Thoughts on Strategic Command

[Kelly's Heroes]

After playing a couple of games of SC, here are my thoughts:

Great game. I like the concept and execution. There are a lot of options, and I'm having a blast playing it. So many things I like about it.

IMPROVEMENTS

1) This has been said before: the map needs to be bigger, particularly in the Atlantic, North Africa and Soviet regions.

It is almost impossible to maneuver in North Africa. No wide sweeps. It also prevents surrounding Italian cities, leading to a tough time taking them.

2) Provision should be made for re-supply at the beachheads. Currently, when a unit is at low strength, it is basically toast. It makes taking cities in North Africa almost impossible when units are at low strength. On D-Day, etc supplies were brought ashore at the beaches, until ports were established. Maybe units at beaches could be re-supplied but at lower rate.

3) I think re-supply should be re-worked a bit. Currently, even though a unit is surrounded by up to 5 enemy units, it can still re-gain almost all its strength points. This leads to endless rounds of combat. Perhaps, with the addition of each enemy unit touching its square, a unit will be unable to re-gain one strength point.

4) I would like to see "edit unit move rate" added to the right click menu in the editor. Ships/subs should have lower move rates.

5) I'd like to be able to move and fire a unit in any order and/or be able to come back to a unit once moved, to be able to attack with it.

6) Just as in the PC game Third Reich, I'd like to see the "armoured breakthrough" concept employed; whereby, if a breach is established, a player can push his armoured units through it (depending on action points available).

7) I'd like to see provision made for USA to be able to have the choice for the amount of Lend Lease given to Brits and Soviets.

8) Research: I'd like to see additional fields added, such as:

* Infantry weapons (takes into account rifles, MG, bazookas, etc).

* Artillery

* Separate Medium and Heavy armour research

* Nuclear research (this should be expensive)

Plus, the soft attacks for Infantry and armour should improve with more research.

I'd like to see provision made for separate medium and heavy tank research. For example, the Soviets fielded the basic T-34 throughout the war (with minor improvements).

The Germans used the Pz IV throughout the war, in addition to low numbers of Tigers/Panthers.

The USA, in addition to heavy tanks, relied on the Sherman throughout the war.

This would give the player the choice of fielding more medium tanks vs only heavy tanks. The medium tanks should be cheaper than the heavies.

In the purchase screen, destroyers should be added. This would make attacking subs a bit cheaper, without risking the BBs and CAs.

BUGS

1) The game freezes after I have saved a campaign and want to quit back to the main menu. I can only exit after pressing alt + Tab keys.

2) In the purchase screen, I can't scroll the HQ for the Americans using the Up/Down tabs.

That's all for now. Just wanted to say I am enjoying the game. I'm looking forward to playing many more games. And I'll be looking forward to SC2.

Cheers!

[ March 26, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Edwin P.]

This would give the player the choice of fielding more medium tanks vs only heavy tanks. The medium tanks should be cheaper than the heavies.

Good idea, a light tank unit and a heavy tank unit. Note that a good heavy tank - ie German Tiger - was almost unstoppable by a light tank as the light tank's shells would literally bounce off of its armor whereas the heavy tank's shell easily penetrated that of the light tank.

Research: I'd like to see additional fields

Another great idea.

-- Logistics: so HQ readiness bonus can effect more than than 5 units.

-- SynFuels: to increase production of resource hexes.

-- Intelligence

-- CounterIntelligence (counters effect of intelligence tech)

[ March 26, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Desert is to small, Atlantic not big enough, subs are worthless, oh and wait till you try and invade Ireland hehe

Yep all things a lot of us are hoping is modified in the games next incarnation.

[Friendly Fire]

addressing a few points that may not have been discussed to death in previous posts:

2) Provision should be made for re-supply at the beachheads.

If you land an HQ on the beach it will offer supply, albeit minimally until you can take a city.

3) I think re-supply should be re-worked a bit.

If you surround a unit, even in a city, you will be able to crush it. If you leave a hex open to a supply source, then yes, the unit will re-supply. Consider the scale of the map, that one hex is a big supply avenue.

