Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
BRO, JD
You can't set difficulty levels when playing against another person.
Trying to handicap the experience levels between different player skills is one of the reasons the bidding system started.
I wouldn't worry about it at all. Simply play whomever you can find, no matter thier experience. You'll learn things playing the more experienced players that you don't see against the newbie ones. Consider it a "rite of passage".
-
For the same reason that police officers don't like to get involved in domestic disputes, I have not commented on any of this. But its gone on far too long.
Rambo & Zappsweden
You both have made your accusations, it has been responded to by Terif as well as others. Give it a rest. Let me reprhase it so I'm not misunderstood. Don't say anymore about it.
Terif
You've responded. Those who don't believe you, for whatever reason, won't. You were right quite a few posts back, in that you should not respond to any of this anymore. Don't respond.
Rambo... You worry about a tainted SC crown? You need to worry about a tainted character.
Zappsweden... Ambition and drive seem to motivate you strongly. Be careful of the other side of those traits, betraying your friends and becoming an a$$hole.
Terif... This is why lobsters in a bucket, don't need a lid. As soon as one tries to crawl out, the others will drag him back.
-
I believe the two of you have your definitions of "easy" and "beer and pretzels" confused.
-
I'll be the devils advocate and tell you why this is a bad idea.
Two completly different game systems.
Its hard enough to design a system dealing with land, naval and air combat in a WWII setting and getting it right (ie SC). Notice all the "suggestions" about how if you did this or that, it would make it better?
Now we are asking to design a completly different kind of setting, a political game, where the "movement", "combat", etc systems have nothing to do with the "real" game (ie SC2)?
And we are asking this of a one man team?
Granted, the allure of different '39 beginnings is strong. But there are only so many hours that can be spent on design, programming and testing. If a choice has to be made, would you rather have a game with the political dealings of '36 to '39, or a larger Atlantic and different naval combat system? And no, you can't have both.
And 10 lashes to whoever said something about making SC into HOI, only with turns and hexes. HOI should be trying to remake itself into SC and get rid of the clutter that attracts so many but doesn't deliver. Kinda like a beautiful woman who's really a guy.
-
Member #4691
I've never played CM, so I can't discuss that comparison.
But to me, SC isn't really simple, as much as its easy to play. Below that ease of play is alot of complexity that you don't appreciate unless you play it over and over. And even though you can just about guess where people are investing in tech, the randomness of the tech increases adds to the replayability.
So in my case, I believe its well worth $45, since I've paid more than that for other strategy type games that have alot more eye candy than SC, but don't require any grey matter.
-
Thank you Mr H for the response. Always good to hear a designers thought process.
There was some mention by others about the "total commitment" of the US. I'd like to add my $.03 on the matter.
Around 1940 and up until Germany invaded Russia, the US was making plans to be the manpower backbone of the Allies. To that end, the US was planning on building a 213 division Army by 1941. Those numbers were carefully caclulated based on what the US industrial capacity was capable of at the moment and after expansion and the deseprate needs of the UK.
So while the initial output of the US was what you would consider light manfacturing (ie aircraft, war supplies, etc), the heavy manfacturing (tanks and artillery) was also in place for that 213 division Army. Even so, it was recognized that not all of those 200 division would be capable of combat in the ETO and PTO, so less that half of those divisions were earmarked for overseas duty during '41.
Then Germany invaded Russia. And from then on, the majority of the Germany military was involved against Russia. So the US was able to scale down its military to the infamous 89 division Army that was actually used.
So in some respects, while a 1942 or 1943 entry of Russia into the war would result in a larger US military, we also have to be aware that the UK was not in favor of the US having such a larger military involved in WWII. Why? Because the UK was worried about what the political positioning was between the UK and US, especially in a post-war enviornment (ie who the "world leader" was). It wasn't until 1950 or so, that the UK gave up its claim.
Hence, unless the UK is succesfully knocked out of the war, the US would never have exceeded that 90 division Army. In some ways, I guess what I am saying, is that it would be nice to have some sort of mechanism to double the US MPPs (whatever that number may be), if the UK is conquered. But unless that happened, the US would never have committed as many troops to the ETO that it could have. And that assumes the US would have had the political will to carry on the fight. But thats another subject.
[ October 26, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Member #4691
I'm curious. Even after you played the demo, are you saying you wouldn't have paid $45 for SC?
I think one of the keys to successfulling selling SC is the demo. The ability to play the game, with no limitations (other than the number of turns) will tell you quickly enough if its a game you will enjoy.
Contrast it with an HOI demo. How many people would never had bought HOI after playing a demo of it?
-
marklavar
I'll try and give you the short answer to your questions.
1)Diplomacy...It was abstracted by the readiness %'s. Hence the actions you take against neutrals represents your diplomacy. On Turn 1, invade the Baltic States, you'll see what I mean.
2)US MPPs wrong...You suggestion about using historical economic figures shows you really don't understand the complexity of the problem. For instance, what is the historical economic number for Russia in 1939? Or any period for that matter from 1939 to 1945? Any number you get from any book is a guess. And then you have to figure out what the cost for a Russian unit was versus the cost for a American unit. The costs were not the same.
3)Inaccurate scenarios... This one is hard to answer, since its so open ended. I suspect that alot of the issues you have come down to playability versus realism.
4)Paratroopers and Shock Armies... Paratroopers were not present in large enough numbers to represent a Corp, not to mention a Army. And the effect of Paratroopers is more operational than strategical. Shock Army answer is the same for why there are no SS units. When you get a unit that has two or three experience bars, rename them to Shock or SS. That is an accurate reflection of them.
5)HQ's having no offensive ability ... HQ's can fight since they defend themselves. The intent was to keep HQ's out of the front lines as an offensive units. Hence, no ability to attack.
6)Time limit... I suspect it because Mr H needed some way of showing who "won or lost". Its possible that after showing that result, the game could have continued. But ask yourself, how many games have you played that hit the '47 limit? Especially against Humans?
7)Limited area... Memory restricions limited the number of hexes. Hence, the map couldn't be larger.
8)No economic management... If the game was to include detailed economic management or even a simplified version, something we currently have would have to go. Lets not forget that SC has no problem running on older less capable machines. You start adding those extra bells and whistles, and you cut out alot of people who don't have the computing power to process the game engine. Hence, I suspec it was a design decision.
-
Edwin P & Iron Ranger
The things you are talking about I've done and played (against humans) over the last six (6) months. I've incorporated those changes into the '39 Historically Responsible Campaign and House Rules. I'll outline the relevent changes below.
The UK needs time to build up its Middle East forces, as well as ship forces from UK and possibly Canada. Its something you have to start on Turn 1, incrementing those units 1 str pt a turn, since you don't want to lose the experience bars they have. Otherwise, they are no more effective than the Italian units.
UK has to make a decision though, on what to send to Middle East. Send too many, and UK is vulnearlbe to Sea Lion. Send too little, and Axis can potentially get more units to North Africa to defeat you.
Tobruk is key to the Axis, since without it, they have lost North Africa (the only port, hence the only way to get units into North Africa).
Malta is key to the Allies, since without it, they cannot invade Sicily. Malta, along with Gibralter, allow the Allies to invade North Africa from the West, if that is required.
Vichy is now key. As a neutral, its a good way to limit Allied choices on invasion points in the Med. Its almost impossible to take all three Vichy areas at once, so whatever side invades Vichy, gives his opponent some freebie units and land. That could be a bad mistake.
Based on those strategic options, choices are made. Assume Axis go for Egypt. Its a one or two turn trip from Italy to Tobruk. That implies that you have properly used the Italian Navy to keep that sea route open. Since there are limited hexes and supply support in North Africa, you have to be careful on what you send to Tobruk. Two Italian Armies, one German Panzer and one German HQ work out about right. If you're really going after Egypt, you'll send two or three German air units to Tobruk as well, eventually replacing with Italian air.
Then the battle for the Middle East begins.
If done properly, Greece cannot be invaded by sea (since UK ships will stop you), so it has to come from overland. That allows the option of the UK to send units (including HQ) to Greece thru the port.
The Russian "clock" is ticking, since once Russia enters, if UK still has Middle East, it now has land route to a capital, and the Middle East cities will now increase beyond strength of five (5). American or Russian units can enter the Middle East (or even go into Russia). That puts the Axis in a bad spot. For example, with only eight (8) ground units, Italians have to be very selective about where they defend, almost always requiring German help. Otherwise, the Allies can open up the Southern front in Europe.
Relevant Changes
Germany starts off with Norway and Iraq.
UK has a 5 str Corp that will take two turns to reach undefended Iraq. Then UK gets the plunder and Iraq.
Egypt has Wavell HQ, one more naval unit. The 8th Army (ie UK Army) starts out in England as a 1 str unit. Wavell and the XIII Corp (in Alexandria) are understrength (str 2 and str 6 respectively).
Amphib can only occur four (4) hexes from a port you control.
Transport movement (from port to port) is unlimited.
Italy limited to eight ground units.
UK limited to twelve ground units.
Germany limited to four air units.
Italy limited to two air units.
UK limited to two air units.
Free French option OFF.
Germany can invade Vichy France, but there is a diplomatic cost that could result in Spain or Turkey joining the Allies.
-
The problem with statements stating that the US is not represented properly, is that the majority of them are made from a belief about the relative strengths of the different nations involved, not a true understanding of the actual strengths. Iron Ranger and a few others who have been part of the debate and more importantly, looked into some of the actual numbers, have given a good overall statement about whats wrong with the US MPPs and military units.
Over the past year, there have been some lively debates about this topic, some of them quite detailed. Of course, very few of us will go back and read the old archives, since there are so many of them. And instead of me picking on Rambo's specific points, let me just give my general viewpoints about the US in SC.
The US MPPs in SC are too low. Yes. Without getting into the specifics, they should be around 200 to 300, with the ability to grow to around 400 to 600. But the most important part that everyone seems to forget, is that the Russian MPPs in SC are too high. Russia should be roughly 180 MPPs. And even after relocating the factories to the East, the Russian MPPs should never exceed 250 MPPs or so. The next points about the US MPPs, is how do you represent what went to the Pacific theater and what was sent to Allies? SC, 3R, COS and High Command have all taken these basic numbers, and depending on how the individual designer interepeted it, changed them around for playability purposes.
While I don't know the reasoning behind Mr H's decision process, I suspect he is of the same opinion as I... WWII was decided in the East. As in Russia. While the Western Allies contributed, the decisive blows were being struck in Russia. The US did not "win" WWII, though it greatly contributed to the Axis defeat. The US did defeat the Japanese, but they were not part of the Axis.
The US Navy is not properly represented in the Atlantic. But neither is the UK and Candian navies. Thats because the missions that those navies allocated alot of ships to, is not part of SC naval warfare.
Armored warfare... Using SC terms, the US should really only have one (1) Tank Group. Germany should have eight (8) and Russia roughly three (3). The mobility aspect of the Allies isn't represented in SC, since the Corp/Army units should have one (1) less action point (ie horse drawn transports), while the US/UK units keep the current action points (ie motorized transports). US doctrine used armored divisions like infantry divisions, since with the exception of a few commanders, the US still thought of tanks as armored horses. The UK was even more stuck in the tank as a armored horse rut, and never achieved the proper coordination between armor and infantry forces. Thats why they get no Tank Groups.
The US should have more strategic bombers, but not as initial units. You should have to purchase them. But again, the reality in SC is that we have foresight and don't believe that strategic bombers can defeat the enemy by themselves. So we don't buy them.
Until the Air is "fixed", its tough to critize AAA, radar, etc. With limits on the air units, you can represent the Battle of Britain accurately, as long as you understand that the UK can lose the air battle, especially if they don't have HQ support.
-
Well... if you or anyone else is interested, I'd be happy to post the information I've accumulated over the years which has lead me to my conculsion that the Italian military in SC should be limited to eight (8) ground units.
-
Ditto what JerseyJohn said about the naval units. Trying to represent the actual OOB for naval units doesn't work. Whats more important in the naval units is that the relative strengths between the Axis and Allies is represented.
While I have used actual OOB's for the '39 HistResp Campaign, again, you have to be careful in interpetation. Its not something you can casually do, since to be accurate you have to cross check the OOB's against the divisions, as well as understand what all the different divisions types of each nation represent. And then you have to do cross checking against total strength since not all divisions are full strength. Not something to undertake lightly.
And it really helps if you can read German, Italian or Russian, or find books that were written by knowledgable people who had/have access to source documents.
Then, you'll find that the "experts" don't agree.
[ October 20, 2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Wolfpack
I agree that splitting the two functions apart could give us a more realistic ability to represent the logistical limitations the Axis military operated under, but that is a design totally different than what we have now. As such, it needs to offer us alot more than the current system we have now, otherwise, its not worth the effort to make the change.
By using your suggestion though, we can now move into the realm of Supply units that are consumed using a variable rate based on the actions of the ground units. In other words, a unit that was defending would consume less supply, than a unit that was attacking.
By varing the purchase rate per nation, you now have a more accurate reflection of the true effect that the US had, as well as providing the real targets that the Air units (and Partisans) operated against.
-
Jersey John
Romania and Greece
From what I remember about the Romanian military, it was short of the artillery and other heavy equipment that make up Corps and Armies. I believe SC accuratley reflects the number of units that Romania could put into the field. And the lack of upgrades, works great in reflecting they were not state of the art. I don't remember much about the higher level HQ's (our SC HQ), so I can't say one way or the other if they should get a minor HQ. I'd almost have to state that I think a German HQ works fine, since it reflects the increased supply ability but not the combat bonus... which could be reflection of having the various minor Axis units (Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian) operating together, thought some of them didn't much care for the others.
Greece one, I know even less about. I believe UK sent two (2) Commonwealth divisions to support Greece, along with some higher level command units. So I would assume that would qualify as a UK HQ unit. Even so, I think the two Greek units in the mountains are out of luck, since they still will be stuck there.
Germany, USA and Italy
Italy, while it did incorporate colonial troops into its military, never really operated those units outside of Africa, something we don't reflect in SC. Italy should not be allowed to purchase Minor HQ's, but the Italian HQ's do seem quite suited to opearte as the higher level HQ's for the Balkan Axis minors. Especially since the Italians should never have more than eight (8) ground units.
So it seems that Germany should be able to build upto four (4) Axis minor HQ's (assuming those nations are Axis), while the US could build those same four (4), assuming they were Allied minors.
Minor HQ Cost
Since the assumption is that Germany/US is fleshing out what the Minor nation needs to be able to field the HQ, it shouldn't cost as much as a normal HQ. Somewhere around 50% to 75% should work fine.
-
Whose painting is that?
That is a painting that made me think once I saw it. Not good thoughts, but it did get an emotional response, and thats the point of art, isn't it?
[ October 19, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Bill Macon
While I don't feel this is a good way to go for SC2, as a fix for SC its a very good idea. Having understrength units (I'd even go for lower than 5), would force you to keep them out of the front lines. And having another turn required to build them to full strength, in effect would take another two turns, since you couldn't move them. Very good idea.Another thing to help offset the instantaneous unit issue would be to have all new builds be for strength 5. This would also be easy, allow for low strength garrison units if desired, and force players to reinforce/"train" new units up to full strength over one or more turns. It builds in a reasonable production delay without too much bookkeeping to worry about.Combine this with that understrength unit having different experience bars based on national differences, and you've solved the experience bar issue, something we've both wanted. You could even go to the extreme of the purchase unit being one (1) strength point, giving you nine (9) turns having a one (1) str pt increase per turn so as not to lose the experience. Of course, in dire straights, you could "rush" the training, giving you a less or no experience bar unit.
-
Bill101
This is not about realism. The problem with the current system is also related to the instantaneous creation of units. Hence, disbanding units anywhere in the world, allows you to create a totally different unit someplace else, that same turn. Thats playability, not realism.
While units were stood down quite often in real life, there were restrictions on where they were able to be reused, not to mention the time delay. Thats the realism part we lack in SC.
-
Zappsweden
Actually, thats not what I said. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not really trying to discuss the specifics of the how to.
-
Now this is an interesting concept, something I'm not sure that was brought up before.
I like the idea of Germany being able to purchase a Minor ally HQ, as oppossed to the Minor nations starting with thier own HQ's. It makes alot of sense.
Along those lines though, who would the Allied equivalent be? The US has the economic might to form the logistical structure needed for our Minor Allied HQ's. UK is strained as it is trying to build Commonwealth units, so I don't think they should be allowed to build Minor HQ's. France won't be around long enough to make that choice, and after its "liberated", needed US support to form its own national armies. Russians make it simple, since they basically absorbed anybody into the Russian military machine, so they wouldn't have "indepedent" commands (ie Minor HQs).
Lastly, I assume we are only thinking about the "major" minors, so to be clear about it, let me list them...
Sweden
Finland
Turkey
Spain
Does anyone believe others should be on that list?
-
If random starting positions are really that important to some of you, then let the Allies modify the campaign (ie move its units around) before the Axis do thier first turn.
But now, just like in 3R, you will have to set some limits on where you can place your starting units, to avoid unrealistic setups, but it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.
If you want to make it real simple, simply let the Allies move first (editor option), but don't allow the Allies to DOW.
-
Zaapsweden, before I answer your question, let me point out that I've been programming and doing system designs for over 20 years and was there when the first PC's came out. I point this out simply because any security system on a computer can be defeated and I don't want to start a discussion about the hows.
And like the others who have pointed out, its alot easier to stop playing someone who you suspect of cheating. You can't make a living playing SC, nor does it get you females. So why play against someone you don't like or suspect of cheating?
To your question... Temporarily suspend the outside transmissions, even if it requires corrupting the data packets. Increase the MPPs, buy the new units, then reduce the MPPs back to the original value. Resume the outside transmissions. There will probably be a few other tweaks required, since I'm sure I've overlooked a few things, but there is the general idea.
-
I don't like the idea that units can be sold. I have no problem with the ability to disband a unit, but don't like the idea that you recover MPPs by doing so.
Notice the previous posts in favor of the disbanding, all are doing so from a playability perspective. I agree that it adds to the playability of the French, to be able to vary the units you start off with, but a better method of doing that, even in SC as it is today, is to give the French MPPs, as part of the starting "bid".
-
I pointed out awhile back, that its quite possible to cheat in SC, the only real question being is it worth the effort just so you can say you won.
Hombre Plin, you'll find that almost every computer game can be manipulated in a way that is considered cheating. Without going into the specifics of your accusations against Zappsweden, why not simply play other people instead of giving up SC totally?
Zappsweden, while I can't answer specifically for Mr H, it comes down to resources. For the same reason many features that would be nice are left out of the game, more than likely the security feature you want was left out for similar reasons. Even the feature you described can be easily defeated, unless there is a constant data update between machines to show changed values. Games, especially entertainment games, can never defeat someone who is determined to cheat.
-
The question has been asked and answered by Mr H.
How different is SC now?
in Strategic Command 1
Posted