Yet Another SC2 Thread

[Russ Bensing]

If you came here expecting to see dead horses flogged yet again, sorry to disappoint. There's virtual unanimity that certain aspects of the game -- strategic warfare, the Med -- need to be fixed. (Although I think the 1.06 patch will go a long way toward solving the latter.) Numerous suggestions on how to do that have been proposed, and I don't intend to rehash them. There's also a consensus that other aspects -- MPP allocation, research, game balance, air power -- need fixing, and again a number of suggestions have been advanced. I'd like to take a fresh look at those, offer some of my own suggestions, in the hopes of moving the discussion of SC2 forward.

Let's start with MPP Allocation and Research, since I think they're somewhat intertwined. Here's what I would propose: Research follows a 3-2-1 model (3% chance per chit for the 1st advance, 2% for the 2nd, 1% for every advance after that). Plunder is reduced by 1/2. Ind Tech is no longer a researchable advance, but is hardwired into the game: Germany starts at 1 and goes up to 2 in 1940, UK starts at 0, goes to 1 in 1940 and 2 in 1941, and US and USSR start at 2 and go up 1 each year thereafter.

Why? First, research is much too fast overall; it's not at all unusual to have a game where there are L4 tanks and planes running around by late 1942 or early 1943. After I press the DONE key, I'm disappointed if I don't get an advance. It shouldn't be that way; research should be an unexpected occurrence, not an expected one.

Secondly, the game balance is affected by the MPP allocation, and the IT advance. Germany gets a whole bunch of MPP's in the first year or so, which it dumps into research, especially IT. (The German player is the only one who almost never has to make a choice between investing in research or buying units; he can do both.) By mid-1942, Germany is substantially outproducing all of the Allies combined, and although that edge can be reduced somewhat, it is usually not eliminated. Historically, what should happen is that Germany has its best chance to win in 1941 and 1942, but after that the combined weight of increased Allied production simply overwhelms them.

This brings up one last point here, and that's victory conditions. We've talked a lot about game balance; I think part of the problem here is that victory is defined as total, i.e., the German player wins if he completely subjugates the Allies (which he will almost invariably do if he takes either Russia or Britain), and vice versa. The result is that the game is not deemed to be balanced unless the German player has a 50% chance of doing that. It's just my opinion, but I think you could make a good case that the Germans had only about a 30% chance of doing that in actuality, in terms of this game; it was only incredible incompetence on the part of the French and Russians that allowed them to do as well as they did. So why not have "levels" of victory? Major victory for the Germans is conquest of either Russia or Britain, substantive victory is holding on to part of France or Russia by game's end, marginal victory is holding out until game end. For the Allies, victory is conquest of both Axis and dependent upon when that occurs: major in 1944, substantive by May of 1945, marginal thereafter. That could make the game more interesting, too; as it is, most PBEM games usually end when it becomes clear that the German player is or is not going to conquer one of the Allied countries.

That's my two cents. Now, here's a couple more...

[Russ Bensing]

Now let's talk about Game Play and Air Power, because once again I think they're related. One of the most problematic aspects of SC is that the combat resembles WWI far more than WWII, on both fronts, with one side using massed air fleets to bomb an opposing unit or two into oblivion in order to effectuate a breakthrough. I've been on both the giving and receiving end of the 20-airfleet strategy, and to tell the truth it's not much fun either way.

Again, there seems to be a consensus that air power is too strong, and several suggestions of how to remedy that, from limiting the number of air units to making them more ineffectual against ground units. The problem with this is that it seriously distorts game play. Not game balance; the Western Allies will be just as negatively affected as will be the Germans in Russia. But the reason the massed-airfleet strategy has come into vogue is because, in view of the game mechanics -- particularly no stacking, the linearity of a hex system, and no coordinated attacks -- it's the only effective method of countering the massed-corps defensive strategy. I can break through a line of corps because I can concentrate 5 (or 10 or 20) airfleets against a single unit; in most cases, I can concentrate only 3, and often 2, ground units against a single unit. If you tone down air power, you're going to wind up with the same trench warfare, except that there'll be no way to break through the trenches.

Unless you tone something up in its place. And that's where tanks come in. I think SC substantially undervalues the role of tanks. In every single offensive in WWII -- from the Ardennes in 1940 to Barbarossa to the Russian counterattacks to Patton's breakout in Operation Cobra -- tanks played the pivotal role. That doesn't happen here. Tanks aren't any more effective against infantry units than other infantry, and it remains that way throughout the game; a King Tiger has the same attack strength against infantry as a PzII.

Fixing this involves getting under the hood with the game mechanics. I'd beef up the infantry attack strength of tanks from 4 to 5 or even 6, and have it increase by 1 for each advance in tanks. (Right now it stays constant.) I'd reduce the attack strength of air fleets against infantry from 2 to 1, but have it also affect readiness (which is related to supply): for each air attack, the defending unit suffers a loss of 1 in supply. I'd change the combat results formulas to make supply much more significant, especially on defense. Right now, supply only affects how much damage a units inflicts, not how much it suffers: a corps at 0% readiness will suffer the same losses as a corps at 100% readiness. Frankly, I think it should be the other way around, but it seems clear that, at the least, loss of supply should have a substantial effect on the losses an attacked unit suffers. Last, I'd change the combat system to include a retreat rule, so that a defending unit retreats when it suffers a certain loss. That, coupled with the change in the supply rules, would make armored breakthroughs and envelopment a much more possible and more rewarding occurrence.

A grand strategic game should, of course, focus on grand strategy: economic decisions, who to attack and when, and so forth. But it should also should include what might be called operationally strategic decisions, especially on a front as wide as Russia: deciding to mass forces in a particular area to effect a breakthrough, anticipating where your opponent will strike and building your forces there for a counterthrust, keeping sufficient reserves to deal with any sudden threat. For the most part, SC does not capture that. These changes, I think, would introduce a good deal of fluidity to the battlefield, and would greatly enhance the enjoyment of game play.

[Jollyguy]

I'll second Russ' ideas, but propose a research varient which I think follows historical accuracy, and common sense.

I like the ind tech hardwire idea, but wouldn't bump Germany up to the next ind tech until late 1940. In reality, they needed to digest all their conquests, and incorporate the new industrial capacity of the vanquished countries into the Axis industrial grid.

I also like the 3-2-1 chance of an advance, although something like 3.5%, 2.5%, 1.5% might be better. Two chits at 1% apiece, 2% total, means there would be a high probabiity that the rest of the game could go by without a final third advance. Which brings me to my second point.

For arguments sake lets use Russ' 3, 2, 1. Leave that for lets say 1939, 1940, and 1941. But then start bumping up the chance for an advance for 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 by maybe .5 % per year. Also, remove ind tech from its hardwire status in lets say 1942, but start it at 5% for the first advance, then 6%, then 7%, 8% and 10%. Doing this, inverting reseach probabilities, would reflect historical fact.

Once the war machines got in stride for both sides, they pumped out incredible quantities of machines and ordnance, more than they ever thought possible at the war's onset. It would also obviate to some degree the current awareness that the game's outcome is a given by 1942 or 1943. If the chance of research advances could start to increase mid-game, the variable uncertainity of outcomes would also increase.

Germany by 1944 was producing more aircraft than they ever dreamed possible. Plus, it was 1944 when the first German jets, and in lots of varieties, started to hit the battlefield; when the first modified, heavier Shermans were deployed in large numbers and when the first American heavy tank made an appearance; when the innovative "funnies" of the Brits hit the beaches of Normandy; When plasma was in broad use by the Allies; when the Panzerfaust was perfected and deployed by the Germans. I'm sure there were many other technological applications that aren't coming to mind.

In short, necessity is the mother of invention, and as the war progressed, necessities became more urgent, thus more invention occured. This simple reflected that fact that technological progress always receives a shot in the arm from war.

With all this in mind, for PBEM and TCP play, I would remove the arbitray 1946 end date, or allow an option for the game to run, or made an option.

I agree that marginal, tactical, and decisive victories should be recorded. Most wargames have these variable outcomes.

[Flash Gordon]

I like most of these suggestions but I don't like the idea of industrial technology being hardwired into the game. Having such things follow a historical (deterministic) path takes SC away from being a game to being a history replicator.

One of Germany's big mistakes (there were several) in WWII is that it did not gear up its industry to a wartime footing until quite late in the war. There were many reasons why this was done. However, to force the player to follow this same path if playing Germany is too deterministic. If a person wants to invest in industry, fine, let them - that should be their choice and not the games. Investing in industry means that some sort of trade off is being made, i.e. you can't invest in something else or you can't produce more units this turn, etc.

Making research a little slower across the board (it seems to advance too quickly in the game - in one game, the USAAF had level 4-5 jets in late '42) would address many of the strange things one sees in the game.

I didn't realize that the ability of tanks to kill infantry did not increase as they got better. Historically, the role of tanks has been to kill infantry and protect friendly infantry from enemy tanks. Conversely, the role of infantry has been to seize real estate and protect tanks from infantry in built up areas where tanks are vulnerable. It would be nice if the combat system somehow took this into account.

BTW - where is artillary in the game?

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

I'd change the combat system to include a retreat rule, so that a defending unit retreats when it suffers a certain loss.

Retreat rule! Yep, thats surely missing and would be in conformity with history

[Hubert Cater]

This brings up one last point here, and that's victory conditions. We've talked a lot about game balance; I think part of the problem here is that victory is defined as total, i.e., the German player wins if he completely subjugates the Allies (which he will almost invariably do if he takes either Russia or Britain), and vice versa.

Interesting threads as always guys, keep it up! I just wanted to pipe in on victory conditions, I did make a change here a little while ago, I believe it was in v1.03 or v1.04 and they were modified slightly to reflect some of what you identify above.

Actually I'm working on identifying the major changes from 1.0 to v1.06 and errata from the manual to have an updated text to include these items, for the victory conditions these are the changes since the original print of the manual:

Axis Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th, 1946)

- Both Germany and Italy have not surrendered, France has surrendered and either London, Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad are in Axis hands

Allied Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th 1946)

- Either Germany or Italy have surrendered or

- England, the USA and the USSR have not surrendered and either France has been liberated or Italy surrendered and both London and Moscow are not occupied by the Axis

They are not defined specifically as partial victories but if you have not completely subjugated your opponent before the end of the game you will still receive a victory based on the above conditions.

Hubert

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

If a person wants to invest in industry, fine, let them - that should be their choice and not the games. Investing in industry means that some sort of trade off is being made, i.e. you can't invest in something else or you can't produce more units this turn, etc.

I'd agree with that, except that I think IT dwarfs the other choices in significance to such an extent that there really isn't a choice. No German player in his right mind is going to ponder whether he should invest in IT or something else; in every game I've played, IT has been the first choice, and there's nothing else even in 2nd place.

BTW - where is artillary in the game?

It's part of the corps, army and tank group structure.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Also, remove ind tech from its hardwire status in lets say 1942, but start it at 5% for the first advance, then 6%, then 7%, 8% and 10%. Doing this, inverting reseach probabilities, would reflect historical fact.

Once the war machines got in stride for both sides, they pumped out incredible quantities of machines and ordnance, more than they ever thought possible at the war's onset.

I agree with that completely, and your system would reflect that more accurately. If I recall, Germany produced more tanks in 1944 than it did in any other year of the war, and this despite the Allied bombing. Then again, by 1944 the US was producing ungodly amounts of just about everything.

And that's the problem with the game. The number of MPP's for the Allies remains static; they have very little opportunity for conquest. As a result, the only way to reflect the increasing productiveness of the Allies, relative to the Axis, is by having Allied IT -- especially that of the US and USSR -- be greater than that of the Germans.

[Piumarcobaleno]

Well, i begun playing SC just a few days ago, so i'll have to apply more to say something "good".

Now, just reading your ideas (all very smart), i thought that maybe IT should not "discount" unit prices, but boost MPP production of sites (+10%max for every advance, maybe), so there will be the choice to bombard enemy resources, or leave them untouched, hoping to grasp them intact. And maybe there should be an option to build less technological units, obviously at a lower price.. Germany and Italy later in the war certainly didn't built their best infantry army, instead fielded low experienced and aged troops, and (mainly italy) the "tech level" of these troops was for sure inferior to the one they had in the beginning of the war (shortage of equipment.. some divisions in late '43 were equipped with paper shoes). Maybe, instead of increasing Tanks' attack vs. infantry, they should have a chance to greatly decrease their supply (this is the true Blitzkrieg idea, not to crush the enemy, but to rush to his supply routes faster than his retreat speed), and maybe a chance (10-20%) to capture any army or corp badly injured or with low supply\readiness.. anyway, this game is fun.. but i found that concentration of forces, if in Europe (not using Massive Air Fleets) is difficult, in Africa is impossible..

[SeaMonkey]

Okay, I agree that artillery is contained within the corps/army/group structure. But, as I remember WW II there were large artillery formations (corps) used especially during major offensives that were attached and not always integral to the parent formation except for that offensive. What I am advocating is an enhancement to the SC unit parameters either through tech investment or otherwise (ideas?) that may help counteract the stagnant battlefield scenarios that develop through the massed corps tactics. Additional asset attachments (ie. engineers, special assault, airborne, heavy armor, etc.) should also be possible to assist in the potency of the field units to attain the breakthrough. These enhancements could be modeled almost transparent. Building them through MPP allocation or tech investment and then "do you wish to attach" pop-up in the individual unit menu, like "do you wish to intercept"

[Flash Gordon]

"I'd agree with that, except that I think IT dwarfs the other choices in significance to such an extent that there really isn't a choice. No German player in his right mind is going to ponder whether he should invest in IT or something else; in every game I've played, IT has been the first choice, and there's nothing else even in 2nd place."

Exactly - investing in IT SHOULD be one of the first things that a player does in the game. And in real life, Germany should have geared up its industry to a wartime footing wayyy before it actually did - why? Because had it done so, the outcome of the war might have been different.

We are all probably students of history to one extent or another and we can probably recite some of the mistakes that the Axis made during the WWII in terms of prosecuting the war. If the game LOCKS us into committing the same mistakes they made, it no longer becomes a game, it becomes a re-enactment engine. Plus, it also makes the chance of an Axis victory almost non-existent - realistic perhaps, but not much fun game-wise.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

Exactly - investing in IT SHOULD be one of the first things that a player does in the game. And in real life, Germany should have geared up its industry to a wartime footing wayyy before it actually did - why? Because had it done so, the outcome of the war might have been different.

But a large part of the reason for that was because Hitler felt it necessary to placate the public by devoting resources to consumer goods. (And we're actually talking about the period prior to the war.) That's not a dilemma SC presents. In short, devoting resources to IT is essentially penalty-free; the German player can easily afford the costs, and the only thing it deprives him of is the ability to research other things. Given the vastly overriding importance of IT (and given that it enables him to build those mammoth units other research will allow), no German player is going to give any thought to whether or not to invest in IT.

We are all probably students of history to one extent or another and we can probably recite some of the mistakes that the Axis made during the WWII in terms of prosecuting the war. If the game LOCKS us into committing the same mistakes they made, it no longer becomes a game, it becomes a re-enactment engine. Plus, it also makes the chance of an Axis victory almost non-existent - realistic perhaps, but not much fun game-wise.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with it to an extent. The problem is duplicating the resource allocation during WWII. I think everybody agrees that Germany was finally overwhelmed by the superior manpower and production of the Allies. That doesn't happen here. By mid-1943 Germany is almost inevitably at IT 5, with 600 MPP's or more. Unless all the Allies are at IT 5 at that point -- a rarity -- Germany is outproducing them, and will continue to do so. And that doesn't even include Italy in the equation.

I think that's one of the primary problems of the game. If you've got another way to fix it, I'm all ears.

[Flash Gordon]

One way would be to de-couple the industrial technology level of a country from "normal" research. Maybe weight things differently so that one "chit" research devoted to developing industrial technology is half or one-third as effective as it would be used somewhere else. Not a perfect solution but it would make investing in IT "hurt" a little more especially since advances wouldn't come as quickly as they normally would. Maybe make them one-fourth as effective. Since the game doesn't take the morale of the populace into account, I don't think anything above this can be done unless a major re-writing of the guts of the game is done. However, since this IS SC2 we're talking about, then maybe this isn't so far off base.

Anyway, with this in mind, there is the option of COMPLETELY revamping the way research is done for SC2 to make things more realistic while keeping things non-deterministic.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

This brings up one last point here, and that's victory conditions. We've talked a lot about game balance; I think part of the problem here is that victory is defined as total, i.e., the German player wins if he completely subjugates the Allies (which he will almost invariably do if he takes either Russia or Britain), and vice versa.

Interesting threads as always guys, keep it up! I just wanted to pipe in on victory conditions, I did make a change here a little while ago, I believe it was in v1.03 or v1.04 and they were modified slightly to reflect some of what you identify above.

Actually I'm working on identifying the major changes from 1.0 to v1.06 and errata from the manual to have an updated text to include these items, for the victory conditions these are the changes since the original print of the manual:

Axis Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th, 1946)

- Both Germany and Italy have not surrendered, France has surrendered and either London, Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad are in Axis hands

Allied Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th 1946)

- Either Germany or Italy have surrendered or

- England, the USA and the USSR have not surrendered and either France has been liberated or Italy surrendered and both London and Moscow are not occupied by the Axis

They are not defined specifically as partial victories but if you have not completely subjugated your opponent before the end of the game you will still receive a victory based on the above conditions.

Hubert</font>

[SeaMonkey]

You are exactly right RB, there is no penalty for heavy investment into war industries to the detriment of the population's quality of life. So what's the answer? Perhaps a lower overall readiness of frontline units due to correspondence with the folks back home? Separate moral from readiness and take the hit there? Reduced supplies to front? An intangible performance reduction of units in battle? Obviously something for Hubert to ponder.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

But the reason the massed-airfleet strategy has come into vogue is because, in view of the game mechanics -- particularly no stacking, the linearity of a hex system, and no coordinated attacks -- it's the only effective method of countering the massed-corps defensive strategy. I can break through a line of corps because I can concentrate 5 (or 10 or 20) airfleets against a single unit; in most cases, I can concentrate only 3, and often 2, ground units against a single unit. If you tone down air power, you're going to wind up with the same trench warfare, except that there'll be no way to break through the trenches.

Unless you tone something up in its place. And that's where tanks come in. I think SC substantially undervalues the role of tanks. In every single offensive in WWII -- from the Ardennes in 1940 to Barbarossa to the Russian counterattacks to Patton's breakout in Operation Cobra -- tanks played the pivotal role. That doesn't happen here. Tanks aren't any more effective against infantry units than other infantry, and it remains that way throughout the game; a King Tiger has the same attack strength against infantry as a PzII.

Fixing this involves getting under the hood with the game mechanics. I'd beef up the infantry attack strength of tanks from 4 to 5 or even 6, and have it increase by 1 for each advance in tanks. (Right now it stays constant.) I'd reduce the attack strength of air fleets against infantry from 2 to 1, but have it also affect readiness (which is related to supply): for each air attack, the defending unit suffers a loss of 1 in supply.

Last, I'd change the combat system to include a retreat rule, so that a defending unit retreats when it suffers a certain loss. That, coupled with the change in the supply rules, would make armored breakthroughs and

Russ I totally agree with many of the points you made here. The only way I see to have any kind of offensive sucess is to provide overwhelming superiority of numbers, experience, and strength. Although this can happen in attacking minor nations, this is very rarely the possible in major v major fights.

Given the limitations of no staking, no retreating, and the bizarre absence of the ability to have coordnated simultaneously attacks on a unit - there are few circumstances where you can destroy a unit, unless you are able to surround it or border it on several fronts.

So I agree with you that the ONLY way to sucessfully advance against a major nation is to overwhelm an area with air power - and use ground units to mop up the damage and seize control of the hex. While I dont want to diminsh the role of air power in the game - I do think there should be a better system of allowing ground gains primarily using ground units.

Lets say there are no air units - none at all for any side. What would this game be? Nothing other than trench warefare - and I think that can be improved upon.

I agree TOTALLY that tanks are undervalued in the game. I think your suggestion is a great one - to increase the attacking strenght of tanks against infantry - and allowing tech advances to improve that attacking strength.

I would also make this suggestion - allow for multiple units to attack a single target. There are so many reasons for this - many have been discussed in other forums. But I think doing this will put a greater emphasis on the role and value of ground units - couple that with the improvements in the role of armour - and the ability to retreat - and I think you will create a more playable, more enjoyable game. And ultimately that is what this is all about.

[SeaMonkey]

I understand your point, dougmangin, but remember without Airfleets there is always Rockets/Strategic Bombers to perform the massed attack, agreed they aren't as potent early.

[ev]

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

I like most of these suggestions but I don't like the idea of industrial technology being hardwired into the game. Having such things follow a historical (deterministic) path takes SC away from being a game to being a history replicator.

I could not agree more with this statement. I think we should try to improve the research engine. Hardwiring is almost the same as eliminating it as a factor in the game. Or at least as a factor you can "play" with, which is the purpose of any game.

I would suggest that research should be subject to a rule of diminishing returns. Something like this:

The first research chip will increase the chance of discovery by 10% (as it stands now). But the second research chip will increase the chance of discovery by only 8%. And, the second research chip will only increase the chance of discovery by 6%. And so forth.

A Player investing 5 chips in 5 different areas will have a 50% chance of getting some advanced in some area per turn. But a player that concentrates all 5 chips in one area, will only have a 10+8+6+4+2 = 30% chance of getting some tech improvement.

This will greatly induce players to spread their research chips around different areas of research instead of concentrating all of them in IT.

Some tweaking may be appropriate regarding the effects of higher tech levels. I agree with the comments above that better tanks should be more effective against infantry. Perhapps better infantry should be able to defend better from air attacks. And, the range of rockets could increase even further so they can be more usefull. And so forth.

My guess is that the areas that need the most tweaking are the areas no one is ever researching. And those are the areas we are most likely to forget. Does anyone out there research AA Radar? Bombers? Rockets? Sonar? Gun Laying?

I have the feeling most people concentrate their research in IT and Jet Engines, followed by Range, Tanks and Infantry. Everything else is researched only after you reach levels 4 and 5 in the priority list. From a game perspective we are left with three choices:

Choice A: make it less rewarding to concentrate all research chips in one area.

Choice B: make the "unwanted" research areas more appealing.

Choice C: a combination of a and b.