SC: German Armor vs Allied

[Liam]

The game represents the cost of Armor poorly... also the various Qualities, here is an interesting link for folks who're avid followers

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/index.htm

[Slapaho]

the strength for tanks in the game are its ability to travel far and it has punch (more than a corps). the tank was invented to overcome the lack of penetration infantry could achieve and the lack of firepower and total vulnerability of cavalry to modern weapons (mg).

why do you think the game represents the armor poorly?

[Liam]

Slapaho, perhaps I gave off the wrong impression by my statement. Let me elaborate. First of all, German Armor is overpowered and the Allies don't get 1 Armor unit to begin with. Both the British and French Armor in 1940 was ahead of German armor. I suppose the reason that Hubert doesn't put a tank unit in is because he's using the doctrine that Allied Commanders of the period did seperating Tank units amongst infantry for mainly just infantry support weapons rather than as you say using them as Deep Penetrating Blitzkrieg type weapons...

In that regard giving the Germans 2 Armor to begin with gives them a Blitzkrieg effect, but the only way. That and HQs and 3 airfleets... Though look right off, the Frogs/Brits pull off some gamey gambit to assemble a proper counter to any real blitzkrieg so it's null and void really aside from the fact the Germans start with 2 HQs and plenty of plunder to get up around 4-5-6 Airfleets to break the Corp Trenchstyle Warfare that is done by the French/Brits to protect Fall of France. The French and British had more Armor and better Armor. It had poorer Optics, slower turrets and were overall a slower moving machine but but the Brit and French Armor was far more armored, has slopping armor that was harder to penetrate. They had larger calibar guns that would be kinda be like Shermans vs Tigers... Just not the sort of Organization that the Germans had to employ them. The Germans get the similar effect with Russia and the USA with no HQs and pre-set Starting Locations. Though it's not very realistic. Really both French and British Armor should start off Tech 1 and German 0.

I suggest changing things around a tad bit, also Armor is too cheap and not strong enough as Corp Warfare is still widely used<more WW1 style then WW2 style war>. Partly due to the limitations on the Map. Though if I had an editor I would raise the Combat Power of Tanks until Anti-Tank Weapons are developed well above what Fighter-Jet Tech is to make it a mainstay of European conflict. Right now as it stands Jets are the key to breaking trench warfare not Tanks as was historical. The Germans likely could've conquored Poland and France with much less air and purely Armor... So in that regard is misrepresented.

Let's put this question on you, on average how many armor do you buy as Germany? I buy maximum is 3-4 extra for the whole game<and that's a very long game> and I usually by an extra 6-10 Fighter Fleets.. So perhaps you can get my drift on how landwarfare and the tank's real roll<e> is sorta missing?

[Slapaho]

now i see what you mean i agree

i have not played against another human, only against AI and therefore can not comment on the tactics used. against the AI i play 'like history' (from reading the forums this is a sure way to lose against a human) and bought upto 6 armored formations for invading russia (with usually 4 german AF and 4 italian AF).

maybe linking the requirement of having a HQ present per AF for ground-attack (air intercept no requirement) would balance things. afterall, germans main strength was organisation and communication. it would initially limit the allied sides to air intercept only (which is basically all they could do) and allow 2 ground attacks for the germans with 1 spare for interceptions or reserve. this would greatly increase the power of the tanks for exploiting break throughs?

on a side note I find the strength of aircraft carriers to be annoying.

[Shaka of Carthage]

While I was not a playtester of SC, from carefully reading the rules and having owned SC thru all of the various patches, there are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn, that would explain why Armor units appear to be watered down. The major one being only Armor units had the ability to move then attack. Once that feature was removed, the problems with Armor became more obvious.

For the Infantry units (ie Army/Corp), the Tank Defense and Soft Defense factors are the same. The Armor units Soft Attack factor, is equal to a Army Soft Attack factor. So with no modifiers, you get these combat odds:

TANK vs ARMY: 4:2

TANK vs CORP: 4:1

Since there is no tech advance that can increase the Soft factors, the Tank unit can never improve its combat odds. However, the infantry units, by investing in Anti-Tank, can increase their defensive factors against Tanks (one (1) for each advance). With one or two Anti-Tank advances, the Armor units have become worthless as a attacking unit.

The next problem is the representation of combat itself. Even though one unit is "attacking" another unit, these are not Napoelonic lines attacking each other. Even a defending Army, with six (6) divisions defending a 50 mile front (with two (2) divisions in reserve), still cannot stop the attacker from concentrating all of his units against one (1) division of the defender. As the defender gets better anti-tank weapons to defeat those armor or armor supported attacks, the attacker should have the option of developing his tanks by having better armor and suppressive weapons. Thats where the Heavy Tank fails as a tech advance.

Then there is the whole concept of how to represent the attacker pinning the defender, then working around the flanks. Its something that has to be abstracted because of the game scale, but its the more likely method of attack when the defender is a Corp. With those anti-tank advances, the Corps advantage becomes better and better.

So you end up with Armor units who have no advantage of maneuver, nor do they have the ability to conduct a breakthrough.

Since we are no longer talking about "fixes" to SC, the unit relationships need to be examined and changes need to be made to restore the proper combat relationship between the various units in SC2.

Personally, I would simply reduce the action points of the current Army and Corp units, add new motorized Army and Corp units (for US and some UK, Russian units), and give German and Russian Armor units a blitzkrieg attack ability, which would allow them to acheive a breakthrough. The unlucky defender of a successful blitz attack, would retreat or be removed (during the attackers turn), putting the attacker in a position to threaten the defenders line of supply, while having the ability to protect its own line of supply.

[ January 16, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Shaka to add to your points, would possibly reducing in size the armour units, and possibly increasing them in number help at all?

This would give 4 German armour not 2, but possibly 1 British armour and 1 French armour that could represent that they did have armour, it was just too dispersed into armies, and not easily found as just armour units.

While the Germans would enjoy superior deployment options.

Everyone knows the allies had numerically more armour, and that something like a Matilda or a Char B, while not the best vehicle tactically, was still hard to shoot up with a Panzer III.

As best I can see it though, there is no real way to say, that the allied infantry forces were backed up by all that included armour. I mean, sure it was deployed poorly, but it was still out there.

An infantry unit in 1940 France should not look the same as an infantry unit deployed in 1944 France. The allies had at least learned a lot by then.

[Liam]

Les and Shaka:

Big part of the problem with Armor is that you are stuck with a exposed<expensive> unit if you use it as a breakthrough weapon, which is rarely done unless the attacker realizes there is no real counter. Plus we've all heard the sadness about Heavy Armor, it's probably a 'major' bug.

That wasn't fixed because favoritism to keeping combat even like it is now and maybe playtesting has shown that making HeavyTanks like AntiTank Technology is very dangerous. We use corps<as mentioned in one of your posts> now to stuff in the holes to save our poor Armor from being hurt and we use Armor to smash against Armies or to blitz through Minors... Which in that way they do fullfill their historic purpose.

The British Matilda had very few weak spots and the only effective weapons used against it were German Artillery and Mobile AT Killers. Fact is there probably wasn't very many of them in France tto do the job.

I agree that the Allies shouldn't be punished by getting no armor they should be punished with another factor. Perhaps the delay of purchasing a Headquaters to reflect the poor state of Organization and Military Tactics. They had to spend many years to learn them to counter. The Russians had to pay in 'lives'

As mentioned there were more French and British tanks then German as better so why not set them up and also as far as Readiness is concerned a Flanking Armor unit should get a bonus... Something in the combat structure should be worked out. Making it very difficult for units they've flanked to immediately destroy them as they do now. Perhaps halving the units it's adajacent to by a random 50% factor meaning some of the Divisons have dispersed and captured Fuel/Ammo depots cut of supply sabotaged Communcation and furthering this combat additive with Bomber or Fighter support tying in historically the basic essence of Blitzkrieg. Cutting of enemy supply communication encircling it at lightning fast speed and then destroying it

[Shaka of Carthage]

Les the Sarge

...would possibly reducing in size the armour units, and possibly increasing them in number help at all?

I don't believe so. The organization of the generic units seems to suggest that an Army has eight (8) divisions, Corp has four (4) and a Armor unit has four (4). Reducing the Armor size just gives you more units so you can use a different approach. But the problem with the factors is still there.

Its a very valid point, that the infantry units over the years, changed thier organizations to reflect the different approaches various nations took to deal with armored vehicles. The R&D tech levels, I feel, model that quite well (if you fixed the Heavy Tank tech).

While I agree that the French should be given a Armor unit, its alot easier to not give them one, and not have to deal with all of the ahistorical problems that arise because we as players operate from hindsight, and with a Armor unit, France is just a little bit tougher to beat.

