pzgndr

I raise the possibility because SC offers a lot of potential game development capability. Not sure how flexible Hubert has made the SC code and whether game parameters are hardwired into algorithms or located in separate files which could be editted. SC has a nice Windows interface, hex-based map, basic unit types, and a functional AI. Not to mention FOW, research, diplomacy, and other features. TOAW also has a lot of capability, but requires too much detail for unit OOBs and the programmed opponent has limitations. The SC game engine could possibly cover everything from Napoleon to NATO. For now, a simple editor would be nice.

Between the cost difference and loss of unit experience, there's definitely incentive to protecting your units. Very good!

The potential loss of the Brits in France in 1940 may be more devastating in SC than 3R, which would have some more historical realism. In 3R, the BEF only cost 3 BRPs, so what if they're lost. What is the cost difference in SC between rebuilding a unit from scratch and replacing losses? There should be a disadvantage if units are destroyed, hence an incentive to evacuate the battered BEF from the continent and not risk their loss someplace else like Norway.

Yes, thank you! Just remember, a complaining troop is a happy troop. If we didn't say anything, you'd think we didn't care.

What exactly will be provided with the scenario editor? I'm wondering how much tweaking might be possible on our own - like unit types, AP values, MMP costs, map features, etc. Could a default game parameter file be provided which we could edit? It would be nice to be able to customize the game to our particular tastes, beyond simple OOB changes or .bmp image mods.

I'd like to see more of Europe with an abstract US deployment box. When I read about SC having the US on the map and all the naval units, I had visions of the Battle of the Atlantic. But you can't really assign U-boats any patrol sectors and have convoy battles with ASW, so why not make the Atlantic and sub campaign abstract? Subs and ASW could either go into strategic warfare boxes like Third Reich or support naval operations on the map. I'd much prefer to have more maneuver in North Africa, and permit successful Axis campaigns to continue into Iraq and Persia. This won't change for SC, but maybe Hubert can work it out to have it all in SC2. If not, more Europe and less Atlantic would be better. Regardless of what the final map looks like, more off-map activities should to be included anyway - Murmansk convoys, lend-lease, redeployments between Norway/Finland and Britain/Egypt, etc. These need to be considered.

Cool idea. The HQ units in SC may be the key. They should be out of sight with FOW on unless spotted by recon or some other intel. Some way of accumulating supply benefits or something over a couple of turns if they don't move could simulate prepping for major operations. Throw in some way to possibly detect the preps, either from the HQ status if spotted or from the forward units' readiness. I made some comments about intel on another thread several days ago which could be tied to this. The whole FOW thing has a lot of potential in SC.

German/Soviet Mech Infantry: 4 US/British Mech Infantry: 5 Jeff, at this scale you really can't justify German or Soviet mech corps/armies as independent units. And while US/Brit infantry was more heavily mechanized, their supporting units at the corps/army level were not. 4 would be appropriate as a default value. Hubert may consider subtle changes, but anything to radically change the playtested AP system is probably not going to happen. Hopefully, the scenario editor may allow us to tweak these values ourselves and provide gameplay feedback for future enhancements.

Sorry, I didn't mean the HQ units in the game, since these shouldn't move around too much anyway. I meant the army units should move the same as corps, since for all practical purposes they represent two corps stacked together. They should be able to move the same. IMHO, it would be preferable to have AP differences between inf and mech inf rather than corps and army.

It's harder to rationalize why an Army HQ can't keep up with its subordinate corps. This strikes me as a stacking limit abstraction, which shouldn't necessarily affect the movement capability. Only problem with the research option is that there really isn't anything to research. It was more of a doctrine and cost issue. The Brits and US could afford halftracks and APCs, and had the fuel to use them, whereas other countries could not. Maybe provide some option or variant to reflect a change. This might not be too hard to change for the official release version - don't delay the demo. Another consideration would be to give German and US armor groups AP of 6 to reflect their better capability. This is based on some old Third Reich game design considerations, which seem relevant here. Just a reasonable suggestion.

Corps AP = 4 Army AP = 3 Tank Group AP = 5 I assume the reason for lower Army AP is due to its size and inertia. There's no unit stacking, so that's why we have a difference? Even with mechanized infantry, the US and British infantry corps designations did not show mech, so we really don't need the difference except for color and this doesn't need to be a research area. A possible adjustment would be to have regular infantry corps and army AP both 3, but have US and British mechanized infantry corps and army AP both 4 (perhaps with the mech inf designation to show the difference). German pzgndr units normally were part of the panzer groups anyway, and other countries didn't have significant mechanized infantry formations. This would be a subtle change for the most part and would address the mech infantry issue. Comments?

