Shaka of Carthage

Raven25 You are mixing up fortifications with entrenchments. Every WWII unit when it wasn't moving entrenched.

Exactly correct. And your point about people underestimating Hitler is correct as well. He doesn't get enough credit (for obvious reasons) for some of his decisions.

Why are people asking questions that have already been answered?

Entrenchment should be related to the readiness percentage of that nation. As the readiness percentage increases past certain breakpoints, the units would increase thier entrench value.

If you want to have a discussion about stacking, create another topic. The generic Corp in SC has four (4) divisions. You have to understand what stacking is trying to represent, which means you need to realize what the different frontages for WWII units where. A "typical" WWII division defended an areas of about five (5) to eight (8) miles. It attacked in roughly half of that space. With a understanding of the above, you can see why the design of SC did not include stacking. However, as I mentioned earlier, this needs to be in a new topic if you want to discuss it.

You already have the ability to "create" units smaller than Corps. As the basic SC2 system is based on a 50 mile tile and a Corp sized unit, if you wanted to use a Division or Brigade as your basic unit, simply decrease the size of the tile. In other words, assume a tile is 7.5 miles and your basic unit is a Brigade. Or whatever you decide when you design that scenario. You will then have all the joys that a designer has when he initially designs his game. Thats when we'll see that most people will simply copy the existing work of others and not do anything very creative.

Slapaho You got it. I think its safe to say that SC was... (a) game ... model based upon the starting point of 1939, with a clean canvas in terms of ideology and political effects, other than the simple triggers like USA and USSR never allying with the germans, axis and allied minors, etc, SC2 is definitely not this... ... a game that historically models the 2nd world war At the moment, SC2 is basically SC with more features and a little bit of chrome. Hence the dilemma Mr H is faced with. Does he listen to the "vocal minority", with its various factions asking for realisim, playability, other games have it, etc requests? Or does he stick to his master design, in hopes that he can find enough of a "silent majority", to make SC2 a hit? Time will tell.

There are quite a few misconceptions in this discussion about Armor vs Mech vs Infantry. The generic units in SC work out to represent eight (8) infantry divisions in an Army, four (4) in a Corp and four (4) "motorized" and/or "armored" divisions in a Tank Group. Understand that the definitions of what "mechanized" means has changed over the years, so you have to be very careful when using various terms that mean one thing in todays world and something totally else in WWII. The definition and composition of a tank division varied from nation to nation, not to mention changing from year to year. But in general terms, a Tank Division in WWII represented a combat division that had a 1:1 ratio between armored fighting vehicles (ie tanks or tankettes) and motorized or mechanized infantry. Motorized definition is easy... trucks. Mechanized infantry is a little harder. In general terms, you had infantry who where riding in tracked vehicles, that usually had some sort of armor as well. However, these vehicles were not what we would call in todays terms, infantry fighting vehicles. Idea was, that by being tracked, they could traverse the same ground as tanks, then when in combat, they dismounted the infantry. Thats why almost all of them where open topped. In SC terms, what does that mean? You are giving enough vehicles to a infantry combat division, so the infantry can now ride in trucks and the support vehicles are motorized as well. The tracked vehicles are already covered when you purchase a Tank Group. Thats why the tech option should be renamed to motorization. Pzgrndr confirms this, as he stated that the tech option only increases the AP for Corps and Army units. Not a Tank Group. So when you are purchasing a Tank Group, thats when you are getting Tank and Mechanized divisions. And even here, within this Tank Group, the "mechanized" infantry division for some is a mix of motorized and mechanized units. The Mechanization tech doesn't provide you with mechanized divisions... you are just getting motorized divisions. To expand upon the WWII "mechanized" infantry, understand that there wasn't any such creature. The US and the UK (for a short period) when they "mechanized" there infantry, called them armored infantry. The post war concept of a Armored division having two (2) tank brigades and one (1) mech inf brigade, while a Mechanized division had one (1) tank brigade and two (2) mech inf brigades, didn't exist yet. Except for one place. Russia. But it wasn't until '43 and after, that the Russians were able to field the combined arms units that they wanted. But I digress. As far as SC2 is concerned, your "mechanized" infantry are part of the Tank Group you purchase. Your "mechanization" tech (ie motorization) represents you building enough trucks and possibly some tracked vehicles, to give the infantry divisions greater mobility. And since someone will probably bring this up as well, it has nothing to do with the addition of tank or tank destroyers or assault guns units being attached to a infantry division.

I thought the official announcements said something about 4th Qtr 2004. Thats one of the problems with pre-announcing the next release. It makes the current release a lame duck, and provides some with an excuse not to purchase it.

There was no one general method that all nations used in how they handled equipment transfers to thier allies. The US freely gave/sold eqiupment to thier allies, while Germany didn't. But while some method of handling this may be more realistic, is it really worth the effort?

Based on what I just heard, it seems the system uses a universal definition for the MMP value of specific terrain features. In other words, if you set the MPP value of "ports" to zero (0), all "ports" on the map will have a MPP value of zero (0). If thats correct, then what we need are additional terrain features. Add two or three or whatever to the system. Then, users can modify them to be what they need. Initially, you could identify them as: Minor City Minor Port Impassable Terrain Now, some scenarios could have Ports with the normal MPP value and Minor Ports with a zero MPP value. This would be a greater benefit to the majority in this community than some of the other trivial requests.

Japanese invasion of China and the Chinese Civil War. Those would be excellent areas to have a module for, but I doubt many would enjoy them. While the land area is huge, which would imply some sort of strategical or operational level game, China really doesn't have much of a chance against the Japanese. Not to mention, the internal conflict the Chinese had (the civil war between the Nationalists and Communists, which was still going on when Japan invaded). The problem would be in how to represent the external demands that limited what Japan was able to bring to bear in China. additional thoughts Gave this some more thought. If we expanded the area to include Russia in the North, you might just have something. Because now, you can include the Russian/Japanese conflict as well. Extend the map in the south, down to Singapore and you can include the Commonwealth as well. Putting those conflicts together with China, would give a realistic situation of what the Japanese faced. Time frame it to somewhere around Pearl Harbor, and it could actually be kinda fun, since if Japan doesn't make its objectives, it will have "lost". Speaking of potential what ifs... how about the pre-1939 German "conquests"? I'm thinking along the lines of Czechslovakia. I may even have a S&T or Command magazine that actual put some stuff together in a scenario about this. [ May 17, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Interesting idea. Even if it didn't make it to the game as a option, it would be nice to have a "historical" tech chart included in the Designer Notes, so we can see what Mr H intended.

The issue isn't that the ports can't be added. I think most people realize that if something is missing, than they can edit it in. The key is that the inclusion of a port also implies that we need the ability to edit the MPP value. Then we can have those "minor" ports that were critical from naval viewpoint, but meaningless from a economic view.

bloodstar has the solution. Ports with little or no MMP value.

I'm confused. Why all the speculation? Simply look up the ranges of the various bombers and aircraft that you're discussing. Organize them based on a tech advance giving you a better model or a different aircraft. Then understand how they were used, so you can properly translate the ranges into meaningful numbers. For instance, the combat radius of a fighter aircraft is roughly one-third of its effective range. You used 1/3rd of the fuel to get to a certain point, used another 1/3rd to get home and the last 1/3rd was available for dogfighting. Don't remember what the combat radius for bombers was, but I would suspect its closer to 50% of the range. Put the numbers together, problem solved.

An interesting point was brought up during this dicussion. Breakthrus and Srategic Momentum. Yes, foot bound infantry units cannot maintain a strategic breakthru, because they are too slow (can't get far enough into the rear to cut off the enemy). But we have to be very clear here, that we are talking about foot or horse drawn infantry units. Thats what the units where in WWI and thats what the majority of German units where in WWII. The problem in SC though, is that the Infantry units are moving too fast for horse transports. The Infantry Corps and Armies should only have a Action point of two (2), not three (3) or four (4) in SC. Motorized and Mechanized Infantry can maintain a strategic breakthru, as long as they are fighting slower opponents. Major difference between the two, is that the motorized are road constrained, while the mechs are not. Thats the problem with SC currently, is that the German military is completely motorized. So once you get a breakthru, you can use Corps just like you would should be using Panzers. SC2 will fix this, which will then give back one of the major advantages that the US and UK units had against the Germans... strategic mobility.

There should be an additional cost for penetrating an enemy zone of control, but there should not be an additional cost for moving thru an enemy tile. One of the things we don't see, is that our Corp and Army size units do exert control into the surrounding tiles. Even if its just the divisional reconnaisance elements, there are units out there acting as eyes and ears. Its one of the key reasons they have a spotting range. Depending on the national doctrine, those recon units will harass the enemy, either by engaging in combat themselves, by calling in artillery or air, calling in heavier units or any combination of those. This is a low level combat that we don't see in SC, but it is going on. Hence, the additional cost for penetrating an enemy zone of control. Units moving thru enemy tiles are already moving prepared for combat, so they are not moving at top speed. Thats what the Action Points already represent. There is no need to further reduce it.

Borg Diplomacy exists, just like Borg Economics. Pzngdr is correct, that you have to be careful how you design the system, to avoid the effect.

What Edwin P is proposing won't work, because of Borg economics. You sent an objective, gain your goody. Set another object, gain another goody. And so on. Success will reinforce success, not unlike the plunder bonus so many people have complained about. What Rambo is talking about are called Victory Conditions. This way, you could create a scenario, set the Victory Conditions as part of creating the Scenario, then when the scenario ends, the computer can tell you who won. Save something like this for an future release, not part of the initial release.

You're addressing the symptom, not the cause. The problem, is when Moscow is surrounded, but not taken, the AI has to realize it and abandon Moscow. Even a quick and dirty option to allow the Russian player to "destroy" Moscow, would accomplish it. The remaining logic is already in place for Russia to have a new capital. No need to force the Russian player to spend 600 MPPs.

This is the second and last of my major concerns with SC2. There have been a few topics recently that have addressed some of this, so I will try not to go over the same things in detail. I'm sure most of us do not appreciate how big the oceans are relative to the land spaces. Even the relative difference in size between Europe or Africa. N.N.E N.N. The above "text" map will hopefully help illustrate the problem. N = North Atlantic and E = Europe (SC Map). To accuratly represent the North Atlantic, the European land mass is only about 20% of the total space. So lets compromise a little, and shorten the height of the North Atlantic... to something like this. N.N.E In SC2, our "European" map is now 120x38 tiles (I think). With a max tile of 256x256, we have a slight problem. No way can I show the true ratio of the North Atlantic to Europe, even with the shortened version. And you can't take advantage of the 38 tile height, since any expansion in height, simply gives you the Artic Circle and/or Africa. And why is this a problem? Because the Naval system is a tile (or hex if you prefer) based system. You move tile by tile, you enter a tile with another naval unit, you have combat. No different than our ground system. And thats the gist of the problem. The supply system for the naval ships doesn't work when you move them across vast distances. So you need some sort of change to the distance a Port can supply ships (representing all those oil tenders and supply ships). You have multi-level combat areas... air, surface and sub-surface. There is the problem with naval ships occupying the same 50 mile tile, in that it doesn't mean they should be able to spot each other. And so on, so on and so on. Unlike the Air problem, which has a relatively easy fix, the Naval problem is something that requires a redesign. Bearing in mind, that this is not a major theater for SC2, its not like you want to spend an enormous amount of time on this. There are two basic approaches that can be taken based on what we have... what everyone else has done ... abstract sea zones and a different approach ... variable tile sizes I've already written quite a few posts (along with others) on how to use abstract sea zones, in conjunction with the "entry arrows" (just like the ones we currently use for the loop to the Suez. If there is interest in it, I can summarize them. The variable tile approach is an attempt to work within the restrictions of what SC2 appears to be. I'll talk more about this in some later posts.

I think the intent of "mechanization" will become clearer if you rename it "motorization". Horse drawn units have an increase in APs, because they are now in trucks. You can even put in a gradual increase, to represent a Corp/Army that is partially motorized (ie the infantry walks) compared to one that is fully motorized (the infantry ride in trucks). By virtue of them being Armor units, they are already motorized or mechanized (depending on the nation). There is nothing to be gained here in an AP increase. [ May 04, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Yes, buried in some of the books I have, there is information on what the R&D percentage of the military budgets where. Getting the information on the US is the easiest. If you read German, you could get the info on Germany. No one has gotten any accurate numbers on the Russian budget, so its who you believe is more credible. Should this ratio be used to establish a limit? No. Understand, that every wargame I am aware of, doesn't try to recreate a historical budget. What they try and do, is give you enough economic units so you can purchase the military units so that you have something along the lines of what they had historically. Thats why it really isn't that critical that we have a accurate cost on a Corp vs a Armor unit, as long as everyone has the same relative values. But without other limiting factors, what it does lead to is an enviornment where you have ahistorical numbers of units. So back to the research question you brought up. Is 250 MPPs an accurate research chit cost? Who knows. But as long as well all have to pay the same amount, it will work fine. Same with the ten (10) chit limit per nation... is it accurate? Nope, but as we are all under the same limit, it works.

While radios were an important component, I believe what you really are addressing is Command, Control and Communications. Rename your proposed tech as C3I, add some of the suggestions people have been talking about when they ask for a reconnaisance or intelligence tech and you may have something worth pursuing.