Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sombra

SC2 WaW " THe death of human vs human MP"

Recommended Posts

Another thing I would like to see is the ability of major powers to have a chance(like in Third Reich) to counterattck to take back their capital.This would help to prevent the Axis from just wiping out the units on the two Brit. capitals without the Brits.getting a chance to hit back.It could also make a difference in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx very much for the reply Hubert.

- As Terif said the problem of England is that it can simply loose England

-Regarding the change for BEF it was to prevent the early taking of Norway + take away the penalties of the allies doing so. opening up another strategic option for the allies

-Regarding TAC bombers: The Problem is for me their soft attack value , that they are escorted, that antiair (towns) doesnt work against them .

I think that not escort TAc bombes is one step in the right direction.

At least the human player would be forced to have air superority to use them.

Rigth now they are the atomic bomb wiping out HQs in mountains in 2 turns etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, going against anti-air protected spots could be expensive for attacking tac bombers...if they would do it ;)...but AA are very limited in numbers and a good commander simply doesn´t attack where they are with air. Tac bombers with their range have enough other targets to destroy that don´t cost them. Or if the attacker wants a certain position he just uses fast ground troops or paratroopers first to destroy the anti-air units which have no defence against them and then the tac bombers make short process of the rest of the defenders...

But a common tactic if someone is so crazy trying to defend in Russia before the Urals are reached is anyway to just remove the key units (= killing the HQs + railroad guards with a few airstrikes) and then mopping up the rest of the defending task force with ground troops. If necessary, loosing a few Tac bomber strength points against AA opposition is more than worth the destruction of entire task forces pretty much for free afterwards...Defence on the eastfront simply doesn´t work in WAW anymore when the players reached a certain skill level and know where to attack and in which order with what unit types. Fall Weiss in WaW is just not really suited for competitive multiplayer games of experienced players.

But that´s no real problem - since the pretty much perfect multiplayer game already exists with the perfectly balanced original SC2 with nearly endless possible strategies :) - the strength of WAW and the other expansions is IMO single player mode where all the additions, more historical accurracy, details and micromanagement (that also lead to much longer games) have a positive influence and enhance the gameplay...and not so experienced players can also have fun in casual multiplayer games in the different scenarios :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Terifs comment about having options(SC2 OVER W.a.W.)is the perfect setup.If you want to have more of a giant bloodbath(which can be fun) and some more historical reality just play W.a.W.or P.D.E.and if you want to play a game thats not quite as restrictive then play SC2.

Terif I do find though that if you can get your Axis fighters in regular SC2 with high tech. and experience lead by the master(Manstein)in some ways they are even more deadly than tac.bombers because they dont need any escorts(and they still cause a fair bit of damage against ground units).I do realise that is easier for the Russians to escape a trap because there are no railroads(and no choke points) to prevent their escape.

Maybe one way to help offset this is to allow for ground units to be able to up their air defence capabilities?

Terif, what do you think about just allowing a total of two tac. bombers only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing in SC2 is there are no superweapons - all unit types are well balanced and for every strategy there is a possible counter :).

Airfleets in SC2 can´t become the killers Tac bombers in WaW are, simply because they take too many losses for this during battle and can be countered by enemy air. Especially later in the war when air gets higher tech, aircombat becomes expensive and also effectively eliminates the collection of much experience since after 1-2 airbattles and reinforcing, the experience collected during the last years will be gone - positive consequence of the dual role of airfleets both for bombing and aircombat.

Even when attacking ground units unopposed by enemy air, in average they loose as much mpps as the target they attack if that is also HQ supported. The defender can do stupid things - especially concerning the placement of his troops (e.g. in swamps) so this may not be the case, but that´s his fault then :). With high experience airfleets loose a bit less, while they are still training they loose a lot more - so it always needs to be well considered if an airstrike is worth the mpps spent for it.

To attack enemy ground units only with air is usually foolish and much too expensive / wasting good turns of clear weather for nothing...someone using his air primarily in this role only makes the enemy happy :). The main purpose of airstrikes in SC2 is to reduce enemy morale and entrenchment so ground units can engage and eliminate them - otherwise airstrikes make not so much sense and often cost more than they bring benefit. Especially when attacking fortified positions airfleets have a pure support role for ground troops and are seldomly able to kill units on their own...even if all of them are concentrated against a single spot.

In WaW one of the problems is the breaking down of airfleets into several subunit types, making each of them very strong in its respective field. So e.g. Tac bombers don´t have to engage in airfights any more due to fighters protecting them (be it by escorts or forced intercepts...) and with the much higher base attack values they are now natural born killers from the beginning...

The number of these kind of "atomic weapons" is not the real problem, but that their role on the battlefield has changed:

In SC2 they have a support role for the own ground troops and kill enemy units only as an exception under the right circumstances. In WaW they are now primarily the perfect unit killers from half accross the battlefield like the fist of god...and supporting ground units by reducing enemy morale before an attack got irrelevant for them (for this task are artillery/rockets etc. used).

Best solution here would be to just merge them back together to the airfleets from SC2 - problem of the Tac bombers solved :D. Same applies to many other problems WaW has with competitive multiplayer games...remove the changes and convert it back to how it was handled in SC2 and all these things go away...but that makes no real sense since SC2 still exists.

So why trying to turn WaW into something it is not ? Just would cripple its strength in single player and most likely still not make it into a comparably good multiplayer platform like SC2 already is. Especially with new expansions coming out every few months, it would be pretty hard to make them all balanced for competitive multiplayer anyway. Better to have in SC2 a reliable platform for exciting competitive multiplayer battles and use the expansions in the way they are supposed to be used:

SC2 is optimal for competitive multiplayer. WaW+Expansions are best suited for (historical oriented) single player and also casual multiplayer battles on diversified maps. As long as the single players for which WaW originally got developed are happy with how it is and you also can play enough scenarios in multiplayer from time to time too for new experiences, IMO there is not much reason for changes :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Terif but WAW Tac Bombers , Fist of god, works as well against the AI ...You want England 2-3 turns max.... Sure I can play blind, 3 bottles of wodka to give the AI a chance . still teh problem for human vs human is still teh same against he AI

I think all teh problems would be solved if TAC bombers soft attack value would be much much much lower + no escort for Airfleets anymore + air defense bonus applied against TAC bombers in ports and cities as well.

Tac bombers as tank killers fine for me if you want to spend money on them., prevents the tanks to become the next "Ueberunit" . Tac bombers to clear cities against soldiers ugh... Without tac bombers England isnt be taken as easily (no need for capital switch anymore) ..More severe cosnequences for the British taking the middle est yeah.

As I see most people love the new units of WAW . Saying that well it isnt for multiplayer anyway is kind of weak. IMO

Its simply no fu if somebody is lucky in long range it takes out your GQs regardless where and how you defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sombra:

Well - as you obviously noticed ;):

WaW is for experienced players not really much fun if you play the same scenario too often - WaW just has too many possible exploits when you have learned how the game works (solve Tac bombers within the WaW mechanics and you create tons of new problems...+ can just continue with the next loopholes/superunits like tanks/strategic bombers/subs/rails etc..) ...which is why IMO it is more for normal casual players and for single player where you have many different maps you can (and should) choose from and play. Better not to only concentrate on Fall Weiss - this gets boring too fast and luck has certainly too much influence as that you could really measure your strength with somebody in multiplayer. WaW (+ the other expansions) come with many more maps - use them :).

If you want to have real (and pretty much endless) multiplayer fun, play SC2 :).

P.S.: for the normal not so experienced players WaW seems to be pretty much balanced (they usually don´t know how to hold Egypt for instance or how to effectively use Tac bombers and the other potential superunits...and as long as these are not used to their full potential they are fine as they are - which is also why they got implemented this way in the first place since the common players demanded them to be how they are now so they could have more fun) - and that was the original intend of WaW to provide fun with the new units/maps/game mechanic for the average player and make it attractive to them...which I think it achieved :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terif imho making tac.bombers not so effective against Inf.and making a few other minor changes wouldnt really change the basics of W.a.W.over regular SC2.It would still be quite different from regular SC2.There would be some work and playtesting involved but thats what this forum is all about.Getting good advice from everyone and applying or not applying it where necessary is how to improve the game(maybe only a little or maybe alot).I do agree with you that if to much was changed then it would end up more like SC2 and that wouldnt be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly A234 get's it:D, this is exactly about making SC better, the feedback and suggestions from the forums. Everyone has made valid statements, now we take these and incorporate into future renditions and SC becomes "more fun".

Now fun is a matter of perspective and we all know we're different when it comes to that definition. So what we want to do is build a consensus.

Terif is right, SC2 was immaculately balanced for MP and remember Terif it really didn't take that long to get it there, because of the ideas and adjustments. But Terif....SC2 had some deficiencies in realism and historical context and it is now a landmark in that town we left behind, we saw it, we liked it, but it is time to move on.

I'm glad you decided to take up residence there, you found your place early, we're still searching for ours, although I still hold my liberty to visit from time to time, and I do.

So ....when you get right down to it....most of the things we're discussing here are irrelevant(presently) since PTO looms, but perhaps consequential to the forthcoming global variant. We'll need to examine PTO's mechanics and put them in the proper context with WaW.

For all we know, PTO may alleviate some of these misgivings we currently have with the WaW unit interactions. We've already arrived at some remedies, many put forth in this thread and other discussions, its just a matter of testing.

And you see....Terif...you... as are many others here, are important for that resolution, for we all want the same thing. An excellent single player vs AI game as well as a balanced MP scenario for World War 2 simulations in our strategic scale, operational too. A vast playground that presents us with something new everytime we boot it up.

We agree in principle, its just the details we have some differences over. So ....I say to all.... you have an SC summer home, a vacation place you like to frequent, me too, but do not forget, there's a rather large space out there that is unexplored.

I'm setting my sails for "out yonder"......hope you guys come with me.:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you SeaMonkey - this discussion is much more relevant how to make the future expansions/games better and to learn from the predecessors :).

WaW is pretty much balanced for the not so experienced players, i.e. the main player base - changing things now at the end of the developement cycle for the more experienced players (which there are more now, but still not the majority..) most likely only would result in imbalances at other places (especially if Egypt gets changed there will be a major disturbance of balance..), reduce attractiveness for new players and open a can of worms...Nevertheless Tac bombers could in deed use some nerfing, like reducing their base attack value and/or removing escorts.

So what can we learn for the future ?

SC2 has the perfect balance of units and strategies in a clean and proper environment where you can fight everywhere on the whole map. WaW offers more historical realism and a high variety of unit types but has problems with balancing those units and also some of the areas are dead/problematic for combat.

This is because of the transportation system - operating can be too easily prevented by destroying just 1-2 key locations and in the desert/northern part of the map there is no usable railroad system from the beginning.

So for the future I think it would for one be useful to make transportation (=operating) easier and not so much dependent on the main rails (would be even more realistic since turns represent weeks/months, so even without a main railroad line there are always enough possibilities/roads/smaller rails etc. to move in reality a unit accross land to a destination) and this way give more options where to fight and open areas for possible combat.

A second thing we can learn is to make a wide variety of unit types like players obviously like, but take care some of them won´t single out and become superweapons. Especially in the later stages of the game there needs to be some mechanism that counters the steadily increasing attack/defence values. Today they are leading to at the end massacres where 1-2 attacks are enough to destroy a unit. But with time in reality also the defence gets improved and that doesn´t necessarily mean the attacker takes more damage, but more that the defenders losses get reduced.

In other words I see the necessity to introduce a new and so far different tech ability: so far tech can only increase losses for both sides, there should also be techs that decrease losses. In reality it is always the race between technologys for attack and techs neutralising those new attack possibilites, providing better protection. So it should also be in the game: developing of better attack possibilities, but also means to better protect the units against new weapons/tactics, i.e. reducing these additional losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent summation and analysis Terif, but I think you were at the crux of the situation with your earlier statement regarding the demise of defense.

These things that have been mentioned are just a consequence of not being able to mount a competent defense. If you look at the combat equations you'll see they are all oriented to offensive operations and the defenses are resolved in essence by the damage the attacker takes.

Remember in SC1 how we all commented on the lack of movement and the potential stagnation of building a front line akin to WW1 scenarios? Do you think we might have gone a little to far the other way?

What I have always looked to for SC is the combined arms approach, but as you reiterate we seem to get to the point that some weapon platforms represented in SC through the building of experience as well as tech transforms them into superweapons.

When I made PZAA, I tried to ingrain into the units, battlefield resilience. So that they would have staying power I manipulated the combat factors and supply/readiness so that no unit could be vanquished by a couple of attacks. It took many attacks from different units, perhaps closer to a half dozen in a sequence, and even then the elimination was always in doubt.

A model such as PZAA, required a subsequent set of planning and positioning of units to achieve the required offensive effect, closer to a war of attrition where the defender is degraded to the point of collapse.

Perhaps as you refer to Terif, the timelines that are the turns that SC represent should allow for greater AP. I also believe the ability to isolate a battlefield from enemy operands coming clear across the map is a realistic effect. It necessitates an in theater allocation of a reserve force which can either be on site or in the build Q for placement and has the alternative consequence of keeping unit density down.

Anyway, just some ideas, we all have many, and I'm sure we can get Hubert to see the validity for adjustments. This is the best forum for game evolution I have been exposed to, not saying that it is the epitome, its just from my rather shallow background it seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that right now SC" WAW is the most played part of the SC2 series. I strongly disagree to let WAW rest and move on.

The only problem I see right now with any nerfing of some aspects of the game is that the aI is b not able to handle an invasion without TAC bombers as a superweapon.

As Terif said moving the capital to Canada makes the problem worse.

I still think that aircraft especially TAC Bobers are overpowered.

=> Therefore you cant defend GB

=> Capital transfer to Egypt

=> why defend GB at all if EGypt is much more worthwhile

etc.

MY personal list of fixes for SC2 WAW:

-Reduce TAC Bombers soft attack (it would be fine if they still could work as tank killers)

- Scrap the escort for tac bombers (harder to lvl up experience for TACs)

- Make airdefense bonus for mines, cities etc work against all airplanes

- Scrap capital transfer for England

.......................................................................................................................

Other fixes:

- Increase penalties/risks for players to conquer up the middle east

- Limit tech advances for artillery to 1

-Scrap the severe penalties for allies to take Norway

-(reduce the B:EF army and/or limit amphib range for England to prevent allies to always take Norway before Germany has a chance)

- Open up a little bit the Egypt landscape for battles.

- Increase HQ defense against air attacks

......................................................................................................................

I think the fixes would make SC2 WAW much more enjoyable as it is now. But I dont know if the AI would be able to win with these changes. But as the aI has no chance at all anyway if the human player takes advantage from these faults its kind of a mood point anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sombra your last comment about the A.I.imho is correct.Once you figure it out its pretty hard to loose to it.In all the WW2 games I have played this A.I.is the best ive ever seen by far.Im sure its extremely hard for the Hubert and the rest to forsee every possible move there is that a human can do against the A.I.

As far as tac. bombers go,imho just limit their allowable builds to just two.I know its not perfect but atleast it would make it easier to position your A.A.guns to fight against only two instead of six or seven of them.I also think they should be dummied down against soft targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sombra

Why don't you make a short "more playable" Mod for WaW - Fall Weiss. I think your list of possible fixes sounds good. I would like to test it vs. AI and HP as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Amadeus Hi, perhaps You could mod these things. From my experience: "if it isnt official it isnt played" Kind of "if you cant convince the developers aka Hubert than the idea is not worthwhile.

Lately I was playing quite a lot WAW and had much fun. Nevertheless its kind of boring when the enemy or you get LR 3+ and TAC bombers simply wipe out the HQs etc behind the frontlines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only played me vs AI so Im guessing the air power of Germany crushes UK to make them easily conquerable in human vs human. I would say look at the priority of the UK.

#1 defend convoys, easily done with DDs and 1-2 CVs.

#2 hold france as long as possible doing whatever it takes. The longer they hold the better chance UK has of surviving.

#3 build airpower and defend at a range where the air fleets cant be attacked but can intercept. You dont need TAC or STR just FTRs.

#4 Use the CVs in air defence also out of range but close enough to intercept.

#5 the fleet can stay out of range of German air and defend the coastlines north of X air range. They can if needed zip into the channel and kill any amphibs.

Now Im not sure if the UK builds allow it but I would start making FTRs and land units from turn #1.

Now some things I do think need modding and I have already done so in my game.

