Rules, questions and comments

[Sombra]

If Eegland amasses enough troops in Egypt ships etc. it makes nearly for a undestructable defense ..Its really gamey :mad: . Enough nearly that only after the first game I say: OK thats it. Mistake to invest time :mad: :mad: Its kind of game breaker for me. Bad enough that after a SEalion suddenly Egypt (the lazy bastads are great Britain reborn) Why even defend England?

[ October 31, 2007, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Terif]

Don´t worry - things changed in WaW and so strategies have to change too compared to SC2 .

Egypt is one of the things I mentioned in an earlier post where the game now follows a more historical path: i.e. Axis usually can´t conquer it (so against an able opponent they better don´t try to – results only in the loss of many mpps ) - only if Allies do something stupid or Axis send pretty much every available unit into the desert they can...

When I came into Beta I also opted to make Egypt conquerable - but how it is now is how it is intended.

Ultimately Egypt and Middle East belonging to Allies is not really a bad thing, it only compensates for other changes that favour Axis - UK simply needs the additional mpps to build destroyers and research naval/anti-sub technologies to match the initially superior axis subs and fleet. Which is also recreating the historical battle of the Atlantic: Axis subs will rule the ocean during 1940 until UK has built enough destroyers and researched the necessary techs to be able to hunt them down - and for this it needs the ressources of Middle East .

[Sombra]

Terif, sory I disagree I think there was a real possibility to conquer the middle east in reality. AS the Egypt is made unconquable its more like ..Sealion..why bother...

That the engineer is able to put on his invisible cloak and ambush other land units...well I prefer the first SC2 when the engineers where bombed to death trying to build fortifications.

1st a Sealion is more less useless due to the switch of the capital to Egypt . Shame because at least it eas a plan of Germany< to do so ..it ewasnt scraped because they would trnasfer their to Egypt+ suddnely all the infrastruture is build up by the martians to supoport the fleet ..build new armiwes etc9

2nd Egypt is now more or less unconquerable

3rd. and invisible engineers can kill any unit because there is now way around them

[ October 31, 2007, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Terif]

Well - we are on the same line here , I also would have prefered if Egypt would still be conquerable and open for battle - also the hidden engineers and even more: paratroopers preparing, are now wonder weapons because in surprise contact they are now protected by their defence bonuses (just put a preparing paratrooper in a fortification and the enemy has a big problem ).

Most new things/changes in WaW are following what was requested in the forum and what there was considered the historical path - as those two things show, the old saying still applies: be careful what you wish for...

We will see which things will be changed in the next patches - these 2 belong on my personal wish list at least (with compensation for UK of course if they no longer would get Middle East) .

[SeaMonkey]

I have to weigh in here on the side of not having any invisible units. I understand why they were created that way, but I'm sorry, fortifications, especially during construction, are pretty hard to hide.

Paras usually have to organize for a drop on an airfield, numerous airfields at this scale.

And let's face it, airfields are very hard to hide.

Its only now that they can actually make a tank seem invisible, much less extensive fortifications and airfields.

Go figure!

[Sombra]

THx Terif for your comments. After my exp. with invisible units , defense bonus etc. Ugh..

Sure my nex t one would be the invisible paratrooper in fortress at a choke point with defensive artillery.....

Historical line may be good but if your enemy leaves GB nearly undefended and its even worse for Germany to take England than not (KB Rusia and US rises) Egypt is a fortress ans somehow suddenly becomes a industrial powerhouse... (talk about historic)

Suggestions would be that preparing units paras, engineers would have even negative defense bonuses while peparing...or the rule to disappear under FOW would be scrapped as now you can protect them with anti airunits against air attacks.

[foko]

I think too the "features" with

preparing paratroopers and fortifying engineers should be fixed. e.g. only make them invisible by entrechment > 1. So they stay seen in the nxt round.

Also that transporters in harbors take no dmg (was in SC2 not tested in WAW)

Also there should be script that the US lend leases UK in egypt.

[Sombra]

Lend lease was already disputed in its time. Imagine the discussion in the congress to support a lost cause. IMO its allready to much that the supply of Egypt goes up and capital is switched to Alexandria. I have problems to imagine that in reality something like this would have happend + suddenly the infrastructure appears to support a large army fighting siomewhere in th world... If the UK players is not careful enough to not lose England ..well to bad for him...At least GB was very frightened that Germany would attempt an invasion. I agree that transports, etc should not be protected automatically in the ports.. defense bonus yes...invincible no.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Terif and Sombra: Thanks very much that you already adressed these problems.. and I would bet that the "Ghost unit problem" will be solved qucikly, because a lot of people have experienced that it`s a game cracker.

