What i do NOT want to see in SC2.

[zappsweden]

The battles i have fought in SC pretty much evolves differently than in real WW2. I have some things that are bugging me and that I want to bring up.

Resources:

I do not think that Germany (in real WW2) could have gotten the huge production they can in SC just by conquering the minor countries.

Losses:

The "no retreat" rule and the high cost of building NEW units vs reinforcing old ones make the objectives a bit odd. In SC I find that attacking a major country is too much about destroying units and not about breaking his lines and take his land.

Experience:

A big balance issue. The experience plays too much of a role in SC. Often the allies and axis does a "You gotta fight....., for your right....., to paaaaaaaaaaaarty!".

Seriously, the 1940, 1941 battles aroung UK is a fight for gaining experience 9 times out of 10. You cannot defend properly because the enemy will gain too much experience. Odd.

City defences:

Even if the cheapest unit cost 125 MPP that is not the problem when organizing a defence. The problem is that you cannot afford letting the enemy having a target practice. Cities should be able to have garrisons. The garrisons should cost some MPP (to build) but be able to withstand the first Land Attack. Garrisons only defend against land units. Garrisons should not be able to rebuild the turn after they are wiped out. Garrisons should NOT give enemy any experience gain. If a city defended by a unit has a garrison, the garrison will be sold (to regular value) when city is attacked because the city already have a defence. Garrisons will also prevent the game from becoming a "experience gain game".

Transports:

Transports are way too cheap, atleist if they are amfibious landings. A distinction should be made between transports and amfibious landing i.e a transport cannot land in enemy territory. You should NOT be able to have a group of 3-6 transports continuously wanderinging around the map searching for holes in the enemy coast defence. If you combine the transport issue, the experience issue and the "no garrisons" issue, you will get a game that too often makes defending cost more than abandoning the defences. Transports and especially amfibious should cost maintenance so that you cannot have a standing "army of transports". Transports are too powerful when landing and they play too much role in the game. A lone transport (corps) should not be able to fake attack and act as a bait just to force some defenders to come out and being slaughtered by the attackers backup.

Covering the map:

Since

there are no garrisons AND

transports are cheap AND

experience has too big influence AND

there is no retreat option AND

units cost much when being destroyed (rebuilts).

->the result is that defending the coast cost too much for the defenders.

[ February 27, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I will say that in A3R conquered countries leads to a constant but predictable yet still considerable economic gain.

And it has never hurt the game.

So I disagree that the cash value is a snag.

I will definitely agree that the stand and fight to the death is annoying.

In A3R total loss, or exchanges that were messy, or forced retreats were all options. A total loss sucked obviously, but it was not the only way to break a line.

The fact nothing ever gets a mandatory retreat in the game is something that needs work.

In real life, people will not fight to the death as a matter of routine.

Even elite units are subject to breaking and running.

On the other points I have no opinion, so I will leave it there.

[pzgndr]

Resources:

I agree. Resources and economics need to be more realistic. Plunder is unrealistic and should be significantly reduced or eliminated. To compensate for no plunder, countries like Germany can start with low strength cadre units (eg, extra HQ, Tank, Air Fleet, Battleship) that can be reinforced at reduced cost; this saves on high construction cost but does require time to build them up (remember Winter 1940 Sitzkrieg?) Another advantage to this is it forces players to consider long term effects rather than short term rewards like the Allies get now for the Low Countries gambit (take away the plunder and what's the incentive?)

Losses:

This doesn't bother me; destruction of whole units happened regularly during WWII. If we include some sort of automatic retreat rule for low strength units, it may become very difficult to actually kill anything and that creates a new problem to resolve. By comparison, 3R has whole units that either get eliminated or not depending on combat results. SC at least provides a chance of sustaining partial unit damage and allows for reinforcement, and that's fine for this scale.

