Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: norvandave

Fleet repairs to Battleships, Cruisers, etc. should take longer. SC2 is supposed to be a strategic game and the naval fleets represent large formations of ships. I think it would be better to restrict ship repairs to 1 point per term (or 2 points perhaps). I know some of the repairs are represented in the lower readiness after you rebuild the fleet, but you should not be able to limp your Battleship into port with 1 factor and then instantaneously increase it to 10 in the next turn.

Reducing the rebuild speed would put a lot more onus on strategic planning regarding the use of naval forces.

I also think that some of the ideas put forward really should not apply to a strategic level game, e.g. Tank Destroyers.

My two cents.

I like the idea for ship repairs. These things often took a long time. A single point might be considered too much micromanagement but maybe it could be done the at same rate as HQ.

Let's remember how long it took to patch up the Yorktown and put her back in action.

I believe it depends on the port facilities and the motivation to "get'er done".

Norvandave's suggestion for naval repairs to be slowed down is a very good idea.

I'd like to see armour / mechanised units lose readiness at a greater rate than at present. Simply by moving breakdowns would be a problem, let alone after combat!

Also, I'd like all air unit attack values to be toned down a bit, in fact quite a lot, but with all initial air units at experience level 1 (representing good peacetime training). Misuse would mean experience would quickly drop to zero representing the loss of trained pilots / crews.

I'm not sure the US (Coast Guard?) Airship should permitted to leave continental America. I've seen it turn up in Egypt. Could it cross the Atlantic?

Naval Minefields - we really should have these represented especially on the NW German coast.

And finally, tech improvements happen too fast and have too great an effect on combat such that combat results become almost automatic with a level 2 Army beating a level 0 Army out of sight every time, and usually without the slightest loss.

I'm not sure National Morale should have such an influence either, especially seemingly on combat. I'd prefer a simple Trigger routine with a certain percent chance of surrender when various target cities are lost. For instance, losing Paris alone has a 50% chance of causing France to surrender.

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.

This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.

Take a look at production numbers, tells everything about the importance of aircraft/tanks/arty.

Since the Axis start with air superiority

Really? If you look at the potential damage versus ground forces perhaps, surely not versus aircraft.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.

This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.

Spot on Harry. The Axis air force (if played correctly) is completely invincible by late '41 -'42. It absolutely dominates the game. The skilled Axis player will group most to all airforce in one area and control the game. This alone gives the skilled Axis player the ultimate advantage.

I'd propose either reducing the possible bomber strength/range (when experienced) or increase the possible AA level of troops to level 3 (maybe at a later date like '42). If bombers can be level 3 why AA only lv 2?


The only question is if this is done does if flip the balance of power to the Allies.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Sugar

In your case you lost air superiority and in consequence the war, unless you`re able to retake it.

This is my point Sugar. In the hands of experienced players the side that attains and retains air superiority with the experienced HQs to go with them is going to win the game. Most other units are just so much dross. U-Boats are not needed. A navy is not needed. Armies and Tanks are useful yes, but are just lambs to the slaughter if the other side has air superiority. Since the Axis start with air superiority all they have to do is retain it to win the game.

Even if the game is balanced in terms of Axis and Allies, it is not balanced in terms of unit power. Air superiority was important in WWII, but not nearly as important as it is in this game.

Spot on Harry. The Axis air force (if played correctly) is completely invincible by late '41 -'42. It absolutely dominates the game. The skilled Axis player will group most to all airforce in one area and control the game. This alone gives the skilled Axis player the ultimate advantage.

I'd propose either reducing the possible bomber strength/range (when experienced) or increase the possible AA level of troops to level 3 (maybe at a later date like '42). If bombers can be level 3 why AA only lv 2?


The only question is if this is done does if flip the balance of power to the Allies.

Based on Tourney score board if we eliminate outliers (aka Sugar) we have 13 Allied wins to 5 Axis victories. I think we can agree the game shouldn't be made to counter the top 1%.

Germany could probably use a couple Infantry units in its production queue to help with Barbarossa (let's say 1 army - 2 corps?).

Not to mention I also won all my Allies games. Only thing you`ll need to know is how and when to break the Axis` air superiority.

Should the power of air forces be too strong in relation to ground forces, maybe they're too weak. Against a proficient opponent, in fortified position, with adjacent arty and AA, it takes a tremendous effort to destroy a single unit, not to speak of surviving the counterattack. Hasn't been the case in Breakthrough SoE, and follows the dimished attack values in SC3.

Its probably late for any significant change to the air. I hope in future games the authors consider some type of air base so entire air forces aren't in one arbitrary spot.

To say the tourney results are indicative of game parity is BS and you both know it. Many of the players had almost no experience, Mika aggressively recruits new players for slaughter. When recognized players battle the Axis wins handily.

Sugar I would like to see you play the Allies against Irish Guards, that would be interesting.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Its probably late for any significant change to the air. I hope in future games the authors consider some type of air base so entire air forces aren't in one arbitrary spot.

To use the tourney results are indicative of game parity is BS and you both know it. Many of the players had almost no experience, Mika aggressively recruits new players for slaughter. When recognized players battle the Axis wins handily.

Sugar I would like to see you play the Allies against Irish Guards, that would be interesting.

Tourney results are of more value as evidence than your opinion mate. [;)]

There's players of varying level of aptitude in it and that is representative of the landscape. You accuse Mika of being an good player (and he is) that baits rookies, well I guess the tourney attracted a lot of good players because Mika only managed a single win to his name so far. [;)]

Bill mentioned that steam comments are along the 'it's impossible to win as Axis in Pbem' also points in the an 'allies have the edge' direction.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Sugar I would like to see you play the Allies against Irish Guards, that would be interesting.

If you paid attention to the tourney games, you would have seen that he already did. [;)]

I read the steam comments and they are generally new to intermediate players and it is extremely difficult. That's part of the challenge.


Sorry mate [8|] in my opinion the tourney results don't mean jack.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

The only question is if this is done does if flip the balance of power to the Allies.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I read the steam comments and they are generally new to intermediate players and it is extremely difficult. That's part of the challenge.


Sorry mate [8|] in my opinion the tourney results don't mean jack.

Wait. Are acknowledging that only 'pros' can reliably win as Axis while positing that the game is too Axis slanted?

Let's remember how long it took to patch up the Yorktown and put her back in action.

I believe it depends on the port facilities and the motivation to "get'er done".

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

With regard to the speed of fleet repairs (i.e. not just one ship), I agree that port facilities have a bearing. Yorktown was only one ship, not the group of ships that the strategic game is supposed to represent. To repair a fleet it should take longer than one turn.

Regarding Yorktown, it was probably not reduced to a "1" factor before it was repaired. The game currently allows you to go from a "1" factor to "10" factor in one turn.