J P Wagner Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I was thinking that SC2 should perhaps begin in 1936 which would open up new diplomacy angles, as well as tech advancement choices and different military build up options...you can have a scenario begin in 1939 with all the alliances and such in place, but having the actual campaign game begin in '36 will allow you to explore many variants within the historical time frame....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 As originally posted by JP Wagner: I was thinking that SC2 should perhaps begin in 1936... I like this idea, but I would go for, say, early in 1938. It would be far easier to set up game-play, since most belligerents would already be... wolves, or lambs. :eek: And, if you start too early, you might well become bored with the purely political gamesmanship. There are other entire games devoted to JUST the '36-'39 period, yes? Also, if it is 1938, "historical" WW2 would at least be... close to reality, allowing for some small departures with... maybe the Czechs, and Poland's handling of Danzig, and a few of the not-so-committed Minors, like Spain and Denmark and even Bulgaria, which could be influenced through certain Diplomatic action-chances. Also, this would give more than adequate time to arrange your own OOB, ie, decide which units you think you might need, and where they should start. If we do get that slowed-down production line, then, of course, some decisions would have to be made pretty quick, and right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Yep,1936 maybe is a bit early,depends on how much time a turn would cover. But the idea itself is good.SC2 should become more like HOI but then with hexes and turn-based. Starting in let's say aug 1937 will give way to tons of events for all the countries involved and will add a lot the game. A historical 1939 with historical events should also be included. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I agree. And unit locations (except for subs),strengths and technolgy investments made during this period should not be covered by FOW as the Axis and Allied strengths were well publicized in the news media of the time. And if the UK decides to withdraw all troops from Egypt or Malta or Gibraltor or the Italians from Libya or the French from Algeria then these overseas territories should have a chance to revolt and go neutral or join the other side. Example: Gibraltor joins Spain, Malta joins Italy, French Algeria declares its Independence, Egyptian Military Coup. [ October 30, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 An option to start in 1936 with Fog of war off to war is declared would be great. Should the allies be allowed to declare war on the Axis first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer39: An option to start in 1936 with Fog of war off to war is declared would be great. Should the allies be allowed to declare war on the Axis first? [/QUOTe Perhaps but with some penalties...US and Russia may stay out of the War while Spain and Italy may quickly join axis...this is where the diplomacy angle may come into play where war can only be declared if certain aggressions are committed by the other side....Had the French pushed the Germans out of the Rhineland, which they could have easily done, who knows how history may have changed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Great Thread JP There's little left to add and I'm not sure if anyone has gotten this part, so I'll add it here. In 1936 Belgium and France still had a mutual defense pact against -- Guess Who? A lot of interesting alternate paths were open in 1936 that closed a short while afterwards. For one thing, Mussolini was still looking for trade agreements with Britain and France and wanted to be their ally, but on his own terms. The invasion of Ethiopia killed all that and practically drove Italy headlong into an alliance with Germany! As always, things didn't have to go that way. Italy's invasion from it's existing East African colonies was based on an old agreement with Britain and France in which Italy of the late 19th Century was invited to take Ethiopia. Why, because those two countries were already stuffed with colonies and didn't want any part of Africa to be run by native Africans - they were afraid that would make it harder to control their own subjects! Perhaps there could be monthly Diplomacy and special event turns till 1938 and from that point on the actual war could be triggered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I will be very surprised if SC 2 is a WW II based game (unless it's in the PTO). I would guess it will be WWI - Napolianic - USA Cival war - Rome - Mongrals or something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 It sounds good in theory, but in reality, forget it. Too tough to make & be a competitive wargame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 SC2 should become more like HOI Please, no. I will be very surprised if SC 2 is a WW II based game Well, be prepared to be very surprised. As for pre-war maneuvering, I'd like to think a 1938 scenario could be possible. This would allow for Austria and Czechoslovakia options, with possible random delays and random French/UK reactions. Plus provide some reasonable time to make a few force pool decisions prior to Poland. Enough to make a 1938 scenario interesting. :cool: Starting much earlier around 1936 would be terribly boring for this game of action. If SC2 adopts 2-week turns as J P Wagner has often requested, there would be about 70-80 turns of not doing much of anything prior to Poland. PBEM anyone? :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Of course! Monthly Diplomacy turns sounded okay for '36-38, but you're right. Even though there was a great deal of