4) I would like to see "edit unit move rate" added to the right click menu in the editor. Ships/subs should have lower move rates.

Why? Consider the time frame between moves. The distance seems about right. Moving either air or ground units involves moving a lot of support infrastructure. Navies are by nature mobile...

6) Just as in the PC game Third Reich, I'd like to see the "armoured breakthrough" concept employed; whereby, if a breach is established, a player can push his armoured units through it (depending on action points available).

Whats the problem? Open a hole in the front line and pour armor in, just like in Third Reich. Do this at two points in the front and connect both advances in a sweep to cut the enemy out of supply. Then mop up with follow up units and do it again! This is standard practice for the Axis in the USSR!

8) Research: I'd like to see additional fields added, such as:

* Infantry weapons (takes into account rifles, MG, bazookas, etc).

- this is covered by AT tech, infantry max strength and armor defense increases with this tech.

* Artillery

- at low levels think of rockets as artillery divisions. At the game scale arty is also an inherent part of any unit

* Separate Medium and Heavy armour research

in my opinion, since it is a strategic game, this is too low level a distinction. It doesn't add anything to the game to bother with a detail like if you have lots of medium tanks or fewer heavy tanks.

* Nuclear research (this should be expensive)

- there is another huge thread on this one

Plus, the soft attacks for Infantry and armour should improve with more research.

- max strength increases, therefore so does soft attack

BUGS

2) In the purchase screen, I can't scroll the HQ for the Americans using the Up/Down tabs.

the scroll buttons for the HQs only matter if there are more HQ choices than fit in the window. Yanks only have 3 HQs...

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Another great idea.

-- Logistics: so HQ readiness bonus can effect more than than 5 units.

-- SynFuels: to increase production of resource hexes.

-- Intelligence

-- CounterIntelligence (counters effect of intelligence tech) </font>

I like those other research choices as well. Good thinking

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:

Desert is to small, Atlantic not big enough, subs are worthless, oh and wait till you try and invade Ireland hehe

Yep all things a lot of us are hoping is modified in the games next incarnation.

Hehe

It says something about the game, that even with those few issues, it is addictive as heck to play.

The AI is actually very good.

Anyone try invading Turkey as Axis?

In my current game as Axis, I invaded Turkey hoping to get to the soft underbelly of the Soviets. Well, the Soviets declared war on me, so I'm pushing through the mountainous Turkish regions, on my way to those Soviet oil fields.

Meanwhile, the Soviets are attacking me outside of Minsk, and the USA just declared war on me.

I think I'm gonna have my hands full - heh

Can't wait to see what SC2 will look like.

Cheers!

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Friendly Fire:

[QB] addressing a few points that may not have been discussed to death in previous posts:

2) Provision should be made for re-supply at the beachheads.

If you land an HQ on the beach it will offer supply, albeit minimally until you can take a city.

Thanks for the advice. I'll definitely use that.

3) I think re-supply should be re-worked a bit.

If you surround a unit, even in a city, you will be able to crush it. If you leave a hex open to a supply source, then yes, the unit will re-supply. Consider the scale of the map, that one hex is a big supply avenue.

True enough. However, if I have 5 armies around one corps, it doesn't make sense that huge numbers of troops can squeeze through that 40 mile gap and not be noticed.

I would like to see re-supply of a unit be tied to the number of enemy units touching it. Otherwise, it seems ludicrous, to have a unit surrounded, and on the next turn, it goes to full strength. The current system makes for repetitive combat over the same unit.

Most wargames use the method of re-supply I have indicated: re-supply should be tied to the number of enemy units touching it. This is a far more sensible system.

4) I would like to see "edit unit move rate" added to the right click menu in the editor. Ships/subs should have lower move rates.

Why? Consider the time frame between moves. The distance seems about right. Moving either air or ground units involves moving a lot of support infrastructure. Navies are by nature mobile...

I like to modify games. Subs and transports taking one week to cross Atlantic seems a bit strange to me. Plus, there should be different movement rates for different classes of ships. Land movement seems fine to me.

