USGrant

When I play I get the impression that the expected bell curve of research results is not quite right. Things seem more random than they should be, with multi-year streaks of quick advances or streaks of no advances being the rule rather than the exception. While these things can happen, they should be relatively rare. Say you have research points in 4 areas with 3 in a couple and two in the others - that translates into 4x13=52 dice rolls per year. One old statistical rule of thumb is that you should begin to expect the bell curve to assert itself after around 30 data points. My impression from my play and posts on this board is that games commonly are well above or below the expected results. This is, of course based on way too few games to be statistically significant, so your mileage may vary! In an earlier version, there was a bug related to resetting the random number generator. I wonder if that bug is not quite dead yet? Anyway, if the dice are working properly I think that the simplest solution to rationalizing research is to limit each area to 4 points instead of 5. [ September 02, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

I'm slightly embarrased to admit that I just lost a game to the Allied AI. I went for maximum tech before Russia and, after purchasing 10 points of tech, got squat for advances for 3 years. Russia is really tough with level 0 air, level 0 infantry, and level 1 tanks for the first two years! I finally finished off Russia in 1945, but by then the western allies were overrunning the Fatherland. Which brings me to the point. As they approached Berlin, supported by 14 air units :eek: , the AI got really stupid. It spent half a year destroying every unit adjacent to Berlin, and completely surrounding it. In each case, it would hammer a unit with air strikes and then attack with ground units (good tactics). Then, once Berlin was totally surrounded, it finally attacked. As soon as it got one or two adjacent hexes it should have slammed the Berlin garrison with up to 14 air strikes and walked in. Hubert, I suggest that the targeting priority of Capitols be increased, even if the defensible terrain is making the AI think it should attack elsewhere first. This might be a problem if there is insufficient force nearby (like the premature Normandy issue), so there might have to be an AI rule to define overwhelming force. I also agree with some other posters that there should be a surrender button so we can bail out and see our sad scores - and the enemy's dispositions. Lastly, I thought that I had a good feeling for the country surrender rules, but this game was surprising. First, once I captured the second Soviet capitol I proceeded to wear down the Russian army to a point where there were no more than half a dozen units and an occasional partisan left. Yet it continued to fight on for 4 or 5 turns. I think the remaining fighting force factor that prevents surrenders must be based on the MPP values of the remaining units. Not until I wiped out one of the 4 Soviet air wings that were dancing around the periphery of the Motherland did they surrender. Second, Germany didn't surrender even though the whole Fatherland was conquered by the allies. I agree with the concept that losing a single capitol does not necessarily force surrender, but losing every city in the home country should finish you off.

I'm slightly embarrased to admit that I just lost a game to the Allied AI. I went for maximum tech before Russia and, after purchasing 10 points of tech, got squat for advances for 3 years. Russia is really tough with level 0 air, level 0 infantry, and level 1 tanks for the first two years! I finally finished off Russia in 1945, but by then the western allies were overrunning the Fatherland. Which brings me to the point. As they approached Berlin, supported by 14 air units :eek: , the AI got really stupid. It spent half a year destroying every unit adjacent to Berlin, and completely surrounding it. In each case, it would hammer a unit with air strikes and then attack with ground units (good tactics). Then, once Berlin was totally surrounded, it finally attacked. As soon as it got one or two adjacent hexes it should have slammed the Berlin garrison with up to 14 air strikes and walked in. Hubert, I suggest that the targeting priority of Capitols be increased, even if the defensible terrain is making the AI think it should attack elsewhere first. This might be a problem if there is insufficient force nearby (like the premature Normandy issue), so there might have to be an AI rule to define overwhelming force. I also agree with some other posters that there should be a surrender button so we can bail out and see our sad scores - and the enemy's dispositions. Lastly, I thought that I had a good feeling for the country surrender rules, but this game was surprising. First, once I captured the second Soviet capitol I proceeded to wear down the Russian army to a point where there were no more than half a dozen units and an occasional partisan left. Yet it continued to fight on for 4 or 5 turns. I think the remaining fighting force factor that prevents surrenders must be based on the MPP values of the remaining units. Not until I wiped out one of the 4 Soviet air wings that were dancing around the periphery of the Motherland did they surrender. Second, Germany didn't surrender even though the whole Fatherland was conquered by the allies. I agree with the concept that losing a single capitol does not necessarily force surrender, but losing every city in the home country should finish you off.

