nomorebullshyt

Original from boardgame, DDAY Avalon Hill circa 1960's

OK, we're good with 50 miles/click, not unrealistic for a few days retreat. I forget, whether tis 25 miles/day for normal infantry march...I think that's close enough. Then a 50 mile retreat is not far out, a 100 mile or two click retreat in haste is feasible with a step loss due to the route. Not over the rainbow to me. Considering the scale of the Global game, then an abstract retreat where the unit drops off the field and reappears at the nearest friendly HQ, City or Port would satisfy the units Retreat/Route with a step loss for the endeavor. I've attached a copy of one or possibly the first Combat Results Tables ever for perusal and reference. There are many others that fit the game scale of SC2/WaW such as the games Pearl Harbor/Games Design Workshop and Third Reich/Avalon Hill. These would fit nicely into the SC2 game. I (we) can discharge all the email here and there. I only want to see SC2 incorporate an improvement to the combat routine with a variable result in the form of a retreat or shatter result. The status quo of Stand and Die on the land and sea combat works fine for many gamers. I am here only to try to cheer on SC2 players and the SC2 Team to the next level of development which would not add complication to game play.

I do not know the map scale of the game?

Recently I learned from a British Admiralty 1942 claim that a heavy cruiser is equivalent to 240 tanks. That triggered a memory of Hitler saying, as memory serves, "I don't see a battleship anymore, I see 200 - 300 Tigers". Y'know where this is going...The Production Cost of a Tank Corps, if there's 500 or more tanks, then the Cost of a Battleship and Cruisers should be less than that of a Tank Corps. My estimation is that the BB in SC2 may be 100 points too much, and the CAs (assuming they represent 2) are 50 or so over priced.

Ok, the infantry company, 100 men, example was for easy % idea. If your Corps in Minsk losses 30 - 40% you're in trouble. Sometimes it is better to live and fight another day. Other times the death and annihilation of a formation will serve us well. That, of course, suggests another game option: "Hold Fast" or "Stand to the Last Man" which is how SC2 is now. It there is a remnant when your turn comes then that is a good thing.

While playing Allies, Middleast Theater: Declared war on Iraq, a UK infantry joins up with the French Syrian unit on the road to Iraq. France falls and both the French and UK units surrender in Syria? The French unit I can understand, but the South African division?

I am referring to the game Strategic Command + WaW. In this game the player moves units to and fro. With Fog of War, combat results or even probabilities of combat or contact in that move or the next players move. Then we have Headquarters with "field commanders" that may or may not be involved with a combat situation; only to add their respective factors to the combat. Contact made with units coming out of the fog of war is a form of limited intelligence. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that a player's intelligence is to blame for enemy units and subsequent combat when the enemy units, strength, inherent modifiers, their HQ modifiers, air support, CVs, ships, artillery etc are not there or were not there before contact. That is why I started this dialogue. Here is a good analogy: We are in a rifle company with one hundred men. We start the week in good order and dug in. Suddenly we are hit with aerial bombs and a nasty artillery barrage...poof thirty of our boys are done and many wounded some in shock. Now we see enemy infantry approach with tank support, ready for an attack. How long do we hold out for this WEEK? Stand and die? Or does our Sergeant tell us to bug out, since the Lieutenant is already dead...? I appreciate and enjoy the fog of war feature. It is my view that the game doesn't provide us with an AI that will make some command and control If/Then decisions when units are hit over and over again in one turn. The remedy is to modify the CRT, there are D6, D8, D10 and D20 Combat Results Tables that are not convoluted excercises for Code writers. The Retreat parameters are key elements for the job. I'm not a code writer, I used to deal with em but don't have the knowledge. I believe that when a unit suffers 30 - 40% losses it should slip into the probabilities of the Retreat line. Given the scope of SC, land units would have to retreat two and maybe suffer another hit in doing so, a 50% probability. If the CRT were to have a unit Shattered result, then the unit would leave the field and then show up at the nearest City in the following turn with a low randomized strength. That is an alternative to a Unit Destroyed result, when that unit is wiped out completely and returns to the Purchase Pool. nobs

The "Bloody" Combat Results Table(s) used in SC2/WAW tanscends more than the battlefield. The focus is on the game engine acitivities, not what players do if they survive an attack: Aside from the realism or simulation aspect of a unit taking blow after blow from air, sea, land units and a follow up exploitation attack is, with all due respect to all the crew that put this game together, a "dumbing down" of the inherent commanders and the instinct of survival in the face of utter annihilation. If defending units are given and alternative to "stand fast and die" a CRT would be required to do this. A CRT that will cause defenders to retreat, attackers to retreat, a "Shatter" result taking a unit off the board immediately and it reappears the following build phase at a nearby HQ and/or city. These possible results coupled of course with the same variable step losses will benefit the game tremendously. For those units not destroyed will not have to be bought new and MPPS would then be available to stimulate more political activities, R&D etc. Unfortunately, all important tasks involve work and dedication. Working the game code can be a bear, but most of us here understand the "labors of love" when it comes to our war gaming hobby and business. Strategic Command 2 and WaW offers many good features and I'm in the midst of a PBEM now, after multiple solo drives with the game engine. Thank you for reading/listening... Bear at the Blitz

Sorry to repost "SC2 Issue" but "Issue" is too vague: I am disappointed to see, in WAW, that units do not retreat especially in hopeless situations. Historically, that is not the norm in reality or historically. Since I'm a new poster here, maybe this issue has already been addressed. If not it does deserve attention since it will create great replay value to this potentially great game. It is the Retreat in Combat that holds SC2 back from being a great game. Game wise, in time the player community will eventually know the combinations needed to Win, win and win since there is no variable Retreat in Combat. Thank you. nomorebullshyt aka Bear on the Blitz

I am disappointed to see, in WAW, that units do not retreat especially in hopeless situations. Historically, that is not the norm in reality or historically. Since I'm a new poster here, maybe this issue has already been addressed. If not it does deserve attention since it will create great replay value to this potentially great game. It is the Retreat in Combat that holds SC2 back from being a great game. Game wise, in time the player community will eventually know the combinations needed to Win, win and win since there is no variable Retreat in Combat. Thank you. nomorebullshyt aka Bear on the Blitz