Suggestions

[PrivateSlovik]

I agree w/ discussion about navy especially subs. The big problem is that there is no way to withdraw under fire, standard in real naval actions. Instead you sit while every unit the enemy has cruises in from 400 miles away to your exact spot and nails you. If turns were simultaneous like CM and Tacops this wouldn't be such an issue, but there still should be a real chance of escape ( especially for subs).

Surprise seems backwards to me. At this scale surprise should happen when you see him and he can't see you, you move to surprise attack him. Surprise because you bump into him makes sense at tactical level, not w/ armies on 50 mile hexes.

I strongly agree w/ comment about supply inside encirclement. What's the point of playing at this scale if you can't race to the sea or use kessels in USSR? Even if you manage a total encirclement the combat seems to play out the same as a head on slugfest. Supply rules should be much tighter, making even partial cutoff a real threat.

Last suggestion: we need to talk up the fun factor of this game to non-fanatics, the screenshots aren't going to sell it.

[ May 25, 2002, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: PrivateSlovik ]

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by PrivateSlovik:

I strongly agree w/ comment about supply inside encirclement. What's the point of playing at this scale if you can't race to the sea or use kessels in USSR? Even if you manage a total encirclement the combat seems to play out the same as a head on slugfest. Supply rules should be much tighter, making even partial cutoff a real threat.

Last suggestion: we need to talk up the fun factor of this game to non-fanatics, the screenshots aren't going to sell it.

I really thought the no Zone Of Control, have to have units in each adjacent land hex to cut supply thing was going to bug me more than it has. Perhaps this is because I have yet to fight against Russia, where, as you point out, the encirclement battles really should take place. The current system seems to work for me, in a strange way.

I think it is a good looking game, but you are right, the sum is greater than the parts. I am posting to other forums regarding SC, and I hope that others do the same. Strong sales breed good things like add-ons and sequels (Pacific War or the whole world, anyone?).

[ May 25, 2002, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[SuperTed]

Guys,

The main benefit of encirclement is a reduction in the enemy's readiness. This can have a dramatic impact on combat results. Also, the reduced supply means reduced reinforcements. So, the combination of reduced readiness and reduced reinforcements actually works very well and does indeed encourage encirclements. Give it some time and you'll likely agree.

Of course, as has been observed, it may be hard to tell just how well it works until you can get out onto the steppes.

[BloodyBucket]

Well, until the full game is out we will have to take things one steppe at a time.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

Well, until the full game is out we will have to take things one steppe at a time.

BB,

Stop that!

[PrivateSlovik]

That was two thirds of a pun: P-U!

[SuperTed]

Pun spelled backwards is nup, and that's enup outta you.

[Bis71]

Here's a little chrome for an upgrade:

British commandos -

After France falls, Britain can build a limited, capped number of commando points to nip away at Axis MMPs slightly. They wouldn't be units: success would be measured against their strength versus German strength in occupied countries. They could tie down both points and forces.

[Achiles]

One thing I just recently noticed is that allied air units won't protect each other. What i mean is that a british air fleet will only intercept anemy fighters if they attack a british untit. If they attack a French unit then they won't intervene. This cost me the Battle of France each time I've played the allies. My predominatley british air units wouldn't help protect the french armies.

One more thing. I would once again like top raise the question about minor allies. Why can't you produce units for the minor allies. Like when the Dutch Corp gets destroyed. You can never replace it. I suggest a simple solution. All purchased units placed within the radius of a facility controlled by a minor ally become units of the minor ally. However i wouldn't apply this rule to HQs as they are very nation specific and it really wouldn't feel right having a romanian Kesselring. Cya, bye!

[ May 26, 2002, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

[rleete]

Originally posted by Achiles:

One thing I just recently noticed is that allied air units won't protect each other.

Yes, and it makes for some tough decisions. You can't just plop them there as an extra layer of defense, a la Axis & Allies. I would be disappointed if it was that way.

One solution is to have the fighters behind British units, either in the low countries, or east of the Maginot, or both. It can be risky, and get your ground units pounded. But, it sometimes sucks points off his own fighters, and preserves French units.

Another option is to use your air power to strategic bomb, with fighters as escorts. Only one group can escort, unfortunately. You can also use them to support an invasion of Denmark, Norway or Spain.

Then again, against a human opponent, I've needed them to help defend the island itself, as he attempted Sealion.

[StugIII]

Alright, here's my $.02 ($.032 Canadian):

Most of these are repeats of other peoples,

1. Subs: Either cheapen them slightly or make them harder to detect. As for sub combat here is a thought, Allow subs to always attack first when facing a single or first unit. Base the damage the sub takes on it's target's adjusted strength after the sub's attack. i.e. Sub with a strength of 10 attacks a cruiser with a strength of 10. The sub does 4 points of damage. When the cruiser returns fire she will be using a strength of 6. If the sub is attacked by another surface ship in that turn then the sub would lose the "first shot" bonus as it would be considered "hunted". If it's already modeled similar then nevermind.

2. Forts: I can understand reinforcements in cities when surrounded but with forts there wouldn't be any population to draw from. I would think anyone able to fight is already at their post and once surrounded no other troops would be able to enter the fort to reinforce. I understand resuppying a fort can simulate stockpiling of weapons and materials but I don't know about stockpiling men.

3. Reinforcing: I too agree that the experience bleed should be lessened if the unit is reinforced in steps rather than right away as long as that unit is out of the front lines. As for reinforcing in a surrounded city, I think a harsher experience penalty should be suffered simulating the conscription of men with little or no training. This would only be a surrounded city.

4. Map: I know it would be very difficult but the inclusion of 2 more rows to the north and 1 row to the south could improve tactical manuevering 10 fold. I've given up on african conquests because I can't get out of range of allied shore bombardment near egypt.

The rest of this game has been great and I have the check already made out (a seperate one could be written if any of the above suggestions make it into the game ). Keep up the great work and thanks for listening to all of us.

[Russ Bensing]

My two bits:

1. Yes on adding rows at the bottom, maybe at the top, too. Stacking, multiple attacks: no big deal; Germans seem to be able to hammer their way into France w/o on pretty close to historical path.

2. Subs: make them harder to detect, maybe expand map to make them harder to track down. Don't know about making them cheaper. Hard to tell; demo game doesn't include enough time to gauge. I've gone historic route so far (France, then Yugo and Greece), but I have a hard time believing that Germans are going to have enough MPP's to build up an army to take on the Russians AND build up enough subs to seriously impede Britain. I'm assuming loss of MPP's correlates with subs. If not, then the 5-10 MPP's Britain loses makes it all pretty much meaningless.

3. The above is pretty much window dressing, though. The first real biggie is MPP's. I get the feeling that this really isn't going to present the true strategic choices that should be available, because the player will be so stressed for MPP's to build and reinforce his troops that other choices -- research, commitment to strategic bombing -- will go by the boards. Maybe make everything a little cheaper, especially if combat is going to be so deadly.

4. The second biggie is AI. To date, the computer seems to do an okay job on defense, but is truly lousy on offense. It took me two games to figure out that if I take Antwerp, I don't have to worry about the other Low Country corps. Why hasn't the computer figured this out? In one game, instead of concentrating on Paris -- and probably taking it out -- the computer instead diverted units to attack the Maginot Line from the rear. It seems this is fixable -- maybe some code to prioritize an enemy's capital -- and if it's not done, it's hard to see how the game is going to be truly playable. Both sides had the defense and the offense in WWII, and if the computer can't handle the offense, it's not going to work.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

3. The above is pretty much window dressing, though. The first real biggie is MPP's. I get the feeling that this really isn't going to present the true strategic choices that should be available, because the player will be so stressed for MPP's to build and reinforce his troops that other choices -- research, commitment to strategic bombing -- will go by the boards. Maybe make everything a little cheaper, especially if combat is going to be so deadly.

I disagree with this. There are plenty of MPP's gained through the course of the game. It only costs 2500 to max out research, if anything the price is too low.

[rleete]

I think the AI needs to be a bit more agressive, especially when it comes to enemy capitals. We all know that the Maginot and other enemy units disappear when the country surrenders. The AI should as well. It also should do a little more to "gang up" on units. If you want to capture France, for instance, we all know to hit the end units (next to the channel), and blow them away. Then end-run around the line, just like history. The AI tends to attack along the whole line, often wasting air power against the Maginot, to no effect.

[DevilDog]

Yeah, the AI could be tweeked slightly for offense, but seriously I think it's pretty good as it is. It doesn'y always do the same thing faced with the same situation. And it's pretty good at exploiting gaps in the line. My only question mark is how does the AI do strategically on offense. The demo is really too short to tell.

For a game that was designed to be mainly PBEM I think the AI is great! And the first time I played I wasn't sure I liked the scale, but now I think its just about perfect for quick e-mail battles.

Great job, Hubert!

[ May 27, 2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

[/qb]

I disagree with this. There are plenty of MPP's gained through the course of the game. It only costs 2500 to max out research, if anything the price is too low.[/QB]

[rleete]

You can only build a maximum of 10 research points, so A.O. was correct. You can put the points wherever you want, up to a max. of 5 in any single category.

[pzgndr]

So, the combination of reduced readiness and reduced reinforcements actually works very well and does indeed encourage encirclements.

This obviously works OK if you totally surround the enemy. I'm surprised there is no ZOC for armor units to supplement this effect. I just finished a game where Odessa would have been encircled if there was armor ZOC, but a Russian unit snuck out anyway - using operational movement even. Why no ZOC for armor? This is like lesson one from wargaming 101.

I've asked before about designating units for HQ control, within range of course. Could we have a way to toggle HQ links on/off for units so we can form/change army groups? The automated feature makes for quick play, but an option for advanced play would be nice.

[Hubert Cater]

For a game that was designed to be mainly PBEM I think the AI is great!

I've seen this now in a couple of posts, and I just want to clarify before the myth becomes legend so to speak.

The game is designed for all modes of play, but I have mentioned that it was balanced for PBEM/Hotseat play first, which is probably why the statement has become misleading.

The reason for balancing PBEM/Hotseat first was to guarantee that all modes of play would be balanced, otherwise if it were done for the AI first then it would have been too easy to employ the standard AI cheats like extra units or MPP's or favourable battle odds etc. If this was done, no PBEM or HOTSEAT game would be playable as one side would always have a huge advantage over the other, and there are many games that are like that unfortunatley.

I think the results have been very good where you know that you are playing a game that is balanced for all modes of play (well as close as possible), and that if you want to give the AI an edge, you are in full control and know what to expect, i.e. increased experience etc.

Hope that helps,

Hubert

[Legati]

I just have a few comments to make myself. For the most part I have enjoyed the demo (hate the 1 year deadline though). I just have a couple of things that I wish were in this game.

The first is I wish this game had more complex diplomatic actions. (In 1939 the Germans and Russians divided Poland between them...How can this be simulated in the game without having any diplomatic actions available? I suppose after the German player conquers Poland it will be divided? Anyway...just wish the German player could attempt to do more before the allies react...etc.

I did try that America thing and boy did it ever work like a charm...I took America in 1940 in two turns. Now that is an issue I think. (I have never attempted sealion as I've come to believe the losses would be unacceptable)

About the Russian campaign...I notice that the Russians kept Riga undefended after "liberating" the Baltic state. Should it be that easy for the Germans to take even one city in Russia?

My final comment is to thank Hubert for attempting to make a strategic level WWII game. There are some of us that have waited a long time for this kind of game and I (and I'm sure we) all thank you.

Legati