Shaka of Carthage

ev and Bullwinkle Your examples and your ideas are at the wrong scale. We are talking about multi division actions performed by Corps and Armies. And don't mention the ability in SC2 to edit the scale. Right now we are discussing what the basic SC2 system will deliver. I'm not saying that a unit shouldn't retreat, I am saying we should understand the scale of the unit we are talking about and offer suggestions in relation to that. So, in my mind, I would favor a solution that made the losser of a combat, when he lost by a certain ratio, be forced to abandon his position (ie retreat).

All that some of the last few posts have shown, is that future generations forget what the symbol represents. Consider Jane Fonda and what she means to Vietnam veterans. Thats nothing compared to what the swastika means to the world in general. So while banning the symbol doesn't undo the wrongs, it does give some comfort to the victims. Anyway, this is way off topic and there are other places where discussions like this can be conducted.

With no disrespect to the Canadians, you're forgetting one important point about the Canadian Navy. It was designed for convoy protection. A huge Coast Guard. It was not built for surface combat, so there really are no naval units in SC that should be built for the Canadian Navy.

We can never have a "realistic" HQ system, because we are operating from hindsight. The problem with rated HQ's is that no one is going pick a bad HQ for a critical position. The easiest and most effective solution, is to simply make the HQ costs the same per nation, then randomly determine who will be in command.

Excellent work. Looking forward to the German one. And then the UK and US one. Hell, do an Italian one as well.

This one is going be a real design challenge. Don't forget that Operate Moves are a representation of railroads. The Union just needs to have alot more than the South. The number one design problem, is what you have mentioned. The leadership (ie Generals) of each side. You need some way to represent the Union Generals lack of iniative. Which does get corrected in the later years with later Generals (like Grant and Sherman). One way you could think about this, it to have the Union troops have a lower AP rating than the Souths. Then, only allow the Union to invest in "mechanization"... which in this era would represent the political struggle to get more aggressive Northern leaders. PS... if you did the above, then HQ's would represent supply depots. In that case, I wouldn't let them move at all once they are emplaced. You can represent the Strategic importance each side gave to their respective capitols, by identifying each capital. That way, if Wash fell, the game is over for the North (ie like Paris). Same with Richmond, though you could make a point that even if Richmond fell, the South should be able to relocate its capital (ie like Moscow). The combat stats on the Army unit, should be beefed up greatly, while Corp units should be lowered to almost nothing. Then... Army units could be formations like Army of Northern Virginia, Army of Potomac, Army of Tennesse, Army of Cumberland, etc, which may or may not have organic Cavalry brigades. Corp units could be the smaller independent commands, like what Van Dorn, Sheridan, ect had. Armor unit would be your Cavalry Brigade equivalents. Would have to weaken the combat factors, as thier main advantage is mobility. Then map wise, it would appear logical to have each Confederate state represent a "nation", same with the border states. The Union states could all be just one nation, with boundaries drawn in for aesthetic reasons. You could pick a tech (ie long range), call it "cavalry reconnaisance" and then give the South a much better ability than the North. This way, the North investing in this tech, would allow a better "spotting" value for its Armies and Cavalry units (but not the Corps). I have no idea how you would represent attrition, which was a major problem during this era. Rename the "anti-tank" tech to something else (command and control?), which would represent the ability of the Armies to increase the number of units under its command (ie initial 10 str pts increasing to 14 or so). Also have no idea how you would represent the Union Naval blockade. Strat bombers "bombing" the port cities would give the proper effect, but I don't think many players would be able to zen belief that. [ April 25, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Korea is a good scenario to discuss because it was bascially fought with WWII technology. Scale would have to change... but Edwin's suggestion of 10 miles per tile is a good a place as any to start with. At that scale, it would appear that the ground units would be Divisions and Regiments. For all those fans who want to convert Rockets into Artillery units, you now have a valid reason. The Rocket units can be changed into Corp artillery units, which where Regimental or Division sized units. We've already been informed, that we can modify or create our own terrain (if I remember rightly). So creating a terran tile that has a road on it, wouldn't be a big deal. But I think whats of more importance, is the ability to create a terrain type for impassable terrain. At worst, I assume you could always make the AP cost the max value (ie 99 or 9). Then, when you create the map, you can recreate those avenues of advance, by placement of the impassable terrain tiles. The new Engineer unit would now become a Combat Engineer unit, but don't lose site of the fact that its still an Engineer Regiment/Brigade sized unit. The bridging problem is one of those things that many have mentioned as a design problem when you start taking SC and scaling it down. In SC, if I remember correctly, once you place a unit on a river hex (or maybe next to it), the organic engineers in the unit bridge the river. This is reflected by the next unit paying a reduced AP cost when it crosses the river. It will be interesting to see how you solve that at a lower scale. Air Units would be around 200 aircraft. And the tech levels, moving from prop to jets, would fit in just fine here. The multiple nations in SC2 would be good, because now you would have the ability to represent all the various UN forces, not to mention North Korea and ChiComm. Looking forward to how you assign the various experience levels per force. I would suggest you rename the sides to United Nations and Communists.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that players are going be able to perform actions based on Diplomatic Events. So talk about activating partisans or unit setups I believe is going in the wrong direction. Diplomatic Event will simply allow us to add a positive or negative modifer to a nations "alliance" rating. The only unknown, is wheter or not, the "event" will be a single action, or if we have the ability to access a "string" of events.

Donnerwetter I don't believe any of us have access to the software code for High Command. And I don't believe it will run on most current day machines. So its kinda hard to even see what the effects are these days.

Well, as a thought, why not simply eliminate plunder as a MPP value, and let plunder increase the water (ie supply) tank?

Edwin P You got it. Though I suspect, that the Diplomatic Events won't allow us to have so many conditional conditions and effects. Now you have to make sure that there are enough events to balance each side (ie for every bad event for the Axis, there is an equivalent bad event for the Allies). Then whatever method that controls the events, will determine per game, if one side or another gets an Diplomatic advantage. No different than the Tech research.

Guess it proves, that just like everyone else, Rambo has one.

Edwin P I was thinking somewhat along more specific definitions. I'll give some examples. And this would give all those people who want to do some Boolean logic a chance to try it. Major Axis effect IF Germany invades Sweden THEN Rumania "Axis alliance" % reduced Bulgaria "Axis alliance" % reduced Finland "Axis alliance" % reduced Hungary "Axis alliance" % reduced Major Allied effect IF Allies invade Benelux THEN Yugoslavia "Axis alliance" % increased Greece "Allied alliance" % decreased US "Allied alliance" % decreased I used the two examples above, because they are kinda obvious in the effects and most of us have discussed them to death. So I would expect others to make suggestions like having the chance of Turkey becoming Allied as part of Germany invading Sweden. But where the real flexibility comes in, is in the "what if" category. Thats where I think we should concentrate our efforts. An example... Major Allied effect IF event occurs THEN Finland joins the Allies. Russian diplomats have convinced Finland, that in return for certain land and other concessions, to join the Allied war effort against Germany. This assumes we can provide a description of the event, so we are notified of what is happening. We could even use it to describe events in the Pacific theater, and show the effect they could have in Europe... something like US makes concessions with Japan, ending the war in the Pacific... and making the US permanently neutral.

Attachment to a HQ doesn't prevent the other missions from being performed.

Good for you Les. You're absolutely correct that just changing the scale and renaming the icons will not give us the Pacific theater.

Hmmm... while this isn't the purpose of this topic, I think JerseyJohn has come up with a brilliant idea. An offensive and defensive rating for the HQ's.

From the way SC works and past discussions about this... I would assume all of the neutral nations have a "alliance" %, not unlike the Clash of Steel model. The Diplomacy events that you speak of, will probably move the value up or down, depending on the event. Since thats the basic method used currently for the readiness percentage, we should be familar with how that works. So the Diplomatic Chits you purchase, will probably move the value in your favor. Then, once a certain number is reached (which we will probably never know what that value is), that nation will then join one of the major alliances. So... lets say you're Germany and you're doing your thing against Benelux and France. Once Vichy France is formed... then I would assume, that any invasion of Spain, Vichy France or Sweden, would then reduce the diplomacy number that would make Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria join the Axis. Germany, to counter those feelings of betrayel, would then have the option of purchasing a Diplomacy Chit, that it could "spend" in Rumania, to try to get them to join the Axis. Assuming the above model is somewhat accurate, it appears that the only thing we can add to this, would be the Diplomatic events and when they occured. Hence... I propose that we put together a list of say, twenty-one (21) Diplomatic events that favor the Axis, and twenty-one (21) that favor the Allies. Within the twenty-one (21), I would suggest this sort of breakdown... Seven (7) that have a major effect for that Alliance, seven (7) that have a minor effect and seven (7) that have a so-so, or even no effect. At this point, since we don't know what those "diplomatic" numbers are, assigning values isn't that important. Right now the type of effect (major or minor) is whats important. And if you haven't already figured it out, you need the same effects for each side for playability purposes. With twenty-one (21) events and a third of them being more or less neutral, there should be a very large replayability factor, since there are a huge number of combinations, not to mention different sequences.

Well, we have enough grey matter that contributes to these topics. So why not spend some time to outline a possible system and propose it? We can use SC as the baseline, then add to it the new information we learn that SC2 will have. Espcially with the Diplomacy model, over the past year or so, I've seen very few alternatives proposed.

Hmmm... I understand what you are saying, but we seem to have a disconnect on what "logistics" means. From your post, you relate it to the expenditure of MPPs. The SC model relates it to your supply value, which in turn, controls your readiness percentage. If we think of supply as water flowing from the capital to all of the cities, its a little easier to illustrate my problem with it. Currently, other than some partisans in Russia or Yugo, the water flow is infinite. The only constraint is if partisans damage the faucet in a specific city. I'd rather see there be a limit to the water source. As units perform movement or combat, then they consume more water, than if they are on the defensive. Then, the concept of spending MPPs to refill or increase the water supply makes sense. Would also mean, that if you didn't plan ahead and fill that water tank high enough, you won't be able to conduct as many offensives (or any) as you like, because you can't supply them. And this eliminates the need for all those other things game systems use to represent this flow of supplies... like supply units, O-Chits, Special Actions, BRPs for campaigns, etc. And now, you have the other reason (besides reconnaisance), that aircraft exist... to perform interdiction, shutting down the flow of supplies to combat units. Very easy to do with a computer.

KDG, pzgndr Hopefully I've made it clear that I feel the solution is in changing the formula, not the values of the formula. If the formula is correct (ie the combat model), then the German, Russian, etc aircraft can have there proper relative combat power and regardless of the numbers, the system will simulate what history has already demonstrated.

The second part of what you asked for, reinforcing one (1) point a turn losses less experience than reinforcing multiple points... it already works that way. Agree with you on the first part. We even had a discussion about it in the past... where I believe I said the higher experienced unit didn't lose. Mr H contributed and said it did have a possiblity of losing a str point. But I agree with you, that the chance of it losing needs to be increased, otherwise, experienced Germans will just chew thru inexperienced Russians and the Russians have not chance of bleeding the Germans.

I think its getting a little bit too emotional in here. Anyone who has designed anything, will eventually realize that you can't please everyone. And there will always be vocal critics who are just sure you've screwed it up. I don't believe that Mr H feels insulted by some of the comments. I believe that he has noted those statements, but still hasn't heard anything different enough to make him reconsider his decision. One of the things we forget when we have "discussions" on the internet, is that you don't know the maturity level of those you are discussing things with. So statements that come out rude or abusive, are really nothing more than an immature person who doesn't know how to express themselves better. So lets try to be a bit more objective and not get so personally offended by statements that others make. Realize that for some, you will always be wrong, and move on to a new subject.

For everyone here who keeps stating that the majority want hexes... Count them. Count the people who want hexes. You may have a majority when it comes to people who post on this forum... but that majority isn't enough to influence a marketing decision. Read what Steve of Battlefront said over in the other topic about the tiles. Its pretty clear that the tiles will stay, and at best, thier may be an option for a different view. But there will be no hexes.

Bill101 Hmmm... I remember reading some stuff about the sortie rates, but I wouldn't have the faintest clue which book to go look in. If I run across anything like that in the future, I will send it to you.

Pzgndr I don't see how Hubert would make #2 work This ones easy. Same software code that is used to give units a combat bonus from the HQ, can be used to give a bonus to the soft factor if a Air unit is attached. If SC had unit stacking and combined unit attacks and some sort of air/ground limits, air wouldn't be the issue that it is. This one I have to strongly disagree with. This, along with limiting the Air units, is addressing a symptom, not the cause. While I am firmly in the camp of limiting Air units in SC, thats a temporary fix because we have no other way to solve it. It doesn't address the problem that Air is fundementaly flawed because it causes too much damage to a ground unit. Same with stacking. Thats more a problem with the Armor units, then Air (ie because you can't get enough combat power to bust thru the lines). Who's to say a factor of German air isn't 100 planes and a factor of Russian air isn't really 300 planes? Because the game has generic units and doesn't distinguish national differences? Air units are broken and having the ability to edit isn't a solution, its a patch.