Limiting Units in Strategic Command

[DevilDog]

OK, time to eat crow. I don't have time for a long post now, but will post a more substantial one in a new thread later tonight. I have been converted to the realization that the game is unbalanced toward the Axis. I apologize for my earlier posts on this thread - I was way off. I have been seriously spanked as the Allies in my most recent PBEM with Jolly Guy.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

I apologize for my earlier posts on this thread - I was way off.

Dog, since when is having a critical and open mind something to apologise for?

You had an initial opinion backed by reasoning, presented strongly but inoffensively. Now you've changed your assessment backed on new evidence. I would think that's what rational discussion is about.

But then I'm a starry eyed idealist on this sort of thing.

[DevilDog]

I would back the two ideas presented earlier in this thread of removing industrial tech advances and also making each additional unit purchased cost more to simulate the added mainenance and supply requirements. I think any changes will certainly have to be play tested as they could unbalance SC in a different direction. And as for changes, less is more.

[sogard]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

OK, time to eat crow. I don't have time for a long post now, but will post a more substantial one in a new thread later tonight. I have been converted to the realization that the game is unbalanced toward the Axis. I apologize for my earlier posts on this thread - I was way off. I have been seriously spanked as the Allies in my most recent PBEM with Jolly Guy.

What a refreshing post! We all have the right to change our minds on all sorts of issues not only in gaming; but, in life. I respect anyone who recognizes that they might have been misstaken and even more so when he admits this in a public forum. Everyone benefits from this learning experience.

[sogard]

Originally posted by Panzer Cmdr:

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.

First, let me say Panzer Cmdr, that I respect and honor your experiece of serving the United States in the Gulf War. I appreciate your service.

But, I am not objecting to a player playing Germany in a WW II game. I have no problem with a game which uses historical units where all the historical units (SS, NKVD whatever) are included. I even do not have an objection where the regular Wehrmacht units are in grey and the SS are white on black (although I would not have a problem if ALL German units were the same). There have been a number of hot debates on various wargame forums on why wargame publishers feel the need to make SS units more distinguishable. There is nothing wrong with the study of military history nor the creation and playing of a game based upon military history. It is a good thing to use a game to get a better understanding of what history looked liked. Gaming is a great hobby.

I also agree that BlueMax has a right to run any tag line he wants; but, I think a tag line which quotes one SS Officer praising another is in incredibly bad taste. I believe that when one sees another demonstrating such bad taste which is offensive to many; it is appropriate to comment on this. Why? Because we are talking about setting the record straight about who and what the SS was. We are not talking about Darth Vader and Imperial storm troopers here; but, about real individuals who fought for a very evil system and cause. BlueMax makes the argument that all soldiers are the same. No one is blameless and no one can be blamed.

That view is patently wrong. Our military acadamies do not teach this notion nor does the Uniform Code of Military Law recognize this. Yes, war is terrible; but, some causes and organizations have absolutely no redeeming value. The SS falls into this category. The fact that this is so is documented in literally thousands of books and articles.

There is also a very small; but, hardcore view that there are no norms in war. That seek to distort the historical record. If you do a quick web search on the SS, you will find a number of these sites, in english and not located in Germany. Why do you think this is so? It is because in the Federal Republic of Germany; it is illegal to have such a site. In the United States, we have the first amendment which permits free speech no matter how erroneous and wrong it might be. We believe in the market place of ideas where the truth will win out as long as an honest and frank discussion is held. That is what I am attempting to do. I am attempting to set the record straight about who and what the SS was. Quite obviously, some here do not know this.

Finally, I agree with Studs Terkel that WW II, as terrible as it was, was the LAST GOOD WAR. It was a war that was fought to save Western Civilization. Remembering that is the way that I honor those who fought for freedom and my ability to live in a just society. That is something we should never forget and ought not just be saved for 4th of July speeches that no one attends or pays any attention to. Remembering the truth is the least we can do for those who paid the highest cost in the defense of liberty.

[ September 26, 2002, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[sogard]

I removed a duplicate post which I accidently made for the reader's convenience.

[ September 26, 2002, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Brian Rock]

And here I was, thinking this was a thread about limiting units in SC. Go figure.

I am no fan of Wittman. My only regret about his death is that it didn't happen five years earlier, before he took the lives of the crews of the 270 vehicles he is credited with destroying.

However it has nothing to do with BlueMax 1939's argument for not introducing force pools and limiting builds solely by MMPs.

Sogard, you seem to be implying that because BlueMax 1939 has a Wittman sig he wants "a game where the Nazis overrun the world and (he gets) to be the grand Obengruppenfuhrer of this... cool SS Black uniforms, the goose stepping soldiers and the stukas; but, (he doesn't) want what the game represents to bear any resemblance to the history on which it was based."

The inference that he's pro-Nazi is invalid, the conclusion that he wants the game to doesn't follow, and it's a personal attack rather than an appeal to evidence and logic.

Can I call on your training as a lawyer to stop the ad hominem arguments and focus on the res gestae?

[sogard]

Brian:

Do you agree with the following quote from BlueMax:

"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

"but this is beside the point; to say that he is an evil man is ridiculous...an example was used that everyone on all levels was Nazified is wrong as well..."

If you do, would you please give me an example of a good SS man. Do you believe that all SS men were "Nazified?" Could you give me an example of an unNazified SS man?

You need to read all the posts on this subject in order to understand what is going on here. BlueMax is an individual who believes that an SS man is worthy of being singled out and emulated. Do you agree with this?

That is what I was reacting to and profoundly disagree with.

BlueMax can have any opinion he wants on the way the game works. I can have any opinion I like on his opinion. Neither my opinion nor his on the subject of game design would be offensive. The tag line about the SS is (particularily since it cites another Nazi source). Do you believe that Micahel Wittman's photograph should adorn a wall at West Point along with other great military commanders such as Blucher or Frederick the Great or even von Moltke, the Elder?

I take it that you think that only direct examination of a witness should be permitted and never allow any cross examination?

If you go out onto the internet, you can easily find a number of sites where the SS (in general) and the 1st SS Panzer Division (in particular) are portrayed as the good guys. You seem to think that this sort of nonsense should go unrebutted on sites such as this. Why?

Finally, I do not doubt your sincerity when you wrote:

"I am no fan of Wittman. My only regret about his death is that it didn't happen five years earlier, before he took the lives of the crews of the 270 vehicles he is credited with destroying."

The discussion about BlueMax's tagline began on another folder when I made a very similar comment and the response by some (but, to be fair, not by BlueMax1939) was how could I be so cruel. He was such a brave and admirable soldier. I did not think that response appropriate then or now.

At the end of the Second World War, Dwight Eisenhower witnessed the signing of the formal document of surrender at his Headquarters is Rheims, France. The German Army was represented by General Alfred Jodl. At the signing ceremony, Eisenhower refused to return Jodl's salute and refused to shake his hand. Does anyone think that Eisenhower was being rude? General Jodl was a professional officer and member of the German General Staff as well as being Chief of Staff to the German High Command. General Jodl was not a member of the SS.

[ September 26, 2002, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Hawk]

Hi folks!

Could you please move this kind of discussions over to the General forum? :cool:

Thanks!

[Archibald]

Sogard, I think you've posted on the the wrong thread.

[pzgndr]

I would back the two ideas presented earlier in this thread of removing industrial tech advances and also making each additional unit purchased cost more to simulate the added mainenance and supply requirements.

I don't see how we can eliminate industrial tech advances completely and still try to simulate how the nations geared up for war during WWII. 3R had growth rates which was interesting, A3R added factories for USSR which increased production over time, and SC uses research to reduce costs. This seems OK, but even with 5-4-3-2-1 or 6-5-4-3-2 (sounds fine!) we may eventually want to reconsider max research points and max points per area as another means of slowing things down if necessary to produce a more historic "feel." The 10&5 parameters are still up for grabs. I'm in favor of trying the proposed research changes and seeing what effect they have. "Limiting Research" could be started as a separate topic later after we see some game results.

