pzgndr

SuperTed, I can accept the abstraction, I just don't feel totally comfortable with it. If production was "per month" and prorated on a turn basis, then it would be easy to see that you get more done with the same resources during summer turns than during winter turns. But that's another issue. My point was there are seasonal effects that may limit certain operations in specific theaters that could be included. The same abstractions that cover Russian winter effects are not appropriate for the Tobruk battles in North Africa during the same time period, but it's all lumped together in SC. This isn't a show-stopper, just something to consider for future enhancements.

So all turns are essentially the same? In an abstract way, you can argue that less gets accomplished during the long winter turns, which is true. Don't seasons mean anything other than a way to mark time? I mean, with 27 turns per year and each turn the "same", you can look at the game as simply having 2-week turns with zero difference between seasons. There should be some seasonal effects on operations, even with the variable turn-length. Winter rules for non-Finnish Axis units in Russia could modify attack/defense values to slow down the Germans and give the Russians the opportunity for counter-offensives. Winter rules could prohibit seaborne invasions in the Atlantic and Baltic. Supply ranges could be affected. Stuff like that. Since the variable turn-length accounts for most of the seasonal effects in an abstract way, any additional effects would have to be subtle but should be considered.

I wouldn't expect any abstract exploitation phase in SC, since summer turns are about a week. Inherent advantages of armor will create the exploitation effects during subsequent turns once a breakthrough is achieved.

Other than the number of turns per month, are there other seasonal effects in the game? I'm wondering about weather (Spring/Fall rain/mud, Winter snow/storm) in different zones affecting movement, supply, etc. Are weather effects included? Are they random or defined? Just curious. (You know, a demo would be helpful and make us stop asking all these silly questions! )

Reconsidering the time scale issue, it's probably best not to think of turns as actual weeks or months but rather as the ebb and flow of time over the course of a year. Standing back and looking at the big fuzzy picture makes it look better. We're talking about what, 27 turns per year and about 150 turns for the campaign game? This probably isn't a big deal, so I can live with it. Where's that demo?

In lieu of open setups, perhaps an optional turn 0 redeployment for a limited number of units could be considered? That way we could at least shift a unit or two from the historical setup if we want to try something different. Likewise, the enemy situation would always be slightly different and may present a surprise once in a while. Combined with FOW, this could be really interesting.

I asked about this also a couple days ago. Are you saying production/week = production/month?? This what what I was concerned about. I was hoping to hear that the resources/production model was normalized on a monthly basis and adjusted accordingly for the shorter turns. If this isn't the case, please explain what SC is attempting to model. The systems in Third Reich and WiF made sense, but this does not. You can either have all turns equal (seasons) like Third Reich, or all turns the same length (months) with variable impulses based on seasonal weather and initiative like WiF. But you can not have variable length turns being equal to each other for resources and production. That makes no economic sense. I obviously need to play the demo to appreciate whatever this game is trying to accomplish. I'm beginning to worry that it may be more of a fun "beer & pretzles" type game like Axis & Allies than a serious simulation of WWII like WiF. Don't take me wrong - I really am excited about this game and all the great features it does have. But I'm already irritated that there's no airborne capability at all and now it seems that the economic model may be out in left field somewhere. So, I have a few concerns.

I'm curious about the variable turn scale. For consistency regarding resources and production, is the game essentially based on monthly turns with variable "impulses" due to seasonal weather, like WiF? Or is each turn unique, be it a week or a month, with resources and production scaled accordingly? I'm wondering how this is handled. Longer turns may help get through dull winter months in 1940 and 1941, but what about Soviet winter counter-offensives in later years? What about North Africa battles? There may be something lost here. So I'm also wondering how operations are handled with variable turns.

I'll chime in here once more, since no horse is too dead to beat. Hubert, a game scale of corps size can certainly handle special units of division(+) size, like the rocket detachments? The US 18 Abn Corps and British Abn Corps (1st Abn Div + Polish Abn Bde) were corps size, and you could argue that the German airborne capability was also corps size. Russian and Italian airborne was smaller, so just give them lower strength or something. Are you suggesting US 18 Abn will be just a leg infantry unit in the game and there will still be some abstract "airborne" as part of air attacks? Airborne worked VERY well in Third Reich at this game scale (even with 3 month turns) and could work in SC. Since airborne units did not count against stacking limits in 3R, the corps size abstraction was irrelevant. It was the strategic effect that was key, and you can't recreate that through air units. Ditto for commando units if you decide to add them as well. We're only talking about a handful of airborne units, not a major revision of the game code or OOB as playtested. I just can't understand how SC can have so many good features (and I praise you for them!) except this, nor why we need to argue to get it added before the game goes on sale or at least addressed as a near-term patch. Isn't this what the beta process is for? We haven't even seen the SC demo and we're already talking about SC2. OK, soapbox mode OFF. I'll grit my teeth and wait. :mad:

OK, will standard military symbols be provided as optional unit icons, or will we have to do this ourselves? Other than the scenario editor, will other aspects of the game be moddable? I'm thinking here of supply ranges and HQ C2 ranges, things that may be hardwired into the game code. An editable parameter file to supplement default settings would be nice to tinker with.

Regarding airborne at this scale, it probably doesn't make a significant difference. However, the potential capability has a strategic effect of forcing the enemy to consider air drops and diverting resources to deal with them. Airborne can also support invasions and river crossings. Similarly, commando units with a capability to invade non-beach hexes can also create diversions and provide support. WWII saw the introduction of these special operations forces. Despite limited successes and several outright disasters in the actual war, they could be very effective in the game if properly used. I would still like to see airborne units included in SC, even in a later patch, rather than postponed to SC2.

Airborne corps units worked fine in Third Reich at this scale. If you can load an infantry corps in port onto naval transport and select a target hex for seaborne invasion, you should be able to load an airborne corps at an airbase onto air transport and select a target hex. It should be the same basic algorithm in the game code and shouldn't be difficult to implement. Ditto for naval and air resupply capability, which I assume is addressed in SC. This is simply a fundamental feature for a WWII strategy game and should be included.

Just saw the announcements for SC and it looks great. But ... no airborne?? Crete, Sicily, Normandy, and Market-Garden may have to wait until SC2?? This REALLY needs to be reconsidered before the game goes on sale. It can't be that difficult to include airborne invasions upfront, since I assume seaborne invasion routines are already included in the game code. (They are, aren't they?) I'm wondering what else might be missing and I don't want to find out the hard way after paying for it. Also, I didn't see if the unit icons can be selected to standard military symbols, or if we're stuck with cute soldier and tank pics. A traditional display without eye-candy graphics and sound effects is fine. At least provided as an optional setting. Other than that, I'm looking forward to the demo. Thanks for finally making a WWII grand strategy game that looks decent!