Ivanov

I agree, that introducing oil as a important factor in the game, would be something completely new and and would require some significant changes in the game mechanic - but why not? We are talking about SC3 - a new system that is ( or will be ) in making, so I think some novelties are welcomed. I would be dissapointed if the new game would differ from the present system, only in having better graphics. For example the WWII SC3 campaigns wouldn't use national morale but for change new features of manpower and oil reserves could be introduced. As for oil - it's possession or lack shouldn't affect the build limits but for example the mobility of units that their motorization tech is 1 or 2 and the readiness of the air units. Depending on the number of that kind of units, players should have some minimum requirements of the oil in their possession ( that could be calculated automatically by the games engine and represented by a chart ), that would allow them to achieve the full mobility and readiness of all their motorized and air assets. It could happen automatically or if we wanted to go for more complex solutions, then the player could allocate the "fuel" to the units manually, in case the oil reserves are bellow the required minimum for that particular number of motorized units. The mechanic of that process, would be similar to reinforcing the units. It would definitelly be one more task for the players to perform, but I don't see it as an overly complex procedure. The lack of oil would efectively limit the number of active motorized units and help to avoid such a unrealistic situations like having all the german units being upgraded to the motorization tech level 2.

I repeat - I agree the manpower pool and oil should be central issues in the WWII games, just ast the National Morale is central to the WWI game. That could be something the the game engine is calculating automatically. National Morale is a good example here - it was a completely new feature in the WWI game, yet did not require any extra effort nor actions from the players. In case of manpower pool, the players would just need to remember that it is limited and in case of oil that it is important to possess it:)

I am pretty sure that right now, they are "beer & pretzel" units

Here is the list of my proposals for the new features for the SC3: 1. Units should be able to attack in any given moment during the friendly turn - not only straight after or before the movement.Basically players should be able to move the units, then perform some other tasks ( move other units ) and then return to the moved units and attack with them. 2. Stacking. I don't think that stacking all type of units would be appropiate but in my opinion there should be a possibility of stacking infantry/tank units with "specialized" units like anit-tank, anti-air, artillery and air units. The "specialized" units are smaller then armies or corps and stacking them with the bigger units would be beneficial for the defence. Also the defensive lines shape, in case of stacking, would be more logical because right now the AT or AA units occupy all tile alone and due to that are to easy to destroy, while their role is acctually supporting the bigger units. 3. Units should be able to give a chase after their successful attack ( in case the enemy was destoryed or have withdrawn ), if there would be still some action points left to spend. That would primarily refer to the motorized units in the WWII games. Tanks additionally should be able to attack one more time after giving the chase. This change would be beneficial to the attack as a counterbalance to the defence improvements requested in the prevous paragraph. 4. Antitank units should be able to fire at the attacking units. 5. New modes for the air attack units. New mode to support the defence and new interdiction mode. That was already discussed in the SOE balance thread. 6. New supply model 7. Tiles vs hexes. I personally have nothing against the tiles. Whenever now I come back to some older games, their maps based on the hexes seem to me flat and unimaginative. SC2 is simply prettier

I'm in the camp with... Glabro;) I think the manpower pool should optional, just like the fog of war and other game features. I understand maybe it would make the game too complex for the newcomers, but some seasoned veterans have higher expectations as they gather experience and become more demanding.

Yes - I have forgotten about this chart. Still, if the NM should be decisive, then I think very rarely the two players will end up with exactly the same NM procentage by the end of the last turn. I have already sent an e-mail, with a scoring system proposal, to the Kommandant and let's wait and see what he will come up with.

I just want to say that sometimes I have troubles in understanding the full sense of your posts ( maybe I'm too dumb, maybe your style is not clear enought ) and in this case, I thought you agreed with the NM proposal as the tiebreraker but still wanted to take into account the industrial output. I personaly dread all those "online wars" between the people who are keen to participate in them, just because "the net" allows them to stay anonymus. But I have to admit that your style sometimes seems to me a bit rude and insensitive and due to that I find it slightly annoying. But it's all good. Just leave it.

Those are really good ideas, not to say brilliant ones!

I think we could only compare the number of the destroyed units - I don't see a way and need to compare all the MMPs lost. Is there such a chart that sumarizes all the MMPs lost? Let's not complicate too much. The MMPs lost during each combat have a effect influence on the NM loss. Anyway I doubt the both players will often end up with the same NM procentage at the end of the last turn. So if the NM will be a decisive tiebreaker, then there will be rarely a need to count the casuaties. I repeat - the losses influence the NM drop.

Comerade - I didn't miss the part where you agreed with me, but I simply still don't agree with your proposal ( please don't miss that part ). Anyway let's send the proposals to the Kommandand and see with what he will come up with.

Ok cool - you will receive it later on:)

I'm not convinced about this method - counting the resource values seems to be very impractical... I propose the comparison of the NM values and the casualty rates. Shall we vote?

That's what I thought. So does it mean that the poor Kommandant will have to go through each map with the calculator in his hand in order to sum up the net value of all the resources in the players possession? Or you mean just comapring the charts - but I really don't know if they represent the net value of the resources or the industrial strenght multiplied by the industrial tech level?

So how would you go about counting the "nominal" value of the held territories if you exempt the industrial tech upgrades? Maybe should we took into the account GDP per capita or someting like that? Or you just mean taking into the account the possession of some important locations like NM the objectives? That would make more sense in my opinion. I don't think that the industrial power should be a decissive factor in the game. Historically the military spendings and industiral output of the Entente was few times bigger than the one of the CP, yet Germany ultimately lost the war due to the wrong strategic decissions, like launching the urestricted naval warfare or combat related issues like the manpower crisis after the 1918 offensives. As for the importance of the minors, arguably the impact of the Bulgarian surrender had a huge impact on A-H and consequently on the German leadership.

Ps. In my opinion making the income a decisive factor is a totaly inaceptable, because it depends greately on the luck that players have with the industrial tech research. So if industrial output was to be decisive, it would mean that obviously both players would invest maximum chints in that type of research and ultimately the one with better luck, would end up with higher production at the end of the game. National Morale depends entirely on the strategy and the combat conduct so those two factors should be considered as the tiebreakers.

I think that Fate Of Nations is balanced in favor of the Entente ( maybe it will change in the 1.04 ). Call to Arms is pretty ok, so maybe a mirror is not necessary... The campaigns have victory conditions on their own, so the tiebreaker conditions would apply, only if both players score the same type of victories at the end of their games, right? How about National Morale ratios ( which is a central issue in the game ) instead of the income and then the casualties ratios? At least that's what I suggest...

I prefer a different division - you Menshevik and me Bolshevik. Sounds more WWI approriate. As a true Bolshevik, I am well mannered and only suggest things. But whoever disagrees with me, will end up in a cold train, on the way to find a new home in Siberia.

I definitely offer myself to be a referee for the next competition ( in case that happenes, I am ready to sarifice myself and abstain from takig part in the tournament as a player ). But for the moment, I reserve a right to speak up whenever I have some doubts and questions in regards to the current competition. Great stuff:) I am glad you are back herr Kommandant;) We do appreciate you effort and understand the sacrificies you make, as we too belong to the working class ( not to the studing class anymore thought )

I honestly don't know who is actually pulling the strings, who is the power behind who and I simply prefer not to know it. What I know, is that Kommandant is the referee and I am suprised to hear more news about the tournament from you, than from him. Whatever. I also think that some important, controversial issues, should be a subjected to the vote. In this way, we will be able to choose the option that is most convinient for the majority and that could be only beneficial for everyone. We are taking part in the first tournament, so there is a need to discuss and work together in order improve it. How can you downplay the importance of the popular voice? I like to think that we are a community of thinking people and surely together we can come up with some interesting, fresh ideas.

It'd be NICE to hear what Kommandant has to say in respect;) Glabros proposal certainly sounds interesting. Any other variants/proposals?

In regards to the players that went missing from the groups, it's pretty simple to resolve, I think. There should be two people from each league passing to the next stage, so if there are for example two guys missing and only three managed to complete their games against each other, it means that the two with the best score out of those three should get through. Regardless the fact that they didn't complete all the games ( which is not a result of their wrongdoings ). If that would mean that some weak players managed to exit from the league due to that - well I know it's maybe not entirely fair but what can we do? Their will be quickly eliminated by the really good guys, who managed to beat all the opponents in their leagues. By the way, for the next competition, in order to avoid that kind of situations, I'd suggest some stricter selection process of the tournament competitors. For starters, I would oblige everyone who want's to take a part in the future tournaments, to sign up as the forum members. In this way it would be easier to put the preassure and perform some kind of ostracism against the ones, who don't take the competition seriously enough or simply cowardly avoid sending back the turns. But returning to the main subject of the previous post, I think that the maximum number of Fate Of Nations games per person in the next phase, should be two. In this way, it would be maybe possible to complete them in three months. So if we will have 16 players, I suggest mini campaigns matches or more gropus, so every participant plays only two FON matches - one as the CP and another as the Entente. Any suggestions?

I don't think that four mirror matches of those mini campaigns in two months were too much. I have managed to complete most of the games by the end of the December. But I have to say, that I cannot imagine three or even four "Fate Of Nations" games at the same time. The turns are extremely long due large number of units and usually take up to one hour to play. I personally, can spare on average one hour per day for the game, so that means that if I'm going to play against the three opponents, I will be sending back the turn every three days. Let's say that FON has roughly 50 turns and that means that it would take me 150 days to complete all the games ( I am not talking about the mirror matches ). That would be only in the best case scenario, I am not planning any holidays, I don't have kids but I can imagine that the situation of some participants may be different... So I just want to say, that the fact that we will have so many competitors in the second phase is going to create huge logistical problems for everyone. I understand that more competitors are eager to play, but let's be practical... I would also ask the tournament staff to show more transparency in how the decisions are made and who is actually taking them. We had a vote about the scoring system - I guess my system didn't go through but let's simply announce it and make the results public. I have another question - how the groups for another phase of the tournament will be established? I hope that there will be some kind of drawing instead of taking arbitrary decission by one of the illusory "referees". Finally I want to thank everyone from the Somme league - as I said at the beginning, the players proved to be serious and up to the task - each of my opponets showed a considerable fighting spirit and seemed to understand what the honour and courage mean.

I don't know how about Glabro, but I'm not buying it at all;) Reorganization would only work in case of partially or temporarily cut off units. The good examples could be here Bastogne or Stalingrad. Bastogne was cut off a little more than on turn, if we would like to represent it in the game and was being resuplied from the air. The 6th army in Stalingrad, was also able to survive some time due to the limited air drops and reorganization, but it's ability to perform any kind of combat, was steadily deteriorating. Due to the current supply system, the game wouldn't be able to simulate the Stalingrad kessel, because the completely surrounded German units with a HQ support, would have their supply value, firmly set well above the value of five.

Ok, thanks. Campaign is looking great by the way:)

I don't see any British armoured formations in the queue. Does some UK and US reinforcements arrive as a result of decision events?