Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
I figured I'd do some quick calcs to help me calm down from JerseyJohn getting me all worked up talking about the US Defense budget.
North Atlantic Map size
There are alot of ways you can figure it, but I used this. Based on our current 50 mile hex.
Souther tip of Florida to Gibralter would be about 75 hexes. Ireland to Brunswick would be about 45 hexes. Current SC map is about 37 by 62 hexes.
Just as a rough estimate, the entire map area we have now would not cover the North Atlantic. Then there is the request to include Iceland, expand the area in North Africa (just a few hex rows there) and a few hex rows north of Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. But lets just be conservative and say we want the current map to be about twice (2X) the size, with the additional covering 95% of the North Atlantic.
Then there is the work that needs to be done on the naval aspect of the combat system.
How many of you are interested enough in the naval side to want that? I ask because maybe the effort would not be worth it. And if not, maybe there is a better way for us to do the same thing.
Comments?
[ May 18, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
US economy is not understated
A large amount of the US MPPs are already built into the numbers that UK and Russia get. That is why there is no way to transfer MPPs from one nation to another.
Thats why the UK numbers seem "high".
Soviet Union, no way, no how, should have 480 MPPs. Way too much. But, when you add in the "lend-lease" support, the new industries that were being built east of Urals (thats right, "moving" the factories from the west was not as important as we though), and the mobilizing of the economy into war footing, then it comes out about right. It's a couple of years early than it should be.
The only nation that has its MPPs way off is Italy. They should be around 60 to 80 MPPs. But, from what I understand, that number was bumped because of balance purposes.
Lastly, neither the Axis or Allies have an advantage. Thats why the Ladder "bidding" is interesting. Its not based on actual numbers, its based on perceptions. Just like the Stock Market.
-
Going off-topic
I wish the current day US Navy would stop being such wussies and reactivate the BB's. The Marines could use the naval gunfire support and the BB could also be the backbone of the "streetfighter" ships.
As it is now, everytime so dummy gets on a speedboat and heads toward the Navy BATs (big ass targets), they get nervous and move further out to sea. How you can "show the flag" if you are over the horizen?
Then again, since the captain of the ship realizes that if his ship gets scratched, his career is over, can you blame them? Zero-defect policy. What a waste. Something very strange happens when a officer gets to O-5, O-6 rank. He comes more of a politician than an officer. Someone give me an acroynm for "politician in a uniform" that comes out as an insult.
Ok... feel better now.
-
Codename Condor
Only Mr H has the answer to this. One of the problems with having different values for units is that you need to store the values for each unit as oppossed to having one value for the nation. Example... Germany has 20 Armies. We are asking for unique values, hence 20 values. Current method only requires 1 value. The technical term is data redundancy. Real world calls it wasting space. And remember, the map is the size it is, because he had no more space. So it is quite possible that even if he wants to include it, he can't because of space (ie memory) constraints.But i prefer the multiple levels units... but feasible in SC2? Is SC2 going to follow the auto retrofit issue as in SC?economic constraints ... Cost increase isn't the type of economic constraint I am talking about. Germany had roughly 20-25% of its military in motorized units (ie Panzers, PanzerGrenadiers, etc). Why? The German Panzer divisions in 1939 were all organized differently. But when Germany wanted an increase in Panzer divisions (he doubled them), he had to reduce the tank size in the 1939 divisions by half. Why? Those restrictions (and others) were not based on how many MPPs you had. In some respects, we see another side of the same problem when people simply grap as many neutrals as they can, because the more MPPs you have, the more you can buy. Thats why I am against the addt'l cost increase.
And the above is easier to model than the manpower issue. That one is a nightmare of a project.
-
Wolfe
What you are really asking for is a new unit called Partisans. If you are going to go down that route, then we might as well do the partisan thing all over, since there really should be no "partisan unit".
All partisans did at this level was cut supply lines and cause some MPP damage.
-
Well-Dressed Gentleman
Fixing the carrier bug only corrects the carrier getting a strong defense by sitting in a port.
If that one fix has driven up the bidding, then people don't really understand the strength that air units have with Jet and Long Range techs.
All that has happened with the bug fix, is that you have to find a different way to protect your carriers while they build up experience.
-
Rambo
I don't think the historicial reinforcement rate would be appropriate at this scale. It implies that you are following the same historical path that actually occurred. None of us as Axis, wait until 1940 before attacking France.
What usually happens, wheter the people making the suggestions realize it or not, is that what is desired is a system that reflects the same constraints from manpower, equipment and time, so we are faced with the same issues and decision processes that our historical counterparts had.
Codename Condor
The unit replacement concept that COS used (varied cost depending on if unit eliminated out of supply or not) is in SC. Its just not discussed.
Unit being "replaced" in COS........ buying new unit in SC.
Unit being "rebuilt" in COS......... 1 str pt unit in SC being reinforced.
I think the rebuilt cost in SC is 47%, while in COS it is 50%.
Regarding Tech upgrades
I think the solution for this, from what I remember, is to make you pay a upgrade cost for each unit. I don't remember, but I think there was a part of this that said you had to return to a city or capitol to do this. This way you could have same type of units with mutil tech levels.
OOB
Because of the generic unit concept and the fact that in a historical OOB a Corp is not the same as another Corp, you have to be careful when depicting OOB in SC.
Germany 1939
5 Armies, 8 Corps, 4 Panzer and 2 Luftwaffe. Existing HQ's plus add Leeb in the west.
(five corp and one panzer are understrength)
Germany 1941
Add to above:
11 Armies, 0 to 3 Corps, 4 Panzer and 2 Luftwaffe.
(Corps depends on if you belive there should be a Fallschirmjager Corp and field Luftwaffe divisions)
And then there is the Afrika Corp. This is really a 5 Str Panzer unit. Again depends on your belief, but my problem is how to ensure it stays in North Africa.
Slipways
Excellent idea JerseyJohn. Thanks. Much more elegant way (compared to High Command) to represent shipbuilding capability of a nation. And by having the one (1) year period along with pre-existing keels, you have just solved one of the major problems with representing the BB's and CV's that were already laid up. You either have to complete them or accept the loss of that keel from your ship building ability. Again, thanks.
Everyone
I don't like the idea of additional costs for units that have exceeded the max. But that is because to me the max is representing the inability of the economy or manpower to produce anymore of those units. Otherwise, I want the unit to be no max, with the constraints being in the economy (ie oil or MPP) or manpower.
-
Since I have the information, I'll post it in case it is of interest to anyone.
Unit...................Months to Construct
............................HC/COS
HQ................................/ 10
HQ (Russ)....................../ 8
Corp...........................2 / 4
Corp (Russ).................../ 2
Corp (Para)..................../ 8
Army..........................2 / 4
Army (Ge/Itl)................./ 6
Armor........................4 / 8
Armor (Itl)..................../ 10
Air............................4 / 10
Bomber......................4 /
Transport..................4 / 8
Destroyers.................6 /
Cruiser......................8 / 14
Battleship...............12 /
Carrier....................18 / 18
Submarine................6 / 6
There is no Cruiser in COS. They have a Escort. I placed it under the Cruiser definition.
For Your Info
3R had force pool limits. You lose a unit, you could replace it (assuming you had the BRPs). But don't forget 3R was a 3 month turn.
World at War which is the latest version of 3R follows the same concept, but they added a few things. By spending BRP's, you can increase the size of your force pool.
The other thing, is that they got rid of the "double move". So it's a good old, IGO UGO system, as it should be.
And here is the most amazing thing... after almost 30 something years, this 3R thing is still going. And World at War has something like 500+ pre-solds! And at $75 to $150 a unit!!! Thats amazing.
I now understand the price. Same reasoning I assume SC went thru when deciding on its price. World at War was looking at 25% of the sales of a SC type game, so they raised the price.
Edits
As JerseyJohn pointed out, I forgot to double the COS times. Corrected that 5/18.
[ May 18, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Genghis
Multiple advances with one (1) chit have always occurred.
-
I get it! Stalin was a POLITICIAN! He used his political party and government in whatever way he thought was best. He could be whatever was needed at the moment.
ham
Great information on Finland. I was curious early in your post why the West didn't help Finland more, but the latter part of your posts answered that for me.
[ May 16, 2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Let me come out and state that I agree with the time limit on unit. And at the same time, give me the ability to place a maximum number for each unit type in the editor.
Now for the hard part... who wants to suggest what those time limits should be?
And how do you pay for it?
Example... Corp takes 12 months. So do I have to pay my 125 MPP all at once? Lastly, what happens if a tech advance occurs before the unit is produced?
-
Land hex between the two... that is a brilliant idea. Simple and effective.
Atlantic remain as it is... That is BLASHAMPHEMY (however you spell it)! If for whatever reason, the Atlantic cannot be expanded... then there is no choice but to designate certain hexes as the entry points for "sea zones". Those "sea zones" can be as simple as the intell reports we have now, showing us in a graph what the strength of each force is in each "sea zone". Axis entry points would be different than the Allied entry points (to avoid a 'blockade' of a entry point). Then each turn, the "results" of the combat actions in each "sea zone" can be given to us. And entry into a "sea zone" would be of a specific duration, so they would automatically exit once that length of turns has expired (ie same logic used in the Suez transport).
French caribbean... JerseyJohn, is this the route that the French "colonies" shipped materials to France by? Or did it come thru the Suez?
Marinque and Venezeula... I like it. But weren't the resources used to blockade those from Axis reach something we don't currently have? In other words, wouldn't the US and UK need more ships than they have now? I don't like the idea of them being invaded, I think that should be something that you blockade, meaning Axis would have a convoy route that Allies could interrupt.
-
I remember this somewhat. I think it was before I started posting.
Anyone is welcome to answer this, but if the Tech chips are "consumed" after each advance, should the IT advance be reworked? As in:
Go back to the original numbers (10% per level).
Different rates for each nation.
Or is it ok as is?
I kinda like the second option, of different rates for each nation. But if all you care about are Greys and Reds, then the same numbers (whatever they are) for each works fine.
-
JerseyJohn
March '41..... pro-Allied Yugo coup.
April '41..... pro-German Iraq revolt. Pro-Nazi officers seize control of the Iraq govt. British women and children are taken hostage. Germany sends combat aircraft to assist the Iraqis. The British invade and take control by end of May. IArab mobs riot and kill 600 Iraq Jews. Many Iraqi officers flee to Iran, a few notables get to sanctuary in Germany.
It would be nice if SC made the Iraqi revolt an event, just like the Yugo one. Hmmmm.... I think I will have to include this as an "enhancement".
June '41....... Vichy Syria invaded. Falls after 5 weeks. (Thats almost a year after Vichy France was established)
July '41 ...... Japan occupies French Indochina.
(poor French, everyone is picking off the pieces... no wonder they have an attitude)
August '41 .... British and Russian forces invade Iran (govt was pro-German).
Since SC doesn't show the Iraq revolt, until the Allies take Syria or Iraq, the oil flows. And if I remember my map right, Iran really isn't even on the map is it?
I understand the point about the neutral not really being a neutral, since they leaned one way or another.
Interesting point about the response of Vichy France to the invasion of Vichy Syria. You would think they would DoW on UK. Syria didn't just roll over... they fought hard. But that seems to be something that SC doesn't deal with right now. And wouldn't it make more sense for Vichy France to DoW on UK if Vichy Syria was attacked?
[ May 16, 2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Fascinating... I for one always believed Stalin was a communist believer.
-
The proper use of the F____ word
We all know that it isn't polite to use the F-word. However, there have been ten times in history where the "F" word has been acceptable for use:
10. "What the f___ was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
9. "Look at all them f___ing Indians!" - Custer, 1877
8. "Any f___ing idiot could understand that." - Einstein, 1938
7. "It does so f___ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926
6. "How the f___ did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC
5. "You want WHAT on the f___ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566
4. "Where the f___ are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937
3. "Scattered f___ing showers....My ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC
2. "Aw c'mon. Who the f___'s going to find out?"- Bill Clinton, 1999
1. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this f___ing mad." -Saddam Hussein, 2003
And Number 1 . . . drum roll please . . . .
1. "Who the f___ is complaining about the Ladder?" -- Terif, 2003
[ May 16, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
santabear
Sweden 1.5 MP. Once invaded, (1.5 * .8) = 1.2 rounded = 1.0Why do transport values for Sweden and Vichy France go down after occupation (but values for France, USSR, etc. are apparently unchaged)?France and Vichy France are getting OP from Syria. But Syria isn't really producing the OP. It is coming from Iran/Iraq thru a pipeline. Once Vichy is no longer neutral, Allies won't still allow the pipeline oil to flow.
French mine 0.5 MP. Once invaded (0.5 * .8) = 0.4 rounded = 0.5France falls to Germany: Germany takes French resources (apparently at full value). Why is this different than in the case of Sweden?Historical basis is you receiving 80% after occupation. Vichy France still traded with the Allies, even though it more or less went to Germany. Remember... Vichy is not only what we see on the map, but the entire French Colonial Empire. Allies never cut them off.
