JerseyJohn Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 There has been much talk the past few months about the better points of HOI and various games in relation to SC. Much of it has centered around Diplomacy. My earlier forum on the subject involved neutral minors. In this forum I'd like to test the waters for a pre-war system where both sides would play even thought the war hadn't begun yet. All nations would make Diplomatic, economic and production moves with their armed forces being at the level they were at in the Autumn of 1938 instead of their levels of a year later. For all intents they should be virtually the same. The following entry has been lifted from a posting to Minotaur's Wish List Forum. I felt it should be handled seperately. --- * --- Ideally, I think the game should begin with Europe at peace right after the Munich conference (Autumn 1938). Slovakia still exists but is no longer alligned with France. The French and English are still feeling secure in their agreement with Hitler. Germany has one more free move; the Diplomatic game would offer political options such as an agreement with Russia to partition Poland before it alligns with Britain and France, which didn't occur till after the absorption of Slovakia in the Spring of '39. The consequence would be Britain and France offering protection to Slovakia, the remnats of the country they just abandoned at Munich. Both sides could play in a diplomatic/economic mode till an Axis move triggers the shooting war. There would be pre-set options and war triggers each building upon German aggressions as they unfold. Germany would have the option of making an aggressive move appear to be an act either of self-defence or an intervention to protect some internal faction. There would be a chance of Britain and France either accepting the move or Declaring War. Each act of aggression would dramatically increase the chance of Britain and France and possibly the USSR [in Eastern countries ONLY] going to war with Germany. Italy would start off similar to it's present state, with a unit in it's protectorate of Albania and units in it's Libyan colony. As in this game, a delayed entry seems the most accurate except the Axis player would be able to build new Italian units and arrange them so the country isn't open to the gambit. He would not be able to move German units into Italy or to move Italian units into Germany unless both were at war. I realize Diplomacy and pre-war production options/moves are not for everybody. My view is that in this setting Bismarck's two quotes apply perfectly: "Politics is the Art of the Possible . . .It can only be done by Blood and Iron" to represent Axis diplomacy. War would inevitably develop as an inevitable act of Axis agression. The German Victory conditions -- as stated earlier by Minotaur , conquest of UK -- France -- USSR for the highest Axis victory level, should force Germany to ultimately start the Second World War. Up till that time, the Axis and Allies would be able to move quietly behind the scenes with diplomacy, research and movement of units. Of course, England and France would not be allowed to more units onto each others territories till War actually develops. The same condition that Germany and Italy work under. [ February 12, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 JJ,I think you and I are dreaming for a game that combines the diplomatic/economic model of HOI,EU2 and the hex-strategy of SC. I would love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Kurt Thanks for the good word. I hope there are others who feel the way we do. Things like that seem within easy reach for an expanded version of this game concept. [ February 12, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I guess I differ from you guys on this point. I approach the game as a General and not a Diplomat, although Ike was a great diplomat. After playing hundreds of diferent war games I guess that the most important thing is how well all the parts work with eachother. That is combined arms against enemy forces, air and naval forces and their action against others. If Stalin lets Hilter have Zimbabwe I don't care, but if tanks are shooting down bombers, or if corps are being destroyed by HQ units then I'm bugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 SeaWolfe A perfectly valid preference. If this sort of system were adapted I'm sure there would also be a Sept 1939 Hitler invades Poland scenario along with all the other standard historical situations. This would only be an added facet. The 1938 starting point would only matter to people who want the before game maneuvering to try and attain a better starting position; perhaps the German player who'd prefer not making the Polish deal and using his resources differently from the way Hitler did, possibly starting in '41 with something like the Z-plan and maybe vastly superior jet aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I like this idea as a prelude to combat in SC. Matter of fact, I think this should be the method that determines how many research chits and/or tech levels that you've achieved. In addition, whatever diplomatic moves that were made here should determine the alliance influence (ie pro-axis, pro-allied or neutral) of the neutrals. Once the war started, then it would be as it is now in SC ... diplomacy occuring as it does now in SC as a results of your actions and the effect it has on the readiness % or wheter a neutral joins your alliance or not. This way, those who wanted to deal with the diplomacy side of it could start in 1938. Those who don't want to be bothered, could start in 1939. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I love this idea. I hope it makes the next SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Shaka Thanks for the Good Word. Your interprettion is perfect! Panzer Thanks for the support. I think as a play option a lot of players would go for it. [ February 12, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 To JerseyJohn: I like the idea of starting the game before the war (like starting in 1938)... Makes a lots of good "what-if"... - What if countries can use their starting technology points on technologies they want at the beginning... - What if countries can purchase and place the units they want... - What if you decide to invest your MPP more on technology and less on units... - What if Germany ignore Poland and strike directly at France... - etc... And if all these choices are kept secret until war begin, it will bring a lot of unpredictability to the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 First thing I would like to see in SC2 is... A bigger Map!!! I would like to simulate the (failed) escape of the Bismarck... A more real sub hunt... Having more than 1 hex to attack Russia from the south... The convoys from UK to Russia (Murmansk)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Minotaur Thanks for the Good Word. If you want to read a bunch of postings on the exact issues you've mentioned look through the previous forum pages, they are probably about ten pages back now, for two old forums: Hubert -- The North Atlantic and North America both originated by yours truly. The North Atlantic Forum has a lot of good ideas, especially those by my friend Immer Etwas concerning convoys and subs and assorted topics on developing the entire Atlantic phase of the game. The North America Forum has a lot of good material on Hitler's plans for a post war Atlantic navy -- The Blue Water Fleet entries by djaad as well as numerous other postings I think you'll enjoy and find very interesting. [ February 13, 2003, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Sir Jersey John --- You are a Legend, thanks for all the historical points of view. Every consider teaching history at some university? Hell (Heaven), maybe that's what you do between classes is post on the Forum. Remember guys: If you make the game totally historical, wouldn't the Allies win every time in May 1945? Minotaur --- Nice points about making your buys pre-'39. Obviously, the naval could use a rebuild. What really pisses me off is naval supply. The smart thing to do is park in or around your own ports. Why move out for fun & adventure? Your pieces are toast. SC for the Pacific --- Ain't going to happen with the current naval play. I want U.S. Civil War from these guys. Canons, calvary, leaders (Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, Longstreet, Sheridan, etc.), all kinds of Naval & Naval Leaders, railroads, forts, experience troops. The South created & reinforcement units alot different than the Northern recruits...makes battles very interesting. Not only that, fighting in U.S. is new terrain than a WW-I game or some Roman time period game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 General Rambo You are even more legendary and it is I who should thank you for all the great tactical tips you've shared so freely in these forums and for bringing this berg to life a few months back! Teaching history at a university would be great except after a week I'd be clashing with half the honchos and would never get tenure. Beyond that I can picture kids dozing off while I pointed to places on maps. It would be Mr. Chips(the '39 version is great) all over again. My wife keeps pushing me in that direction but I'd have to go back to college after being away from it for thirty years. In any event, thanks for the thought. [ February 13, 2003, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: If you want to read a bunch of postings on the exact issues you've mentioned look through the previous forum pages, they are probably about ten pages back now, for two old forums: Hubert -- The North Atlantic and North America both originated by yours truly. I just look at them both... Gee... Didn't thought this forum has 84 pages!!!... It could use some organisation (General Topic, Troubleshooting Topic, Ladder Topic, SC2 Topic, Mod/Add-on to SC Topic, Strategy Topic, etc...)... Anyway, that's another story... I'll stick to what should be added to SC2... The North Atlantic - Depends if you whan it simple or complicated. A problem I see is how you show the convoy on the map... Since you can only have one unit in one hex (unless we can stack units in SC2), how do you represent a convoy of multiples ships?... Knowing that a convoy may have 20 ships and another 80... Perhaps a generic unit called 'Convoy' with a set defense value (like a cruiser or a battleship)... Or perhaps a unit still called 'Convoy' with X MPP to convoy and Y MPP spent to defend it (to simulate how big is the escort)... Personally, I prefer Genghis 'Boxes' idea, as I seen it on a tabletop game and it was quite simple... You have a box 'Atlantic', 'Barents', 'Mediterranean', etc... Axis can choose to put or remove a sub in any boxes or on the map (as a regular warship)... Allies can put or remove cruisers, battleships or aircraft-carrier (perhaps they could create a Destroyer Unit)... At the end of Allies turn, just before UK receive its MPP, the result of the Sub war for each 'boxes' is done: damage to ships and how much MPP is lost... Of course, when US is at war, it can add ships too... North America - I'll stick with my "If France,UK and USSR is conquered, then it's victory for the Axis"... If we want to see the conquest of Canada-USA in SC2, then we should have a map of the entire world... Both Europe and Pacific... No doubt Germany, Italy and Japan would have to team up to conquer USA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 Minotaur Glad you went back and looked at those things. As for the Forum being better organized, well, there's also a forum on that topic, something like Twelve Permanent Topics . . . and modesty prevents me from mentioning it's originator. The long and the short is that for some reason it can't be done. Not being a computer person I don't know why. Yes, the overal gist of the North American forum was definitely that the U.S. and Canada shouldn't be vulnerable to Axis invasion, a point reinforced in the North Atlantic Forum. Regarding the North Atlantic my first preference, like yours, is to have it much larger and open up other avenues of strategy like a German attempt for Iceland. It seems the map cannot be altered, at least that's the current opinion, so failing that I also agree with view about the seazone boxes. Most people seem to be against that sort of approach but I don't mind off map abstractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltero Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I would like to see more human control with the HQ units. This is a must! ( why hinder our control of such a valuable unit)? the Navel trans in and out of port needs looking at. Island forts should get Navel protection. hexes on land bridges needs attention. (moving to and from one hex only) It would be fun If the nations can spend mmp's to alter the neutral, alliances of the minors. mybe we need some specialty units to counter experienced units. for the country's that sit for years before engaging in Combat. (When it comes to games players love there country's specialty units)! oh ya! I think we need NUKES! :eek: [ February 14, 2003, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: waltero ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 Hicom had A-bombs as a research area. I doubt anyone ever developed and used one in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay_H Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Just checking back in. Great topic from the Jersey once again, i'm a strong supporter of these ideas. Nothing would be greater in SC2 than to have 1st :world map and 2nd: more diplomacy. Why not start the scenario on January the 30th, 1933? Kleiner Scherz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Just remember that any new changes or additions must be withen the grasp of the AI. The key to this game is it has one of the better AI's. Give it a advantage in experience, and it plays a great game. If we get too complicated, then the AI won't be able to keep up with humans. Remember the majority of people still play solo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 JayJay_H Glad you like the idea. Great to see you posting regularly again. I didn't want to go back before Munich because up till then it seems doubtful a human player could rebuild Germany more effectively (in game terms) than Hitler did. [ February 14, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 KDG Couldn't agree with you more. These are changes that I believe can be easily adapted to the basic game mechanics. I haven't heard from Hubert on this topic so we don't know for certain but naturally I wouldn't want the game to become unweildy either. Too many potentially fine games have been overburdened and died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Sounds intrigueing! Then an Axis or Allied player could become more focused what they believe was needed for an upcomming war, and what you start with as the Axis is a big deal. Some many not produce armor at all, or conduct a less aggressive policital foreign policy to buy time to add to their arsenal or tech... It would be fun!