Shaka of Carthage Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Forum has been kind of quiet lately, so I thought I'd make a few comments and pose some questions in an effort to spice things up. If you get some free time, take a look at some of the "older" WWII strategy or operational level game archived lists... one's from mid 90's. Its kinda scary how alot of the questions and suggestions are almost identical to the one's in this forum. Finally read the SC manual, and a few questions. Curious what other members consider are the answers to these questions. * Each IT research level gave you an 10% reduction in cost. What is the number now? 5%? * "Soft" factor of a ground unit has no R&D item to increase its number. Seems strange, since all the other units can increase there attack factor. So a Army of '39 will attack with the same "soft" factor in '46? * Readiness factor of a unit will decrease when it moves. Has anyone noticed this effect? * "Normal" attack is when a unit attacks without moving. "Blitzkreig" is when a unit attacks after moving. Interesting. I'd be willing to bet money that at some point in the development cycle, Corps and Armies could not conduct a "blitzkreig" (ie could not move and attack). Then again, if I was such a good gambler, I wouldn't have to work for a living. * On one hand I like the existing manual cause it doesn't go into alot of details. On the other hand, I miss the fact that alot of the details are not explained. In a way, I guess I would like to see a "Designers Notes" manual included, that told what the formulas are, expanded on Axis and Allied strategies (maybe some examples from the playtesters), etc. * Cities, mines and oil wells are suppossed to give multiple MPP factors of 1, 2 and 3. Did I miss something, since I could swear its only 1, 2 and 2? * I'm confused on the Strength points. I "assumed" they were related to combat power. But it appears that are more a factor of how much damage a unit can take before it disappers. If that is true, I don't understand why a tech level increases this number. Isn't the increase in the relevant defense factor enough? If strength points are manpower (more or less), then does the increase mean that I am adding more divisions to my Corps/Armies? Confused. * I assumed the Anti-Air tech increased the Air defense factor of the ground units. Doesn't say that in the manual. So where is my counter to increased Air unit attack factors? Even if I didn't have a new tech items to give my troops, something should represent the additional Anti-Aircraft Artillery that the ground commanders would request. * Carrier gets a strength increase from two (2) different techs. Does that mean a carrier can theorticaly become a twenty (20) strength unit? Got a few more, but gotta meeting I am suppossed to be in. [ February 20, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piumarcobaleno Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Carriers get the strenght increase only from 1 of the 2 techs (can't remember which now). Oil fields wield 3 mpps\strenght, you can be sure of this (look at iraqis' or russkies'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Shaka, read and comment. (* Each IT research level gave you an 10% reduction in cost. What is the number now? 5%?) 5% is correct. (* "Soft" factor of a ground unit has no R&D item to increase its number. Seems strange, since all the other units can increase there attack factor. So a Army of '39 will attack with the same "soft" factor in '46?) This is correct. You can research anti-tank to boost units past 10, which increases the damage done about 7% per increment. (* Readiness factor of a unit will decrease when it moves. Has anyone noticed this effect?) Not sure. (* "Normal" attack is when a unit attacks without moving. "Blitzkreig" is when a unit attacks after moving. Interesting. I'd be willing to bet money that at some point in the development cycle, Corps and Armies could not conduct a "blitzkreig" (ie could not move and attack). Then again, if I was such a good gambler, I wouldn't have to work for a living.) Very possible. Or they were looking at some type of overrun attack. (* On one hand I like the existing manual cause it doesn't go into alot of details. On the other hand, I miss the fact that alot of the details are not explained. In a way, I guess I would like to see a "Designers Notes" manual included, that told what the formulas are, expanded on Axis and Allied strategies (maybe some examples from the playtesters), etc.) The formulas are listed. I have them in an excel spreadsheet. (* Cities, mines and oil wells are suppossed to give multiple MPP factors of 1, 2 and 3. Did I miss something, since I could swear its only 1, 2 and 2?) 1,2, & 3 is correct. Multiplied usually by 5, 8, or 10. I'd like to see other spaces count as 1/2 a MPP total. There would be cities, towns, etc. in these spaces. We are talking 50 miles across. (* I'm confused on the Strength points. I "assumed" they were related to combat power. But it appears that are more a factor of how much damage a unit can take before it disappers. If that is true, I don't understand why a tech level increases this number. Isn't the increase in the relevant defense factor enough? If strength points are manpower (more or less), then does the increase mean that I am adding more divisions to my Corps/Armies? Confused.) They are both the life of a unit, plus the strength. Think of the unit as being more difficult to kill. Thus an 11 instead of a 10. (* I assumed the Anti-Air tech increased the Air defense factor of the ground units. Doesn't say that in the manual. So where is my counter to increased Air unit attack factors? Even if I didn't have a new tech items to give my troops, something should represent the additional Anti-Aircraft Artillery that the ground commanders would request.) **Ground units on strategic resources and cities get a defensive bonus. I think this should be expanded to the spaces around the resource as well. This would make this research a better counter vs. Jets.** (* Carrier gets a strength increase from two (2) different techs. Does that mean a carrier can theorticaly become a twenty (20) strength unit?) LONG-RANGE AIRCRAFT RESEARCH Every new level of long-range aircraft research increases the spotting, strike range, and maximum strength values of Carriers. JET AIRCRAFT RESEARCH Every new level of jet aircraft research improves the air defence, and air attack for both Air Fleets and Carriers, while the air defence value for Strategic Bombers is increased. In addition, the maximum strength value for Air Fleets is increased. Some good discussion points here. [ February 20, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: KDG ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 (* Readiness factor of a unit will decrease when it moves. Has anyone noticed this effect?) Seem only to change from turn to turn... When processing the supply net I suppose... (* I'm confused on the Strength points. I "assumed" they were related to combat power. But it appears that are more a factor of how much damage a unit can take before it disappers. If that is true, I don't understand why a tech level increases this number. Isn't the increase in the relevant defense factor enough? If strength points are manpower (more or less), then does the increase mean that I am adding more divisions to my Corps/Armies? Confused.) Don't think more mens... Think better equipments... Better MGs, Bazooka/Panzerfaust, more powerful & accurate artillery/mortar, better shells, better communication, etc... (* I assumed the Anti-Air tech increased the Air defense factor of the ground units. Doesn't say that in the manual. So where is my counter to increased Air unit attack factors? Even if I didn't have a new tech items to give my troops, something should represent the additional Anti-Aircraft Artillery that the ground commanders would request.) Only cities, ressources... Probably to simulate the fact that each side throw a lot of AA guns to defend their cities/industries/ressources... I don't know if a Panzer division, for example, carries a lot of AA guns with them when they fight on the frontline... (* Carrier gets a strength increase from two (2) different techs. Does that mean a carrier can theorticaly become a twenty (20) strength unit?) JET AIRCRAFT RESEARCH As UK, my Air Fleets grow beyond 10 but my Carriers stay at 10... So no... Never been able to boost Carriers beyond 15... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Sutro Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 (* On one hand I like the existing manual cause it doesn't go into alot of details. On the other hand, I miss the fact that alot of the details are not explained. In a way, I guess I would like to see a "Designers Notes" manual included, that told what the formulas are, expanded on Axis and Allied strategies (maybe some examples from the playtesters), etc.) The formulas are listed. I have them in an excel spreadsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Sutro Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by KDG: [QB] Shaka, read and comment. (* On one hand I like the existing manual cause it doesn't go into alot of details. On the other hand, I miss the fact that alot of the details are not explained. In a way, I guess I would like to see a "Designers Notes" manual included, that told what the formulas are, expanded on Axis and Allied strategies (maybe some examples from the playtesters), etc.) "The formulas are listed. I have them in an excel spreadsheet." Shaka: My apologies for that last post. I hit "add reply" before I had actually written anything. I wanted to ask you about the formula for strength point loses that is given in the manual. It does not seem to have any randomizer ("dice roll") in it. Since there is obviously some element of chance in the loses that units take during combat there is either something missing in the published formula, or else I am just not understanding the formula correctly (probably the later). If you are able to clarify this for me, I would be most grateful. All My Best. Jeff Sutro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Finally read the SC manual :eek: Gadzooks! There should be a rule. Read the manual. Read the SC Version Changes text file, all of it, back to changes made for v1.0, to understand the evolution of this game. And read the User Manual Updates and Errata text file. There's a lot of good stuff in there, really. I am STILL doing what I can to consolidate all the neat little stuff from all those sources, the various forum discussions about strategy and tactics, and various playtesting insights into this ever-lengthening tome I'm putting together, A Player's Guide to SC. SITREP - I'm about 80% complete with a rough draft and hope to get something out in another week or so for comments. Patience folks, it's getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 Jeff Sutro I wanted to ask you about the formula for strength point loses that is given in the manual. It does not seem to have any randomizer ("dice roll") in it. Since there is obviously some element of chance in the loses that units take during combat there is either something missing in the published formula, or else I am just not understanding the formula correctly (probably the later). If you are able to clarify this for me, I would be most grateful. KDG was the one who replied that he had the formulas in an excel spreadsheet. Either arby or KDG would be better at answering your question than myself. Bill Macon Not having to read the manual was one of the beauties of SC. And since I played the demo first, by the time the game arrived, I didn't bother with it. Glad to hear you are still plodding away. Sure quite a few of us are looking forward to your results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I wanted to ask you about the formula for strength point loses that is given in the manual. It does not seem to have any randomizer ("dice roll") in it. Since there is obviously some element of chance in the loses that units take during combat there is either something missing in the published formula, or else I am just not understanding the formula correctly (probably the later). If you are able to clarify this for me, I would be most grateful. Jeff No mention is made of the randomness in the book, but it obviously happens. For example from the formulas you can figure out that you will cause 1.5 damage and receive .6 damage in return. When applied in the game, you will often see 1 damage given while receiveing 1 damage, or you will give 2 damage, while receiving 0 damage. This is the randomness that you speak of. Knowing what the full range and chances of this randomness occuring is not known at this time. Some requests have even been made to remove all randomness from the game. Just figure that over the long haul, the average is going to come in at what the formulas show. Hope that helps. [ April 10, 2003, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: KDG ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 gengisjon made this comment about a month ago: Great analysis. Just wanted to clarify one item. Even though it is not mentioned in the formulas there is a random component to the calculation of damage. I ran a number of test using the invasion of Poland and all results were +/-1 of the damage from the formulas. This undocumented random component is consistent with what I've seen. We need to have a bit of randomness in the game to prevent those "perfect" plans from working every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Sutro Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Shaka of Carthage Again my apologies. I seem to have had a good deal of trouble getting my last post correct. It could be the early onset of senility, but it's probably just my perenial inattention to detail. Bill Macon I am delighted to hear that you are writing a strategy guide for Strategic Command. A very worthy project in my opinion. Thank you for your efforts. KDG Thank you for clarifying my question. Your reply was quite helpful. I'm glad to know that I haven't grown so dull that I was failing to properly read the formula. Your point that the formula will accurately reflect the average of the combat results is well taken in my opinion. I do very much like having randomness in individual combats, however. I think the element of chance is one the most important elements of any wargame, both to make the game less predictable (up to a point) and therefore more fun, and to more accurately reflect the "realities" of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 Thanks KDG for responding. I agree with the rest of you, there should be a random factor. We, as strategic commanders, should be making decisions based on the general capabilites of our units, not perfect knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Bill Macon: Bless you for your efforts to pull everything together. I came to this game relatively recently. Although it's fun and exciting to think of the game as a "work in progress," it's difficult for new people to jump into the middle of all of this and to keep things straight. I've tried to read everything, as well as to dig through old posts--it's a lot to dig through to find a one or two key pieces of information. The guide you're working on will not only make the game more enjoyable, it will help a lot of us follow some of the technical discussions in here more intelligently! It's possible to learn the game from just playing it, but inevitably things happen that defy logic. And the manual fits Napoleon's definition of the ideal constitution: Brief and obscure. Thanks for your efforts. PS Thanks also for the "revised" Fall Weiss scenario; it like it much more than the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabtherab Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 The random factor must be retained. War is not a perfect information game. Even when an attack has been planned to perfection, random factors can ruin everything. What if equipment breaks down? What if your men mutiny? What if there is an enexpected earthquake the evening before the battle? What if your army is striken down by the hand of your opponents deity? Chess is a great example of a zero-sum, perfect-information game. All things being equal, and opponents play flawlessly, it will always end in stalemate. Only sloppy play by the better player, and/or accidental brilliance of the other player, influences the outcome. War is an example (arguably, no mathematic debates please) of a zero-sum, imperfect-imformation (i.e. random, or hidden components, et cetera) game and von Neumann's "Minmax Theorum," seems to apply; but it's not a predictable one, and all things being equal, the better skilled general can still lose, due to an unforseen (i.e. random) event, such as natural phenomenon, accidental brilliance of the opponet, morale, fatigue, or (as in the case of Napoleon at Waterloo, according to some) hemorrhoid flare-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts