Limiting Units in Strategic Command

[sogard]

Originally posted by 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..

I agree with you that it would be more historical and it would certainly be more realistic because the kind of military force you could build would reflect what was really possible.

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.

[Kuniworth]

In 1941 Germany mustered 3 airfleets for the Barbarossa Campaign. In strategic command you should be happy if the wehrmacht attacks with less than 6 airfleets.

Thats not fun.

Instead please consider Sogards option again. We don´t even have to chose one or another, this can be put into the game as an alternative option.

[dragoon19]

Let me start by saying that IMHO 'force pool' or a max order of Battle is a good point which I think should be implemented.

However, there may be a need for unit attrition/battle loss influencing the force pool? That is, a army reduced to a stength of 1 several times and then rebuild would also cause a drain on manpower.

Also unit 'strength' should not rise with tech level as pointed out by some one above. Indeed, for all I can see raises in tech level while also incresing numerical unit strengt is two different processes one techological/production orientated another organizational. Let's keep these two processes seperated, while allowing for better organisation in some armies

( HQ rating could for example allow increases in numerical strength - blitz krige and concentation of panzer forces comes to mind)

Dragoon19

[Kuniworth]

I could also agree on an option that limits the number of total units you have on the map at the same time. As in clash of Steel if anyone remembers. This way things could be rebuildable but it would be impossible to mass 15 airfleets at once.

Example; Lets say for Germany this could mean that maximum they can have on the map at the same time;

5 airfleets

6 panzer corps

15 Armies

25 Corps

or something like that.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

In 1941 Germany mustered 3 airfleets for the Barbarossa Campaign. In strategic command you should be happy if the wehrmacht attacks with less than 6 airfleets.

Precisely. In the real war, the Russian front was

a huge sucking morass of attrition for the Luftwaffe,

and their presence there became increasingly

sparse (thanks mainly of course to the Allied

bombing campaign but also to Hitler's late start

in getting Germany's war economy optimized and

prioritized).

I have been wanting a strategic WWII game for

quite awhile now precisely because I want

to explore what-ifs [to suggest that the "realism"

crowd here just wants a move-for-move replay of

WWII is missing the point-if not a straw man]-but

within realistic constraints.

John DiFool

[dragoon19]

'What ifs' are indeed the main point of the game and it would be rather boring if it was just a re-play of WWII.

However, there are many tactical 'what ifs' even if the force poll is (more) restricted. so I don´t see why it should not be a option.

[Scorpion_sk]

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.

No, no and no. 5 times out of 6 I´ve been the one handling out the devastation with the airfleet, 4 times as the germans and once as the russians (I got reaaaally lucky with tech)

It bores me to hell. Frankly, I don´t want to play another game like those again. All the games have been the same : the side that gets the air superiority keep on buying airfleets (and let me tell you, dozen is a little figure when we´re speaking of the airfleet massing, usually I´ve had closer to or over two dozen of them).

With some intelligent target selection, you can easily rack up the experience for the airfleets by tactical bombing and ensure that the enemy will NEVER return to the skies in a meaningful way, no matter his MPPs.

That´s one of the major problems, I think. You just can´t counteract the opponent´s massed airfleets when they get rolling and start gaining exp.

THAT´S why you can´t just build up your own airfleets to "counteract" his : it´d be an expensive exercise in futility.

The only salvation for the opponent is to "get lucky" with the tech, and gain a superiority of 2 levels or more...but at this point in the war, the tech is usually at level 5 already.

I don´t want the course of the war to follow history, but I want the gameplay to be historically plausible!!!

Limiting units would not limit your options in this case, but rather bring entirely new options to you instead of the current overwhelmingly powerful and ridiculous air tactic.

I don´t know what Hubert´s plans are, but I do hope that if he decides not to implement some of these fundamental changes we´ve been discussed in these forums to SC, I do hope that he´s bookmarking threads and making notes in order to incorporate the changes to a new, much improved SC2.....

After all, that´s the only logical way to make a sequel to SC : or what would people think of an even more simplified SC2?

The key is to still retain the fun and relatively quick gameplay of SC....

Done like this, the current SC wouldn´t be redundant if there was an "advanced" SC2 : there´d be one great entry-level and "simple gameplay"-game, and one for the grogs and those who want to move on to the next level.

As for the unit limits.....

If they will not be implemented (which I believe is very unlikely, unfortunately) shouldn´t we start discussing...(drum roll)...house rules?

This sort of thing simple enough to address with house rules - however it´d add a certain level of "complexity" to the game (keeping track of the unit counts) but at least I wouldn´t mind....

(As a side note, if the limits were hard-coded into the game, it wouldn´t add to the complexity one bit imho).

[DevilDog]

Wow, who were you guys playing with that got up to 2 dozen air fleets? That would require several years worth of MPPs, with none going towards ground forces. What was the opponent doing during this build-up? Air units are extremely succeptable to ground attack, especially if you can factor in a few air strikes of your own. I think it would be difficult to amass such a force against an opponent of equal skill. I know that sounds harsh - I'm not trying to step on anyones toes. And further I'm not trying to make any claims about my skill - I've just played most of my PBEM games against opponents who have roughly the same skill level as myself, whatever level that is.

The point about achieving total superiority is valid - but this is true about ground forces as well. Once one side begins to get an advantage at mid game it usually goes down hill fairly quickly for the opposing player regardless of who is playing which side.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you don't want your opponent to have 15 air fleets then don't let him build them. If you get board playing against someone who lets YOU build 15 air fleets then play against a better opponent.

[sogard]

DevilDog wrote:

"I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you don't want your opponent to have 15 air fleets then don't let him build them. If you get board playing against someone who lets YOU build 15 air fleets then play against a better opponent."

Well, I have been playtesting STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) for the past three weeks with alot of hotseat play and more recently with pbem play to find opponants who are not doing "what is expected" by someone familiar with my play style or me with one of my regular hotseat opponants. So far, I don't see much difference in what the end game boiled down to by 1942.

There are little tricks and opportunities to be exploited that maybe the average gamer had not thought through; but, with that caveat, the middle to end games end up basically in the same pattern. I would love to be proved wrong about this; that through superior play one could prevent the way the game design pushes matters into a very ahistorical and unreal end; but, so far, I have not seen that.

Don't get me wrong though, I think SC is alot of fun to play even as it is; but, I purchased SC to get a strategic WW II game. If I wanted some sort of alternate reality or fantasy game, I could go out and get all sorts of pretty eye candy on the market. The niche I think that SC can profitably fill is one where a more serious historical game is desired. At the moment, some more tweaking needs to be done; but, Hubert has created a fine game which I think could do a pretty good job of meeting that historical game void.

I do believe that SC can be just as good in the middle to end game as it is in the first two years of the game.

[ September 21, 2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Bruce70]

Has anyone considered the possibility that air power isn't too strong but too cheap?

Instead of a hard limit (which I woul be totally against no matter what the level) how about a softer way of limiting airfleets.

How about a maintainance cost for these (and possibly other) units?

Or make the cost of each unit type increase as you buy more, thereby making it economically impractical to have terribly unbalanced forces.

Actually I don't like the second idea either - it really should be cheaper to mass produce than to produce in small quantites. But a maintainance cost for units would be good but I don't know if it can be added to SC1 without upsetting the AI and play balance. Perhaps if the maintainance cost only kicked in after a certain number (more than the AI typically buys) of units have been produced then it might be possible.

[DevilDog]

I would definitely prefer a maintenance cost to a hard limit on unit types.

[BlueMax 1939]

well, dont really know what side of the argument im on here...i think that something like a limit on armies and corps and tank groups based on historical population figures could be used...but limiting air fleets should not be limited i think...the only limit should be that countries ability to produce the required MPPs to build them...

just a thought but limiting no. of units buildable would make the tech development 'industry' less desirable in my mind because it would only help up to a certain point, at which time you would have to stop building...just my 2cents worth....

[sogard]

Originally posted by BlueMax 1939:

well, dont really know what side of the argument im on here...i think that something like a limit on armies and corps and tank groups based on historical population figures could be used...but limiting air fleets should not be limited i think...the only limit should be that countries ability to produce the required MPPs to build them...

Using population size as the sole determinant as to the number of units permitted to each nation would not yield a particularily accurate number. Why not use history as a guide? The various nations sure were trying to maximize their production and Armed Forces. What makes you think that the average gamer should assume the role of super manager and do much better?

We all like to think that we would be a Speer and increase production by four fold; but, history is also full of those who failed completely. It may increase the size of our egos; but, I don't think that there are that many economic geniuses out there and that is what the gamer wants, it seems. The gamer wants his ego stroked regardless of how silly that looks by any objective criteria.

Sorta like the old Saturday Night Live question of "would Custer have won the battle of Little BigHorn if he would have had a B-52?" Lotta folks around here seem to want their B-52s at any cost.

[ September 22, 2002, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by sogard:

Using population size as the sole determinant as to the number of units permitted to each nation would not yield a particularily accurate number. Why not use history as a guide?

Using a combination of population and history is fine for armies and corps but not for air and armour. The player must be able to choose to build more (abstract) aircraft factories at the expense of armour factories. Or allocate more fuel for armoured units than air units than was historically the case.

And as pointed out by others the resources available may not be the same as was historically the case depending on those captured/lost.

A hard limit on anything but armies and corps would be completely unsatisfactory IMO.

[BlueMax 1939]

thnk you Bruce 70, you said what i was trying to say much better...aircraft and tanks should not be limited in my opinion because REALISTICALLY the germans, russians or anyone else could have built as many of these as they wanted WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES...however population is of course a limiting factor concerning armies and corps!!! now if too many tanks and air fleets are being built then something else needs to be tweeked (ie, prod cost, lower MPP prod, or something else), but not by limiting the no. of these units...if this were the case then the what ifs of germany getting the oilfields in the Caucusus or succesfelly implementing Sea Lion and therefore increasing prod would have no reward because they could only build a certain # of units...

[ September 22, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: BlueMax 1939 ]

[Scorpion_22]

About the argument that a "good opponent wouldn´t let you build 18 or more airfleets"....this is, unfortunately untrue. Achieving superiority in the ground is nothing compared to achieving air superiority in the game, my piss-poor inexperienced russian corps had no problems against the elite (experienced 2-3 medals) axis armies once I (very luckily) wrested the skies from the Luftwaffe. The airfleets massed and destroyed the elite units with impunity with the corps just moving to occupy their spaces.

I do think that the first house rule we should start trying in our pbem games would be to allow airfleets to make only operational moves. There´s your maintenance costs, plus the costs for fuel and for building new airbases.

Plus, the normal move for airfleets is ridiculous.

Why can an airfleet rebase itself for free, if it only moves say 300 km, but not if it moves from one front to the other?

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Scorpion_22:

I do think that the first house rule we should start trying in our pbem games would be to allow airfleets to make only operational moves. There´s your maintenance costs, plus the costs for fuel and for building new airbases.

I agree with the idea behind this (re maintainance etc) but I still think that you should be able to base an air unit anywhere on the map. Obviously I would prefer an official patch (possible with a setup option) to change the movement rules allowing you to rebase anywhere.

Anyway if you try it let us know what effect it has on the game.

[sogard]

Bruce70 writes:

"Using a combination of population and history is fine for armies and corps but not for air and armour. The player must be able to choose to build more (abstract) aircraft factories at the expense of armour factories. Or allocate more fuel for armoured units than air units than was historically the case."

So, what you are saying, flying in the face of historical experience and principles of economics is that in the period 1939 - 1946, it would have been possible for Germany to produce an unlimited number of tanks and airplanes along with finding the trained crews to man them. I find this notion completely unconvincing. Only a computer gamer who wants to have unlimited flexibility and cares not a fig for real world concerns could make this argument. (note: I am not picking on Bruce. He is making a point; but, I simply do not know what else to say with a notion which would earn an "F" grade in both a history and economics course. Of course, maybe we don't want any of that fancy book learning around here.) Quite simply, there were real limits imposed upon what Germany could do. How do I know this? Because the Germans tried to live in this fantasy universe in the real World War II and even Speer could not meet the expectations of those who cry for unlimited numbers of units.

Bruce70 continued:

"And as pointed out by others the resources available may not be the same as was historically the case depending on those captured/lost."

And where would these resources, trained manpower and factories be? This is not a STAR TREK universe where some space ship could beam all this stuff down. I take it you have never read much about the economics of WW II. Germany's problem was that she was very limited in her ultimate production of sophisticated weapons. She had a very limited ability to produce motor vehicles (why the German Army was still mostly horse drawn even at the height of her powers). Yet this basic economic truth is being shrugged off like the advocate for the unlimited unit limits is talking to their Fuhrer and no one is actually checking the facts.

The only nation that even came close to being able to build unlimited units was the United States and that was because by 1944, over half the productive capacity on the planet was found in the United States. This information is not new. It has been known and written about ever since the end of WW II and historians and economists went about trying to explain what happened in real life.

Bruce70 ended with:

"A hard limit on anything but armies and corps would be completely unsatisfactory IMO"

Only if you want to insist that you can do anything you want in STRATEGIC COMMAND. This is such basic economic stuff that it does not pass the smell test. SC is a game which uses a very simple and abstracted economic model to drive the game. Gamers, as is their want, desire to exploit this even though it makes SC even less realistic than AXIS AND ALLIES (at least in AXIS AND ALLIES, there is a limit to the poker chips provided).

If you submitted the idea of unlimited unit production in any economics course, you would get an F for your trouble. There are many fantasy computer games available, what really mystifies me is why gamers want to make another piece of fluff out of SC. This is especially so when SC could provide a great deal of good information about what WW II looked like on a strategic level. You might as well provide Dragon units for players to build. That would certainly make the fantasy crowd happy and one might sell a few games to them. (Ah yes, time to move the Godzilla unit to Paris.)

At present, I could not recommend SC as a game to a serious historical gamer. They would simply be appalled. I would hate to see a review of SC on a serious wargaming forum. SC is an amusing and fun game (Hubert is to be commended for creating a very nice game engine) and that seems to be all that many around here want. I don't see why a map of Europe is used in the present game, why any historical names are used or, for that matter, why the graphics of the game shows goose stepping German soldiers. Of course, it could be the old dictum that a game that includes any of the following three items: Nato, Nukes and Nazis will sell to the ignorant massess. However, I thought P.T. Barnum only said that no one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public.

[ September 23, 2002, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[pzgndr]

All the games have been the same : the side that gets the air superiority keep on buying airfleets

This is a vey important point, and tied to the rapid research advances now possible. If the 5-4-3-2-1 research adjustment and research switching penalty make it into the next patch or two, we should see a little more parity among tech levels for different nations and this should provide more balance. But the point is true for any tech superiority - subs, tanks, etc. Your goal is to create an advantage and exploit it. But let's face it, if you're buying lots of a certain unit type then you're probably not buying enough of something else and that should present a golden opportunity for the opposition. If games get grossly out of whack, we can only imagine why (besides bad research luck).

Another issue is the cost of buying/maintaining advanced weapon systems. Rather than setting force pool limits, restricting air moves to op moves only, and other things like that, it would be preferable to simply have MPP considerations drive grand strategy decisions - what to research, what to buy, etc. MPPs already abstractly reflect manpower, steel, and oil assets, so what we're really trying to do is reflect increased costs over time to keep force pools in check. I suggested a 10% cost increase with each tech advance, and maybe that's the effect we want.

I recognize the historic force pool argument, but history only provides a single example of what actually happened. There are probably some plausible limits we could consider, but it's pure conjecture what these should be and how to hardwire them into the game, considering all the possibilities of what could have happened during WWII. You tell someone they can ONLY have x units of a certain type and they will argue why x+1 is not allowed in a game where they get to make the decisions. Blah, blah, blah. IMHO, if we can manage to slow down research advances and increase the cost of advanced tech levels, MPPs should provide an adequate limit on what players do without restricting their flexibility to pursue what-if strategies. I certainly do not enjoy playing a WWII "fantasy" game either and prefer to see more historical accuracy (moderation?), but I do not necessarily want to play a game that virtually locks you into replaying WWII and micromanaging too many details. That's no fun either.

[Desert Dave]

As this topic is sogard's baby, I will treat it with all due deference and consideration. After all, as has been said -- children, drunks and negotiators (not fight-first!! advocates) will duly enter the Kindly Kingdom ah just so, at first.

(... not to mention that treacherously self-righteous Big Eye in The Sky which over-watches all that we do and say)

Long ago I had said that the Air Fleet was the "Queen of the BattleBoard." Since this thread is another way to talk about too much airpower, I will pitch my zwei pfennigs against the pink-floyd wall.

Bill's comments are right on the down & dirty money. The best way to control force-pools or too much Air, is by ECONOMIC means (MPPs). If that model is shaped properly, then there will not be any conflict. We might still try out what-ifs? AND control the number of units.

In another time & country, I used to write letters to Avalon Hill , asking for more flexibililty with the force pool (and better strategic warfare). I never received ANY replies, so what we have here is a game maker who at least will listen, and I suggest that we all realize and appreciate that. It is not for us to demand! but to politely implore, in the manner of the easeful boddhisatva, yes?

Potential solutions, such as pilot training, oil consumption, delayed production for each type of unit, and weather effects are simply not going to be implemented now -- perhaps in SC2, if at all.

(... although, I truly think John DiFool's idea of WEATHER limiting the scope of air assaults is the best aesthetic solution... remember the Battle of Bulge? When Allied superiority could not be brought to bear until later... and winter months or April Showers would often limit the # and impact of air strikes... )

And, not incidentally, a difficulty with this model: since you cannot attack a beach hex from the shallows, Air and shore bombardment is the only way to clear a hex; it needs be potent enough to accomplish that (or, allow direct amphib assualts)

Although it can be argued that Air Superiority was the ultimate reason for Allied success (along with USA production capabilites -- which is not modeled in such a way as to allow gradual build-up -- the land area being too small to place enough resources), it is also true that there are simply too many Air Fleets possible in SC. :eek:

Solution? Here is mine -- Industrial Tech is THE REASON that gamers can afford to buy all those air fleets.

Either eliminate Industrial advances altogether, which would coincide with Bill's suggestion that advance unit-tech cost more, OR make it cost a lot more to buy, say 400-500 MPP per chit, instead of 250 as with the others.

Or, somehow make Industrial advances MUCH slower to arrive, perhaps by putting a "governor" in with the deux ex machina (and/or, devise a method that requires "upgrading" of existant units in the field)

In this way you would limit by economic reality and not by artificial force-pool limitations.

I am not personally convinced that Germany could not have fielded MANY more of a particular unit if they had truly wanted to (and, cut down on some other economic expenses, even if NON military -- including such crowd-control techniques as Security Police, Pomp & Pageantry).

What-If possibilities MUST be maintained for re-playability (and, I would argue that we need more, in the form of Variants, but that is another thread), but it shouldn't get too far out of line. If you do not want to change Industrial Tech, then I propose the following:

Increase the cost of Air Fleets, and/or reduce their combat effects (or, allow AA for units). And this would apply to interception as well. At the same time, reduce costs of Strat Bombers slightly so that they would be bought and used more.

There IS a problem with too much Air power, no doubt about it, and if we all provide detailed rationales for our favorite solution, PERHAPS the game-maker will take them into consideration... that's all we can ask, but it's better then sending out plaintive letters and getting not a single solitary reply, yes?

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by sogard:

Bruce70 writes:

"Using a combination of population and history is fine for armies and corps but not for air and armour. The player must be able to choose to build more (abstract) aircraft factories at the expense of armour factories. Or allocate more fuel for armoured units than air units than was historically the case."

So, what you are saying, flying in the face of historical experience and principles of economics is that in the period 1939 - 1946, it would have been possible for Germany to produce an unlimited number of tanks and airplanes along with finding the trained crews to man them.

No that is not what I said, I suggest you read it again.

(note: I am not picking on Bruce. He is making a point; but, I simply do not know what else to say with a notion which would earn an "F" grade in both a history and economics course. Of course, maybe we don't want any of that fancy book learning around here.)

No you are not picking on me, you are simply confirming what I already suspected about your character.

Bruce70 continued:

"And as pointed out by others the resources available may not be the same as was historically the case depending on those captured/lost."

And where would these resources, trained manpower and factories be? This is not a STAR TREK universe where some space ship could beam all this stuff down.

