Government Policy & War

[Edwin P.]

In HOI the cost of units are partially determined by the policies of the nation's govermental ministers. Adding a similar feature to SC might add more variety to the game.

Example (from HOI): Chief of Navy

1.Open Seas Doctrine (Transports cheaper,destroyers cheaper, submarines more expensive)

2. Decisive Battle Doctrine (Cheaper battleships and cruisers, more expensive carriers)

3. Power Projection Doctrine (Cheaper carriers, more expensive battleship/cruisers)

4. Indirect Approach Doctrine (Cheaper submarines, more expensive destroyers and transports)

5. Base Control Doctrine (Cheaper marines, naval bombers and transports. More expensive destroyers and cruisers and tactical bombers)

In SC I could see giving players the option to select Ministers/Doctrines for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Once chosen you can only change a minister for a cost of say 100MP. This would reflect the cost in changing production priorities.

Thus Germany with a Indirect Approach Doctine could build subs at a cheaper cost, while the US following an Open Seas doctrine would find it cheaper to transport their troops.

Just another variable to think about.

[ June 24, 2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Night]

A very interesting idea, it was somewhat implamented in P.T.O II I believe, but in that game you had to compete with other officals for making policies.

It may become to complicated for a basic game like SC. When you start talking about government selection and things like this, you start getting into more and more deep strategy's. Maybe not a bad thing, but could take the simple, fast, easyly playable factor away from SC. The beauty of the game is that there is a massive amount of strat., but it isn't to in-deepth that you have to spend hours thinking about choices and plan ahead for a long time to reach a small goal.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually Edwin and Night that's a great idea. Ah yes Koei's PTO II on the superNintendo was really fun, alas SuperN is disfunctional. The card playing game was a little lame but it was useful as a policy tool. Remember Night it was only like every 6 months or was it a year that you could effect doctrinal changes. On a semi-annual basis I don't believe it would be to cumbersome for SC2. Doctrinal Techs/research/orientations would add a lot of replay variation to SC2. How about it HC?

[pzgndr]

Just another variable to think about.

The list of possible variables could be endless. While interesting to think about and in many cases would improve the game, the question remains whether the AI could support lots of variables. Given the choice between limited game options with an AI smart enough to use them and unlimited options with an AI only smart enough to handle some of them, I vote for the more limited version.

That old game Third Reich had variants. Ten relatively simple variants for each side which provided plausible what-ifs. This concept could be considered for SC2, with perhaps 10-25 different variants that the computer is programmed to handle. A game option could allow players to choose how many variants are randomly selected. :cool:

[Edwin P.]

Night, I agree that the beauty of SC is its simplicity.

I also agree with SeaMonkey, that adding a feature like would not add to the complexity of the game if you could only change doctrines at a cost in MPPs (for switching production priorities) or only once a year, and use of doctrines included a None as the default (which would not give you any bonusus/penalties.)

To keep it simple, I would model it on research tech.

A button would lead to a screen called Military Doctrines with three columns of five or six choices each. The default would be None. You would have the option to select one doctrine in each area at at a cost of 100MPP. Doctrine choices take effect at the start of the third following turn (Select doctrine on turn 1, takes effect on turn 4).

Navy Doctrines

1> None

2> Decisive Battles (Battleships/Cruisers cost 10% less, Carriers 10% more)

3> Force Projection (Carriers cost 10% less, Battleships/Cruisers 10% more)

4> Open Seas (Transports cost 10% less, Subs 10% more)

5> Sub Warfare (Subs cost 10% less, transports 10% more)

Air Force Doctrines

1> None

2> Air Defense

3> Air Superiority (+5% Readiness Fighters)

4> Strategic Bombing (Bombers 10% less/ Fighters 10% More)

5> Ship Targeting (+1 Naval Attack Bonus (ie Japanese trained to sink ships)

Army Doctrines

1> None

2> Mobile Warfare

3> City Defense (+1 SD/+1AD when in cities)

The effect of doctrines is to vary the cost/readiness of units for countries that care to select a doctrine. Thus subs might be 10% cheaper for Germany and Battleships/Cruisers 10% more expensive.

Bill Macon, I agree that keeping the variables simple for a Smart AI to handle is very important. At the same time I think that some doctrines would obviously not apply to certain countries and that the AI could select its doctine based on its strategy. IE: Italy would probably favor a decisive battles doctrine for its navy and would never select force projection as it would rarely build carriers.

The question is: Would such a feature substantially improve the game or not?

[ June 25, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Night]

I like Edwins system up there

[SeaMonkey]

I like it Edwin. But obviously an astute AI would be compromised by the complexity. I've said it before and I'll say it again, what this game really needs is an accomplished editor, with a lot of depth. That in itself would lend to the variation of replay we all crave and guarantee the longevity of the SC legacy,... simply the bottom line.

[Liam]

I like that about HOI. In SC things are given a bit of a balance as far as various Military Doctrine. Great leaders for Germany, US, UK. Italy and France are really cheapscaped but I suppose if they did have them in those days they never utilized them. Apparently

Even Russia has Zhukov and with IT more affordable units. The Brits with their Sonar and Bomber. on and on and on... It is a seemingly small representation.

Perhaps a few patches to these representations. You see what makes this game pretty difficult is the fact that some things are set in stone. i.e. an air unit is forced to intercept, a bomber is automatically intercepted, and the Oceans are not large enough. Mostly during the War units weren't moved around as much as they are here. Operational costs are a bit too ez to make huge army transfers that perhaps would've taken more to get that unit there and ready for combat. Especially amphibiously. The potential Gamey bugs also adds to harming the balance of each nation.

[Liam]

I mend that remark about unit movement. It's just that France say for instance has a small amount of value really MPP wise. Making other potential targets more juicy. Why not include Dunkirk??? Calais ports... Forcing the Brits to keep their fleet where it would have had to be to protect from potential Nazi amphibious buildup.

Giving the Brits more ships<cruisers> to protect the Med<as they're a wimp in this game> Italy didn't just run over the Brits and much much HIGHER punishments for any transport being intercepted in any way shape or form... sitting at sea making them floating attrittion to practically nill readiness...

France should be worth slightly more and Sweden less. Iraq should include a Kuwait port for Allies to retreat to after Suez Falls and there and then the Allies can decide how to deal with the MidEast situation after fall of Suez...Rather than bombing Suez with 4 or 5 Italian Transports...also ship transport via the Canal both ways

[ June 27, 2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'd like to second what SeaMonkey said, especially since its been mentioned quite a few times already.

In light of the announcement that there are no more patches for SC, the next release should be a editor for SC. Most of us at this point would be happy with the ability to modify the unit values. Thats not a difficult thing to do.

Perhaps the editor should be the next "this is what I want" topic.

[Edwin P.]

SeaMonkey

I agree. A strong AI scriptwriter/editor would make for a much more powerful and popular package.

Other software such as HOI and that WinWarII 4.0 have incorporated such a feature. HOI has a strong user community that is constantly turning out new AI mods.

RE: I would like to see 5 types of AI Scripts incorporated into the game;

1. Strategic

At this level the user could set the plan of conquest for the AI or general responses to the Opponents moves.

IF DATE < 12/41 and UK Fleets in Med > 8 and France = Conquered and Russian Readiness < 50% and German Air Fleets >6 CALL SeaLion

Turn 1, Call Invade Denmark, Conquer Poland

2. Strategy Execution Routines

ExecutionL: Take Iraq

Call: Defend Suez, Ship Troops, Move Atlantic Navy

3. Canned Routines

Routine: Defend Suez

Call: Move2, Move30, Move23

4. Routines/Rules

Move30: MOVE Gibraltor Battleship to Hex (xx,xx)

Move23: MOVE Bomber Fleet to Hex(xx,xx)

Rule1: Ireland Limit - 1 Invasion Land Unit

5. Research/Production Rules

FRANCE FALL > 2 Air Fleets, 1 RES(Jets), Reinforce

POLAND FALL > 1 Air Fleet, Reinforce, 1 RES(Jets)

Research: Jets, Jets, Anti-Air, Long Range, Subs, Jet, Anti-Air

[SeaMonkey]

Could it be that all of my SC compatriots agree on this premise? We want the world, I mean the editor and we want it now,... now,.... NOW! Ok I'm not Jim Morrison. Sorry HC, please forgive my excessive furor, but this excellent creation of yours cries out for more refinement and my fellow brethren evoke passionate enlightenment to assist. Please give us the tools in SC2 and we will forever be your loyal subjects, as if we were not already.

[KDG]

We might be dreaming if we think we will get an AI editor. I've used AI editors that use Pct. points for chances a certain action will take place, so maybe we'll get something.

I would like an editor that allowed us to change units costs, unit stats, as well as techs. Make sure we have the ability to make each countries units cost diffently and have different stats. Thus you could make Russian Corps cost 100, while Germany's cost 130; but tanks for Germany might be only 300, while russian planes were 450, etc. Also allow a sliding scale so each additional unit would cost more, if wanted.

Maybe even a map editor so someone could add cities, forts,etc, and even try to make the eastern U.S. for a civil war game.

It would also

[Panzer39]

A map editor is something I really want in SC2. If the AI can't handle it so be it. It would be nice if we could just edit multiplayer only scenario maps.

[JerseyJohn]

". . . if it isn't asking for too much, we'd also like a Map Editor that would allow different seasonal effects like a realistic Russian Winter and an Expanded Scenario Editor where we could decide how units move and fight and a maximum number of certain types -- and . . ."

-- * --

"And all we need to do is bring him a single General Forum thread that makes even a liitle bit of sense!"

"Yeah -- but where are we in the General Forum?"

"Desdee and Focker and Boggs -- Oh My!"

"None of these topics make any sense -- we keep moving deeper and deeper but none of them ever make a point -- we're lost -- there's no way out!"

"How could he send us here? This Place is Endless and -- None of it EVER Makes Sense!"

[ June 28, 2003, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Sir Jersey, "How about a Ever-Lasting-Patch-Game-Stopper?"

[jon_j_rambo]

Sir Jersey opens his golden patch.

[JerseyJohn]

General Rambo

Excellent!

[pzgndr]

Ok I'm not Jim Morrison.

Hear that, Immer Etwas? SeaMonkey is NOT Jim Morrison.

I believe the good wizard mentioned something about editable AI scripts once upon a time. But we must bring him the broom of the wicked witch of the west, or maybe one of Rambo's golf clubs, or something. What was it he said?

[JerseyJohn]

Ahh, if it were only something as reasonable as the witch's broom or shoes or Rambo's golf clubs. No, what the Wizard wants is a General Forum Thread that makes sense! Our intrepid little group is searching through the tangled woods of snarled General Topics and is presently missing, presumed lost, among irrelevant posts. :eek:

[ June 29, 2003, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Updated Thoughts on Doctrines (for SC2)

- Player has option to select one doctrine in each area. Selecting or changing a doctrine costs 150MPP. New Doctrine takes effect in 4 turns. Default Doctrine is None.

Land

- None

- Guerilla Warfare: +5% Russian Partisans (Russia Only)

- Trench Warfare: +1 Maximum Entrenchment Level

- Mobile Warfare: Armors Costs 10% Less, Infantry 10% More

- Infantry: Infantry costs 10% Less, Armor 10% More

Air

- None

- Air Superiority: Air Fleets cost 10% less, Bombers 10% More

- Strategic Bombing: Bombers cost 10% less, Air Fleets 10% More

- Recon: +1 Spotting Range

- Air Defense: +20% Readiness when Intercepting

Navy

- None

- Sub Warfare: Subs cost 10% less, Other naval units cost 10% more

- Naval Battle: Battleships & Cruisers cost 10% less, Subs & Carriers 10% more

- Naval Air: Carriers cost 10% Less, Other naval 10% more

- Transports: Transports cost 25% Less, Other Naval units 10% More.

[ July 05, 2003, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]