A positive review of the gold demo

[DevilDog]

The other thing that I think got unbalanced is the reduction in striking power of the air fleets. It's a toss-up which had a greater impact in France, the German armored units or using the Stukas as flying on-the-spot artillery. The German airforce had a decisive effect on the battle for France (at least in '40 it did).

Now playing as the Germans, my air fleets are next to worthless. In one game on the green setting I bombed the Amsterdam unit with all three of my air fleets. Result? Two of my air fleets took damage and the Allied unit didn't take a scratch.

I think it's dangerous to make major play balance changes off the beta demo. Lots of the things people were complaining about could be changed by doing research; it was an incentive to do research actually. Maybe the German air fleets would be a lot more effective if they were at a higher tech level, but there is no time to do that at the start of the scenario. The France '40 scenario should already start with the German advantages over the Allies.

I think if it's too hard for the Germans to take out France and deal with the Allies in the early war years, when they historically had the advantage, it will make them a walk-over in the mid war years (there might not BE any late war years). Every play balance issue has to be weighed out over the length of the entire war. A small tweek in the begining may have a profound (and negative) impact on the later war.

The real trick is play balance and making a fun game. Because in real life WW 2 there were few times when opponents were evenly matched. The trick is making the game show all the advantages one side may have had, without making it such an automatic blow-out that it's no fun.

My 2 cents.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Straha:

Good to hear that. I realize that it is more difficult to program the Axis, but I'd hate to have to play the Germans all the time to get a challenging game without reverting to those difficulty settings where the AI cheats.

Straha

Straha,

There are no difficulty settings that allow the AI to cheat. Changing the Experience Bonus is obviuos and changing the Difficulty affects the amount of MPPs awarded via plundering, chances of Free French units, Siberian transfer, and so on. The game mechanics are the same for all settings.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Straha:

Good to hear that. I realize that it is more difficult to program the Axis, but I'd hate to have to play the Germans all the time to get a challenging game without reverting to those difficulty settings where the AI cheats.

Straha

Straha,

There are no difficulty settings that allow the AI to cheat. Changing the Experience Bonus is obviuos and changing the Difficulty affects the amount of MPPs awarded via plundering, chances of Free French units, Siberian transfer, and so on. The game mechanics are the same for all settings.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Straha:

...I refuse to play the settings where the AI has an advantage in dice rolls. It usually does not make for a more challenging, but only a more frustrating game...

Straha,

That never happens in SC, no matter what settings you use. The combat calculations are always done according to the same formulae.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Straha:

...I refuse to play the settings where the AI has an advantage in dice rolls. It usually does not make for a more challenging, but only a more frustrating game...

Straha,

That never happens in SC, no matter what settings you use. The combat calculations are always done according to the same formulae.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

Exactly how do the difficulty levels change the game play? I've never really experimented with them. Do they actually change how the computer plays, or do they just give the AI better dice rolls or something.

PL,

See my responses to Straha above. That should answer your questions.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

Exactly how do the difficulty levels change the game play? I've never really experimented with them. Do they actually change how the computer plays, or do they just give the AI better dice rolls or something.

PL,

See my responses to Straha above. That should answer your questions.

[Straha]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straha:

...I refuse to play the settings where the AI has an advantage in dice rolls. It usually does not make for a more challenging, but only a more frustrating game...

Straha,

That never happens in SC, no matter what settings you use. The combat calculations are always done according to the same formulae.</font>

[Straha]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straha:

...I refuse to play the settings where the AI has an advantage in dice rolls. It usually does not make for a more challenging, but only a more frustrating game...

Straha,

That never happens in SC, no matter what settings you use. The combat calculations are always done according to the same formulae.</font>

[Camicie Nere]

Second the comment on Vichy and Sweden - that makes all the sense in the world and would be quite justified historically.

I also noticed the air fleets seemingly not performing as well as in the beta, but I think that they had previously been somewhat too effective anyway. The real issue that I would like to see addressed in a future version is the addition of tactical aircraft as a category of unit. Maybe two or three levels of development at most.

In RL, ALL combatants made extensive use of this "flying artillery." Each airforce had three distinct components - fighters, tac bombers, strat bombers, and something always did not seem right about subsuming SC's air attacks on ground units into only the first and third categories.

And as an added benefit, this would allow me to mod in the IL-2 Sturmovik and Ju-87 Stuka, two of my favorite aircraft of all time!

[Camicie Nere]

Second the comment on Vichy and Sweden - that makes all the sense in the world and would be quite justified historically.

I also noticed the air fleets seemingly not performing as well as in the beta, but I think that they had previously been somewhat too effective anyway. The real issue that I would like to see addressed in a future version is the addition of tactical aircraft as a category of unit. Maybe two or three levels of development at most.

In RL, ALL combatants made extensive use of this "flying artillery." Each airforce had three distinct components - fighters, tac bombers, strat bombers, and something always did not seem right about subsuming SC's air attacks on ground units into only the first and third categories.

And as an added benefit, this would allow me to mod in the IL-2 Sturmovik and Ju-87 Stuka, two of my favorite aircraft of all time!

