Jump to content

SC2: War production


Recommended Posts

What would be fantastic for SC2 is to see real (self-interested) departments in a belligerent's armed forces.

Here's what I've been thinking about. Every major belligerent would have Industrial Points dedicated SIMULTANEOUSLY to several branches of the military.




Other ideas include INDUSTRY, INTELLIGENCE, and RESEARCH. And perhaps even DOMESTIC ECONOMICS.

Anyway, belligerents start the game with funds going to each of the aforementioned branches. There is a slider, ranging from 1-10, for each of the branches.

For instance, taking a wild guess, Germany in 1939 had fund allocations like this:


AIRFORCE: 4 (and growing)

NAVY: 2 (and growing)

Britain's might look like this (total guess):



NAVY: 10

Cost/speed of unit production is influenced by how much tradition and funding each department gets (the ratings above).

According to this model, a belligerent can work on producing units simultaneously. However, it also means that a unit might take more than 1 turn to be finished. Ships of course will always take at least 6 turns, sometimes up to 12.

Example: It might take Britain many turns to produce 1 Army. But it would take the Germans maybe even only 1 turn.

With INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT into infrastructure and ressearch, a player can increase a notch on a slider (for Army, Navy, or Airforce, for example).

Or, this model can also act in a zero-sum manner. Funding can be starved from the Army for a few turns to augment the Navy or Airforce. So if a player wants to increase 1 department, he has the option of diverting funds from others.

The idea of showing DOMESTIC ECONOMICS is a realistic one. While Germany was busy conquering the world in the early phases, its economy was still was not a modern war economy. Most economic acitivity was non-military. This of course switched in 1943 when Goebbels announced the Total War economy.

Whereas in Soviet Russia, after 1941, the entire economy was militarized, liberating funds in defense of the nation.

So there could be a slider for Domestic Economy. Eventually, a belligerent will seek to lower the amount of domestic economic activity in order to liberate it for the war economy. The Russians will have the lowest rating, while America's will have the highest.

I have much more and this, but must skadoodle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Miscellaneous Facts on historical war production. Go to the end for the big stats.

Aircraft Production by country and year:








NOTE: Some went for quality, while others, like Russia, went for quantity. So they might have more, but less advanced.

Share of World Manufacturing Output in per cent:








1937 National Income, and percentage on Defense:


Brit Empire_____$22b________5.7%





Relative War Potential in 1937 (I assume this is a loose measurement of the world's share of arms each country could put forward in a major war.)







Tank Production in 1944:




USA_________________17,500 (29,500 in 1943)

Aircraft Production, 1940 - 44







ARMAMENTS PRODUCTION (in 1944 US billions)







SOURCE: Kennedy, Paul. 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'. London: Fontana Press. 1988. Pages 419 - 458.

I hope all this info can help shape the war production models for SC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Another fine idea. I guess the present system handles all that as an abstraction but your idea makes things more precise. I'd like it combined with production schedules so battleships, aircraft carriers, airfleets, armies etc., & etc., don't suddenly appear on a whim. It should take time to build units as well as resources and proper production planning should be part of the overall strategy.

Stay tuned for the inevitable gasp! micromanagement attacks. Your idea is a bit complex for this game, but I like it. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The present system kinda handles this. But I suppose the Industrial output (MPPs) are a bit off. According to the Armaments expenditures, the game nations should have MPPs somewhat like this in 1941 (with the cost of units a bit higher too):

Britain 650 MPPs


USA 450 MPPs (roughly 2000 MPPs by war's end)

Germany 600 MPPs

Italy 100 MPPs

Of course, a large amount of Anglo-American money would be going to making costly ships, merchant and amphibious transports, fighters, airborne, bombers, huge stockpiles, and mucho research.

While German money would be going toward less costly items such as infantry, motorized infantry, uboats, realtively cheap fighters, and armour. While the Navy's Z-Plan drained a certain amount of resources, it was eventually abandoned.

And yes, the scheduling for various units should be longer than 1 turn. Yes, indeed.

PS... the American MPPs should always be on the rise, in a compound fashion. The USSR, not so much, but they should gain extra MPPs every turn due to its near complete militarization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Great idea, but (in my view) not for this game, unless the overall complexity (ie: more complex attack strategies using better defined units, such as Waffen SS, Fallshirm, British Airborne, US Rangers, Italian Frogmen, etc...) would make your idea more effective and practical. If one is to apply Army/ Navy/Airforce production points to creating units, it has to be more than what currently exists in the game.

That's my view, cheers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's unfortunate, I guess. I hope SC2 won't be simply a patch to this current game. I find it odd that the current production model is so well accepted. The current model is good in abstract and it makes for a fun game. But the yucky truth is it might not be very accurate at all.

PS... I do not claim to have accuracy either, or programming skills. I'm just trying to stimulate the creator toward new ideas. Worth it because SC turned out fairly well. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites


That's fine.

Anything that starts wheels turning is good. It was obvious your idea is a bit complex for this game, but it's good you posted it as the ensuing discussion might lead to something that can be turned into an improvement.

I was over my head in the second entry but I liked the gist of it and leave the details to guys like yourself who are better with figures than I am. smile.gif

[ January 03, 2003, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very big on economics and logistics, because of course that's 'mostly' why the Allies won (luck, courage and smarts helped). The mid-sized economies of the Axis (and Japan) took on the large economies of the Allies. The smaller boys accomplished stunning tactical/operational feats. Yet in strategic terms, they were screwed.

I'd like the Axis gamer to muscle the shortterm thinkers out (Hitler and Mussolini) and think longterm to beat the giants.

Ever play Hearts of Iron? It's a terribly flawed game at the moment (getting better with patches), but the SCOPE is absolutely amazing and somewhat realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you go back a few foum pages you'll find a couple of forums on HOI and comparisons to SC. The general consensus agrees with your evaluation.

In line with what you're saying about comparative economics status, Japan's gap vs her real opponents, US & Britain, was incredible; economically and industrially like a terrier attacking two police dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOI and SC need not merge to become similar. MPPs as an abstraction (like BRPs, IPs, and others) are fine. The alternative of course is micromanaging multiple resources. Rather than have to do all that yourself, why not accept a reasonable abstraction and trust that your virtual ministers are doing what they are supposed to be doing?

SC2 should go beyond just patching the current version and address realistic war production. Normalized production on a per month basis, reconsideration of the plunder gimmick, and adjusting resources and national growth rates (like 10% IT advances for US and USSR versus 5% for others) would greatly help. Maybe some force pool limits would also help, but something subtle tied to the number of HQs or something would be preferable. All this could be done to improve the production model (ie, make it somewhat more realistic and historically accurate) without jeopardizing the current simplicity of the game.

Btw, I'm wrestling with "micromanagement" in HOI. Multiple resources, world trades, and convoy management to simulate "realistic" war production is one thing in a game of that scale and scope. It's a challenge, and it's there for anyone who wants that kind of challenge. SC offers a very enjoyable alternative. SC2 should build upon that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Normalized production on a per month basis, reconsideration of the plunder gimmick,

Without Plunder The Axis Have no chance to Expand. That's one reason the Dutch Gambit works so well. It strips the much needed Mpps from axis and provides UK with a HQ. And that can really hurt thier back side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to the slide bars and having one for each branch of the military plus one for domestic economy - the last one would have to mean something or everyone would just switch the thing off on the first turn?

Having been playing HOI over Christmas and the New Year this may get a bit too close to micro management, especially if we want SC2 to go global. I've just got to late 1938 (I fall asleep if i spend more than half an hour playing it) and I've just lost 15 divisions because I forgot where I put them (oops!)and they died in the desert (ouch!) :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


". . . I've just got to late 1938. . . "

One of the things I liked about HiCom and would like about any WW II game that begins in a pre-war setting is you have the chance to change some basic aspects of your military.

For example, if SC started after Munich, let's say, and played ten or twelve years in game terms (without WW II A-bombs wouldn't have been developed by '45, research alone was too expensive) Germany could do things such as developing a Marine Corps for amphibious operations and build more paratroopers for an eventual invasion of Britain.

Other countries (participating in a peacetime mode) could also rechannel some of their own historical characteristics, changing research emphasis or perhaps altering political moves.

I think something like that would be interesting although HiCom didn't quite manage it as the only peacetime player was Germany.

You've done a good job reinforcing the claims that HOI is a procuct released prematurely. If SC goes global I hope it does a better job than it's competitor. I'm sure it will, though on a much less complicated level -- which might be the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad this thread has built interest because I feel it's a fundamental part of any WWII wargame.

Returning to the slide bars and having one for each branch of the military plus one for domestic economy - the last one would have to mean something or everyone would just switch the thing off on the first turn?
Have you ever played EU2? In that game, 'reforms' are made by leaders to adjust thinking and funding and the general direction of a nation. A leader, as a steersman, can PUSH his nation a little bit every few years in a certain direction. i.e.. to land war, naval investment, free subjects, plutocracy, etc...

In game terms, this means the player can alter the 'notch' on the slider by one degree. So in a hypothetical SC2, if 90% of Germany's production is allocated to the Domestic Economy in 1939 (just a ball park figure), a player can make a finite 'reform' by adjusting the slider down one notch. Hence Germany suddenly has 80% of its economy dedicated to the Domestic Economy (non-military production). This of course would free up and give the player more war production.

Every 6 turns or so, a player could make such a reform. America would have the highest amount going to Domestic Economy (they were relatively nonmilitarized in 1939), while the Soviets would have the lowest (relatively very militarized).

The Sliders could be from 1 to 10, respectively meaning extremely militarized to extremely commercial.

Un-researched examples for 1939:

USA 10 (mellow, but lookout in 1941-45!)

Germany 8 (only just starting really)

UK 6 (hasty funds to AA, RAF, and RN)

Italy 7 (weak, but warring since 1935)

USSR 4 (Stalin made big military investments)

All these numbers would eventually fall, freeing up more industry for war production. The titan would end up being the USA, although a percentage would be unseen as it was delegated to the Pacific theatre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...