Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nupremal

Major Nations

Recommended Posts

Is 6 majors enough? That only provides for the same number as before. Would it not be a good idea to allow for 8 at least? That way we could have Axis (3) + 5 for the allies to include France and China as Majors. At least having the option would be nice.

What other changes can we expect? Are multiple convoys possible? A summary of how the MPPs are gathered? Any other changes?

One thing I suggest from experience with Pacific is that carriers, which are otherwise done fairly well, are missing some stat advances. For instance, the air tech giving them better fighters needs to also increase bomber attack/defense - I forget the exact way it works, but it gets very confusing the way attack and defense work. I just want it realistic when you have CAP up you should slaughter unescorted attacks coming in, and it doesn't quite seem to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be 3 Axis majors - the European games are greatly added to by the question as to how to develop and use Italy as a "weak major" despite its disadvantages. The diplomacy game loses something (but perhaps good to overhaul it anyhow) here too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is possible because Italy can still be developed. I really don't think you'll miss having her as a major at all.

Thinking about it further, it will now be slightly easier to develop Italy, because in the past the only way you could do so was by having the Italians conquer countries in the Med. She'll still be a weak ally, but there'll be more potential for building her up because German MPPs can now be spent directly on her. Whether it's a good thing to do will be something you'll have to find out, but it'll certainly be an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that was the point with Italy - she is a weak ally but used right (building on her strengths such as decent Navy) she could certainly outperform the historical situation and become a major force. It seemed right she should have her own diplomacy and develop technology distinct from the German's.

For me its a question of complexity/potential within the Axis nations. The Allies are interesting because in Europe they start the game with 2 majors, usually drop to one (vs 2 majors in Axis) and then climb to three after a period of hanging on. This see-saw has military (and diplomatic) consequences that go beyond MPP totals and force pools.

Effectively then in Europe Germany would have no majors but be bolstered by a LOT of minors. I suppose what might help would be if Balkan countries and Finland contribute 1 diplomatic chit and Italy (and Spain if it enters) 2. But even better would be an overhaul of the diplomacy system - but not leave Italy out of the loop.

The issue of technology development is important here - would Germany have a centralized technology pool which it could share with Italy?

You mention Germany building up Italy but I would have thought the reverse was likely - almost no MPP to Italian activities, just a German takeover. I can see that late in the war this kind of happened but it would have been unacceptable in 1939 or 1940.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unless there is a change in how it works. If Italy is to be a minor - and of course there is always an option of swapping them out with China, which I could easily do, then you can set their builds in .5 increments (which is what I do for minors). I would suggest you offer the option of allowing upgrades at -1 or -2 levels - i.e. if germany is at tech 3, Italy could be at say Tech 2, and say Romania maybe at Tech 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 powers. Italy should not share tech with Germany. The only way I can see it happening if upgrading Italy costs 2x as much as German units.

UK, USSR, USA major

Germany, Japan, Italy major

China and France minor with 2x upgrade costs.

China should be a minor power, its really easy. If France is then why not China?

As for Nup comments on carriers increasing bombing firepower.... well look at the scales.

If 1 carrier unit = in strength to a land based air units then yea. But otherwise I will disagree. You cant compare a unit with 3 big CVs (300 planes) to a land based air tac with (600-1000 planes) and call them equal.

Personally I think the scale is too large. Removes some of the tactical process. Whats the map scale? miles per hex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italy should share tech with Germany at 150% cost (same as Spain and Turkey). I like the idea of having Italy as a minor, as when she's a major she really doesn't do anything that's important, so why should she be a major. Meanwhile I'm not sure if China should be a minor or a major, however I do think she should be under US control (150% upgrade cost), if she is a minor. 2X is just way too much to pay.

The map scale is 256x64; however it can be up to 512x256. I'm pretty sure it's probably 50 miles per hex, because in every other SC game it's been that magic number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello its my first and hopefully not last post there ;-)

I am playing SC since SC1 but never before got active in any Community of this great game.

Well my personal opinion is that SCG should become a blend of PDE and PT.

I would like to see 8 Major nations. The most problem would be a new colour for the eight one.

In my Human vs Human games we always used italy for a strong Naval an Garrison ;-) Power.

Once my friend build a fortress italy and even managed to destroy my entire Force H

@ France

I dont like the idea that France should become a minor of the UK.

I just remember the SC1 times were all French units were shipped to the UK to become free french.

Something like that will happen with the mpps.

Even after the French surrender you can use France for Free France under de Gaulle.

For example central Africa immediately joined Free France and along with a Decision you maybe could run Operation Menace (Decision with units nearby?) and you got the chance to get a major Vichy French Harbour and a new Battleship.

BTW. What about an upgrade from 58 minors to maybe 70 possible?

I would like to see a map in scale of PT or PDE and for Croatia, Slovakia, Afghanistan and other minors world wide, we need more slots ^^

It seems that we got some "Pure Neutral Nations" like Saudi Arabia and Namibia. Well why are they not includet? It "can" hinder strategic movements.

Best regards

Dominik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you misunderstand what I mean re/bombers - it is not "bombing power" but the ability of carrier fighter cover to defend/attack bombers.

You can't have China a minor of US and allow tech upgrades. China had an exceptionally, and I mean exceptionally, primitive infrastructure. Read the official histories on Stillwell - I have read the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre history of the US Army and it is clear that it was very, very hard to do that with china. Sure, they got some planes, some tanks very late in the war and very few numbers of them, but not much of anything for the vast majority of troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Gentlemen it seems we have our wish, Global SC. Now you've got to ask yourself, do you want the purity of history, or do we want to explore what might have been?

Cause if its history....ho hum..:rolleyes:. I believe I have a library full of specifics, debated and discussed over and over, but only a couple of "what if" books. IMO Italy will work well as a minor as in reality Mussolini and Hitler were in constant conflict with each other. If you want the Axis to have a chance, the historical hierarchy will have to be dismissed and YOU will have to bring an orderly strategy to the Tripartite table.

Could it really have happened? Probably not as only insane people would have gone up against the array of Allies as was historical, but you can change that alignment, can't you?:confused:

Keep America out....as long as possible, perhaps get Vichy and the Soviets to cooperate. Work with the Italians, coordinate the effort in the Med. In reality, Hitler offerred many carrots to Il Deuce, only to be scorned by Mussolini's pride. But you're not them, you're better than those idiots.......well.....there's hope at least.:P

I'm setting out to conquer the world and I see my opponents in this forum, best of luck to whomever that might be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nupremal is right, the Chinese were very rudimentary and Chiang was not real cooperative, he was actually belligerent at times until the US laid down the law which wasn't often. China is no doubt a minor. Normally the original France would be a major, but if you want them as weak as they were historically then they would have to be a minor, its a fine balance here.

Lots of room for debate and no way to be consistent and produce a competitive game from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nupremal, there were instances where Chinese divisions were equipped and trained with US materials, it was more the uncooperative atmosphere that Chiang induced and the US position of not meddling, or trying at least to restrain itself.

A moral aspect, the US was sensitive to China's subjugation by European powers in the past. If we throw these things away with the Axis, the personality conflicts, we must also do it with the Allies.

I'm in the camp that minors should be customizable with regard to the tech level advance the equipment is that they receive, it should never be "cutting edge". For China, maybe 2 levels below USA highest attainment as the theater is quite remote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the minors should never have tech values as high a the majors. No major would ever give away its cutting edge equpiment, if for no other reason than for national security.

I also think that the costs associated with minor tech upgrades should take into consideration training and logistics. Training - the language and cultural barrier. Logistics - getting the equipment to the country.

For instance Hungary, minor of Germany - the cost for training should be minimal since the culture and language are similar enough to Germany to negate the minor differances. The cost of logistics should be negligible since the two countries share a border.

Hungary, minor of Britian - the cost of training should be more than for Germany since the language and culture are not so similar. The cost of logistics should be high since Britian would need to first - transport by sea, then transport via land, if allowed by another country (one more reason to use politics).

Hungary, minor of USSR - should be between that of Germany and Britian

For instance China, minor of USA - the cost of training should be considerable since the language and culture is compleatly dissimular for one another. The cost for logistics would also be tremendous since all equipment must be shipped half-way across the world then half-way across a continent.

China, minor of Germany - the cost of training should be the same as for USA. The cost of logistics should be even higher.

China, minor of USSR - the cost of training and logistics should be low.

I'm not sure how to make this work in the game, but I think it should be given some thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you misunderstand what I mean re/bombers - it is not "bombing power" but the ability of carrier fighter cover to defend/attack bombers.

You can't have China a minor of US and allow tech upgrades. China had an exceptionally, and I mean exceptionally, primitive infrastructure. Read the official histories on Stillwell - I have read the Asiatic-Pacific Theatre history of the US Army and it is clear that it was very, very hard to do that with china. Sure, they got some planes, some tanks very late in the war and very few numbers of them, but not much of anything for the vast majority of troops.

Very good point about carrier wars. Currently, who ever strikes first wins. When the carrier on defense is just sitting there, he's toast on a turn based game. Just because you're in "fighter" defense doesn't do alot. It does cause some attacker damage, but the defending carrier still gets wiped out.

I think what Vypuero is trying to say, he wants the Pacific carrier battles to be more Midway. There should be better defense values when a carrier is waiting on fighter defense against a purely tactical attack, just like historical Midway. The mode of your planes should be modeled better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason why it isnt is because bombers dont increase in air to air combat. I guess you can basically say the fighter tech stays equal between CV ftrs and TAC ftrs escorting and intercepting. If you increase the CV then you probablty have to increase the bomber which late in the war with high tech it means POOF dead CV and POOF dead bomber because SC2 tech only increases damage.

As for China my thoughts were only a suggestion IF someone wanted to make them upgradable. Yea the Chinese sucked hard and the Japs could shove the line anytime they wanted to. I think I mention this to you Nup ;) when we played tested yours. Personally I dont like the idea of upgrading minors. Thats why they are minors. Its a combo of training moral, weapons, leadership. Some of those factors are difficult to train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that the minors should never have tech values as high a the majors.

When i read this i truly wonder if you ever played a WaW / PDE / PT game at all.

This is already and for quite a time part of the game, minors always stay one tech behind of the major power they belong to, and their upgrades are pretty expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xwormwood, I don't recall having any problem upgrading minors to the same level as majors, maybe I just wasn't paying attention or I'm so used to my own scenarios. And yes, it is quite expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...