John DiFool
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by John DiFool
-
-
I think this game shows how kaa kaa koo koo the
economic model is in SC1 (if I may be so blunt,
or blunt-headed
). When Italy can get aneconomy built up to more than twice the magnitude
of the United States, something is rotten in the
state of Michigan (which is to say, all US cities
that are not on the map do not exist to give the
US their MPPs). And to top it all off, when
France and the LCs are liberated, all those MPPs
go to France and the UK, with NO plunder bonus!
So it would seem that Italy's growth prospects
are significantly greater than the US's, as all
liberated countries go to the UK (which could use
them too of course, just pointing that out). The
Roman Powerhouse see just saw in this game then
should come as no surprise to anyone.
JD
-
My big honkin' message covered this: the Allies
can draw, and redraw, their own routes (I
suggested 3 hexes wide], as can any country with
a cross-water convoy route. Should be relatively
painless and yes force the Jerries to shift their
raiders around...
John DiFool
-
I remember Hubert commenting on this. He said
something about forts making things too defensive
(and some argue that things are TOO defensively-
oriented as it is). In CoS, which does have
engineers, I once made a "Fortress Germany"
during the 1944 scenario which turned out to be
impregnable (to the AI at least).
JD
-
The following is how I would like to see the
navy work in SC2. I will try to avoid using lots
of numbers [which naturally would be adjusted
during playtesting].
1. Keep hex movement-no zones.
2. Expand the Atlantic by at least 50% westward,
past Iceland in the north, and maybe down to
Dakar in the south.
3. Recon: Units have a base chance of detecting
other units within their detection radius [i.e.
it is NOT a sure thing anymore], subject to
radar and/or sonar tech. A 100-MPP air recon
unit would become available [so that you don't
have to waste heavy bomber units on such duty],
which would NOT do well against enemy air units
[tho it would be fairly competitive with carrier
air]. It would have limited bombing capability,
and would also be able to raid convoys [FW200
Condors], as would "regular" bombers.
4. Subs. Naturally, their chances of being
detected would be lower than a surface task force.
A ship would have its detecting percentage
increased by 2 parts sonar tech to 1 part radar
tech. A plane would benefit wholly from radar
tech [airborne centimetric radar]. Sub tech
would naturally decrease detection percentage
and increase dive percentage [alternatively, we
could replace "dive percentage" with fewer losses
when attacked-since we are talking about a wolf-
pack, not a lone sub].
4a. So wolfpacks=sub counter [say 20 subs per
counter]. Subs would operate in two modes:
Wolfpack mode and "Scattered" mode.
Both have advantages and disadvantages ["surfaced"
vs. "dived" is a more tactical distinction and
better handled via the abstraction mentioned
above]:
I. When in Scattered mode, subs are dispersed
over a wide range of ocean. Consequently, their
chances of being detected and taking damage are
decreased [the attacker likely only will nail a
few subs-at best-if they are scattered]. By the
same token, when scattered they do less damage
to enemy elements [including convoys-see below].
This will enable subs to sneak in and out of base,
and to and from patrol zones, with a smaller
chance of being found and harrassed. In addition,
if attacked, any subsequent attacks upon that
hex may be completely fruitless [you saw one sub,
it was attacked, other units were called in, but
were unable to locate any more subs, so you get a
"subs not found!" message].
II. In Wolfpack mode, they operate more like they
do currently, tho I would tone down both the
damage they take as well as inflict [on warships
at least], and decrease detection and increase
evasion a bit [however the latter is handled].
5. Convoys. To get MPPs from one place to
another, a convoy route must be drawn. It will
be 3 [or 5, whatever playtesting indicates works
best] hexes wide, doesn't have to be linear-i.e.
can have some detours-and any raider positioned on
the convoy route may do MPP damage to the
appropriate power. Surface raiders would be
allowed [as would air raiders already mentioned].
The defender can build sub hunter units for 200
MPP. Basically a few light cruisers and mostly
destroyers [DDs], they would have a much higher
detection and attack capability vs. subs
than "BB" units [which would go after the surface
raiders]. Escorts [100 MPP each for say 10 DEs]
may be also be assigned to a convoy route
directly, from either the port of origin, or
destination. They would be "abstracted" into the
convoy system [i.e. not on map], and increase the
possibility of subs taking damage, and lessen MPP
damage, on that route. [optional] Extra
direct escorts would suffer from a diminishing
returns principle [too many escorts for too few
merchants].
Convoys for the British would be from Canada, the
US, South Atlantic, and either Asia route, which
would also include any African MPPs [Med or
the long way-player choice-the Med route would
give you a few extra MPPs because of lessened
attrition-this is BEFORE the Italians interdict
them!]. A summary screen would list all convoys,
the MPPs being shipped, ports involved, and the
escorts assigned [if any]. Italians would also
have some from Libya, and Germans from Sweden
[and Norway, when/if conquered].
[Enemy knowledge of convoy routes. Several ways
to go here-the Germans could only discover a
route if they suddenly start sinking some MPPs-
would suggest a summary screen akin to the one
the allies use-each unit listed with MPP damage
done the previous turn. You want to avoid the
Allies from shifting routes each turn, so perhaps
it should be as direct a route as possible-
intervening landmasses permitting.]
5a. You would also need supply convoys, to
support troops on land masses separate from your
capital. Would work basically the same way, drawn
via user interface from port of origin to port of
destination, and any raiders along the route may
interdict said supplies [a 50/50 split if a
supply convoy and MPP convoy overlap]. Depending
on the damage done, troops on the other end may
see their supply levels drop by one or more
points.
6. Supply of naval units. There would be two
aspects affecting supply: fuel and ammo. Fuel
would be expended at a given rate per type of
unit [i'm not sure how to handle mid-ocean
refueling], and would necessitate returning to a
port if it gets too low. "Ammo" is a catchall
for all other things, such as food and crew
fatigue, would drop at a slow rate per turn not
in combat, but much faster when shots are fired.
Both would be replenished after a full turn
spent in port. I guess in the interests of
playability, this could be collapsed into one
statistic.
7. Stacking in ports allowed.
This is likely my swansong on this board,
at least until we get some new info on what
Hubert is going to cook up. But I think this
works MUCH better than any seazone system, as my
way retains the fun aspects of moving units
around and attacking the enemy without some of
the annoying aspects we have in SC1.
John DiFool
[ March 19, 2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]
-
You guys going to get it going again? I'd say
Rambo's chances of a strategic victory are pretty
much kaput (i.e. no chance of eliminating another
major power). What happened during Barbarossa
which caused your offensive to fizzle, R?
John DiFool
-
I have already posted my thoughts on seazones.
I think Jersey John is right-we just keep
reinventing the wheel here, so I might take a
hiatus-just drop in from time to time to see what
Hubert has decided to cook up.
And as far as sub wolfpacks deliberately targeting
capital ships-sure it would be nuts; the warships
would have to come to them, not the other way
around (hence targets of opportunity-or in SC
parlance "surprise attack!"
). But to makesubs ineffective against warships would be a
mistake. Essentially subs need to survive longer-
make their dive percentages greater and chances
of detection lower, and the Atlantic bigger, and
I think they will be in their element.
JD
-
Been here, done that. NO zones. :mad:
Plus subs WERE effective against warships, and
DID sink quite a few. Now the question is
whether their intended role was to actively look
for enemy warships. Except for the Japanese sub
fleet, the other major sub fleets were primarily
merchant raiders-but if a juicy CV or BB showed
up as a target of opportunity, they would
salivate at the prospect.
Capital ships sunk by subs include
Royal Oak
Courageous
Wasp
Taiho
Shinano
Now I would love to see a more realistic Battle of
the Atlantic, but to say that subs "shied away"
from enemy warships is nonsense.
John DiFool
-
Search the forum for "variants", as it shouldOriginally posted by Jollyguy:Variability such as your mug system has been suggested before, with an eye on SC 2. Another variant could be that each opponent has to drink a real mug of his favorite brew in conjunction with pulling a chit from the virtual mug. After downing several drinks, game variability would become extremely random.
turn up a few threads (incl. one which I began).
* * * * * * * * *
SC Chug a Lug!
Two sips if Jersey John posts a Bullwinkle
cartoon.
One chug if Rambo boasts that nobody can beat him
as Axis.
Two chugs if someone complains about the Axis
being unbeatable.
One sip if a newbie posts a question which has
already been answered (30 pages back, search
engine may not find it, terms used were different).
Three sips if someone complains about the
proliferation of air units.
One chug if someone complains about Hubert never
giving his feedback in a thread.
Two chugs if Hubert ACTUALLY gives feedback in a
thread. [all in good fun boss!]
John DiFool
[ March 15, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]
-
What happened to the guy who used to post hereOriginally posted by ham:It's Mannerheim. NOT _von_ Mannerheim.
under that moniker?
John DiFool
-
Hmm from the defensive side of things, wouldn't
the Russians be forced to build a few HQs of
their own, just to defend against the breakthroughs?
Is this a good thing?
A corps-building strategy probably would prove
inadequate in the long run, against this HQ
stacking tactic.
John DiFool
-
Okay-people keep using "forum" when they shouldOriginally posted by JerseyJohn:Liam
You're right, they are two of the worst problems. Glad you started this forum as it revives the topic. As you can see I'm pasting the three links as a reference.
The other forums ran their course. Perhaps yours will bring the problem nearer to a solution.
be using "topic" or "thread". This ENTIRE
collection of "threads" is called the "Strategic
Command Forum"-kapish?
John DiFool
-
Okay-people keep using "forum" when they shouldOriginally posted by JerseyJohn:Liam
You're right, they are two of the worst problems. Glad you started this forum as it revives the topic. As you can see I'm pasting the three links as a reference.
The other forums ran their course. Perhaps yours will bring the problem nearer to a solution.
be using "topic" or "thread". This ENTIRE
collection of "threads" is called the "Strategic
Command Forum"-kapish?
John DiFool
-
I think Grigsby in WiR had this right: Air assets,Originally posted by santabear:Another minor change in the game that might have a significant effect during play would be to introduce a pronounced weather effect on air/ground combat for summer vs. winter.
Not only are the level 4 & 5 fighters practically invincible, but they operate in sunshine, at night, through fog, rain, snow...whenever there's something to kill they're on the job.
If this were a tactical game the weather effect could be more specific, but since turns are weeks or months one could degrade the performance of the air during winter months to reflect fewer sorties due to bad weather.
by their intrinsic nature, tend to degrade during
a long bloody campaign. In that game the Luftwaffe
was never better off than during the first turn.
You really had to nurture them to keep them in
decent fighting shape. In SC however, well...you
know...
Aside from enemy action, you had basic wear and
tear on fragile high-performance machines,
accidents from various causes, good pilots
completely fatigued out of their minds, THEN you
put enemy action in on top of that... Well it's
no wonder the Luftwaffe suffered so much attrition
(esp. since Hitler and what passed for logistics
in the Wehrmacht at the time probably didn't
properly anticipate said high attrition levels).
John DiFool
[ March 11, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]
-
Didn't somebody make a scenario giving the Germans
the Swedish mines, while leaving the rest of the
country neutral? That would be the best solution
(for SC2, where any scenario designer anomalies
in this situation can be rectified).
John DiFool
-
The question for me is: how much control do you
give the players? If you force the Germans to
make do with the halfhearted total war mobilization
they embarked on before Speer came along (as
Sarge mentioned), is this fair? Or should you
let the German player have a choice in the matter?
But if he does decide to fully mobilize, and
there aren't any significant penalties for doing
so (political or economic-should there be?), will
that unbalance the game?
Russian pre-war setup, which is automatic-same
thing. Any sane Russian player wouldn't use the
current setup in a million years, but instead have
a thin line of corps up front, those armies
garrisoned in cities, and the tank and air units
held far back in reserve. But the Russians pre-
Barbarossa made some almost-fatal assumptions
about how the Germans would fight, and put most
of their units far forward. Should that be a
player choice, or an automatic thing? And again,
would this make Barbarossa much harder for the
Germans? [will have to try this alternate setup
for the '41 scenario sometime...]
These are examples of some of the hard choices
Hubert will be faced with as he designs SC2. How
much control-total, or limited? Are you as the
player the supreme dictator, with complete
control of every aspect of war (which nobody not
even Hitler actually had-not that he didn't try)?
Or should the game simulate the actual roles of
the C in Cs of each country, with more limited
roles (and underlings who covertly or overtly
futz up your desires, whether deliberately or by
sheer incompetence)?
I remember the Sim Can products of the 80's gave
you extremely limited command & control, along
with LOTS of FoW. I personally don't want to see
that level of "realism"-but aside from that
extreme, I'll leave it to the game designer to
make his final choice in the matter.
JD
-
Agreed with everything you said-of course I think
you want to use the "branching" thingie, otherwise
an even sound strategic policy would founder if
your opponent knew what was coming. You could
get into game theory tables, or a simplified
version of same, if you like (e. g. all other
things being equal and absent any pertinent
intelligence, try a Sea Lion 25% of the time,
and minors + Russia the other 75% of the time).
I dunno why strategic/wargame designers are so
reluctant to make their AI's open source code.
If they did (and what I suppose are some fairly
hairy legal entanglements were sorted out), then
all the complaints (a la MOO3, the latest example),
we always read about the AI of various games
would be moot, as the user base would write the
AI for you.
A true learning AI is the ultimate step. As a
complete ignoramus
of such things, I wonderwhat system resources + coding time would be
required to get a learning AI up and running. It
would be kewl to do a successful Dutch Gambit as
the Allies, then in your next Axis game see pretty
much the exact same tactics used against you!
John DiFool
-
Intelligence could be used to (randomly) spot
enemy units which would normally be hidden in the
FoW, which is as close an analogue to what really
happened than anything else I can think of [a
piece of code is intercepted, decrypted, and the
sortieing of an army unit onto a transport, headed
to say North Africa, is detected and displayed].
John DiFool
-
Good point. Russia was usually much harder toOriginally posted by arby:It costs 108 MPP's to reinforce an army from 1 to 10. That's 43% of the cost of building a new one. So essentially you're getting 90% of a new unit (the 10% was already there) at half-price. I'm not suggesting you make it a full 1-1 exchange, but reinforcement costs are too low. This goes back to what I've been harping on with the interplay between the economic and combat models: Germany remains so strong because (a) it doesn't suffer the losses it historically did during the years when it was on the offensive and (
it doesn't cost Germany as much as it should to replace the losses it does suffer. take down in CoS (yeah I know, Hubert is probably
getting tired of that comparison!), because of all
those half-strength corps the Russkies could rebuy
(after they got overrun). The only way to truly
eliminate a unit was to cut it off first, THEN
kill it. Else the damned things would keep
popping back up like roaches, requiring you to
stomp them, over and over again...
In SC, it doesn't matter how you eliminate a unit.
I think CoS had it right [in general]: the men
from an "eliminated" but in supply unit could
fall back and get reformed into new formations.
Dunno how Hubert could sim this without reinventing
the wheel, but it is likely one source of the
problem for the Russians.
JD
-
I dislike force pool limits because they areOriginally posted by Bill Macon:Shaka and I will no doubt continue to debate the multiple resources idea. Can it work? Of course it can; other games prove it. WiF has separate oil resources and HOI has everything. Do we NEED it for SC2? That's a game design decision that's not up to me; I'll only offer my recommendation against it. SC's charm is its simplicity and I see no compelling reason to change that. The abstract BRP worked fine for 3R, and the MPP works fine for SC. Some force pool limits could be introduced for historical accuracy and significant events could be used to affect production.
The bottom line comes down to asking "What can I buy?" and "How much can I afford?" This can be kept simple so players are free to make decisions (even bad ones, or slightly ahistorical ones). Fun and replayability are also important goals to keep in mind.
arbitrary: 3R/WiF et al. pretty much had to use
them because they can't put an infinite number of
counters in their boxes.
Well that, andthe fact that without a computer to crunch the
numbers, trying to adequately model de facto
limits (as imposed by the game system, and not by
the counter pool) would likely have proved
horrendous.
I reiterate: my problem with force pool limits is
that it is a guessing game as to (ex.) how many
air units to give to Germany. Is 4 adequate?
5? Trying to tweak this as a game designer would
be an almost Sisyphean undertaking. There wasn't
any Grand Deity Named Hubert who told Hitler that,
"No, Adolf, you cannot under any circumstances
have a fifth Luftflotte, and that's final!" I am
sure that he would have loved to have had a much
larger air force than he did-so model the reasons
why he couldn't, without some silly force pool
restriction.
I say, no size restrictions and SCREW the limit
(with apologies to Gary Larson
). If Germanywants to build a couple of extra air units, which
it ultimately cannot support (because of lack of
oil and/or manpower=trained pilots), then let
him. There is much more strategic "meat" in that
decision than just a firm, unyielding limit; maybe
the Jerries CAN get away with it. I am confident
that Hubert (we aren't worthy! :eek: ) can
devise something which is workable, playable, but
also puts the decision in the players' hands, and
not in his.
Another problem with force pools: it assumes that
the circumstances which prevent (in my ex.) the
Germans from building a huge Luftwaffe will always
and forever exist, despite any actual changes in
circumstances. Aside from the fact that they
have probably won the game, if the Germans capture,
hold, and get up and running the Caucasus oil
fields, and maybe have some Ukrainian nationals
who are willing to become pilots, then that force
pool limit is now bogus, and doesn't now reflect
the ACTUAL constraints on air unit creation.
Okay (rereading Bill's post)-I guess that would
qualify as a "special event"-but can Hubert
possibly foretell every single possible contingency?
It would drive him nuts, frankly. :eek: And as I have
argued, he doesn't need to.
John DiFool
-
I agree-I don't think using just these three wouldOriginally posted by Shaka of Carthage:You need to represent industrial might. Thats a given.
You need to represent manpower. Especially in a "what if" situation, unit maximums are not good enough.
