Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

and he pushed how "soft" they were - which is all very well on a crocodile but pretty much drivel as far as geography goes!!

If one limits one's thinking to geography only. It was indeed a soft underbelly in the sense of the strength of military forces deployed to protect it against invasion. However, it rapidly lost it's softness as quickly as it took the Axis to redeploy stronger forces. Which, in turn, had it's impact on the eastern front as any with knowledge of WW2 history will be well aware that Hitler canceled Citadel in response in order to redeploy the SS Panzer Corps.

Creating yet another front for the already thinly stretched Axis forces had merits of it's own. I'm not trying ot say I am a big fan of that strategic choice, but it shouldn't be ridiculed as being entirely without merit.

I am not sure SMK.  How many games have you played both AI and human that no one even moved in Africa.  I am finding that number to be in the 90% bracket.  So if people dont want it why do we need it when we could have more space to play in where everyone likes.
 
Personnally I like a historical game I think eveyone knows that but what I am suggesting is two fold.  One this game is not even close to representing WWII.  It is not there objective to do that.  All they want is a balanced game with tanks air etc.
Two that representation would still give partial Italian coverage on the top but get rid of the area not being used.  This might give us a better feel of the war since without a need to do Africa and Italy I believe it will continue to be ignored and disappoint people who like me who would like to see Italy before France on invasions etc.
 
Dont get me wrong I would much prefer there be an Italy and Africa but only if there are reasons to go there so people also want it.  But without an Atlantic Wall or defensive system for France and nothing to gain in Africa I doubt players will ever even care about that territory.

Well against people there is usually combat in the Med.  I always want it for the Oil as the Axis, or to deny that route to the Axis as the Allies, and to threaten if not attack Rome, forcing them to deploy troops.

Amazing even against Humans I rarely in fact only once did I see action in the Med.  All other games they did not bother.  Even when I am Axis they let me just kill the British troops there without sending help or trying anything.
 
My list shows I have played 14 games so far so with only one having any action in the Med you can see why I have the opinion.  Had that only been verses AI I would have observed differently since we all know there is zero activity against the computer.

This is REALLY not well thought out.

Anyone who has played against humans and until longer than 1942 should realize my now the oil rule, while great, underpowers Germany.

With even close to historical forces Germany runs out way too early.

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

For next patch, we are planning to increase the output from oil fields abit which puts more incentive to figth for Africa and Mid East oil plus going for Caucasus for Axis. To compensate we are increasin oil consumption abit for some unit types.

ORIGINAL: Yohan

This is REALLY not well thought out.

Anyone who has played against humans and until longer than 1942 should realize my now the oil rule, while great, underpowers Germany.

With even close to historical forces Germany runs out way too early.

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

For next patch, we are planning to increase the output from oil fields abit which puts more incentive to figth for Africa and Mid East oil plus going for Caucasus for Axis. To compensate we are increasin oil consumption abit for some unit types.

Are we jumping to conclusions abit now
We have said that Oil Fields will generate more and this also benefit Axis from Romanian Ploesti field. In fact, we made the increase in oil consumtion so that it breaks even with the Ploesti so Axis will have no less oil than currently

As for units, all units except Armour will use the same so you will in fact have more oil now in USSR unless you build alot of armour.

Armour will have +1 oil us but in a tech level so at no tech the Armour will still use 3 oil.

In total, this tweak means Axis will get more benefit from capturing enemy oil but nevertheless have no less oil than before if they fail.

ORIGINAL: targul

Amazing even against Humans I rarely in fact only once did I see action in the Med.  All other games they did not bother.  Even when I am Axis they let me just kill the British troops there without sending help or trying anything.

My list shows I have played 14 games so far so with only one having any action in the Med you can see why I have the opinion.  Had that only been verses AI I would have observed differently since we all know there is zero activity against the computer.

In games i have played as the allies Egypt has always been a problem. I tried reinforcing Egypt and all it did was delay the inevitable by a few turns. The allies are way underpowered versus the Italians and even with the new shorter loop it is too difficult to reinforce. There is a problem with all those desert hexes west of Cairo, you can only repair 1 there so once the axis get beyond Alamein things get very difficult

all this means I will now treat Africa as a lost cause and fight a delaying action back into Syria.

Of course if the Persian Gulf plus loop was available it would make for a more interesting game.

Dave

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

In games i have played as the allies Egypt has always been a problem.

Tough to model what actually happened there. I think the Italians outnumbered the British like 10 to 1 in 1940, yet the British mopped the floor with them until Rommel got involved. Then the scales turned and it was the British who outnumbered the Axis and got pushed around. Hard to see how that can translate into consistent play unless you apply special rules and values for units by region.

It would be very cool to have the Axis stretched through Torch and action against Italy. SC2 does this (AI) by invading the West Coast of Africa but does not touch Italy.
Against a human opponent waging serious submarine warfare, this could be a very difficult thing to do.

Not that tough to model if you use the actual forces that were in Africa.  This game choose to balance in lieu of using what was there.  Balance is near impossible but if you use what was there you have a good chance of modeling it correctly.  Simply make those Italians ineffective while you make the British more effective.  Also stop this silly idea in Africa that Allies are always out of supply or very low.  I could understand that if they moved into  Libya but in Egypt the Allies had good supply.
 
When you start with the idea that the war needed to be balanced instead of correctly adjuticated you will get this sort of strangeness.  Wonder what the Axis would have done had they been balanced instead of how it was?

This is true. The Italians are overpowered in the game, as are all Axis units save the Germans. Perhaps a way around it is to start the non-German Axis units weak and give them a considerable bonus if an Axis unit with a leader is within a certain number of hexes. This might be a way to model the "stiffening" effect of German units on non-German Axis units.

We could put a capital city for UK in Egypt - but it would be quite powerful and let them build units there - almost too good or more realistic?  What do people think?  I would probably start the UK with less there then.

some UK units SHOULD be built in Egypt - the NZ, Australian and Sth African divisions more or less "start" there, as did Indian formations that fought in the Med.

Game would be significantly more accurate and balanced if the British could use one of the cities in Egypt as a building location.  It would need to be an inland city since ship building facilities are not available.  It would simulate the Commonwealth troops that are ignored at this point.

Well no, the commonwealth troops are not really ignored - the UK did not have 2 corps of infantry in Egypt, in fact they didn't have all their armor their either.  So that is an exaggeration to say that.  On the other hand - air was not that hard to get there and it is here.

the Western Desert force contained the only formed UK armoured division in 1941 (7th armoured) - and 1 infantry division (4th Indian). the Indians were removed to attack Ethiopia and replaced by the 6th australian division. the force was eventually redesignate XIII Corps

The Italian 10th army opposite them had 10 infantry divisions and a small armoured group - of which only 4 divisions and het armour invaded Egypt. Both foces in Nth Africa are well overstrength at the start of the war - the British in terms of Corps, the Italians in terms of being able to attack with their whole army.

the one follows the other - once you've put the Italians in at full strength and unlimited ability to attack you can't jsut give the Brits their 1 corps because it would be overwhelmed too easily. So poor design requires further compromise.

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

We could put a capital city for UK in Egypt - but it would be quite powerful and let them build units there - almost too good or more realistic?  What do people think?  I would probably start the UK with less there then.

I was considering this too, because the Brits in Africa are so pathetic as it is. Maybe allowing them to operate to Egypt(rather than build there) would be a workable compromise?

Whatever is done needs playtesting. The ability to build in Egypt should mean several more corps available in summer 40. With these the UK should be able to give the italians a bad time and throw them out of Libya.
 
I still think adding the Persian Gulf and a transport loop would be a good idea.
 
Dave

I have a solution but it requires a small code change and has a side effect.  The side affect is you can build in any "home" city even if it is in low supply - so that means if Kiev is cut off from Moscow you could still build 1 unit there.  I doubt it would matter too much.  This would allow me to designate a city in Egypt as a UK city (the others are indicated as cities originally owned by Libya, Egypt, etc so would not count) and they could build 1 unit there each turn - still pretty strong, but probably more realistic all things considered.

Only good way is too really start with the correct forces and then augment those forces with scripts.  Regrettfully they did not like the idea of using the correct forces.  Also they said they would not bring additional units by scripts so I cannot think of another possibility that has any basis.

Last night I started the 1942 campaign. If you want more historical setting, the scenarios are the way to go: the British are very strong in Africa (they have Tobruk, 2 armoured corps 1 Mot corps and lots of Infantry) and there is no way I am going to take the Middle East Oil fields.