Tigleth Pilisar

This is simply a new thread from an old topic where some good conclusions were reached. I'm restarting it to obtain any other feedback. From Jersey John: Two major solutions to improve both the fun and historical authenticity were proposed: Stacking up to 2 units with a HQ 1) Only units of like type may stack with an HQ. (ie: two air or two ground), armor and infantry may stack together. 2) Units may move to the "stack" hex and stack, but not move thereafter that turn. Units that move as a stacked group in a turn may not unstack thereafter that turn. 3) Units in a stack attack individually. ie: unit 1 gets its attack and then unit 2 attacks the defender on its own. Once the group is ordered to attack, both attacks occur against the same defender, one after another. 4) The strongest unit in a stack is the defender first (if attacked). The HQ is not attacked until all stacked units above it are eliminated. 5) The HQ of the stack supplies the two stacked units plus potentially three others (still has 5 units under command). 6) The movement of the stack is equal to the slowest unit's movement. In this thread we also proposed that an HQ have movement equivalent to an armor unit at all times. Therefore two tank units stacked with an HQ would have the movement of the tank unit. 7) The purpose of stacking is to allow more ground units to attack a single hex. This increases the effectiveness of ground units and decreases the need for multiple air units to "break a line". It allows better reflection of the "Blitzkrieg", and forces more offensives and counter-offensives in the eastern front. Retreating 1) Any unit reduced to strength 3 or less will undergo a "morale" check. Readiness is a proxy for morale, so that a new category for units does not have to be added. 2) A morale check is conducted by seeing if a random number is above or below the morale or "readiness" of a unit. If the number is below the readiness, the unit stands its ground. If the number is above readiness, the unit retreats. 3) Retreat is to move directly towards a friendly capital or city up to 1/2 the unit's maximum movement capability, rounded up. Readiness is cut in half for the remainder of the turn for the retreating unit to reflect it having less ability to withstand a subsequent attack. 4) If their are no empty hexes to retreat to (unit surrounded), then the unit is destroyed. 5) Air units (less than 3) attacked which fail a morale check are destroyed (they can not retreat). 6) If a unit is destroyed through surrender, the attacker gains one strength point to reflect captured equipment and a 10% increase in readiness to reflect improved morale. (ie: an army that is strength 8 that destroys an enemy, the enemy fails its morale, and the enemy has nowhere to retreat, results in the friendly army becoming strength 9 + a 10% readiness bonus). 7) The extra strength point may not raise a unit above its maximum. Air units do not gain an extra strength point if they are the final attacker forcing the "surrender" of an enemy unit. Other ideas I like, which relate to these concepts are: 1) HQ's move the same as armour (except zones of control affect them like they do armies). Why not? These units should be mechanized. At least have a corps movement. 2) Air units either affect primarily readiness when attacking enemy ground units, or we increase bomber soft/hard attacks by 1 and decrease fighter (air unit) soft/hard attacks by 1. Boys, the floor is yours

Terif Very much appreciate your sharing. A lot there I didn't know about war readiness. And about Carriers. I assume your Axis strategy of AA research is part of your counter-strategy to beat allied carriers? Thanks again.

Terif Very much appreciate your sharing. A lot there I didn't know about war readiness. And about Carriers. I assume your Axis strategy of AA research is part of your counter-strategy to beat allied carriers? Thanks again.

I think a good decision to abandon combined assault, but HQ stacking would be a fantastic tactical change to the game. I like retreat routing too, but what do you think about units taking damage having a "morale" check to see if they retreat? To simplify, perhaps readiness can be a proxy for morale. Have a rule like units taking damage bringing them to strength 3 or less must make a morale check and if they fail they retreat. Or perhaps if they are reduced to some percentage of original strength, and take damage, they must make a morale check. A morale check would be like "rolling the dice". If the computer rolls above the readiness #, the unit panics. The advantage of a morale check is that the attacker can't be sure if a unit will retreat or not - the better supplied it is, the lower chance it will retreat at all. The advantage of retreat to the defender is that it may pull a unit close to destruction out of the range of remaining potential attackers, thus saving it. The defender can make the strategic decision of using HQ's around units he does not want to retreat, because the HQ would improve the readiness and thus reduce the chance of retreat. I think this thread is to long for anyone else to participate in!

I'm still unclear on the final rule here. (As if our humble forum is creating the game - but then designers do watch from above With stacking I am clear that you now feel that individual unit attacks alone in a stack make more sense than some averaged or mega attack. Agreed. And that an HQ must be present for stacking. And that stacking can change the Russian strategy from a string of corps in a line to prevent breakthrough (not much like the real Eastern Front), to a Russian strategy employing greater use of HQ and possibly counterattack offensives. Likely a more interesting game. But I'm not sure about this combined assault. I understand, I think, that you want to perhaps reflect a combined arms attack. Or simply enable more breakthroughs to succeed. But I'm skeptical that the combined assault is needed. It sounds too powerful - units attack twice and get to move after attacking? That really makes HQ value go up! Perhaps, Jersey you could illustrate one example of the "combined assault" for me. Any example you want. I can't yet envision it. If only single attack for stacked units (individually) is involved, an Axis player could use 4 ground attacks on a 2 hexside-exposed enemy (if two stacked friendlies - 4 units - were used). I think this is enough to force a breakthrough. Players can risk a 3 unit attack (1 HQ stack with 2 ground units, plus one separate hex ground unit) and not be sure. If prior rules of having air simply reduce readiness of the enemy (or decrease air fleet attack strength vs armies), the use of air with some stacked unit attacks should be sufficient without another "free assault attack". I think it is one or the other - combined assault (which I'm still not clear on) or individual attacks. Also, you abandoned (seemingly) your line on retreat & rout. Is that still something you feel is required?

Jersey. Love the stacking idea. And completely agree with your assessment of the WWI attrition combat problems aspect of the game (which has caused air power to lack historical authenticity and has become the key breakthrough mechanism). Questions: 1)Do you need a HQ to stack units? Why not have them stackable on their own? 2) Did you say all three (including HQ) units have their attributes combined? Why not have each unit attack on its own? Just two conventional attacks at once (HQ has no offence) instead of one mega attack. 3) If you use combined defense (all three units add to one total), you have a unit that can't be attacked except by another stacked unit (because the defense will be so high compared to a single unit offense). I think the attacker could choose which defender to go after. HQ wouldn't be a choice until all stacked units are dead. Reasonably easy to implement. 4) Agree with the tank movement for HQ. Why wouldn't they have mechanized movement? 5) Don't think there is enough value to creating an "Air Marshall" unit. Interesting, but the game already allows HQ units to command Air units - not perfect, but simple and reasonable enough. 6) I like the idea of Admirals, but the allies pretty much rule the seas already. I doubt they'd need 2 Admirals out of the gate. What kind of ship would they be on? Similar stats to a land HQ, with cruiser movement? Only command the units they are stacked with? Or do they command 5 units (which I think is too many)? 7) Retreating. Not sure about this one. The game currently does not reflect morale (maybe readiness is a proxy?). I think you'd agree that routing and retreat has more to do with morale than unit size (and damage, although they are related). Also, zones of control should affect retreat. Friendly units within a hex should strengthen resolve to take punishment, while enemy units within a hex should increase the chance of panic. I don't like retreat being a simple matter of math (kill so many units and you know the enemy will run). Retreat is more complex. Also, tank overrun may also increase retreat chance. Just some thoughts...

Good thread Seawolf, but I've got to do too much scrollin' to work out your coding! So I'll just say, for Germany I like: Industrial Production, Jets and Tanks. Possibly subs and Anti-Tank. Almost never for all the others. AA doesn't apply to units, so I don't like it. And Iron Ranger sez he spends 9 chits for Germany. I thought the max was 8? :confused: For UK: Jets, Range and Industrial. Nothin' else. For US: Jets, Range, Industrial. Sometimes Anti-Tank. For Russia: Industrial, Anti-Tank and later, Jets. And if they survive, possibly tanks. For Italy: Usually industrial production. Then maybe Jets or Anti-Tank. Never research Sonar, Gun Laying, Anti-Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, or Rockets (except in early games and found out how poor they are compared to other advances). I recognize I probably don't use bombers right, but they are too expensive for the little damage they do (and the suceptibility to be damaged). Sometimes I have used heavy bombers for a strong naval attack successfully. A caveat would be that I may research something I see my opponent successful at. I think Jets are the whole game (exaggerating ... kinda).

I agree with both KDG's changes. They are simple and can be reflected in a patch. Another idea I have seen in other games is for a player to assign the air unit to a friendly ground unit, rather than directly attacking an enemy. The concept here is that the aircraft assists the ground unit in a combined arms attack. Some thought would have to put into how the supporting aircraft would assist the friendly unit's attack.

Thank you all for your well thought out responses, and for links to prior discussions. Liam: Interesting points. Specifically I liked how you spoke of "morale". Is history simply a function of environment (terrain, trade, tools, etc) or how much is it influenced by truly great minds and motivators (Churchill, or early on, the stir Hitler could make)? For example, how much did Churchill's staunch confidence and resilience inpire his people, compared to if say the prior leader (forget his name) and the patience allowing Hitler's earlier aggression (this policy has a name I forget too) continued? Jersey John: I'll have to read those posts. gazza_35: I agree with simplicity and playability. I also agree with replaying history having no "fun value". But many, in fact most, WWII games have no involvement with neutrals, whereas it is a very big (perhaps unitended) part of SC by comparison. Name one WWII game on the market where neutrals play such a large role. xwormwood: An interesting question regarding hate. I think Hitler and his generals were very good strategists at the outset. How could they have fooled so many people and won so many battles early on if not? But ultimately many synonyms for evil are used to discuss the whole fascist attitude. Jealousy, anger, mistrust, pride, ego, hatred. This led, as you pointed out, to the extermination of many great minds. Take even General Rommel, for example. (You might not have thought of this as a great mind) All questions of morality aside, he was a fantastic general. Hitler had him assassinated because he feared Rommel might be "coming after him". Hitler eventually killed most of his best people ("best" defined as serving his purpose the best), and committed unbelievable acts of hatred towards the Jewish people. You ask, "what could have happened if Jews were onside with the war"? Given the underlying reasons for the war, the Jewish people never would have participated (as a people). Even Einstein (truly a Zionist who renouced but respected Judiasm), left Germany even before WWII started to get messy. santabear: A agree. All wargames are truly about economics (in terms of winning/losing them). Les the Sarge: No negativity taken for suggesting it is a game. In fact I love the game engine itself (the rules, production, supply, command, etc.). But I do think if you say it is a game, then why not increase replayability by parting with historics to a greater extent? Make unit placement random or geography random for that matter. If you are going to let Allies be (relatively) unpunished for attacking neutrals, then make it a game - I'd still play! Otherwise, if it is a WWII game, neutrals should matter much less than they currently do. disorder: You vote game as well, but point out allies may have had plans to attack neutrals. Perhaps if they had been more aggressive, war would not have spread as it did. I think whether it is a game, or historical simulation, an attack of neutrals should be allowed. Only the penalty should be greater, and one should actually exist somehow after USSR and US have already come in. WWII was about freedom vs tyrany (from my soapbox anyway). In the game, the liberators can not casually become tyrants themselves (or just go all the way and make the whole thing a game). John Di Fool: Love your pattern of thinking. More questions than answers - same as me. Yes the game is about tradeoffs. My opinion is to give the player the flexibility to decide as much as possible. Then make the consequences for that decision accurate to history as best you can extrapolate. Your suggestion on the Russian front is fantastic. As a gamer, I'd be in favour of the opponent of the war-declaring player being able to place units. In the case of Russia or neutrals, this might make the game more interesting. Because I would like the game somewhat historically accurate, I would severely penalize a Russian choice that put a line of corps on the front with air fleets in the back. Why would I do that? Because that's not what happened in history. It doesn't reflect the then-current attitude of Russia. I would allow it though, and perhaps it means less MPPs to place. Give the Russians more MPPS the more they conform to history and less if they want a better "game solution" rather than a historic solution. Yes it makes things more complex, but its easy for a computer to handle. Thanks again for your input. I love SC's design, playability, strategy and also for the kind of players that play it.

I've become somewhat confused over what SC really is. :confused: This comes from some interesting gameplay against human opponents. And it seems many threads attempt to suggest game modifications to better reflect the units/environment to make things operate closer to history. Not being a historian, WWII seems to me ultimately to be about the spread of fascism. Sure there were other things involved that led to war, but lets just simplify. The Axis wanted to grow (expand, conquer, dominate, gain political influence, reinflate their economy, reduce unemployment from 25%, whatever you want to say) and the Allies wanted to keep borders as the originally were (or stop the axis, defend, topple the fascist governments, free attacked countries ... all the same idea). The game is not like that - or at least against human opponents. From a game perspective it makes perfect sense for the allies to attack Iraq or Portugal or Belgium or any and all neutrals. Why not? Its just math. You need the MPPs to defeat the Axis. And I suppose it provides more variables to the game. But allied invasions of neutrals are not in the spirit of what WWII was about. There was a clear attacker (axis) and defender (allies). To my knowledge, the allies did not declare war on one neutral in WWII. I think there are these two fundamental problems with the game: 1) The allies don't have enough long-term production to win the game without support of additional MPPs from neutrals, at least against a half-good axis player. 2) Many human allied players throw "everything they have got" at the Germans right out of the gate in super aggressive play. This often causes an inexperienced Axis player to be shut down out of the gate, or a foregone conclusion that the Axis player will win because the Allied player burns down so many of his resources in being aggressive early. Personally, I don't think this win fast or not at all strategy is much fun. 3) There is no longer any political or any other kind of penalty for an allied player attacking a neutral after the US and Russia have entered the war. I think a stand needs to be taken on whether SC is a war game or a WWII game. Personally, I'd love it either way. But if it is just a war game engine, make a random map generator, with random neutrals and it is a different game every time! I love the game fundamentals and would buy this game engine in random worlds in a second. If on the other hand it is a WWII game, there has to be far greater dissuasion for the allied player to attack neutrals. Its just not true to WWII. Of course, attacking neutrals as the allies should be permitted, but as it stands, it is oddly required. Perhaps George W Bush has been playing SC too much and figures Iraqi MPPs look good right now because Hubert didn't put enough allied penalty on it. (only in humour, and no disrespect to the lives currently at risk)

A little farther into the game with an early successful Sealion as the German player - things do seem easy. Orignially I didn't have many of the regular neutrals under occupation, but now I'm conquering them all. Its easy since the UK is dead the allied player can't reinforce neutrals in any way. So every second turn I have 1000 MPPs to spend. And an attack on my Western front is very difficult with no Britain to springboard off. It'll take some time, but things don't look very good for allies.

I just did the Axis early Sealion as well. I didn't plan to, but the opponent was playing the Allies like they were the Axis (ie attacking the Germans like nuts). In addition he pulled his whole navy into the Med in an attempt to kill the Italian Navy. So Sealion was necessary - as it commonly is against overly aggressive Allied players. I took Britain, but as I did, US readiness jumped 30% that last turn, and the US joined the war! So the game did not end. Russia came in the next turn. Of course, Britain lost all her units though. I had nobody on the Russian front and Yugo joined against me too - with no one but the Axis minors to attack there. Spain joined me when I conquered Britain. It is an interesting game as Russia is going to get 4-5 turns to build up before I can effectively do anything. With only the US in the west, I can more fully direct future production to Russia. In the end it is interesting though. I think the Axis will win as my production (German & Italian) may get to 900/turn shortly. But Russia will be a very strong opponent so its not for certain. Bottom line is that victory may not be a "foregone conclusion" for the early Sealion victory. Its too bad you couldn't keep playing after all.

It sounds like you come up with some interesting "games" in your quest for simulation over gaming. I think your goal is defeated (only to some extent) by the game design itself. Units are the same. A corps is a corps of any nation and will have the same stats if the same tech level. National differences are incorporated through tech advances available to all other nations. If those nations advance in tech, then the units will be back to equal. Experience and leadership are alther qualities that can be tweaked in an attempt to make units different, but they only start that way - game events can make all units the same. I agree it would be nice if units were "fundamentally" different. That is more of an SC2 issue that you can only very crudely create in SC1. (Maybe with a lot of fun) For SC2 there could perhaps be different stats for each country. Perhaps the Russian units would have a lower imbedded attack strength to reflect worse equipment. And German units would have a higher number of units present (perhaps LVL 0 German unit could have a 12 strength in a corps)to reflect that divisions contained more men. Then their strength would be 12 to 17, depending on future tech advances. With the manpower issue another system could be added - but here's an idea that would not have to introduce any new stats to track: Have city MPPs reduced by army and corp production. Perhaps German cities would collectively have to reduce MPPs by 5 per army and 3 per corps that is created. Perhaps some fraction of this for manpower reinforcements. Perhaps Russia would have no penalty at all or a severely limited one (maybe cost 1 MPP from a city's production). For example if German built 3 armies in a turn, 15 points would have to be deducted from cities. How to pick? Reduce from the cities the unit is built at. This would limit the Germans to 2 armies from a 10 city in one turn, and then it would have to take 5 turns (and 5 enemy turns) to build back up. In Russia, this would mean that a German army built somewhere in a 5 city would use all the resources. This has an unintended effect on supply though, draining cities at the fronts of their effective ability to supply units. Perhaps the player could be allowed to "move" supply. So the German could "move" some MPPs from Berlin to another city being drained. There could be a limit on how much moving resources is allowed. In effect, the drain in manpower could be reflected by decreased future MPPs if too many units are quickly created. There are probably better manpower solutions, but I'm a bit more of a gamer than a simulator. So I prefer less complex solutions. But I would be in favour of nations having each unit with different stats right at the outset.

Interesting. I may not be of much value in assigning equipment to your tech chart. It sounds like your goal was to more represent the cheaper costs of Russian infantry (through industrial production) and the better equipment in the west (through anti-tank). This pursuit has some value, but in general the concept of "MPP" and the fact that there are only two infantry unit types in the game - army and corps - may reflect it. For example, it is possible that a Russian SC corps has double the men a German corps has, but since they are equiped much less with possibly less advanced equipment, it ends up being that a 10 strength corps may adequately represent them. Perhaps because the Russian corps needs more men in it to get the same "ratings" as a German corps, such a great Industrial production advantage as you suggest for Russia is not warranted. The other thing I noticed was that you put the US anti-tank at level 5, relative to the others. That is a very significant advantage. I'm not sure what the right number is, but the war starts in 1939. Were US troops at level 5 in 1939? Or more accurately, should they be level 5 in 1941 when in SC the allied player hits Portugal or some other Axis harrassment strategy? Probably not. Perhaps on a relative basis the US obtained some superiority by 1944, but that would be reflected in SC by the Allied player electing to invest in AT research, not getting a big gift. Personally, I like the idea of not scripting the advantages/disadvantages so much of each side. The randomness of tech can really change the game. A recent opponent was quickly able to get lvl 2 AT in Russia against me - that changes things. On the other hand, perhaps there should be greater differences in the units between countries as would be more historically acurate. Squad Leader players, for example would know that Avalon Hill tried to reflect many differences between different unit types. I suppose Third Reich would be a better compare to SC, and individual units did have more difference between them. Personally I would like research itself revamped. It should be more of a continuous cost rather than one time. And perhaps more options - improving recon, entrenchment, interception, movement, engineering/bridge building, stealth, zone of control, improved supply logistics - I'm sure you could think of lots of interesting things. And some research perhaps should be cheaper because they are of less use - for example, who has ever researched sonar in SC? Not sure if this helps.

The real question here is "How should recon work?". IMO recon is a huge part of the game. If you know what the opponent is doing, you have a better chance of countering it. Should a city/industry/port be able to conduct recon one hex away? I think it makes sense. After all, if a city is controlled, there are likely some friendly forces there - perhaps a battalion or regiment, not a corps. Because recon is so important, it is another reason making air power so critical. Its been discussed how air can do so much damage to ground troops, picks up experience fast, and can increase the number of attacks substantially on a less accessible hex. Others have pointed out that air units cost over 3x what corps do so it makes sense they are so powerful. Air has two other huge advantages besides allowing multiple attacks: huge recon radius and the ability to operate across the world instantly. But I digress. From a "recon" standpoint I think it makes sense that cities/ports "see" the hex beside them, including colour change. But I agree on the criticism of colour changes on non-spotted areas. (In one game I saw Finland changing Russian Red, which tipped me off to troop movements where I didn't have any units who would see it). Perhaps FOW rules should apply to colour change: ie: colour only changes if a unit or city hex spots it. Of course, this only makes the recon feature of air even more valuable. Then perhaps it doesn't matter so much. Perhaps armies of the size and scale used in SC are not "ghost recon" troops that can sneak up on unsuspecting cities...

There's no question - buy SC as soon as possible. And I agree with Rambo's Surgeon general's warning - although the key is playing other people and not the AI.

Hehay!! Your victory is one I like to see. In the PBEM games I've seen the Allies are way too aggressive - and I guess they have gotta be. Strategies to take Iraq/Portugal/Spain/Norway, excetera give you a big boost in income, but they have a risk and that risk is Sealion. Far too many players abandon England entirely in a gamey, but high payoff "attack the neutrals" strategy. I think you have won the game by taking England before Russia and US join. Didn't he loose all his English units when the capture of Britain occurred? And you should get all his territories. So he's effectively blocked out of the Med. WWII against only Russia and US at the outset with 120 extra British production - yup forgone conclusion.

From a gaming standpoint, I'm not sure it will work to eliminate strength damage air units do to ground units. Ultimately, a large part of the Allied strategy (particularly in Russia) is to build many corps. By only exposing two hex-sides to an attacker, the defender can only be subject to two ground attacks, which is usually insufficient to kill even a corps - especially in 1940-41 when only a few tech advances have occurred. Add forcing the attacker to be in a river, and the Axis advance will be all done by the time the swamp is reached! The only way to "punch holes" in the line in this game is through aircraft because it increases the attacks to 3-6 times on the same unit. On the other had, if aircraft decreased readiness, maybe Russian corps could be destroyed with two ground attacks. From a game standpoint, the only other way to increase # of attacks on the same unit is by Rockets, which are by and large ineffective until tech is very high. So in the end, I agree aircraft is probably too powerful. But it is necessary. I also think that the suggested reducing readiness vs reducing strength points amounts to the same thing. If it takes 4 hits (2 from air and 2 from ground) to kill a Russian corps, then who cares if the readiness comes down and the ground hits harder or if the air unit reduces enemy unit strength instead? Still takes 4 hits, and I guess the air attacks would have to go first instead of mop up later - so they might be damaged more. KDG, I read Jet improvements the same way. Air fleets have an attack strength of 2 vs hard or soft units, no matter what you research. Perhaps your suggestion of reduced experience for a ground attack vs an air to air one makes sense.

The game is easily worth $25. It has reasonable replayablity and PBEM and hotseat against other people add to the diversity. If it had a random map generator and random unit starting locations/composition, it would be worth $60 since it would be completely different every time (and I guess not WWII but you could play it for the rest of your life!).

Well the allies seemed harder at first, but in time it all came together. Only +141 though as a score finishing in late 1944. Lower score since the German AI hardly declared war on any neutrals. I found that less research provided nearly the same amount of advancement. 2 research points is about as successful as 5, but my experience is limited.

My first game as Axis on Intermediate, +0 scored +319, finishing in late 1943. On the same difficulty, I'm now trying as Allies, which seems harder. I had about 7-8 tech advancements in the four year span. Averaged 5 research points most of the time and ended up with max funding in research.