Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.
Also agree that nothing need be done except to reduce Air Unit effectiveness against ground units [Air Strikes cause too many losses to Ground Units].
The Naval game requires Air Interdiction and until that is a factor everything else is a fudge, in my opinion.
Also agreed. On air power I've suggested allowing land units (especially AA) to go to lv 3 AA maybe, never been a fan of no limits on placement but have learned to adjust.
I know that the visual effect can be annoying, but what you are really seeing is the concentration of force against an objective.
Markiss brought me solace with this. It's a great point... from an aesthetic viewpoint.
I had my 1st human game (and beat down) by you, sir. So you know my feelings well. It is what it is. I think the battle should be considered to last through the turn and only one unit should be able to attack per hex with maybe tanks and mechs being the exception to pull in and out. I do think artillery is undervalued in this game because of the ole' in and out...BUT, that's not the case... and as sugar said maybe that would wreak the larger framework. I'll adapt and close my eyes on the replays so I won't be offended .
I have enjoyed this post and ideas. Mine is just to limit the number of times a single unit can be attacked in a turn and perhaps vary it for unit type (2 air, 2 land, 1 sea?). I am not sure what that involves from a coding PoV or gameplay/balance. Just a thought...
I don't think that introducing penalties for the mobile attacks sounds right within the framework of the WW2 warfare. The real problem is, that the combat in general is too bloody ( not only the air attacks ) and allows to completely wipe out the enemy units. Complete annihilation may be satisfying for the casual gamers, who like to see the tangible results of their actions, but it's not realistic. Realistically, you should only be able to completely destroy units that are surrounded and cut off from the supply. Otherwise the units should suffer loses and retreat, even if their strength is down to 20-30%. Given the scale and the turn length, such a weakened units should be able to recover some portion of their effectiveness and strength almost immediately, but it should take few turns of rest and refit to rebuilt them to "100%". It would underscore the need of maintaining the reserve, but from the other hand, players wouldn't face the situation, when they completely run out of the units for few turns.
Another problem with the combat system is, that if the attack is conducted competently, the attacker may not suffer any loses at all. That's also unrealistic. For example during the first month of Barbarossa, the highly successful German panzer groups already suffered up to 30-40% loss ratio in tanks and other vehicles, mainly due to the wear and tear and poor ( often non existent ) Soviet roads.
All the proposals listed above have something to them, but they would have a dramatic impact on the gameplay and it's tempo ( for example limiting the number of attacks against a unit per turn ).
For now, the best tactic is to screen your most valuable units with the corps. Corps are great in absorbing the damage and they have relatively good staying power in relation to their cost.
I agree with your thoughts. That's what shocked me was unit obliteration. There's no real way to avoid it by holding strong...sacrificial lambs and pulling back seems the best tactic to protect your favs. Maybe even something where units flee upon massive damage? Fleeing is, for the most part, the 1st move before annihilation. I think the readiness level considers the wear and tear. But I think I'll adopt your tactic along with relinquishing territory rather than stand and be obliterated.
limit the number of times a single unit can be attacked in a turn
I had tried Commander: Europe at War prior to finding Strategic Command and CEaW uses a limit as you suggest. I don't know if it is better or not, but for my opinion I was glad when I got SC3 and saw no such limit. 'Realistic' or not, such a limit made planning each turn unnecessarily tedious, in my opinion.
Maybe even something where units flee upon massive damage?
There is a Retreat mechanic in the game, but it only occurs a percentage of the time. Some might like to see it happen more often, others are happy the way it is.
First of all, units are not obliterated unless their supply is <5. A cadre survives to be rebuilt voluntarily by the owner at a reduced MPP cost.
Secondly, as AL mentioned above, it is advisable to pay attention to your units' morale and readiness. When said units have endured repeated attacks, even after being reinforced back to max strength, their M & R does not recover appreciably.
Just like IRL, they need to be pulled back into a position of high supply and attached to an HQ to hasten their recovery(rest, reorganization and training green replacements). If you leave a unit on the frontline with low M & R it is ripe for decimation, no matter the entrenchment level.
I just want to point out that units that are "obliterated" are not really obliterated, unless they are at less than supply 5. You will notice that killed units that were at least supply 5 when they were "obliterated" show back up in the list of units that can be purchased. Not only that, but you will also notice that they have an asterisk by them, and that they cost much less than other units to purchase, and arrive much faster than units that are being purchased "fresh". This is because remnants of these units still exist, and these remnants are used as the basis around which the unit is reconstituted. Add a few replacements, and it is as good as new.
So your fav units are not really destroyed, they are just reduced to the point that they are no longer combat effective, and can be "fixed" and returned to combat. No reason to morn their loss, they will be back, probably teched up better than ever.
Of course, if they were at a supply of less than 5, then not enough of them could be saved to be called the same unit anymore. The survivors will be used as elite replacements for other units, still living on to fight another day.
So don't be too sentimental about them, they live on either way.
Darn it, Seamonkey was too fast for me, and I type slow. I hate that. I thought I was safe this time of night, go to bed, darn it!! You stop to make one lousy drink...
Lock up your wife and children now,
It's time to wield the blade..
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I had tried Commander: Europe at War prior to finding Strategic Command and CEaW uses a limit as you suggest. I don't know if it is better or not, but for my opinion I was glad when I got SC3 and saw no such limit. 'Realistic' or not, such a limit made planning each turn unnecessarily tedious, in my opinion.
CEAW has a 2 air attacks per hex limitation. Land units have not such limitation. Air units attacks limit much reduced some of the unrealistic things that CEAW had since, before that limitation was set, you were able to wipe out a full strength land or air unit in a single turn only by using air units.
Maybe a similar thing could be done here. To set a limit for air units but to keep things as is regarding land units. I say this because the no stacking limitation both in CEAW and SC WIE would somehow justify the fact that a land unit within a hex can be attacked multiple times.
When a 5+ supply army gets destroyed, it physically disappears from the map. If you rebuild it the following turn, it's back as a full strength unit within the two months. That's quite a lot of turns in the summer. It's not a problem if you have a queue of reinforcements and get new units every turn ( you can pull it off as Soviets, if you manage them well ). But if you're fighting on a more distant front, where the reinforcements have to the shipped first ( Africa or even Europe for the Americans ), the loss of a unit for a few turns becomes a real tragedy and may be decisive, because the enemy can advance into the void. Due to that, the destruction of enemy units is very beneficial and people would get out of their ways in order to achieve it, using mass air strikes or hit and run panzer attacks. In real life, if the units were not cut off, they never disappeared from the line, even if they were heavily battered ( Soviets during Fall Balu or Germans during their 1943 retreat in the Ukraine ). The reconstitution of completely destroyed units was also faster than the 4 months in the game. The most famous example, German 6th Army surrendered in Stalingrad on 31 of January 1942 and was operational again at the beginning of March 1942.
Having said this, SC: EAW is an improvement in comparison to the previous iterations of the game, because there're more garrisons or free units that get triggered due to some events, so they may be used as stop gaps before the main combat units are rebuilt.
There are a few ressources I'd love to see. I don't want any micromanagement but some things are really vital in WW2
Manpower
Oil
Oil is represented somehow since the strategic ressources give up to 30MPP to the owner or even more with industrial tech. I would love to see it a bit more represented in a tactical way. Like reducing movement of ships, tanks and mechanized infantry if you lack oil or even "spend" oil to buy such units.
Same with manpower. I'm sure it will need some testing to get a good balancing but it would help.
A last wish would be that air units can retreat. It's just stupid that an intercepting squadron would land on the own airfield again if that is attacked right now. Not sure how exactly you can change that but at the moment it is a bit strange.
Another idea would be to use fighters as interceptors and assign units or towns/ports/ressources that should be protected. That would stop that simple move to "scout" with a unit that won't attack anyway (like a maritime bomber two times) to waste your opponents intercepts. Could work the same way as it does with HQs. Automatic intercepts all and manual intercepts only what you select.
Would love to see that in the next game... and hey, I really like that last idea. I should grant myself a patent for that concept
A last wish would be that air units can retreat. It's just stupid that an intercepting squadron would land on the own airfield again if that is attacked right now. Not sure how exactly you can change that but at the moment it is a bit strange.
Hi
They can already, as if attacked by ground units that are likely to inflict serious damage, they have a 50% chance of attempting to fly to another hex for safety.
Many good ideas here on ground battle improvements but I believe the ground component works quite well and any major changes are hard to implement because of the effect on game equilibrium.
Efforts to improve the game should be on the Naval side.
There is a real effort to model, test, and improve the Naval battle going on. We will have to be careful there also since some fixes would help Axis early on and help Allies later.
Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired
I agree with the idea of air units being possible to retreat when attacked by other air units. Due to no limitations of the air attacks that can be done to a single hex, full strength air units can end completely destroyed in a single turn.
If you want to see if we can improve the naval game, we have to test the proposed mods. Please go here HERE and download the Mod, and test it. Then leave feedback.
WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be
Simple solution - found in other games (computer or board): Limit the number of entries or actions that can be performed against a unit through a particular hex side per turn.
Example: In the Decisive Campaigns series of games, only 50 stacking points (of the attacking units) can attack through a give hex side per turn without penalty. Yes, you can keep attacking beyond the 50 points limit, but the crowding will increase losses to the attacker, and there will be diminishing effects on the defender.
...or perhaps I completely misunderstand the problem.
.
