Thoughts on Strategic Command

[Kelly's Heroes]

I agree that we should not have hundreds or even dozens of research choices. A few more would be quite appropriate, and they would give the player more choices from which to choose.

This one of the many things I like about SC - having to make choices. It makes the game more open-ended and enjoyable.

I'd like to see more in research as has been already indicated. Perhaps 4 or 5 more research areas added that could be decided via a poll.

Other things I would like to see added/improved:

1) add destroyers as a purchasable unit.

2) different movement rates for subs, transports, BBs and CAs.

3) Snowy ground in winter

4) During Russian winter, rather than speed up the time, have reduced supply and movement for German forces. This could be added as a togglable option.

5) Increase the 2500 MPP research limit. In my current game I have already reached this limit by March/42. It is simply too confining and artifical a restriction. Research simply did not stop in WW2 for any of the nations.

Maybe increase the research limit to 20 techs (instead of the current 10). Perhaps limit the number of techs researchable per year to 4. This way, it would take 5 years of war to research 20 techs, and would be more historic.

6) Allow alliances to share MPPs. This would better simulate Lend Lease for the Allies, and it would allow Germany to help out its smaller partner.

7) Greater penalties if a player makes gamey actions and/or takes very ahistorical actions.

[SeaMonkey]

Affirmative that pzgndr. KISS = SC. Let it remain so.

[Panzeh]

Really though, if you invade a neutral, you should really have to think about it, even for 'historical' neutrals.

[Shaka of Carthage]

As has been pointed out, Artillery on its own, doesn't deserve its own tech, with five levels of advancement. Other than some armies upgrading from 75mm/105mm to 105mm/155mm, the effectivness of artillery was more a limit of your supply than anything else.

However, the other suggestion that was made, is on the right track. If you make certain advances in other tech areas (ie Armor, Anti-tank, etc), the combination of those advances should give the Soft factor an increase (ie +1). And without having to stretch it too far, one of those advances could be Gun Laying Radar.

The same idea was brought up also in regards to Air. If Jets are represented at Tech Level 4, then you couldn't get to TL4 Jets unless you also had Rockets TL4.

By creating other advances that are based on combinations of "basic" tech research, we can expand the options without adding any additional tech trees.

While many of us understand that Winter caused problems for Germany, I don't think many of us fully appreciate what the problems were and how to represent them in SC. We already have the weather effect on movement, whats missing is the combat effect. But what should the combat effect be? Russians were not better fighters in the snow than the Germans. In SC terms, the effect should be on readiness, which will hurt a high tech military worse than a low tech military.

I'm against Destroyers as a unit. They represent ASW assets, which is not something we should be dealing with at a unit level.

Lastly, there is already way too much production and purchases as is. We should be talking about reductions, not increases in this area.

[Kelly's Heroes]

The problem with the 2700 MPP research cap is that by mid-1942 a player can reach his limit.

Perhaps a better way:

1) Increase the length and/or cost of the current allowable 10 advances.

2) Add more allowable tech advances to say 20 (thus making the cap 5400 MPPs). However, the player would only be able to research 3 or 4 tech advances per year.

This way, research can be continued right to the end of war, without imposing an arbitrary limit on the research.

2) Subs are modelled at this level, and so are BBs and CAs. It seems odd to use expensive BBs to attack subs. So why not have DDs? They make just as much sense.

3) It seems odd that rockets are a tech research item (only Germany pursued this with V-1 and V-2), while arty is completely ignored. Research in arty should be looked at as a way to increase the SA firepower of Corps and Armies. Historically, they had arty attached as arty batteries. The research could be equated with the cost of training and out-fitting the armies with the better arty. It would be a seperate research field, but not a seperate purchase unit.

[kurt88]

The problem with the 2700 MPP research cap is that by mid-1942 a player can reach his limit.

This maybe so against the AI, but if playing other players you won't be able to tech up so much.

Keep in mind that SC is a gem in multiplayer and that balancing should also go towards this.

Playing the AI can only be a challenge so many times.

Still, I believe a good many points are being adressed here.

For me personally, a bigger map and more diplomatic options would make SC a lot better already.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by kurt88:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The problem with the 2700 MPP research cap is that by mid-1942 a player can reach his limit.

This maybe so against the AI, but if playing other players you won't be able to tech up so much.

Keep in mind that SC is a gem in multiplayer and that balancing should also go towards this.

Playing the AI can only be a challenge so many times.

Still, I believe a good many points are being adressed here.

For me personally, a bigger map and more diplomatic options would make SC a lot better already. </font>

[Edwin P.]

If you want to add an Artillery Bonus (ie a +1 Soft Defense Bonus from Ground Laying Radar (I would require Tech Level 2 for this +1 SD bonus) as suggested by Shaka) then

Have it benefit only Army Units that are controlled by a HQ Unit.

Corps and Armor would not benefit from it nor would Army units that are not controlled by a HQ unit.

[ March 29, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Sombra]

Why not simply use the spend money up....

For example you have spend 250 MP for a 5% chance per turn and after a year the money is gone (and the research point) Research would be much more a risk.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Sombra:

Why not simply use the spend money up....

