Shaka of Carthage

Economic "enhancments" for SC (not SCII). Mines are assigned "mineral points" (MP). Oil wells are assigned "oil points" (OP). They are produced in direct proportion to the MPP value of the site (suggested values are listed below). Germany can convert one (1) MP into three (3) OP. (synthetic oil) Optional: MP and OP not consumed are available the next turn. Every six (6) MPP's require: 2 MP, 3 OP. Atlantic convoy supplies UK with MP and OP. Mediterrian convoy supplies UK with OP. German excess MP and OP will be provided to Italy, unless Italy has secured its own MP and OP sources. Shortage Effects: Oil... reduce your national supply level. Mineral... reduce available MPP's (max reduction of 50%) One of the Swedish mines should be owned by Germany. Persian mines should be owned by the UK. ================================================= None of the above require any actions by the players. It all happens automtically, based on the resources you have. Effects Enough damage to the UK convoys will "starve" the UK economy. Italian MPP is halfed, unless Germany helps out. Strategic bombing can cripple the Axis economy. German MPP growth is limited (about three times initial) unless Germany secures additional resources. German invasion of "non-historical" targets has drawbacks in the resource strain it puts on the economy. Allies have no resource problems other than ensuring UK stays supplied. Diplomacy model would have a method of dealing with obtaining resources from the neutrals. MP and OP Values Swedish mines: 80 each (there are two of them) German mine: 40 Romania oil: 55 each (there are two of them) Norway mine: 70 Spanish mine: 60 French mine: 70 Persian oil: 140 each (there are two of them) Canadian mine: 55 US mine: 800 each (there are two of them) US oil: 800 each (there are two of them) USSR mines: 25 each (there are seven of them) USSR oil: 125 each (there are four of them) USSR "lend-lease": would include around 70 oil points from US. [ February 06, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Sure, I'll post a summary of my Economic suggestions. I'll have it done, sometime later today.

Sure, I'll post a summary of my Economic suggestions. I'll have it done, sometime later today.

Who said anything about Hollywood sterotypes? They actually made you guys out to be better than you actually where! Don't get me wrong... I've worn the bars also, but I had chevrons before that. heheheheh (thats suppossed to be the sound a horse makes!). Tell me you have a CIB and I'll get all pitter patter for you.

Youth! Only the young are so innocent. You know good and well, that even if you were a officer, you would be starting off as a LT... butter bar, the lowest form of life on earth. Btw, whats wrong with being a squad leader!? All officers should be mustangs (enlisted before becoming officer). Anyway, Mr. LT... First thing you learn as an officer is that you don't think. You do as you are told. Captain told you to recon those woods, you get your half butt platoon out there and recon those woods mister! Whata mean you want to "encircle them" or call in artillery? Do you think you're smarter than me LIEUTANANT? Did you forget my rank? ... This reminds me... did you ever see that movie... forget the name, the one with Nick Nolte, American unit, Pacific Theater, he orders his subordinate to advance over this hill, with tall elephant type grass, which just happens to have Japanese in it that keep shooting down his men. So the officer decides, no way, its suicide. Ever seen it? The dressing down Nick Nolte gives him is what you would be getting. Also, the first time you send in a squad, without supporting it with your other squads... can you say "frag me?" Thats the thing about the military... everyone above you is stupider (is that a word?) than a donkey, and everyone below you is lower than whale boo boo. Its amazing how anything gets done.

I think Hubert should produce SC:WWI sooner than later. I don't think there are alot of WWI games out there... and whatever cash this generates would not hurt. I'm so so towards Napoleonic. At first I thought no way, scale wouldn't work out for SC. But on second thought, Sarge may have something. Russia was invaded, Spain is there, so is Egypt... but now I am back to no way, Napoleonic is at best a Grand Tactical or Operational level... so we would need a map scale change. Forget it... I just don't know! My real passion is for Ancient/Medieval. Roman Empire... barbarians "pooping up" (like partisans) and trying to invade the Empire. Instead of five nations, we would have five or more province governors. It would have to emphasize the diplomacy/economic aspects (political infighting), since the strategical combat by itself just wouldn't be enough. Heck... why not just get Hubert to make a Unit Editor and some sort of AI "script" interface, so we could do all this stuff ourselfs!

Ok... so here we go. LT wants a patrol of the lightly wooded area, 1000 meters to you front. There will be friendly patrols operating on your flanks, so you are not to wander outside of a 500 meter frontage. Your squad, has 8 men. The 9th is down with dysentry and the 10th is pushing up weeds. You're the Sqd Leader. Patrol to the front as ordered... You've advanced 600 meters deep into the woods. Enemy opens up on you 400 meters to your rear, somewhere to your left. You see muzzle flashes, estimate no more than an enemy squad. What now? How do you stay out of range? So what you gonna do now? Maginot Line did exactly what it was built for. Too bad they ran out of money, if they had only built the thing all the way to the ocean!

Hmmmm... there was this Italian woman once...

Liam Ahhhh... I think I see what the problem is. You've never been in combat. In real life combat, only a few weapons count. Machine guns have an effective range greater than a rifle. Unless you happen to be a sniper. And very few have the skills of a sniper. Within a typical squad, you may have one man who, if given enough time, can hit a target at 500 meters. Infantrymen don't "aim and fire". They point and saturate an area... mainly because they are not sure where the enemy is (you rarely see them). Well trained or experienced troops will saturate the area with short bursts. Green weanies will "rock and roll" (hold the trigger down until no more ammo). I'm sure any WWII veteran will tell you that if it wasn't the artillery trying to get him, it was all them darn machine guns. Man with a rifle is not a threat (relative to the others). Most combat veterans, if given a choice, would take the SMG's over the rifles. You don't take out machine guns by sighting down on them from a vantage point. After they have scared the mess out of you, you sneak up as close on them as you can, throw a few grenades, then saturate the area they are in. No grenades? Then you get the DANG (dumb a** new guy) to go take a look. And if God is REALLY on your side, you have a REMF who can go look! Sorry... got carried away. My point was that for the infantry, the weapons of choice are whatever shoots the most.

CalifVol Excellent job on presenting the reasons behind your arguments.

Wildcat70 Just wait until you start hollering at the computer for the things its doing to you. I curse it out all the time, when turn after turn, I get no R&D tech, even though I have five or six chits. But let me put one chit in there, and lo and behold... three tech levels in three turns.

As "P......" already stated (you really don't expect me to spell the name out do you?), its an attempt to limit the MPP's that the Axis get. And if properly supported, it gives the French a beautiful defensive line. But its usually a all or nothing type deal. You have to strip the French Armies from the Maginot and put them in Benelux (oops! Low Countries). You have to replace those Armies, usually with British or Canadian Corps. I've even seen HQ and Air units put there (temporarily), while other units are brought up. And bringing up the Malta Air, and the UK carriers, all of a sudden, the Allies have Air Superiority. Breaking that line is tough, and at best, expensive.

Let me second what JerseyJohn said... SC is so much more than a beer and pretzels game. Grand Strategy WWII? You can count the computer games that covered this in the last twenty years on your hands. And to find one that was done well? Kurt88 Well see, its like this ... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and of course there is the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Ok? Don't forget that wargaming is a hobby for the overeducated. xwormwood I don't know that much about the naval warfare aspects of WWII. I was kinda assuming that as a global "blue water" navy the UK would be better at it than the "wannabe" Germans. You know what they say when you "ass u me". Liam Are you using the modified units, and for that matter, the SC Deluxe Edition? I believe those items would give you what you want... and there are a couple of different unit sets to choose from.

As any potential conflict would be a "what if", do you have any suggestions on what those conflicts could be? There is always the old standby ... NATO vs WARSAW. Then the "current" conflict that is getting alot of ink these days... China vs USA. Not sure if it would be much of a match, though the Chinese military does believe using "low tech" options they could win a war with the US. A more "even" match would be a hypothetical USA vs European Union. Korean conflict is too small to be represented at the SC scale. Works more at an operational level.

JerseyJohn Forum look out! My dumb butt has finally figured out how to do quotes! I understand the point you are trying to make. That once equipement reaches a certain level, that it is the determing factor, if it is faced with the lower tech level stuff. But be careful, things are not as obvious as it would seem... longbow is superior as a weapons system to the brown bess musket, but all the "modern" militaries used the musket. Why? Training time. Japanese Ashiguara (peasants armed with arquebeses/muskets) vs Samurai. The Samurai was the superior "weapons" system, but took alot longer to train versus the peasant and his musket. Within SC, there are no "order of magnitude" differences like the above. Btw, I would take the "first rate" swordsmen against your "second rate" musketeers... I would just make sure you didn't find us until it was raining or it was dark.

Thanks for the response. Believe me, I fully understand. Creating a software project is not an easy undertaking... especially for one man. You have to make so many decisions, deal with so many problems and then to have all these people say if you had only done this or that, how much better it would have been. :mad: No matter what decision you would have made, there is always something else that we would have wanted. All of us appreciate the fact that you listen to what we have to say, even though we may not be very clear in what we are trying to say. Or we take forever to say it! Btw, if you have yourself hypnotized into believing you only need four (4) hours of sleep, that gives you another twenty-eight (28) hours a week... thats seven hundred twenty-eight (728) extra man-hours every six (6) months. On a schedule like that, you should be able to finish SC II very quick. Right? Thanks, Barry

What part about the strength do you feel is unclear? I want to understand before I respond. Regarding your next paragraph, Russian 1920's equipment, etc. I'm kinda confused what you are trying to say. Russian equipment at the beginning of the war, was not inferior to the Germans. It was better. Once the Germans blew threw the front line, Russians armed every tom, dick and harry with whatever weapon they could grap. Thats the point in time that the weapons become haphazard. Even so, and to also respond to JersyJohn, if we are talking an order of magnitude (ie swords vs firearms), then we do have a problem. But M1 tank vs a T-72, it boils down to the training and leadership. Look at the Israeli vs Arab wars. Swtich weapons, the Israelis still would have won. Once the training and leadership reach close to parity, then the better weapons will tell. One example from the Germans... even until the end of the war, the Germans squad was tactically superior to the Allies. Why? Because the German squad was organized around a machine gun. So as long as the squad had enough men to carry the machine gun and ammo, the squad still had 80 to 90% of the combat power it had when it was at full strenth. So the German squad, even with four (4) men (down from a full strength squad of 10), still was effective. The Allies never quite understood that. Were under the belief that the soldier and the rifle were critical. US did not realize this until AFTER Korea. The other powers, especially the Russians... learned during the war. Hence, along comes the AK-47, a copy of a German weapon, in an attempt to take the machine gun down to the individual soldier. Guerilla warfare... against a conventional opponent, they are no more than a nuisance. They will cause losses, but they cannot effect the outcome thru military means. OK... I'll agree with you that if the Germans had of given the Yugo's more time, than they would have had more troops to face the Germans. But one of the most important rules of war, is hitting the other guy when he can't hit you back. aka Mass. And they would have just brought more troops anyway. Fall of France... thats another debate all by itself. But one of the things that the German attack on France did, was break the will to resist. Once thats gone, its over.

Liam Lets assume the British have "lost" the Battle of Britain. Only then would they have attempted to recall any colonial forces. How long for the Indian forces to reach Britain? Lets say they abadoned the Pacific to the Japanese... again, how long would they take to get back home? Or, would the US have said something like, keep your people where they are, we'll help you? Netherlands had three (3) divisions in the East Indies. That was 25% of thier total military. What about them? The Partisan issue was talked about on another thread. Basically, without adding additonal units or adding new code to handle it in an abstract way, those understrength units were the best way to represent the effect they had, of cutting supply lines. I agree with you that none of the Axis powers had the ability to invade the US. Also agree that Canada and the US should not be allowed to be invaded in SC. And yes, if the US was ever invaded, and lost Washington, they would simply move the capital.

One of the reasons that SC cannot qualify as a WWII simulation, is that fact that our units are generic. There is no difference between a German or Russian Army. 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. 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. Initial German (and Finnish) units would have two (2) experience bars. Only exception would be the Surface ships, which would only have one (1) bar. 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). Only UK and US can build Army (M) or Corp (M). Russians can only build Corp (M). Newly raised units, regardless of nation or type, would be created with no experience bars. I'm sorry Hubert, but I just cannot figure out any other method that doesn't require a unit change. 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, heavily dependent on horses for transport. They really should be one and a half (1.5) and three (3), but you work with what you've got. The rest is easy, and as a matter of fact, can be handled thru the Campaign Editor. And it does reflect the relative combat effectivness of the different nations. Can you modify the units of Finland, Greek and Spanish thru the Campaign Editor? When Germany doubled its military in 1940, it did so by pulling men and equipment from existing units to form experienced cadre in the new units. We have no way of doing that in SC. The to&e of our ’39 units is identical to the to&e of our ’44 units. All other nations, with a few exceptions, went thru a more modest expansion. US units, when initially raised, where green as green can be. They spent a year or more training as a unit. We do not replicate that in SC. 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. Are there any takers out there willing to play using the above? [ February 04, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

JerseyJohn Thanks for the post... especially what you said about the experience. That has clarifed something I have been trying to figure out for weeks. I plan to post on a new topic re: Nationlism. I'll give you credit as well (need another body to take the arrows of critism ) Again, thanks for helping me figure it out.

Boy... do I feel stupid! From what I just read, when you get the handicap bid, each nation gets those MPP's? So if I get Allied, with 200 MPP, my USA, USSR and UK should get extra 200? I didn't know that. I thought only one of them got 200. :eek: Stupid me! Doesn't really matter since I lose the games I play in anyway!

While this doesn't answer the question that KDG possed, the other option for the Axis is to take the Low Countries on turn 2. Operate units from the Polish front to do it. However, don't do like I did, and play games in Poland so long that Russia gets mad and its readiness jumps!

JerseyJohn You caught me in the middle of making a post. You know me! Why say it in ten (10) words, when one hundred (100) will do! Yugo coup and 5 Yugo armies, that was someone else. Coup part I leave to the experts. Changing the Yugo's to five (5) armies I wouldn't change unless someome can dig up some numbers of artillery and tanks they had. Nationality differences between units. Over the years of the different board and computer games, I've seen many different ways people have tried to represent this. And that assumes that you agreed on what the differences are! I'm going to try and offer my version, but so far, there is no easy way to do this in SC. I think the neutral strength is ok as it is. Poland can fall in one or two turns. Week or two isn't fast enough for you? Other fall pretty easily assuming the Allies don't oppose you. I think SC has the balance correct. Turkey I think got shorted some units. The rest are fine, except for Spain, which I think should get one (1) more Corp. Jets and Propeller aircraft. You wouldn't allow the US the tech option? "Purists" would agree with you, the "gamers" would want to string you up! Maybe a compromise where the US was allowed to invest in them around '42 or '43. Agree the Soviets should not be allowed to research them. Thanks, Barry

The next item of importance. How the units are equipped. First, my conclusion. It does not matter. Thats right. It doesn't matter what type of equipment you have. What is more important, is the training and leadership you have. If the Iraqi's and the Coalition (1991) swapped weapons, it would not have made a bit of difference. Training is important because without it, you have no clue how to use what you've got. Leadership allows you to effectively utilize what you have. What about morale? Thats simply a matter of how many of your friends die before you say thats enough for me. Ok... back to SC. Equipment? Its all the same for us, so the differences are purely tech levels. Training? Again, its the same for us... with one slight difference. We can make the assumption that certain units and or nations have better training, by tweaking the experience level of the unit. This only works for the starting units, as all units after that are created equal. Leadership? Once again... within our units, we are all the same. Unless you feel its appropriate to tweak the starting units. All new units are created the same. "lavishly equipped US forces"... all of our SC units are equipped and supplied the same. But now we have come to the reason that SC fails as a WWII wargame simulation. We don't really have a German, Russian, UK, US or Italian military. Might as well call them Greys, Reds, Browns, Greens and (what color are the Italians?). The German military was so successful because of its leadership. The NCO's got six (6) months of training and the Officers got twelve (12) months. Alot of the early German officers were former NCO's, but even so, they still had to get thier year long officer training (btw, the Israelis, who until recently, had the best tactical army in the world, modelled themselves after the Germans in this respect). British had great NCO's, but because of that "gentleman" thing, the officers were not so good. No problem, since all they really had to do was lead from the front and set a good example when they died. US, what can you say about the US? Because they had a massive military expansion, copied there officer tradition from the British (except the lead from the front and dying well part), and thought the military was a "big green machine" with interchangeable parts... what you got where so-so units, no esprit de corp and men who wanted to be somewhere else. Only thing that saved them was the massive amounts of combat power they put into thier units. And the fact they were able to keep that combat power supplied. Russia military... at the time the Germans invaded, had better weapons than the Germans. And more of them. But no leadership. So even though the Russian unit had more Combat Power than the Germans, in combat what counts is the effective combat power you have. That is why most wargames, that try to represent nationality differences, use an "effectivness" or "efficency" rating. And unlike the Germans, they never understood or were able to create competent leadership by training. They got thiers by seeing who survived in combat. This works, but its wasteful of lives and it takes some time. So to compensate, they had no other choice than to use quantity. Otherwise, they would not have survived. BEF and French? Better equipment than Germans, yes. French training and leadership where worse (trained for the wrong war) than the Germans. British training and leadership were good, but they suffered from having to rely on Infantry type units due to the needs and requirements of the British Empire. Back to SC again... Do we have the ability to turn our Greys, Reds and Greens into Germans, Russians and US? In a way that stills keeps our playability? I hope to answer that question in a future post. Thanks, Barry [ February 04, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

The above is important because it touches on quite a few subjects that lead to alot of misunderstanding about combat. I'll paraphrase some of the above to address those items. number of units is not accurate for minor nations, bad reflection of how they fought, Yugo's should have 5 armies, different rating than A/T What this comes down to is what a unit represents in combat. Forget the number or quality of the troops for the moment. We're talking firepower. Lets call this Combat Power. What makes up Combat Power? Artillery, as in the 75mm, 105mm and 155mm pieces the horses and trucks are towing. Anti-Tank weapons, like those 37mm, 50mm guns the infantry are pushing around, bigger pieces like the 88mm wpn, later hand held weapons like the bazooka / panzerfust (?) and of course the tanks. Thats it. Those two categories are what counts towards Combat Power. So where does the man with the rifle (aka infantry) come in? He catches the bullets, protects the two main weapons (artillery and tanks) and acts as the eyes and ears of the unit. Not to mention catching all the crappy jobs no one else wants to do. Then we have the combat support troops... like engineers, supply, medical, signal, etc. They act as multipliers for the Combat Power. So here we have our SC Corp or Army, bristling with Artillery, Armor and Infantry (feeling good cause the officers have told them thier anti-tank weapons can defeat the enemy). Lots of nations would like to form units like the above, and most tried to. But artillery and tanks are not cheap, nor can anyone make them. And the combat support units in large numbers, are beyond the capability of the minors. So you make do with what you got, get some cheap from the open market, or take hand me downs from your friends. Here is where it gets interesting for the designer... what does he use to determine who gets what? SC's decision was to use a generic unit. Everyone starts with the same equipment and same training. No differences among the nationalities (more about that later). So what about all those men with rifles, machine guns, mortars, etc? Do we organize them as units? Ok... have SC make units to reflect this manpower. But you know the problem? As soon as these units engage in combat with a conventional Corp or Army, they will no longer exist. So why bother with the unit? SC does not. Suicide tactics, maltov cocktails, improvised weapons, all of that has some use at a tactical level. But at any higher level, when you are faced with a battalion or higher conventional level force, you run or you die in place. Btw, "running", is also known as guerrilla warfare. Using the manpower of a nation to say how many units they should have is wrong. Number of Artillery pieces and tanks is more important. So even if we have this scenario with a million men with small arms, they would not be able to stop, not to mention defeat any conventional military force. While they may resist (and that is predicated on popular support, favorable terrain, etc), their national government will fall. The units SC puts in the minors give us some idea of the difficulty in taking over the nation. But they cannot stop a determined attempt, doesn't matter how many men with light arms you have. Long post, time for a new one. [ February 04, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]