SC II: Global

[BriantheWise]

I'm kind of bouncing off several threads here, including especially and most recently, Les Sarges "I was lost...", and bouncing also off Jersey Johns comments...

Hubert, here is how I would do it. I am assuming you are going to use the SC platform as the basic premise:

Briefly (leaving many of the edges out, but you will get the idea)

Part 1, Land and land units: Working within the premise

1) No stacking except with beachheads. Islands and coastal hexes all have a sub hex set for attack/defend. Double stacking allowed, fight to the death for the hex, supply is key, it can be in doubt for a period of time. It would be a sub menu and you would double click on the hex.

This allows invasions against a fortified France, an occupied Malta, and all of the landings in the Pacific on little islands. It works, trust me.

Part II: Ocean and Naval Units: You will have to go with zones. Hexes can be used for calculations, but there must be zones, where in the opponents commits their navies, and convoys and uboats, and air. Similar to Clash of Steel, more similar to Victory in the Pacific.

Sides will commit their ships and invasions to be successful or not, including convoys, chance will play a factor. If a battle occurs, go to sub menu on how to play it out (I'll talk on that another day).

Part III: Air. This would be similar to how it is now, but also each air unit would patrol a zone, land or sea and participate accordingly.

Part IV: Economics: This gets complicated to describe, but I would have this on a whole separate preturn sub menu. The AI would be able to handle this I am sure. Picture it this way, going from left to right....

MMP's go into the various funnels. Those are an assortment of opportunities and costs. We are making it simple and playable, and therefore it's simplified, but in this, there is a time lag. Say there are ten options as follows:

(a factory can say, utilize 50 MMP's)

Build factory

Increase ship building

Research

Build ships

Build convoys

etc...

Not to go into the depth of HOI (which was insane!), but to let, say, the U. S. build up, with many many MMP's, but in the beginning not knowing how to use them....I have the diagram, I just can't quite describe it well.

Part V: Convoys. Now think War at Sea. Make it simple. If the convoys get damaged, the ability of transporting will also be reduced. This can be abstracted, though. For Britain, say, they have key sources of supply in Britain, Egypt, India. MMP's flow freely between. Units do not.

For America, MMP's do not flow freely to say Hawaii. They must be convoyed, and are subjected to sub, or surface attack.

The key here is not to make it complicated, but yet make it key. Place a convoy in that sea zone. If it gets sunk, lose MMP's, supply, and some shipping value (ability to ship).

If it's units, well it's units, just like it is now, but in zones.

Part VI: Growth: HOI got all messed up by over complicating things. For simplicity sake, stick with MMP. Going back to the panel and the grid, if a player can't, or doesn't want to cram everything down the funnel to make things, the player can invest in new factories that open the funnel. Germany could only make so many ships at a time and each took time. More ships, invest in a ship factory. Already invested to the max on ship factories, invest in basic factories that will allow the building of a new ship factory.

Do you follow? I'm explaining it poorly, but it's linear and works. Can work.

Part VII: The World... Hexes on land and hexes at sea, with zones, I would make the whole world on the scale as it is in SC I. There will be dead spots of course, but a mouse scrolls well.

Part VIII: Diplomacy: A new model, with influences and the possibilities of bringing in Argentian, Mexico, etc, into the war. Lots to say on this, but I don't want to at this time. Too much to say.

Conclusion: For now, at least: SC is great. I love it, we love. The only reason why we talk about it so much (and criticize it), is because we love it.

That said, we want (or I do, anyways), Global SC. SC 2. SC 2 for me. WE have to work on what has been created thus far. I think the platform can be extended. I don't know if the AI can handle that extension, or if it's economically feasible to try to do so. I think it is. I would like to help. I see how it can work. And SC Global would be for me, the game of all games.

That's my opinion. (more than) nuf sed.

comments?

Hi

Brian

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Nahh, world map is gonna suck, A Eurasia one would work though

cVm

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Ok first off.

I won't play a global game if it isn't truely "global" ie shaped like a globe.

How you arrange the map projection is a matter for a cartographer to advise on.

But I am not saying that the entire surface of the planet needs to be gamed out in excrutiating detail either.

Zones, I like zones. Not sure how to map it out, but I would say regions might work. Enter a region and the game takes you to a conventional map with conventional hexes where you conduct the game in a conventional manner.

In that way, you don't have to re invent the wheel to much (do you?).

I would suggest leaving conventional naval hexes bordering land to some agreed upon depth 2-3 heaxes (any opinions on that, I am just winging it here, no basis points at this time).

I think opposing naval forces should be able to exist in a single region, and not automatically see each other any more than they do now.

I don't have any current brain storms about handling naval invasions with respects to fortified unfortified coastal or island hexes.

But it appears something needs to be done beyond advising to take an HQ with ya.

[JerseyJohn]

Brian -- Les,

Between the two of you everything seems to be covered.

I like Sarge's idea of zones in a global map being clicked into hexes when a specific area is selected. I think the 2 to three hex coastal region is good, allowing battle ships to come in for coastal bombardment with carriers farther out. In this sense I think it should be possible to stack invading ground troops with surface ships one hex adjacent to coast so as to allow coastal bombardment and a landing from the same sea hex.

Also agreed with Sarge's point concerning map proportions. Nothing worse than a global map that shows Greenland looking bigger than South America.

Pretty much agreed with all of Brian's views. It's often overlooked that the actual physical loss of merchant ships themselves was an important factor; most remarks usually mention the cargo only. Even early in the war this was a factor. Britain had a severe loss of shipping during the first year and the addition of Norway's merchant marine fleet helped considerably.

After a few basic problems are solved (such as invading island bases) I think the game would adapt well to a global setting. Hopefully weather will be included. Aside from cases like the Russian Winter, typhoons and hurricanes should be a factor. During late summer/fall task forces at sea should run the risk of being caught in a storm and damaged. The most serious instance happened with Admiral Halsey in '45 when he sailed his ships into consecutive typhoons. The fleet incurred more weather damage than was normally received in battle!

[Shaka of Carthage]

SC II: Global .... hmmm. What exactly is the purpose of SC II:Global? Is it WWII: Pacific and European Theaters? Or is it WWII era, ability to conquer the world? I think before there is any talk about what is being implemented, this would have to be answered, since it would drive the decisions (ie suggestions) that follow.

Barry

[BriantheWise]

Great thoughts....Thank you.

Les,

I would make the game space like a wide map, with a couple of strategic arrows that would flip you to the other side of the world. For example, say, you have an invasion force down in lower Argentina (I don't know the name of the Sea there), move onto the arrow, next turn show up in the Cape of Good Hope. There would be few arrows on the North.

Regions do work. Both at Sea and on land. HQ's are key, but they needn't be adjacent. Just in the same "zone", region. Same with Air, in my opinion. Air and HQ's are optimum inside their region (defense), and less so, in the adjacent zones, that they are attacking. Again, you get into bridgehead thinking here (must take some hexes in this zone, so i can move my HQ and air in for better effectivity....)

Regarding Naval: I definitely agree with you. Opposing forces would co exist. And fight, based on a random factor including weather. Think the Bismarck, so something like. Random possibilities of interception, while at the same time Bismarck has random opportunities of engagement, convoy interception, supply disruption....etc.

I was thinking something like this: One zone, two opposing ports, with their ships. Four options:

Control (ie also meaning kill anything that sails in your zone), Raid, Supply, and for subs, convoy kill.

You set your buttons for each region/sea zone, with the ships you have available, carriers too.

Based on a random factor, naval actions, day or night, air or surface, will happen.

The good thing about this approach, is you can have more ships (we all love our ships), with no added logistic complications. Set it and go, and then if there is a battle, go to sub menu.

Responding to your post: HQ's would not need to be adjacent, just in the same zone/region.

Jersey John:

I agree with you.

But I still go to zones. And the options I mentioned. If the navy does control the sea, challenges it and keeps it, then each ship can bombard whatever units are in that zone, assuming that they have not already fought. If the naval units did a battle with the opposing navy, they're done and have to wait until the next turn.

Speaking of which, each turn would be two months.

As regards invading island bases, easy. Picture this: Island, Malta, Tarawa, etc...Two squares for each island, superimposed on the map. On the left is the defending, on the right is the attacker, they coexist on the square until combat is done (usually in one turn. otherwise, generally, based on supply considerations, the defender will probably counter attack, if able. Depends).

John, thanks for noticing that point about the loss of merchant ships. In the game, it probably wouldn't be very key for very long. But as you know, during late 41 and early 42, England was starving to death on materials and food, etc. But it wasn't because they didn't have that available, they just couldn't get to their island, or Archangel, for the Russians. Murmansk too, during the summer months (I think that's how it went, or visa versa).

In the game, to simplify, it would be a special rule that would only apply to Britain and Japan. Something like allocating this many MMP's to this spot, but due to losses in the merchant fleet, only 80%, or 90 or 70, depending, will get there. Follow?

Another thing you brough up is weather. It's not over looked in SC1, not much, and mostly hidden. I would make it a much more blantant feature. Except in North Africa, where it is always to sunny, Weather played such a major part in the war. You know the game: Moscow, Stalingrad, Coral Sea, almost even, but not quite, Midway (it was sunny). All zones would have an interdependant weather scheme, based on the calender and random therefrom.

[John DiFool]

Seazones...ughh, double uggh, and triple uggh.

Please Hubert don't listen to them! I LIKE moving

individual ships around, and intercepting at my

discretion (without an auto-intercept as would

happen on my opponent's turn if he moves ships

into a zone of mine which also has ships).

Otherwise good ideas here, but that one should be

sent to the bottom.

John DiFool

[JerseyJohn]

John DiFool

The main discussion about zones was in the context of map zones to be cicked on opening an area of the map.

From there the decision is whether to have sea zoned function as in COS or as in CS or some combination of the two.

What I don't understand is if you want to throw the whole global idea out or the whole zone idea (in which things like weather might also be employed) or just the use of sea zones being run in the COS manner.

Brian

Two month turns, as in COS could be good but in that case it would have to go all the way in the COS system of multi-impulses per move so there might be as many as twelve movement/combat phases per more, or as few as two, depending upon the season. On a global scale this would be hard to do as seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres would present a problem. Also, as you mention, while Russia is buried in snow and the Balkans bogged down in mud the Mediteranean is warm and the Sahara is it's usual inferno (with freezing nights, of course).

I'd favor a set turn system with each turn equaling a week game time. If an area has snow, mud, extreme snow, rain, etc, it has different effects upon units in that area. Units in northern Russia during the winter might be virually immobile (except moving strategically via railroad) for most of the winter while other unitis in North Africa might have been moving back and forth across a thousand or more miles!

Naturally, the Far East would have it's own unique conditions along those lines.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The main discussion about zones was in the context of map zones to be cicked on opening an area of the map.

From there the decision is whether to have sea zoned function as in COS or as in CS or some combination of the two.

What I don't understand is if you want to throw the whole global idea out or the whole zone idea (in which things like weather might also be employed) or just the use of sea zones being run in the COS manner.

Yes, it was the CoS (and WiF, which is where the

former ripped off the idea) that gets my goat.

Basically my objection is that it makes for

extreme doctrinal inflexibility, and isn't all

that realistic either. Ships don't hang out in

a 'seazone' for 1-3 months-they sortie, if they

sortie at all, at the discretion of the commander

in chief. I just remember in CoS how, in order

to ensure that Rommel et al. was supplied, that

the Italian fleet had to sit out there and be a

target for the RN, while in reality they sat in

port, and the transports took their chances.

The 'zoom' thing is a good idea-dunno how workable

it would be, but in principle it might work, or

it might lead to needless micromanagement.

JD

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

It is possible my zone notion might have strayed (I am not sure).

I had thought zones would be a simple way to game all of the Atlantic or the Pacific without the need for a "massive main map".

In this manner, the main map might be a number of main map "zones". Entering a zone, would merely allow you to move the exact same naval units in the exact same manner as right now.

It was not so much my desire to re invent naval combat, as it is to adequately address the size of the map. Inside of a "zone" naval units would continue to move as they do now, finding units as they do and interacting as they do now.

I am not saying I like all aspect of the naval game right now, I am just not going to bend brain cells trying to pretend I know how to fix them hehe.

Considering the world is 3/4 water, and the whole globe can be reached via the worlds oceans and seas, to portray a truely global game, you must make those waters traversable.

Otherwise who gives a darn if the British control the Falklands. And who cares if the Suez is compromised. And what point is there to the Panama Canal.

To address the myriad minor powers and the many region governments that impacted the war though, I would want them no more than abstracted factors.

I might like to try and land Japanese in Australia, or see the Germans invade somewhere across the Atlantic, but the game will not be sitting on my hard drive if Mexico is included as a player.

In A3R I had to contend with the Turkish Army as a tangible force in the game, but they were never more than minor country forces controlled by a primary power in the game.

I am reluctant to touch weather in the game. On a global scale, I think it might be a pandora's box I would rather leave shut.

Heck they can't even report real weather in the real world correctly.

[JerseyJohn]

John DiFool -- Good Points

I never cared for the COS method either and for pretty much the same reasons. With me the Italian fleet nearly always remained in port unless the Axis had the second impulse, then I'd put them in the Western Med if there were only two British ships there, hoping to get in a little attrition. Of course, in the actual war, without radar they weren't very safe in port either, as evidenced by the Taranto attack. Even with radar the U. S. Pacific Fleet was very safe in port as evidenced by Pearl Harbor.

It always seemed to me that the COS system was a compromise but it got a few things accomplished, like shore bombardment by the full fleet on a specific hex even if it was about to be invaded.

Which, I felt their method of invasion casualties even in landing on unoccupied hexes was a bit excessive.

In preference I'm with you, not crazy about that abstraction at all, but if it's the only method that works I'd be in favor of it. One thing that has to be said for it, the idea is simple enough that the AI doesn't foul itself up in the implementation.

Sorry if my view here leans in both directions. I'd have to go with the method most favorable for the AI. If it gets a break in the naval area it might perform better all the way around.

In addition to weather, one thing I'd really like to see is production schedules. To me those two items go a long way in distinguishing a serious game from the beer and pretzels variety. I'm sure most of us enjoy both, but I think the more serious game, as long as it isn't too involved, is preferable.

[ January 26, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Les,

Agreed entirely about sovereign states. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Burma, et al, have to be in the same category as Rumania, Iraq and Spain. There should be varying degrees of neutrality or committment to one side or the other. They can't have a player identity.

If the War had carried past Europe, it would have been interesting to see how the South American countries lined up. The United States mad much propaganda use of Brazil joining the cause. What's never mentioned is the numerous ways the U. S. pressured the Brazilian government into actively joining the Allies because it was worried about the many Brazilians believed to be Axis sympathizers. Also, it was rightly assumed that most other South American countries would shy away from the Axis if the largest nation on the continent was fighting against them.

But what would have happened if the Axis had secured Europe and dominated West Africa, if Germany were actually making offers to countries like Argentina? If SC 2 goes global I'd like to see a political system that reflects distinctions of that kind. It would seem to me that this is basically what's already done in the case of neutral minors like Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

[ January 27, 2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Dragoner]

I love the idea of scII but dont take with the whole world, drop the poles and none important places like small islands. Japan should be an major nation like usa and italy and they should have a huge naval fleet, but since the almost whole world is in the game maybe they should make the years a little longer so that you dont run out of time sa quikly. :confused: but its a great idea!!!!! and i hope its gonna be made in the future.

And one more thing it should be more different units more planes naval units and land units

[ January 26, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Dragoner ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

To me SC is Axis and Allies with more attention to detail.

I have trashed the planet with Japan a few times, but hey, I was also having an abnormally good day too hehe.

But in the final analysis, going Global has to be an all or nothing deal.

There just won't be any point to it, if it isn't totally global.

To fail to go the whole map, would be to attempt a massive task, and not finish it.

The Axis and Allies board for whatever its weaknesses in some areas, still portrays the whole darned map (well they left of Antarctica but I will not quibble about that).

If the global version of SC doesn't go all the way, then I will likely be greatly let down feeling.

Once the game goes global, there will be time enough to get to nit picking niggling levels of detail (which might be the opening needed for SC3).

Yes I said SC3 heheh. hey the best games out there didn't stop at one major refinement eh.

[Dragoner]

is sc2 under construction or hasnt it even started?

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

To me SC is Axis and Allies with more attention to detail.

I have trashed the planet with Japan a few times, but hey, I was also having an abnormally good day too hehe.

But in the final analysis, going Global has to be an all or nothing deal.

There just won't be any point to it, if it isn't totally global.

To fail to go the whole map, would be to attempt a massive task, and not finish it.

The Axis and Allies board for whatever its weaknesses in some areas, still portrays the whole darned map (well they left of Antarctica but I will not quibble about that).

If the global version of SC doesn't go all the way, then I will likely be greatly let down feeling.

Then you have to make sure that the rules regarding

supply WRT terrain work properly, or the Italians

will run roughshod over Africa. It always bugged

me in A&A that they wasted all this space on

parts of the world which never saw any action

(aside from some U-boat sinkings), while having

Europe contain like 7 provinces. Will Hubert be

able to devote resources and memory to such

unnecessary terrain, and should he?

As someone who has been highly critical of HoI

for similar sins (and I agree with you actually),

I'd imagine you also have an idea or two to make

sure that SC2 doesn't end up with Panzers in Angola.

John DiFool

[ January 26, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Yes I am most certainly on board with those sentiments.

Driving a tank from Algeria space to South Africa space casually is a bit far fetched looking.

That the game was "balanced" (Axis and Allies) is perhaps the only reason I let it slide in a game like that.

But there are some parts of the world, where a technological military machine is just not going to get treated very nicely.

Best case I can think of was the "trek" made over the mountains of New Guinea. Mother nature does not take prisoners, and woe be to any army that ignores her casually.

There has to be acknowledgement of those regions of the globe that were physically "there", but they also need to be sufficiently well depicted.

Or as was implied by that HoI comment, the game will just end up a joke.

And seriously, I would rather be playing Civilization if serious is being left out of the game.

[JerseyJohn]

I'm getting the feeling SC 2 will be an updated version of this game with a seperate Pacific version. Perhapse SC 3 will tie both in and go global, as was earlier suggested by someone else -- sorry, I've checked and can't find the exact entry. That might be the best way, so as to iron out all the unforseen Pacific problems before taking it to a World Map. Especially as it's beginning to appear that global might necessitate a basically different game concept.

So, why not have this scale and concept for seperate Europe and Pacifice games, and a seperate tie in module for those games which would include a complete wargame generator for a full range of user projects [i.e. having the ability to change terrain, create cities/ports, resources, etc.]. That would be three separate products incorporating a global option and game generator, I think it would be worth the money and make the added effort worthwhile for Hubert and the manufacturer.

[ January 27, 2003, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Not sure JJ you were mentioning my SC3 comment (but I only made it a couple of posts back).

I would rather see Pacific done right and no global I suppose, than to see a global game done, that didn't do it right.

Then again, I like A3R and have not played Rising Sun. And there are a number of those that think the Rising Sun game was the weaker half somehow.

Been a while, but I am not so sure if I would like Global War 2000 yet, been a while since I saw any commentary on it though.

Maybe SC2 would be best served by just putting together the fixes we all seem to want for SC, and just leaving it as a European game (would that be the end of the world).

Sometimes a god game requires it be made custom. The Pacific needing crowd might be better served pursuing a totally different design. Uncommon Valour has a lot of promise for instance.

