pzgndr

The Russians do seem tough in SC. The game design notes should shed some light on what goes into these combat resolutions. I assume we'll get documentation with some of these details explained. I suspect SC uses probability of hit tables for unit types vs unit types, plus modifiers, then some kind of damage tables for unit types vs unit types, again with modifiers accounted for. Whether this accounts for actual unit strength vs unit strength (ie, odds) is not clear, since I've seen a lot of "high-odds" attack results which don't seem much different from "low-odds." And are country modifiers assumed, in addition to research levels, or are all 10-factor level x units the same? I can't imagine all major and minor units being "equal," nor every major country being equal, but SC may do this to keep things simple and rely on research levels to account for all differences. Anyway, there will be opportunites later to comment on all these parameters and suggest tweaks for some of them to account for historical differences in unit quality for different countries, if this isn't already factored into the game. Using the scenario editor to adjust starting research levels may help, and country modifiers for specific unit types may also be useful.

Perilous or not, I'm going back to Castle Anthrax! Well, at least until SC gets released and I have something better to do.

Guys, don't misunderstand where I and some others are coming from. SC is great and should NOT be made more complex like WiF. Some of the abstractions are actually fun and allows you to pursue alternate strategies. If it gets TOO detailed and REALISTIC, then sides tend to get mired in the same decisions made historically, and that leads to some dull repetitive games. However, some relatively minor changes or additions to the game could add a bit more accuracy so players can deal with historical challenges like the weather in Russia and maneuver warfare in North Africa and such. SC can also be a useful educational tool to teach young players about WWII, but not if it's too abstract or allows for bizarre deviations from history. Hubert can provide a real service here. If you go back to some of the old boardgames, you'll find the rules generally provided different levels of play for a basic game, advanced game, and options/variants. And then you had house rules where you could do whatever you wanted. A future version of SC should provide some advanced features for those who want them, and a full function editor to tweak game parameters and the map. So, yes, SC is great as a basic game and I'm anxiously waiting for its release. However, it can and should offer more. Hubert has indicated that he will consider future enhancements, and that's good enough for now. There's no point slinging mud at each other. But as for those beta testers! Where the heck are they? Where's our game already? :mad:

Es rollt unser Panzer, wie im Sturmwind dahin! Btw, has anyone else noticed that the last post on the Strategic Command Beta Area was June 21? These sneaky guys guys are communicating in secret somehow. Must be FOW rules in effect, so be vigilant.

I think Hubert is looking at the undoing the undo for naval moves. Btw, isn't there a minimum age limit posted for SC, like 18 at least? The poor kid's going to grow up wondering why Germany didn't really have level 3 jet fighters in 1942. Or why the Russians didn't make it all the way to Paris in 1941. :eek:

So, what's your point? If Fort Benning had issued me any feelings, they might be hurt by now. Seriously, I'm amused. You really wouldn't use airborne corps units even if the game provided them? You really wouldn't want historical seasonal effects like spring mud in Russia to slow down your panzers even if it was included? You wouldn't want a slightly larger map even if Hubert screwed up and gave it to you anyway? Come on, there's got to be something on your wish list for Santa. Don't be shy. This is like group therapy, just let it all hang out.

Primarily: Combat Mission TacOps 4 Russo-German War 41-44 Space Empires IV Gold TOAW-WOTY And some oldies but goodies still on my hard drive: Third Reich PC (of course) Command Aces of the Deep (gotta love U-boats!)

... which means he cannot be attached to a HQ unit and effectively controlled. Still no game in sight! Down periscope, all ahead full.

HOI looks interesting, but it will not be hex-based or turn-based, and I'm one of those old gamers who still cares about that kind of thing. The global scale and level of detail will certainly provide for a higher level of play for those who want to micromanage events. Whether it will be "playable" for gamers to complete a campaign game over a long weekend is a concern. I've enjoyed 3R/A3R over the years because you can actually play a complete game measured in hours and days, not weeks or months. WiF appears to be a great game, but I have not played it because it is too much. HOI may also be another great game that gets more admiration than play time. SC has a great scale, and the foundation work Hubert's done with the AI, politics, research, FOW, etc. is fantastic. It's an addictively fun game to play quickly, even with some of the game mechanics issues many of us don't care for (ie, variable turn length, seasonal effects, airborne capability, etc.) Hopefully we'll see improvements in the future that make SC somewhat more "realistic," either as a revised game or one with more options and variants for advanced play, without making it too complex. Based on what I've seen with SC and read about HOI, I'll stick with SC and watch it grow.

Take a chill pill already. Most of us fully recognize the current limitations with the game. What really needs to happen with some future version is to make Italy and Russia active neutrals from the start. That would then permit diplomacy or skirmishes for the Finnish border hexes, Bessrabia, etc. Even permit Russia to attack Turkey if they want. With FOW, playing Italy and Russia prior to being at war with the majors would be really interesting. Build and deploy your forces, perform research, conduct minor campaigns, etc. But it ain't gonna happen this week.

Take a chill pill already. Most of us fully recognize the current limitations with the game. What really needs to happen with some future version is to make Italy and Russia active neutrals from the start. That would then permit diplomacy or skirmishes for the Finnish border hexes, Bessrabia, etc. Even permit Russia to attack Turkey if they want. With FOW, playing Italy and Russia prior to being at war with the majors would be really interesting. Build and deploy your forces, perform research, conduct minor campaigns, etc. But it ain't gonna happen this week.

OK, what does the "Allow Rules and Politics Changes To Be Made During Game" button allow us to do? Will this get us into the editor mode in the full game or will it provide some other function? Just wondering, and I can't recall it coming up in discussion before.

It would be nice to see an AI that actually has different levels of ability, rather than simply giving it more MPPs and/or experience bonuses. Chess AIs use different number of turn look-aheads and some other adjustments to reflect different abilities, since you can't exactly provide extra chessmen or change the rules to cheat. If something similar could be done with the fuzzy logic in SC, that would be fantastic.

No weather effects in SC. Period. The variable turn length abstraction is supposed to account for weather. Units get less done in winter than in summer. OK, fine, that's the game design decision for SC and not likely to change. Personally, I don't see any problem with 26 2-week turns or 24 1/2 month turns versus the current 27 turns-per-year. Give us a consistent economic system and some basic weather effects and you upgrade SC a notch or two on the realism scale. Playability would be essentially the same. It would still be fun for those who like the current system, while providing some more historical accuracy for those who want it. Sounds OK, but the game code would have to be revised to make it happen, so SC will probably not change at this point. Maybe for SC2 later, hopefully. Please.

Designating and changing convoy routes would be a pain. The zones in SC are OK, but we need some way of having thse zones identified so you know if you're in them or not. I've already commented on adjusting the probabilities and damge tables, which I agree need tweaking, so let's wait to see what the revised game looks like. I had one inspiring thought during a game this morning. If a sub dives during a turn, why not simply let it stay submerged for the rest of the turn? Then it could live to fight another day and perhaps extend the survival rate, unless the British fleets have a high enough sonar level to detect and engage them.

The technology levels should account for training, doctrine, and organization, not simply the physical charateristics of new weapon systems. So, even though Russia had T-34s in 41, they were not exactly competitive with German units at the SC scale. On that basis, they should not start with advanced tanks. Ditto for France if they choose to buy tanks, which were also "superior" to German Mk-IIs and Mk-IIIs. Frankly, I'd like to see all the majors start with at least one research point, just to add some interest and an occassional surprise. Russia could have their point in tanks and then see T-34s introduced at some random date, maybe early or maybe later. That would be better. We can probably edit the scenarios ourselves to provide some free research, except for the Italy and Russia setups, so Hubert would have to consider this.

Finland IS its own power, a minor neutral, until it allies itself with Germany. But this is a moot point since Russia is not an active neutral in SC (yet?) and unable to fight a border war. Maybe someday, but for now it's irrelevant. From another post, the Finns get whacked by Russia because they set up with no entrenchments. This is a problem across the board, like the Yugoslavs setup in Belgrade with no entrenchments. This needs to be looked at, and should give the minors a boost on their defense. Supply for the Finns is another problem, and a low value HQ may help. Or simply add another city, like Viipuri. Or maybe provide extended supply ranges in the game. It's OK to have operational movement for units more than 5 hexes from a city, but not OK for limited supply or reinforcements? This needs to be looked at. The Finns do need some toughening in SC. They should be able to at least hold their own in 1941.

Finland IS its own power, a minor neutral, until it allies itself with Germany. But this is a moot point since Russia is not an active neutral in SC (yet?) and unable to fight a border war. Maybe someday, but for now it's irrelevant. From another post, the Finns get whacked by Russia because they set up with no entrenchments. This is a problem across the board, like the Yugoslavs setup in Belgrade with no entrenchments. This needs to be looked at, and should give the minors a boost on their defense. Supply for the Finns is another problem, and a low value HQ may help. Or simply add another city, like Viipuri. Or maybe provide extended supply ranges in the game. It's OK to have operational movement for units more than 5 hexes from a city, but not OK for limited supply or reinforcements? This needs to be looked at. The Finns do need some toughening in SC. They should be able to at least hold their own in 1941.

I can live with this abstraction as a fog of war thing. Commanders in the field make mistakes, and this is one of them. I don't like it either when it happens to me. But then again, I use it to my advantage to sucker the AI into making mistakes. So, be cautious. Use your air cover. Leapfrog your fleets. Expect to be surprised occassionally. Guess what, there's a war on!

Just fought a strange round as the Allies. An Italian unit ended up moving into Paris. When France surrendered, Italy got 1100+ MPPs from plunder and ended the turn with over 1600! I landed the Gibralter corps near Rome just to see what would happen. Italy had built two tank groups and an air in the vicinity and promptly polished my corps off. I expected to watch Italy go on a Mediterranean rampage, but it never happened - maybe I scared them with my "invasion." Following the pro-allied coup in Yugoslavia, Germany, Rumania and Hungary pounded on them but no Italians. Game ended before Italy did anything. With FOW I couldn't tell what they were up to, but sure would have been fun to continue. Interesting AI! :cool:

Usually the subs are worthless. I played one game where I focused heavily on invading Britain and using subs agressively. Ended up wiping out the British fleet and taking Manchester. It was an interesting game, but not exactly what one should expect from U-boats. Of course the Russians came knocking at my back door, but the game ended before I had to atone for my sinful behavior in the Atlantic. Now, if SC had weather effects for the north Atlantic ... But I digress.

Rockets. Britain should research rocket technology and build lots and lots of rockets. Seriously, Hubert has indicated he has tweaked the sub warfare stuff. But no clue what this really means. Hopefully, subs should be harder to detect and engage, have a better chance of diving and evading, have more effect on convoys and a little less effect on surface fleets, and have less chance of being surprised by surface fleets. The strategy should shift from head-to-head battles of destruction like we see in the demo, to British fleets hunting the elusive subs in prolonged campaigns. We'll see.

Thank you Hubert. There's certainly a lot of room for customizing, so we won't be bored with the initial version of SC. The only problem with variants is that you have to hardwire them into each scenario, so you won't exactly be surprised. Some way of introducing randomness would be needed eventually, but having flexibility with at-start MPPs will have to do for now. If we could prioritize a want-list for future enhancements, I'd say work first on making Italy and Russia active neutrals and adding the minor neutrals to the scenario editor somehow. It doesn't look like we can tweak these at all right now. After that, a full-function game editor would be great.

OK, I stand corrected. I understand no rebuilds of minors for now, but I think my original point is valid. If the Germans commit a minor's army to combat and has it devastated, there should be a political risk of losing that minor's support. Note Rumania's complaints following Stalingrad. So there's an incentive to rebuild minor units. To minimize clutter, maybe add just a single minor corps and army icon to the builds? If built in Hungary, then its Hungarian, etc. Let Germany decide whether to spend MPPs on minor rebuilds or risk losing the minor's support (loss of MPPs, withdrawal from alliance, partisans, etc.) Same could be done with Britain/Canada. This would add an interesting political twist to the game if you choose to neglect your minor partners.

Heck, just disband the minors and replace them all with crack Wehrmacht units. Kinda defeats the purpose, though. If SC had force pool limits, then the additional axis minors become more important. Politically, the minors would do something to maintain their forces or else they would leave the alliance. Get too low and receive a warning message. Lose all units and then watch out for partisan uprisings and liberation attempts. Maybe the game could withhold the minor's MPPs until eliminated units are replaced? But that's too rigid. I'd rather see the minor units available for purchase, probably at less cost due to their lower value, and let the German player decide whether to maintain his allies or risk losing them. That's a realistic issue to deal with. We haven't heard from Hubert and the Beta Boys about whether this is already addressed in the game somehow. If minor units are a one-time shot and lost permanently if eliminated in combat, then this is very simplistic. There should be a way to replace minors and a compelling reason to do so.