An Amalgamation of Ideas

[Reepicheep]

This is intended to be an amalgamation of suggestions for the sequel to SC dealing primarily with air power and land combat. The game is fairly well balanced and a great deal of fun as it is; but as is generally accepted, there is room for significant improvement.

First, a couple axioms:

#1. The key to SC's playability is its elegant depth.

#2. SC should be as realistic, yet as fun as is practically possible.

Also, the ideas contained here are not all my own- many folks here have contributed to them; and I couldn't name them all.

Now, the interaction between air fleets and land units should be improved; and the best way to go about correcting that is to look at their historical capabilities and requirements. As has been said, they weren't used to destroy armies outright; they were primarily used to suppress and disrupt units, and destroy supply convoys. I don't know if suppression really applies at the scale of SC; but if it did, air units probably should have the capability of suppressing strength points, as well as reducing supply and readiness (and readiness should be a defensive factor if it isn't already). A fully-suppressed unit would not be able to inflict much damage- if any- and would attempt to retreat if attacked.

Regardless of suppression, I think air fleets should affect the supply and readiness of land units- not their strength (and that applies to HQ's as well, though I reckon HQ's don't have readiness).

In regards to air-to-air combat, I think the effectiveness of air fleets should be reduced somewhat the farther away from their airbase they have to fly to engage in combat. The effect could be applied to ground attacks, but less significantly.

Also, a major factor in the war- attacking airbases directly with air units- is not properly represented in SC because there is no way to catch air fleets on the ground. When attacking an air fleet directly with another air fleet, I think there should be a varying factor that represents planes caught on the ground- thus increasing the defenders casualties. Radar research could eliminate that factor, while an unexpected declaration of war could make it almost 100%. Flying over a great deal of enemy territory- and especially other enemy units- to reach the enemy airbase could significantly reduce the factor.

Finally, from what I know, I think it wasn't as easy to move air fleets as it is in SC. Moving an air fleet could be made to cost MPP's, with the total depending upon how far it was moved. And there should be limits on the possible distance per turn.

Now, another problem with air fleets- and other units in general is the number that can be made. A few suggestions:

I think there should beat least one more resource in SC- manpower- with perhaps oil as another. All units would cost manpower to build- with armies costing the most, and naval units and air fleets the least. They would cost manpower, as well as MPP's, to reinforce. Manpower would be set per nation, with a certain unalterable amount accrued per turn (unless home areas were overrun). Some casualties could be returned to the manpower pool (representing wounded), depending perhaps upon the distance from a HQ/city and whether or not units were encircled and then destroyed. Manpower would not increase as you captured territory (I don't think significant manpower was gained from that sort of thing- as some was needed to police territory and run industry anyhow).

One thing that is completely missing in SC is the cost of supplies- they are free in SC. There should be a MPP fee per turn for supplying units, while some could also require an oil per turn cost. Air units would probably cost the most, with corps being the cheapest. Subtleties such as a unit not requiring extra supply due to remaining idle for a turn could be included. Also, the supply cost would be dependent upon how much actually reached the unit. The primary gameplay trouble I see with this scheme is that you would need to be able to manually set next-turn supply levels (micromanagement?). However, I think that's historical- consider Rommel's situation in Africa.

Also, units were not built overnight as they are in SC. Some units should take a while to build, like battleships and carriers. Air fleets and tank groups could be in a medium range, while corps could be built quickly. I'm not going to be really precise about the actual times involved- it's the basic concept that counts.

One more thing- that change would make units more precious. But destroying units is perhaps too important as it is. One thing that is not really represented in SC is that fact that the actually fighting strength of a unit represents only a small part of it (as far as I know). If a unit is destroyed- as long as it wasn't encircled and destroyed- it should be possible to refit it instead of having to rebuild it due to the fact that the basic infrastructure would still be in place- it wouldn't be necessary to rebuild that. Note that that would promote encirclement-destruction- a key part of WWII.

Now, on to land combat.

