Bluestew
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bluestew
-
-
Regarding the ranges for AVs, this is a tough one as we found early on that with really long ranges you can unrealistically land troops without having the chance to defend against them, i.e. think Germany attempting a Sea Lion from Kiel etc., if they can reach from such long distances in one shot it makes things a bit unrealistic so this is why we included the Amphibious Warfare research which results in increased range as needed.
Hubert, I assumed as much. Figured it was a balancing design decision. Not having anywhere near the experience with the game as others, I'm unable to offer other ideas at this time. I still find paddling the AV canoes irritating.
-
I hope the patch comes soon as I'm quite embarrassed about what the German AI has done in USSR, made Smolensk in two turns.
This is the greatest disparity in research levels I have ever been exposed to in SC. Germany has both level 3 IW and HT while the Reds are still without an advancement in AT. I need a restart.......hurry with that patch!
I got the impression that Hubert wasn't changing the research lottery until he made a new engine. Am I wrong? I hope that I am.
I just finished a game where it was 1946 before the USSR got a single advance in AT despite having a minimum of 1 research chit in that since the 3rd or 4th turn of the game. That type of thing just frosts my tookus.
-
Well to answer the questions I served activelly in the 12th Group special forces for eight years during the Reagan administration.Havin a library of over 4000 books is infinately ore pleasurable than playing Soldier real time. The only time Air power stopped an attack on its own was the German Averanches campaign of 1944.
No unit that could be classified as an HQ was ever destroyed by air power. In the Game you literally can snipe HQ's with Air power alone and create completly ahistoric realities.
Here here!
I was trying to relate actual military experience, training and study to Hubert when I told him that tactical airpower was far too powerful in this game. I also don't like how air units clog the lines for the ground pounders. The betas and really experienced players fall back on the idea that this is just a game, not a simulation and that is ok and true. However, I STILL feel air power is waaaaaay too powerful in this particular game.When I PBEM, I will try some of the house rules suggested.
One other thing, does the nerfed speed of AV units bug anyone else? While they did have speacialized ships, they didn't really sail landing craft across the Pacific. They loaded off of shipping assets. Granted some of the specialized ships didn't have battle fleet speed but it wouldn't take them 4 months to sail from India to Australia. I'll have to check to see if I can mod the AV speed. I find it very annoying as is.
Still learning all the nuances and work-a-rounds. Still enjoying myself so I don't want any SC groupies to think I'm pooh-poohing the game as a whole.
-
The basic rules for port control are as follows:
If you find a situation that does not fall into one of these two rules then please send me a set of turns and a description of the unusual behaviour and/or the expected behaviour and I will be glad to take a look.
Send to support@furysoftware.com
Thanks,
Hubert
I can assure you that my London port issue did not meet those specs. I had all adjaent tiles for at least a couple turns before the port switched. I remember it so well because my supply situation was troubling until it switched for no reason. I wasn't advancing, just holding in place. I'll see I still have a save, however if not, I'll attempt to duplicate the situation for you wth a fresh game. BTW, this was in AOE not the standard scenario.
-
Also, you have to have enough MPP's.
True but operate is greyed out if you don't have sufficient MPPs
-
Ludi,
I'm right there with you being confused about port control results sometimes. In a recent SeaLion assault, I owned London and all adjacent land tiles but the port remained allied. Two turns later the port just switched to axis control for no apparent reason. Also as you explained, I've noticed other occassional port control issues but don't remember them in detail enough to post.
-
I have started the tutorial for SC GLOBAL CONFLICT. On page 94 of the manual it says to attack the Chinese 5th Army with first Japan's 34th Army, then its Expedition Army, and finally with Japan's 104th Army.
There is no Japanese 104th Army that I can find. Can anybody find that Army in China?
Yup, I noticed the same thing when I did the tutorial. I'm pleased the manual is being corrected for future newbies.
-
Looks like I was able to reproduce it after a few tests, consider this fixed as well.
Hubert
Aww darn, you're fixing all our exploits.
Juuust kidding. 
-
I'll host any "legal" SC-GC files on my servers until the repository is back up. Anyone needing a mod hosted until that time should contact me and I'll provide you instructions.
-
Better to DoW Vichy and then go ahead and take Spain also, close off the Med and then get USSR from the MidEast as well as the traditional Barbarossa. Of course this is only the second priority as SeaLion is the first. I'm finding it very hard, though, to excute SeeLowe, either its easier to defend UK than previous versions or my reputation precedes me.
I've launched Sea Lion twice. First time was a miserable failure and caused the USA and the USSR to DOW me. I had to give up te attack on the UK to bolster the eastern front. Thankfully the Russians weren't really geared up for war and I was able to slam the door on them. I never progressed far into the USSR but was able to keep them weak via attrition to their battle strength.
The second time is still in progress and I've taken London. I have total domination of sea and air so it is just a matter of time to mop up the island.
-
Way too much whinning in this thread. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the Atlantic. Dirty Pool tactics is war, just the way it is. Technology has always ruled the battlefield.
Way too much whining in the above reply. If you can't tolerate reading feedback, stay out of the thread. Hubert encourages feedback, just the way it is. Customer input has always been part of business.
-
There is already a thread for this. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91734
-
I just think a physical convoy beats the abstract model. The computer would move the allied convoy after the axis turn, so the allies could see where it went, and send units to cover it. The axis would have to attack the "icon" to kill mpps.
My issue with the convoy system is that it is partially abstracted and partially physical. No physical convoys yet the units attacking the invisible convoys are actually on the map. There is no way to protect the invisible convoys but to cover the huge convoy lanes with battle assets. It should be all or nothing in either direction. I would accept either design decision as long as it was uniform.
-
1) I have had issues with "surprise contact" occurring from the Allied side of having level 3 anti-sub destroyers contacting level 0 subs and taking huge losses. And of course, the opposite does not hold true: computer controlled contact takes very few losses.
Exactly what I've been saying. And XWorm, on that level 0 Soviet DD, I don't know what it's supply was but both my level 3 subs were at 9 supply and they still lost the battle. I replayed it and it turned into a 9-8 exchange with the Soviet DD still winning. When I was UK, my L0 destroyers were repeatedly slaughtered by L2 subs.
3) In relation to what I have read in this thread, if you make DDs not surprised ever with contact with subs, it is a very lopsided, and will also produce very ahistorical results. Generally, the seas are swept clean of subs by early 1942; ships take a little longer.
Scook, if you look back, you'll see that I suggested a "no suprise" option for destroyers moving and encountering subs. I also suggested that when the subs are doing the attacking, that there would be no change. In addition, I suggested that the chance for the subs to dive away be increased if the "no surpise" option was implemented. I believe it would be a more entertaining and realistic "sub hunt" aspect for the game.
Also Hubert, after finishing another game I have to say that the research lottery is creeping up from #3 on my irritant list. It is at least #2 and possibly #1 now. I was the Axis and it was mid 1943 before I got my first advance in tanks and it was ugly in the east.
-
When subs attack convoys markers with a '?' appear on the convoy lane in question. The number of these markers tend to vary, however, invariably at least one sub will be located in one of these '?' tiles giving the allies an advantage in trying to find the location of the subs.
Convoys radioed when they were attacked, so I find those question mark markers one of the positive things about the convoy/sub battle design.
Regarding your "undo off" option, fair idea. I'm for anything that permits the players more options to play and enjoy a game the way they want. So more game options is a good thing IMO. For MP games, yeah, thats a superb idea.
-
Originally Posted by SeaMonkey
Ohhh yeah....and this Brest script, the so-called subpen improvements, don't fall for it, it's total crap, I can make mincemeat out of the place anytime I wish with the UK forces....uhhh...except when its raining or snowing!
It would be good to hear other opinions on this. Anyone?Might work great, however I say might because in my 3 games as the Allies, the UK has been almost useless in obtaining research. It took 3.5 years to get my first ASW advance and 2.5 years to get my first aircraft advance. All 3 games were similar except in one I got L1 advanced aircraft sooner but it was 1944 before I saw another advance. Meanwhile, the Axis is happily stomping my aircraft with their L3 aircraft.
The research lottery is #3 on my irritant list atm.
-
Bluestew,
I think your point that you have to ram into the Axis subs in order to prevent convoy losses is valid and an adjustment to this might make the most difference in terms of realism without having to create a whole new convoy/raider system.
It is a tricky one for sure and perhaps something as simple as what PowerGmbH suggests might do the trick or even have a special rule that Destroyers cannot be surprised by subs might even do it.
Since I suggested it, I would welcome a special rule that keeps DD's from being "suprised" by subs.
I'll tell ya, I'm in my 4th game. I'm the Axis. My level 3 U-boat just ran into a level 0 ASW Soviet DD. I took 5 hits, the DD took 1. I brought another L3 U-boat in to attack and did 3 to the DD while it inflicted 4 on me. So a 9-4 victory by the L0 DD. I NEVER get that kind of result when I'm the one fighting the subs. I'm starting to believe that the game is programmed to screw me in any sub related combat. How did you know I'd buy the game when you programmed that? So anyway, with 4 partial games under my belt, my main irritants are:
1) Sub warfare
2) Partially abstracted convoy system. Should be all or none.
3) Technology lottery system. (4 game and I've had major issues with this already)
4) Overly powerful tac air.
5) Klunky unit management (movement) Meaning its horribly difficult to move units into and out of the front lines, i.e. swapping. I shouldn't be required to create a gap in my lines or purchase the expensive motorization upgrade for all my units just to swap units in the lines. Soldiers have been marching ever since there were soldiers but apparently only "sometimes" in SC Land.
6) Referencing #4, the inability to EVER march into a square with rough terrain while motorized units can drive into it. Man that is so wrong.
7) Square tile map. Hexes would really ease the pain on #4 above.
I humbly submit the above for your consideration.
-
Excuse me if I present an air of triviality when I'm constantly fleeced for hundreds of thousands of dollars by righteous seeking governments.....but they'll let that pass...heck they're probably a recipient of government entitlements..but a DRM...whoa baby, I'm going to make some noise!:eek:
SeaMonkey, excellent comment. I could read that again and again. Next time I'm in Texas, I'd be most happy to purchase you the beverage of your choice.
-
I could probably be talked into just about any idea that the designer would be willing to implement and that would nerf tac bombers a bit. They are just TOO dang poweful. Allowing AA upgrades, double fighter intercepts, etc are all fine by me.
-
Right click on the air unit and choose the operate option. Valid destinations will be highlighted just like when you click on a land unit to move it.
-
Bluestew,
In that vein if you are finding that using these ships to attack subs is not that worthwhile, i.e. high losses prior to achieving more Destroyers, Long Range aircraft and ASW etc., then I would argue that this mimics the historical RN findings as well.
On the flip side though you are right, as essentially this means that you then have to concede some losses to Axis subs until your convoy protection abilities are more in place and with Destroyers arriving in late 1939 and 1940 via the Destroyers for bases agreement, but in the end is this really so far off from what happened historically?
Hubert,
I am not arguing against convoy losses. That is perfectly acceptable. However by design, you have abstracted actual convoys yet have the adversary of the convoys as battle units on the map. So, the only way to combat/protect convoys is the ahistorical use of the majority of the Allied fleet battle assets to hunt and try to kill them. So as I mentioned in a previous post, the convoy battles should be abstracted for all belligerents. Each side could build and assign uboats or escorts to the convoy battle. Based on tech and the amount of assets invested in the battle, a percentage of the convoy MPP would be sunk.
Now as for the hunting of the uboats, my experiences in 3 games have shown this effort to be a HUGE loss ratio for the Allies. The subs must be hunted "run into" and even with L1-2 ASW and L1-2 subs, I find that my DD's almost always take the worst of the battle. My DD's usually take 4-6 hits while the subs generally take 1-3 hits. Then I followup with either air from carriers or more destoyers. If the DD's hit on the second attack, it is rarely much better but often the sub dives away and has to be found again. This subsequent hunt results in further unequal losses to the ASW equipped destroyers/cruisers. So not only are the subs raking the convoy routes costing the Allies MPPs but the only method to combat them with battle fleet assets usually results in much more expensive battles to the Allies than the U-boats. That result is GROSSLY ahistorical. Uboats did not desire to tangle with escorts, they dove and tried to elude them in order to later attack their real quarry, the merchant ships.
I tracked down some statistics concerning the Battle of the Atlantic. I am not going to list the merchant ship losses which were probably over 2500. I'm not listing them because they are abstracted by game design. I am going to list the losses of ships and subs by year.
1939
Allied Losses: 1 Merchant Cruiser, 1 Fleet Carrier.
Axis Losses: 4 U-boats, 1 Pocket Battleship.
1940
Allied Losses: 8 Merchant Cruisers, 2 Destroyers, 2 Escort Ships (usually dedicated DD's), 1 Sloop.
Axis Losses: 12 U-boats, 1 Italian U-boat.
1941
Allied Losses: 4 Merchant Cruisers, 1 Destroyers, 11 Escort Ships, 1 Battle Cruiser, 1 Cruiser, 1 Escort Carrier.
Axis Losses: 23 U-boats, 8 Italian U-boats, 1 Battleship (Bismark), 1 Surface Raider.
1942
Allied Losses: 10 Destroyers, 8 Escort Ships, 3 Corvettes, 3 Cruisers, 2 Subs.
Axis Losses: 69 U-boats, 2 Italian U-boats, 3 Destroyers, 1 Surface Raider.
1943
Allied Losses: 5 Destroyers, 5 Escort Ships, 1 Corvettes, 1 Sub.
Axis Losses: 179 U-boats, 3 Italian U-boats, 1 Battle Cruiser.
1944
Allied Losses: 6 Destroyers, 4 Escort Ships, 1 Corvettes, 1 Sloop, 2 Frigates, 2 Escort Carriers.
Axis Losses: 111 U-boats.
1945
Allied Losses: 1 Destroyer, 3 Escort Ships, 1 Sloop, 1 Frigate.
Axis Losses: 16 U-boats.
Battle of the Atlantic Totals
Allied Losses: 13 Merchant Cruisers, 25 Destroyers, 33 Escort Ships, 5 Corvettes, 3 Sloops, 3 Frigates, 1 Battlecruiser, 4 Cruisers, 1 Fleet Carrier, 3 Escort Carriers, 3 Subs.
Axis Losses: 414 U-boats, 14 Italian U-boats, 1 Battleship, 1 Pocket Battleship, 1 Battlecruiser, 3 Destroyers, 2 Surface Raiders.
So Allies win the warship battle 436-94 in history.
Studying these figures shows how ahistorical the SC "sub hunt" results are. In the game, the hunting warships take a massive pounding which just isn't remotely realistic and better than doubles the effectiveness of U-boats in the game.
A somewhat simple solution to this issue would be to have submarines not inflict damage on warships when they are "found". The U-boats are either hit or dive away. Now if the sub is the active hunter and is attacking, then damage is inflicted on enemy warships normally. So in lieu of abstracting both sides of the convoy war, this type of resolution would make great strides in bringing about a more historical feel and result.
So you see, I am not debating that I should be able to protect myself from MPP losses due to convoy attacks. Since the only method to try and reduce convoy losses is to physically hunt the U-boats, something must be done to address the staggering losses sustained while performing that hunt. Considering the MPP costs to repair ships damaged while hunting the U-boats, even if killing a SS unit, the loss in MPP's to the hunters far outweigh the losses to the Axis U-boats. From my perspective the U-boat is an Uber Unit.
When playing the Axis, I can virtually sink the entire Royal Navy while still raking their convoy routes for little cost in MPPs. Like Tac air, they are just too powerful. Give the U-boats a slightly better chance to dive away but nerf their ability to smash hunter after hunter warship. Better yet, abstract the convoy war.
Any U-boats on the map are then used as a battle asset and don't effect convoys.As always, feedback and comments are welcome.
-
On the subject of Subs the Battle of the Atlantic was lost by GB until effective Escort Carriers and Land Based Aircraft combined with good intelligence could be brought to bear. When this occured in 1943 Doenitz withdrew his Packs in May, awaiting new technology himself that didnt arrive until too late.
Therefore to me the difficulties in coping with the subs is realistic. Get yourself decent ASW, long range air and use carriers effectively and the subs will be neutralised. Until then they should indeed rule the seas because, in 1940 - 42, that is effectively what they did.
I'm going to have to disagree in part with your assertion. I agree that the Battle of the Atlantic was almost lost by the UK. However in part, this was because the convoy system wasn't fully enacted until a time well past when it should have been. The US behaved for about a year like there was no u-boat problem and subsequently lost several tankers. Many US merchant ships did not participate in the convoy system. Finally, intelligence by the Germans gave them excellent hunting information until the allies changed their codes/system.
Once used properly, the convoy system worked reasonably well and it didn't require that the Royal Navy use the larger part of their battle fleet to accomplish. In SC Global War, the UK must use the greater part of their fleet to locate and battle the u-boats or else except the loss of most convoy MPPs. This is what I take issue with.
I've played a game from the Axis side and I'm not seeing the same type of results that the AI Axis gets against me as the Allies. I'm seeing much less convoy MPP losses for the allies even though I have more subs out there along the convoy lines. My subs when "run into" by the searching AI DD's don't inflict as much intial damage despite being L2-3 Subs as the Axis AI subs were inflicting on my searching ships. I have slaughtered the Royal Navy but that is to be expected vs. AI.
I appreciate your input and taking the time to reply to my queries.
-
...good comments, constuctive points of view, most of which I hope will be incorporated into first patch. I can only imagine what the game will be like after patch 1 is ready...(Hubert et al, we are waiting:).
Caanda1
Wonderful thought but most of my comments would be major design changes and I don't see them being released in a patch. As Hubert alluded, his next design would incorporate a new engine. I was hoping he might consider some of my suggestions for a future design. I have experience in strategy game design but I'm a horrible programmer. So I stick with ideas and feedback, leaving the hard work to the coders.
Hey Hubert, feel free to use me as a beta in your future games and I'll still buy a retail copy once its released.
-
Big Al,
Since you're obviously knowledgable about modding. Are you able to definitively answer this question for me? Is it possible to have a PvP network game so that each player could play cooperatively? Meaning one plays the Germans and minors while the other plays Japan? The AI would control the allies. Is that possible?
This is the greatest disparity in research levels I have ever been exposed to in SC. Germany has both level 3 IW and HT while the Reds are still without an advancement in AT. 
[Mein Legend] SC-GC, the Rise of Rambo VI
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
Rambo has been banned and can't read this. Could a mod lock or delete this thread?