Planes, Trains and Automobiles

[yolo911]

I was wondering if tactical aircraft would be toned-down a tad in Global Conflict? I am playing SC-WAW. I am the allies and the AI is the Germans. Difficulty is even. The German tactical aircraft are winning this war single handed. I'm in the summer of 1946 I have virtually nothing left. Each one of his airstrikes takes out or almost takes out one unit after another each turn. My level 3 tanks at strength 10 are systematically reduce to a strength 3 turn after turn. THis started almost from the beginning. I am broke. All I can due is spend every MMP on reinforcements.

I am sure a professional game player will speak up and say I am stupid and it never happens to them. But what I am saying is it just doesnt seem realistic that a plane-group can destroy a tank-group time after time. And my armys are completely vaporized. That is all happening in Russia. I anticipated some of this and purchased 5 USA fighter groups and ran them up to a level 5 but they can't stop them either. I am about to be pushed off the continent of Europe for the second time during this war.

I would like Hubert to think about this or maybe have some kind of realism option that could be invoked to prevent this unrealitic airstrike outcome.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Yolo911,

I believe we adjusted the stats slightly but in addition I can safely say that the new combat calculations that take into account similar research levels will make a big difference as combat losses between similarly upgraded units are significantly reduced.

However, high experience will still make a difference between units that have little experience but from what I have heard in testing what you describe above is not really an issue, i.e. relative to what it was in previous releases.

Hubert

[yolo911]

Hubert, First of all thank you for taking the time to answer. You don't find busy programmers doing that these days.

I am glad that it is being addressed. It just doesn't seem realistic that air superiority can single-handedly win the war. Not to mention decimate entire tank divisions with a single attack.

I know that US fighters roamed the skys practically unassailable in the late stages of the war but I don't think they repeatedly destroyed full tank divisions in a single attack.

[Amadeus]

This issue is (no offense) surely an issue and I agree to Yolo911. The tactical bomber advance was discussed in the past several times I guess. And if realistic or not it is a bit strange when the Royal Army is made up of nearly 50 – 60 % by only Air units. It lowers the fun factor. Sorry Hubert.

[Hubert Cater]

None taken as I already mentioned it plays out differently (for the most part) in Strategic Command Global Conflict

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

I remembered that one of the things that contributed to me stop playing SC was the unrealistic heavy losses.

Upgraded units slaughtered each other. I was happy to read that it should be fixed this time.

But still two utterly unrealistic issues remains and must be fixed for me to be interested in playing the game and more importantly get anyone of my friends to play buy and play it with me.

1. You can NOT strife or bomb away a whole army. The casualties must be minimized in GC and you should never be able to bomb it lover then let’s say 80% of its pre turn strength. No matter how many time you attack it from the air. Maybe the tactical bomber could reduce a tank army to 60%, because tanks are more woundable for specialized air attacks.

2. You can NEVER lose 40% of your landing force if there is no opposition. 10-20% is maximum there the latter is in extreme combined weather and terrain conditions.

[xwormwood]

1. You can NOT strife or bomb away a whole army. The casualties must be minimized in GC and you should never be able to bomb it lover then let’s say 80% of its pre turn strength. No matter how many time you attack it from the air. Maybe the tactical bomber could reduce a tank army to 60%, because tanks are more woundable for specialized air attacks.

Even though you kill the unit in one attack, this attack symbolizes only many attacks over several days.

And even if in SC a unit gets bombed away, the very same unit can be purchased for a cheap prize again, which represents the fact that parts of the unit are still there, but ceased to exit as a complete and operational unit.

This bombed away unit was not just bombed away, the remains were pulled out of active duty, to be reformed, rebuild and re-equipped.

We play this game as if there was an 1:1 relation between the unit on the map and the exisitence of the soldiers of the unit. But the unit on the map is only a symbol.

It is not true that you can't explain what happens in the game, even though that you are right about the first impressions.

But if you think about it and care to look for reason why this or that happens, you will alway find a good reason why it happens.

If you stay open for all thoughts about what might just had happened right in front of you on the screen.

[Bill101]

We play this game as if there was an 1:1 relation between the unit on the map and the exisitence of the soldiers of the unit. But the unit on the map is only a symbol.

I agree, because I think of a unit on the map as being a force with combat potential, so its destruction in the game doesn't so much represent its literal destruction, as a reduction in its combat potential to the point where it is unable to conduct any significant operations until it has been rebuilt from the cadres and new recruits in the rear.

[xwormwood]

Exactly, i came to the very same conclusion.

[SeaMonkey]

papa, you're a little too analytically specific for the grand strategic scale. Open your mind and ponder abstractly, units this size are almost never completely destroyed but are rendered "combat ineffective", hence no value for continuing operation until they have been reconstituted.

Learn the Game and you will be rewarded, of course unless you persist with "tunnel vision".

[Desert Dave]

1. You can NOT strife or bomb away a whole army. The casualties must be minimized in GC and you should never be able to bomb it lover then let’s say 80% of its pre turn strength. No matter how many time you attack it from the air. Maybe the tactical bomber could reduce a tank army to 60%, because tanks are more woundable for specialized air attacks.

Actually a decent point here, and one that I tend to agree with.

Probably could be better re-presented by having MORE "demoralization" and LESS strength point losses.

Here's the thing -> YOU can change this in the Editor.

I have.

And with shore-bombardments as well.

It's so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o easy to do.

Thanks! To HC for providing the VERY finest Editor that has EVER been constructed out of... nothing to start with.

I've played almost all of 'em, and IF we were to use a scale, say 10 for the best, and 1 for the worst, well,

Hubert's editor would be an eleven (11) and the NEXT CLOSEST game would be, oh, about one-half (1/2).

As originally posted by the neo-philosophical SeaMonkey:

Open your mind and ponder abstractly...

Do this too much and you end up with:

Deconstructionsim

Relativism

Exceptionalism

Existentialsim

Unjust-War-ism

ISM-ism

LOL!

Ah, how we tend to "abstract" doggone near everythng... into bits & pieces of NON sense.

Me as much as the next guy falling-off-the-back-of-the-turnip truck, so no offense intended.

All I can say, good thang the Engineers and Game-makers don't do too awful much of this!

O/W, you'd have bridges and auto-mobiles and war-games -- such as those made by Grigsby and that "Hearts of Iron" malfeasance and etc -- that collapse under tiniest little iota of applied pressure!

[SeaMonkey]

There you go DD speaking hypothetically and taking me out of context, perhaps a bit too paranoia-ism from your perspective.....but I digress...as ...usual, you do have a point and I can see the logic.

Its the balance that SC presents, some abstract, some detail, some simulation. As a great philosopher once told me..."all things in moderation my dear grasshopper".

Again papa, there is no such thing as an unopposed landing in SC. Perhaps the opposition is not so great to be represented by an SC combat unit, that is your choice, but the game allows for a certain inherent force in the representation of a garrison. If you own the territory, it is assumed you have projected some defense into the area even if there is not a physical unit being displayed.

Sure...it could be improved upon, in different ways by many opinions, I'm sure. Present yours, supported by logic and perhaps Hubert will incorporate your suggestions. He seems like a receptive guy.

[Snowstorm]

Desert Dave,

Wecome back (again), been missing your (shall we say) colorful commentary since mid-December, but you're back at a good time. Lots of activity goin' on here now. Join the fun!

And I agree, the Game editor does indeed help cure some of the issues here if one does not mind tinkering with it a bit. Just remember if you do: save, save, save!

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

First of all, no units on corps or armies levels can be rendered completely "combat ineffective" because of aerial bombings.

Secondly there is not one single case I heard of there a corps or army have to reorganize in a city far away and change descriptions because of aerial attacks.

Thirdly, doesn’t SC have combat readiness to reflect this? We’re talking strength here, were the actual number of soldiers and equipment is the most important component.

And how about the absurd losses then you land at a costal square? What is you “explanations” to that?

This was the reason we left this forum many years ago. It’s quite tiresome to hear diehard fans coming to the games defense no matter how correct and important the critics are.

That only leads to that the game doesn’t evolve as fast as it could and therefore became uninteresting for me and many other players.

Luckily, Hubert is more open minded and interested in constructive critic.

[Snowstorm]

Paul,

If you had been at this forum long enough, you would know that many of us here have both praised AND criticized many issues with this game. Judging from your posts, you probably haven't seen alot of the criticisms we all have made in the past, but we do give credit when it is due to the development team. Hang around with us long enough here, and trust me you will see that for yourself.

As for myself,I DID criticize the issue concerning coastal landings just the other day on another thread. As for the other issues you mention, I'll let others answer for themselves.

[Bill101]

First of all' date=' no units on corps or armies levels can be rendered completely "combat ineffective" because of aerial bombings. [/quote']

That is true, but from my experience air attacks alone against a strong unit will rarely destroy it, thus a combination of ground and air attacks are generally required to do so. Therefore the Corps or Army will already have to be in a weakened state to render it susceptible to destruction.

Overall, it is this combination of attacks that is required and the question really is whether for the sake of gameplay it necessarily matters at the strategic scale if it is the air or ground units that strike first or last. Is who delivers the killing shot relevant, when it has probably already taken quite a number of attacks by units of different types to break this enemy unit?

I certainly do agree that a too powerful airforce isn't right, and that is why the maximum attack abilities of tactical bombers are slightly lower in this game than in some of the previous games in this series, so hopefully you will find this less of an issue than before.

[xwormwood]

If have no problems with losses due to air-attacks.

The simple answer:

Many other games (or should i say: nearly all of them) come with the same solution.

Be it a board game or a computer game.

So SC is only doing what everywhere else is comon sense.

THis may be right or wrong, but matter in fact: as i know it not any other way, it does not bother me very much.

[Hubert Cater]

Another item for consideration is that sometimes, and purely in game play terms, losses are not a bad thing. For example, we've considered only morale or readiness type losses from air attacks but in game terms this may not be desirable as it can possibly lead to a stalemate, not only on the map but also in terms of not having to spend MPPs to reinforce or rebuild.

As a player if you are again not forced to make tough decisions, and in this case on how to spend your MPPs, then it can unbalance the game in other areas.

Regarding the random high losses from coastal landings, I think it reasonably represents one of those unknowns in war where a unit can take unexpectedly high losses in a high risk situation, think Dieppe or even D-Day where there was a fear the Americans might have lost Omaha after taking high casualties in the first few hours.

If the game only represented this with a single point loss or no losses I'm not sure it would work to recreate that angst that existed in the High Command during some of these operations, especially in the early hours of operation. Nice thing is that if the landings are somewhat successful, i.e. supply location is taken or a friendly HQ is able to land these initial losses can quickly be reinforced much as it happened in real life.

Now granted I realize not everyone likes this and as mentioned in another thread I will look into making this editable after the initial release.

Hubert

[Desert Dave]

There you go DD speaking hypothetically and taking me out of context, perhaps a bit too paranoia-ism from your perspective.....but I digress...as ...usual, you do have a point and I can see the logic.

What context were you taken out of?

I should think that mini-modicum of comment-mention might, like the tin-man, stand sturdy all on its own?

Well, surely SM you recall the glory-days way of saying?

Paranoia is merely and only... heightened awareness?

Its the balance that SC presents, some abstract, some detail, some simulation. As a great philosopher once told me..."all things in moderation my dear grasshopper".

Been watching old re-runs of "Kung Fu" eh?

Hey, I enjoyed that old TV show! Carradine captured that eastern Zen-ephemera pretty adequately, I thought.

Again papa, there is no such thing as an unopposed landing in SC. Perhaps the opposition is not so great to be represented by an SC combat unit, that is your choice, but the game allows for a certain inherent force in the representation of a garrison. If you own the territory, it is assumed you have projected some defense into the area even if there is not a physical unit being displayed.

Sure...it could be improved upon, in different ways by many opinions, I'm sure. Present yours, supported by logic and perhaps Hubert will incorporate your suggestions. He seems like a receptive guy.

Gotta agree with you here SM.

Besides, I've played -- oh, probably over a hundred of these games since that feature was introduced, and,

Rarely have I seen inappropriate or out-sized losses, given that there will ALWAYS be casualties, even were you to unload 7-foot Uber-Commandos onto that really weird white sand at Malibu Beach.

In fact, I often found myself wondering... hmmm, how come that unit didn't take ANY losses when it landed on that rugged, inhospitable and very partisan shore of Norway, for instance.

I'd guess the AVERAGE losses over those hundred games ++ would probably be, let's see... maybe... about 1/2 per landing.

About right.

[Desert Dave]

Paul,

If you had been at this forum long enough, you would know that many of us here have both praised AND criticized many issues with this game. Judging from your posts, you probably haven't seen alot of the criticisms we all have made in the past, but we do give credit when it is due to the development team. Hang around with us long enough here, and trust me you will see that for yourself.

As for myself,I DID criticize the issue concerning coastal landings just the other day on another thread. As for the other issues you mention, I'll let others answer for themselves.

Could not have said it any better than this Snowstorm!

Though, I might re-arrange it to say it as... notso much "criticism" as "folksy friendly advice." LOL!

Tho, sure! A'times we don't play no patty-cake with some of our remarks. Depends on the mood we're in that day, eh?

Might have a headache, or angry at the dog for messing the $10,000 Persian Rug, or contrarily, delighted! Due to an unexpected windfall or our favorite sports team has just beaten the daylights out of our hated rival?

Who knows what the shadow has in store?

Or, the far better angel of each our nature, either?

[Snowstorm]

Desert Dave,

Agreed. "Folksy,friendly advice" sounds MUCH better......unless of course I'm in one of those more moody of moods you just so elequently described.

[Paul 'Papa' Hausser]

"Dieppe or even D-Day"

They took casualties because there were enemy units/divisions present. Now you can suffer losses even then you land in areas there no enemy would be present.

Both these issues could be solved with the existence of Garrison/Static divisions/units.

[SeaMonkey]

Just goes to show "you can lead a 'papa' to water, but you can't make him drink".

[SeaMonkey]

Ohhh and DD, yes indeed do I ever recall the G-days..:cool:...where the P word was omni-present.:eek: But that heightened awareness had not quite materialized yet or I wouldn't have been so susceptible to the P feeling.

[yolo911]

To DesetDave from a fellow senior, if i have interpreted your emails correctly, and that's not likely.

I would like to drastically tone-down air attack results. I am playing WAW long campaign as the Allies. I had,what I thought,was a strong line of tanks,inf, fighters and AA around Smolensk in August 1941. Next thing I know I am running for my life with what is left after just one turn of air attacks. Come on. Totally unrealistic to completely wipe out several units with just planes.

Anyway that plea is falling on deaf-ears. I read your post about editing the planes down so they have a more realistic role in the game. Can you describe to me how to do that or if this isn't the right place to ask could you email me?