Synthetic fuel. Germany and Japan both invested heavily in alternative fuels. It costs four to five times more than producing fuel from oil. Btw, the German "atomic" program was for its use as an alternative fuel (ie nuclear power), not for an atomic bomb. And even though we don't show it, both Japan and Britain had coal. The ships had been converted to burn oil, but there was some talk about converting them back to burning coal.Why can Germany convert minerals to oil?
Basic economics. "Guns, Butter and Cows". We have the Gun part down fine. 10MPP for 1 MPP is for the Cows. The Butter part will come later. Nation has 100 MPP, spends ("invests") 50 MPP, then subsequent turns they will have 105 MPP. Way of representing Economic Growth.What does "investing 10 MPP to gain a 1 MPP base increase" mean?
No it doesn't. And plunder for the Germans is historical. The military equipment and supplies from France were used by the German military. I don't know if it is suppossed to represent manpower as well, so lets assume no.MPP+ system eliminates plunder
Don't agree with that.the Axis has no chance to win unless they can wrest control of the seas from Britain and the US.Germany has the same problems it did historically. Germany/Italy are 600 MPP strong before conflict with Russia.
Conquering UK eliminates the threat, but no MPP gain. You don't want Spain as ally, for same reasons Hitler didn't... Spain wants the Med just like Italy does. "conflict of interest". So are extra troops and neutralizing US worth it? And do you have the time?
Once you do end up in war with Russia, you want a short war. Since initially you will be at a MPP disadvantage.
The naval system in SC is something I try and stay away from. I've got some general beliefs and ideas, so maybe I'll post a seperate topic regarding those.I don't think the SC naval system is up to the task ... this system also would require a better way to model the submarine war than the King George V doing sub hunting duty.
Agree it would be nice for it to be larger. But don't forget, I have an "enhancement" that limits the Amphib option to a range of three (3). So no "conga line".Middle East mapYou understand fine. Don't sh*t a sh*tter.
-
santabear
Hmmm... I had written a long post with dates and times in response to some of your statements, and then my system crashed. Wonder what that means?
about trusting Hitler and insurance being French army ... I don't think Stalin trusted anyone. Sure he was concerned about Germany attacking, but as was stated, Germany did not want a two front war. And the pact presented Stalin with a chance to turn the tables on the UK and France. Prior to the Pact, Hitler was not looking to go west. He had no plans for France or UK. He wanted to go east. From Stalin's viewpoint, France was just as much of the enemy as was Germany. That was the beauty of the pact, he in one stroke, twisted the tables on UK/France. I don't think many of us appreciate what a political masterpiece that was.
Pact from Germanies viewpoint was a guarantee against the actions of UK/France. If they had done as they had did in the past, then you are correct... Russia was next. But they decided to grow a backbone, and DoW against Germany.
Hmmmm... maybe we are both saying the same thing, just emphasizing different points. Lets just leave it at the fact that Germany and Russia both got what they wanted from the Pact. And UK/France were screwed by it.
-
I think the AI should reclaim its chits for any nation, when the capitol of that nation is threatened.
Whatever the "fuzzy" conditions that trigger the Siberian reinforcements in Moscow should be used for any nations capitol.
As was pointed out, the AI does not do a good a job as a human in the tech area, but if the nation is about to fall, give it all the MPPs that it can find from the chits. I don't believe that should be expanded into disbanding other units.
JerseyJohn made an excellent point, if the AI does cash in its chits, what will happen after the crisis is over? Whatever logic it uses to determine when to invest in tech should be triggerred after the crisis.
Since we have seemed to stray off-topic:
increased per-factor unit costs for each tech level For some reason, this sounds like an engineer wrote it. But I like it. Especially if the idea about consuming each chit after each tech level is achieved is adopted as well.
(Now I know why I liked this idea so much. Its one of the things I was trying to accomplish with the "enhancment" of Remove Strength point increase from each tech level advance ... edited 05/16)
AI needs some improvement to increase its research efforts regarding both the number of points it buys and where it allocates them
I'm not sure, but I think the AI has a few different "tech research" plans, that it chooses from in each game. That way, it provides a different feel to each game. It would be interesting to see if Mr H has "tweaked" them to follow the optimun AI tech strategies that many people here have posted about.
[ May 16, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
It would be unwise for Mr. H to endorse or approve any of the suggestions that we are making.
We are really playing a "if it was me in charge" game, putting the idea out in public, seeing if anyone can poke holes in it, refine the idea, let more holes get poked in it, then finally put out a finished idea (or a close relative of it) that maybe, just maybe will appear in a future SC.
-
Iron Ranger
Understand now. So basically you agree with the new rule, but want a House Rule that states Axis does not invade Canada or US.
-
Greece
The problem with these starting postions is the fact that the Axis can do a amphib invasion. Eliminate or tone it down and it works out fine.
Ireland
Problem here is a little more difficult. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that Ireland offered Axis subs a covert base for limited supplies or repairs.
So real question is why UK never invaded Ireland. Anyone know the answer to that?
Within SC, we need to have the same constraint that the UK had. Otherwise, even with Partisan units and the fact that you cannot get your units off the island, Ireland is still a juicy target for UK at the right time.
Then, especially in Ireland's case, this brings up indirectly, the use of Air units. Cause of you are gonna take Ireland, you mass air to eliminate the defender or reduce them significantly.
Even though I have "enhancements" for all the other issues I see, this is one I have not be able to come up with a good "enhancement" for.
Speaking of which, if anyone can help me understand the air combat, please do so. When I look at the combat odds, I can't get them to agree with the factors of Air Attack and Air Defense.
[ May 15, 2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Iron Ranger
I'm confused why you wouldn't want to remove the current rule. It was put in place because of a bug. That bug is gone in 1.07. So if Axis wants to invade USA, let them.
Regarding House Rules
I agree with the concept that House Rules can be used to make the game more historical. But they should be optional, not mandatory. Before people play a game, let them agree on the House Rules they want to follow.
Even going as far as "standardizing" the House Rules, so that only the one's that are "accepted" can be considered when you play a Ladder game is not a bad idea.
But it should still be an option, not something that you have to follow.
-
KDG
New units in capital... I was thinking more like you purchase one unit a turn. Thats it. No more until the next turn.
You kinda got the gist for everything else right.
Russia being screwed was more along the lines, that once Germany destroyed the initial Russian units, even at 3 units a turn, the Russians could not stop Germany.
But what you say about the further into Russia, worse for Germany and better for Russia is true.
And you know what? This is something we can play currently as a house rule.
Armies and Corps... thats 2-4 and 1-2, not 3-3 and 1-2.
US Economy needs growth
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
My o My.
There are so many ways that you can determine what the strength of a nation is. Instead of addressing each of these "perceptions" on what is correct, instead, if anyone wants to ask a specific question as to the reasoning behind some of these things, then I'll be more than happy to go into some detail on how I got the numbers I got.
Until then, I'll just give some general comments on some of the posts I have read.
Manpower... Manpower does not equate to combat power, nor is it part of the MPP calculation. It is unlimited in SC.
Relative strengths of Germany/Soviets... after 1941, the Germans and Soviets had roughly equal manpower under thier control. Not military strenght, total population. Soviets manpower pool was not unlimited, but it was one of the only things it had left to try and stop the Germans with. By 1945, the Soviets had reached the bottom of the manpower pool.
UK was the greatest power in the world. But it had a slight problem. The bulk of its military spending was in Naval ships, for without control of the seas, the Commonwealth raw materials could not get to Britain. And within the Commonwealth (and the colonies), they had to be careful how they used the colonial troops that were out there. ANZAC did not have a large number of men. And once the units were being raised, they had to worry about Japan. South African units would not serve outside of Africa. Indian units were a concern because they were afraid that of too many of them were raised, they would fight for independence, not against the Germans. Not to mention the fact, that the Majors and higher had to be British officers. But the most important factor is that there was no shipping to get these troops from place to place.
The reason why the Soviet MPPs do not revert back to the control of the US is the same reason that when UK falls, Canada doesn't give its MPPs to the US. Its just the way the game mechanics was set up.
Divisions... I've got the breakdowns of all the combatants by year. For some of them, I even know what the to&e's where by year. Even so, this alone is not a good way of comparing the strength of one nation to another. US overall had 89 divisions (actually 180 division equivalents), but no one is going say that they were weaker than the Soviets who had 200 to 400, depending on the year.
Economic game balance... its not a matter of what I believe. I've actually spent the time and did the research to see where the numbers are coming from and compare them to other similar systems. The Axis and Allies are balanced. If France falls around the historical time frame and Russia enters around the historical time frame then the swing is towards the Allies. Until Russia enters the swing is for the Axis. The bidding is perception, not reality. What would be a fairer bidding would be for the higher ranked player to give his opponenet the MPPs.
Finally... lets get down to specifics... if people believe the MPPs are too low or too high, how about doing the research to determine what you believe the numbers should be? Then post the results. Otherwise, this is like trying to piss up a rope.