SC Enhancements

[Liam]

Shaka, this would be a good idea for the game. Considering the Power of upgrades. Put it this way, an advanced sub sitting 2000 miles away in near Canada gets an auto-upgrade from something that happens in the Fatherland. It just doesn't float... It doesn't happen that way... Strategic Command isn't anal tactical, but it is supposed to have some of those aspects in it. Considering the Power of Jets vs Straight Fighters it would be a 'must' for upgrades for them. At least giving the oponent a moment to rethink his strategy. At least allow that person to know it even happened considering what a powerful unit jets are...

It's possible with no HQs, no Armies Tanks...Just Corps and Fighters to completely win the war... That's not Ahistorical that's idiotic...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

I agree that the Air unit is overpowered and dominates SC. But fixing it within the limitations I have imposed for "enhacenments" is not a easy thing. Give me a chance to post that enhancement, then tell me if you think it will work.

But while we're waiting on that, why don't you ask me about the combat model "enhancements". Please, I am just dying to be able to explain why I am excitied about them.

[ May 04, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Brian Rock]

Movement change:

1) I would like infantry to be able to attack it is adjacent to and then be able to move one hex.

2) I would dearly love for armor to either be able to attack and then move it's full movement.

This would allow ground units to punch through defences without the need for massive air fleets. It would also add an additional strategic element of needing to concentrate the offensive forces, while trying not to tip off to the defender where the attack will occur.

[KDG]

But while we're waiting on that, why don't you ask me about the combat model "enhancements". Please, I am just dying to be able to explain why I am excitied about them.

I'd like to know why you want to change armies and corps to 2 att. 4 def. & 1 att. 2 def.

Every attack will see the attacker take more losses then the defender. This results in air being even more important then it is.

On a seperate issue, if you want air to be less powerful, bump up air defense for all units by 1.

If this makes air not powerful enough, don't bump up tanks air defense, thus air becomes tank busters(this would only be done if tanks soft attack was bumped up). Thus every unit has more purpose then what is currently in the game.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

Every attack will see the attacker take more losses then the defender.

That is exactly the point. Based on the work done by arby and your corrections, here is the existing combat model.

Current Model

Two equal units fight each other, can cause same damage to each other regardless of who is attacker or defender.

As the experience bar rises, the attacker gets lower losses and the defender losses increase.

Thats fine for Greys and Reds when they start off with units with no experience.

But turn them into Germans and Russians... Germans start off with more experience so when they attack they cause more damage and receive less. Eventually, they will receive NO damage and cause MASSIVE damage. This happens even when they are Greys and Reds, since the Grey units have gained experience from Poland and France. It just happens slower.

I think its safe to say, that most of agree there is a problem with this.

"Enhanced" Model

Two equal units fight each other, the attacker receives more losses.

As the experience bar rises, the attacker gets lower losses and the defender losses increase.

Lets go straight to the Germans and Russians. Germans have more experience. Thats a given. They attack Russia, blow thru the units on the border. Suffer some losses, but not enough to require reinforcements (and dilute the experience). So keep going.

Russians buy Corps and tries to slow the German advance. Russian player still losses units, but the German player at some point has to start reinforcing his units. Goodbye experience.

Germans get all the way back to Moscow. But now the German units are understrength with 1 or 2 bars of experience or full strength with no experience. Here come the Siberians.

Which method sounds more like the historical version of what happened on the Eastern Front? And the only change that needed to be made was to "flip" the values.

[KDG]

The problem as I see it would be that France would never be taken with the units adjusted as you would like (where is that unit editor....).

Secondly, units wouldn't gain exp. because with each attack they lose 2-3 strength points. After two or three attacks, they would be at unit strength 3 with a 1 exp. They would need to reinforce to survive, they would lose all exp. gain that came from their attacks.

I see what your after. You want more damage done by the defender, correct? Maybe you just bump of soft defense of all units by 1, leaving all other factors alone.

The other thing that could be done is have all units in combat have at least a 50-75% chance to lose 1 point of damage for all battles. This way the 2 and 3 exp. units will still have a chance to lose strength in battle.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

France would fall, just not in the way we are used to in SC. Germany would actually have to perform a blitzkrieg.

Units not gaining experience... Lets establish some definitions.

0 bar ..... untrained

1 bar ..... trained

2 bar ..... experienced

3 bar ..... veteran

4 bar ..... elite

You can use whatever names you feel more comfortable with.

Following a optimum strategy, a unit could raise itself two bars. Can a untrained unit become elite? Nope. It could become experienced. But not if you follow the typical SC strategy of letting a unit get pounded down to 3 str points before you add 7 more to bring it back to strenght. No unit in the world, when it received that many replacements, will retain its experience.

And by starting the Germans off with one (1) or two (2) bars of experience, by the time the East Front rolls along, you have just established the German superiority over the Russians in the early years. But the constant loss of experience has now given the Russians the ability to "bleed" the Germans experience away. Germans can counter with reserves, etc and now you have strategy, instead of the typical line them up and blow them away that occurs.

I thought about bumping the soft defense factor by one (1). But look at the "other" defensive factors in SC combat. Entrenchment, terrain. They don't cause casulaties. They "bleed" off attacks and reduce defenders losses. What happened to the concept of "defense is inherently stronger than the offense"? What happened to the defender behind fortifications (ie entrenchments) causing the attacker losses since he can channel the attack into kill zones? Thats why the "flipping" works better for me, since it does not require the combat formulaes to be redone.

50-70% chance all units in combat lose 1 pt damage... Makes equal unit combat more bloody, but still doesn't solve the unequal unit combat favoring whoever has the most experience, which results in a defender in the city lossing while only causing 1str pt damage to the attacker.

[KDG]

The battle equation will not allow a unit to gain any experience if you changed the units like you would like.

First,

A unit gains .2 exp. per attack.

If a army attacks (w/ 2 attack factor) vs. a corps (with 2 defense factor) the army will take 1.7 damage while gaining .2 exp. Do this attack 5 times, you end with a unit that has a strength of 1 or 2, with exp. level of 1. Reinforcing just removes all the exp. gained.

Secondly, this same corps only takes .9 hits of damage from each army. So you would need to attack with 11 armies at once, or once again Jets are required(more than required, they would be the only way to win).

With an editor you would be able to see this playout instead of just looking at equations and numbers.

The main problem with experienced units is that they don't take any damage. A level 2 army currently takes no damage when attacking a level 0 corps. My suggestion of a 50-75% chance of taking 1 damage remedies this. Bumping up the soft defense of the corps achieves the same thing.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

I agree that this would be much easier if we had an editor, but we have to make do with what we have. Luckily, we can do the calc's with a spreadsheet.

I don't believe that Infantry against Infantry, unless one side is "significantly" weaker than the other, can cause the defender to withdraw or destroy them. Even a 3 bar Army against a 0 bar Corp can't break the Corp (but it is killing 2 str pts for each 1 str pt it losses). Flipping the values gives me a closer representation of the losses each side should receive in a attrition war.

What broke the deadlock was Armor. Tank against the Corp would be a 5:1 ratio. Even without the experience benefit, two (2) Armor attacks on a Corp (with a little help) will eliminate the Corp.

Alot of this is based on how you interpet the historical events that occurred. Especially statements like "infantry cannot sustain the offensive". But closely examining how the different sides operated, I'll think you'll see that when any side in WWII wanted to "breakthru" the enemy lines, they brought of armor formations to reinforce the attackers and used reserve units in the rear to exploit the breakthru.

Thats one of the reasons why I don't think bumping the factors or forcing a 1 str pt damage each attack solves the issue.

I have a question for you... do you believe that the defense is stronger than the attack? If you say yes, then tell me how bumping the factors solves that?

[KDG]

I have a question for you... do you believe that the defense is stronger than the attack? If you say yes, then tell me how bumping the factors solves that?

First, let me say that your knowledge of WWII is vastly greater than mine. While I want the game to be realistic, I also want it to be a good game. I'm more into the game mechanics.

Now your question. Here is how I interpret what happens, and its based off entrechment levels for defenders. Since we don't have simultanous turns, the use of entrenchment helps define who is surprised and who is ready for the battle, in my opinion. I think of a unit that has just moved and then being attacked the following turn as a unit that is unprepared for the attack, thus they will garner more losses.

Entrenchment 0:

Defender has just moved into an area when it is surprised by an attacker, who does greater damage than the defender.

Entrenchment 1:

Defender moved into an area a week or two before, has set up a defense. When attacked, less damage is done (I would change this by also having the defender do a little more damage back to the attacker). Any additional attacks come from a different direction, surprising the defenders, thus doing the damage of a level 0 entrenchment.

Entrenchment 2: Defender moved into an area 3-4 weeks before, has set up a substantial defense. When attacked, less damage is done (I would change this by also having the defender do a little more damage back to the attacker). Defender can also substain an additional attack with an entrechment level due to extra preparation.

Currently each level of entrenchment reduces damage to the defender by approx. .9

I'd reduce this to .5, but also make the defender do additional damage of .5. I'd leave all other numbers alone (save for mildly correcting jets(less powerful) and tanks(slightly more powerful).

[ May 07, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

While I want the game to be realistic, I also want it to be a good game. I'm more into the game mechanics.

Very enlighting statement. We are after two different things and without getting into loss of playability lets look at what you are after.

Good game, game mechanics... From this viewpoint, there are only two things wrong with SC. Air Power and Tanks. You see the Grey and Red combat as units relatively close in experience fighting each other. Makes sense that you would only want slight tweakings to occur because you don't see major problems other than the big two. I agree that your "tweak" of the combat model is better suited for what you want then the "enhancements" I am suggesting.

Hmmmm... why don't you put your thoughts together, create a thread and link them to a post in the newbie thread. That way, there is a Playability option to compare against the Historically Responsible one?

[KDG]

Don't get me wrong, I want it fairly historical as well. This way I feel like I'm recreating the war. Most of my suggestions though are to work with the existing game engine. I'm also a believer in making minor tweaks to the system, and then seeing what we have achieved.

This might be achieved for you by changing armies to 3 att. 3 def., with Corps at 1 att. 2 def., with tanks at 6 attack, planes being modified, etc. If changes can be made that satisfy the historical portion of the gamers, without dramatically changing the game mechanics, then I say go for it. We can all relearn game strategies, if required.

The thing I don't want is for turns to take 50% more time. The pace, turn involvement, and amount of time to finish a war seem well developed.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Additions 05/13

Newly created ground/air units can only be created in your capitol. Except for Russia, which has three (3) locations.

This is an alternative solution to a unit force pool. Will reduce the speed at which you can bring new units into play.

No Amphib operations during Fall and Winter turns.

Baltic and Atlantic were not calm seas during these weather periods.

Air unit could be grounded during Fall, unless in a city.

The effect of Mud. City effect is representation of weather proof runway.

Gun Laying Radar at Tech Level 2 and Tech Level 4 can increase soft attack and defense factors by one (1).

Combination of counter-battery radar, improved munitions, better artillery pieces, etc.

[JerseyJohn]

Additions 05/13 Excellent -- I think they should be adapted.

[KDG]

Newly created ground/air units can only be created in your capitol. Except for Russia, which has three (3) locations.

I like this idea, I'd let the units move on the first turn though(but not operate).

No Amphib operations during Fall and Winter turns.

Sounds good to me. Makes looking at the calender important.

Air unit could be grounded during Fall, unless in a city.

Sounds good.

Gun Laying Radar at Tech Level 2 and Tech Level 4 can increase soft attack and defense factors by one (1).

This makes this tech very powerful. Not in favor as is. I'd prefer just improveing heavy tank to include soft attack increase.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

Newly created ground/air units can only be created in your capitol. Except for Russia, which has three (3) locations.

I like this idea, I'd let the units move on the first turn though(but not operate).

Is the ability to move on the first turn really that important?

Btw, I hope everyone realizes I have just screwed the Russians. Even producing three (3) units a turn, that will not be enough to stop the inital German assault. I was so "enamored" by this idea, that not until later did I realize its effect. I've long believed that the Russians should have "cadre" units (ie 1 str point) during its initial setup, to represent those newly created units. See how the subconsious mind works?

Gun Laying Radar at Tech Level 2 and Tech Level 4 can increase soft attack and defense factors by one (1).

This makes this tech very powerful. Not in favor as is. I'd prefer just improveing heavy tank to include soft attack increase.

I assume then, that the "enhancement" about changing the Tank Group attack to using the Tank Attack Factor instead of the Soft Attack Factor you disagree with?

Because, I was only trying to give the Artillery in the Infantry units (ie Corps/Army) the bumps, since they don't get any offensive bumps currently.

[KDG]

My thinking on the movement was that you were only using the capital for new units, the capital was one space, thus you'd need to move a unit after placing it. My guess is that you intended the units to be able to be placed around the capitals hexes as well, yes?

I also think you might be right in that this change affects Russia, thus allowing them to move on the first turn gets them closer to their objective, possibly into place after 1 or 2 turns, while Germany wouldn't have that same advantage. The deeper into Russia the war goes, the greater this helps Russia. We could also give Russia two additional Corps, which would slow down the German advance, as well as protect the Russian Armor, which would help them at the beginning of Barberossa(sp).

What I meant with the tanks was what you are intending, just said differently. You want tanks to always attack with TA, which can be improved with Tank research. I just want to have SA advance for tanks with tank research. Pretty much the same thing. Which ever way programs best.

By changing tank research, we develop a very nice, new offensive weapon, which can be countered by anti-tank. By adding a tech to help armies and corps., we end up with two more additional offensive weapons, but with no counter (i.e. defensive bonus additions).

Now, if as you want, we change armies and corps to 3-3 & 1-2 (for att. and def.), then I understand the usage of this new tech, and wouldn't mind it.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

New units in capital... I was thinking more like you purchase one unit a turn. Thats it. No more until the next turn.

You kinda got the gist for everything else right.

Russia being screwed was more along the lines, that once Germany destroyed the initial Russian units, even at 3 units a turn, the Russians could not stop Germany.

But what you say about the further into Russia, worse for Germany and better for Russia is true.

And you know what? This is something we can play currently as a house rule.

Armies and Corps... thats 2-4 and 1-2, not 3-3 and 1-2.

[KDG]

Armies and Corps... thats 2-4 and 1-2, not 3-3 and 1-2.

I knew that, I was trying to get you to change your mind and go with the 3-3 & 1-2 combo. I don't like the huge change from 4-2 to 2-4,while a move to 3-3 seems more in line with the corps move from 2-1 to 1-2 (only shifting by 1 from existing numbers).

I hadn't thought about that, but you could use a house rule and require all units to be placed at the capital(I think unlimited is the way to go, but this could be tested) and see what actual effects this would have on the game(I'd add two corps units for Russia, or I think they would be wiped out too quickly).

[General Jon]

hi guys!i've just found graphics mods and scenarios on panzerliga.com(thanks to a kind soul who posted a response to my question about how can i change terrain and unit graphics in the S C forum)I've come to get satisfaction fron upgrading(for free) the games i've bought off this company,but i'm new to it all!How do i do these procedures you mention,i like the sound of most of them(enhancememts)!Do i have to go get a degree in computer sciences?I HOPE NOT!

[General Jon]

.....and does there exist bettr mods or ESpecially unit tiles i.e tanks, artillery(doubt it)planes etc.Anything to improve the looks of Strategic Command during those many hours of constant play staring at the lifeless sprites!Please help(websites oter than panzerliga,i have these)jon.fairfield@sympatico.ca

[Armuss]

Who is this "SC:ET Enhancements" pack - download?

[Alexanderthe_OK]

Armuss - Are you talking about the alternate sprites that make the map look a lot nicer/ I can send them to you if that's what you want