Things that needs change (yes already)

[AlbertN]

A) Combat

Presently combat seems lottery.
Wargamers (and I take people buying this game are wargamers) tend to like to see terrain effects, and what odds (2:1, 3:1, etc) entail.
Do we roll D6? D10? 2D10? What?

Presently I've made attacks at 7:1 or even 10:1, and managed to get 1 loss vs 0 of the defender. Sometimes a 5:1 attack goes so awfully wrong that the attacker loses many hit points.

Is combat random?
Similar concept applies for the Air combat / functions vs ground / airfields.

I've not tried yet naval combat. I hope it's not the same as for me Combat is already a deal breaker here and I am repenting of the aquisition of the game.

Combat here seems a huge problem to me, in its being so random that one can hardly plan any move. It's a 7:1, amazing. Oh ... the enemy has held their grounds and even slapped my troops in the face ... hmm ...


B) Technology
Technology seems really ... measly at the moment. Unless some nation has a -HUGE- gap between tiers of technology, it's pratically insignificant.
The table shows 1 point or 2 there, and that at severe investments.
Maybe in 1945 when there is some tier '45 unit on the map the difference is felt, but '39 to '40 or '41 tier ... doubtful.

If a portion of the game is not meaningful / impacting it adequately, best discard it.
But you should not discard Tech. It is meant to be there, it should be improved in the relative gains. And research points or centers should be either buildable, or capturable.

C) Experience
It seems really -low- as gain. A German troops before campaign of Poland is at 70% about. Some gain 1-4% in Poland.
Campaign of France is pratically the same (you fight more but with more troops thus points diluted).

That hardly provides the crack army of '41 for Barbarossa.

Again another lowly significant feature (that alas it is exactly the same in Strategic Command) that needs reworking. (More efficient experience gain.)

D) Various Extras
I believe the plundering is a good thing to have around considering most of the structure is similar to Strategic Command.

Adding assets / supports that may be bought to expand Logistics, Rail Moves, Research, Production (yes like expanding steel ovens, mining facilities, etc). In similar way that one builds supply trucks, they can build more trains, etc.

Strategic Resources need to be more impactful. 1% each is lousy and hardly 'strategic'. alternatively Strategic Resources may give other type of benefits (That would require some recoding).

Axis needs bit more of oil. Suggesting a national oil production of 1-2 points per nation minors included - OR the possibility to invest in Synth Oil facilities.
Hungary also should have a 3 or 5 worth oil field.
Italy at the start of the war is stockpiling 0 oil - just with the starting forces - and it cannot either be traded due to being neutral. Italy should have a national synth oil facility (ahistorical) OR have a trade with the USA that ceases when Italy enters the war or so.

Sorry - but the testers really missed out on an amount of stuff from my perspective.

Probably there is more to come once I play more to explore the game further, but at the present I am extremely frustrated by the combat and technology issues.

[Essro]

you playing the AI?

I haven't had those crazy combat results you describe. I'm playing solitaire.

I rather like the tech, it's simple and most of it is automated. I also like not having to invest massive amounts of precious production in order to get new tech. But I can see how some players like that.


I agree with experience at present, but won't know for sure until '41.

Regarding various extras. 100% agree on Hungarian oil. Could be some more aspects of the rail capability that I would welcome. Other mentioned issues are interesting but trivial.

I haven't come across anything that I would remotely call frustrating or a deal breaker. So far so good in my opinion.

[gwgardner]

Wargamers (and I take people buying this game are wargamers) tend to like to see terrain effects, and what odds (2:1, 3:1, etc) entail.

You can see those effects in the game, at the moment of attack, and again in the log. In this instance you see the river effect, and that the Polish unit has level 2 entrenchment. Details on the odds are shown in the combat log, for those that want more info after the combat.

[AlvaroSousa]

Have you read the manual or looked at the help files? Perhaps you don't realize you can attack from multiple hexes.

the odds are part of the fog of war system which relies on incomplete information. It is an estimate of the ratio of forces from recon. It isn't exact and doesn't mean you will get huge casualties. 7:1 with low casualties might mean both units have low effectiveness and aren't doing much damage to each other.

Some of your ideas are already on my list of features to examine for future upgrades. Also thank you for the others.

I'm sorry you are frustrated with the game. Feel free to ask questions.

[miv792]

As far as I remember oil in Italy in addition to the African colonies was in two places, one is exactly in the East of Sicily. The second place I can not remember exactly was in the North East of the Italian boot, all these deposits were small. There was also oil in Albania.

[AlbertN]

Yes I meant attacking from multiple hexes is known - you just need the shift pressed. That is a HUGE leap forward from Strategic Command - and toward a wargame (Something I persistently felt wrong in SC the 1 unit attack per time).

Also not sure why Italy cannot have regular divisions - as they may come handy to garrison spots or vs partisans (ie. Rhodes may be garrisoned by 1 division, doubtful Italy has the economy to dedicate there a 'full' corp of theirs.).
I understand it may be tricky if some nations use them as speed bumps though.

@ Essro: I am not complaining at the tech design in how it works (besides that for me one should be able to use captured tech centers in limited way (are they even on the map?) or to expand their own tech facilities. My problem there is when like, difference between '39 and '40 tech is -1- point in -1- stat; and '41 tech pratically adds another point somewhere else, etc. So that it means a '39 and a '40 or '41 unit are quite similar in statistics. (For instance, look at Interceptors or Infantry. It's like claiming the equipment, doctrines, etc are only slightly better.). Thus I am not saying change the system, but to up the gains from the research levels.

[AlvaroSousa]

I will address each comment.

Italian Divisions - Historically they were incomplete, practically useless, and small 10k men. So as you pointed out if I allow them players will do something gamey like speed bump everything. Their corps are 20 strength, compared to 30. Their good units are the Mech (motorized really), armor, and mountain units. Italy was a lot weaker than most people realize. Usually the strategy for them is to build air power and small corps for garrisons. I have ample garrisons for Italy to cover the coastlines.

Advancements - I made them small increments purposely. In some games the jumps in tech are very noticeable from one level to the next and have a huge advantage. The tech is the smallest part of the game. Originally I was just going to have force pools but I interviewed many wargamers who favored the current system. So I went with the majority. The tech should determine the game it is just a slight modifier.

An example is that the plane really didn't matter, the pilot did.

The French tank in 1940 was on the surface better. But the French misused then, they had no radios (very important), they were not concentrated. Did the German bolt action rifle vs a semi-automatic M1 Garand lose the war for the Germans? No. Did it have an effect yes.

So that is where I am coming from. If a unit has a total combat value of 10 between all the attribute vs one with 11 and a better defense that is a 15% difference approximately in firepower. You just don't directly see it. The effects are seen over many battles.

[AlbertN]

Considering Italian small corps are weaker also (-1 artillery and -1 firepower), has it been evaluated to make the cheaper (like 100 production instead?).
Though I am not sure then if that would extend and apply to an amount of other nations so maybe best not left touched.