Shaka of Carthage

It is a true statement that complexity does not increase realism. However, there is no way a single economic unit system can give us the subtle differences that were out there. Trying to merge them to represent manpower and industrial might is difficult enough. I did an economic comparison between Third Reich, Clash of Steel, High Command and SC. While there are a few conculsions that I made, what is relevant to this discussion is that I feel any economic model in a future SC should have two (2) to three (3) economic units. You need to represent industrial might. Thats a given. You need to represent manpower. Especially in a "what if" situation, unit maximums are not good enough. You need to represent oil. This dictated many of the decisions and actions performed by the Axis (ie Germany, Italy and Japan). Those three at a mimimum. There are a few others that would be nice, but are of lesser importance than the above.

Immer Etwas Someone else has the name Shaka, so I thought about using Hannibal (one of my heros), then considered the various combinations and choose this one. The methods of our Amphib Assaults systems differ because the concepts behind it vary. Basically apples and oranges. One more point, then on to other things. I think, among the three topics that are discussing this, that people are getting carried away. Amphib assaults were not a priority item in the ETO, unlike the PTO. So any R&D item for Amphib assaults is not appropriate for the ETO. The ETO Amphib operations were very different from the PTO one's, so we have to be careful when justifying statements that we limit ourselfs to how it would operate in the ETO only. Axis needs the ability to perform a Sealion. But other than that, its "amphib" options should not exist. Transports from Port to Port... ok, but nothing beyond that. Solves the problem of transports running amok in the Med. Hmmmm... would also solve the problem of a "amphib" invasion of Sweden, Greece, etc.... things that could not occur. Maybe that would be a easy solution? Amphib assault captures a Port (without having to capture the city) then follow on forces can be landed thru the port (ie normal transports). Anyway, got carried away again.

I've spent quite abit of time working on this, along with trying to make the units more reflective of the way they were historically. I will post my ideas later on, when I am completed. I am glad this has been brought up again. But before we get too carried away, there should be a topic for the three (3) different areas this covers... * Using the existing tools or house rules within SC so we can game it now. * Suggestions that involve changes to SC. * Suggestions that go beyond what SC is now (ie SC II, SC Future, whatever you want to call it).

Arby Ok, I'll hold my responses until you make that topic. Except for one point... in game terms, the difference between WWI and WWII is that in WWII you have units that can "ignore" a enemy units ZOC. We have that ability in SC. What corrupts it, is the fact that we as players are smart enough to realize that if we stack the units next to each other, the enemy doesn't have the ability to penetrate that ZOC. That is the technique that the French are trying to use, those are the tactics that we use to stop Amphib invasions, and those are definately what occurs if Russia survives the first few turns. Problem is not the combat per se, its the ability to build units as fast as you can spend the MPP's.

Immer Etwas I'm confused by your response. If you look back at a topic I made awhile back regarding amphib invasions, you'll see that everything you say I agree with. The item you quoted was in reference to the fact that as long as you could buy a unlimited number of units, those units would line any coastal area that you tried to invade. And that was in reference to my belief that we don't need a amphib unit that can "force a unit to retreat", since any amphib invasion would be taking place against a hex in SC that does not have a unit in it. It is still a contested landing, otherwise you wouldn't be getting losses like we currently do. Just that no amphib assaualt would take place against such a large density of enemy troops.

Maybe its me, since I am tired. But there are so many Amphib topics now, I can't make sense of what each one is trying to cover.

Arby In regards to your statement about the ground combat needing to be fixed, what exactly do you feel is wrong with it? I tend to believe that one of the problems we have is that there is not enough of a experience bar variance to reflect the superior combat power that the Germans had over the Allies. I know you mentioned lack of a retreat option and the ability to reinforce a unit in place is a problem. I'm wondering if what you said about reinforcing a unit in place may be the key. Perhaps it should not be allowed if you are in contact with a enemy unit. Then again, the US gave front line units in contact with the enemy reinforcements all the time. What should be happening is that if a unit is pulled from a front line and given reinforcements, the units experience level does not drop as fast as it does currently. Leave them in the line, and the experience should drop like it does now. As far as multiple attacks on a unit, one of the keys to a successful defense is the ability to limit the number of enemy units that assault you at one time. Extreme example of this is the French Maginot line. If you had enough units, you could build a defensive line that did make the enemy perform costly frontal assaults. Where SC has the problem is that we can go "poof" and voila, we have instant units. The combat system as it is now would work fine if we could not create units as fast as we spent the MPP's and at a certain point you ran out of those units (ie manpower used up).

KDG Sorry I wasn't clear. Applies to 1939 thru 1943. They would go out about 400 miles (8 hexes). Perform combat (burning in the process enough fuel that could take them another 200 miles). Then go home (about 400 miles away), still having that little bit extra for emergencies. Hence, a combat radius of 400 miles. [ March 04, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Immer Etwas Lets back up one step. We seem to have a misunderstanding. In my mind, this amphib invasion is landing on a "empty" hex. I believe you want a unit that can fight its way ashore (either thru enemy retreating or eliminated). To give you what you want, you are asking for the combat system to be changed. I don't feel that is necessary. And in real life, Marine units do not have more combat power than other units, they just have the ability to take more losses before breaking. The way it is in SC reflects things realisticly, as there is a chance you are suffering losses once you land (from the defenders not represented by a unit in SC). I am aware though, that everything I said above means nothing, unless there are limits on the number of units. Without unit limitations, a realistic amphib system would have no chance of success, just as it would in real life if the invasion point was lined with 10,000 defenders every 10 miles.

There are merits to the idea of making them part of the different alliances as you suggested. But there are a few problems. Sweden going to the Axis makes Norway a target from the very beginning. Unless the reasons are corrected, then the "bonus" 42 MPP's are just too good to pass up, even if part of Norway is in Allied hands. Iraq is going have a similar effect of "bonus" MPPs for the Allies, once Russia joins. That gets back to the original point of this topic, that part of a nations MPP should go to a specific alliance. I agree with that. But it also points out that there were very good historical reasons that these nations were not invaded, that we are not reflecting in SC. Maybe we should be giving more thought on how to represent why those nations were not invaded.

The problem with Norway and Denmark, are that the native units are too large to represent the actual forces the Germans had to "fight". While event driven items have there place, I don't feel its appropriate here. I am assuming, but I belive the intent was to make it easy to conquer these nations, but not too easy. Problem is, 10 str point unit makes it too "difficult". Since we are talking about software changes to "fix" it: Add a new unit to SC. A "brigade" unit. That has a max strength of 2 or 3. (This unit could also be the one used for partisans and paratroopers) OR Allow us to edit the units in a neutral nation thru the Scenario Editor.

Because there are no limits on the number of units that can be built, you get this ability to "block" an amphib invasion by placing Corps in front of the invasion. Once there are limits, this "problem" will go away. We don't need a "marine" unit to represent a amphib invasion. All we need is an amphib option (just like we have a transport option). Amphib can land on any hex, transports can only land in Ports. As I tried to explain in some detail in another topic, this Amphib unit should have a 300 to 400 MPP cost and should be limited to only Corp units, no Armies or Armor units. If a HQ unit was allowed to "float" on a coastal hex, you now have your Mulberry. Unless we want to make a distinction between true Amphib ships and "makeshift" Amphib ships, Amphib units should have the ability to linger in ocean hexes for multiple turns.

Gandalf It was my understanding that we were not playing a Ladder game. Please post your understanding here. The "loser" of a Ladder game is the only one who can post the results of a game for it to count. On the basis that you belive it was a Ladder game. Shaka of Carthage (Axis) concedes to Gandalf (Allies). Bid was 100.

The current strike range of Air units starts at six (6). Most of the WWII fighters worked within a 400 mile range (8 hexes). Gave them about 200 miles worth of fuel for combat. SC is well within that. Not until 1944 did those ranges increase and we have that ability thru Long Range tech. It would be nice to have them be more effective, the shorter the range they operated, as was suggested. The only problem with Air units is that they have a game effect that is not accurate. They should only be reducing the readiness of a unit. While they should have the ability to reduce the supply levels of a area, I don't belive there is a easy way for that to be done in SC. Never should they be able to reduce a units Strength points or eliminate it. The ability to have huge numbers of them is a problem with all of the units. Either thru a house rule or some system fix (manpower or counter limits) will this be solved. [ March 04, 2003, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Bill Macon I understand your hesitation about multiple resources and having to track them. I do agree that we don't want to make it so complicated, for the very reason you stated... at this level, there are others who are suppossed to worry about those details. But I do believe that a single economic unit (ie MPP) cannot give us those subtle effects we want. Even with them being event driven. I think a economic system with three (3) variables would work just fine, and not give us too much detail. I suggested something along those lines earlier with Oil Points, Mineral Points and MPP's. If you throw Manpower in, that would add a fourth factor. I hope to be finished with the National Characteristics and Manpower issue before the week is out. While I am putting this together, I have been trying to keep the economic units limited to three (3). Its a problem, since manpower involves naval, air and ground units. And then all of the "volunteers" who are not part of the general population. While I agree with the Scenario Edit option that JerseyJohn has suggessted, it is with the understanding that it does limit the "what if" factor, since manpower limits are variable based on how they are used. Anyway, my point was, we should be able to design an economic system that has multiple resources, limits the units built based on manpower and limits the economic growth by certain strategic factors.

Jersey John At first, I didn't like the idea of the pool limits being in the Editor. But on further reflection, I realized that its the idea of unit limits that I didn't like. Its been tried as far back as 3R. With the power of the computer, we should be able to come up with a better system. Your suggestion though, does work in that it can be turned on or off. And as you pointed out, it does allow you to make scenarios without certain unit types (ie WWI). With SC as it is, I think it would be a good idea if Hubert listened to this and put some sort of unit max values in the Editor. Maybe he should take it even one step further, and allow the Action Points to be modified.

Seems it was easier to post the relevant section: ================================================= ... So, how do we make our Grey, Red, Green units into Germans, Soviets and US? Luckily, in a post he wrote, JerseyJohn brought it all together for me. Please remember that this is for SC (not SCII) and experience is the only easy way to reflect leadership and training. Experience Initial German (and Finnish) units would have two (2) experience bars. Initial Italian ground units get no experience bars. Naval units get one (1) experience bar. Initial French units get no experience bars. UK initial units (and half of the Greek and Spanish units) would have one (1) experience bar. Naval ships however, would have two (2). Initial US ground units gets no experience bars. One of the naval units and both air (see below) gets one (1) experience bar. Initial Russian units get no experience bars and none of them are Army (M) or Corp (M) (see below). Newly raised units, regardless of nation or type, would be created with no experience bars. This handles the differences between the nations regarding the training and leadership. Bear in mind, that our '39 unit is identical to our '44 unit, which was not true historically. The above can be handled thru the Campaign Editor. ================================================== Action Points Army unit action points should be two (2). Corp unit action points should be three (3). New units Army (M) and Corp (M) would use the current action points. These are your motorized units. Only UK and US can build Army (M) or Corp (M). Russians can only build Corp (M). This requires you to accept that everyone is motorized or use a "house rule" where you voluntarily restrict the movement of the Armies and Corps, if not motorized. The action points of the Army and Corp units are too high. They are more along the lines of what a motorized Army or Corp would have. The Germans, Italians and early Soviets were not motorized. They really should be one and a half (1.5) and three (3), but you work with what you've got. ================================================= Comments Italy should have an 5 point air, in which case it should have one (1) bar of experience. However, I believe the Italian economy is too strong, and this just gives them more. If they had the resource restriction, then they should get this unit. US needs to have more initial units or a change in the initial mix. There should be one air and one bomber unit. Why? All of the above is based on a Corp being roughly the same size in combat power. Exception is the US. Its Corp is really an SC Army, and its Division is really an SC Corp. US units relative to the other nations had more combat power. And they had more non-divisional combat and combat support units attached to them. Initial US setup should have one air unit and one bomber unit. US Army Air Corp got the cream of the recruits. The Russian Army formation is really an SC Corp. ================================================== Now solving the Manpower issue becomes much easier, for without a standard unit across all the various years, it was impossible to design a workable solution.

I'll bump a post I made awhile back regarding Experience. I am also working on the Manpower issue, but that is alot more complicated.

Minotaur We had a discussion, quite a lively one matter of fact, that discussed weather. I think the best suggestion that came out of that, was that for the first winter campaign a nation was in, they would be penalized (not prepared for winter weather). Certain nations (ie Finland, Norway and Sweden) would be exempt from this. From then on, that penalty would not occur. And there would also be a reduction in the supply levels because of the weather. The reduction in supply would cause the reduced or no movement and penalities in combat.

HQ will stay at level 5 supply if no city/port. If you capture a city/port, then it will increase to level 10. Don't forget each hex away from that HQ (or city/port) will reduce supply level by 1. Certain terrain reduces it more.

Minotaur Isn't that the effect we want? Carrier unit should not be as strong as a Air unit. Doesn't have the aircraft numbers. Hmmm.. that is a problem. We can't split the one (1) point upgrade into .5 and .5. Guess it will have to be something along the lines of every other step. 6 and 5, then next tech level becomes 6 and 6.

Xwormwood So your suggestion is that we should increase the Advanced Sub for Germany. To what number? I don't remember the increments (at work now), is it 5% per level? So increase it until we reach, what, 50%? Do you know how many subs were in the Atlantic in '39? Would like to know how many subs you think there are per the sub unit. The part about the subs always being able to sink enemy ships, isn't that just a little too much? Depending on the number of subs, they just in the space of one week wipe out all the naval ships that are included in a naval unit could they? UK gets 135 MPPs. Just how many sub units would we need to "strangle" thier economy? Med losses seem to be only 5 MPP's. Most I've seen in the Atlantic is 16 (or 25?). Doesn't seem large enough to strangle them. John DiFool Interesting point. Maybe you do have a solution for the carrier, in that once the carrier reaches strength point of 5, it can no longer perform air operations of any kind.

Jersey John You do bring up an interesting point. The Italian Corp, after making a amphib landing, cut off your supply to the HQ, Army and Tank Group. Then your in supply British Corp had to attack that Italian Corp (to reestablish the lines of supply) but I gather the Italian Corp was now entrenched. So the in supply British Corp started to suffer losses, while the entrenched unit did not. In this circumstance, you are correct, that the lack of additional hexes hurt you. The Italian unit only had to cut off one hex to render your HQ+ units out of supply. Even if the British had a city with a supply of 10, you would still have the same problem, unless there were more hexes. But I still contend that due to the small number of units employed in North Africa, we in SC, will not be able to reproduce the effects of Rommel. Zapsweden As I pointed out in one of my posts, if we used the Oil Wells to produce Oil points and the Mines to produce Mineral points, the German economy would be limited to about three or so times its initial starting point (maxed out about 400). Since SC does have only the one economic unit, the only other way to limit this would be to put a max limit on the units it would be able to build. It is something to consider as an optional rule. I am so frustrated with the way Air units work, that I'm having a hard time playing the game knowing there will be 10 or more air units a side. I do have a few other suggestions about units and manpower, but I'll cover those in another post later on regarding National Characteristics and Manpower. Minotaur I'm confused by what you are asking for. Isn't the reduction of the carrier strength in itself a reflection of the eventually loss of its aircraft as well as damage to the carrier and its escorts? Making it go to zero and then having to attack it to "kill" the carrier, isn't that just the same as giving it one more strength point?

Jersey John I don't agree that there is a serious problem with North Africa. Even if the map was larger for that area (which would be nice), the problem is that North Africa was an Operational theater of war, not Strategical. The other problem and the one indirectly related to the others, is Air Power. KDG did bring up a good point that the counter for Air is Anti-Air Radar (except for ground units). Maybe it would be easier if we thought of Anti-Air Radar as Anti-Air Artillery (ie Flak). COS and SC are closely related. Issue with Med and North Africa comes down to how they handled supply. COS was more restrictive but gave you a Mulberry. SC is more "hardcoded" by the values it gives to the Ports and cities, but compensates by the use of a HQ. Just a different approach on how they wanted to handle the same issues. The real problem is the use of Air. Zapswedden Units with 0 supply are already weakened enough. After the initial landing, ground units without HQs or cities ARE cannon fodder. It just may take another turn or so for the supply to run out. Very realistic representation. Xwormwood I think the problem with the UBoat war is that the Germans are not given enough sub units initially. More like six (6) or eight (8) would seem more appropriate.

Zappsweden Resources Limiting factor in the economic growth of Germany was oil. There were other mineral shortages, but oil was the most critical. Without it, there is nothing to prevent Germany from taking all the neutrals it can, and becoming an economic superpower. Losses If we give units the ability to retreat as a result of combat, then you are going to have to give units the ability to advance after they win a combat. In the end, you will get the same results. As far as the objectives being destruction of the enemy units versus taking his land, it is alot easier to eliminate units if you first take thier cities. Experience There is nothing wrong with experience. In fact, the inital units should have a larger experience bonus to represent the leadership and training differences, but that is another post. However, I will agree that the alogrithim should be more exponential. City Defenses It appears you are asking for a cheaper than 125 MPP unit that can garrison a city AND start off with an entrenched value (ie able to withstand first attack). And you don't want your opponent to be able to gain any experience from combat against this unit. Maybe in SC2 we could get some more unit varieties. I don't agree about not being able to gain experience in combat against this new unit. Garrisons should not be able to rebuild the turn after they are eliminated. Even if this was true, what would prevent your opponent from just operating another unit into the city? Yes, you are correct though, that the units (all of them), should not be able to be built in one turn (ie one to four weeks). Transports Existing transports should only be able to unload in a port. A new Amphib option should be given, that would have a larger cost (to represent specialized amphib shipping) and should be limited to a Corp only. But do note, that even if this change occurred, this will not prevent those tactics you descriped from occurring. It would just make it more expensive. Air Units Alot of the complaints about the naval transports, out of supply units, etc. come down to the fact that air units are too powerful. They should not have the ability to eliminate units. They should only be able to reduced readiness. However, since we can't do that currently, I would propose that we limit the number of air units a nation can have... US 3, USSR 3, Germany 4, Italy 2, UK 2, France 2, Poland 1 and Sweden 1. Simply modify the initial setup so those units exist and have an agreement that you can only replace a unit if it lost, not build a new one.