A rework of CHQ would be a great project for Battlefront or Matrix. That game was way ahead of its time.

I've stated this in other threads so forgive me for being repetitive but why are there a certain group of players who are so concerned about how long the game plays? I don't think saying that SC takes only 5, 6, or 7 hours to complete is that much of a selling point for most players. Afterall, how many times do you hear people complain that such and such a game is too short and wargamers and rpg'ers are used to games that take a while to play. The purpose of the save feature allows you the luxury of playing as much or as little you wish during each session so the idea of knocking off a complete game in one sitting means nothing to me. So, in conclusion, I wholly endorse the notion of weekly turns and incorporating variable regional weather conditions which would effect movement and combat. I don't think these two features would increase complexity a whit, and as far as making a single game play longer, so much the better. </font>

I'd vote against that, it would ruin the game. Instead of playing the whole war in 3 to 5 hours, it would take 20. You would also have to halve or quarter the movement allowances so that infantry moved one and armor 2 hexes per turn.

Serious about the problem, not serious about fixing it right away - if it is even related to SC. I don't think the problem (if it is related to SC) is with PBEM, I have not played that way. I was running ver 1.03 when it happened. My system is a P4 with WinXP. I think it is more likely that the problem was caused by a hiccup in time.windows.com or something like that. DDW, are you running XP and do you have automatic internet time sync turned on? DDW, I loaded your turn and then quit and went back to single player. It caused no problems other than a version mismatch and the fact that I did not have a password. The clock did not change.

I saw that 8197 date as well. It seems to depend on where you look at the date - I found the problem when I went to system restore and its calendar said 2099. The clock itself said 8197 or something similar. I didn't think the problem was caused by SC, but now I am suspicious. I'll test PBEM if you like. I have not tried it yet. Send to usgrant@chartertn.net.

Hubert, I have not been able to play SC for two days. It would crash immediately on startup. I even reinstalled and it would not work in versions 1.0, 1.2, or 1.3. I also noticed that some of my other programs were behaving wonkily and was at a total loss. Finally, I accidentally discovered that my system clock had somehow been set for the year 2099! So - SC will quit working some time in the next 97 years and I think you need to get on this right away!

I agree, that's why I suggested simply lowering the limit per category to 4 or 3 instead of 5.

I played 1.03 about 2 hours last night and one hour this morning. The only problem I had was that after two hours the screen redraws suddenly got jerky, but that was after my virus scanner popped up and started an automated scan, so I attributed it to that. I'm running Windows XP. [ August 17, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

I think this is mostly a problem when one is playing the Axis. Upon conquering the historical early-war losers, the best strategy is to put most or all of the plunder into research. The Germans then have between 5 and 10 research points and can sequentially place 5 points in industry, jets, and then tanks. I ran some simple statistics to calculate the chances of getting a single advance over time (I didn't look at multiple advances, I would have to get out some old textbooks to remember how to do that). The chances of getting a single advance at 6, 13, and 26 turns (~1/2, one, and two years) are: 1 Research Points - 26.5%/48.7%/73.6% 2 Research Points - 46.9%/74.8%/93.5% 3 Research Points - 62.3%/87.9%/98.5% 4 Research Points - 73.8%/94.5%/99.7% 5 Research Points - 82.2%/97.6%/99.9% So with 4 or 5 research points, one can be pretty confident of getting at least one advance every 6 months (with potential for more than one). Four points essentially guarantees a minimum of one advance per year, with pretty high odds for multiple advances. As such, I have been suggesting limiting the maximum number of points in an area to three or four, instead of five. A 25% chance per turn is just over the top, in my opinion. Hubert could implement this simple fix with little effort and no fundamental changes to the playtested system. I think limiting points to 4 per category will slow some of the "unrealistic" German advances while still allowing the Allies to play catch-up later in the game. In response to folks dislike the possibility of two advances in a row, I don't really have a problem with that. I think the jump from a Pzkw IV to a Tiger or Panther could easily be represented by 2 "levels" and the same for the improvement from a Thunderbolt to a Mustang or a BT-7 to T-34. [ August 17, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

I actually use it all the time for Corps - at 8 to 12 MPP to move across the map it is a great quick response tactic. If one RTFM, the unit's supply value must be >=5, and the destination city or fortification must have operational efficiency >=50% as well.

I think the action point adjustment by season is a good idea. I wouldn't drop a turn per year though, 13 goes into 52 weeks nicely to create 4-week turns (counting both player turns). If we went monthly we would have to argue about production in February being 10% less than March becasue it is 3 days shorter ...

I've come to the conclusion that the German research thing is way out of whack. To get it in whack I have implemented a house rule (against the AI) that says I won't buy more than 8 research points and put more than 3 in a single category. I really think these changes should be included in a patch. This would be much simpler than the various suggestions to overhaul the whole research structure.

Now that you mention it, I've never counted the turns. I assumed that there were 26 player turns in a year. Is this correct, or are there 13?

I have a slightly different issue with America in the game. I like the random entry component for the US and Russia, but I wonder if they could use some calibration. Based on my limited experience so far with the full game I wonder if the US is programmed to almost always enter "early"? Early US entry was a pet peeve of mine in Clash of Steel. In that game the entry changes were listed in the docs, and if you added up the historical Axis conquests, the US automatically came in 6 months or so early. I have not yet tried exactly historical Axis DOWs with SC, but have been close and seen the US enter 6 months early (whereupon they immediately began the already described, half-hearted Overlords in 1941). I may have been way out on the randomizer, but from watching the entry percentages I don't think so. This is not really an issue for me against the AI, but could be a problem against humans. US entry in mid-41 could make conquest of Russia impossible against a human. What are other folks' experiences? [ August 07, 2002, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

I agree with most of these ideas, but think they will probably wait for SC2. The simplest way to address this problem (and I do think it is a problem) and stay within the structure of SC is to decrease the maximum number of research "chits", say from 10 to 8, and to decrease the maximum allocation to any one category from 5 to 4 or 3. An additional tweak that I would like to suggest is to increase the cost of research points to 300 and to start each major power with one free point. That way even France might have a surprise up its sleeve some times. [ August 07, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

If you missed it, here's one from last week, using the Gold demo: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000714

I wanted to see all of the minor country setups in the Gold demo, so as the Axis I declared war on everyone on the map. I then proceeded to play a couple of turns this way and the AI did some very nice things. To wit: It moved most of the Spanish army to the Paris/Maginot area. It moved a Turk, Brit, and Frog from the middle east to bolster the Russian front. Turks and Greeks began to advance through Yugoslavia. However, it seemed to be brain dead on the Swiss and Yugos, not moving either into Germany even though the way was open. Then I tried the same experiment from the other side and that is when the AI looked really weak. The Spanish did not budge, even though Bordeaux was wide open. Again, the Swiss did not advance behind the Maginot line. The various Balkan troops all stayed home when they would have been useful in northern Italy or Germany. And the Swedish air unit sat in Sweden instead of deploying somewhere useful. I only ran these tests a couple of times set on Expert +1, FOW off. You mileage may vary. Perhaps in a patch Hubert can up the aggressiveness or cause the "strategic AI" to make better use of these forces.

Another approach for Hubert might be to do a stand-alone "Russian Campaign" using the SC engine. I think the complexity level of SC is just right, but would not object to a few more hex rows or a little chrome.

I started with France 1940 by Avalon Hill. I guess I was about 11 years old. I played lots of the original Third Reich back then. Try this link to see the current market for those games: http://listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/category2558/index.html

It would also be nice if you made the Russians face west. Very nice work.

Just thinking out loud here, but how about filling in the "missing" infantry tech with something that goes like this: 1. Submachine guns - improved soft attack and defense 2. Basic amphibious/marines - reduced random losses on landing, maybe reduced transport costs for infantry only 3. Motorized infantry - increased readiness or action points (not sure which is more applicable)for infantry 4. Mechanized infantry - ditto 5. Advanced amphibious - reduced random losses on landing, improved readiness The basic chance of losses on landing and readiness could be increased, to be offset by levels 2 and 5 above. Armor would always be subject to the higher loss rates when landing on uncontrolled hexes, encouraging realistic landings by infantry first to secure the beaches. Level 2 would be the typical Sea Lion situation and Level 5 would be Overlord. This series of improvements is slightly more complicated than the other techs - they each seem to be linear increases in one or two attributes. I'm sure SuperHubert can figure out a way to program something like this :cool: [ July 08, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

ditto and bump I've had the same trouble with both naval units and armor units. Of course allowing players to pick hex paths would tilt the game more in their favor vs. the AI.