I'm also a bit curious why the map can't be larger. Third Reich PC managed to get the whole map to work back in 1994 with the technology then, and had more terrain features and cities. There may be something with the SC code which integrates other game functions that takes up RAM, like the way it paints hex control and calculates MPPs each turn. Probably can't change anything now, but a slightly larger map in the future to include more of North Africa and Norway would be nice. The WIE map is nice, but the scale is too small for SC. The Advanced Third Reich mapboard (very nice!) could be a useful benchmark.

SuperTed's comment: It is possible to play the entire war in one night and still feel you played a pretty good simulation. Many of the game's abstractions make more sense if the design goal is to have game play move quickly and easily. It should be fun to play, and I would enjoy playing the entire war in one night. Many other players will be content with this, as indicated here. But some of us want a bit more. We'll see Middle East peace before this debate gets resolved here. Like many games, SC could offer a basic game and advanced game, even including optional rules or other variants. So rather than try to make the game "harder" for those that simply want to have fun, SC could provide alternate play modes with increased detail for those that want a more historical simulation. Providing a powerful scenario editor is another option, letting players add special unit types to the OOB if they want or change MPP costs for things. A map editor would also be nice. No game design can satisfy everyone, but at least with boardgames we could always modify the rules. Any kind of SC "toolkit" that Hubert can provide which could allow players to tinker with the default game parameters would be a big plus. There's a lot of great features here that would make for an excellent game development engine.

This is an interesting effect with the HQ units. In an abstract way, I suppose all countries start with at least a virtual admin HQ but France has no effective field HQ for conducting offensive operations and must develop one. That's OK. Also, aggressive Allied play early on should delay US entry. So even when you are able to make bold attacks, you probably would not want to.

On 1-10, I'd say 5 now and maybe 8 later. WiF is a complicated beast. I've read the rules and played the computer beta some, but never played the boardgame. I'd really prefer to see SC migrate towards a PC version of Advanced Third Reich, but with the shorter turns rather than seasons and some (not all) of the additional detail from WiF. I want to be able to actually play a decent campaign game, not just think about it.

So ... one turn after the Bismark is sunk a replacement could be purchased, built and ready for action? And operational movement simply costs MPPs, with no baseline limit for rail capacity or redeployment capability? Ah, the power of MPPs.

Yes, I've got TOAW WOTY edition. There's a lot of excellent detail there. The PO and events engine are powerful tools, but not the same as a good, fully functional AI. I know there are some WWII strategic game scenarios for TOAW, but not the same as what SC and HOI propose to do. The SC corps-scale is preferable for playing a campaign game within a week or a weekend. HOI will have greater resolution at the division-scale and will probably be an excellent game, but you'll have to be a dedicated hermit to finish a campaign game within a month. Ever since Third Reich PC was released in 1994, with its disappointing AI and other code limitations, I've been waiting for a worthy successor to come along. I also tried Clash of Steel, but wasn't impressed. Despite 3R's truly abstract attrition and exploitation rules, it plays remarkably well. The map is excellent, the units are adequate, and the economic model is good. SC could easily pick up where 3R left off. The turn scale permits greater resolution for Poland, France and other short campaigns. The additional air and naval units and HQs provide more game play options and a more realistic feel. And the research and diplomacy (similar to A3R) will be great additions. It's just frustrating that the SC map looks plain, the units too basic, and the whole economic model and seasonal turns abstraction being difficult to appreciate. That's just an initial impression. It may "play" well as a game, but so do many other games which collect dust. I think SC is a good start with potential for becoming a great WWII simulation. Hubert needs to keep pushing to make it so.

For mental health reasons, this old airborne/ranger shall restrict any additional comments on this subject. Hubert can add stuff to SC if he wants to, or leave it out. Whether the game ends up as a fun beer&pretzles abstraction (like Axis and Allies) or a serious simulation of WWII (like WiF) is yet to be determined. There's clearly two different crowds looking for satisfaction here. Hubert's challenge will be to find the right balance, and he'll have some stiff competition with Hearts of Iron on the radar screen. Perhaps future enhancements will provide options for additional historical details not required for basic game play. Whatever.

We should reserve comment on relative costs until we see how the game plays. I would expect to see higher costs for air/naval, but their relative effectiveness may justify the lower costs. I do wonder about the time required to build units. Does the game provide a production track with various delays per unit type? You can't exactly buy and build a new battleship in a week.

Jeff, I tend to use Third Reich as the benchmark for this scale game and most of the design considerations of that game are applicable to SC. The heavily mechanized components of British and US infantry were reflected as 3-4 infantry compared to standard German 3-3 infantry. Most of the German pzgndr divisions were part of armor corps anyway, and are relected in the armor units. This worked OK. If all infantry units are the same in SC, there's a problem here. I agree some specialized units could be added, like mountain corps or commando units, even Russian artillery corps and German rail artillery, without complicating the game too much. Maybe the editor can allow us to add these ourselves? Other units like engineers and AT were integrated into corps/army units and didn't function independently, so they probably shouldn't be added as separate units at this scale. I really like most of the features of SC - different air/naval types, research, diplomacy, FOW, etc. I've been very specific in criticizing the lack of airborne, which I view as a fundamental unit type for WWII. It offers strategic/operational options for players that were available historically but currently missing in SC. The "effect" is missing, and you can't replace it with some air power abstraction or anything else. We need a basic air transport capability to drop a unit behind enemy lines.

SuperTed, your artistic license is noted and appreciated! Please continue to embelish your AAR's with some color. I simply note that some abstractions in the game blur the picture for the corps-size argument. I just don't see compelling reasons to exclude airborne when all the other stuff is included. It's like being served prime rib with no steak sauce.

Warning: Ranting Ahead. D-Day and Market-Garden were both corps-size strategic employments of airborne. The German airdrop on the Belgian Eben-Emanual (sp?) fortress in 1940 was a division-size tactical employment, and maybe shouldn't count in SC, but I'd rather see it than not. Why is airborne a strategic asset? You can acheive surprise, seize deep objectives, reduce defender advantages for river-crossings and seaborne invasions, and generally threaten the enemy rear areas when airborne is within range. That potential threat is often just as effective as any actual use, probably more so. That effect is missing in SC. And why is the scale an issue? SuperTed's AAR talks about individual U-boats being rammed in the North Atlantic. What's up with that in a "strategic" game? (Where's U-99?) I've been playing Third Reich for over 25 years now and airborne corps work great in that game, even with abstract seasonal turns. So, do you need airborne to play and win? No, but having it is a plus and a simulation of historical fact. Hubert has indicated he will probably add this feature at some point, perhaps in SC2. When he does, just use your airborne as straight-leg infantry and drive on. I understand airborne capability, I value it, and I want it in any WWII strategy game I play. Hopefully sooner in SC than later.

Some comments about intel and FOW in general, which include signals, air recon, espionage, underground, partisans, etc. At simplest, you would only see adjacent enemy units and nothing else. At the next level, you may see units within air/naval recon range and maybe limited information about other units on the board. Here we haggle about what those limits are. The first piece would be unit type - ground, air or naval. The next piece would be specific type - armor, bomber, carrier. The last piece may include unit ID and strength. There could be some base probabilities that information is revealed, which could be improved with intel R&D. Cities and ports, with more potential observers and means to communicate information, might have increased chances of providing intel. And of course intel could be wrong, like an infantry corps reported as an armor corps or full strength reported as low strength. Simple probabilities per hex (not adjacent to enemy) could be introduced to make this happen. For example, a base chance of 30% for unit type, then 40% for specific type, then 30% for unit ID. Base chances could be increased 10% in cities and ports, decreased 10% in rough terrain - mountains, forests, swamps. And base chances don't have to start the same for each country, there could be differences, like -10% for Russia and -5% for Germany. Intel R&D could increase these chances 5-10% for each level, and/or reduce your opponent's. And previously identified units may have increased chances on subsequent turns. These are just some very rough ideas for consideration. The end result could be a system showing a fluid picture of the enemy over time, mostly incomplete and sometimes wrong, improving over the course of the war as intel gets better. And you would never really know what your enemy knew about your units, unless some kind of unit indicator shows possible intel compromise. The power of the computer presents a lot of possibilites here which might not be too hard to implement as future enhancements to the game. However, stuff like this would also contribute to hair loss and nail-biting during a game, so beware.

>>> How could you have an airbourne assault with a "Corp"? How?? US 18th Airborne Corps somehow managed to sneak in a couple of corps-size assaults for D-Day and Market-Garden. This historical reality is not included in SC yet. Since every other WWII strategic game has managed to include this minor detail of history, it's appropriate to question its absence in SC. As for the corps-size argument and the tactical/strategic concern, SC has rocket detachments and submarine units which are probably nowhere near the corps scale and their "strategic" employment during 1-week turns is questionable. It's just an abstraction which produces a strategic effect and adds something to the game. Similarly, airborne assaults would have a strategic effect, however minor, and should be included eventually. I cannot believe the resistance to adding airborne to SC. I'll bet dollars to donuts if it was already included nobody would be asking to take it out.

Speaking of airborne assault capability in SC ...