Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

More feedback on 1.05

 
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: World at War >> More feedback on 1.05 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
More feedback on 1.05 - 10/22/2019 8:38:52 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
So I guess this is good news, but my findings are that 1.05 is closer to balanced than previous versions.

There are still problems with the Soviets and China.

The Soviet are still slightly too weak. I think especially getting their research going anywhere is difficult, perhaps start them off with level 1 in espionage?
Also Vladivostok needs to be looked at. Even there I fear there is no good solution as a good Japanese player will stop those deliveries no matter what.
My go to strategy for Japan now is to just take Hawaii. This stops supplies and puts a MAJOR break on the US in the pacific at almost no cost.

China is also too weak. Not sure what to suggest to be honest. A US reaction if Japan advances too fast and takes key cities?

The UK faces a new and severe problem in 1.05. Its infantry is now no better than Italy. In the desert there will be level 1 German tanks facing level 0 infantry
or level 2 tanks facing level 1 infantry. Sure airpower etc helps but it is now VERY hard to get any sort of historical results in North Africa. Italy easily keeps
the UK at bay until German help arrives. Would it be possible to start the UK halfway to infantry tech 1?
Post #: 1
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/22/2019 9:56:17 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
I should add that I tested uniquely on humans, no AIs were harmed.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 2
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/22/2019 10:59:07 PM   
Mercutio

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

I should add that I tested uniquely on humans, no AIs were harmed.




Perhaps Vladivostok and PH both should be heavily entrenched with armies? Instead of a max entrenchment of 3, make it 6? Also maybe something like the home guard where if war is declared on Russia by Japan or amphibious transports are with X hexes of Pearl Harbor it triggers more troops?

I agree both are too weak and isolated to protect.

In addition bolstering China will back it harder for the Japanese player to divert forces to Russia in the first place.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 3
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/23/2019 3:38:17 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3370
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks, this is useful and I welcome more feedback from both PBEM and games against the AI.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Mercutio)
Post #: 4
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/23/2019 6:04:13 PM   
amandkm

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline
I've played a dozen different pacific war games, dating back to the old board game, Victory in the Pacific, and in every one of them, invasions in general are too easy, and invading Hawaii in particular is far easier in game than it would have been in life.

The logistics of sending a force sufficient to the task over so long a distance was quite beyond any of the countries of the time, with the possible exception of the US. I would suggest a range limit on Amphib transports, which, combined with a basing limit, would force Japan to take Midway before moving on Hawaii, and once that is done, limit them to only one transport per turn, which seems far more realistic to an armada just sailing from Yokosuka and landing all at once.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 5
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/23/2019 9:19:17 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
It's my experience playing PBEM games (I would class myself as an average player) that the changes in 1.05 have balanced the games.

Japan can no longer run over China, in fact in most of my games it is difficult for Japan to make more than historical gains unless they spend so many resources that they can't make the historical gains in the pacific.

Russia is not a walk in the park either, in fact I am not even making historical gains.

I agree that taking Vladivostok is quite easy if Japan wants to DoW on Russia, so may be if it is taken supplies should go via a convoy through Persia (at a reduced rate). this would still allow "what if" strategies for average or less experienced players.

sveint appears to be an experienced player and may know the scripts off by heart, which would make it seem that there are still balancing issues if he is playing players like myself.

So may be more players should chip in with their experiences V's the AI and Human players before any more changes are made.

At the moment I have some great games going with people trying different strategies after the last changes made.

I will post more feedback as these games progress

(in reply to amandkm)
Post #: 6
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/23/2019 10:19:03 PM   
ThunderLizard2

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: amandkm

I've played a dozen different pacific war games, dating back to the old board game, Victory in the Pacific, and in every one of them, invasions in general are too easy, and invading Hawaii in particular is far easier in game than it would have been in life.

The logistics of sending a force sufficient to the task over so long a distance was quite beyond any of the countries of the time, with the possible exception of the US. I would suggest a range limit on Amphib transports, which, combined with a basing limit, would force Japan to take Midway before moving on Hawaii, and once that is done, limit them to only one transport per turn, which seems far more realistic to an armada just sailing from Yokosuka and landing all at once.



Agree with this and as well send long range amphibs from East Coast to France is not reasonable.

sveint mentioned taking Hawaii but I have never been successful with this in MP as Axis and only had one opponent try and fail when I was paying Allies. Generally moving in some fighters and marine bombers to big island helps reduce Japans carriers.

(in reply to amandkm)
Post #: 7
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 12:50:19 AM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
While I would say that the issue in North Africa is a difficult one in multiplayer, I would also say that upgrading Britains infantry weapons tech might not be the way to go about doing it.

I think in multiplayer you have gotten used to a battle of France being started end of '39 or beginning of '40. If Britain is able to acquire infantry weapons 1 much sooner, it will weigh into the Battle of France as well in a significant way.

Perhaps a better solution is giving air units a ground attack bonus in the desert (after all there is no place to hide there). That would improve the capabilities that Britain could put into the field without strengthening them in ways that effect other game balance in other theaters (after all, the middle east and north africa is pretty much the only desert theater of war).

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 8
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 1:00:47 AM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
Further thoughts.... for the Soviets, their buildup is just too slow right now. They really should have several echelons spawn at the start of war with Germany, not just the one at the front with Germany that is easily destroyed. These formations could spawn in sequence as the Soviets mobilize, and to give the German player an opportunity to maintain momentum.

For the Chinese... honestly, it seems about right to me. If the Japanese commit a fair amount of resources to China, they can advance... but the Chinese are very difficult to knock out. I also think that Indochina needs some units to defend itself. That attack you launched directly into Hanoi caused all of indochina to surrender without a shot fired... logistically a non-naval power simply couldnt do that. It does kind of force the Japanese player to pursue a very specific strategy in China in order to prevent the fall of IndoChina before it can just be overrun by the Chinese. A beautiful move that I never even thought of... there just doesnt seem to be any real reason not to.

(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 9
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 1:14:06 AM   
ThunderLizard2

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

Further thoughts.... for the Soviets, their buildup is just too slow right now. They really should have several echelons spawn at the start of war with Germany, not just the one at the front with Germany that is easily destroyed. These formations could spawn in sequence as the Soviets mobilize, and to give the German player an opportunity to maintain momentum.

For the Chinese... honestly, it seems about right to me. If the Japanese commit a fair amount of resources to China, they can advance... but the Chinese are very difficult to knock out. I also think that Indochina needs some units to defend itself. That attack you launched directly into Hanoi caused all of indochina to surrender without a shot fired... logistically a non-naval power simply couldnt do that. It does kind of force the Japanese player to pursue a very specific strategy in China in order to prevent the fall of IndoChina before it can just be overrun by the Chinese. A beautiful move that I never even thought of... there just doesnt seem to be any real reason not to.


Do you not take the peacefully occupy Indochina event?

(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 10
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 1:31:56 AM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2


Do you not take the peacefully occupy Indochina event?


Never had the chance! Indochina was conquered by china before the event fired... there was no unit that spawned there, so it happened immediately too (I had an Army already on a transport that could have landed to defend the place, but because the invasion was unopposed it never had the chance).

The only way I can see to prevent this is to conquer Nanning.... so now as Japan I MUST do that every time.... there didnt appear to be any downside to this aggression as China.

(in reply to ThunderLizard2)
Post #: 11
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 2:54:21 AM   
sveint


Posts: 1705
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
Good discussion. Let me add that the only game I'm losing (most likely) as the Allies in 1.05 is one where I went "Japan first" and focused on tank tech for the Soviets, with some other minor experiments. There is just too little room for maneuver as the Soviets. Tech research needs to be tight, unit purchases have to be just right, the defense impeccable, and so on. All other countries have at least some room for errors or experimentation.

(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 12
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 1:35:52 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3370
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thinking of Vladivostok, what would be useful for me to know is:

1) How frequently is Japan attacking it in PBEM, i.e. does every player with some experience do it, or have some of you found that keeping Japan focused more on its historical enemies is more valid?

2) If you do attack Vladivostok, at what point in the game do you do it?

Thanks

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 13
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 3:05:20 PM   
Mercutio

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline
For me it is when China is collapsing. Usually 42-43 at the latest. It is easy to cut the rail line to Vladivostok so they cannot operate there and hit it with 2 or 3 armies. Maybe some bombers or ships.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 14
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 5:38:21 PM   
calcwerc

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline
Vladivostok: I experience and practice myself 3 options, and most expereinced players do this:
a) Torpedoboat stops 80 MPP per round with no risk
b) Attack on Vladivostok together with Germany in summer 41, with no risk for Japan. 2-3 Armies and a HQ enough, if you send more you hurt the Russians even more, and at this point you can easily do that as Japan
c) Attack on Vladivostok after the German attack, since you play with other priorities in summer 41.
In all cases its a walkover. And it makes it very much harder for a Russia already doomed against a focused German attack (for instance including Africa Corps and all air power, possibly the armies of Yugoslavia additionally to the traditional Axis). These 80 MPPs could really make the difference, so I regard that it should be high priority to fix.

Different possibilites:
a) Japanese attack on Russia should make USA enter the war if not already happened
b) Russia should get a mobilization event making them able to defend
c) Rerouting of the convoys via Persia if Vladivostok is blocked. This could be countered by Axis conquest of Stalingrad, Astrakhan or Teheran.

I do not think the Russian sabotage event against Japanese vessels is nearly strong enough to fix it.

(in reply to Mercutio)
Post #: 15
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 5:50:47 PM   
HamburgerMeat

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/22/2017
Status: offline

1. Pretty much every game

2. For me it depends on a lot of factors, but I would never do it before the USA joins the war, since you want the USA to stay out for as long as possible.

(in reply to Mercutio)
Post #: 16
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 6:08:22 PM   
calcwerc

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline
Well, if you can practically kick Russia out of the game by fall 41, as can only happen if Japan and Germany bundle their efforts, then its worth it that US joins a few months earlier...

(in reply to HamburgerMeat)
Post #: 17
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/24/2019 11:50:19 PM   
Mercutio

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: calcwerc

Well, if you can practically kick Russia out of the game by fall 41, as can only happen if Japan and Germany bundle their efforts, then its worth it that US joins a few months earlier...


So true. China is nothing compared to Russia. This allows Germany and Japan to focus on their vulnerable areas. Especially Germany.

Personally I don't think Japan should be allowed to blockade Vladivostok without a DoW. It should also entail a morale hit AND the US upping aid to China, Russia and up its mobilization. That at least gives the allies a chance.

I may give you no penalties after the start of 43.


< Message edited by Mercutio -- 10/25/2019 7:38:11 AM >

(in reply to calcwerc)
Post #: 18
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 10/25/2019 11:07:35 PM   
ThunderLizard2

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Thinking of Vladivostok, what would be useful for me to know is:

1) How frequently is Japan attacking it in PBEM, i.e. does every player with some experience do it, or have some of you found that keeping Japan focused more on its historical enemies is more valid?

2) If you do attack Vladivostok, at what point in the game do you do it?

Thanks


I attack every time as Axis typically right after Peal Harbor so as not to accelerate US entry (I think attacking earlier advances US mobilization but not 100% sure - I know it does if Soviets attacked Japan it reduces US mobilization). As Allies, I say 75% of the time and definitely experienced players will do this.


(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 19
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 11/4/2019 9:57:31 AM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
So some further thoughts. Definitely think the Soviet Union needs a great deal more income during the leadup to war. Historically, Soviet Armies were huge, and right now that simply isn't reflected. That being said, there should be severe combat (and possibly movement, if possible) maluses for the first 8 months or so after the German attack, because while huge, those Soviet armies were also completely ineffective. Right now the Soviet Union is simply outnumbered from the start. The only way to catch up is to avoid combat while continuously retreating until unit density is high enough to hold a front and counterattack. Instead, Germany should be plowing its way through large numbers of soviet troops with ease... however those Soviet units can then be replaced at 50% cost, while also improving German experience. This will end up working to the Soviets advantage... but Barbarossa should be a very hard thing for Germany to win... a bit easier than Sealion, but still very difficult.

We discussed North Africa above... and thus far I've had one game as axis where my tanks didn't quite push through to victory before the British Navy was able to move into the Med in force to cut supply lines (and it was time for Barbarossa anyways), and another game as allies where Germany committed to a tentative Sea Lion (failed, although the British fleet was thoroughly mauled) and a knockout blow against England in North Africa (it is a little early to say it has failed yet... but it is in the balance right now). In each case in North Africa, once the British were able to bring in reinforcements from all over and mass their airpower, all of these things achieved a kind of equality with German armor. I would say generally North Africa is reasonably balanced.

(in reply to ThunderLizard2)
Post #: 20
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 12/16/2019 8:55:08 PM   
EarlyDoors

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
December 1945. My epic PBEM++ game against TaffJones(axis) is drawing to a close. He will graciously say its still in the balance and it may take another 8 months, but in reality it will be another Allied defeat.
He's a good player and he deserves it.

This game has been closer than our last but I'd put that down to my prioritising Infantry Weapons and Warfare for most nations. I remain unconvinced that limiting some of the techs to a single step prevented the Axis from taking a commanding tech advantage. In fact as another poster commented it just leaves the Allies with no opportunity to overtake late game. I like the idea of guessing which tech your opponent may prioritise and would like to see that taken further whereby leads in S&I and SOE / Ultra / Gestapo Decision Events could reveal opponent tech trees.

As for this game, I made very few mistakes but am just ground down, particularly by Axis air Power. It seems to me that if the Axis Player prioritises Air Power then they cannot lose and most tellingly of all time is irrelevant. They can have a late Barbarossa and not suffer. Clearly the USSR needs more resources to place some time pressure on to the Axis.

I would suggest, one of:-
~ an extra 20mpp mine East of the Urals (either from day 1 or the move industry east DE)
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1 being researched
~ USSR land units are 5% cheaper




(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 21
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 12/17/2019 1:47:37 AM   
GiveWarAchance

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 2/11/2015
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by GiveWarAchance -- 12/18/2019 11:54:36 PM >

(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 22
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 12/28/2019 11:10:22 AM   
Belyakov

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/26/2019
Status: offline
Game is realy boring.
First. Not enough script forces for UK when Seelowe is succesful.
Second. Allies not enough script units for defending Africa.
Third. Battle of Atlantic is Allies wins fast anyways (but look at Seelowe).
And much more not enough historical accuracies.
Previous games in series is better.
Right now it's just damned Hearts of Iron.

(in reply to GiveWarAchance)
Post #: 23
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 12/29/2019 4:52:47 PM   
otumfuo2

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/30/2019
Status: offline
I find 1.05 much easier to win as the Allies against AI. In 1.04 I could occasionally squeak out an Allied win; in 1.05, it's not hard at all. My advice (against Intermediate AI).
1. Go all in on the defence of France. With a couple of air defense units and a couple of armies beyond the BEF, I've managed to hold on to France until the Russians enter the war.
2. Destroy the Italian fleet during the Battle for France by bringing about half the British Navy into the Med - this will let you blockade the North African ports and keep Afrika Corps from getting to Africa. Without Afrika Corps to bother you, it's easy to conquer all of North Africa and be ready for an early invasion of Sicily and Italy or even southern France.
3. Russia coming in before the Germans are ready for Barbarossa makes all the difference. You can reinforce and upgrade all those units that are usually wiped out on the first turn of the German attack. It's easy to advance into East Prussia and build a strong enough line the the Germans cannot even push you out of Poland. It won't take long to get Berlin.
4. In China, defend Nanning by bringing down an HQ and any reinforcements you get. Counter attack towards Peking. It's often possible to recapture most of China even without Russian help - but Russian help will come, since Berlin will fall by late 44.
5. Since you cannot drop all other techs to focus on double chitting infantry and armor techs, invest in Industrial and Production techs. If you keep pushing that for Russia and the US, they'll end up massively outproducing the Axis by 43, and the game goes to whoever can produce units faster thn they get destroyed.

That's the brief outline. In any case 1.05 feels like a cake walk as the Allies against an Axis AI.

(in reply to Belyakov)
Post #: 24
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/3/2020 12:04:04 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5685
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Sheesh, the Axis AI is giving me a good game, but then I'm new at this. I did hold France until almost 1941, but the Germans still managed to get back on track to attack the USSR before it entered the war. I didn't think of destroying the Italian fleet and blockading the North African ports, so the Brits have been bogged down in Egypt/Libya for a couple years, and in 1943 the US is still liberating North Africa.

But China is what surprises me most about your post. I've fought long and hard there, but the AI keeps coming with more and more units, and I have trouble scrounging up the resources to build new Chinese units. I'm still holding Chungking, barely, but I've lost Sian, Nanning and most of the other cities I held at the start. What am I doing wrong?

_____________________________


(in reply to otumfuo2)
Post #: 25
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/6/2020 11:33:08 AM   
otumfuo2

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/30/2019
Status: offline
In China you do need to upgrade infantry warfare and infantry weapons as fast as you can, but since you cannot double chit, there's a limit to how fast that is. Defending Nanning successfully requires that you bring down an HQ to support the defense and that you allocate most of your early reinforcements to its defense. Once Nanning is stable, there are places in the north where it's possible to get good odds against the Japanese and push them back. The AI will usually pull back forces that were attacking you around Changsha or elsewhere to defend the cities you've put at risk. The longer you hold on to your major cities, the longer you have a flow of MPP and the bigger an army you can build. I, too, was surprised how well the Chinese could handle the Japanese in 1.05.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 26
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/8/2020 10:22:23 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 741
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

Further thoughts.... for the Soviets, their buildup is just too slow right now. They really should have several echelons spawn at the start of war with Germany, not just the one at the front with Germany that is easily destroyed. These formations could spawn in sequence as the Soviets mobilize, and to give the German player an opportunity to maintain momentum.

For the Chinese... honestly, it seems about right to me. If the Japanese commit a fair amount of resources to China, they can advance... but the Chinese are very difficult to knock out. I also think that Indochina needs some units to defend itself. That attack you launched directly into Hanoi caused all of indochina to surrender without a shot fired... logistically a non-naval power simply couldnt do that. It does kind of force the Japanese player to pursue a very specific strategy in China in order to prevent the fall of IndoChina before it can just be overrun by the Chinese. A beautiful move that I never even thought of... there just doesnt seem to be any real reason not to.

My feeling too is the Russians may be a little too weak, particularly in terms of the number of Siberian troops that can be transferred. They are way lower in number compared to what is available in War in Europe...

My thinking is that China may be just right, but I am no expert here...

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 lwarmonger)
Post #: 27
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 4:34:19 AM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
I used to play only as the Axis and agree up until 1.05 it did favour the Axis.

In fact until 1.05 I hadn't lost a game.

So after 1.05 was released and people were still complaining that it favoured the Axis, I decided to try playing the Allies.

Note- I play 90% of my games in PBEM

Results so far in PBEM games finished

Playing as Axis x 2 games the Allies won 2 Decisive victory's

Playing as Allies x 2 games 1 Allied opponent resigned in 41, the other I will win in 46 (Despite USSR surrendering in late 43).

So I think at the moment from my experience the game slightly favours the Allies, Against equally matched players (intermediate) I have had some epic games going down to the last 3 turns.

Against elite players or those that know the scrips of by heart I get my arse kicked big style. They build a wall of artillery units that even when they are advancing you can't defend against as the Axis as you don't have enough artillery units available to build to counter it.

It's the same with Airpower, in the beginning the Axis have the Advantage but by 43 the Allies can start decimating the Axis economy and units.

I agree Japan taking out the convoys from the USA is to easy and a solution needs to be found for this, but to me the rest of the game is almost right for players of the same ability.

If the Allies get buffed more without the Axis getting some compensation. In my opinion it will ruin the game for most players especially whose that want to try "What If" games and will become a re=run of history.

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 28
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 6:54:44 AM   
EarlyDoors

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
Hi TaffJones
What is your opinion on the 1.05 tech limits?

Do you fèel that has swung the balance too far?
Or is there some other change that has made the biggest difference?

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 29
RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/17/2020 12:05:55 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
Hi EarlyDoors
In my opinion Japan/China and the Pacific is right.

But Germany is now faced with a choice of falling behind in the tech race or build enough units in time to invade Russia.

Also the deployment of the DAK is another issue. I have had some of the units spawn in Southern Germany not Italy and they also spawn away from port hexes. This means you spend 1 turn reinforcing them, Allied turn, your next turn moving them so they can be transported, Allied turn, 1 turn transporting 1/2 of the DAK to NA, Allied turn then your next turn transporting the rest of the DAK to NA and moving the 1st units up to the battle line in total with Allied turns this is a total of 8 months in game time before they are effective, and that is if the Allied player hasn't blockaded the destination ports or sunk any of the transports.

So as the Axis it is better to use them in Yugo/Greece and Russia. Which weakens the Italians unless you have managed to sneak units over to NA before hand.

(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> More feedback on 1.05 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164