Solution for Bullying Airfleets.

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by Liam:

We should have artillery, highly mobile units, and more hexes on the map for flanking possiblities.

Looks like you want a Panzer General...

Don't forget the scale of the game... Having artillery and high mobile unit is far less 'Historical' than attempting to create an artillery unit via the rocket technology...

Originally posted by Liam:

Many of the historical cities<major cities> are not represented on the Game map that should be there. Thus more space to cover for Advancing Armies.

True... First time I played I was puzzled by the Low Countries, instead of having 3 separate countries... But at the scale the map is, both capitals (Netherland/Belgium) would have been next to each other... The map is simply too small to add a lot of other cities... That's a thing that could change in SC2...

Originally posted by Liam:

I would say that Rockets do not belong in the Game at all, for all they did ... amounted to killing mostly civilians not unlike Scuds in the Gulf War. Not Precise enough to matter.

Launched one by one, that's true...

But I like to think of Rockets, in the game, as a barrage of them... Like 20, 50 or 100 rockets launched at the same time in the same general area... A week to prepare them, then you press the button...

Beside, I do not wish to see the only 'artillery' in the game go away... Especially if Air Fleets attacks are scaled down...

[arby]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Arby

In regards to your statement about the ground combat needing to be fixed, what exactly do you feel is wrong with it?

Oh, I think the combat model does an excellent job of simulating ground combat during the World War. Unfortunately, it's WWI, not WWII. Think about it: if you took planes out of the equation, you'd have a perfect replica of trench warfare on the Western Front, with units battling for months over a few miles. In contrast, WWII ground combat was remarkably fluid, featuring armored breakthroughs, sweeping pincer movements, entire armies finding themselves suddenly surrounded. To the extent that happens here, it is only because of air power. You bomb some unit into oblivion, then exploit that.

And that's the point I was making to Jersey John. I agree with him completely: air is too powerful, there are too many air units, and it too often results in play which is not historical and, for that matter, not much fun, either. The problem is that if you attempt to change that -- to reduce the effectiveness of air units -- without examining how it affects overall play, what you may wind up with is even worse. And I think that's what would happen here. To the extent that the ground combat model works, it works because of the excessive role of air power. In essence, ground units are underpowered, and air units are overpowered, but the two balance themselves out to give a moderately realistic feel to combat overall. And even that's questionable.

I tend to believe that one of the problems we have is that there is not enough of a experience bar variance to reflect the superior combat power that the Germans had over the Allies.

Excellent observation.

I know you mentioned lack of a retreat option and the ability to reinforce a unit in place is a problem.

I'm not sure I'd characterize them as problems; as you point out, the latter is actually somewhat historically valid. (The former is not.) But more than problems, they're facts: that's the way the combat model works. If you don't completely eliminate a unit, you've pretty much wasted your time. That same unit, fully reinforced, is going to be right there the next turn.

As far as multiple attacks on a unit, one of the keys to a successful defense is the ability to limit the number of enemy units that assault you at one time.

Yes, but one of the keys to a successful offense is mass, or concentration of force. "Do we have enough troops to defend this sector?" "Oh, don't worry, general. Remember? The other side's not allowed to stack units."

I didn't mean to get into a discussion here about the ground combat model. That deserves its own thread, which I'll start in the next day or two, when I get a break from work. I've taken a closer look at the combat formulas, and run them through a spreadsheet to see how various factors affect the results. I think some people will be surprised. I also have some suggestions, and I think other people will come up with some good ones, too, just as you have.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by arby:

Oh, I think the combat model does an excellent job of simulating ground combat during the World War. Unfortunately, it's WWI, not WWII. Think about it: if you took planes out of the equation, you'd have a perfect replica of trench warfare on the Western Front, with units battling for months over a few miles. In contrast, WWII ground combat was remarkably fluid, featuring armored breakthroughs, sweeping pincer movements, entire armies finding themselves suddenly surrounded. To the extent that happens here, it is only because of air power. You bomb some unit into oblivion, then exploit that.

I wonder if this is a result of two things:

Attacked armies which don't retreat, and

Damaged armies which can be pumped back up to

full strength, turn after turn.

As far as the latter is concerned, I have an idea.

A unit with no experience in SC1 is pretty much

equal to "green": they have had basic and

advanced combat training, drills and all that,

and have a basic idea of how to operate together

as a unit, even if they have no actual combat

experience.

But imagine a unit, heavily damaged in combat,

which then receives hordes of new recruits which

are then thrust right into the fray. Wouldn't

their "experience level" be >lower< than that of

a green unit which at least starts off highly

organized, and everyone knows what they are

supposed to do? But all those raw reinforcements

will be running around, in an already chaotic

situation, with virtually no idea of what their

role is?

So have an experience level "lower" than green-

if green is zero, then raw [as described above]

would be -1 [negative one]. This would mean a

defender couldn't keep reinforcing a unit turn

after turn without that doing nasty things to

unit cohesion and combat ability [which could

also be reflected in readiness levels if you

like-a reinforced unit would naturally have a

lower readiness than a unit which has been

sitting on the front undamaged for 5 turns].

If brought behind the front for a spell, a raw

unit would eventually get back to 0 [green]-

say it gains 1/3 of a point per turn as long as

it isn't further reinforced.

John DiFool

[Shaka of Carthage]

Arby

Ok, I'll hold my responses until you make that topic.

Except for one point... in game terms, the difference between WWI and WWII is that in WWII you have units that can "ignore" a enemy units ZOC. We have that ability in SC. What corrupts it, is the fact that we as players are smart enough to realize that if we stack the units next to each other, the enemy doesn't have the ability to penetrate that ZOC.

That is the technique that the French are trying to use, those are the tactics that we use to stop Amphib invasions, and those are definately what occurs if Russia survives the first few turns.

Problem is not the combat per se, its the ability to build units as fast as you can spend the MPP's.

[JerseyJohn]

As so often happens a Forum moves beyond the original idea and beyond the originator.

My personal opinions are extremely similar to Arby's. He's hit the right chord regarding air combat, tactical ground attack and the way ground combat is conducted in the game.

What I believe is missing is the equivalent of the Assualt attack in COS where several units plus a distant airborne unit can team up against a single defender and afterwards even assault it individually!

This makes it possible to punch a hole in the defending line and run tank units through, expanding the breach and simulating a true Blitzkrieg operation.

On top of that a rear area unit can be brought into place in the newly overrun territory through a reserve movement rule, helping to protect the armor and another unit, army or corps, can be shot forward using a special once a turn lift move, further reinforcing the breakthrough.

Now that's an Offensive! We don't have anything like that in SC and it's sorely needed.

Additionally, buy not having as many airfleets (and in COS they aren't as powerful) the game attains greater balance.

SC and COS are both great game concepts. Combine the best points of both with a few tidbits from HiCom and you have the ultimate WW II in Europe simulation. I hope Hubert understands, as I'm sure he does, that when I mention these other techniques it's in the spirit of not reinventing the wheel and all that.

I think a tremendous amount of the material that's been posted here during the last few days needs to be placed in their own forum areas. Including Rockets, which I meandered into.

Great stuff, all of it. Glad to see so many of the site's heavyweights in here, resulting in a gold mine of information and new ideas.

[ March 05, 2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Well John, what the hell is wrong with you, you want the game to be more historic? I assume that Air Force units are around 500 to 1000 planes (who knows though, no one will comment on the unit size), the Barbarrosa Scenario has three german air units like the historical amry did, and thay had 3,000+ planes of all types.

Germany in the openning years, Britian in No. Africa, the Ruskies in 44, and the US in France, were successful because the had Air Superiority. Blitzkrieg and any assult wouldn't work without it. Having 10 air units destroying one ground unit stinks. Your right!

With the current game engine what can you do? The real solution is to have a front area where air units have superiority or not, but how do you do this now!

Also limiting the damage a plane can do to units would help, say 1 strength pt max, or readiness and or entrenchment only.

[88mm]

Well, played it a few times now and i can tell you; this game is anything but historicle ! It doesn't even come close

There's just too much compression of time and forces that it hardly can be called "historicle".

few examples:

1) When i play German from 1939-polen, i never see one britisch unit (BEF) when i am invading france.

2) subs travel 250 miles (5hexes) in one turn, Airplanes 300miles and battleships/cruisers/dlightcarriers travel the world like they were JET/nuclear propelled

3) in a fifty mile radius you can operate with only one unit. Funny when i see that Germany launched "Autum Mist" in 1944 with 2 panzer-armees and a infantry-armee in a very small area.

well, you get my point. So if you're after more play-balance, ala. But don't even bother to make Sc more "historicle". In it's current form it will never be......

In a real historicle game there should be many more factors included, where can i get the manpower, resources and money to support your massive armee. Do i put my steel in tanks or battleships ? How can i suffient re-equip and supply my heavily losing material units. Shall i wait another 3 months to equip my PZiii with /L60 or like hitler send them anyway and recall them back later. And the list could go on and on.

So any WWII wargame isn't a historicle correct game, it only tries (if that's their intention) to come close to it as much as possible and yet it have to stay "playable"

my 0.02cents

[JerseyJohn]

88mm

Everything you've said we've been saying for months. If you make a quick trip to Hubert Cater's sticky thread (Frequently Asked Questions, etc.,) and go down a posting you'll see links I've set up to Threads that discuss all the issues you've just talked about. One of them involves stacking, which I feel this game needs badly, along with retreat and advance after combat among other things.

You'll see that others have said exactly the same things about the naval aspect and air fleets -- the whole thing. That's the basic battle among the people who post here: those who want the game to be more complex and more realistic, and those who want to keep things simple even if it means not having realism.

One other thing, you forgot weather. I've got a link to a thread on that over there as well. Where's the Russian Winter?

[santabear]

Many good thoughts here; I have an observation/quesion:

Perhaps my understanding of history is skewed (it may well be, since I haven't read a lot of "military" history), but weren't the German reinforcements headed to repel Overlord virtually destroyed by Allied air? (I have an uncle who served in the paratroops who walked past the carnage about 2 days later--said it was indescribable)

And wasn't the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) offensive successful for Germany until the weather cleared up and the Allied air could fly again? If I'm on track here, these facts would seem to argue for strong air fleets. Someone please correct me if I'm off the beam though, please.

In any case, Andrew's point about ground combat being static in SC w/o air is very well taken. Once the front is "stabilized" in Russia, the only way to restore room for maneuver is with air.

If air is downgraded, this bear would certainly favor a corresponding "artillery" unit/research category. Art'y always was the main 'bloodletter,' and it's role in SC seems to be minimalized.

RE Jersey's last post: I would welcome more complexity/"realism." Not only would it feed the history buff in me, but it would introduce more strategic decision making, which to me is the real fun of the game.

[ April 28, 2003, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

It's a hard call.

What so many people are complaining about is the way air units destroy corps and army sized units; that really isn't very historically accurate. Ironically, it fits perfectly with the tactics the U. S. recently used in Iraq, but how many orders of magnatude have air units progressed since the period in the game.

True also that by the last year of the war in both theaters, the Allies had attained such an overwhelming advantage thay they were able to attack at will and that accounts for much of the devastation inflicted upon German units. Even some degree of air parity would have saved the Germans tens of thousands of casualties not only from direct attacks but also from not having their lines of communication disrupted at will.

What I think is really needed in SC is a way of stacking ground units combined with an advance and retreat after combat system. That would make the ground war a lot more fluid and the air units, while still very strong, would no longer be the only decisive way to punch a hole in the enemy line.

Below is a link to the Topic I've been talking about.

link to Expanded HQs with Stacking Capacity -- Advance and Retreat After Combat.

[ April 28, 2003, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[santabear]

JJ: I've always agreed with your stacking idea, and after perusing the link you supplied, I'm really convinced. I had never thought about 'forced retreat,' but it's obvious. There isn't any way to disperse a unit in SC...it has to be killed; and certainly most WWII soldiers weren't going to 'stand and die' in every combat (and if there were, they only fought once...sort of a brutal 'natural selection').

This also goes back to some of the previous discussions of maneuver warfare, the goal of which is to force withdrawals. The 'retreat' idea would restore some of the maneuver to the game. Some would be enforced by combat, other would be voluntary (player driven) as supply lines were threatened (except for the budding Hitlers who don't mind encirclements...).

Though it's unlikely I could contribute much, I look forward to READING what would emerge in the promised ground combat thread. I also have some rocket thoughts that I'll save for a dedicated topic.

=============================

Back into the Wild Blue Yonder (3 thoughts):

1. Assuming the ground combat changes were made, there would also be a need to decide on what "level 5" aircraft were--presumably some actual post-WWII aircraft--and to model that performance in the game. Since 1939 aircraft performance is also known, the various levels could be figured out between those endpoints.

It would also be interesting to model each step in aircraft performance on actual aircraft. For example the Brits might go from Hurricanes to Spitfires then through the various mods; Americans from Airacobras to Thunderbolts to Mustangs, etc. This would mean that one level increase for the various countries would yield different actual increases in combat ability.

Any interest in this? What would this do for game balance?

No doubt it would be more complex to program, but it wouldn't add any more complexity from the players' point of view.

======================

2. Your stacking idea takes me back to my youth. My favorite games growing up were PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader, and one called "The Next War." In The Next War, air combat took place in three phases:

1. Air superiority

2. Air to surface (naval)

3. Air to ground

If you wanted to make a ground attack, you had to first fight an 'air superiority' battle to gain (temporary, local) control of the airspace for the attack; THEN new units could launch a ground attack. This was in an exceedingly detailed game (with separate types of fighters, tank busters, etc.), and that principle is only partially taken up by SC.

One way in which realism is lost and the role of airpower is skewed is that only one air unit can intercept--as though aircraft flying from Smolensk to Rostov wouldn't be attacked by every air unit they passed. Many of the air attacks we make in SC cover such ground that they could potentially be intercepted by 2 or 3 airfleets; or we attack targets defended by 2 or 3 airfleets within range, but only 1 unit intercepts.

If defending air units could 'gang up' on attackers, the attrition rate of air combat would increase and the role of the air would also be reduced--until one side established air superiority. That should be the goal of air combat--control the air and you control the battlefield--not aircraft used primarily to zap infantry units.

===================

3. The destruction of units in SC (to me) doesn't represent their physical anihilation (i.e. every soldier is killed); it represents a unit that has been dispersed and that has had its supply destroyed. Air units can't 'destroy' an army, but they can destroy its fuel and supply depots, disperse its troops, destroy its communications and disrupt its command. That army ceases to exist as a fighting force. When it 'disappears' from the SC map, it allows an enemy unit to occupy that hex--in real life they would be driving (assuming tanks are next) past (or over) defenseless enemy soldiers. But there would be no significant resistance to the Panzergruppe in any case. Does this make sense?

(OK. Sorry for the long post; as Churchill would say "I'm feeling fertile this morning.")

[ April 28, 2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[pzgndr]

This is an interesting topic and there are a lot of suggestions. Rather than change any one thing about air power, several issues should be addressed for SC2 and they all need to be considered together for the overall effect.

Range. If 400 miles (SR=8) is acceptable, we probably don't want to reduce SR too much at L0. Dropping from 6 to 5 may be OK, then L5 L/R would be 10. That's plausible.

Cost. Cost increases for tech levels and/or force pool limits would work best for limiting these massive air forces some players are using. Using economics as the natural limiter would be best. Right now there's no increased cost for those L5 jets other than the slightly higher build cost. Reinforcement costs should also increase. Players would then have to consider the benefits of high tech versus the very real maintenance costs of keeping those jets flying.

Combat. Some various tweaking of the combat tables can reduce air attack values, but we don't want to eliminate ground attack altogether. While it's true you don't have historic examples of air bombardments destroying ground units, it's also true in SC that you don't have combined attacks. So one must "pretend" all these individual attacks are more or less happening together over the course of a game turn. 3R prevented pure air attacks by limiting air factors to 3x the ground attack factors, which is nice but not practical in the SC game system.

Escort/Interception. Do we really want EVERY available unit within range to jump up for these duties whenever a mission is flown? The current system may be occassionally irritating, but the alternative is an unworkable system of user intervention. Unworkable for PBEM because you introduce a new escort/interception designation phase, and annoying for TCP/IP play. A trigger to turn off these missions for individual air units would be nice. The current system really isn't bad, it just takes getting used to and learning where to position your air units and how to orchestrate your air battles.

All of these issues need to be considered for SC2. A few minor adjustments here and there should be fine. We need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water and introduce new problems - like making Air Fleets ineffective or too complicated to use.

[gorber]

Hi there long time no se...

I agree with Liam on most of his comments. The solusion could be straightforward i think, anyway here is some other suggestion how to reduce fighter supremacy:

- fighters will only punish a ground/sea unit with 50% effectivity if the attacked unit is below 50% strenght. This would take the edge of killing off ground units with fighters only and also reduce fighter effectiveness in general. The effect should be that airpower is a way to keep enemy units pinned down (has to strengten them to be able to attack stronger units hence loosing movement)

- Let the cost to strategically reallocate units (both air and land) be raised due to distance OR even easier to program: let the unit be "out of movement" for an extra turn if the distance is beyond X number of hexes. (Hell... now i canstand in Turkey and relocate to english channel in one turn with no penalty)

- Let there be an upper level of the total number of units (also let the upper limit increase as countries are concoured to simulate boost in economy/supply and manpower) This will also get the effect that if you want to have plenty airpower you will have to cut back on the ground units and as the ground units is vital to destroy and conquer enemy units according to the 50% rule in suggestion #1 the effect should be a more equal balance between air and land units.

Yesterday i played a game where i massed 14 air units in western europe after conquering Russia. Lets face it: No country could sustain 14 jet AIRFLEETS with the power that they represent in SC.

Whaddaya think?

[gorber]

guys as i have always said... High command had it all...

forced retreat was one feature...

fighter intervention was optional...

reallocation took turns to complete...

and so on.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by arby:

...You buy a lot of them (air fleets) because that's the most successful strategy. And the reason it's the most successful strategy is because of the combat system....etc., etc.

Exactly. It's a game. Not a simulation (Thanks Shaka).

As it stands now, it can take 20-30 hours (or more) to finish a game that covers 1939-47. While I agree with many of the ideas that would move SC from a game to a simulation, I balk at anything that hints of "micro-management" (and adds even more time to complete a 1939 campaign).

While we all look forward to improvements, we also expect them to be implemented in the same elegant style that makes SC so much fun to play. This will take time, and time is money.

I would expect any game designer to get paid for his efforts, and implementing many of the improvements listed in this Forum is going to take a chunk of change.

And there's the rub.

Sincerely,

Ken

[gorber]

Yes, well...

Micro management is what i am into and is there something that says that a simulation is not a game or that a game can not have micro management?

A few features would be nice to have as options for those who like micro management (hey what do you know - High command had quick/detailed combat option too ..)

For me its not a problem that a game takes more than 30 hours to complete and that time is money - I dont play more, each game just takes longer to complete hence i play fewer games. Its not the number of completed games that counts, not to me anyway..

optional micro-management is an excellent way to get more out of this fine game or SC2. After this long time it takes me x number of hours to win the game and frankly i have been missing those extra options for some time now. The thing for me as a "micro-manager) is that i would like to get the opportunity to alter the outcome of WW2 by doing thing different and this implies that i would like to have more things to tweak. Frankly: how many optional ways of victory are there in this game or any other ww2 stratsim for that matter? Yesterday i got this feeling that "what am i doing here moving these bits-and-bytes boxes around on my screen with basically only a random generator making the outcome (ok besides my geniously planned movement of these boxes and ofcause the buying of the bits-and-bytes boxes for those hard earned MPP:s...)?

To bad nobody seams to want to take advantage of the fine game of HICOM, the code is just lying there to pick up, except its not Eiffel ofcource..

[KDG]

Bill Macon, pretty much agree with all your points.

Range.

I agree. Drop range by one at the beginning.

Cost.

Make tech increases increase the cost by 20%, instead of 10%. Or increment it. 1st tech increase gets a 10% increase, 2nd gets a 15% increase, 3rd gets a 20% increase, etc.

Combat.

Only allow ships and planes to knock down units to 1 strength.(although the worry would be that you could then line your coast with units and there would be no way to destroy them.)

Escort/Interception.

Leave as is. Units with strength 4 and under currently don't intercept, thus you can control what intercepts and what doesn't, without extra micromanaging.

[kenfedoroff]

gorber

Good points, and many of us on the Forum would agree with you.

However, would it make Economic sense for a game developer to head in this direction (more simulation than game, "micro management", etc.)

Even if every original owner of SC buys the next edition plus two extra copies to give away as Christmas gifts, it still might sell better in the mass market if the game format is kept at the present level of simplicity.

While we all post our wants and wishes for SC2 here at the Forum from a wargamer perspective, I would speculate that the game designer has to look at the mass market and include the economic perspective, (otherwise he might as well go do something else with his time).

I am not familiar with the game (HiCom), of which you speak, but I would guess the present designer of SC does not want his creations to languish or "drop off the radar screen" like (HiCom) apparently did.

(Again, this is pure speculation on my part), the game designer might want his game to appeal to the casual gamer as well as the hardcore wargamer.

Does this make sense?

(I did have fun with italics today though...)

Ken

[Shaka of Carthage]

gorber

What exactly do you mean by "the code is just lying there to be picked up"? I've mentioned a few things about how High Command got it right. But it also did quite a few things wrong. And lets not forget Clash of Steel if we are going throw various things into the mix. HC and COS both tried to hit the mark of being historical.

What SC is not is a historical wargame. So comparing it to HC or COS is unfair in this respect.

SC has hit the mark dead on of being a playable game with a WWII flavor. WWII "Lite" where the Greys get to beat up on the Blues before the Reds come pouring in, with everyone using WWII equipment. Just don't insult SC by calling it a "beer & pretzels" or "Axis & Allies clone". Doing so just shows a lack of understanding of the terms.

When you look at the suggestions we make you can see we are really asking for three (3) different things.

</font>

• changes to balance the current game.</font>
• changes to make it more realistic/historical.</font>
• changes to expand the theater of operations.</font>

There are obviously subdivisions within those categories. The first category is pretty much covered, other than the Air. And not from the what it can or can't do, but rather because of the unbalancing effect it has on the game.

The problem is that we get mixed up on our solutions, trying to use "historical" examples to justify whatever gaming fix we believe in.

stacking and retreat after combat

Short version here, since I rambled on way longer than I thought.

There is no problem with stacking. One reason why the Dutch Gambit is successful. You line up coast to coast and you get trench warfare, be it in WWI or WWII. Just that in WWII it was called attrition warfare. If anything, this shows that the combat model between same units within SC works and is playable. In the game, the Greys can get enough units to do just that against the Reds. Historically, the Germans never had that option.

There is no need for retreat after combat at the strategic scale in a turn based system. But it seems the simple solution to "fixing" the attrition combat problem. For the same reason people believe the Air is fine as it is. Or you hear "where is the artillery?".

Armor broke the trench lines. Armor made the linear defense obsolete. But armor is "broke" in SC... when armor attacks, it should be using the Tank Attack factor against a Corp/Army unit. Not the Soft Attack factor.

[ April 28, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

When you look at the suggestions we make you can see we are really asking for three (3) different things.

</font>

• changes to balance the current game.</font>
• changes to make it more realistic/historical.</font>
• changes to expand the theater of operations.</font>

Dammit Man!... Where did you get those snappy doo-dads for your bullet points?

I'm jealous.

Sincerely,

Ken

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

Interesting point about different countries developing aircraft in different ways. The nearest I've seen the discussion go in that sense was in the following thread -- I feel like I'm carrying the damn things in a sack, handing them out as I walk the street!

*Separate Units and Research Fields for Prop and Jet Aircraft

Shaka,

The reason I felt it ought to be advance and retreat after combat was to give a depleted defender an opportunity to be reinforced. Of course, after retreating it could be attacked again by other units and, if it's still strong enough, be pushed back a second time.

I think that would accurately simulate a lot of the action that took place in WW II.

In North Africa, for example, the Afrika Korps didn't destroy the Eighth Army after Second Tobruk, it just drove it back with moderate losses. In the historical equivalent of 8th Army's subsequent turns it withdraws into Egypt and digs in west of Alexandria -- one of the few hexes that actually should be without an open flank, accurately simulating the Qattara Depression south of El Alemain.

[ April 28, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[gorber]

Ok, guys lets get a few things straighted out about my opinion on HICOM:

I love HICOM. I want to, and i have the right to, even if i agree it had major flaws especially the AI and politics system (apart from the ordinary bugs like units in the ocean aso). What it DID have (notice the italics there...) was a key factor that ALL wars are about: resources. You had to get BOTH that oil and iron to succeed and furthermore you had to have the supplyline to provide it to your factorys/shipyards. MPP:s is just a substitute for this.

The stacking and unit combining really rocked even if you anti-micro-managers dont agree. Period. And furthermore it was just an an option.

Furthermore: you could let the computer AI do some of your work if you didnt have the time as most of you guys here doesnt seam to have (ok this feature wasnt brilliant i agree, but it worked to some satisfaction at least).

MAJOR (bold AND italics there...) advantage in HICOM also: Building your units took time wich means you had to plan ahead more for your campaigns. Building airfleets didnt take one turn for example. In Hicom one factory built one thing at a time, which also meant that you had to keep that factory supplied. You could also transfer material from factories to another to speed up manufacturing.

Re-allocations took time as i mentioned earlier, just as in real life.

The auto-retreat system worked just fine and simulated the realism on the battlefield. You had to persue the retreating unit and kill it to prevent it from beeing built up. Where is the realism in assuming the army commander wouldnt retreat if he was hit by a superior unit? (And by the way they didnt ALWAYS retreat only during special curcumstanses)

Same goes for the option of air intervention. Worked as a charm. You could keep your smashed unit on the ground to be rebuilt later instead of beeing anihilated beyond your control.

(And btw believe me i know much of the arguments against all these stuff as these have been posted here over a year now in reruns over and over again)

I could even agree that HICOM is too specialised but, hey... its still what I want. Are you really trying to convince me that i doesnt want what i want?

I am perfectly clear on the fact that Hubert wont make another Hicom - i am just trying to influence him and the rest of you.. But if he would make all feature we post in here he would have to hire some serious floorspace and personnell, and the game would be very, very unplayable

As Hubert is one of the few people out there that really tries to build a grand strategy wargames i would never try to imply that his game is not good enough - its on my top 10 list of most played games so he has done some things right!. Its just that i am a demanding customer and i wish for more! yesterday already!

/Gorberdude

[kenfedoroff]

gorber

More good points.

</font>

• Nice use of italics</font>

Sincerely,

Ken

[KDG]

I wouldn't mind a delay in the purchase process of units. Allow reinforcements to be same turn, but have new units take until the following turn(or turns).

Also agree w/ Shaka that tanks should be more effective in attacks vs. ground units(but only if planes were nerfed).

[JerseyJohn]

Gorber

HiCom and COS were both very good games.

In HiCom I liked the idea of not having to go to war at all. If the Axis player was willing to delay things he could wait till 1940 or later and, using the Diplomacy function, go to war not only stronger but with Hungary and Rumania already in alliance with him. It's big weakness is it is too complicated for it's AI to handle properly. As the human player you're also stuck with an excessive amount of micromanagement every single turn; things that could just as easily be set once and only set again when you want to change them, such as diplomatic tries, need to set anew every time you make a move. The computer can do it, of course, but I never trusted it's descisions.

A Web friend of mine is a big enthusiast of this game, it name is J. Ryan Bailey out in Texas and he has a HiCom club at Yahoo. The latest address I have for him is:

jryanb2000@yahoo.com

That may be an out of use address, if so your best try would be to find his HiCom club at Yahoo.

I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing from anyone who likes HiCom. He's also spent a number of years trying to get the owners to put out a Windows version and I believe they told him they would, but it hasn't happened yet.

COS was good in areas that HiCom was bad in, mainly game flow and the AI was a little better. It had different options and a different feel to it. At first glance SC seems similar, but those who are aquinted with both games know they are vastly different.

It would be good to combine the best aspects of all three games into StrategicHiComCoS.

[ April 28, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]