Without air fleets, land combat would be all about finding three corners on which to attack. That doesn't seem right to me. For one thing- why does a 10-strength tank army have to stop if there is only a 2-strength corps in clear terrain in its way? It should be able to advance into that hex and overwhelm the defenders. And how can a defending unit be destroyed if the enemy units never advance into its hex? Is everyone lining up on the edges to fight? I think retreats (modified by possible suppression/readiness factors) should be included, as well as possibly assaults into hexes- in which the attacking unit is attempting to thrust deeply into the hex, thus increasing possible casualties on both sides. I think that should be included at least for amphibious assaults- that way you couldn't block invasions.

I also think it is not realistic for a defending unit to be able to defend at full power when attacked by three different units, modified by losses of course. For instance, a tank group can maul three corps attacking it- one by one; whereas if the game treated the three-unit attack as it ought to be- essentially simultaneous- the tank corps could do some damage to all three- but not nearly as much, and it should take more casualties due to the three-direction attack. That would help out the Russians immensely, I think.

And that leads into a wackier- though I think still good- proposal. It simply does not seem realistic to me to have one side sitting back for a week and conducting no operations whatsoever, and then taking the initiative while the other side sits back and does nothing but defend. I do think SC2 (or SC3- I know this is radical) should be turn-based; but like Combat Mission, where the units of both sides all act at the same time. It would mean a great many changes, but it would definitely be far more realistic. It would make TCP/IP play better, I think- both sides could conduct their turns at the same time, thus saving time; it would probably allow for better AI, as it could be 'thinking' while you are; and PBEM would still play about as it does now procedurally.

Anyhow, taken together, I think the previous proposals (excepting perhaps the same-time/turn-based idea) would realistically resolve quite a few issues with SC, while preserving- if not enhancing- the gameplay.

[ March 29, 2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[John DiFool]

Dude, great ideas, but almost all of that stuff

has been talked to death (and here I promised

myself that I wouldn't get involved anymore in

such "recycled" threads ). Do a search for

any and all key terms, and you'll likely find

said discussions.

John DiFool

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Just trying to summarize your thoughts:

1) Aircraft causes suppression (perhaps that means decrease in readiness, or some other reduction in ability to fight). - Agree

2) Aircraft attack/defence strength modified by range. - Agree

3) Aircraft land (catch em on the ground) assaults possible. - Ok idea, but unnecessary in my opinion.

4) Ability to advance onto enemy's hex? I think this is what you mean. An attacker can occupy the defender's hex and perhaps there is close combat, rather than attacking from a distance (a different hex) - interesting, and I think it would might work in the current game system.

5) Group offensives (ie: group several hexes for one combined attack against one hex). - I like this concept, but need to think more about its implication. You gave one example (3 corps vs 1 tank). Likely, this is a very good and practical idea for SC (just group unit counters for combined assaults). - A reserved agree, suggesting this idea needs more debate.

6) Simultaneous turn excecution - now this is revolutionary! The game would be completely different if this is how it played out. Personally, I find simultaneous turn execution the pinacle of gaming. It is the most realistic and most exciting way to play. A wholehearted Agree!

An alternative to group offensives and occupancy of the same hex is discussed in the stacking and retreat for land units suggestion summarized in:

Great ideas

[Reepicheep]

John, I should have mentioned while I post only rarely, I read many of the threads here (I'm allowed to surf the 'Net at work- but not post). Thus I have a good idea of the gameplay discussions that have gone on here. I know some of what I included has been discussed frequently, but I think a good bit of what I wrote is at least new twists on old ideas.

Plus, I was trying to put together some ideas I liked and thought were realistic into a package in an attempt to show how the summation of them might result in a balanced- and more enjoyably realistic- game (some ideas are good, but taken singly would unbalance the game as it is now).

Tiglath, I agree- the catching-planes-on-the-ground idea is not very important- but it would be more realistic (I think), and would not require any more micromanagement.

Anyhow- thanks, fellas!

[JerseyJohn]

Reepicheep

JohnDiFool steers you true; as a matter of fact the two of us reached pretty much the same conconclusion at the same time and we've both cut down a bit on our postings.

I understand you're point about organizing things, which has also been attempted several previous times.

I'll try and list links here to some of the best previous threads similar to the subjects you've listed. Can't do it today, but hopefully during the next few days.

We've needed some sort of an FAQ or sticky post system for a long time, but last time it came up there was a lot of hardfeelings generated from it, so since then we've more or less carried on informal discussions on odd topics.

Anyway, I didn't mean to make it sound like been there done it, because all new input is always beneficial and it sounds as though you've got some good ones to offer. If they've been stated earlier it isn't a big deal. The vast majority of things I've suggested were suggested easlier but we all had fun tugging it around and sometimes getting mad at each other then patching things up. I hope you'll get as much fun from it as I did and still do. Hopefully Hubert keeps track of the points he can eventually use, so none of it is a real waste of time and as you add infor you'll always learn things from other people's input.

Good Luck with your project and I hope to be of some assistance further down the road.

[ March 29, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Reepicheep

I wonder, if the future SC has systems that are totally different than current SC, then is it really SC?

Air units suppress Ground units ... Agree.

Air units effected by range ... Agree, but conditional. This would be alot easier if there was a Fighter, Bomber, Attack and possibly Air Transport units instead of one generic Air unit.

Attacking an airbase ... This one is difficult. How do you represent "surprise" at the grand strategy scale? There has been some discussion of this, especially in regards to the surprise Axis attack on Russia. Basically what you want is the ability to attack an Air unit, without that air unit being able to respond. I think the answer lies in the difference between a "formal" DoW versus a "suprise" attack. As for a turn by turn effect, I think that is something that should be reflected in the readiness value of the air unit. Maybe someone should start a new topic on this.

Moving an air unit ... you suggest that it should cost MPPs. What costs are you trying to reflect? Moving the immobile Air Force infrastructure to a new location? As far as limiting the distance per turn, we already have that. If you are referring to the fact that you can "operate" the unit halfway around the world in one turn, then, yes, you do have a point. But thats true for all the units performing an operate move.

Manpower and Oil ... agree. While I won't go into detail (since I already have wrote a couple of topics regarding this), I will mention that the military manpower pool would increase as nations were conquered. It just wouldn't be as large an increase as one obtained from a "willing" ally.

Supplies ... Are you referring to a maintenance cost in MPPs per unit? Or are you referring to actually having to purchase supply points that units consume? Could you elaborate on this point please?

Unit build time ... Agree.

Destroying the fighting strength of a unit ... You are correct that the combat power of a unit is a small percentage of the total strength of that unit. But the SC model is fairly accurate, if we accept the fact that the strength points represent the combat power of the unit, not the total manpower of the unit.

Land combat ... I'd like to respond to that one in a seperate post.

"wacky" proposal ... Basically the argument against Turn based movement and Real Time movement. The simulatenous movement concept is the way to go, but you are talking about a whole different game system now. Let me make sure we are clear though... simulatenous movement would consist of me entering my orders for my units, you or the AI would enter your orders for your units, then we both would "watch" our units execute those orders at the same time.

As has been mentioned, most, if not all of these topics have been discussed at one time or another. Whats even funnier, is that these same discussions and topics occur repeatdly in different games that are similar.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Reepicheep

Land Combat

Without air fleets, land combat would be all about finding three corners on which to attack. That doesn't seem right to me.

Why not? One of the basic concepts in wargames, is that for you to win a combat, you need a 3:1 ratio in combat power. Different nations accomplish that different ways, either thru superior numbers, superior tech or a combination.

Finding "three corners" is no different then trying to cut off enemies line of supply or attacking the flanks and rear.

For one thing- why does a 10-strength tank army have to stop if there is only a 2-strength corps in clear terrain in its way? It should be able to advance into that hex and overwhelm the defenders.

Two things...

Strength of an SC unit is a representation of the combat power of a unit, not the total strength of the unit.

People don't like to get shot. It hurts, and sometimes can actually kill you.

The guys in combat don't have any clue as to the location or strength of the enemy they are facing. So they take some time to prepare an assault. Send out patrols (ground or air), bring up additional ammunition, etc. Then, ideally, launch artillery or armor attacks that reduce the defender to the point where you can walk in and take prisoners.

Ok, thats why the Corp/Army units don't get an overrun attack, but what about the Armor? Lets not confuse an overrun attack with a close assault attack. Overrun attack being one where the attacker just rolls over your position because you cannot hurt them.

Tanks ignore artillery and small arms fire, but are vulnerable to attacks from above ground, below ground and the flanks and rear. You need ideal conditions for an overrun attack. Flat, open terrain. Tanks that are invulnerable to anti-tank weapons or an opponent who has no effective anti-tank weapons. No threat of air attacks. And no threat from land mines. If not, guess what? You send Infantry in either ahead or with the Armor and we are now back to the above situation.

Those conditions are very rare, justifying the movement delay for a unit once it attacks.

And how can a defending unit be destroyed if the enemy units never advance into its hex? Is everyone lining up on the edges to fight? I think retreats (modified by possible suppression/readiness factors) should be included, as well as possibly assaults into hexes- in which the attacking unit is attempting to thrust deeply into the hex, thus increasing possible casualties on both sides.

Now we come to how the designer interpets the results of his combat system. That interpetation determines wheter there is an "advance after combat" or if a unit "retreats". It also can help understand why the "stacking" concept is the wayt it is. I can't speak for Hubert, so I'll just outline some of the things that have to be considered.

WWII infantry combat division attacked on a frontage of roughly two (2) to four (4) miles. Defended roughly twice that frontage. And they occupy alot of space (ie depth).

Most nations operated within a triangular concept, the "two up" and "one back" concept. So you have defense in depth, attacking with reserves, mobile defense, etc. Again, taking up alot of space.

Once you reach a certain point, adding more combat units to an attack adds very little combat power. I forget the military term for this. However, the losses you take don't drop off, and may even increase, since you have more men and equipment packed into the same area (ie not dispersed).

So while a SC unit is not occupying all of the 50 mile hex they are in, they are taking up quite a bit of space. And the defending hex does have a front, flanks and rear. So your frontal assault is limited to a max of about three (3) hex sides.

Attack gets launched. Defenders no longer there. Attackers advance until the find the next defensive line (if any) and repeat the process. They are not aware that they have "eliminated" the enemy unit. After advancing about 20 or so miles into that hex however, with no further resistance, they realize they have gained control of the hex. Now the combat support elements start to move to a different location. Hence, the SC unit "moves" into the new hex. Can all of this occur within one turn? Designers interpetation. Generally speaking though, nonmotorized units could not but motorized ones could.

That also brings up the issue of the defender retreating. What I think SC is trying to do, is thru the combat results (ie unit destroyed) represent the fact that the attackers attacked fast enough to "overrun" the Infantry/Armor and are now wracking havoc among the Artillery and Combat Support. Hence, you no longer have a unit to withdraw. But, by some chance, if you still have a couple of strength points left (ie Infantry/Armor people), you can pull the unit from the front (ie withdraw/retreat).

Casualties ... please see below.

I think that should be included at least for amphibious assaults- that way you couldn't block invasions.

Amphib problem I believe is different. Too many units, no proper representation of amphib supply, lead many to believe that a combat result where the defender "retreats" is correct. Also leads to the belief by many that the amphib units (ie Marines) have a greater combat power than normal units.

I also think it is not realistic for a defending unit to be able to defend at full power when attacked by three different units, modified by losses of course.

You would like to make a distinction between "consecutive" and "simultaneous" attacks. And that assumes our nations have to ability to coordinate simultaneous attacks among multiple Armies. Another level of complexity and open to various interpetations of how WWII Armies operated. Remember the unit scale we are operating at. These are not company or battalion assaults. These are multi-division assaults spread out among 150 miles, that occur over a one-week time frame. Not going help the Russians much.

Casualties ...

You made a reference to this, and I figured this was as good a time as any to address it. I would refer you to the posts arby has made regarding the combat model. While I don't agree with everything he said, I do believe that he is correct in that the attacker is not suffering enough combat losses (ie casualties). Maybe its because SC has "abstracted" the rate of return (ie casualties returning to duty). Maybe not.

[ March 29, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Reepicheep]

Thanks, JerseyJohn! Like I said, I've read many- if not most- of the threads in which you fellas hashed things out; and I don't want to trouble you to take time to post links to things I've read. But if there was a discussion about the same-time/turn-based idea (excepting the one I started a long time ago), I would indeed be interested.

Shaka, some replies:

Moving an air unit ... you suggest that it should cost MPPs. What costs are you trying to reflect? Moving the immobile Air Force infrastructure to a new location? As far as limiting the distance per turn, we already have that. If you are referring to the fact that you can "operate" the unit halfway around the world in one turn, then, yes, you do have a point. But thats true for all the units performing an operate move.

Yes, I'm referring to moving the ground support infrastructure. For example, an air fleet could rebase a couple hexes away without penalty, but (for example) would have to pay five MPP's to move three hexes, seven to move four, twelve to move five, eighteen to move six, and so on.

And in general, I think the cost of operating units should be tied to how far they are moved- instead of the one-size-fits-all cost we have now. Also, I do think there should be limits on how far things can be operated.

Manpower and Oil ... agree. While I won't go into detail (since I already have wrote a couple of topics regarding this), I will mention that the military manpower pool would increase as nations were conquered. It just wouldn't be as large an increase as one obtained from a "willing" ally.

Good point- I hadn't thought about willing allies such as Romania. I don't know enough about manpower from conquered territory to really argue that point- I just know some of it would be used to power the industries in the conquered territory, while some from 'home' would be required to police the area. Not sure what the net difference would be. It does seem that that sort of manpower probably would be good primarily for conscripts- but not for tank crews, pilots, or sailors; thus at the scale of SC, I'm not sure it would be a significant contribution.

Supplies ... Are you referring to a maintenance cost in MPPs per unit? Or are you referring to actually having to purchase supply points that units consume? Could you elaborate on this point please?

I'm basically referring to the former, though I think it should be possible to adjust how many MPP's you are spending per turn on supplies by reducing the future supply levels of units. For instance, a German tank group in the U.K. has a maximum supply of five. If keeping it at its full supply cost 10 MPP's per turn, it would only cost 5 MPP's to keep it at half supply. And if you wanted to reduce its supply to 3 next turn to free up MPP's for something else, you could do so; thus its supply would only cost 3 MPP's for that turn.

And it's supply could cost even less if it simply sat and did nothing for a turn. And now that I think about it, it would be good to be able to 'save' supplies to prepare for an offensive. Ergo, if maintaining a tank group without combat cost 1 MPP a turn, and you were sending it 3 supply points a turn, each turn it would gain 2 supply points.

Also, perhaps understrength units wouldn't require the same maintenance costs as full strength units, while overstrength units would cost more.

Destroying the fighting strength of a unit ... You are correct that the combat power of a unit is a small percentage of the total strength of that unit. But the SC model is fairly accurate, if we accept the fact that the strength points represent the combat power of the unit, not the total manpower of the unit.

Yes- but refitting strength points costs less than rebuilding a unit. I'm saying that if you lose 100% of the fighting strength of a unit, you should still be able to refit the unit provided the basic support infrastructure is in place (determined by how much territory is overrun by the enemy forces). I would say the 'ghost' 0-strength unit prior to refitting would either be automatically retreated to a nearby HQ or city behind the lines, or returned to a pool from which it could then be deployed.

Otherwise, you're paying extra for something you already have.

"wacky" proposal ... Basically the argument against Turn based movement and Real Time movement. The simulatenous movement concept is the way to go, but you are talking about a whole different game system now. Let me make sure we are clear though... simulatenous movement would consist of me entering my orders for my units, you or the AI would enter your orders for your units, then we both would "watch" our units execute those orders at the same time.

Exactly.

One of the basic concepts in wargames, is that for you to win a combat, you need a 3:1 ratio in combat power. Different nations accomplish that different ways, either thru superior numbers, superior tech or a combination.

Finding "three corners" is no different then trying to cut off enemies line of supply or attacking the flanks and rear.

My point was that if air fleets could not damage units- and if nothing else were unchanged- one generally could not advance at all against an enemy line without finding three corners to exploit. I agree that attacking from as many sides as possible is preferable, but it shouldn't be the only method of advancing.

Strength of an SC unit is a representation of the combat power of a unit, not the total strength of the unit.

People don't like to get shot. It hurts, and sometimes can actually kill you.

The guys in combat don't have any clue as to the location or strength of the enemy they are facing. So they take some time to prepare an assault. Send out patrols (ground or air), bring up additional ammunition, etc. Then, ideally, launch artillery or armor attacks that reduce the defender to the point where you can walk in and take prisoners.

But that does not mean units can't advance at all. As it is now in SC, it would generally impossible without the kills from air units. I can kill eight strength points of a corps with two experienced armies with HQ support- but that two-strength corps will refit next turn, and I will not have advanced an inch. That's not right (regardless of how air support works, actually).

Attack gets launched. Defenders no longer there. Attackers advance until the find the next defensive line (if any) and repeat the process. They are not aware that they have "eliminated" the enemy unit. After advancing about 20 or so miles into that hex however, with no further resistance, they realize they have gained control of the hex. Now the combat support elements start to move to a different location. Hence, the SC unit "moves" into the new hex. Can all of this occur within one turn? Designers interpetation. Generally speaking though, nonmotorized units could not but motorized ones could.

That also brings up the issue of the defender retreating. What I think SC is trying to do, is thru the combat results (ie unit destroyed) represent the fact that the attackers attacked fast enough to "overrun" the Infantry/Armor and are now wracking havoc among the Artillery and Combat Support. Hence, you no longer have a unit to withdraw. But, by some chance, if you still have a couple of strength points left (ie Infantry/Armor people), you can pull the unit from the front (ie withdraw/retreat).

I understand what you're saying; but the problem I outlined in my previous point still applies- advancing is basically impossible without air support unless you can find three corners from which to attack. That needs to change- advancing ought to be possible against a broad front without air support (the Battle of the Bulge, for instance).

You would like to make a distinction between "consecutive" and "simultaneous" attacks. And that assumes our nations have to ability to coordinate simultaneous attacks among multiple Armies. Another level of complexity and open to various interpetations of how WWII Armies operated. Remember the unit scale we are operating at. These are not company or battalion assaults. These are multi-division assaults spread out among 150 miles, that occur over a one-week time frame. Not going help the Russians much.

I don't have the knowledge of the subject to really argue the point- I was indeed assuming operations like that were launched. But that does bring up another point- engagement. It seems that units only engage others for very brief periods (a second or two )- whereas if a corps attacked a tank army, it seems to me they would be engaged in combat (probing, assaults, and other small-scale stuff) long enough for another corps to be able to attack the tank army's flank while it was focused on the first corps. It doesn't have to be simultaneous attacks. And it still seems to me that a defending unit's ability to disengage from one combat and then focus completely on one from another direction isn't realistic. Perhaps that could be represented by giving a defender an efficiency penalty for each enemy unit adjacent to it (not counting the attacking enemy), and inflicting a readiness and supply penalty for each combat in which it engages on defense. (That's presuming simultaneous combats are not modeled.)

Anyhow, thanks for the discussion- I believe I've learned some stuff already.

[JerseyJohn]

Reepicheep

If your Time/Turn based idea was covered before I don't recall it. Also you aren't covering the same old ground here, which is good. Some new and interesting topics surfacing which you guys are covering very nicely.

[pzgndr]

Dude, great ideas, but almost all of that stuff has been talked to death

No horse is too dead to beat!

Maybe we really should start a list. With 91 pages of forum and counting, I'm sure we can rustle up over 1000 different ideas just for starters.

And speaking of horses, you know the line about a camel being nothing but a horse designed to military specifications. If SC2 were to be completely redesigned to forum specifications, what the hell would that look like?? :eek:

[JerseyJohn]

"If SC2 were to be completely redesigned to forum specifications, what the hell would that look like??"

-- Bill Macon

It needs to be easier for some and harder for others. We need a map that covers more areea without being any larger than it is now. The units have to be improved while remaining the same and the game itself needs a complete overhaule making it more comprehensive with a brilliant AI that conducts amphibious operations, we need better research and an expanded campaign editor. But in the process SC shouldn't lose it's present simplicity. Is this really asking for too much, Hubert?

[ March 30, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[santabear]

Once you reach a certain point, adding more combat units to an attack adds very little combat power...

Plus in SC, just dumping in additional units takes HQ "attention" and can leave critical units unsupported at very inconvenient times.

Thanks Reepicheep for the great ideas, and thanks Shaka for some nice information.