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: Some reflections on the game

 
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: Some reflections on the game Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/15/2019 8:44:04 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 2646
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 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


Hi Emporer,

Welcome to the game and I hope you are enjoying it.

1) As others have mentioned in this thread, what you've suggested here is likely to be too restrictive and as a result would in turn cause you some difficulty in maintaining an effective offensive and historical timelines.

Natural resistance to these suggestions would of course be coming from anyone that has played the game for a length of time, and many players that play head to head matches refer to game balance, and as developers, this is something we've worked hard to achieve since release over 2 years ago. Major changes like what you've proposed here would unfortunately take a long time to test and sort out, and this is not an excuse to not try something like this, but for those that have played for a long time, it is fairly conceivable that they would have a pretty good feel on what would work and what wouldn't, right off the bat sort of thing. As developers we would of course have our own opinions and are very careful of what we change as well.

And as others have mentioned here, it is not necessarily about right or wrong, but after years of discussion and debate on game rules/mechanics, and years of playing the game, it shouldn't be too surprising that some will feel strongly, and that some would have a pretty good idea of what would or would not work, or possibly be an improvement (or not) in game.

One suggestion I could make, and this may or may not change your opinion, would be to play test your proposed changes (with self restriction on attacks/swaps being applied as you've outlined) starting with the 1939 campaign in Hotseat mode and see how it goes. The battles for Poland, the Low Countries and France should quickly paint a better picture on your proposed mechanisms, versus the current defaults.

In the end you might still feel what you feel about the game, or perhaps, you might also then see some validity in what others have mentioned in their critiques of these suggestions.

2) This all depends on the definition of encircled as supply also plays a factor in game. Fully encircled and cut off from supply and this is indeed the case, i.e. a unit cannot reinforce unless it draws supply from an HQ, whereas if a unit can draw some supply from a city/town, then it will have limited reinforcement, and reinforcemnt can be further reduced through attrition and depending upon how many enemy units end up adjacent an encircled town/city as well.

This allows us to model a variety of things in game such as Leningrad, D-Day, as well as when a unit/resource is properly surrounded.

Hope this helps,
Hubert



< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 3/15/2019 8:49:23 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 31
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/15/2019 11:44:33 PM   
gamer78

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I think you should be respectful

I was referring to the part I quoted, that veteran players have made some impolite answers. Just a misunderstanding, all is good.


Thank you regards.
quote:

ORIGINAL: elxaime

I have found, when playing someone at expert level you feel less and less like you are simulating WW2 and more like you are playing "the game." You HAVE to do certain things a certain way or get left in the dust. For example, the way expert players will cannibalize research at the start of the game to pour it into infantry, tanks and aircraft. Or roll the dice on wild diplomatic offensives that, if they succeed, more or less can end the game in 1941.




I'm playing with expert player in World at War and feels like certain moves should be made at least in early turns. British economy destroyed from full navy raiding in Egypt&Australia and İndia etc..effected Russia and GB research in long run. This raiding is maybe difficult to prevent than to perform. Generally I like the WEGO turns the most.


< Message edited by gamer78 -- 3/15/2019 11:54:26 PM >

(in reply to elxaime)
Post #: 32
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/16/2019 12:44:20 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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


Hi Emporer,

Welcome to the game and I hope you are enjoying it.

1) As others have mentioned in this thread, what you've suggested here is likely to be too restrictive and as a result would in turn cause you some difficulty in maintaining an effective offensive and historical timelines.

Natural resistance to these suggestions would of course be coming from anyone that has played the game for a length of time, and many players that play head to head matches refer to game balance, and as developers, this is something we've worked hard to achieve since release over 2 years ago. Major changes like what you've proposed here would unfortunately take a long time to test and sort out, and this is not an excuse to not try something like this, but for those that have played for a long time, it is fairly conceivable that they would have a pretty good feel on what would work and what wouldn't, right off the bat sort of thing. As developers we would of course have our own opinions and are very careful of what we change as well.

And as others have mentioned here, it is not necessarily about right or wrong, but after years of discussion and debate on game rules/mechanics, and years of playing the game, it shouldn't be too surprising that some will feel strongly, and that some would have a pretty good idea of what would or would not work, or possibly be an improvement (or not) in game.

One suggestion I could make, and this may or may not change your opinion, would be to play test your proposed changes (with self restriction on attacks/swaps being applied as you've outlined) starting with the 1939 campaign in Hotseat mode and see how it goes. The battles for Poland, the Low Countries and France should quickly paint a better picture on your proposed mechanisms, versus the current defaults.

In the end you might still feel what you feel about the game, or perhaps, you might also then see some validity in what others have mentioned in their critiques of these suggestions.

2) This all depends on the definition of encircled as supply also plays a factor in game. Fully encircled and cut off from supply and this is indeed the case, i.e. a unit cannot reinforce unless it draws supply from an HQ, whereas if a unit can draw some supply from a city/town, then it will have limited reinforcement, and reinforcemnt can be further reduced through attrition and depending upon how many enemy units end up adjacent an encircled town/city as well.

This allows us to model a variety of things in game such as Leningrad, D-Day, as well as when a unit/resource is properly surrounded.

Hope this helps,
Hubert



Hi Hubert

Thanks for a constructive answer and absolutly it's a good game but still there are room for improvments but I enyoy it a lot.

The swap thing can be stoped easy. It's modable to what I want to achive but it comes to a cost. If an increase enogh in the attack cost it wont any longer be possible to swap the unit in the front because of the cost for the attack (but it looks that weak defending unit dosn't block this wich is good I assume the brakeven for this parameter is also unit strenght of 6 and above.). But cost is the attacker wount be able to occupy the vacant hex. So in short shouldn't it allways be possible for an attacker to occupy the vacant heax after the the attack regardless how many action points a unit has left?
If that would be possible it should solve the problem.

Today is the parameter for cost of attack limited to only 8 action points, would it possible to change that to say 25-50 instead. It wouldn't give any impact to the normal game but it would help in modding the game.

Cheers

< Message edited by Emporer -- 3/16/2019 12:47:45 PM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 33
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 2:15:00 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 686
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
Hi Emperor,

sorry if my reaction has been too harsh, in general everybods suggestion are highly welcome, rookie or not. At least I didn't had the impression of a very thoutful demand, since it would seriously limit the attacking side in its opportunities. Personally I try to avoid swapping units anyway because of the already given downsides.

My tension had already been raised after reading the changes in V 1.16, where after long discussions the efficiency of bombers will be strongly reduced (not to mention the downgrade of subs, both hurting balancing especially for one side), and that after former changes were made very carefully, with minor but obviously satisfying outcomes. After not taking part in the belonging discussions I felt triggered to raise my voice again to prevent further catastrophes in balancing, especially since my own suggestions had not been considered.


(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 34
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 2:26:59 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 2646
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Hi Sugar,

Thanks for your posts as well, and sometimes despite the case for balance, there are some changes that we felt needed to be made due to them being perceived on our end as valid criticisms, that if we adjust just right can ideally improve gameplay for both sides. Your point on it potentially affecting balance is also valid, but we do feel that overall the changes will even out while at the same time fix a few areas that we felt could be implemented a little bit better.

For example, while the sub and air unit changes will potentially make things a bit more challenging for the Axis side, the additional encirclement and attrition changes will favour the aggressor, and the changes to the zones of control will potentially make things a bit easier for the aggressor and especially the Axis side a bit earlier on as well.

All of these changes have been in place for the World at War release and so far, at least there, it has muted most of the criticisms, while maintaining a fairly even game play experience throughout. We really do hope/feel it will be the same for War in Europe as well.

Hubert



_____________________________


(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 35
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 3:24:54 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 586
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline

First Hubert & Bill thank you for your relentless pursuit to improve the game and listen to the players feedback.

IMO the zero supply & sub changes in v1.16 are excellent and definitely needed. They are great updates and improve the realism of the game, any changes in game parity can be remedied with new strategies.

Full disclosure I haven't played the new Beta but do share Sugar's concern about the changes to the bombers. Nmason has posted results from the new tournament that strongly point that the game is close to even. My concern is the new bomber rules will tilt the balance towards the Allies and may significantly. I appreciate that the new encirclement rules will help offset but I'm not sure if that will offset the bomber changes. To me the main issue with the Axis bombers is later in the game where after gaining experience they are invincible. Some changes there maybe but these changes may go to far.

It would be interesting to get feedback from people who have played the new version. Do the bomber & encirclement changes offset?





_____________________________


(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 36
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 4:58:12 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 2646
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks PvtBenjamin, and what I can add, and I realize this is not the same as head to head tests, is that in my AI vs AI testing that I've done (which I always use to help test and ensure general balance for any changes), it hasn't slowed the Axis AI down at all and general timelines have been maintained.

Granted, it is a bit of a change where air units will do a bit less damage on their own, but with the increased morale losses on the defender, it does enable ground units to do more damage in their follow up attacks.

It's a change from before for sure, but it feels like another imnprovement in realism (there is that loaded word again) this way and the tradeoff works out about the same as before despite the slight tactic changes required going forward.

But that being said, we too would be interested in hearing from those that have played the new version as well.

_____________________________


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 37
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 6:13:50 PM   
MVokt

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 7/1/2018
Status: offline
Change in air units effectiveness was needed. I just realised of it after a few games with 1.15 in which I checked out that tactical bombers were just lethal taking too many steps when bombing ground units.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 38
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 8:42:42 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 686
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
Hi Hubert,

and thx for your reply, but I remember all the discussions around operating and amassing of bombers over a long period of time, and your first changes resulted in diminishing their attack value by 1, and the second has been to change the unit build limit by -1 tac. to +1 med. bomber. At least the second change is of minor result, and followed by very balanced results in the tourneys.

And now you're doubling the costs of operating and additionally diminishing their attack value again? Now that's a major change I suppose, and reconsidering the results of the tourney completely unnecessary. My suggestion always has been to reduce the force pool of bombers in favour of med. tanks, but also to reduce the sovyet inf. research to the same lvl of all nations, and to eliminate the heavy tanks completely (as if an army of heavy tanks has ever been realistic).

With the new changes I guess it will be very hard to take Malta, which results in buying even more bombers, because there's no other way to do the trick, and you're also still in need of something to break through and destroy the russian lines, especially as their infantry's hard defense values against tanks are 1.5 points higher than that of all other nations at the highest lvl, and that's also unrealistic.

At least it leads to a style of gameplay which no longer represents the typical operational manouevre warfare of WWII and the meaning of air superiority, because in addition to all the reduction of attack values the action points are also reduced, compared to the predecessor Breakthrough SoE, making encirclements already uncommon in WiE. Maybe some of the changes will force the Axis to try nevertheless, but that'll be the result of punishing other ways to get the necessary result, not of rewarding doing the right thing.

(in reply to MVokt)
Post #: 39
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/19/2019 9:41:48 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 586
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Thanks Hubert

I'm still a little skeptical of the bomber changes but agree with MVokt that some changes are necessary. Perhaps the de-moralization changes will inspire new more "realistic" tactics that are just as effective.

My concern was always the ability to group the entire airforce in one place. Operational changes help that.

Looking forward to the new version.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 40
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/20/2019 2:14:10 AM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 2646
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Appreciate all the feedback and concerns, we just ask that you keep an open mind and consider all the changes as a whole and to give the new build a good run through before drawing potentially pre-mature conclusions.

As mentioned, they appear to have worked out quite well in the World at War release, with practically zero knocks on overpowered air etc., as was previously the case in War in Europe, which we view as a good thing.

The AI vs AI tests have come back quite positive for War in Europe as well, with the Axis AI at times actually doing better than it usually does, Major Victory in 1944 in my last test and typically the Axis AI rarely if ever defeated the Soviets in v1.15 or earlier, which has me suspect that the added manouverability and attrition changes are likely having a bigger impact than one would think.

For example, some of the initial feedback for World at War, from AI players familiar with War in Europe (and even some PBEM players), has been that they are having a much harder time holding back the Germans in the USSR relative to what they are used to in War in Europe. Granted map scale and other factors may play a part in some of the differences, but World at War was built up from War in Europe when modeling the European Theater so both games are reasonably developed to be within very similar parameters game play wise.

We honestly do try our best to acknowledge all concerns, from PBEM balance, to single player balance, to how to best handle "realism" within the gameplay (for both single player and PBEM), and we feel pretty good overall about these changes as we always attempt to balance out each change keeping in mind how it will play out for both sides.

What we hope is that you'll be pleasantly surprised, and if we've missed something, we strongly feel that it won't be by much, and are always happy to make any final tweaks to get it just right as needed.



< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 3/20/2019 12:52:31 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 41
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/20/2019 3:42:24 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 2844
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

...you're also still in need of something to break through and destroy the russian lines, especially as their infantry's hard defense values against tanks are 1.5 points higher than that of all other nations at the highest lvl, and that's also unrealistic.


Hi Sugar

I've just had a look in the Editor at this and made the following calculations:

Default Tank Defense + bonuses from Infantry Weapons Upgrades
Corps
1 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 4
Army
2 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 5

Red Army
Corps
0 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 4.5
Army
1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 5.5

The differences are just half a point with maximum upgrades, so unless I'm missing something or there's a different unit type that allows this, there isn't really any difference at maximum levels between Soviet and non-Soviet infantry units when defending against tank attacks?

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 42
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/20/2019 5:13:05 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1199
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Also note that the Soviets won't hit that maximum level until mid 42 at the very earliest and more likely late 42. Leaving 2 summers' offensives at weaker levels.

_____________________________

"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 BillRunacre)
Post #: 43
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 8:18:26 AM   
hellraiser1973

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 7/18/2016
Status: offline
Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping

Indeed IRL, "swapping" a corps/army size unit is quite a huge logistical achievement. From this standpoint, yes it can be considered "unrealistic". But since this is a game, one needs to find ways to deal with certain bottlenecks and the swapping thingy solves this. The alternative being what? 5-6 bomber units? Is this realistic? Thousands of air units to break a fortified hex surrounded by marshes?
If the game was on a tactical level, played on a much larger map, it would be far easier to implement this issue in a more realistic manner. But since it is a grand strategy game, sometimes workarounds have to be implemented (workarounds that maybe tactically don't necessarily make sense).

My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes

At first, any axis player will be pretty much upset about this, bombers being one of the main tools for breaking front lines in SCWiE.
But let's analyze it for a moment:
Some players are complaining that the axis bombers destroy everything in their path but the problem is WHEN? This effect is mostly felt during the russian campaign. People don't really complain about how unbalanced bombers are during the french campaign. Maybe the real reason is not the attack values of air units but the experience they aquire. By the time Axis fights in Russia, they have 2-3 star xp HQs and airfleets. Now that is scary. Not only airfleets are scary but have you seen a 2 star xp Panzer Group attached to a 2-3 star xp Manstein, do battle? You didn't? That's understandable, no one survived to tell the story :)

My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)

The problems for axis subs is that they have no possibility to resupply in the Atlantic. Historically, they were supplied by the milk cows (supply subs) or even surface supply vessels disguised in commercial ships. OFC it is not realistic at all to have a sub perform missions for half an year without resupply (as we do it in SCWiE) but penalizing their zero supply status with +50% combat losses, inability to raid and no dive chances seems a little bit too much. Basically, at least in the first years, it kinda turn them into suicide ships - you send them out, you can't resupply them, if they somehow don't get spotted it will take another half year to bring them home to resupply - I mean they quickly lose their usefulness. And if I play long term, i.e. saving them for when i get ports in France and better techs - i am missing their "happy time" - that is the first year of the war. As for the allies - they got ports everywhere so the supply issue is not really an issue.

Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

< Message edited by hellraiser1973 -- 3/25/2019 8:30:11 AM >

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 44
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 1:45:40 PM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 485
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973


4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.






The combat values of "Medium Tanks" and "Heavy Tanks" are no different than the "Infantry Corps" in relation to the "Infantry Army". I agree so far that, at least with regard to the presentation of a "larger" tank unit, other, slightly less misleading alternatives (Tank Division, Tank Corps and Tank Army?) could also be considered.

_____________________________


(in reply to hellraiser1973)
Post #: 45
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 2:15:27 PM   
ringoblood


Posts: 218
Joined: 3/10/2018
From: USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973


4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.


I would agree with making heavy tanks as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map.


(in reply to hellraiser1973)
Post #: 46
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 3:29:23 PM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 485
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ringoblood


I would agree with making heavy tanks as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map.





In the degree of abstraction of the game, the research "Advanced Tanks" also depicts the development of heavy tanks. Another area of research without decisive additional benefit would, in my view, be much more unnecessary than variable organization sizes for tank units. At least on maps in the scale of WiE or larger.

Like the infantry units the tanks should be evaluated in terms of different production costs, combat values, time of formation and possibly unit strength and not in terms of their naming ("Heavy Tanks", "Tank Army", "Large Tank Group", "Big Red Dragon" or whatever ...!)










_____________________________


(in reply to ringoblood)
Post #: 47
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 4:15:16 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 586
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Two more cents



quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping


My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes


My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)


Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks


Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.





1) Swapping - I think the current land battle format is great and doesn't need changes.

2) Bombers - Interesting idea on experience the main issue is Axis bomber strength when the game progresses. Maybe the strength increase from lv 1=>2=>3 for bombers could be less. It remains to be seen if the demoralization increase will be enough to offset the strength reduction.

3) Subs - Couldn't disagree more the v1.16 zero supply & subs changes are very welcome. If played correctly the Axis has ports from Petsamo Finland to Santa Cruz (+ Vigo) to resupply. The ability to put effective zero supply subs off North America (and other regions) into perpetuity needs to change.

