Preliminary Conclusions: SC

[dpstafford]

1) Armor is virtually useless. Certainly not worth the extra cost over infantry.

2) Air is TOO powerful - mainly because you can send every air unit to attack a single enemy unit.

The solutions: Allow armor some sort of movement AFTER attacking. And allow any given unit to be struck by at most only one air attack per turn.

Hmmm. Odd that SC cloned so much from SSI's Clash of Steel, but missed on these two critical areas. As it is, you don't really have a WWII simulation here. In fact, take out the air units, and you've got WWI.

[ August 21, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: dpstafford ]

[Jeff Gilbert]

I have played the 0's and 1's out of the demo and am still awaiting the arrival of my copy. I will reserve judgement until then.

However, you do bring up some good points. From what I have seen, demo only, armor can penetrate deeper into enemy gaps than infantry can. I have not paid much attention to their hitting power differencial as of yet. I have been having too much fun just getting used to the game.

[Gunslingr3]

1) Armor is virtually useless. Certainly not worth the extra cost over infantry.

What do you base this on?

I personally find the tanks very useful. The fact that they can ignore Zones of Control and move around enemy formations without movement penalty is their chief advantage. It doesn't hurt that for only 30% more MPP's they also offer 2 extra movement points, 20% better Tank Attack rating, 150% better Tank Defense rating, 100% better Soft Defense rating and 50% better Air Defense rating. Start putting those base advantages with some experience and your elite Tanks Armies will really start to outshine your Infantry.

2) Air is TOO powerful - mainly because you can send every air unit to attack a single enemy unit.

I bet the Germans under the bombardment at the outset of Operation Cobra thought air power was too powerful too...

The solutions: Allow armor some sort of movement AFTER attacking. And allow any given unit to be struck by at most only one air attack per turn.

Please flesh out your solution a little more. I'm curious, do you want to allow tank armies to fight twice in a turn? How much readiness loss should they suffer from the first attack? Should it be scaled with losses? How many action points should be lost after an attack?

I can't fathom why you think that two different air wings couldn't attack the same target in a week (or month). The 'solution' to air power is having some airpower of your own to make his attacks too costly to carry out. Give it a try...

Gunslinger

[dpstafford]

Flesh it out more? Why bother. The game is obviously perfect. Can't wait to see the reviews.

Gotta get back to the trenches now and prepare to go over the top.....

[Straha]

Originally posted by dpstafford:

Flesh it out more? Why bother. The game is obviously perfect. Can't wait to see the reviews.

Gotta get back to the trenches now and prepare to go over the top.....

I would love the tanks having the possibility to attack and *then* move (to exploit any holes just punched into the frontline) ... in which case I would even be willing to pay more MPPs for them.

Straha

[Gunslingr3]

Flesh it out more? Why bother. The game is obviously perfect. Can't wait to see the reviews.

Gotta get back to the trenches now and prepare to go over the top.....

There are ramifications to your proposed changes. Maybe the game would be better with your change, but I would like to see how this change is supposed to be implemented. Instead of getting your feelings hurt because you didn't think this out completely, take a moment to think it out completely and answer the questions this change raises.

Is there supposed to be no back and forth on this message board? Is your proposed change "obviously perfect"?

If you want any hope of seeing changes implemented, it would help to think of what the programmer needs to change. There's more to it than just declaring "Let them attack twice!" If things were that simple you'd have made the perfect game years ago and I would have bought it.

Now please try again, because this isn't the first time someone has whined about tanks and wished they could attack twice without explaining how and at what cost (in readiness, etc.)

Gunslinger

[Gunslingr3]

I would love the tanks having the possibility to attack and *then* move (to exploit any holes just punched into the frontline) ... in which case I would even be willing to pay more MPPs for them.

Tanks don't attack soft targets any better than infantry. When seeking a breakthrough (in northwestern France for example) I let my unfair airpower and infantry make the hole, then send the tanks through it.

If people find themselves bogged down in static/trench warfare in this game they're still learning to play it.

Gunslinger

[dpstafford]

Tanks don't attack soft targets any better than infantry. When seeking a breakthrough (in northwestern France for example) I let my unfair airpower and infantry make the hole, then send the tanks through it.

If people find themselves bogged down in static/trench warfare in this game they're still learning to play it.

That could be--that's why I entitled this thread preliminary conclusions. Actually, my proposal is for armor to move twice, not attack twice. My evidence in anecdotal - in my two PBEM games as the allies in 1939, I managed to destroy all the german armor coming into France. My opponents didn't even bother to rebuild it, they built air fleets instead. By using 5 or 6 air units to obliterate a target and then sending infantry through, they were able to finish me off. Call that "blitzkreig" if you want to - air power was a component - but in SC it is the only necessary component.

The land combat system in Class of Steel was excellent (admittedly, that game had a lot of other problems). But combat in SC seems dry, unrealistic and dull. Add to that the ability to BUILD an air fleet (or a battleship) is a single two-week turn, well, that's just silly..........

[Aloid]

I recently read "When Titans Clashed, How the Red Army Stopped Hitler". In it there are repetitive descriptions of the most effective way to get armored formations to exploit break-throughs.

It seemed that anytime the armor was committed too soon, it was bogged down fighting thru infantry. However, when the initial assault by infantry and supportive bombardment cracked a section of the line, THAT was the time for armor to be sent forward.

In SC terms, Armor formations wait until a hole is made, and then they exploit the hole.

Granted, this is from the Red Army perspective during the time when they could be offensive minded. Things may have been different when the German's were kicking butt in 1941.

Nothing is black and white is it...

Aloid (While a "Black & Tan" is not Black & White, it still tastes good!)

[ August 21, 2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Aloid ]

[Kuniworth]

Aloid;

Remember that the German 4th army(Heinrici) stopped the Russian panzer-formations in the central front during Bagration 1944 - using infantry elastic defence. It showed it possible to counter blitzkrieg if righty conducted.

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Aloid;

Remember that the German 4th army(Heinrici) stopped the Russian panzer-formations in the central front during Bagration 1944 - using infantry elastic defence. It showed it possible to counter blitzkrieg if righty conducted.

Yes, that's my point. The armor has to wait for a successful infantry assault, before being employed in the "exploitive" role.

If in SC terms, armor was allowed to attack once to assault, then once more to exploit, it may not parallel the real world example.

I'm sure there are other examples... I'm just pitching in what I've read about...

Aloid (Reading is believing, but can you believe what you read?!?!?!)

[Guest Mike]

At this level an "armour group" isn't all tanks any more than an "infantry" army or corps is all infantry - the French army in 1940 has 3000 tanks in it's "infantry" units, and the "infantry" BEF fighting along side them has 2-300 tanks IIRC.

In fact the BEF was the only wholey mechanised force on the continent in 1940!!

"Armour" and "infantry" in SC are, IMO, just more and less mobile groups of troops. If yuo get into toe-to-toe slugging along a line then you're probably going to want infantry, but as soon as things open up you'er going to want more mobility = armour.

Getting hung up about regimental/divisinoal-level combat situations in SC is kindof pointless!!

[Willard]

I routinely pick one hex on the line where I send all my airfleets to pound. Once that hex has been softened up, my infantry army attacks the hex. Usually what I end up with is a French/Soviet army at 2-3 strength or completely obliterated. Thats when I send my armor in. The armor fans out behind enemy lines to destroy air fleets and hqs. I rarely use my armor to engage infantry armies. I surround them with the armor and use my infantry to clean up the mess. Additionally, I find when fighting the Russians, that if i send in infantry corps (which have additional movement points) with the armor, the kinda act like motorized infantry and I can protect the flanks of my armored penetration.

I think perhaps (and I dont know what the ramifications might be) it would be interesting to change some rules for the armor...such as armor has 5 movement points. Let it move three, attack and then move the remainder. Or it can move 1 then 4, etc. This may be what Dpstafford was thinking along the line of.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Willard:

I think perhaps (and I dont know what the ramifications might be) it would be interesting to change some rules for the armor...such as armor has 5 movement points. Let it move three, attack and then move the remainder. Or it can move 1 then 4, etc. This may be what Dpstafford was thinking along the line of.

I would agree. The armor does seem a little TOO static and inert, but, you would need to account for the time and disorganization of the attack itself, so how about -- the attack would reduce the movement by 2 points, so that you could move 3 then attack, or attack and move 3, etc?

This would allow for some reasonable blitz break-throughs when it is armor alone that is attempting this (... remember, that at this scale the tank detachment would also include mechanized infantry to protect the flanks -- good idea though of including follow-up corps to accomplish a similar effect).

[sogard]

This thread started with Tenacious Dan concluding after a couple of plays that he did not like the way that armor worked in the game. That it was too vulnerable. Yet, the problem, it seems to me, is not with the game; but, with the tactics being used by the player in question. The massing of one's Air Fleets to point a particular point of attack, damaging or destroying the target unit, following it up with an infantry assault to blow a hole, and then sending in the armor to exploit, is what blitzkrieg was about. This is exactly what happened on the Western Front in in May, 1940, at Sedan.

I find the arguments that there is some problem with the game because armor is too vulnerable or lacks some sort of "special" capability not already found in the game, unconvincing.

I have been playing the game hotseat with a friend, of late, and I think that it appears to mirror history very well considering the scale and complexity of the game. I am very impressed with Strategic Command at this point in time. Maybe after many more playings, I may come to a conclusion that something is out of whack; but, I would not form some conclusion merely on the basis of a couple of plays without first exploring different strategies and tactics.

The one thing I am really looking forward to is the implementation of tcp/ip play for the game. I see the best play in Strategic Command coming from playing another human. With tcp/ip as an option, it will be much easier to be able to find another human rather than just relying on hotseat oplay (although I would recommend hotseat to anyone interested -- the game chugs along quite well and the amusement of the game banter as the war moves along is very entertaining).

Strategic Command has surpassed by expectations for the game when I purchased it and I would recommend it to any friend who had an interest in either military history or a good game. The AI is good enough to teach you the game and sound tactics that can be best put into effect when playing against a human opponant.

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Mike:

At this level an "armour group" isn't all tanks any more than an "infantry" army or corps is all infantry - the French army in 1940 has 3000 tanks in it's "infantry" units, and the "infantry" BEF fighting along side them has 2-300 tanks IIRC.

<snip>...(ouch)

Hmmm... well, both the German's and then the Red Army employed "Panzer Armies" and "Tank Armies" as real formations,organized completely differntly from standard infantry organizations.

While you're certainly correct that infantry and armor were mixed up together, there really was a big difference in how these units were built, and how they were used.

I think the armor units in SC try to reflect this, and do a good job of it.

Someone else made the point that how you employ these units is key, as it was in real life.

Aloid (SC has grown on me, like the damn grey hairs my kids are giving me!)

[Brian Rock]

I can't agree this is WWI. If it was the Germans wouldn't be able to beat the French as quickly as you can.

[SS Viking]

No, panzers are worth every MMP

Yes, airfleets are far to powerfully and it's quite irritating to ALWAYS see the AI build huge amounts of air units. This IS one of the most unrealistic and inbalanced thing in the game.

I love the game, but it can be improved!

/Erik

[Titan]

One needs to remember that the game has been made to appeal to the beginner and gronards.So it will have some limitations to both parties.For me as a grog i am very happy with it.As dan pointed out in his games he smashed france with Air units.Well that is what the germans did,but you wait until you get to Russia,i dont think that tactic works as well.I have just fought off the Germans in an attempt to take France by the two Brit and the one French fighter really slowing down the German Air Assault in a pbem.So you can do it.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Friends,

Good point is made: the corps and armies have tanks in them (divisions of them). So there's lots of the "mechanized" movement going on below the level of the units here. Most people seem to be unable to make the leap into the scale of this game, which is strategic: even grand strategic. If you actually crave accuracy, there would be no "tank" unit at this level: just Armies and corps (regardless of what they were called, like a Soviet Tank Army, which at that level had all arms in it). Where would the fun be in that, though?

The salient feature of the system is that movement and combat are interwoven. So you can punch that hole and push the tanks through, who then can attack, unlike in a standard boardgame where all attacks are resolved in a separate combat phase which is distinct from movement, which leads to having a second "mechanized" phase.

A major breakthrough attack in WWII (examine the Eastern Front) had a massing of uncommitted breakthrough forces behind the assault divisions (the ones that made the hole). The breakthrough units would then pour through. The most obvious examples are the Soviet buildups for their offensives and coutneroffensives. The same units that hit the front line weren't the same ones that shot down the arrows of advance after the rupture had been made.

A good "blitzkrieg" in SC must be prepared for, and would have to look pretty much like that: assault units to make the hole and uncommitted units behind them to go through the hole. As mentioned, air units (and rockets) add to making that hole.

If you can't manage one, then don't blame the units.

Salute!

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Titan:

<snip> ...(ouch) I have just fought off the Germans in an attempt to take France by the two Brit and the one French fighter really slowing down the German Air Assault in a pbem.So you can do it.

Bah! Revisionist history!!

Aloid (Saving up for more air power before ..... against Titan)

[Aloid]

Originally posted by Good Soldier Svejk:

Friends,

<snip>...(ouch) there would be no "tank" unit at this level: just Armies and corps (regardless of what they were called, like a Soviet Tank Army, which at that level had all arms in it). Where would the fun be in that, though?

<snip>...(ouch)

The big thing I took away from "When Titans Clashed", is the notion that these "tank" units really were different from standard infantry units. (Yes at the army and corp level) Their composure was specifically built for mobility. Standard infantry armies and corps, while they had some mechanized units, were not built in the same way at all.

"Tank" units are valid as a separate unit, with different mobility and combat ratings.

What is interesting to note, however, is that these formations could be denuded of mechanized troops and become clser to their infantry cousins. But that's for a differnt type of game to model.

Enjoy!

Aloid (Sheeet, I have to go concentrate on work...)

[ August 23, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Aloid ]