Production

[George40]

I have been enjoying the game. I am curious about other peoples' thoughts on 2 issues:

1. Would it improve the game to add a delay for production of new units? Even if they are not hisotically accurate, they could add the sense that producing a Carrier takes longer than an infantry corps.

2. Does it seem odd to anyone that the USA's production is so modest compared to Germany and USSR at the point of entry? The great aresnal of democracy's production seems rather weak in the context of the game. Greater play balance might be achieved by shifting some production from USSR to USA.

[Bruce70]

No and No.

[Guest Mike]

Yes and yes.

[iolo]

1. Definitely yes. Half the fun of building battleships in real life is the 3-5 years of anticipation leading up to the launch. Or so I imagine. Anyway it's much more realistic with a delay. Adds lots of strategic elements too.

2. Yes but play balance should be the ultimate concern. Perhaps increasing USA and decreasing Russia, but obviously that opens a huge can of worms...

[daystrom]

Originally posted by George40:

I have been enjoying the game. I am curious about other peoples' thoughts on 2 issues:

1. Would it improve the game to add a delay for production of new units? Even if they are not hisotically accurate, they could add the sense that producing a Carrier takes longer than an infantry corps.

I agree.

Originally posted by George40:

2. Does it seem odd to anyone that the USA's production is so modest compared to Germany and USSR at the point of entry? The great aresnal of democracy's production seems rather weak in the context of the game. Greater play balance might be achieved by shifting some production from USSR to USA.

Again I agree. I must begin by stating that I am not an American (not that there's *anything* wrong with that...).

US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...

As has been pointed out before, however, the MPP's must take into account the "blood factor". Let's not forget that 20 million Russian souls were lost fighting the Axis powers. I think that the SC MPP's take this fact into account.

All told, a very good game. Hubert could make the yanks an economic superpower, but I think that this would seriously upset the current balance of the game. I think he found the sweet spot as it is. The US deficiency could be explained as;

A) "The Blood Factor"

and

The difficulty (i.e. logistical nightmare) posed by sending you tanks, guns and material against an enemy half a globe away.

All in all, I am happy with SC the way it is.

<b>Disclaimer</b>

I am after consuming a fair number of beers at a family function this evening, therefore any or all of what I have said may be complete nonsense.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Good Points, Friends,

The raw production numbers you cite speak for themselves, but we must remember that not everything produced in the U.S. was destined for the European Theater--there was the War in the Pacific, which was a priority for the U.S. (especially early on).

Exactly how much materiel went to which theater (and to alllies) is beyond my ability to research. Splitting the U.S. production in half, though, still argues for a larger capacity.

Maybe some of the "missing" U.S. production capability is present in the production capabilities of Britian and the U.S.S.R. (lend lease, etc, factored in)?

A larger issue is the abstraction of the U.S. in general, which probably must be done to suit the game balance (given that victory means having to conquer all the allies--the U.S. included). Taking the Northeastern U.S. (even if it were possible) would not be enough to bring about surrender, for instance, but that's all that there is of the U.S. in the game. You would have to have another campaign of the size of the Russian Campaign to take the continental U.S. (and probably Canada, too).

Now that I've babbled too much, I'll summarize. I'm in agreement with those who would believe that the U.S. is "sized" the way it is because of game balance rather than reality. I'm not sure what a stronger U.S. would do to game balance (haven't played it through enough times).

Salute!

[husky65]

Originally posted by George40:

I have been enjoying the game. I am curious about other peoples' thoughts on 2 issues:

Leave it be on both counts.

[Norse]

Originally posted by daystrom:

US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...

Where do you get these figures?

You say German produced 24,050 tanks during the entire war, when they chunked out 27,300 tanks during 1944 alone, and 19,800 tanks in 1943.

~Norse~

[Desert Dave]

From the standpoint of simple game-playing fun and enjoyability, I am in favor of delayed production. You could have a yearly chart to access, with dates indicating when your eagerly awaited Stukas will arive.

To me, it makes it more exciting when you are desperately! in need of the Bismark or detachment of Panthers -- that will not arrive until too late? Hey, you should've anticipated the coming storm!

Only problem being -- the uneven turn length, which would, I suppose, only prove that Winter months are a time for actively defying the closed shop foreman and engaging in Union "agitation." :eek:

On point two, without Lend Lease, Murmansk convoys and other major changes, I don't see this is viable right now. I agree with those who say that the USA total also accounts for these things, but it was always gratifying (... from Allied perspective) to look forward to and finally receive the constantly increasing USA production.

Both of these issues would certainly "complicate" the game in the sense that you would have to be more aware and plan ahead -- I guess it depends if you want to make it a truer chess match, or keep it simple so that grand-strategy will not be so... intimidating. Surely, there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue.

[George40]

The variable time scale would not be an insouable issue for a computer war game. Simple enough: identify how long it will take to produce the unit (say 1 month) examine the season and set the arrival date at the closest approximation based on the turn duration during the production period such as 4 1 week turns or 2 1 week turns + 1 2 week turns or 1 1 month turn.

I am not positive it makes SC a better game, but I don't think it really complicates things and adds some depth: hum, which is better that wing of Stukas I can get in 2 months or the Crusier that wont be available for 18 months. I think it adds a little depth.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

From the standpoint of simple game-playing fun and enjoyability, I am in favor of delayed production. You could have a yearly chart to access, with dates indicating when your eagerly awaited Stukas will arive.

To me, it makes it more exciting when you are desperately! in need of the Bismark or detachment of Panthers -- that will not arrive until too late? Hey, you should've anticipated the coming storm!

I assume you are talking about SC2 here since there is no way this could be added to the current game without a significant rewrite. Now if SC2 is to stick to the same philosophy as SC1 then adding production times would have to be handled very carefuly. If you continually add user-interface-complexity to the game then you cannot really call it SC2 IMO.

Same goes for the lend-lease argument - it simplifies SC to have that happen automatically. I cannot see a great deal of enjoyment coming from producing units in the US then shipping them (presumably via some off map route) to the USSR, for example, then changing the colour to red.

Both of these "enhancements" make the game more complex from the users POV, effectively increasing the amount of time it takes to make a turn. I am all for adding complexity to the mechanics of the game, thats what computers are good at. But adding complexity to the gameplay would make it just another grand strategy game IMO.

If that is the direction that SC2 is going then that's fine. I'm sure I'll buy it. But I think the name should reflect the fact that it is a completely different style of game.

[daystrom]

Originally posted by Norse:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daystrom:

US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...

Where do you get these figures?

You say German produced 24,050 tanks during the entire war, when they chunked out 27,300 tanks during 1944 alone, and 19,800 tanks in 1943.

~Norse~</font>

[daystrom]

Originally posted by Norse:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daystrom:

US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...

Where do you get these figures?

You say German produced 24,050 tanks during the entire war, when they chunked out 27,300 tanks during 1944 alone, and 19,800 tanks in 1943.

~Norse~</font>

[Schnell]

Again as always people underestimate the Red Army. Lets break it down like this. Total war production from 39 to 45. Aircraft: USA-324 840, Germany-117 881, Russia-158 218. Tanks- USA-88 479, Germany-61 700, Russian-105 232 (the figures for tanks include self propelled guns for both Germany and Russia) Artillery pieces- USA-224 874, Germany-94 000, Russia-485 648. These figures are just pure production and do not take into consideration the lend lease. The US production in the game should be tweaked but to what degree I do not know. The Russian production on the other hand should in no way be reduced. American advisors visiting Russia during the war saw a Russian city built around a tank factory, they were quite impressed by the Russian mass production of tanks, this from the people who had the biggest room in the world at Willow run were Ford was building B-24 bombers like cars. Lets not forget that the Germans suffered a total of 80 percent of theyre combat losses on the Russian front during the war. The average was one German tank taking out five Russian tanks. On the western front the ratio was one german tank for every seven allied, not to mention that most of the tank losses on the western front were inflicted by airpower. Russia was by far the biggest player in the European war, and oh yes the twenty million soldiers of course...

[Norse]

I think we can conclude this with a very famous quote...

"never trust statestics"

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

Same goes for the lend-lease argument - it simplifies SC to have that happen automatically. I cannot see a great deal of enjoyment coming from producing units in the US then shipping them (presumably via some off map route) to the USSR, for example, then changing the colour to red.

QB]

I don't understand all this hand-wringing about

not wanting to change things and make the game

even better, over some vague fear that any and

all such additions would seriously and irrecovably

complicate the game.

Lend-Lease can be done very simply: add a northern

convoy route past Norway to Murmansk (also

expanding the map in that direction, natch :cool: )

with the US making the decision each turn as to

whether to send the MPPs or not (by default it

stays the same as it was last turn). Put a cap

of 30-40 MPPs or so (and have some sent to

Britain as well). The decision to keep sending

or not can be done in a microsecond, and the

interface should make it easy and painless to

change. Now you have added an additional

strategic choice to the game which will make it

an even richer experience, at very little cost

in playability.

John DiFool

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bruce70:

I assume you are talking about SC2 here since there is no way this could be added to the current game without a significant rewrite. Now if SC2 is to stick to the same philosophy as SC1 then adding production times would have to be handled very carefuly. If you continually add user-interface-complexity to the game then you cannot really call it SC2 IMO.

Yes, I am talking about a potential SC2 because -- if there is to be one -- and I for one surely hope that Hubert will follow up on this, it cannot be very much the same as SC and attract sufficient new interest to make it worthwhile, can it?

You distinction between the complexity of game mechanics (internal computer decisions and calculations) versus user-interface is noted and appreciated, and for this version I would agree that we cannot, and should not, change very much of either one.

However, for SC2, Hubert has already stated that -- IF he chooses to do it, he intends to expand the scope and map, and that he has a long list which he has been compiling for possible new features. Who knows what that might be?

If you keep the next game, say 95% the same as the original, then you are merely glossing or sharpening, whereas a more "complicated" game -- both in mechanics AND interface, would satisfy those who want more choices -- both "historical," and in terms of strategic options, which would necessarily involve changing mechanics and interface.

Some of this could be offered as user choices, that could be clicked -- on or off.

And it could be made in such a way as to provide a more muscular game, without making it a tedious exercise, IMO, and if anyone could do it -- since he is so good at listening and creative give-and-take, it is Hubert.

But, it is fun to speculate, isn't it? And it gives everyone a chance to participate, no matter how much, or with what degree of detail or passion.

As long as folks remain interested, you will retain a devoted group who, by word-of-mouth (... an entrepeneur's best friend, as I know from experience), will eventually increase your sales, and thus -- your inclination to do another version in the first place.

[husky65]

I don't understand all this hand-wringing about

not wanting to change things and make the game

even better, over some vague fear that any and

all such additions would seriously and irrecovably

complicate the game.

Lend-Lease can be done very simply: add a northern

convoy route past Norway to Murmansk (also

expanding the map in that direction, natch :cool: )

Cool in your opinion, in actual fact it adds unneccessary complication, requires quite a bit of work on the programmers part and could well unbalance the game to a major extent, it will also require a major rework of the AI.

You will need to actually build the concept of convoy routes into the game, requiring a rethink of the sub/naval combat paradigm, consequent changes to play balance and AI.

All of it to the detriment of playability, prompt patches and sensible extention of the existing game (you know, the one we all played the demo of and then bought) - all just to let you manually transfer MPPs to Russia rather than just have the MPP transfer built into the system as it is now.

I guess, in retrospect "I don't understand all this hand-wringing about not wanting to change things" etc, actually translates as "I don't understand the larger implications of the changes I suggest".

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

Lend-Lease can be done very simply: add a northern

convoy route past Norway to Murmansk (also

expanding the map in that direction, natch)

with the US making the decision each turn as to

whether to send the MPPs or not (by default it

stays the same as it was last turn). Put a cap

of 30-40 MPPs or so (and have some sent to

Britain as well). The decision to keep sending

or not can be done in a microsecond, and the

interface should make it easy and painless to

change. Now you have added an additional

strategic choice to the game which will make it

an even richer experience, at very little cost

in playability.

I have no particular opinion on this for SC2 but I can see that it would indeed add a strategic choice. For SC1 OTOH this is being discussed at the same time as delayed production. If delayed production is important then you can't just send MPPs to Russia you have to build the units then ship them to Russia then change their colour and allow for different tech levels.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by husky65:

Give me a break. You make it sound like I am

wanting to take a Piper Cub and mutate it into an

F-16 (yes no analogies are perfect but I think my

point is clear). I frankly don't see how this

one fairly minor change (making Lend-Lease an

option not automatic) adds "to the detriment of playability,

prompt patches and sensible extention of the existing game."

Choices beget strategy-or didn't you hear? You

can make it TOO simple ya know.

Plus we ARE talking about SC2 (if and when),

aren't we? I understand that adding this to

SC1 is likely out of the picture. My point is

that there are a LOT of things which can be

added (SC2) which likely will not be too trouble-

some from a playability standpoint, but which

will nevertheless make for a much richer game.

And what Immer said.

And I say this as someone who looks upon SC's

competitor, Hearts of Iron, as a possible

unplayable mess (check out my comments in

CSIPGW-H this week). Area movement? Eiccssh. :eek:

John DiFool

[Augustus]

I agree on both counts...

Carriers should take longer (especially if the Kreigsmarine wants to launch Graf Zeppelin).

In rough terms, if the player is Axis and the AI Allied, then US production points should be at least doubled.

Imperium Romanum

[husky65]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

Give me a break. You make it sound like I am

wanting to take a Piper Cub and mutate it into an

F-16 (yes no analogies are perfect but I think my

point is clear). I frankly don't see how this

one fairly minor change (making Lend-Lease an

option not automatic) adds "to the detriment of playability,

prompt patches and sensible extention of the existing game."

Choices beget strategy-or didn't you hear? You

can make it TOO simple ya know.

You are trying to extend the map, change the entire naval combat/transport paradigm, add the idea of manual lend lease and you think this is a simple change that will not have effects on AI, play balance and complexity? - and will also be a quick programming job that will not mean other things have to be ignored whilst this rewrite is done?

You are trying to build an F-16 out of a Piper Cub.

Plus we ARE talking about SC2 (if and when),

aren't we?

The post you replied to was not talking about SC2 and I am not.

I understand that adding this to

SC1 is likely out of the picture. My point is

that there are a LOT of things which can be

added (SC2) which likely will not be too trouble-

some from a playability standpoint, but which

will nevertheless make for a much richer game.

And what Immer said.

I have no interest in what Hubert chooses to do with SC2, I will make my decision on that game if/when the time comes and based on its merits.

However, I do have an investment in SC1 and I will continue to oppose attempts to graft complexity onto that game.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Husky65:

I have no interest in what Hubert chooses to do with SC2, I will make my decision on that game if/when the time comes and based on its merits.

However, I do have an investment in SC1 and I will continue to oppose attempts to graft complexity onto that game.

If I ever get to Australia, and one happy day I sure enough hope to, and then -- as the raw, whipsawed greenhorn that I will necessarily be, what with being way down under! and ah, too too aesthetic-American, ,

(...and as our little travel-story goes) -- when I get lost amongst all the howling wind & weather and the native fire-feather'd creatures join forces -- with those out of some mythic-rambunctious Aussie past, and they rear! as one eerily keening Beast to... greet me, :eek: ,

O it is then! that I shall haul out the trusty cell-phone and call... the feistiest mate! ever found standing on two oak-limber legs -- on any of the known 7 continents! -- pardon me, 8 -- to include Atlantis, but of course... Husky 65! :cool: