Bill101 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Overall there isn't a great difference between waiting, though Greece will be more encouraged by the coup to swing towards the Allies, than affected by your declaration of war against Yugoslavia if you don't wait for the coup. But the coup isn't inevitable either, so you could wait in vain for Yugoslavia to join. Question is, could you throw everything at Barbarossa and leave just a small screening force facing Yugoslavia, so that you can deal with her at a later date? I'm not saying that's best, but it could be an option. In terms of when to invade the USSR, it's best to do it before they reach 90% mobilization and not in autumn or winter. So really the historical date is probably about right, slightly earlier if you can. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 Thanks again ;-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I love a lot of things about SC3 but diplomacy I really hate - I have 75% influence four turns now and nothings happens again - oh my....really wish that would be changed Edited January 12, 2015 by steelwarrior77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Another feedback for SoE - Operating costs way to much to give Germany any real tactical optioins untill 42 as units just have to hurry ASAP from one corner of the map to the other to not be already beaten before 42 - as SU is really a monster....so it would be great if Germany had higher infra - maybe 3 - as they really had it (Autobahnen and railway) otherwise it is hard to even have a chance to not go for Vichy but for getting all France and Spain in - and as I said little tactical options - just running from one corner to the other...love the game though - another thing would be to have more starting units and more to be build as the scale from units to map does not seem to fit well...+30% at start and to be build with strict limits would be great....as WWII mobilised way more men than WWI - it would also add to the atmosphere... Edited January 18, 2015 by steelwarrior77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) What is the condition to trigger Frances surrender - do I have to conquer Vichy? And does Vichy in North Africa surrender to the Allies by decision? When is the earliest date for that? Also taking Malta is currently close to impossible - could the unit be replaced with a coastal gun just as in AoD? Edited January 18, 2015 by steelwarrior77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 And a feedback for CtA - I think also more units would make for a more WWI feeling as it was actually a war of attrition not of fast movements - more units would allow double trenches and so it would be at the end costly to launch an attack and historically correctly the NM loss would decide the war rather than massive offensive breakthroughs - maybe the NM should be raised for all parties for that purpose...but more units and double trenches would much more reflect reality than it does now ;-D Maybe not more units at start but cheaper ones to be build - so from a rather dynamic campaign, it becomes a locked one - just as it was.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 What is the condition to trigger Frances surrender - do I have to conquer Vichy? And does Vichy in North Africa surrender to the Allies by decision? When is the earliest date for that? Also taking Malta is currently close to impossible - could the unit be replaced with a coastal gun just as in AoD? Hi France will surrender when you have taken Paris and either her National Morale has fallen to zero, or when you have gone on to take Bordeaux. Providing you say yes to forming Vichy of course. As to Vichy North Africa, there is no Decision for it to surrender to the Allies. They will have to invade it directly. Malta can be done, but it takes a big investment in air power by the Axis, effectively preventing them from doing that and doing lots of nasty stuff elsewhere at the same time. In terms of the number of units, having too many slows the game down so we tried with both campaigns to get a nice balance between playability and having enough. Stick some upgraded guns behind the front line in WWI and research heavily in Trench Warfare and Gas/Shell Production, and the enemy will struggle to achieve large scale breakthroughs. But the intention in WWI was never to have a fully static front line, as I felt that some movement forwards or backwards, i.e. the ability to have some offensive successes once trench warfare has begun, even if only small in scale, would be more fun than having the front lines quite as static as they were in the west at this scale for most of the war. WWI should be fun to play and there's no reason why it can't be, but to achieve that it does require a little flexibility, and I hope we've achieved that here. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Hey Bill, thanks for the answers as always ;-D Yes it is very tense and exciting like it is - maybe a second version with more units would be an option - would not like to miss the already existing version also ;-) I believe even with more units it would never be completly static, but it would need rather major offensive action and a good carefully executed plan - rather than smaller battles and skirmishes. The plan would rather be to destroy more units than the enemy instead of causing massive breakthroughs - just as it was the historical plan to bleed out France at Verdun - with NM that could very well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furchtlosundtrew Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Hi there, i don't think, more Units would make CtA or SoE better. In SoE Germany has a large amount of troops which are all in full strength in the beginning (it takes rounds and rounds just to get all French unit to full strength in the opposite). Yes Germany has the Problem, to get from poland to France and than back again. But a part of your Units can be moved with force-marching to spare some MPP. Or you start moving to the west (and after the fall of France to the east) before your actual enemy is complete beaten, just finish it with the rest of your troops. Yes ist is hardly possible, to defeat whole France and not take the Vichy-possibility. And it is hard to get spain into the Achse. But there where reasons why this didn't happen in history either. But you have other possibilities to Play ahistoric and to be succesfull. But Germany is the harder part in SoE (my opinion), i think steelwarrior has a Point here. In the beginning it seems, that Germany is too strong, but when it Comes to the SU, it is hard to win. Each mistake early in the game will come double expensive then. Maybe some (not too mutch) extra MPP for Germany would be a solution? Regarding CtA: I think in many games the NM will directly or indirectly decide the game. With more Units on each side the game would become a tactical game as the only way to win would be, to be more effective in killing men than your opposite. As it is now, it is a strategical game and in many sitiuations it is a very difficult balancing-act, to decide between new troops or Research, between