Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
From a playability viewpoint, I second the notion that we should not see the readiness numbers of the majors. With the Random option on, I believe we should take it a step further and have the starting readiness percentage represent the potential range that the nation starts with. Hence, if Russia has a readiness % of 30, then when the campaign starts, that readiness % would be anywhere from 0 to 30%. And again, we as players, would not be able to see a nations readiness %, or else it leads to us being able to plan based on knowing the exact turn that the enemy will enter the war.
For the reasons that were stated, choosing the Historical option, at least for the US, places the decision on when the US enters the war soley based on what Japan did. Having a variable random readiness % (see above), allows us to simulate off-map political events that would push up or push back the Pearl Harbor attack.
Italy already, is almost perfectly represented, as having German units near Paris trigger them to enter (or UK relocations in the Med) really can't be improved on.
This is off-topic, and if we really want to debate this, we should do so in another topic... but the problem with the UK isn't in the MPPs that it gets. For everyone who keeps saying they need more MPPs, you forget that the UK spent its MPPs on merchant ships, something SC doesn't represent. Not until the US arrived could it ease off the pressure of building merchant ships. And while the UK did have the Commonwealth manpower, it had to be very careful about where and how it was used, due to political constraints. Anyway, this is another topic type discussoin.
So to summarize about the UK, the problem isn't really the MPPs... it's more a combination of there being too few units in the standard '39 campaign and the scale of SC not being able to represent the smaller actions that the UK took that we cannot.
-
Jersey John
I enjoyed the off topic tangent on Chess. Thanks.
You're right about not being able to compare chess and wargames. I never thought about it when you mentioned it was used to teach political intrigue, but you may have something there.
[ October 08, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Interesting that you say Alexandria gives 10 MPPs. I've never been able to get more than 5, but it could be because of the supply level of the sub, etc, so I'll take your word for it.
Thats one of the beauties of SC, even after all this time, there are so many subtle things out there.
Over 48 MPPs on UK... Its late 1942, the UK fleet is gone, US has entered but only has a Carrier and one other ship. US Carrier is trying to evict the German units from Canada, so no effect in Atlantic. Axis control the UK port in Scotland, from where there are three (3) German subs in the Ireland/UK sea area north of Liverpool port. There are another two (2) German subs south of Liverpool port, operating from Brest port. There are also three (3) Italian subs, that at times have operated from the Canadian port (Axis controlled) as well as south of Liverpool.
I get big numbers when the subs are in supply, numbers seem to make a big drop when the subs are out of supply.
I keep moving the Axis subs around, trying to find the "sweet" hexes, where I can get the most convoy damage. Since the UK is down to 100 or so MPPs (UK controls Ireland), losing 40+ MPPs a turn, hurts my opponent.
Of course, the subs are constantly getting bombed by Allied air, so I have to move them back to ports and rebuild constantly. Since I'm playing it as a limit game, the Axis air (4 German and 2 Italian) are all committed to the Eastern Front, the few Western Allied units can bomb with no fear of retribution.
-
Friendly Fire
Yes, its easy to go from PBEM to TCP or TCP to PBEM.
All you have to do is put the game file in the proper sub-folder under the SC folder. Thats it.
The player who opens the PBEM game as a TCP, won't see the replay of his opponents move, but other than that, it works just fine.
So as long as its your turn, you can decide if you want to do PBEM or TCP.
-
I'm not sure why the capture of a capital is considered "gamey" in SC.
Its been changed, so that with the exception of France, you have to destroy a certain number of units before the nation will surrender.
Whats wrong with that?
-
If you look closely at the numbers, you'll see that in SC you can do the same amount of damage that you can in COS. The Med and Atlantic maximums in both systems work out to about the same... assuming you commit the resources.
The difference is in the MPP damage to the ports and cities in SC. An Axis player trying to bomb the ports and cities of the UK doesn't work out as well in SC. It's more cost effective for the Axis player to use those Air assets to go after neutrals. So while its possible to starve the UK of MPPs in SC, no one hardly ever does it, because the Axis have more lucrative targets elsewhere.
Btw, in SC its 15 MPPs in the Med (5 per Gibralter, 5 per Malta and 5 per Alexandria). I've seen as high as 48 MPPs taken from the UK, but of course it was later in years, after the UK fleet has been totally destroyed. Don't forget that the higher supply level of your subs, the more damage it will do, until it reaches the maximum. The maximum in the Atlantic however, is much harder to determine, because of the larger number of hexes, even though its only two (2) ports.
[ October 06, 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Immer Etwas
Agree its restrictive. See my comments to Iron Ranger. And no, I'm not happy with it, more along the line of the lesser of two evils.2) Amphib movement using only Corps seems somewhat restrictive... presumably you have play tested this rule and are satisfied that D-Day landings can work without sailing Armies?
I've taken a different approach that I've been doing for many months now. Iraq starts as Axis, with no units. The UK has a understrength Corp in the Syrian/Jordan (?) area whose purpose is to occupy Iraq. In other words, the '41 pro-Axis coup in Iraq occurs in '39. This is where the UK gets its additional MPPs. More importantly, it makes the Middle East critical to the UK... something that should be defended.1) Some sort of Lend-Lease from USA to Britain (... using Zappsweden's most excellent suggestion of making a USA city and/or port and/or resource icon British). Or, do you suppose that this would give the Brits too many MPPs, thereby throwing the campaign out of kilter?
Interesting idea I agree. I think this is something that two people playing against each other should consider and use if they feel Jets should never make an appearance until late war years. I've found, that with limited units, especially Air, the Germans having tech level 4 or 5 Jets isn't enough of an advantage, since they only have four (4) of those units. While the Allies may not be at that level, they still have more Air units than the Germans, and can gain air superiority somewhere. Even more so, if the Axis player neglects the Italian Air development. And while I am something of a historical purist, I still like the potential "what if" that allows one side or the other to have Jets in '42 or '43.2) Bill Macon's inspired idea of LIMITING placement of chits in all Tech areas... to 2. This would remove SOME of the chance for one side gaining a quick advantage in critical areas, such as IT or Jets.Thanks for the good words.
PS... might as well mention this here. The '39 Historically Responsible Campaign has certain changes. One of them being that the Allies don't have any carriers. Instead, they have a battleship unit, with one more experience bar, to represent the carrier. There are more naval units, tech levels have been tweaked, more HQ units and the Germans have more experience bars, along with selected Allied units.
-
Immer Etwas
Campaign on the way, no PDF yet.
No. You need three (3) more chits than the other side. And its not that you can attack those nations, rather the other side must DoW on that nation. It may work better if you only need two (2) more chits, but I haven't played it enough to be able to say so.1) Forcing a DoW on Spain, Sweden or Turkey requires 3 unopposed chits... could you clarify this rule?I read it to mean that if the Axis waits until 1941 (having saved their DCs: one each for '39, '40 and '41) then they CAN attack any of those three countries, EVEN IF the Allied player holds an equivalent # of diplo-chits?
It may be easier to outline the flow...
1939... Axis has one chit, Allies have one chit. Axis declare intention to invade Sweden. Allies oppose it, which burns the chit. Axis now have zero (0) chits, Allies have zero (0) chits.
For the rest of '39, Spain, Sweden and Turkey cannot be DOW'd on, since neither side has a DiploChit.
If the Allies follow this approach, Spain, Sweden and Turkey will stay neutral, unless Spain is triggered by Sealion.
But assume Allies don't oppose the Swedish invasion. Axis have zero (0) chits, but the Allies now have one (1) chit. By itself, that one (1) chit isn't worth much. But if the Axis invade Vichy France, the Allies gain one (1) chit, giving them two (2) chits. We are now at a critical point.
Once the Axis gain a chit (Axis 1, Allies 3), they can now attempt to invade Spain if they want. Allies can say no, burning one (1) chit and still have two (2) chits. However the diplomatic option is there for them to not oppose it, saving that chit. The Axis burn thiers doing the invasion of Spain (Axis 0, Allies 3). Now the Allies have three (3) chits, to the Axis zero (0).
Allies can now dictate to the Axis, what turn the Axis must DoW Turkey. In effect, Turkey, seeing what has happened to Spain and Sweden, has declared for the Allies. After the Axis DoW on Turkey, Axis have zero (0) chits, Allies have zero (0) chits.
As you can see from the nations listed, you can invade anyone you want, but certain nations have a diplomatic cost, that if you do it enough, will cause one of the three (3) "major" minors to declare for the other side.
Does that help?
-
Iron Ranger
Unit totals exclude minors.
Amphibious movement being defined as a transport unloading in a land hex that is not a port. Hence, during the winter months, units could move from the US to the UK, but no transports could attempt to unload in continental Europe from the Atlantic or Baltic.
You are right about what it means for Allied invasions of Europe. I'm not happy with the way it works, but after trying so many other variations, I don't see any other solution that isn't worse. It fixes the problems with amphib units in the Med, but leaves you with a very unsatisfactory solution for the Allied invasion of Europe. In effect, this is a good example of a realism approach while vanilla SC shows you the playability approach.
The general game flow is like this... Axis have the advantages until '41 or '42. Then the advantage shifts to the Allies. Hence Axis have to put down England and/or Russia, before '42. If they do that, then Axis can win. If they don't the Allies will slowly but surely overwhealm the Axis. Sound familar?
My hot button is the unlimited number of units. While the Air is the most obvious, I get just as upset when Germany has a line of units from sea to sea in the East and lines any amphib invasion spot with Corps in the West.
Really want to see me lose it? Get me in a first person or combat simulation where you control a person or squad. Between the weapons effect and the way the people react, I need some strong medication to calm me down about it not doing it the right way.
-
This is more like my most memorabile SC moment...
When France pulled the Dutch Gambit on me, especially as France was the AI.
-
To get back to what the original posting and responses were discussing, I think they have brought up a valid point but at too low of a level.
Its not Unit Morale that we need to concern ourselves with. The random +/-1 cover that. What we need to think about is National Morale. You could also think of it as War Weariness.
Now the cumlative losses in manpower means something, not to mention the effects of strategical bombing or rockets. By having different starting values for each nation, we have another strategical factor to deal with, just like our game counterparts in real life.
And we now have a realistic way of representing the war weariness of France, that resulted in its quick surrender to the Germans, once the defensive line was breached.
-
While a hex editor would work, thats' not ethical since you are modifying propritiry code.
Hopefully, Mr H is working on or considering a expanded Campaign Editor for SC2.
But for SC, if he's not considering releasing some sort of Unit Editor (for $$), it would be a wise move for him to give permission or authorize someone to develop a free Unit Editor, something I and a few others have offered to do.
Modifying the Unit values, would greatly expand the possibilities, while not confusing the existing AI, something a Terrain Editor would do.
-
I found out about SC thru a banner ad on StrategyPage. Read selected posts on the forum, downloaded the demo, got hooked, ordered the game, then lurked on the forum while reading everything that was archived.
Since then, I read this forum every day, though I don't post as heavy as I once used too (mainly because not much left to discuss).
-
Some very insightful comments have been made here. I'd like to add my $.03.
I agree with the previous posts that stated that the SC Community isn't dying. Its just going thru various growth phases, even if that "growth" means member reductions. I think its quite evident by the methods of play.
The AI is always there for us, its a good teacher and a good opponent to practice against. That next level however, is human opponents. When I first started posting here, I was ready to play against humans and joined the Ladder, simply because if you wanted a TCP game, it was the easiest way to insure you got one.
All of us who have been captivated by great games, go down the same path, when we realize that we are spending hours and hours (if not days) playing the game (in the case of SC, as TCP). You get home from work, take care of home business, then settle down for a "few" hours of TCP play. Next thing you know, its time for you to get ready to go to work. You spend your weekends deciding if you can take a shower while your opponent does his turn, having food delivered and eating your meals while you are watching the screen (to make sure your opponent doesn't slip something past you). Give me a nod if you know what I am talking about.
You do it because you want to "win" and the competitve juices are flowing. Problem is, that there is no balance with real life and even the youngest of us, will eventually burn ourselves out. And if you're not careful, the desire to "win" becomes all consuming and clouds your judgement about other things. I belive that is where ZappLeague, Terif, Zapp and Rambo are today.
PBEM does offer a more balanced approach. Especially if you combine it with some TCP sessions, when both of you can get together. Even so, I find myself rushing thru other things so I can check my e-mail for that next turn, and being let down, if the turn isn't there. Lets not talk about playing more than one person at a time, I believe my personal record was around twelve (12) or so games at once, every day. Not to mention the funny looks I get from my female friends, during intimate moments, where I tell them to give me a moment, then go check my e-mail to see if I have a turn to process.
Those are the signs of a great game. As someone said, it appears easy and simple, but is really very complex and deep. I don't think any of use would have it any other way.
There has been alot of silliness lately on the Forum. The Moderators warn us when it happens and they are tired of it. I've been know to go off-topic every now and then, not to mention go off the deep end with minute detail. I understand the feelings of a community group, but as we are all guests in the Battlefront house, we have to play by thier rules. I don't think the rules are so harsh, that we should be considering going someplace else. From what I've seen, the Moderators don't mind if we go off-topic every now and then, but entire topics that are totally unrelated don't make sense here. Locking them up or moving them to the General Forum isn't such a bad thing.
I do agree as well, that trying to have a "general" discussion in the General Forum doesn't work since that forum is a whole different world than what we are used to here. While I may have gone off-topic here, in the General Forum I've gone off the deep end a couple of times. Its not a place I venture much anymore if I don't have complete control of my senses (ie not intoxicated or irritated about something in real life).
That leads me to where I am today with SC. I've posted my share of "how to improve" SC topics, while trying to keep them objective and reasonable. I've just about covered everything I think should be done, based on what SC is now. I've got no problem discussing those subjects and don't find them as "idiotic" or "useless" as others have implied. But other than one or two subjects, which I don't think I will ever find a solution for, there are no new topics.
Hence, my "holy grail", is the '39 Historically Responsible Campaign and House Rules. I can't play "vanilla" SC anymore because of the Air and Carrier units. Anyone remember that movie with Harrison Ford and Sean Connery about the search for the holy grail? Remember that old knight who was in the cave? Thats me, waiting for anyone who is willing to search out and play a Historically Responsible game of SC.
So if any of you are willing to try it as a TCP or PBEM game, contact me. And for you Newbies who don't know any better, this type of post, which is one of my "shorter" ones, is the kind of thing I used to post every day during a short strecth of time. Just like SC, we all go thru growth phases.
Sometimes for the better.
-
Interested in a PBEM game if we can use the Historically Resonsible Campaign and House Rules.
You can find the details here...
My e-mail (which is in our profiles btw) is bwl@runbox.com.
[ September 29, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
The reason combat veterans, especially infantry combat veterans, don't talk about it, is that its hard for those who have never been in combat to understand.
The hardship part, people understand, because you can relate to it. So thats relatively easy to talk about. The killing part, especially the emotional rollercoaster it puts you thru, is something you can never relate to unless you have experienced it. In some ways, its like a drug addict trying to explain his addicition to someone who isn't addicted. You can never understand, no matter how hard you try.
Understand, that for some of us, the effects of combat are scarier than combat itself. We don't see the world the same way as everyone else does afterwards. In some ways, we have lost our "civilized" behavior, and some of us can't handle it.
And especially in the United States, our culture looks down on soldiers, especially those who become professionals. Its very evident in our training, since how many of us wouldn't be disgusted at the thought of having a dog assigned to us during basic training, having to care and feed it, but weeks before graduation, having to kill and eat the same dog?
Anyway, my point was, that its alot easier for combat veterans to keep thier mouths shut, because the last thing we want, is to lose the respect of those we were lucky enough to come back home to.
-
THAT'S what those checks are for! I thought it was from my guest shots in certain blue light films.
-
This, along with the House Rules below, is my attempt to make SC what I think it should be. Since Strategic Command HQ's seems to be on hold for the moment, if you are interested, I can e-mail you the campaign file and eventually a PDF document (House Rules and campaign changes).
If anyone is interested in a TCP or PBEM game, using the Historical Campaign and House Rules, contact me. My dance card is somewhat free at the moment.
==================================================
Limit House Rules
Unit Limits
Nation ......... Air* ..... Ground**
Germany ....... 4 .......... 35
Italy ............. 2 .......... 08
British ........... 2 ......... 12
French ........... 2 ......... 14
US ................ 2 ......... 16
Russia .......... 3 .......... 41
* Ground units are only Armies and Corps.
** Air units are only Air Fleets, not Strategic Bombers.
Standard Options except
Free French option OFF
UK 8th Army must be sent to Egypt on first Allied turn.
Weather
September to November (Fall, 7 turns)
December to February (Winter, 3 turns)
March to May (Spring, 7 turns)
June to August (Summer, 12 turns)
Air cannot be used during Winter.
No Amphib movement in Atlantic or Baltic during Winter or Fall.
Amphibious Movement
Corps unit only, range of four (4) from Port.
Note that normal transport movement is allowed, just from Port to Port.
DiploChits
Beginning of each year, Axis and Allied each gain one (1) chit.
DoW on Spain, Sweden or Turkey requires one (1) unopposed chit (simply notify your opponent and give them the chance to counter).
Forcing a DoW on one of those three requires three (3) unopposed chits.
Allied DoW on Ireland, Portugal or Low Countries gives the Axis one (1) chit.
Axis DoW on Vichy France or Switzerland gives the Allies one (1) chit.
Comments or suggestions are welcome.
[ September 27, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
302 games over 10 months? Thats mind boggling, since its about 30 games a month, almost one game a day.
Terif, your Yin/Yang is out of balance. I second the statement about SC appearing easy, but being quite complex. I can't think of a better entertainment value for the cost. But balance your life. Remember the turtle won the race. Or as the old bull told the young bull, "No son, no need to run down for that one cow, when we can walk down and have them all."
-
I'm not sure how your suggested random system is an improvement over the existing system.
Under your proposal, it could still take me four (4) years worth of turns to achieve a breakthru. How does that differ from what we have now? It seems that by using the "development track", you know that eventually you will achieve a breakthru, even if its four years later. But both methods will can give you a breakthru in two turns or four years later.
While its a true statement, that adding additional personnel to a project, at a certain point, doesn't give you a relative increase, those additional chits could represent pararrel development projects as well as compeition.
SC does award a slight increase if someone has discovered a higher level tech. That accounts for the spying and reverse engineering.
-
I think some of you have missed the point on what Galileo is doing. He's simply trying to recreate the historical conditions so he can attempt a Sealion. He's not offering advice on how to conduct a Sealion against a human or even against the AI. Basically, Galileo is expanding on a historical "what if". About the only comment that applies to what he's discussing is what the US would do.
He's correct in that Russia would have stayed neutral, while Germany and the UK fought. The big question would be what would the US have done, since entering to try and save the UK isn't as clear cut as some of you think.
-
Edwin P
I don't see the negative effect of winter on effectivness, unless it was implied by the increase in the movement cost. Otherwise, the increase in effectiveness will result in some units being more effective in winter then they were in normal weather.
I forgot the second point I wanted to make, so will have to add it later if I rememeber it.
-
JerseyJohn
I'm glad you brought this up. That is a very logical conclusion, so I'd like the chance to expand on why I believe Stalin was the key. The thing that brought it home to me was the pararrels to the current North Korean regime and the former Iraqi regime.I don't believe the Soviet regime, however, could have survived long with Stalin's constant abuses if it had lost Moscow in the Autumn of 1941, especially if they had lost Leningrad as well. Such city losses, combined with the huge casualties, would have sapped morale and confidence beyond the point of endurance. The Russian people might have continued fighting the invasion, but I think they'd have separated themselves from Stalin first, and possibly the whole Soviet system.In all cases, but especially in Stalin Russia and North Korea, the nation was controlled by various security forces who not only watched "threats to the state", but watched each other. Russia had its military leadership purged because of the potential threat of the military challenging political control. Stalin made sure that anyone who was a threat was removed. In return, the security forces, then the military got what it needed to survive, even at the expense of civilians dying. There are numerous stories about what Stalin did and how. We are hearing about some of what Saddam did and in the future, I'm sure we'll hear about the North Korean father/son stories.
Without leadership, there can be no revolt. Thats why I believe that the Russian people wouldn't have tried to seperate themselves from Stalin. Who did they have to turn to? Add to that, the Nazi "policies", and its no wonder that the typical Russian peasant fought for Mother Russia and directly or indirectly Stalin. What choice did they have? So even though Moscow would have fallen, Stalin would have just spent more civilian lifes to keep the security and military functioning, as best he could.
In some ways, look at Iraq. While Bagdad and the nation has fallen, there are still Ba'ath members who have no choice but to try and strike back at the Coalition troops while awaiting the return of Saddam. They have no other choice, since the Iraqi's they persecuted will try and kill them anyway. And in Iraq, you have religious dividing lines as well as a "benevolent" invader. Russia wasn't that lucky.
[ September 17, 2003, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
I believe I fully understand the reasoning behind wanting certain nations to have bonuses to reflect the historical advantages they had in certain areas. As was pointed out, its certainly not historical for the Germans to lag in heavy tank development, even after investing chits in heavy tanks.
The problem is, that when you start to recreate the historical tech advances, along with a random system, you get into conflicts, since by definition, the two(2) don't agree.
I'd like to retain the current method (ie "random"), but would also like there to be a "historical" option for tech development. That would give certain bonuses to specific nations, if they invested in that tech, as was outlined above. No different than the "historical or random" option for nation readiness.
C in C for SC2
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
One of the problems with having additional people in the same game as you, is that it slows it down. The other, is that you have to make sure each player has enough to keep them busy (usually measured by the number of units the player has).
If the scale of SC2 was more operational, with units being divisions and corps, not Corps and Armies, then its a better enviornment for what you are asking.
However, along the lines of what you are asking, is the option of Russia being played by a 3rd person (or even the AI). The Western Allies (Fr, UK, eventually US) have enough to keep one person busy. Russia, by itself, could keep one person busy. Especially, if with a human player, the conditions that made Russia no longer neutral where not so clear cut. For that matter, the conditions that dictated what side Russia took, would make it even more intersting.