Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:11 am**

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Seeing the recent reports of either Allies or Axis attacking Luxembourg to their advantage made me wonder. I think that an attack on any of the three neutrals [BeNeLux] would have caused the others to throw in with the other side. Seems reasonable, but I don't know if it is possible to script.

Sorry, but I disagree. Nobody would have willingly allied himself with Nazi Germany after they attacked Poland.
And surely not because of Luxembourg (no pun intended).

And if we are honest, than the attack through Luxembourg is only necessary because the German defense line in the SC West is much too strong, maybe as strong as the german propaganda wanted it to look like, but much stronger than it ever was.

I once read that Germany didn't even had Ammo to fight Poland and France at the same time, and that within the General staff there was a group which would have arrested Hitler IF France would have attacked in 1939 (attacked for real).

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:48 am**

While I agree with your instinct, I disagree with allowing France [or UK] to attack neutrals without repercussions in SC3.

There is already a penalty in place, as a declaration of war against Luxembourg by the Allies will move the USA from 5 to 10% away from the Allies. This delays their war entrance and reduces both the USA's and (due to the convoy) the UK's income.

There are also penalties in place for Allied Declarations of War against Belgium or the Netherlands, so a very aggressive Allied strategy could severely delay the USA's war entrance.

Therefore, for SC3 purposes, it makes sense for Belgium to join the Allies if Holland is attacked.

It does, at the end of the Axis turn.

But if it were to be swung towards the Axis by an Allied declaration of war against Luxembourg then it might not do so, that's the situation I'm hesitant to change because I think the Belgians knew who was the biggest threat to them.

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:56 am**

I hope your dog will wake up again soon! [:)]

I'm with you on that. Again though, for SC3 purposes, to prevent the Germans getting a free pass, if Belgium or Luxembourg is attacked by Germany, a chance that Holland joins the Allies ? Or if the Allies attack Luxembourg, a chance that Holland joins the Axis ?

I don't know, I think the Dutch must have been very keen to avoid getting involved. They saw what had happened in 1914 and didn't join in then, not even in late 1918 when Germany was collapsing. Without any evidence to the contrary I'd rather leave the Dutch as they are.

Ultimately a little swing by them in one direction or another would make little difference, as it would take a lot of investment in diplomacy for them to enter the war.

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:12 pm**

One thing I can do will be to impose some National Morale penalties on the France and UK, so that if they do declare war on Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Netherlands then there will be a disincentive from that point of view. This is in addition to having the USA move away from the Allies.

Posted: **Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:35 pm**

Don't forget by your adjustments that France & the UK were still democracies, representing the Force of Freedom.
There is a difference if you conquet to annex, or if you march through to fight evil.

I'm not sure if the USA would have been that much annoyed. Technically neither France nor the UK declare "war" on Belgium, they want to move through, to protect their own borders from another WW1 disaster.

Germany had different goals, different policies, and all of this was clear back than, even though nobody knew what Germany was planing in the East.

Best example would be the Olympics 1936 in Berlin - it wasn't at all certain that all Nations would participate - because of German policies and attitude.

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:34 am**

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
One thing I can do will be to impose some National Morale penalties on the France and UK, so that if they do declare war on Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Netherlands then there will be a disincentive from that point of view. This is in addition to having the USA move away from the Allies.

That sounds very reasonable.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:34 am**

Agreed, Bill's suggestion re National Morale penalties for the Allies in this case seems good to me

regards
Ben Wilkins

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:22 pm**

So far, I have 3 games going; one playing the Axis, the second playing the Allies and a third playing hotseat. I set the level to "beginner" on the first two.

Now, I'm an extremely cautious player and while playing the Allies it seems that the computer Axis player is not as aggressive as it should be. I'll have more specifics later.

I do like how the computer AI is handling the Allies. Although, at one point it left its Canadian transport ship without protection and I sunk it.

Hotseat is a blast!

Should we attempt to play "multiplayer" with other testers?

More later.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:43 am**

hello RickEAllen

Glad you are largely enjoying SC.
Multiplayer is not yet enabled but when it is (still a few weeks off I'm afraid) then we would like people to help us
test it.

regards
Ben Wilkins

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:34 am**

Very exciting! Yes. I would consider it an honor.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:24 pm**

Is anyone else as disturbed with how much and how often surrounded units can rebuild themselves? I've seen this a lot in my games and at times it just seems silly. For a Russian unit far behind the lines in a small town to hold out and be able to rebuild turn after turn just doesn't seem right. I want some ability to hold out when surrounded, but right now I just think it's too much and messes up the balance of the game.

Not that I'm a good player mind you, because I'm not. But in my current game as the German my attack into Russian be really being slowed down by having to deal with lots of surrounded several different units in different places that take three, four or more turns to get rid of.

It could just be me of course, but I do wonder about it. As things stand now it doesn't seem that much of a danger to be surrounded and cut off. Just wondering what the rest of you think.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:51 pm**

Hi

Although PBEM++ functionality isn't enabled using the Slitherine server, it is possible to play the game by Email. [:)]

You can start a new game by clicking on Multiplayer -> Email

It will be best to Zip up the files before either emailing them or transferring them via something like Dropbox.

I strongly encourage everyone with the time and inclination to play some multiplayer, and to provide us with some feedback as it is a great way not only to have fun, but also to help us in determining the game's balance. Two birds with one stone! [:)]

Bill

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:55 pm**

ORIGINAL: AZ Gung Ho

Is anyone else as disturbed with how much and how often surrounded units can rebuild themselves? I've seen this a lot in my games and at times it just seems silly. For a Russian unit far behind the lines in a small town to hold out and be able to rebuild turn after turn just doesn't seem right. I want some ability to hold out when surrounded, but right now I just think it's too much and messes up the balance of the game.

Not that I'm a good player mind you, because I'm not. But in my current game as the German my attack into Russian be really being slowed down by having to deal with lots of surrounded several different units in different places that take three, four or more turns to get rid of.

It could just be me of course, but I do wonder about it. As things stand now it doesn't seem that much of a danger to be surrounded and cut off. Just wondering what the rest of you think.

Hi

Thanks for the feedback, and I've got a couple of questions to help my understanding of the situation.

Are the resources the units are occupying connected via rail to Soviet Key Resources?

Or have you cut them off from supply this way?

Thanks

Bill

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:51 pm**

Do you utilize artillery/rockets/Rail Guns/Bombers to reduce supply in these holdouts or is it only infantry units that are attacking? I often find these holdout locations are anticipated based on your overall strategic objectives and supply can be reduced pretty easily if you move around your siege units to compensate that your main attacking forces have moved onward.

Posted: **Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:58 pm**

Hi Bill,

I had them completely cut off from everything other than the town they were in. For example the town in 195,85 or Tarnopol for example. They were cut off yet reinforced themselves for several turns. Not to full strength but added 5 points or so. Really seems off to me, but perhaps I'm wrong or just need to use more units to attack them.

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:58 am**

Hi

If Tarnopol is cut off then the unit in it should only have a supply level of 3, so some reinforcing should be possible but not much (from memory I think the maximum strength it can reinforce to will be 6).

If you look at the unit in Tarnopol does that match your game, or is it higher?

Thanks

Bill

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:06 pm**

I am one of the second round of beta testers, and most of the original issues I would have had have been said already by others. However, I would like to say so far through the attack of Belgium-Netherlands then France I have felt the balance has been pretty good. I have also noticed the French line is tougher than previous versions. On the comments of CV attacks on ground units well inland, I have used my German subs to give hunting CVs a priority (and with some success [:D]). For me, this has reduced this issue by the time I attack the French, albeit with the loss of a few subs. [;)]

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:50 pm**

I have used my German subs to give hunting CVs a priority (and with some success

Same here, but it seems like the Carriers should be out in the Atlantic hunting subs instead of bombing land units with little or no effect.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:51 pm**

I have found that subs are deadly hunting CVs when in port, specially if they start the turn adjacent to the carrier, something like 0-7 losses to the carrier. Sub attacks in ports should no be so deadly at least once the war advances, we could admit this ratio maybe in '39 and '40 at the latest.
Imo this should be tweaked.

Posted: **Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:38 pm**

I have been playing SC beta for about two weeks now and, except for two issues I mentioned in a differnt thread three days into my beta testing, I have encountered no additional problems and I would, in all seriousness, rank the game a 10 out of 10! Superb! (Now if you'd only make a US Civil War game in this style!) I find the new version of SC more difficult than the original version, but that is good, because having found out over time how to beat the AI in the original game, I want to be challenged again.

Matrix Games Forums

Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty

RE: Balance and Difficulty