Welcome to the Stategic Command Beta Test

[sPzAbt653]

Does Helsinki have to be captured by the Allies for Finland to surrender ? I ask because the couple times that I have moved the Soviets into Finland, they didn't surrender until Helsinki fell.

In my current game, as the Soviets approached Bucharest the Romanians switched sides, which seemed correct. Nice work on that situation.

[BillRunacre]

Normally capturing the capital is the only way, but there is a Decision Event for the USSR to offer terms to Finland, and for the Germans to attempt to keep Finland in the war (they may say no).

[sPzAbt653]

I was thinking that Finland was similar to Romania and Italy, in that they weren't interested in being conquered and would throw in with whoever was threatening them. In the game, it doesn't feel right to be marching Soviet troops into Helsinki. But I won't linger on it [:)]

A possible suggestion to add Demyansk to the map. Probably not as a resource or connected by any roads as the area was difficult to operate in, but maybe just as a label since it was a fairly important battle for like over a year.

This shot is at 15km/hex so not the same as SC3, but shows the relation between Lake Ilmen {blue circle], Novgorod, Demyansk and Vyshny Volochyk. Maybe a Demyansk at 210,60 ?

[sPzAbt653]

And another suggestion for a road from Rabat to Oran, otherwise if the Allies do a Torch, they can't move from Morocco to Algeria. And, shouldn't Morocco be a separate country from Algeria ?

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I was thinking that Finland was similar to Romania and Italy, in that they weren't interested in being conquered and would throw in with whoever was threatening them. In the game, it doesn't feel right to be marching Soviet troops into Helsinki. But I won't linger on it [:)

That's ok, but as there are Decisions covering it I had hoped we had this one catered for. Does that not feel the case?

Thanks for the map recommendations, I'll take a look.

[sPzAbt653]

Does that not feel the case?

I can play with the way it is, no problem, but there might instead be a 'President Ryti resigns and new President Mannerheim sues for peace' type of event if the Soviets start getting into Finland. Similar to Italy and Romania [and Bulgaria, I just noticed]. But maybe all of these countries have similar events but they are on a percentage chance to occur, I don't know.

[jpinard]

sPzAbt - I almost always agree with you [:)] but in this one I don't. Though yes Finland sued for peace, I've always imagined in my heart that they wanted to fight it out with the Russians to the bitter end. In fact, they are giving me one heck of a fight still holding onto Helsinki as I've been snowplowing the Germans back into Poland. I have a lot of Finnish friends and I too think they would not want to see an auto-surrender option. The situation with the Baltic Nations is a little different as they were more opportunistic with regards to nation allegiance in WW2. Finland however was in a fight for its life.

[sPzAbt653]

Well, I can't always be right, and if I was then it wouldn't be any fun because then I could say anything and no one would question or disagree [:)]

I did not mean to suggest that the Finns were not very brave and effective fighters by their making a peace agreement. Finland was not an ally of the Germans, they were fighting their own war and accepted German aid. After all the previous Axis reverses, when the Rumanians sued for peace in 8-44, the Finns were done with Germany and asked the Soviets for peace terms. I disagree that they wanted to fight it out [:)] . I believe that the Finns wanted to secure their territory and avoid losses. Plus, I don't think that the Finns could have defeated the Soviets. So what reason would they have to fight on ? They would only have their country occupied by Stalin.

And Stalin agreed to peace terms with Finland because he had agreed to leaving Finland as an independent nation at the Tehran conference in 12-43.

Like I stated earlier, I'm ok with the way the game handles this because there are options for other outcomes, and that is the way it should be in a game like this. I only made the inquiry about this because in my current game Italy and Romania, and then Bulgaria, all bowed out before their capitals were taken, but Finland did not, which seemed odd.

Ok, enough. I brought it up for Bill to consider, and I respect his final decisions on these complex matters [if I didn't, I'd be howling!].

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Ok, enough. I brought it up for Bill to consider, and I respect his final decisions on these complex matters [if I didn't, I'd be howling!].

There's no harm in having a good conversation about this! [:)]

I have been thinking about this as it seems to me that it's really up to the USSR. If they chose not to offer terms, then Finland is in a tough situation of having to fight for survival with no prospect of a good outcome unless Germany can turn the war around.

I'm honestly not sure why a Soviet player wouldn't offer terms, unless they are greedy!

[sPzAbt653]

Two things have bothered me since the beginning, and I wanted to get a lot of playing in before I commented on them. I could be wrong, or I could be playing wrong [for example, initially I had trouble killing subs, but then I discovered I had my carriers in the wrong mode].

1. Units take heavy casualties from bombardments. Reducing entrenchment and effectiveness should be the main result of bombardments. These values are fully modifiable in the editor, and I have done so and am much happier with the game.

2. 'Surprise Attacks' often cause heavy casualties and end a units movement, leaving them sitting ducks. Initially I played with Fog of War off so that this was not an issue, but now I have been playing with Fog of War on. The result is that I have taken to moving all units one hex at a time, which is ridiculous. I feel like paying the cost for entering a zone of control could be expected, but not losing all additional movement, and that possible casualties should not be so high [I've seen them at 50-75% sometimes].
One example - Recently I modified the Quatarra Depression based on the posts in another thread, and I was testing the change playing the Allies against the computer Axis. The computer ran both German tank units into the 'unseen' fortified line at Alamein and both took heavy casualties [one down to 2, the other to 4] and also ended their movement, leaving them easy to kill. In this extreme case, it kind of ruined the game, as the computer doesn't seem to replace units lost in Africa.

[jpinard]

sPz - I could be wrong, but the surprise movement isn't tied to moving 1 hex at a time ie. if you move a unit 5 hexes, but one at a time you somehow negate the surprise penalty of moving all those 5 hexes at one time. I used to think the same thing, but as I said, I don't think it works that way. Because what's funny is you could have taken the words right out of my mouth for that, but I've been playing with FoW on for so long now... that I've adapted and love it, but I've been playing under assumption I wrote about above.

What do you mean by units take heavy casualties from bombardment? Do you mean from aircraft? or from Battleships to shore? or both? I don't understand why you think they take too many casualties? I don't think they do but I do want to understand how. I hope you don't think I'm being contrary I just don't understand. For instance late in Russian campaign, German aircraft can't hit the broad side of a barn and my aircraft still aren't taking out large amounts of German units. Is there any possibility balance feels off because of your custom scenarios? In early Barbarossa and Fall Weiss I was frustrated not being able to kill anything with my aircraft. Strategic bombers still almost never hit actual units.

I could be way off in my thinking and response so I'm super sorry if I am misinterpreting or it's because you're gameplay is league above my own - which I am absolutely sure you are way above me

[sPzAbt653]

surprise movement isn't tied to moving 1 hex at a time

Yeah, I didn't say it right. Move one hex, deselect the unit, then the unit re-spots, then select the unit again and move it one hex, then deselect ... But if you move 5 hexes at one time, the unit never spots ahead of itself and instead will plow into 'unseen' units.

Do you mean from aircraft? or from Battleships to shore? or both?

From Air, Naval or Artillery. Hit a unit with two bombardments, then finish it off with one infantry attack. This is with the stock campaign. I modified the campaign starting with v1.09 so that bombardments cause less casualties but a little more efficiency loss. The settings are also specific to what/when/where the combat takes place. Poland, France and Russia had poor AA defense and suffered badly from Stuka Terror, so I reduced their units' AA defense. The UK and USA had multitudes of AA guns, so their settings are ok. The result is I like it much better this way.

Since we started beta, no one else has mentioned either of these aspects, so my opinion on them may be off point. Don't worry about appearing contrary, I posted this to get the feedback either way. If something really is off, then Hubert and Bill need to know what we think.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

surprise movement isn't tied to moving 1 hex at a time

Yeah, I didn't say it right. Move one hex, deselect the unit, then the unit re-spots, then select the unit again and move it one hex, then deselect ... But if you move 5 hexes at one time, the unit never spots ahead of itself and instead will plow into 'unseen' units.

Do you mean from aircraft? or from Battleships to shore? or both?

From Air, Naval or Artillery. Hit a unit with two bombardments, then finish it off with one infantry attack. This is with the stock campaign. I modified the campaign starting with v1.09 so that bombardments cause less casualties but a little more efficiency loss. The settings are also specific to what/when/where the combat takes place. Poland, France and Russia had poor AA defense and suffered badly from Stuka Terror, so I reduced their units' AA defense. The UK and USA had multitudes of AA guns, so their settings are ok. The result is I like it much better this way.

Since we started beta, no one else has mentioned either of these aspects, so my opinion on them may be off point. Don't worry about appearing contrary, I posted this to get the feedback either way. If something really is off, then Hubert and Bill need to know what we think.

Part A - now I have to scrub that from my memory LOL. I did not know that was possible. That being said I have adapted to not worry about surprise attacks any more. It took some time and adjustment from playing with FoW off, but I'm really good about not falling into surprise traps much anymore. But if there is a way to make it so the game can track where movement originated from that would be awesome. OK, where is that mind erase button? LOL

Part B - I don't know about Air. I don't think I'm qualified to speak one way or the other on that. But when fighters start out at tech level 1 they definitely don't do too much damage since they almost never hit. I'm not sure about bombers.

I don't agree with naval bombardment. At best I hit a ground unit 10% of the time, and when they do hit, it's just for a single point of damage. But maybe you speed to higher tech levels much faster than me and that is where you see much of the difference? I just spent so much of Barbarossa as the Allies not hitting enemy units with aircraft, artillery, and navy but as mentioned, things may really change drastically once you hit higher tech levels or when enemy morale is low. Also I may not rely on my air force as much as you do, nor utilize them to their utmost efficiency.

[sPzAbt653]

But maybe you speed to higher tech levels much faster than me and that is where you see much of the difference?

That could be, but I also reduced most tech advances from 1 to .5 to help offset what I am talking about.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Move one hex, deselect the unit, then the unit re-spots, then select the unit again and move it one hex, then deselect ... But if you move 5 hexes at one time, the unit never spots ahead of itself and instead will plow into 'unseen' units.

There is a spotting penalty if you keep doing this, as the unit will lose the ability to spot beyond 1 hex if it keeps doing so.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

From Air, Naval or Artillery. Hit a unit with two bombardments, then finish it off with one infantry attack. This is with the stock campaign. I modified the campaign starting with v1.09 so that bombardments cause less casualties but a little more efficiency loss.

I've been following this conversation and thought I would explain the settings.

Naval units have a combat attack value of zero against land units, and this doesn't increase with research, but they will reduce morale so they can be useful in shore bombardments.

Artillery can be upgraded, but only to level 1. Hopefully their limited shell supply in any one turn minimizes their potential to unleash unrealistic amounts of damage - particularly as they don't accumulate experience as quickly as they used to in SC2.

With air units it is very tricky and my game philosophy briefly is as follows:

It's pretty much a waste of time using Fighters to attack ground units. They might be lucky, but it is not their primary goal.

Medium Bombers are for softening up the defenders, reducing morale and entrenchment, while Tactical Bombers are for more precision strikes, so their damage is more likely to inflict strength losses.

I don't think we have a great amount of wriggle room here, as air units will tend to inflict less strength losses than they did in SC2, but at the same time if it's reduced further then it will feel, especially for new players, that their air units aren't giving them that great Blitzkrieg feeling that they were expecting.

[sPzAbt653]

Thanks for the explanations Bill ! I'm not convinced of anything one way or the other, but the lack of response from other beta testers indicates that these are not issues . [:)]

[sPzAbt653]

The Sub's Silent mode represents movement beneath the surface where Subs can pass through any enemy units unless they end their move next to one, or they pass through a hex occupied by an enemy Destroyer.

I wanted to ask for confirmation that this also works the other way, in that surface ships can pass thru hexes occupied by subs in silent mode. I ask because I have often set up 'picket lines' of subs in silent mode, and enemy surface ships [BB's and CV's] pass right thru them.

[BillRunacre]

Yes, it does work that way round too. Destroyers have a 50% chance of spotting the silent Sub, but the rest will sail on through unless their turn would end adjacent to the sub or in the same hex.

[sPzAbt653]

Excellent ! Thanks Bill. You should have seen the look on my face when I blocked both ends of the English Channel with subs in order to facilitate a Sealion, then watched in horror during the computer turn as it moved UK BB's, Subs and CV's right thru my subs ! After a minute I realized I had all the subs in Silent mode. [:(]