6) Just as in the PC game Third Reich, I'd like to see the "armoured breakthrough" concept employed; whereby, if a breach is established, a player can push his armoured units through it (depending on action points available).

Whats the problem? Open a hole in the front line and pour armor in, just like in Third Reich. Do this at two points in the front and connect both advances in a sweep to cut the enemy out of supply. Then mop up with follow up units and do it again! This is standard practice for the Axis in the USSR!

Yes, I have noticed this as I play. Armour can penetrate, so no big thing.

8) Research: I'd like to see additional fields added, such as:

* Infantry weapons (takes into account rifles, MG, bazookas, etc).

- this is covered by AT tech, infantry max strength and armor defense increases with this tech.

* Artillery

- at low levels think of rockets as artillery divisions. At the game scale arty is also an inherent part of any unit

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

Since infantry units are armies, they would have organic arty attached to them. The arty research would give better arty values thus increasing the soft attack values for those same armies.

Since arty was the queen of the battlefield in WW2, it seems odd not to see it included for research.

* Separate Medium and Heavy armour research

in my opinion, since it is a strategic game, this is too low level a distinction. It doesn't add anything to the game to bother with a detail like if you have lots of medium tanks or fewer heavy tanks.

It does add to the game.

Consider:

The Germans produced only 1,300 Tigers in all of WW2, but produced 10,000 PzIVs.

Having separate fields and purchasing slots for medium and heavy tanks would give the player a real choice: Do you invest in costly research to build costly heavy tanks? Or, do you build lots of medium tanks and research them to get better armour and guns?

The USA went with producing thousands of Sherman medium tanks - it was a big deal to them

[ March 26, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Edwin P.]

As for attacking Turkey as Axis - Take the Straits -by defeating the 3 defending units then you can sell transports through it to the beaches of Southern Russia.

How long will it take you to take the straits against the AI - 3 Turns if you have Greece and use 1 corps top block the eastern side of the straits.

[Edwin P.]

There are three Axis AI improvements I am looking for in SC2

1. Better Strategic War for the Axis - ie Axis will take the Nordic Countries, Axis will invade the UK if it is left undefended and UK Navy is elsewhere, Axis will fight for the Med - ie Take Greece, Take Vichy, Take Egypt and then Iraq if the UK leaves this area weakly defended, Italian Units will better Defend Italy

2. Axis will concentrate AirFleets on one front and use HQs better (ie no longer will I be able to isolate 4 or 5 HQs in South Eastern Europe)

3. Axis will not waste MPPS on needless operation of units back and forth with the increased resources from the Nordic countries will sometimes finance a more vigorous research program.

Oh yes, and the Axis and Allies will reclaim Tech chits to booster their defense in the End Game.

[ March 26, 2004, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Eddie --- Don't get too worked up about the A.I., adding/subtracting certain pre-programed moves ain't going to do diddly against the Legend. Get yourself ICQ, & send me a line. You're in for a headcracking.

"Shock & Awe"

I'm the best in the World --- Rambo 3:16

[Skanvak]

About research and medium tank, one of my friend I played with was surprised by the instantaneous up-grade of all unit when you get the technology. A simple way to approach the med/heavy tank prb could be to have choice of tech level to build (lower level are cheaper) and to actualy have to pay for upgrading a unit (example during a reinforcement). In this way one will have several different unit fielded on the map.

On the supply system, I agree with Freindly Fie taht a one hex is enough to supply a unit. But I think that there aren't enough supply sources on the map. For example the Ggreek's unit start out of supply. How could they not be in supply in their own country. I think that the urban density in western europe should be higher. It is Russia that is lowly urbanised with widely appart cities.

But For hex, Englnad should have more city.

For landing operation, too the number of port is not enough. In the debarquement of normandy, in addition of the artificial port, their main objectives was cherbourg which was a big enough port for their need not Brest that was too far.

On pont 7 I totally agree. The lend lease should be left to the apprecaition of the western allied and depend of the control of a way to brought it to Russia.

[pzgndr]

Since arty was the queen of the battlefield in WW2, it seems odd not to see it included for research.