activity during those years, little of it would show up in game terms. So let's try this one: Game Starts in Jan 1938 at peace ... But different variables similar to Edwin's event generator are factored in. Such as ... Belgium and France continue Defense Pact instead of LC neutrality. France will honor it's Alliance with Czechoslovakia. Italy, UK & France do not drift apart, Italy completely neutral till start of war, then goes 0% Pro-Axis or Allies. And whatever others can be thought of -- by EdwinP I'd bet. Anyway, I've always felt and still feel that all these ideas should be game options. The game proper starts 3 Sept 1939. Anything else is a pre-start choice of the player or players. And it all needs a lot of work before it will make sense in game terms. [ October 31, 2003, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Oh, I can see it now; Does the French accidentaly insult the rulers of Belgium? Does Germany bribe/threaten the Netherlands to cause them to leave the Defense treaty with France. Does the Netherlands fear being dragged into a war between France and Germany and leave the defense treaty with France? How does France respond? How does Germany respond? What factors affected the decision of the Belgium government? Some comments on the politics of the time and why the treaty fell apart would be most interesting - JerseyJohn And should the Major powers be able to allocate ministers to the departments of defense, foreign affairs without knowing their strengths or weaknesses (Diplomacy -10%/+10%, Navy Production Costs -10%, Air Fleet Readiness +10%, Air Defense Bonus +1 AD to all cities, etc) Give the players a list of ministers and their bio with some randomness thrown into to their abilities so that a careful read a player may draw a reasonable evaluation of their capabilities. Example: Admiral Nimitz Abilities: Diplomacy +5% (if appointed Foreign Minister), Carrier Costs -10% (If appointed as minister of defense), Navy Costs -5% (if appointed as Minister of Industry. Each Major Power Has Four Ministers - Defense, Foreign Affairs, Research, and Industry. Each can select their ministers from a pool of 9 or 12 personages. Each minister has one area they are good in, one area they are bad in, and two areas that they will not affect for better or worse. A minister might be an expert at managing the economy but an incompetant manager of defense or untrustworthy at Foreign Affairs. Each Minor Power has one Prime Minister with different areas of concern - Ie Is Franco influenced by Military Aid or Economic Aid or Territory or Neutrality? Example: Minister Oblan "Experience Military man favors use of new tactics" Industry (+0%) Military (Corps +5% Readiness) Research (+1% bonus to Armor Research) Foreign Affairs (-10% Reaction) Minister Krakowic "The consumate politician with a knack for resolving industrial strikes" Industry (+5% Production Bonus, Naval Units cost 5% More) Military (-5% Readiness Penalty to Naval Units as he favors land units) Research (1% Bonus to Anti-Tank, -1% to Naval Techs) Foreign Affairs (+10% Reaction) Minister Ransom "Well known industrialist knows how to get things done" Industrial Production +5%, Research +1% Bonus across all areas, Foreign Affairs -10% due to abrasive nature. Influencing Franco is a factor of Diplomacy Rating + Offer (territory, military aid, financial aid) + Counter Offer + Domestic Politics + Tendency towards neutrality. Example: Spain Domestic Politics +0% Pro Axis --IF UK Offers Franco Gibraltor then +30% pro Allies --IF Germany Offers France North Africa then +30% Pro Axis but Italy Goes -50% Pro Axis towards remaining Neutral. Roll of 100 Plus means Franco Joins Axis Spain: Domestic Politics (+0)+ Neutrality (-20%) + North Africa (+30%) + Influence of Germans Foreign Minister (-5%) means that their is a 5% that Spain will Ally with Germany. If the UK gave Spain 100MPP (the UK Counter Offer) then Germany would need a Diplomacy roll of 115 to bring Spain in on their side, and the chance of this event occuring would be zero. Italy: ProAxis +110% + North Africa to Spain -50% + Diplomatic Effect of Foreign Minister -5% = Chance for Italy to Join Axis reduced from 105% to 55% as Italian Government is incensed over alloaction of Africa to Spain by Germany. In fact, a UK offer of 275MPP to Italy would reduce the chance to 0 and give Italy a 1% to ally with the UK. Explanation: On the continum 1 is UK Ally and 100 is German Ally. A gift of 5MPP = a 1 point shift towards your side. 275 MPP = a 55 point shift. A d100 die is rolled and an adjusted result of 100+ means that the Axis wins the ally, a roll of 1- means that the Allies win the ally. Effectively, this means that histroy can be altered but it will not be easy to do so and if so their will be consequences. For example, Beglium might request 500MPP to remain in the defense treaty with France and extend the Maginot line, this would drain resources from France's military buildup. [ October 31, 2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Ah Edwin, you're in rare form tonight! Still trying to get to the great stuff in that USA Thread -- now you toss more great stuff my way and I've got a ton of mundane real life work piling up. But Fear Not, another six hours and I'll be done with the boring earning a living matters and will come back here and to the earlier thread to add more of my insomnia induced philosophical what-ifs. Meanwhile, that other forum is going great guns and missing your input. The input from there always goes back here as most of us post regularly at both. To get there click on the link at my footer. It reminds of Peter Pan where someone grabs someone else by the ankle and they start flying ... forgot the storyline. Mary Martin where are you when I need you most? Anyhow, hoping to see you at the Tree House and will see you back here anon ... (I hope that means later; wonder if it's from Peter Pan too?) [ October 31, 2003, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 JerseyJohn Looking forward to your comments. And I will visit the other thread. Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I'll be the devils advocate and tell you why this is a bad idea. Two completly different game systems. Its hard enough to design a system dealing with land, naval and air combat in a WWII setting and getting it right (ie SC). Notice all the "suggestions" about how if you did this or that, it would make it better? Now we are asking to design a completly different kind of setting, a political game, where the "movement", "combat", etc systems have nothing to do with the "real" game (ie SC2)? And we are asking this of a one man team? Granted, the allure of different '39 beginnings is strong. But there are only so many hours that can be spent on design, programming and testing. If a choice has to be made, would you rather have a game with the political dealings of '36 to '39, or a larger Atlantic and different naval combat system? And no, you can't have both. And 10 lashes to whoever said something about making SC into HOI, only with turns and hexes. HOI should be trying to remake itself into SC and get rid of the clutter that attracts so many but doesn't deliver. Kinda like a beautiful woman who's really a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 10 lashs only, NO give them 20 - then make them search, find and read all the posts on cheating! Ok, enough for today. Just a few more hits on my crack pipe and it will be time for bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 A simple 1936/38 Start Date Option From a list of 3 to 5 Decision Tree Events for Each Major Power (UK/France/Germany) each major power can select two prior to starting the game over a period of 2 pre-game turns. If a player selects an event domestic public opinion may prevent the event from taking place. Example: France decides to withdraw troops from Algeria. This action has a 50% to spark a political firestorm in Parliment which prevents the event from taking place. Example: UK decides to Give Gibraltor to Spain to gain their support in the war against Germany. 50% Outrage in Parliment causes this effort to fail. Example: News of secret alliance involving France and UK Russia leaks out to the Press. 50% this causes all axis minors to Join Germany along with Baltic States, Finland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Poland. Thus, even if you select an option domestic politics might prevent it from occuring. A. Optional Events for France A1. French Treaty with Belgium Mr. Prime Minister The Government of Belgium wants to withdraw from the defense treaty as they fear being dragged into a war with Germany. 1) We do not need Belgium to defend France, The Maginot line is invincible. Express our regrets to the Prime Minister of Belgium. 2) Tell the Prime Minister of Belgium that we will pay to extend the Maginot line into Belgium. (50% Belgium Remains in SD Treaty) Effect: France and Low Countries Begin Game at War with Germany. US does not receive readiness Bonus for Germany Attacking Low Countries. Due to Cost of extending the maginot line one of the French armies is replaced by a Corps. The Maginot Line is extended 1 hex to the North West. A2. French Research Prime Minister, should we spend our resources on expanding our army or researching new technology? 1) Lets Research New Weapons If This option is selected 1 French Army is replaced with 1 Corps and France receives 1 Tech chit in any one area and has a 25% of starting the game with a Level 1 Tech in that selected area. A3. Recall our Foreign Troops Prime Minister, If we recall our overseas troops we can booster the defense of France. Should We recall our troops from Syria ---50% Turkey perceives France as weak and Turkish Troops Annex Syra. ---France gains 1 Corps Should we recall our troops from Algeria ---50% Arab Revolt in Algeria, Arab Partisan Unit Occupys Algiers. ---France gains 1 Corps in France Should we recall our troops from Syria and Algeria ---France gains 2 Corps in France ---75% Arab Revolt in Algeria and 75% Turkey Annexes Syria. B. UK Decision Tree B1. Should we recall our fleet from the Middle East. IF this event is selected then the UK Med fleet starts in the Atlantic and Turkey has a 50% to Annex Iraq. B2. Should we send troops to support the Polish Government? --- If Yes then France and UK have option to station some or all Air Fleets in Poland and Poland starts with a HQ unit and one corps is upgraded to an Army. France has its Air Fleet reduced to a strength of 5 or one army reduced to a corps. B3. Should we give Gibraltor to Spain? B4. Sign A Military Alliance with Russia. UK and France enter into an alliance with Russia that recognizes Russian influence over the Baltic States, Findland, Axis Minors and Poland. If this event occurs the German indutry mobilizes for war with gusto and Germany gains Level 2 Industrial Tech and their is a 50% that The Baltic States, Findland, Axis Minors and Poland Ally with Germany. (ie they get the income but not the plunder). C. German Decision Tree C1. Naval Policy Do we focus on building submarines or battleships or carriers? ---If Subs then Germany loses 1 Battleship and gains 1 Sub and 1 research chit in submarines ---If Carriers then Germany loses 1 Battleship and 1 sub and gains 1 Carrier unit C2. Mobilize the Economy for War Do we mobilize the German economy for War? ---- If Yes then Germany gains 1 Chit in Industrial Tech and the allies (UK/France/Poland)move first. C3. Secret Treaty Do we give Turkey Weapons --- Germany loses 1 Unit (Army or Armor or 2 Corps) and Turkey is 75% likely to Attack Vichy Syria and