Shaka of Carthage

Pochenko Alot of the points you brought up have been discussed many times here. So I'll try to give answers reflecting those various opinions. 1) Where are the artillery teams? ... Numerous requests for the same thing. But as was pointed out, the scale of SC is not appropriate for any "unit" that is pure artillery. 2) Where are the paratroop teams? ... Same response as above. Wrong scale. Though it was somewhat agreed upon, that since the Paratroopers were something of a "glamour" unit, including the ability for some nations to have one (1) unit of them would perhaps help in marketing the game. Same concept with a "Marine" unit. 3) Infantry defense of a Tank Group ... This one is confusing, since I'm not clear on what you are saying. Currently, the problem is that Anti-Tank research will increase Army/Corp ability to defend against Tank Groups, while Heavy Tank research (or any other tech) will not increase Tank Groups ability to attack infantry. So once the enemy researches Anti-Tank defense, your Tank Groups are worthless attacking the enemy infantry. 4)Research should be "infantry weapons", not only "anti-tank" weapons ... Here we have the same problem that artillery, paratroopers and Marines have, scale. Division sized units have organic artillery, as well as Corp artillery that could be attached. Since our units are Corp and Army sized, our artillery is all organic to those units. At this level, the combat power of those Corp and Army units is mainly coming from the artillery and armor organic or attached to them (ie US division having a tank battalion attached to it, German Corp having a "heavy" tank battalion attached to it). The combat power represented by infantry weapons is very small. Small enough that its not important enough to have an effect on the SC combat rating system (ie soft factors). 5) ... Russian HQ's not until Moscow or Russians really hurting ... I agree, but for a slightly different reason than you. Russian HQ's represent the ability for Russia to conduct offensive actions. While this is something the Russians didn't have in real life until '42 or '43, how do you reflect that in a game? Its the same problem with the Allied invasion of Western Europe. Its hard for a player to sit there for turn after turn and be on the defensive. What most "game players" want is a equal fight, or at least the ability to strike back. Thats why the "bid" system is used in competitive games, and the reason given to "balance" the game. 6) Why is it impossible to transport rockets overseas? Rockets are a poorly designed strategical weapon in SC, and most people end up using them as overgrown artillery, if they use them at all. As a strategical weapon, there is no reason to transport them overseas. The problem you have with research levels is an easy fix, just modify the tech levels in whatever campaign you play. 7) Russian readiness is stupid This is a debate that has generated topic after topic over the last year or more. Its generally been agreed on, that the design of SC has the Russian readiness increase the way it does, to put pressure on Germany to get prepared to fight Russia. Otherwise, almost everyone agrees, that without other changes, its very easy for Germany to take all the neutrals, do an invasion of England, then face Russia and a isolated US. Game over, Axis win. 8) why aren't Norway and Finland connected? Same reason US and Canada aren't connected. Same reason North Africa is so narrow. Same reason North Atlantic is a small fraction of its actual size. Mr H ran out of map hexes. He had a limit on the number he could use, so he had to make some design choices. 9) Does Zurich really exists? Adding Zurich would just give the Germans another neutral and added MPPs. The fact that you only get plunder is the only reason Switz survives currently, since you only invade it when you are done with all the other neutrals. 10) automatic tech upgrades ... Another item that has generated quite a few topics. Almost everyone agrees that its something that should be done. It wasn't done, for the same reason there are generic units. To keep things simple. 11) Russian partisans even if Russia surrenders ... If Russia falls, the game is over. With the additional MPPs from a occupied Russia, there are more than enough MPPs to purchase units to place on the Partisan generating hexes. Or even let the Partisans generate, and have killing them off a training exercise for your units to gain experience. 12) ... weather ... Another item that has been discussed in quite a few topics. The "movement" effects of weather are represented, but using a method very few of us appreciate. The "combat" effects are missing. But thats about all of us can generally agree on, since you now have a wide difference of opinion on what those weather effected "combat" effects should be. 13) ... Graf Spee and Bismark ... Another topic discussed quite frequenlty. They are missing for the same reason quite a few of the Western Allies naval units are missing. You don't have a true representation of the North Atlantic, so you don't need a true naval OOB. In effect, we have a abstract representation of the naval battle in the atlantic, using hexes. As an abstract, only a few units are needed. 14)... Vichy France ... This topic actually generated hard feelings among various people, since it brought up alot of emotions regarding the role of Vichy France, and the French in general, during WWII. The creation of Vichy France, SC did fine. The collapse, based on an invasion, SC missed a few minor, but critical points. While I haven't answered your question, I've rambled on enough in this post as it is. If someone else doesn't answer it in a day or so, I make a new post describing what happend to Vichy. There are a few people here who speak Spanish, so you may or may not get some e-mail responses. But your English is far superior to the Spanish of the majority, so feel free to continue posting in English.

If you haven't gotten any response yet, write an e-mail to Noel, than forward it to me. You can find my e-mail address in my profile. I'll forward your messsage on to Noel or let you know if I get bounced. I have a couple of different ways to send the e-mail, so I should be able to get around the "bounce" problem.

I'd like Santa to bring me a VIP membership card to Deja Vu or Peppermint Rhino (Gentlemen's clubs in Los Angeles) or even Crazy Horse II (Gentlemen's club in Las Vegas).

Nothing against Nimitz, but lets be fair. He was quite aware, that even if he lost his Task Force(s), he could replace them, while the Japanese could not. Even if the US had "lost" at Midway, they still would have won the war, simply because they could replace the losses. There are such things as great generals, but as was pointed out, being a great battlefield general is quite different than being a great strategical general. The other problem is that when generals achieve that rank, they are really more politicians than military. They have to be, otherwise, they would not have achieved the rank they did (unless they got the rank because everyone else ahead of them has died). Great generals have the ability to obtain more from the whole, than the sum of the parts. In the business world its called synergy... in plain language, when 1 + 1 = 3. Thats one of the things that the German military system was able to produce, something that almost every military recognized after the war and copied. The German military system was able to obtain great results, despite mediocre generals, making thier Generals appear much better than others. The American, British and Russian systems needed a great general to obtain great results, otherwise the system produced so-so results, even if the general was good.

Edwin P I like your idea of "news events" telling you indirectly why the Russian readiness increased. About the US entry being no later than Pearl Harbor, I must say I disagree. Lets not forget, that Hitler DoW'd on the US, not the US DoWing on Germany. What I'd like to see, is the actions of Japan (which are off-map), being "historical" or "random". The US readiness percentage, would be effected by the Japanese actions as well as Axis (Germany/Italy) actions. And just like you described for Russia, it would be nice to see some sort of "news event" showing the actions that Japan did. Without getting into too much detail, Japanese actions would dictate what kind of Commonwealth units the UK would receive. Example would be Japan making major advances in Indo-China, would reduce the number of CW units that would reinforce Egypt as well as forcing the US readiness to go higher. While the Japanese DoW on US ('41 if historical, sooner or later if random) would in turn force US to war with Japan, it would not guarantee a German DoW on the US. Germany would have the option of DoWing on US, because in return it wanted Japan to DoW on Russia. If it was determined that Japan would DoW on Russia, that would mean no Siberians for Russia as well as a MPP reduction. Now, lets get back to Russia. Russia has the option of transferring troops to fight against Germany. But if it does so, it would weaken the forces facing Japan. Hence, if the Russians transferred the Siberians before fighting Japan, Japan would have the advantage. If it doesn't transfer them, then it would just about gurantee success in a conflict against Japan. That would put the decision in Russian hands on how to handle the Siberians, with the pro's and con's that they had in real life.

Blashy The reason JerseyJohn and others (including myself) disagree with you, is that you are not asking for an improvement to SC. You are asking for a game engine, based on SC, where you can create your own scenarios. At the simplest level, the unit scale between a Pacific and European theater cause you to end up designing abstract levels into it. Having to be abstract because of the scale of the game, has just destroyed any useful design to reflect some of the subtle differences between various WWII units. Think about it... if you stick with a 50 mile hex and a Corp unit of four (4) divisions, how will you represent the US Marines? By Pearl Harbor, there were only two (2) partially trained Marine divisions. While four (4) more were raised (total of six Marine divisions by '44), they were built using 40% cadre from existing Marine divisions. And what about the Japanese "Marines"? It would be proper and more accurate to refer to them as "special naval landing forces". They were in battalion (1000 to 1500 men) sized units, rarely operating in multi-bn units. How do you represent a Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corp... four different scales of units in a 50 mile hex? By definition, if you use a division sized unit, you are really in a operational level game. Then you have Strategy (div/corp) and Grand Strategy (corp/army). You can't force all of them into one "game" system, without making abstractions. And if you go there, you might as well play a WWII module using Civilization III.

Edwin P In SC terms, what should happen, is that there should be a pro-Axis coup in Iraq, just like there is one in Yugo. Difference here though, is that Iraq would turn Axis with no units. UK would have to divert a unit to take back Iraq. UK would be able to take Iraq back with a weak unit, but the main thing is that the Iraq coup would divert a unit from doing something else. Germany (or Italy) would not be in a position to offer any support, other than a Air unit (no port if "limit" rules, UK control of seas in normal game). That would represent exactly what happened. And its not a difficult thing to do, since the mechanisms already exist (ie Yugo "coup"), so there is no reason we shouldn't see it in SC II. Its been awhile, and back when we had these discussions, it was about how to modify SC. Since thats a non-issue, later on, I'll create a new topic about a Diplomacy design that could be used in SC II.

Blashy The problem with the neutrals, is that some of them are pro Axis or pro Allied neutrals. But they are still neutral. SC doesn't have a way to acknowledge that fact. Greece being dug in, yes, thats a valid point, but activating Greece to give them the time to dig in isn't the right approach. With Ireland and Greece both being Allied from the start, Germany is at a disadvantage. With Ireland, Greece and Iraq, Germany will never be able to take France against a competent player. We've playtested the very thing you are thinking about, and for it to balance properly, Sweden should be Axis. But once you do that, it swings back to the Axis favor, since the MPP benefit of Sweden/Norway (because they will rise to 112 MPPs total) far outweights the MPP benefit that the UK gets from Ireland, Greece and Iraq. If you want to give the UK a HQ, I'd suggest Wavell. Monty came along much later. Russia doesn't need a HQ in the beginning, mainly because Russia should be fighting a defensive battle, and HQ's are not necessary for that. Once Russia is able to mount a counteroffensive, than the HQ's are necessary, which is one of the reasons SC doesn't give it to you (the time it takes for you to have enough spare MPPs to buy a HQ, is an abstract representation of the time it takes for Russia to be able to mount a strategic offensives). Same with the US. Even after Hitler declared war on the US, the US was not in a position to mount any offensives in the European theater. Again, SC abstracts it by having you make the choices on if you purchase units or HQ, really trying to make you understand that even though you are in the war, ground wise, the US can be on the defensive, but not really take offensive actions.

Actually, I think this is a superior method than taking neutral US/Russ centers and giving them to the UK (ie "lend-lease" concept). Iraq belonging to the UK makes the Middle East strategically important to the UK. So it should not be abandonded lightly. And granted, once Russia enters the war, the Middle East starts to "grow" in MPP strength. But considering how many people believe the Allies (specifically US) are shorted in MPPs, especially in the end game, how is this any different from assuming the US has increased its "lend-leasing" MPPs to the UK? Combined with a restriction on Axis invading certain neutrals, you've created a situation where, if the Axis don't put down Russia within a year or two of Russia entering the war, the Axis will never be able to do it.

JerseyJohn has already stated my opinion on the war readiness of US and USSR. Not much I can add there, especially since I've come to the same conclusions he has by reading various stuff over the years. I would like to point out that Japan wasn't part of the Axis, just like Russia wasn't part of the Allies. But those are minor points in this discussion.

That was the part that confused me... since if it was a firewall problem, the other items should not have worked. Gonna have to remember the thing about the TCPIP directory.

JerseyJohn makes a good point. When I heard Algeria, I was thinking in terms of the SC map. If the territory was split, as JerseyJohn described, then I would agree about Italy staying happy. Otherwise, if Italy is denied its part of North Africa, there should be some sort of negative effect on the Axis. Btw, JerseyJohn, read your e-mail. I need you to send me a test e-mail to make sure I fixed the blocking issue. [ November 24, 2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

The statements that precede this question bring up alot of issues... Neutrals always having the same initial setup has been a constant complaint. This argument is usually heard about Russia, but every now and then, you'll hear it for the other neutrals, among them Spain and Greece. Spain would mobilize additional units. Thats a logical assumption, but is it a valid one? I don't know. Not alot of effort has went into determing the OOB of the Spanish forces, since they were not involved in WWII. Getting back to the original question though, is the fact that if Germany had invaded Sweden and Vichy France, SC doesn't give the Axis enough penalties to restrain them. I'm convinced that if Germany had invaded Sweden and Vichy France (your "cookie cutter" approach), Spain and Turkey would have declared for the Allies. Understand also that Italy and Spain were rivals. If Germany had offerred any Med possesions to Spain, Italy should withdraw from Axis (as a neutral), and possibly even declare for the Allies. Your "mobilization/readiness" table either covers the above or can be easily modified to do so. Chicanos are not Spanish-Americans. They are mostly Mexican-Americans or even Latin-Americans. Big difference. Mother country would be Mexico, not Spain. Well-Dressed Gentleman brings up one of the weaknesses of SC. Minor neutrals are tied to Berlin (or London) for purposes of determing if they have a line of supply. They shouldn't. They should be tied to thier own nation. Furthermore, if the line of supply was tied to thier own capital, then they wouldn't be shorted MPPs. Add the ability to purchase Minor neutral HQ's (or even additional units) and you've just about fixed it. Lets hope SCII moves in that direction. Thats why I called your "mobilization" table above a "mobilization/readiness" table. Thier should be a diplomatic cost for certain neutrals being invaded by a specific side. A UK led invasion of the Low Countries or Ireland would have had serious political repercussions throughout the Commonwealth (ie think in terms of modern day US "invading" Canada to add more states to the US). A UK or France led invasion in addition would possibly have led to the US not entering the war against Germany and/or could have possibly led to Turkey declaring for the Axis. It could even have pushed Russia back a few years from any conflict with Germany. Again, this is something SCII needs to address. [ November 23, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

I agree in general with what Les was saying. But be aware, that in SC, one of the more effective defenses of France involves selling off the naval and air units. With that extra MPP, usually a HQ is purchased, then more units.

Pico There are too many files in the SC folder that he is trying to open. Move the files into a different folder, then have him start again. That should solve the problem. I suspect its a memory management problem with SC. Cold reboot (ie starting the computer from a power off condtion) may help, as it clears out the memory registers. (a few hours after I wrote the above) Let me expand on the "too many files" comment. In the SC PBEM folder, if it has a file it doesn't like, SC will sit there. I figure its in a endless loop. You have to go into the Task Manager to kill SC. I have not be able to definetively determine what the causes are, so I can only warn you about what I suspect. When you download a PBEM file, don't do anything else. Something is happening to a downloaded file, either during the download process or once it hits the PBEM folder, if too many files are there. Whatever is happening to the file, SC can't read it, so it just sits there. By getting rid of all of the files in the PBEM folder, then downloading (or copy from from another folder) the file you want, then try to start SC. If it won't start with that one file in the folder, than there is a problem with the file and you need to download it again. If you still can't load with one file in the folder and a fresh download, I don't know what to tell you. [ November 22, 2003, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

If Mr H's gets rid of the current movement system, he would be making a major mistake. The variable time, same movement rate, is one of those simple but subtle things in SC that push it beyond the other games out there. It makes the weather effects on movement transparent to us, to the point that hardly anyone who plays SC realizes the effect. Add the missing combat effects that weather would have on units, and perhaps some visual changes to the hexes to reflect the different seasons, and weather has been addressed, using a system that in the future, I'm sure you'll see other games copy.

Edwin P The use of "text files stored outside of the main program directories" is nothing more than changing the data values that the existing AI subroutines are operating on. And putting Boolean logic in opens up the options somewhat, but don't forget that Mr H is way beyond Boolean logic. He's using fuzzy logic. When I said open up the AI code, I meant make it actual open source, where the progamming code could be changed. In effect, if you have players who know what they are doing, you could rewrite the entire set of subroutines (or object code if you will). Thats the only way you are going to get the diversity you want. You could write a AI routine doing all the things you described, while someone else could take a totally different approach. In accounting terms, its like having a choice of how to cost your inventory... either Standard Cost, LIFO, FIFO or Average Cost. You pick the one you want to use. As a final example, though I believe you already understand what I'm saying... lets take your GRECLAIM subroutine. While you have it written to reclaim 100% of the tech chits, based on the ALL input parameter (and meeting the second operand condition), I would "tweak" it slightly, so that even with a ALL input parameter, I would randomly determine a percentage chance to determine if each tech chit should be reclaimed. That would allow the GRECLAIM subroutine to produce variable results, even with identical input parameters. [ November 20, 2003, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Friendly Fire With slight variations, the strategies you described for the Axis and for the Russians are winning strategies, which is why everyone eventually uses them. Rockets make no sense, if you can purchase Air. The only way to break the above, is to be a good enough player that you can win despite using a weaker strategy, or change the conditions that force you to employ that strategy (ie use house rules). PS... the only advantage (once the enemy starts to get A/T tech) for Armor, is the action points. [ November 20, 2003, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Though you say you have disabled your firewall, I think it has something to do with your firewall. Make sure its off. Maybe even hard booting your computer and making sure the firewall doesn't start up. Reread your post... make sure all those "neat programs" that Norton Systemworks is running are turned off. I suspect that if it isn't specifically your firewall, its one of those other programs. Just turn them all off, hard boot, making sure they don't start up, then connect with someone for a TCP game. I suspect your problems will not reappear. Other things that are possible... Also make sure who you are playing with has the same version as you. Do you have any weird hard drive compression programs that are running? Mr H is good at figuring out these things, so make sure you post the problem in the technical support area.

I'm confused by some of the responses. So let me restate what I think Edwin P is saying. Should the AI be able to detect when a nation is not garrisoned, when the FOW is on? Answer... No. If you want the AI to be able to "see" things you can't, then give the AI strat bombers and Long Range tech. If thats what the question is, whats really being asked is for the AI to take advantage of "opportunities". Answer... Yes. But its alot easier said than done. It was mentioned before, but it doesn't hurt to mention it again. The AI source code needs to be opened to the public. Then those of us who are so inclined, can modify the AI to operate in the fashion we feel is correct. More importantly, since thats going to produce a wide variety of different AI's, the player can simply load in a specific AI version and when he gets tired of that one, load in another AI version produced by someone different. The current AI in SC is good enough, but will never get beyond a certain point. And there is no financial benefit to putting the resources into it. But if you let the code be modified by outside parties, SC will benefit since there will be a much larger variety of AI choices, that are produced for no additional investment by Mr H (other than the framework to load in different versions). But understand why it usually isn't done. The general public doesn't have a clue on what it takes to logically design software. And this is assuming you know how to progam in the specific language. The two are not the same.

How long does it take for a person to travel from one coast in the US to the other, by train? And lets not forget, that the turns in SC are not a standard time frame. We have twelve (12) one week turns, fourteen (14) two week turns and three (3) four week turns. What SC does, rightly, is restrict the operating based on the supply level of your destination. If you figure that the fighting has caused damage to the railroads, then it takes some time for your engineers (those units you never see), to repair them so you can get troops into that area. The most obvious example is when Germany invades Russia (assuming you play with scorched earth, but who doesn't?). It takes quite a few turns before you operate any units into Russia, usually you go to Warsaw, then walk. And if you let Partisans pop up, the first thing they've done is damaged your railroads. But I also agree, that the Suez loop should not be made faster.

Friendly Fire Yes, the details of Armor combat has been worked out, along with combat in general. Here are the reasons you remember what you do, and why Terif is offering the advice he does. A Tank Group uses its Soft Attack factor when it attacks a Army or Corp unit. Since there is no R&D tech that increases the Soft Attack factor, you cannot increase the ability of a armor unit to do damage against a infantry unit. For the infantry though, its a different story. An Army / Corp uses the Tank Defense factor when it defends against a armor unit. The Anti-Tank tech will increase that factor by one (1) for each level. Hence... Armor (4) vs Army (2) if both are level 0. Armor (4) vs Army (5) if both are level 3. Guess who gets the worse of it as the tech level increases? Then we get to a Corp. Armor (4) vs Corp (1) if both are level 0. Armor (4) vs Corp (4) if both are level 3. You now run into the problem, that a tech level increase will increase the factor by one (1), regardless if its a Army or Corp. In other words, Russian Corps with A/T tech, are the last thing the German Armor want to attack. This last part is a little more difficult to understand, so let me make the general statement first. The strenght point increases that each tech give you, will have little or no effect on combat losses. It will allow you to absorb more damage of course, since you have more strength points to give. Otherwise, its insignificant. Here are the details... For each Attacker Str pt over 10, will increase defender damage by 0.13. For each Defender Str pt over 10, will increase attacker damage by 0.067. It basically means, that you need an extra four (4) str points for the attacker to see an extra point of damage being given to the defender. The above, as well as the effects that experience bars have, produce results that some of us feel are wrong. If you track down the effects any change will have, is why many many posts ago, I've suggested that we need to do something to get the ability for the Russians to bleed the Germans thru attrition. You don't see the effect when the Reds fight the Greys. But you do see it when the Russians fight the Germans.

Swizterland is a secret "training" ground for German units. Once Russia and US are in the war, there is no penalty (in a normal game) for the Axis invading the Swiss. While you don't get any extra production MPPs, you do get plunder. So take two or three units, and pound on the Swiss. Eventually they will die and you will gain a bar or so of experience... and some plunder. But do so only when the readiness hit means nothing.

I'm all for an expanded editor. And yes, if the players want to create campaigns for different time frames, ok. But thinking that makes it a Universal Wargame kit is wrong. Its hard enough to create a system that handles the various unit type interactions among WWII era units. Trying to cross the ages makes it so abstract that it becomes worthless in any one age. Thats why almost all of the other Universal kits have failed. For example, take something as simple as Spear or Pike armed infantry fighting Shock or Melee Cavalry. The Spear/Pike armed infantry should get a bonus, but not against Missile Armed Cavalry. And what about supply? One of the transparent things in SC, is that there are railroads operating. So if supplies need to move from one area to another, we don't have to move them, its assumed that railroads can get them there. Not so in the periods before there were railroads. Troops ate the food that was in a specific area, but once it ran out, they had to move on. And they were tied to major rivers, otherwise, they had no access to water. Current supply system in SC can't represent that at all. See my point?

Curry was right, its more immaturity than anything else. ErrantRecce1 offerred an opinion on a situation. The number of posts he has made, the amount of time he has been a member, none of that is important. Is it any wonder that some feel its not worth the effort to post? And on another subject, all of this talk about SC "dying" is drawing the wrong conclusions. What has died, as someone else pointed out, is the competitive league. It died when it was the Ladder. Zapp brought it back as Z-League, but that has died. Any of you that have been around long enough, realize that all games go thru phases with competitive players... thats all you are seeing right now. Most competitive players are the new ones who are attracted to the game and get involved in competition play, cause its the easiest way to get a game. In the US, that competitive group is on the downswing, but in Europe probably Japan, where the game has just been released, its on the upswing. Too bad that most Americans can't speak a second language, which includes myself (though I can obtain certain "favors" in four different languages, as can most former military). There is another type of player, one that plays the game because he/she appreciates it for what it is. These players will play over and over, not stopping until a new release comes out. That community is going strong in SC, but its members are mainly silent. Speaking of which, it would be nice of those constant players had a way of ranking, somewhat similar to the way you obtain Chess rankings. Heck, if we stick with the military theme, we could even rank them as... Green Experienced Veteran Elite JerseyJohn, you're the resident Chess expert that I'm aware of (since others of you may be as well). Maybe you can give a brief explanation of what you have to do to obtain Master, Grand Master rankings in Chess... maybe we can figure some way of doing it in SC. Anyway, thats enough from me. I've got work that I have to get back to. [ November 18, 2003, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]