Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
I've always felt that one of the weaknessess of the submarine unit in SC, is that in effect, it acts just like a surface ship, except it has a special ability (ie the "diving" part).
Taking what Iron Ranger has brought up one step further, even though we can "see" the sub unit, it would seem that physically having a ship in a hex shouldn't prevent an enemy sub from moving thru or into that hex.
So while you could be in the same hex as a enemy submarine, that still doesn't mean you can spot it. I realize SC tried to do this with the "diving" factor, but using numerous ships and/or coastline, you can easily block a sub once you know where it is.
-
Edwin P
Instead of randomly having potential options appear, why not have the percentage chance (of the option appearing), be modified by the diplomatic options that are taken? Creating a Diplomatic sub-system that effects a neutral nations readiness percentage shouldn't be that difficult. Having that effect also modify the types of choices you outlined, would exponetially increase the various combinations that could occur, increasing the replayability factor.To reflect the effects of politics you could have an option where each of the options listed above have only a 50% or 75% of appearing in each game. -
Yes, it would be nice if more "what-ifs" or "diplomatic options" appeared for both sides. It would enhance the replayability, though you would get complaints from people who don't like any random features.
-
Thats not so easy to answer, but here goes.
Add Oil Hexes to Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, etc.
I'll show you how I did my calculations to arrive at my numbers and my conclusions.
The daily production rate that you've listed is one way to establish the ratios of oil production. Once you establish the ratios, you can take a SC map and put values on the oil wells, with ?? marks next to the values in nations that don't have oil wells.
Now comes the fun part. Exactly how much oil was used for economic production? Thats why I say the capitals don't need to produce oil, since if they did, it went towards industrial production as well as military fuel. If we fiddle with the numbers on our map, we should be able to eventually reduce the oil production areas that have no oil wells to zero, leaving us with production ratios of the left over oil wells.
If we now take the '39 and '40 historical OOB's and put them into our generic units (Corps, Armies, HQ, Armor, etc) we have some sort of idea what our consumption rate is. In other words, whatever the consumption rates values are, you have to make sure that the historical units have enough Oil to allow them to function. This usually requires fiddling with the Oil production rate as well as the consumption rate, without corrupting the ratios.
Don't forget that Russia traded Oil to Germany, as well as Germany getting Oil from South America.
Then you can move to Italy, once you have done the above for Germany. Its a little easier here, since we know Italy didn't have enough fuel for her Navy. But they did have enough fuel for the limited Armor, Air and HQ units (since the Corp/Army units are Horse units, hence no fuel consumption). Once you solve how they get the fuel (since all of it wasn't begged from Germany), you should have a working model of your oil wells and what they produce.
Do it all over again for '42 OOB to make sure your production and consumption ratios are correct.
Then I would cross check all of the various references accumulated over the years. This is a ongoing process as you read more and more material (which is also where you find out most authors are quoting other authors who got it from a few original sources, if they didn't make it up).
Resolve those differences and the end result is oil production values and unit consumption rates that are historically accurate.
In some form or another, this is exactly the process that the original developers used to find the oil numbers of thier game (ie High Command and Clash of Steel). Same with the guys who developed rules for Oil consumption as an add-on (ie like World in Flames or World at War).
But as a software designer, you should see how with so many different steps, that depending on the viewpoint of any of those different concepts (not to mention the values used), different people will arrive at a different end result.
If you're still with me here, want to help me on a new project? Manpower. The above is a piece of cake compared to this. But I found once I solved the Oil issue, that was only one side of it. The other was Manpower.
-
Ahh... the infamous US Strategic Bombing survey.
At least I now know I'm not the only who reads this stuff.
I'd also suggest
Oil & War: How the Deadly Struggle for Fuel in WWII Meant Victory or Defeat by Robert Goralski and Russell W. Freeburg (1987).
War, Economy, and Society by Alan Milward
Resource Mobilization for WW2: the USA, UK, USSR and Germany 1938-1945 Economic History Review, vol 41, 1988.
You'll find that every strategical wargame created in the last 20 years or so, is based on these works (or the source material for these works). If I threw in one or two more books, you would have the source of every Internet webpage statistic that directly or indirectly deals with wargame production. About the only new stuff that is coming out, is from behind the former Iron Curtain. But thats still acadamic territoriy, since quoting those sources gets into what real and whats disinformation.
-
John DiFool & Edwin P
Thats it in a nutshell.Oil as a separate resource is the key. Each unit needs a certain amount of oil per turn ...And as long as it clear we are talking about SC2 here, then it becomes much easier to design a change.
John DiFool's list of units work fine. The values themselves and the consumption rate is not important at the moment. To that list I would add Motorized units (we are talking SC2 remember). That gives us... Horse, Motorized, Mech, Armor, Sub, Naval, Air/Bomber .
Lets state the obvious so we are clear. The Oil Wells on the current map are the hexes that produce oil.
You don't need to be able to increase production capacity for oil. If SC2 wants to handle increased production, it needs to be for all economic units. But, what has to be addressed, is the synthetic oil production ability that Germany (and Japan btw) had. Synthetic Oil Production as a tech works fine.
They both solved the problem by importing oil. Same thing that Germany did (mainly from Russia before Barborossa). Understanding this is the key to realizing why the Allies/Axis had limits on the force mix they had and made the strategic strategy choices they did.The one issue I have with this idea is how does it affect the UK (or even France with its large army) which has a large navy and a sizable air force but no oil resources?So the conclusion that was reached, about having each nation generate a certain amount of oil resources isn't correct.
And there you have it. The design for including oil in SC2. While the mechanics were different, the design is identical to what I worked out many months ago. Hence, I can offer some comments about what happens when you play a game using Oil in SC.
</font>
- The Oil Wells need to have variable oil production rates.</font>
- Its hard finding historical evidence for this, but it appears that there should be a few more Axis Oil Wells than there are on the map.</font>
- HQ units, regardless of nation, should consume oil at the rate of a Motorized Corp.</font>
- Oil for Naval units need to be supplied to a Port. The supply system already handles what happens to Naval units too far from a port. In other words, if a Port has 20 Oil and a sub needs 5 Oil, once that sub is resupplied from the Port, the Port now only has 15 oil.</font>
- The Oil supply range of a Port, should be a item that could be increased thru spending economic units. This is not the same as a R&D Tech. This range should also be proportinally reduced based on Port damage. However, unless the North Atlantic is a true 50 mile hex ocean, don't bother with this.</font>
- The Axis needs the ability to stockpile Oil before the war begans, otherwise they're crippled.</font>
- The UK needs stockpiled Oil, as merchant losses will strangle them otherwise. But once the US enters, it doesn't matter anymore.</font>
- There needs to be a Motorized unit, to reflect the different consumption rates (versus a Horse unit). Since the computer is keeping track of the details, its no big deal.</font>
- There has to be some sort of trade system, to show the imported oil coming from Neutrals. Otherwise, Axis is crippled.</font>
Thats what was determined after two or three games (against other people). If anyone is interested in playing a game with Oil, I'd be happy to send you the spreadsheets I've used and outline the procedural steps you have to follow. I'd even be willing to play a game or two myself, thru PBEM using Oil. Beware though, you need to trust your opponent and you have to track stuff during each turn.
-
Rambo has brought up some good points to discuss.
#1 & #2 basically are issues with operating. He makes a very valid point, that rail movement (ie operating) is not a function of how much MPP you have, rather its a function of your overall rail capacity. The solution isn't to increase the MPP cost, the solution is to limit the number of operating moves per turn per nation.
#3 is the ability to have a airfield in any hex. As Bill Macon pointed out, with a 50 mile hex, finding somewhere in that hex for a airfield isn't a big problem. Granted, putting a airfield in a Mtn hex doesn't seem to make sense, but the negative to it, the difficulty in getting supplies to it, has already been addressed by the reduction in supply. The problem really is covered in #1 and #2, which is the ability to have that airfield up and runnning in a week or so. In other words, operating across water should not be allowed. You should have to transport Air units, not because the aircraft couldn't fly there, but to represent the support crews who don't have the ability to fly there. There was no Fed Express in WWII.
#4, Air unit ground defense. Excellent point. It also applies to Naval and Rocket units. If you understand the way the combat system works, you'll realize that a soft defense value of zero (0) for Air/Naval/Rockets, is still too high. The solution for this, is either give them negative values, or give the attacker an additional random bonus of +3. This will then give the desired effect, of a reasonable strengh unit having the ability to overrun a Air/Naval/Rocket unit defender, but an extremely weak (ie str 1 or 2) attacker could lose.
#5, "turning off" interception, is more involved than simply turning it off. This deserves a topic of its own.
#6, basically states that gaining experience in Air-to-Ground attacks is not the same as Air-to-Air experience. Thats a true statement. But so is gaining experience in Air-to-Sea attacks is not the same as Air-to-Air experience. Until our generic Air units break down into specific units that specialize in those attacks, this is something that should be left alone.
#7 ground units not having the ability to increase thier anti-air defense. Here is the essence of our dilema with Air units. There is no counter to them. If we increase the air defense of the ground units (HQ/Army/Corp) by one (1) for each tech increase in Anti-Air Radar, you'll have the same problem we currently have with Anti-Tank. This is a true design problem, that requires a change in the system, not a fix.
#8, Long Range out of control. Its been awhile, so if I get a chance, I'll repost the combat ranges of the aircraft we are talking about. I've even got WWII documents that support my earlier argument about this. But what it comes down to, is that there is nothing wrong with aircraft ranges and Long Range tech. The problem is our North Atlantic. Its a fraction of the real size of the North Atlantic.
#9, spotting needs to be changed. This issue deserves a topic all by itself, since we are now getting into the realm of Operational and Strategical Reconnaisance, the reason Air Forces exist.
#10, supply for Air units. The last thing we need to do, is mess with the supply system. Its one of those things in SC, that is almost perfect. The problem with Allied Air units in the Med, isn't that there needs to be a different supply system, rather the Allies need a HQ in the Med. Thats a different problem.
Ditto to Bill Macon's response about game hackers.
-
Bill101
No one does Strategic Bombers, because none of us "believe" what they did back then. If the Strat Bombers had the ability, even a small % chance, of forcing a nation to surrender, you'd see the US and UK build as many Strat Bombers as it could.
JohnDiFool
The two major historical reasons why the Axis didn't build more aircraft was lack of trained pilots and oil. It was a catch-22, since you couldn't have one without the other. There were more constraints as well, including political ones, but those two work under the 80/20 rule.
Yes, it would be nice if SC2 handled details like above, but SC doesn't. And there is no better way for a House Rule to handle it other than unit limits. Thats why every board and computer game that abstract those constraints uses unit limits.
Now, if we had multiple economic units (Prod, Ship Prod, Oil), manpower constraints (Army, Naval, Air Force personnel points) and a few other things, we could replicate the conditions. But designers are reluctant to spend the time to do the work required for those systems, since done poorly, everyone will complain, while done properly, hardly anyone will appreciate it. Kinda like the supply and variable movement systems in SC.
[ December 31, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Interesting concept of having the Air limit include Carriers and Strategic Bombers. It does address the fact, that in SC, the Strategic Bombers are really used more in a tactical bomber role than a strategic one.
I'm curious, what the limits are in World at War? Its basically the evolved Third Reich (and Rising Sun), yes?
House Rules (what do you think the "bid" system is?) have always been an accepted way of addressing the weakness (actual or perceived) of a favorite game. Unlike other computer games, we wargamers don't have the luxury of putting aside one game and playing another. Our choices are extremely limited, especially if you only play Strategy or Grand Strategy WWII.
-
The answer gets tricky. Because you are now getting into what is historical and what is play balanced.
Iron Ranger makes a valid statement about the carriers. They have to be restricted as well. I've gamed it various ways, with and without the carriers, but the bottom line is that the carriers are as overpowered as the air units are, and with experience, become overwhelming. I restrict them by converting them into battleship (BB) units with an extra experience bar. I do leave the Med Carrier for the UK, as it compensates for the air assets that should be in the Med.
Anyway, the numbers I gave you, are based on historical ratios of combat aircraft. The US is a tough one, since its air assets where used globally and it provided the aircraft for most of the Allies.
So it works out like this... Japan would be restricted to two (2) air units. The US would deploy at least another two (2) air units in the Pacific, to counter the Japanese (not to mention the naval air assets). Then you have to deal with the aircraft that the US sent to China as well as Russia.
Between the two (ie China and Russia), there are enough to account for another air unit (I assume thats what happens when Siberians give the Russians two (2) air units).
The US, for all practical purposes, was supplying the UK with its aircraft in the later years. Then there is at least another air unit worth of aircraft spread in smaller units throughout the other smaller theaters.
Hence, the US could deploy upto four (4) air units in the European Theater, depending on what was going on in the rest of the world. And thats the hard part, trying to represent its other commitments.
So I leave it at two (2) for the US. But sometimes I think it would be more accurate, if the US was able to increase its limit to three (3) in '43/'44 and four (4) in '44/'45.
[ December 31, 2003, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Alexanderthe_OK
Your ratios (ie Germany:UK/US and Italy:Russia) are roughly correct.
I prefer lower restrictions, and play using these:
Germany.....4
Italy.......2
UK..........2
US..........2
Russia......3*
* Any Siberian Air is a bonus and allows Russia to exceed its limit.
-
As an acceptable tactic for playing the game, yes. But its nothing more than exploiting the major weakness of SC, which game after game, eventually becomes predictable and boring. Once you understand and master the superiority of air units, there's not much left to do. Hence, there is no strategy other than air.
But it becomes a different game, when you limit the air. Anyone who has played with air limits knows what I'm talking about. If you haven't, you should try it. It will bring back the joy of playing SC that massive numbers of air units take away.
-
You need at least five units to cover Alexandria/Suez.
You're not "tying up" the Luft when its picking off your units. You're providing target practice.
And while the Luft may take losses against the RAF, Germany is cranking in 300 to 500 MPPs a turn, while UK gets 115 or so. Which side can afford the losses?
The neutrals have already mostly fallen by now, though it depends on the skill of the German player.
Is it worth it for the Axis? Yes, thats one of the reasons the bids go towards giving Russia more MPPs. With 500 or so MPPs and no limit on units, Russia doesn't have anything capable of stopping Barbarossa. Its just a matter of time before Russia falls.
-
Yep.
I had just conquered Poland (turn2) and was moving units across to Low Countries.
AI did a "Dutch Gambit" on me.
Needless to say, I was in shock, since it had caught me totally off guard.
-
I appreciate the fact that you offerred an alternative. Its alot easier to state that it has to be one way or the other, without thinking thru what it means for the designer.
-
I appreciate the fact that you offerred an alternative. Its alot easier to state that it has to be one way or the other, without thinking thru what it means for the designer.
-
The problem the Allies have in keeping Egypt, is that once France has fallen, the UK can do nothing to stop Germany from taking neutrals. The MPPs from those conquests plus the lack of limits on the air units means that Germany can put at least an equal, if not a clear superiority of Air units against anything the UK can put in Egypt. Add to that, the ability for units to land anywhere along the coastline, and you have a situation where the UK doesn't have enough units to defend the Suez and Alexandria. The only thing that saves the UK is an inexperienced German player and/or very bad luck for the Germans.
[ December 20, 2003, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
The problem with a 50 mile hex is scale. You would need a map four times (4x) larger than the one we have now, to represent the North Atlantic.
Does it make sense to allocate the resources to make a map where 90% of the action is concentrated on 25% of the map? Naval supply rules would have to be changed (or else everyones ships are going be at supply level 0). New programming would need to be added so you could scale down the map (ie the "war map", which in effect shows you your units on a scaled down version of the map, wouldn't be large enough). You also have to add "next unit" scrolling, so you could find your units without having to endlessly scroll back and forth.
And for what? So we could experience the "joys" of spotting a submarine or surface raider and then attacking it with a few units?
You could implement sea zones and do the programming necessary to support them in a fraction of the time it would take to support a "50 mile hex North Atlantic", since the foundations are already there in the Suez Canal arrows.
For example, assume one or two of the Suez arrows actually sent units to Egypt, as it does now. The next two arrows to the left could send you to the Indian Ocean. Two more arrows to the left could send you to the South Atlantic. Put some more arrows on the western edge and you can represent the Caribbean, eastern coast of US Atlantic, eastern coast of Canada Atlantic, even the "long way" to the Pacific.
Take the US and Canada off map, so we can end these useless debates about if its ok to "invade" Canada or US. Not to mention the whole debate about how many MPPs the US should have. With the US being off map, its MPP number can be set, even modified by year (to assume some sort of war mobilization increase). Even more important, we could modify the beginning MPP number in our new Campaign Editor (for those of us who won't agree with whatever number the US is given).
I'd rather have that and more time spent on specific units per nations, larger North Africa and Northern Europe. Even possibly more of Russia and the Middle East.
