Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Baron

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    303

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Baron

    Tactical Bombers is powerful...

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    What part of when he took London the game ended do you not understand? He landed a paratrooper in London - game ended. No counter attack - at the end of his turn Major Axis victory.

    My long range air enabled me to concentrate all those fighters and aircraft carriers to counter his aircraft. The RN and USN combined were twice what the Kriegsmarine could float - not that it mattered. With 3 tac air attacks on London my fully entrenched at the start of the turn army was gone. His Strategic bombers hit London 4 times and then his fighters piled on followed by the TAC air. All the entrenchments and fighters and AA in the world does not matter - why because with that kind of fire power no tile can stand. It just validates what I've said time and again aircraft should never be able to eliminate the last ground factor.

    The Russians who had their thumb up their a-- had retreated from Stalingrad in the face of his airforce even though they matched the Germans and probably surpassed them in total troops. He opperated on one turn west the entire airforce, he had bad weather next turn so I was able to shift my fighters to cover England and still managed 4 ground units who could have retaken London easily had the game not ended before they had the chance, then the next turn his third turn since he operated - bye bye London - Major Victory Axis. It was brillant on his part aside from that it was total BS.

    TAC air is too powerful and I don't care if I had all the allied AA at tech 5 around London with 5 experience bars. It would not have made a difference. SAC strolls in takes hits from AA reduces entrenchments - fighters come in soak off all defenseive fighter cover - TAC comes in and destroys ground unit. Paratroopers land - game over. Brilliant on my opponents part and total utter BS.

    0

    Tactical Bombers is powerful...

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    All sarcasm aside - (smiley face on) the weapon is too powerful, period.

    I have not updated to version 1.3 yet but reducing the amount of AA available was IMHO the worst way to address an already unbalanced situation.

    I just lost a game in 1944 where the Allies were every bit as powerful as the Axis but 3 TAC air escorted by 6 level 4 fighters and 2 SAC bombers bombed London to dust and in swoop the unsupported German paratroopers. I didn't even get a chance to take London back - game over. BTW I had 6 level 4 fighters in support an entrenched Army to the max in London and 2 carriers with level f fighters - all supported by HQ's.

    I've been an avid fan of this game since SC1 but I'm about at the point where I'm going to push away from the table and move onto something else. It was mentioned in a previous post that 1.03 changes were play tested. That’s wonderful but IMHO the play testers know all the ends and outs of the game and don't reflect the "average" players’ knowledge or skill at the game. There should be a mix of experience amongst the testers to really determine what a good balance is.

    From my experience air power is too darn powerful period. I'll repeat myself for the 100th time - airpower alone "should never be able to eliminate the last factor of a ground unit". Now all a player has to do is take Stalingrad and concentrate all their air power onto London and drop a PT in the finish off the game.

    What a load of bovine fecal matter! Even if it was a brilliant move on his part.

    0

    On going issues

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    Hey guys great responses! This is one of the things I love about this game and community.

    great support from Hubert

    Civil discourse concerning game issues

    It is a fantastic game. I guess I'm one of the people with a calculating side of the brain rather than abstract. Plus I'm getting a little long in the tooth and getting stubborn in my old age 42 (although I just had back surgery and feel more like I'm 20 again - what a relief!). So I just have a harder time accepting what I perceive as issues.

    I can live with that!

    0

    On going issues

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    The allies have the ability in the core game to build the following types of aircraft - I will leave the French out since in my experience they don't have any aircraft left at the end of the game. I also am not including minor nations aurcraft.

    Allied:

    8 SAC = 16 attacks per turn

    9 TAC = 9 attacks per turn

    14 Fighters = 14 attacks per turn or escort and intercept EVERY Axis fighter and still have 6 attacks per turn

    5 Carriers = 5 attacks per turn

    total possible Allied air attacks per turn = 44

    To counter this the Axis can have:

    8 Fighters

    6 FLack

    14 total to 44 so by doubling the AA defense to 2 fires a turn still gives the Allies a 44 to 20 ratio, hardly a balance issue.....

    Let me clarify in case I have not made it apparent before. I feel that only the AA units (not cities) should be given the ability to defend twice a turn.

    0

    On going issues

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    Hubert,

    Once again I thank you for your quick reply.

    Aircraft carriers should have different results from combat when attacking other units.

    Naval attacks at a distance (more than one tile between the target and the aircraft carrier) should never result in a strength point factor loss to the carrier (unless it is attacking another carrier). I understand that as things stand now there is no difference between a carrier and the aircraft it is carrying. Unless this is changed there can be no worthwhile Pacific scenario IMHO. I can see a carrier take hits from land based targets since presumably there will be enemy aircraft attacking back at the carrier that could result in floatation damage to the ship. Again this is abstract but isn't all combat abstract in SC, SC2, and WAW? Of course the answer would be to allow aircraft to stack on a carrier; maybe we will see this in the future. I have no idea how to fix the naval pointing thing when a ship goes by but it is irritating 

    I will never agree with air or naval units eliminating a ground unit - they certainly can render a unit combat ineffective but eliminate it? I just don't buy it. Again in a Pacific scenario this would mean some sort of stacking or in the very least allowing land units to attack directly from the sea hex. Then you would see bombardment by sea and air that would reduce a defender to such a level that a direct attack from sea could eliminate the defender and then the attacking piece could advance to take the tile. Bottom line is you need ground units to take ground period. Look at the Falise pocket all the air power in the world couldn't stop the Germans from escaping - it took ground units to do that - yes the defenders were to pulverized by Allied air but several thousand did escape - minus their equipment(Dunkirk anyone?)