then move on to attack Egypt and Iraq if England has Withdrawn its fleet to the UK as per option B1. Turkey operates with its own independent AI to take and defend Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Egypt against all major powers.If Italy withdraws from Libya Turkish units advance into it from Cairo. IF Bulgaria is still Neutral there is a 2% per turn that Turkey will attack Bulgaria after taking Iraq and Syria. If Turkey controls Bulgaria there is a 1% per turn that Turkey will attack a neutral Greece in revenge the Greek attack upon Turkey after WWI. IF Turkey controls Bulgaria and Greece (very rare) then 1% per turn to threaten DOW Italy unless Italy turns over Albainia to Turkey. -- To be Continued -- [ November 03, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 Originally posted by Bill Macon: Please, no. Well, be prepared to be very surprised. As for pre-war maneuvering, I'd like to think a 1938 scenario could be possible. This would allow for Austria and Czechoslovakia options, with possible random delays and random French/UK reactions. Plus provide some reasonable time to make a few force pool decisions prior to Poland. Enough to make a 1938 scenario interesting. :cool: Starting much earlier around 1936 would be terribly boring for this game of action. If SC2 adopts 2-week turns as J P Wagner has often requested, there would be about 70-80 turns of not doing much of anything prior to Poland. PBEM anyone? :eek: [/quote By all means Bill, I will gladly dump the whole notion of the game starting in '36 if bi weekly turns were implemented, but along the lines JJ proposed, the early years could be abstracted into phases where diplomacy,tech,and production are dealt with until war is declared..... regarding IRON RANGER'S comments...I too wondered what type of game SC2 will be, and refrained from speculating on ETO type recommendations... however, based on Hubert's recent posts, I felt that the game will still be along the lines of SC...I could be way off base with this assessment, but decided to throw out ETO SC2 suggestions anyway........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Make it simple. Have the standard scenarios start whenever H wants. Give the editor the ability to have ANY dates available 5000BC to 3000. Thats easy to do and gives us flexibilty when creating other mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: I'll be the devils advocate and tell you why this is a bad idea. Two completly different game systems. Not if you implement the Special-Event generator, which will have! A great and comprehensive Library of incidents and events and Action-Chances to choose from. I am ignorant as a fence-post on Coding difficulties, but... seems to me once you create the Event mechanism itself, you would merely have to type out various incident/events to be selected, no? (... with corresponding game results, but of course). 1938 seems a good time to begin. For the life of me, I don't see why this short revving-up period would take more than 5 or 9 minutes... and besides, it could be a toggle-on/off kind of thing, so those that prefer simplicity could retain it. And, assuming that the events/incidents themselves would be small and without tremendous impact, AND... dependent on choices made with the NEW! Diplomatic model, why... why not? I wouldn't mind seeing some random chances for Poland's set-up, depending on political outcomes, nor would I mind MOST ESPECIALLY, The chance to build PRECISELY the units I want, and place them PRECISELY where I want them. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Just so SCII doesn't come out in 2036! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Originally posted by Curry: Just so SCII doesn't come out in 2036! Yeah I don't want to wait till I'm as old as some of you guys to play the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Yeah I don't want to wait till I'm as old as some of you guys to play the game Well, there are certain benefits. For example, I get a 9% reduction in price whenever I buy my organic-herbal remedies, AND! I can get away with odd remarks, since nobody likes to pummel an old guy! ... do they? :eek: [ October 31, 2003, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstantin V. Kotelnikov Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Something also to consider if starting a game in 1938 is some recent documents that have come to life from the USSR. In Overy's recent book, Stalin was prepared to declare war on Germany immediately if France/Britian had shown any sort of backbone at the munich conference. Stalin attempted many times to get into an alliance with France/Britian. It only changed when Germany came along with it's non-aggression pact and it's secret provisions on territorial spheres of influence. Stalin went with what was the best deal for him. Britian and France surely weren't going to offer him the Baltic States, a free hand in Finland, half of poland and bessarabia. Would be very interesting to see how long Germany would have lasted in 1938 fighting a two front war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Question: Will there be "events" in SC2? Immer Etwas - Not if you implement the Special-Event generator, which will have! A great and comprehensive Library of incidents and events and Action-Chances to choose from. I like the idea as it would add spice to the game. Of course it should be a game option that can be turned on or off. PS: Any chance for a few rare "historical news bulletins" tied to historical dates - ie Japanese Bomb Pearl Harbor, US Victory at Battle of Midway, Death of Roosevelt, Surrender of Japan. Of course, if the war in Europe ends early many of these will never be seen by the players. [ October 31, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts