Shaka of Carthage

John DiFool the 2nd If a Air unit is attached to a HQ in the CAS role, then no, it could not be intercepted. The whole point of flying "manual attacks" as you put it, is to perform interdiction missions, not close air support. In other words, you fly manual attacks to reduce a cities value, so it reduces the overall supply level and cannot operate troops to it. If you do fly manual attacks to go after ground units, you can't kill them (or even reduce the strength points) soley by air. KDG The ability to edit the values, still doesn't address the fundemental problem that Air units have abilities that they shouldn't. So reducing the damage they do or making them so expensive that you are limited in what you purchase, still doesn't solve it. You just end up with it taking more units to do the same damage, or fewer units because of the cost. Thats why I tried to show the example of '39 vs '44. Three (3) Air units need to be powerful enough to play part in a decisive defeat of France, yet fifteen (15) to twenty (20) Air units, should not totally dominate the game.

Here is my number one concern with SC2. Air units, specifically our "fighter, fighter-bomber" unit, is still based on a flawed system. I was reminded of this by a discussion over in the SC forum regarding the historical '39 OOBs. Luftflotte in '39 had about 3000 frontline combat aircraft. UK had about half that. Since its generally agreed that the air unit represents roughly 1000 aircraft, its 1.5 units vs 3.0 units. Thats not so bad. ..........UK............Ge 1939..... 1.5 ......... 3.0 Where SC falls apart, is when you look at the numbers in the later years. Russia in '44 had something like 15,000 frontline combat aircraft. Luftflotte peaked around 5000. UK had something like 8,000 and the US had 12,000. ..........UK ....... Ru ....... US ....... Ge 1944...... 8 ....... 15 ....... 12 ....... 5 It doesn't take alot of games in SC, to realize, with those numbers, you simply pick which unit(s) you want the Axis to remove. So we have something wrong with the model thats being used. When the war started, one of the things that Germany had that the Allies didn't was the doctrine of Close Air Support. A good analogy in todays world, is to think of helicopter gunships. Flying artillery. The guys on the ground had the ability to call in air assets, to reduce strongpoints with smaller bombs, maybe some rockets but mainly cannons and heavy machine guns. Germany, in effect, embraced a close coordination between its ground and air teams, just like the US Marines and the US Army gunship pilots. The Western Allies, on the other hand, believed more in a strategical airforce, with any ground attack missions being of secondary importance. Russia went a third direction and thought of its aircraft more as flying tanks. So how to represent this in SC2? Possible Solution </font> When an air unit attacks a ground unit, it reduces the ground units readiness.</font>German Air units, when attached to a HQ, will increase the ground units soft attack factor.</font> Thats it. So lets see what we have, especially in combination with the other things mentioned in SC2 (ie ability to turn off interception or escort missions). 1941 Barbarossa. Army Group North, Center and South, each have a Luftflotte unit assigned to them. Just like they did in real life. During the German players turn, he can use his Air units for Interdiction missions, in the hopes of having the Russian air units come out, so the Germans can try and gain air superiority. Or he can simply not use his Air unit, which would then give a bonus to each ground unit that is attached to the supported HQ. During the Russian players turn, with the Interception ability turned on, if the Russian aircraft do try and strike at German targets, the German aircraft can meet them. 1944 Russia.... German Air units no longer bother to intercept, since they can't replace thier losses easily. But they still provide a valuable roll in support of the ground units. And while two or three Russian Air units can pick a German unit and render it ineffective in combat (ie readiness of zero), there is a limit to how many units they can do it to... not to mention the losses the Russian aircraft will suffer from Flak. I think everyone gets the idea. Comments? [ April 21, 2004, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Now that the initial hysteria has died down I'd like to offer some viewpoints regarding SC2. Its hard to draw definitive conclusions, since we are looking at development screenshots, and with a production release so many months away, none of what we see could be what is released. One thing is obvious. The basic SC engine hasn't changed. While there are some radically different subsystems being discussed (ie tiles vs hexes, etc), the basic engine of SC remains. Which means the fundamental problems with SC are still there. Good news is that there are only a few problems that need to be addressed, since the basic SC engine is a sound design. I'll address my concerns about those problem areas in other topics. One thing that I think people are missing in the debate about tiles vs hexes, is the marketing aspect. For all the fanaticism the people on this forum show, there are not enough of us to guarantee SC2 becomes a financial success. So I wonder how much the marketing requirements are driving the isometric view and tiles of SC2, in an effort to obtain more buyers? I think the marketing model of SC2, because of the way its sold, is closer to a boardgame than a traditional computer wargame. I don't remember exactly what the projected sales figures were, but from what I remember, SC2 would have to sell something like 10,000 or 15,000 copies to be considered a success. If tiles and 2D view will obtain those numbers, do it. Hexes and top down views haven't. Besides... I would think that all of us would appreciate the esthetics of snow covered vehicles and white uniforms in winter, khaki uniforms in the desert or even mud drenched uniforms. Based on what I've seen of some of the video games the younger generation like, show some blood or bodies dying, and you'll have a mega-hit. Its also obvious that Mr H has listened to his customer base and has tried to incorporate as many suggestions as he could from what people have discussed. Not to mention having this forum for a discussion of new ideas as well. I commend you for that approach. I, like many others, also agree that SC2 should be offerred in the $30 to $40 range. I wasn't around when SC was in its pre-production phase, but make sure you use the P500 concept of pre-production orders, so you are guaranteed a certain number of dollars before you even start production. In conclusion, you've got my vote (and $) for moving in the right direction. Like most of us here, I can't wait to get my hands on SC2.

SC already has exactly the same concepts, it just doesn't use the same terminology. COS............equiv....SC Limited build...........reinforcing 1 str pt unit. Full cost rebuild.......purchasing new unit If you surround a unit in SC, its readiness (because of no supply) drops to nothing. The unit isn't capable of defending itself and is easy for you to eliminate. In SC, you have to attack the unit to eliminate it. Otherwise, its the same effect in COS of a unit being destroyed and requiring a full cost rebuild.

Leopard I agree with you, that the French units should not be allowed to go to the UK, and then become Free French. The number of Free French that the UK gets should be units that they have to build. For playability purposes, there should be a variation of one or two units of Free French that the UK could potentially build. If France was conquered, then that number should increase, as now the French Colonial manpower is available to the UK as well. Then when the US enters the war, those Free French units should revert to US control (and nation that could build them).

Mr H Strategic Bombers ... to allow the bombing of resources even if units are on top of them ... Good. That would give another reason for the Western Allies to invest in thier strategic bombers. I think you should also consider taking this one step further, and allow Air units to perform the same missions (ie strategic interdiction). ... only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city ... I'd like to offer a different approach. We know the problem is too many units being able to operate where they are needed at the time they are needed. Limit the number of operating moves a nation can perform. And tie that limit to the industrial production multiplier. For example, if Germany has 10 operate moves, if its industrial multiplier is only at .6, then it can only conduct 6 operate moves. Of course, the costs to perform that operating move are still there.

Bill101 Exactly. The above is one of the reasons I get irritated when people call SC a "beer & pretzels" wargame. SC is anything but. Its easy to learn, like A&A, Risk, Attack!, etc, but it goes way beyond those games in its treatment of supply, strength points, etc. The effect that terrain has on the readiness percentage of units is another example of those subtle differences that make it more than a "beer & pretzels" game.

Bill101 How many airbases do you think it requires to operate our SC unit that has 1000 aircraft? As a ballpark number (since its dependent on the type of aircraft), you need roughly 10 ground personnel per aircraft as a minumum. Its alot better if you had 20, since you can do proper maint on the aircraft (assuming no night time operations). So you have roughly 1000 aircraft and 15,000 to 20,000 maint personnel. You need to add another 40% for the people who support the maint personnel... so you have 21,000 to 28,000 people. I don't feel like looking up the "average" size for a WWII airfield, but from what I remember, its only a few square miles. If you can, look at the size of those smaller airports in todays world. The ones that support the small prop planes. Even with multiple airfields, disbursed so you reduce your losses if attacked, you are not talking alot of airfields. other responses Mountains: The problem in the mountains, isn't that you can't find enough flat terrain. Its that the surrounding mountains require greater skill in your pilots for take off and landing. So you're going lose alot more guys in accidents. Marshes: Tanks weigh a bit more than aircraft. Even with the difference between the tank threads and the aircraft tires, the tanks exerted more ground pressure per square inch. The constraint here, is that it would take engineer resources to drain enough of an area for the runway and lay down temporary materials (if they didn't do it full blown with concrete/asphalt). As time permitted, you would drain the other areas where people worked and lived. So let air units be placed in difficult terrain. Just don't let them become avaialble for a certain time period.

Deja Vu. The same debate and issues that 3R, A3R, World at War, WiF (all editions), etc have gone thru over the years (and are still debating). Over the years, it has evolved to this... Germany has two options when it invades France. 1) Break the French will to resist, end the conflict and create Vichy France. 2) Go for the complete conquest of France, with there being no Vichy when its over. First one is usually done by taking Paris or tracking the French "strategic will". The main point being it isn't about defeating the French Army, just the leadership. Second one is your more traditional invasion, where you totally defeat the French Army, and are now in a position to dictate the terms (ie like Poland, Benelux, etc). The political advantages of Vichy France are that you have neutralised the French Colonial Empire (in game terms they are pro-Axis neutral). The bad part is that you piss off Italy (since they don't get the part of France they wanted) and you only get a part of the French production. The problem with a French conquest, is that the French Colonial Empire goes over to the enemy side, including the French Fleet. The good part is that the Italians, who should get southern France, would have thier "strategic will" increase and wouldn't fall apart as fast as they did. Within the context of above, all the other options become more logical. If Paris is liberated, then unless German units occupy Vichy France, Vichy will collapse. If France is conquered, all of the remaining French Fleets will go to the UK, along with Fr North Africa, Levant(ie Syria/Lebanon), Fr West Africa, etc (solving temporarily some of the UK manpower shortages). And so on. But, as with everything else, it takes more work to correctly set the options and thier effects up. And is it worth it? [ April 17, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Its easier with hexes, because someone else has already figured out the answer to the questions. But that doesn't mean its the superior system. So while the "squirting" issue needs to be addressed, the AP cost for diagonal movement, etc, we have a system that appears to allow us to concentrate ground attacks without stacking. That alone, is a major concept change that takes us past what hexes allowed. I think in this case, we should concentrate on how to make the system work, and solving problems as they are being presented to us.

Since SC is based on a 50mile hex, why wouldn't you use the same scale for the US map? So you'd have 50 hexes by 25 hexes for the US. That would seem to fit the design better, not to mention reduce the amount of time to produce the map.

As was pointed out in the other thread... R&D is random. It doesn't matter how much money is spent or what you direct it towards. The method SC uses works fine and doesn't need any changes to reduce that "randomness". Having research follow a "historical" path doesn't make sense, since as soon as you make a few moves, you are no longer following a "historical" path for the nation you control. Being able to set the tech differences per scenario is already possible. And for those who don't want any random research, don't use R&D. Random tech advances (along with random political readiness) is one of the keys to the replayability of SC. Its why some of us play SC daily year after year. How many other games can you say that about? My only suggestion is that once a tech advance is made, you lose a R&D chit in that tech. SC is awash in MPPs. There are too many MPPs out there chasing units and tech.

The ability to conduct Amphib Operations in SC is not a simple issue, because it deals with multiple problems. Let me outline a possible system. Problems in SC are how to represent the FOW so one side is unsure where an amphib invasion may take place. The other, and this is a problem with the economic system (ie the amount of MPPs), is that Germany should never have enough units to be able to cover every possible amphib invasion site (ie conduct a multiple front war). Here is a possible solution... </font> Every coastal hex should have a amphib difficulty rating.</font>Amphib Tech, which per tech increase, allows you to conduct an amphib landing on increasingly difficult hexes.</font>Only Infantry Corps and HQs can become Amphib Transports.</font> You know have recreated the FOW, since the Axis are unsure what hexes you could possibly land in. Amphib transports that can move and land are already going be included. Lower readiness for longer transit times were also mentioned. While I think limiting the range per port is a superior method than the lower readiness, at least something was done about the long distance amphibs. The ability to land in a hex containing an enemy unit is a matter of interpetation. You didn't land in a spot where the enemy had the same amount of troops as you did. No amphib doctrine in any era teaches that. I think the current system that SC uses, where landing in a "empty" hex can potentially cause amphib losses is ideal. Hence, I don't see the need for there to be a "assualt" and "retreat from combat" option so amphib troops can get ashore. Those are the wrong solutions for a Strategical/Grand Strategical system. Now, for the most critical part. Ensure the game design allows combat on the Eastern Front to drain the combat units of Germany. If it wasn't for the losses in the East, Western Allies could never have gotten ashore in Europe. The details of how to do this are another topic.

Edwin P The South African "trade route" is already represented by the Mediterrian route. You are correct that historically, the value of the items shipped over that route increased, but thats basically true of all of the UK trade routes. The South African military forces never exceeded more than three (3) divisions. And due to thier perceptions and culturial beliefs in who they were, they would not serve outside of Africa. Thats why they were used in Ethiopia and North Africa, but disappeared afterward. [ April 17, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Why is it so hard to believe that in a 50sq mile area, you couldn't find an area large enough to build an airbase? These are wartime, WWII bases. They didn't take alot of room. Of more importance was the ability to transport fuel in. It would have been more difficult in bad terrain to establish those initial roads, but once established, the supplies would have flowed.

You can't. But what I did was put a limit on the total number of units a nation could build. With the Italians, that came to eight (8) units. Three (3) Armies, four (4) Corps and one (1) Tank. I also put a limit on the Italian air of two (2).

I haven't downloaded the scenario, but I would rather have you provide the numbers, since it would be easier to discuss them that way. I'm not at home, so I don't have my source materials in front of me, so that will have to wait a bit. I noticed on the other site, you said you have spent about a "reasonable" amount of time researching this... being about 12 hours. I'm curious about where you got your source material, since your aircraft numbers seem kinda high. First... if you could just list the number of combat aircraft and divisions you are using, it would give us a good starting point. Lets start with Germany and Italy. You don't have to break it down into divisions by Army Groups or commands, just the total divisions and the total combat aircraft. Its been agreed that an aircraft unit is around 1000 aircraft. So using 120 per str point isn't too far off to start with. But giving the Germans over 4000 aircraft in '39 is just a bit high from what I remember. Next question would be how you resolved the differences in combat power between a German '39 infantry division and a Italian division? I'll show you how I solved the conflict. German Corp = 4 divisions German Army = 8 divisions Italian Corp = 6 divisions Italian Army = 12 divisions I don't really care too much about the manpower at this point, since the majority (>80%) of the combat power is in the divisional artillery. But where the strength points are important, is in the ability of the Corp and Army to absorb and replace infantry losses, which is another topic entirely.

I agree with KDG, a movement cost of 2 and 3 would work out fine, as well as allowing for different terrain costs. Not to mention, the lattitude it gives for the various weather effects on movement (assuming that is the path Mr H takes).

Whats the matter with some of you? If Ron's opinion doesn't agree with what you want, so what? He's more than entitled to express his wishes. And he was answering a question that was asked. And giving him crap because of the number of his posts or the "rating" he has in tournament play is not cool.

Cheesehead Because your early wargames were boardgames and for a manual system, the hexes worked out best. Some of the earlier game design books go into some of the pros and cons of using hexes. Todays boardgames have some excellent games that are not based on hexes. For games up thru the American Civil War (Strategy and Grand Strategy), point to point movement systems are a superior method. Todays computer games, now have the processing power to start exploring alternative movement systems as well. Does this mean that the tile approach in SC2 is a better method than hexes? Time will tell. But you've got to admire Mr H for looking at possible alternatives to the traditional design choices. If people never did that, then we'd all still be doing wargames with little lead soldiers and rubber bands.

willebra You're not completly wrong. What you will notice in the majority of the suggestions that come out, is that people are not thinking thru what they are asking for. Its more like, "I enjoyed this game and it had that, so lets put it in here." About the Engineers. These are not combat engineers. These are specialist engineers, that should be called Construction Engineers. While they were formed into Corp sized units, there were not a large number of them, and certain nations (like the US) had more than almost anyone else. No nation would risk these troops in combat, mainly because the personnel and equipment could not be replaced. So most wargames have abstracted there effect so as not to have to represent the unit. So whatever form they end up with in the production version of SC2, we do have the ability to limit the number and flip off any combat ability. Paratroopers should not be a seperate unit, but its a concession to attract a wider audience. In some ways, I think the current representation of the units is also there to give a visual hook to a wider audience. They look mighty similar to alot of the Role-Playing figures out there that have these "dialing" bases.

This is WWII people... NATO symbols can be something a user offers as an enhancement. The symbols used by SC2 should be the WWII symbols.

Elliot At the moment, you have to discuss with your opponent the things you feel are wrong and should not be allowed. Even so, things will come up during the course of you playing that you have not covered. Both players should keep an open mind and discuss the issue. Agree on how to handle it then proceed forward. Thats the best you can do right now.

Becephalus In determing your units, what ratio did you use for Divisions in a Corp or Army?

Those two statements just illustrate what I was saying about not being able to convert a boardgame exactly to a computer. One of the biggest problems CWiF has to address, is how to handle the responses the defender has to make when the attacker does something. This dilemma has been fought over for years by the people who are producing computer aids for boardgames. What it comes down to is this... you cannot reproduce the map/counters (by scanning, xerox, etc) without the gaming companies permission. However, you can recreate the map/counters. You can recreate the map, even to the point where you have the same copyright statement on your map. With todays graphic programs, there are beautifil maps and counters for just about every boardgame out there, that are much better looking than the originals. Technically, thats all you are allowed to do. Where the old time gaming companies will come after you is in the rules. The theory being that unless you have purchased the game, you don't have the rules, therefore you cannot play the game. The more modern looking companies, and especially the newer designers (some of whom are self-publishing or doing Desk Top Publishing), have started using a concept called "Living Rules". In effect, errata and changes are incorporated into the rules, and a new version is published on a website, for anyone to download. "Living Rules" along with something called P500, are how the modern day boargaming publishers are trying to survive in todays world.