Iron Ranger
-
Posts
1,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Iron Ranger
-
-
Third of four posts this week, to turn a few of the post to discussing the little details in SC. I hope others besides Terif and I are getting a kick out of these, LOL.
I'm working from memory so if I get something wrong please post it.
After the last two days it became clear that I need to look at the combat formulas. I thought I'd post the values and look over some of the surprise's (for me, maybe not others). Last spring there was a very deap look into this and other subjects if you wish to run a seach for them.
Three formuls effect combat the most: Readness (RA or RD), Attacker Loss's (AL), Defender Loss's (DL).
RA/D = SL+HQ+HQ exp+Unit str / 3
DL = RA * (Unit Value + Exp/2) - RD * (Ent + Ter + exp/2)
AL = can't rember at the momnet and i don't want to guess - very similer to the above numbers
Example - Army 2exp attacks Corps .5exp in swamp both 80% readness
DL = .8*(4+2/2)-.8(0+2+.5/2) = .8*5-.8*2.25 = 2.2 ie Corps damage is 2 +/- 1
No real surprise here expect:
Experence: My and I think other's assumption, is that for every bar of exp you will incress damage recived and given by ONE. But if you look at the forumla its 1/2 that value times your readness. Knowing this I don't think I'll place as much value on getting my units experenced, and only certian units will benifit the most (list following)
Defended Readness: The defenders readness effect both the terian bonus and entrenchment bonus. This was a real surprise as I thought units in defence didn't really need an HQ for support as damage inflicted was strictly due to attacks value.
Units I would try to build exp in (give kills)
Armys
Bombers
Units with such high attack/defence numbers that exp means nothing (normally due to high tech)
Air Fleets(Only long term benift is for attacking ground units)
Ships(Only long term benift is for attacking ground units)
Armor
Units that gain exp quickly, so no need to treat with special care:
Carriers
Rockets
Final note: Combat loss's, expecially those involving air or naval combat, seam to be higher then what the formulas will provide. I noticed this alot with L4/5 air combat, its nothing to do 9-11 pts of damage each time.
-
I finely broke down the Attacker Losses and Defender Losses equations (post on this later) and your right, exp should help the rockets but acourding to the pre-battle calculations (top box) they do not.
I don't remember the #s for the air fleets but if attack by an army the damage was 0-3 for all rocket units (o-2-4 bars exp) with all other variable staying the same (readness did vary max of 3 %).
So my conclution is Rockets will apply their exp bonus to attacks but not in defence. Special rule simular to the loss of one attack value per hex distance.
-
Great - Looking forward to your results.
-
Air units attacking out of MT hexs will do 1/2 damage. If a air unit is attacked directly in the MT hex it will recive the bonus values for the hex. If I air unit intercepts out of a MT hex ???? happens.
I suggest you test this using the editor and hotseat. I have, and came up with these results (as have others), but some players still say Nay your wrong. So I suggest you find out on your own, you could even post on the intercept values and add to our general info bank.
-
Now thats a quote worth repeating!Nicer front picture as well; D-Day instead of marching pig-nazi's. -
I will disagree, against a 'top' player the allies only have two sucessfull options after france falls (before france falls they have many, ie everything depends on what happens in/during France).
Liem calls it the need for 'perfection'
Terif said the allies advantage is 'surprise' and in the present advanced level of play this is almost unrealistic (I repeated that right, right?)
I call it the 'Axis Cane'
Bottom line is unless your an expert playing the allies is very, very dificult. While the axis have alot of chances to over come mistakes. I think this is were I see things different then Terif and a few others. It should be the axis that need to take risks to win, but in SC its the allies (UK) that needs to be creative and take risks to win. I think history would say UK survived the early German/Axis moves and therefore won because they could wait for help from the USA and rely on the great red hoards in the east to brunt the Axis. In SC this situation is switched, for UK survival is not enough, she need to hurt germany badly before 1942 if she hope to win.
As far as my understanding of all the other options I'll say I have over 200 games (nothing like your 300+) and let Dragonheart back me up on my understanding of how to play a low tech western Allied game
Back to rockets - Another reason to dispise them - Exp doesn't help them in defence.
[ November 05, 2003, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]
-
I've used all these and still did the Forced Siberian Transfer with sucess. Granted they were against average players, ie less experenced. And my statements on the CC are not against you (developer), but in gereral, its boring."UK first" with a defence against Russia and a strike force against UK (rockets or subs or air war...) or a Middle east strategy...etc...The reason for the FST is not to limit Germany (she still has more then enough time to do what she wants) but to reward exellent (read aggresive) allied play that is actuly penilized with the DST (allies only have one option, tech race). It also slows the tech race into something reasonable as UK doesn't have the FF units for defence and Axis need to get moving due to the date.
Back to the Rockets: Yes I aggree with you, if you control the air they are powerfull if used right (rockets only work for germany and russia, and russia never has the extra MPPs for this until its too late, see the old post).
But the test here was - If you have experenced Rockets would they stand up to air attacks?
Air Fleets SA = 2 Rockets AD = 0 so damage should be 1-3 without exp and assuming good supply (no intercepting, whole other ball of wax).
With 3 bars of exp (rocket) wouldn't the damage be 0-1 (just the ramdom +/-1)? But thats not true, the exp level of the rockets doesn't matter. I have'nt broken the formula down that we talked about yesterday, so maybe it's in there (any value * 0 is still 0)but if its not there then rockets have a 'special' unknown rule that nigates its exp level when determining the damage it recives.
A seperate example: Carrier with 0 exp attacks corps with 2 bars. SA = 1 ND = 0 Damage should be 0-1 (carrier) minus 2 (exp) +/- 1 (random) = 0-1. But if exp is ignored its 0-2, almost imposible to test but I think I've seen experenced units take alot of hits from ships and never recive and damage beyond the +/-1 you would expect to see.
[ November 05, 2003, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]
-
find them useless? Or a bug?
This spring I wrote a post on the marits of Rockets, and with the help of Zapp and others came to the decision that they are useless. But last month I thought "Hmmm, maybe they would be good for counter attacking ships off the city of Breast (the only real location for Overlord)". The idea was based on one assumtion:
Each medal of experence will incress the attack damage and decress the damage recived for a unit.
If true for rockets then with L3or4 exp they would be almost imposible to damage from the air (soft attack 2).
So I ran a Hotseat test using three rockets with L4,2,0 Exp and 1-3-5 Tech. The results in counter battery attack were good, allied ships were toast. The surprise was on the defensive side, air or ground attacks would do to same damage no matter the level of experence. Is this a bug, due to the 0 defensive value (more then likly), or just a feature for rockets?
My daily post on the small features of SC - over in 2 days. Have a good night all
[ November 05, 2003, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]
-
I don't remember saying this at all, you sure I wasn't refering to another game? And yes I know why people do the CC, even I do it at times (rarely), but as I've said before (and this is just my opinion) CC is boring to play on both sides - but normally only possiable due to a weak defence. Which leads to a 'poll' I asked about last month : Should the allies give up if France falls before May 1940. In a roundabout way I think the answer was yes.so i dont understand your cookie-cutter sentence -
Hubert, thanks for the answer. This is what I was looking for. I must just remember the 'bad' event when you operate a unit and it gets destroyed right away, for what ever reason.I don't keep track of these units in any special wayAre you sure we can't talk you into a 'small' patch, v1.08? I have a list of bugs just waiting for you, LOL.
At some point, all project need to be called "DONE' and move on to another job. SC is no different, looking forward to your next rollout.
