Limiting Units in Strategic Command

[sogard]

I have been reading all the threads on proposed house rules, the threads that one side or the other has the advantage in the current version of the game and the observation that the historic economic advantage of the Allies is missing in the game.

First, let me say that I think that Hubert has done a remarkable job in creating STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) as it is. A good game, especially a computer game that does not rely on graphic effects, is something very difficult. Hubert has certainly passed this test with flying colors.

The question remains though whether a game which starts off on a reasonably historic track can be made to better reflect the historic realities without major changes.

Something which occured to me, which may have been discussed earlier, is to consider using a limitation on the number of units each player may either build in the game or have in the game at any given time. The game already does this with Headquarter (HQ) units. Each power can only build a certain number of HQs in the game and once they have been destroyed; they can not be rebuilt.

Why not apply this same principle to the other units in the game? If you limit the total number of Air Fleets which can be present in the game of each nation, this can/will prevent a vision of an Eastern Front dominated by Corps but driven by vast Air Forces (mostly German in my recent games). One could even permit some units to continue to have unlimited numbers in the game (say permit unlimited numbers of Corps; but restrict the total number of Armies).

A number of current strategic boardgames already do this with the concept of force pools. Some games add units to a nation's force pool each calender year.

It seems to me that if the game were to take this approach, that SC could look a bit more like history and be less likely to resemble the unreal world where air power dominates. Research could even continue without much, if any, modification. But, the total size and shape of each nation's military forces would have a more historic and, I would argue, realistic element added.

I continue to enjoy SC. I think it is a very good computer wargame. It is worthy of my and my opponant's time. But, I think with a tweak, here and there, it could be even more.

[pzgndr]

The main reason for no force pools is to allow more what-ifs. On one hand it would be nice to have 'historic' (?) unit limits like in 3R and other games, but unless variants or other options are introduced to the game the current free-for-all is OK. Something like the 'gearing ratios' in WiF could be introduced to limit how many units can be built in a turn, and/or even to limit reinforcements by type. To produce 30 tank factors one turn, 5 the next, then 25 after that is not how production works. So that's a possibility for making things more reasonable without imposing artificial limits.

Building new units outside the home country is a nagging concern of mine. There's no way Germany could be cranking out U-boats from French ports the turn after France surrenders, but it happens in SC. Brand new tank groups showing up in Smolensk? No. These should be built at home and then moved or op moved to the front (Alexandria being a possible exception). So some combination of limiting builds/reinforcements by gearing ratios, restricting builds to home country, and permitting some partial reinforcement (2-3 factors?) of forward units with action points left over to still move/attack would be an interesting enhancement in some future version of SC. These changes should not drastically affect how the game plays, but may moderate things somewhat and provide a better historic feel. Of course, players would have to monitor what their build limits are and be more deliberate with their thinking, and there tends to be some resistance to anything that even smells like more complexity.

[Panzer Cmdr]

Both of you have very good points. I like the idea of force pools (perhaps these could grow as new countries are conquered/join and new 'volunteers' are found. The 'volunteers' being based on a %support for the country. You would be limited on manpower and you may only be able to support x amount of new units. This should also effect replacements too though, but perhaps at 1/2 the penalty to account for fixing wounded and non-replacements fixes of just reorganizing etc.

The ability to build an instant sub in newly conquered france could be solved with the idea of timed purchases. It should take varying lengths of time to build units and each city/factory would produce specified unit. So now that you have that factory/city on the west coast of france you can start to produce that sub and it might be available in 3-4 months. I forget what game it was (perhaps Empire Deluxe) but it had a good concept that gave production time bonuses if you continued to produced same unit types at specified city/factory. Berlin may build a bomber fleet and it may take 6 months, if they again build another bomber there it may take 5 months - maxing out at half normal build time of 3 months eventually. Then if now they want they make a tank and next build another bomber back at the full 6 month time (this could sybolize retooling and regaining lost effeciency of work force.

Other games took into accout actual resources so if you only produce so much steel per year you are limited to the amount of tanks to build. If SC take on this approach major changes would have to be made in resources. Perhaps each hex could have some resource value (either make that hex in Russia a crop hex (these could help in force pools) or an oil hex (needed for air, naval and tank production) or hex could be a combition of resources (say each hex provides x amount of food, x amount of oil, x amount of minerals) This could get really complex.

In all things if would be great though that no mater how detailed the game got- enhancements could be made as options that players can turn on or off.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I agree with the force pool notion.

I don't myself plan on worshipping at the "what if" alter.

All to often the what if crowd merely doesn't wish to consider historical limitations of production.

This is due I think, to to many gamers having played to many Warcraftish games, where you can have whatever you wish.

Therefore, hmmm, I hereby intend to refer to any "what if" proposal, that is patently idiotic, henceforth, as a "whatever".

Because, eventually, a game that departs far enough from historical conditions, might as well be just Axis & Allies.

After all, why force a designer to accurately model one aspect of the war, and then totally ignore another.

[Scorpion_sk]

Bill Macon, thanks for pointing the issue of building units in occupied countries.

I´ll add another restriction to my house rules from now on

[sogard]

I have been playing STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) over the past couple of days and thinking about what could make the game bit more realistic. The more that I have thought about it; the more it seems obvious to me that regardless of how strong the economies are of the various countries (and let's face it folks, the Brits and the USA are being significantly underrepresented -- in the later stages of the war, the Western Allies are a mere fraction of their historic strengths relative to Germany), a major realism flaw with the game as presently structured is that there is only one unit which is limited in the game and that is the Headquarters.

However, since Headquarters are limited, why not limit the number of units permitted in the other various unit types? If Hubert feels that he needs the present economic model in order to have a balanced game, then keep it. But, please, lets also get rid of the notion that the Germans could have built fifteen to twenty air fleets; much less fueled them. What this is going to do is to make the end game of SC maintain a bit more realism and it would also give the Allies an advantage in overall units if they can afford to build them.

As I suggested earlier, some units could remain an unlimited build unit (like the Corps); but, this would reign in the alternate universe where the Germans are fielding air forces of 15+ air fleets.

Again, this solution means that one would not have to fiddle with the research aspect of the game (other than adjust the starting tech levels where appropriate).

It might also be appropriate to give the Germans some experience at start to reflect that the German Army, better than its adversaries, had a sense of how much had changed with warfare since the 1914 - 1920 experience.

Anyone else have any ideas along this line?

[Bruce70]

In SC2 it would be nice to see the different resources (iron, oil, manpower etc) modelled. But I don't think that is going to happen with SC1. Without those I cannot see how you can set an arbitrary limit on the numbers of units that can be built.

I do want to retain as much "what-if" as possible. But I would also like to stick to historically possible what-ifs. Arbitrary limitations to make the game more "historical" can be counterproductive.

[Kuniworth]

Sogard; I believe you are right.

But I would also see some changed values for purchasing stuff. And it´s totally unrealistic that you can stamp up 2-3 new panzer corps when you plunder france. Thats a very doubtful production-system.

When it comes to the MMP produced so are the americans ridicilous low. Thew should at least produce 450-500 each turn. Brits as you mentioned should be higher. This way the germans must break down russia fast or else quickly go down in flames. As it historical also was.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

In SC2 it would be nice to see the different resources (iron, oil, manpower etc) modelled. But I don't think that is going to happen with SC1. Without those I cannot see how you can set an arbitrary limit on the numbers of units that can be built.

I do want to retain as much "what-if" as possible. But I would also like to stick to historically possible what-ifs. Arbitrary limitations to make the game more "historical" can be counterproductive.

I disagree with you in one respect Bruce and that is the effect of simply imposing a unit limit on some or all units. What this does is prevent the current game economics from totally getting out of whack because you can set the individual unit numbers on a known historical maximum. Thus, the maximum number of Air Fleets Germany can ever possess is fixed to the largest number they ever actually fielded. This means that even if you have the money; you can not build an ahistorical force (such as a 15 Air Fleet Luftwaffe). There are some very concrete real world reasons for this limit. The first is that production constraints, manpower, lack of strategic resources and fuel dictated that there limits on what any nation (including the United States) could ever put into the field.

In essence, the game should have a maximum order of battle for each nation. What I do not know is whether or not Germany should be given a significant experience bonus with her "at start" forces. The game starts with Germany mainly using a quantitative edge to take out France; but, I think the qualitative edge the Germans possessed in tactics and leadership was equally, if not more so, important. I think that STRATEGIC COMMAND can represent this at start because this sort of scenario can give them units which have a qualitative edge that is not built into the game at present.

I really wish the Scenario Editor permitted the gamer to play with this; but, after taking a look at it last night, it appeared to me that not only the basic game economics; but also, the quantity and type of units available are not changeable with the Scenario Editor. If the Scenario Editor permitted more flexibility (like letting the player do to other units what the game already does for HQs), one would truly have a great game where the gamer could experiment with crafting the most accurate scenario possible.

I have no idea if these kind of features can be built into the Scenario Editor; but, I really wish Hubert would consider it (after tcp/ip implementation).

It is amusing to move or watch your opponant move massiver German Air Fleets around the map; but, I have trouble imagining how this was ever possible and therefore, the fact that the number of Air Fleets is unlimited spoils some of the fun of the game. It remains a good game yet loses alot of the game's historical appeal which had been supported by the nice maps, photos and unit icons.

[ September 20, 2002, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Kuniworth]

I vote yes. Very good proposal Sogard. This rule is in COS and would greatly make the game more historical.

I suggest Hubert Carter starts with the help of us of course to discuss the limitation rules with regards to manpower reserves and industrial capability in each country.

[pzgndr]

Thus, the maximum number of ____ is fixed to the largest number they ever actually fielded.

A caution here. To take an actual number fielded historically and make that a hard limit could stifle creativity at the grand strategy level. What actually happened and what could have happened are two different things. If the actual number of German air fleets fielded was 6, I would agree that 12 or more may be completely unrealistic. But 7 or 8 may have been possible if priorities were different, resources conquered were different, research was different, whatever.

A game menu option would be appropriate. One option is to have historical unit limits by type as proposed, one option is to have the current no-limits, and other options for something more modest - like historical limits +10% or +25%. There should be some flexibility.

I like the +25% idea, but I'll play devil's advocate and ask why no-limits should be such a problem in the game, beyond the historical resources/production issue. If your opponent can afford massive combat power, either in the form of air fleets or something else, what difference does it make? If there's play balance, players have choices to make to counter their opponent's strategy to build lots of air fleets, or lots of tanks, or lots of whatever. That word "afford" is key. We still have some economic balance issues to resolve in SC, which are probably more important in the long run than force pool limits.

[Panzer Cmdr]

Sogard, I vote with Bill on the idea that you can't just look at Historical maxes. If Germany does defeat Russia, it would be more likely that Germany could have supported a much larger airforce. This is where the idea of tying unit building/support to resources would help. Such a change would have to be an SC2 thing moreso than a patch. I like the idea of having each land hex have some value in resources, this may prevent Russia from just abondoning their west front. Although I guess we could keep the option of scorched earth. (this option is silly though, I think all countries would try to destroy supplies/equipment/etc. rather than letting the enemy get them- I'd rather see this as an action: like the Russians would have to have a unit in the city and it would have to select 'destroy city/resource' and perhaps take 1 turn to do so.) Thus if you left a city wide open the enemy could simply swoop in a reap the benifits. Perhaps it should also not be automatic the repairs to cities/resources and also have to station a unit there(or next to for harbors)and give action to rebuild city a point per turn.

[Kuniworth]

The big problem here is that the game functions not work historically. I remember this discussion from the Matrix-war in russia forum as well. And when you start alter such things like unit limitations you end up with yet another problem, and another and another...

BUT, unit limitations is not really a problem here. If Germany would take Russia this would not mean larger manpower just that more tanks and planes would be put in to the wehrmacht divisions. This would most easy be simulated by the plunder from USSR could be used to reinforce the panzerdivisions. Remember that new divisions also need personel to function and that would be german soldiers. For the barbarossa-campaign wehrmacht doubled it´s panzer-divisions compared to the available ones in france simply by reducing their strenght to half and creating new ones.

When it comes to fielded division you also end up wrong. True Germany produced a lot of panzer division but many consisted(especially late in the war) of wagons(stug and so on) inferior to real tanks. So you must look at manpower reserves.

So for example;

Germanys population is the following_____. Of them x is available for military-service. That would mean looking at losses in ww2 maximum of x armies and corps.

And so on...

[Kuniworth]

Its necessary to understand that MMP don´t give a good grip on industrial capability. For example you cant just stop producing manpower and instead focusing on tanks. It´s two diffrent things. But as it is now the game don´t simulate this. Therefore I think Sogard got a point.

That mean that Russia shouldnt be able to just buy tanks when their gratest asset is manpower. It´s a big diffrence between producing tanks and rifles.

So lets compromise. Can´t we have this as an option in the game?

[John DiFool]

The ultimate question of course is: why didn't

the various powers forget about building the army

up very much, and instead concentrated on creating

massive air fleets with which to bomb the enemy to

oblivion?

The answer is complicated of course , but can

be summarized as follows:

1. Air power is fragile, more fragile than tanks

and even infantry. I think Gary Grigsby's east

front games portray this pretty well: air assets

have a tendency to quickly degrade once committed

to confronting the enemy (either offensively or

defensively). You had to carefully husband and

nurture your airpower to maintain its effectiveness.

While this is true to a certain extent in SC, if

the imbalance between the airfleet and its target

is substantial enough (and on the eastern front

when the Germans have a big HQ, experience and

tech advantage over the Russians), then attrition

on the part of the airfleets becomes minimal. Even

if the enemy is providing no resistance to your

attacks your air assets WILL degrade, and the

combat model should reflect this.

2. Air power has a rather substantial logistical

tail that must support it (yes so did tank armies).

You have bombs, spare parts, fuel (LOTS of fuel),

etc. etc. to keep your air fleet in top flying

condition. SC doesn't really address this (and I'm

not criticising the game for this, as it would

likely make it an unplayable mess): perhaps

the mere use of air assets would cost some MPPs?

(above and beyond any reinforcement costs)

3. Training someone to fly an airplane is a very

expensive process, much more so than training

them to be anything else, including tankers and

special forces. The Luftwaffe simply couldn't

pump out zillions of planes, because there may not

have been competent pilots to fly them. Note that

this in fact happened in 1944, when the rate of

single-engine fighter builds in Germany shot up,

but were promptly shot down because most of the

pilots had little idea of what they were doing.

Japan also suffered a similar problem, exacerbated

by a hopelessly elite training regimen which made

for very few replacement pilots as attrition took

its toll.

4. Air power is only of use in certain situations.

You can't bomb at night, so for the half-day

during which your planes are grounded, all those

tanks and artillery and whatnot which you failed

to provide to your troops will cost them dearly.

You also can't bomb during certain weather

conditions.

5. And last but not least, air power can't gain

and hold ground.

So there we are. Some of the above "hidden" costs

need to be addressed, or we will continue to see

ahistorical plane-heavy army compositions.

Doesn't need to be painful or horrendously complicated,

but it does bear scrutiny.

Hubert, I haven't seen you comment in any of

these threads-your thoughts?

John DiFool

[Hubert Cater]

Hubert, I haven't seen you comment in any of

these threads-your thoughts?

Always listening...

Hubert

[Drizl]

Im very new to this game so i am not the best person to talk about this stuff. Since i have played only the demo about 20 hours (I am desperately trying to get the full version but i don´t have a credit card).

Well anyway. I only wanted to say that everyone is bringing up very good points about some economical and historical faults. But in the same time "everyone" is forgetting what SC is supposed to be.

Of course only the designers can say what it is supposed be but i think it was ment to be a excellent what-if WW2 game. Which doesn´t live up 100% to the real WW2 and i think it´s better this way. All these "let´s make quantities for men, oil etc." ideas are excellent but i think that they don´t belong in this game. I have played many war strategies as do all and this is from the lighter end and that´s how it´s supposed to be.

[pzgndr]

Good points John about air units. The combination of increased losses and the MPP reinforcement cost to address O&M costs could be reconsidered. Two things happen with increased tech levels - air attack/defense values are modified and unit strength increases. This seems to be a double benefit when you look at the combat formulas. If unit strength max is maintained at 10 for all unit types, then losses in general could increase some (relative to current standards) as tech levels increase without having to change the combat model. And maybe the build and/or reinforcement costs could be increased also.

To keep things simple, MPPs are fine and using build/reinforcement costs to capture all the abstract training and O&M costs is fine. We don't want to be tracking different resource types and different unit maintenance costs and stuff like that. (Do we?)

IMHO, the unit strength 10 max should be seriously considered. (There's a unit limit!) You already have the tech bonus, experience bonus, command rating and combat morale bonus for these advanced units; why must we have more? Historically, unit size did not increase but rather decreased. Rather than paying for extra strength points, MPP costs by type could increase 10% with each applicable tech advance. Heck, L5 long-range air combined with L5 jet technology would cost you 100% more under that formula, which might be what you're getting at John. At L5 industrial tech they'd only be 50% more. But the key is you'd be paying more to keep these advanced weapons going and that's important.

[sogard]

My thought on proposing the notion of limits on the total number of any type of unit in the game was to seek a solution for the current version of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) which made the game somewhat more realistic and which did not require a complete overhaul of the game design. It seemed to me that this was something that could be implemented either by Hubert or modifying the Scenario Editor and permit players to do it themselves. Thus, SC could be a more realistic WW II grand strategy game.

I understand that there are those who don't care much about realism and much prefer to see the end game full of cool jet sounds and the great massed Air Fleets of the Luftwaffe zipping here and there; but, quite frankly, this drops my interest considerably after the opening of the game presents some interesting choices in what kind of strategy one wants to pursue.

I don't even see the Air Power guys at the Air Force Acadamy seeing what typically comes up in the 1943 - 1946 period in the game as being remotely realistic. So, why not do something about it?

I don't have a problem with fixing the number of units at the historical max plus say 25% (or you pick the magic number). I will grant you that it is going to be arbitrary; but, one of the great lessons about military history is that everything has its limits. No one nation could have fielded twenty Air Fleets or twenty Tank Armies in the European Theater. This is especially true of Germany (which is what we are really talking about here).

The game, as it is presently designed, is really the Third Reich's dream. The game directs events down the course where Speer gets everything right, all the "wonder weapons" work as advertised and Germany has no fuel problems at all (even before Germany has access to the oil from the either Russia or the Middle East). That describes a situation which is completely unreal.

Why not improve the realism with this simple fix or at least permit the game to be modified so that if you want it more realistic, you can play it that way? I may be underestimating what it would take in effort by Hubert to make this fix; but, assuming that it is possible, I think it would be well worth his effort.

[ September 20, 2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Brian Rock]

There's another reason why the Allies put more emphasis on building massive airfleets: they couldn't afford it.

Aircraft are tres expensive.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey in 1945 estimated that "England devoted 40 to 50 percent of her war production to her air forces, Germany 40 percent, and the United States 35 percent."

If these figures are accurate, based on historical production at best you could increase air production two to three times - presuming you didn't want any tanks, rifles, artillery, ammo, etc.

[Kuniworth]

Sogard once again; You are absolutely right. Let this be an option and let us together work out the historical accurate limitations

[Scorpion_sk]

We don't want to be tracking different resource types and different unit maintenance costs and stuff like that. (Do we?)

I do

At present, I don´t think some more complexity and detail wouldn´t hurt.

I think SC is a wonderful "educational" entry level game, but in this case I simply would like some additional features. (Note that I would still be happy with only fixing the gameplay issues)

The thing is, there aren´t any games like SC out there at the moment for the computer, are there? (With PBEM / TCP/IP and Win9x / nt support)

I did try Gary Grigsby´s WiR, but that was too much to handle at once, unfortunately.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Sogard once again; You are absolutely right. Let this be an option and let us together work out the historical accurate limitations

I am already looking at this because I am curious as to what the actual numbers are. There are also a number of games that have had to tackle the question, in setting up an order of battle, of just how many Armies, Corps, Air Fleets etc. were actually created by the various powers.

If Hubert is reading this, is there any chance that unit limits might be incorporated into SC? I agree with your your current priority of getting tcp/ip implemented; but, I can dream of what might be.

[ September 21, 2002, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[DevilDog]

I understand the "historical" and "realism" arguements. I disagree with them however. Having force pools and limiting air power may or may not make SC more realistic. They almost certainly would make it more historical.

And that is exactly what I have a problem with. Many peoiple in this thread and others says they want a more historical SC. Well I don't. I already know how World War 2 ended. I think that would make for a truely boring game. Who wants to start the game knowing that Germany has no chance to win? What's the point of playing? To some extent the game has to be unhistorically and unrealistically balanced to provide for good game play.

If air power were significantly changed, it would unbalance the German superiority in the early game, remove the German ability to perform a blitzkrieg, and make for a more WW1 trench warfare type of game. Definitely not as fun as a highly mobile war. I don't have the exact quote, but I'll look for it - Winston Churchill said that it took centuries for Britian to gain and hold supremacy of the sea, and that was the strength her world empire was based on. He then said that in a few short months at the beginning of the war her sea power had been suplanted by air power and that even if victorious (I don't think HE said "if") she would lose her empire due to the new age of air power.

I don't want limits placed on what units I can buy. What seems to have happened is some people have had a bad PBEM experience by being defeated by the German played who massed air fleets. Well the Allies have a faily large MPP production rate above the Axis. If Germany can build air fleets why can't you? To impose your will on your opponent, sometimes you will have to build units to counteract his, not just the units you want to.

We'll see how it all plays out. Right now I'm in a PBEM where my opponent has 7 air fleets and one bomber fleet as the axis. I don't think that I've made my purchaces too far from what was historically done, but I outnumber his air force. Of course his is massed and concentrated which gives him a slight advantage. Even if he wins the war (we'll see) I don't think it will be completely due to his numerically inferior air force, as seems to be sugested in other threads. But his air force will certainly have a substantial impact. There are a few tweeks that could possibly enhance SC, but IMO they shouldn't be the major game changing ones being discussed here and in the other threads.

[Kuniworth]

Sogard!

I will look into it also. An interesting perspective is that this may trigger retreat rules in the game too. Because limitations on for example armies may cause the players to retreat rather than loosing a damaged unit in battle thus creating a more flexble front line.

I think we should press this issue hard. It wouldnt be to difficult to implement either.