Shaka of Carthage

Mr. H. Just so you know, +/- 1 point variation works fine. You've achieved the proper amount of randomness for the "soft" factors we don't control.

Logan Hartke Numbers don't lie, but they can be used to prove whatever you want. You missed the point. Experience matters, but in SC, at a certain point, experienced units will suffer no losses. Your method of cutting off and isolating experienced units doesn't work against experienced players. The Germans should start the '39 campaign with at least one experience bar, to reflect doctrine and training superiority. Try it. By the time of Russian invasion, the 3 bar and 4 bar experienced units will be unstoppable. Thats why experienced players run around with 4 to 6 str pt units. You can't hurt them from the ground. Historically, that is what happened (as well as other factors). But the Germans did suffer losses which atritted away the German experienced manpower. We can't reflect that in SC. Some of the older threads have worked out the combat formula and have isolated the affects the various factors have. Mr H Thanks for the response. KDG Excellent. Agree about the min 1pt of damage.

Its not the "luck" factor that has the wrong feel. A random factor has always been required to represent the "soft" factors of combat. SC combat model is fine as long as there are no large differences in the experience ratings. When there are large differences in the experience ratings, the more experienced unit will suffer little or no damage. Its evident in any Barbarossa campaign that reflects the combat effectivness of the Germans. The Russians can't bleed the Germans, even at twice or greater loss rates. Flipping the soft attack and defense values of the units will solve the problem. So will redoing the combat model, but that requires software changes.

Oak If you get some free time, you may be interested in doing a search among the older topics here. I believe it was outlined there. Not to mention its interesting seeing the various responses people had to this. Especially when you compare them to the initial reactions to the Dutch Gambit, Double Gambit, and all the other "gamey" moves people have problems with. Terif Reminds me of the saying ... I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you.

Terif Armored Units Very interesting reply. Thank you. I've admitted many times, that my "weakness" when I play SC is that I follow a "historical" approach and expect "historical" results. Hence, my problems with the number of air and ground units a nation can have. Your analysis of armor units is exactly the strengths and weaknesses of them as they are in SC. I use them the same way. Where we disagree is the effect of Heavy Tank R&D. The main tasks of tanks as you put it. I agree that if I had a Tank Level 5, against a ground anti-tank level 0, it should be a "super" weapon. The mere fact that I can invest in anti-tank, gives me a counter against it. Since I don't have the ability to "counter" air the same way, you end up with the tech and quantity air race that SC becomes. Air and Armor should be the dominant units in the game. Not just the Air. PS... Germanies max number of Armor should be eight (8). Italy max of one (1). No way should they have more than that. [ July 26, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Terif I understand. But it still doesn't change the point that there is a "counter". It may not be an easy one, but it still exists. I do understand that you are saying its easier to not allow it, than to teach the counter. Its a reverse of the LC Gambit, where moving a few units from Poland to the western border takes away the Allied LC Gambit. Different subject. I'm curious why you personally, are not complaining about the problem with Armored units. Do you not see it as a problem? In effect, its pointless to invest in Heavy Tank R&D.

Terif Your explanation about what experienced players have to do is the "Counter to the Rome Gambit".

Terif Why did you qualify your statement? What would be different if it was an "experienced" player?

Wouldn't it be easier for someone to write "Counter to the Rome Gambit" and post it in the newbie sticky thread? Then its no longer necessary to make it "illegal". I remember when Z-League first started and I wanted to play using an House Rule (limit on air units). I was told no way, there will be no House Rules in Z-League. Now look at it.

Sex with ugly women make you go blind. Sex with beautiful women will give you an ulcer.

The lack of the French HQ is a good way for the game to represent the problem with the French leadership. The lower supply levels and readiness hurt, if you try to become aggressive with the French.

We've talked about the technical problems with a SC Pacific. Lets bring up a marketing problem. Any SC Pacific game will be compared to Grisby and Matrix games. Grisbys design has been refined over the last ten to twenty years. If you try and bring SC Pacific up to a "grand strategic" scale, so it can compete at a different operational level, you've run the risk of losing the flavor of the Pacific battles. The above I believe is enough of a reason (ignoring the technical issues) for SC to stay away from the Pacific. As many have mentioned, SC still has some things that need to be refined to make it a more mature system. Or have we forgot the problem with Tanks, Heavy Tank R&D and Tank combat?

Night Map does present a problem. Hence, you have to think about the time scale you are trying to represent. Each turn needs to represent somewhere between the existing week to maybe a month (4 weeks). This allows a "campaign" to cover a persons lifetime. You could make a case for each turn to represent three (3) months, but I personally don't like that approach. I assume you mean the lack of Carthagian MPPs. Don't forget you have the US and Canada out there. Some or all of them could be given to Carthage. Or you could take the Russian approach for MPPs for Carthage. Italy would need a MPP boost, since France (Gaul) and Germany (Germania) shouldn't be outproducing Rome. See US/Canada/Russia. If you are going be around the Carthage era, you have to have the Hellenistic monarchies of Macedonia, Seleucia and Ptolemy. Or you could go with Parthia as a counter to Rome, etc. Depends on how historical or playable you want it to be. Or you could take a different approach and make your setting Late Republic. That would give you the "western" Romans (ie Caesar), "eastern" Romans (ie Pompey), the barbarians (Gaul, Germania and Brittany), Parthia (Iraq, Syria, Turkey(?)). This setting may be easier to balance from a "historical" viewpoint. Anyway, by being creative in how you use the US, Canada, Russia, even Norway and Sweden, you should be able to balance the various MPPs and factions.

Night Very true observation on the effectivness of Roman legions. It also depends on what time period you are trying to reflect. Generally speaking, the "effective" Roman legions would be the one's you start with. Hence, giving your starting units experience bonuses would reflect that. Newly raised legions, as well as the "eastern" legions, would not be as effective. Eastern could have one experience bar less, while the "new" legions, would have none. Depending on how you handle the cavalry and skirmishers, it wouldn't be that unreasonable for a newly raised Roman legionaire "Army" to fight on equal terms with a Gallic or Germanic Warband "Army" (ie no experience bars either side). You are also correct that the AI and the Diplomacy aspects of SC make it "quirky" for the Ancient era. But its still interesting seeing how different people attempt to solve those problems.

The only change required to tech is that once you achieve a tech advance, a R&D chit is consumed. The current system works just fine. Its not predictable, there is enough of a variance to make the decision between investing one or three chits in a single tech a major decision and the catch up feature actually gives you some strategic options.

Night Don't be so negative. Let the creative juices flow among those who want to experiment. While the SC Editor/Engine does have its limits, there are many ways around it. Only question being is it worth it. The Cold War scenario seems quite well designed. I myself am working on a Roman era campaign using SC, but it won't be anything like SC. If that makes sense.

Reepicheep Now here is an idea we should seriously consider. Play two games, one each side, to determine who the "winner" is. Anyone want to tackle the difficult part about what the winning conditions are?

JerseyJohn The concept of quarterly moves is interesting. I was trying to limit the moves in the game to the lifetime of a individual. I don't like the idea of spanning centuries, because then it becomes a Civilization type concept. Edwin P Way too many ideas to respond to each of them. So let me take one at a time. This is probably more a difference in the definition of what we consider tactics. But here is my quesiton. What superior tactics do you believe the Romans have that would ensure a majority of victories against Greek Hoplites? You basically had two opposing lines of troops that fought each other. The major advantage the Romans had, was the ability to relieve the ranks that were fighting with fresh ranks. Without dealing with the initial volley of pilums (which was a big initial advantage), the Romans and Greeks were basically heads up in effectivness fighting each other. I'm curious what you percieve that "superior tactical" advantage to be.

Edwin P You edited as I was posting... so I have some additions that are shown as italic. ADC2... interesting idea. May have to consider doing something like that. The Roman Era is huge. I like the concept of each "scenario" being a campaign set in a specific time frame, and that time frame being limited to lifetime/generation. That way you could cover in one scenario Ceasear "campaigns", while in another scenario cover Trajans. Hmmm... with a scenario editor, you could let people create some amazing "what if" campaigns. Like Roman Republic vs Alexanders Macedonia. Could even get extremly ahistorical, ala Carloiginan "Empire" vs Roman "Empire". Chariot Type... By the Roman Era, they were obsolete. Only the British used them. Also, lets not forget the scale. The "Army" was not made up exclusively of chariots. Thats why I left them off. Interesting part is how to reflect thier usage. There has been a tremendous amount of debate over the years on how chariots were used. Latest concensus, especially for the British "light chariots", was that they were used as skirmishers. I want to be clear about the Chariots, so lets look at the Cavalry unit I talked about. This Cavalry "Army", would be Scythians, Huns, etc. Where the majority of the Army is made up of horse mounted soldiers. Mongols would be the best example of the type. Unless you want to go way back in time, there were no Chariot "Armies". But in the interest of flexiblity, why not design a Chariot Army, so if someone did want to create a Egyptian vs Sea Peoples scenario, they could do it. It would take less time to design then to debate about it. Galleys... another place where the SC naval combat system would be perfect. Attrition... Lets do it right. Any movement, would cause troop losses. The different types of terrain and weather would just increase the loss rate. Readiness loss first, once you reached a certain point, you would lose strength points instead of readiness. Ship Design Tech... not sure why you feel attrition would be affected. It was the size of the ships that were affected by the "tech level". Rome, other than the Egyptian food transports, never really built large ships (ie never developed Ship Tech). But if you were thinking in terms of Carthage and Rome, then it would be an interesting choice for Carthage. Land and Naval tactics... not sure what you are trying to accomplish there. The combat bonuses given by the Leader units (HQ's?) handle those innovations well enough. The "institutional" differences between a Roman Legio vs a Tribal Horde are covered by the experience ratings. I see the examples of the tactics you were thinking about. Thats too low level for the scale we are talking about. The combat bonuses of the Leaders would cover that. There are a few examples, like the tactical defense, that can be handled thru the entrenchment feature. [ July 13, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

xwormwood Obviously it would need to be something different than Civ III. Here are some of the things I think would make it different. Turns One month per turn. Depending on how you handled winter, that gives you nine (9) or ten (10) turns per year per player. Allows a "campaign" to be around 15 to 20 something or so years. Leaders These would be in terms of the player personalities. SC basically has two different "sides". Roman version could go with that as well (Rome and Persia), but could be expanded for as many as five (5). Then you would have the various leader types that JerseyJohn and Edwin P alluded to. Something creative would have to be in place to handle the lack of instaneaous communications of this era. There is enough grey matter among the posters of this board to come up with something. Next would be the leader types that would always fall under AI control. The "barbarian" types who pop up every now and then with thier own agendas. Even some of the internal rebellious types (ie slave revolts, civil war) could be covered here. Diplomacy Critical element. Espeically in influencing the relationship of the the "minor" nations towards the "powers". Alot of the different ways of handling diplomacy that have been discussed here could be applied to this era as well. Same concept of keeping it simple, while adding a new element to the game would apply. This would be nothing like the way Civ does it. Unit Types Here is the fun part. Lets not forget the scale. Thats probably the most important thing to remember as we think about these. This is where the strength point concept of SC comes into its own. Assume a strength point is 10,000 soldiers (roughly 2 legions). Now I can have a "Army", of different sizes, simply by varying the amount of strength points it has. The spotting range is perfect to represent the amount of cavalry within the "Army" that acted as scouts. The tank and soft attack and defense factors represent... let me save that one for later. And the experience factor is a perfect way to represent the difference between a trained, untrained, regular or irregular type unit. We would have to have the standard pilum and sword type, otherwise known as legionaries. Also would need spear armed, which would cover the hoplite to the phalangites. Both sword or spear typed infantry would cover the "barbarian" types, simply by the lower experience rating. Cavalry, would cover the tribal missle (bow and/or javelin) types. Those three (3) basic types would double to reflect the emphasis they placed on the specific type of shock action (ie infantry or cavalry). I'd love to hear the debates about how to handle the missile effects, for army types that emphaized that. Then we could even have "R&D", to allow the "what ifs" of nations emphasizing mounted or ground shock, mounted or ground missiles. Combat, resulting in strenght losses, would be an almost perfect way of representing the losses of the era. Not to mention the gain of experience. We need to do something about the strength point replacements, but again, there is enough grey matter on this board to come up with something. Just those basics alone would make it a differnt system from Civ.

My first love has always been the Ancient/Medieval period. Something along the lines you described I would buy an in instant. Maybe Mr H should consider some sort of arrangement where we would be allowed to use his game engine, but we would have to do the design work and programming (or even sub-contract it out). Once it went to market, Mr H could receieve half or so of the profits with the remaining profits split among the members of the design team.

jon_j_rambo That is exactly what I am suggesting. This was something that was discussed way before I arrived, since the North Atlantic and the map in general, has always been something people have complained about. The limitation was based on the memory. I don't know the exact specifics of the problem, so I can't explain the problem other than in general terms. But I understand the theory. So unless some other part of the "permanent memory" loading gets removed, there is no additional memory to load more hexes for the Atlantic. I'm surprised at you. Everybody does WWII games because they sell. Good old supply and demand. Mr H can "invent" all he wants, but he still has to make a living.

mpacc I suspect your problem is that when the Germans took the Vichy French city on the continent, the Vichy capital moved. The results after you captured Paris would depend on what patch you are at.

jon_j_rambo This is not a "firmware tweak". Adding additional hexes requires space. This is space he doesn't have. To get a true representation of the North Atlantic, Mr H needs to double the number of hexes he has currently. He doesn't have the space. What part of the current system are you willing to get rid of so he could add more hexes? If he was gonna make the effort, he would be better off reducing the current ocean hexes and making entry points into "sea zones". Then you have to replace the naval combat system, assuming you use the existing report screens to show the results of the "sea zone" naval combat. Its not worth it.

Bidding is a perception of what side is the favorite. It is more than just a means of balancing. It is a way of getting as many MPPs for your advantage in a competitive game. Lets be honest here. Many of your TCP players will bid the Axis up so they get a advantage in MPPs as the Allies. I'd much rather play the Axis than the Allies. So would just about everyone else. Not many of us have the patience to take a beating while we await the Russian entry. Put some historicial constraints in (such as a limit on what neutrals the Axis can attack, air limits, etc) and you will see a different game. But now I'm getting off topic.