[JerseyJohn]

Les,

I believe it was your entry I was discussing. Anyway, I've come around to thinking it might be better to have seperate Pacific and European Games based upon this engine.

As I was saying, I think a connecting module for the two theaters, in other words ways in which they can affect each other, might make a good throw in if a War Game Generator (as opposed to a scenario editor) were to come out based on this game engine.

I still like Brian's concepts but, like Les, I feel it would probably be best to see a seperate Pacific game, with it's own scenario editor, before a global version is attempted.

One of my reasons is, after thinking about it I don't like any of the global attempts at war games I've either seen or heard about.

[ January 27, 2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Steve C]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I'm getting the feeling SC 2 will be an updated version of this game with a seperate Pacific version. Perhapse SC 3 will tie both in and go global, as was earlier suggested by someone else -- sorry, I've checked and can't find the exact entry. That might be the best way, so as to iron out all the unforseen Pacific problems before taking it to a World Map. Especially as it's beginning to appear that global might necessitate a basically different game concept.

I think you're referring to my post towards the end of the original thread, JJ.

[JerseyJohn]

Steve C.

It probably was. Les also said something along those lines and between the two of you bringing out good points I was swung over. Glad you guys saw more deeply into it.

Dead areas were also mentioned. These would be, primarily, North and South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, most of Africa, Australia and most of Central Asia.

Of course, many of those areas saw some action and could have seen a lot more if strategies had been slightly altered -- like the Japanese occupying Madagascar early, when it was virtually undefended and the Germans doing the same with Iceland.

[ January 28, 2003, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Most of the "dead spots" on the map only ended up that way due to the fickle hand of fate and politics of the moment.

For a time for instance, the Graf Spee made the South Atlantic rather happening.

I am not sure though, the Germans ever had a chance of gaining a grasp on Iceland, but then daring bold plans achieve the darndest of things.

The Bismarck also made the North Atlantic a fairly "happening place".

The Scarnhorst and the Gniesenau (I think that is close enough spelling) sure made the far north a dangerous place too.

And this was just the actions of a few "single" ships, not fleets eh.

The Japanese came very close to making the Indian Ocean a dangerous ocean. Chance was all that affected this. If they had shunned involving the US, and turned their eye towards the Indian Ocean who knows what would have happened.

Ground operations far from the point of origin are always more fantasy that likelihood, but naval operations were never far from possible.

The US remember, had to reeeeeeeally jump through hoops to invade Guadalcanal. It was not a picnic. And they came close to getting kicked off more than once. And all they had was some really over stretched marines.

Torch went ashore against French forces that were not as dedicated as German Forces would have been. Kasserine was a good demonstration of what Torch "might" have looked like.

By the time of Sicily, the Allies had already had the chance to develop naval landings on several operations, and Sicily was no picnic.

Salerno was no picnic either.

By the time of Normandy, the allies had several major operations worth of education.

So to force Sealion to compare with Normandy is perhaps unfair.

I would say Sealion would have to be seen as what it was, a clumsy first effort for something as yet not thought of much.

If the game is going to model naval supported invasions, then the game will have to establish which magnitude of invasion from history is being chosen as the example to emulate.

[SeaWolf_48]

My vote is no Global SC2. The scale of the two areas is to different to have the same movement, and possibly unit sizes also. Two different games SC European Theater, SC Pacific Theater.

Ike and Hitler. Tojo and MacArthur. Then when both games get all the bugs and gliches out of them, a master integration module for SC3.

Hopefully SC Pacific Theater would be Aircraft Carrier dominate, with carrier battles inside of major battles.

I don't know if anything we say here counts, but this is my wish list!

[Shaka of Carthage]

I agree with Sea_Wolf48. No SC Global. Pacific Theater is better represented (not to mention more playable) as a operational level game. Once you've finalized the Pacific Theater version, then integrate the two (2)... maybe even along the lines of using the internet, where a player could be given command of a major nation in one of the specific theaters.