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 Liam Glad you like the idea -- you're response is definitely in the spirit of it! [ February 14, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 KDG raises a good point about how the AI would handle multiple diplomatic options. It's one thing for the player to try something different; but to watch the AI do something weird is not the way to start a good game. Another concern is how war would start when all the majors begin as neutrals. Should players get to decide how long to delay war, or should events trigger random declarations of war? This is an interesting subject, but difficult to model perfectly. What if Britain goes to war over Poland but France does not? France would not be able to build up its army until Germany gets around to declaring war, and then it would be too late. Recognizing early 1938 as a reasonable start point is good. However, game balance for war starting anytime between spring 38 and fall 39 will be problematic. It might be possible, but getting the historical war to work right should be top priority for SC2 - economics, Med front AI strategies, etc. To compromise, some pre-game diplomatic options for the 1939 scenario may work. Assume the Allies had played hardball at Munich and denied Hitler the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. Hitler would still have looked east toward Poland and a September 1939 invasion would still have been plausible. So Czechoslovakia on/off could be an option, which affects German at-start forces and obviously alters the map. Other options could include Italy's war with Ethiopia, Anglo-French alliance with Belgium, and stuff like that. The basic game would remain the same, but with various tweaks to reflect pre-war maneuvering. This may be more practical to implement in SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 15, 2003 Author Share Posted February 15, 2003 Being neither a programmer nor an authority on artificial inteligence it's difficult fot me to venture an opinion on the machine's decision making abilities. An instinctive opinion is that AIs can't make good multi-faceted decisions of this type. My idea was primarily intended in the context of human vs human play. A series of variants, as per Bill's suggestion, would be an excellent way around this. I'd also be in inclined to think in terms of variants in the present game engine but it would require an expanded scenario editor . The person creating variants ought to be earlier to set dates earlier than Sept 1939 and to also set Poland as either neutral, Axis or active. I know Poland as Axis sounds outlandish, but what if the variant is a USSR invasion of Poland without Germany's cooperation? In this case, of course, Britain and France should start out neutral and have a low war entry % against Germany. In the expanded editor, scenario creators should also decide how strongly a nation is disposed to either remain neutral or join either side, expressed as a %. Example: Switzerland would be 100% - 0% - 0%; Greece might be 40% - 30% - 30% while Rumania or Hungary is 05% - 05% - 90%. In such an expanded scenario editor the only starting major always at war with at least one other major is Germany. The condition could be that, at start, Germany is always at war with some combination of England, France or the USSR. An alliance of France and the USSR with England neutral would be a fairly reasonable historical scenario. The two countries considered such a move in the very early thirties while France and Britain were less friendly towards each other than was later the case. In a scenario where Germany is at war with either England or France but not both the trigger could be, (aside from a very high war entry %) German invasions of Low Countries, Poland, Denmark, Norway or Sweden to trigger to bring one of the others into the conflict. Regarding the 1938 starting point and Munich, on the specific issue mentioned Hitler would almost certainly have invaded Czhechoslovakia regardless of the British and French stand. The Czhech defensive postions in the Sudatenland were meaningless after the absorption of Austria; German armis would simply have moved behind the line, defeated the rest of the Czhech forces while England and France mobilized and turned west in the Spring exactly as was done a year later with Poland. Which is why both invasions occurred in the Autumn and not the Spring; he was gambling on a delay in Anglo/French reactions. So, in this case, my view is the true shooting war in the West would have begun in the Spring of '39 with Poland and Russia and Italy all neutral. Prior to the fall of Czhecoslovakia, Hiter maintained good relations with the Polish government, so much so that other Baltic and Balkan states distrusted Poland! The March 1939 start date would allow for winter mobilization. It is also the month Hitler finished occupying Czhechoslovakia. It could be played as Hitler's second aggression that triggers an Anglo/British ultimatum instead of the pact with Poland, which historically occurred after the German absorption of Prague. A neutral Poland without the Molotov/Ribbentrop agreement would also make things interesting. In short, there would be a huge number of perfectly feasable variants made possible in SC as it stand right now through some comparativly minor expansions of the scenario editor! [ February 15, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts