The big bang Barbarossa

[hellraiser]

in SC1 it was possbile to spam RMKO line with corps and keep tanks in the cities (via mpps bonus) - in SC2, defending is a joke unless weather helps you. And if axis attack early, in 4 turns they reach moscow...units move too many tiles - no way in hell gerry could have ever had that speed

Defence is futile in SC2 - the only thing the 'defender' thinks is where to attack the attacker not where to defend against him

Attack values are high, corps hit like a sledgehammer...

[Sombra]

@Hellraiser: Wasn´t somebody joking when I mentioned that defense in SC2 shows the suicidal tendencies of the player?

Terif suggested a defense tech. I go for some adjustments regarding attack /defense values

[Liam]

Defense is definitely not viable in SC2 because the attack values and unit values raise BUT MY FRIENDS, this is WORLD WAR I is it?

The best I think that the game should offer for defenders, nations like Germany, USSR and England built extensive Fortifications. The USSR less so due to the fact they had wonderful terrain for defense and that does help half values, rivers/swamps/marshes and Mountains kill the Gerry Offensive, just not so early as if perhaps the map stretched.. Another Line of Cities to the Capitol? Perhaps even two lines of cities, and do away with a few in the rear?

Then again when is USSR beat? Perhaps entrenchment should allowed to be increased beyond 2 in open territory.. Perhaps Entrenchment Defense Tech would be nice. Units in cities have a MUCH better anti-tank value, not just a fair one. Mountains are impossible to attack into at all. Unbreakable in real life almost. Like the Maginot IF THE PROPER UNITS are in the mountains to defend. So what do we do?

It's difficult to weigh it. Look at the West, all open terrain, NorthWest Europe the German Plain is a easy territory to rape with Mobility and Tanks if you know how. So why give the USSR better, when about 10 mobile units could sweep into Berlin undefended in 5-6 turns even with stiff resistance, so long as they have the air along the way and the AW, and Heavy Tank to do the job. So STOP investing in Production and Industry and invest Heavy Tank, IW and Mobile units. This is a game of mobility afterall, only toward the end did it become stalemate when more units were introduced, reserves were mobilized, Germany went on full War Economy and the Fronts CLOSED... but there is difficulty closing the fronts here making it a stalemate, with a wise tactical move decided the game...

I found against Rambo he had about 50-60 Red units I had 20-30 German. I stemmed the tide with 4 Air and hit withdrawl, highly mobile. Try Mobility once before you judge defense. Hit and Run is the strongest Tactic of All, and slip in, cut off.. Which is hard on the Eastern Front, Personally I think the USSR gets much too much corps my tastes. They were more of a Heavy Tank Nation. However their Manpower Pool was vast, Rambo placed out about 25 Corps at IW 3 and AntiTank 2, that about ended the Eastern Front for me...otherwise Panzers with supply, which was the trickiest part would hit the Urals in 1942 or at least Cut off the Caucasus

P.S. to solve our problems, how about fortification tech. 2 or 3 Engineers are built at a GREAT reduction in price, and they work MUCH faster... Reds could build forts, makeshift ones in a matter of weeks.. That isn't possible now. Plus upping the value of their defense... 1 or 2 turn Level defenses, increased each turn in value of defense.. Perhaps 4 turn max... at highest Defense level, giving France-UK-Russia the strongest Start in that tech and Germany second to them but no Engineers for UK or France only Russia after Barby 2-3 free, who builds forts anyways? And cities should be able to be bolstered directly from both air, ground and naval? Not sure if that's implemented thought you lost the city if you tried that. I haven't seen the cost effectiveness in it so far. So who has built a fort really?

[Blashy]

Defense works very well, if you are entrenched, it makes a difference, if you have a tank on a city that is entrenched, ouch, that thing kicks ass.

The more the Axis move deep in Russia, the more the Russians are favored by just siting thight on defense.

You only have one chance to start a good counter attack, but if you do it right, that chance is when the tide of the war turns.

[SeaMonkey]

I kind of like the way the defense, or non-defense works in SC2.

One thing is for sure, if you allow your opponent to saddle up next to you from 3 tiles and prepare an attack for the next turn.......well , just put your head between your legs and kiss your @ss goodbye.

I don't care how much of entrenchment you have. If I move around your flanks and soak off that entrenchment value with Corps attacks, use my AFs ,bombers, and Artillery(rockets),...... its over man.

Now in real life, what was the usual course of action when a commander was faced with overwhelming odds? Well I'm not sticking around unless I'm surrounded.

The better part of valor IMO, is retreat and live to fight another day.

OK, okay...since I'm from Texas, there may be some reasonable conclusion to perform an "Alamo" feat, but it should be kept to a minimum.

[Sombra]

dissent: Attackers are nearly always in disadvantage. Usally you get much higher loses when you attack. SC2 has it backwards. (IMHO)

The best way to kill an enemy is to cut of his supply and mob up the demoralized defenders.

Take Staingrad etc.

SC1 worked better in this regard.

[hellraiser]

"Attackers are nearly always in disadvantage. Usally you get much higher loses when you attack."

I strongly disagree - attackers have the surprise factor working for them, prepared for the assault and most likely shifted the local balance of forces to their favour.

Defenders have entrenchment but think entrenchment as prepared defensive positions rather than fortifications. Attacking against a fortified spot (like Sevastopol) is a whole different story.

At Kursk , for example, due to the local superiority achieved on both flanks of the main attack, germans managed to get thru despite heavily reinforced defensive positions (even field fortifications) and lacking of surprise factor (red intel already passed to the STAVKA the german plans for the offensive).

In SC2, the RMKO line is almost impossible to defend left aside for a previous axis bad gameplay or severe lack of techs. Supply for Axis is high, with some techs the attck values are high - no real chances. The defense in - depth is the only viable choice for russians - entrench behind rivers, marshes, in mountains and wait for bad supply and bad weather to slow axis down until you start ammasing the required units to push them back. Get techs, wothout them you have no chance - techs are too important this game. The difference from IW 0 to IW 3 is like the difference between a sling and a phaser

[Sombra]

I really like Sc2 a lot. Still I think that SC1 "played better" in the french campaign and in the start of Barbarossa.

Right now it doesn´t make any sense to defend the borders of Rusia (Not in the strategic sense and there is no "political pressure" from Stalin ; ). )

It is outright suicide trying to defend the borders right now IMHO.

Knowing that the rusian units hide deep within mother Rusia the axis side "always" in MP start a lukewarm Barbarossa taking the frontline border cities without resistance. In SC1 the start of Barbarossa was always a big event.

I have 2 suggestions to improve the gameplay and add more strategic options to the game.

1. Starting with 70% war readiness rusian units should be permitted to entrench in the border regions + cities in the frontier regions(RMKO line). (NO entrenchment should allowed behind the frontier region)

70% is a typical value the rusian war readiness hits in summer 1941.

It would be nice if the axis player would be forced now to start a "surprise" attack or risk to run against a line of entrenched rusian units later on. Slowing down considerably its advances in Rusia.

The axis player would be forced to assemble a bigger attack force to take its objectives fast against a possible rusian resistance.

The Rusian player would have more options avaible.

1. Not commit any forces to the defense of the border (The way SC2 is played now)

2. Seeing that the axis is tied down in other areas (for example Egypt) and taking up positions on the frontier. The gamble is if the axis doesnt attack in force, his units will be fully entrenched with the start of Barbarossa. On the other hand if the Axis attacks in strengh then he could lose his border troops.

The 2nd change I would like to see is to strenghen the defense of units like corps and armies. IMHO the game right now give to many advantages to the attacker. I think the ratio attacker vs. defender loses were better balanced in SC1. This would help considerably in the french campaign. Right now the french campaign is simply an artless axis attack the only real enemy is the weather.

[ May 15, 2006, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Guest Mike]

What is RMKO?

[hellraiser]

riga-minsk-kiew -odessa i.e. the first natural defence line choice for the Soviets.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

techs are too important this game. The difference from IW 0 to IW 3 is like the difference between a sling and a phaser

Hellraiser I think you have found a nice description what happens right now. The worth of techs should be decreased or the tech effect spread out over more tech levels. As you mentioned before a human player will max out the Axis tech before Barbarossa. This would help althouhg in the "minor nation units " problem.

[Sombra]

I missing the good old 40 units + attack on Rusia. Are there any changes within the patch regarding Barbarossa?

[Blashy]

The problem is that you can invest in too many areas at once, 2000mpps maximum research is too much.

You basically don't have to make choices.

That should change .

[Baron]

I think everyone is missing another important issue that has been touched on in other discussions. Armies should have higher defense values two to three times what a Corps has - after all an Army is noting more than a collection of Corps. As it is now the only reason to even build Armies is that you run out of Corps to build.Corps are way to powerful in this game.

On defense entrenching is an option if you have the time and money to build and use the engineers. As they are now they are darn near useless to purchase and if you do invest in them you'd better start entrenching around Stalingrad, even then the Germans will probably beat the engineers to the tile!

I like using a mobile defense but if the other side has the same techs as your side it is not a viable defense either.

[Guest Mike]

Ther is a down side to corps if you're fighting on a congested front like Italy or in front of Cairo or ttacking Sevastopol etc - they simply lack the firepower of armies in such circumstances

[Blashy]

After reading Baron's last post I know he'll enjoy some of the next patch .

[bloodstar]

a few thoughts:

1) it is insane that any neutral major country is not active and on map at the start of the game.

2) no major country should surrender until every resource point is taken. period. (except france, who should fall after paris and at least 2 other cities fall, and italy *after* 1943) that'll prevent any gamey issues with italy being DOW'd cheesed.

3)the Soviet Union is at a terrible disadvantage because there is no meatgrinder effect. they should be able to toss out crappy units left and right. But that isn't a simple solution because

4) experience means too much. if you're not going to reduce the amazing value of experience, at least reduce the amount of experience units gain against green troops, perhaps, 1/2 for each level of experience better than the other units, so a level 3 experience unit against a level 1 experience unit should get 1/4 experience. conversely, let the lower level unit gain experience *more* from being schooled by a high experience unit.

meh.

just my thoughts

[Guest Mike]

1/ so the USA shouldn't be on the Map?

2/ France surrendered when only Paris & Brest were taken on the SC2 map - Brest on 19 June, the formal surrender was on 25th.

3/ teh Sov union can replace corps dirt cheap if they've done their research properly - IIRC 55 or 60 MPP's for Corps destroyed in supply with no tech, so that's 6/turn at 360 MPP's per turn.

4/ is a good idea, but hen troops shuold probably gain more morale jsut for winning

[Guest Mike]

Perhaps a better way of calculating surrender "potential" is to measure population morale?

I recall an old WW1 board game where every lost point was a point off your population's morale - most combatants started with morale 3, and if they ever got to morale 0 then they were out - Russia started at 2 I think.

There were various distances to drop levels for the various combatants depending on size and perceived national willingness to fight.

By 1917 most were at level 2 and well on the way to being level 1, and the Americans coming in at level 2 with plenty of distance to go to level 1 made a potent force!

Using this you can assign morale values to cities, to troops and especially to ships - the Kriegsmarine renamed the "Deutchland" in November 1939 because Hitler feared the prpaganda and psychological effect should it ever be lost!

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

After reading Baron's last post I know he'll enjoy some of the next patch .

I hate teasers.

[bloodstar]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

1/ so the USA shouldn't be on the Map?

2/ France surrendered when only Paris & Brest were taken on the SC2 map - Brest on 19 June, the formal surrender was on 25th.

3/ teh Sov union can replace corps dirt cheap if they've done their research properly - IIRC 55 or 60 MPP's for Corps destroyed in supply with no tech, so that's 6/turn at 360 MPP's per turn.

4/ is a good idea, but hen troops shuold probably gain more morale jsut for winning

1) whoops, I meant to say that the units should be on map and mobile for all major countries. Wasn't very clear on that one...

2) something like that, take Pairs and either Marseille, Bordeaux, or Brest to invoke Vichy France.

3) What I'd like to see is the ability to buy any corps destroyed between turns. so at the end of your turn you can buy a corp that helps plug a vulnerable city, etc. (and give a discount for buying it like that? Only placeable in country, which would give the defenders and advantage).

4) Personally I'd be interested in seeing a game play with no Experience at all. it certainly would change the dynamics of the game.

[hellraiser]

Originally posted by Blashy:

After reading Baron's last post I know he'll enjoy some of the next patch .

can some one with l33t comp skillz hack into the bf servers and steal the beta 1.1 patch ?

Or maybe it'd be easier to tunnel your way into Blashy's PC

Blashy, can you please tell me your IP?