With Clusters

In someone else's scenario (a wierd one, to be sure), why the hell not? But buying a bunch of cheapo jeeps or kubelwagens to do the same in a QB is a tad weasily, IMO.

Did a search on this topic, but there didn't seem to be any definitive information. How does the "hide" command work for vehicles? It it only usefull during setup of a battle, for vehicles on defense (supposing cammo netting and such has had time to be placed)? If so, how usefull is it, in terms of getting spotted or not? What sort of terrain is necessary? Does it only work (if it works at all) in "spotted trees"? What about "brush", or behind a hedge? I just can't figure out if the order is worth a damn. Hate to give the command, and then just watch the vehicle get plunked w/o even firing back, because it is vainly trying to "hide"!

Huh? :eek: :confused:

The trick is how all this is handled in a multi-player game. An Italian player might not enjoy everyone packing up and going home once Berlin is captured, if he still has something to play for (an unusual situation to be sure realistically, but perhaps not so unusual if the more experienced player was given Italy to balance out a more novice player who would be given Germany). Or what about where the Russian player goes down, and the UK and/or US player wants to fight on (and say support partisans, or any USSR minor allied nation, if such has occured), or on the flip side, the Russians fighting on if the UK has gone down (more likely to be sure), with maybe the Russians stepping in to prop up a formerly Allied Spain or Turkey (Communist/Socialist/Republican party comming into power there or something, one might imagine, perhaps?)?

Which is entirely true in a 2 player game. But in a multi-player game, the remaining players may wish to stick it out (especially if there are time related "victory conditions" for each major power, for example). But if the whole diplomatic structure of the game is being changed, than there are a lot more potential minors to be considered than either Commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) and "major" minor countries such as Spain or Turkey. Lots of new variables to consider here, what with many neutrals being able to join either side in the conflict...

Oh, there's been plenty of speculation

What would the Russians' situation have been then?

Uh... ain't touching that w/ a 10 meter pole...

The trick is other minors, especially Axis ones. What happens to a German allied Spain or Turkey if Berlin falls? Do they "join" with Italy? I guess at that point, the game is pretty much over anyway, but especially with the multi-player option (especially if there are going to be variable "victory conditions"), I suspect the Italian player would want them to 'stick around'. Just something to consider with all the changes in store with SC2...

The problem with having every minor country be "independent" is that their MPPs must be regarded as "independent" also (as opposed to SC1 and most other strategic games, where a minor's resources join the economic "pool" of their major power "patron"). While that would certainly be more realistic, it might just be too complicated (to be most realistic, perhaps the minor's should not just be "independent" in terms of economics, but in terms of play also - let the minors not only control their money, but also purchasing and deployment also - but how irritating would that be?). I do like the idea of assigning a new "patron", if their previous major power "patron" is eliminated, but that would probably depend on the circumstances of each individual minor when such even takes place...

Then we'd need another economic 'counter' figure to go along with MPPs (not just counting money, but one counting barrels of oil too, and how they are expended). Just don't see that happening for SC2, not at this juncture...

That's a very interesting idea. If implimented though, there should be the ability to "overwhelm" the patrol if the attacker has a certain level of air superiority (in numbers or tech).

Um, this is slightly off topic, and someone has probably come up with this idea before, but perhaps to improve FOW, and give recon units a greater role, would be for the new game engine (CMX or whatever) to give each player 2 "maps" to work from. One would be an intelligence derived topographic map for the whole battlefield, looking exactly like what a commander on the field might have (lines and drawings on a paper map). The other map/screen would be the same as what we see currently in CM (not a map exactly, but the view of the action, from all the different angles, live action, etc.). But if the battle area is "new" to any side's units, they would have to "explore" visually (think something like the blacked out area in Empire) to see the terrain as it actually is (and of course there could be discrepencies between the 'paper' map and the actual combat screen) when it comes into LOS. Defenders would most likely have a big advantage as they would usually "know" (and thus be able to see) all the ground on the battle screen, but the attacking force would have to "discover" the territory as it advances. In a meeting engagement, both sides would be "blind" as to the terrain they were entering into. Am I beating a dead and previously mentioned horse? If so, sorry for the interuption, please continue with the thread as usual

What do we mean by "run silent" in WWII? The subs were all diesel (no nukes), and I thought that they had to spend most of their time on the surface (where the oxygen is ), while recharging their bateries (and this is when they were usually spotted by planes?), diving only when commencing an attack, or trying to avoid one. Just how long were WWII subs able to stay submerged, and how long did it take to recharge the batteries? Didn't the Germans invent (can anyone say 'sub tech'?) a so-called "snorkel" so they could remain somewhat hidden while using their diesel engines? Perhaps any "run silent" movement should be severly restricted (w/o snorkel tech perhaps). But in one consideres bad weather, I would think a sub with recharged batteries would be almost impossible to find, as it would most likely be "running deap" to avoid the nasty surface weather. On the other hand, it shouldn't be able to spot much of anything itself in such circumstances either.

Sounds like we need some hard data on how exactly air recon worked in WWII, rather than just mathematical guesswork. Unfortunately, I can't help there. But I do doubt that every plane in an airfleet was available for recon if it wasn't otherwise occupied (bombing, intercepting, etc.). I'm assuming (and I could be wrong) that there were dedicated recon airplanes in any air group (weapons removed and replaced with cameras, pilots with specific training for such missions, etc.). Does anyone have any numbers on recon planes, and how they functioned (meaning, did they just tool around looking for anything of interest, or were they given specific 'targets' or 'target areas' for detailed examination, or a combination of both), for the various powers? And lets not forget how intelligence tech might work in regards to aireal recon. Part of the intel tech 'package' might be thought of as increased numbers/training of photo analysts, as well as increased capabilities/numbers of the recon planes and/or camera equipment. Definitely something to consider, IMO. Just my perhaps not so helpfull thoughts...

Wow, he looks normal!

I'm not sure if HQs for minors is definite or not. But I do believe the game will include (optional, of course) "force pool" limits for both minor and major powers. Meaning, if a minor country's unit is destroyed, it can be rebuild, up to a pre-determined max number of units. In old SC, if a minor country unit was destroyed, they couldn't be rebuild, and even if they could, why would you bother, since they'd be less effective, and probably more expensive (if you had any 'industrial' tech). But now, if the major ally has a "force pool" limit also, it may take units from wherever possible, even lower quality minor units if necessary. I doubt that minors will control of their own MPPs though. The major power "patron" will still get their MPPs, and decide whether to 're-build' lost minor units or not. So in an optional game with no "force pool" limits, I doubt you will ever see much in the way of rebuilt minor units (unless somehow they are way cheaper than compareable major power units).

Make 'em three month turns, or yearly turns. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day, and the Empire wasn't built in a 4-5 year campaign either...

Roosevelt, was in an actual 'corps' of collaborators, as in several divisions?

I doubt the MPPs for minor allies will be seperate. In such a case, the major power could certainly "ingnore" the "commando" unit, and decline to rebuild the minor allied units in question if he didn't want the hassle of their not being able to leave their home country until the sneaky "commando" was dealt with. Of course, the easiest way to deal with it might just be to rebuild those units anyway, as they would be right on hand to deal with the interloper. Blashy, I can respect your opinion. Certainly, all such things should be optional/editable (and, if I can guess at any 'trend' from the posts of Huber and his comrades, there probably wont be any "deployment limits" anyhow - too bad IMO ). If I had my way (something that rarely happens, so I won't be broken hearted if it doesn't ), I would still like to see such "limits" as option A (A being the "more historically accurate", if for some less interesting, option). Either way, I'll live, but it is what I'd like to see...

Crap, as usual, I got the idea from 3R (A3R in this case), but I forgot how it was dealt with. I believe the Russians could only occupy the border area if the Finns didn't fight for it (in game terms, meaning putting risking 'counters'). I know it sounds complicated, but A3R was an even more "strategic" game than SC, w/ a smaller map, and less units available. Perhaps Pzrgndr, Desert Dave, or some other 3R fan with a better memory can comment on how A3R handled the Winter War? But if I recall, Pzrgndr (am I getting that right, I hope?) stated that the Winter War will definitely be abstracted in SC2 anyway, so the debate might be moot. Regarding Russian activation, I was under the impression that all major powers were "active" from the get-go, but perhaps not w/ full access to MPPs. So I don't think a pre-Barbarossa war involving Russia and a minor would put the Soviets at full war readiness. Is that correct?

Any ideas on how to include (or maybe not) volunteer (voluntier? damn, I always sucked at spelling ) soldiers from occupied or even neutral countries (heck, even enemy countries! - Remember the American Nazi in Slaughterhouse 5? There were a number of English and French SS members too, I believe)? Foriegn SS, Osttruppen, Algerian mercenaries (fighting for the Allies in this case) and such? Should they be represented in the game? Does anyone have the historical numbers for these? Should they get their own units? Or just add to the "manpower" limit of the country they volunteered to join? How should they be "doled out"? A certain number for every conquered country, or area (say, in the case of the Baltic States, or the Ukrain)? Should Diplomacy give access to volunteers from neutral countries (Spannish volunteers, for example), or more volunteers from occupied countries? Should the Allies get access to such volunteers, or just the Axis? I can't come up with a good opinion on to whether they should even be represented or not, as I don't know how many such folk joined either side. I'm sure they were never organized into organic corps, but then again, neither were "Free" units, but if they existed in corps type numbers, perhaps they should be represented as an abstraction (like the "Free" French).

Make the border area worth some MPPs for the Russians. Subtract any lost Finnish units from that country's "allowable builds" once it joins up again in the Continuation War. Most likely outcome: Russia declares war, but the Axis player declines to defend it. Result: Russian player gets the historically captured area w/ little interuption to game flow. But what if the Axis player decides to resist fully w/ the Finns, etc.....

Also, maybe there could be some way of including pro-Axis "volunteers" from otherwise neutral countries (say, from a neutral Spain or Sweden)? Maybe with Diplomacy? As a step short of a country declaring war and joing w/ a major power? For example, say the German player spends a diplomacy 'chit' on Spain, but comes up just short of getting Spain to become a full minor ally. Instead, he gets 2 corps of Spannish "volunteers" (well, volunteered by Franco, at any rate). He can try again another turn to achieve full Spannish participation (at which point the 2 corps "re-join" the Spannish army, and are included in Spain's "allowable builds"). How does something like that sound?

To continue, ev, I really like your idea that minor countries should not be allowed to "evacuate" while there are enemy units w/in its border. If we want the chance for greater numbers of "Free" units, perhaps we could say that restriction would be dropped one the capitol is in enemy hands (which could represent the destruction of effective central leadership, at which point every unit could make its "own" decision). If say a minor ally winds up with an enemy unit accross its border (to answer Lars' point), all re-constructed units (if I recall, each minor will have its own "allowable builds") must remain in the country until the enemy is driven off, or the minor is conquered. Units allready out of the country at the time an enemy unit enters would be allowed to remain outside, until destroyed (and rebuilt).