Neutrals as Economic Factors In SC [renamed]

[Skanvak]

Quick thoughts on the subject.

_ The economics system is surely a flaw of the game. I gobally agree with all that is said about economy.

_ I don't want to say obvious things, but does the people posting here have played WiF? Because some of the idea came close to the economic system of Wif. (The use of ressource to fuel economy).

_ So to stat the obvious thing (apologize), in Wif the neutrals do send some ressources to the major power.

Sweden to germany (all the ore)

Rumania to Germany, part of the oil

Russia to Germany (but this is both way oil to germany and city production to russia)

Iraq to the UK.

That is all.

The US work on a lend lease basis that improve with it entry likelyness.

_ Surely a better convoy system could help too. Norway was attacked to secure the supply from sweden. Actually, if sweden is Allied controlled, the sweden ressources should be lost to Germany in Winter.

Holding Murmansk was very important for russia to receive len lease too.

Those consideration will add strategic option to the game IMHO.

The surface boat should be able to attack the convoy route, after all, they can sink a boat as well as a sub (if not better).

_ The US and UK economy are reduced by the fact that the Asian Empires are not display for UK, and by makingthe commitement to the pacific war too important for US. One point is obviuos to me : research should be at half cost for US as research for the pacific theater will benefit the European theater too. Uk should have a boost of MPP until Japan enter the War. There ressources from India and the Netherland East indies (UK minor) should range in the 4 oil, 4 ressources, 3-4 harbor, 3-4 cities. And I forget the 2 ressources , 1 city, 1 harbor in south africa....

_ I would still advocate for a simple economic system, that keep the MPP concept. Part of the interest of this game is that it is different from Wif, I don't think it will be interesting to make it too clone like as a Wif computer game should be produced. Still looking for what have been doen can be interesting for inspiration.

Thank for reading.

[ March 15, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Many of the oldtimers that frequent here have played WiF, as well as 3R, A3R and its clones and successors (ie World at War).

Its impossible to create an economic system with one economic unit (ie MRP, BRP, MMP, etc) that shows the importance of oil. Since we enjoy the benefits of having a computer that can do the work for us, we should be able to have an economic system that uses oil (especially since some of our "resource" areas are oil wells), without creating a bookkeeping nightmare. Most players will object to it, since oil is really only a problem for the Axis, not the Allies.

The even bigger problem though, is the economic system in general. One of the reasons everyone feels the need for a bidding system, is that the Axis have no constraints on taking neutrals. Hence the Axis economy goes way beyond any dreams Hitler and crew had in real life, and the Allies have no counter. Thats why so many in the past have complained about the MPP "bonus" and "weak" US economy.

So while we shouldn't try and copy the economic system from WiF, A3R, COS, etc, trying to create a realistic and accurate economic model will end up with some of the same concept those games use. And thats where having the computer gives us an advantage that the boardgames and the earlier computer games couldn't use.

[Skanvak]

I agree of course.

2 simple ideas :

_ extend the Russia system to all conquered city except major power capital and ressources.

_ Port on the Atlantic should porvide no income bonus to the Axis. And if Axis lose Africa, Port in in the mediteranean should lose their value too. (The value of a port come from the trade shipping that go throw, if there are no shipping to do then the port should lose their value.

((Shaka, do you have a look at Heart of Iron and The WiF computer game? I think that SC can have a place between this two computer wargames especially if with a far more powerfull editor))

[Edwin P.]

One of the reasons everyone feels the need for a bidding system, is that the Axis have no constraints on taking neutrals. Hence the Axis economy goes way beyond any dreams Hitler and crew had in real life

Agreed, now only if those neutrals reacted to an impending threat - For example: IF Axis attacks Spain and Conquers Egypt then Turkey Annexes Syria and Iraq (secures Russia's Southern Border while depriving Axis of Iraqi Oil & plunder), Sweden begins to entrench its troops if Norway is attacked (so Swedish troops begin fully entrenched), Allies can send aid to Neutral Countries so they can equip troops prior to Axis invasion (UK can purchase new units for Neutrals at 50% cost - ie Buy 2 corps for Greece for 125MPP), If Switzerland is attacked then chance for Spain and/or Turkey to join Allies, If Axis Attack Vichy or Sweden or Switzerland then Spanish troops begin to entrench and 20% per turn that they mobilize an additional Corps until they are attacked or Spain has mobilized 5 additional Corps, if Axis invade Spain then Greece moves Armies on Albanian frontier to defend capital

Thus with the Neutrals reacting, in a simplified way to Axis actions the Axis will find a few speed bumps in their road to world conquest and conquests which take 1 or 2 turns may now take 3 to six turns.

[ March 15, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Skanvak:

I would still advocate for a simple economic system, that keep the MPP concept. Part of the interest of this game is that it is different from Wif, I don't think it will be interesting to make it too clone like as a Wif computer game should be produced.

Yes it is, and my guess is that it will remain quite different from WiF.

WiF is not so easily translated to the computer, given ALL the intricate interaction between units... how you might program a decent AI is a question that begs a Solomon kind of answer.

And, ALL of those Aussie-devotees are demanding! that each and every stunning detail be included... LOL! :eek:

Likely they will end up with a severely diminished RESEMBLANCE of WiF the board game... which I too have played and enjoyed, though... who in hell has time or inclination to set up all those 1000s of counters?

Anyway, you are right to appreciate Shaka's economic analyses... he and pzgndr have probably examined that aspect of SC most closely, and with strong and finely considered suggestions for SC2.

I wouldn't mind seeing some separate calculations, and unit restrictions, based on oil.

However, best to keep in mind that this might lead to OVER EXAGGERATED emphasis on Ploesti (... and, possibly, due to current map schematics, Iraq) it is about all that the Germans could rely on, other than some small reserves in Austria which aren't even accounted for at this scale.

Well, rather than anticipate a greatly REDUCED WiF... far better, I am thinking, to anticipate... an adroitly EXPANDED... SC2!!

Hubert's SC1 has a sound and solid platform that merely needs be improved a bit, and enlarged upon here and there!

For the best concepted and most re-playable WW2 GS game, my mad money is on... SC2. :cool:

[ March 15, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Skanvak

Yes, I'm familiar with HoI and CWiF, and even played CWiF a few times. Along with SC2, they will all appeal to a different type of gamer, so its not like they are actually competing with each other.

Edwin P

Yes, the neutrals do need to react differently than they do now to Axis actions. As Sweden and Spain should be considered pro-Axis, there should be a major penalty for Germany attacking either of them.

Within the context of SC, an obvious one would be Germany attacking Spain or Sweden, pushes Turkey or Greece into the Allied camp. It should also keep Bulgaria neutral and delay the entry of Romania and Hungary into the Axis camp.

Vichy should be off-limits, unless attacked the turn followings its creation, and once it falls, its controlled by Italy. No other conquest of Vichy makes sense (in SC).

Add in corresponding penalities for the Allies and the Low Countries, Ireland, etc, and that should cover it.

However, even with the above, you still are faced with the problem that the Axis economy is way larger than is realistic, even with the above penalities on invading friendly neutrals. Thats why the economic system needs to be redesigned.

Everyone

As Matrix is now responsible for continuing the development of CWiF into a format that can be released, its very interesting reading some of the issues the WiF advocates are afraid of. As Immer, indirectly pointed out, there really is no "WiF". You have WiF with the selected options that individual playing group have decided to use, along with the local Houserules. While thats fine for a boardgame, it doesn't translate very well into a computer game. Then there is the whole problem with Fog of War, how to handle interplayer interactions, etc. The inability to solve those problems is one of the reasons that Third Reich failed as a computer game. So it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

And thats where SC has an advantage the others don't. The basic system is fine, certain subsystems need to be redone or redesigned, add some more chrome, do your playtesting and you're done. You won't make everyone happy, but no game every does.

Then about six (6) months after its release, the hints will start dropping for SC III.

[pzgndr]

Then about six (6) months after its release, the hints will start dropping for SC III.

Don't bet on it.

As for CWiF, I'm also concerned about what they can accomplish. Grigsby's World at War may actually be more playable and enjoyable as a global WWII game. Apparently that one is almost ready for release this summer. :cool: