TCP/IP Game AAR

[Sombra]

Well we will see if the raiders are to strong. Simple solution would be that the units could land but not move the same turn.

What I would like to know if you can load a unit onto a boat, ship it, unload, move and attack all in the same turn, espescially the amphibious landing transports. This would be a little to much for my taste.

[Edwin P.]

1. Amphibious Transports - You board on Turn 1. You can move and land on Turn 2 - as I recall.

2. Strategic Bombing - Sc2's AI definitely needs to include routines for the proper use of bombers as outlined in this thread including: Move to new targets if you are intercepted, bombing Russia oil fields, and helping to control the Atlantic or Mediterranean.

[ January 17, 2006, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Sombra]

Thanks Edwin

[pzgndr]

Haven’t seen much about diplomacy. I hope that this option will not be like strategic bombardments in SC1 (useless).

Actually, my proposal for all test players is that they should pay more attention to some stuff which didn’t work well in SC1

Oh we ARE paying attention. And Hubert is continuing to make a few adjustments here and there based on our playtesting games.

Diplomacy is there, and I mentioned my last-minute attempt to use French MPPs to sway Iraq into the Allied cause. Those diplomatic chits were lost when France surrendered, btw. In another ongoing pbem game with blashy as allies, I noticed USA prepping for war in summer 1941 and he confessed to making that happen. In an earlier game, I did this as axis to delay USA entry. (I'm beginning to wonder if this hasn't happened in the current network game?) I expect players will dabble in diplomacy occassionally and hope for a nice surprise. If you overspend on risky ventures that may not have any appreciable effect, you'll probably suffer in the unit builds and/or research departments. But players have that choice now. :cool:

[Gavrok]

Just to confirm on the amphibious assault can the unit once it lands move a max of 1 more space......the idea of landing and then travelling some distance (beyond 1 space) sounds a bit ok..very...gamey.

How much was the cost of the making the unit amphibious and did it therefore mean a net mpp loss for the allies (cost of unit plus amph versus lost city resources and damage incurred by units assaulting it)

SC1s continualy floating amphibous craft were irritating...hope any such repeat is a very expensive mpp action. Should not be impossible but this sort of thing took the allies months and years to plan with huge resource requirements....and they didnt spend several weeks just floating off Normandy.

I'm glad I wasn't one of those soldiers going to Essen / Dieppe/ wherever

G

[Fubarno]

Best AAR yet, pictures or no pictures (pictures would be nice though). Thanks pzgndr.

In my opinion, the biggest omition from SC1 was the weather and environment and how it effected the combatants. The addition of it seems to add a great deal of flavor to the war in the Atlantic and the war in the east. I'm salivating for a good taste, but glad to hear that great care is being taken to test and refine. Keep up the good work, cut sleep out of your schedule, test, test, test...

[Lars]

How's the Battle of the Atlantic going?

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Gavrok:

Just to confirm on the amphibious assault can the unit once it lands move a max of 1 more space......the idea of landing and then travelling some distance (beyond 1 space) sounds a bit ok..very...gamey.

How much was the cost of the making the unit amphibious and did it therefore mean a net mpp loss for the allies (cost of unit plus amph versus lost city resources and damage incurred by units assaulting it)

SC1s continualy floating amphibous craft were irritating...hope any such repeat is a very expensive mpp action. Should not be impossible but this sort of thing took the allies months and years to plan with huge resource requirements....and they didnt spend several weeks just floating off Normandy.

I'm glad I wasn't one of those soldiers going to Essen / Dieppe/ wherever

G

In general Amphibious Transports cost 2X as much as regular Transport and as mentioned you need to load on the first turn and you will then be allowed to move and unload on your next turn.

Once landed, and similar to Transports, your landed unit only receives a single AP. So this means you may be able to move a single tile or not depending on the terrain you've landed your unit on. Also, it should be noted, that terrain now has an effect on landing casualties as does the number of turns you have been at sea. This is because your supply drops the longer you are at sea and this is included not only in your calculated supply (once landed) but also against how many casualties you might take once unloaded.

All in all a few additions/considerations to smooth things out

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Diplomacy is there, and I mentioned my last-minute attempt to use French MPPs to sway Iraq into the Allied cause. Those diplomatic chits were lost when France surrendered, btw. In another ongoing pbem game with blashy as allies, I noticed USA prepping for war in summer 1941 and he confessed to making that happen. In an earlier game, I did this as axis to delay USA entry. I expect players will dabble in diplomacy occassionally and hope for a nice surprise.

Any news on whether the AI will sometimes use diplomacy to delay or accelerate US entry, or affect the entry of other neutrals? If so will it have more than one diplomatic strategy to select from?

[vveedd]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Oh we ARE paying attention. And Hubert is continuing to make a few adjustments here and there based on our playtesting games.[/QB]

Glad to hear this. Accordingly to that I have 2 questions:

1. Did any play tester try in SC2 well know annoying tactics from SC1 with lots of air fleets (+ jet research) and is it possible at all to apply this tactic in SC2?

2. Is it profitable to buy tanks group in SC2 or anti-tanks research have the same negative effect like in SC1?

Like it or not, this two things was main problem in SC1 (and a few more like we already said) and to this you should pay special attention.

Ah, and one more question about amphibious assault – Is it possible to apply another annoying tactic from SC1 to put units in coastal tiles and with that prevent enemy units to land? I know that the map in SC2 is much more bigger but still?

[ January 18, 2006, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Gavrok]

Thanks for the reply Hubert

Hope the supply issue inclusion on amphibious gets those men off the boats pronto unless strictly needed.(Extreme motion sickness)

Would have liked amphib cost even higher (eg 50% of base unit cost.....to stop players throwing away units here or there on speculative amphibious assaults.

The aar has however really highlighted the great features which at times we all forget about when we are ranting on about some minor issue or request here or these.

At least these all show the enthusiasm we have for your product and work.

G

[pzgndr]

1. Did any play tester try in SC2 well know annoying tactics from SC1 with lots of air fleets (+ jet research) and is it possible at all to apply this tactic in SC2?

2. Is it profitable to buy tanks group in SC2 or anti-tanks research have the same negative effect like in SC1?

First off, lots of air fleets is not possible with the new force pool limits. For example, Germany can have up to 6 AFs. With the soft build limits option selected, you can build more but you will pay extra. (With the editor you can still go in and set the OOB limits higher and/or reduce the soft build penalty to be something neglibible.) Also, every tech advance adds to the unit cost and reinforcement cost, so expect to pay more for all the high tech. So, lots of high tech AFs all over the map? Not likely.

Heavy Tank research increases both tank and infantry values for Tank Groups in one shot. Corps and Armies need to research infantry weapons and AT separately. Motorization is also applicable to all of them. SC2 has made some minor adjustments to enhance tanks and tone down the AFs. We're seeing tanks are a little more effective now but not some uber-weapon, which was the intent. Nothing drastic.

Is it possible to apply another annoying tactic from SC1 to put units in coastal tiles and with that prevent enemy units to land?

Again, with the force pool limits and increased costs and limited MPPs, you will be hard pressed to defend everywhere. With amphibious transports able to move quite distance and still unload and fight, there's bound to be a decent landing zone someplace. The attacker needs to be flexible; the defender needs to be vigilant and maintain a reserve.

The aar has however really highlighted the great features which at times we all forget about when we are ranting on about some minor issue or request here or these.

That was the main idea. This TCP/IP game is on hold for a while and I'm not sure we'll get back to it before we get another version to try. I hope I have conveyed how playable the game is, how similar the overall mechanics are to the original SC1 while integrating all the new features, and how "normal" the game is. Veteran SC1 players should be able to jump in and be right at home with SC2.

[vveedd]

Excellent. SC2 should be a great game. Looking forward to next AAR. Thanks for answers.

[Codename Condor]

Nice AAR. u can get an idea of how this game is gonna look like and Im sure SC1 players will in no time get the feelin of the game.

1 thing tho, Im assuming you are playing with no production queue option selected. This could be a great feature that would lead another step away of old SC1 and onto realism. id like to know if the economics of the game would allow to implement this option well. im concerned about not enough MMPs to get this option on. In other games like COS, this option worked PERFECTLY because killed units almost didnt cost almost any money at all and u get em the next turn they were killed (if in supply).

Has this option been "really" tested? ive read about curry comments of waiting 2 times for a unit: 1 time to get the MMPs and another to get the unit. i do think if this option is on u have to modificate another things of the game: allowing killed units to reappear at a cheap cost and in few turns,...if not i think countries would run out of armies way too soon.

[pzgndr]

Im assuming you are playing with no production queue option selected... im concerned about not enough MMPs to get this option on.

We were playing with production delays. Most all of my playtesting has been with all of the new features on.

There's really no concern about having enough MPPs to use the option. But there's always a concern about having enough MPPs, hehe.

There is another option available which we have not thoroughly playtested. In the editor you can set your production to "normalized" which increases production during the longer winter turns and decreases it during the shorter summer turns, if you play with the standard alternating seasonal turns (and yes, there are other turn sequence options too). Annual production would remain the same. We've experimented with this some, and it does create a nice game effect to seriously think about, so players can look forward to trying this as well.

[Codename Condor]

Wow, this is most interesting. I thought that SC economics model would somehow make this option not really feasable.

If this has been tested and its works, me thinks, this is major milestone reached.

About the seasons thingy, thats good news indeed!, with all these options available i guess people is not gonna be bored to play the same game over and over (maybe no burnt out syndrome in SC2! :eek: ).

[pzgndr]

Another update. Managed to get a few more turns in this morning.

In July 1942 Smolensk finally falls. Will the next German push be towards Moscow or in the south toward Kharkov and Rostov? USA finally joins, and gets another IT advance to L3. In mid-July Germany DOWs Switzerland, since USA reaction is no longer an issue. Franco is still unhappy, so there's a negative effect for Spain. Russians made a small counterattack west of Moscow, but otherwise just waiting to the full summer offensive to hit.

In August Germany goes after Vichy France. I note a couple of tank groups doing this, trying to gain experience. The pace picks up in Russia, with German attacks picking off a few Russian units each turn. Moscow appears to be the objective. I have engineers entrenched in a fortification north of Moscow. The forward defenses get destroyed west of Moscow. In one turn I lost 3 corps and an army. My Siberians are arriving at the front line but I'm wondering if its enough. Since not much activity is happening in the south, there's no point defending Stalingrad so I advance those units forward.

In the west, I've brought over my USA bombers and an air fleet. A few more strategic bombings are targeted against the Kiel port and the mines in the Ruhr and France. German interceptors hit back. I can only hope that the losses I'm inflicting are more than the few hits I'm taking. In Africa, a UK corps advances to take a vacant Tripoli. With USA up to L3 IT and UK getting an advance to L2, I've bumped up the lend lease convoys to Russia. Until they get another IT advance, they need the help.

September is starting and the Germans have paused again. Not quite ready to take on the Moscow defense, yet. We'll see how long the clear weather lasts. That's it for now.

[Kuniworth]

Bill!

Do we go0t a potential gamey tactic here...

I mean say the german player cut off russian troops but wont destroy them immediately then the russian player cant rebuild them at 60% cost. This could be a gamey tactic?

[Kuniworth]

I think retreat rules is the way to go right from the start. Please add it, not as an enhancement later.

[Edwin P.]

As I recall, your ability to reinforce is reduced by the number of adjacent enemy units.

[pzgndr]

Could encirclements be a gamey tactic?? Let's see - Bialystok, Kiev, Stalingrad, Korsun... Maybe WWII was too gamey, eh?

Retreats will remain a consideration for a future patch. Hubert cut it off for now, along with other items. He had to draw the line and focus on getting a complete playable game finished, and he's still busy wrapping things up. And it IS "playable" now, as demonstrated here, and we really do want to get it out for everyone else to play and offer comments.

The adjacent enemy unit effect reducing reinforcements was tested and found to be too restrictive. The idea is that if units are in supply and eligible to receive reinforcements, then players can choose max reinforcements. Elite reinforcements and tech upgrades still require no enemy units adjacent.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Could encirclements be a gamey tactic?? Let's see - Bialystok, Kiev, Stalingrad, Korsun... Maybe WWII was too gamey, eh?

No not what I meant. Encirclement fine, but what about just leaving the enemy forces after that with no purpose at all of reducing the pocket to avoid 60% rebuilds.

[Edwin P.]

Would you reallly want to leave a weakened unit behind your lines to disrupt supply? From what I read, and I may be wrong, units destroyed while surrounded don't count for the 60% rebuild. If not, then that's an interesting trade-off.

PS: Good to hear that HC is focused on getting a playable game out and disregarding, for the moment, ideas for futher enhancements.

[ January 22, 2006, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

Ok Edwin if that is the case no problem. Just wanted to know if exploits were possible.

[Konigs]

Keep AAR game info coming, like to hear the blow by blow commentating. Sounds like it is going to be a great sequel to SC1.