But the British should never be allowed a Armor unit for quite a few reasons. Like the French (and Americans), the British used tank units to support infantry. They suffered from a lack of coordination in combined arms ability, mainly because the British Army was based on Regiments, not Divisions as the basic combat unit. And just like the French (and Americans), the cavalry tradition meant the "Armoured" Regiments (ie the Cruiser tanks) acted like Napleonic Light Cavalry.

In other words, they had the tools, but not the doctrine.

So its lot easier to make sure that the Anti-Tank tech, not only handles the anti-tank weapons but also handles the infantry support tanks (what the Germans later called Assault guns). Generally speaking, it does.

Liam

Lets not forget, that a Armor unit on the defensive, can take care of itself. Its Soft Defense factor, is the same as a Army unit. The problem is more with the players, as most SC players push the Panzer units way too deep into the enemy rear.

We also have to be careful when we talk about blitzkrieg, because there really were two different types of blitzkrieg... one being the "classic" one, which works when the defenders have no anti-tank weapons to defeat your armor (ie France '40); and a real blitzkrieg, which is what the Russians eventually were able to show the Germans in the latter years of the war.

[Liam]

Shaka,

thing is with SC opening you buy an HQ, ship enough British Corps and you can make Northern France a Killing Ground. Essentially you give what the Allies couldn't have possible created on their own, effective units<while SC has not true Blitzkrieg in that regard with lucky dice and taking reak risk> Historically there was no way to go back into to time and force the Allies to bone up on a new age of warefare without actually having their leadership experience the same 'learning pains' they did to finally counter Blitzkrieg and also to some degree create one of their own. The Reds had a lot more experience vs the Germans and faced the Majority of the Wermacht which is why they learned faster but initially there is no way the French and Brits could've organized to face this so I feel that either Nation buying leadership before a certian time period is very Ahistorical either that or giving the Germans a Bonus on The Continent vs all Allied Forces until 1942-43 on... Also against the Russians initially

say 20-30% effectiveness increase for Blitzkrieg Effect then vis versa giving the Allies the real "Economic" Power they had with the Massive USA/USSR Industry.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

Currently, SC doesn't reflect national differences. So you have the Greys vs the Reds.

For you to turn those Greys into Germans, one of the other things you have to do, in addition to what we discussed, is give them experience bars. Its something the French don't have and maybe only the BEF for the British has.

I'm a little unclear about your references to the leadership and HQ's, and the point you are trying to make.

That whole issue about the "real" economic power of the USA/USSR has been debated over and over, so there's no point in going over it again. I've tried to make my point clear where I stand on that issue.

[Panzeh]

In my opinion, the quality of armor really doesn't have much of an effect on the strategic outcome of a campaign.

[Edwin P.]

I think of armor this way:

Allied Amor Unit = Lots of Low Quality Tanks

German Armor Unit = Fewer Better Quality Tanks

Lots of Low Quality = Fewer Better Quality

As Shaka said regarding the French and English: In other words, they had the tools, but not the doctrine.

Doctrine in something that countries can adopt but it takes time to train your leadership to effectively train your leadership in the new tactics and reorganize your combat and supply units to support the change in doctrine.

In HC they addressed this issue by allowing countries to research/invest/adopt different doctrines of war fighting in the Air, Land and Sea combat. In Sc2 it might be possible to adopt a much simplified version of this to reflect national differences and make it less of a Reds vs Greys game while recoginizing that for a nation to change its war fighting doctrine is an expensive and time consuming process (ie you might decide to change your Land Doctrine in June 1940 but the change will not take effect until December 1940).

For the French to change their doctrine while awaiting a German invasion would not make sense, as the benefit would most likely come into effect after France had surrendered.

The British might adopt a Blitzkrieg / Mobile War doctrine but it would do them little good if they have mostly Army and Corps units and it would impare their ability of the UK to resist a German Sea Lion.

Simarly the British Navy might adopt an Anti-Sub Warfare doctrine but this emphasis might degrade their ability to deal with surface ships.

[ January 18, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Shaka:

We take away HQs for the Allies though many were in service during the initial German advances to give the German's the Blitz like effectiveness advantage that equates to Blitzkrieg. Or do you see it differently? I don't! Although we can disband a few unnceccesary units within about 4-6 turns you can have an effective BEF/French Army! The only advantage short term is Luftwaffe<3 units> The armor doesn't come to account unless you manage a miracle breakthrough which is impossible unless against a real real weak Ally or one who doesn't care about defense... Armor canot manuever on the terrain... Perhaps forcing the Allies to have to wait to employ HQs with a HouseRule would remedy their offensive capabilities. They couldn't have changed their doctrine, Blitzkrieg was a studied tactic and the Generals were educated in it to use it and employ it to maximum effectivness. French and Brit Generals were backwards in comparison< though none the less talented > and later they would come up to par with much practice and observation. Would Zhukov been the legend he is if Monty had the Armor and opportunities to plow through France in say '43? With 6,000 Super Matildas and a massive RAF reigning down fire on reinforcing Germans? Or what if Egypt had been the real Allied VS Axis Battleground due to German success vs Russia. If Monty had the resources could have been King of Allied and Russian tank killing Generals? Counter offensives? luckily, SC makes it possible but usually armor isn't employed. Too expensive, not effective enough killing machines... Not enough manuevering hexes. Corps should be 'straight' support units no combatants against Armies or Tank Armies

I suppose the fact that 1 unit is no different than another is strategically correct. SC is not a very detailed tactical game at all, it does however have a taste of it. With more detailed Maps, more accurate Combat, then<!> giving each nation their true historical advantage had it been developed would be nice. Hubert gives them tech advantages already, why not make these tech advantages a bit more precise and detailed?

The Allies should have no bonuses till late 1941. The Russians same.. Massive MPP bonuses and tech enhancements from the many nations aligned against the Axis then should be implemented to counter the Blitzkrieg and early weaknesses of Allies to patch it up. Defense however should be a stronger point say for England, make Sea Lion more accurately<difficult> by advancing the Transportation System and increasing the Readiness of the USSR/USA

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

I understand much better now your point about the HQ's.

I don't agree that the Germans have HQs and the Allies don't, because it gives the Germans the ability to blitzkrieg. The lack of HQs takes away the French ability to launch an offensive on turn one (into Germany), while the Germans deal with Poland. If you want to follow the historical path, the lack of HQs for the Allies doesn't hurt them at all.

You're absoulety correct about the scale and tactics. Most wargamers have a common conception about what blitzkrieg means and how to represent it on the wargaming table. The only problem is that those conceptions are based on a grand tactical or even operational scale. Not a Grand Strategic level. You can't represent the battlefield tactics, though you can represent the battlefield effects at this level.

[ January 18, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Liam]

Shaka:

with the bidding system in place, doesn't take long for the Brits to land behind the lines for support. <they disband their so so useful bomber and a few extra MPPs buy Monty and then invade a few Minors and gain a few Armies, or extra HQ and operate all Air to London for Interception day> French disband a few Units and Make a HQ and bam! Turn Two you got a full fledged Allied Offensive... Although taking out Ireland and a possible LC/Spanish-Port gambit takes more than a few turns most skilled Allies can clean that out during the Spring of 1940. You can't tell me that the original Allied forces were capable of this during the 1940s? If they were they wouldn't have surrended in 6 weeks... and they most certianly wouldn't get plunder or any US/USSR Sympathy for DOWing Minors and stealing the Gold/Wealth of the Free World. The game is soooooo Much about a Minor Jump or a quick blocking action on the Germans... 90% of my games end in 1941

The Game Design if flawed. I'm attempting to make the game more historical with my suggestions. Not neccessarily trying to make the game more Anal or tactical. MAYBE JUST A TOUCH I really really think that the Game should be oriented to a Russian Front and less a Gambit to rush through the Lowlands, France and finally conquor Britian. Why delay the inevitable. Historically do you really think it could've been avoided? Probably... But SC is based more on history than what-ifs?

I like this posting about Fall of France... Reiterates my original posting that the French and Brits at least should get good junk to get killed... and not make a unit a different unit to represent something other than it is... as it is done is sooooo many cases in SC. For instance the initial size of the Russian Forces. Bahhh! They had MUCH MUCH more than that! Germans<they had great armor, air, and large quantity of forces overall>? Though the big question is, could they? Biggest Question I suppose from the early portion of the War.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/000328.html

[ January 19, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Iron Ranger]

The game is soooooo Much about a Minor Jump or a quick blocking action on the Germans... 90% of my games end in 1941

Perhaps I'm looking at this differently then most, but the reality is each senario is only ment to be played for 1 - 1.5 years (24-35 turns) before swinging greatly out of balance. I'll pick Tech as my base for this idea.

Max of 5 chits in one slot means you could get a 1 in 4 chance of reciving an advance (slow down -1 aside)so you could advance from L0 to L5 in 20 turn, thats less then one year (24 turns). You can go from flying bi-planes to 2nd-3rd generation jets in less then one year, and that includes reequiping the front line units/training and getting from a test project to a production unit. Man I'd like to see the Ind Engr. in charge of that project!

Bottom line is if you want a more historical game play the 41 or 42 (modified or std) game and you will find the game engine good (but still missing a few areas) at everything.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

While I think both of us agree about the problem, you have to be careful with broad statements like the game design is flawed. SC is an excellent game design for a balanced game that has a WWII flavor. It fails miserably as a historical wargame of WWII.

Again, you are correct, that a WWII wargame is basically centered around combat on the Eastern Front. All other theaters are sideshows to this main event.

The Fall of France is a very interesting issue. Its very interesting to see how wargames handle this and try to deal with the problems it presents.

No player of France, will operate under the same assumptions that the French High Command did. So the big question has always been how to recreate that in a wargame? We all know that German armor can penetrate the Ardennes forest, so we don't treat it as impassable terrain and put our weakest units opposite it. And how to create the loss of will the French High Command suffered, as soon as the Germans broke thru Ardennes and headed for the coast, cutting off the French Armies that had moved into the Low Countries? Not to mention the expectations of wargamers, who if they can't recreate the fall of France as quickly as the Germans, believe the game system is broken. One of the reasons the Fall of France is considered one of the greatest campaigns in the history of the world, is because the Germans did what they did, as fast as they did. Instead, wargamers have made it some sort of expectation that the game system should allow a historical fall of France as the standard, and allow for better results. Then again, who wants to play a WWII game, where France doesn't fall? Thats where some of the recent topics make sense, stating that they want start the WWII campaign in '41.

It is possible for a historical SC to be gamed. I've spent the last six to nine months modifying, playing against other people and creating House Rules to achieve that effect, in the '39 Historical Campaign. In my most recent game against Kunniworth, his defense of France (which does start with a HQ and a Armor unit) cost Germany dearly, which in the long run, may cause the Axis to lose. The ebb and flow of the battles in North Africa, in almost all of my recent games, have a closer historical feel to them, than any vanilla game of SC I've played.

But get ready for the resistance from "players", who don't want to hear why Germany should never be allowed to invade Sweden, Spain or even Vichy France. Or why France shouldn't be able to disband its Naval units, or Italy shouldn't have more than eight (8) ground units.

So yes, I too want it to be more historical. I want historical forces, I want the same economic constraints to apply that limited certain units, but with the ability to change those constraints if certain strategic choices are changed. I want the same political constraints that prevented Germany from invading Spain. But I also accept the fact, that if the campaign starts in '39, that doesn't mean that France will fall in '40 or Russia gets invaded in '41. That is the price we pay, since we operate from hindsight.

[Liam]

Comrade:

True, with 5 chits on Jets you can do a hellish amount of damage if you're lucky enough to cash in on them! Once I start reaching level3 and have a significant amount of Leadership/Experience/and a Fine HQ Britian is dire straights. With a well organized Russian Army though those same planes can be less useful until you start to dig into the heart of Russia and if the Allies have built up enough reserves and tech of their own then you have a counterweight. So VERY Impossible, going from 109s to Migs in 1 year but still Jet technology is the problem not the research IMO. as we all know Jets are just too awesome...

You know if you see a player is putting a lot of cash into technology, you're going to have to take a large risk. It's the only way to counter his likely gains. It's the perfect counter. That way the game does actually find balance. I know I've forced a few players to even cash in their chits with a well planned SeaLion or vis versa using the Allied forces to 'block' Axis Aggression

Houserules though, definitely the answer for more history. Although myself personally i love the '39 start and I really like to face the Russians. Perhaps a 0:0:14 bid ??? LOL

[Liam]

Shaka:

Perhaps you have caught me there. The engine for a wargame is lovely, but the way termed it was attacking the history which I am much more an addict to than the engine.HouseRules and other options shouldn't be neccessary. If someone wants a Wargame there are many... This is meant as one of Battlefronts boasts has history and playability in it There are hundreds of wargames, with well, in their own right mixed accuracy. This game however is well modeled and made to simulate WW2 on a strategic level and in that regard Realism<which is the same as history if some people tend to forget it> should be right next to playability. Part of the reason I keep losing is I won't adopt some of the newer Ahistorical Strategies that other players do. Looking on ways to tweak the game engine to drag more and more out of it...

I'd like for an editor, as I said houserules are tedious. If you could re-write the way the game was played, all would adopt it

Fall of France is a massive issue. Kind of hard to envision you moving onward without it? Germany definitely wouldn't have gone very far without Paris and that's a fact. SC comes down to 2 victories, those in France and those not in it. Which is somewhat accurate. Game ending so early, well if you're not a very good Axis then that should happen I suppose. Although breaking France can be a lot harder than breaking England or Russia the way things are setup. Which is sorta funny and sense this is a more strategic than tactical level game it's probably unlikely the Player in control of the Allies could've prevented much of the errors that were originally made on a more tactical level.

Back when I was younger it was always a given that Hitler ran over France in a second. Few ever questioned that the Nazis really didn't have to work hard at that. They'd built up since '33 while everyone else was asleep and the Maginot was ineffective against a mobile army that swung around it and plowed deep into the heart of their enemy. Although now second thinking, with little articles of read and various programs/individuals I've come to believe France could've been not saved but a dying ground for the Germans...which would've not permitted them to move onward. Though you'd have to go far more tactical to make this happen. Give the French AT technology<they had extremely good Anti-Tank Weapons> Give them heavy tanks and armor on the map. Give them Leadership, as well as bit of Brit aid and then you have a real fight even without all the gambits/bids...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

So true. A Unit Editor would solve 90% of SC's problems, with a Terrain Editor solving another 5%. That last 5% does require logic hence software changes, but its not that difficult to remember a few House Rules.

[Edwin P.]

Don't forget a production/research limits editor so you can say that Italy can't produce Armor units or Germany can't have more than 10 Air Fleets or that Italy can't research Anti-Air or invest more than 2 chits in Anti-Tank research.

PS: This editor would also allow players to fine tune the AI to a limited degree by restricting the AI's choice list for production and research.

[ January 19, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[xwormwood]

In my opinion we need a "Tactic"-Research for every weapon, not only a "Combat"-Research which improves the quality of a weapon.

In 1939 Germany could be given two or three levels in the tank-tactic while the french & british get none, on the other hand france could get a lvl. 1 tank unit.

Something similar could be done with infantry tactic, sub tactic, vice versa with airwar.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Every time I have sold the French Fleet to get a rapid purchase of a French HQ, I have had my butt handed to me on a platter.

It ain't always enough to just have a HQ handy.

Helps, but they are not miracle devises.

[Liam]

Agreed an editor would be nice<since then everything is set in stone and you can truly modify all the Major issues>. In most of my other MP Games there is massive patching and most have an editor also. Usually Editors do away with most HouseRules. Though you still always have to follow a small set of them...no matter what...

Some technology for Military Doctine would replace the need for tactical research for SC itself. Until you make the game bigger. Intelligence and Warfare Tactics<where the Germans would have a major lead in> Limitations on research for each nation would be good. Though maybe not entirely cutting them out. Just making it harder for them and more expensive... Germany, Britian, France and the USA were all advanced. More so than Japan, Italy or Russia... Russia had #s vs Technology.

[Edwin P.]

Military Doctrine is a good idea, but I would think that it might make more sense to purchase it rather than researching it with its effect taking place in x number of turns or perhaps the effect only applying to newly commissioned units and HQs.

In HOI for ground units you have an Elastic Defense Doctrine, Static Defense Doctrine, Decisive Battle Doctrine, Armored Spearhead and a Guns & Butter Doctrine. Each of them have a benefit and sometimes a cost. For example, with Elastic Defense Doctrine Corps and Armored units would receive a bonus to defense and with a Static defense doctrince Army units receives a bonus to defense. Armored Spearhead gives you a bonus to attack and defense of armor units along with making Armies and Corps cost more.

Incorporating this into SC the player would have to select a doctrine and then decide when/if to change doctrines knowing that such a change will cost MPP that could be applied to building units and the change will not occur for several months when the situation that sparked the change might not be in effect or your opponent might have adopted a doctrine that counters the one you selected. In essence a simplied game of Rock-Paper-Scissors that gives a small bonus to the winner's units or lowers/increases the production cost of certain unit types.

Perhaps the cost for Germany to change its land doctrine might be 100MPP while Russia and Italy would have to pay 250MPP to change their doctrine. The difference in costs reflects the adaptability and professionalism of the officer corps in each nation. Or perhaps the Static Defense Doctrine might cost 50MPP for Russia while the Armored Spearhead Doctrine costs Russia 300MPP to adopt.

[ January 19, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]