Shaka of Carthage

arby Unless the increases were 1pt for an Army and 1/2pt for a Corp, with the system rounding to a whole number, not much else can be done. But any change to this should not be because there are too many units. I had the same though myself at first. I keep going back and forth on this one. Maybe this one deserves its own topic. Hint, Hint.

arby If we were to use your method to fix it, then all of the units would be moving too fast. I propose: Tank Group ... action points 5 Army (Motorized) ... action points 3 Army (horse drawn) ... action points 2 Corp (Motorized) ... action points 4 Corp (horse drawn) ... action points 3 German Armies and Corps are horse drawn. The 20 to 25% of the German military that were motorized are all in the Tank Groups. Italians, French, and early Russians are horse drawn. Later Russians for selected units are motorized (representing Shock, Guard units). British and US are motorized. While some British units were not completedly motorized, other than the Malta and Gibralter garrisons, they are not represented. The existing Pz Group has an action point of five (5). Thats fine. For all nations, this would represent armored divisions, mechanized and/or motorized infantry divisions. Current Army unit has an Action Point of three (3). Weekly movement rate of 150 miles a week. Thats too fast for men who are walking and horse drawn artillery. Its more like half of that (75 miles which equals 1.5 action points). But since I assume we can't have fractions in our action points, I rounded that to 2 Action Points. If you go with 1 action point, it presents problems with the current terrain costs. Corp, with horse drawn transport, starts off with 2 action points. Basic concept in SC is that a Corp, because there are less units, can move faster than a Army. So it would have to become a 3 action point unit. Replace the horse drawn transports with trucks and either thru the organic trucks in the units or available from higher level HQ will give you a motorized version of an Army or Corp. Increase the action points by 1. Increase of 2 would be too much.

arby You are correct in that the "what if" factor of the Industrial Technology skews historical results. But don't forget the other thing... oil. That was the limiting factor on the Axis economy. Never was enough of it for them to go 100% with everything. Had to pick and choose, or hold back the total production of certain items. 3R abstracts this in the methods you describe. SC doesn't. Hence, you'll end up with a Germany of at least four (4) times her initial production and an Italy of at least three (3) times her "natural" MPP production. The economic model is not what we normally expect, but it can be justified. The combat model is a minor problem, if one at all. The unlimited units, funded by the supercharged economies, is where we lose any resemblance to Germans, Russians and Americans, and become Greys, Reds and Greens. And the Greys will win or lose for exactly the reasons you describe.

arby That 3.2 million men mark is somewhat misleading. There were 134 German combat divisions (32 armor/motorized) going into Russia. Depending on how you slice it, you will get alot less units.

santabear Combat on the Eastern Front decided the war. Aircraft aided the Germans as part of a combined arms assault in the early years of the war. Later years of the war, the Allies, even with complete air superiority, still had to engage in ground combat. But here is where some will argue its because of the weather. Strategic air war, was not decisive by itself. But it did act as a drain on Germany and her resources. And yes, I do think that Jet Aircraft as Level 5 advances is wrong. Jet Aircraft and Propellor Aircraft should be two different units, with a Level 0 Jet Aircraft unit not allowed until you have reached Propellor Aircraft Level 4. Jet Air unit Level 0 should start off with a range of 2, be superior to Prop aircraft in the Interceptor role, but weaker than Prop aircraft in the ground assault role. The German Jets were almost exclusivly developed to counter the Allied Strategic Bombers. [ March 09, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

JerseyJohn What are the extra MPPs from Ireland and Portugal? There is still a 70 MPP difference (ie Norway taken, but no Russian entry). In a standard game, the additional Swedish troops don't mean much long term. But while Sweden did provide volunteers to the German army, it in no way allowed its military to be used by Germany. And then there is the factor of the additional air unit. I'm wondering if Ireland shouldn't be "joined Axis" at the beginning, with no troops. That way all the British have to do is land a unit in Ireland, get control of the nation, but also get one turn of plunder. The Portugese option makes me nervous as an Axis player, since the Allies could have units there.

And lets not forget China. You need to represent (even if abstracted) the land combat occuring in China (which tied down a large number of Japanese units). And the Soviet "Siberians" and the Japanese facing them.

There was a suggestion by JerseyJohn in giving Sweden to the Axis and Iraq to the Allies, in the Neutral Nations as Economic Allies topic. Well, I tried it. But there is a problem with it, wondering if any of you have ideas on how to fix it. If Axis gets Sweden, the Sweden/Norway combination will give the Axis player 126 MPPs. Sweden becomes a 10 point nation, not 8, and once you conquer Norway, it will increase to a 8 point nation (since it is connected to Sweden). Thats as much as Germany starts off with! This is also why Sweden doesn't stand a chance to remain neutral. Norway when captured is worth 35 MPPs. Sweden when captured will increase those Norway MPPs to 56, and add its own MPPs for a total of 112 MPPs. And you get the plunder from those nations. This is just too good to pass up. Any wonder why Sweden doesn't survive as a neutral? Iraq going to the Allies is only worth 56 MPPs to them (until Russia enters, then its 80). Since we can't create an "event", I assumed the Iraq Pro-Axis coup of '41 occurred in '39. Iraq starts the campaign as Axis, but has no units. I gave the Brits a weak Corp near Iraq, so on its first turn it can take Iraq and receive plunder. Even so, this doesn't make up for the Sweden/Norway combination. Thanks Bill Macon for the correct Iraq numbers. Any ideas on how to solve it? [ March 09, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Minotaur You're right, UK needs the help of the additional MPPs. This is where giving the Allies Iraq starts to look very attractive. The same with giving Ireland to the Allies. This weakness of the UK and the apperance of an understrength US is where the whole idea of a "bid" system for Ladder play came into being. Unless of course I am playing the Allies, I always seem to blow it and lose Iraq to the Axis. [ March 09, 2003, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Jollyguy You're correct. I did not include "bonus" you get when certain nations are connected. For Sweden, that takes the Norway/Sweden total from 70 to 112. Increase of 42. Don't remember if I did this one or not, but Axis minors or Yugo will increase Albania by 10. I plan to "publish" this as an HTML article. Once I do that, I will correct those numbers. Nice catch.

Minotaur, Arby, and a couple of others I promised this to. ================================================= Bumping this cause I have not figured out how to "link" it in my posts. Find the nation you are interested in, and read the summary. Then you can look at the earlier posts that have the MPP comparisons.

Minotaur I worked these numbers out sometime ago, comparing SC to 3R, COS and High Command. I'll give you some of the summaries below. Russia in SC, receives alot more MPPs than in the other games. COS was the closest, but even so, only worked out to about 343 MPPs. US in COS only gets 129 MPPs. The "missing" MPPs that "everyone" believes should be given to the US is already included in the USSR totals. UK gets alot more (257 MPPs) in COS. The "missing" MPPs for the UK are in the USSR totals. The USSR in SC has all these missing production numbers that people feel should be in the US and UK totals. I believe it was done this way to eliminate us as players having to perform a "step" to represent Lend-Lease. Btw, its just alot easier to "bump" the topic than it is to retype it. I haven't figured out how to include the "link" to the topic like other people do.

Ok, time for me to sound like an a**hole again. Before we get carried away, lets not forget what these Tech Advances are effecting. Units. With the exception of Indus Tech, the advances are making our units more effective in one of the attributes it has. But is everything fine with the units we have? No. There needs to be a distinction between an Army/Corp unit that is motorized and one that is not. The Action Points of the latter should be less than what they are now (which represent motorized movement). The distinction between mechanized and motorized is already abstracted into the Armor unit. Jet Aircraft We have a Air unit. Thats fine. But we need a Jet unit. Each air unit is suppossed to represent a mix between fighters, fighter bombers and bombers, with roughly 1,000 aircraft being there. Once I get that Jet ability, I still need to make those Jet fighters, Jet fighter bombers and Jet bombers. And the differences are big enough that I should be paying for a new unit. Hence, we should have a Propellor Aircraft and a Jet Aircraft tech advance. There is a topic on the back pages explaining much better than me, why it should be split. The short version is that the beginning level of Jets is not superior to the high end version of propellor aircraft. Anti-Aircraft Radar I see this as an increase in the effectiveness of the "phantom" AA (ie Flak) units we don't see. These are the guys with the searchlights, 88mm and up AA guns, as well as the smaller weapons. I also feel this should represent the "counter" to air, in that as your enemy gains air superiority, you would naturally counter by attaching more AA units to your Corps, Armies and Tank Groups. So those units should also be getting a increase in the ability to defend against air attacks. Anti-Tank This appears to be the representation of the evolution of anti-tank guns bigger (37mm to 57mm to 76mm) as well as introduction of bazokkas (and the German copies). There should not be a increase in the strength of a unit. Current method of strength points reminds me too much of the role playing concept of hit points. As you grow in a level, your HP's increase. But here is where it falls apart... what about those Assault Guns, Tank Destroyers? For that matter, what about the increased anti-tank defense as well as offensive ability that you get once you start attaching Tank Bn's to units? Soft factor is for the Artillery, since that is the major combat power of a Infantry unit. But if a Corp gets an armored division, or has an armored division as part of the organic units of that Corp, where does this increase in combat power come in? That Corp should not be using the Tank attack or defense. Thats only for the Armor units. This deserves another topic, but you can either make a new unit (nope, too detail oriented) or based on an advance in the Heavy Tank tech, the soft attack and defense factors of a Corp or Army (not Armor unit) should be given a slight increase. Rockets First, they are not artillery. They are a poor mans strategic bomber. They don't have the same level of manpower costs that fielding strategic bombers entails. The problem in SC is that the strategic weapons don't have a unique attack ability that other units do not have. Fix that, and German players will invest in Rockets if they were considering investing in Strategic Bombers, since they already have a head start in this tech. As far as using this to increase the soft factors of a unit, that is a no no. Artillery started off as 76mm and 105mm pieces. Eventually settled into 105mm and 155mm pieces (for those that could afford it), with the 76mm artillery pieces becoming obsolete due to the cost effectivness of using an 81mm mortar in its place (same bang, less bucks). Russians, who couldn't afford the artillery, used the 120mm mortars in place of the 105mm artillery. So... I really only have a one step increase in combat power increase due to the weapons. There is the fire direction control, that also increased the effectiveness, but only the Americans had that advantage. Any increase in soft factors to reflect these items should not be handled by an R&D tech item. Ground Laying Radar This one I am not that familar with. Maybe this could be folded in with artillery fire direction control (giving you a increase in soft factor as well). Bet people would invest in it then. I believe this suffers from the fact that the Naval aspect of SC is weak. Once that is addressed, the importance of this may increase. Others Amphib R&D ... while the British did spend time doing R&D along these lines, it was more for river crossings. Make transports go from port to port and limit the amphib assault ability. Special Units R&D ... back door attempt to get Paratroopers and/or Marines or a unit that does both. Giving us a Para unit will shut down this argument, and would be fine within limits. So would giving us a "amphib" unit. But then, some purists would have a fit if that happened. Industrial Tech ... I like the way it works now, especially with the "catch up" feature. Its a very indirect approach to increasing your MPPs. Just like the variable turn rate is a indirect approach to movement effects of weather. Cashing in Chits on Advance ... I like this. Makes perfect sense. Get an advance, and you lose a chit. It would also tend to even out the standard deviations since you may not have the MPPs available at that moment to replace that chit. Intelligence R&D ... This is a strategical game, so give me strategical information. Like what techs he has research chits in. Or the MPP per turn income he has. Things I am not normally privy to. As far as knowing what the units have, that should stay as is. Thats what those military intelligence types at the lower levels are for... to determine what the enemy has (ie you looking at the unit).

Minotaur Technically you are correct. But then you would have to put together a system that allowed for the hexes having no economic value, once they were cut off from the urban area they feed (in terms of food, raw material, etc). In SC Future, if you wanted to develop a different economic model, there are other things that are more important that should be considered before assigning a value to a hex. Things like aircraft production, shipbuilding, heavy production, light production, etc. As an abstraction, urban areas, ports, mines and oil wells does pretty well representing the strategic importance of a certain area. We just need to make those areas represent different resources that make up our finished goods production.

Read this somewhere... UK, France, and Germany were the economic giants of Europe. USSR was a wannabe giant. Japan and Italy were the little giants. US was the economic Godzilla.

Way too many comments to respond to. So a few I picked out. Hitler was never a "general", he acted more as a strategist. In the early years, he was very conservative, though his ideas were more radical than the General Staff. He came up with the ideas, the General Staff worked out the plans, tried to tone done what he wanted done and how. No one was more surprised by the success in France than Hitler. He was not ready for the rapid successes, one of the reasons the British were able to get thier men away in Dunkirk. After France, flushed with the success, he figured he knew better than the professionals. Between his belief, the yes men and the fact no one would stand up to him, led to him starting to take over more and more of the decisions that were better left in the hands of the General Staff. That is when the strategical side of the German planning started to fall apart. Instead of three (3) major thrusts into Russia, if he had only had one or two major ones, Russia would have been a different story. German economy could never go to a full wartime footing because in the early years ('39 to '41) Hitler had to keep the people happy. His political base was not secure enough, and he was concerned about losing the political fight. Also another reason he did not listen to the General Staff, as he felt (rightly so), that alot of the military professionals looked down on him and did not fully support him. Forgetting about the morality issue and good vs evil, WWII geopolitically amounted to a fight over who dictated to whom in Europe. Britain had it, and the Germans wanted it. Neither were pleased, when out of all nations, the US got it. That "fight" is still going on today, except the "Eurocentric" players are France and Germany and the "outsiders" are the US and UK. What is SC? Its whatever the person who plays it veiws it as. Some of us play it as a game, and could care less if it is historically accurate or not. As long as it is playable. Others among us view it as a WWII simulation, and are peeved because certain "realistic" items are not there. Success wise, its hard to tell. Does anyone, by the way, know the number of units that SC has sold? Because it is marketed in the wargamer "niche", SC has (by intent or accident) met enough of the needs for some of each of those groups to give it a try. The "extreme" gamers stay around, because as a game between two players, SC is extremly balanced. Read the first 20 pages of this Forum... everyone said the game was titled towards the Axis. Read the last 20 pages of this Forum... everyone is saying the game is titled towards the Allies. The "extreme" simulators don't, since the nations don't act like they did historically. Then there are the "wackos", those who spend more hours than is healty working on suggestions or scenarios... just like those alchemists of old, who toiled in there laborotories trying to find how to turn lead into gold. Hmmm... that doesn't sound right.. SC is not lead.. ok... we are trying to turn gold into platinum. Yea, thats it. Gold into platinum! [ March 08, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Iron Ranger And they accuse me of making long posts.

Exactly correct. The problem is the coast to coast line of Grey and Red units facing each other. And the solution to breaking the lines being the use of airpower. And why? No limit on the units you can build. Fix that and come much closer to a historical version of the Eastern Front. Arby... tell you what. I am shortly (I hope) from completing my National Charactericts and Manpower scenario, where I am testing out how it can be addressed in SC. How about we arrange a time and you can see what I am talking about? It is setup for TCP right now.

Italy may not have been a Major power but she was not a Minor power either. Nor was Japan. But Italy and Japan sufferred the same problems economically, lack of oil. Within SC, that would make Italy around 60 or 80 MPP (exact numbers are on my Economic Analysis topic). Even if Italy did conquer other areas, she would not have been able to capitalize on it due to the lack of oil. We don't reflect this in SC.

Arby Read the topic when I was relaxed. Some good stuff in here. So here goes. KDG did a excellent job on the rebuttal. So no need of me having to repeat it. gengisjon pointed out there is a random factor. Now, I know am I going come off sounding like an a**hole when I say this, but I am just trying to make a point. When any of us talk about how combat was in WWII, it is our interpertation of what it was like, based on the games we have played and what we have read. I don't believe any of us were there. So different viewpoints on how to acheive the effect are valid. And if any of us are making statements based on what we've seen in the movies, well there are places you can go to get help. Some general assumptions that I believe everyone can agree to: </font> Experience is key, and is SC's way of reflecting leadership and training as well.</font>German units should have more experience than opponents in early years of war.</font>Combat on the Eastern Front bled Germany of its experienced manpower in the early period.</font>Compared to history, the Greys get more units than the Germans did.</font> Arby's correction for this is to "fix" the combat model, by making the attacker suffer more losses. Does the SC combat model need to be changed? I don't believe we have offerred enough of a reason to Hubert to develop a new model or tweak the one he has. Until the other issues are solved, wheter or not the attacker should be suffering more losses thru the combat results is a minor issue. (Before you flame me, take a deep breath, get a drink of water, then please continue reading) Personally I believe there is more a problem with the fact that the readiness of a unit is not reduced by movement, combat, and normal "friction". But its a minor one compared to the other issues. There are three (3) major issues that arby is trying to address. </font>Reduce impact of air</font>Increase attackers losses</font>Increase effectivness of armor</font> Air units are an issue, including Carriers. Especially if you are faced with ten (10) of them. While it has been discussed many times, the SC fix (not SC Future) is to only allow it to reduce a targets readiness. Attacker losses should be increased? Maybe, maybe not. But it is not the solution since combat is not the cause of the SC problem. Increase effectivness armor is not needed. The fact that Armor has the additional Action Points and ignores enemy ZOC's is an accurate reflection of what armor did. Allow armor to overrun a unit? That is another topic in itself on wheter it is valid or not. But it still doesn't address the SC problem. SC problems, in my opinion: </font> No constraints on number or type of units or the speed at which they are produced.</font>Air attacks on ground and naval units is unrealistic.</font>Generic units. We don't have Germans, Russians, etc; we have Greys, Reds, etc.</font>Peripheral areas of the map (Atlantic, North Africa, Finland/Iceland, etc).</font> [ March 07, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Arby, Bill Macon, John Di Fool For all the reasons the group of you have pointed out. SC ... as it is today, give us an Editor that allows unit maximums. SC future ... give us an economic model that drives the number and type of units we can have.

Liam I didn't say it wasn't possible. I just said that its a low probability. If you have done it ten times in a row, against human players, with those forces, then you are extremely lucky.

Storm across Europe? Not familiar with it. I'll go Dead Dogs and see if they have a manual on it. Thanks for the info.

Liam Not sure if I am clear on this. So let me paraphrase. On Turn 2, you are suggesting that the Axis invade the Low Countries with one (1) Pz, two (2) Corps, one (1) Army and two (2) or three (3) air. Is that correct? If so, then I must disagree with you. Those forces will only take the Low Countries about 1/3rd of the time. And the French are going make you pay by killing off one of your units (depending on what hexes you attack from), and put a unit in the city. Air strikes on average will reduce two (2) strength points. Army or Pz strikes on average will reduce three (3) strength points. This assumes no exp for the Army or Pz. Good Allied player will almost always put couple of air, or even worse, a carrier in the London port to counter your air strikes. Or if you get hit with a little bad luck. Then you will end up with a one or two str Corp still in the city. I would suggest you need min of two (2) armies, two (2) air, Corp and a Pz unit. One army to hit the city as you suggested. Pz unit to hit just south of the city (since it has the necessary action points to get there), and that second army moves into the woods to protect the flanks of your attackers. Three air would be nice. Even so, your probabilty is only 2/3rd's and it may cost you your Pz unit. Couple of assumptions by the way... Poland must fall within three (3) weeks, you are trying to take the Low Countries on turn two (2) and you feel the Allied player will do a Dutch Gambit on you turn two (2).

Just glanced at a few of the posts. Looks interesting. Of course I have comments, but these posts deserve dedicated time for reading and response. Glad to see the topic.