Tank and anti-tank technology grew by leaps and bounds during WWII so it is appropriate to have these as major areas of research. We should keep the game simple, with research techs representing only areas that did in fact see significant change that can be directly translated into combat factor modifiers.

"Soft" weapons such as artillery, mortars, machineguns and rifles really did not change significantly from 1939 to 1945. The only significant advancement I can think of is the proximity fuse. What else changed?? Nothing that would warrant a +5 soft attack factor at L5 tech level. What changed was unit OOBs to add or reduce certain numbers of weapons here and there, but the weapons themselves were essentially unchanged.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Since arty was the queen of the battlefield in WW2, it seems odd not to see it included for research.

Tank and anti-tank technology grew by leaps and bounds during WWII so it is appropriate to have these as major areas of research. We should keep the game simple, with research techs representing only areas that did in fact see significant change that can be directly translated into combat factor modifiers.

"Soft" weapons such as artillery, mortars, machineguns and rifles really did not change significantly from 1939 to 1945. The only significant advancement I can think of is the proximity fuse. What else changed?? Nothing that would warrant a +5 soft attack factor at L5 tech level. What changed was unit OOBs to add or reduce certain numbers of weapons here and there, but the weapons themselves were essentially unchanged. </font>

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Skanvak:

[QB] About research and medium tank, one of my friend I played with was surprised by the instantaneous up-grade of all unit when you get the technology. A simple way to approach the med/heavy tank prb could be to have choice of tech level to build (lower level are cheaper) and to actualy have to pay for upgrading a unit (example during a reinforcement). In this way one will have several different unit fielded on the map.

I like this idea. I too, find it odd that all units are instantly upgraded to the latest model.

Once research is completed, players should have to spend MPPs to unpgrade each unit to the latest model. This would involve choices, since the player might not be able to upgrade every unit.

Perhaps even require the unit to be next to a HQ unit, before it can make the upgrade.

In WW2, not all units got the best equipment; only the elite units did.

Tigers were ear-marked for the SS Panzer Divisons.

On the supply system, I agree with Freindly Fie taht a one hex is enough to supply a unit. But I think that there aren't enough supply sources on the map. For example the Ggreek's unit start out of supply. How could they not be in supply in their own country. I think that the urban density in western europe should be higher. It is Russia that is lowly urbanised with widely appart cities.

But For hex, Englnad should have more city.

It just seems odd that a unit can go from 1 strength point to 8 strength points, even though it has 5 enemy armies surrounding it.

The 6th Army at Stalingrad never had it that easy. . .

For landing operation, too the number of port is not enough. In the debarquement of normandy, in addition of the artificial port, their main objectives was cherbourg which was a big enough port for their need not Brest that was too far.

I agree. Dunkirk isn't listed either, so no evacuation from there in SC - heh

On pont 7 I totally agree. The lend lease should be left to the apprecaition of the western allied and depend of the control of a way to brought it to Russia.

The more interesting choices, the better

Cheers!

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Eddie --- Don't get too worked up about the A.I., adding/subtracting certain pre-programed moves ain't going to do diddly against the Legend. Get yourself ICQ, & send me a line. You're in for a headcracking.

"Shock & Awe"

I'm the best in the World --- Rambo 3:16

I actually find the AI to be very good.

In my first couple of games I didn't give it enough respect, and it taught me a lesson or two - heh.

Now, I'm tightening my chinstrap, and preparing to give the AI a good thumping.

Cheers!

[SeaMonkey]

In reply to pzgndr artillery points. I agree the weapons themselves did not appreciably change although firing rates of large caliber tubes improved. With the introduction of a more mobile doctrine (SP art.) it was the use of artillery that made great strides in WW2. Patterns, firing rates, effectiveness(u mentioned proximity fuse) and communications, not to mention the advent of effective counter battery fire all increased the lethality of artillery and its domineering effect on the WW2 battlefield, hence the casualty %. I've got a few ideas of how to incorporate it into the soft, and yes... even the hard attack values and also as a research tool, many have been mentioned, but to disregard the evolution of artillery's contribution to a wargame as SC is turning a blind eye toward reality.

[Edwin P.]

