Colin I
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Colin I
-
-
I'm afraid scale of game doen't make it easy.
Clearly, HQ are identified with a name because here an individual was effective: Rommel etc. really took key decisions.
The whole point of Squad leader was it was on a resolution where individuals always matter.
The unit history seems to me the best level of identification in SC2 - certainly I get some pleasure from seeing how a unit sees the worst action and manages to keep fighting.
The main identification in SC2 is as a national leader - thats how WE choose to play the game.
Perhaps the sad thing about WWII is how meat grinders like Stalingrad destroyed individuality and made heroism futile (in the sense that a sniper killing 200 is an amazing achievement but stacked up with millions of dead its hard to see how it turned the tide). There is a film of Stalingrad (I forget who made it) where it becomes very hard to distinguish the characters from eachother - that I think was the point it was making - the soldiers were becoming dehumanised and losing their individuality.
-
Looking for a PBEM game with new patch - I typically play a turn a day, am reliable in finishing games, moderately experienced in SC2, play either side but played a lot of Axis recently so would prefer Allies.
cheers
-
Blashy,
OK. So SC2 should be able to have UK go neutral in the event of being crippled by U-boats with a war readiness of X% which can be influenced by diplomacy?
-
Liam,
Agreed. UK population was actually quite well fed compared to the German during WWI, the colonial factor made a big difference.
In game terms I think I'm with Edwin - if U-boats get out of hand a low chance of inducing UK surrender is the only way to really emphasise the danger. In SC2 I do build U-boats but usually as a cheap way of contesting the seas to facilitate Sealion or scupper D-day.
-
Edwin,
Re WWI: You are right U-boats were very effective BUT at a diplomatic level the decision to go for unrestricted U-boat warface (ie escalation to include neutral shipping)had a negative impact - had a lot to do with US entry.
-
I'm not really sure this is exactly what you mean, but I suppose defensive play is keeping an army group (HQ+4 or 5 units with good offensive punch) in reserve plus spare MPP to operate it fast plus only taking countries that support such deployment plus maybe infrastructure.
Then tempt the Allies into premature invasions and counterpunch hard.
Other defensive strategies? For me long range air fits in - being aware of Allied build ups pretty much always allows you to trash invasions. Rather than rebuild your air for airsupremacy (drains MPP, reveals location) keep it grounded (it can still spot, yes?) and use the remnants as spotters?
-
Re: WWI Read a great book on myths of WWI - the stories the soldiers told. Many of these taleas exaggerated German atrocities. Some were probably Allied proaganda. One of the best was that there was a body factory (near Lille in some versions) where Germans rendered down their own dead for margerine and soap!
-
Terif, one wonders if you care to run a few masterclasses, a few on screen images with tactics outlined? In some cases I can't visualise how to implement all of your strategies. The overall message on this game is most of us think Axis are losing. I believe you could save the game but I'm not sure how. I always run into force limitations - even using Italien and minors as garrisons and Germans in Russia find myself spread too thinly.
-
Isn't the consensus that the game is now 50:50 if Axis is experienced enough to avoid mistakes and knows a lot of the standard strategies vs equal Allied player? Given that only a few players are near Terif's level I think this means on average an Allied bias (which IS reasonable at least historically, as you note)given a full spectrum of player abilities.
I still favour further command control advantages for the Germans though (even if not return of the third HQ at start maybe in production stack to simulate good Generals coming through). If you want to balance this by Allied production, so be it but maybe some expansion in UK Navy or US/USSR forces in the build stack is a good alternative.
-
Impressive list. To add, many discussed before but still to add my vote:
I want to see return to three German starting HQs and balance the game in other ways. Think this simulates the one real advantage the Germans has very well.
I REALLY want to see air attacks and bombardment of units have less effect on strength and more on morale and readyness.
For all nations cheap HQ rebuild is fine - General gets away but staff has to be rerecruited is a reasonable explanation of this.
Add one UK starting submarine.
After UK falls remove capital to Canada but drop UK resources hugely (or else impossible to knock UK out of game).
Put some Russian units in buld queue (a few armies a year) but scrap Siberians.
Add random diplomatic shifts and events and make diplomacy of minors more volatile.
As discussed in another thread only allow Amphib of armies and tank units at high Amphib levels.
More random fog of war beyond one tile range.
-
SeaMonkey
Agreed here too. I would limit what can be carried by Amphibious tech - HQ and Corps initially then larger units at higher levels.
-
I agree with Blashy - Germany's poor amphibious capability is a result, to some extent, of choice (and of previous errors such as loss of colonies in WWI). so if Germany choses to invest in Amphibious capability to correct this then fine. Germany clearly could build shipping if it wanted to.
To an extent this is what I want from SC2 - not what was but what was possible.
-
I have conquered Vichy France and placed Bismarck in Med. given Marseilles as a base I don't feel too bad about that. I realise in theory you should specify the port you initiate construction in but this is a strategic game and i don't want that level of detail.
-
Great game - and inspiring to see that inventive strategies and counters are being employed.
-
I also don't think air was the primary tank killer.
-
I've heard this said too. I think part of the the point is that Tank vs Tank is only one aspect of warfare. My guess is a lot of tigers suffered air interdiction or breakdown so the cost is very high. So in many situations Germans had no good armour due to scarcity and given their effective leadership could have done a lot of damage with a few more upgraded Panzer IV.
Think an upgraded Panzer IV with a high velocity 75 mm is better than a basic Sherman, more Sherman Firefly level (for those not in know Firefly was upgraded to 17 pounder gun which was more effective than the basic Sherman gun which i don't think was high velocity). If the Panzer IV in this configuration can kill most allied armour and is faster than a tiger then four times more is a huge plus.
In SC2 would like to see the cost of mobility escalate as the level of tank increases. That should handle the fact that fast armour is possible, heavy armour is possible but both is very hard.
BTW Think the mobility tech is the best change in SC2 allowing us to reflect how the armies mechanised during the war.
you COULD argue though that armoured formations are not one vehicle but that fast and deadly (Level 5 tanks with Level 2 Mobility) is a mix of rapid vehicles with good punch and slower ones with excellent punch and armour. On a strategic scale we shouldn't get too hung up on details. High mobility may also indicate how mechanised the logistics and support is too.
-
I like national characteristics but the game simulates quite a bit of this already and I suggest much of what you talk about is due to situation and training which is already simulated.
German command control was better - that is in the quality of HQs, the number (though I would still like German's to start with three - lets fix game balance another way) and that they can support more units.
UK and US had less chance to gain experience before D-day. They didn't learn slower, perhaps the opposite, but neither country had as much experience in ground warfare come D-Day as Germans or Russians; OK there was Italy and North Africa but thats nothing compared to Germany in Russia. UK experience was sometimes inappropriate - tank commanders fought from open topped tanks in North Africa for better visibility which was OK there but in bocage in Normandy they lost commanders to snipers. The game already simulates this, the US generally hits D-day with well motivated and equipped, high tech but inexperienced troops which was true. Germany operates troops from Russia to meet this - usually less numerous but more experienced.
Russia already has formidable rebuild capability.
I think re morale: the UK and US troops did not have their backs to the wall in '44 in the way the Germans did. Its situation, not national characteristic. In Sealion, if it had happened, I think you would have seen fanatical British behavior.
There vis a case for global moral modifier; suspect a positive one for Germans, negative for Russia in 39 and positive later, and a negative one for France or Italy. Certainly hard to dent for for Japan.
-
I'm only toying with this. Think French armour plus support could take Benelux turn 2-3 (turn 1 promote to level 10, turn 2 hit Benelux with French plus strong UK naval and air support.
Meanwhile BEF plus Navy head for Oslo plus you start shipping in from Egypt to defend UK or take Eire and support all this.
Get all this right (and I freely admit getting it wrong is a nightmare) then you could shock Germans.
If they know its coming or you get it wrong you have pissed of US plus a disastrous position. No one ever said war was low risk
But the historical French plan was FAR stranger. They seemed to want to intervene in Finland. I'll never really understand why.
-
I guess there is the morale boost too, coupled maybe with UK picking on some small countries (Norway?) or providing strong support in Benelux.
Could be a nasty surprise if Germany is taking its time over Poland.
Not convinced against a decent player but would like to try it some time.
-
On the whole I'd like to see the attack advantage blunted very slightly so that more units fight longer (if properly supplied; the greatest mass defeats in WW2 came from pockets and encirclements).
I've noticed this with a few wargames (another is Matrix's Battles in Normandy): the number of units damaged to the point of being removed from the board is far larger than unit fragmentation historically. In part, real commanders were more careful with their men and had doctrines that limited some of the more risky exploits. Not sure it explains this completely. I still find end of Russian campaign odd in SC2 - it seems to go from a high unit density to a very low one quite fast -think thats the attack bias at work.
At a game level I get a little bored with continually recomissioning destroyed units.
Why don't we just increase digging in advantage one step (goes to level 1 immediately)?
This is getting a little off topic - agree very much with PZGNDR's comments on the whole.
-
Well, to some extent Dunkirk was exceptional in that the troops had a naval exit.
If you are out of supply the rebuild doesn't work; its a good rule, just something about the overall effect that i have problems with - and it might have more to do with the speed units get trahed than the rebuild.
-
BEF = British Expeditionary Force sent to support French. Evacuated from dunkirk but lost a lot of its heavy equipment. In SC2 logic a rebuild of a formally destroyed unit.
-
I like the cheap rebuild option up to a point - simulates nicely something like the destruction of the BEF in France but evacuation of its manpower to nucleate new UK units [through strictly I guess in SC2 the BEF was out of supply so wouldn't get this benefit].
But I wonder, particularly in Russia - its getting tedious and strange just rebuilding same unit repeatedly at reduced cost and no drain on manpower (in the sense the build limits are what you can have in play rather than what population you have left who can fight).
Others have said this but unit density is too low in Russia after a while; and its mostly zombies who keep returning from the dead. Sometimes feels more like Buffy the Vampire slayer than WWII
Anyone got thoughts? I realize it is military tradition to keep the same unit names and rebuild them after defeat but something feels wrong here.
-
If UK falls but is still in the game (through holding Egypt) can UK units still be built, for example in Egypt? I've not had this situation yet.
Game needs aspiration
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Think there is a case for saying if a CEO is good he/she assembles a good team (sometimes more talanted than the CEO but its to his/her credit if this happens). Similarly with IKE or other staff that form an HQ.
But otherwise I agree completely.