Bill101
-
Posts
2,932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bill101
-
-
There is a mention that a large part of the grain for Austro-Hungary came from Romania and that A-H would not wish to lose this resource, so I assume that hunger is an issue. The British Blockade and the wide-spread hunger that it caused in Germany, at least, was a major issue.
1) Is, in fact, the hunger caused by the British Blockade and lose of access to Romanian grain represented?
2) Does a German defeat of Russia gain it access to Ukrainian grain as it did historically with the consequence increase in German morale?
Hi akmatov
Yes, these are all included, at least in the Breakthrough version. Some, but not all, were included in the base game too.
The British blockade will reduce Germany's National Morale, and the more ships involved, the more effect it will have.
If Romania enters the war on the side of the Entente, then Austria-Hungary will lose 50 National Morale points a turn, representing the loss of food imports. The same applies to Holland in relation to Germany.
As to the Ukrainian grain, Germany gains both National Morale points and MPPs when Ukraine is independent AND friendly to the Central Powers. This requires keeping four German units within 5 tiles of Warsaw as their presence will hinder Bolsheviks or others from taking power in the Ukraine - and stopping the grain exports to Germany.
The Ukrainian grain is explained on pages 61-62 of the 1914 Call to Arms Strategy Guide, Breakthrough Edition. This can be found in the Manuals folder.
Romania will provide Germany with grain if the Treaty of Bucharest is signed, and this is explained on page 63.
There are also images of the Pop Ups that appear in the game relating to these subjects on pages 68 onwards.
Bill
-
I'm a bit surprised as gas was definately used in WW1 and could have been in WW2.
True, and we decided to incorporate it with shell production as after 1915, its use was mainly as an artillery weapon, fired by shells.
Having it released from cannisters as it was in the 1915 battles on the western front wasn't going to be easy to represent, so we chose to include it with improvements in artillery, hence the research tech of Gas/Shell Production.
-
Hi akmatov
The research gains aren't shared and all majors must invest themselves to gain advances. This way the Germans might be well ahead of their allies - at least overall, as sometimes the Austro-Hungarians might advance quickly, depending on investments.
-
Of course, Hubert is right as I was forgetting that it's not the lack of rail connections that reduces a resource from 5 to 3, but the lack of a connection with friendly territory that is at the higher supply value.
-
WMDs and Atomic Bombs aren't represented as such, but in the Graphs section that is contained within the same area where you've been looking at the Loss Table, you can see the MPP cost value of casualties.
Every MPP worth of casualties will impact to the same value on the National Morale of the Major suffering those casualties, so inflicting losses will help bring them to their knees.
-
This is intentional as they will mobilize to a war footing only when the Ottomans join the war - in fact normally a turn later. Forces will then deploy in these areas that can be used for a campaign in Palestine or Egypt.
-
Hi Ashes Fall
National Morale will have some moderate impact on the unit morale and capabilities, as per the chart below:
The Effect of National Morale on Unit Morale
National Morale 0 - 40% -> unit.morale = unit.morale * 85%
National Morale 41 - 75% -> unit.morale = unit.morale * 90%
National Morale 76 - 90 % -> unit.morale = unit.morale * 95%
National Morale 110% or higher -> unit.morale = unit.morale * 110%
So in the game you're playing, Soviet unit morale will be reduced to 90% of what it would have been otherwise, while the German unit morale will only be reduced to 95% of what it would have been.
Subtle differences, but with differences in HQ ratings (which are important factors) and (if applicable) supply, then those would explain why your units are performing better. Especially if they are on average more experienced.
As to your question about supply, I agree with you. This wouldn't be the case if the supply settings have been changed from the default (as this is editable) but in the standard campaigns (and I've just checked 1941 Barbarossa) resource supply is calculated based on railway connections, so it should in normal circumstances drop from 5 to 3 as you've described.
Can you post a screenshot of the situation so we can take a closer look?
Bill
-
Hi Mook881
That is correct, you will be in control of all the Allies.
In terms of which one to buy, one thing to bear in mind is whether or not your fictional wars will be fought out more like WWI (i.e. with trench lines) or like WWII with more mobile warfare.
The reason being that the WWI games use an engine with slightly different settings, so choosing the right editor will be important - and the Assault on Democracy expansion to Strategic Command Global Conflict is our most up to date WWII editor/game we produce.
Bill
-
Hi akmatov
Action Points do equal Movement Points, though some will generally be used up if the unit attacks before it moves. So a unit that attacks then moves, cannot usually move as far as a unit that just moves.
Land units have attack values against air and naval units so that if they attack the former on land, or the latter in port, then they can inflict damage on them.
* Moving the cursor over a clearly Clear terrain square shows as 'clear' on the top bar, but right click doesn't function. Moving the cursor over a forested square can show 'Clear' on the top bar and 'Forest' on the right click Properties popup box, with a Movement Cost of 2. I guess that if it looks clear and says it is clear the Movement Cost is 1, even though there is no popup box?That's right.
As to rivers, the attacker suffers a penalty when attacking over a river, reducing their combat power and making rivers into good defensive positions - as long as they aren't outflanked.
-
Hi Whiterider
There is a work around method as described here:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91324&highlight=hotseat
-
Hi Sharkman
There are scripts in place (I'm looking at Global Conflict Gold) to move the USA, for example, 15-20% towards the Axis if the Allies declare war on the Dutch East Indies.
However, looking at the scripts, the oil embargo imposed by the USA on Japan from the summer of 1941 will occur regardless, and this does move the USA towards the Allies by a small amount every turn (1-2% until December 1941, 4-6% thereafter).
Some fine tuning may be possible, such as by increasing the penalties for a Soviet DOW on Japan, and for the Allies' aggression against the Dutch East Indies. We'll also have to think of a method to prevent the oil embargo being imposed in such circumstances, so thanks for pointing this out.
Unusual circumstances as they are, you are right to think that the USA wouldn't be so keen to enter the war with all of this going on.
-
Hi Isnogud
The occupier will be the country whose unit has taken the resource, just as long as the enemy country the resource originally belonged to hasn't surrendered.
So an Italian unit moving into a Soviet resource originally captured by the Germans will mean that Italy now occupies the resource and gains any MPPs from it that it might generate.
However, if the USSR has surrendered then all resources will belong to whoever the USSR surrendered to.
Does this help explain the Japanese situation you've mentioned?
Bill
-
Hi Honch
I find WWI totally fascinating so I think that should answer your question!
Bill
-
Interesting point Ancient Demon!
One thing that could be done, would be to make the actual Partisan trigger locations vary from game to game, so that they cannot be predicted before the revolt occurs. The Ottomans may therefore get lucky with their dispositions, or they may be surprised by the Partisan locations when they appear.
The only thing about this is that it's a move away from the approach we've adopted with Partisans for some years - that the occupier can see where they will trigger.
This was because in SC1, and the early years of SC2, players had no way of telling where partisans would deploy, apart from learning from experience and remembering/taking notes for future games.
I have in recent months wondered whether we've swung that a little far, and that somewhere like Arabia could be a good location for trying out more variable Partisan trigger locations. They would only vary from game to game, rather than during the game, and wouldn't be shown to the Ottoman player until the revolt is about to launch.
What I'm therefore proposing to do, is to have it so that outside of Medina and Hail, and also not including when the revolt spreads to Syria, the locations of the Arab revolt can vary.
-
Amazing photos, are they from a film?
-
Yes, it was as a result of the armistice between Finland and the USSR in September 1944. Finland had to cede some territory to the USSR:
-
I have been thinking about the real Axis Strategies with which they tried to win the war and what impact they would have in AOD. Sadly the answer is that even if they were implemented successfully they would not contribute much to a win in AOD.
Versus the UK and US the Axis strategy was "The Tonnage War". By sinking MS and Tankers faster than the Allies could replace them they would prevent the US from deploying its strength in Europe whilst they brought the UK and its Empire to their knees through shortages of critical materials. The AOD convoy system recognises the losses of goods in transit but not the long term impact of capacity loss.
Versus the USSR in 1941 the Axis initially attempted to destroy the Soviet field armies but belatedly switched to an all out attempt to take Moscow which they thought/hoped would promote a collapse of the Soviet government. This was a huge risk as it exposed the German armies to the ravages of winter much more than would have been the case if they had switched to a more defensive posture. We shall never know whether Hitler's belated gamble to take Moscow might have succeeded in toppling Stalin but we know for sure in playing AOD that the only result will be a smooth transfer of the administration to Sverdlovsk and a miserly 25 MPP booty with the sure and certain knowledge that Winter havoc will be wrought on Axis forces regardless of the outcome at Moscow.
Having failed to take Moscow in 1941 the Axis strategy in 1942 was to go for the Soviet oilfields as being another way to knock the USSR out of the war as well as easing the oil shortage in Axis countries. The grand plan was to conquer the Soviet Union up to what they called the AA Line running from Archangel to Astrkhan. In AOD the Soviet oilfields are represented by one field at Maikop and another at Baku. In fact the Soviet oil field at Maikop provided about 1/3 of the output compared to the field at Grozny which in turn provided about 1/3 of the fields at Baku. The total Soviet output from all 3 fields would have been approximately 4 times that of the Romanian fields at Ploesti. As it is in AOD the loss of two oilfields giving a reduction of 60 MPP per turn is distressing but not game changing. Even if there were four fields the loss of 120 MPP would be a hard blow but not quite catastrophic because the impact of oil shortages on many military aspects is not well modelled in Strategic Command.
I have written this post partly because I am keen that SC3 does recognise what might have been war winning strategies and provides appropriate rewards for players who successfully execute them although of course the Allies too should have opportunities to counter them.
The second reason is because I am currently working on modifications for AOD scenarios that will address some of these issues and I am interested in comments on my possible approach.
First I am providing an option for players to include The Tonnage War. I have not found any very good way to account for results between turns so I cannot accumulate Tonnage War losses between turns or even within turns and present a summary bill. Thus during each turn the Allied player might be presented with 3 or 4 bills by way of Decision Events to pay for MS and Tankers assumed sunk in the different oceans of the world. A key feature of Doenitz's strategy was that it did not matter where ships were sunk as it was the total capacity he was reducing. In my implementation if the Axis (or Allies in Japanese waters) has more than a certain number of raiders the other player gets both financial and supply penalties. There is also a sanction of strength point and morale losses if the player fails to accept the DE cost. If anybody has a better idea as to how to represent the Tonnage War with a real opportunity for the Axis (or Allies v Japan) to win via it I would be interested to hear of it.
With respect to taking Moscow I would like to make that a more significant benefit for the Axis but I do not want to cause the fight with the USSR to effectively finish then. I am currently considering whether to make the Axis Winter losses dependent on whether Moscow has fallen or not. Thus if it has fallen before the losses would be triggered then the trigger fails. The logic is that the Soviets would be so disrupted and disheartened by the fall of Moscow that the Axis has enough time and energy to counter the effects of Winter. This approach recognises the gamble the Axis really made and rewards or punishes the player depending on their success or failure in pulling it off.
With respect to the oilfields, first I am including 2 extra fields to match reality and these are what the USSR gets to pay for its contribution to Tonnage War losses if the Allies perform at average levels. However, I would also like to create an additional impact on the general supply net for the USSR if the fields are all lost. I am currently testing the impact of creating a separate country to represent several of the Republics in the USSR. In particular the Ukraine and all those in the Southern Caucuses such as modern day Chechnya and Azerbaijan which encompass Grozny and Baku. I then allocate those HQ's to this new country which were actually Marshalls or Generals born in these areas e.g. Voroshilov who came from The Ukraine. I then have the USSR start with 8 x HQ on the map or in production of which 4 are from the new country. The effect of this will be that these HQs and their supply nets will disappear if the Axis captures Baku which is the capital.
