Some thoughts about Partisans/Resistence?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Night

Sarcasm from me? Naww...

I wanted to clarify something regarding the air superiority issue. Regarding the Para Corp, when it was "airdroped" into the hex, would be like a air unit attacking a hex. If enemy aircraft were available, then could intercept the Para Corp. Then whatever the combat routine used between air units in the same situation would be the same used for this Para unit. Difference being the Para would not attack (its air assets are transports and gliders, not fighters), and could only suffer losses. If the enemy air was strong enough, it could totally eliminate the Para unit. So... just like we do now, we would have Air unit(s) attack a hex to draw out the enemy air. Once an air unit attacked, with no enemy air response, you have now just attained air superiority.

[CalifVol]

Please bear in mind my comments are based on playing against the AI and not a human player.

Partisans in the game are “OK” as is, but it could be done better. I would prefer the following elements be treated the same:

Strategic Interdiction 3 pools:

Submarines, Partisans, Strategic Bombers

The Allied/Axis player would put MPP’s into a Strategic Interdiction Pool (One of the three areas listed) and then the opposing player would have counter-acting-pools to place MPP’s in. Failure to counter-act results in a variable per turn reduction in MPP’s for the player being interdicted. The interdicting player on every turn would determine how many MPP’s to put into the interdiction pool. Each player would be putting MPP’s into one of the three pools blind and there would just be a results given at the end of the turn. You could still invest in technology. The increasing technology would enhance the effectiveness of the MPP investment.

I would only have Partisan counters appear on the map in result to a trigger event such as the USSR getting X number of spaces from Warsaw. At the same time I’d also have Volkstrum counters appear when the Allied player gets within X number of spaces to Berlin. Then again, this may create other issues.

As to the “big” airborne debate; I’d go for one unit per side with a 2-4 hex drop range. I would add this unit not because it’s a critical feature for the game or something needed at this scale, rather it’s a fun aspect that gives a World War II feel to the action. My perspective is that then game right now could very easily pass as World War I. Along those lines it could actually be a WW I game if the icons were changed, air units degraded, zones of control added, Cavalry units that upgrade to tanks (tanks ignor the ZOC), and the map changed to 1914. This gets back to why I’d like to see airborne as it gives it that WW II feel.

I will now duck in response to all those rocks coming at me!

[ January 29, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: CalifVol ]

[JerseyJohn]

CalifVol

Good suggestion about the single airborne unit per side. I'd like it to also have the option of moving and jumping in the same turn. For that matter, I think invasion troops should transport and offload in the same turn instead of sitting in the water waiting to be targets and/or serving to announce where they'll land, allowing defending corps to be moved in place ahead of their disembarking.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by CalifVol:

Strategic Interdiction 3 pools:

Submarines, Partisans, Strategic Bombers

The Allied/Axis player would put MPP’s into a Strategic Interdiction Pool (One of the three areas listed) and then the opposing player would have counter-acting-pools to place MPP’s in.

No, no, and, ummm no. Strat pools would, to

name just one thing, take away locational

decisions, by both sides. For example, do you

have your U-Boats raid the US coast when they

first join the war, or stick with the Mid-Atlantic

sea lanes? [This dependent of course on there

being multiple convoy routes to choose from] Do

you keep your Luftwaffe in France in numbers, or

reluctantly move them into the Reich (beyond

enemy fighter range, because they are being

plastered by Allied fighters in interdiction

raids on your French airfields)?

Plus boxes are boring -moving stuff around is

much more fun! I was attracted to SC because I

wasn't forced to stare at strat boxes, sea boxes,

etc. and watch the RNG determine my fate.

John DiFool

[Wolfe]

Personally I like the Partisan unit as it is in the game, though I think it's too strong (they can reinforce if they get near supply and they start with an experience bonus, and can leave their own country). I think the Partisan unit represents a number of different smaller annoyances that are difficult to simulate at this scale. For example if a partisan unit pops up and takes a city this could represent a general strike that needs to be quelled. It doesn't necessarily have to represent an actual armed revolt. Though having to quell this uprising with a number of Corps or even Armies is a bit of a stretch.

If it pops up behind enemy lines it cuts off supply to a specific area. It isn't just a generic MPP or supply hit against the whole army. It's an obvious and specific threat in one (and only one) area, which I like.

It also requires many more combat units to guard against them than would normally be necessary. Since every army normally has strategic reserves (not every unit will be on or near the front line), Partisan units force the player (well, maybe only the Axis player) to ostensibly keep a "reserve" whether he intended to or not.

CalifVol wrote:

As to the “big” airborne debate; I’d go for one unit per side with a 2-4 hex drop range.

I don't see this idea mentioned in the thread (may have missed it) so: You might limit its range by only allowing the airborne unit to land on hexes that friendly air units have range to.

I still don't know if I'm in favor of airborne units. Adding specialized units that barely fit into the scale could add too much complication and place too many units physically on the map itself. Particularly if those units have certain restrictions as to how they can be used. After all you could argue for engineer units that are required to cross rivers.

I fear an Airborne unit has the very real potential of becoming either overly useful or on the opposite end of the scale extremely useless, depending on its capabilities.

- Chris

[SeaWolf_48]

I thought that this was a WW1 game? Just kidding, but your point is well made. You can never have a armored break thru in SC because if you do the armor dies on the vine. The same would happen with Paratroops if SC stays the same as it is now. You can never have a modified Schlieffen Plan to attack France that will work the way the units opperate now. Guderian and Rommel would not be household names today with the tactics we use in this game. The only way to win in SC now is to slug it out upon one unit with three infantry units and four air units to kill a Corps or Army.

This brings us back again to units retreating when they substain heavy damage instead of standing and dying.

Another thing that keeps the game non-fluid is being able to place newly created units next to enemy units. You spend time to kill an enemy corps and the next turn your opponate stick a new corps in the same spot you just conquered. Most other wargames allow you to possess the hex you just won with the conquering unit. New units should not be able to be placed to enemy units.

You guys know I like the game now, but I do miss the Panzerblitz factor perfected in other wargames.

Happy wargamming

[Night]

Seawolf I could not agree more, In the last game I played i was the Axis and tried an early invasion of england, i killed the corps holding london but found out i had no unit's left that could move in, so next turn they placed a brand new corps there and it took me 3 more turns to break it down again. So Annoying.

[SeaWolf_48]

Thanks Night, we are of course right. But really if the conquering unit could move into the defeated units hex after combat alot of these problems would change. The reason that WW2 was different than WW1 was because of new combined weapon tactics, of which the new powerful designed tanks played it's part.

In Guderians book "PanzerBlitz" he tells of the new combined attack developed by him which involved, artillary, fighterbombers and dive bombers (flying artillary), fast moving armored troops (Panzergrenidiers), and tanks - Panzers.

These troops were to break thru the infantry and then penetrate deep behind enemy lines to disrupt supplies and command structures. They were to be able to stand alone until the infantry units could catch up. These tactics worked in WW2 several times, and changed the way military lesders looked at war. No more WW1, Verduns or the Somme, but now Lightning War!

But more than the movement after combat, I wish we could get a hybrid game testing with units that would retreat if heavy destruction prevailed upon them, retreating one hex!

[JerseyJohn]

If there were a way of holding an infantry unit, army or corps, in reserve and being able to bring it up to an empty hex beside the most advanced unit this would help greatly. I'm always apprehensive of tank breakthroughs because when it's all over they're out there alone facing a counterattack. By being able to bring a unit forward from reserve it would, in effect, simulate infantry catching up with the spearhead before the displaced units reorganized.

To simulate Germany's superior blitzkreig tactics the Allies could do it with only a corps while Germany could bring up either a corps or an army. This would be a unit that had neither fought nor moved before this strategic type movement.

[KDG]

If strategic movements were allowed to any in supply space this would be possible. Remove the strategic movement limitations that are in the game now. I'd increase the cost of strategic movement to balance this.

[SeaWolf_48]

Hi JJ

In Rommel's book "Knights Cross" he explains how during the Battle of France he would get so far out infront of the Army that his Superior's and even Hilter once told him to stop. Guderian got in the same trouble with Kluge whom he hated, for the same thing. Both Guderian and Rommel testify that the people that they have surrounded were very demoralized and confused by the panzerblitz and usually couldnot even counter attack after a few days.

The largest penetrations during a breakthrough were up to 200 miles, and they would meet the other arm after about one week. 2nd Panzer Group (Guderian) and 3rd Panzer Group (Hoth) left Poland and met in Minsk 200 miles away after one week. Two weeks later Guderian was in Smolensk another 200 miles and surrounded more Russians.

Rommels penetrations in France was around 200 miles also, Ardenne to the French coast. In North Africa penetrations varried but usually they were 200 miles or less.

After a 200 mile penetratiion with armor into enemy territory supplies, gasoline and ammo started to be in short demand. Also with a Panzer Group, or later Army, as you drove into the flanks of the enemy you would drop off battalions to protect your flanks. Your supply of flank protection battalions ran out after that distance. The enemy surrounded had a hard time to break out, and usually surrended. The Brirish were the only one's to maintain intregrity and retreat when in France ( trusting in their Navy to get them out).

In Third Reich you would use a BridgeHead Unit to PanzerBlitz from, and this would supply you up to 4 or 5 hexes (around 200 miles).

I know you know about this history, but wouldn't this be nice in Strategic Command also!

[JerseyJohn]

Greatings SeaWolf

Great points and very nicely put.

When I first began playing the game those long panzer thrusts were in all my attacks and in one French campaign I lost three panzer groups in one big counter-attack! Everything turned out fine a little later, but the memory left me a bit gunshy as armored thrusts go in this game.

As you say, it sure would be nice to do it the way Rommel and "Hurrying Heinz" Guderian did it, but there isn't any demorilization factor in SC, so the troops you bypass turn around a kick you in the rump! I believe that only happened once in France, DeGaulles inspired counter thrust across the panzers rear area. It almost succeeded and immediately afterwards Hitler starting getting cautious about Dunkirk.

I think the game needs some provision to make armored thrusts worthwhile. Perhaps the answer is to make armored units much stronger than infantry units both offensively and defensively so there isn't so much risk in putting them out in front. If that isn't done, then some method of bringing up quick support should do the trick.

Historically the infantry usually caught up in a day or two along with the fuel and other supplies. Game turns are considerably longer than that, so I don't think the bringing up reserves rule would be outlandish. COS, which is so often cited in reference to this game, has an option along those lines; lifting a rear area unit right up to the front, one per turn that hadn't yet moved. That should do the trick here.

[ January 30, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

CalifVol

Partisans should have been handled in an abstract manner if it was being done over. But as I pointed out someplace else, the Partisan method was the best one to utilize without having to rewrite code or add new units. As John DiFool mentioned, abstracting the naval side of it would probably not be a good idea. However, as many others have mentioned, that if we are going to have the ability to move naval units, then give us that ability in the Atlantic with the right number of hexes. Back to that playability vs realism issue.

Adding a airborne unit would satisfy the glamor issue and WWII feel. Maybe we can get something added to SC. Don't forget that SC was created basically by one person... who unless he's still spending all his money partying, is probably now working on his next project. So any big changes to SC may or may not occur.

WWI --- SC sure would do it, with a few minor changes. Matter of fact, as someone else mentioned, Hubert should probably make those changes and sell "SC WWI" for around $10. Need those cash cows to be able to fund the raising stars!

Single airborne unit per side. Single unit for of the five major nations, and maybe the fifth (Italy). But that is asking for a new unit to be added to SC... which per above, may not be a consideration. And if it was done, with a limit being placed of one (1) unit, then I would probably be one of the first screaming that at the same time, the "manpower" issue should be fixed.

SeaWolf_48

Am I correct in assuming that you mostly play against the AI? As another thread mention, it is entirely possible for blitzkreig to work (as in taking out Russia in one turn). Playing against the AI, mainly because of the extra experience, is a totally different game. The key to SC is defeating the Russians, as early and quickly as possible. Everything else should be subordinate to that. The key to the "Panzerblitz" factor in SC is the supply. Think about what it takes to eliminate the supply factor, and you have the answer to taking control of the hex that those "newly created" units pop up in (ie most other wargames allow you to posses the hex you won). Possession in SC is not always physical. Think indirect approach.

Night, SeaWolf_48, JersyJohn

You guys all have the answer to the Panzerblitz already. You mention it in your posts. Look at the thread regarding Russia falling in one turn. How is that possible? SC scale is 50 miles a hex, so 200 miles is four (4) hexes. Turn scale is variable (because of the weather), but is either one, two or four weeks. The historical blitz against France was based on the French troops being on the Benelux border, breakthrough the Ardness forest, then taking a right and going to the coast. The 3R beachead unit was intended for crossing rivers, not as a prerequiste for a blitz.

Nothing in SC needs to be changed to allow a blitz. Just remember that all units are equal. Armor is armor. Infantry (Corp) is motorized, not foot infantry with horse drawn transport. Army is motorized, but because of its size, is slightly slower than a Corp.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

I know you know about this history, but wouldn't this be nice in Strategic Command also!

Great post and yes i'd like to see a panzer unit not lose supply so quickly. especially if a corp just managed to run across it's path. Course in the meantime i use that corp for just that purpose.

[John DiFool]

One problem with surrounding units (esp. if they

either have an HQ or a friendly native city in

the pocket) is that they can resupply themselves

(albeit just up to 8) over and over ad nauseum.

Eliminate that loophole and armor blitzes rightly

reacquire that dreaded 'fear factor' which they

naturally had in the war. And yes let the defender

resupply the poor buggers, but only via airdrops

using either bombers or regular air units.

John DiFool

[CalifVol]

Shaka of Carthage

Thank you for the comments.

I still maintain that strategic warfare should be done in a pool method, hopefully this diatribe will not bore too many folks. Why strategic pools?

I feel the “Battle of the North Atlantic” is given exceedingly short shrift in this game. On the other hand the game is designed to do that. This is a fun beer and pretzels game that concentrates on the land action in Europe in World War II. It offers wonderful alternatives during game play. It does that in a fun fascinating fashion for both multi-player and the single player (like me) against the AI. I can’t stop the compliments on how well the AI functions in this game compared to other games. The game is fun, a lot of fun , to play. This is very much a significant accomplishment and is not discounted in any fashion. However, it does not work well as a naval wargame. What it does do is poor and unrepresentative. I’d drop the whole find a submarine counter play from the game. In this game it is counter productive to Germany’s war effort to fruitless support (i.e. buy submarine units) a North Atlantic Offensive, when in reality the Germans came close to forcing a UK submission via that campaign. In the case of Lend-Lease convoy’s to the USSR, German interdiction of the northern Lend-Lease routes was so effective that it prompted the Allies to invade Iraq to establish the southern Lend-Lease route. The bulk of Lend-Lease was delivered to the USSR via the southern route. I would not ask for this fun game to have a greater detailed naval simulation. You start talking supply convoy’s needing to be simulated and a much larger map would be needed. It’s a real tar-baby that turns into a black hole. The focus of the game is on the land and not the sea. That’s why I’d just abstract the whole naval campaign. In abstraction it would be easier for the game to reflect the actual campaign and still not impact the fast fun flow that the game has.

What I have said for the strategic naval campaign I would reiterate for the strategic air campaign. The strategic air campaign against Germany was a major disruption of the transportation net, a cause of shortages in strategic materials and caused a delay in the V-2 program. Yet, in game play it’s the same boat as a naval offensive, not worth the investment to conduct. I shan't wax and wane about the Blitz or UK Bomber Command. Iy all addes up to why I’d just abstract the whole campaign. It would be easier for the game to reflect the actual campaign and still not impact the fast fun flow that the game has.

Partisans I won’t discuss a second time.

So, how would the strategic pools work?

There are three pools and three counter pools-

Air (includes rockets), Counter Air

Naval, Counter Naval

Partisan, Counter Partisan

The pool’s investment causes a random reduction of the opposing player’s MPP’s based on investment and tech level, plus a small reduction of the opposing players “counter pool’s” for that type. The counter pool reduces the effect of MPP reduction and reduces the strategic pool of the opposing player for that type item. This of course is based on amount of investment and tech level.

Some pool concepts:

1. You don’t have to buy a full “unit” to be in the pool and to have strategic effect, you just invest whatever amount MPP you want.

2. You can extract units from the pool as needed. If you want to extract surface/submarine/land units/ fighter/bomber/rocket units, go ahead, but they aren’t available to do strategic operations until they are returned to the pool:

Example your Anti-Strategic Air pool is at 650 MPP’s and you are desperately short fighters for close air support. You could “buy” a fighter unit at its current going price of 400 MPP’s and it appears as a normal freshly bought unit. Of course in this case it would reduce your Anti-Strategic Air pool to 250 MPP’s. The opposite would be true in that you could put a unit into the pool at its current price (I’d not maintain unit type identity in the pool, it would just be a pool of points. Invested units would be transformed into points.)

3. You have random attrition of troop convoys that go through sub-infested waters, with that attrition affected by the size of the naval and counter naval MPP pools.

4. There would still be troop convoys and naval bombardment units (when created) to push around the map. Opposing Naval Bombardment units would fight each other the same as now if they meet on the map.

5. Almost as an aside comment, it would be possible in the Strategic Air Pool to allow for a tech development far beyond existing tech levels and when that level tech is hit the strategic impact of MPP reduction would be massive, i.e. welcome to the nuclear age.

But, like I said, I know pools aren’t going to happen. This is just a concept discussion.

As to the suggestion for a bigger ocean map, with the game as it stands right now, I would not want the map of the Atlantic bigger. However, I’d like Canada and the US to be land connected on the map.

[Shaka of Carthage]

CalifVol

I agree with you that from a realism viewpoint, the "pool" concept would have worked better for the naval in SC. And while I like the bomber units for the Strategic Bombing, I think both of us would agree that the problem with the strategic bombing, is that we cannot hit a strategic resource, whose loss would have a large ripple effect through the economy.

If the naval was done correctly, it could be realistic and playable, allowing us to have a Battle of the Atlantic. But as you rightly point out, you have to have a proper representation of the economic effects of the merchant supply (with a "pool" method probably being best for this, since subs would destroy and MPP's would build merchant ships).

Btw, the method you described for pools would work very nicely for partisans, as long as the MPP's you have in the "security units" pool that are fighting partisans would suffer losses (since some of them would be casualties against the partisans). The ability to withdraw MPP's from the "security unit" pool to form a more conventional unit is realistic and easy to use. We would just have to make sure that conventional units would be allowed to add a percentage of thier MPP to this "security unit" pool.

Canada and US connected? Yes. But no way should any "invasion" be allowed. I tend to suspect that the size of Canada and US were based on the number of starting units each nation was given, since you need one hex per unit.

Thanks,

Barry

[CalifVol]

Thank you for the kind reply.

I am confused to your comments at the end about no invasion in regards to the US and Canada. Invasion how?

Thanks!

[Shaka of Carthage]

I was referring to the fact that currently it is possible for the Axis to invade Canada and/or US.

[John DiFool]

I'll try this one more time...

Say you decided to put an interceptor into the

"strategic bomber box" to interdict Allied bomber

missions. But, while he is doing all that, the

Allies begin Overlord, so you then want to bring

your fighter unit back out onto the "regular"

map. Now the question is: where do you place it?

Anywhere within Germany? France? Any hex within

two of Berlin or Munich? You see the problem?

Units in the boxes are NOT available, immediately

without some irksome "adjustment" phase, for use

in more tactical situations.

You have a U-boat in the Mid-Atlantic box, but, if

the Allies are sending normal army units across

the area where he supposedly is, then he is

unavailable for a quick interdiction. And if you

want him to boogie back to France to attack those

Overlord transports, where does he appear? Boxes

are just an unecessary complication.

Plus, as I already argued, boxes eliminate all

sorts of positional concerns. If you check out

Over the Reich for comparison purposes (I will

point out that, no, I don't want many of that

game's..."quirks"...in SC), then you will not

have to decide where to bomb, or as the Germans,

decide where to place interceptors. There is a

lot of strategic 'meat' in such decisions, which

you lose if you have boxes. And personally I just

find boxes boring-kinda like watching paint dry.

Just say no to boxes!

John DiFool

[Shaka of Carthage]

John DiFool

It is not unrealistic for a unit to keep itself in supply if it is sitting in a city. And the lowered supply limit reflects the unit being cut off. Remember the scale. Our "city" is a massive urban area. So you either assign units to screen them off, of you assign units to continually assault it. Maybe you don't take it the first time, then you didn't commit enough forces, or the defenders were too deeply entrenched. Keep pounding them. Your unit will continually gain experience, and the enemy unit is a drain on your enemies resources.

While air supply would be nice, that is something we should only be able to do with dedicated transport aircraft, or maybe the bomber unit.

The blitz "fear factor" is in SC. The fact that you can penetrate (no ZOC stopping you) into the enemy rear and cut his supply lines, is the blitz. There is no loophole that needs to be closed.

The "strategic bomber pool" example you gave does show one of the problems with a pool (or box). For the air war, I think the method we currently have now works better.

For naval, its a different story. We either need a sea that is the proper size with our 50 mile hexes, or if we cannot get the proper size, then the pool or box method. Don't forget the size these pools represent, so zipping back and forth to respond to certain threats just may not be possible. The boxes work for the sea, but not as well for the air.

Thanks,

Barry

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

John DiFool

It is not unrealistic for a unit to keep itself in supply if it is sitting in a city. And the lowered supply limit reflects the unit being cut off. Remember the scale. Our "city" is a massive urban area. So you either assign units to screen them off, of you assign units to continually assault it. Maybe you don't take it the first time, then you didn't commit enough forces, or the defenders were too deeply entrenched. Keep pounding them. Your unit will continually gain experience, and the enemy unit is a drain on your enemies resources.

Yes, you can still eliminate all the units in the

salient, with all the advantages which you then

get, but that is beside the point.

Units with a native city or HQ can get up to 80%

of full strength (yes with a readiness hit IIRC)

inside a pocket. Where are all those troops and

bullets coming from? The city probably has a

limited stockpile at best to draw on, including

rapidly conscripted troops from the local population,

and I doubt you can make babies (which grow up to

combat age in 2 weeks) that quickly.

True, if you make it TOO easy for the attacker,

the pocket will melt down in no time. This can

be addressed by game design changes (like allowing

air supply-no not that awful music group :cool: ).

But units able to regain most of their former

strength (you will note to the same level that

a neutral country like Finland-ubeseiged-can!)

is just silly.

JD

[Shaka of Carthage]

John DiFool

You asked where is it getting the strength from? Any able bodied man or woman will do. Combat power of a division comes from the artillery and armored fighting vehicles. But guess who is out there to protect them? The infantry. Once these guys become casualties, they need replacelemts, to allow for some of the casualties to recuperate. In a pinch, anybody will do, especially when you are on the defensive. If you kill enough of the infantry at one time, breaking through them to get at the artillery, and you succeed in killing them, only then is the unit destroyed. Urban combat is extremly difficult, even if you win, there is a price to be paid.

SC does a good job representing this at this scale. Notice the difficulting in getting ground troops into Copenhagen, Stalingrad, Leningrad? And armored units are not the golden bullet either, since they don't have enough infantry in them to clear the city. SC design represents this well.

[ February 03, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]