Shaka of Carthage

As has been pointed out, Artillery on its own, doesn't deserve its own tech, with five levels of advancement. Other than some armies upgrading from 75mm/105mm to 105mm/155mm, the effectivness of artillery was more a limit of your supply than anything else. However, the other suggestion that was made, is on the right track. If you make certain advances in other tech areas (ie Armor, Anti-tank, etc), the combination of those advances should give the Soft factor an increase (ie +1). And without having to stretch it too far, one of those advances could be Gun Laying Radar. The same idea was brought up also in regards to Air. If Jets are represented at Tech Level 4, then you couldn't get to TL4 Jets unless you also had Rockets TL4. By creating other advances that are based on combinations of "basic" tech research, we can expand the options without adding any additional tech trees. While many of us understand that Winter caused problems for Germany, I don't think many of us fully appreciate what the problems were and how to represent them in SC. We already have the weather effect on movement, whats missing is the combat effect. But what should the combat effect be? Russians were not better fighters in the snow than the Germans. In SC terms, the effect should be on readiness, which will hurt a high tech military worse than a low tech military. I'm against Destroyers as a unit. They represent ASW assets, which is not something we should be dealing with at a unit level. Lastly, there is already way too much production and purchases as is. We should be talking about reductions, not increases in this area.

Read the same announcement. Looking forward to it. Though I wonder how many of us have already assumed that an announcement in April means we will see SCII in a few months?

Rambo Have you ever played a game called For the People? Its a Grand Strategy American Civil War game. If you are interested in discussing it, you know how to look up my e-mail.

Slapaho It should come as no surprise that I agree with the main points your post makes. Couple of things came to mind when I read it. Western Allies did have fuel problems, though not because they didn't produce enough, but rather there was a limit due to shipping, in how much they could transport to Europe. German support troops (those people who exist in the military to support the larger combat formations (ie Armies and Army Groups)), I show as being around 20% or so. But alot depends on how someone defines the definition of "support troops", vs "combat support troops", etc. Some of those details you were breaking things down into, SC already represents in the Tech Advances. Of course, it begs a debate on the specifics, like rather or not an Assault Gun should effect the Soft or Anti-Tank factor of a unit.

Skanvak Yes, I'm familiar with HoI and CWiF, and even played CWiF a few times. Along with SC2, they will all appeal to a different type of gamer, so its not like they are actually competing with each other. Edwin P Yes, the neutrals do need to react differently than they do now to Axis actions. As Sweden and Spain should be considered pro-Axis, there should be a major penalty for Germany attacking either of them. Within the context of SC, an obvious one would be Germany attacking Spain or Sweden, pushes Turkey or Greece into the Allied camp. It should also keep Bulgaria neutral and delay the entry of Romania and Hungary into the Axis camp. Vichy should be off-limits, unless attacked the turn followings its creation, and once it falls, its controlled by Italy. No other conquest of Vichy makes sense (in SC). Add in corresponding penalities for the Allies and the Low Countries, Ireland, etc, and that should cover it. However, even with the above, you still are faced with the problem that the Axis economy is way larger than is realistic, even with the above penalities on invading friendly neutrals. Thats why the economic system needs to be redesigned. Everyone As Matrix is now responsible for continuing the development of CWiF into a format that can be released, its very interesting reading some of the issues the WiF advocates are afraid of. As Immer, indirectly pointed out, there really is no "WiF". You have WiF with the selected options that individual playing group have decided to use, along with the local Houserules. While thats fine for a boardgame, it doesn't translate very well into a computer game. Then there is the whole problem with Fog of War, how to handle interplayer interactions, etc. The inability to solve those problems is one of the reasons that Third Reich failed as a computer game. So it will be interesting to see what they come up with. And thats where SC has an advantage the others don't. The basic system is fine, certain subsystems need to be redone or redesigned, add some more chrome, do your playtesting and you're done. You won't make everyone happy, but no game every does. Then about six (6) months after its release, the hints will start dropping for SC III.

Many of the oldtimers that frequent here have played WiF, as well as 3R, A3R and its clones and successors (ie World at War). Its impossible to create an economic system with one economic unit (ie MRP, BRP, MMP, etc) that shows the importance of oil. Since we enjoy the benefits of having a computer that can do the work for us, we should be able to have an economic system that uses oil (especially since some of our "resource" areas are oil wells), without creating a bookkeeping nightmare. Most players will object to it, since oil is really only a problem for the Axis, not the Allies. The even bigger problem though, is the economic system in general. One of the reasons everyone feels the need for a bidding system, is that the Axis have no constraints on taking neutrals. Hence the Axis economy goes way beyond any dreams Hitler and crew had in real life, and the Allies have no counter. Thats why so many in the past have complained about the MPP "bonus" and "weak" US economy. So while we shouldn't try and copy the economic system from WiF, A3R, COS, etc, trying to create a realistic and accurate economic model will end up with some of the same concept those games use. And thats where having the computer gives us an advantage that the boardgames and the earlier computer games couldn't use.

Heart be still. :cool:

If you're going show a Borg, I'd prefer Seven of Nine (before or after the operations) or even the Borg Queen.

For a Houserule to truly work with Air limits, you also need to limit the number of Ground units and limit the Borg economics (ie Axis ability to take any neutral with no negative side effect). If done right, you will be faced with the same type of strategical decisions that the nation you represent was faced with.

Nice concise answers to the question(s) that were presented. Good job.

The consequences are what I alluded to when I stated that it could be simple or complex. The obvious one being that Japan attacks Russia... which could result in Japan making gains, hence Russian MPP production is reduced (cause its needed to fight the Japanese). It could also be that the Japanese, even after attacking, make little or no gains, hence no effect on the Russian MPPs. You could also assume that the Japanese used the forces in other theaters, like China. This assumption would imply that the UK and US needed to send more resources against the Japanese. A simple reduction in the UK and US production could accomodate that. If we assume that SC2 does something about unit limits, in addition to the MPP reduction, there would be a reduction in the number of units avaialbe for Europe. You could even go so far as having the Japanese advances cause units already in the European theater to have to be transferred to the Pacific... hence the US, UK and Russia would "lose" a randomly determined number of units. That would make the Allies think twice about the Siberians being used against the Germans. Thats about all I would do. Anything beyond that gets too far into the specifics of what would happen and makes the model very fragile in its results.

You've hit upon the key problem that people have with the Siberian transfer... the fact that the Axis control when/if it occurs. Any of the possible solutions that you and others have presented would be appropriate, as long as it was outside of Axis control. The Japanese and Russians had been involved in border skirmishes and actual battles over quite a few years. There were a series of battles during '39 between them that the Japanese badly lost. As a result of those battles, the Japanese decided to leave Russia alone and look elsewhere to expand. Of course, the Russians didn't realize that and felt the need to keep a large number of units there in case the Japanese caused problems. So basically, from the Russian perspective, you have the Siberian forces to counter any possible Japanese threat, that you would not pull unless you were in dire circumstances. So while we don't want the conditions to be something the Axis control, we also don't want the Russians to pull those troops without there being the possibbility of bad consequences. Something as simple as a percentage chance of losing Russian MPPs would work (to reflect the Japanese taking advantage of the weaken defenses and making territorial gains), if the Russians transferred the Siberians. You could also work up some variable conditions that affected the US, UK along with the Russians.

Blashy Yes, the Allies had broken the German code. But the usefullness of the data had to be balanced against letting the Axis realize that there code had been broken. It didn't give the Allies a strategic superiority. At best it gave them some operational or tactical advantages. And my main point was that the radio intercepts are just one area of what is considered when you're doing strategical reconnaisance. By themselves they are not that critical. Also, something like changing radio codes is way below the level of a Hitler.

The Radio Traffic Map is nothing more than a strategical intelligence map. Electronic intelligence, wasn't really that big of a deal in WWII, its more of a post WWII thing. Whatever radio traffic was interecepted, along with tactical, operational and strategical reconnaisance would be accumulated and complied to show the possibile locations of enemy units. No major decisions would have been made based soley on radio traffic. You've suggested in previous topics, some ways of handling strategical intelligence. Radio traffic would already be covered by one of those.