This way of disrupting Soviet supply is not ideal because it also disrupts the general working of HQs since the new country ones cannot enhance normal Soviet units although they do contribute to the supply net. I would be interested to know of any other suggestions for increasing the impact of oil shortages in the current game.
Having oil as a discrete resource is one of the things I am looking forward to in SC3 but I am hoping to at least improve the current situation before then.
Regards
Hi Mike
Good post, and here are a few off the cuff suggestions for things that are possible with the engine.
The disruption caused by the loss of the oilfields could be to implement Supply scripts affecting all Soviet Industrial Centers, Capitals, and Primary Supply Centers when they fall.
Not so much a long term effect but at least to cause some temporary disruption.
The penalties for having Moscow fall could be increased with the use of a National Morale bonus to Germany, a penalty to the USSR, coupled perhaps with a Strength script to reduce Soviet morale temporarily. Again, Supply scripts like in the above could be used too to reduce Soviet supply overall temporarily to reflect the disruption caused by the fall of Moscow.
For the tonnage war, this is a bit harder but scripts could be used for the presence of naval units to trigger National Morale losses for the target nation, e.g. the UK.
Bill
-
Hi Mike
Good post, and here are a few off the cuff suggestions for things that are possible with the engine.
The disruption caused by the loss of the oilfields could be to implement Supply scripts affecting all Soviet Industrial Centers, Capitals, and Primary Supply Centers when they fall.
Not so much a long term effect but at least to cause some temporary disruption.
The penalties for having Moscow fall could be increased with the use of a National Morale bonus to Germany, a penalty to the USSR, coupled perhaps with a Strength script to reduce Soviet morale temporarily. Again, Supply scripts like in the above could be used too to reduce Soviet supply overall temporarily to reflect the disruption caused by the fall of Moscow.
For the tonnage war, this is a bit harder but scripts could be used for the presence of naval units to trigger National Morale losses for the target nation, e.g. the UK.
Bill
-
You're quite right, and I think I can fix that. Thanks!
-
I'm afraid not, this is a bug that we should have fixed shortly.
Fortunately as this AAR game is using a beta patch that is currently under testing, we have time to get it fixed for the release.
It's a shame for the Entente as it was a good move to land in southern Turkey. The British long considered just such an operation during the war, but I think Gallipoli contributed to putting them off trying it.
-
That's a valid question Sharkman and I think it would be interesting to consider the consequences if Italy doesn't immediately enter the war.
I wonder, would the Allies then find themselves in some circumstances having to declare war on Italy?
There are ramifications if countries have to declare war, which would need to be considered, due to the upset it would cause the USA, whereas the way we make Italy enter the war at the moment is handled differently and can avoid that.
But first, the reasons why it's set that way are:
a) because Mussolini didn't follow what Hitler wanted, e.g. the attack on Greece, so this represents the lack of control that Germany had over him.
to also save players from having to click on the war map and declare war all round. We have experimented with players having to do this at times, especially in the earlier iterations of WWI, and it did cause a fair amount of confusion.I see what you mean about pulling the garrisons from the Med. Do you think that is a gamey tactic to trigger Italy to enter the war while France is still relatively capable?
-
Ancient Demon, luckily for me, this time it's not me getting a hammering here!
Hyazinth von Strachwitz who also posts here is playing this against the Entente AI.
I see what you mean about Ottoman supply levels in Syria and Palestine, and will have to check with him to see if he can shed any light on it.
-
The low NM will certainly have a moderate effect on units' fighting ability, so it won't be good to let it get that low.
-
Hi
Watch the Kaiser storm to victory in Hyazinth von Strachwitz's latest After Action Report playing our 1914 Call to Arms campaign!
It's in German but due to the numerous pictures the details are fairly easy to understand if you don't speak German.
You can follow the action here:
http://www.si-games.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26282
Bill
to also save players from having to click on the war map and declare war all round. We have experimented with players having to do this at times, especially in the earlier iterations of WWI, and it did cause a fair amount of confusion.
Are Research Gains shared with Allies?
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
It's not possible I'm afraid without significant engine changes.
But some sort of technology transfer with an MPP cost is an idea for us to consider for the future.