4) Heavy Tanks - I see the thought process for change but don't see why its necessary. All players have the same advantage of heavy tanks. Any change would need to be closely analyzed because eliminating heavy tanks would probably hurt the SU and tip the scales considerably. I guess it could be offset in other ways as discussed but see no reason for the change.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 3/25/2019 4:28:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to TheBattlefield)
Post #: 48
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 6:32:56 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellraiser1973

Some valid concerns here...I will throw my 2c on those issues:

1. Unit swapping

Indeed IRL, "swapping" a corps/army size unit is quite a huge logistical achievement. From this standpoint, yes it can be considered "unrealistic". But since this is a game, one needs to find ways to deal with certain bottlenecks and the swapping thingy solves this. The alternative being what? 5-6 bomber units? Is this realistic? Thousands of air units to break a fortified hex surrounded by marshes?
If the game was on a tactical level, played on a much larger map, it would be far easier to implement this issue in a more realistic manner. But since it is a grand strategy game, sometimes workarounds have to be implemented (workarounds that maybe tactically don't necessarily make sense).

My verdict : unit swapping is a clever feature which prevents a trench type warfare.

2. Upcoming air force changes

At first, any axis player will be pretty much upset about this, bombers being one of the main tools for breaking front lines in SCWiE.
But let's analyze it for a moment:
Some players are complaining that the axis bombers destroy everything in their path but the problem is WHEN? This effect is mostly felt during the russian campaign. People don't really complain about how unbalanced bombers are during the french campaign. Maybe the real reason is not the attack values of air units but the experience they aquire. By the time Axis fights in Russia, they have 2-3 star xp HQs and airfleets. Now that is scary. Not only airfleets are scary but have you seen a 2 star xp Panzer Group attached to a 2-3 star xp Manstein, do battle? You didn't? That's understandable, no one survived to tell the story :)

My verdict: airforce attacking values may not be the real culprit here. Maybe experience gains should be toned down a little bit?

3. Proposed supply rules for naval units (subs/raiders)

The problems for axis subs is that they have no possibility to resupply in the Atlantic. Historically, they were supplied by the milk cows (supply subs) or even surface supply vessels disguised in commercial ships. OFC it is not realistic at all to have a sub perform missions for half an year without resupply (as we do it in SCWiE) but penalizing their zero supply status with +50% combat losses, inability to raid and no dive chances seems a little bit too much. Basically, at least in the first years, it kinda turn them into suicide ships - you send them out, you can't resupply them, if they somehow don't get spotted it will take another half year to bring them home to resupply - I mean they quickly lose their usefulness. And if I play long term, i.e. saving them for when i get ports in France and better techs - i am missing their "happy time" - that is the first year of the war. As for the allies - they got ports everywhere so the supply issue is not really an issue.

Verdict: do not make subs/raiders utterly useless at zero supply. Scaling down their efficiency might be a better idea.

4. Heavy tanks

Sugar mentioned something along the lines of removing HTs alltogether.
I kinda agree with this idea, SCWiE being a grand strategy game and heavy tanks being battalion sized units, historically. The "Tank" unit is SCWiE is more like a special unit having light, medium and heavy tanks in its composition (at least this is how i perceive them - historical pz groups were very large formations having tanks, motorized inf, regular inf, support units etc).
Having a full unit comprised of heavy tanks is a little bit exaggerated.

Verdict: I would rather see "heavy tanks" as a technology to research rather than a unit counter on the map. But then the force pools need rebalancing I guess.

Hi

Some intresting thought here but still soem different view of the game mechanics.

1. The swap thing is to much of a benefit for attacker. It could work if you should be allwed to swap BEFORE the unit done its attack but not after. This could also be a mod able parameter in the settings or in the editor, problem solved.
2. Let the airforces lower the rediness and/or morale factor instead and tone down the hits on the units strenght.
3. Create a mode for the unit where they can resupply for 1 turn and and be immobilized during this resupply turn not have the possiblity to dive and be more vulnerable. This to simulate resupplying at sea.
4. This slot is what it is, I personally have modded them to elite forces as soviet Guards, German SS etc.

Cheers


(in reply to hellraiser1973)
Post #: 49
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/25/2019 7:16:00 PM   
MVokt

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 7/1/2018
Status: offline
One way to deal with the swapping thing could be to increase the retreat range of all land units from 1 to 3 hexes, this sometimes saving the depleted unit from total destruction. This would simulate the depleted unit being routed like it happens in War In The East Gary Grigsby's game

(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Some reflections on the game Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.137