For example you have spend 250 MP for a 5% chance per turn and after a year the money is gone (and the research point) Research would be much more a risk.

That is one option.

But personally, one of the things I like about SC is the choices it gives you.

I like to agonize over how to spend scarce resources on techs and weapons.

I would rather see an additional 4 or 5 more researchable fields added to the game. Then, allow only 3-4 techs to be researchable per year.

If done in this way, a person would have more choices, and research would last for the duration of the war, as it did historically.

[Skanvak]

What do you think of adding a manpower limit and/or industrial building limit. Because in the end of the game, I experienced germany buiding a fleet greater than the british fleet in 2-3 turn from scrap (after defeating the USSR).

Also in one game I know they consider that at some point the economy of a nation at war will wear out (it depend of the nation's economy). I don't know if that can apply to a germany still fighting in 1946?

That could provide too for limiting some of the huge income at the end of the war.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Skanvak:

What do you think of adding a manpower limit and/or industrial building limit. Because in the end of the game, I experienced germany buiding a fleet greater than the british fleet in 2-3 turn from scrap (after defeating the USSR).

Also in one game I know they consider that at some point the economy of a nation at war will wear out (it depend of the nation's economy). I don't know if that can apply to a germany still fighting in 1946?

That could provide too for limiting some of the huge income at the end of the war.

1) Perhaps a nation's military forces should be tied to their population levels, instead of income.

In this way, the player would have to be careful of using his young men in battle, and this would add an extra level of strategy. This would place a cap on the max number of units a player could field.

The war, especially on the Eastern Front was a war of attrition. When early victory escaped Germany's grasp, its military was literally ground down by years of grinding warfare.

The Soviets were able to stay in the fight because of their huge population vs Germany.

2) The huge fleet problem could be solved by making ships tied to population levels as well.

After waging war for 4 or 5 years, how much of a population would Germany/Italy have left with which to build a huge fleet?

It could disband some armies, then on the next turn, start to build ships. This might

help to control things.

3) In addition, I'd like to see the USA obtain more MPPs as the game progresses. Historically, American output grew exponentially as the war progressed.

In SC the only way to increase MPPs is through conquest.

What I'd like to see is this: Once America enters the war, its MPPs should automatically increase by 5 MPPs on every turn, until reaching a cap of say 300 or 400 MPPs per turn. This would represent its industrial growth and might.

So, on Dec 7,1941 America's MPPs would be 150. Next turn, it would be 155, and so on. . .

This would represent a unique challenge to the Axis player, and place even more pressure on his ability to secure victory in the east quickly.

[ March 29, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

Another method to control military forces could be to simply have the ability to set force pool limits in the scenario editor.

This was an idea first introduced by JerseyJohn.

I like it for its sheer simplicity and ease of use.

Basically, anyone could work out the population levels of various countries as well as the historical size of their armies in WW2, and then, in the editor, list the limits on the unit types that each branch of service can build.

This simple, but effective solution, would basically tie population to military units, and solve the uber army problem.

[Skanvak]

I like those idea Kelly.

Thought boats does not require that much manpower to build.

The JJ's force pool limit is a good idea, it should any way goes to the editor if it does not goes in the game. The limit should be adjustable by date too.

on point 3 I agree (US end the war with half the world GNP). I would add too an option to have an MPP increase and some reinforcement after September 1945 (once Japan is defeated, there is no need for the US to have their economy cut in half).

[Edwin P.]

I would add too an option to have an MPP increase and some reinforcement after September 1945 (once Japan is defeated, there is no need for the US to have their economy cut in half).

I agree. After Japan surrenders the US production should increase (ie double) and they should receive reinforcements - say 3 Carriers Groups along with 1 battleship fleet, 3 cruiser fleets and 2 subs fleets. This would give the US an incentive to keep on fighting even if Russia has fallen to the Axis and make for some exciting naval battles during the End Game.

[Kelly's Heroes]

I think many ideas listed here could be solved by including an improved Campaign editor:

1) The ability to set country military limits on unit types;

2) The ability to set MPPs for each year of the war for the six major countries;

3) The ability to set the number of techs available and required MPPs per tech level;

4) The ability to set unit movement rates;

etc, etc. . .

Plus, when units have low readiness, a small red dot could appear on a unit's icon whenever readiness falls below 50%. This would give the player a quick visual of the status of his units without having to click on every icon.

[Skanvak]

:cool:

Yes, indeed.

The last idea is very neat too.

[Shaka of Carthage]

"Basically, anyone could work out the population levels of various countries as well as the historical size of their armies in WW2, and then, in the editor, list the limits on the unit types that each branch of service can build."

Its not that easy.

And the problem with a force pool limit, is that you restrict the flexiblity of going ahistorical. For example, what if Germany somehow was able to untilize its manpower better and take the manpower that was wasted in the Luftflotte field divisions and was able to put them into the Army. How many more divisions would that have raised?

[Skanvak]

Manpower limit is a real problem for total war. Germany was using ukrainian soldiers in its rank at the end of the war because there was not enough german left. The force pool limit is a simple system. A more complete system will have unit cost both MPP and Manpower Point ( err MPP too).

I don't know if going to this level of complexity is in line with SC2 or not.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Skanvak

I agree with you. Manpower is a constraint that became critical for Germany, Russia, and the UK. If you look at the newbie thread, one of the things I proposed a long time ago as a SC "enhancement", was a fixed unit limit (ie force pool limit). For the last year, I haven't played a SC game unless we used my Limit House Rules.

But I don't want a force pool limit in SC2. That concept was fine years ago, because nothing was better, back when you were using boardgames.

In todays world, especially with a computer game, there is no excuse not to have a system in place that can model manpower (and oil). Let the computer figure out how much military manpower you get each year. Let the computer keep track of your manpower pool, which is reduced by the manpower requirements of each unit. And let the computer show you a running count of your manpower pool, so you can see what its costing you to replace those strength point losses.

Now, the Russian losses on the Eastern Front have some meaning, as while they may lose, they are bleeding the Germans of thier manpower.

[jon_j_rambo]

This is a dead subject in regards to the Allies. They simply don't have the MMPs to blow on research. They're lucky to catch up with the Germans in certain restricted areas.

[Kelly's Heroes]

1) Manpower per nation (at least the majors) would be easy to work out. HoI has already done all the work in that regard. Besides there are lots of tables that list the size of all the nations' armies.

The editor could be improved to allow the player to adjust manpower size.

This will be important to control the size of a nation's military. It would certainly add another level of strategy to the game.

2) Research for the Allies: It's not a total dead end. Britain won't be able to do much research. However, when the USA joins the war it should be able to receive more MPPs per turn (or month) to reflect its industrial production (this is an improvement I would like to see). Say in dec 1941, it gets 150 MPPs. Next turn it gets 155 MPPs, and so on until it reaches an upper limit of say 300 or 400 MPPs per turn.

Since Britain is an Ally, the USA should be able to give Britain some of those MPPs (as part of Lend Lease) to allow it to build more military units and do research.

These things could make SC2 play along historical lines.

Cheers!

[JerseyJohn]

Kelly & slavank

Glad you guys like that unit limit idea -- Kelly, you expressed it exactly the way I intended it, that there'd be a built in limiting factor.

And history truly repeats itself. I believe at the time these ideas were first going around,

Shaka

pretty much brought up these points and we began refining the idea further.

There was one good idea we hit upon which was to set a reasonable base for each kind of unit per country and they could build in a normal fasion up to that number and the next built unit would be more expensive, and it the cost would increase with each additional unit of that kind being built and it would soon become prohibitive for that country to build new units of that type.

Meanwhile they'd still have the ability to do so if they absolutely had to.

This all gets tricky in terms of manpower, as an old Air Force man stationed at a bomber base (SAC) I remember there had to be an awfully large number of men on the ground for each man who went up in a bomber. I'm sure the same is true of navies. There may be only a couple of thousand men on a BB, but in total manpower tied up it might be over twice as high.

If direct manpower is the concern, I'd increase the cost of both armies and corps in relation to each other as one or the other becomes overly numerous for the base population.

Very interesting material -- it was interesting last year and even more interesting now with all the additional thought that's gone into it.

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Kelly & slavank

Glad you guys like that unit limit idea -- Kelly, you expressed it exactly the way I intended it, that there'd be a built in limiting factor.

And history truly repeats itself. I believe at the time these ideas were first going around,

Shaka

pretty much brought up these points and we began refining the idea further.

There was one good idea we hit upon which was to set a reasonable base for each kind of unit per country and they could build in a normal fasion up to that number and the next built unit would be more expensive, and it the cost would increase with each additional unit of that kind being built and it would soon become prohibitive for that country to build new units of that type.

Meanwhile they'd still have the ability to do so if they absolutely had to.

This all gets tricky in terms of manpower, as an old Air Force man stationed at a bomber base (SAC) I remember there had to be an awfully large number of men on the ground for each man who went up in a bomber. I'm sure the same is true of navies. There may be only a couple of thousand men on a BB, but in total manpower tied up it might be over twice as high.

If direct manpower is the concern, I'd increase the cost of both armies and corps in relation to each other as one or the other becomes overly numerous for the base population.

Very interesting material -- it was interesting last year and even more interesting now with all the additional thought that's gone into it.

Agree.

All of this could be done quite easily in the campaign editor.

It would keep SC easy to play, but would add more strategy and planning, and allow the game to play more along historical lines.

That is also why I would like to see medium and heavy tank groups. In the real war, heavy tank production for Germany was limited; so it relied more and more on mass producing the Pz-IV/Hetzer/StuG variants (although this was done a bit too late in the war).

Medium tank groups would be cheaper than heavy tank groups, and Germany would be allowed to build more of them.

Cheers!

[JerseyJohn]

Ah, I think now you're hitting on another area we had fun with a long time back: stacking and/or combining/dividing units.

The idea was to be able to have things like specific weapons groups and put them in a hex to alter the make-up of the overall unit. -- A tank group would be altered by the types of armor it was composed of ... similar with artillery, aircraft types within an airfleet etc. ...

In the end the playability and anti-micromanagement movement won out. :mad: