Shaka of Carthage

KDG I like what you said about the HQ's. Got me to thinking. You're right, in the sense that if a Corp/Army Soft defense factor is increased, so should the HQ. KDG and 6thAirborne Basically same idea. But here we have a problem. What you say is true, but is it a big enough increase to justify six (6) different steps? If I increase # units under control 1 per step, then at L5, that would be 10 units that HQ controls. Distance the HQ can supply, I don't know the numbers, so no comment. Improve the supply and readiness, I don't fully understand. Care to elaborate? Wachmeister Excellent point. Logic wise, you would have to add programming code so that instead of using the Sub's "dive %", you would used the "modified dive %" which would be a result of the Sub's number minus the Attacker's ASW %.

I've been dying to answer this, but no one has asked, so I will answer it anyway! What is Fuzzy logic? I'm glad you asked that. First, lets talk about a computer. At its lowest level, the computer can only recognize two (2) different states. You can think of them as ON and OFF. Computer thinks of them as 0 or 1. That would be known as binary. People don't think that way, so they developed programming languages to act as the interface between the binary language of a computer and people. This lead to the development of what is known as conventional logic. Also referred to as Boolean logic. IF condition is TRUE , then do this. ELSE do something else. I'm sure some of you geniuses have already figured out, that the ELSE condition is the opposite of the TRUE condition. In other words, TRUE or FALSE , ON or OFF. Then some egghead, decided to mucky it up. IF condition is maybe TRUE , then do this. Notice that addition of maybe ? We no longer have a clear cut TRUE/FALSE anymore. We have blurred the definition of TRUE. Or as an egghead would put it, it has become fuzzy. If you have enjoyed this, please send a $5 donation to the address I will provide. Upon request, the next seminar would cover true AI, artifical neural nodes.

santabear In hindsight, yes. But at the time, it was a brilliant move. Then Russia would have had to be concerned about Germany invading Russia. And France/UK would not have helped Russia, they might have even helped Germany. So Russia would have been in a very bad spot. Stalin bought himself time while Germany fought the Allies (Poland, UK, France). No one believed that France would fall that quick in 1940. One of the reasons it is considered a "decisive battle" of the 20th century. Don't forget that Stalin himself had concerns over a two front war. He had major concerns with the Japanese. Let the Allies and Germany beat themselves silly, while he dealt with Japan. Then he could concentrate on Germany.

KDG Is the ability to move on the first turn really that important? Btw, I hope everyone realizes I have just screwed the Russians. Even producing three (3) units a turn, that will not be enough to stop the inital German assault. I was so "enamored" by this idea, that not until later did I realize its effect. I've long believed that the Russians should have "cadre" units (ie 1 str point) during its initial setup, to represent those newly created units. See how the subconsious mind works? I assume then, that the "enhancement" about changing the Tank Group attack to using the Tank Attack Factor instead of the Soft Attack Factor you disagree with? Because, I was only trying to give the Artillery in the Infantry units (ie Corps/Army) the bumps, since they don't get any offensive bumps currently.

One of the things I have promised to do, but am late on, is to produce this as a HTML and have it available on SCHQ.

88mm Hmmmm... I was under the impression that you were backing out. I'll leave that for you and Liam to figure out.

Wachmeister I thought about that, but the Sonar tech doesn't do anything about the advantage the Advanced Sub tech gives. You know, when you "attack" it, the % chance that it has to "dive"? Adv Subs keeps increasing that %. I was looking for the ASW tech to reduce that %. And since the Sonar would increase the "spotting" distance (does it?), I didn't want to mix the two.

Additions 05/13 Newly created ground/air units can only be created in your capitol. Except for Russia, which has three (3) locations. This is an alternative solution to a unit force pool. Will reduce the speed at which you can bring new units into play. No Amphib operations during Fall and Winter turns. Baltic and Atlantic were not calm seas during these weather periods. Air unit could be grounded during Fall, unless in a city. The effect of Mud. City effect is representation of weather proof runway. Gun Laying Radar at Tech Level 2 and Tech Level 4 can increase soft attack and defense factors by one (1). Combination of counter-battery radar, improved munitions, better artillery pieces, etc.

Before I can give my choice, I need to explain my assumptions. Mr H has done a excellent job on the tech's. There are no obvious areas that he has missed. Each area I thought was lacking, really can be handled creatively with what we have. We have a weakness in the naval area though. I am going to assume that SCII will expand the Atlantic to its real size, using the current 50 mile hex. Based on those assumptions, here is my choice for a new Tech... Anti-Submarine Warfare. Without getting into wheter or not there are new units, this tech would simply act as a counter to the Advanced Sub tech. In other words, it makes it easier to detect the subs. Thats my choice.

Edwin P Here is my opinion regarding some of the techs you have suggested (here and the original thread). SeaWolf_48 and JerseyJohn have hit upon a good point. Go with one tech called Intelligence Activities. This would allow the probability of partisans showing to increase. You should also combine the commando concept you mentioned somewhere else. But don't forget the scale we are in. So the commando effect should do nothing more than have the ability to cause random damage to ports, ships in ports, mines, oil wells and cities. As the tech increase, the % chance of the random damage would increase. Also, give thought to the ability of this tech to also increasing the probability of a neutral to "declare" for your side. Counter-Intelligence... you don't need a seperate tech for this. Roll the effect into the Intelligence Activities tech. Also, the random commando damage would not occur if a military unit was in that location. This way, by placing units in locations (ie garrisons), you have eliminated the possiblity of those effects occuring (just like we do with partisans now), without having to invest in the Intelligence Activities tech.

J Edgar was gay? I heard he was a cross-dresser, but that doesn't mean he was gay. [ May 13, 2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

I agree. I believe you should start this at the beginning of a new month. Gives everyone two (2) weeks to prepare.

HolzemFrumFloppen Cool, I'll play. Communist Russia... correct, same as saying Democratic US. I was trying to refer to the political side, just like I said something there about Nazi Germany (I think I did). But you are correct, it does show a bias... what can I say, I am the product of an biased American Education system. Regime... I am not sure I agree with that. I would tend to believe that use of those terms is more an indication of the types of materials we have read and were influenced by. But it doesn't mean we by into the party line as it where. Me reading the Fasicst Manifest and using the terms they use does not mean I am a Fascist does it? But I do understand your point, just like I don't like hearing the terms Jap, Gook, Chink, or having people refer to all German soldiers as Nazi's. I agree that there were elements within the British and French government that held a different opinion. But the actions taken by the leadership as well as comments they made show they felt that Germany was the greater threat to Europe during the time frame we are discussing. Actions of UK, France, Poland, Russia, etc... just goes to show that national interest come first. But again, you are correct, since the actions of UK/France towards Russia caused the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Petty, barbarous and cruel... I don't think that anyone would disagree that at its lowest level, that is a accuracte description of a human being. But our efforts to "civilize" ourselfs are attempts throughout history to tone it down. Some attempts were more successful than others. I think wargames at a commercial level are quite educational. It helps us understand why things occurred, and maybe even helps us prevent those same circumstances from occuring in the future. They are certainly more educational than first person shooters or RPG's, since I have yet to see one that properly shows you how to clean and take care of an assualt rifle. And none show you how to clean and properly use a katana.

SeaWolf_48 That would be Crips and Bloods... Democracy, Communism, Socialism, etc... these are all just labels. What we really want is a honest government. And if you old farts keep going down memory lane, you are gonna end up in General Forum Siberia.

Edwin P Fortification Tech you proposed would be better served by having a Engineer Unit.

Interesting view from the Russian side. I also have some knowledge of the UK/French side, so let met give my viewpoint on what the Russians were doing. UK, France and Poland were allies with a mutual defense treaty. From the beginning, the UK/France believed in three (3) keys to stopping Germany. </font> Two Front war</font>German reliance on outside resources</font>Hitler not having firm control of the government</font> UK/France mind, Russia was a minor player. Poland warned them about the Russians but UK/France ignored them. And since Nazism was anti-communist, they were not worried about any alliance between Germany and Russia. So when UK/France dealt with Russia, it was an afterthought. They were communist, they are too far away for us to be concerned with and if we are real lucky, Germany and Russia will fight each other. Russia though, was also aware of the UK/France beliefs. And every attempt they tried to make to be considered as a Great Power, they were insulted by UK/France. So what better way to get back at UK/France by making a deal with Germany and divying up Poland and the Baltic nations? Remember, no one had any idea that Poland would fall that quickly. So the Russian deal with Germany worked out real well. Russia, at its choosing, could enter into Poland and take the pressure off of Germany. Or it could sit back and watch Germany fight the two front war. Either way, it was a win-win for the Russians. Politically, it was brillant. After Poland fell, the Allies had no clue what to do. By treaty, they should have DoW on Russia. Instead, they betrayed Poland and ignored Finland. And just sat on there asses for the next 8 or so months. This would explain some of Stalins actions in the later years. Communist Russia and Nazi Germany would eventually come to blows. But since Germany didn't want a two front war, the fight against the Allies (Poland, UK and France) would tie Germany down long enough to allow Russia to wait until Germany was weakened before going to war with Germany. After all, what idiot in Germany would start a two front war, especially since Hitler did nothing but preach about how that was a big mistake in the past? No wonder Stalin had a hard time believing the Germans had invaded. Two other points to remember... Russia was never part of the Allies. Just like Japan was never part of the Axis. Matter of fact, I don't believe that Japan ever considered itself as taking part in WWII. I am referring to them being having an mutual defense treaty or military alliance. These are all "western" viewpoints. PS... since I am in one of those moods... the US provoked Japan into going to war against the US. [ May 13, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Let me play devils advocate for a moment. Intelligence and Espionage... so far, you are allowed to see more of the enemy units. But I can get the same effect by investing in Long Range aircraft. So what have I gained that I couldn't gain thru LR? I'm surprised no one has brought up the Propellor aircraft being seperate from Jet aircraft idea.

Edwin P I think your Quartermaster Corp tech and the Winter Prepardness tech are trying to accomplish the same thing. Most logisitical supply lines are at capacity trying to bring up ammunition, fuel, fooder, food, supplies, etc. When winter hits, if the winter equipment has not already arrived at the front, there is not extra capacity to handle the increased load. So you either cut back on the ammo, fuel or you go without winter equipment. Thats why I think those two techs are addressing the same problem.

Edwin P I tried to simplify it as much as possible, so that it wouldn't require a bunch of screens for you to figure out what the numbers are. Lot more flexibility if the values are 10's or 100's, but very few people can do that math in thier head. 1) Yes, strategic bombing of mines and oil wells in Romania. Germany, once it starts to fight Russia, only has 2.5 MPs and 2.0 OPs. Enough for 400 MPP's and 0.5 excess MPs going to Italy. Reduce the MPs by 0.5 and Italy is hurt. Reduce MPs by 1.0 and in addition to Italy, German production is reduced to 200 MPPs. 2) If Axis hold Iraq, they would get the oil thru Turkey. If Allies hold Iraq, nothing changes. 3) If UK had 1 MP and 0.5 OP, production would be zero (0). Option 1 and 3 do bring up a good point. When I first put this together, I recommended that production be cut in half. Made sense, since I wanted Italy to have production of around 60 MPPs. As you can see, Italy is in a bad shape. Then while I was redoing it, I came up with the zero production concept. I'm going to sleep on it, but I think I will have to go back to the minimum production being 1/2 of the intial base MPPs. [ May 13, 2003, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

JerseyJohn I learned all I know about hijacking from you!

Edwin P I hijacked your idea about a new tech and created a new topic.

I kidnapped this from Edwin P's topic. As he mentioned, there appears to be enough room to add one (1) more tech on the R&D screen. So, please limit your answer to one (1) choice, following the above conditions. </font> Benefit gameplay</font>Not unbalance the game</font>Not too difficult to program</font> Of course, you have to give your reasoning why. Who knows, once we determine a winner, maybe I'll send you a prize.

I am not sure how I want to say what is going thru my mind, so I will just throw it out as it comes to me. AI is probably the single most difficult thing to deal with in a wargame. While Mr H, may feel otherwise, almost all of us love SC and offer our "suggestions" only as a means of making it better. Since all of us want different things, if Mr H attempted to implement all of our suggestions, SC would become an unmanageable mess. Everything can be done, the only limits being time and money. AI, what is it to most of us? No matter what you do, the AI can never equal the challenge of playing agianst another human. So should the AI be nothing more than a practice dummy? Once you have mastered the AI, play TCP. But if you can't do that, how about PBeM? And TCP, PBeM actually works in SC, go figure. Open Source AI, that would give us the "users" the ability to enhance the AI. Have any of you heard about having too many cooks in the kitchen? Open source works fine by letting people see the final product and throwing suggestions out for enhancements. Every know and then someone will come up with a simple solution for a problem no one was able to fix. The other way open source works is for each "chef" to be able to create his own little area. But then you need a "master chef" who understands modularity interfacing. How many of us here understand what "fuzzy" logic is? How many of us here are actually logical? The person who figures out how to make AI as easy to modify as a scenario editor does, will make a million bucks. But by then, that million will probably only buy a car. Whoever it was that said the British Commonwealth could have won the war alone, made a good point. Incomplete, but still a good point. Too bad the flag waving overcame logical discussion. But thats another topic, no need to hijack this one. The SC AI is heads and tails better than what is out there. Then, I have seen and played against some terrible AI. So to me, since I rarely read the manual anymore intially, the AI allows me to start a game, and start over once I realize the dumb stuff I have done. AI is always there for me, even in the middle of the night. And it never complains. And every now and then, it does some things to surprise me. But just like a newbie, it will do some dumb things. However, it is for most of us, just a stepping stone to playing human opponents. Even though some of my Ladder opponents have very little humanity. You have got to love a guy like Edwin P, who day after day will analyze and quantify what the AI does and then come up with ways to do improve it. Mr H should at least autograph a copy of SC and mail it to you. If he really wanted to take care of you, he could send you a gold membership card for Deja Vu. Some new guy, who hasn't posted much, hit it dead on. The more you read about things, the more you realize you know very little about it. All those "facts" we knew 10 years ago, are washed away by the new information that is found out as time goes by. Isn't it strange how those who were there, know so little about what really went on? Kinda goes to show you that politicians are a breed all by themselves.

Here is my humble attempt to add some historical playability to the current economic system. Existing system is easy, interfaces well with the player and allows you to make decisions quickly. So any changes need to follow that concept as well. In other words, you should be able to figure out the MPP requirements in your head. Existing Problems </font> Economies do not reflect dependence on strategic materials.</font>Neutral nations are targets, not partners.</font>Strategic bombing has lost its importance.</font>Convoy protection has lost its importance.</font> After MPP+ </font>Strategic bombing can cripple Axis economy.</font>Italian economy limited unless find a source of OP.</font>Germany economy can grow roughly three times before OP limitation.</font>First priority of UK Navy is to protect convoys.</font>Certain neutral nations are more important as trading partners than if they were occupied.</font>Middle East has regained its strategic importance to the UK.</font> The MPP+ solution, I believe will solve the economic problems listed. Sadly though, this will require logic changes so is not an easy thing to do. The good side, is that for the player, it requires no extra steps or actions and retains the MPP as the only economic unit. You just have to make strategic choices depending on what your options are. [ May 12, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

MPP Plus (MPP+) Player Information Mine produces mineral points (MP). Well produces oil points (OP). For every 200 MPP's you require 1 OP and 1 MP. Hence 201 MPP's requires 2 OP and 2 MP. German "excess" MP and OP is available for use by Italy. Optional: Player can "invest" 10 MPP's and gain base MPP increase of 1. Optional: Germany can "convert" 1 MP into 1 OP. In addition to the merchant convoy's there are land trade routes, which can be traced thru neutral nations. National Vaules and Merchant Convoy/Trade Routes </font> Germany 0.5 MP</font>Norway trade: 0.5 MP</font>Swedish trade (before occupation): 1.5 MP</font>Swedish trade (after occupation): 1.0 MP</font>Romanian trade: 1 OP</font>Russian trade (after occupies Baltic nations): 0.5 MP, 2 OP</font>Vichy France trade (before occupation): 1 OP</font>Vichy France trade (after occupation): nothing.</font> </font>UK</font>Atlantic convoy: 1 MP, 0.5 OP</font>Atlantic convoy (after US enters): 2 MP, 1 OP</font>Mediterrian convoy: 0.5 OP</font> </font> France 0.5 MP</font>Atlantic "convoy": 0.5 MP</font>Mediterrian "convoy": 1 OP</font> </font>Italy</font>Spanish trade route: 0.5 MP</font>French trade route: 1 OP</font>Mediterrian "convoy": 0.5 MP</font> National values Sweden:..... 1.5 MP Norway:..... 0.5 MP Spain:........ 0.5 MP Romania:.... 1 OP Canada:..... 0.5 MP Iran/Iraq:.. 3 OP US:........... 14 MP, 16 OP USSR:....... 3.5 MP, 5 OP Program Logic changes MPP requires necessary MP and OP. Otherwise, production amount is reduced to amount that MP and OP can support. Trade routes are in effect unless: Nation is no longer neutral OR Cannot trace land route to trading partner OR Before and After occupation trade routes are different MP and OP production is by 0.5 or whole numbers. Normal supply rules are in effect, with values rounding to 0.5 or a whole number (that is the intent of the before and after occupation trade values). Current convoy destruction can use % of MPP's destroyed to determine % of MP/OP resources destroyed. Hence, requires 51% convoy MPP destruction to remove 0.5 OP from UK Mediterrain convoy. [ May 12, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]