I have just recently noticed that shore bombardment will lift the Fog of War such that bombarded units that were previously unspotted by ships about to bombard (because of the change to 0 land spotting range), become visible immediately after the bombardment!
In the picture below, the two Japanese Special Forces units, one at Nauru and the other at Tarawa, were previously unspotted, even after having moved the shown Battleships adjacent to them in preparation for bombarding them. The two units in question were immediately revealed after being bombarded only once:
I suspect this is a bug since the game was changed to having naval units no longer being able to spot one hex inland. This aspect is WAD, but units being revealed after being bombarded, makes no sense at all.
C
“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”
Notice something? You do not get to see the ground units strength! I've been wanting more of this all along. Knowing every statistic and pre-attack outcome prediction is too informative.
The way the land unit is partially revealed under FoW via shore bombardment is indeed functioning as implemented, e.g. all attacks against a hex have always revealed a hidden unit if there was previously a hidden unit, and the fact it is not fully revealed is directly related to the recent change that naval units no longer spot inland.
Regarding ship damage for shore attacks, just looking at the settings and testing this in game and there is a chance and it does happen that cities/towns can inflict some damage to an attacking naval unit. Granted once the town or city is very weak it is less likely, but I'm not sure there is an easy way around that as the combat formulas are pretty universal in this regard. Similar outcomes for example from a stronger unit attacking a weaker unit and so on. Special rules are always possible, but then it is just more special rules, or maybe it is just a matter of reducing the experience from attacking a resource in general by any naval unit which might help.
It's something we'd have to think about for a little bit before committing to anything one way or the other.
Sensible post, Hubert - one of the challenges is that small changes to 'better reflect reality' or to provide a tactical balance, can undo the larger play balance.
Cutting off one 'gamey' option can lead to others appearing in unexpected ways.
Having seen the elite players bombard pretty seadside towns in Denmark and the Netherlands into ruins so as to train the RN into all conquering expert gunners is a little dispiriting tho...
There is a suggestion that bombarding ships be subject to more damage than what they might already receive. However, one could make the argument that ships conducting shore bombardment might be subject to less damage than what Strategic Command already inflicts. For example, in preparation for the invasion/landings at Iwo Jima the U.S. Navy lost a couple of ships from Kamikaze attacks, but only one ship received minor damage from shore battery return fire and that was quickly repaired . . . similarly, U.S. ships conducted shore bombardment of the Japanese home islands in 1945, but not a single ship sustained any damage from any source. It would take a bit more research to evaluate actual ship damage as a result of shore bombardment during the course of the war, but for now it would appear Strategic Command handles the matter relatively effectively.
ORIGINAL: Aussiematto
Having seen the elite players bombard pretty seadside towns in Denmark and the Netherlands into ruins so as to train the RN into all conquering expert gunners is a little dispiriting tho...
One thing we can do is to reduce the experience gain from bombarding resources, so the pros and cons of doing so will be more balanced.
I don't think changing shore bombardment levels is fair at all. You know how many hits it takes to get experience and waste a Ship's time? How else can a Navy getting experience?
If you're going that route, I'd argue the Germans should not be able to have 3-Star elite SuperPanzers from waxing lame targets too. Not fair that the Germans are superheroes for waxing Poland's Calvary on a surprise attack, yet Patton is a 6 (because he had American factories).
I don't think changing shore bombardment levels is fair at all. You know how many hits it takes to get experience and waste a Ship's time? How else can a Navy getting experience?
If you're going that route, I'd argue the Germans should not be able to have 3-Star elite SuperPanzers from waxing lame targets too. Not fair that the Germans are superheroes for waxing Poland's Calvary on a surprise attack, yet Patton is a 6 (because he had American factories).
You sound like the people that complained they could no longer scout every land hex with ships [8|] You get experience from being in battles against other enemy units. Simple. Taking away another gamey tactic only improves the game for everyone not the select few that cry when they have their gamey toys taken away.
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
@Tananka --- Nope, I didn't care about the spotting, made sense. There's nothing gamey about shore bombardment. Sailing & voyages should get experience then.
You don't gain experience by beating bums. Big deal, the Germans built some Panzers, and surprised attacked Europe. That gives them experience? Remember this: "Experience is what you get, when you didn't get what you wanted to get". There's all kinds of losers walking the Earth with experience, not skills. Experience at being a Loser.
The Germans gain ridiculous Elites in this game. Early Europe put up little to no resistance, half the invaded countries loved Hitler, they joined him. Germans should't get any experience before Egypt/Russia then.
Tanks versus sleeping farmers is overrated. The Panzer Generals of Germany, also overrated. If they were so smart, they would have won.
Patton should be a 9, not a 6. Some people are just born to lead.
If you're going that route, I'd argue the Germans should not be able to have 3-Star elite SuperPanzers from waxing lame targets too.
I concur with this. One of the issues I have with this game is the 3-star Panzers commanded by a 3-star HQ, which is basically god mode. With 2 strikes it can kill a full strength Anti-tank in the mountain without taking a single loss. It doesn't matter what you put in front of it. Anything it touches, disappears. This is the same thing made me quit Panzer General last century when those 5 star tanks doing the same shit. The fun stops either when you don't have a challenge or a chance.
This is not only for Panzers. When I played China with everything else AI (just for fun) I had 3 star Chinese Armies commanded by 3 star HQs to deal 3-5 strength damage on German Tigers (HT) without taking any loss. So after I drove the Japs back into the sea I marched on to Moscow and liberated Russia and the whole Europe...with bunch of Chinese peasants.
I'd suggest to limit the unit experience to 2 star max. That should still allow some very powerful near god-mode units. I don't think historically there has been any invincible units. Except maybe 300.
@Tananka --- Nope, I didn't care about the spotting, made sense. There's nothing gamey about shore bombardment. Sailing & voyages should get experience then.
You don't gain experience by beating bums. Big deal, the Germans built some Panzers, and surprised attacked Europe. That gives them experience? Remember this: "Experience is what you get, when you didn't get what you wanted to get". There's all kinds of losers walking the Earth with experience, not skills. Experience at being a Loser.
The Germans gain ridiculous Elites in this game. Early Europe put up little to no resistance, half the invaded countries loved Hitler, they joined him. Germans should't get any experience before Egypt/Russia then.
Tanks versus sleeping farmers is overrated. The Panzer Generals of Germany, also overrated. If they were so smart, they would have won.
Patton should be a 9, not a 6. Some people are just born to lead.
Patton is a 7 as high as everyone accept Von Manstein I believe. If you think Germany and Japan did not have more experience than the Allies when the war started you are crazy. The Allies were ill prepared. Italy was ill prepared. I actually think some of the USA units start with too much experience.
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
@Tanaka --- This isn't like betting on football or saying who's the better QB. That's an even playing field.
What's so great about the Japanese Leaders? Pearl Harbor, Philippines, okay. Sneak Attack + a victory in their own backyard. The US Navy immediately acted. Battle of Coral Sea was few months after Pearl Harbor, long way from California. There was no "fresh factory fleet". Coral Sea could be called a "push or tie", but come on, momentum switched. Japs at Midway, were was the great leadership, had how many years head start. US Production & Factories certainly did not win those. The ships themselves didn't win those. US Leadership & Military personnel did it.
Far as Germany, I'll give you the fact the doctrine was solid, planning & their Army was moving through minor countries. But they got stopped in Battle of Britain, North Africa, Egypt. Patton definitely match wits.
Far as the troops themselves, depends where you fight. Imagine Americans fighting on our home turf. Appalachian Mountains. Even the great General Lee stopped cold.
I get it that the Germans had cool boots, leather jackets, medals, doctrine, loyalty. But come on man, when it was a fair fight, neutral court, equal supplies, my fantasy league draft is Patton.
ORIGINAL: Aussiematto
Having seen the elite players bombard pretty seadside towns in Denmark and the Netherlands into ruins so as to train the RN into all conquering expert gunners is a little dispiriting tho...
One thing we can do is to reduce the experience gain from bombarding resources, so the pros and cons of doing so will be more balanced.
Agree - it would get rid of a gamey and annoying ploy and not upset over game balance. Experience from convoy raiding and battles makes sense as both pose a risk.
@Tanaka --- This isn't like betting on football or saying who's the better QB. That's an even playing field.
What's so great about the Japanese Leaders? Pearl Harbor, Philippines, okay. Sneak Attack + a victory in their own backyard. The US Navy immediately acted. Battle of Coral Sea was few months after Pearl Harbor, long way from California. There was no "fresh factory fleet". Coral Sea could be called a "push or tie", but come on, momentum switched. Japs at Midway, were was the great leadership, had how many years head start. US Production & Factories certainly did not win those. The ships themselves didn't win those. US Leadership & Military personnel did it.
Far as Germany, I'll give you the fact the doctrine was solid, planning & their Army was moving through minor countries. But they got stopped in Battle of Britain, North Africa, Egypt. Patton definitely match wits.
Far as the troops themselves, depends where you fight. Imagine Americans fighting on our home turf. Appalachian Mountains. Even the great General Lee stopped cold.
I get it that the Germans had cool boots, leather jackets, medals, doctrine, loyalty. But come on man, when it was a fair fight, neutral court, equal supplies, my fantasy league draft is Patton.
Japan had been fighting a war since 1936. That is what experience is. Germany: Poland, Norway, France, Balkans, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, N.Africa, Russia...
I'm very aware of what battles and outcomes happened in history. If you want to talk about a fair playing field the Axis never had that. Always out supplied, out gunned, out produced, out air forced, out everything. All they had was their experience. It was the same with the American Civil War. The South was out everthinged but they had more experience and better generals. We can argue all day about this and never get anywhere...
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
Experience is overtuned in this game, 2 pips is almost as good as a higher tech level, not mentionig 3. Greater issue for me - it has a snowball chracter. Experienced unit kills faster/easier, gains more exp in the process rinse-repeat. Panzers are good example, but this Japanese Army next to Changsha in the beginning is an offender too, made out of Cryptonite or something.
Shore bombardment can/should yield some XP, why not, but only if ship is actively fighting someting. I don't see shelling empty village like Pakhoi/Annoy as a realistic training ground for troops.
As the old saw puts it- It takes years of training to make a soldier, only a second under fire to make a Veteran. Ideally, non-threatening action should give some Experience, but action under fire should give more. If that is not possible, I'd suggest that skewing the algorithm to only give Experience to action under fire.
That or slowing the speed at which experience accrues the more is gathered (e.g. Takes twice as much experience to get the second pip that it took to get the first, etc)
Japan had been fighting a war since 1936. That is what experience is. Germany: Poland, Norway, France, Balkans, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, N.Africa, Russia...
I'm very aware of what battles and outcomes happened in history. If you want to talk about a fair playing field the Axis never had that. Always out supplied, out gunned, out produced, out air forced, out everything. All they had was their experience. It was the same with the American Civil War. The South was out everthinged but they had more experience and better generals. We can argue all day about this and never get anywhere...
[/quote]
@Tanaka
LOL
Very typical for the German Panzer General Worship. When Nazis win a battle/theater it's because that had this focused, trained, & superior leadership. Wow, Poland. They attacked a bunch of sleeping farmers with Tanks. Should we call the Fuhrer and hand out Iron Crosses. Who's the military genius who forgot to pack winter coats in Russia, maybe they skipped that day of Bunta Training.
As we know, General Lee won battle after battle, early. He certainly blew it at Gettysburg. What was he even doing in Western Pennsylvania. That's a difficult drive in my new Tesla in 2020. There's nothing of value there, now or then. Maybe warehouse full of shoes, doesn't take the Army of the North Virginia to cut a rail line. That's Jeb Stuart's job. And old Jeb didn't even show. Bad move, Robert. One could even say, "Experience gives you false confidence". Both the South & Germany could have won the war.
It's like my personal life. I play competitive golf. Experience & practice does not correlate into victory. Either you the "It factor" or you don't. How about the Connor McGreggor vs Nate Diaz fights? David vs Goliath. Patton vs Rommel.
The Japanese clearly had head start, and a balanced playing field in the Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Midway. They lost. It wasn't due to a factory in Detroit.
Handicapping Generals is like betting UFC fights. Dudes can have a 15-0 record, but wait to they meet the real deal in the ring. Same with betting NBA, NCAAB, home field advantage is huge.
Having used the tactic of bombarding enemy ports and coastal resources to gain XP, it seems to me that it is currently fairly well balanced. Yes, you can gain XP this way by engaging in a gamey tactic. However, you will also often take damage in doing so (even when the prediction is 0-1), requiring you to return to port, reinforce, and return to the target before recommencing your experience mining. Over time, repairing the damage adds up. Seems about right to me.
If you want to know who the greatest Civil War general was, read Ron Chernow's "Grant." Without question one of the best military leaders the U.S. ever produced. As Lee put it after the "unpleasantness" had died down, "Once he turned his eyes toward Richmond, he never turned away." And he had basically washed out of the army in the 1850's as a drunkard. Amazing life story.