Iraq is one example of extra resources that spings to mind. As for manpower I actually agreed on limiting units based on that.

Bruce70 ended with:

"A hard limit on anything but armies and corps would be completely unsatisfactory IMO"

Only if you want to insist that you can do anything you want in STRATEGIC COMMAND. This is such basic economic stuff that it does not pass the smell test. SC is a game which uses a very simple and abstracted economic model to drive the game. Gamers, as is their want, desire to exploit this even though it makes SC even less realistic than AXIS AND ALLIES.

There is already a limit on what can be produced in SC. Its called MPPs. The MPPs you receive change as you conquer cities and resources. You have control over what you want to spend them on.

This system is open to exploitation and you suggested a possible way around this. I have said that I am against it because it is completely unrealistic to suggest that no decisions could have been made to change WWII production.

There are many fantasy computer games available, what really mystifies me is why gamers want to make another piece of fluff out of SC. This is especially so when SC could provide a great deal of good information about what WW II looked like on a strategic level.

It really sounds like you should go back to your books, you clearly are only interested in history and not in game playing.

[John DiFool]

The problem isn't with manpower per se, but with

the economic investment per soldier involved.

Case in point: apparently TWO TONS of supplies

needed to be shipped to the Pacific with EACH

soldier. In an air force that is going to be

much higher (than a mere grunt).

Air Power has a much higher ratio in this case

than most of the other services (navy included):

this needs to be reflected somehow in the game's

economic and combat models. Simple as that.

Ok perhaps not as simple as we might hope: for

one thing I believe that any attempt to build a

huge air fleet will sooner or later hit a wall of

diminishing returns.

Note that I place myself squarely in the middle

of the "playability vs. realism" debate: I am of

the firm conviction that both concerns can be

adequately addressed if the designer does his

homework and they are NOT mutually incompatible.

John DiFool

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

Has anyone considered the possibility that air power isn't too strong but too cheap?

Instead of a hard limit (which I would be totally against no matter what the level) how about a softer way of limiting airfleets.

How about a maintainance cost for these (and possibly other) units?

I think some posters have missed the point Bruce70 made here. He's not arguing for unlimited air fleets, he's arguing for a different way of limiting them within the system.

A maintainance cost system could achieve the same outcome without requiring a hard ceiling.

(Besides I really don't want to be here for the bun fight over whether the correct limit is X or x+1 air fleets.)

If it takes 90% of your MMPs to maintain your air fleets you'll pay for it somewhere else.

The idea of being hit with an upgrade cost for new tech is interesting too. Eg cost of rolling out a new tech level is 10 MMP (or whatever) x # of units.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

...needs to be reflected somehow in the game's

economic and combat models. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

...not arguing for unlimited air fleets, he's arguing for a different way of limiting them within the system.

A maintainance cost system could achieve the same outcome without requiring a hard ceiling.

Yes that is exactly the point I am trying to make, thanks guys. Change the economic model rather than just add a hard limit.

[sogard]

When a game designer is designing a game system, he can put as many criteria into the process that let's you create new units as he likes. What we have in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is a design model which only has one regulating factor: how many MPPs (Military Production Points) do you have. The problem with this is that the economic model which produces MPPs is very simple and ignores alot of elementary economic realities (like the law of supply and demand).

One way to increase realism is to factor in one or more additional criteria into your production model in order to create new units. Each element that you add to this design model will permit the designer to more carefully craft what is permitted in the game.

As long as SC continues to use only "if you have the cash" you can build the unit model, the game is going to very quickly get out of whack in any meaningful real world sense. Take a look at the scenarios designed for historic start points included in the game. Has anyone ever played a campaign game where they have ever seen anything that looks like any of the historical later start scenarios? Shouldn't that tell us something?

Finally, I am sorry if some here take offense at my being direct and pointing out what I see as real world problems with how the game works. I am accustomed to dealing with honest and frank criticisim, without taking offense, through a peer review process. No personal offense is intended; but, it is better to make one's point directly and honestly (especially when basic Economic 101 principles are being ignored) than trying to sugar coat it.

I assume that anyone who has a real interest in SC also has some interest in an honest historical appraisal of the game.

[ September 23, 2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]