Matrix Games Forums

Strategic Command v1.09 beta Available
Hello everyone
Strategic Command v1.09 beta is available from both the members and public area

Members:
https://www.matrixgames.com/members/pub ... sp?gid=504

Public:
http://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/Strategi ... 9-Beta.zip

You may be especially interested in the amendments to supply for air units and what happens to units when they are out of supply and we would welcome your feedback on these – and the other changes and fixes made for v1.09


v1.09 beta change list
- fixed a convoy MPP transfer amount error in the Convoy Map screen for some custom campaigns.
- fixed a map update issue that did not show the updated fog of war status, and subsequent port strength, for previously hidden ports once a naval unit completed its move adjacent to the port.
- fixed a fog of war shroud display error that did not lift some sections of the shroud due to the spotting range of units.
- fixed an AI naval combat error that had some naval units strike targets beyond their normal strike range.
- Air units will no longer receive supply from an HQ unless they are attached.
- under supplied Air units, due to not being attached to an HQ, will be indicated by a red hatch beneath the applicable Air unit.
- under supplied Air units, attached to an HQ but not to the most optimal supply giving HQ, will be indicated by a purple hatch beneath the applicable Air unit.
- units that are temporarily removed from the northern coast of France due to the Atlantic Coastal Gun construction decision, will now be re-placed at the end of the turn on the same turn, instead of a turn later.
- improved AI calculation speeds for when the campaigns near their end dates and there are many hundreds of units on the map.
- Ports will now switch control if you've captured an adjacent resource. The only exception will be if there is another enemy resource adjacent to the port, that resource will need to be captured as well. All other port capturing rules remain the same.
- Ports no longer exert automatic control over adjacent and empty enemy hexes.
- units at 0 supply will have their morale, after recalculation, further reduced by 50%.
- units at 1 supply will have their morale, after recalculation, further reduced by 25%.
- units at 0 supply will may now suffer desertion losses if they are adjacent to at least 2 front line ZoC enemy units that have a minimum strength and supply >= 5. They will then have a 20% chance of 1 strength point loss per adjacent unit. If they are reduced to 0 strength then the unit surrenders.
- units at 1 supply will may now suffer desertion losses if they are adjacent to at least 2 front line ZoC enemy units that have a minimum strength and supply >= 5. They will then have a 10% chance of 1 strength point loss per adjacent unit. If they are reduced to 0 strength then the unit surrenders

CAMPAIGNS
- Italy’s starting MPPs increased in the 1939 Campaign from 80 to 110 to compensate for having to transport units to North Africa that previously deployed there directly.
- Batumi port added and railway connecting Poti to Tbilisi added (Mithrilotter).
- Trans-Caspian railway added (SPzAbt653).
- verhindern changed to behindern in the German Language Partisan scripts (HvS).
- HQ names corrected in the German Language campaigns so that they match the translated names in the campaigns (HvS).
- German resource names and Map Text corrected (HvS).
- Set up a dummy DE 676 to trigger the Axis Gibraltar Supply Event for all plausible Axis Minors as well as German units occupying Gibraltar, and linked the Supply script to that.
- Surrender_1 script amended for #NAME= DE 105 - UK Moves Government To Toronto, so that:
1) the Port hex at 25,96 at Yarmouth Nova Scotia will no longer transfer to the UK.
2) the coastal hexes at 37,89 and 36,89 and 34,82 and 29,48 will now transfer to the UK.
- Settings expanded for the National Morale script #NAME= USSR - USSR Morale Boosted From Allied Landings In Italy = (Mithrilotter).
- 1939 & 1940 campaigns have had the Date, Condition and Failsafe dates for the event #NAME= British Forces Mobilize In Egypt changed so that these units will generally deploy earlier. The settings are now:
#DATE= 1940/01/01
#FAILSAFE_DATE= 1941/02/01
#CONDITION_POSITION= 204,125 [7,7] [1,1] [1] [0]
- US Mobilization_2 script added to penalize the use of 2 or more US ships in the Atlantic prior to the USA’s entrance into the war (nnason).
- DE 603 corrected so that it now requires Casablanca to be in Axis hands (Sugar).
- Changed #AI= 2 to #AI= 4 in some POP UP scripts so that they will appear in Multiplayer too (Ice).
- Some amendments made to Anti-Tank Research levels and investments from the 1941 campaign onwards (Mithrilotter).
- German Tank unit added near Vyazma in the 1942 campaign (Numdydar).
- Ground Attack Weapons’ attack values for Tactical and Medium Bombers against all ground units and resources now increase by 0.5 per level rather than 1. Their starting values have been increased by 0.5 against these target types so that their quality in the early/mid war isn’t affected. De-Moralization now increases by 10% per level of Ground Attack Weapons research.
- Logistics Research corrected for all Minors so that their HQ Build Limits will not increase.
- Anti-Tank Units' Hard, Light Armour and Tank Defense Values increased by 1, so their new values are respectively 2, 5 and 6.
- Resources upgraded with AA will receive a 0.5 increase in their Rocket Defense value per level (Mithrilotter).
- Reduced Fighters’ Strat Bomber Attack value from 2 to 1, and Strat Bombers’ Fighter Defence value from 2 to 1(HvS).
- Germany can now build 3 Motor Torpedo Boats, Italy 2 (Ice).
- More Garrison unit names provided for Italy, the USA and the USSR.
- Italy’s Fighter Build Limit reduced from 5 to 4.
- Moved Helsinki port from 196,52 to 194,52 (Jack59).
- Fighters’ Escort Range increased from 7 to 9.
- Strategic Bombers’ Strike Range increased from 12 to 13.
- Long Range Aircraft research will now increase Fighters’ Escort ranges by 4 per level, and Strategic Bombers’ Strike range by 3 per level.

Hi everyone

As you can see from the above, we have introduced the ability of units in very low/zero supply to suffer losses as a result of this in certain situations.

Another change that also responds to feedback is the one making it so that air units can now only receive supply from HQs that command them. Otherwise they will just receive the default from any resources.

The reason for this last change being to make it so that any large concentrations of aircraft also require logistical support to be sent to the area, i.e. HQs, in order for these air units to operate effectively. The inspiration for this being some feedback we had about the ability of the Axis to operate their air units to North Africa and dominate the area.

Now this will have significantly less effect unless they also send enough HQs to command them all. Given that air units can be operated around the map faster than HQs can be operated AND transported by sea, this means that a little more forward planning and investment will be required.

If you can give it a spin please do, and be sure to give us your feedback too! [:)]

If I could make a suggestion, could the Auto/Auto-Assist be defaulted to attach aircraft before other units. This would reduce micro-management when playing, especially against the AI as I rarely use the manual HQ feature.

Thanks for the update to a great game, changes seem reasonable and add more fairness and balance.

I think the AI in this game is close to the best I've ever seen for solo play. Can you perhaps take a look at the British AI response to the Afrika Korps in their initial actions as they move east from Tripoli? It seems to me that when I take Benghazi, despite initial allied superiority, I'm allowed to hold it and pretty much sit there unopposed as I heal up and plan my next move - as long as I maintain a one hex gap between me and the enemy. Frankly the British AI in this region in these early stages seems a bit lost and confused as to what to do - unless that is intentional - certainly the Afrika Korps is a relatively small force and would otherwise be wiped out by a more aggressive British AI in this first phase..

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

Another change that also responds to feedback is the one making it so that air units can now only receive supply from HQs that command them. Otherwise they will just receive the default from any resources.

The reason for this last change being to make it so that any large concentrations of aircraft also require logistical support to be sent to the area, i.e. HQs, in order for these air units to operate effectively. The inspiration for this being some feedback we had about the ability of the Axis to operate their air units to North Africa and dominate the area.

Now this will have significantly less effect unless they also send enough HQs to command them all. Given that air units can be operated around the map faster than HQs can be operated AND transported by sea, this means that a little more forward planning and investment will be required.

Question regarding the new attachement rule and air units: If you only attach the air units to the HQ, will the next units auto attach them to the HQ?

Hi johngj

Yes, unless you use the Manual setting.

Rats more HQs in North Africa will mess up my strategy. (good improvement though.)

No go on Steam?

ORIGINAL: majpalmer

No go on Steam?

You can play the beta on Steam, in your Steam Library, right click on Strategic Command to get the properties pop-up, then go to the betas tap, then subscribe to the open beta. It should then download. Worked for me anyway, though I've reverted back to 1.08 because when I tried at the weekend to create a new PBEM challenge I couldn't get this to work for either the Steam or the standalone 1.09 beta, but it works fine for the 1.08 version, see my bug report: tm.asp?m=4325047

ORIGINAL: Benedict151
v1.09 beta change list
...
- Long Range Aircraft research will now increase Fighters’ Escort ranges by 4 per level, and Strategic Bombers’ Strike range by 3 per level.
...

Could somebody explain this as it seem to be a massive increase of 4 per level? Does this mean 8 on 2 levels?

ORIGINAL: Amadeus

ORIGINAL: Benedict151
v1.09 beta change list
...
- Long Range Aircraft research will now increase Fighters’ Escort ranges by 4 per level, and Strategic Bombers’ Strike range by 3 per level.
...

Could somebody explain this as it seem to be a massive increase of 4 per level? Does this mean 8 on 2 levels?

That's right. This is so that Fighters based in Norfolk can escort Strategic Bombers all the way to Berlin, though it will require being at level 4 to have sufficient range.

Thanks!!!

I do not know why you doing this but thanks for clarifying. This is a clear change in gameplay and I have to think about it what new strategies this matters.

Sorry Bill, but that`s ridiculous. Fighters do have an intercept-range of 11 when at LR 5, you`ll have to place them at Hannover or Kassel to protect Berlin, with allied planes flying over you and all the way back? Even placing them in the Netherlands, directly in their way, would not lead to an intercept?

By the way, the Germans flew attacks from Norway to Scotland already in 1940, I demand the german bombers to have a range of 5 more than the other nations. And off course they were escorted by fighters, so could you please be so kind to adjust? (Irony off: this is gamebreaking, since many off the better players often use strat. bombers for tac. bombing, since they are nearly immun to air defense fire or intercepts. Please don`t make them any better, and leave the ranges as they are!)

I don't get the whole picture here, but thought it might be relevant to add that I have played the Allies many times, and late in the game I always have to move all their Strat's into northern France and northern Italy in order to reach Berlin. This also means moving lots of fighters to the same areas in order to provide cover. This really clogs up the map in those areas, so I would think that adding some range to the Strat's would be a good thing.

I don't get the whole picture here

It`s an easy picture: strat.-bombers have an attack-range of 27 hexes with LR 5 (12 + 5 x 3 = 27), their escorts of even 27 (7 + 5 x 4 = 27); all through the newly rule.

Fighters do have an intercept-range of 11 with LR 5 (6 + 5 x 1 = 11), and an attack-range of 12 (7 + 5 x 1 = 12).

A fighter placed 13 hexes away of bombers or escorts will not be able to attack them directly, nor will he be able to protect the enemies target by interception - and that although he`s got the same research of LR.

Historically not to be able to reach Berlin with bombers is not correct, as well as it`s not correct that Axis-planes can`t reach Scotland from Norway or Denmark, although those attacks weren`t successfull (the german single-motor fighters weren`t able to escort, while the BF 110s were inferior in dogfights; maybe the Germans had better developed LR 5 for their BF 109s, hehe).

The reason the game doesn`t reflect correctly the historical situation is because the scale doesn`t fit perfectly with combat-mechanics, and there are good reasons for this circumstance, since the range of planes in the predecessor as well as their indirect spotting-range were way to high and didn`t fit either.

The best way to counter bombing-offences until now was to attack directly the bombers, or at min. their escorts, so that without escorts the bombers will suffer heavy losses if intercepted. Now you`ll have to decide wether to place your fighters within intercept-range of the target (with minimal success, since you`re dealing with those escorts first), or to try to get the planes into attack-range; both isn`t possible any longer, at least unless you double the numbers of fighters (and even then there`s still a gap).

In fact I couldn`t see any need for those changes, since Berlin is in game-terms not a much more valuable target than any german mine f.e.; it`s just about a "historical" matter of taste.

In PbEMs this invites to exploit, as I already mentioned especially when using strat. bombers for tactical purposes, since they`re hard to beat anyway, and now even unreachable. This is a gamebreaker imho.

So many good ideas to make game historically accurate. This is just one. Someone had another good idea to make ports upgradable to prevent subs from attacking. Issue I have with any suggestion like these is playability. I suggest these ideas be turned into a mod preferably by the idea promoter and put out to play test. After a set number (matrix to decide) of playtests, matrix can then use that data to determine if should be included in a formal Beta Test.

One thing we do not mentioned yet is you will see much more than before. You have difficulties to hide away something. All in all I guess I do not like that change. I fear it will make air fighting more important than before. And air fighting is already strong in gameplay.

Definately a step in the right direction. However, the problems I see with the supply system for land combat seems to persist..
As I have already mentioned in other threads, what I would like to see are two things, one is a supply network from capitals/industrial areas/alternative capitals and the other is turn-based decay of supply for cut off units(both for units on resource hexes and without) instead of making supply drop based on how many surrounding units you got.

I realize that is a lot to ask for and I don't expect it to happen, this game doesn't go in that direction and that is fine, although it's a shame in my own personal opinion since I love everything else about the game...

- units at 0 supply will have their morale, after recalculation, further reduced by 50%.
- units at 1 supply will have their morale, after recalculation, further reduced by 25%.

That's nice, but to get the units to 0 supply you still need to send alot of units or use a big chunk of your airforce, so most likely enemies with 1 or 0 supply will already be on their last turn..

- units at 0 supply will may now suffer desertion losses if they are adjacent to at least 2 front line ZoC enemy units that have a minimum strength and supply >= 5. They will then have a 20% chance of 1 strength point loss per adjacent unit. If they are reduced to 0 strength then the unit surrenders.
- units at 1 supply will may now suffer desertion losses if they are adjacent to at least 2 front line ZoC enemy units that have a minimum strength and supply >= 5. They will then have a 10% chance of 1 strength point loss per adjacent unit. If they are reduced to 0 strength then the unit surrenders

Very nice feature, but I think if they are at such a low supply level they should already be an easy enough target to eliminate, especially since there should be quite a few units surrounding it to get the supply down to that level.


My biggest concern with the supply system is that cut off enemy units almost become more of a problem than a solution, especially if they are on a resource hex. You need to send back so many units from the front to deal with them.
Yes, this is realistic, and I like the idea about enemies on resource hexes still having some supply to fight for longer, what I don't like is that you are forced to send back units just to make the enemy lose supplies, and you are forced because if you don't the enemy can cause massive problems in the rear, because they don't need a supply line to keep them going...

A cut off unit in a city, surrounded by 4 enemies should not have the same supply/morale/readiness as a non cut off unit in a city surrounded by 4 enemies in my opinion..

I think the "easiest" solution, without having to introduce supply networks(and without having any idea if it's possible or not:D) would be to give Capitals and alt Capitals some kind of extra "hidden" supply(simply code behind the scene) with a range of 99999, that would check for resources that are not cut off, the resource hexes that aren't reached by this "hidden" supply would get some kind of turn-based supply/strenght penalty, which would then also affect the units in the pockets.

- improved AI calculation speeds for when the campaigns near their end dates and there are many hundreds of units on the map.

Awesome!:)

PS. Everything I wrote should be taken with a grain of salt, last time I played was 1.06 if I'm not mistaken.

I have to say I'm really happy to see the hard work you guys put into this, and the fact that you care about players opinions and suggestions, great job and keep it up!:)

Hi

Thanks for the feedback! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

My biggest concern with the supply system is that cut off enemy units almost become more of a problem than a solution, especially if they are on a resource hex. You need to send back so many units from the front to deal with them.
Yes, this is realistic, and I like the idea about enemies on resource hexes still having some supply to fight for longer, what I don't like is that you are forced to send back units just to make the enemy lose supplies, and you are forced because if you don't the enemy can cause massive problems in the rear, because they don't need a supply line to keep them going...

A cut off unit in a city, surrounded by 4 enemies should not have the same supply/morale/readiness as a non cut off unit in a city surrounded by 4 enemies in my opinion..

I think the issue we have here is that the Besieging Resources rule applies irrespective of whether or not the resource is cut-off, which is why it requires a minimum of 2 units to trigger it.

But the average cut-off resource will have a maximum strength of 3 as soon as it is cut off, whereas the non cut-off resource will have a maximum strength of 10 (I'm leaving aside exceptions due to places being Key Resources).

So the non cut-off unit starts, all other things being equal, in a much better place than the cut-off one, and if a HQ is nearby, or friendly elements can drive the enemy off, then the supply situation can be rectified.

The cut-off one likely won't have that advantage. You are right in that over time both can end up in the same poor state, but if the non cut-off unit doesn't receive any support then I would imagine it would be cut-off before long anyway, whereas if it's supported then it probably won't end up in such a bad situation.


I would be interested to hear a bit more about this:

a supply network from capitals/industrial areas/alternative capitals

As our supply system works on that basis, I imagine that there must be more to it in your thoughts in terms of detail/mechanism?

Thanks

Bill