Disbanding Naval Units This is something that has bothered me about SC from day one. I've been meaning to mention this for months, but it never seems to come up in an appropriate place. So I've created a seperate topic to discuss it. In the early days, there was a change made to reduce the amount of MPPs that you received. Mainly because the French player would disband his naval units to get more land units for the defense of France. Hence the change, which I believe reduced your MPP recovery to 10% (from 50%?). I'd like to offer what I feel is an more approriate alternative (hint, hint, for SC2). Naval units should not be allowed to disband, unless they are strength three (3) or less. Now, if a Naval unit is heavily damaged, instead of rebuilding it, the resources could be put to other use (ie the manpower transferred to the Army or Air Force). But it would only be a decision made for a shattered unit, not a full strength one. Its extremely rare, for any branch to take any full compliment of men and material and give it away to another branch. Not to mention the political rivalries that existed between the various branches. This won't fix the broken naval system in SC, but it would correct a problem in any future new system.

SeaMonkey Units behind rivers do get a defensive bonus... the attacker only being able to attack at half values. It is a true point, that the civilian population does have some ability to repair infrastructure. But I don't believe it would be at the level that would reflect the MPP increase we see. Lets not forget, that the Corps and Armies units already have organic combat engineer units, so the type of engineer unit we are discussing, is really better described as a Construction Engineer unit. Few nations have those, mainly because of the expense of the specialized equipment and the specialized manpower. No nation, lightly uses those assets for combat.

I agree that it would add more options to the player if they controlled thier strategic Engineer unit(s). But if we did, then we would also have to remove all of the "automatic" engineer rebuilds that are being conducted for us. Hence, any MPP damage couldn't be repaired unless your Engineer unit was there. This would also be true for the damaged MPPs of conquered areas. To be clear about the unit(s) we are talking about, we are only talking about giving Germany say one (1), maybe two (2) Engineer units. US definately would have two (2) and Italy probably none. Everyone else (except the minors), would be limited to one (1). Give that Engineer unit the ability to build one (1) fortification level for every four (4) turns in a location (with a MPP cost as well), and that should cover it. Now the player would have to make a choice between repairing or rebuilding the infrastructure or building fortifications.

No negativity, just realism.

I thought I had already answered this, but it seems I didn't. Liam Capital ship hunting... In the example I gave, I wouldn't bother with having a sub unit. I would simply allow the possibility of a submarine that is hunting capital ships, to sink them. Hence, every turn that naval units (ie our capitol ships) are in submarine infested waters, AND those submarines are hunting capitol ships, there is a chance of them sinking some of those ships. If successful, the submarines would cause one (1) or two (2) str point damage against an enemy naval unit. The way SC has a submarine unit operating against other naval ships isn't correct. Edwin P & Liam Edwins proposal... Edwin has the gist of it correct. I don't like the idea. I'll try to briefly explain. If we are going to have hex movement for naval units, you need the proper map size. The North Atlantic would require a map four (4) times larger than the current SC map. So in this new map, 20% of it would be the area we are fighting the land war in, while 80% of it is there for naval purposes. This problem itself, is generally why most designers don't bother with naval hex combat, especially since its not a major theater of combat. But assume we do get the proper map size. Now the hard part begins, as your naval combat system has got to deal with three (3) dimensions... underwater, surface and aerial combat. Quite a few suggestions have been offered in the past, as well as Edwin's current suggestion, about how to handle some or all of those aspects. However, they all bascially imply a redesign of how the current SC naval system works (since it doesn't). If you do redesign the system, then understand you now have a naval game, something SC isn't. Thats alot of work for a minor aspect of a game. If there is one thing that these Euro game designers have taught us (ie Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, Carcassone, etc), is that you can accomplish an elegant design without a huge amount of complexity. Thats why I favor an abstract design for the naval aspect of SC2 in the North Atlantic. The basics are already in SC (ie aren't you glad you don't have to move, hex by hex around Africa to get to Egypt?). With a small expansion of the map, we would get the additional land area in Northern Europe and North Africa, and our "transit" sea arrows for naval units entering those abstracted sea areas. We would get our historical results with a minimum of additional effort. [ February 24, 2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Bromley Playing against the AI is good as far as learning the mechanics of SC, as well as when you have no one else but want a game. Its not much good as a trainer for play against Humans. So basically, I would suggest that you play the AI with no bonuses, until you understand what happens in SC. Then find some human opponents. Further playing against the AI will do little to increase your SC skill level.

Hmmm... maybe its just me, but I think some of you should re-read Moon's statement. What I read, was that there would be an official announcment about SC2, but its going be quite some time before any of us have something we can play. Sounds like its just a confirmation of what we already "know", that SC2 is being worked on, with some sort of time frame (far in the future), about a potential release date. Maybe a few screenshots to drool over.

Friendly Fire The reason you need to model the entire US economy, is that if the US sufferred significant losses to submarines in the North Atlantic, it should have the option to take resources from the Pacific to replace them. Its somewhat similiar to the dilema Germany has, once the Western Allies open up a second front in Italy or France. Pull resources from one front to another? Or operate with less at that front? Without that strategic choice, you have hamstrung the Allies, since with enough submarines, you have the ability to totally remove the US from the European war effort.

Liam So what you are basically asking for, is for the submarines to be utilized in its proper role as a strategic weapon. An abstraction, that is better represented at the strategical level off map. I agree with you. Let me offer a possible system. Once France falls, Germany is given a window for Submarine Operations. "Purchasing" a sub unit, then allows you to select what area you want those submarines to operate in and the doctrine you want it to follow. It could be as simple as NORTH ATLANTIC and MERCHANTS; or something more involved like EAST COAST US and CAPITAL SHIPS. This would allow the German player to position his submarines in a specific area to interecept either merchant shipping, or follow a Japanese like strategy of going against enemy capital ships. After so many turns have gone by, to represent the building of the submarines and the transit time to get those subs on station, the Allies would start to suffer merchant (or capital ship) losses. The Allies would counter by purchasing a destroyer unit (representing ASW assets) and placing them on a specific convoy route to provide protection. You could also model the placement of air assets in certain strategic locations, to represent them patrolling those areas. We need one change to make this system work. When Axis units cause MPP losses against the Allies, those losses are permanent. The UK should have the ability to regenerate those MPPs, at a very slow rate, per turn. Once the US enters, that rate should radically increase. Now, sonar and submarine techs would act as positive or negative mulitplers to the ability to detect submarines. Long Range tech would have an effect, if there were air units in those strategic locations mentioned above (representing naval patrol aircraft). Actual losses would be notified at the end of each turn, along with any MPP losses. Players would have the option of "reinforcing" an existing unit, purchasing a new unit, or doing nothing... just like now. Same system would be used if the submarines were being used against capital ships. We don't have to add units to the map to move around, which would be accurate at this scale. Nor do we have to worry about submarine units and thier "supply". Ahistorical use of capital ships to hunt submarines is removed. US Entry is now critical to the Allied side, since without it, the UK can't replace moderate or heavy merchant losses. And with a minor change, you could represent German surface raiders, being used against Merchant ships.

Gary Grisbys World at War... thats what I thought, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't a reference to the boardgame World at War. There are hints that it will be developed for the computer. Slapaho Quite some time ago, back we were making suggestions for "enhancments" to SC, I brought up simultaenous movement. I serioulsy believe that simultaenous movement would open up a whole new market for wargammers and is the direction that wargames should go in, not real time movement. If we look at the mechanics that SC uses, you really don't have to issue "orders", like you have suggested. The majority of those orders are already default actions taken by the units themselves. For example, your "defend" is something a SC unit already does by entrenching. Your "move", "exploit", "retreat" are all performed by a unit moving in SC, with "attack" being the same except with combat. All that really needs to happen, is that after you select a unit and select what you want it to do (identical to what happens now), the action itself doesn't happen until you've selected all of your units or have ended your turn. However, though I fully support the idea, this is the type of design that needs to be incorporated into a game from the beginning. Its not something that should be added to SC2.

Other than Mr H, if anyone else has the answer to your questions about SC2, I'm sure that are not at liberty to say. Computer World in Flames is not a "grand strategy" game. Best description is that of a operational game operating at the strategical level. I don't think the WiF fans would appreciate any concept design changes, so CWiF will be hitting a different market than SC2. GGWaW... exactly which game are you referring too?