The egyptian/alien infrastructue creation is a game balance issue as well... historically the war would have been over with a sucessful axis invasion of the UK, and the current settings are simply to avoid that the game is over in that case... just treat it like that.

My idea would be that the "invisible" units should stay invisible, but they should have very bad offensive capability while they are fortifying or preparing. It doesn`t make sense that an experienced german army gets almost wiped out because it bumps into some english bricklayers standing in front of their concrete mixers (I need to admit that I think the whole Engineer concept needs to be revamped!).

Anyway: there will be one or two patches for WaW, and I`m pretty sure that will be improved sooner or later..

[Terif]

There are 2 easy solutions for the engineer/Para problem:

1) no hiding any more when fortifying/preparing: As Sombra pointed out - in WaW they can now be protected against airstrikes (which was the reason invisibility got implemented in the first place) with anti-air units, so it is no longer really necessary to hide them.

or (and) 2) get rid off the change that defence bonuses now apply in surprise contacts. This new feature is also a problem not only for the AI but also for the average player because here surprise contacts happen pretty often (especially since the new units only have a spotting range of 1) and with the new feature this means a dead unit for the attacker and nearly no losses for the defender. In the end this new feature may be more realistic, but causes also a lot of frustration and hinders the game flow as every uncautious move will be penalized by death (of the regarding unit).

Relocating of the UK capital to Egypt is for game balance purpose (as Hyazinth pointed out) and also to simultae UK continuing to fight even when their home island is occupied - the commonwealth was spread over the whole world and would most probably not surrendered only because of England.

P.S.: In WaW amphibs (not transports) can now be attacked in port by combat ships - this got already changed so invasions can be prevented when having naval superiority.

[Sombra]

I would vote for option 1 right now and option 2 or at least tone the feature way down...

Other changes I would be glad to: turn down amphib range. (Nice feature to be able to attack amphibs already). and only give a certain percentage chance to switch captial to egypt (for example 80%) leave the towns at 5 ...cairo erhaps at 8... and give the English units a chce to surrender for example 25%. This is all to force the player to spend more attention to England. Give England an Engineer in the Beginning to fortify its beaches and they should be fine.

[Terif]

Amphibs already have a much harder time than in SC2: they are a lot more expensive to build (IMO a bit too expensive now) and can be attacked in port - amphib operations are therefore already pretty unattractive and range is not high. With their only 4 tiles they already can´t invade anywhere if the enemy has ships nearby.

Basing the relocation of UK capital on a percentage chance would be a pure roulette element (role a dice which side has won, depending on if the capital relocates or not...) - which I extremely dislike . The relocation is not the problem, only the change in WaW that Egypt can not be conquered any more (mainly because of the too narrow entrance and that sandstorms prevent air operations too often). Only this change (which hopefully gets changed back via patch when enough players complain ) makes it so attractive now to just abandon England and go to Egypt or other places.

P.S.: engineer or more troops don´t help for the defence of England - England is simply not defendable during 1940 (which is why the capital needs to relocate). In WaW Axis start with naval superiority and the british fleet can´t protect the Island against an invasion until the necessary techs and new ships have been built. If they move out, they will only be sunk by a determined Axis player.

[ November 01, 2007, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Hubert Cater]

I can easily remove the no-spotting of Engineers and Paratroops as I never anticipated the potential issue as it is playing out in game. Also agreed that with the AA perhaps this feature is not really needed that much anymore.

[Terif]

Yep, that would be a good fast solution for the para/engineer problem

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Terif:

places.

In WaW Axis start with naval superiority and the british fleet can´t protect the Island

Perhaps I slept in history but this seems a little bit strange to me. Perhaps tone down the German fleet a bit ...or much? => aka Invasion would be really risky?

[pzgndr]

2) get rid off the change that defence bonuses now apply in surprise contacts.

Agreed. This needs to be reconsidered also. This may be part of the AI performance issues I've been seeing, where the AI has a bad tendency to overextend itself with disastrous results and unnecessary loss of MPPs.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Originally posted by Sombra:

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

places.

In WaW Axis start with naval superiority and the british fleet can´t protect the Island

Perhaps I slept in history but this seems a little bit strange to me. Perhaps tone down the German fleet a bit ...or much? => aka Invasion would be really risky? </font>

[SeaMonkey]

Agree with HvS, the RN is under represented in FW.

Sombra is right AAA makes invisibility of Egr/Paras obsolete.

Now for the defensive bonus in "Surprise Encounters". I completely agree that the AI would be at a disadvantage with this feature on, but IRL it is an accurate presentation of the aspects of combat and recon.

I don't think it has been changed for WaW and I see no reason to change it now for HtH games. The offense has enough tools at its disposal currently.

[Terif]

That in surprise encounters now the surprising unit gets its defensive bonuses is new in WaW - didn´t exist before in SC2.

I agree that for games between veteran players it is no problem since they will do proper reconnaissance before moving forward so there will never be a surprise encounter as soon as the engineer/para thing is fixed.

But for not so experienced/casual players or if players play more intuitively without extensive planning it can easily get pretty frustrating - one wrong move and unit dead without much damage for the enemy. Unnecessary frustration factor in my eyes and also increases turn length a lot since you have to be extra careful not to run into a surprise encounter.

[ November 01, 2007, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I like the defensive bonuses for for the "ambushing" units in surprise encounters... but the "ghost" units should receive them. Neither bricklayers building the Atlantic wall nor parachutists folding their parachutes are comparable to a normal corps or army lying in defensive positions ready for a point-blank shot.

[Hubert Cater]

Perhaps I slept in history but this seems a little bit strange to me. Perhaps tone down the German fleet a bit ...or much? => aka Invasion would be really risky?

Well this is a bit subjective since in WaW the UK actually has an extra naval unit versus what they had in Blitzkrieg. For example, instead of starting with 2 Cruisers around the home isle they now start with 1 Cruiser and 2 Destroyers.

Granted the numbers have changed a bit since Blitzkrieg in the sense that the UK, in the North Atlantic and around the Home isle, still have just as many effective anti-sub units, i.e. Destroyers now rather than Cruisers, but in turn have one less Capital ship to face German capital ships. That and the UK capital ships are no longer as good sub hunters as they were in Blitzkrieg so it really depends on how you use your units and which enemy unit you are battling.

Keep in mind it is a careful balance and if you give the UK too many naval units then it may be very difficult for the German player to re-create the early successes in the Battle of the Atlantic.

I am always open to suggestions but I'd rather hold off on this for a little while longer as strategies and tactics still play out, i.e. with Egypt a bit more defensible it may be advisable for the UK player to send (temporarily) a portion of its Med. fleet home to protect against Sea Lion as an option. Now this may not always work against top players like Terif and it very well could be that an extra Cruiser might just do the trick but either way it might still be a good idea to see how things play out a bit more before making a change that may unbalance it in an unforseen and undesirable way.

[targul]

Personnally I like that Amph is no longer starting in America and landing in France or Portugal. Always thought that was strange.

Yes they are expensive but in my recent game America still invaded France in 43. Since units are very expensive there are only units in each of the cities in France and the mine so defense is already near impossible.

Building Atlantic wall is already neigh on impossible. You need an engineer and those guys are expensive. Now if you waste the money to buy one and commence building the Atlantic wall where are you going to find the corps to man them. Empty they are pointless unless they now do something when unmanned.

I know I am new to this game and cant conquer every country on the map as most of you experts do but as it stands I find the game to represent the war well except that costs seem too high to properly represent the French operations for the Axis. For me the pop up like is done in Norway of additional troops would be great for France if each of your forts would come with a corp to defend it. Even if that corp was reduced as it is in Norway.

As to Egypt I find it to play very well also. I can battle at El Aleimein for most of the game without much happening. It is extremely difficult to get past that fort. The one thing I have not seen in this theater is the British getting past the Italians defending on the other side of El Aleimein. Allies need to pump up there volume in mid 42 to push forward and capture Libya.

This could possibly make for action in Italy and Africa since the US does not seem to land in Africa and Italy just sits there doing nothing until well after France falls.

[SeaMonkey]

I see no reason why egr in fortification building mode or paras in prep phase should not perhaps get an air defense bonus simulating addition AAA asset allocation.

The players would then have the option to enhance those assets with the proximity of the AAA unit.

Sorry Terif I believe "SE" is a nuance of SC, perhaps it has gotten a little severe, I have not experienced it to that degree yet. I believe in the premise and it is up to SC players to deduce its negative effect and take the proper action.

You do remember what happens to most soldiers that were "on the point" in WW2? Now don't give me this is a whole corps thing, it is a simulation of a tactical effect.

I never put a unit "out there" I'm not willing to lose.

[pzgndr]

That in surprise encounters now the surprising unit gets its defensive bonuses is new in WaW - didn´t exist before in SC2.

It's not clear what the problem was in SC2 that prompted this late change for WaW. Even without the defense bonus a surprise encounter could inflict losses, and if the move was really stupid then counter-attacks could destroy the unit. So why impose a greater penalty which virtually guarantees unit destruction in many cases? At this strategic scale, ambush kills of corps and armies are unrealistic.

[Hubert Cater]

Off the top of my head I'm not sure either as there was a lot going on prior to release but looking at the notes it looks like this was implemented for units hiding in port (which I can see the argument for) but maybe the spillover effect is too much when it comes to land combat?

Although I could see the same argument that was used for units in port to justify a similar rule for units in cities, fortifications etc. on a surprise encounter.