Operation Z: Investment Strategy.

[Didz]

I'm beginning to think I may have gone wrong in my Operation Z campaign. I just don't seem to have enough units to defend Burma, and or, the Pacific, and I'm wondering if that's because I invested my MPP's unwisely.

What I've been doing in using MPP's to reinforce my existing units, particularly those defending the Phillipines and Singapore. I reasoned that, as it was almost impossible to extract ground units by sea from these islands, I might as well keep topping them up with reinforcements and make the Japanese fight for them.

However, I'm beginning to wonder whether that was such a good idea. It used a lot of MPP's early in the game which could have been invested in production and industry, or even used to purchase units, and basically I was just paying to tie enemy units down as ultimately the Japanese were going to win and were unlikely to lose much in doing so.

Just wondered what other people spend their MPP's on early in the game.

[jon_j_rambo]

Depends who your opponent is.

[Didz]

Depends who your opponent is.

:confused: How so?

I mean my opponent in this particular game is the AI, as this is my first ever game, so I'm playing 'Single Player' on 'Begginer' difficulty.

However, I'm curious how your opponent would affect your MPP investment decisions. I assumed there would be an accepted optimum pattern to the investment of each faction early in the game. The only thing I imagined might change was the choice of purchased units, if ones opponent favoured a particular strategy.

Care to expand upon your comment with some examples?

[SeaMonkey]

Early, save your UK and Chinese MPPs for rebuilding eliminated units that were in 5 or greater supply, reduced cost. Research IW and to a lesser degree AT and anti-air, later get UK mobility for the road back.

USA = IT, PT, NW and advanced and LR air, heavy bombers, IW and on and on. Build HQs, you'll need to provide supply to those air assets and staging your amphibs from close islands for the next assault.

[Didz]

Early, save your UK and Chinese MPPs for rebuilding eliminated units that were in 5 or greater supply, reduced cost. Research IW and to a lesser degree AT and anti-air, later get UK mobility for the road back.

So, it sounds as though I've been doing the right thing in China. I've been reinforcing (rebuilding) the Chinese units of General Xue's Army which are normally supply level 7+, and all the Chinese units are +1 on infantry and anti-tank weapons.

UK it sounds like I've been wasting MPP's reinforcing units in Singapore whcih were probably less then the 5 supply level. That coupled with the fact that I rescued so many ships it cost a fortune to refit them all, has left me without the ability to purchase any additional units for Burma. I also opted delayed purchase so even if I do purchase some they won't appear immediately, I think there is a 3 month delay.

So, I probably did myself no favours in Burma.

USA = IT, PT, NW and advanced and LR air, heavy bombers, IW and on and on. Build HQs, you'll need to provide supply to those air assets and staging your amphibs from close islands for the next assault.

I think the only mistake I made here is in not boosting my Iindustrial and production capacity straight away. I'm still about 500MPP's below the maximum investment allowed for the USA, mainly because of my decision to keep reinforcing the Phillipines Army to the end.

If I go again I'll try and do things differently, but for now I'll just try and live with the consequences of those bad decisions.

[SeaMonkey]

Allies are allowed a plethora of "bad decisions". You can still win easily, just imagine you've handicapped yourself.

[jon_j_rambo]

Personally, if I don't have a specific plan, I save my MMPs for a couple turns, see what is shaking out (translated: Observe what my opponent is doing). If playing the A.I., I don't do squat, I actually retreat (as Allies). I could careless about defending China, except for a few key mountain areas.

So, what am I saying? When playing the A.I., I just save a ton of MPPs, retreat, and chill. I refused to play attrition wars against an A.I., there's no point. Just kick back, build up, then destroy the enemy where he is weak.

Far as playing a "human"......another subject.

Since you are new, making good AARs, and seem to be friendly. Just have fun, try out your strategies.

-Legend

[Didz]

Thats quite depressing really. I mean I know its situation normal for any strategy game that the AI never puts up enough of a challenge, whilst in my experience PvP always ends up being a contest over who knows the best expliots.

It would be nice to find a game where the AI played a challenging game (without cheating) and where human opponents were limited to historically plausible strategies but I've yet to find one.

Part of the reason I like keeping an AAR is that it adds a bit more immersion to the single player game. I find the AAR forces me to at least justify why I'm doing things, and add a sort of roleplay twist to the game. So, I'm less prone to thinking of the game in terms of a number crunching exercise, where I'm simply working the odds.

I'm not sure how much impact it actually has on the choices I make, but at the very least it forces me to justify them in real life/historical rather than mathematical terms.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Didz --- Exploits, isn't that really what war is? From the dawn of time when Cain slew his brother Abel mankind's war is about exploits. Attack at night, shoot them in the back, trick them, create undetectable submarines & planes, invent technology, burn their crops, put your troop's back to the Sun, name it. All is fair in love & war.

Once you bring up the word historical, what does that mean? That would mean the Allies win everytime. So how do you make it a game? Guess you need rules, specific guidelines, and a point system to probably "judge" what is a valid strategy. Anytime you have rules, what defines abuse via math?

"I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way" --- Johnny Cash.

[Didz]

@Didz --- Exploits, isn't that really what war is? From the dawn of time when Cain slew his brother Abel mankind's war is about exploits.

No!.....

By expliots I don't mean something that might have been possible historically but which the commanders of the time didn't attempt, or couldn't attempt because they did not have the god-like knowledge and wisdom of hindsight and a high resolution tactical overview.

I literally mean expliots e.g. explioting loopholes in the game design.

For example:

HPS: Waterloo - the most famous expliot I can think of off-hand was using your supply wagon counters to block the French advance. Although as I recall this expliot was actually a counter to another expliot that the French player could use to capture the Allied ridge on turn one. I was actually in the NWC and the opening moves of most games were more or less ritualised by memorizing the expliots, and counter expliots.

Shogun Totalwar: - The peasant rush. It was discovered quite early on that because peasant spearmen ran faster than armoured spearmen, building an entire army of peasant spearmen and then boosting their honour and weapons stats with the credit you saved was actually better than recruiting samurai spearmen, and meant that you could never be caught and could just run rings round your opponent.

Medieval Total War: - Multiplayer Campaign. Allied players discovered they could obtain free armies if they gifted each other their cities back and forth each turn.

I'm sure there are others, but suffice it to say that so far I have never played PvP without coming across at least one expliot that gives the player in the know a distinct advantage.

[crispy131313]

Whenever I play vs the Computer I always use the editor. Adding more units to their production que or effecting their diplomacy (allowing another country or 2 to join their ranks randomly) for example. It makes it very challenging.

[Didz]

Hmm! well maybe next time, at the moment I'm finding things challenging enough.

[SeaMonkey]

I think you'll find that for awhile SC's AI will give you some challenging gameplay, but you'll almost have to memorize the exploits when you address the AI on expert +2. That is, if you ever expect to win.

Any player attempting an initial SC foray against the AI at expert +2 will be relegated to "stepchild" status right away. Only the experienced players have success at those settings.:cool:

[jon_j_rambo]

True, expert +2 will make it really tough. No matter how smart those experienced units are a bee-otch.

[Hubert Cater]

Thats quite depressing really. I mean I know its situation normal for any strategy game that the AI never puts up enough of a challenge, whilst in my experience PvP always ends up being a contest over who knows the best expliots.

It would be nice to find a game where the AI played a challenging game (without cheating) and where human opponents were limited to historically plausible strategies but I've yet to find one.

Didz, keep in mind some of the replies are from players who have been playing SC for almost 7 years so I would imagine for them multiplayer is one of the only ways they will find a true challenge.

But that being said, I think for a first time player of an SC game, I suspect you will find the AI to be quite good relative to other games in the genre and should provide you with a decent enough challenge. After that and once you learn the ropes and all the tricks definitely try out multiplayer as it really is a whole new ballgame.

Hubert

[jon_j_rambo]

No!.....

By expliots I don't mean something that might have been possible historically but which the commanders of the time didn't attempt, or couldn't attempt because they did not have the god-like knowledge and wisdom of hindsight and a high resolution tactical overview.

I literally mean expliots e.g. explioting loopholes in the game design.

For example:

HPS: Waterloo - the most famous expliot I can think of off-hand was using your supply wagon counters to block the French advance. Although as I recall this expliot was actually a counter to another expliot that the French player could use to capture the Allied ridge on turn one. I was actually in the NWC and the opening moves of most games were more or less ritualised by memorizing the expliots, and counter expliots.

Shogun Totalwar: - The peasant rush. It was discovered quite early on that because peasant spearmen ran faster than armoured spearmen, building an entire army of peasant spearmen and then boosting their honour and weapons stats with the credit you saved was actually better than recruiting samurai spearmen, and meant that you could never be caught and could just run rings round your opponent.

Medieval Total War: - Multiplayer Campaign. Allied players discovered they could obtain free armies if they gifted each other their cities back and forth each turn.

I'm sure there are others, but suffice it to say that so far I have never played PvP without coming across at least one expliot that gives the player in the know a distinct advantage.

@Didz --- Gotcha brother. Exploits = Bull Turds. In Strategic Command we've created some "house rules" here & there. The most widely accepted rule is "No using neutral ships outside their waters while NOT at war". Example: The Russians or Yanks before in the war could sail around as a neutral force spotting for enemy ships, positions, & even blocking somebody in.