Mystery of Malta

[lparkh]

Am I correct in thinking no way to take Malta as axis except by completing destroying the corps there by air and naval bombardment? I can't "invade" or assault ... basically I must empty the square first by air/naval attacks? Seems almost impossible.

Or can I attack from transports or with paratroopers some how?

THanks

Lin

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Only way is to knock both the port and the city down to 0 supply level, via both bombers and the Italian fleet, then hit it with tac air, fighters, and perhaps even rockets. Then pray the British Navy doesn't show up to hit your weakened battleships. And if all that just happens to go to plan, the little bastard will likely just sit in the middle of his smoldering bomb crater, with a mighty strength of one, waving his scorched private parts at you. And then recharge back to 5 strength the next turn. Rinse repeat and hope you kill the bugger before your ships end up at 5 strength.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually places like Malta and Gibraltar are easier to neutralize in WaW then in SC2. Sure, it requires an investment of resources that maybe more useful elsewhere, but that is your decision Herr General.

My usual MO is to reduce these southern fortresses in the wintertime when bad weather is predominant on the continent as it gives my airforces something to do, but the operational costs are significant.

[lparkh]

great commentary guys, thanks!

[Childress]

Question: If single square islands cannot be directly invaded how does the game handle the island hopping in the Pacific? Just curious, I don't own the game.

[xwormwood]

Answer: The game handles it not at all, because until now there is no way to invade an occupied hex.

As good as SC2 / SC2WAW is, this lacking standard feature is (and was already in SC1) a major flaw.

Solution would be a "retreat" battle result, which does not exist in SC2 / WAW.

[Childress]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

Solution would be a "retreat" battle result, which does not exist in SC2 / WAW.

Maybe also some provision for integrating land and air units in the same square. After all, Malta as an airbase dominated supply lanes as a source of interdiction. I suspect the game provides rules to recreate this, but in a wonky, work-around fashion.

This opens up the 'stacking' can of worms but one wonders that if the game allowed 2 units per square new possibilities would open up without violating the simplicity the games aspires to. As well as a retreat provision, as you mentioned, or sea based invasion squares.

[ December 16, 2007, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]

[John DiFool the 2nd]

All we need for assaulting land positions from water is a Marine unit capable of same, but that might be prohibited by some arcane coding issue. Hubert any thoughts on that?

[SeaMonkey]

All we need is a tile that looks like water, or a corral reef, or a beach, etc. that can only be entered by a unit in amphibious mode, sort of like a port is now.

The difference is that the amphib can unload in that tile and attack from that tile and move into the unoccupied tile when the defender is vanquished.

Sure, the enemy could put his own amphib in the tile, but wouldn't that be smart, one or two bombardments from BBs or an attack by a CAG would be the end of it.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Hmm that reminds me of something else that has been bugging me-what tiles in the editor does the game consider to be "land", vs. "water"? Sometimes I'll see a ship sail up and bombard one of my units and the ship appears to have beached itself.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

All we need is a tile that looks like water, or a corral reef, or a beach, etc. that can only be entered by a unit in amphibious mode, sort of like a port is now.

This would probably work, but it would still be a workaround, not a proper solution.

Withdrawal as a combat result is what this game really need. No room to withdraw: you die / surrender. These fighting till death battles are simply stupid.

Sorry for that.

[lparkh]

Agree, I don't understand the lack of any withdrawal, retreat behavior in a sophisticated game that has gone through many iterations. Is their a design intent here?

[Lars]

Ya think?

If there were a withdraw "feature" in this game, you'd end up fighting WWI.

[Timskorn]

There's already plenty of withdrawal opportunities. Either withdrawal the unit yourself by moving them or op-move them. I understand the design concept you're all looking at in regardings to assaulting a single hex, but I think the way SC2 is built it wouldn't work out as great as it sounds, only for limited situations such as assaulting Malta or directing attacking a city from sea. If you look at a withdrawal mechanic in regards to normal land combat, like I said I think it would do more harm than good with SC2's current design and gameplay. Attackers would gain even more advantage, forcing entrenched or defended (ie, units in mountains and forests) into the open to be slaughtered. We all know open, untrenched units are vulnerable to massive casualties in SC2. Watching a strength 5 Army retreat out of Stalingrad and leave it open to the enemy would be infuriating to say the least.

I think this falls under the "why can't I attack with 2 or more units at a single time?" design question as well.

In future iterations of the SC franchise we might see stuff like this, but in the end you really have to be objective about it and decide how beneficial some of these things would actually be. Seemingly minor design changes could affect how the entire game feels and plays, despite how logical it may sound in theory. I've never played that CEAW game, but the way its designed that retreat mechanic might work just fine with it, but adding it to SC2 may cause unintended consequences.

[lparkh]

Thanks Timskorn. That was the kind of design input I was hoping for. Not sure why the earlier "ya think" sarcasm was needed from the other poster. I wasn't being hostile and there are plenty of WWII games with a retreat concept.

[Lars]

Yes, but they usually have a larger map.

At this scale, all you would do is push units around, never really destroying anything, as they all would just get reinforced the next turn.

As I said, it would just turn in to one long attrition slog, till you finally force them all back to where they can no longer retreat, or the other side finally runs out of mpps.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but come on, you really think the game designer didn't consider it?

[xwormwood]

Lars, have you ever played Clash of Steel?

If so, than your statement about WW1 would be somewhat ridiculous.

Either way, this "problem" could be solved by allowing "attack and later movement" instead of "attack and stand" or "move and attack".

The problem about Stalingrad could be solved as well.