    There should also be a chance that a captured port will be damaged. Something like when a capital is taken and a country not surrendering would be a good example. I would not go so far as to reduce the port to zero but certainly knocking it to at least half strength is reasonable. This would not be automatic but a percentage chance. It would put a hurting on an invasion like weather will stop an attack or effect defense dead in its tracks when it hits you the wrong way. A lot of the system is set up to permit randomness so the game doesn’t get stale. IMHO this would fit the mold nicely.

    Research I can live with but certain situations like I experienced certainly can be irritating! Maybe an option to let certain tech advances happen one the historical dates if they were invested in would be a possibility?

    Not letting AA fire more than once yet bombers can attack more than once is indefensible. How about letting AA fire twice just like the bombers can attack twice? Should not affect balance too much with that limitation I wouldn't think.

    Lastly the "Editor" I will be the first to admit that I have no desire to learn how to use it. Even if I did you would have to find an opponent willing to try your “flavor” of the game. Great concept and some neat things have come out of it but I have too much on my plate to learn it to be quite honest. I did poke around though and I have a couple of questions.

    Where would you change it so that a surface ship could raid on convoy lanes? I wouldn't want them to be anywhere near as effective as subs but lurking task forces in the Atlantic would force convoy escorts for troop ships and also force them onto the convoy lanes. Both of which had to happen in the war but are not possible with the game as it now stands.

    Where would you change the settings so that air or naval could not kill the last factor of a ground unit?

    Thanks for making such a great game and supporting to the level you do – it is incredible and certainly not the norm in today’s market. My hats off to you !

    0

    On going issues

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    I’m getting very frustrated with the game system as it is now. It is better than before but I'd like to know if there are plans to address the following issues:

    Naval units being able to eliminate ground or air units by bombardment

    Naval surface units unable to raid

    Lack of any chance of a captured port taking any damage when conquered – how long was Antwerp out of commission after its capture?

    Tech advances being a crap shoot – In one game I had tanks maxed out since 1942( At that point I had level 2 tanks and 5 chits invested - after MANY turns 6 or so I still had level 2 tanks)

    Anti air only shooting once a turn - they run out of ammo?

    Anti air staying intact when the other side takes a city???? (an opponant just took a city and when I move a cursor over the city it still shows the level 3 AA I had upgraded it to) - I guess they left the ammo, radar, and guns intact during the battle

    Aircraft carriers are a joke - this is a very serious issue especially if the Pacific is going to be done

    Ships changing facing if another ship passes by them even if they are not sighted - this is really really annoying!! So much progress on the naval war and this bug is still around.

    After many months Crete issue still has not been fixed

    One of my favorites is entrenching the Kiel canal and having it close traffic to your ships from then on!

    I have to agree with Ludi also - when Portugal falls the Azores should go Allied - they do in 1943 without an invasion so I see no reason why they wouldn't if Lisbon fell. Of course if they were invaded first or on the same turn they should stay Axis or Allied as the case may be.

    Having said all that I'm losing interest in the game because these issues just take alot of the fun out of the game. So without any malice on my part are these issues going to be addressed? Or are they going to be left as is -for technical reasons or else they just don't seem important to anyone else.

    0

    Naval Blocades

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    A rule I would like to see is that nuetral ships do not stop naval movement of belligerent nations. I have an opponent that loves to use the USN to pin axis subs so that RN destroyers can come deliver the coup de grace.

    Somewhat historical, maybe, I know they reported Axis ships when spotted (Bismark comes to mind) but too gamey in that there is no down side to it for the allied player. Especially if Spain is already in the war or invaded as the case may be.

    0

    Recon

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    I'm not sure if this is in place or not but if it isn't I think it would be a good idea.

    Ever bomb a resource and then have no clue how much you've damaged it at all? Is there a way that through either intel advances or bomber advances that you would be ablt to see what kind of damage was done to the target?

    I think that the bomber advance would be the most logical since they already fly more than 1 mission a turn although a strong argument could be made that it is an intelligance function.

    I'm thinking of something along the line of each tech level gives a player a % chance of seeing the damage caused. Anyways just an idea.

    0

    Historical Clangers

    in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare

    Posted

    Having been on the receiving end of the modern V-2's aka Scuds I can attest to the fact that they can be disruptive and do cause terror. Maybe more like anger but in any case they do cause a loss of readiness.

    In my case there were air raid warnings about every three hours all night long. Get up, put on MOPP gear, get to bunker, do head count, and sit in bunker for an hour or so until all clear sounds. Go back to tent undress, sleep for a couple of hours.....air raid siren, start process all over again. After a few days you do suffer some effects:

    1) Ignore the warning and take mass casualties when one falls on the warehouse you are staying

    2) Lack of sleep takes its toll and it doesn't take long for people to start having accidents or making mistakes

    I was so happy the day we left Jubail and headed for the open desert - no more air raid sirens smile.gif and some good night’s sleep. By the way the sound of Patriots launching is awesome! Nobody is going to sleep through that either.

    Now having ranted on about that - we were in a city and cities make good targets for such weapons. When we moved into the desert we no longer had to worry about scuds because the Iraqis had no idea where to shoot them at. But for attacking units in cities I think the effects are pretty on the mark. A unit in the field though is another matter. I'm not sure if that could be modeled with this engine or not.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...