-
JerseyJohn
The fault was on my end. Somehow, your ID was on my e-mail list of e-mails being filtered out. Also found you had some esteemed company, since you where there along with a few others that should not have been.
It should teach me not to work on my incoming e-mail when I'm half asleep.
[ December 13, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
JerseyJohn
Try again. Seems the problem was on my end. I should be able to get your e-mails now.
-
JerseyJohn
off topic
I've sent you a couple of e-mails and no response. There may be a problem with my e-mail, so let me know if you've gotten them.
I need to hear from you regarding certain plans.
-
Or limiting the amphib range, will accomplish the same thing.
-
Exactly. It becomes a matter of planning, with those random but unavoidable elements of surprise and luck.
-
Real time games have thier place, but the problem with quite a few of them, is that its become so much marketing hype, that alot of games are being designed or sold as "real time", without really understanding what the purpose of having a real time game is.
What is it, that most people want when they have a real time game? At the level of a first person or tactical game, it makes sense. But does it at a Operational or Strategy level?
If we compare a Empire building game, like Civ vs AoE, what is the real purpose of having RT at this "strategy" level game? Two things. A handicap for the player against the AI and a time limit for one player to do his turn when he is playing another person. You have to make decisions quickly, and hope you choose correctly. Eventually, you will make a mistake, whereas the AI doesn't. Its alot easier to design a competitive game, when the AI gets to "cheat".
But now we have a major problem, trying to bring that concept into a "serious" and/or "historical" wargame. The AI can't compare to playing against another human. So one way or another, that wargame will be modified so you can play against other people. Then having real times so it forces you to make mistakes or indirectly giving a time limit doesn't make any sense. Thats the problem with HoI, and why so many wargamming boardgames are still around.
What operational and strategical level games need, is the ability for the player(s) to enter their orders and then everyone watches the simultaenous exectution of those orders. The amount of time allowed to enter those orders can vary based on the scale and complexity of the game.
Simultaenous movements are what wargamers want, not real time.
[ December 07, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
SC: German Armor vs Allied
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
While I was not a playtester of SC, from carefully reading the rules and having owned SC thru all of the various patches, there are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn, that would explain why Armor units appear to be watered down. The major one being only Armor units had the ability to move then attack. Once that feature was removed, the problems with Armor became more obvious.
For the Infantry units (ie Army/Corp), the Tank Defense and Soft Defense factors are the same. The Armor units Soft Attack factor, is equal to a Army Soft Attack factor. So with no modifiers, you get these combat odds:
TANK vs ARMY: 4:2
TANK vs CORP: 4:1
Since there is no tech advance that can increase the Soft factors, the Tank unit can never improve its combat odds. However, the infantry units, by investing in Anti-Tank, can increase their defensive factors against Tanks (one (1) for each advance). With one or two Anti-Tank advances, the Armor units have become worthless as a attacking unit.
The next problem is the representation of combat itself. Even though one unit is "attacking" another unit, these are not Napoelonic lines attacking each other. Even a defending Army, with six (6) divisions defending a 50 mile front (with two (2) divisions in reserve), still cannot stop the attacker from concentrating all of his units against one (1) division of the defender. As the defender gets better anti-tank weapons to defeat those armor or armor supported attacks, the attacker should have the option of developing his tanks by having better armor and suppressive weapons. Thats where the Heavy Tank fails as a tech advance.
Then there is the whole concept of how to represent the attacker pinning the defender, then working around the flanks. Its something that has to be abstracted because of the game scale, but its the more likely method of attack when the defender is a Corp. With those anti-tank advances, the Corps advantage becomes better and better.
So you end up with Armor units who have no advantage of maneuver, nor do they have the ability to conduct a breakthrough.
Since we are no longer talking about "fixes" to SC, the unit relationships need to be examined and changes need to be made to restore the proper combat relationship between the various units in SC2.
Personally, I would simply reduce the action points of the current Army and Corp units, add new motorized Army and Corp units (for US and some UK, Russian units), and give German and Russian Armor units a blitzkrieg attack ability, which would allow them to acheive a breakthrough. The unlucky defender of a successful blitz attack, would retreat or be removed (during the attackers turn), putting the attacker in a position to threaten the defenders line of supply, while having the ability to protect its own line of supply.
[ January 16, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]