Shaka of Carthage

The concept of a single economic unit has been around for many many years. Doesn't matter if you call it a BRP, MPP, WERP, Production Point, etc. Its an easy way to abstract out a complicated subject. The problem with it, as was pointed out in one of the earlier posts, is that you lose the representation of what a loss or lack of certain resources meant to a nation. Lack of oil is why Japan went to war with the US. The resources of the Ukraine and the Caucasacus is one reason why Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The problem is trying to reflect those economic realities is beyond the abilities of most game designers. Most gamers couldn't care less, and simply want the ability to grab more resources so they can build more stuff. The majority of your grognards will complain, because most games don't restrict what unlimited resources provide a nation, and from our (ie grognard) viewpoint, we might as well be playing Axis and Allies. I've suggested for years, that SC should have multiple economic resources, which it already has in place by its icon representation (mines and oilwells). But it needs a differently designed economic system that what we are used to. Having units purchased based on a ratio of different resources, or limiting units based on the lack of a resource shows a lack of understanding as to the proper design of an economic system. What needs to happen, is that Oil and Steel (the two majors) need to be the input into an abstracted economy, that produces MPP. A certain percentage of those MPPs need to be spent on your population (ie consumer goods), with the rest being available for military stuff. You'll also have to have some method of representating the fuel demand, but thats more a matter of choosing a method to use. But now you have the next problem. The above is really only important to the Axis (and Japan). They were the only ones who had a oil shortage. The UKs problems were Uboats and manpower. France isn't around long enough to have a problem. Russia's problem is staying alive long enough. And the US is just a matter of when it decides to get involved. So most designers say forget it, and go with the single economic unit.

I'm slightly confused by the response. Are you saying that in SC2, that the only way for you to get above the standard 10 strength points are to manually reinforce the unit? In other words, once Tech gains are achieved, a newly purchased unit will still be strength of 10?

SeaMonkey, very creative idea on a potential way to use the StratAttk value.

Agree that restricting the range is not a correct representation of what is happening. But something needs to be done to prevent transport ships from moving half way around the world, then "poof", becoming an Amphib Assault force. Thats not the way it worked. And while SC2 will "weaken" a force, the longer it stays at sea, its not a satisfactory abstraction.

"Impossible to recreate Operation Torch"... Gibralter. "US could never have retaken Pacific from the Japanese"... This is something that depends on the scale. However, assuming everything is kept relative to each other, it would force you to "island hop". "Manchester England to invade Norway" ... The Scottish Port.

Agree they are too easy for the Axis. But lets go all the way... Amphib Assaults only by Corps, not Armies or Tank units. Restrict the ability so they can only be conducted in the same turn the Amphib unit is created. Seperate Amphib from Transports... and only allow units that are Transported to go from Port to Port. Lastly, restrict the range of an Amphib unit.

Read in the other thread the comment about Huey Long (which got me real confused, since for a moment I was thinking Huey Newton!). Anyway, what if Lindburgh (?), you know, the Spirit of St Louis guy, had run for President and won? He was pro-Hitler. And whats the deal with FDR and that 3rd and 4th term? I kinda assumed that back in Washingtons time, when he didn't run for a third term, that it became law (no more than two terms).

JJ said Canada agreed to terms with Germany, not that it surrendered. I believe Ireland would have used the opportunity to free itself from the British. Portugal would in effect be "Finlandized", since while it wasn't Pro-Axis, with Spain and Germany next door, it wouldn't have had any choice. Brazil would have no problems with being a Pro-US ally. Argentina would have declared itself neutral but if Axis forces would have somehow gotten into South America (which I doubt), it would declare itself Pro-Axis. Then of course, Chile, would have DoW'd on Argentina, looking for US support. Any attempt by Germany to claim territorty in the Americas would have been a cause for war. I doubt Germany would have bothered. Same with Sub-Sahara Africa. It could get what it needed from them by trade. Free France would either be in Sub-Sahara Africa or in the Pacific. Hence, I think any potential conflict would have been over the status of India. The "Free" British Empire would have wanted to have some say. But if we assume they were established in Canada, I believe the American desire for an independent India would have dominated. If Japan got Ceylon (because of its naval importance), I don't think they would have objected to India becoming independent, since it gave them a buffer against anyone moving into Indochina from the west. From a "long term" perspective, I would have to wonder how these would turn out... Communist China Israel Islamic Nationalism (actually a contradiction in terms) Sub-Sahara Nationlism Free France/Vichy France Korea Vietnam "Cold" War

To back up a little bit, SeaMonkey does have a point. China was in the midst of a bitter civil war, before the Japanese invaded. The US backed Nationalist China, while the USSR backed Communist China. The Japanese "government" wasn't of one mind in how it wanted to conduct "foreign" diplomacy. The Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese Army were rivals. Many politicians wanted to industralize and become more Western, while others didn't want to lose thier Japanese identity. If I remember correctly, part of the problem Tokoyo had was that some of the military officers in Manuchuria/Greater China refused to obey orders from Tokoyo they disagreed with. Bottom line was, that Japan couldn't back out of China, even if it wanted to. Nor do I belive that it wanted to, for the reasons JJ gave above (it considered itself a Great Power, and was doing no different than what the European Powers had done in its colonial possesions). I do belive that the US would have abandoned Nationalist China for the greater good, as long as Japan limited its expansion and made no grap for the remains of the British Empire (ie India). So SeaMonkey is correct about the disagreement over China, but since Japan didn't want all of China, just the coastal areas it had, a political agreement would have been reached with the US... like JJ outlined above. US would have agreed to Japan taking over French IndoChina and Dutch East Indies (ie Indonesia), as long as it meant that India was free to pursue its own independence. As Australia would have politically align itself with the US, the US would have achieved another one of its goals, being the breakup of the British Empire.

Well, now that we have moved into the "what if" realm, I'd like to bring up another possible alternative what if. Assume Germany/Italy and Japan "won" WWII as has been proposed. In the 1980's in Japan, there was a alternative history writer (ala Harry Turtledove) who wrote a series of books that were quite popular. He also happend to be a wargame designer, and developed something called "Red Sun, Black Cross" ... a "what if" post WWII scenario (roughly 1948) where Japan and Germany went to war against each other, and the US supported Japan. Germany and Japan were never the closest of allies. So if the UK did fall, it is possible that the US and Japan could have thier own version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop(?) agreement, which would allow the US to concentrate on Germany without having to deal with a two front war.

I understand. I not sure I agree that it should be a goal of a "... truly great strategic game captures the essence of the operational and tactical scales as well, albeit abstractly". Most designers (who don't fail miserably) end up with Strategical moves that are blown up versions of Operational moves (like the way you Blitz France in A3R). But I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

But now we are talking about two different things. One being how to represent a combat unit that has received enough losses to become broken or shattered, second being how to represent a Blitzkrieg. Most of us realize in theory, that a Blitskrieg is suppossed to represent you achieving a penetration of the enemies line, thru which mobile forces move, then attack the rear areas which are suppossed to paralyze the defenders because they no longer have any C&C, telling them what to do. How players go about accomplishing the above, is why you constantly here recommendations for "artillery" units, ability to stack units and "why" Air units need to be able to eliminate ground units. I see I am starting to ramble into more detail that I wanted. So let me just say that the above is part of the reason why I feel you cannot abstract the tactical battlefield by the mechanics you are decribing, rather you have to design for effect using abstract mechanics.

While these points have been addressed in the past, in doesn't hurt to discuss them again. The solution to the Air units has been hinted at in the past, but never really expanded upon. Fighters and Attack aircraft have different roles that we try to represent in SC by one (1) unit. Solve the problems this causes by making them seperate... FIGHTER unit for Fighters/Interceptors and an ATTTACK BOMBER unit for ground attack aircraft. The FIGHTER unit can operate as it does now in SC, with the major change being in how it damages ground units. The ATTACK BOMBER unit can be the one that does the damage to ground units. Naval Bombardment is another problem that requires a different solution. Its not something that should be occuring, unless there is an amphibious assault. While it is a true statement, that the density of a unit has an effect on the losses it suffers, I believe SC has already handled that by the different Attack:Defense ratios between the various combat units. SeaMonkey, the concept of a "shattered" or "broken" unit is already handled in SC. I forget the exact terms Clash of Steel uses, but SC more or less follows the same design concept. When a unit is reduced to one (1) or two (2) strength points, it is "eliminated" (as an effective combat unit). While we still see it on the map, whats being modelled is the unit being broken and reappearing as a cadre. To rebuild the unit in that state, will cost you 47% (50% in COS) of its original cost. If you let that cadre unit fight again, you are having the same effect as your "additional attack ... or overrun". This is when the unit in SC goes away and for you to build it again, costs 100%. The new "retreat" function in SC2, is really nothing more than the reduced cadre trying to save itself from elimination, something we couldn't control in SC2.

I believe we have gotten a bit lost regarding the semantics behind the Tech Developments. While it may say Heavy Tank, if you look at the effects of the Tech, you realize it really is Tank Development that is being modelled. So I would agree that a name change is due. WWII Heavy Tanks are reflected in SC by Anti-Tank TL5. While I don't agree with the reasoning behind what SeaMonkey said, I agree for different reasons, that each Tech advancement should not result in a strength increase. But breaking down the different tech advances into multiple technology advances that combined would give you the characteristics of your combat units, is way too much micro-management. If you broke it down into three (3) main techs for Tanks, you would have to do the same for Naval Ships and Aircraft at least. National leaders (whom we are suppossed to be representing), didn't get involved with those types of low level decisions.

Happy Holidays to everyone.

As far as the "emphasis and resources placed on Naval Warfare" and "National Doctrine", you can obtain that currently by simply tweaking the experience bars among the different nations.

Its an interesting concept in qualifying Italy as a minor. Some other systems have used the concept to good effect. Of course, this means France would be qualified as a minor as well. That would give a three (3) player mix as follows: Axis (Germany and Italy) Western Allies (UK, Canada and US) Soviet Union (USSR and France) Which opens up the global possibilities (for those who believe they can design a global scenario) for the six (6) major nations being: Axis(Germany and Italy) Commonwealth (UK, Canada, India, Australia/NZ, South Africa, etc) Soviet Union (USSR and France) Japan US (US and Nationalist China) Soviet Union (USSR, France and Communist China)

Hmmm... going have tp give some more thought about your first two suggestions. As far as a Naval HQ, I think you are lumping too many bonuses into what you are trying to represent. If Naval HQ's are the equivalent of Ground HQ's, in game terms you are trying to represent a combination of the land based Naval infrastructure as well as the Fleet commanders who are at sea. I'd suggest the following... Land based Naval HQ would simply increase the readiness range of the port it is on. For each land based Naval HQ, you would be able to designate one (1) Naval unit (ie Fleet Command). This unit would receive the combat bonuses from the Naval HQ.

Night, whats being asked for is already there somewhat. To reflect training and doctrine, SC does that by using experience bars (as each experience bar gives better combat abilities). The only thing lacking is the ability to have purchased units come with no experience bars, one experience bar or two experience bars. So there really isn't a need to have an additional field called "moral", to reflect better combat abilities. Not being able to reflect better experienced (ie trained) units when you purchase them, are really only a problem for the CW initially and Germany.

I've designed and playtested a "historically reponsible" scenario that incorporates those Axis restrictions. Played it against five other players. The problem is that with the Axis income limited, the Russian economy makes it almost impossible for Germany to take Russia out. I've got other things in the scenario as well, such as unit limitations and variable experience ratings. Even so, with the Russian economy being so much higher than it historically was, competent Russian play doesn't give Germany much chance.

JerseyJohn, the above quote I believe sums up exactly the weakness of Rommel. Wheter its because he was ill advised or ignored the warnings, but he did not show a good understanding of the logistical requirements.

SC2 scale is too high to show these type of things as units. Could though, have "event" actions that represent these things happening.

I've written topics about this before, but its been awhile, so I'll try again to have some influence on Mr H . One of the things alot of WWII games fail to reflect, is the manpower losses on the Eastern Front, that year after year eventually caused major problems for Germany (and to some extent, Russia). So here is a workable idea that I think can be easily implemented in SC2. Strength Points = Manpower For ground units, the concept works fine, since most of the replacments are infantry or tank crews. If there was a Manpower Cost in each unit, then this cost could be subtracted from the Manpower Pool (more about that later). Example: Corp value of X. Army value of 2X + N. Armor value of Y. Build a Corp (X=10), Manpower Pool reduced by 10. As each Strength Point is replaced, that Strength Point value can be removed from the Manpower Pool. Applies to all of the various ground units. Example: 3 Point Corp feed replacements and now 8 Points, Manpower Pool reduced by 5. For Naval and Air units, while the concept of a initial Manpower Cost works, the Strength Point replacements are not relative manpower costs like they are with the ground units. So excluding Strength Point reductions from the Manpower Pool for Naval and Air units works fine. Manpower Pool Each nation would need a field that would initially have a numerical value, to represent the total military manpower that nation has available to it. Of course, along with the unit Manpower Cost, it would be editable. The actual value, isn't that important by itself, as long as the relative relationship between national values is correct. In the future, if additional fields were added per year, quarter, monthly, that were added to the Manpower Pool at the appropriate time frame, we now have the ability to accuratly reflect trained manpower, prime manpower, all manpower, etc becoming available to the military. Now, when Germany invades Russia, the Russians can viably bleed the Germans of thier manpower, since Russia does have a larger Manpower Pool and can afford losses. Germany wouldn't want to throw units away, as they are expensive in resources and manpower to build. Russia, on the other hand, could build cheap Corps that are easily replaceable, since they really don't have anything else to stop the Germans with. The longer it occurs, the worse it becomes for Germany, since there is a limit to the replacements it can build. All it would take is a new field in the Units, a new field for Nations and some minor logic additions. And we know have a historically accurate manpower model. [ December 14, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

SeaMonkey and pzgndr are way too nice to respond to the insult. Since I've already pissed of one person, another won't matter. So allow me. "They will try to understand better, if you try to be smarter."

Tsk, tsk tsk. Seems someone has a thin skin. Its always so safe to say what you could do or would do when you are behind your keyboard. Those who are capable of what you threaten, have no need to shout about it. They just do it. Remember that before you make a mistake and say what you wrote, face to face to the wrong person. I could be mistaken, but I have never said I was the expert, so what I say is right and everyone else is wrong. I simply offer what I believe is correct and my reasoning behind it. Thats how reasonable people debate. See? No reason to throw a tantrum to show you disagree with someone. Just say you disagree and leave it at that, if you can't present a reasonable argument. Btw, I live in Los Angeles... let me know when you get around my neck of the woods.