eastern or werstern front, between France and the middle east, between the serbian front and galicia (just to make some examples). So I think more Units would reduce the fun in this Scenario massively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Agree on most - would not like to replace the original scenario - like it a lot too - am only thinking of an alternative one with more units for both CtA and SoE ;-D Maybe in SC3 then. I hope SC3 takes on the approach with bigger maps and more units from the last two expansions ;-) Some more details in research and a different way how diplomacy works (more constant small changes intead of random ones (I mean like we buy 1% constant change at a high price) - the opponent can still counter with his own investments - as it is now I would only invest in diplomacy, if I have nothing else to do - which hardly ever happens - I invested with CP in Sweden 10 turns ago with 70% and still they moved only three times - still not having joined the war...) Edited January 19, 2015 by steelwarrior77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Hi It might be better in the WWI game to invest in those whose movement to or from one side will affect who they supply MPPs to, or how this affects National Morale. Using diplomacy to bring a country that historically was neutral is a much harder option, though not impossible (I have brought the Swiss into the war before, and that was of some use). As the CP player, unless your enemy embarks on a diplomacy campaign against Holland, Norway and Sweden, then diplomacy isn't overly useful. But if you are Entente then to not invest in diplomacy against at least Holland would be a big mistake. Invest a lot in it, all at once, and the Central Powers have to either counter or lose their imports from Holland, and in the long run this is very bad for them. Starving civilians in Germany will lower their National Morale, which is all good for winning the war against the Kaiser. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted February 5, 2015 Author Share Posted February 5, 2015 Ok - thanks ;-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I´d still like a more reliable system for diplomacy with 1-3% guarnteed movement for each chit invested - cause like it is I would only invest in diplomacy if I have already build all units available - so diplomacy could really play a bigger role with more reliable results plus it adds to possible variety how a game develops and so would add to replayablity... A few thoughts about garrisons - should garrisons not at least be able to keep up with infantry warfare and anti-air defense - as it is right now they are only usefull early war and later completely useless as they are even easier killed.... Edited February 10, 2015 by steelwarrior77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Thanks, I've added your points to my list of things to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Cool ;-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelwarrior77 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Another general feedback - I wish that the dice roll factor would not be so high - that is especially important for Axis/CP players - cannot count anymore how often a 4:0, 3:0 or an attack against a depleted and demoralized garrision unit cost my expensive planes or tanks losses - sometimes up to 1 damage point. It is very hard to keep up an attack like this and even to rebuild losses - so my suggestion ist a 30% cahnce that there is a 15% difference between shown combat results and real ones...would really help to minimize frustrations and really encourage careful planing... Edited February 28, 2015 by steelwarrior77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furchtlosundtrew Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Hi Steelwarrior,i am not a fan of too mutch changing here. I know, the combat results are sometimes annoying, especially in the cases, you describend above, but both sides have the same risks and chances of better or worser combat results. I belive (not shure) at the Moment, there is a chance/risk of 33 %, that the combat results will be 1point better or worser then predictet. This means, if you have a prediction of lets say Att 1:2 Def, it can be 0, 1 or 2 for the attacker and 1, 2 or 3 for the defender...If you would calculate the chances of casualities divergent from the combat predictions in the way, you suggest, there would be no chance at all for divergent results in many cases. A garrisson for example has no attack/defend values and because of ist size Maximum of 5 it has always relative bad readiness values. So it causes (lets make an example)calculated attacker losses of 0,27 (Sounds quite realistic), which means a prediction of 0. If you multiplicate this with 15 % like you suggest, it would still cause losses of just 0,31 which still means no damage for the attacker. So the chance of 30 % has no impact at all. But if you take the number itself 0,27/0,31 the number should mean a loss of 1 Point in 0,27 %/0,31 % of all similar combats so it is far from 0.Another Point ist, that (especially in Russia) there are no losses by technical Problems or Attrition. In reality both where big Problems (especially for the Wehrmacht with it's over-sophisticatetd technics and the very long supply-ways). So maybe you can see the cambat Problems as an Surrogate therefore.But there is one combat Situation, which should indeed be changed, if possible: If an enemy unit survives two or three attacks with one Point strength left (or in the case of the garrisons in Kopenhagen and Oslo it hast just one Point strength at all). If you then attack with another unit, you would normally have a predictition for the Defender losses of 3 or 4 Points. Of course you now just have a prediction of 1, because there is only 1 Point left of him. This means, that in the following combat, there will be a chance of losses 0, even though you would normally cause 3 or 4 Points losses. That is stupid. And it is even worser. Sometimes such a unit has (even though it did lose 9 of 10 Points strength in this turn and should be nearly unable to fight therefore)still a readiness, which is not completely down. So the combat prediction says losses for the attacker of (let's say) 2 Points. If the unit would have four Points strengh left, the prediction would be Att 2:4 Def, which would be OK. But in the Situation, as ist is, the prediction is Att 2:1 Def (because it hast just 1 Point strength left) and the attacker is quasi cheated of the higher Defender losses...This Problem should be solved (maybe you make a hypothetical combat prediction how the combat would end, if the Defender had enough strength points left. Maybe this hypothetical prediction would be Att 3:4 Def. To get the real and realistic combat prediction each Point of losses, that can't be caused because of not enough strength, should be subtractet from the attacker losses, so in our example, the prediction would be Att 0:1 Def.) If you do it like that, there would still be the normal chance for worser results, but than it would be ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts