Why axis minors?

[bob.]

I am really looking forward to this expansion! However, I do not really understand why Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria are "axis minors"?

I totally understand why it was done in the main game and all previous Strategic Command titles since the engine was really not fit to portray every small country as an independent entity with research and all. And since there were 3 main allies and 2 (3) main axis countries I understand that there also was simply "no more room".

But here, we have exactly 1 allied country and only 2 axis countries, so why aren't Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria independent? I am afraid that this will mean there is no reason at all to get new axis minor formations while if they were independent then you would have to take them. Also, it will propably again allow axis minors to get their troops to the same tech level as Germany and I really don't think that is very fitting. (Eg. no crushing through "weak Romanian sector" near Stalingrad because.. there is no "weak Romanians")

Lastly, why is Italy an axis major anyway? I mean, the numbers they sent to Russia were very small compared to especially Romania.

[Big Al]

The concensus was that making Italy a minor would make it awkward since so many players see them as a major.

Rom/Hun/Bul - I made them minors because they would literally be a speed bump later in the war vs the USSR. So they get the advantage of Germany's tech as a cost. Thet would never be able to keep up technologically with the USSR.

[Ivanov]

Also, it will propably again allow axis minors to get their troops to the same tech level as Germany and I really don't think that is very fitting. (Eg. no crushing through "weak Romanian sector" near Stalingrad because.. there is no "weak Romanians")

In reality, despite of having the access to the German tech, it is very expensive to upgrade the minors, plus they suffer form poor HQ's. So my experience is that they are really best suited for the quitet sectors of the front ( with the exception of Finland which comes with good HQ and battle hardened units )

[bob.]

Do players then sometimes get new minor units by event or only what they started with?

[Big Al]

They can build them.

[bob.]

I understand that but is there any reason to ever build them?

[Big Al]

of course. They are still troops. If you invest enough money into it they can be as formidable as german units without experience. But the cost is double. So the best bet is to build out all Germans 1st.

[Ivanov]

Keep in mind, that as the war progressed the contribution of the German satelites was diminishing ( especially after 1942 ). So if in the game your Axis begin to lose, the system very well simulates this fact, because you should invest in the German units first. From the other hand, if they do well there is no reason not to invest in the satelite armies, because you'll need a lot of manpower to cover the vast spaces of the front in Russia

[bob.]

I meant if there was any reason to ever build them INSTEAD of German units.

So basically it's "higher number of troops than usually possible but for double cost". Well, I don't think that simulates really well how it was in reality but it sounds like a nice gameplay element.

[Big Al]

The troops are the same price, the tech is 200% cost. Usually they are used for garrison duty and partisan stomping.

[mcaryf1]

That is a neat solution Al. In fact if anything the troops from minor countries should be cheaper as I bet the German infantry men were paid more than the Romanians. I know for sure that USN men got about 20% more pay than the RN equivalent.

Regards

Mike

[Ivanov]

In fact if anything the troops from minor countries should be cheaper as I bet the German infantry men were paid more than the Romanians.

Keep in mind that Romania or Bulgraia were much poorer and backward states than Germany, so given their small potenital the actual war effort was almost unbearable for thier economies. Finland was also not so developed as today and it had a small population of 4.5 milion in 1939. Due to that, it's hard to imagine that the German satelites could field bigger armies than they actually did in reality.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Ivanov

There is an interesting issue concerning manpower availability which is not fully handled in SC. Thus all cities are treated pretty much the same in terms of the MPP that they provide and some at least in SC Gold such as Kukum in the Solomons should not be cities at all!

I think there is some opportunity for distinguishing cities which historically had important factories or large populations by means of events to deliver additional units to whomsoever owns those cities. Typically I might have Stalingrad generate a tank unit annually to the owner. I am more generous with these extra units if it is the AI that is the player. After all real tanks were coming stright off the production line to meet the Axis forces attacking the city. The loss of that factory in reality would have cost the USSR more than the equivalent of 10 MPP per turn.

Regards

Mike

[Ivanov]

Mike,

Good points, however in AOC there is a pretty good distinction betweent the production potential of various cities present on the map. For example Moscow is 30MPP, Leningrad 20MPP, other big cities are 10MPP, while most of the smaller cities don't provide any production at all. Of course there are also mines and oilfields. You could make some small adjustments - for example Kharkov could be easily made 20MPP and not every big city was important industrywise. From what I uderstand Al's map design, the production and resources were alocated in such a way, that an early capture or loss of a particular city doesn't affect the balance during the initial stages of the campaign.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Ivanov

I am pleased to hear that there are facilities to vary the production rate of cities, however, I wonder even so whether the effect would be sufficient. The Stalingrad factory produced 40% of the output of T34's in the first half of 1942. This might have represented an annual rate of over 1500 units or sufficient tanks to supply 3 Tank Group units. I do not know what MPP cost per unit is applied or even the turn interval in AOC but looking at SC Gold standard scenarios a tank costs 250 MPP and there are 13 turns per year. Thus at 20 MPP per turn an undamaged major city yields 260 MPP in a year or approximately 1/3 of the actual output rate of the Stalingrad tank factory in Tank Group cost terms. Of course the costs associated with a Tank Group are a lot more than just the individual tanks but one might assume that Stalingrad as a city was contributing more than just tanks to the war effort - it did for example have a major oil refinery as well as a substantial manpower pool which must be a component of MPP's.

I think there is certainly a case for recognising the production potential of specific cities by awarding actual units to the original owner. There is a weaker argument for considering whether a conqueror should at a future date also get some production from a captured city but that might be appropriate to offset the looted equipment and supplies which undoubtedly played a part in WW2 and which hardly features in SC.

Regards

Mike

[Big Al]

Its always tough to balance a game using many factors. I have found kinda a secret to doing so. But the more variables you add the harder it becomes. I had to adjust German and Soviet production many times to make the game playable... and this was before the beta testers had me change it again

[SeaMonkey]

I'm sure the coders/prgrammers will disagree with me, but play balancing a scenario is probably the most time consuming operation involved with game releasing, unless, of course, you just don't care!

[Big Al]

Programming a piece of software is the biggest time gobbler. You can get beta testers.

[SeaMonkey]

Count me converted!