Looks like the Patch is out - first impressions?

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: Bigfish

@GordianKnot: Where do you from? I have to reread some books but i think you are talking about typical US Task Forces. British warships often sailing alone or with only a few destroyer escorts. Examples:
- hunting the Graf Spee: german side: BC Graf Spee; british side: CA Exeter, CL Ajax, CL Achilles no escorts
- sinking HMS Hood: german side: BB Bismarck, CA Prinz Eugen; british side: BB Hood, BB Prince of Wales no escorts
- right before that: The observation Force of Bismarck TG includes only two heavy cruisers the HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk no escorts
- sinking HMS Glorius: german side: BC Scharnhorst, BC Gneisenau; british side: CV Glorius, two destroyer escorts
- meeting 9th April 1940 near by the lofots: german side: BC Scharnhorst, BC Gneisenau; british side: BC Renown no escorts (i think)
- sinking HMS Ark Royal: german side: SS U-81; british side: CV Ark Royal, two destroyer escorts
- there are more exxamples

Those are all good points. Both the British and Germans did use BB's alone (and possibly the French and Italians as well?). I think possibly the Russians as well. I think there was also a case where the Brits tried to send some unescorted BB's to the Pacific region for support only to have them ravaged by Japanese air.

The US and Japan OTOH frequently used "death star" TF's like the ones I described. I believe even the massive Iowa class BB's for example were sometimes used as massive AA platforms to help protect CV's.

I must confess that most of my knowledge of WWII naval tactics comes from WITP and CAW which of course both cover only the Pacific Theater. I'm certainly no expert.

So I think you make a good point. I just ASSUMED that these units were TF's. I don't really know for sure. But if they are individual ships, then:

A) There should be WAY more of them.
B) You should be able to stack naval units so you can potect your cap's with DD's.

[Bigfish]

Those are all good points. Both the British and Germans did use BB's alone (and possibly the French and Italians as well?). I think possibly the Russians as well. I think there was also a case where the Brits tried to send some unescorted BB's to the Pacific region for support only to have them ravaged by Japanese air.

This was british Force Z with up to four or six destroyer escorts... !!!EDIT!!!: Also two or three capital warships...

[Vypuero]

It depends if you capture oil fields or not, but in most cases you start running out of oil as axis, even being careful using trains most of the time, which I do do, but if you limit your air and tank units, yes it won't be as much of an issue.  I think that is the point of the model.  Some players wanted more oil, I think because they loved building tons of air and tanks - 'course then just turn the oil option off.
 
The Germans build maybe 1,000+ uboats, so yes 1 uboat unit is a lot more subs than a BB unit, which would be a few BBs, crusiers and DD escorts in a large fleet task force, essentially.  It simply represents overall fleet assets.
 

[Bigfish]

Oh i forgot:

I must confess that most of my knowledge of WWII naval tactics comes from WITP and CAW which of course both cover only the Pacific Theater.

I'am much more interested with the pacific theater too! Some years ago i was able to count every us carrier from Langley (CV-1) up to Theodore Roosevelt (CV-71). I'am most interested in the battle of Midway because i think if the japs sinking the three us carriers there the war in Europe takes another way too. I think if the japs invaded Midway and then Oahu the US needs much more power in the PAC instead of the Atlantic so invasion of Sicilia and Normandy won't be possible.

[targul]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: targul

I build a balanced army but if I attempted what you have I would suspect to run out of oil.

I dont run but 4 armor most of the time and 4 air. Lots of Motorized infantry though.

I think it does show that the oil rules definitely work.

Now don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean its perfectly balanced or couldn't be tweaked, but by differentiating between units that consume large quantities of oil and those that don't, I feel the designers have done a good job of modeling the challenges Germany faced by having a high tech mechanized military with a very limited supply of oil.

And if memory serves, I don't think SC2 really models that at all so this is one area (along with the use of hexes instead of isometric sqares) where I think this game is actually superior to SC2.

Actually there are four area where this game is superior to SC2.

1. hexes
2. Convoy system
3. Oil
4. Map (It is much larger then SC2 giving you more room for tactics)

As I continue to examine the AI I am deciding this AI is better in the Atlantic, Russia, France and really all of mainland Europe. Where the AI is not yet working is Med and Africa. If they fix those even a little I think this games AI will be significantly better then SC2 and the best on the market.

The AI gets really good at +2 and at +3 it is a real bear. Now I have not tried Allies yet so I cannot comment on Axis AI. I will probably look at it starting tonight.

The patch has made Russia the serious threat they were. They did it by using additional units placed in rear areas which seems very appropriate. Compared to SC2 this is working better then the Siberian Reinforcements since it allows the AI to use them earlier when needed.

I now see landings in France so that has been fixed. These landing are not small now so great job there. I would like to see the Atlantic Wall and real Amph but what they have is working okay. Both games lack in this respect though. You can build the wall in SC2 but you will never have units to place in them.

Overall the patch is a C+ to me. If they had provided a playback for the PBEM this patch would go right to an A for me.

Regretfully, if you play your games using PBEM as I do most of mine, I cannot recommend the game but if you do not play PBEM games it is a winner.

[kevinkins]

From Targul:
 
"Actually there are four area where this game is superior to SC2.

1. hexes
2. Convoy system
3. Oil
4. Map (It is much larger then SC2 giving you more room for tactics)"
 
That decides it ... I am getting this game over the weekend. But wait, SC2 is going to have an add-on soon. Darn!!!
I like hexes and the larger map.
 
From JudgeDredd

"Please try and remember this is a labour of love for someone."
 
Yeah right ... its profit. All these small game companies would sell out in a second if Goggle offered the right $$$ for the code and rights to online it. Of course they have to make people happy - gee wiz. But the initial release has a lot of people unhappy. These forums exist to let them vent as long as they dont get personal or cuss etc.. The forums will improve products very fast if the developers listen. Some are a little more passionate than others in the tone. But they want the same result - a quality product for the money. To have a PBEM system even at question is pretty bad in this day and age.
 
Kevin
 
 

[Rocko911]

I was disappointed in that the sub warfare has not been adjusted. At this time they are a waste for Germany in resources.

[targul]

Sorry but I find it different with different players. Sub warfare is great for those who know how to use it.

I am learning but still lose them sometimes But I have played some people who by 41 have 6 or 7 subs out there and not only do they kill the supply but they kill the ships.

I have also seen players who seem to have so many destroyers subs should just pack there bags and go home.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

From Targul:

"Actually there are four area where this game is superior to SC2.

1. hexes
2. Convoy system
3. Oil
4. Map (It is much larger then SC2 giving you more room for tactics)"

That decides it ... I am getting this game over the weekend. But wait, SC2 is going to have an add-on soon. Darn!!!
I like hexes and the larger map.

From JudgeDredd

"Please try and remember this is a labour of love for someone."

Yeah right ... its profit. All these small game companies would sell out in a second if Goggle offered the right $$$ for the code and rights to online it. Of course they have to make people happy - gee wiz. But the initial release has a lot of people unhappy. These forums exist to let them vent as long as they dont get personal or cuss etc.. The forums will improve products very fast if the developers listen. Some are a little more passionate than others in the tone. But they want the same result - a quality product for the money. To have a PBEM system even at question is pretty bad in this day and age.

Kevin

It's a bit sad you see developers only developing games purely for profit. I'm sure there are instances where that's the case. I am also sure that profit is important.

As I pointed out in my previous post. I do software development and I make money from it. Very reasonable money. But I'd be mortified if someone was saying one of my programs was trash. I would find it much less offensive if someone was to tell me that my programme lacked in several areas and point out ways to improve it for them.

I make good money from software development, and I take it very personally.

Also, I didn't say the needed to make people happy...I said they wanted to...there's a difference.

Perhaps I like to be naive in life and see the good in people rather than the evil capitalist...I don't know. Perhaps your way of viewing things is the realistic way....I hope my view is correct.

As for alot of people being unhappy, I'd like to see a poll on that. I suspect you may find more people "generally" happy with the product than unhappy.

[Vypuero]

Subs can be brutal!  You have to learn the tricky ways to use them.  Even when there are just some, the fact that they can be "out there" and just attack you at any moment makes you jumpy when moving.
 
Yes - the ONE area where AI is just off still is the Med.  This is the next thing that is a must fix, I don't disagree.  I think maybe assigning a value to the Suez (for the AI) could work, and I also have an idea to make Iraq part of the UK, I think that makes some sense too, since they could move at will there and quickly put down an attempted coup with very few forces.

[targul]

Dont know about this assigning value I am pretty sure that is just computer talk to tell the AI to do something there.

In 1940 Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, regent of Iraq for King Faysal, had a government divided within itself about the war; he himself and his foreign minister, Nuri as-Said, were pro-British, but his prime minister, Rashid Ali al-Gailani, had pro-German leanings. Having resigned office in January 1941, Rashid Ali on April 3 seized power in Baghdad with help from some army officers and announced that the temporarily absent regent was deposed. The British, ostensibly exercising their right under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 to move troops across Iraqi territory, landed troops at Basra on April 19 and rejected Iraqi demands that these troops be sent on into Palestine before any further landings. Iraqi troops were then concentrated around the British air base at Habbaniyah, west of Baghdad; and on May 2 the British commander there opened hostilities, lest the Iraqis should attack first. Having won the upper hand at Habbaniyah and been reinforced from Palestine, the British troops from the air base marched on Baghdad; and on May 30 Rashid Ali and his friends took refuge in Iran. 'Abd al-Ilah was reinstated as regent; Nuri became prime minister; and the British military presence remained to uphold them.


Given the above I would say allowing the British to have it could be okay since they were still doing the civil wars they are doing today but there should be partisan activy in the area. But then I would have had partisans in Yugoslavia.

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: targul

Actually there are four area where this game is superior to SC2.

1. hexes
2. Convoy system
3. Oil
4. Map (It is much larger then SC2 giving you more room for tactics)

I would agree with all of those. I would also add:

5. The battle of the Atlantic seems to be much better of a 'cat and mouse' game than in SC2
6. I much prefer the amphibious invasion system in this game because unlike SC2 you really need to eliminate most of the naval and air defenses before you can safely land or you will be torn apart. As it should be IMO. I always had an issue with that in SC2. Normandy should not be possible without first dealing a heavy blow to the Luftwaffe and the German Navy. The US and Brits spent over a year trying to do just that to prep the invasion.

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: Vypuero
Yes - the ONE area where AI is just off still is the Med. This is the next thing that is a must fix, I don't disagree. I think maybe assigning a value to the Suez (for the AI) could work, and I also have an idea to make Iraq part of the UK, I think that makes some sense too, since they could move at will there and quickly put down an attempted coup with very few forces.

Agreed. Righ now I can march the Italians straight through to Iran and then North to backdoor the oil. Then, since there is no threat in the Med, I can take my entire Italian fleet around the horn to support the Battle of the Atlantic. No human would ever let me get away with that! I should have to commit some German forces to be able to take Egypt, IMO. That's one place where SC2 gets it right. Without the Germans, I not only can't take Egypt, I am often pushed back out of Tobruk as the Italians. And where is the British Navy?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: targul

Sorry but I find it different with different players. Sub warfare is great for those who know how to use it.

I am learning but still lose them sometimes But I have played some people who by 41 have 6 or 7 subs out there and not only do they kill the supply but they kill the ships.

I have also seen players who seem to have so many destroyers subs should just pack there bags and go home.

That may be so, but what are you really accomplishing with it?

The European war, especially in this game, is won or lost on the battlefields of the continent. While the naval battle may be a fun fight for those who desire to pursue it, it is NOT essential to winning the game.

I would spend more time and effort playing with and developing submarine strategies IF doing so was essential to winning. The fact that the naval war can be ignored completely while still acheiving a victory, means that it is really little more than a distracting sideshow that is best not to waste resources on.

I really wish the game would FORCE me to develop viable submarine strategies and FORCE me to allocate my resources to building and operating subs, by allowing the allies to grow to overpowering strength if I ignore it. Unfortunately, the war can still be won in Russia and the middle east without EVER playing the naval side of it.

I've gone back to beta testing BFTB scenarios and am enjoying them immensely more, this game has amounted to a two week distraction and will most likely gather dust from now on.

[targul]

"That may be so, but what are you really accomplishing with it?"

You are preventing approximately one armour unit every 3 months in Russia.

You preventing any possilbe landing in France which would pull units from Russia.

If subs are running around it is crazy to try and make a landing in France. Between the air and subs nothing or only badly damaged units arrive. With quantity of subs you can usually eliminate one sometime 2 ships per turn. While watching for those subs.

[Warfare1]

I'm wondering if it's possible to mod convoys so that a person could give them even more production points.

If the UK and USSR get a HUGE number of PPs, then it would be worth the cost to build subs. Otherwise, the UK and USSR will be able to build even more units and thus defeating Axis is highly possible.

[SMK-at-work]

The UK can build about 1 corps/turn without convoys once it's production is up - or 2 -3 with convoys.  I'm playing a TCP/IP game as the allies and my opponent did a massive sealion - but it was defeated because of the convoys - he kept his subs to protect the landing ships instead of attacking the convoys.
 
Had he attacked the convoys I would not have had the resources to build new units, and make landings in Africa, and replace losses.
 
so that's an example of bad handling of U-boats IMO.
 
If you can damage the RN, and get several u-boats into the convoy routes you can reduce the UK to a handful of PP's per turn, making life a lot easier for axis in late 40-41 - it cuts down on strategic bombing and Allied forces in Africa - well worth the effort IMO.....as long as you can get stuck into the RN as I say........otherwise the U-boats can become a PP drain on you.
 
So.....make a decision....

[marklv]

ORIGINAL: targul

Simple. I paid for this game and want it to be correct and good. I need not leave because you like garbage.

You can be sure I will leave soon though because once SC2 brings out WAW I will be gone. During that interm I will continue to test this game.

You may not like what I say but until they ban me I will continue to say it. This game needs a playback. As to the AI it has some problems but overall it seems adequate. I have only mentioned the AI problems so they can fix them which is why I specifically say what the problem is.

Med has no active AI. Africa has no active AI. Otherwise AI works fine.

WTF do you mean by 'active AI'? The allies had very little in north Africa until well into 1941. Wavell's huge victory over the Italians in 1940 was rather fortuitous and helped by the fact that the latter had no effective response to his tanks. With a better commander, it's quite possible the Italians could have stopped the British.

[targul]

There is no AI in the Med or Africa. Doesnt matter what the forces are. You can and I now do totally ignore both Eqypt if you are Axis or Libya if Allied.

They do not move they just sit the war out. Even they AI pulls all the Italians it makes to Russia.

Rest of AI works fine and is pretty challenging but anything from France south is dead for AI.

I believe they said it will be a priority for there next patch. I suspect once the AI in the Southern fromt becomes active this AI will be the best in the industry but right now aways to go.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: targul

"That may be so, but what are you really accomplishing with it?"

You are preventing approximately one armour unit every 3 months in Russia.

You preventing any possilbe landing in France which would pull units from Russia.

If subs are running around it is crazy to try and make a landing in France. Between the air and subs nothing or only badly damaged units arrive. With quantity of subs you can usually eliminate one sometime 2 ships per turn. While watching for those subs.

I seem to have no problem killing off one Russian armor unit after another in my drive to Perm. Diverting a huge chunk of Germany's limited resources to avoid having to kill one more every three months doesn't seem to asdd up the way I see the equation. If the AI fought in a way that would make Russia tougher to conquer, then your point would be valid and I would probably see the need to counter lend lease.

So, in every game, with almost the entire German army deep in the hinterland of Russia and with a single coprs in each port city, a garrison in each inland city and 4 high tech level fighters in France, the AI has failed to mount ANY invasions. IF the AI actually took advantage of my position and attempted a landing BEFORE I finish conquering Russia, again, I would probably find the need to counter the Allied navy.

The point I keep trying to get across to you guys is that it is SO easy to conquer the entire eastern map, both Russia and the middle east, BEFORE the end of 1943 that the game is doing NOTHING to force me to counter the Allied navy.