#1 TAC is way out of control. Air power was useful but not the all mightly destructive force the game portrays. I nerfed my airpower down on soft attack. Demorilization ok physically wiping out units no.

#2 Place in a script if the UK gets invaded they get extra units. Call it emergency reserves. This way they can't get abused and used overseas.

#3 I forgot if the script allows but if the UK is invaded there should be a big plus for the USA to come in, if it gets conquered I would say they do come in or another big plus. In reality this probably would not happen or maybe, but for game balancing I would do it.

#4 Making generic air units while might seem appropriate for realism (like in Europe at War) its far far less fun. You might as well make a generic battle fleet counter, carrier fleet counter, and escort fleet counter. Who needs CAs?

One thing to note that would be hard to swap is how production works. I know I had a problem simulating reality in my game. In SC2 Germany starts with a monsterous advantage in production and can easily make what they want. Most books tell you thats far from the truth and by the numbers it is. UK outproduced the Germans in aircraft during the Battle of Britain. There was a very remote chance of the Germans actually beating the UK in the Battle of Britain the way they handled everything and with the aircraft they had. A new book (The Wages of War) reveals though that German production was not as meager as most books say. That in reality the Germans overproduced on bombers, artillery and arms ammunition in preparation of a WWI like combat in France. The fact they did this seriously reduced the production amounts of everything else. Hindsight is 20/20 and if they knew then what we know now their production would not be ammunition but planes, planes, planes to take out the UK. Thank goodness they were stupid strategically.

Anyways Im rambling now.

Reduce the TACs down to zero soft and tank attack. Keep effectiveness reduction.

script in Home Guard units for UK only if they get invaded.

My 2 suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Al I like your idea about dummying down Tac.bombers for soft targets but not so much for armoured units.They did cause quite a bit of damage.Not so much to the tanks but to the prime movers,fuel trucks and any open top A.F.V.Maybe have an upgrade for hard targets(level 2 max)and just limit their allowable builds to a max of two?

I also like the home guard.

I have John Ellis book:World War 2,The encyclopedia of facts an figures.

-German bomber production(not inluding ground attack aircraft)in 1939 was 737

-1940 it was 2,852

England produced in 1939 1,837

-1940 3,488

Germany produced in 1939 605 fighters

-1940 2,746

England produced in 1939 1,324 fighters

-1940 4,283

Germany produced in 1939 1,214 Artty(this includes Anti-tank and Anti-aircraft)

-1940 6,730

England produced in 1939 538 Artty(same as above)

-1940 4,700

Im not sure that if Germany had gone allout for fighter Aircraft and the expense of Artty and bombers they would have defeated France as quick or it would have made that big of a difference in the Battle of Britain.I think the figures say otherwise(maybe not).Plus if Germany had built alot more fighters they wouldnt have had the bombers to destroy England.German fighters lacked the range to escort bombers very far across the channel.

Imho the main reason they lost the Battle of Britain was their poor planning(at first) and the fact that Goering was in overall command.Dont forget Ultra(started to have an effect at the end of july 1940).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had zero chance the way they did it. A good way to do it was totally focus on Med and convoy assets in 1940 and 1941 building properly. Probably late 1941 they could have done the Battle of Britain proper.

I nerfed air for soft and hard targets. Just a couple levels anti-tank and 2 planes can wipe out an armored corp with a little experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you propose for motorized infantry SC units(5/4 APs)? You do know that they depend upon the same things that the armored(Tank) units do to move.

I propose that TAC have the ability to immobilize SC Tank units, perhaps reducing their supply(or disarray/disorientation of the command structure) so that they cannot move(and attack) a full AP(min. of 1 AP) and further the possibility to suffer a strength hit, but not as predominant as current WaW.

Sort of like the way Bombers/Capital ships hit units in resources. Again the same application would be suitable for infantry units although they may not have as great of AP reduction, relying more on their animal transporting assets(min of 2 for Corps/1 for Armies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Al I think by that time it would be to late.The Amis would soon be in it and im sure the Brits.would also continue to prepare and by that time Ultra was in full swing and would be giving the Allies alot more info on German plans.Plus who knows what Russia would be up to.You are right though in that if they had planned better they would have had a chance.

I like SeaMonkeys idea about Tac.bombers.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...