Experience:

I agree. The current algorithm is too linear, but could be more exponential. Make it easy to gain experience at low levels but harder to gain at higher levels; easy to lose experience at high levels but harder to lose at lower levels. Over time, this would tend to keep most units around the midpoint rather than at the extremes.

City defences:

Simple solution to this and other issues may be to permit construction of cadre units at low strength, to be reinforced on subsequent turns. This would allow you to buy cheap garrison corps, rather than create a new unit type that can't do anything else. Would also allow you to buy big ticket items like air fleets and battleships and build them up over time.

Transports:

We probably need to keep cheap Transports like we have now and add a new unit type called Landing Craft that costs more and permits attacks/landings from the sea. Transports would be limited to port-to-port movements only. Landing Craft would be prevented from making attacks/landings during bad weather. (Seasonal effects anyone?)

[JerseyJohn]

Zappsweden

". . . You should NOT be able to have a group of 3-6 transports continuously wanderinging around the map searching for holes in the enemy coast defence.. . ."

Very glad you posted this, you beat me by a few hours. I'd intended to start a forum on this and the southern Map Edge. The Game is Extremely Flawed in the Mediteranean and North Africa.

It's not only possible to have units wandering aimlessly around at sea waiting for targets of opportunity, but they can land, in this case Axis troops, unsupplied and fight effectively turn after turn without a supply source while British and Vichy French, with HQs and links to supplied cities, lose ground to them because there are three Luftflottes on Sicily. Something is seriously wrong here.

First of all, the hex system for North Africa is virtually unplayable, unless one enjoys recreating the Battle of Thermopolae over and over. There is absolutely no maneuvering. Units line up single file and it's up to air units and naval units -- utterly realistic naval support in this case! -- to pound the enemy to death before friendly forces can move forward. These were battles of maneuver -- where it it in the present game system? Not only can you NOT maneurver, because there's no stacking you can't even rearrange your units. This is absurd.

Agreed on virtually every point stated above. The income, plunder, economic issures can be viewed from several different perspectives but a key problem is simply not having a production table. Players should have to commit themselves to a waiting period for new units. COS had it down very well, along with the supply and weather systems.

I'm not saying COS is necessarily a better game than SC, but it had many strong points that line up perfectly with SC's glaring shortcomings. These ideas should be utilized to fill in SC's gaps and make it better.

BTW, the map is not one of them as both games seem to use the same scale. In COS the North African campaign was almost equally bad. Almost but not quite because in COS it was impossible to have armies and corps wandering the mediteranean in canoes turn after turn looking for a place to land. Also, once ashore, they nedded to do something immediately or be supported by either a mulberry or HQ (Army Group), otherwise their supply fell to zero and they were eliminated in the next combat.

The Mediteranean supply situation is also faulty. Germany can invade Vichy and Allied units near Algiers can't hold up against air units in Sicily. Algiers provides only 5 pts supply while Sicily provides 10. The results become a forgone conclusion. What good is Algiers when troops and planes based there are good for nothing but cannon fodder?

[zappsweden]

I think there is some very interesting points in this topic. What i forgot to mention was that the transport system does not only prevent a descent defence but also enables germany to make unreasonable strong landings in Norway, Egypt, Vichy, Spain and even Russia.

Not fun in my game against Terif (axis) when he landed a couple of units in the baltic states and thereby bypassing the "Axis-Russia border buildup penalty" and preventing Russia from organizing any defence in the Leningrda and Riga area. The landings are weak but supply 0 is too powerful in this game. I would like units on supply 0 fight with half values to make them cannon fodder if they do not get supplies.

[KDG]

Resources:

I like them the way they are, except each hex should be worth maybe 1/2 MPP (we are talking about 50 sq. miles, that area should be worth something).

Experience:

Too easy for planes to get unless you research radar.

City defences:

Who is gaining the experience when attacking cities? If you are talking about planes then researching radar solves this problem, as well as making sure a HQ is 5 spaces away from the cities in question.

