Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Battlefield

Have you looked at the Loop system I created for AOD in my "Seaways" variant? It is a bit clunky but gets round some of the problems you are now thinking about. For example the RN patrol in the area between UK and Iceland was not all that effective up until early 1941 because their RADAR was very rudimentary. In fact no German surface raider was intercepted until Bismark. I simulate this by having a loop system that works to get German raiders into the North Atlantic but switches off early in 1941. I posted that scenario just to show how it might work for human players as I had not modified the AI to use the new loops. I am just at the stage of programming the AI now for my 1942 scenario which has broadly the same loops (some switched off post beginning of 1941 so are not relevant in 1942).

I have tried to position my inter-ocean loops so that the ships using them emerge in areas of the ocean from which they will need to make another normal move before they can attack an enemy port or raid a convoy area.

The AOD standard 1939 scenario has a loop that enables US ships to emerge within 4 tiles of Japan without any condition on its use. I do not think this is a good approach as such a move ought to be dependent on the Allies controlling various islands such as Midway and Iwo Jima so that IJN recce planes would not have detected and attacked the US ships sooner. I think that your "Forced March" ought to operate under similar constraints and by the time you have taken all those limitations into account you might find that the sort of discipline imposed by fixed loop entrances and exits is not so unreasonable. This is so long as what I term "attack" loops that emerge near targets such as Guadalcanal, Midway, Pearl or the Aleutians are dependent on ownership of any appropriate intermediate locations.

Regards

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

Since I have no copy of AoD on my computer, I'll try to open your mod in the AoC Editor and then save it as a AoC file. I suppose the two extensions (AoD & AoC) are technically so similar that it should work this way. By implication even my "1939 Battlefield Europe" mod would then be playable for the honorable AoD community. :)

After perusal of your seaways-readme is quite clear: "Naval Distance March" would be an "Seaways Loop", ultimately bound to the particular unit! ;)

By the way, is it ever noticed that:

...in the determination of defense values (resources and landscapes) there is obviously no difference between soft and hard targets and thus, for example, armored units in cities (and forests) enjoy the same advantages as the simple infantry?

...when setting the marching behavior of the land units in landscapes and weather-related substrates, no exceptions for certain units (eg mountaineers, etc.) can be set?

Or have I missed something in the editor settings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Battlefield

Good luck with trying my scenario in AOC - I would be quite surprised if it works.

With respect to differentiating unit bonuses you are overlooking a setting in the editors that adjusts defence bonus between hard and soft targets etc. It is menu called Edit Defence Bonus Data as a sub menu under Campaign.

With respect to different unit types within that classification there is no further distinction apart from the settings you give to the unit itself which apply to all terrains. Thus you can give a mountain unit an extra action point as compared to vanilla infantry but it will go further in clear as well as on a mountain.

Regards

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

With respect to different unit types within that classification there is no further distinction apart from the settings you give to the unit itself which apply to all terrains. Thus you can give a mountain unit an extra action point as compared to vanilla infantry but it will go further in clear as well as on a mountain.

That's exactly the way how I build up my mountains. More action points, longer training times and no motorising upgrade. But I would prefer vanilla settings with fewer deductions due to terrain and weather cionditions...;)

With respect to differentiating unit bonuses you are overlooking a setting in the editors that adjusts defence bonus between hard and soft targets etc. It is menu called Edit Defence Bonus Data as a sub menu under Campaign.

Ok...probably again my shortcomings in the English language...I had found and understood (I hope so) the menu "EDIT DATA DEFENCE BONUS". When I enter there a city's defense value of +3, then my infantry has a logically improved defensive value. (Because they entrenched themselves in the houses) At the same time the Tank Group receives an identical value. Although these units lose an essential part of their traditional benefits such as line of sight, agility and massive use in urban combat. In this case it would be more to expect a zero value, realistic even a penalty. In an urban environment Armoured act rather than individual "assault guns" and should give adjacent attacking infantry units a slight bonus. A distinction between hard and soft units in this menu would probably also weaken considerably the problem of formation garrisons by air units, which was already described in the forums. Or am I just too blind to see the settings for "hard" and "soft" units in this menu. Is there a submenu? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Battlefield

In the Defence Bonus Menu you should see a list of terrain types on the LHS and then a series of bonus values for different types of attack that might be inflicted on a unit occupying that type of terrain. The standard value for city is 3 for tank defense and 1 for soft defense. I assume that this means if your unit is being attacked by a tank or hard unit in a city then you will enjoy a defence bonus of 3 which reduces your losses. If you are being attacked by a soft unit such as infantry you will enjoy a defense bonus of 1 which will also reduce your losses but not by so much. So the attacking unit type determines what defense bonus the defender gets and it does not matter what type the defending unit might be.