-
Are you sure? When I looked this up (from the view point of the attacker) the only factors in determing the readness (opps - that must be it) was HQ - SL - Str - exp of HQ divided by 3. OK, looks like I need to look at that again.I just looked it up in the manual. According to the combat formula, the readiness of the defender also influences the losses of the defender, not only the attacker ones.Though not stated I've seen this most in ground units. Air has a seperate 'control' on operations (SL=3+) and cambat with air units after a few levels of tech is just too high to see what is causing all the damage, its just too massive.
-
Well, thats something new, and unexpected. I'll need to look at that.Only new built units have a penalty if you buy them at the frontline. They start with 0 supply and without HQ support, so they are very weak and easy to kill for one turn - thats something for the guys that want it more realistic.. if you throw fresh recruits to the front they fight very poor at the start. Their supply/HQ command will NOT be recalculated at the start of your enemy turn. For these units, you have to wait until your next own turn, to get supply/command for themThe rest while true, doesn't really matter in this case (I think). A moved or operated unit will have entrenchment 0 - so thats not it. And supply or lack of will effect the damage you cause to the attacking unit. What I'm saying is:
1) you operate a unit
2) Its attacked that 'same' turn (yes supply is recalculated). The damage it inflicts will be based on this supply.
3) The damage to the defending (just operated) unit is always higher then I would have expected. And this is taking into accout the +/- 1 you will see in all combat.
This is a guess but I think operated units ALWAYS recive +1 damage and move from the 1/3 +1 - 1/3 0 - 1/3 -1 combat results to 1/2 +1 - 1/2 0 random combat results.
Unless Hubert responds I tink finding this out will be hard, but with sevral responces we, as a group might get a 'feel' for this event.
-
Sounds good - I've noticed several people have been putting up 'mini' AAR at the end or near it. Theve been fun to read and don't seam to be such a burden on the players.
-
#1 - Ask Shaka - he has all the numbers on this
#2 - IMHO - Force the Siberian Transfer - what your asking for will fall in place normally, a rule on seaborn invsions is nice also - I left a post last week on how I would do that.
-
I hope Hubert responds to this.
Has anyone else noticed that if you operate a unit and its attacked the same turn, the combat losses for that unit is 1-2 point higher then if it had just moved into the location? I have not done a study with the editor on this but after 200+ games, this trend just seams too much to put off as bad luck. Has anyone else noticed this?
BTW: The first post in an attempt to get this board back to disscussing the game and playing stlye, even though its almost a year old and I think we've beaten it like the dead horse in my living room.
-
Bump - This post always diserves a bump or two. Especially with the resent rash of cheating posts and the general lack of 'gentalmenship' we've been seeing latly.
-
This is the last time I'll post on this subject and I hope the last post for everyone, here.
Rambo: Thanks for bring to light that people have hacked SC and it is possiable to cheat in several different ways. Near the end you state that you have seen odd stuff for the last 6 months, you might want to clairify that somewhere else so that everyone you've played in the last 6 months doesn't feel slighted. Bringing lies and cheats inot the light is normally the best way to stop it, as such I expect to see a simaler post on this every 2-4 months, and that might not be a bad thing, though boring to read!
Zapp-Terif: saw your post elsewhere, so this might be moot. Quit bringing your personal trash here for all to read. One or two posts is funny but this is getting out of hand. I don't like everyone here, and to be honest dispise some of the people, but the two of you have driven away more player (I bet) in the last two weeks then we can afford as a group. Quit playing each other, and go sit in your coners and be quite (alittle fatherly suggestion, or you'll get my belt).
Moon: You let this turd of a post continue but locked the other one, I'm confused on what is considered bad taste. Because after Huberts post I felt this one needed a lock badly but the other post was covering some good SC issues.
Sand Castle: Sorry about our last game, maybe we can start playing again, PBEM?
Everyone else: Lets start some post on SC, SC2 (right - LOL!), history ect... I'll give it a go in my next post.
Again thanks Jon for the info on the different cheating programs out there - exellent info for all of us to have.
-
Too many people are confusing 1944 USA with 1942 USA. In SC they start with WAY too many ground units and WAY too small of a navy. The problem is most people (including me) don't have the paciance for the long game. Coupled with need to play 'perfect' and the ease that all of us conceade makes you want to finish the game in 1942. When in reality if the axis are doing good, you will not turn the corner on them till 1944 and hopefully'win' by 1946, if they make some mistakes late (early ones don't matter 90% of the time).Also giving the US, Patton from turn one with some IT, Heavy Bombers, Long Range bombers. As well with England. Bombers that can reach berlin... RealityUSA forces in 1941
Army - 16th in the world - Rominia was #15
USA should start with 1 corps and 1 army
Navy - #1,2 or 3 depends on how you count strenght. In SC they are #6 of the six great powers. Done for play balance due to the small Alantic and the need to give the Germans a 'chance' at winning the sub battle. They should start with 4 and maybe 5 capital Warships.
-
If you would like to work something up, that would be fine. But for Mods, Shaka and Bill have done alot of work on this and have several different exellent solutions.Iron would gladly like to come up with a mod that settled the true power of Each Nation..I personal don't mind the std senerio, but anything made by man can be improved on. I'm more into the use of HRs to bring the game more into reality/hitorical play.
I feel there are three ways to play the game:
Compitision: Rambo and Terif would be the best example here, winning and where you stand incomparison to others matters most (but fairly)
Historical: Shaka would be best here, following the historical paths and stoping the explotation of 'glitchs' in programing is key.
Fun: All casuial players, they are looking for a good time but get depressed/disapointed when they see what they feel is cheating by people that work within the game program but outside the poorly written manul.
Your opening post rambles on a bit, so my question again is "what are you looking for?"
-
Gather around guys - I'll pack the bowl and we can all take a toke!
-
As you noted else where - the allies need 'perfection' to stand a chance against the axis.give France up to Early the Axis will do a Vampire Minor Job...Put too much in France and Britian is vulnerable too even teh worst Axis. I'm a so so France killer.... but anyone can perform a SeaLion after a few tries
Reading the above you could say they need 'balance' to surivive the early game aginst a expert player.
-
Yup, read my earlier post. "France falls before May 1940 - game over - axis win.".
Holding onto France for as long as possiable - WITHOUT - losing too many UK units is the only way the allies have a chance.
As you noted, the allies can't stop the axis from succeding in operation Sealion but they can cause it to be so painfull that they should go the minor route and maybe turn east.
-
I had a long responce but by connection was lost = so here is the short responce.
Your right - but what are you asking for?
Use some house rules to bring the game to historical reality. I strongly suggest the forced Siberian Transfer - You would be surprised how much this changes the game. The axis MUST learn how to use armor to get this goal, the axis have a time limit so they will feel the 'sting' of past mistakes. An aggressive UK will be rewarded for exellent play and not penilized by the delay ST/Late Sealion 'trick' that most people now use.
Liam, I would be happy to play you in a few game to 'test' differnt things/plans - PBEM or IP. Drop me a line if you want to discusee this.
Or we can read more posts on cheating - heck I might even do another search to find more of the interestng little bastar%&$.
BTW - if the axis play only to WIN they have one true plany and it works every time - Cookie Cutter - great idea but boring to play for or against.
A few more hits on my crack pipe and I'll be in heaven!
-
The UK needs to think 'Sealion prevention' untill Germany is boged down in Russia. However most players are thinking 'tech' and leave themselves open for Sealion - they also cash in the bomber, this unit is the Key to stoping an early sealion but most players dump it instead.it's far too easy for Germany to perform a Sea Lion. I haven't failed in my last 5 attempts...But your right - IF the Axis REALLY want UK there is nothing but luck from stoping them. But they will have to deal with an early entry of USSR and USA (who is useless due to her weak navy).
Z-League house rule votings. EVERY Z-LEAGUE PLAYER PLEASE VOTE.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted