Further observations on GC

[Robby1]

As I have now played through the entire game several times, I had a few additional observations:

- The intermediate difficulty level seems just about right. As I noted in my previous post, the expert level creates a huge and unrealistic resource imbalance by 1941. The beginner level was too easy for me. The intermediate level gives you an ample challenge w/o overwhelming you.

- Two criticisms:

First, I really enjoyed the series of creative and thoughtful decision events in 1939-41. So I was disappointed to see that they largely disappear after 1941. Also, I did not see any decision events in the Alliance of Evil scenario.

Second, while I find the AI in GC to be an improvement over past games, it unfortunately commits the same error as has been seen in all of the prior SC games. The AI sends transports blindly forward, even when there is a known threat ahead. I have had situations where an AI transport on the move unexpectedly comes into enemy contact with a battleship or cruiser and is immediately destroyed. But the AI doesn't acknowledge the loss and do a course correction for the other transports in the convoy, nor does it take any action to eliminate the threat before moving the other transports forward. The AI just moves the other transports forward and each one in turn meets the same end from the same warship. This doesn't happen that often that it materially impacts game play, but it is still a glaring failure by the AI. Hubert, I hope that this is something that can be fixed for future games.

[bowenw]

As I have now played through the entire game several times, I had a few additional observations:

- The intermediate difficulty level seems just about right. As I noted in my previous post, the expert level creates a huge and unrealistic resource imbalance by 1941. The beginner level was too easy for me. The intermediate level gives you an ample challenge w/o overwhelming you.

- Two criticisms:

First, I really enjoyed the series of creative and thoughtful decision events in 1939-41. So I was disappointed to see that they largely disappear after 1941. Also, I did not see any decision events in the Alliance of Evil scenario.

Second, while I find the AI in GC to be an improvement over past games, it unfortunately commits the same error as has been seen in all of the prior SC games. The AI sends transports blindly forward, even when there is a known threat ahead. I have had situations where an AI transport on the move unexpectedly comes into enemy contact with a battleship or cruiser and is immediately destroyed. But the AI doesn't acknowledge the loss and do a course correction for the other transports in the convoy, nor does it take any action to eliminate the threat before moving the other transports forward. The AI just moves the other transports forward and each one in turn meets the same end from the same warship. This doesn't happen that often that it materially impacts game play, but it is still a glaring failure by the AI. Hubert, I hope that this is something that can be fixed for future games.

Amen to the stupid transports needs a revision [the AI]

Bo

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the feedback gentlemen and I've narrowed down a few items that might be causing this so I suspect this will see a significant improvement for the first patch.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Also I just double checked and there are over 40 decision events for the Alliance of Evil scenario split between the Axis and Allies, can you confirm that none of them appeared? Anyone else? I only ask as this is not repeatable on my end.

[HardRock]

My obs....

2nd time playing axis. First time I played at +50%. After reading here of lots of mmps for the AI to have lots ofunits I turned off the fog of war around mid 42 and looked what was facing me. Forget it.

Restarted. Set experience at .5 instead which works fine.

The thing with difficulty levels is historical feel. If you're fighting twice as many units in the case where games add more is no fun. If you're adding stronger units (in this case experience) it feels funny losing a battle attacking with a superior unit.Thus the realistic feel is taken away.

Therefore the most realistic and hence fun would be normal difficulty..otherwise (maybe because the AI is so easy in most games) it's just an exercise in playing a game lets see if I can beat it outmumbered 10:1 or whatever.

Luckily the AI in this game is pretty darn good compared to most. Leave a hole and you'll wish you hadn't. Get cocky and send a panzer out a alone and he's dead.

I'm in late 41 and overall thoroughly enjoying the game. Getting all the Japanese units ready to take indonesia all at once and then be ready to grab the Phillipines soon after while protecting the amph units from naval attack is a trip. Lot's of planning req'd.

No game will have a great human AI. Accepting that, this "game" is the best challenge in that at least you have to plan.

[Robby1]

Hubert:

I apologize for the ambiguity in my post above. When I played Alliance of Evil, I did see decision events. I just didn't see any decision events unique to the scenario. I did, of course, see the usual ones, such as creating Vichy France or establishing a Danish protectorate. I meant to say above that I didn't see any new or unexpected decision events, given that history was playing itself out in a radically different way.

Just to check my criticism, I just now went to the manual appendix to see if there were any unique decision events scripted for AoE. I see that the vast majority are the standard ones, although according to the manual, there are a few that are unique to AoE, such as German subsidies to the USSR and Japanese subsidies to China. However, when I played as the Axis, I was not presented with these decision events. When the game started, Germany was already subsidizing the USSR and Japan was never asked if it wanted to subsidize the Chinese.

If I had been asked, I would not have had Germany subsidize the USSR (with 25 MPPs, if I recall correctly), since the USSR is bringing in more MPPs than Germany to begin with. Also, historically the situation was the opposite; the USSR shipped oil and other natural resources to Germany right up until the eve of Barbarossa.

[Bill101]

Hi Robby1

Those subsidies are created through Decision events but they aren't actually decisions for people to make as they are the price of peace between the USSR and Germany, and between China and Japan which set up the situation at the start.

Perhaps we could add in some specific Decisions to the AoE scenario. Soviet agents stirring up the nationalists in South East Asia perhaps? Any other ideas?

[Emperor Elliott]

Ya it would be better if you added more decison events. I really like them.

[Rosseau]

Thanks Robby1 and HardRock for posting. Now the rest of us know how to set up against the AI for a good game.

[brianlala]

I think the decision events are pretty awesome. I'm very happy to see so many more added to the game because they add historical flavor and make for some interesting twists in the game. Even pop-ups where you dont get to make a decision but that illuminate on some historical event are nice to see (of course, I could see how there will be a point where this could get excessive).

A fair portion of the events seem timed to certain actions so I don't think you can say that all the events occur early on in the game...it just depends on when you do the action (like invade Singapore for instance).

[Robby1]

@Bill101:

The possibilities for decision events in Alliance of Evil are endless.

But honestly, the ultimate twist in the game, which would make it truly awesome, would be if Germany or the USSR could turn on each other. Frankly, when I first played it, I was expecting that something like that might have been written into the game. If you had that as a contingent event, and if you were playing as the Axis, you would always have to worry about how much you should sacrifice for your "ally," how far you should stretch your forces, and how vulnerable you should leave your cities.

I could see this working in one of two ways. You could have one of the Alliance partners be friendly AI from the beginning of the game. Alternatively, the player could start out playing for both the USSR and Germany, but if the betrayal event is triggered, one of the two would convert to AI. Perhaps the player could be given the option of which power he would continue to play.

Anyway, I am not sure if this is feasible, but I think it would make for a fantastic and original GC experience.

[Emperor Elliott]

Ya this seems like a good idea. I am just not sure if it is feasible.

[dhucul]

Not do-able right now but I have been campaigning for a new feature that allows any nation to go from belligerence to non-belligerence and from one alignment to another, depending on certain events etc. We could then have the USSR join the tripartite pact, other nations change sides etc. Hopefully soon!

[Emperor Elliott]

Yes that would be great. then some one could make a century scenario

[SeaMonkey]

Right on Robby, and dhucul don't you back off for a minute, keep the solicitation enthusiastic, you're on the proper path.

Let's play Risk.....with the SC game engine.

[Robby1]

". . . any nation to go from belligerence to non-belligerence and from one alignment to another, depending on certain events etc."

Exactly, dhucl. It is really just an extension of what the game does now, as individual countries swing in one direction or the other based on the players' actions. The only caveat is that it should be grounded in historical and political reality. It would make perfect sense for Germany to turn on the USSR (and of course, that actually happened) or vice versa. But it wouldn't make much sense for Germany to turn on Italy or Manchukuo to turn on Japan.

[Emperor Elliott]

Ya it should only happen by script or decision event

[SeaMonkey]

How about being able to select a number of majors up to 6, with either the players or the AI taking control of any number of those, all starting out with the same amount of combat forces and resources.

Now you can either use diplomacy to influence the minors to your side in which case they'll contribute more armed forces and MPPs with better supply (8) or you can take the conquering path and receive some one time plunder but low MPPs and supplies(5) with the possibility of partisans showing up. The amount of partisans and sabotage(lower supplies) can somewhat be influenced by the other players/AI using the diplomacy chits to create more unrest as well as occupying certain key locations.

Key locations examples being like port blockages, raiding, bombing, amphibious assaults that result in temporary occupations, etc. with an actuated pop-up like

a news event.

EXTRA....EXTRA.... joint UK and Canadian amphibious forces launched an early morning raid on the French coastal community of Dieppe. While reports were somewhat sketchy there was a noted growing unrest that swept the occupied territory in support of the Allied operation.

[U8led]

How about being able to select a number of majors up to 6, with either the players or the AI taking control of any number of those, all starting out with the same amount of combat forces and resources.

Now you can either use diplomacy to influence the minors to your side in which case they'll contribute more armed forces and MPPs with better supply (8) or you can take the conquering path and receive some one time plunder but low MPPs and supplies(5) with the possibility of partisans showing up.

I am actually in the process of building that exact mod right now.

Very open sandbox with all majors starting with no units (except a sub and destroyer) and 3months worth of MPPs to spend as they wish.

I call it "RISK on SC Steroids"

The Majors are UK, US, India vs Rus, China, and the newly formed MEC (Middle Eastern Coalition)

Victory is determined by gaining control of 5 key cities either through diplo (which will be huge) or aggression.

Paris, Berlin, Rome, Singapore, Tokyo

Everytime a major Declares war all unmobalized minors will move 1-30% against them.

War starts Jan1 2015

Map is done

Lots of ideas in my head...

[KvP]

Now that I'm in the year 1944 with the Axis and gained some experience with the new game, I have to note some things. I play 0%, no fog of war, soft build limits on (to have the artillery back and the possibility to build lots of corpses to garrison the occupied cities). (What's the plural of corps? - I don't mean dead bodies!)

- The partisan activity is a little bit too hard in China, I think. The region Peking, Chengchow, Sian and fortress Yenan is regularly lowered by partisan activities, though they are all garrisoned with corpses. The effect is that all cities and harbors in east and south east asia get lowered to a value of 5. (Similar to SC WWII Pacific Theater.) What can I do against this permanent partisan activities? And I mean not to switch off the partisans in the scripts. Does it make sense that cities and harbors in Indochina, Thailand and Malaya get hit by partisan activities in north-east China?

- The British seem to be more interested of north Africa than in their own home country. They attacked and destroyed the italian forces in Africa very early in the game. Too early I think. There was no chance to back up the Italians in 1941 by building a "Rommel-group", it was still too late. I invaded the UK in spring 1942 ("Operation Sea Lion") and they defended quite well. But the British did not relocated a single force from Africa (and they have lots there) to the UK homeland, just as if they were not interested in supporting their homeland defences. That's strange, isn't it?

- The movement in the new SC game is sometimes a little mysterious to me. On the one hand the British-India are able to move a tank from Lahore directly through the Himalaya to the chinese city called Kashgar by moving one tile each turn. I was astonished, how did they have done this? There are no streets! Did they used very strong, fullblooded mules (no one has ever seen before) to transport the tanks on their shoulders? Or did they found Shamballah in the Himalaya region, and with the use of Shamballah esoteric energy they just beamed the tank group with the power of thoughts, right? On the other hand it was impossible for me to move the japanese HQ Suzuki (rating 8!) into the anglo-indian city Darjeeling during a period of rain, though the HQ stood directly adjacent in the south-west of the city, the city was already captured and the supply was well. If I could I would have kicked Suzuki's fat ass :mad: because of his non-willing to move just because of monsoon rains. This sort of rain might be powerful but I think he could have moved if he just wanted to. Compared to the "Himalaya-tank-story" some movement parameters could be modified, I think.

All in all I'm very pleased with the introduction of Global Conflict @ version 1.00. WELL DONE!

[PowerGmbH]

- The movement in the new SC game is sometimes a little mysterious to me. On the one hand the British-India are able to move a tank from Lahore directly through the Himalaya to the chinese city called Kashgar by moving one tile each turn. I was astonished, how did they have done this? There are no streets!

Well maybe it would be an idea of adding some more "forbidden terrain" like the Quattra Depression Fields. I also had one time a case where Rommel crossed the Sahara :confused: to conquer Bazzaville instead of moving towards El Alamein.

After that i put a "Depression Line Fields" and now they wont cross any more the Sahara. Something like this could maybe help for Himalaya as well?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi KvP,

Regarding unit movement we introduced in PT a new rule that if a unit is completely stuck it can move at least 1 tile, i.e. only if it can't move anywhere else and a friendly unit that can move out of the way would not make a unit considered unmovable etc., looks like you found a bit of an exploit of this rule. In that regard David is probably right in that the only way around that is to put in some impassable territory and I'll see if I can do anything about that but I am not 100% sure as we are limited by terrain slots without making any major changes.

Either way, glad to hear you are enjoying the game

Hubert

[PowerGmbH]

not 100% sure as we are limited by terrain slots without making any major changes.

Hubert

I'll send you an updated "Terrain" sprite this week, that could fit. As the Quattra depression Zone only needs 1 complete Depression-Sand-Tile (while there are 4 disponible in the sprite), i simply copypasted a "Desert-Sand" on the Depression and woops i have a Depression looking like Desert. for the Himalaya i would propose the same: Copy a "Mountain" tile in the Depression , and you have the Depression looking like Himalaya, only Problem is if you move the cursor over it, it says "Depression"; maybe then simply change the name in "Inaccessible".

[John DiFool the 2nd]

One more wish, and it naturally relates to the sub war. The AI should be systematically sweeping the convoy lanes with its destroyers. What it does instead is this quasi-cheating thing where it "knows" where an enemy sub is (before the raid box pops up and the "?" sub marker appears), and moves all escorts in the area exactlly 2 spaces away from it. While it can often surprise a sub like that, what typically happens is that a savvy human player can anticipate where the DD screen is, and, using the "control" key can designate a path which typically avoids the screen. Rinse and repeat for the next turn; in one of the larger scenarios this becomes even easier. In Al's scenario I was able to mostly avoid being attacked by any DDs for over 2 years, "sinking" hundreds of points in the convoys. Just have the DDs travel up and down the lanes to the limit of their movement points-they'll find and damage more subs that way and keep them from raiding the lanes.

[Hubert Cater]

What you noticed in the AI Destroyer behaviour is actually a bit of a bug and is now corrected on my end so it should definitely play a bit better after the first patch.