Tying increased costs to each additional unit purchased may be difficult to implement. The code would have to account for all units in play each turn, perhaps even individual unit strengths, and stuff like that. Gearing ratios may help, but that would also be an interesting challenge to code, like force pool limits. A simple suggestion is to increase unit costs based on tech advances. I suggested 10% for each advance but that may be too much. 5% maybe? Whatever, L5 jets in 1944 are going to cost more to build/reinforce (and that accounts for maintenance and supply) than L0 airplanes in 1939, so why not let budget constraints be the natural limiter? So I encourage more consideration of the increased cost per tech level idea.

[sogard]

It is going to be rather difficult to actually figure out how tweaking the unit cost per tech level or any adjustment of the economic formulas will affect game play without actually play testing it.

I am not suggesting that only limiting units in SC will fill the bill and I agree that whatever the solution is; it ought to one which causes Hubert the least amount of trouble yet gets the job done.

I am curious to see what the other modifications that Hubert was suggesting will do especially the Capital changes for Russia and what he does for Alexandria. If the Brits could actually build units in Alexandria, that would be very nice (if nothing else, representing the arrival of forces from India, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

[Hubert Cater]

It is going to be rather difficult to actually figure out how tweaking the unit cost per tech level or any adjustment of the economic formulas will affect game play without actually play testing it.

[Hubert Cater]

Just thinking aloud here, but I am thinking that if this strategy (go for tech first and then everything else) was not employed the game would still be balanced as found pretty much from the beta testing. I think once the game is fully understood it is inevitable that there will be ways to exploit the system and to your advantage.

Saying this I think what may be at issue here is that the Germans can spend money on tech while neither the Soviets or Americans can since they are not active participants in the war just yet. Sure England can spend a bit, but usually not much since they are mostly hanging on for dear life. In a future version I believe having a somewhat active neutral majors with limited income will make things a bit more interesting. Having let's say the USSR and USA active but neutral, allowing them to move units, purchase some units and participate in research, albeit at limited levels until they become full participants should go a long way in perhaps balancing out some of the gameplay as well as make things more interesting. I have a few other notes that go with this but more on that later before I actually commit to something here

Hubert

[pzgndr]

Actually this is already implemented, for each research area that applies to a unit, the cost goes up by 10%.

I'll press the "I believe" button. I realize unit build costs increase 10% due to the increase in max unit strength. It isn't clear if cost per factor also increases for both builds and reinforcements. Combined with industrial tech advances, it's difficult to know for sure. If cost per factor is already increasing with each tech advance, I'll drop my suggestion. If not, then let's keep it on the table?

Another inspiring thought I had about limiting research is to maybe increase the cost of research points by 10% with each successive point. First point costs 250, second costs 275, etc. Not a suggestion, just an idea without form or substance ...

[Hubert Cater]

It isn't clear if cost per factor also increases for both builds and reinforcements. Combined with industrial tech advances, it's difficult to know for sure.

It's factored in across the board, for builds, reinforcements, operations etc., well er.. it should be, unless I missed something of course

Another inspiring thought I had about limiting research is to maybe increase the cost of research points by 10% with each successive point. First point costs 250, second costs 275, etc. Not a suggestion, just an idea without form or substance ...

That's an interesting idea as well!

Hubert

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Hawk:

Hi folks!

Could you please move this kind of discussions over to the General forum? :cool:

Thanks!

Or to email.

Sogard, I'll send you an email with my reply, but I'm happy to carry this over in the General Forum as well.

[sogard]

I received your email Brian. Thank you for your views. Time to move on anyway.

[daringly]

Hubert, you had an observation that I think is worth repeating... If Industrial were not the top research choice, the others would be more balanced.

What if... No tech could reach level 2, until at least 3 others reached level 1? Before Germany gets level 2 industry, it would have to research level 1 jets, tanks and anti-tank.

A restriction like that would not only slow down the German juggernaut, but increase the employable game strategies as well.

If, in addition, tech points could not be re-assigned, there would be a lot more strategy (and less luck) in the assignment of tech.

Outside of the tech issues, the air is the main remaining "problem" (which I consider bigger than the tech issue). Historically, German air was superior to the minors, France and Russia, but not crushingly so, and at a disadvantage against the Brits (due to the focus of Brits on air superiority, versus the German fighter/bomber).

Sadly, in this game, Britain does not really have an option to contest the skies, either in france or over London (unless you employ Iolo's strategy of massive disbanding of fleets and sac bombers to build HQ and fighters). The problem is: the air war in SC favors the aggressor. Attackers get more experience per engagement, and they choose the conditions of the battle (full versus weakened, and with Germany, always with an HQ). German air fleets attacking france have 2-3 turns of experience before, and xp of 2-3 points when raiding Britain. The virgin spitfires get chewed up, and cost more to repair than Britain can lose to german fighters. Consequently, Britain's (and france's) best strategy is usually to retreat fighters, don't contest the air for the entire war, and keep them in reserve. Similarly, Russia can't use its air until it has had "batting practice" against the Finns, and then only in a limited theatre where it believes it has numbers over the Germans.

As the game is now, the realistic defensive options limit the game, and reduce the pleasure of playing. Britain simply can't defend its own airspace against experienced air fleets.

If I were designing the game, I would consider very minor changes to the game. I like your ideas on tech (with giving the allies a point or two more starting). I think the American MMP amount is fine (as all they are). But if defensive air fleets are "fixed", so that they on average, inflict equal losses on the attacker, the game will be much more playable. In an "even exchange" scenario, Germany will lose more air to France, Britain and Russia. With increased losses, Germany won't be able to afford 10+ airfleets.

As a "scenario" I would volunteer to test with 10 pbem players, I would want to try these rule mods:

1. Russia starts with 3 tech points

2. America starts with 3 tech points

3. Intercepting air has its "kill strength" increased 50% versus air targeting ground units (Air units attacked on the ground should be punished, for getting caught on the airfields)

Tech is a minor problem, but not NEARLY as big a problem as the "airfleet snowball experience" issue. If the game is balances, so it is worthwhile to commit airfleets to defense, the game will be much more interesting, and strategic options wide open.

[BlueMax 1939]

i think that i will go ahead and make this my last message on this topic...what i meant by not every us is soldier was good, blah blah...was that you cannot judge someone by the group that they are in, especially a military one...every army has had massacres (you think the us is all fun and games, sogard...read up on how we slaughtered innocent civilians in vietnam)...wittmann was NOT involved in any massacres...if he were i would not have posted his stats...(btw, the malmedy massacre happened at the battle of the bulge sogard...PLEEEEEASE do some research...wittmann was KIA on 8 august.1944 near Gaumensnil, well before then...) also, just to let everyone know; my grandfather fought in the us air corp flying in b-17's in WWII; i am not a neo-nazi..that is ridiculous, and sogard needs to just get over it...i am not on here spouting ss propoganda...from the first post on he has been on a personal vendetta against me...it is BS and this is the last post i am going to write defending myself...so shoot away sogard...but im still gonna be here debating things about the game....

[ September 27, 2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: BlueMax 1939 ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by daringly:

If, in addition, tech points could not be re-assigned, there would be a lot more strategy (and less luck) in the assignment of tech.

Glad to see that a few others are beginning to agree with my original idea of having NO RETURN on Industrial Tech investments.

Thinking it over, I -- as German player, would probably be unwilling to "waste" 1000 MPPs on a tech possibility, with NO return. Perhaps 500 MPP or even up to 750 MPP, so in effect this would somewhat curtail the rapid I.T. advances.

And this in turn would make L4 & L5 cost more (as Bill Macon would prefer) since you may well achieve some of those advances BEFORE L5 I.T. is in effect.

In fact, Industrial could lag behind to the extent that you would have, at least, SOME extra cost for the superior models/equipment. Even if it didn't MOSTLY happen that way, it would likely be enough to cost the "Tech-happy Wizard" a moderate amount of Xtra MPPs.

And, in general, I would be less likely to rely MOSTLY on tech advances, if there were a 50-100 MPP or even 1/2 penalty for moving these around. After all, the Air or Panzers are a certainty. The Tech is not so sure (not even allowing for pure happenstance).

Therefore, the NO RETURN may well solve some of these fast advances. If I am playing an opponent who I suspect will still pay full fare for the tech possibilities, then I know they are not ALSO rapidly expanding their tactical forces.

