with only the one perspective of the latest side he played or other experiences in different games. Sorry, not meant personally, but this has already happened to often, and I'm really not keen on trying the changes of the next "patch".

And here some hints to improve your defence: fortify valuable positions, upgrade fortifications and ressources, place arty and anti-air in the second line, optimize your supply and HQs, keep reinforces in the back and keep in mind this is WW2. Neither the Maginot-Line, nor Eben-Emael or Tobruk held for long, that's how realistic a defense has been actually. If you can't hold the line, withdraw and prepare to counterattack.

[BPINisBACK]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Alltogether the balancing with V 15.02 is commonly recognized as nearly perfect. Constant complaints of incapable players already lead to further restraints for the Axis, allthough the tourney results are showing absolutely no need to do so. In V 1.16 not only the subs are reduced in efficiency, also all tac. and med. bombers are, and their costs of operating are doubled.

And again a rookie comes along, has no clue how to play the game and doesn't feel the need to seek the issue in his gameplay, but demands unnecessary changes, with only the one perspective of the latest side he played or other experiences in different games. Sorry, not meant personally, but this has already happened to often, and I'm really not keen on trying the changes of the next "patch".

[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Emporer]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

The balance between attacker and defender is quite right for WW2 imho. How should you ever be able to take out bottlenecks like El Alamein or Leningrad otherwise?

Alltogether the balancing with V 15.02 is commonly recognized as nearly perfect. Constant complaints of incapable players already lead to further restraints for the Axis, allthough the tourney results are showing absolutely no need to do so. In V 1.16 not only the subs are reduced in efficiency, also all tac. and med. bombers are, and their costs of operating are doubled.

And again a rookie comes along, has no clue how to play the game and doesn't feel the need to seek the issue in his gameplay, but demands unnecessary changes, with only the one perspective of the latest side he played or other experiences in different games. Sorry, not meant personally, but this has already happened to often, and I'm really not keen on trying the changes of the next "patch".

And here some hints to improve your defence: fortify valuable positions, upgrade fortifications and ressources, place arty and anti-air in the second line, optimize your supply and HQs, keep reinforces in the back and keep in mind this is WW2. Neither the Maginot-Line, nor Eben-Emael or Tobruk held for long, that's how realistic a defense has been actually. If you can't hold the line, withdraw and prepare to counterattack.

Near perfect!!! Says who, there are never any perfect games. There are many thing that can be improved.
And as I said it's still not realistic to swap corps and army's in a pace like this game. If you had some military experiance you probably have understood.
When it comes to naval battles I doubt that a heavaly outnumbered side would take the fight at all and what normaly happens is that that side use something called "retreat"

The biggest problem to improve games and discuss in forums like this, there are allways people who think they allways have the right answer on everything, and thats not so constructive. Sometimes it can be good to listen to other ideas. Critisism is allways good for development so just hold your horses.
And if you feel like a rookie you shouldn't be asame, we all been there:)

Cheers

[PvtBenjamin]

Mr Emporer you are correct everyone was new to the game once and welcome. New players are greatly appreciated.

SC3 is great because its easy to begin play and very hard to master.

Sugar is correct in that once your game skills improve you will find your concerns raised in this post are without merit.

IMO the land battle component works very well.

I'd suggest posting the exact battle situations (w/maps) that you are concerned with and you'll find the experienced players very willing to suggest some effective tactics.

Concentrate on the HQs and the attached units, they are the most useful.

Enjoy the game and stick with it.


It just gets better.

[MVokt]

I agree that the multiple attacks possibility is a good thing in a game that has no stacking of units option. This is what allows to better simulate breakthroughs.

Game as is now is balanced and any change in combat mechanics would require extensive play testing.

[gamer78]

I think there is overall maybe 'wording' problem and not polite answers from veterans against rookie as I've seen in World at War forum also. It won't be good for the company and for the people who are just interested in the game. Devs I see are polite people maybe Matrix should look into this. Myself is AGEod games veteran from 2008 but careful mostly with answers...

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

I think there is overall maybe 'wording' problem and not polite answers from veterans against rookie as I've seen in World at War forum also. It won't be good for the company and for the people who are just interested in the game. Devs I see are polite people maybe Matrix should look into this. Myself is AGEod games veteran from 2008 but careful mostly with answers...

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

Could some of the above contributors (including myself) work on their people skills? sure


If you are seriously interested in improving your game ask the guys (not me) above, they know this game better than anyone.


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

[sPzAbt653]

not polite answers from veterans against rookie

I am a long time gamer but was a rookie at SC3, so I took care to ask for help instead of demanding changes to a game system that has been around for 15+ years and is very popular. The developers are very polite and helpful, so be respectful and ask for help first before assuming a fix is needed.