Top Down v. Bottom Up

[arby]

It seems we've reached a consensus on several game issues: research favors the Axis too much, research is too quick (King Tigers in '41), air power is too strong, the supply rules for Russia need to be modified. Some of these are to be addressed in a patch, Hubert tells us. Some aren't; I haven't seen him comment on air power.

I'm not sure that's the best way to handle this.

Based on my vast experience in designing wargames -- which is to say, none -- it seems that there are two ways to do it: either from the top down or the bottom up. The first method looks at the confict being simulated, attempts to define the key characteristics which make the conflict interesting, and then attempts to come up with a game system which replicates those characteristics. The second method looks at the details -- how long did it take to build a battleship, how effective were planes against tanks -- and attempts to replicate those details, figuring if the details work, the overall simulation will, too. The problem is that with a grand strategic simulation, it is almost impossible to do a bottom-up approach and come up with anything remotely playable. If you want a game where every hex contains some resource, and if you don't control, say, enough wheat hexes in a turn your troops will be reduced in readiness because they don't have any bread, well, that's where we part company. I don't.

So it appears that a top-down approach is the superior one. And that's where I think we're getting off-track: we seem to be directed toward some aspect of the game -- air power, technology -- without really thinking about how it fits into the overall scheme of things, and how those aspects relate to what makes WWII a truly interesting experience.

Take the Eastern Front, for example. I've harped on this before, but I think for most of us the clash between Germany and Russia was fascinating: the initial German blitzkrieg, the Russian counteroffensives, the Germans regaining the initiative, Stalingrad, Kursk... Thrust and counterthrust, until finally the massed forces of East and West were too much for the Germans.

And, of course, the game doesn't replicate that at all. Absolutely invariably, it boils to trench warfare, with massed German air forces striking at some point in the rigid line of Russian corps to force a breakthrough. Absolutely invariably, if the Allies win it is because of the UK and US. In the games I've played where the Allies have won, by the time the German player threw in the towel the Western Allies were across the Rhine, while the Russian player was still clinging to Moscow for dear life.

What causes that? How do we remedy it? I believe that the answers to those questions will go a lot farther toward making this a better game than arguing whether or not airfleets could completely destroy an entire army or corps.

So that's what I'm tossing out. How do we fix that? What other defining characteristics of WWI were there, and does the game accurately reflect those?

[Hubert Cater]

It seems we've reached a consensus on several game issues: research favors the Axis too much, research is too quick (King Tigers in '41), air power is too strong, the supply rules for Russia need to be modified. Some of these are to be addressed in a patch, Hubert tells us. Some aren't; I haven't seen him comment on air power.

Keep in mind that this game has been a work in progress for over 2 years now and that the game has just been released. I still have a few things to sort out like the multiplayer options etc. and this does not afford me the opportunity to comment on every aspect of the game. I've read the debates and I am not ignoring them, just that everything will be addressed in due time, and for me right now first things first.

In general making any changes to the game system is a tricky business and not one that I am generally in favour of, unless it addresses playbalance etc and not for reasons due to disagreement with the design. Those types of design changes are better suited for an SC2 and so on. For this reason alone I won't even be making the proposed changes a possiblity until after the TCP/IP patches are finalized and only then as an option for players who are interested in the proposed changes but not forced to upgrade to them. Basically I want to have the full game as is and as promised (with TCP/IP) first before any of the proposed changes see the day of light.

These things take time and all I can ask for is everyone's patience yet again. When the time is right and once I am done the development phases I will also become a more active participant in the ongoing debates with respect to air power and allied income.

I can quickly comment on airpower by saying that perhaps additional affects such as 'weather' may alleviate some of the concern, i.e. with weather affects and not having the ability to let's say rebase or fly in bad weather turns might make them less of an attractive unit and thus the need to balance out your military forces. As for allied income, I personally don't have a problem, the US income is 50% of what it should be considering the War in the Pacific and in general the UK, and US income feels about right, i.e. where they have to slowly build up and don't really become affective as potential threats until late 42 and on. I look at it in the sense that it appears they may be too low since the Axis can get so high, so in this case an adjustment to the game with let's say 'weather' or other effects may have the desired result, where if German troops get pushed back and mauled once in a while then they have to spend some reinforcement money as opposed to just having money in their coffers to build and keep building.

OK so what am I saying, well that there are many factors at play here where a quick fix is not warranted. Rather some deep thinking by me and planned adjustments that I think make sense and that are workable in a 'historic' sense and 'playability' sense. Again this takes time and some may be better suited to this game or perhaps a compeletly revamped and possibly more advanced SC2, and unfortunatly right now I am not in the position to just sit back and think all day while hammering away changes at the computer.

Now some may look at this as flat out refusals of their *fantastic* game fixes, but I just think it's all a part of responsible game design to take all these ideas and keep them in mind and sort them out accordingly. In the end some may still disagree with the paths chosen, but hey I can't please everybody right?

So keep the debates going, I think they are great and are giving me a lot of ideas, and when I get the chance I will expand and make the necessary changes, and after that hopefully start looking to the future and next generation of SC engine based games!

Hubert

[arby]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

In general making any changes to the game system is a tricky business and not one that I am generally in favour of, unless it addresses playbalance etc and not for reasons due to disagreement with the design. Those types of design changes are better suited for an SC2 and so on.

Actually, I pretty much agree with that. I think a lot of us tend to see something with which we disagree and want that fixed, regardless of how it affects the game overall. The problem with airpower, for example: it seems that one of the more common suggestions to remedy this is to give units the benefits of anti-aircraft research. But the net result of that may be to make stalemated, WWI-type fronts even more common than they are now. The tactic of both German and Western Allies players is, essentially, bombs away. That's going to be impossible with even corps at L3 or L4 anti-aircraft radar, let alone tanks or armies. What happens then? It would be virtually impossible to make a breakthrough on either front. Gee, that'd be fun.

And I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't thought these things through, or to be critical of the game. It remains one of the best wargames I've played, and that's saying an awful lot. If you got a contrary impression, as you might have gathered, an overweening sense of humility is not to be numbered among my many, many positive character traits.

[Hubert Cater]

And I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't thought these things through, or to be critical of the game.

I have no problems with criticisms of the game at all, I think constructive criticisms are a good thing and can and will help to improve the current game as well as to get an insight as to what may be applicable to future versions. The Axis vs. Allied PBEM challenge is a perfect example of this, just that some things unfortunatly take time. I didn't look at your post as abrasive at all, just rather that I figured it was an appropriate time to state my intentions a little more explicitly since I think everyone deserved at least that much for now

It remains one of the best wargames I've played, and that's saying an awful lot.

Thanks!

Hubert

[Panzer Cmdr]

I think your approach makes good sense. Looking at the post I can see how you are getting pulled in many directions and it is good to finish one thing at a time. The weather effects idea sounds great and allowing items to be optional effects will please both sides of the house.

Other "Airpower" options that came to mind where:

1) creat a new "attack" aircraft unit. (we would have bombers-for strategic targets, fighters for air-to-air, and attack aircraft for air-to-ground)

a: Bombers would take more damage if attacked by fighters, attack aircraft would have a slightly better air-to-air defence but they could not intercept)

b: Bombers and fighters could be coded to be unable to attack ground units. Bombers only being able to attack resources and fighters only other aircraft (strafing the runways). This would eliminate idea of corps inflicting damage on bombers 50,000 feet up or damage done to the corps by bombs dropped from high altitudes. This would make the units less versatile and attractive.

-not sure how you could treat carrier, perhaps allow them to perform intercept and have ability to attack ships. Thus fighters should be allowed to do ship attacks.

2)If land units do get close enough to attack an air unit the result should be either instant elimination of air units or some damage and rest captured.

3)The above should eliminate the idea of quick experience points by attacking land units (as bombers/fighers could not attack them, attack aircraft could but at greater risk of losses from fighters). Spitfires had a field day with Stukas that had no fighter escorts.

4)Allow Tech Advance in Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Ship that benefites land units (army/corps/tanks) vs aircraft and ships. It always bugged me that ships never have a chance of taking damage from army units (that could have long range artillery) and this becomes a quick gamey way to get 4-star battleships with no risk of losses. And to compensate fleets and further reduce airpower by allowing much better results of battleships attacking planes (but not automatic kills like a land unit, and allow attack aircraft better odds when attacking fleets)

4)Could it be possible to reduce the effect/ability of aircraft automatically revealing more and more units with each range increase? I could see perhaps noting the ability to see locations of aircraft but perhaps not to see all land units or even ships automatically. Land units would tend to do the camo thing and subs may dive if the heard the roar of an airwing :eek:

-

Keep up the great work H.C. We will do our best to remain patient and do realize that you can not possibly please everyone!

[Bruce70]

Hubert, it is good to see you are not about to blindly implement all the changes that we have blindly suggested. An holistic approach is what is needed and it appears that you have some good ideas on subtle changes that should address many of the problems at once.

I find your approach very encouraging.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Now some may look at this as flat out refusals of their *fantastic* game fixes, but I just think it's all a part of responsible game design to take all these ideas and keep them in mind and sort them out accordingly. In the end some may still disagree with the paths chosen, but hey I can't please everybody right?

Speaking for myself, I don't expect any of my suggestions to be taken on board, even the ones I feel strongly about. I appreciate your taking the time to consider them, but I've never accepted the "I'm a customer so I'm right" argument. If it makes a positive difference, great, if not, it's only a friggin game.

Now I might get annoyed if you start abusing people for making suggestions or presenting different points of view (*cough* Derek Smart *cough*)...

[John DiFool]

Now that I think about it, is the Russian production

too "West-heavy?" IOW, didn't they have significantly

more factories and resources in the east (Urals if

not Siberia) than they do here? Those 2 resource

hexes NW of Rostov are absolutely crucial to the

Russian, as they are typically starving for MPPs

as it is and it becomes a ~50 MPP swing if they

lose them (someone can correct me on the math).

That is likely one major reason they can't counterattack:

the Germans have conquered a significant chunk of

their economy even BEFORE Moscow, Leningrad, and

Stalingrad fall (and if those buy it, it's over).

There probably should be off-map MPP sources (this

holds for the US as well ).

John DiFool

[pzgndr]

OK so what am I saying, well that there are many factors at play here where a quick fix is not warranted. Rather some deep thinking by me and planned adjustments that I think make sense and that are workable in a 'historic' sense and 'playability' sense.

Bingo. With the many factors and highly non-linear nature of the game, it's like squeezing jello to try to resolve one issue without creating a new one. That deep thinking will be necessary to come up with a comprehensive set of adjustments. And we need to be patient.

I'm fully prepared to just have fun with SC for the time being and hopefully see some modest improvements with the patches. SC2 may well be a year or more away, so please take the time you need Hubert. You've given us a nice solid game with a lot of great features, and it's only going to get better as time goes on. :cool:

[Rouge]

The russian war machine developed quite quickly though in reality. Such developements such as the Ppsh and the 7.96cm feild gun came in sooner then their german counterparts.

[Gman]

I've played Third Reich (board game) for many years. This is the best game since then. Hubert has done a Excellent job with this game! Thank you!

[SeaMonkey]

How do you diminish airpower and not create unbreakable fronts?

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

How do you diminish airpower and not create unbreakable fronts?

Increase the firepower of attacking ground units.

[John DiFool]

And have both retreats and automatic (?) advances

after successful combat. Those "unbreakable"

fronts wouldn't be if a unit tended to retreat

once at half-strength or less...

John DiFool

[sogard]

You have to remember the scale of the game though. Each hex is 50 miles across. The so called unbreakable front really is moving back and forth over those 50 miles.

Finally, with the current game design, I have never seen an unbreakable front. One does not need 20 Air Fleets to bring movement to the game.