Just tell me one military commander with any sense left in history who wouldn't have considered an imidiate retreat if had the chance after the overall situation was completly lost.

It is not a "small map"-problem or a "i was never able to kill a unit"-problem or a "WW1"-problem.

Right now noone does retreat. This may be allright if someone sits in the capital city with a moral about 100%, but not retreating still can end in complete slaughter of the specific unit while one step back might have saved it.

Even a Dunkirk-scenario would be able with a retreat at the coastline.

This is nothing what wouldn't have been there in gaming history.

Or short: it worked PERFECTLY in Clash of Steel. So please, don't tell me this nonsense about World War One (wich would be a real nice scenario, by the way), a to small map (come on!) or every retreting unit would be lost (every not retreating unit will get probably die as well in SC2 WAW).

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

If you look at a withdrawal mechanic in regards to normal land combat, like I said I think it would do more harm than good with SC2's current design and gameplay. Attackers would gain even more advantage, forcing entrenched or defended (ie, units in mountains and forests) into the open to be slaughtered.

Solution would be simple: no withdrawal while there are any entrenchement levels left.

After there is no entrenchement and no moral % left, than you reach the "loose strenght points and withdraw"-region.

[Timskorn]

It's more of a "SC2 already abstracts retreat" thing by allowing you to buy back destroyed units at a reduced cost, and is it worth it for Hubert to program this feature into SC2?

Most ideas can be implemented into a game, it's more of a matter of "is it worth the developers time?" and "will it make the game much more enjoyable?" Or rather, "How much money will this feature make me?"

[Lars]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

Lars, have you ever played Clash of Steel?

If so, than your statement about WW1 would be somewhat ridiculous.

Either way, this "problem" could be solved by allowing "attack and later movement" instead of "attack and stand" or "move and attack".

The problem about Stalingrad could be solved as well.

Just tell me one military commander with any sense left in history who wouldn't have considered an imidiate retreat if had the chance after the overall situation was completly lost.

It is not a "small map"-problem or a "i was never able to kill a unit"-problem or a "WW1"-problem.

Right now noone does retreat. This may be allright if someone sits in the capital city with a moral about 100%, but not retreating still can end in complete slaughter of the specific unit while one step back might have saved it.

Even a Dunkirk-scenario would be able with a retreat at the coastline.

This is nothing what wouldn't have been there in gaming history.

Or short: it worked PERFECTLY in Clash of Steel. So please, don't tell me this nonsense about World War One (wich would be a real nice scenario, by the way), a to small map (come on!) or every retreting unit would be lost (every not retreating unit will get probably die as well in SC2 WAW).

Then go play Clash of Steel.

Ever do any game design? You pays your moneys and you make your choices. Hubert decide it wasn't needed in his design.

lparkh's post makes it seem that it never was considered. It was. We were arguing this topic waaaaaay back in SC1.

[Childress]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

I think this falls under the "why can't I attack with 2 or more units at a single time?" design question as well.

Seemingly minor design changes could affect how the entire game feels and plays, despite how logical it may sound in theory.

Yes, be careful what you ask for you may get it. The concept of attacking a single unit at a time doesn't bear scrutiny, lol, but the depth and realism of a game like SCWAW lies at the strategic level. From reading the forum, it appears to do this quite well.

But to do do justice to a situation like Malta (or Iwo Jima or Dieppe) you really need a way to invade from a non-land square. Also, limited stacking of, say air and ground units. Problem with Malta, is, that to really do it right you 'd need to stack a land unit, a fighter unit and a bomber unit. SCIII?

[SeaMonkey]

Timskorn, Childress, and Lars have it, this is a strategic game, there are abstractions for realistic simulations.

Example: We all know what happen in France, 1944, after breaking out in the aftermath of Cobra, the subsequent Mortain counter, 3rd Army Avranches dash, and the ensuing Falaise pocket the German Armies seemingly failed to exist as a combat force in this scale.

Essentially in SC terms they were eliminated, but there was a reformation at the Siegfried Line after the retreat, and that is possible with the current SC engine.

So in my humble opinion the simulation, although not specifically correct, creates the atmosphere of the required effect.

Nice dialogue, but we've been here, me thinks the creator has moved beyond this feature.

[Timskorn]

I also think people have created a monster out of Malta. You can take it. It takes time and resources, but you need to plan for it beforehand. Commit to taking it or don't even try because you'll just waste time and resources.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Basically you pay a 15% premium, over and above the cost to rebuild a unit from a strength of one (won't bore anyone with the gory mathematical details), to rebuild a destroyed (in supply) unit-well that, and the time penalty waiting for it to come back.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Lars:

Then go play Clash of Steel.

Ever do any game design? You pays your moneys and you make your choices. Hubert decide it wasn't needed in his design.

lparkh's post makes it seem that it never was considered. It was. We were arguing this topic waaaaaay back in SC1.

But then there were many other things originaly not considered which found their way into the SC-Games, so why should we stop to discuss?

And yes, i do remember the SC1 topics from waaaay back, thank you for reminding me of many fruitless begs and discussions. Sigh.

My hint towards Clash of Steel was only nescessary because you wrote that any attemp to implent auto-withdrawals as a combat result would be the end of a WW2 game (=WW1) or would result in utter losses for the defender (in CoS it was more of the opposite, your enemy slipped out of your grasp).

@ Go play Clash of Steel

I like SC2 / SC2 WAW, but until now, i am still looking out for something better.

BECAUSE SOME VERY TINY, BUT VERY NICE THINGS from SC-Grandfather Clash of Steel haven't found their way back into a game.

- Withdrawals

- a decent History of the game-function