If you are the attacking unit then I think you get no defense bonus by being in a city until it is your turn to be attacked.

I do not think this is unreasonable as a tank on the defensive in a city can hide in side streets or even inside buildings if they have broken through a wall. On the other hand a tank that is offensive and therefore revealing itself is vulnerable as you describe and gets no bonus.

Personally I do think that in general the defensive capability of a unit should have an effect on the losses it suffers when it is attacked but as I understand it that is not the way SC currently works and an army or a division with similar experience and morale and terrain potentially suffer the same strength losses although one unity type is potentially of the order of 8 times the size of the other. The defensive values of a unit in SC are used to determine how much loss is inflicted on any unit attacking them not how much loss they themselves suffer.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

Ok...so I still seem to be blind. Probably also my hope for a "additional function" of the AoD version is broken, when I once again look (with glasses) in the "Defence Bonus Menu". Strange. Thank you...I will tell you about my surprises or (in case of persistent blindness) send you a screenshot of my menu, on which you can accentuate my question setting with red color. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume that this means if your unit is being attacked by a tank or hard unit in a city then you will enjoy a defence bonus of 3 which reduces your losses. If you are being attacked by a soft unit such as infantry you will enjoy a defense bonus of 1 which will also reduce your losses but not by so much. So the attacking unit type determines what defense bonus the defender gets and it does not matter what type the defending unit might be. If you are the attacking unit then I think you get no defense bonus by being in a city until it is your turn to be attacked.

Hi Mike

Wow, there is no blindness on my side and it works exactly as you have discribed it! For the attacker (outside of the tile with defence bonus) the hard/soft type matters but not for the defender? Why? The game is not so abstracted that only armies are set up with a differently high proportion of "hard" units. Then it would no matter what type of unit sits as a defender in the "city". However, it would also be no matter what type (hard or soft) attacks this unit. Just only army against army. But it is not. There are several infantry units, even armored infantry and armored reconnaissance (Light Tanks). There is an algorithm (for the attacker) which distinguishes between HT and ST. There is no simplification. Fortunately. In view of the precious diversity of units in the game - with all authority. But for the unit in the target area, everything is different? Why? This unit will be the (second) attacker in the same strike! Yet almost the same algorithm, or not? I was more expecting something like this:

post-35674-141867625091_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Battlefield

The way I try to get round the diversity of soft units (there are not many hard) is by using evasion. Thus an army will have a higher evasion value than a corps which will have a higher value than a division.

What I found was that the army might evade actual strength loss but still sometimes be forced to retreat - I quite liked this as it is similar to some games I used to play with die rolls having a variety of results including just retreat.

Regards

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

Good approach. We should mentally separate from the original reasons why a particular mathematical-technical tool was once installed in the game. A loop was indeed originally intended as a tool to connect two separate map segments but it can also shorten a march (to simulate faster ship movements) or just slow down (to simulate a stalled supply of Troops or similar). Same for damage evasion. That was originallly a tool to simulate distance independent attacks without or with reduced resistance of the target, right? (Artillery; high flying bomber attacks, etc.) So why not also damage evasion with individually different values​​ across all units and so to provide another -then also strength dependent- tool for further diversification of units in addition to the pure attack and movement values. The larger/stronger the unit, the higher the evasion value. Could equally be well addressed reversed. The smaller and more maneuverable the unit, the greater is the evasion value and the larger/stronger units receive in return a more significant gap in combat values. Works surprisingly (and sometimes even to tear out hair) well with the small partisan units. If you can grab them with stronger units, they can be wiped out quickly. Or they dance (with the addition of annoying losses on your side) around on the nose. Just like in real life.

What about our beloved naval units? Greater evasion values for bigger ships? Is there a chance for a capital warship to strike a smaller (or equal in size but eqipped with longer ranged guns) one without being in range for a counter attack? And submarines? Is there always a chance of counter strike (for a surprised ship) after getting hit by some well placed torpedos? Even in case of a attack after prior approach to the target? And how big is the chance for a submarine whose location has been identified, to escape an opponent's attack, or worse, a successful opponent's attack? The vanilla game cut of (almost) all first strike values of the sub unit and simultaneously pumps the "taker quality" unrealistic. We have "alarm dive" for submarines as a ingame defensive value. What about a submarine with higher evasion and attack values for offensive actions and zero defense (next to the alarm diving also zero defensive evasion) values? We should not have great fears of a shift of game balance or playability. A tank and an armored infantry unit with two! attacks also appear initially overpowering. In fact we will always try to adapt the strategy to the capabilities and weaknesses of the respective units. And who is attacking two times, may suffer losses two times...and where we're on the subject: Two attack actions should initially simulate a significant superiority of weapons (tanks against infantry, etc.). And the unit size? An army/corps = two corps/divisions = attack twice with the power similar of the smaller (infantry) unit and same evasion? Think about it for once...:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Battlefield

I do already use some of the ideas you just posted for example my armies have the same attack values as Corps but they get two strikes, my BB units also get 2 strikes as do IJN CAs in that case because of the strength of the IJN CA torpedo batteries.

I am not so happy that a unit that does not have 2 strikes can fire back twice when attacked but I can live it because typically my army and BB units will have a higher evasion.

I have mixed feelings about SS having much evasion as they already have the potential to dive when defending. I agree that they ought to get some benefit from a surprise attack but I consider my BB units as having an integral destroyer screen so if the SS attacks the BB it is the BB's screen of DDs that will be counter-attacking. I do usually give the subs some offensive evasion but only 5% and no defensive evasion as diving is enough.

One unit I have enjoyed making was converting the "light tank" for some countries so that it is actually a "heavy tank" such as a Tiger or KV series and then it has a very high defensive evasion. It cannot have tech upgrades but its basic values are good especially the Tiger and its evasion still works however much the opponents have improved so I do not need to convert to King Tiger. For the Soviets I have Ukraine and a few other Republics grouped to create a separate USSR minor so that the USSR can deploy both Light Tank and Heavy Tank variants of the new Tank unit which is a good representation of the mix they really deployed in 1941 and 1942.

Strategic Command has very interesting possibilities even where the game designers tried to close off some development paths for a unit.

Regards

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

One unit I have enjoyed making was converting the "light tank" for some countries so that it is actually a "heavy tank" such as a Tiger or KV series and then it has a very high defensive evasion. It cannot have tech upgrades but its basic values are good especially the Tiger and its evasion still works however much the opponents have improved so I do not need to convert to King Tiger. For the Soviets I have Ukraine and a few other Republics grouped to create a separate USSR minor so that the USSR can deploy both Light Tank and Heavy Tank variants of the new Tank unit which is a good representation of the mix they really deployed in 1941 and 1942.

You speak of a King Tiger from your mod, right? Otherwise there is no Pz. VI Ausf.B in the SC2 game series. The last upgrade for the Tank Group in the vanilla game has been provided with a picture of the Pz. V "Panther". That's okay, because the "Panther", as a medium tank, entered series production relatively late and was used until the surrender. Nevertheless, in my B.E. mod I have provided the upgrades for German battle tanks with the icons of the historical order (Pz II, Pz III, Pz.IV; Pz VI; Pz V; Pz. VIAusf.B). For this I have taken out the icon of the Czech Panzer 38 (t) to get a free slot in the end.

I am very satisfied with the way in which the developers has shown the armored force in the game. Above the regimental level - at least in the German armored forces - everything was used, what was operational. The most up to date versions of the Panzer III and IV fought alongside with Tigers and other armored weapons. I do not think that the game in its division/corps/army level needed a distinction of light, medium or heavy and superheavy tanks. Hubert's concept works fantastic as part global or global strategy game. All attempts to transform it into an infantry platoon/battalion level will inevitably fail, because of the lack of some (micro)strategic details (bridges, land mines, level changes, day/night change, etc), which play no role in a global strategic game. For this reason I have changed in my mod the light tanks to armored reconnaissance (like the cavalry) and the ATG to "Panzerjägerabteilung" (or Tank Destroyer on the Allied side.) Both, in Icons and in the values.

Strategic Command has very interesting possibilities even where the game designers tried to close off some development paths for a unit.

Undeniably! A strategy jewel that can continue to evolve over time, because the player community and the developers have joined in a unique way, thus enriching "our" game with ideas and constructive criticism.

I'm really looking forward to SC3. But I have premonitions of evil in terms of the multi-player functions. Matrix/Slitherine accommodate great strategy games. They are particularly very concerned about the development and maintenance of turn-based strategy. Unfortunately, there is lately efforts to eliminate mercilessly the LAN-play features (to enforce the "revolutionary PBEM++ play via server" idea) of the games. I am part of the under-represented network-game community, which is adopted piece by piece from the turn-based strategy. This development is very unfortunate. :(

Neither PBEM or Hotseat are a viable alternative. All three game options have a right to exist ... side by side. But maybe the developers make it here, to set an example for all players! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Battlefield

The Tiger of course did not appear until 1942 but the KV1 was around in 1941 and proved a nasty surprise for the Germans being hard to destroy but not deployed very effectively on the offense. Having created a USSR minor it is quite useful to be able to deploy a limited number of Heavy Tank units with high evasion alongside lots of cheap light tanks whilst leaving the traditional Tank Group unit to be available for development into a T34 style Tank Armies. This can mirror the actual Tank situation in the Soviet Army in 1941 going into 1942.

By the way do you visit the SC3 forum and have you read my enhancement suggestions for scenario designers there?

Regards

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...