Ivanov

I reality, the small towns had importance for the supply, not because they were "producing supply", but because they were the only places around with some kind of infrastructure, through which the supply line could be led to the units on the front. If we reduce their supply value in the game, the units would be permanently out of supply. We would need to place a HQ in each town in order to strenghten the supply line and that would be practically not possible. In my oppinion the current supply value of the small towns is just a choice of a lesser evil... The other thing is, that if a unit is cut off in a small town ( that is completely surrounded by the enemy units or their zones of control ), it's supply value should be zero If I'm not wrong, during WWII and WWI the supply was distributed form depots established in some distance from the front and if the supply line was cut off, the units were out it and there was no exception. I just cannot imagine a 40 000 German corps lost in Russia getting food and amunition from a razed to the ground small Russian town...

Playing a ghost game in order to replicate the combat results? What a devilish idea! I'm a bit scared now...:eek: Seriously though, I don't even rechearse the scenarios against AI and don't like playing the same campaigns, against the same opponents. The key of winning is a clever overall strategy, not calculating result of each combat. Foch, Ludendorff, Montgomery, Patton or Rommel had only one chance to take right decission at the time and no possibility to repeat their moves. Their only judge is the history... Playing the game I just want to know how it would feel to be in their shoes. The greatest commanders were not mathematicians. They were warriors.

I like that the minor cities have no MMP value. In the older SC2 games, each city had some MMP value and it bothered me a bit. Trust me, there was no industry in cities like Kolomea, Boruysk or Uman:) They were just big villages with no paved roads and most of their citizens were barefoot peasants. The minor cities have some value, because they are important due to the supply and some of them are National Morale objecives. I really don't like that some players ( copying the AI "tactics" ), go for capturing undefended minor cities, just because their are free of enemy units. Of course later, given of the current supply model, it is very difficult the smoke out that kind of units, even if their are completely cut off. It is a amateurish tactic ( that may pay off quite well though ), because the main objective should be a defeat of opponent's armies in the field, not taking defenceless minor cities. Providing minor cities with some MMP values, would further encourage implementation of that kind of unrealistic tactics.

I would still go for an optionion of completely switching off combat result estimate. Then if we would like to go more advanced, that kind of information about enemy units like their morale or readiness, would depend on aerial recon and intelligence tech level. By the way the current intelligence reports, that randomly spot 2 or 3 enemy units, are not very useful and sometimes create more confusion than actual help ( unless a hiding U-boot is spotted ). My favorite is: "A Volkssturm unit has been spotted in Breslau" -Oh yes, thank you very much. This is a highly useful information about a top secret, crack German unit. Mr chief of intelligence - you are fired!

Where can you download 1938 Calm Before The Storm? Is it available for everyone?

I just would like to add one more thought to the subject above. What is the most prevailing and haunting image of the WWI warfare? Waves of infantry going over the top, which are then subsequently slaughtered by the enemy's fire in a futile attempt to achieve a breakthrough. Those attacks were always preceded by days or even weeks of preliminary artilery bombardment and the soldiers were occupying their trenches during long months before the attack finnaly happened. It gave them many opportunities to gather a lot of intelligence about the enemy they were facing. Yet the prolonged bombardment and intelligence, in many cases didn't guarantee a success of the upcoming offensive. There was always a big margin of risk and uncertainty involved. Due to the fact that in the game the losses estimate is displayed now before each combat, most of the attacks are successful and result in destroying of the enemy's unit. An option to switch off the combat losses estimate, would be a great step forward in order to recreate the atmosfere and horror of the WWI or WWII battlefields.

This actually happenes in the game but does not help too much in slowing down. It is correct that in reality the offensives were limited by the supply but on more general scale. Even countries like Germany or France were not able to sustain such a protracted offensives as you are able to perform in the game. In order to represent it, the designers would need to implement a completely new supply model, somehow connectd to the industrial capacity of each country and it's national morale... Again - it would complicate things too much. Disabling losses prediction would be a simple sollution to this problem, that would be possible to introduce even with the next patch. Bill? Hubert?

What you propose certainly makes sense, but it would in my opinion complicate things a too much. What we are asking here for, is just an option of switching off losses estimate. Whoever wishes to see the combat result displayed before each combat just as it is now, could have a possibility of choosing it via settings. Keeping things simple is a key to a success of a SC series. As a moderetely experienced player, I promise here solemnly that have no intention of calculating combat results based on calculable or any other factors. It would just kill all the fun for me

Slowing down the game would be in my opinion actually a big plus. You may have noticed that in the games you play ( against both AI or a Humanized Terminator ), the course of action tends to unfold much faster, than in the reality. For example in WWI games the Germans usually manage to capture Verdun in 1915 and knock Russia out of the war in 1916. In WWII campaigns the Allies are usually ready to launch the D-Day in 1943 and so on. It happens partly due to the fact that with the current losses prediction system, the players are not affraid to go on the neverending offensive. Sometimes it's worth slowing down a bit in order to enjoy the beautiful nature and views around us...

Brilliant idea Ghost of War! It would be another step towards representing the real fog of war in the game. Bill, here I post the image again:

I would strongly opt for a possibility of disabling combat losses prediction via the advance settings options. It would be another important "fog of war" factor in the game. The WWI & WWII generals could never exactly predict if their offensive would be a success or not. They just knew more or less what enemy units were they facing and what was their own strenght. Based on that they were taking the decisions if to attack or if to stay in the defensive and gather some more units and support in order to gain a superiority, that would guarantee them success in the upcoming offensive. In one of the games in currently play as Entente ( "Fate of Nations" ), the CP lost 7 corps on the Western Front during the first two turns. If I didn't see the losses prediction before each combat, it would force me to act more cautiously and the match wouldn't degenerate into such a neverending slaughter festival. Here an example: Based on the losses prediction I would never attack the German Ist Bavarian corps, because it's obvious that it would only result in unnecessary British casualties. If the potential losses were not visible, I might risk an attack considering the strenght of the Canadian unit. There are of course ways to calculate the combat result, considering the unit morale, readiness and the terrain, but it is not possible to do it before each combat. The bottom line is, that without the combat losses predition, the game would be more unpredictable and even more exciting:) Comrade Ivanov Ps. Maybe there is already a way to swich of the losses prediction but I haven't noticed? :eek:

It's all about the scale of the game. For example in September of 1939 the Royal Navy had on the home waters and Atlantic ( Med not included ) 9 battleships, 35 cruisers, 95 destroyers, 25 submarines and 4 carriers. Obviosly more than in the game because if I remember well, at the beginning of the Storm Over Europe campaign in the same theatre, RN starts for example with 2 carriers and no subs at all... So in fact a ship ( however it may be named after a historical predecessor ) represents a bigger battlegroup or a task force. As if to comparison between the carriers and land based air fleets. I think they just shouldn't be compared at all:) It's just like my favorite example - German and Allied tank groups. The Allied tank groups simply didn't exist:) Yet they appear in the game and I have no objections to it. As we said before, a carrier in SC represents a bigger task force of more than one ship and secondly most of the times in would be probably hunting the subs, not combating enemy's airforce. Anyway it is limited to operating in the coastal areas and it represents the usual Allied air superiority around Britain or in the Med.

I would prefer to keep the ships very expensive, just as they are now. It prevents Italy and Germany from building enormous naval forces and helps to maintain British naval superiority, which is one of the few trumps that the Allies possess at the beginning of the war. The high cost of ships compared to the land units, reflects also the lenghtly and technologically complicated proces, that was involved in shipbuilding programs. In reality, the countries like Germany, were actually able to field much faster let's say few armiey groups, than build numerically significant naval force and the game is reflecting it very well indeed.

A very good point. I agree that the sub supply level should decrease everytime it dives. It just happenes too often that U-boots are able to evade few destroyer attacks in a row.

Let's not forget that what the Germans actually performed in 1914 on the Western Front, was quite diluted version of the original Schlieffen Plan. The original version was much more radical. German armies were supposed to strike even more rapidly on the northen wing, attacking also through the neutral Holland, leaving Alsace-Lorraine vulnerable to the French counter attack. The tretcherous plan was to envelope the counter attacking forces from the north and winning the war quickly and then turing against Russia. In my opinion, such an extreme approach could be successful, however it was also much bigger gamble than the later, more conservative version proposed by Helmuth von Moltke and implemented in 1914. I think that it would be a really great idea, to make a new scenario or campaign in which the German forces in 1914 would be placed on the Western Front, accordingly to the original plan of the brilliant Count Alfred von Schlieffen. That would be probably the greatest and most thrilling "what if" game ever made:)

I totally agree. It's all about keeping the balance right. Italy making too much MMPs' would be able to single handed defeat or at least stop the British in the Med. Weak Italy ( just like in the history ) is vulnerable and may need some German assistance. That gives the Allies an opportunity to strike the soft underbelly of the Festung Europa and streaches the Axis armies, which is a plus;) And what about USA having industrial tech level 2 in 1943 and making roughly miserable 350 MMPs'? US during WWII had already firmly established a status of the biggest industrial power of the world and yes, it was waging the war on two fronts, but the main effort was directed towards winning the war with Germany, not Japan. Still, I think that limiting the industrial output of the US for the game purpouses is correct. The armed forces of Uncle Sam may not be involved in combat for some prolonged period of time and too big production would allow them to expand too much, limiting the playability of the game. What is deeply disturbing to me though and this subject has been discussed already, is the fact that German economy thanks to exploitation of the conquered resources, may somewhere round 1943 reach the level of 1000MMPs' per turn... The fact that Germany owes for example an ex Soviet coal mine, shouldn't mean that it's full ( or nearly full ) production capacity should be converted into MMPs' that can be then spent in 100% on the military production or research. It's not even a point of the game being realistic ( because this aspect of it is not ). If the Germany should ever be able to win the war, it should be due to the wise military strategy, competence of it's armed forces and the intelligent diplomacy, not due to the economical supremacy. Amen

Good luck:)

In one of the games played by me, my opponent did not invade Belgium as Germany. It allowed me to defend the shorter front in the West, only with the French units and spent all the British MMPs' into research and diplomacy. So in mid 1915 Belgium joined Entente anyway, due to the efforts of English diplomacy. It opened a route for the already well upgraded UK forces, to attack, unprotected German northern flank. Using diplomacy was more fruitful than invasion, because it didn't have any negative consequences on the US attitude towards the Entente and the whole Belgian army with the potential for being upgraded to the Brit tech levels, joined my forces In my opinion not invading Belgium by Germany in 1914 is a gift to the Entente. The French and Brit forces at the beggining of the game are fare more stretched than the Gremans. Not invading Belgium by Germany, gives them time to regroup and gather sufficient forces for the future operations. I don't think that there is a better concept to wage the war in the West, than the one propossed by Herr von Schlieffen long time ago

Good question:)

Very interesting an valuable assessement Ludi. Definitely inspiered me to do some further research about the naval warfare. I just would like stress, that I don't expect the game to be 100% historicaly acurate. Such an orthodoxical approach, would probably result in making the game unplayable. I agree that recreating the atmosphere of the dark days of WWI and WWII is the most valuable aspect of SC, at least from my point of view. That's why seeing packs of subs sinking the flower of Royal Navy bothered me so much:)

Hi Hubert, thank you for your clarification on the subject. I've just runned a quick test that has confirmed your words. This is what would happened if the sub attacked the BB after the movement: 2:1 - not a very favourable result for the sub against the battleship. So the key tactics would be to avoid ending up the movement next to the U-boots. I guess the fog and chaos of the war made me think, that the enemy's subs vere more dangerous than they actually are:) The thing is, that if there are too many of them around, they can really cause some considerable devastation, especially if they are so difficult to destroy. This would get back to my previous point - limiting the number of free subs and increasing the cost of the research. Once again, thank you for the clarification. Strategic Command is the best game ever:)

I agree that the players should have an opportunity to develop very advanced subs, if such is their wish. The problem in my opinion is, that the sub research is too cheap now ( I'm talking about WWI campaigns ). It is not a problem for Germany making 400 or 500 MMPs' to invest 50MMPs' each turn into U-boot developement. Also, limiting the number of the subs that the German player gets for free, could solve some of the issues, that we have discussed here. It would be a players decision if to invest in this type of warfare and could prevent the apperance of too many, too advanced U-boots. I think this solution could satisfy those who opt for the maximum realism and those who would like to explore some alternative, new paths that the game offers. And of course the current effectiveness of the subs against other vessels should be addressed somehow, that's all

Nice one Hyazinth:) I quess we have simmilar experiences operating and fighting the subs. Thanks Bill I honestly was not aware how it worked. I was kind of waiting for the argument about exploiting alternative historical scenarios offered by the game:) I think the biggest thrill and excitement this game gives me, is the possibility of exploiting many potential historical "what ifs'. The thing is that the fun is much bigger ( at least for me ), if those alternatives are put within some logical frame of the historical realism. The Great War for example, gives us an opportunity to see how the First World War could be won by the Central Powers. After defeating Russia, there was a big chance that Germany could have won on the Western Front in 1918. Allied armies were weakened, the Germans achieved the numerical superiority and the American forces were too few and still unprepared. What wasn't achieved by Ludendorff can be achieved by any of us in the game. Now, was it possible for the Kaiserliche Marine to defeat Royal Navy by using U-boots against it's surface vessels? Absolutely not. It was technically impossible. In order to get the upper hand in the sea war, the Germans would have to build a lot of classic battleships and cruisers, but it would take a lot of time - a lot more than the five years that lasted the war. The use of submarines was a shortcut tactics. A brilliant idea, how to affect the British war economy, without actually having to face the might of the Royal Navy in an open battle. We may say that it was the first asymmetric campaign waged in the modern times. Asymmetric - means choosing a completely different approach of waging the war, and trying to achieve different goals by the different means, than the enemy would be expecting us. In another words, the U-boots were supposed to be unleased against the Allied convoys not the fleet. A thing that had never been done before. Once more point about the realism. As I said before, alternative scenarios are exctiting, when they were also possible to materialize in the times that the game is representing. In the WWII campaigns of SC2, the players can for example invest into development of rockets. As we all know, it was actually done by the Germans during the Second World War. By investing in that kind of research, the player may increase the effectiveness and range of the rockets. Would it be a nice alternative if the player could upgrade his rockets in the last stage, into intercontinental ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear warheads? Well, at least for me, it wouldn't be a cool option... I truly understand that everyone has a different expectations from ther game, but at least for me the historical realism is one of the things I value the most. At the end, I just want to stress, that the Battlefront team has done an amazing work in this matter so far and I hope none feels offended by my long, persistent and repetitive tirades...

Because a real example is always the best way to prove the point, so here we go: To my big suprise, my opponent form the current game, has made a third attempt of attacking the British Fleet on the Channel waters. Please not the miserable French cruiser. It has been first "softened" by the U-boots which attacked it after they were moved. The subs didn't suffer any losses in the proces. The geniuine tactics of my enemy is to attack my destroyers with his Battleships or Cruisers and then lunching his subs against my big ships. A very smart thing to do, which is based on exploiting the flaws of the current system. In this way, he's surface vessels don't risk any serious damage attacking the destroyers and his subs are safe from harm against my BB's and CA's. This time I am not going to risk a confrontation and will withdraw to the ports in order to reinforce my fleet. The Royal Navy has been forced to a retreat by a force of consisting in 40% of U-boots. And this is WWI we are talking about here... Don't get me wrong. I have experience in plaing this game. I know what I'm doing and I do it well. Here some statistics to prove it: I have no doubts that I will win in the end. I also think that my opponent made a mistake wasting the MMP's on reinforcing and upgrading his navy in the eye of his huge loses suffered by his ground units. The bottom line is, that the situation like the one from the example above, feels very wrong to me. Xwormwood and Bill advocate use the of the destroyer battle groups in order to counter the subs. I am sure that this tactics works really well when it's employed against lone U-boots and automatically forces them to a defensive. That's true and pays off well, but only if the U-boots are used against the convoys, far from the bases and without the support of the surface vessels. A lot of players will simply automatically follow the historical path and employ subs in this way. In that case the system works well and seems to be realistic. An innovative and determined player may take a different approach, just as my opponent did, by abusing the current flaws. In the current game, he hasn't used his U-boots agains the convaoys at all. Why to risk a loss a of a sub far away from the base in exchange of few convoy MMP's? It's better to try sinking British Battleships, especially when National Morale is at stake. Honestly, I would do exactly the same in order to win. The bottom line is - the current system, in which U-boots are such a versitile weapons of war, encourages abuse, which is resulting in a unrealistic warefare that may even decide the results of the game.

I think that the German WWI & WWII navies would nearly always take the beating due to the numerical superiority of the Allied navies, in most of the possible game scenarios. The problem is, that due to the present sub capabilities it would take too long and we will get the unreralistic type of warfare going on. I like the previous point about the potential difficulties of the coordination between the subs and the surface vessels in the WWI conditions. It's also the realism we are fighting here for... In reality the German fleet was always to weak to risk an the open confrontation, on let's say the the Channel waters. Due to that, we could observe the wide spread use of raiders, because trying to stay undetected was the best survival tactic prefered by the lone, German seawolfs :eek: With the current system, the German player may risk suprise raids against separate Allied battlegroups and win. With the sub screening, this tactic could be very fruitful, spare the Germans confiderable losses and enable them to get the upper hand in some future. Another very good point. In the current system, the subs may be set to the "silent" mode. I am not entirerely sure how it improves it's stealth abilities ( I have rather more experience fighting the U-boots than commanding them) Any comment on the "silent" mode feature?