[sogard]

BlueMax 1939 writes:

"wittmann was NOT involved in any massacres..."

How do you know this? Because another SS officer says so?

If you really want to be honest about this, why don't you email the Simon Weisenthal center in Los Angelos, California, and ask them what they know about Michael Wittman. At least then you would be getting a view not filtered through the lens of another SS officer's eyes.

[arby]

Glad to see that a few others are beginning to agree with my original idea of having NO RETURN on Industrial Tech investments.

That was my original idea, too, but I'm not so sure any more. Depends on what Hubert does with the Allies. Since they've got to play catch up, not allowing switching of techs might penalize them even more than it does the Germans, thus further imbalancing the tech situation.

In the only game I've lost as Germans, the British player did exactly what the German player normally does: loaded up on tech, then switched it around. He had L5 Jets and L4 L/R aircraft. I had bad luck; although I got up to L5 Ind Tech relatively quickly, I could never get above L2 planes. He bombed me into oblivion on the Western Front, even though I had the Eastern Front well in hand.

This is starting remind me of the story about the medieval colleges, where the professor would ask the students how many teeth a horse had, and one student would say, "Hey, there's a horse out there, why don't we go look?" And the professor would reply, no, we have to figure it out logically. The campaign editor easily allows adjustment in the allotment of Tech points, and house rules could handle the switching issue. We know who the good players are. Why don't we come up with a modification and have them try it out? Here's my suggestion:

UK starts with 1 chit, Ind Tech at 1

USSR starts with 4 chits, Ind Tech at 2

US starts with 5 chits, Ind Tech at 1

All German ground units at start, except HQ, have 1 experience point

No more than 3 chits in any tech

To switch, tech must be reclaimed, then reinvested

Any other suggestions? Any takers for that? How about we go look at the horse instead of talking about it?

[ September 27, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: arby ]

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by daringly:

Hubert, you had an observation that I think is worth repeating... If Industrial were not the top research choice, the others would be more balanced.

Interesting additions... I'll have to think about this as well.

Hubert

[pzgndr]

Glad to see that a few others are beginning to agree with my original idea of having NO RETURN on Industrial Tech investments.

NO RETURN is one possibility, one tree in the forest. I'm beginning to wonder if industrial tech (ie, the economic system in SC) should be separate from the research system or otherwise limited differently within research.

One thing I like about 3R is how well the BRP system with growth rates reflects the Allies ability to lag behind the Axis initially and then overcome them. The economic turning point results in a change in initiative and the tide of war then goes against the Axis. In SC, the Allies struggle just to keep up with the Axis and have a difficult time achieving that turning point. On the other hand, once the USSR gets rolling, starts conquering axis minors and receiving plunder, they seem to grow by leaps and bounds while the US and Britain make do on their fixed incomes. It just doesn't "feel" right in SC.

One thing to note about SC is that this is a game, and this PG-style game is not particularly suited to accurate simulations of history. We don't have historic OOBs, force pools, unit TO&Es (like the detailed unit data in TOAW, for instance), and stuff like that. It's not at all clear if SC could even rise to a level of realism and historical accuracy like WiF if the design goals change, which I don't expect. However, the simulation of the economic aspects of WWII and the relative powers of the various nations over time should be modeled better, and that should then result in better game results regardless of the game mechanics. Things like numbers of resources, value of resources, value of plunder, perhaps a possible cost for making DOWs, unit build and reinforcement costs over time, and everything economic could be reviewed and tweaked to create a more accurate economic war.

I'll go back to my suggestion that max research points and max points per area could eventually be tweaked to achieve more historic results. Maybe Industrial Tech could be limited to 1 point except for US and USSR which could have a 2 point limit? That's just one possibility. Right now we have a research free-for-all where even Italy can buy 10 points and have 5 points max in areas like Industrial Tech and Jets and the obvious result is pure fantasy. I do like the fact that we can choose to buy research points and choose where to put them and see random rather than fixed results. We could impose various limits within the research system, even different limits for each country and certain tech areas, without upsetting how research works now. Research, including Industrial Tech, needs to remain flexible so we can have fun with plausible what-ifs - it just needs some reasonable limits to bring it back in line with historical reality.