On going issues

[Baron]

I’m getting very frustrated with the game system as it is now. It is better than before but I'd like to know if there are plans to address the following issues:

Naval units being able to eliminate ground or air units by bombardment

Naval surface units unable to raid

Lack of any chance of a captured port taking any damage when conquered – how long was Antwerp out of commission after its capture?

Tech advances being a crap shoot – In one game I had tanks maxed out since 1942( At that point I had level 2 tanks and 5 chits invested - after MANY turns 6 or so I still had level 2 tanks)

Anti air only shooting once a turn - they run out of ammo?

Anti air staying intact when the other side takes a city???? (an opponant just took a city and when I move a cursor over the city it still shows the level 3 AA I had upgraded it to) - I guess they left the ammo, radar, and guns intact during the battle

Aircraft carriers are a joke - this is a very serious issue especially if the Pacific is going to be done

Ships changing facing if another ship passes by them even if they are not sighted - this is really really annoying!! So much progress on the naval war and this bug is still around.

After many months Crete issue still has not been fixed

One of my favorites is entrenching the Kiel canal and having it close traffic to your ships from then on!

I have to agree with Ludi also - when Portugal falls the Azores should go Allied - they do in 1943 without an invasion so I see no reason why they wouldn't if Lisbon fell. Of course if they were invaded first or on the same turn they should stay Axis or Allied as the case may be.

Having said all that I'm losing interest in the game because these issues just take alot of the fun out of the game. So without any malice on my part are these issues going to be addressed? Or are they going to be left as is -for technical reasons or else they just don't seem important to anyone else.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Baron,

Naval units being able to eliminate ground or air units by bombardment

Not likely to change as this is mostly a game design decision. Good thing is that if you disagree it can always be changed in the Editor.

Naval surface units unable to raid

Lack of any chance of a captured port taking any damage when conquered – how long was Antwerp out of commission after its capture?

Tech advances being a crap shoot – In one game I had tanks maxed out since 1942( At that point I had level 2 tanks and 5 chits invested - after MANY turns 6 or so I still had level 2 tanks)

Not likely to change at the moment either as these are also game design decisions. For example some like the current raiding setup as it gives subs more importance on the board while others may disagree. I may revisit this at some point in the future.

For the research this is also enjoyed by some as it creates reasonable randomness from game to game but I may provide for an alternative setup at some point in the future.

Anti air only shooting once a turn - they run out of ammo?

Another game decision so as to not make Anti-Air too powerful. A similar agrument could be made for all unit types as most only shoot once per turn as well. That being said the next patch will address some of the air balance issues so hopefully these improvements will be satisfactory wrt the current Anti-Air limitations.

Anti air staying intact when the other side takes a city???? (an opponant just took a city and when I move a cursor over the city it still shows the level 3 AA I had upgraded it to) - I guess they left the ammo, radar, and guns intact during the battle

This should have been fixed with the last patch. If you have a saved turn where this is repeatable, i.e. the occupation status changes on that turn but the AA level is still applied I'll be happy to take a look.

Aircraft carriers are a joke - this is a very serious issue especially if the Pacific is going to be done

Can you be more specific? What would you like to see changed?

Ships changing facing if another ship passes by them even if they are not sighted - this is really really annoying!! So much progress on the naval war and this bug is still around.

This should have been resolved as well... if you have a saved turn where I can repeat the error I will be glad to take a look.

After many months Crete issue still has not been fixed

This has been fixed for the next patch.

One of my favorites is entrenching the Kiel canal and having it close traffic to your ships from then on!

I'll have to take a look for the next patch

I have to agree with Ludi also - when Portugal falls the Azores should go Allied - they do in 1943 without an invasion so I see no reason why they wouldn't if Lisbon fell. Of course if they were invaded first or on the same turn they should stay Axis or Allied as the case may be.

I can change this if enough players prefer this change, otherwise it is easily edited via the game Editor.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[Jollyguy]

Here's my take:

I have no problem with naval units being able to eliminate ground or air units by bombardment

Naval surface units should not be able to raid, this is a balancing aspect with an eye on Norway and Sweden and the Atlantic. It forces players to expend mpps building subs if they want to raid.

A captured port should not take damage when conquered, again, a balancing aspect of game. It's important when capturing a city to be able to utilize that port to exploit the landing.

I have absolutely no problem with tech advances or diplomacy being a crap shoot. It adds an element of variability to each game.

Anti air should only shoot once a turn. This allows bombers to be effective by tag teaming the opponent, and also force the opponent to consider stationing fighters if he wants to exact more damage. Again, a balancing factor.

Agree on this one. Anti air staying intact when the other side takes a city???? (an opponant just took a city and when I move a cursor over the city it still shows the level 3 AA I had upgraded it to) - I guess they left the ammo, radar, and guns intact during the battle

I have no problem with aircraft carriers as they are. They are adequately effective if properly used. In SC 1 they were way, way too powerful.

Agree on this one, it was annoying. Ships changing facing if another ship passes by them even if they are not sighted - this is really really annoying!! So much progress on the naval war and this bug is still around.

Not sure, If this is WAW I don't play that. After many months Crete issue still has not been fixed

I'm not sure about this one. I've been okay with it, but would get used to a change if that happened. It does give the Germans some added defense to RN raids. One of my favorites is entrenching the Kiel canal and having it close traffic to your ships from then on!

Can't comment on this one, I don't play WAW. I have to agree with Ludi also - when Portugal falls the Azores should go Allied - they do in 1943 without an invasion so I see no reason why they wouldn't if Lisbon fell. Of course if they were invaded first or on the same turn they should stay Axis or Allied as the case may be.

Bob

[arado234]

Baron,if this game was based on reality then most of what you say I agree with.Since its not maybe some of the"gamey"aspects need to be left alone.

I do agree with you about Keil port.

Tech.is a tough one.Some like it the way it is some dont.

I think Anti air should only fire once because in reality the A.A.unit would be facing multiple attacks all at once from multiple air units and wouldnt be able to fire at all the planes coming in all different directions.

I think you could have naval units raid but in the case of Norway being shut down the Germans should have the option to divert that convoy traffic to the otherside of the country through the Swedish port(which is what they probably would have done in reality)The convoys would still cease in the winter.

With Carriers im not sure how many Carriers the icon is supposed to represent.If it is just one then the way they are now makes sense because your only talking about at the most 100 aircraft compared to an land Airfleet which would have alot more.

In this game you can invade with Army size units which in reality is impossible.You have to have some unrealistic options to give the units in question a sense of worth.Remember everyone has the same atvantages and the same disatvantages.

I think overall Hubert and everyone else have done an excellent job and im sure they appreciate all our comments to makes the game better.

[Marty Ward]

Overall I really like ths game. It is fun, relatively simple to learn and has enough variability to keep replay value high. Certainly some things could be tweaked but I don't see anything really major tht needs to be changed.

There are a couple of things I wouldn't mind seeing done if possible.

1. Would it be possible to make any hex upgradable for AA? Also hex AA should be able to damage any type of air unit that attacks it.

2. The unit upgrades available could be tailored better to make the units more useful in the roles they were designed for. For example perhaps Carriers should upgrade to ASW, Advanced Air and Naval Attack if only 3 slots are possible and BB's upgrade to Artillery, Surface Attack and AA etc.

3. Sometimes it seems like Tech upgrades are too random. I've gone into 42 as Russia without getting Infantry Weapon 1 even though I usually start researching it in 39. Perhaps something could be done to make low level tech easier to hit on once all of your allies have it.

[Baron]

Hubert,

Once again I thank you for your quick reply.

Aircraft carriers should have different results from combat when attacking other units.

Naval attacks at a distance (more than one tile between the target and the aircraft carrier) should never result in a strength point factor loss to the carrier (unless it is attacking another carrier). I understand that as things stand now there is no difference between a carrier and the aircraft it is carrying. Unless this is changed there can be no worthwhile Pacific scenario IMHO. I can see a carrier take hits from land based targets since presumably there will be enemy aircraft attacking back at the carrier that could result in floatation damage to the ship. Again this is abstract but isn't all combat abstract in SC, SC2, and WAW? Of course the answer would be to allow aircraft to stack on a carrier; maybe we will see this in the future. I have no idea how to fix the naval pointing thing when a ship goes by but it is irritating 

I will never agree with air or naval units eliminating a ground unit - they certainly can render a unit combat ineffective but eliminate it? I just don't buy it. Again in a Pacific scenario this would mean some sort of stacking or in the very least allowing land units to attack directly from the sea hex. Then you would see bombardment by sea and air that would reduce a defender to such a level that a direct attack from sea could eliminate the defender and then the attacking piece could advance to take the tile. Bottom line is you need ground units to take ground period. Look at the Falise pocket all the air power in the world couldn't stop the Germans from escaping - it took ground units to do that - yes the defenders were to pulverized by Allied air but several thousand did escape - minus their equipment(Dunkirk anyone?)

There should also be a chance that a captured port will be damaged. Something like when a capital is taken and a country not surrendering would be a good example. I would not go so far as to reduce the port to zero but certainly knocking it to at least half strength is reasonable. This would not be automatic but a percentage chance. It would put a hurting on an invasion like weather will stop an attack or effect defense dead in its tracks when it hits you the wrong way. A lot of the system is set up to permit randomness so the game doesn’t get stale. IMHO this would fit the mold nicely.

Research I can live with but certain situations like I experienced certainly can be irritating! Maybe an option to let certain tech advances happen one the historical dates if they were invested in would be a possibility?

Not letting AA fire more than once yet bombers can attack more than once is indefensible. How about letting AA fire twice just like the bombers can attack twice? Should not affect balance too much with that limitation I wouldn't think.

Lastly the "Editor" I will be the first to admit that I have no desire to learn how to use it. Even if I did you would have to find an opponent willing to try your “flavor” of the game. Great concept and some neat things have come out of it but I have too much on my plate to learn it to be quite honest. I did poke around though and I have a couple of questions.

Where would you change it so that a surface ship could raid on convoy lanes? I wouldn't want them to be anywhere near as effective as subs but lurking task forces in the Atlantic would force convoy escorts for troop ships and also force them onto the convoy lanes. Both of which had to happen in the war but are not possible with the game as it now stands.

Where would you change the settings so that air or naval could not kill the last factor of a ground unit?

Thanks for making such a great game and supporting to the level you do – it is incredible and certainly not the norm in today’s market. My hats off to you !

[arado234]

Baron as far as an air or naval unit killing a ground unit,remember if the unit killed is in suppply its much cheaper to build back.I think this is supposed to represent what you are suggesting in that some troops of the unit killed did survive(thats why they are cheaper)but not enough to be represented in this game.These ground units in most cases are supposed to represent between 40,000 and 100,000 men and if only a few thousand troops in total survive then you cant represent that with these units.

As far as the Falaise gap goes yes about 100,000 germans did escape but some Panzer divisions only had around 5 tanks left.Most of the German heavy Eq.was destroyed(not to mention their morale).So by allowing airpower to totaly "destroy" a ground unit this(IMHO) would indicate the losses sufered and still you would be able to rebuild(like the Germans tried)the wiped out army at a cheaper cost.

Remember the Mortain offensive launched by the Germans in Normandy was stopped prettywell by Airpower alone.

At Dunkirk the British fighters did put up quite a good defense and the Germans didnt realise that alot of their bombs had little effect because they were dropped on the beaches and the sand absorbed alot of the blast.

I do like your idea about ports being destroyed or at minimum greatly reduced when captured by combat.Look what happened at Cherbourg.

[Sombra]

Another game decision so as to not make Anti-Air too powerful. A similar agrument could be made for all unit types as most only shoot once per turn as well. That being said the next patch will address some of the air balance issues so hopefully these improvements will be satisfactory wrt the current Anti-Air limitations.

Sounds great!

[Funks]

For the aircraft carriers question:

As I've said before, to me the aircraft carriers have to become two (2) counters.

1 the aircrafts alone. They can have cheaper replacements and more offensive punch.

2 the carrier will be only the floating base with her defence targeted upgrades and more expensive replacements.

[Sombra]

What exactly is wrong with the carriers as they are now? They are the most effective "ship" right now. Upgraded with long range they are a must ahve in any naval conflict to prevent surprise contacts etc. they never played a significant role in any European world war. IMO they are fine. in sC1 the carriers have been monsters

[Funks]

They are too easy targets from naval combat and earth based aircrafts and the replacements are too much expensive taking in account the easy chance to damage them.

[Bill101]

Keeping the price of carriers high keeps them rare. That way their influence on the European theatre is kept fairly realistic.

How they should be in a Pacific scenario is a totally different issue as their strategic profile there was much higher than it was in Europe.

What seems to be forgotten in some of the comments is the need for game balance. For instance, at the moment the Germans can make fighters pretty cheaply and also purchase quite a few AA units. If we were therefore to allow their AA units to fire twice then an allied strategic bombing campaign would become so much harder, if not impossible. That's the issue at stake.

[arado234]

Also alot of those Anti Aircraft batteries were of the 20mm calibre.Prettywell useless against bombers coming in at 20,000 plus feet.In order to solve that you would need to have specfic calibre upgrades:

88m and up good for high flying aircraft but poor against ground attack(low rate of fire and poor tracking speeds)

20 and 30mm great for ground attack(high rate of fire plus quick traversing guns)poor against high flying aircraft.

I think that would make the A.A.guns to technical to build for this game.I think leaving them the way they are makes it much easier and they still have an effect(especially at level 5)

[Baron]

The allies have the ability in the core game to build the following types of aircraft - I will leave the French out since in my experience they don't have any aircraft left at the end of the game. I also am not including minor nations aurcraft.

Allied:

8 SAC = 16 attacks per turn

9 TAC = 9 attacks per turn

14 Fighters = 14 attacks per turn or escort and intercept EVERY Axis fighter and still have 6 attacks per turn

5 Carriers = 5 attacks per turn

total possible Allied air attacks per turn = 44

To counter this the Axis can have:

8 Fighters

6 FLack

14 total to 44 so by doubling the AA defense to 2 fires a turn still gives the Allies a 44 to 20 ratio, hardly a balance issue.....

Let me clarify in case I have not made it apparent before. I feel that only the AA units (not cities) should be given the ability to defend twice a turn.

[pzgndr]

Aircraft carriers should have different results from combat when attacking other units.

They do. As a unique unit type, carriers have their own CTVs. If these need some adjustments for more realism, historical accuracy or play balance, then make some specific suggestions for improvement. Or edit them yourself.

Unless and until a game design change is made to allow unit stacking with separate carrier ships and carrier air groups, we'll have to deal with the current abstraction. I don't think it's so terrible for the ETO; it may be more of an issue for a PTO campaign. Regardless, that unit strength value is an abstraction of TOTAL combat effectiveness of the carrier. If unit cost should be reduced to make the carrier more reasonable, then maybe that can be adjusted.

I will never agree with air or naval units eliminating a ground unit - they certainly can render a unit combat ineffective but eliminate it? I just don't buy it.

Again, at this level a strategic game like SC2 is an abstraction. It's not like a tank attack has no infantry support, or infantry attacks have no tank support. And because of the orchestration required for single sequential attacks, it's unfair to think of individual attacks as happening in isolation. What you have are groups of units operating over an abstract time period and applying their collective combat power to achieve results. Over a period of several turns, those overall results appear more believable. So watching an air or naval unit get in a kill shot on a land unit isn't a big deal.

[arado234]

Baron in order to build and maintain all those planes and carriers the Allies will have suffered few overall losses to afford it(meaning the Germans are in trouble anyway).In reality the Allies did outnumber the Germans badly so by being able to pound them with planes is accurate.Remember this game in noway reflects the Allies historical Industrial might.By being able to pound Germany offsets that a little.A.A. batteries are cheap,same with upgrading your cities,planes arenot.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Hi Baron,

Not likely to change at the moment either as these are also game design decisions. For example some like the current raiding setup as it gives subs more importance on the board while others may disagree. I may revisit this at some point in the future.

Hey Hubert, any chance of a raiding toggle in the editor then? Right now those of us who wish to mod surface raiders cannot do so. I grok your design decision just asking for the modders to be given the choice.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Here's my take:

Naval surface units should not be able to raid, this is a balancing aspect with an eye on Norway and Sweden and the Atlantic. It forces players to expend mpps building subs if they want to raid.

But it also pretty much makes a single (potential) raider pretty much pointless. He has no reason to sortie out, nor does the enemy have to worry about him and keep a fleet-in-being nearby to deal with him (thinking of the Tirpitz specifically). Subs have two advantages; they are cheap and are more stealthy. I'm just asking for the choice, the same choice that Doenitz & Raeder had in real life.

[Funks]

Originally posted by Bill101:

Keeping the price of carriers high keeps them rare. That way their influence on the European theatre is kept fairly realistic.

How they should be in a Pacific scenario is a totally different issue as their strategic profile there was much higher than it was in Europe.

What seems to be forgotten in some of the comments is the need for game balance. For instance, at the moment the Germans can make fighters pretty cheaply and also purchase quite a few AA units. If we were therefore to allow their AA units to fire twice then an allied strategic bombing campaign would become so much harder, if not impossible. That's the issue at stake.

I agree that the game balance is the real need.

But you can't have different rules for carriers in Europe or in the Pacific.

The splitted counters ops ( ie aircrafts and carrier splitted) doesn't change the balance and keep the carriers much more usable and with a deeper strategy.

[Baron]

Hey guys great responses! This is one of the things I love about this game and community.

great support from Hubert

Civil discourse concerning game issues

It is a fantastic game. I guess I'm one of the people with a calculating side of the brain rather than abstract. Plus I'm getting a little long in the tooth and getting stubborn in my old age 42 (although I just had back surgery and feel more like I'm 20 again - what a relief!). So I just have a harder time accepting what I perceive as issues.

I can live with that!

[Funks]

I have to admit a little fear when I have to use carriers because I don't know what side, me or the enemy, will have more damage.

[SeaMonkey]

Why not just code the first 5 strength points of CVs, 6 through 10....15, to be cheaper to reinforce, simulating the CAG.

[Funks]

But I have to admit. They are powerful units.