Some Suggestions and Questions!

[worg64]

Hi Hubert and Bill!

Now I have played the game on normal for both sides.

The computer makes a decent fight and with just some minor

tweaks the game will be even better. Lots of fun!

Best game so far and it is by far the best on the market.

Great job guys!

Some Suggestions:

The game works well but the AI need to be a bit more aggressive

as well as learn to finish 1-3 wounded units of when ever possible.

Maybe you could incorporate a KILL PHASE where the AI looks for possible

easy kills, units wounded to 1-3 steps? This should REALLY increase the AI combability.

As it is now they often miss going for the kill even if they have

units able to kill the very crippled wounded unit off.

This is especially important in naval combat but of course also in

land combat.

The AI have a tendacy to garrisson city behind the lines with Corps

as much as detatchments.

Here I would very much see a increase of detatchments being used

as garrissons and have the Corps in the frontline.

Also when on the defence the AI has a tendency to leave heaxes

well entranched and with good defensiv terrain and have a difficulty

to keep a good strong frontline intact.

Especially in WW2 is this a big problem especially the russians.

Maybe you could script at least two to three hexes around each town

with good defensiv terrain to defend, that would make it much more harder to

surround the defender and gain a fast victory.

Hubert you asked me about the hexes the french left near paris, unfortunate

I did not have a save from there but if I recall correct it was the forest hex

beside paris facing closest to Armiens and then the clear hex between the two

forests near paris behind the river. I would suggest You make the script defend

ALL Hexes around paris vigoursly. And same for all capitols.

Talking about surrounding I also think the subs being able to be surrounded

and then finished off is something you should consider to look at how it works.

Maybe here you should encorporate that if a sub goes silent mode he can move

through a enemy vessel hex at the cost of 2 movment and he can not stay in a

hex where there is another vessel.

After all a sub should be able to submerge and go away.

I also strongly suggest you lower the Subs effectivness as a combat vessel

towards other ships. As it is they are by far the best combat naval unit

considering their abilities and cheaper cost and cheaper build time.

Subs should be used as convoy hunters and killing of crippled combat ships

and also as naval scouts NOT as the prime naval assault vessel as they work now.

This is really a must I think. They could have a higher combat value if a enemy

vessel run into them in a surprise attack that would work well tho.

I would also very much being able to just swap places with two units

They would have to start beside each other and being able to normally move

to each others hex. Like a rockad in chess, it is way to often you end up in a

traffic jam in the game.

I think if you would use up both units move and attack it still would be

beneficial and used in the game.

For the AI Entate Powers I strongly suggest a 5 strong detachment in Sedan

from the start to prevent german player a easy walk along the line.

For the AI Central Powers I strongly suggest a 8 strong detachment in Qurma

with the script to advance on Basra if left unguarded, as it is now it is way to

easy to just walk around and gobble up all the small villages with the Basra unit

that starts there, Or make a penalty or a event if the english leave Basra

before the Indian troops have arrived.

Some Questions and suggestions:

Why have you made it impossible for HQ to entrench??

Not only that you also make them take away entrenchment??

There is no logic that HQ should not be able to entrench.

A HQ should be able to entrench as much as all other unit.

If you think this make them to easy to defend with I suggest the

following the HQ not being frontline troops that if attacked

they will ALWAYS retreat IF taking combat losses UNLESS defending towns,

villages, Forts, mountain, hill, forest and entrenched 2 hexes or of there

is no hex to retreat to. That will put them much more in context toward

their lower ability to defend. Maybe you also should also lower their defense

and instead make them have experince and being able to be bigger than 10

in strength. Or being able to have a increased combat detachment incorporated.

Something along those lines.

The AI get to have the tank Unit prior to the player able to.

Why is that? The AI got a tank unit 26feb 1916 when I played.

Not a big thing but if for historical reasons I suggest you use

historical dates when they first arrived for both sides and have them

being able to buy so they can arrive att that date.

The first use of tanks on the battlefield was the use of 49 British Mk.I tanks

at the Battle of the Somme (1916) on 15 September 1916, with mixed,

but still impressive results as many broke down but nearly a third succeeded in breaking through

Well this got to be a long letter I hope you can have some value of all my rantings and crazy ideas.

I apology for any bad grammar since english is not my main language.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the detailed info worg64 much appreciated and this is excellent feedback.

For the combat issues I made some changes to the AI logic (for this release) to better hold its position in the trench lines as well as to not attack too boldly when in a trench and perhaps this is coming into play with it not going after destroyable units more aggressively. I will take a look.

Good suggestions on subs as well and for items like Sedan and HQs these were design decisions and probably better for Bill to answer but perhaps at least a unit for Sedan can be scripted in for the higher difficulty levels against the AI.

For the Tank unit that was a scripting error on my part and this will be fixed and I've made notes on the rest and I'll see what I can do for those as well

[Bill101]

Hi Worg64

Thanks very much for the detailed feedback, lots to think about there!

Getting sub naval attack factors right is difficult because if they are too low then they will not strike fear into enemy Battleships and Cruisers, and be unable to hold their own against Destroyers.

Thus there is a fine line between making subs too powerful against enemy naval vessels, and too weak. But I will take another look at the statistics and see if an amendment can be made that doesn't upset this balance too much.

For HQs, because they represent the command, control and especially logistical arms of the army, it wouldn't feel right to give them entrenchment, or allow them to entrench. The HQ represents thousands of people and animals moving forward and back, providing supplies to the army.

To partially compensate for their inability to sit in trenches, the HQ will have a Ground Defense value of 1 if attacked (this is almost as good as entrenchment level 1) and it also now has limited defense factors. So for the first time in Strategic Command history, at least in the default campaigns, units attacking HQs may suffer casualties doing so.

Thanks

Bill

[worg64]

Hi there thanks for your kind comments and awesome support for the game as always. I understand some suggestions are not always possible and also hard to balance I just want to give you my feedback and see what comes out of it. I am now into my third campaign gameplaying the centralpower

this time. I just play at normal to start with to feel the grasp of the game and look into what can be better as i think at least :-D

I have noticed with some regularity now the AI unable to kill of units

with 1-2 hits left even if he had units standing next to them and at full strength with AP left the computer very often doesnt finish them off.

I guess it most be in the scripting some how. I really hope you can tweak this up because it is very important this work as it should.

Also I have noticed the high success rate for attacks during winter.

Should it really be this easy? Compared to WW2 it is a lot easier to attack now during winter even if the defender is entrenched and in good defensive terrain it more often than not the attacker wins or lose equal amount of step losses during a winter attack. Maybe the severity of winter attack should be increased here I think.

For the HQ that is good that they have some defense value and are able to kill steps of the enemy.

I see your point on how you look at HQ while my view is more of a combat HQ where the supply trains

ar another thing all together but if going your way then it works ok.

As for Subs not being scary for cruisers and battle ships I really dont think they should be that scared.

Almost all Main battleships and cruisers was supported with destroyers flottillas.

And how often did sub sink Heavy war ships during WW 1 and WW2.

Sure it happened but then most of the time with a lucky strike at ammo depot or similiar or against a already crippled war ship near dead in the water.

If you look at the subs statstic of the war you should see there main

job was to attack convoys not other war ships something they tried to avoid fighting.

I understand they must be able to hurt them but I think they are way to good now compared to the other ships.

If you let the sub have a higher attack when run into (A surprise attack)

that will be scary enough if you know the water is filled with subs but otherwise I think you should lessen their attack against all ships

and instead have players use them as intended convoy hunters.

Important tho is that Subs should not be able to be boxed in as they can be now but always be able to move to other space if diving!

I have noted the artillery shells of max 10 might be a bit to much.

I really like the shell and that you can load them for a offensive,

but I have noticed having two or even three artilleries loading up shell

and then attacking with full barrage makes it a bit to deadly and good.

Here I would advice go down to 5 as maximum, still good enough albeit

not as deadly, more balanced if you ask me.

As for the Egyptian campaign area I have noted when the AI play,

the HQ that come into play for the english in Alexendria gets stuck there

and hence prevent any supply for the english more or less.

Maybe it would be better if it come in closer to the front line Kairo

or Suez ?? Alexandria has that event for keeping it safe against rebels also

so the HQ really is needed better near the suez canal.

How did my suggestion regarding a more detailed experience and resource for each major power turn out? IS it something you are considering to put into play into the future of the game?

Ill try to keep feedback coming as long as I am playing and see if you can find any use of them.

[lettowvorbeck]

Worg,

I am not seeing an AI inability to finish off units in my first Call to Arms scenario (CPU is playing the CP side), the opposite actually. I am witnessing an AI predilection to attacking single units multiple times in order to destroy them. I would actually be in favor of not allowing each side to see strength points remaining, so there is a bit more uncertainty about how much it will take to finish off a weakened unit.

Also, my own winter attacks (in snow) have been useless. I attacked so many times with no losses at all that I just quit doing it. Then again, I am a newbie so it could have been the combination of low supply and morale in addition to weather effects.

I think we should hold off a bit before declaring subs to be too effective. My blockade line of destroyers and cruisers has been smashing them rather effectively in their attempts to break through to my convoy lanes.

You bring up an interesting point about the artillery. At the non-improved level, I don't see a problem as you can easily fire five times and hit only once for a single step loss. Now, once the guns are improved by technology, that might be a different thing. I am only at mid 1915.

[Bill101]

Attacks in snow should be much less effective, but if the weather itself is normal then losses will be the same as in other seasons.

Going back to sub effectiveness, there was a lot of fear of them at the time, even if their effectiveness against naval vessels wasn't as great as feared. Though there were some significant successes, including U-9s triple sinking of the British cruisers Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy in September 1914.

Thanks again for all the detailed feedback!

[worg64]

Well lettowvorbeck what can i say other than the computer does make multiple attacks most of the time with around 3 corps but I have witnessed several times now when the computer have not finished off strength 1 units even when the Ai has had units left to act with.

I have finished the campaign game two times now and are well on into my third and I have seen this several times during these games.

That said I am sure it only requires some minor tweaking to get that in order.

It is very important that the AI kills of the units he gravely damage If of course he is able too since then the unit get long time to getting back into the game.

It is especially important when dealing with naval forces.

As for winter attacks it does get harder but I still find it a bit to easy against entrenched and units in good defensiv terrain but it is just my personal view and experience of the game so far. I feel it should be even harder to attack during winter turns.

Bill you write " Attacks in snow should be much less effective, but if the weather itself is normal then losses will be the same as in other seasons."

Maybe this is what I have experienced and taken notes off, I assumed the attacks in winter with snow on the ground but a sunny day would be much harder than a a attack a normal season would have while attacking in snow or blizzard would be even harder.

Can you confirm that attack losses during winter without any weather effect is equal as a attack on summer without any weather effect??

This should then explain it for me.

As for the subs I agree that they did sink warships as I also said earlier but it was not that often it happened during both the WW1 and WW2 considering how many subs their where and how many opportunities they had being submerged and had the element of the surprise.

As for the fear factor I would say it is well incorporeted in the game by the events, I for one as player also sure fear those subs I can tell you

That said I am just stating my opinion here where I think the subs are to good against naval vessels in the game but that doesnt mean I am correct.

It is just a feeling and a personal view regarding my knowledge of the WW.

Maybe if the subs had taken on a more active role hunting war naval vessels maybe they had been as deadly as they are now in the game.

But it is good you are looking it over and considering it thats all I wanted

[John DiFool the 2nd]

As for Subs not being scary for cruisers and battle ships I really dont think they should be that scared.

Almost all Main battleships and cruisers was supported with destroyers flottillas.

And how often did sub sink Heavy war ships during WW 1 and WW2.

Sure it happened but then most of the time with a lucky strike at ammo depot or similiar or against a already crippled war ship near dead in the water.

If you look at the subs statstic of the war you should see there main

job was to attack convoys not other war ships something they tried to avoid fighting.

I honestly don't know where this meme came from that subs didn't sink all that many capital ships and that they tried to avoid them. Any sub captain worth his salt is going to salivate at the prospect of sinking a fleet CV or a battlewagon; just off the top of my head I have

Royal Oak

Ark Royal

Barham

Wasp

Taiho

Shokaku

Shinano

on my list of capital ships sunk primarily by subs.

The lack of sinkings in WWI almost certainly has to do with most dreadnoughts staying in port for most of the war as part of a fleet in being, and only rarely venturing out, while in WWII where most units had to sail long distances to their battlegrounds there were plenty more opportunities (esp. in the Pacific).

[Bill101]

Bill you write " Attacks in snow should be much less effective, but if the weather itself is normal then losses will be the same as in other seasons."

Maybe this is what I have experienced and taken notes off, I assumed the attacks in winter with snow on the ground but a sunny day would be much harder than a a attack a normal season would have while attacking in snow or blizzard would be even harder.

Can you confirm that attack losses during winter without any weather effect is equal as a attack on summer without any weather effect??

This should then explain it for me.

Hi Worg64

That is correct, it is the weather rather than the season that may affect the effect of the attack.

Bill

[worg64]

Thanks Bill for clearing the weather up for me that makes much more sense.

Hi John DiFool the 2nd As to my reference to subs not killing as many capitol ships I was refering to one on one fights between a sub and a capitol ship.

As I wrote subs going in for the kill on already damaged or crippled war ships happenend as you also point out several times but most of those was in a naval battle together with other ships and subs. It has happened other wise also but considering the amount of ships and subs and the amount of engagments it is not very often I would say.

I am very much aware of the damage a torpedo can do to a capitol ship but for a sub to get a chance to fire against the capitol ship he would most of the times have to get pass a screen of destroyers not something easily done even in a naval battle.

Ludi1867 had some really intresting points in his posts regarding the battle ship versus subs also that I agree with. I know it is not easy to balance this

and I am sure the opinions are as many as the number of players :-D but to go back to the question at hand what makes me think the sub is to good contra

the capitol ships is the lower cost in build and repair, lot faster to make and lets not forget the dive ability and convoy hunt on top of that.

Also as a bonus if a sub run into a hidden sub and get surprised they dont get damaged. I use subs as scouts because of this and send them ahead of my capitol ships. If we are discussing as Ludi is writing about a battle ships WITH a destroyer flottilla versus a Wolfpack of subs I understand the game mechanics but as he points out it is not really a good solution for many reasons many already discussed there.

One solution maybe would be to make the Ship and Sub units have 5 wounds each instead of 10 as of now with 5 counting as fully battle ready, 4 minor damage, 3 damaged, 2 crippled, 1 dead in the water (in game minimum speed and considered towed to harbour)and 0 sunk. Each wound would effect the attack value and speed of the ship and Sub.

This would require increasing the amount of destroyers and Sub in the game tho but would make the naval war a much more dynamic scene.

[SeaMonkey]

Speaking in general about SC ASW technology, I always thought it should be in two aspects, one for destroyers, ie escort, subhunter-killer packs and the other for capital ship escort duty.

For the DD groups the ASW tech addition should be relatively inexpensive as you are upgrading the existing surface vessels with new hardware to detect and attack subs.

For the CA through CV groups you are actually adding escort, screening vessels and therefor should be a much more expensive endeavor as this would include aircraft ala CVLs/CVEs, subchasers, frigates/corvettes as well as additional DDs.

This could easily be represented by splitting the sub attack and defense target values, letting DDs upgrade through ASW tech, and the capital vessels upgrade through the NW tech. It will also allow you to customize your vessels to a more specific degree. Now you can add offensive strength for surface combat with NW while increasing defense for subsurface actions(escorts), costing substantially more. ASW would allow a more offensive trending towards subsurface actions and a lesser degree to defensive systems against subs, costing less.

Since we now have the additional anti-air slot for upgrades you see how you can generate a more task oriented fleet for what ever strategic options you have in mind.

DDs, ASW(sub attack value enhancement), NW(surface attack, sub defense) and AA(air defense)

CA, BB....ASW( expensive, not as effective as DDs), NW(more expensive, sub defense, surface attack & defense), AA(air defense)

CV, NW(very expensive adding to defensive values through escort increases), LR as is, AdvAir for air defense through CAP and naval attack values through the CAG upgrade against all surface and subsurface naval vessels.

[Ludi1867]

Hi All

Since this thread seems to have evolved into the ASW thread, I will make my comment on ASW here!

Seamonkey makes a number of good points. My suggestion is somewhat along the lines of what he is discussing, but is very simple – make the ASW attack value of capital ships ZERO. Capital ships should have an ASW defence value for when submarines attack them, and whether this should be upgradable for a reduced cost or not is an open issue for discussion (I still think it would be better to separate escorts and capital ships, but if they remain integrated then they should be upgradable).

If capital ships cannot attack submarines, then there is no game reason to use them to hunt submarines. This would mirror real life – I cannot recall ever reading of any instance where a capital ship went deliberately hunting for a submarine, although there are of course a number of instances where capital ships encountered them, with varying results: nothing at all (more often than some might think, and probably the most common result); damage or destruction of the capital ship; or damage or destruction of the submarine.

In terms of ASW in WW I, it is worth recalling that depth charges did not even EXIST until 1916, and that active sonar was not operational DURING the war: there were only hydrophones to listen for a submarine, and hardly the best hydrophones either. ASDIC was just about to be introduced as the war ended. The most effective ASW tactic developed during the entire war proved to be an ancient technique, grudgingly adopted by the Admiralty in 1917: convoys. Of course, submarines and U-boats of the day were not particularly advanced either, but they proved lethal enough, particularly against independent merchantmen.