Shaka of Carthage

Boardgames do not convert well to computer games. If you want the computer game to act exactly like the boardgame, then there are already computer aids out there for boardgames that do exactly that. As one of the main two is free and the second one costs $40 (which cause many people not to purchase it), no company is going waste the resources to make a computer game that does everything exactly like a boardgame. Which means the converted game has to have new features that take advantage of what a computer has to offer... which are design issues, which means you might as well design a new game from scratch. When computers were young, one of the games that got converted to a PC whas Third Reich. And it was almost exactly that, a boardgame converted to a computer. It got bad press from day one... especially the AI. Everyone remembers that and uses it as an example of why you don't convert. That is why things are the way they are.

I second the notion about cool pictures. I especially liked the image of Kuniworth as the clown.

Because Boolean logic (IF, THEN, ELSE) can get very complicated, especially when you start to have nested IFs.

SeaMonkey I don't think Mr H built the cost of the upgrades into the research chit. Too many units (ie think in terms of Russia and a anti-tank tech increase). As Skanvak pointed out, units could be refitted, as long as they were not in the front line. I like the idea of them being at supply level 8 and not next to an enemy unit.

What I would like that is kinda outside the game itself, is the option for a three (3) player game. This way, Russia, could be played by another person. Easy to do for a PBeM game, but what would really set it apart, is a three player TCP option.

There is one thing that was mentioned some time ago, that I belive will solve part of the research problem. That would be that each time you achieve a tech advance, a research chit is consumed. So, if you have two (2) chits in Jets, as soon as you advance one tech level, you would now only have one (1) chit. The other issue is having all units receive that tech upgrade immediatly. I think I understand why Mr H did it that way, so for the moment, I can live with it. But if we do get a system in place that allows us to upgrade a unit to the next tech level(s), make sure that we have to pay an upgrade for each unit, not just have it go to a city and receive the upgrade.

I'd like to re-suggest an idea that was discussed before regarding HQ's. Normalize the HQ cost per nation (ie HQ for Germany would be one cost), then when you purchase a HQ, you are randomly assigned the Leader for that HQ. Then, have a small percentage chance that the HQ Leader is removed (ie demoted, died by accident or assassin, promoted, resigned, whatever else you can think of) and replaced by a new Leader. It would stop our ability to operate with 20/20 hindsight in terms of the HQ's we use, and even when we get the guy we want, no guarantee that he will stick around. It would also be nice, if there was some more variation in what the Leader traits are. For example, I personally like the idea that the units that are attached to a specific HQ, when it comes time to move them, won't move. Maybe the orders got delayed, lost, or even ignored. Another example, Rommel, while he's rated as a eight (8), can only control a maximum of three (3) units. Those three units can include Axis Minors and/or Italians. You get the idea, and I'm sure we all can come up with some creative ideas that are Leader specific.

Here we go again, but it is amusing reading the different opinions.

Gavrok There are a few Grand Strategy games out there, but this forumn really isn't the place to mention them.

I'm glad SeaMonkey brought up the "asset" concept, and between himself and JerseyJohn, explained it well. With that understanding, we can move straight to what I think we're missing. SC already has the "asset" enhancement concept in place. Its called a tech level increase, specifically in this case, the Heavy Tank tech. But, as has been pointed out, its broken. And in SC's case, the "asset" goes to every unit, you don't move it around. JerseyJohn is correct again, in that the distinction between heavy and medium that is being proposed is something that losses significance at the scale we are operating at. It makes sense that heavy tank units (usually battalions) are added to Corp and Army formations, which is what the "asset" system is representing. And as far as the medium tanks are concerned, all the initial light tanks being supplemented by mediums, then eventually replaced by mediums. But no Army ever replaced mediums wholly with heavies. The heavies were always a supplemental asset.

Rambo I suspect that I have read more official reports than you have on WWII combat effectivness. So I could say the same thing back about you reading the "statistics on the combat results versus the Western Allies". But I will just say I have and I also recognize the political slant that certain "official" histories have taken. Its generally accepted by the majority of military professionals, that the German military was more combat effective than the Russians or the Western Allies. The debate is in just how much. The statistical analysis is almost always traced back to the work done by Col DuPuy, who did his work when he put together the Quantified Judgement Model. Of the 89 or so US Army divisions, you would be hard pressed to find 10% of them that could be considered "better than normal". The US personnel replacement policy made sure that any expertise a division had, was diluted as soon as it received replacements. Lastly, who do you think the US Army copied after WWII? Not to mention the Russians and Israel.

JerseyJohn is exactly right as to why the UK MPPs should not be increased because of the Commonwealth.

Skanvak I agree with you. Manpower is a constraint that became critical for Germany, Russia, and the UK. If you look at the newbie thread, one of the things I proposed a long time ago as a SC "enhancement", was a fixed unit limit (ie force pool limit). For the last year, I haven't played a SC game unless we used my Limit House Rules. But I don't want a force pool limit in SC2. That concept was fine years ago, because nothing was better, back when you were using boardgames. In todays world, especially with a computer game, there is no excuse not to have a system in place that can model manpower (and oil). Let the computer figure out how much military manpower you get each year. Let the computer keep track of your manpower pool, which is reduced by the manpower requirements of each unit. And let the computer show you a running count of your manpower pool, so you can see what its costing you to replace those strength point losses. Now, the Russian losses on the Eastern Front have some meaning, as while they may lose, they are bleeding the Germans of thier manpower.

The uniqueness of the Waffen SS and similar groups within a nations military is a fascinating subject to study. While almost every nation can form unique (I hesitate to use the term "elite") units at a smaller level (company and battalion sized), its very rare for them to be at the higher end of unit organizations (divisions and corps). The US had its equivalent in WWII, they were called US Marines. What made the Waffen SS and the US Marines unique, were the fact that they were a seperate group, within the military forces of thier respective nations. The German Army and US Army (like any other large organizations), have to enforce a certain standarized way of approaching and doing things. Thats fine for the majority, but what about those mavericks who feel constrained by those rules? Or even worse, want to try it a different way? The Marines and the Waffen SS both gave those individuals someplace to go. And for those organizations to survive, they have to either become better (or be perceived as better) than the norm, else they will be absorbed into the normal military, losing thier identity and uniqeness. Back to SC... How do you represent this in a wargame? Or should you? Most of us know that the Waffen SS got the better equipment before the regular German Army units. And for the individual soldiers in the Waffen SS, I believe stating that he was more "fanatical" than your typical German soldier would be accurate (and it would be equally appropriate for a US Marine as well). So a "typical" Waffen SS division would have more combat power than a "typical" German Army division. Problem is, the Waffen SS divisions were spread out among the German Army higher formations (Corps and Armies). So what it comes down to, is that the German military units, should on average, be better than thier opponents. And SC does let us represent that, by the experience bar. Even so, it still doesn't seem right, not to have a Waffen SS unit on the map. So when I get a German Corp with 3 or 4 bars of experience, I rename them to "Waffen SS". Then I'm happy.

Ok then, lets think this through. While I did the exact calculations awhile back (and they are posted if someone wants to look up "economic comparisions") I'm doing this from what I remember. UK production will be reduced by about 40 MPPs. Russ production will be reduced by about 180 MPPs. US will go from 180 MPPs to 400 MPPs. Campaign game that starts in '39, would have UK with about 75 MPPs, Russ around 180 MPPs. Germanies 120 MPPs is ok, but Frances 115 MPPs is way too much. But worry about France another time. US has 400, which would please the "Go USA! USA!" crowed, but can't use any of its MPPs until a little later, say somewhere in '40. Typical game, Germany does its thing and by early '40, has 300 or more MPPs. US activates, and gets to decide where to spend 220 MPPs as Lend Lease. Germany has no reason to delay a '41 Barborossa, unless it is mopping up some neutrals or trying to take the Middle East (if it hasn't already). But we now have a strange condition. Sealion sure looks attractive, especially because UK is on a tight budget, and hasn't had enough MPPs to replace the losses its sufferred so far. So Germany launches Sealion and unlike the historical one, it is almost a guaranteed success because Air is the dominant factor in SC. Spain now joins the Axis, if it hasn't been invaded already. Then Germany turns its attention towards Russia. And despite how many MPPs US Lend Leases to Russia, its over. Thats the kind of game you want? What I was trying to point out, with what Mr H has done in the economic design of SC and its MPP allocations, is that the game is geared for a big showdown in Russia (like it was in real life). So Russia, the US and UK MPPs are all based on playability, not reality. So you can't give the player control over Lend Lease, because it destroys the design, which destroys the playability. And while you could give the player control over small MPP amounts, allowing them to be transferred back and forth and calling it Lend Lease, its what designers call "chrome". It may be pretty, but it does nothing. Mr H decided to not bother with it (which also reduced the amount of software code he had to write). So while SC2 may add "Lend Lease", I doubt the amounts are going change the playability balance between the various nations. And bloated software does no one any good.

SeaMonkey Your problem is what mathematicians call "standard deviation". Or what normal people call ****ty luck. You gotta learn to roll them bones better.

I believe the answer is in both of your posts. Spain (along with Sweden), was a pro-Axis neutral. If Spain (or Sweden) was attacked by the Axis, Turkey would have went Allied with almost no hesitation. For playability purposes, having the entry date vary is fine, but the end result of Turkey being in the Allied camp should be a given. Any belief that Turkey would stay neutral, after watching Germany backstab Spain (or Sweden), is mistaken. Everything points the other way. And for that same reason, it should make the Axis Minors hestitate about if or when they joined. Included in that definition would be Finland. While true that Spain would have had partisans, its also true that France had partisans. The real question is if those partisans would have had a major effect, large enough to be represented like the Russian and Yugo partisans are. And lets not forget Vichy France. Even more important though, would be a rework of the economic system. It needs to be changed, to better reflect the realities of occupying other nations and the type of economic system the Germans had. Do that right, and occupying certain nations is outweighed by the realities of what you gained.

"Basically, anyone could work out the population levels of various countries as well as the historical size of their armies in WW2, and then, in the editor, list the limits on the unit types that each branch of service can build." Its not that easy. And the problem with a force pool limit, is that you restrict the flexiblity of going ahistorical. For example, what if Germany somehow was able to untilize its manpower better and take the manpower that was wasted in the Luftflotte field divisions and was able to put them into the Army. How many more divisions would that have raised?

Edwin P And what would you do with the existing "lend lease" that is already built into the UK and Russian production?

Way off topic... time someone locked this up.

If anyone is interested in playing For the People, please contact me at my e-mail address (see my profile).

SeaMonkey I think I understand the concept. But if we have these special AF Doctrines, that give us bonuses, then unless we reduce the basic tech bouses, don't we run the risk of potentially having the cumulative bonus increases from basic tech and AF doctrine giving us extremely large factors?

Rambo, Its not a computer game. Its a boardgame, one of the newer card driven ones.

For all of you newbies, don't let Rambo bother you. He likes to talk smack. Some of the other oldtimers around here, have also picked up that bad habit. Deal with it like you do infomercials, the National Enquirer, TV talk shows, etc.

Some of the posts on this are getting way off track. Its hard for Westerners to fully understand Japanese behaviour in WWII. Two different mindsets and two different approaches. Japanese concept of death greatly differed from the Western concept of death. That different mindset is also why we have issues with the way the Japanese treated our prisoners of war. We had the same problems in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Even the Russian mindset is not something we fully understand, and as such, we wrongly justify or explain certain Russian behaviour during WWII. But entering discussions about these things, is like discussing politics or religion, it gets heated very fast and people get thier feelings hurt. So perhaps its better we don't do those things here? After all, if it wasn't for SC, most of us probably wouldn't have anything in common with each other, so lets stick to why we are here. Atomic bombs... one hex effect is more than enough. There should be a limit on the number you could build. And the research should be extremly difficult to achieve. As I mentioned in another post, for certain tech advances, they should have a pre-req of multible basic techs. For example, Strat Bomber tech level 5 should be a pre-req for a atomic bomb, along with Industrial TL5. And you shouldn't be able to start researching an atomic bomb until you achieved Industrail TL5. So after you get Industrial TL5, you can now put a research chit in Atomic Bomb, TL0. There should also be a % chance (thats your que Edwin P), that as you achieve each TL advance in Atmoic Bombs, that there is some sort of catatrosphic accident which shuts the program down. With the above, Germany would be foolish to attempt to research Atomic bombs, because before they achieve it, they will have lost. No one else can afford it except for the US, and then only at the expense of other items, like ground units and aircraft. And now we are back to where we started. Atomic weapons where a fanatsy weapon that only the super rich could pursue. Germanies atomic research program was a search for an alternative energy source, not for weapons. So if you want to put it in as a toy for the US to strive for, go ahead. But if you put it in for anyone else, you are no longer portraying WWII, you are doing a Fanatsy War with WWII weapons. If you are going do that, might as well put the Lizards in (reference Harry Turtledove's novels). [ March 28, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]