ev

There is a random element to research. A researcher tries different ways to solve the problem. Sometimes he lucks out and finds the solution in his first attempt. Most often, the first thing he tried does not work, and he has to keep trying again and again until he figures it out. However, even if the first attempt fails, that does not mean this first failure does not bring you closer to a final result. At the very least, you can cross out one option that does not work. And, further more, you learn stuff in the process. WaW's tech model assumes that past attempts to discover a technology do not contribute anything to the final result. Each turn, you roll the dice, and the conditions for the dice roll are exactly the same regardless of how many months or years you have been working on this research. From what I read here, scww1 uses the same model previously used in WaW. I would like to suggest two alternative models: (1) Filling the bucket: Each turn you roll a dice and obtain a result, say 1-6. You add this result into the bucket. Say the bucket can hold 60 points, when you have accumulated those 60 points you get you new tech. If you invest two chits, then you get to throw a second dice. But if you want to factor in a diminishing return on investment, the second dice thow could be subject to some reduction... The above scheme has a couple of advantages. You eliminate the unrealistc one turn discoveries (you cannot fully design and test tank or an airplane in one week). You also eliminate the extremely long periods of no advance. But you keep some statistical variation which would tend to concentrate along the center of your statistical "expectation". (2) The turn counter: This method keeps tracks of how many turns you have been researching a given tech. And, for each turn you have been researching a given tech, you get a push on the likelihood your dice roll will be succesful. I prefer #1...

I have seen high level tech tanks in the pictures shown. If I remember correctly, I have seen level 4 and level 5 tanks. However, the game is still around the end of 1942. In WaW, maximum tech level for tanks was 5. Do we have more tech levels in this game? ...or, did we reach maximum tech level (for tanks) already?

I have WaW but not SCGC. Could you please explain what is this recon abiliy? Yes, it is very empty. Aren't you worried about partisans?

There is still a third course of action. You can place an mpp penalty for producing or upgrading units to the maximum tech level achieved. Say for example you have tank level 3. And, lets say it would cost 5% more to upgrade a tech level. So upgrading from 0 to 1 would cost 5%. Again, add another 5% when you upgrade from 1 to 2. But, if you upgrade to your max level researched it would cost yet another 5% for the regular tech increase, plus say another 20% penalty for pushing to the limit of your achieved tech level. If a few turns down the road you reach tech level 4, then the production cost of level 3 units would drop since you no longer have to pay the 20% penalty for level 3 units. But, of course, you would have to pay the penalty for level four units. This third option discourages players to push tech production to the very limit (in a rather realistic manner). This in turn allows other players to catch up through "inteligence". But still allows a player to produce top tech units at a premium cost). And we can do all this without having to add new technologies, etc.

Looks like a great game! Some of you have mentioned SS units. How are they different from regular units? How are retreats working? ...I have not heard of any units retreating so far...

I know this one wish is most difficult... no way we could have it for Global Conflict I. But maybe later... I wish, some day, we will have a global conflict game that plays out in an spherical map. It seems GC's map will be a cylindrical projection of the globe. Cylindrical projections work by stretching the northernmost and southernmost latitudes, while compressing the equatorial latitudes. Needless to say, this distorts distances. It would be fantastic if some day we have a global game that plays out in a global (spherical) map!

MHM... I think we are stuck. If I can think of anything else, I will post... Thanks for helping me with the SDB issue above. I am working on my own mod, and I was about to make a big mistake.

Got it. In that case, we can make tanks weaker by simply increasing the TDB of almost every tile in the map. The next question is: how can we make infantry stronger in "rough terrain" without making it stronger in clear terrain? Infantry Corps have values of 1,1,1,1 (SA,TA,SD,TD) in WaW. These seem fine for clear terrain. But seem too low for Forest, City, etc. I would like my infantry corps to remain relatively weak in clear terrain, but to perform better in rough terrain of different sorts (both offensively and defensively).

Your post makes me wonder if I am reading the Defense Bonus Table wrong. The defense bonus table details a Soft Defense Bonus and a Hard Defense Bonus. There are two ways to read this: (Option #1) A Soft Defense Bonus is the bonus applicable to a Soft unit defending the tile regardless of weather the attacker is Soft or Hard. (Option #2) A Soft Defense Bonus is the bonus applicable to any unit defending from a Soft Attack. I was reading the Soft Defense Bonus Table as per #1. You seem to be reading as per #2. I am not sure what is the right answer, but it makes a huge difference. If my reading of the Soft Defense Bonus Table is right, increasing the Soft Defense Bonus of a tile will favor a soft (infantry) defending that tile equally against all attackers (infantry, tank, air, naval). What you are proposing is to selectively increase the defense bonus of infantry defending from armor in a city (or forest, or mountain tile). This makes perfect sense. But, this may not be possible with the current game engine... if my reading of the Soft Defense Table is right... Could anyone clarify what is the correct way to read the SDB table?