Transports

They should be a little more expensive, as should operating units around the world. Other solutions is to have supply go down 1 for each turn they are out in the water. Another idea is to make them easier to kill by allowing land units the oppurtunity to attack them when they are on the coast.

Stand and fight:

Let it be as it is.

Defending the coast:

Solution is to have radar help strategic resources as well as the spaces directly around them. This would mean you could have a unit in the city, as well as around the city to protect from landings.

For SC2, I would like a bigger map with more countries involved. Extend the map at all borders, allowing a min. of two space attacks, at the same time allowing US and Canada capitals to be farther away from the ocean and the trip for transports to be longer.

[xwormwood]

I don't like the way the U-Boot-War is handled. Better the COS or maybe the STORM ACROSS EUROPE-System than the SC1-Handling of Subwarfare.

And I hate these "sorry, you invaded a prison without exit" countries (Ireland or Portugal).

Plundering capitals is in my opinion ok, because the 3.Reich plundered everything (Goldreserves etc.) it could grab...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Zappsweden

Resources

Limiting factor in the economic growth of Germany was oil. There were other mineral shortages, but oil was the most critical. Without it, there is nothing to prevent Germany from taking all the neutrals it can, and becoming an economic superpower.

Losses

If we give units the ability to retreat as a result of combat, then you are going to have to give units the ability to advance after they win a combat. In the end, you will get the same results. As far as the objectives being destruction of the enemy units versus taking his land, it is alot easier to eliminate units if you first take thier cities.

Experience

There is nothing wrong with experience. In fact, the inital units should have a larger experience bonus to represent the leadership and training differences, but that is another post. However, I will agree that the alogrithim should be more exponential.

City Defenses

It appears you are asking for a cheaper than 125 MPP unit that can garrison a city AND start off with an entrenched value (ie able to withstand first attack). And you don't want your opponent to be able to gain any experience from combat against this unit. Maybe in SC2 we could get some more unit varieties. I don't agree about not being able to gain experience in combat against this new unit.

Garrisons should not be able to rebuild the turn after they are eliminated. Even if this was true, what would prevent your opponent from just operating another unit into the city? Yes, you are correct though, that the units (all of them), should not be able to be built in one turn (ie one to four weeks).

Transports

Existing transports should only be able to unload in a port. A new Amphib option should be given, that would have a larger cost (to represent specialized amphib shipping) and should be limited to a Corp only. But do note, that even if this change occurred, this will not prevent those tactics you descriped from occurring. It would just make it more expensive.

Air Units

Alot of the complaints about the naval transports, out of supply units, etc. come down to the fact that air units are too powerful. They should not have the ability to eliminate units. They should only be able to reduced readiness. However, since we can't do that currently, I would propose that we limit the number of air units a nation can have... US 3, USSR 3, Germany 4, Italy 2, UK 2, France 2, Poland 1 and Sweden 1. Simply modify the initial setup so those units exist and have an agreement that you can only replace a unit if it lost, not build a new one.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Hmmm I like KDG's idea.

Hexes represent real estate. That real estate had economic worth. I can't see why there is a problem with gaining an immediate economic benefit from taking it.

In A3R the cash was only decisive at years end, but you still gained use of it near immediately.

Gaining instant cash in SC is not a gain wrecker in my opinion.

Being able to purchase any sum of any unit type you wish with no wait, now that might be.

Last time I checked, major naval units/ships didn't spring out of thin air unplanned. Armoured formations were not like bread and milk to be bought at the grocers either.

I don't care how you get the funds, there has to be an improvement on how they get spent me thinks.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

"Transports

Existing transports should only be able to unload in a port. A new Amphib option should be given, that would have a larger cost (to represent specialized amphib shipping) and should be limited to a Corp only. But do note, that even if this change occurred, this will not prevent those tactics you descriped from occurring. It would just make it more expensive."

Combined with the supply depletion of units at sea this might well be the answer -- except I'd have units at sea expending 2 supply points each turn. Also, units landing unsupplied and remaining unsupplied should be virtually ineffective and easily destroyed by counter attacks. The way it works now is nonsensical.

[ February 27, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Jersey John

I don't agree that there is a serious problem with North Africa. Even if the map was larger for that area (which would be nice), the problem is that North Africa was an Operational theater of war, not Strategical.

The other problem and the one indirectly related to the others, is Air Power. KDG did bring up a good point that the counter for Air is Anti-Air Radar (except for ground units). Maybe it would be easier if we thought of Anti-Air Radar as Anti-Air Artillery (ie Flak).

COS and SC are closely related. Issue with Med and North Africa comes down to how they handled supply. COS was more restrictive but gave you a Mulberry. SC is more "hardcoded" by the values it gives to the Ports and cities, but compensates by the use of a HQ. Just a different approach on how they wanted to handle the same issues. The real problem is the use of Air.

Zapswedden

Units with 0 supply are already weakened enough. After the initial landing, ground units without HQs or cities ARE cannon fodder. It just may take another turn or so for the supply to run out. Very realistic representation.

Xwormwood

I think the problem with the UBoat war is that the Germans are not given enough sub units initially. More like six (6) or eight (8) would seem more appropriate.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

I've just had a game where a British HQ, Army and Tank Group were handcuffed and defeated by an out of supply Italian corps that was landed behing them and started acting like Superman. To make matters more ridiculous, an in-supply British corps kept attacking the out of supply, magically amphibed Italian corps and the Italian corps remained full stregnth with the British corps losing points. Because the HQ was adjacent to the Italian corps I could bring neither the tanks nor the army back to attack it. In reality the stupid thing should have been swatted like a fly.

There is definately something wrong with the Mediteranean. Aside from it being too narrow it doesn't react realistically. It was the Axis, not the British who had supply problems there. Enough all ready, I don't care about the programming aspects, there are too few hexes and the supply network needs to be fixed. That's all there is to it. It was flawed in COS and is even more flawed with SC. Why defend defects in an otherwise good game.

Things that need to be fixed should be fixed, not justified on technical grounds. Anyone who thinks the North African Campaign in this game is anything even vaguely similar to the real thing has no idea of what the actual campaign was about.

If the map needs to cover a larger area so there's room to maneuver in North Africa in the south and for ships to skirt Scapa Flow in the North, why not just recalibrate the map? Instead of a fifty mile area, why not have each hex cover sixty? Wouldn't this allow for a lot more territory and ocean to be depicted on the same map? What's the problem? It's ludicrous to cram the North African campaign in a single hex movement area instead of adjusting the play map to make it more realistic.

So I guess that's what I don't want to see in SC2 -- the same map with it's distorted Atlantic, Scandinavia and North Africa.

[ February 27, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

Shaka, I agree with you on all points except the resource thing.

"Resources

Limiting factor in the economic growth of Germany was oil. There were other mineral shortages, but oil was the most critical. Without it, there is nothing to prevent Germany from taking all the neutrals it can, and becoming an economic superpower."

In SC Germany can increase its production to 5-6 times their initial MPP base. Even if they get the oil I do not see how they could have 5-6 more manpower, have 5-6 more scientists and all. The bottlenecks will always be there. If u have more manpower u need more trucks to transfer supply and all. I would rather want a strategy game than an empire building game. There is a reason why I got tired of Civilization, Age Of Empires and all the other "cashcow games". The logistics in the game should not be too complex but also not to simple so that MPP is everything.

[RommelDAK]

I'm an economist by trade and some of the discussion of resources above reminded me of a book I reviewed for a journal some years back. It was entitled, The Economics of World War Two, edited by Mark Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1998), with a chapter on Germany by Werner Abelhauser. I don't know how directly relevant to the discussion this quote (from Abelhauser) is, but I'll toss it out there!

German war industry was to a large degree dependent on foreign resources. Although one of the main aims of the regime's war strategy was to get hold of the potentially rich reserves of resources (Lebensraum) in eastern Europe and, in particular, Russia this was by no means the main source of foreign support to the German war effort. This was also true of the countries of south-east Europe, which, under the auspices of the 'New Plan' of Hjalmar Schacht, enjoyed a special relationship to Germany. The most important basis of the German war economy lay rather in western Europe. The economic relations with and the inflow of resources from western Europe after the Blitzkrieg period were far more relevant for keeping the German war machinery going (p. 170).

I didn't have time to reread the whole chapter, but as I recall it argued that Germany gained much more from France and the Low Countries than they ever did from Russia. The low level of economic development and transportation problems with the latter meant that the bounty the Germans expected (even of what they DID capture) simply was not there.

Interesting stuff! The Germans also did silly things like running only a single shift at factories--the Allies were shocked and delighted to discover this as they overran them.

BTW, I'm not sure that SC doesn't already capture what Abelhausen argues (I'd have to sit and count up the MMP points in France vs. western Russia and I don't have time right now). But in some ways you have to make Russia a potential MPP mother load or you won't recreate what happened (given that the Germans *expected* it to be). The Germans need the incentive to do what they did.

[Minotaur]

What I don't want to see is how the Aircraft Carrier is handle right now...

An Aircraft Carrier shouldn't be destroyed because it has lost all it's fighters!!!... It is defenseless, true... But you should have to physically attack it to sink it...

I think the AC should be allowed to reach '0' strength without dying... A '0' means 'no aircraft on board' and any MPPs is spend to replace them...

If an AC is attacked with fighter onboard, they help defend it... If an AC is attacked without any fighter onboard (strength = 0) then it is sunk and the unit removed...

[JerseyJohn]

Minotaur

Excellent point; a carrier without planes is only as strong as it's escorts. Assuming an aircraft carrier would never be at sea without at least a few destroyers, why not make it "1" for rock bottom, denoting some protection but no offensive capability.

[xwormwood]

Shaka of Carthage: No, not more subs are needed in 1939 (compared to the fleets there actually too many subs on the board, esp. in the atlantic. There shouldn`t be more than one sub in the atlantic in 1939).

Subs should be able to dive more often than 25%.

Look at clash of steel, where it was already difficult to find them (maybe 50% chance) and then the subs got a chance to dive or escape. In SC there are no ways against a normal human player to keep you subs alive in 1939 (ok, the sub in the baltic sea can hide). U-Boot problem solved by the mighty allies in 1939 is not very historic, isn't it? By the way, subs should always and anywhere be able to sink enemy vessels. Only the amount of industrial losses should be different in different seazones.

[ February 27, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[John DiFool]

A few points:

Experience right now doesn't seem >quite< linear:

I have often reinforced a damaged unit with low

experience, but experience doesn't drop much,

while a 3-4 level elite unit will drop quite a

bit when reinforced. But yeah: I'd suggest that

the >effects< of experience be toned down.

Supply levels should be uncoupled from MPP levels

[for cities]-they really are two completely

different things and should be treated as such.

Subs and things should interdict supply lines

across water. Just draw a three-hex wide path

from a friendly port [optional: player's choice]

to the port [or HQ, or Mulberry] on the battle

front [in this case North Africa, or Northern

France of course]. Air units in range could

also interdict [think Malta]. Tripoli, not

Tobruk, should be the main Axis port in Africa;

if the player is given a choice, keep in mind

Athens likely should have a lower supply value

than say Taranto. Mind you I also have suggested

that MPP convoys also should have interdictable

paths on the map for subs, planes, and raiders to

station themselves...

And split up strength points between the air arm

and the ship itself on CVs. 5 and 5 work for me.

John DiFool

[Shaka of Carthage]

Jersey John

You do bring up an interesting point.

I've just had a game where a British HQ, Army and Tank Group were handcuffed and defeated by an out of supply Italian corps that was landed behing them and started acting like Superman. To make matters more ridiculous, an in-supply British corps kept attacking the out of supply, magically amphibed Italian corps and the Italian corps remained full stregnth with the British corps losing points. Because the HQ was adjacent to the Italian corps I could bring neither the tanks nor the army back to attack it. In reality the stupid thing should have been swatted like a fly.

The Italian Corp, after making a amphib landing, cut off your supply to the HQ, Army and Tank Group. Then your in supply British Corp had to attack that Italian Corp (to reestablish the lines of supply) but I gather the Italian Corp was now entrenched. So the in supply British Corp started to suffer losses, while the entrenched unit did not. In this circumstance, you are correct, that the lack of additional hexes hurt you. The Italian unit only had to cut off one hex to render your HQ+ units out of supply. Even if the British had a city with a supply of 10, you would still have the same problem, unless there were more hexes.

But I still contend that due to the small number of units employed in North Africa, we in SC, will not be able to reproduce the effects of Rommel.

Zapsweden

As I pointed out in one of my posts, if we used the Oil Wells to produce Oil points and the Mines to produce Mineral points, the German economy would be limited to about three or so times its initial starting point (maxed out about 400). Since SC does have only the one economic unit, the only other way to limit this would be to put a max limit on the units it would be able to build. It is something to consider as an optional rule. I am so frustrated with the way Air units work, that I'm having a hard time playing the game knowing there will be 10 or more air units a side. I do have a few other suggestions about units and manpower, but I'll cover those in another post later on regarding National Characteristics and Manpower.

Minotaur

I'm confused by what you are asking for. Isn't the reduction of the carrier strength in itself a reflection of the eventually loss of its aircraft as well as damage to the carrier and its escorts? Making it go to zero and then having to attack it to "kill" the carrier, isn't that just the same as giving it one more strength point?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Xwormwood

So your suggestion is that we should increase the Advanced Sub for Germany. To what number? I don't remember the increments (at work now), is it 5% per level? So increase it until we reach, what, 50%?

Do you know how many subs were in the Atlantic in '39? Would like to know how many subs you think there are per the sub unit.

The part about the subs always being able to sink enemy ships, isn't that just a little too much? Depending on the number of subs, they just in the space of one week wipe out all the naval ships that are included in a naval unit could they?

UK gets 135 MPPs. Just how many sub units would we need to "strangle" thier economy? Med losses seem to be only 5 MPP's. Most I've seen in the Atlantic is 16 (or 25?). Doesn't seem large enough to strangle them.

John DiFool

Interesting point. Maybe you do have a solution for the carrier, in that once the carrier reaches strength point of 5, it can no longer perform air operations of any kind.

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Minotaur

I'm confused by what you are asking for. Isn't the reduction of the carrier strength in itself a reflection of the eventually loss of its aircraft as well as damage to the carrier and its escorts? Making it go to zero and then having to attack it to "kill" the carrier, isn't that just the same as giving it one more strength point?

I'll try to be more clear...

If the Carrier is directly attacked (by another ship, aircraft, etc...), then yes, the lack of points means damage to both aircrafts, escorts and perhaps the carrier itself... And yes it could be sunk even if it's not at '0' strength...

My problem is the carrier dying because he intercept an enemy air attack... No direct threat to the carrier itself, just fighters from the carriers against enemy fighters... but sometime the carrier is destroyed, even if it's not even close to where the air fight is!!!...

That's what I don't want to see... If all carrier fighters are destroyed because of an interception the Carrier should still survive... That's why I suggest the '0' strength...

JerseyJohn -

If we keep it at 1, it can still attack and defend... Without it's fighters, it should be as unable to attack as a HQ is... Perhaps someting different that 1... '1*' perhaps... Meaning 1 point for defense only... no attack possible...

[ February 27, 2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

John DiFool

Interesting point. Maybe you do have a solution for the carrier, in that once the carrier reaches strength point of 5, it can no longer perform air operations of any kind.

Sorry, but I don't like this idea one bit...

1) Carrier aircraft would always be at a disadvantage against conventional air fleet... 5 vs 10...

2) When you upgrade your carriers (with long range fighters (!)), how many points goes to fighters and how many points goes to it's escort?

3) Remember that the strength of an aircraft carrier group is it's fighters, dive-bombers and torpedoes-bombers... not it's escort...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Minotaur

1) Carrier aircraft would always be at a disadvantage against conventional air fleet... 5 vs 10...

Isn't that the effect we want? Carrier unit should not be as strong as a Air unit. Doesn't have the aircraft numbers.

2) When you upgrade your carriers (with long range fighters (!)), how many points goes to fighters and how many points goes to it's escort?

Hmmm.. that is a problem. We can't split the one (1) point upgrade into .5 and .5. Guess it will have to be something along the lines of every other step. 6 and 5, then next tech level becomes 6 and 6.

[JerseyJohn]

Minotaur

Agreed on the carrier issue. There should be a threshold beneath which the carrier unit only defends against direct attack -- no offensive missions and no interception.

Shaka

True, that's exactly the situation I was describing. First off , with another row of hexes that landed corps ceases to be a problem as my HQ steps moves away and it is simply destroyed by the tanks and army. Secondly even without those hexes, the landed corps has no supply line at all. Dug in or not it should be toast.

There's no way a game of this scale allows the tactical moves of Rommel or von Manstein, but there should always be at least two or three hexes for maneurvering. Having a major theater reduced to a line of single hex alternated with double hex rows is too limiting. The only North African location that should fit that description is El Alemain due to the Qatarra Depression.

As for the Italians riding around looking for places to come ashore -- that's beyond gamey and absurd and shouldn't even be possible. It's only a game killer and nothing more. I'd to see one ONE instance where it was done in the actual North African Campaign. Or, as mentioned earlier by Zappsweden, in the Baltic.

Another thing I'd like not to see in SC2 is the current disregard for weather. I'm aware of all of the explanations of built in factors, etc., yet it's perfectly feasable for Germany to invade Russia during mud and snow seasons when they would have have had a difficult time moving at all, let alone launching an invasion. There has to be real, visable weather zones. Winter offensives have to be very difficult in snow areas, which would include most of Europe. German troops moving very far east into Russia during the first year of invasion should have severe supply and defensive problems (petrolium products freezing because they didn't yet know how to prevent it at extremely low temperatures) and higher casualties from exposure.

[ February 27, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Another thing I'd like not to see in SC2 is the current disregard for weather. I'm aware of all of the explanations of built in factors, etc., yet it's perfectly feasable for Germany to invade Russia during mud and snow seasons when they would have have had a difficult time moving at all, let alone launching an invasion. There has to be real, visable weather zones. Winter offensives have to be very difficult in snow areas, which would include most of Europe. German troops moving very far east into Russia during the first year of invasion should have severe supply and defensive problems (petrolium products freezing because they didn't yet know how to prevent it at extremely low temperatures) and higher casualties from exposure.

Very good point... I think all other 'WW2 Grand Strategy' games that I've played take weather into account...

It also reminds me an idea I had...

We should add a new reserch topic (another one ) : 'Winter preparation'...

With the winter factor suggested, the more you research this topic, the more you prepare your armies for the cold/mud... So, instead of boosting a unit, this research will remove some disadvantages that occurs in bad weather times:

Better movement in winter... Less casualties because of the cold... better winter supply net... Etc...

Think of it as a general 'How to prepare for cold/mud' topic... Perfecting anti-freeze... giving better clothing to your troops... Wide-track research... Efficient food-heating for your soldiers... A grease that can sustain cold weather... Training ski-troopers... Etc...

Keep in mind that this research wouldn't boost units in winter but instead partially negate the effect of the winter times... And this research will affect all your units equally...