Shaka of Carthage

Night Assumming the combat strength of a Infantry Corp is 10, my statement regarding the Paratrooper Corp strength being 1 or 2 was meant as a reflection of its full combat power (even being generous it should be no more than 3). The majority of the combat power in a Infantry Corp is in the artillery and the tanks. And since the Para's don't have them, there combat power should be reflective of that fact. That is the problem with Paratroopers in Third Reich, Clash of Steel and High Command. They have the same relative combat power of an equivlent infantry unit. Jersey John It would be nice to do a "what if" with Para's in SC. The sad thing about the whole use of airborne troops, is that the Germans were the only power that had any idea on how to properly employ them. At a squad to company level, it wasn't until the 1960's that American paratroopers were equipped with the equivalent firepower that the German para's had in 1942. It was much easier for the militaries of WWII to treat paratroopers as elite conventional infantry (which they where), than to determine the proper doctrine for thier speciality use. Would have been interesting if Airborne forces had evolved as a seperate service (like the USMC), what they would have evolved into today. Thanks, Barry [ January 27, 2003, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

One of the things that bothers me in SC is the way ground units are handled once they become sea borne. So I would like to offer a suggestion on what I consider a realistic, yet still playable solution. First the method, then the reasons. The Change Current method, where a unit at/next to a port has a "transport" option, would require a slight change. The unit could only unload if it is in a port. Corp, and only a Corp, would have an additional option to transport. The new one would be amphibious. Cost would be the same as the cost of building a new Corp (it should be expensive). This unit could unload as is possible now. Any hex, anywhere. Reason (ie justification) Corps and Armies have alot of heavy equipment (trucks, tanks, assault guns, artillery, ammunition, etc) that requires special equipment (found at ports) to load and unload them. It is even worse for the Tank Groups, since they have alot more of the heavy stuff. Amphibious operations were created so that specialized troops could establish an initial beachead on an enemy held shore. These special troops, utilizing special skills and equipment, after they established this beachead, would then acquire a port so that more conventional units could get ashore. Those specialized troops were indoctrinated to function even with high casualties (since storming a beach was no cake walk). And they had to be taught to use amphibious ships so they and thier equipment could get ashore. While your normal amphib experts could teach conventional infantry units some amphibious assault skills (as the US Marines did to the US Army), the major expense was the amphibious assault ships that were needed. Thanks, Barry

SC II: Global .... hmmm. What exactly is the purpose of SC II:Global? Is it WWII: Pacific and European Theaters? Or is it WWII era, ability to conquer the world? I think before there is any talk about what is being implemented, this would have to be answered, since it would drive the decisions (ie suggestions) that follow. Barry

Night Paratroopers were used, but never on the scale that SC is. They lacked the heavy weapons (heavy machine guns, antitank guns and artillery) that would enable them to survive in combat against a Corp or Army sized unit. So if you put them in, they would have to be much weaker than a normal Corp. And just like the naval transports getting wacked by enemy ships, so would the enemy air wack the paratrooper. Unlike the naval transports, where you could put out quite a few, you would only have the one Paratrooper Corp. So this Paratrooper Corp, which cost you 400 MPP's, even if it survives, would be on the ground as no more than a 1 or 2 strength unit. And it is out of supply. Still want one? So when paratroopers were effectively used, they ended up being used more like commandos dropped from the sky. Otherwise, to be effective in conventional combat, they had to be given the heavy weapons more normal units used, which took away there airdrop ability. Even today, those problems have not been totally solved, which is why the American airborne in Kuwait/Iraq consider themselves speedbumbs. ================================================= How many paratroopers (and glider infantry) where there in WWII? US eventually had five divisions plus several independent battalions. OK, enough manpower for a "Corp". But they had very few heavy weapons and little or no transport, hence not alot of ammunition. Biggest allied operation was Arnhem, with three divisions and a brigade. Lightly armed troops against convential units, no contest. Allies tried again with a large operation in 1945, but this time they did it with total air supremacy, and within range of thousands of artillery pieces. Russia had around 30,000 in 1939, which grew to 55,000 in 1941. Unlike the US which were organized as Divisions, the Russians were organized as Brigades, around '41 started to be organized as Divisions. Even so, still enough men for another Corp. But due to the lack of air superority, and the need for troops against the Germans, they were constantly used as conventional infantry. Germany had around 22,000 by 1941, which they used for Crete. After Crete, there were no longer capable of functioning as a unit. German paratroopers during the time of D-Day (three divisions), had no airborne training or capability, and were armed more like conventional infantry. British had about a division, there was a Polish Brigrade and I think the Italians had about 18,000 men trained as paratroopers. Japan had some in the initial stages of the war, but didn't rebuild them and the Marine Corp had a couple of battalions. If SC ever does a Pacific Front, with a smaller unit scale, the paratroopers as a potential "what if" would come into its own. Thanks, Barry

