Jump to content

Game Variations Listed


Jordy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, since the forum seems to of stagnated, here we go with an attempt to get some discussion going.

Everybody has seen the problem with the Axis being to powerful when playing against another player. So, I’m just going to list some of the solutions that I can think of to remedy this issue or just to make game play more interesting. Sorry if I did not give somebody credit for their ideas. If you want me to, just email me and I’ll edit the message to give credit to the person responsible. None of these ideas were mine, I’m just putting them in one place. Here they are in no particular order:

Bidding:

1:4, 1:8 system.

There are a couple variations on this but the two most used are:

1. A bid of 100 MPP’s under the 1:8 system would give UK 100 extra MPP’s and the USSR 800 extra MPP’s

2. A bid of 100 MPP’s under the 1:8 system would give UK 100 extra MPP’s, the US 100 extra MPP’s and the USSR 800 extra MPP’s

The Historically Responsible ’39 Campaign (Shaka of Carthage):

Unit Limits

Nation ......... Air* ..... Ground**

Germany ....... 4 .......... 35

Italy ............. 2 .......... 08

British ........... 2 ......... 12

French ........... 2 ......... 14

US ................ 2 ......... 16

Russia .......... 3 .......... 41

* Air units are only Air Fleets, not Strategic Bombers.

** Ground units are only Armies and Corps.

Standard Options except

Free French option OFF

UK 8th Army must be sent to Egypt on first Allied turn.

Weather

September to November (Fall, 7 turns)

December to February (Winter, 3 turns)

March to May (Spring, 7 turns)

June to August (Summer, 12 turns)

Air cannot be used during Winter.

No Amphib movement in Atlantic or Baltic during Winter or Fall.

Amphibious Movement

Corps unit only, range of four (4) from Port.

Note that normal transport movement is allowed, just from Port to Port.

DiploChits

Beginning of each year, Axis and Allied each gain one (1) chit.

DoW on Spain, Sweden or Turkey requires one (1) unopposed chit (simply notify your opponent and give them the chance to counter).

Forcing a DoW on one of those three requires three (3) unopposed chits.

Allied DoW on Ireland, Portugal or Low Countries gives the Axis one (1) chit.

Axis DoW on Vichy France or Switzerland gives the Allies one (1) chit.

Lend-Lease:

In this variation the UK gets control of 1 US City, 1US Port, and 1 US Oil Refinery. This will give the UK a little boost at the beginning of the game and allow them to invest in tech and/or build/maintain units. When the US enters the war, the US city, port and oil refinery automatically return to the US’s control. This can only be used in the 1939 scenario.

Tech Limit:

In this variation a limit on the maximum level of technology would be set. Such as level 3 for jets and long-range air. This would allow the allies to keep up with tech advances later in the game and allow different avenues of advancement to be pursued, since investing all of ones chits into those two techs would probably not happen and the freed-up chits would go somewhere else.

I know there are other variations out there, so please add them. I think this will give people a way to try different ways to play the same game.

[ October 01, 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing I don't like about the bidding system.

IMHO, UK and Russian should remain as is but the US should get a HUGE MPP boost when it enters.

In WW2 USA was turned into a coutry of war production and was churning out troops and units like crazy.

For the moment I 1st played SC I had 2 reactions:

180 MPP per turn for USA? That is out of what!

TECH advancement is "luck" based and my current unit get upgraded as well? This HAS to be patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

180 MPP per turn for USA? That is out of what! TECH advancement is "luck" based and my current unit get upgraded as well? This HAS to be patch.
Blashy, this has been a topic before but always a good topic. The general concensus has been that USA's MPP's are about right, considering how small their ground and air forces were relative to what the USSR was doing. Also, a lot of USSR's MPP's can be considered lend-lease from USA, which accounts for what the USA "should" have.

As for tech, this should be thought of as a gross abstraction which accounts for much more than just equipment upgrades. Tank Groups, for example, were not composed of a single type of tank. As new models were deployed, older models were phased out. Organization and doctrine evolved. Besides, units are Corps and Army size; not divisions which typically were the units pulled out for refit. Yeah, it's not exactly perfect that every unit magically upgrades at the same time, but it works OK for the scale of this game. The alternative is individual unit types and different unit costs for each tech level; more complexity without noticeable benefit to gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Idea:

Give the UK Iraq and extra Corp units (from Australia) in Egypt and Bagdad and a low rated HQ unit in Egypt at the beginning of the game. This boosts their MPP slightly - by 15 per turn and increases their ability to defend the middle east. Now they can delay the Germans at Cairo and retreat towards Bagdad/Beruit. If they can hold it until the USSR enters the war then the Iraqi MPP production increases and they have a path through which to operate air untis to Russia.

With this strategy the UK can easily field 5 land units to defend Egypt - Free French Corps from Beruit, 3 UK corps in Egypt and Bagdad and UK corps from the West - without exposing the home islands to a German sea lion. If they move their bomber to Beruit they can detect any advancing transports.

[ October 01, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I agree that 180 per turn is ok for USA.

But IMHO they should have a HUGE starting MPP.

When the US joined the war they were not starting from scratch, the whole country was a war machine for at least 2 years prior to entering the conflict.

When they entered they went to action right away.

More starting units, HQ for one, extra army, extra air fleet, one cruiser and 1000MPP would be a good thing.

While the Soviets and UK should get 1 HQ to start. No extra MPP. Just seems normal to me that you have Generals ON the field when you know you will be going to war.

These can all be done manually so that's not really an issue smile.gif

***

In the end I just wish TECH was not luck based, spend $$$ money get a tech level automatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of adding the HQ's for the UK and USSR at the beginning. From the functions that HQ's perform, it seems to me that they also represent the supply and logistics needed to maintain an army as well as doctrine, not just the general himself. The UK was caught off gaurd. They did not have that infrastructure in place. And their doctrine for waging war was woefully outdated. The same for the Soviet Union.

The Germans were prepared and had the doctrine in place. This is part of the reason they had so many early successes. I feel the HQ's do an excellent job of simulating this. Once the Allies were fully geared for war and had adjusted their own doctrines accordingly, they had a better chance of meeting the enemy and fighting them back. This change, IMHO, is represented by the purchase of the HQ's after the war has had time to unfold and the Allies have started to adjust their tactics.

[ October 02, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they entered they went to action right away. More starting units, HQ for one, extra army, extra air fleet, one cruiser and 1000MPP would be a good thing.
Right away? It was 11 months before USA landed a Corps in North Africa with the TORCH landings. They did go into action in the North Atlantic and in the air war over France.

The new 1941 Winter Counter-Offensive scenario has a revised USA setup based on some forum discussions several weeks ago. USA has an extra Battleship and Strategic Bomber, but ground forces are only a Corps, Army, and Tank Group. 1000 MPP would certainly be good, but not quite historical. IT was increased to Level 5 in this scenario, giving USA a strong economic advantage for a while until Germany catches up.

This revised setup allows USA to immediately get involved with air and naval activities. But at 180 MPPs/turn, it takes most of 1942 to build up enough HQ's, Air Fleets and ground units to begin offensive operations. And some MPPs need to be spent on research which also delays the buildup. This is historical. If you give USA too many extra MPPs, you create an ahistorical situation.

I think the revised USA setup is more realistic (except for the IT level, but that's an economic issue for SC2). I'm curious what other players think, but please use the other scenario thread to post comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...