WUSHUKI, you bring many good points. In particular, your point about infantry attacking a city is very important. I tried to address this issue by increasing the attack strength of infantry corps. My infantry corps now has attack values from 1,1 to 2,2 (SA, TA). I did not feel comfortable about increasing the Army's SA and TA. I am a bit unsure about increasing the armies attack values. As I understand, an SC army is something like 2 infantry corps crammed into a single tile. If I this is correct, then the combat strength of an SC Army should be less than twice the combat strength of an infantry corps, due to inefficiencies resulting from packing more men into a limited area. I agree, up to a point, with your argument that an Army included multiple weapons. It certainly included artillery, antiair and antitank guns, some organic transport and recon vehicles. But tanks were a very precious commodity during WWII. Besides tanks needed train mechanics and specialized bridging and servicing equipment. My guess is that infantry divisions of WWII had no heavy armor permanently attached to them. ...armies of course are a bit more complicated because generals shifted divisions from one army to another quite often. But, as far as SC2 is concerned, I think of Infantry Corps and Armies as being 99.9% soft targets. Having said all this, I agree infantry units should posses better striking power - in broken (not clear) terrain. The whole purpose behind my proposal is to make the infantry corpse stronger in broken terrain, while leaving it essentially unchanged in clear terrain. Maybe, the way to go about this is to increase the Terrain Values of broken terrain... Could you give me some examples of the changes you propose? XWORMWOOD: Your point is well taken. However, we might not need 12 different tiles. One more terrain tile may do the trick: The idea would be to break down clear terrain into two types of tiles: broken and flatland. The broken tile would cover a wide range of terrain which is not perfectly flat: Bocage, light forrest, rolling low hills, etc. In this type of terrain, SDB for infantry would be 0, just like SC2's clear terrain. Flatland would represent, the Russian steppes, together with certain parts of central Europe which are very flat. Flatland would have an SDB = -1. By the way, the broken terrain tile could also apply to areas around a city with some population density where infantry could find buildings to take cover. (This in turn would address one of WUSHUKI's concerns.)

Posdata: I made a typo above. I meant to increase the defense values of Armies (3,2,3,3). However, I have some doubts here. Some play testing would help...

During the First and Second World War, charging across clear terrain was the deadliest thing an infantryman could face. Since the invention of the canon and musket, defenders have always looked for open field of fires to maximize their weaponry. The repeating rifle and the machine gun made open fields of fire the more deadly. At first glance, all this seems common sensical... In broken terrain, attacking infantry could use terrain obstacles as cover as they approached the defender. But in clear terrain, infantry men were an easy target for the defender. Mechanized Armor (tanks) were invented because infantry charges across clear terrain were deadly ineffective. Guderian's book Achtung Panzer makes this point very clear. Infantry attacks across open terrain were almost suicidal in WWI. In fact, clear terrain is not only a problem for attacking infantry. It was also a problem for defending infantry. UN-ENTRECHED infantry defending open terrain was deadly exposed. That's why WWI infantry dug this never ending trenches. What does this mean for SC2? I would give clear tiles and SDB of -1. Hubert's combat formulas halve the attacking value of a unit attacking from a negative bonus terrain. Hence, an infantry unit attacking from a clear terrain would be at a great disadvantage - which is historically accurate. Also, unentrenched infantry defending open terrain would be at a disadvantage - which is also historically accurate. Meanwhile, I would make all infantry units stronger. My basic infantry unit (corps in WaW's Fall Weis) would have the following values 2,2,2,2 (SA,TA,SD,TD). But the terrain value for infantry in clear terrain would be -1 (SDB). Attacking values for infantry attacking from clear terrain would be halved, thus become 1,1 (modified SA, TA; 2/1=1). Defending values for infantry corps defending clear terrain would be reduced by one, thus becoming 1,1 (modified SD,TD; 2-2=1). So , infantry corps on clear terrain would behave just the way infantry now behaves in SC2, but infantry corps would become more effective in other types of terrain. I would also give desert tiles an SDB=-1. As for the infantry army, engineers, and (WaW Fall Weis again), I would increase SD and TD, but I would not alter their SA and TA. For paratroops I would make some chages. These would be my new values: Infantry Corps: 2,2,2,2 Infantry Army: 3,2,2,2 Paratroop: 3,2,2,2 Special Forces: 4,4,2,2 Engineers: 2,2,3,3 If understand Hubert's formulas correctly, the net effect of my proposals (viz a viz current WaW's Fall Weis) would be: (1) make infantry corps more effective when attacking from broken terrain (mountains, hills, forests, cities and the like); (2) make engineers, armies, and, special forces less effective when attacking out of clear terrain; (3) Make paratroops a bit more effective when attacking out of broken terrain but a bit less effective when attacking from clear terrain. Any comments?

I know exactly what you mean. I am looking for a way to execute Sealion without disrupting my Eastern Front preparations. It is hard. My guess is that the answer is in speed, not in extra units. If I can move my timetable a couple of months ahead of time, England will have less troops... Any one out there has any advise?

...just an idea on radar: Engineers could build radar stations just like they build fortifications. A radar station would be a "tile improvement". When an enemy plane flies over a radar tile, it would trigger a readiness bonus or penalty... The readiness bonus could be added to the interceptor/AA unit, or a penalty could be subtracted from the attacking enemy plane that overflew the radar station. Higher radar tech levels could result in a higher readiness bonus/penalty. A radar station would be destroyed if bombed... and, the engineer unit would have to rebuild it. The engineer unit could be bombed while rebuilding the radar station, taking losses. The cost of replacing engineer losses would represent the cost of rebuilding radar station. Complete loss of the available engineer unit(s) would leave a player without radar stations for a good while... until he can recruit a new engineer unit. Countermeasures would be represented by bombing the radar tile and the engineer unit rebuilding the tile. More advanced bombers, tactical bombers, or fighters would be more likely to destroy the target. The attacker could bomb the radar tiles and the engineer building or rebuiliding the tiles. Alternatively, the attacker could relocate his/her air units to avoid passing over the radar tile, but range and geography would limit the attacker's options. ...just like in real life. The defender would have to build a belt of radar tiles and constantly rebuild destroyed tiles. Hubert may want to place London on England's east coast (on the River Thames perhaps?) so that the allied player can build a radar belt south of London. And, we all have one more reason to go for Operation Sea Lion.

If I was playing the Allies, I would give top priority to England, at the expense of North Africa. In doing so I would make it all but impossible for Germany to assault the british isles, but I would limit my self to defending El Alamein - no attack on Italian Libya. ...of course, there is a price to be paid for this choice.

"Free" means early. If you finish France by early summer 1940 and immediately invade England, you have a good chance of taking England before the Brits are ready to mount serious oppossition. Holding England makes it very hard to invade Western Europe. And British production and loot will pay for the cost of the invasion. Sea Lion and Egypt can get rolling about the same time. As soon as France falls, send 1 HQ 1 Tk 2 Inf Armies plust Italian Airforce and It HQ to North Africa. Same turn, bring all Luftwaffe to the northern coast of England to punish Birtish Airforce. Force British Air Units out of Souther England so they can't recon your amph. units. As soon as you poke the Brits in the Eye (pushing all aircraft out of range), land in England 1 HQ 1Tk, 2 Inf. Army. Keep always ready at least one paratroop unit to capture any port that suddenly becomes available. Keep 2 Inf. Armies ready for second wave. Speed is essential. Use your U-boats as a diversion, attack convoy routes heavily and almost recklessly as soon as France surrenders. The AI or Allied player will be tempted to send some surface ships after the U Boats. The more surface ships they send, the less you will have to worry about during Sea Lion. And, even if they turn back, they will be that much lower in supply and readiness. During the fall, you should give all priority to England. Make sure you take London and southern England before winter sets in. After London falls, you may transfer 1 or 2 Luftwaffe units to North Africa. Winter won't hurt you in North Africa. Against the AI you should be able to knock England out of the War before winter is over. Make sure you keep your finest HQ's in continental Europe. Level 7 HQ's should be good enough for North Africa and England. Your best HQ (Manstein) should support the Luftwaffe units in northern France. You will later need this HQ in Eastern Europe. Russia may declare war as early as winter 40-41. But winter favors the defender, and, the Axis player should be able to hold any Russian attack with little probelm. As soon as England and Egypt fall, operate your airforce to the Eastern Front.

Colin's idea is just perfect. ...and, there is an easy way to get around the retreat feature: The way to implement the retreat idea is to give the amphibious transport (soft and hard attack values). Under this scheme, the amph transport would be the one actually attacking, prior to desembarking. If the amph unit succesfully destroys the land unit, the transported land unit may land. If the defending unit survives, the land unit must stay at sea inside the trasport - vulnerable to counter attack either by air or sea. You do not need retreat... because the amph assault takes place from sea (where the amph transport is located) to land (where the defending unit is located). And, if the attack fails, each unit stays in place.

I am a strong believer in Sea Lion. The rewards of a successful Sea Lion are just too good to pass. Sea Lion should be possible with an invasion force 1 HQ, 1 Tank, 1 Paratroop, and 4 Inf Armies. But what is most important for Sea Lion is speed and local air supremacy. For Sea Lion to work, it most get strated around August 1940. And, before that, the Axis player must have pushed all British Air Units so far back that they cannot see the Northern Coast of France. This last part is essential so that the Allied Player cannot see you amph transports. Spain is a great option if you decide against Sea Lion. Spain gives the Axis Submarine Force a great launching padd to attack British Convoys. And, taking Gibraltar can also be very helpful... I agree that the game will be decided in the East. But doing as much harm as possible to the Western Allies in 1939-41 is key to having your hands free against Russia.

What about TAC Bombers in WaW. How will they affect entrenchment?

I like this idea, with one small change: We could have an intrinsic MPP value only for Road and Rail Tiles. Remember WaW will have roads and rails! The huge Finish Forests, the Pripet Marshes, the Sahara were all of little industrial value. Not all terrain is equal. However, Road, Rail and River Tiles would be in places which were better integrated to the national economies. They were also more populated and generally speaking had more industry. Arguably, coastal and river tiles may also have some MPP values since barge transport was and still is very important in Europe. Still, we should expect developed coastal and river tiles to also have roads or rails. So roads and rails remain a good proxy for industrial production.

I understand the argument that MPP may include Manpower as a component of Military Production. However, my point is that the British, Germans and Russians were far short on manpower. They all could produce more weapons than men. Take Germany's sixth army. Germany did not seem to have any problem replacing the equipment lost in Stalingrad. But Germany could ill afford the men lost there. Furthermore, part of my argument is that Germany's military production suffered because of heavy drafting of men to the armed forces. The British and the Russians had suffered similar experiences. If a player takes unduly high casualties, and has to constantly replace them, he should likewise suffer some sort of penalty. A soft limit on replacements per turn would achieve the goal of penalizing unduly high levels of combat losses. A soft limit on replacements per turn is the obvious extension of the current hard/soft limits. What is the point on having a limit on the total number of units a country can field, and yet allow for unlimited replacements? If manpower is not an issue, why not let MPP's take care of everything? Why do we have hard/soft limits that prevent the Axis players from building more infantry units instead of building more carriers, battleships, cruisers, or even subs?

...OK. It seems many of us agree manpower was a very important issue for England, Germany and Russia. And, many but not all of us agree SC would be a better game if it somehow incorporated this element. The oppossition is concerned, and rightly so, that manpower pooling could be overcomplicated and detract from the game experience. At this point, I would like to return to one of the suggestions I made at the start of this thread: Instead of manpower pooling, set up a soft limit on combat stregth replacement per turn. If you try to replace to many strength points in a single turn, your costs go up for the reminder of that turn. It is a halfway measure. But it is simple to code, simple to AI, simple for the players to manage, and it gets you at least some sense that manpower is precious and limited.

So let me see if I get this right: Anti Air improves Cities and Anti Air Units. Anti Tank improves Infantry, Anti Air, and Tac Bombers. Advanced Air only helps Fighters. Naval Warfare helps Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers, and, Tac Bombers. ...which still bugs me. A couple of questions: Do we still have Radar Guided Gun Sight Research for ships? ...did it get swallowed under Naval Warfare? During WWII, Tac Bombers were absolutely deadly against ships. effective against tanks, but, not as effective against infantry. How is this played out in WaW? One suggestion: Can we have a Motorization upgrade for Headquarters? Sort of like the difference between hauling supplies in a mule driven cart versus trucks. One thing to keep in mind, the motorization upgrade could increase the HQ's range instead of increasing the speed at which the HQ moves.

</font>

...an often used euphemism often used as a cover up for the unpalatable truth it stands for: that most people throw fairness down the drain in times of war. So, instead of comfronting the despicable nature of any war act, we kid ourselves into believing that all concepts of fairness suddenly vanished and hence we no longer have to live up to our most basic human values.