Matrix Games Forums

Hello Everyone
An updated version of v1.10.0 is now available for Strategic Command. This is the v1.10.01 beta
This addresses issues reported in v1.10.0 and includes some campaign amendments. For full details please see below but the most notable updates might be to ASW combat (including fixing a research error) – also note the recap to the amendments to HQ supply made in v1.04.

Save games from 1.04 onwards should be compatible with v1.09.10 beta (although campaign changes won't take effect until you start a new one).

If you are playing a PBEM game we recommend you finish before updating, and for new PBEM games if you have updated then your opponent will need to do so as well.


You can download it from

Members:
http://www.matrixgames.com/members/publicDL.asp?gid=504


Public:
http://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/Strategi ... .10.01.zip



v1.10.01 Changelist
- Fixed a transfer of capital error, via SURRENDER_1 event, that had been transferring ownership of the previous capital hex to the opposing side, when the opposing side did not currently occupy that particular hex.
- Fixed an ASW research upgrade error that did not help to reduce the percentage chance that a sub may dive from an attack.
- Fixed a customized campaign graphics error that would not properly refresh when loading games or starting new campaigns from customized to default and vice versa. This was often noticeable when loading custom unit sprites.
- Fixed an AI error that had a friendly controlled major, controlled by the AI, upgrading your human controlled resources with Anti-Aircraft research upgrades.
- Fixed a swap unit error that had units swap and end up with higher entrenchment values than should be the maximum at their new positions. Now swapped units should properly gain the old entrenchment value of the previous unit in that position minus 1.
- Fixed a right click menu 'Forced March' implementation error.
- Fixed a reloaded saved turn error that would erroneously initiate beginning of turn POPUP and DECISION events. These should only happen at the beginning of a turn and before a save and possible reload.
- Fixed a rare resource supply calculation error for towns not connected by rail but also not cutoff from a friendly capital where they would reach a max occupational level value and then drop back down and then up again repeatedly.
- Fixed an AI air unit protective movement error that had the AI move air units prior to combat which could in theory alter the vulnerability of these air units if combat were to go in the AI favor.
- Fixed an AI paratroops combat error that led to a CTD.
- Fixed a spotting error for Maritime Bombers that allowed them to spot across water and then across land again with their naval spotting range, e.g. incorrectly across the English Channel and into England.
- If a unit has occupied a town/city adjacent to a port, but the port is occupied by a naval unit that is then subsequently destroyed by air power, the port will now switch to your control at the end of your turn.
- Weather information will now display in the lower right hand corner geo locator panel for resolutions < 1280 pixels wide.

HQ supply rule recap and amendments since the first major changes introduced in v1.04 are as follows:
- HQ distribution supply has been changed to the following:
- HQ supply < 3 will have a distribution supply value of 5.
- HQ supply >= 3 and <= 5 will have a distribution supply value of 8.
- HQ supply > 5 will have a distribution supply value of 10.
- HQs can now only be linked if the first HQ has a supply value >= 3.
- the HQ to be linked must have a supply value < 5 and is now automatically boosted to a supply value of 5 which caps its distribution supply at 8.
this doesn't change distribution supply for HQs that were at 3 or 4 supply, but will allow them to 'operate' and 'upgrade'.
- Previously linked HQs could have a maximum distribution supply level of 10.

Campaigns
- Subs' initial dive percentage increased from 20% to 40%.
- Destroyers' starting Sub Attack value reduced from 2 to 1, and Light Cruisers reduced from 1 to 0.
- Fixed a Finnish HQ Guard error that had the Finnish HQ sit right next to Helsinki for the entire game now that we moved its starting position a little further back from the Soviet border.
- Fixed a German invasion of Poland that saw some of its forces break off towards less relevant targets such as Bialystok and Grodno.

Fixed an ASW research upgrade error that did not help to reduce the percentage chance that a sub may dive from an attack.

Thanks for the update, but could someone explain why the following campaign changes were implemented when the initial issue was only that the ASW research upgrade was not WAD:

"Campaigns
- Subs' initial dive percentage increased from 20% to 40%.
- Destroyers' starting Sub Attack value reduced from 2 to 1, and Light Cruisers reduced from 1 to 0."

It seems that while the initial bug was fixed, it was felt that subs still needed to be tweaked to having an initial advantage. This probably models the historical situation at the outset of the war...but it really means that the Allies have to either be equal in ASW tech levels compared to the Axis (at all times), or really need to pull ahead to have any effect...

C

It is 'beta' and possibly subject to more tweeking

ORIGINAL: Christolos

Fixed an ASW research upgrade error that did not help to reduce the percentage chance that a sub may dive from an attack.

Thanks for the update, but could someone explain why the following campaign changes were implemented when the initial issue was only that the ASW research upgrade was not WAD:

"Campaigns
- Subs' initial dive percentage increased from 20% to 40%.
- Destroyers' starting Sub Attack value reduced from 2 to 1, and Light Cruisers reduced from 1 to 0."

It seems that while the initial bug was fixed, it was felt that subs still needed to be tweaked to having an initial advantage. This probably models the historical situation at the outset of the war...but it really means that the Allies have to either be equal in ASW tech levels compared to the Axis (at all times), or really need to pull ahead to have any effect...

C

Yes, the reason is that the settings we'd had for the last year, and longer in beta, were based on the mistaken assumption that the engine was working as it should.

Once the engine was fixed, it quickly became clear that those settings didn't work, DDs with high levels of ASW were destroying Subs, regardless of the Subs' own tech level, so these changes were to mitigate the extreme results that I saw in testing.

Also bear in mind that the engine we'd been playing with over the last 12-18 months actually gave upgraded Subs a significantly higher dive % than this change gives them, we just didn't know it.

... it really means that the Allies have to either be equal in ASW tech levels compared to the Axis (at all times), or really need to pull ahead to have any effect...

I guess it does, and that's not a bad thing. Without any changes it would have been game over for the Subs by 1942 in most games.

Bill

In real life the subs went from being very effective, to marginally effective, to just getting wrecked all the time in a rather fast matter (Reaching that final state by mid/late '42 or early '43 depending on what you read). This is mostly due to better radar, better sonar and ULTRA.

My personal opinion is that this "fix" will benefit the subs a lot and more than ASW. The main reason being that even if the Destroyers keep up with the Subs tech wise, they will not be able to keep up experience wise. I suspect that by 42 the Axis uboats and Allied destroyers will both be at tech level 2 or 3, but the subs will have experience level 2 or better and that will make all the difference. So I think it probably won't be until late 43 or early 44 when both are at tech level 4 or5 that the ASW will finally start to make headway. But we will have to wait for the playtesting to see if I am right.

Of course, this will also help the UK a bit as they have 2 subs of their own and can always build more.

Hehe, I guess it will be interesting to see what happens, if an unexperienced destroyer bumps into an experienced sub...

- Fixed a rare resource supply calculation error for towns not connected by rail but also not cutoff from a friendly capital where they would reach a max occupational level value and then drop back down and then up again repeatedly.

I've been monitoring this as I experienced it in the past. My current game is up to July 1942 and I have not seen it occur [:)]

Bill,

please give me a helping hand.
I have lost track about the subs..

Previously the Diving percentage was 20% for level zero, and the increment per level was 10%.
Now the starting percentage is 40% and the increment is 5%?
Is that true?

Starting percentage if 40% for subs, and the increment is still at 10%

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

My personal opinion is that this "fix" will benefit the subs a lot and more than ASW. The main reason being that even if the Destroyers keep up with the Subs tech wise, they will not be able to keep up experience wise. I suspect that by 42 the Axis uboats and Allied destroyers will both be at tech level 2 or 3, but the subs will have experience level 2 or better and that will make all the difference. So I think it probably won't be until late 43 or early 44 when both are at tech level 4 or5 that the ASW will finally start to make headway. But we will have to wait for the playtesting to see if I am right.

Of course, this will also help the UK a bit as they have 2 subs of their own and can always build more.

Respectfully, experience for Subs is not going to change from previous builds to this one, but the fact that ASW is now working as it should simply needs to be factored in.

For example, all games for the last 12-18 months could have had a high experienced Sub at Level-5 giving it a 70% chance of diving no matter what the ASW Level your opponent had, i.e. 20% base level + 50% from Advanced Subs Research.

Now, a high experienced Sub at Level-5, facing off against a Level-5 Destroyer will only have a 40% chance of diving, i.e. 40% base level + 50% from Advanced Subs Research = 90%, but reduced by 50% ASW = 40%.

If we kept it at 20% base level, then Level-5 versus Level-5 would go from 70% chance of diving (when ASW wasn't working), to 20% chance of diving which game balance wise is much harsher than the middle ground of 40% we have now.

As Bill mentioned above, it does mean that the Allies will have to invest in ASW if they want to deal with Subs, but unlike for the last year, that research will pay off.

Hubert

The premise is that submarines will gain experience faster than destroyers, but this will generally, and for the most part, probably be due to convoy raiding rather than from engaging capital ships. Destroyers, for their part, will generally gain most of their experience from engaging submarines. The question then becomes: is the rate at which subs gain experience from convoy raiding, being applied fairly when attacking a destroyer? I can understand that gaining experience by sinking transports should increase a sub's attack ability when raiding convoys because of their high "convoy raiding" experience level...but should this experience gain also be applied when attacking a destroyer?

I can also understand that a certain level of abstraction is needed, and this could certainly include having to deal with destroyer escorts that could be considered as being integral to the convoy system (i.e., not physically represented in the game) but I don't know if this is taken into consideration. If it is, then the actual represented (not abstracted) destroyer units, in the context of engaging subs, can be thought more as representing distinct hunter killer groups. So in this context, the experience they gain from engaging subs, is more specific to improving their sub damaging ability then the experience that subs gain from convoy raiding being applied to attacking a destroyer.

So how quickly do destroyers gain experience from engaging submarines and could this offset Harrybanana’s concern?

C

So destroyers initial (tech level 1) sub attack values were reduced from 2 to 1...but MTBs still have an initial sub attack value of 3.

Two questions:

1) What is it about MTBs that should give them such a high sub attack value?
2) Why was it that only destroyers and light cruisers had their initial sub attack values reduced?

I'm thinking that it would be very wise for the Allies to invest in bunch of MTBs to offset this...[:D]

C

Hi Christolos

I think you're right that it may be worth investing in them, but bear in mind that the MTBs aren't really useful for much else than sub hunting, and they have a much lower sub defense value so the U-Boats have a better chance of giving them a good blow.

Their limited range (10 APs a turn) also means that while they can be of use, sending them out into the middle of the Atlantic isn't necessarily going to be a good move.

Bill

ORIGINAL: Christolos

The premise is that submarines will gain experience faster than destroyers

If this is the premise, then since the experience gain factors have not changed with any of these changes, I would argue that the premise would hold true prior to these changes, as much as it does now, would it not?

If so, then the question is was submarine experience an issue prior to this latest build?

In the current build, conceivably, subs could hold onto initial experience gains with the higher dive %, and until the Allies invest in ASW, however, now that ASW is a factor I would think the ability to hold onto those gains would be more difficult as the war progresses.

In the past, without effective ASW, you could almost argue then that the much higher dive % would have given Subs more of an experience advantage as the war progressed than what we will see going forward.

But again, if we are wrong then we'll be happy to make further adjustments as needed.

I think you're right that it may be worth investing in them, but bear in mind that the MTBs aren't really useful for much else than sub hunting, and they have a much lower sub defense value so the U-Boats have a better chance of giving them a good blow.

Their limited range (10 APs a turn) also means that while they can be of use, sending them out into the middle of the Atlantic isn't necessarily going to be a good move.

Bill

Thanks Bill. I had forgotten that MTBs have limited range...

In the past, without effective ASW, you could almost argue then that the much higher dive % would have given Subs more of an experience advantage as the war progressed than what we will see going forward.

Thanks Hubert for the excellent point! [:)]

Cheers,

C