SC Enhancements

Shaka of Carthage · May 1, 2003

Historically Responsible

The enhancement list is in the next post.

This is the "why"

The purpose of this topic is to consolidate all of the ideas (including the ones I "borrowed" from some of you) that I feel should be in the SC "enhancement".

By "enhancement", I mean this. Current SC (ver 1.07) is the base system. If I was the designer, these are the things I would do to "tweak" it to get a more historical and realistic representation of WWII. Without losing too much in playability. Hence, there will be no "replacement" systems, it will work with what we have. If a new sub-system was written from scratch, I would take a different approach.

This will be a "evergreen" document, that will be linked to a posting in the "newbie" sticky. By "evergreen" I mean that as I get a new idea that meets the above criteria, I will include it here with the appropriate editing notation.

Feel free to ask any questions about what I am suggesting, but unlike the majority of my posts, I am not going to explain why. I will just post what I think is a relevant enhancement. So if you want clarifaction or you just disagree, go ahead and post.

And for those ideas that I "borrowed" from other people, if I have not thanked you already, let me do it here. Of course, any mistakes or complaints about the idea should be directed towards me.

[ August 23, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Shaka of Carthage · May 1, 2003

Enhancements

Winter turns

90% chance Air (fighter or bomber) unit is "grounded" (ie AP = 0, Spotting = 0)
Reduce cities supply level by 50%
Entrenchment stops
Double effect of movement on readiness
No Amphibious operations allowed (added 05/13).

Fall turns

90% chance Air (fighter or bomber) unit is "grounded" (ie AP = 0, Spotting = 0) if it is not in a city (added 05/13).
No Amphibious operations allowed (added 05/13).

Technology

Once achieve a level, remove research chit.
Anti-Tank, remove strength point increase (retain cost increase).
Heavy Tank, remove strength point increase (retain cost increase).
To achieve Air Tech Level 4, you need Rocket Tech Level 4.
To achieve Air Tech Level 5, you need Rocket Tech Level 5.
At Air Tech Level 4, Air unit (Jet) "strike" is reset to 3.
Upgrades to a Corp are half that of a Army.
Gun Laying Radar Tech Level 2, will increase Soft Attack and Defense factors by one (1)(added 05/13).
Gun Laying Radar Tech Level 4, will increase Soft Attack and Defense factors by one (1)(added 05/13).

Movement

Transports can only "unload" in a Port (except for HQ).
HQ transport, can unload next to a coast hex (ie "floats"). Can move only onto land and current hex counts as clear land hex for all other purposes.
Amphibious option: Corp only, cost 3 times unit cost, range of 3, otherwise identical to current transport option.
Reduce Army AP (action points) to 2, Corp AP to 3.
Remove movement and attack ability from Army and Corp units.

Combat

Change the Soft Attack / Soft Defense values of the Army unit from 4/2 to 2/4.
Change the Soft Attack / Soft Defense values of the Corp unit from 2/1 to 1/2.
Tank Group attacking Army/Corp change from Soft Attack vs Tank Defense to Tank Attack vs Tank Defense.

Production

Newly purchased ground or air units can only be produced at your capitol. Russia, in this case, has three (3) capitols... Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Stalingrad. (added 05/13)

[ May 13, 2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

88mm · May 1, 2003

disband the Jet-tech from the game....

SeaWolf_48 · May 1, 2003

1. How about if a unit takes more than 25% damage it retreats, unless it's in a city or fort.

2. How about armor that does not get destroyed by infantry.

3. Oh ya, how about air force units that can only damage readiness, or maybe only destroy 10% of ground units max per turn.

4. Three hexes in North Africa, or really a new geographic map with real 50km's hexes. Greenland, Iceland, Archangel, etc. This one might be too much, but had to bring it up.

Shaka of Carthage · May 3, 2003

88mm

The consumption of tech chits per advance and the disadvantages to Jets should put some more balance back into aircraft. The combat effect I will address later.

Seawolf_48

Still not convinced that a retreat option is needed, especially as it will add additional programming.

The change in factors that the Tank Groups use in combat are more reflective of the power of armor. And the removal of the Army/Corp ability to move/attack should give Tank Groups the dominance they had.

Air combat effect I'll address later.

Agree about the map, but that is outside the scope of these suggested enhancements.

Liam · May 3, 2003

On the whole a good idea. I prefer a more realistic WW2 1.07C

Where Tanks and airplanes together bust lines. Not just superjets. Where Jets are more difficult to obtain then just luck and 2 chits. Where you can't always have the perfect Summer offensive weather, giving both sides a chance to lick their wounds if it was a bad campaign and retreat and regroup in Winter as was historical and would make the game a bit more playable Germany VS Russia. Allies VS Germany on D-Day.

Edwin P. · May 3, 2003

Winter Turns Enchancement Comments

90% chance Air (fighter or bomber) unit is "grounded" (ie AP = 0, Spotting = 0)

--- I agree with the concept of having bad weather effects during winter turns; however, I would have the effects vary by country (ie weather zone). I see no reason why units in Egypt or Spain or Portugal or Italy would suffer the same weather effects as units in Russia, Finland or Norway.

--- Also as the severity of winter weather is variable I would probably want to see a range of random weather effects on air units during the winter - ie 10% No effect, 40% range reduced by half, 50% grounded.

Reduce cities supply level by 50%

- Agreed

Entrenchment stops

- Why would winter affect the ability of a unit to entrench?

Double effect of movement on readiness

- Agreed

[ May 02, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shaka of Carthage · May 3, 2003

Edwin P

Weather zones... I agree with the concept. Matter of fact, the weather zones should not be tied to the nation, rather they should be based along geographical lines. But the problem is, SC doesn't have that currently, nor does SC have anything resembling weather zones that we could use. So you are talking about adding "new" stuff. Like adding new units instead of just modifying the one's we have. Outside of my "enhancement" concept.

Forgot to tell you "why" the 90% winter thing. It is piggybacking upon the same logic that is used for Partisans. Currently there is a 15%(?) chance of partisan occuring, but in winter that goes to 70%(?). So same subroutine that this occurs, we can insert the 90% chance for Air units.

Severity of winter variable ... "Winter" turn in SC is only 3 turns out of the entire 27(?) turns we have in a year. One player is getting 1 winter turn, while other player gets 2 winter turns. Not enough to justify variable % chances.

Entrenchment stops in weather... Bad weather stops construction. Building of pillboxes, minefields, reinforcing structures, etc these require construction materials to be brought up from rear areas... things like mines, concrete, steel beams, etc. No materials, no construction.

Edwin P. · May 3, 2003

Shaka of Carthage

Many thanks for the explanations. I agree with your reasoning for entrenchments and 90% weather effects on air, and I forgot how short winter is in SC.

Also, although SC does not have weather zones I think such a concept could be easily (???) implemented by;

1. Basing weather on a unit's location relative to a stationay weather line hex. Example - All hexes less than xx,16 become winter hexes (ie 50,15 / 17,13 / 20, 14). You can see the hex location code at the top of the screen.

or

2. Basing weather effects on country, as the program already has a routine that knows the geographic limits of a country and can change the shading of the hex. (ie France, Green = US, Gray = Germany).

This would also make it easy to change the color of affected hexes during winter months. Thus all of Russia's hex could change to a whitish red during the winter. Then if HEX COLOR = XXXX then Sub Winter

[ May 02, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Edwin P. · May 3, 2003

Technology Enhancement Comments

I like the concept of linking higher advancements in Jets to advancements in Rockets. The only change I would consider is lowering the rockets requirements to 3 or 4 from 4 or 5.

I do not understand the concept of removing the strength point increase from Armor and Infantry units. An explanation would be most appreciated.

[ May 02, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

88mm · May 3, 2003

Shaka: as you state in your sig; What have realism with jets in common :confused:

Germany builded around 20.000 FW190's in WWII, how many of the "legendary" ME262 were build you think ? Not to mention the numbers of ME109's production. Who else beside Germany builded jets ?

England; and only few to arive very late in the war. Too late actualy to make a contribution.

So i can understand that it's a game-issue, but don't talk about "making it more realistic" in one line with "jets".

futhermore, what i also dislike in the game is the turn-table. spring/summer= weeks and winter is over in 4 turn due to the month per turn.

However since it's there, we cannot avoid it.

that said it's exactly why i think 90% chance of grounded planes is too much. That means that rouglt once in a 2 year period your airfleet/bombers get airborn in winter. that is, as the winter takes 4/5 months. When it's 3 months, it gets airborn once in a 3 year period; on average.

So i would lower it to 50 a 70% but no more.

About the infantry. Do i understand you right? first move this turn, and then next turn attack. Doesn't this screw up the balance of the game? There aren't so much turns anyway.

A better approach would be to allow the infantry to move/attack when it moves one hex, and not when moving 2 or 3 hexes. Adjustments is fine, but watch out that you don't overdue it.

Too be honest, the game misses so much that it is impossible to make it like we want it. There's always something missing, how much we try. That's the price for simplicity.

JerseyJohn · May 3, 2003

Shaka

Great Topic, Great Thread. Can't see much I can add or argue with, everything is pretty well set out and explained already. I'll try to add something more to this further along, at the moment I'm winding down from something else.

88mm

Instead of cutting Jets out altogether why not make jet and prop two seperate types of units and two seperate types of researches? Shaka is talking realistically in terms of keeping jet technology. Britain began working on jets in 1930 and Germany had a flying prototype in the Spring of 1939. There's no reason both Germany and the UK couldn't have had jets in combat by

early 1941!

The link below ties in to an earlier thread that discussed this topic in some depth. And there's also a good photo of Marleine Dietrich at her hottest.

*Separate Units and Research Fields for Prop and Jet Aircraft

[ May 03, 2003, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

88mm · May 3, 2003

Nice thread, read most of it. Then the question comes to my mind, what are you thinking ?

Do you want to play a "historicle" and as close as it can towards "realistic" game or do you want to re-write history ?

Actualy, noe that i think about it. Why are there 2 types of Airfleets? Why not 1 ?

It's a Airfleet, right? With all different kind of planes, including bombers. Why 2 ,3 types of naval fleets. Why cruiser, Battleship and Carriers ? Why not destroyers? Afterall the detroyer was/is enemy number 1 of a sub, any sub. So the Cruisers/Battleships must i see as fleets with supporting destroyers etc...

It's a strange setup, 2 air-type (some would like 3), 4 naval types, and just one infantry(well 1 and 1/2, given the 1/2 sized corps) and one Panzer unit. Where's the recon, police-units (to control occupied arrea), Pioniertroops, Armored Infantry, Motorised infantry, Anti-tank bataljons, Ligth Tanks, Heavy Tanks, etc.etc.etc.

That's why i don't understand the need for JET-fleets, while the hole game is simplified to the max. (except a few strange choice, see my comment on naval vessels).

Also this kind of changes involves re-writing the game-engine, instead of adjusting gamebalance.

That's why i cannot go along with such ideas. It sounds great, but when implemented you still don't have a complete, realistic game. That is atleast what i think about it.

Shaka of Carthage · May 3, 2003

Everyone

Let me thank all of you for the current and future responses. This is exactly the type of thing I like so much about this forum... the challenges to the grey matter.

Edwin P.

Option #1 and #2 regarding weather... Here we can all start to have some compassion for the task Mr H (Hubert Cater) has ahead of him. You're absolutely correct about those two options, but instead of it being a "OR" condition, it will have to be a "AND" option. If he ignores the "geographic" winter line, the purists will bombard him. And having the hex change depending on the weather, will be different depending on the nation (ie country colors). He'll end up having to do both methods or try to find a more "unique" approach, like he did with the weather "movement" affect.

I will assume you don't have a programming background, if you do, its better.

Programming has logic and the data that logic manipulates. Think in terms of a spreadsheet. The logic is a formula and data is a cell. Your finished system is a large number of spreadsheets that are linked together.

Changing the logic, either the current stuff or adding new stuff is hard, even for a "easy" fix. Problem is because of the "ripple" effect... change one variable in a formula and while that spreadsheet will give you the results you want, you can bet that some spreadsheet somewhere will now produce the wrong result. Good programmers minimize the relationships between the variables while bad ones have no idea what the word "relationship" means (ending up with what people call "spagetti code").

Thats where your "beta" testers come in. They are suppossed to check all the variable effects that one change can make.

Changing the "data" is much easier. You can immediately see the results as soon as you use that new "data". And some of your users (like arby and KDG will actually be able to replicate some of the internal process because they see the data and can see the effect changing it has (ie like they did with the combat model).

Here is my point... everything you say about the weather zones (and the wonderful stuff you provided for AI enhancements) requires adding or changing existing logic. It needs to be thoroughly tested by the programmer AND beta testers. Otherwise, release "buggy" code out to the public and they say bad things about you. Since you are going to do all this work, you might as well do other things as well... like expanding the map. But once you do that, you have to change this, then that, and next thing you know, that "easy" change is now a six (6) month project. Thats the thing that Bill Macon is alluding too about working on the AI, Diplomacy, new map, etc.

See what you get for appreciating explanations?

[ May 03, 2003, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Shaka of Carthage · May 3, 2003

Edwin P

Linking Jets to Rockets... Rocket Tech Level 3 is a V-1. Level 4 a V-2. I "assumed" that V-2 development would have refined the Me-262 engine enough to allow mass production.

Removing strength points... Short answer is that I equate strength points to manpower. Stronger anti-tank weapons or more effective tanks did not add more men to a unit. Long answer What is a Strength Point?

88mm

Jets and realism... Same concept that the "what-if" factor provides to SC.

Variable movement rate... Its different from what most wargamers are used to. But think about it. Weather in an wargame reduces your movement rate. Here, instead of reducing the mvmt rate, he compressed the time. Gives the same effect for movement purposes.

Reduction to 50-70% from 90%... I'll give that some thought.

Inf Move/Attk... You understand me correctly, but I do like your approach better. I will make that edit.

Simplicity and missing things... Curious what else you think SC lacks. Why not make a new topic and list your concerns? Actually, noticed that you did make a new post with some concerns. I will take the liberty of making a new topic with that post.

88mm · May 3, 2003

Thks Shaka for your comments. However, i am not concerned to begin with. I only see lot of suggestions to make the game more "realistic". Realictic is for me almost the same as historicle correct. How "realistic" is it when Germany conquers sweden and the suez-canal without a declaration of War from the USA, or the USSR for example. What i on the other hand do see is that Italy joins the Axis as soon as france seems to fall. And then there's the game-/unit concept itself, and more...

Bottomline is; don't try to make something what it isn't intended too. It's a game, not a godsim.

So if you want to make enhancements, fine. Want to make it more random and fun to play, fine. Only forget the words realistic or 'historicle" then . . .

thats all

ps: that's exactly i liked in Panzer General, you could go through the whole campaign, without strange twist or turns. you even could opererate sealion. The plans were there. Have you ever seen German plans to invade sweden, Iraq or Spain and Portugal. Or from the Allied perpective, Allied plans to invade Low countries, Ireland or whatever ?

[ May 03, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: 88mm ]

disorder · May 3, 2003

88MM---

just to throw a wrench into the HISTORICAL-REALISTIC-JUST A GAME COMMENTS;

making it so it COULD have happened can be done at the same time it is made HISTORICAL.

eisenhower said regarding strategic mainland mainland attacks on the axis enemies--

"plans for attacking through norway,through spain and portugal, and even for not attacking with ground forces at all but depending exclusively on the effect of sea and air superiority, were all studied in infinite detail."

(crusade in europe)

who knows these other plans might have worked? probably would have been worse than using england as an "aircraft carrier" though,but still realistic AND a historical possibility imho

if the us had these strange plans, you can bet somewhere germany had some strange plans drawn up.

Edwin P. · May 3, 2003

Shaka of Carthage

Thanks for your explanations they are most enlightning. Especially the link about unit strenghth, and also the hint about no reinforcing them above strength 10, which I always do (but usually its only to 11 or 12). I had always associated strength with the increased firepower of new weapon systems. I appreaciate your reasoning but I also like the idea of seeing 11 or 12 on a unit as an indication of its strength. (of course if I could see the experience of a unit on its counter instead I could probably live with no increase in strength). As for the change in unit capabilities thats something I would like to playtest to see the effect on gameplay.

I appreciate the fact that changing data variables is a heck of a lot easier that writing a new sub-routines especially for something like weather or a German Sealion or the Allies attacking Ireland (for experience & plunder) or adding mutually supporting strategies/actions.

At the same time there are a few simple (?) AI routines which could have a major effect on the game such as having the UK fleet in the Med move to the Atlantic Ocean hex xx,xx starting on the first Allied turn (20% of the time)or having the French Corps in Vichy Syria move to Hex XX,XX to protect the canal after Italy enters the war (40% of the time) or disbanding the UK Bomber Fleet on Turn 3 (10%).

The weakness in these simple 1 line instructions is that they are not linked to an overall strategy (ie if Strategy #3 is to destroy German fleet I want to do X, Y, and Z and not do AI routine Q or R).

Not quite as simple would be a subroutine that reclaims research chits for MPPs; the UK reclaim its research chits if London or Manchester is occupied by the Axis. This same subroutine could be used by the US (if New York falls), Russia (if Moscow or Stalingrad falls), Italy (if Bari and Venice falls), Germany (if Munich falls). Of course, these AI changes are not as simple as changing data values but almost as simple as having the air range reduced to zero in winter.

Moreover, these simple changes would not require extensive beta testing as their effects are quite limited. More extensive rountines with intelligent reactions to the opponent's actions and the current situation on the map (ie If Italian Fleet moves towards Cairo send air power to Egypt) or an Iraq Invasion would require much more time, extensive beta testing and have more room for error. Giving the AI these or a wider selection of mutually supporting actions would definitely be beyond the scope of your 1.07 Enchancement thread and more in line with Bill Macon's SC2.

[ May 03, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn · May 3, 2003

Shaka

Glad you like that term. I think a good definition would be: historically plausable even if it did not occurr in the actual event.

Great Thread.

[ May 03, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Comrade Trapp · May 3, 2003

John

You back from vacation yet?

(Sorry for going off topic)

Comrade Trapp

88mm · May 3, 2003

Originally posted by disorder:
88MM---
who knows these other plans might have worked? probably would have been worse than using england as an "aircraft carrier" though,but still realistic AND a historical possibility imho

True, very true. and that's exactly where the game fails. The diplomatic response to such "rare" events is the greatest problem.

JerseyJohn · May 3, 2003

Comrade

Not really a vacation -- the opposite, a few days in overwork Hades. Finished up that annoying overdose of prosperity and got the PBEMs finished and sent out a few minutes ago. Thanks for your patience.

Along the way I stole time to add some quick postings but couldn't work on the PBEMs (I've got over ten of them going) because it would have required more spare hours on those days than I had.

Hopefully I'll be mired in my usual state of destitution for a while, which gives me more free time than I could possibly handle.

[ May 03, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Liam · May 4, 2003

Another point about Jets. When you achieve ME262s for germany how does it happen that all your aircraft automatically turn into fully upgraded jets? Perhaps after 6 mos-1 year it would have been possible to phaze out most of the 109s and 190s but as quickly as SC allows... It's particularly important in Jet Technology as it has such a huge impact on the War right then and there, making 2 or 3 thousand Jets was a task..

KDG · May 4, 2003

Winter turns

90% chance Air (fighter or bomber) unit is "grounded" (ie AP = 0, Spotting = 0)

Reduce cities supply level by 50%

Entrenchment stops

Double effect of movement on readiness

I like almost everything, but reducing supply will affect readiness and movement, so no need to try and double this effect.

Technology

Once achieve a level, remove research chit.

Anti-Tank, remove strength point increase (retain cost increase).

Heavy Tank, remove strength point increase (retain cost increase).

To achieve Air Tech Level 4, you need Rocket Tech Level 4.

To achieve Air Tech Level 5, you need Rocket Tech Level 5.

At Air Tech Level 4, Air unit (Jet) "strike" is reset to 3.

Upgrades to a Corp are half that of a Army.

I'd reduce the association of Air tech to Rocket tech to 5-3, 4-2, 3-1. I like loss of chit.

If programming this change is too difficult, then decrease the chance for advancements to level 3, 4, & 5 even more than as is in the current game.

I'd leave strength point advancements as is. Think of strength as just making the unit more difficult to kill, not total units. Remember that the combat equations are set up in such a way that strength is the only way to keep a unit living longer.

I agree that I would make corps gain tank defense at half level fo armies.

Movement

Transports can only "unload" in a Port (except for HQ).

HQ transport, can unload next to a coast hex (ie "floats"). Can move only onto land and current hex counts as clear land hex for all other purposes.

Amphibious option: Corp only, cost 3 times unit cost, range of 3, otherwise identical to current transport option.

Reduce Army AP (action points) to 2, Corp AP to 3.

Remove movement and attack ability from Army and Corp units.

I'd make things simple and just have supply for a transport drop for each turn at sea after its first turn. Thus the U.S. would have to land in England first to get max supply for attack into France or Germany.

I'd leave AP as is. Mountains and swamps would just kill armys.

Combat

Change the Soft Attack / Soft Defense values of the Army unit from 4/2 to 2/4.

Change the Soft Attack / Soft Defense values of the Corp unit from 2/1 to 1/2.

Tank Group attacking Army/Corp change from Soft Attack vs Tank Defense to Tank Attack vs Tank Defense.

I wouldn't change any combat values except as follows:

I would change tank tech to also include an increase in soft attack, thus achieving a 2nd breakthrough unit. I'd start soft attack at 5 instead of 4. I might also increase bombers ground attack by one so that the unit might be used more.

I agree with some of your changes, and modified others. All my changes are simple programming modifications (Hubert Cater would know this best, and of course would only make the simple changes).

Thanks for the topic Shaka

Shaka of Carthage · May 4, 2003

Liam

Upgrade issue for jets is the same that happens when you achieve Heavy Tank tech advances.

We just have to suspend belief and imagine that whatever we think is occuring happens when that tech advance occurs.

Best solution I have heard so far is that any new units you purchase have that current tech advance, while any "older" unit has to pay a upgrade fee.

SC Enhancements

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites