Latest Yodl exploits doom SC-2

[jon_j_rambo]

Just got done playing Terif, what a joke he has made of SC-2. Told you they should have hired him. Want to know the exploits? Well, go play him for 6 hours, then you'll know.

-Legend

[SeaMonkey]

So how bad did you lose? One man's exploits are another's weakness.

Maybe he knows you better than he knows SC.

Could it be you were impatient....again.

[Terif]

Pretty bad... because this time he played Allies and is obviously not used to playing them since the last 4 games he was Axis .

But mainly he run into the open knife of the morale boost of surrendered countries at the beginning of Barbarossa (mentioned long time ago - e.g. here and will hopefully be changed in the next patch):

Either Allies have to DoW some countries preemptively (Tunisia, Portugal, Syria) or they need to give Axis some space so the moral can get back to normal values before Allies start any counterattack (and here weather was bad and winter coming...) - to go on frontal attack in east and west when just 7 countries surrendered means instant death and so game was over already 2 turns after Barbarossa...

Problem is that the morale boost is cumulative - if only 2x2 countries surrender the effect is leveled after 2-3 turns, but with 7 countries within 2 turns morale goes through the roof.

[SeaMonkey]

So Terif the accumulation of 7 capitulations in two turns sends morale to how high a level?

Give me a numerical value, an average, and a maximum. And how long does this effect last, a mean time will do?

If I'm following you, then Red Army needs to trade space and avoid combat during this period and definitely wait for winter effect on Axis supply before any thoughts of counters.

Don't tell me Rambo didn't adhere to that philosophy.

[jon_j_rambo]

560%

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

560%

Please tell me that is a joke !

I only take the minors one by one, to keep a steady, high moral. But if the boost is indeed cumulative, it's probably better to take them all in one turn.

[hellraiser]

It is no joke. Sad but true. If the Allies do not DOW several countries before Barbarossa, it usually means game over. Due to morale skyrocketing to 400 even 500 + values, a german army has 10-0 vs a entrenched 4 corps for example.

Attacking over rivers with super morale works wonders. In a phrase - Allies die.

There are other rules prone to exploitative gameplay as well.

Of course if there are no house rules to deny possibly exploitative moves, they are perfect legit and we have to go with them. Some examples:

1. Not capturing certain tiles which trigger certain events/resources even if they are clearly in your offensive's way -> you simply avoid them till later when the effect is severely diminished.

Alexandria, Smolensk for example.

This is debatable since Allies are at most times in advantage, financially speaking, so the Axis player, logically, tries to keep the mpp balance until he can break it in his favour.

Now, for example, we usually see tactics of defending heavily the Kharkow - mines area (easily defended than northern parts of ussr, and leaving empty Smolensk, since the fall of Smolensk would bring Allies the Urals industry event, hence more cash. Obviously the Axis player will avoid capturing Smolensk until later, when he develops a full thrust aimed at capturing Moscow and the northern cities, so the Ural event's effect is offset by the loss of so many red cities. In this case, both players exploit this trigger.

Alexandria would be avoided, if left empty by the allied player, for several turns, until the fall of Cairo, to delay the readiness increase of majors.

Terif said to me that the triggers are just fine how they are now, it helps keeping some sort of cash balance. I don't disagree with that, but seeing 1 red city empty, surrounded by grey hexes, was clearly not what Adolf wanted back in '40

Indeed if you trigger the Urals too early, or modify the trigger for a range trigger it throws the cash balance out of whack in allies' favour, so I guess we have to live with this tactic for balance purposes.

Second example: the existance of too many freebies, especially for the allied side. During the quiet period, UK can DOW at least 4-5 minors without a single hiccup from the major powers. Some of them bear local consequences like upsetting other minors only and/or bear strategical risks because of the vulnerability of that portion of the map.

I think any DOW should make some waves in majors' foreign departments, even if it is for 1-2% drop in readiness.

[hellraiser]

@Rambo -> dude don't be an @ss now

You can't blame Yoda for exploiting the morale stuff - 1 month ago, it was Yoda himself who raised the discussion about this thing.

In my games vs him when I play allies, I never fall for that morale crap - i just dow them minors so the effect is reduced.

Well, I mean I fall for that, because I recklessly counterattack when he has 150% morale or so, but hey, this is me, patience ain't my virtue

[jon_j_rambo]

Not a matter of blame. Just a statistical fact.

[Guest Mike]

Rambo was happy enough to exploit the bejezuz out of whetever he knew about when playing me, so I got no sympathy for him being on the receiving end of a better exploiter!! lol

Oh how the mighty are whining when it goes agains them! :cool:

[Terif]

Around 560 morale should in deed be correct. In my turn the max was 489%, it gets refreshed at the start of each players turn so in Rambos turn it was around 560%.

P.S.: with Iran it were even 8 countries that surrendered within 2 turns (Portugal, Vichy-France, Switzerland, Algier, Tunisia, Syria, Iraq, Iran).

The morale (and readiness) effect of surrendering nations is cumulative and will be multiplied. A single moral boost gives only 10-20%, 8 boosts is (10-20%)^8, so if only a couple of countries like 3 or 4 surrender, this effect will not last long and be worn off within 2-3 turns. When 8 countries surrender this is a different story and morale can be quadruplicated.

Therefore the units that were before the morale boosts already in good shape got pushed up to around 400-500%, most units were between 300-400% and another part 200-300%.

So even corps do expected damage of 10 vs 0 and every enemy unit better takes its legs into the hands and run away far enough .

Until a patch changes that (and I really hope it will be changed), Allies have two possibilities to protect them against this:

1) they DoW the smaller countries preemptively so Axis can conquer max 3-5 of them.

2) or if they missed the opportunity and enemy morale goes through the roof, then they have to retreat and wait with any offensive maneouvers until the effect is back in an acceptable scale.

How long it takes to for the moral boost to wear off depends on the supply of the units. So in high supply areas like France, it will take around 4 turns until it is back to 200% and another 2-3 before you don´t notice a difference any more.

In Russia if Axis units can push forward and HQs can´t follow to provide supply, this spook is over much faster: with supply 5 it needs 3+2 turns and when supply is lower like it should be if Russia retreated and Axis moves forward, then morale is back to normal for those units at low supply already after 3-4 turns.

So Allies only need to be calm and wait those few turns (especially since Barbarossa usually starts in autumn and Russia can use the winter to come through this dire strait) before things are back to normal - nevertheless any unit defending or even counterattacking has no chance of survival during these first turns after the boost.

[Iron Ranger]

or you missed #3

Fight like its war, dont sit on your arse and let germany determine the why's and wheres the entire game by throwing all your MMPs as UK (or russia) into

1) Diplo

2) Tech

Buy some damn units and go fight (could be included in the DOW on minor before hand)

[Desert Dave]

Terif, understandably Romantic:

Until a patch changes that (and I really hope it will be changed)

Well, it's no kept secret,

I do believe Hubert has paid heed

To the needs of the Forum Cats,

Like he always does - ain't it unique?

And so - my best guess?

Yea Merrily, your wish shall indeed come true.

Thanks,

In immense measure - to you!

Prosit!

Mythic Man! :cool:

Now... time for some brand new S&T.

Them old decrepit ones

As hellraiser has herein delineated

Are - how to say?

Completely... kaput.

Playing new V 1.05 the last couple days,

And I daresay,

Hey - mostly Solo Players?

Yer gonna have to - DIAL BACK

The difficulty settings.

Due to better AI and tweaks

Here & there and what-else besides!

Play the Axis @ "Intermediate, +1"

And,

VERY good chance... you lose!

Get yer clock cleaned,

In other words!

You've never seen so many RED sprites

In yer whole life, I bet the House

Of the (mid-summer) Rising Sun

On that one.

[Colin I]

Whilst the cumulative nature of the morale boost is clearly faulty I think the morale boost for victory is a great rule. So, perhaps setting the bonus differently for defeating different countries and a formula that reduces cumulative effect is enough of a tweak.

To a major extent I think the morale boost simulates something important in historical narratives that most games find hard to define in mechanics. The apparently unstoppable rise of an aggressive power (be it Alexander's, Rome, Mongols or Nazi Germany) as an army gains a reputation for invincibility - deserved or otherwise. The problem here is the lack of opportunity for a turning point and decline.

Terif - but how do you do this? as Germany in SC2 I find it hard to create enough viable army groups to fight Russia and take on minors simultaneously?

[Terif]

@Colin I:

This is pretty easy as long as Axis don´t operate/transport/amphib too much in the mid game or invests its money into ships (Rambo complained in our game I didn´t repair my ships after our naval battle in the Atlantic...and this has a reason ) .

So far even against the most aggressive allied players (that attack all and everyhing like proposed by Iron Ranger ) - my Germany has at least all available corps and 2 additional HQs (+usually some other things) when Barbarossa starts and Infantry Weapons 2-3 (research has priority, so Germany researches as soon as possible with max capacity in combat tech areas). Against Rambo here Germany entered additonally Russia already with 4 tank groups.

To take the minors in one strike Axis have more than enough units: for the weaker ones with str 3 defenders you only need e.g. an italian army and a minor corps from your allied nations. Against the stronger ones with str 10 units Germany only needs to send 2-3 corps and they are dead in 2 turns (or 4-5 units = death in 1 turn). Still 2 dozen units..and more..left for Russia .

[Yogi]

Here's the Problem as I see it.

Is it fair to exploit the game "exploits"? Well sure if you know them, why not.

BUT

Real good games will have few if any "exploits" to use. Ideally, all a person should need is great strategy and tactics. If a person is a reasonably competent wargamer, strong at strategy and tactics, ideally they should be able to take on any one (even Terif or Rambo)in any good game and give them at least some reasonable competition.

Unfortunately

In many games, apparently including SC2, you have no chance against someone who is experienced in the game. So perhaps the problem is, to win, you don't need to study strategy and tactics, as much as you need to study game mechanics.

There's my 2 cents worth, & I don't claim it is worth much more then that.

[Jollyguy]

Wow, this sounds as bad as the carrier bug in SC 1, when the Brits would park their carriers in port and receive the AA bonus also.

I laud Terif though for pointing this out, as he has with other bugs, as I beleive his objective is to shape a better game. Can't blame him for taking advantage of it either.

And it looks like Terif has figured out another Axis cookie cutter, which with the morale boost is even more deadly than the its predecesor in SC 1. If not corrected bidding might not be far behind, which I know no one wants in SC 2.

I have a feeling Hubert will address this, as a 560% boost makes it seem like AH's eugenics paid huge dividends, and he finally achieved his goal of Aryan Supermen, with attendent bizarre results.

Looking forward to patch 1.05, to see how this is addressed. Keep in mind the Axis player could also string together minor invasions one turn after another, or hold them as aces-in-the-hole. So although morale is a nice feature of SC 2, it's obvious that it needs to be tempered to reality.

Bob

[Minty]

I agree with Yogi, am playing as Axis at mo in a game and yoda gave some good advice but the whole "dow everyone just for a boost" is simply exploiting the game too much. I haven't done it and maybe I will lose ( took lots of his other advice though) but I feel like I'm playing ww2 not simply learning which bugs haven't been fixed yet.

[Yogi]

To DOW or not to DOW, that is the question!

I think that when a DOW is done, because of a game mechanic exploit rather then because it makes sense from a realistic standpoint - it's a fair way to win a game. It's just perhaps a sad commentary on the merits of the game itself.

Few of us have the time or perhaps interest & desire to have to study a game for all the mecahnics, mathematics and exploits it may have. The fantasy is conquering Russia or the Third Reich, not conquering the morale formula nuiances.

Don't get me wrong folks, I like SC2 - but it is more fun to play a game without having to worry about tricks of the trade and just being able to concentrate on the "war", rather then the "game" so to speak.

[Terif]

Morale boost or not - minors will still be conquered for their ressources. And after USA and Russia are in the war there is no reason in SC2 not to conquer them. So they will be conquered by any good axis player then.

The morale boost thing will also certainly not lead to bidding or such things cause it can easily be prevented (so this can happen only once to you, then you should know how to react) by simply Dowing some of the countries as Allies before that time. Or if you didn´t do it then wait some turns before you go into combat again. The only thing you really should not do then is to start a counterattack - but this should say you the common sense and is a matter of strategy and tactics (as Yogi perhaps would say ).

Nevertheless it is better when it is changed in the next patch (and if I understand Desert Dave correctly it will ) so it still can fullfill its purpose to simulate the morale problems for the russians at the beginning of Barbarossa and the more or less easy axis advance in the first months of the war, but will not lead to such extremes or the necessity to DoW some countries as Allies without any other need and purpose behind it.

BTW: in every strategy game you need to know how it works (at least to read the manual) if you want to have a chance in multiplayer - and any able opponent who has played the game already will certainly win against each new player simply because he already knows which strategies work and which ones don´t.

[ October 08, 2006, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Desert Dave]

Terif, in wonderment:

(and if I understand Desert Dave correctly it will

You do understand my "hideously metred"

And old Southern-umbra'd English after all!

As for "mechanics."

What game, board or pixel,

Does NOT have... "mechanics?"

Games are not such as... cob-webs spun

Out in some kaleidoscoped space, are they?

Yes, agree, best to just... have FUN

Playing the game.

Though, IF you wish to ALSO win one once

In a while,

You gotta know the rules/mechanics.

Terif knows them.

So do I.

But not as good as he, most probably,

We'll see one of these "tag-along" days.

[Moonslayer]

"I think that when a DOW is done, because of a game mechanic exploit rather then because it makes sense from a realistic standpoint - it's a fair way to win a game. It's just perhaps a sad commentary on the merits of the game itself."

"BTW: in every strategy game you need to know how it works (at least to read the manual) if you want to have a chance in multiplayer - and any able opponent who has played the game already will certainly win against each new player simply because he already knows which strategies work and which ones don´t."

Just two reasons why I prefer to play against the AI... in this or just about any 'strategy' game. Until the tactics become more important than game-engine-manipulation this will remain so for me.

*goes back to work writing scripts*

[Liam]

As far I can tell so far, the Morale Boost attack of the Axis is a deadly knock out blow and a good patch. I have seen it personally several times, finally figured out with a little Help from my Friends, to CounterDOW to prevent 350% Morale by the time I see 5 Axis Corps and 1 or 2 Armor outside of Moscow-Stalingrad... 7 turns is a longgggg time if you don't know what to expect as the Reds. That sort of Morale evaporates the Red Army, you should have the option to rebuild it in the time th Russians did Historically if they allow such a thing, and stretch the Map to Tactical Level!

Heh!

The Counter, is DOWing Minors, giving into Axis Aggression. Sounds bad, and it is, THE MPPs will then swing to Axis. However, if you were lucky with tech and diplo, the UK, USA will be ready to invade France or elsewhere early and take pressure of the Reds.

Terif is not just good at taking down the Minors he has a keen sense about what you're doing and know's exactly where he will place himself for his counterstrike just about.. I have only ever killed his valuable units about 1 in 10 games maybe 1 in 8

rare for him to make errors. It's rare anyone will kill my airfleets for instance.. or HQs... You have to know what units you sacrifice and what units to withhold.. If this bug is removed, which it is sorta a bug. 500% morale plus is not Blitzkrieg it's Alien Invasion, the game will slow down and once again the Axis will have to discover a Counter to the Massive Production and Might of the Allies

[Curry]

This is sad. I also think its another reason why fewer people are playing SC2 in human verses human than played SC1. It has not turned out to be a war game of WWII but a game of knowning the exploits.

Rambo is very correct in saying that he did say that Terif should have been a beta tester. He was correct. Terif should have been paid to test this game out.

[hellraiser]

SC1 needed 7 patches to be stable and balanced, well at least with a help of an appropriate bidding system.

SC2 is at 1.04 and HC is doing a good job correcting a lot of bugs and doing some nice balancing. 1.04 is already VERY playable, with both sides having good chances at winning the war, the versions to come will most probably bring more balance and eliminate some remaining bugs. A lot of players inform HC about various issues, submitting savegames, etc so the community helps a lot here.

Let's just not transform this thread in a 'omfg t3h sc2 su>< @ss' because it is not the case.

oh! yeah, Yoda should have tested this one, indeed ... but nobody listens to Rambo these days