As for the AI I am hoping to see SC2 AI incorporate some of the classic human strategies;

Example:

Axis DOW Denmark on Turn 1 and attacks with its 2 surface ships.

I don't see any reason for the Axis AI not to attack Denmark on Turn 1. Every player does so and the Allies can't respond to it. The attack gives Axis ships valuable experience and paves the way for plunder and income. Moreover, any plunder gaineed would be most helpful in the campaign against France.

Example:

AI moves French Corps in Beruit to Egypt after Italy enters the war. This simple move prevents the loss of a corps due to a Frence Surrender and makes taking Cairo more difficult for the Axis.

If anyone can tell me why the Allied AI should not do this I would appreciate it as I do not see any downside to it.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

As for the AI I am hoping to see SC2 AI incorporate some of the classic human strategies;

Example:

Axis DOW Denmark on Turn 1 and attacks with its 2 surface ships.

I don't see any reason for the Axis AI not to attack Denmark on Turn 1. Every player does so and the Allies can't respond to it. The attack gives Axis ships valuable experience and paves the way for plunder and income. Moreover, any plunder gaineed would be most helpful in the campaign against France.

[Edwin P.]

Kelly's Hero's - The AI could have a set of different strategies, garnered from the best players,

Example - Defense of France

1. Standard Strategy

2. Disband the Navy and Build Lots of Corps

3. Disband the Navy and Air and Build Lots of Corps

4. Move the French Navy to the Baltic to Sink the German Navy

5. Operate Troops to Brest and Sail them to Manchester.

6. Full Press French Defence - Disband French Navy and & Air, Move UK Canadian Troops to France. Build UK Troops and Send to France, etc

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Kelly's Hero's - The AI could have a set of different strategies, garnered from the best players,

Example - Defense of France

1. Standard Strategy

2. Disband the Navy and Build Lots of Corps

3. Disband the Navy and Air and Build Lots of Corps

4. Move the French Navy to the Baltic to Sink the German Navy

5. Operate Troops to Brest and Sail them to Manchester.

6. Full Press French Defence - Disband French Navy and & Air, Move UK Canadian Troops to France. Build UK Troops and Send to France, etc </font>

[Edwin P.]

Recognizing that everyone is looking at WWII in hindsight with perfect 20/20 vision I also hope that SC2 will incorporate a chance for several historically possible scenarios at Expert Level AI that could derail the prefectly laid plans of those who think that they know exactly what how nations will respond to their acts of agression;

For example - At Expert Level AI:

1. If Axis attacks Spain then 5% that Turkish government decides to join the Allies (this 1 in 20 games event makes it most unexpected and most interesting)

2. If France surrenders then 5% (1 in 20 games) that Neutral Turkey conquers (ie Annexes) Vichy Syria and Iraq. (effectively derailing any Axis or Allied plans to conquer seize Iraq)

3. If UK attacks Ireland before 1941 then 5% Sweden joins Axis. (now there is a cost to attacking Ireland)

4. If UK attacks Low Countries and Ireland before 1941 then 20% (1 in 5 games) that Sweden joins the Axis.

5. If Axis attacks Switzerland or Sweden 25% (1 in 4 games) that neutral Spain and neutral Turkey sign a mutual defense treaty - announced via a pop-up windows. An attack on any one of them is an attack on both of them. (Strong disincentive for any Axis or Allied attack on Switzerland or Sweden).

5a. 50% If Event 5 Occurs and Axis controls Algeria then Spain demands French Algeria else it will join the Allies. Axis can accept or reject Spanish demands. IF Axis accepts then Neutral Spain annexes Algeria. If Axis rejects then 50% Spain joins the Allies.

5b. 50% If Event 5 Occurs and Axis controls Egypt then Turkey demands Syria and Iraq else it will join the Allies. Axis can accept or reject Turkish demands. If Axis agrees then 25% that Turkey makes another demand (they perceive the Axis as weak and ask for more) for control of Egypt which the Axis can accept or reject. If the Axis rejects then 50% Turkey join the Allies.

While events 5a and 5b can make any Axis attack on Switzerland very costly they also add a simple yet highly effective diplomatic aspect to the game as the Axis player is forced to make a choice between meeting or refusing the demands of these neutral countries.

6. If Axis Attacks Hungary (ie if they attack Spain too early and seek to conquer Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania) then 10% that Neutral Bulgaria joins Turkey. This unexpected event makes the game interesting without unbalancing it.

6a. If Event 6 occurs then 50% that Turkey will also annex an ungarrisoned Vichy Syria. (10% x 50% = 5%)

6b. If Event 6 occurs then 50% that Turkey will conquer a neutral Iraq. (10% x 50% = 5%)

6c. If Event 6 Occurs then Turkey demands return of Albania from Italy. It Italy accepts then Turkish borders expands to include Albania (a fellow Muslim country). If Italy rejects this demand there is a 25% that Turkey joins the allies some time after Germany DOWs Russia. (ie 5% per turn after German DOW Russia until Axis takes Moscow or Stalingrad or Rostov). Thus, if the Axis rejects the Turkish demand they can not be sure of the Turkish reaction until they have conquered one of these key Russian cities.

[ March 28, 2004, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[pzgndr]

to disregard the evolution of artillery's contribution to a wargame as SC is turning a blind eye toward reality

I cannot argue with that. However, we can attempt to model all sorts of detailed realities as HOI has tried to do, OR focus on a very limited number of simple abstract tech areas as SC has done. Relative to the significant advances in the other current tech areas, where a +5 combat factor modifier at L5 seems appropriate for WWII, other minor evolutions just do not fit in. Unless we greatly expand the whole research scope in SC2 and attempt to make it more HOI-ish. SC is enjoyable because it is relatively simple. Simple is worth keeping, yes?

[Feldtrompeter]

Concering the soft attack value of armies or tanks.

I think it would be more fitting if some attack and defence values won't better with each tech improvement but rather with each second or third improvement.

For it does make a difference whether you attack infantery with IS2 or SU152 or Brumbärs which are tanks that have had very effective anti-infantry main guns compared to the early war tanks (PKW III or T-34).

Of cause the better anti-infantry use of advanced tanks in WW2 won't justify improved soft attack values for tanks with each tech improvement.

I think the following system would be worth considderation:

tanks and armies:

Lv0 - Lv2: soft attack value of 4

Lv3 - Lv4: soft attack value of 5

Lv5: soft attack value of 6

or:

Lv0 - Lv1: soft attack value of 4

Lv2 - Lv3: soft attack value of 5

Lv4 - Lv5: soft attack value of 6

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by pzgndr:

... we can attempt to model all sorts of detailed realities as HOI has tried to do, OR focus on a very limited number of simple abstract tech areas as SC has done

Well, the principle failing for HoI's research diorama was that the achievements were... automatic.

There was no random element, thus & so, no excitement or surprise.

You could pick & choose from among the many categories (... which is ALWAYS good, more CHOICES I mean) BUT you would receive them in due time regardless.

IMHO, you could have a somewhat larger and more detailed tech tree, though NOT so very unwieldy that it would be TOO cumbersome for each game player's unique selections... how much time does it actually take to look over your CHOICES and make a selection or two?

For one instance, I would favor some kind of Infantry Weapons category where the soft attack & defense could be improved slightly.

This might take the form of a smaller or reduced (... and therefore, LESS espensive... say, 100-150 MPPs to purchase each chit) category that might only have 2 or 3 levels of achievement.

Some other suggestions, such as Intel and Infrastructure and Amphibious could easily fit into our "lesser categories," yes? :cool:

HoI was an unholy mess in about 4,376 separate areas, but their research tree was at least intriguing, if not in exacting accord with the rest of that... prematurely released (... in ALPHA state :eek: ) and X-tremely ill-conceived and (re, re, re-) designed game.

[Skanvak]

I think that feldtrompeter idea is not bad. This way the soft att/def will improve without having the tech tree expanding.

Beside artillery, tank gun, AC gun, AA gun were derived from closed technology. But the effect on combat is more significant for tank battle than for infantry battle. which made advance in soft att/def slower than AC att/def rational.

("The more human factor, the less technology will impact battle result").