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Ive noticed that the option to add experience to units prior to game dtermines the outcome most of the time. For instance if u set bonus to '0' then axis hardly ever get france in 1940. If you set to '1' then they conquer france easily but play someone recklessly later in the game, though it appears to be smarter, finally a '2' makes the AI plan out its movements but seems to be slow and predictable. Therfore, if you want a historical axis Ai, place the bonus on '1'. Im not making judgements on axis strategy, just how the AI plays in the game.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Ive noticed that the option to add experience to units prior to game dtermines the outcome most of the time. For instance if u set bonus to '0' then axis hardly ever get france in 1940. If you set to '1' then they conquer france easily but play someone recklessly later in the game, though it appears to be smarter, finally a '2' makes the AI plan out its movements but seems to be slow and predictable. Therfore, if you want a historical axis Ai, place the bonus on '1'. Im not making judgements on axis strategy, just how the AI plays in the game.

[Briggs]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

Exactly how do the difficulty levels change the game play? I've never really experimented with them. Do they actually change how the computer plays, or do they just give the AI better dice rolls or something.

PL,

See my responses to Straha above. That should answer your questions.</font>

[Briggs]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

Exactly how do the difficulty levels change the game play? I've never really experimented with them. Do they actually change how the computer plays, or do they just give the AI better dice rolls or something.

PL,

See my responses to Straha above. That should answer your questions.</font>

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Camicie Nere:

I also noticed the air fleets seemingly not performing as well as in the beta, but I think that they had previously been somewhat too effective anyway. The real issue that I would like to see addressed in a future version is the addition of tactical aircraft as a category of unit.

I would agree, in that a "flying artillery" piece should not be able to KILL upwards of 30-40,000 (diving-for-cover/entrenched) defenders at a clip. :eek:

More like disruption and disorientation and eventually whittling down the will to fight.

Now we have the choice -- is the new kill-ratio worth it in terms of cost effectiveness? I have, for the first time, been reconsidering buying the Air Fleet, as opposed to say, another armor unit.

Perhaps the game design choice was to prompt us to consider buying more Strategic Bombers, since these air units are not so wildly different now, in terms of effectiveness? Could be the Air Fleet was just TOO attractive an offensive piece, and now it is merely another unit among many that must be appropriately used.

I also like the idea of separate Tac Bombers. As well as many other special-task units, such as Mech Infantry or Destroyers. Seems to me, the more building choices you have, the more your individual selections will vary, and differentially impact the actual tactical outcome, and that can't be bad.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Camicie Nere:

I also noticed the air fleets seemingly not performing as well as in the beta, but I think that they had previously been somewhat too effective anyway. The real issue that I would like to see addressed in a future version is the addition of tactical aircraft as a category of unit.

I would agree, in that a "flying artillery" piece should not be able to KILL upwards of 30-40,000 (diving-for-cover/entrenched) defenders at a clip. :eek:

More like disruption and disorientation and eventually whittling down the will to fight.

Now we have the choice -- is the new kill-ratio worth it in terms of cost effectiveness? I have, for the first time, been reconsidering buying the Air Fleet, as opposed to say, another armor unit.

Perhaps the game design choice was to prompt us to consider buying more Strategic Bombers, since these air units are not so wildly different now, in terms of effectiveness? Could be the Air Fleet was just TOO attractive an offensive piece, and now it is merely another unit among many that must be appropriately used.

I also like the idea of separate Tac Bombers. As well as many other special-task units, such as Mech Infantry or Destroyers. Seems to me, the more building choices you have, the more your individual selections will vary, and differentially impact the actual tactical outcome, and that can't be bad.

[Camicie Nere]

Mech infantry, definitely, should be in - the mobility of the completely mechanized US and British forces in 1944 was an extremely significant advantage for them against the mostly horse-drawn Germans. This leads to the issue of tailoring unit values to individual nations - I believe the game tries to model this with the HQs but quite frankly something has always struck me as being totally out of whack when a German Corps with no attached HQ is exactly equivalent in every respect to that of a minor nation with the same supply, readiness, etc.

I read somewhere about some hard-core wargamers that actually did an exhaustively detailed statistical analysis of WWII combat and as a result assigned relative strength values to units by nationality. Can't remember where, but the point is extremely valid. A base level German corps SHOULD be superior to that of a minor nation (or France )

If the editor allows it I WILL be making that change wherever possible.

A favorite quote: "Get a load of FORD! And GENERAL MOTORS! You have HORSES! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!?!?!?!?!"

[Camicie Nere]

Mech infantry, definitely, should be in - the mobility of the completely mechanized US and British forces in 1944 was an extremely significant advantage for them against the mostly horse-drawn Germans. This leads to the issue of tailoring unit values to individual nations - I believe the game tries to model this with the HQs but quite frankly something has always struck me as being totally out of whack when a German Corps with no attached HQ is exactly equivalent in every respect to that of a minor nation with the same supply, readiness, etc.

I read somewhere about some hard-core wargamers that actually did an exhaustively detailed statistical analysis of WWII combat and as a result assigned relative strength values to units by nationality. Can't remember where, but the point is extremely valid. A base level German corps SHOULD be superior to that of a minor nation (or France )

If the editor allows it I WILL be making that change wherever possible.

A favorite quote: "Get a load of FORD! And GENERAL MOTORS! You have HORSES! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!?!?!?!?!"