Third Reich Economic unit in 3R was the BRP... Basic Resource Point. Used to purchase units, pay for declarations of war, and offensive actions. Nations also had a growth percentage, which was used to increase your base BRP numbers. So basically you had economic growth thru saving or conquest. Economic unit in SC is obviously MPP. If I have made some mistakes in my numbers, please feel free to correct me. Nation.....Growth%...BRP.....MPP...3R'42....3R'44 Italy............20%......75.....115.....90......nada Germany......50%.....150.....120....290......370 France.........30%.......85.....100....nada British.........40%.....125.....145....160......220 USA.............60%.....270.....180....270......400 USSR...........30%......90......480....110......130 Minor Nation 15 to 30 BRP (can't remember) ================================================= Note I have since edited the above table to reflect the Third Reich BRP for the '42 and '44 scenarios. German numbers for '42 and '44 include Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc (around 45 BRP). Please note that all of the comments below are in comparision to the 1939 numbers. These later scenarios point out that the British and USA have some serious MPP problems, since IT investment does not give them this order of magnitude growth. It is even worse when you consider that certain minors could fall under Axis control, but more on that later. ================================================= These are the 1939 numbers. Minor nations gave no plunder, and you gained half of thier production if you conquered them. While greatly simplfying the strategies, basically Germany would gain its BRP's thru conquest and USA thru savings. If you saved your BRP's, you got whatever you saved multplied by your growth %. There was no growth in '39 or '40. I propose that the "growth factor thru saving" equivalent in SC is investing in Industrial Tech. And if any of you want to figure it out, you could compare the 3R growth rates with the IT 5% reduction for 5 levels. So Germany in 3R would just about double its base number before having to fight Russia ('41), as well as getting about an additional 45 BRP from the Minor Axis nations (Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). Historically accurate, and just about what any sane Axis player would do. In SC, German player gets his growth thru conquest, though he could attempt to put MPP into IT, or a combination of both. So if you followed the historical path, you would be around the same (economy doubled), with no investment in IT. Not too far apart from what I can see. Now of course you have the ability in SC to do the "what if's". Taking out Sweden, Spain, Portugal and even poor little Switzerland. And at what price? Earlier entry of the USA into the war, and if you really mess up, the USSR. Earlier entry would result in the Allied research chits having more turns for level increases. Someone want to figure those probabilities? Big problem with this scenario is that the German production is now about four times what it started at. It is a problem, but not a problem that should be solved by reducing the plunder. Notice the BIG difference between the numbers for the USSR? SC has already assumed that the US will give support to the USSR (not to mention the British). Don't forget that 3R was designed in the mid 70's. As someone tried to point out in some of the earlier posts, more current research has increased what people thought the USSR produced. SC also gives the US two (2) research chits and the USSR three (3) research chits. So if you wanted to follow the historical path, the US research should all go into IT, and the USSR chits should go into IT, armor, with the third going into your choice (ie anti-tank, long range air, maybe even jets). Notice that the British BRP's are slightly higher relative to the SC MPP? I've included the 30 MPP that Canada provides in the SC total. It appears that the British have been shorted in SC, especially since if we assume that USSR is getting US aid, so should the British. People say the US MPP is too low. If we assume that lend lease is going to the Brits and USSR, then maybe not. Is it too low for the US player to build a military so he can invade Europe before '44? Sure is, unless you get lucky and the Axis make some BIG mistakes. So if the US needs to sit tight for a year or so and build up, guess what.... the War in the East is critical, because if USSR falls too early, then the Allies are toast. And as someone pointed out, it forces you to be conservative with the US and British units, since you cannot afford to lose and rebuild them. Italy in SC terms, is much better off than the Italy in 3R. And here again is one of the beauties of SC... Italy instead of being a poor stepchild to the Germans, gets to be the younger brother. And if big brother is real nice (ie letting Italy conquer and plunder nations in the Baltic sphere), it could actually become a brother you would be proud of. Nice touch huh? So what does all this mean? If we assume that the economic model in 3R is historically accurate, then SC has done a wonderful job of giving us a model that could be historically accurate in addition to allowing us our what if's. So can Germany increase its economic base to be equivalent to the Allies in the early years? Yes. But only if the Axis player is aggressive thru plunder and conquest. The same strategical considerations and options that Hitler had. Think the Axis plunder is too high? Ok, tell me how much plunder does the Axis player get, then compare it against the 1250 MPP's the Allied player gets in research chits. Not to mention the "war bonus" in MPP's that the Allies get. If the numbers are way out of line, then maybe we should ask for a patch... or do some campaign mod's. Otherwise, maybe we should leave it as it is, and stop trying to play the Allied the same way as the Axis. Should Iraq be part of the British Commonwealth? Unless I've missed something, or my numbers are wrong (which since I've edited this post once already, it may be), since the British are slighted (no US aid), this would help to make up the loss. In summary, I think, that again, if 3R is the measurement, SC is not out of balance, with the exception of the British. Ok, flame away at my analysis. Next one will be Clash of Steel, but lets see what you think of this one. Thanks, Barry [ January 26, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

As mentioned in one of the other threads, alot of the suggestions and improvements stem from some believing that the MPP numbers are skewed in favor of the Axis. I would like to take a look at this, but from a slighty different viewpoint than normally seen on these threads. If we were to take the approach that a game designer would, we would have to do research utilizing source material relevant to the economic production of the major and minor nations involved in WWII. While that can be very enlighting though time consuming, not to mention somewhat boring, lets cheat a little. I propose that we piggyback on the research already done by looking at how other Grand Strategy WWII games handle it. Lets compare the economic systems of Third Reich, Clash of Steel and High Command to SC. Third Reich even today, is probably the best economic simulation of WWII. Clash of Steel at one time was the best Grand Strategy WWII there was, while High Command tried to gain that claim to fame. War in Europe, World in Flames have a lower operational level (ie division) than the others, nor as a complete system do I think they compare to the others, so I am bypassing them. Pacific War is a different theater. Hitlers War I have no knowledge of. Other than that, I don't think there are any others who tackled Grand Strategy in WWII. Kinda sad when you consider I've covered about 20 or so years of board and computer games. If you think there are others and you have experience with them, then feel free to do the same comparison I am doing with each game. I will cover Third Reich first, in another post. Thanks, Barry

Whew! Large amount of posts, with numerous suggestions. I'm going jump right in, but I want to take a different approach on my responses. This thread has a mixture of SC and SC2 suggestions. They should be seperate, since they are two totally different enviornments. I've tried to summarize the suggestions, so I apologize if I missed someone. HQ costs too much: Current SC costs are relative, with the better leadership costing more. This really is more of a MPP issue. Iraq should be Commonwealth: Another MPP issue. Stop Dutch Gambit: Another MPP issue, since as was pointed out, this really is an issue with how Germany gets plunder. US MPP too low: Another MPP issue. USSR should have more units: Also was brought up by stating that the USSR units should not be on the Polish border, where the Germans can easily kill them. Both of these are really addressing the fact that historically, the Russian military was able to raise a large number of units, quickly. They did this by building divisions that lacked the support infrastructure of "western" divisions, since they were never intended to be withdrawn from combat and have its losses replaced. Instead, the divisions were built from scratch again. Not to mention the fact that there was no such thing as basic training. So here is my first SC suggestion... Western Corps should take at least two (2) turns to build. Russian Corps can be built in one (1) turn. Subs should dive more: Invest or edit sub tech. Balance is fine the way it is now. Note however, that the whole SC naval combat, Atlantic Ocean issue is one of its weak points. Fixing this is a SC2 issue. Research too costly: Have you seen some of the earlier posts where the argument was that research was to easy and the results came to fast? As long as we all pay the same, the current method is fine for SC, as the results seem to arrive along a more "historical" time frame. But note that the MPP issue and this is tied together. Ships should gain 1 point repair in port: Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I think this is more of a "Allied MPP too low" issue. Airpower does too much damage to each other: Don't think in terms of aircraft. Rather, think in terms of sortie factors. If the strength points represent the sortie factors, then the reduction of the strength points represents the inability of the aircraft to conduct combat missions. Spending MPP's to replenish them is more you providing supplies to increase the sortie factor, rather than pouring in more aircraft. And should airpower be able to attack ships? At the level we are dealing with, yes; with apologies to all the close air support veterans who are spinning in thier graves. Suez loop both ways: Yep, that should be in SC. UK Corp in Alexandria should be Army: Depends on how you want to view the troop strength in Egypt. Since we know have a Suez loop, I think it is fine as is. I will admit that I think the '39 Campaign Mod is superior to the standard game setup. Very nerve racking for British Armor and two Corps to come knocking, with ?Wavell? HQ in support. Different number of reserach chits for US and Russia: This is a MPP balance issue. Higher penalties for German attack on V France and Spain: Once again, a German MPP plunder issue. Though purists would argue that Germany should not be able to attack Spain. Then again, what about Switzerland? Ability to attack certain "neutrals" is a whole nother can of worms. Ignoring the MPP issue, the current SC readiness results handles it fine. Destoryers, Airborne troops, Variable starting position: SC2 discussion, not necessarily implementation. Other than the one or two suggestions above, I think all of it comes down to the MPP balance issue. As ARBY stated, "Germany maintains a production edge on the Allies, which is not historically correct, since there was a relative decline". This one deserves another thread. Finally, all of this is just one man's opinion. Thanks, Barry

Dutch Gambit: That is when France, frustrated by the Low Countries inability to realize that Germany cannot be ignored, declares war against the Low Countries (which forces them to join the Axis). In SC terms, it is done to deny the Germans the plunder from capturing the Low Countries. America, outraged that a democracy would break its treaty with another democracy, decides it can no longer trust the French (SC terms = US readiness drops), causing the French Government to resign. Resulting confusion as a new French goverment takes over becomes the "raison d'etre" for why France falls to Germany. (SC terms = France still gets wooped by the Germans). Night: Don't forget that a human Allied player will eventually realize they have the largest aircraft carrier in the world in Great Britain. Aircraft and Aircraft R&D are critical to the US. Tech 4 or Tech 5 Strategic Bombers are something to see.

Night Engineers: Combat Engineers are already part of the subunits (ie divisions) that make up the combat units (Corps and Armies). Speciality engineers, which were not considered combat engineers (even though the US one's are the exception to that rule), were expensive to raise (mainly the special construction equipment) and almost never operated in a Corp sized unit. Defensive structures, mines, etc are already represented as the "entrenchment" ability the combat units already posses. So even if you allowed a "Engineer" Corp, that could not fight, and was expensive, about the only thing it could do would be to build fortifications (like one's on Malta, Russia, etc) and it would take them at least a couple of turns, if not longer. Assuming they cost something like a Battleship group and there other abilities (port construction, railroads, etc) are not represented in SC, I don't believe many people would purchase them. Paratroopers: Your comment about how to employ them, while from a gamey point of view (ala Civilization) is correct, would be picked apart by the realism purists. For example, technically every hex should be able to launch paratroopers, not just the "cities", since every hex has or could have a airfield capable of launching the transports (assuming it was properly supplied). Then there would be the range allowed (some of the much older posts regarding paratroopers covered this), not to mention the fact that if any enemy aircraft caught the transports in the air, there would be no transports left. And so on. Thats why they were left out.

Steve C, While I don't consider myself one of the SC "oldtimers", I have never been shy giving my opinion. The beauty of SC is in the "what ifs". After France falls, per your question, you asked about your choices.... of course these are my opinions. Invade England: It depends on the losses you have inflicted or plan to inflict on England. The British navy is not weak, and should be something that you have to neutralize before you attempt the invasion. Some like to transport Infantry Corps as sacrifical lambs shielding the true assault units. Thought being that the Corps get sunk while you get your other units ashore. I don't like this option, since it is wasteful of units. I prefer the following... take Poland and Denmark by turn two. Send ALL of your air units to Denmark (some already there during the invasion of Denmark). Then, when you DOW on Norway (turn 2, no later than 3), since your Baltic fleet is screening the Corps transporting to Norway, you have a strategic option available to you. You can attempt to draw the British fleet into the range of your air, by offering up some of your Baltic fleet. You only have a couple of turns to do this... and the targets you are after are the British carriers... forget the other stuff for now (unless they can be sunk, since they are weakend by attacks on your ships). If a double gambit is taking place, or you are just lucky, the British ships are coming after you or Norway. Btw, other than the ships, you should not be losing any units. Now... things get interesting. DOW the Low Countries, which you should be able to take in one turn (you have been moving those units from Poland to the Western Front haven't you?). Then when you go after France, your air units should go into the Low Countries so you can take out the British Air. Eliminating the British Air is tricky, but it boils down to using multiple air units against ONE of the British Air units. If you have been real lucky, you can even take some of your Baltic ships against British air on the coast... which will usually draw the British ships out... allowing your air to try to sink them. Bottom line is that you have to remove his units, but don't lose yours. When France falls, you should be able to get a couple of units initially to land against London... you need min of two, with three or four being better. Good use of some Research chits, usually Long range air and/or Jets doesn't hurt, and makes it much easier if you are lucky in the Research department. Spend on the IT later... MPPs are scarce as it is, and we are not buying units yet, but we sure are replacing losses. As you can see, alot of things have to go your way and even if you get your units (including a HQ) ashore, it is still not over. Don't invade England: Depends on how you want to handle the British air assaults... since he will go after your ports (hence you can't resupply your subs in Atlantic), and eventually your cities. Depends on your character, if you can handle getting bombed, then intially the bomb losses are not too bad. But if Britan gets high tech level in strategic bombers, it will hurt badly. Especially when the Americans start bombing. You can counter with air or with investing in anti-air. And you have to make sure your coastline is defended against invasion, either thru a "corp" defensive line, or a point defense with mobile reserve, or combinations. Again, your choice. The way I see it, if the British make some mistakes and you get lucky (especially if they Dutch Gambit you), invade England. Beware of invading England, but not getting it to fall fast enough and having the Russian Bear invade you. Otherwise, get your units to the Eastern Front, where the real war is. Italians: Proper use of them is key in my opinion. Italy should leave France alone, and get itself over to Yugo and invade it with the help of some German units. Let Italy capture Yugo. Then go after Greece. Again, let Italy capture Greece. Taking out Greece is best done by two amphib units (armies) and a couple or three air units (German). It is possible to capture Greece overland, but you have to understand how the Mountain hexes effect your supply line, and of course, there are those Greek units in the mountains. Why is Italy key? Its ground units. Specifically, the Armies. Research anti-tank weapons, and if you can, IT. Thats it. They buy Armies... and after thier initial use, ship them off to the eastern front. Corps are not bad either, but better off as garrisons. Italian units with anti-tank three or four, with some experience points, are worth there weight in gold. German MPP is better spent on Armor or Air. You will need to purchase some German infantry as well, but for every competent Italian infantry army you have, there is one less German one you need. Italian Armor... when you can, purchase one. But let it stay in Yugo and hunt down partisans. Mediterran: This is a tough one. I've long been an advocate of letting Rommel take the Med path to Russia. Problem is, that in SC, this is not easy. Italian fleet doesn't match up very well against the British Med fleet. And you can't afford to send alot of expensive German units to North Africa. Conversly, this is where a skillful player can surprise his opponent (at least in theory, since I have never been successful). So, take your Afrika Corp (ie German Inf Corp), and Italian Army (ie Italian Army or Corp or two Corps), possibly an Air unit, and give it a whirl. But don't be surprised that after you have finally beaten your way to Alexandria, take the Suez Canal and are ready to roll into Iraq, the Red Army will be sitting there waiting to smash you. Taking out Vichy France does solve some of the supply and operational movement problems, but is something you have to plan for initially, not as an afterthought. Malta: Tough nut to crack. You can try to overwhelm it with air units and the entire Italian navy, but unless you have some high tech level air units and you get some lucky shots in by the navy, won't work. I usually let it hit me in Sicily or North Africa and go with the flow. Of course, all of this changes if you are invading England. Good Luck. Barry

Within the context of SC, the Partisan effect works out fine in an abstract way. Just remember that if they are left alone too long, they will convert to conventional infantry units. As far as a new game system is concerned (ie SC2), you are correct, that there should be a different approach taken. Either an abstract representation (as you suggessted) or different units. Personally, I think the abstract method works since Partisan units would never be large enough to be represented on this scale. The problem though is that the occupying nation has to have units that represent occupation troops or some other method of spending MPPs to oppose the partisans. And don't forget Commando's. An abstract method should also be capable of representing the effects that commandos have. Paratroopers... At the scale SC represents, America, Britan, Russia, Germany, and possibly Italy would have no more than one (1) Corp. And that would be including the glider units that were integrated within the Airborne Divisions. Assuming this unit existed, and it would have to be expensive, it couldn't "airdrop" no more than a couple of hexes, if that. And to make it realistic, you would have to limit the hexes it could airdrop onto, as well as program it so that it could not create its own line of supply. Lot of special work for one unit. Based on the way SC is currently designed, I think Hubert decided to roll the effect of paratroopers into the aircraft unit. I am not saying I wouldn't like to see paratroopers, but other than suggesting what other game systems have done (ie 3R, Clash of Steel, High Command, etc), no one has suggested a workable solution, in my opinion. Unless SC2 is going to use "divisions" as the combat element, instead of "corps", there is going to have to be alot of work required to properly represent them. And if you put paratroopers in, then I am going to want to see amphibious assaults. And please don't say Marines, since only the US had Marines and they were all in the Pacific Theater. Thanks, Barry

Hello everyone. Long time lurker, read all seventy something pages of posts and have been a wargamer long before there were computers. Also former military veteran, business software developer, and have fantasies of one day completing my own conflict simulation. Now, for my $.03 (see above). SC is one of those rare games that has gotten the design issues correct, having created a easy to learn, realistic, yet playable WWII grand strategy system. It is much more than a "beer and pretzels" game, yet has not fallen into the "complexity equals realism" trap. The way I see it, units (Corps, Armies) are abstract representations of combat units, not the units themselves. Otherwise, you would need Corps and Armies that are unique to each nation, even assuming the weapons were identical. And then you would need some sort of combat modifier to reflect national superiority of one unit to another (ie German unit being much better than the Russians, and somewhat better than the US/British). As such, our generic Army being twice the size of the Corp makes perfect sense. The inability of the Corps to stack is a design decision that can be attributed to not having the Corp zone of commands intermixing (even though it is probably more a software issue, like the map size). Also makes it easier to understand that the mechanized units (PanzerGrenadier, Armored Infantry, etc) are part of the Tank Group, along with the pure armored units (Panzers, Tanks, etc, not the tank destroyers btw). Also, when I mention units I am talking division size units. Motorized units (trucks, jeeps, and logistical support they require, hence only Russian, British and American Corps) technically would be faster than the foot bound units. That is another realism versus playability decision that game designers make, just like the paratrooper issue. Notice the trend? Designers have to make decisions between playability and realism. While everything you say about Partisan sizes is correct, without creating a new unit (as was suggested) or adding additional code to reflect an abstract way of handling it, the approach that was taken, of using a exisiting unit, of reduced strength captures the flavor and strategical problems the Axis powers were faced with. Finally, you want to be sure you have different opening options? The customized campaigns capture it by giving you research points to invest at the beginning of the campaigns. On a personal note, I get quite a chuckle out of the AI pulling a Dutch Gambit on me, especially since it was something Hubert added based on the posts submitted. Nice touch. Is it realistic? Only if the French Government was willing to let itself be replaced, though it could plead it was an act of desperation. But if you take that away, then you would have to take away Germanies ability to invade Sweden, Switzerland, etc... where would you stop? One of the beauties of SC is the "what if's". And yes, I do have my own suggestions , but I will leave that for another post. Thanks for reading my ramblings. Barry