You need to represent oil. This dictated many of the decisions and actions performed by the Axis (ie Germany, Italy and Japan).
Those three at a mimimum. There are a few others that would be nice, but are of lesser importance than the above.
bog the game down much if at all. I really don't
think you can just toss off any concerns about
the effects of oil supply on your war effort-it
was in fact massively important and I don't think
you can have an adequate sim of WW2 without
modeling oil in some significant way.
Sure you want to avoid the micromanagement heck
of HoI, but you also want to avoid these sorts of
gamey strategies we keep seeing. I am uncomfort-
able with attempts to "band-aid" things by
abstract means, when a more direct approach would
likely be more sensical and more elegant. Some
of these schemes I keep reading here (to limit
hordes of air/amphib/tanks/whatever) seem rather
Byzantine to me. :confused:
You need oil to run a mechanized war? Fine-impose
stringent oil costs on any mechanized unit. Thus
the hordes of air units will disappear, to be
replaced by a more historically-possible unit
mix (read: infantry units). No muss and no fuss.
John DiFool
-
I wonder if this is a result of two things:Originally posted by arby:Oh, I think the combat model does an excellent job of simulating ground combat during the World War. Unfortunately, it's WWI, not WWII. Think about it: if you took planes out of the equation, you'd have a perfect replica of trench warfare on the Western Front, with units battling for months over a few miles. In contrast, WWII ground combat was remarkably fluid, featuring armored breakthroughs, sweeping pincer movements, entire armies finding themselves suddenly surrounded. To the extent that happens here, it is only because of air power. You bomb some unit into oblivion, then exploit that.
Attacked armies which don't retreat, and
Damaged armies which can be pumped back up to
full strength, turn after turn.
As far as the latter is concerned, I have an idea.
A unit with no experience in SC1 is pretty much
equal to "green": they have had basic and
advanced combat training, drills and all that,
and have a basic idea of how to operate together
as a unit, even if they have no actual combat
experience.
But imagine a unit, heavily damaged in combat,
which then receives hordes of new recruits which
are then thrust right into the fray. Wouldn't
their "experience level" be >lower< than that of
a green unit which at least starts off highly
organized, and everyone knows what they are
supposed to do? But all those raw reinforcements
will be running around, in an already chaotic
situation, with virtually no idea of what their
role is?
So have an experience level "lower" than green-
if green is zero, then raw [as described above]
would be -1 [negative one]. This would mean a
defender couldn't keep reinforcing a unit turn
after turn without that doing nasty things to
unit cohesion and combat ability [which could
also be reflected in readiness levels if you
like-a reinforced unit would naturally have a
lower readiness than a unit which has been
sitting on the front undamaged for 5 turns].
If brought behind the front for a spell, a raw
unit would eventually get back to 0 [green]-
say it gains 1/3 of a point per turn as long as
it isn't further reinforced.
John DiFool
-
A few points:
Experience right now doesn't seem >quite< linear:
I have often reinforced a damaged unit with low
experience, but experience doesn't drop much,
while a 3-4 level elite unit will drop quite a
bit when reinforced. But yeah: I'd suggest that
the >effects< of experience be toned down.
Supply levels should be uncoupled from MPP levels
[for cities]-they really are two completely
different things and should be treated as such.
Subs and things should interdict supply lines
across water. Just draw a three-hex wide path
from a friendly port [optional: player's choice]
to the port [or HQ, or Mulberry] on the battle
front [in this case North Africa, or Northern
France of course]. Air units in range could
also interdict [think Malta]. Tripoli, not
Tobruk, should be the main Axis port in Africa;
if the player is given a choice, keep in mind
Athens likely should have a lower supply value
than say Taranto. Mind you I also have suggested
that MPP convoys also should have interdictable
paths on the map for subs, planes, and raiders to
station themselves...
And split up strength points between the air arm
and the ship itself on CVs. 5 and 5 work for me.
John DiFool
-
The key is how they perform in combat. I don't
have time to check, but how much of an edge do
the BB units have over the cruisers in SC? He
can chime in whenever he wants, but I think
Hubert intended "cruisers" to represent pocket
battleships and "mini" BBs such as the Hood and
the Scharnhorst...
John DiFool
-
Another argument against the plunder concept (at
least tone it down some...).
JD
). But to make
it doesn't cost Germany as much as it should to replace the losses it does suffer.
SC2 - Russian Surrender
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
At that point in the game it wouldn't really
matter. Germany will be rolling in the dough,
and would have lots of extra units even if G.
decided to attempt a Sealion (I know I usually
do). Not worth Hubert's time to code IMHO...
JD