Limiting Units in Strategic Command

[BloodyBucket]

Some games use gearing limits. For example, if you produce three subs on turn six, on turn seven you are limited to producing four or less subs. You can't jump from no production of a type to tremendous production of a type in a single turn.

[ September 23, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[sogard]

Bruce70 writes:

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

Just so it is clear; this is not true. I have been playing board games since 1969. I have watched the hobby ebb and flow over the years and have played alot of different war games over the years. I still regularily play WORLD IN FLAMES with a regular gaming group. (I am currently beta testing the computer version of WORLD IN FLAMES as I playtested earlier versions of the board game.)

WORLD IN FLAMES is a game which has developed over the past 20 years. It has had to deal with many of the issues and design decisions which SC is grappling with now. The idea of how to create a strategic level WW II game which is moderately based on the real world in not new.

But, I play these games because I enjoy the competitive and intellectual nature of them. I was initially impressed with STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) because it does so many things right which have never come together quite so well in a previous computer game. What is somewhat frustrating is how close SC is to being a really good wargame for its complexity and scale. However, SC does need to decide what it wants to be. There are a number of computer games out there that make no attempt at any form of real world or historical accuracy. SC's design could do a much better job of reflecting these real world concerns it that is where the game design is directed.

[BlueMax 1939]

what exactly is the point of a grand strategy game if you cannot change the historical mix of production and even increase it with the necessary increase in MPP's by obtaining resources? you might as well just skip the build phase of this game entirely and just have set reinforcements and builds if everything is supposed to be 'historical'. i am definately in favor of something like only operational moves for airunits...but not limits on their numbers...also as a side note, this game is NOT to my knowledge supposed to be the most accurate representation of the economies employed by the powers of WWII (just look at how simple the resource system is,i can remember a crappy game called "storm across europe" that had more detail in the resource area)...the idea of making limits on units would change this game completely in my mind, and that should not happen because in my mind its very good as it is

[BloodyBucket]

Some thoughts on the airfleet issue:

You can limit the airfleet uber alles syndrome by limiting the number of airfleets, or the effect they have.

You can limit the number by a hard limit, or by increasing the cost of buying or maintaining the airleet (Oil resources required to fly missions?). You could make replacement points for airfleets more expensive, since pilot training is a time and money consuming task.

You can limit the effect by increasing the defense of the targets, or decreasing the attack of the airfleet. Perhaps the effect of airfleets vs. ground units only should be adjusted, so the air heavy side can "rule the skys" but risk being defeated on the ground. You could change the way airfleets attack ground targets, so they mainly reduce the supply status rather than the combat strength of the attacked unit. That way they "open the door" for ground forces rather than performing the job of ground forces.

I like the air vs. air aspect of SC. The way the air interacts with the ground units makes me uneasy.

[sogard]

Originally posted by BlueMax 1939:

what exactly is the point of a grand strategy game if you cannot change the historical mix of production and even increase it with the necessary increase in MPP's by obtaining resources?

Well, one might ask what is the point of calling STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) a WW II Grand Strategy game which is illustrated with pictures of WW II and then demanding that the actual strength of the nations in the game bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts? If SC were simply titled a grand strategy game (like say RISK or even Sid Meir's CIVILIZATION) I would have no problem with exactly what you said. But, SC has been billed and desribes itself quite differently. What you seem to want is a game which has no basis in reality; but, is cool to play.

you might as well just skip the build phase of this game entirely and just have set reinforcements and builds if everything is supposed to be 'historical'.

This is really a silly argument. The choices the game will present will still be real. The player will be able to choose to build more of one type of unit than their historical counterpart or build them sooner; but, the constraint is that one can not completely ignore the laws of supply and demand and create a fantasy game. There is no way in hell that Germany could build or fuel twenty Air Fleets or Panzer Armies for that matter during this period. You want to be able to build all of the units of your choice you want even though doing so makes a farce of the game. This would be fine except you want to do this with a WW II grand strategy wargame.

i am definately in favor of something like only operational moves for airunits...

Why? What difference does it make other than on the subject of cool game play.

but not limits on their numbers...also as a side note, this game is NOT to my knowledge supposed to be the most accurate representation of the economies employed by the powers of WWII

However, the game is suppose to be based upon WW II. Why would you say that in the advertising (just take a look at the banner on this site advertising the game) if what you really meant that this was suppose to be a game where the Nazis overrun the world and you get to be the grand Obengruppenfuhrer of this? The problem is that you want to have it both way. You want the cool SS Black uniforms, the goose stepping soldiers and the stukas; but, you don't want what the game represents to bear any resemblance to the history on which it was based.

(just look at how simple the resource system is,i can remember a crappy game called "storm across europe" that had more detail in the resource area)...the idea of making limits on units would change this game completely in my mind, and that should not happen because in my mind its very good as it is

So the solution to the fact that you have a very bad game called STORM ACROSS EUROPE is to create an even equally silly game (which masqueredes as the ultimate WW II strategy game") where the SS goose steps across Europe singing "Springtime For Hitler?"

SC ought to be what it says it is. If you want a cool strategic level wargame which has no basis in any historic period; that is fine. But, SC claims to be something else. Otherwise you might as well bill SC as an inaccurate and pretentious strategic level wargame that will appeal to folks who think the Nazis came up with cool uniforms.

[ September 24, 2002, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Scorpion_22]

i am definately in favor of something like only operational moves for airunits...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? What difference does it make other than on the subject of cool game play.

Sogard, I do assume that you mean "I wouldn´t object to the idea of putting a maintenance costs on the airfleets with this house rule, but as an ultimate solution I´d want to see realistic production limits", aye?

Bruce, agreed that the idea of allowing only operational moves is a good one, but still think that units should be able to rebase anywhere on the map. I do admit to forgetting the "slight detail" of units only being allowed to operationally move to hexes next to a city.

Bummer for a faulty memory

As for someone saying that if you keep on building airfleets, you would be lacking in other departments, allowing your opponent to take advantage of that.

While this might be true in principle, it unfortunately does not apply to SC.

That´s just one of the problems of a game with the realism of SC and one of the several reasons why some of the people here want to make it more realistic. Real world logic doesn´t apply in the game as it is.

For example, if your opponent had lots of corps and a zillion airfleets, what´d you do then?

Decide that now is the best time to start investing in more powerful panzer and Army units to crush the weak corps?

Well, as soon as those first Armies or tanks hit the front, they will receive the attention of 4-6 veteran airfleets, leaving that veteran unit in ashes instantly. Without ground assault, without preparation, without "buildup for a major operation".

Fresh, elite units (usually with no entrenchment since they´re just transported in) are the most juicy targets for air attacks, since it´s just as easy (well nearly as easy) to destroy an army (air defense 2) as a corps (AD 1).

Or, you might decide to build large numbers of troops behind the lines and ship a lot of them at once to the front.

Well, good luck with sending no replacement corps for the airfleets to chew, then.

You´ll be back in Poland or Moscow (depending on the side you play) in no time.

You might decide to build rockets: well they are even moer juicier as targets provided the airfleets can reach them with Long Range advances. But you need a lot of luck and skill to use them, and once they have done their attack, their location is known.....requiring you to operate it elsewhere etc.

Might be worth a shot, but it isn´t easy to pull

off.

You might decide to rule the seas now that the enemy is probably lacking in that department.

Well, unless the enemy needs to use the Mediterranean to capture Iraq, I don´t know what good will that do.

Naval units get chopped to pieces and sunk if spotted by the super-air units.

That´s just the way it is....can someone prove it to be otherwise?

Hubert, you claim to be a master of your own game, why not enlighten the masses to your methods of stopping the "Air assault"?

[sogard]

Originally posted by sogard:

Well, one might ask what is the point of calling STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) a WW II Grand Strategy game which is illustrated with pictures of WW II and then demanding that the actual strength of the nations in the game bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts? If SC were simply titled a grand strategy game (like say RISK or even Sid Meir's CIVILIZATION) I would have no problem with exactly what you said. But, SC has been billed and desribes itself quite differently. What you seem to want is a game which has no basis in reality; but, is cool to play.

This is really a silly argument. The choices the game will present will still be real. The player will be able to choose to build more of one type of unit than their historical counterpart or build them sooner; but, the constraint is that one can not completely ignore the laws of supply and demand and create a fantasy game. There is no way in hell that Germany could build or fuel twenty Air Fleets or Panzer Armies for that matter during this period. You want to be able to build all of the units of your choice you want even though doing so makes a farce of the game. This would be fine except you want to do this with a WW II grand strategy wargame.

Why? What difference does it make other than on the subject of cool game play.

However, the game is suppose to be based upon WW II. Why would you say that in the advertising (just take a look at the banner on this site advertising the game) if what you really meant that this was suppose to be a game where the Nazis overrun the world and you get to be the grand Obengruppenfuhrer of this? The problem is that you want to have it both ways. You want the cool SS Black uniforms, the goose stepping soldiers and the stukas; but, you don't want what the game represents to bear any resemblance to the history on which it was based.

So the solution to the fact that you have a very bad game called STORM ACROSS EUROPE is to create an even equally silly game (which masqueredes as the ultimate WW II strategy game") where the SS goose steps across Europe singing "Springtime For Hitler?"

SC ought to be what it says it is. If you want a cool strategic level wargame which has no basis in any historic period; that is fine. But, SC claims to be something else. Otherwise you might as well bill SC as an inaccurate and pretentious strategic level wargame that will appeal to folks who think the Nazis came up with cool uniforms.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Scorpion_22:

As for someone saying that if you keep on building airfleets, you would be lacking in other departments, allowing your opponent to take advantage of that.

That'd be me.

While this might be true in principle, it unfortunately does not apply to SC...

For example, if your opponent had lots of corps and a zillion airfleets, what´d you do then?

Decide that now is the best time to start investing in more powerful panzer and Army units to crush the weak corps?

Well, as soon as those first Armies or tanks hit the front, they will receive the attention of 4-6 veteran airfleets, leaving that veteran unit in ashes instantly. Without ground assault, without preparation, without "buildup for a major operation".

Hmmm... fair question.

At the very least requiring high maintainance would at least limit the potential damage to that caused by 4-6 air fleets, as opposed to the 10-12 you might have otherwise. Not an entirely satisfactory fix, but at least a step in the right direction.

Secondly, maybe this is where Lars' question from the air power thread needs to be reintroduced: maybe the impact of AA needs to be looked at again. If ground units are capable of bloodying the noses of air units a bit more, than the attrition on the air fleets starts to get more expensive.

It's possible that the synergistic impact of a few tweaks at the margin might be sufficient. Hard to say without actually testing it.

Hubert, do you have anything to add to this discussion?

[BlueMax 1939]

posts by sogard:

However, the game is suppose to be based upon WW II. Why would you say that in the advertising (just take a look at the banner on this site advertising the game) if what you really meant that this was suppose to be a game where the Nazis overrun the world and you get to be the grand Obengruppenfuhrer of this? The problem is that you want to have it both ways. You want the cool SS Black uniforms, the goose stepping soldiers and the stukas; but, you don't want what the game represents to bear any resemblance to the history on which it was based.

sogard, for a gamer who has supposedly been playing since 1969 you are very immature...ever since my first post you have attacked me personally inferring that i am glorifying the nazis and the ss...i am sick of it and to be blunt its a bunch of BÜLL SH!TT...i have no sympathy for nazis or ss members i am a gamer and WWII history buff, thats it...not a neo nazi...and for you to infer this is an attack against my character...hubert you have one vote for sogard to be banned from this forum and anyone else who agrees, chime in please

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by sogard:

Well, one might ask what is the point of calling STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) a WW II Grand Strategy game which is illustrated with pictures of WW II and then demanding that the actual strength of the nations in the game bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts?

I don't think anybody has argued that they want "the nations in the game [to] bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts". I think the disagreements are over where to draw the boundaries.

[sogard]

Originally posted by BlueMax 1939:

posts by sogard:

However, the game is suppose to be based upon WW II. Why would you say that in the advertising (just take a look at the banner on this site advertising the game) if what you really meant that this was suppose to be a game where the Nazis overrun the world and you get to be the grand Obengruppenfuhrer of this? The problem is that you want to have it both ways. You want the cool SS Black uniforms, the goose stepping soldiers and the stukas; but, you don't want what the game represents to bear any resemblance to the history on which it was based.

sogard, for a gamer who has supposedly been playing since 1969 you are very immature...ever since my first post you have attacked me personally inferring that i am glorifying the nazis and the ss...i am sick of it and to be blunt its a bunch of BÜLL SH!TT...i have no sympathy for nazis or ss members i am a gamer and WWII history buff, thats it...not a neo nazi...and for you to infer this is an attack against my character...hubert you have one vote for sogard to be banned from this forum and anyone else who agrees, chime in please

It is obvious that you are a child. I can not believe that you attend a serious University. In the normal class room exchange, comments would be much stronger than anything I have said or that you have inferred from what I have written. I take it you must be a Freshman and are unused to upper level course work. The marketplace of ideas is not about everyone agreeing about a subject; but, about a civil discourse where strong opinions can be discussed.

You don't think it is understandable to see someone who posts with a tag line praising an SS man and then demands that a serious game about WW II look like a Nazi dream would cause some comment? You say that all you are is a WW II buff. I could accept that; but, then you jump to the conclusion that because I am critical of designing a game where the great super power in the world is Nazi Germany it is not fair to ask why one would do this particularily with your chosen tag line (given the facts about WW II where Nazi Germany was not the great super power). If you dispute this fact, then post your sources. Tell me how you are correct that Nazi Germany had an economy as demonstrated in STRATEGIC COMMAND as it is now constituted.

Then, in the finest right wing tradition, you demand that any comment, of which you don't approve, be censored. What sort of proud American tradition is that? What kind of academic community do you belong to? In the law, we have a saying that:

When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. And, when you have neither the law or the facts on your side, claim that the other side has slurred your personal integrity. That is exactly what you are doing.

It is clear to me that you are NOT used to engaging in serious adult conversations. You want to silence your opponant instead of win your argument on the basis of the merit of your case. I was not inferring that you were some neo-Nazi skin head; but, I asure you that if you had your tag line and made the kind of comments you have here; on a serious WW II history forum -- you would have invited alot of very unfavorable comment.

My hobby, the playing of games based upon military history, has dealt with the issue of the overweaning fawning for Nazis for some time. Ever since the famous Richard Berg pieces in MOVES magazine where he attacked game designers who make "Nato, Nukes and Nazis" games which pander to right wing neo-Nazi sentiments.

The fact that you are unaware of this or HOW offensive your tag line and position against free and unfettered speech is simply says that you are young and unused to adult speech. I suggest that you stay out of the kitchen if you can not stand the heat (another great American, Harry Truman said that). As Harry used to say when folks in the crowd used to cry "Give Em Hell Harry," Truman would respond that all he was doing was telling the truth; but, it must seem like hell to those on the receiving end.

[sogard]

Brian Rock wrote:

"I don't think anybody has argued that they want "the nations in the game [to] bear no resemblance to their historical counterparts". I think the disagreements are over where to draw the boundaries."

That is not an unfair comment Brian. It is also true that some gamers do not value historical accuracy regarding economic and military details as long as they get a challenging and entertaining game. As long as the company marketing the game and the designer are up front about what they are modeling, I have no problem with that.

SPI (the now defunct, but important publisher of wargames) had a game called DIXIE which was set in an alternate time line where the South had won the civil war. It was an amusing little game and fun to play at the time. The designer made no pretense about the factual accuracy of the game. However, if you produced a game on the American Civil War and that game showed the South as being more powerfull and capable than the North; it would not only be fair to comment on this distortion of history, but, it would actually invite such comment.

[ September 24, 2002, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[pzgndr]

It is clear to me that you are NOT used to engaging in serious adult conversations. You want to silence your opponant instead of win your argument on the basis of the merit of your case.

Well Sogard, you are obviously a talented rules lawyer, a devoted student of military history, an experienced wargamer, and a certified WiF playtester to boot! Very impressive. You are also exceptionally rude and obnoxious. That may score you points in a courtroom and fatten your checkbook, but you sure as hell aren't winning friends and influencing people around here.

You want to argue facts and history. Fine. But there's only one set of facts - what actually happened. ANY deviation from history in a game of what-ifs immediately leads us all off to the world of conjecture where "facts" are few and definitive solutions are elusive.

So you want force pool limits? That is the subject at hand. Just how do you propose to do that in SC? Using 3R as a very simple model, Germany can start with 2 tank groups in 39 with 2 allowable builds, increasing to 6 total in 42 and 7 total in 43. Based on these limits, I would immediately ask why I can't have 5 tanks in 41. What if Germany conquers Sweden in 40 and gains the additional mine resources. Does this affect the tank limit in 41? What-if this, what-if that?

To be completely fair and accurate(?), you would have to develop some sort of very complex force pool matrix for each country, for each unit type, for each year, and supplement the matrix with some provisions to account for the various different situations in a game. I do not see that happening ever. What you are proposing is a can of worms, to be polite. As pointed out, we already have an adequate limit - MPPs. It would be far better to tweak the economic model and unit costs, including consideration of increased cost for advanced tech levels and gearing ratios for unit builds/reinforcements, to provide a reasonable check on some of these excessive builds some are seeing. IF that can be done correctly, it should be prohibitively expensive and strategically risky to build a custom force of super-jets or super-tanks or whatever. There should be force balance for any strategy to succeed between competent opponents, and combat power should be limited by MPPs. If you're letting your opponent walk all over you, that's another issue.

There are more subtle ways of simulating historical constraints and limitations which guide players into making decisions similar to those actually made than to impose hard limits and other artificial restrictions. Computer WiF, if (Big IF!) it ever gets finished with an AI even half as good as SC, can be the gold standard for WWII detail and complexity if you want that. Let SC take its own path and offer something a little different. SC still needs some more realism and historical accuracy introduced, but not to the point of poisoning a fun game to play.

Sogard, you have valuable insights and much to contribute. Continue to offer your suggestions but please keep your damned lawyer arrogance someplace else and quit picking fights with everybody you bump into. [insert cartoon scene of Foghorn Leghorn holding back the weasel - "Boy, I say, Boy, slow down!"]

[sogard]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Well Sogard, you are obviously a talented rules lawyer, a devoted student of military history, an experienced wargamer, and a certified WiF playtester to boot! Very impressive. You are also exceptionally rude and obnoxious. That may score you points in a courtroom and fatten your checkbook, but you sure as hell aren't winning friends and influencing people around here.

[Desert Dave]

Well, looks like I should elaborate a little on my proposed solution for -- "too much, too much, too fast, too fast."

There are basically two kinds of research: 1) THEORETICAL, where the gee-whiz experts speculate and propose new gizmos & gadgets, with appropriate how-to's and blue-prints, and 2) APPLIED, where the gritty business of actually making these gizmos & gadgets gets done.

Seems to me we have a large difference between those two approaches, since the actual production line would COST a good deal of money to set up. Re-tooling, and maybe even building a brand new factory (or, adding to an existing one) require a substantial amount of time, money and resources, yes?

Therefore, seems like it should cost a good deal MORE money to invest in Industrial Tech. It shouldn't be equivalent to supporting a team of draftsmen and speculators, no matter how competent, zany or geekish in nature.

I am thinking that the idea I proposed yesterday -- somehow increasing the cost of setting up, expanding, re-tooling or actually producing the new item, whether new naval vessels, anti-tank weapons, or rockets, SHOULD cost more.

(... there is a related issue that each research area, and also the corresponding unit construction probably should have different costs, but no need to overly complicate this... )

And so, how to do that, using ol' Occam's handy little blue-blaze razor? What is the simplest way to solve our apparent dilemma?

There is a proposed solution to the "tech & force-pool miasma" that is currently under consideration -- we must pay 1/2 value of each research chit if we want to move them to another area.

Very fair, and very effective as a means to slow down accelerated research growth.

OK. So simply put in a new provision -- there is NO REFUND on Industrial Tech chits.

This would more accurately represent real world implementation -- the actual construction of factories and new weapons systems, and have the great benefit of making the game player think about how and where he places those hard-gained MPPs.

Think about this. If there were NO research advances at all, the game would be less chancey, and based more on relative skill. If you slow down tech advances somehow, then luck still plays a part, but is not so intrusive.

So perhaps if we can make it more costly for the Germans to build up an insurmountable Tech advantage in the early game, then the middle and end games would involve more of the closely competitive aspects that we are interested in.

Yet, they would still be able to conduct the blitz, since they would have SOME advantage over clearly ill prepared foes.

Since we ALL tend to wander and get off topic a bit now and then (this is actually a good thing, since -- who would want nothing but nuts & bolts every morning for breakfast?),

I repeat my proposal -- one half value for all cashed research chits, and NO RETURN on the VERY heavy investment required for Industrial Tech.

[John DiFool]

Someone mentioned having oil reserves affect how

many air units (and tanks, and ships) can attack

during a turn. I think that is a great idea (for

SC2) and would solve a lot of these problems at

a stroke (tho would Italy have to keep its fleet

in situ because it would lack the fuel to use

them, just like in the real war? Would provide

an incentive to take Iraq then I guess...).

John DiFool

[pzgndr]

The number permitted to each individual country is, I recognize, purely arbitrary; but, taken as a whole, the credibility of whether or not it is believeable will depend upon what was historically possible.

Are you proposing arbitrary force pool limits for this game, or not? That was your original thesis, despite some of the other tangents you have chosen to go off on, so please clarify what your specific suggestions are for how to improve things. I must have missed something somewhere.

I also questioned the absence of force pool limits long ago, but came to realize that the flexibility in SC allows for some interesting gameplay and is an important feature of the game. I won't repeat what I suggested previously, but you may want to reread my comments and reconsider how subtle changes to the research and economic systems could produce a more historical effect that we're both interested in seeing.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The number permitted to each individual country is, I recognize, purely arbitrary; but, taken as a whole, the credibility of whether or not it is believeable will depend upon what was historically possible.

Are you proposing arbitrary force pool limits for this game, or not? That was your original thesis, despite some of the other tangents you have chosen to go off on, so please clarify what your specific suggestions are for how to improve things. I must have missed something somewhere.

I also questioned the absence of force pool limits long ago, but came to realize that the flexibility in SC allows for some interesting gameplay and is an important feature of the game. I won't repeat what I suggested previously, but you may want to reread my comments and reconsider how subtle changes to the research and economic systems could produce a more historical effect that we're both interested in seeing.</font>

[pzgndr]

My initial suggestion, completely off the cuff, stimulated by watching a hotseat opponant deploy 18 Air Fleets as the German, was that there had to be some hard limit to the number of any given unit; but, especially the total number of Air Fleets and Armies for each country in the game.

I also am not a big fan of being able to scrap naval units or ANY unit for that matter and get cash.

For example, it never occured to me that Allies could scrap naval units until I saw it happen in a recent pbem game.

OK, this gets back to the disbanding issue more than force pool limits per se. Germany having an additional 15 air fleets at a retail cost of about 6000 MPPs did not occur overnight. This probably happened after USSR surrendered, Germany collected about 1000 MPPs plunder, and then disbanded the east front ground forces for fast cash? We're not talking about a fantasy-version of Barbarossa. As for naval units disbanding, that should no longer be happening in v1.4; only ground and air units can disband.

Wholesale disbanding of viable units continues to bug me also and could be reconsidered. If disbanding were limited to units reduced to 3-4 factors or less, that might help some with regard to the gamey disbanding strategies that may still be going on.

Increased costs for advanced units and gearing ratios like in WiF may also help slow down rapid and massive building campaigns and that might also help. Regardless, for a side that does manage to grow into an economic powerhouse and is able to build massive force pools, the original concern is still valid. But I submit that when that occurs in a game, you've probably reached a point where final victory is inevitable and the game model simply breaks down. Would trying to make it right really be worth the bother?

A well balanced game should result in Germany maybe defeating Britain or USSR after a long and bitter struggle about half the time. If one falls, the other will probably follow within a year and then US sues for peace. If Germany fails to defeat either, it should be a long and bitter struggle to Berlin. Under either condition, force pools between competent opponents should remain reasonable. What I'm getting at is that play balance issues are probably more important than trying to fix the rough edges at the extremes, because the arguments get real fuzzy out there.

[daringly]

To me, the two most important things for a game are:

1. Measure of skill between opponents, and

2. Replayability.

Some sense of historical accuracy is a bonus, but not as important.

Immer Etwas said

"Think about this. If there were NO research advances at all, the game would be less chancey, and based more on relative skill. If you slow down tech advances somehow, then luck still plays a part, but is not so intrusive."

The trick for research is to balance 1 and 2. While the game is "balance enough" so that most games are won by the more skilled player, there is a mad variance, where the game is decided by deviant research results 1/6 of the time. Germany with lvl 5 Jets and Industry in 41 butchers the game.

The research doesn't need to be "slowed down" tremendously. But avoiding the extremes of research (both positive and negative)would make for better gameplay.

[BlueMax 1939]

posted by sogard:

It is obvious that you are a child. I can not believe that you attend a serious University. In the normal class room exchange, comments would be much stronger than anything I have said or that you have inferred from what I have written. I take it you must be a Freshman and are unused to upper level course work. The marketplace of ideas is not about everyone agreeing about a subject; but, about a civil discourse where strong opinions can be discussed.

actually, sogard i am a sophomore at the university of oklahoma, am a member of phi theta kappa at OSU in OKC, AND am on the NATIONAL DEANS LIST (which only 1/2 of 1% of students nationwide are a part of)...so i am quite used to classroom debates...i just dont like childish namecalling and insults to my character...if you have a problem with me citing wittmans stats then tough...not every us soldier was good, not every ss man was evil...and i never said (or anyone else for that matter) that germany's prod was accurate to history..no one's in the game is!!! look at the us for example...what im saying is that there are better ways to remedy the problem then hard limits...

[Scorpion_22]

Brian:

At the very least requiring high maintainance would at least limit the potential damage to that caused by 4-6 air fleets, as opposed to the 10-12 you might have otherwise. Not an entirely satisfactory fix, but at least a step in the right direction.

Yep, so instead 3-4 of your best units receiving the attention of 4-6 air fleets each turn, you´d receive the attention of 4-6 air fleets in total.

That´d be satisfactory.

However, we´d still need some kind of a way to advance in AA weapons for units.

[sogard]

bluemax 1939 explains:

"if you have a problem with me citing wittmans stats then tough...not every us soldier was good, not every ss man was evil..."

It is ever so kind of you to let the SS off the hook for war crimes. I will alert the good citizens of Israel, Poland, France, Greece, and Russia that they should just forget about any nasty little warcrimes that litter the record of this organization.

For your information, Michael Wittman was a member of the 1st SS Panzer Division known as the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler. The SS had their largest training camp at a little place called Dachau, Germany. I don't know if you have ever heard of Dachau; but, it was a nice little summer camp run by the SS for folks the nice Nazi regime did not like. You can use various search devices, if you like, to obtain more information about the numerous war crimes associated specifically with the 1st SS Panzer Division. Probably the most well known of these nice boys' pranks was the massacre of unarmed and defenseless United States soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium. These American soldiers died so a little twit like you could burnish the image of one of their neat opponants.

When Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces, visited Dachau to inspect the place and see what had been going on, he vomited and issued an order that the camp be filmed, as it was found. Eisenhower said he did this so that little twerps like you could not later claim that all this war crime stuff was just a little missunderstanding. By the way, Dwight Eisenhower was a real hero who possessed skill and courage if you want to begin to understand what the word means.

Thomas Friedman wrote recently in a NEW YORK TIMES article about how dangerous the internet could be when complete untruths and lies were commonly made and went out untested and challenged. When I see someone honoring an SS man, especially someone who claims that they are educated (or what seems to pass for being educated in Oklahomma these days), then I have nothing but contempt for that person. You really don't have any real idea who Michael Wittman was or what he did during WW II because you are only relying on German sources (and German sources to boot who are sympathetic to the SS and the Nazis). I would wager that a paper detailing the life of Michael Wittman which only relied upon Nazi sources would not even pass muster in Oklahomma; but, I could be wrong about that. I mean, just look, you claim to be top in your class and you don't have a clue about seeking an objective source before you form an opinion on a member of the SS.

Why don't you email a real military historian and ask him about the record of the 1st SS Panzer Division and Michael Wittman. I hear that David Irving is still providing testimonials about how there is no documentary evidence showing that Adolf Hitler ordered the genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the intelligensia of Poland etc. But, he does not have much left since the London court held him liable as a denier of the crimes of the Third Reich.

I will try to be charitable. You are young. You maybe have never spoken to a WW II vet about their experiences or their views of who and what the SS was. I have had that experience and I honor the memory of those who have passed and those who are still living who fought so that we now can enjoy the benefits of living in freedom and liberty. I have nothing but contempt for those who chose (they were all volunteers) to fight in the SS.

[ September 25, 2002, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Panzer Cmdr]

I believe the air power issue is an issue and limits should be placed based on resources. In this manner it allows countries growth via conquest. I don't like having arbitrary force pool limits. I wish more HQ's could be created (I liked the idea of being able to convert a veteran infantry into a HQ, or veteran tank into a mobile HQ).

Sogard - You have got to lighten up and get off your high horse. Your remarks are offesive and you mind is closed and full of colorful courtroom quotes. I am a veteran (Desert Storm) and so was my father(WWII) and grandfather (WWI). Many gamers (WWII) like to play the Axis because they are the underdogs (not because we are Hitler youths). People respect the effeciancy aspect of the regular army units and do not worship the SS as you imply. One of the things my dad did say that he did not like was that when our pilots/crews had to bailout or hardland (after bombing Japan) many times the Russians would pick them up. The Russians would not simply return them to the US, but would either hand them over to the Japanese or they would interm our pilots. As stated the Germans did not have a monopoly on not playing by the rules.

[Desert Dave]

BlueMax 1939:

FWIW, my feeling is that the banner that you fly (in the form of your personal signature) DOES matter.

There is no stronger proponent of free speech (and keeping BIG stuporous BROTHER -- O U T!!!) than I am.

However, the SS is simply not welcome by many, and there are good and sufficient and historically documented reasons why that is so.

You may play any WW2 game and include SS units, as I will do -- since wargaming is a CATHARSIS and not real life, BUT you cannot so indifferently offend a sizable group (not merely sogard) of folks that you are trying to have conversations, discussions and spirited debates with.

My advice: change your signature.

And of course! you may disregard, but consider all the hard feelings (even if not publicly expressed) that you thereby cause... ask yourself a very serious question -- is this identification... worth it?

After all, the same group you so blithely champion ALSO murdered Gypsies, Drunks, the Genetically Impure -- AND free-thinking college professors and students. Just... think about it.