Sc3?

[SeaMonkey]

Glabro, you're probably not aware of Kuni's peculiar nature. He's an old hand here, but unfortunately, although unassuming and a very likeable character, he does have "special needs".

So ...don't take his posts in an offensive light, he's a highly regarded wargamer with emphasis on the East Front, just a bit eccentric in his own friendly way. Singling you out means he "likes" you!:eek:

[Kuniworth]

There's no need to be bitter and offensive.

Well excuse me, but I strongly believe that in wargaming you need to be offensive to win.

[SeaMonkey]

Hey Kuni, what's the deal? You must not have WW1 or Gold, don't you realize we have your highly sought after simple retreat rules?

[Kuniworth]

Hey Kuni, what's the deal? You must not have WW1 or Gold, don't you realize we have your highly sought after simple retreat rules?

I know. Do you really want to repeat all the discussions of pro and cons we have had over the last well let me see 10 years?

[SeaMonkey]

Of course not Kuni, you've presented many valuable positions over the years, but this has been one of your pet peeves and Hubert & Bill have seen fit to institute your request.

Now I realize it might not be exactly how you invisioned it, but I believe it works pretty well. Just last night when I made a multi-unit attack with my honorable Nipponese armies against those dastardly Chinese(probably the Commie types) the enemy could not resist and had to retreat from fortified positions. Turned out I had planned on that event and what was waiting in a nearby tile but my four medaled "Expeditionary Force", by far my best formation, which quickly dispatched those running, coward Chinese.

What could be better than that?

[Glabro]

Well excuse me, but I strongly believe that in wargaming you need to be offensive to win.

Ooh, good one. And offensive on the East Front, yes, that's a general to my tastes!

But seriously, sorry if I took you too seriously! I'm a bit ill, perhaps that made my mood sour.

[Glabro]

Another thing I'd want: manpower and oil along with MPPs!

Replace the artificial unit build limits that resemble boardgame component limits with more appropriate limits. This means that too much attrition can cripple you - which is impossible in the current game as you can just keep on rebuilding infinitely.

Also, oil is a good abstraction for all the things required for mechanized units, and would highlight the strategic value of oil locations much better.

Both are, again, simple and intuitive concepts for every player to understand: you mostly need just men to build (foot) infantry, and mostly oil to build aircraft. Both require MPPs of course. Tank units require all three.

[Ivanov]

Another thing I'd want: manpower and oil along with MPPs!

Replace the artificial unit build limits that resemble boardgame component limits with more appropriate limits. This means that too much attrition can cripple you - which is impossible in the current game as you can just keep on rebuilding infinitely.

Also, oil is a good abstraction for all the things required for mechanized units, and would highlight the strategic value of oil locations much better.

Both are, again, simple and intuitive concepts for every player to understand: you mostly need just men to build (foot) infantry, and mostly oil to build aircraft. Both require MPPs of course. Tank units require all three.

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

[acrashb]

Another thing I'd want: manpower and oil along with MPPs!

The road to more-perfect realism ends up at HOI.

The strength of SC has always been workable abstractions, and IMO that should remain a strength. Otherwise we end up researching gearboxes, optics and heat treatment before getting better tanks.

[xwormwood]

The road to more-perfect realism ends up at HOI.

The strength of SC has always been workable abstractions, and IMO that should remain a strength. Otherwise we end up researching gearboxes, optics and heat treatment before getting better tanks.

Yes, you are absolutly right!

[SeaMonkey]

I'm in your camp, acrashb. Let SC remain KISS.

[Ivanov]

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.

[Glabro]

The road to more-perfect realism ends up at HOI.

The strength of SC has always been workable abstractions, and IMO that should remain a strength. Otherwise we end up researching gearboxes, optics and heat treatment before getting better tanks.

Bah humbug! That is hyperbole, pure and simple, says I!

Instead of arguing with hyperbole and alarmism about over-complicating the game with completely irrelevant details like gearboxes, I want people to argue against the arguments themselves. Really, oil and manpower are nothing that the player needs to worry about - except by the most logical of ways - don't get your guys killed. Take care of your oil (clearly marked on the map with the oil graphic as now) and aim to take your enemy's oil. There's a mile between going to the level of detail that HOI lets you do with your industry, and simply representing at a very basic level the two most basic resources of WW2 (and I) - to replace the hard unit cap with one based on your resources.

I am certain that these would be additions that would not make it harder to play the game, but would greatly deepen the WW2 feel and strategy.

However, don't take this the wrong way - I can understand the desire to keep it simple and conserve the game - we're just in different camps - conservate vs liberal (I know, "bloody liberals are at fault again, oh, not corporatism or big media, it's the liberals' fault!)

Hoi is a real time game. Therefore unplayable as a proper relaxed turn-based multiplayer game at your own pace. It is not even close to an option as an alternative.

[Ivanov]

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

[Glabro]

Agreed on all counts, but as a special note on n. 4 I really don't understand what "anti-tank" units are supposed to represent on a corps / army scale. Corps strength anti-tank units?

Or is it just an "Axis & Allies" beer & pretzels unit?

[acrashb]

Bah humbug! That is hyperbole, pure and simple, says I!

LOL! Not hyperbole, rather a "slippery slope" argument. Both are logical fallacies that seem to work anyway.

First it is oil, then rubber, then artificial rubber, then paraffin, then iron, tungsten (severe shortages late in the war hobbled smaller-calibre AT guns), and so on.

Let's have hexes and stacking for smaller units (e.g., multiple corps, not multiple armies).

The rest I will leave to the more inventive posters.

Total manpower pool does have some appeal. Once exceeded, new reinforcements would be of poor quality, on some type of sliding scale. And it would require no micro-management.

[Ivanov]

Agreed on all counts, but as a special note on n. 4 I really don't understand what "anti-tank" units are supposed to represent on a corps / army scale. Corps strength anti-tank units?

Or is it just an "Axis & Allies" beer & pretzels unit?

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

[Glabro]

LOL! Not hyperbole, rather a "slippery slope" argument. Both are logical fallacies that seem to work anyway.

First it is oil, then rubber, then artificial rubber, then paraffin, then iron, tungsten (severe shortages late in the war hobbled smaller-calibre AT guns), and so on.

Total manpower pool does have some appeal. Once exceeded, new reinforcements would be of poor quality, on some type of sliding scale. And it would require no micro-management.

Very well, it's a slippery slope argument. But since when has that been a good argument for anything? It's simply fallacious alarmism in my mind that wants to assume that A will lead to B which will lead to C which will lead to D somehow automatically without each of those being judged on their own.

Frankly I think it's insulting towards Hubert and Bill to suggest that they'd implement anything in their game "just because something else like that was already done". Remember, this is a suggestions thread. We are not here to decide, but to suggest. Therefore I fail to see the need to oppose suggestions purely from a "comfort zone" standpoint, and not a logical one.

It doesn't really provide any meaningful feedback beyond "I don't like that idea".

Now then, I challenge you to present an argument for why you think your slippery slope argument would be valid in this case, and not fallacious, as it usually is.

You are very technically knowledgeable about WW2 materials, so I'm sure you can also weigh in if you honestly feel like any of the aforementioned carry anything like the weight oil did.

Besides, "oil" wouldn't mean JUST oil, it would represent all the raw materiel needed to create mechanised units, but in a simplified and understandable form. It's just the easiest to call it oil.

However, after all this ranting, I am not adamant about "oil". Manpower is more important to me.

All I'm asking for is some sort of relevance between capturing the oil fields that currently exist in the game and the mechanized unit build limits that also already exist. "Oil" could just as easily make your unit cap for tanks, planes etc. go up by one if you capture a field, and that's it, without having an "oil" counter.

[Ivanov]

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:)

[lhughes41]

Another vote for manpower and oil.

[aesopo]

Please take advantage of hyperthreading on CPUs. Adjacent units should be able to contribute to defense and single/ stack multiple attacks enabled. Some limited stacking as mentioned. Second on manpower and oil. New defensive features such as minefields and and anti-tank defenses. Option of elite training for new units (longer produced), national morale should also be tied in with consumer goods ( you need to divert part of your MPPs to maintain civilian support for the war effort ), tougher AI. Current gold version of SC is a very big step in speeding AI calculation which makes SC a joy to play.

[SeaMonkey]

I like all this enthusiasm from these younger vets, lots of good ideas, heard most before, but that's OK, Hubert and Co. need a reminder.

So my reminder, upgrades possible in the build Q(perhaps more MPPs & delay). More for build Q, the MPPs should be used per turn, ie a 240 Tank corps over a 6 month/turn build period uses 40 MPPs per turn/month with the option for the players to delay builds and use the turn's allocated MPPs for more pressing ventures. Manpower allocated from the pool just before deployment, not enough, no deployment.

[acrashb]

Very well, it's a slippery slope argument. But since when has that been a good argument for anything?

[...]

It doesn't really provide any meaningful feedback beyond "I don't like that idea".

[...]

Now then, I challenge you to present an argument for why you think your slippery slope argument would be valid in this case, and not fallacious, as it usually is.

[...]

However, after all this ranting, I am not adamant about "oil". Manpower is more important to me.

1) since once we accept complexity as a new guiding factor, the nature of the game / simulation has and will changed. "slippery slope" may be, in a philosophy class, a fallacious argument, but in the real world of less-perfect rationality it can prepare people for the next step. Think about all the things politicians and bureaucrats foist on us, an inch at a time.

2) even if correct, that's okay. I don't like the idea and it is okay to say so, because that is relevant to sales.

3)

Many / most "resources" are used to build things that persist: build a tank and it stays a tank (munitions being an obvious but not major exception), pull together an infantry corps and supporting infrastructure (trucks, wagons, uniforms, guns, barracks, etc.) and it stays a corp - albeit one that needs to eat and replenish wear items.

Oil is, essentially, a pure consumable, having almost nothing to do with creating a new unit. I think adding it would open the door to a radical change in game mechanics - right now, mpps are used to create things, not action them. With oil, whose primary purpose is action (through provision of energy - lubricants, primitive plastics etc. are a terribly minor part of the picture), we would be pushed in the direction of using mpps (or 'O'pps?) to move, operate, attack, defend, and to a small degree to simply persist (units would use opps just to sit there, else suffer degraded fighting capabilities). Having accepted that, it would be a short route to using some mpps as well (representing munitions, break/fix, etc for various actions).

Yikes. Don't want to go there, as I think it would change the essential nature of the game.

It would also open the door to resource fragmentation. My gearbox/tech example was lifted directly from HOI as a vivid illustration of the possible end-point, but there are any number of strategically-important resources that could / should be modeled: coal, iron, tungsten, nickel, uranium, wood, etc. I don't want to keep an eye on, for example, the tunsten supply in preparation for seeing the hard attack value of my units degrade (no more tungsten ap penetrators). I don't want to worry about coal running low, thereby (perhaps) affecting national morale as heat and light become scarce in civilian areas. Nickel shortages affected armour production. The Scottish highlands are even today recovering from the effects of wood shortages - almost all the natural forests were stripped bare (albeit largely due to earlier wars, to build ships). Don't want to track that.

4) agreed re: manpower. A low-complexity addition that would not change the mechanics - but might slow various 'gamey' tactics like doomed beach invasions just to draw-off fighting power from the front, and land-bound deep incursions of units that are garanteed to be destroyed.

[lettowvorbeck]

acrashb,

Pertaining to issue (4) I thought I read in the rules that units with 0 supply at the time they were destroyed could not be "repurchased". I'll have to recheck that. If true, that goes some distance in forcing players to think twice about fruitless advances behind enemy lines.

[Ivanov]

Oil is, essentially, a pure consumable, having almost nothing to do with creating a new unit. I think adding it would open the door to a radical change in game mechanics - right now, mpps are used to create things, not action them. With oil, whose primary purpose is action (through provision of energy - lubricants, primitive plastics etc. are a terribly minor part of the picture), we would be pushed in the direction of using mpps (or 'O'pps?) to move, operate, attack, defend, and to a small degree to simply persist (units would use opps just to sit there, else suffer degraded fighting capabilities). Having accepted that, it would be a short route to using some mpps as well (representing munitions, break/fix, etc for various actions).

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.