Strength Point question

[Shaka of Carthage]

I am confused about certain general SC concepts. Since some of you have worked out the answer from a different perspective, I'd like to hear what you believe the answer is.

What does the Strength Point in an SC ground unit represent?

What is the anti-tank tech trying to reflect?

Germany Army represents 137,600 men in eight (8) combat divisions and nondivisional support units.

German Corp represents 68,800 men in four (4) combat divisions and nondivisional support units.

For each Anti-Tank tech increase, that strength point value increases by one (1), as well as the tank defense value (but not tank attack value).

SA = soft attack

SD = soft defense

TA = tank attack

TD = tank defense

Anti-Tank Tech Level 0

German Army = 10 str points; SA 4, SD 2, TA 4, TD 2

German Corp = 10 str points; SA 2, SD 1, TA 2, TD 1

Anti-Tank Tech Level 3

German Army = 13 str points; SA 4, SD 2, TA 4, TD 5

German Corp = 13 str points; SA 2, SD 1, TA 4, TD 4

(edited the SA, SD for Corp, initially had wrong values)

What effect do these extra strength points have in combat?

My confusion is that since the Anti-tank tech represents anti-tank weapons, why does the ground unit now have the ability to take more damage?

Manual refers to bazooka/panzerfaust, thats logical, but those weapons didn't add more men. Anti-tank weapons size increase (ie 37mm to 57mm)? Thats fine, but again, not more additional men.

Or did we attach dedicated anti-tank sub-units to the Corp/Army, which increased the manpower as well as the number of anti-tank weapons?

Other than the relative inbalance between the Corp/Army increases (ie Corp tech advance should be 1/2 that of the Army), the anti-tank weapons only help the Infantry units if they are attacked by Armor. Has no effect when the Infantry attacks the Armor.

So what is the Strength Point in SC and what is the increase it receives from the Anti-Tank tech trying to reflect?

[ April 08, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[arby]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

So what is the Strength Point in SC and what is the increase it receives from the Anti-Tank tech trying to reflect?

You bring up an interesting point. The effect on combat is relatively inconsequential. With one army attacking another, and no other variables, each additional strength point of the attacker will result in an additional .13 loss on the defender; each additional strength point of the defender will result in a .067 loss to the attacker. Even at the extremes, it's not going to amount to much. One army attacking another, with the attacker at XP 3 and, with a HQ that has a combat bonus of 2, will inflict 5.1 points of damage on the defender at strength 10; if you boost the attacker all the way up to 15, it will inflict 6 points.

So the direct effect on combat is negligible. The logic behind having it increase strength is questionable, too; as you point out, equipping a unit with panzerfausts makes the unit more effective, but it doesn't make it bigger.

The biggest effect that increasing strength points has is to keep the unit alive. That's a huge effect, especially considering the common complaint that there are too many units. On the other hand, bigger units are more costly to build, so it's probably a wash.

I'm not sure that allowing an increase in strength points beyond 10 makes much sense from a logical standpoint, but I don't think it has any particularly negative effect on the game. In light of some of the other aspects of the game which need attention, I'm not sure this makes the list.

[SeaMonkey]

Since SC is a game of generalities I'll offer a general statement, strength point = combat effectiveness.

[Shaka of Carthage]

arby

The information you provided is what I was looking for.

</font>

• Relatively little combat effect.</font>
• Unit can take more damage.</font>
• Increases unit costs.</font>

One conclusion to draw from this, is that your MPPs are better spent elsewhere, once a unit gets to strength of 10. Especially once you factor in the effect that replacement MPPs have on the experience factor of your unit.

While I am not trying to advocate a change, one negative aspect of this, is the fact that if you do increase a units strength points, it becomes much more difficult to eliminate it. Understanding the above just helps give a clear appreciation of why it requires so many offensive attacks to eliminate a unit.

seamonkey

Not sure if I agree with you, since if it related to effectivness, it would have a much greater effect on the offensive aspect of combat.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[scrapking]

This is not a flame...but...

Are you high? Are all of you high? I'm not high now, but with luck I'll be in an hour or so. And even then I will be quite aware that this is a game, an enjoyable game, but still a game, not a simulation.

Is this anti-tank issue the only detail about this game that seperates it from being a simulation? Come on people, this is a glorified game of checkers. I am new to the forums, but I have already seen quite a few people discussing this and that regarding issues such as this.

My suggestion is to only consider things that make the game imbalanced, i.e. not fun to play. Questioning any degree of realism, breaking down unit strength estimates is superfluous.

The Battlefront people made us a really fun, addictive game, but if you start comparing it to the real thing, you are going to come up short on most every detail, nevermind the obvious lack of mortal danger to yourself.

Shaka, if this was just a curious line of thought on your part, I apologize if I overreacted. But, please, everyone else try and keep it in perspective. Game. Not simulation. Puff puff pass.

[Shaka of Carthage]

scrapking

I understand what you are saying, and yes, SC is a game. Not sure if I would go as far as the "glorified game of checkers" comment though.

In my case, I feel that having an understanding of the details that make up what SC is trying to represent, is necessary to achieve the proper effect, especially when you start making suggestions on how to "improve" or "fix" the game.

Yes, its a fun, basically balanced game with its generic units and MPPs. But once you enter into a wargame genre, you are going to get some of us on the fringes who want realism as well.

[ April 09, 2003, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[arby]

Originally posted by scrapking:

Are you high? Are all of you high? I'm not high now, but with luck I'll be in an hour or so. And even then I will be quite aware that this is a game, an enjoyable game, but still a game, not a simulation.

Every now and then, somebody comes in here and tells us something that he thinks we don't know: that this is only a game. Apparently, you've been chosen to fulfill that role this month. Well, sorry to steal your thunder, but we already know.

There are also people who feel that there's no sense in trying to make an accurate or realistic simulation. You apparently are one of those; you would be just as happy with the game if it included spaceships and the Germans could go off and colonize Mars if things got a little too sticky down on Earth. That's fine, too; that means that you won't be troubled by anything that's done with the game, as long as it's still fun for you. Rest easy; I'm pretty it will be. Especially if you're high.

Hey, what's not fun when you're high?

So, why don't you just let us amuse ourselves with this stuff, okay? And take a toke for me.

[KDG]

When units get up to 13 or 14 strength, the importance of air is even greater, thus leading even more so to the imbalance of air and air dominated game.

For me, at least, it would be nice to see tanks buffed up a bit, and be put to greater use in destroying ground units, then you would use jets to fly in and attack these tanks.

I'd like to see jets great vs tanks, tanks great vs ground units, and ground units defend well vs. jets. Of course researching would be required to get your unit to where you want, but this would bring about the classic rock/scissors/paper part of strategy games.

By the end of most games no we have dynamite destroying everything with jets.

[SeaMonkey]

In agreement Shaka, it should impact offensive capability, actually I thought it did, maybe that's why RB is taking me to the cleaners. By the way RB didn't you get move 50? Ditto that toke, but gotta go "surf's up".

[arby]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

In agreement Shaka, it should impact offensive capability, actually I thought it did, maybe that's why RB is taking me to the cleaners. By the way RB didn't you get move 50? Ditto that toke, but gotta go "surf's up".

Never did get turn 50.

Bummer, dude. So, like, send it, you know?

[arby]

Originally posted by KDG:

When units get up to 13 or 14 strength, the importance of air is even greater, thus leading even more so to the imbalance of air and air dominated game.

That's not what makes the importance of air greater. What makes it greater is that there's not much change in ground unit's value, other than the strength points.

Take air, for example. By 1942 or 1943, when everybody's up to L2 or L3 jets, air combat is deadly; it's not uncommon for a unit to lose 6 or 7 strength points in a single combat against other air units. Why? Because those advances have increased the attack and defense values of the air units. An L0 air fleet has air attack and defense values of 3; an L3 air fleet has double that. Which means that a clash of 2 L3 air fleets is going to wind up with each unit inflicting (and taking) double the losses they would at L0.

What happens with ground combat, though? Nothing increases the soft attack values in the game: Attacking a corps with an L5 infantry (or a tank, for that matter) results in no more damage than attacking it with L0 infantry. (Except for a slight increase in damage if the L5 unit has its max strength points of 15.) In fact, tank combat v. infantry is really out of whack, since infantry gets the benefit of an advance in TD, while tanks don't get any advance in SA. (This leads to some ridiculous anomalies: an L0 tank attacking an L0 army will suffer a 50% lesser loss than the army, but an L5 tank attacking an L5 corps will suffer a 50% greater loss than the corps.)

This has a number of effects. First, ground combat is never any bloodier, and becomes less effective as the war goes on: basic attack and defense values don't change, but infantry units become much harder to destroy because they have more strength points. Because of the limited number of ground units which can attack another in a single turn, air becomes even more important. And, since air units don't increase their ground attack values, either, having even more of them is necessary, because it takes more to get the job done.

[SeaMonkey]

Gnarly, brah(RB). This SC Hodad will be cuttin it(turn 50) back at you when it hits the crib. Oh yeah-good post, as usual.

[scrapking]

Originally posted by arby:

Hehe. Actually, Arby, I am with you. I would prefer a game that was more of a simulation, that was more realistic. My problem is that I do not recognize SC, specifically it's engine and game system, to be capable of accomplishing this.

Our problem, as fans of the genre, and seekers of realism, is that this is the best that we have right now, and given no other alternatives, some will endeavor to make a steamshovel out of a garden hoe. (Hey we need garden hoes too, where else will the garden gnomes get some action?)

The game is fun and reasonably well balanced, but I believe that it is simply incapable of representing itself as a simulation, either in it's present form, or in a radically altered one.

I say this as a 15 year veteran of wargaming, citing such non-pc-thousand-chit-board-games as Third Reich, and World in Flames. (Third Reich was ported to PC in a horrible way, and World in Flames has been under development for PC for like 4 or 5 years now.) These games were much closer to that pinnacle of realism, however their undoing may be their complexity.

I apologize, as a forum newbie, for not realizing that my opinion is "old hat", and certainly mean no disrespect towards anyone by voicing my opinions. However, I challenge all of you to cogently state how this game could be made realistic, without in fact, describing an entirely new and different game. This game is not a patch away from being a simulation.

I'm not about listing SC's shortcomings. If I viewed it as a simulation, they would be plentiful. And, OK, maybe it's not a glorified game of checkers. Perhaps a glorified game of Axis and Allies would be more appropriate. Viewing in that light affords me being able appreciate it for what it is. And is not.

[Shaka of Carthage]

However, I challenge all of you to cogently state how this game could be made realistic, without in fact, describing an entirely new and different game. This game is not a patch away from being a simulation.

I'll accept that challenge. It may take me a few weeks to give you that answer, since there are a few other things I still need to work out. If I win, what sort of "boobee" prize do I get?

Bear in mind though, that the SC "simulation", is not an effort to replicate War in Russia, War in Europe (board and computer) and others like them. They are operational level. You can count the WWII strategical games without taking your shoes off.

[KDG]

First, ground combat is never any bloodier, and becomes less effective as the war goes on: basic attack and defense values don't change, but infantry units become much harder to destroy because they have more strength points. Because of the limited number of ground units which can attack another in a single turn, air becomes even more important.

Arby, I agree. Thats what I was trying to say when I made the statement about the importance of air as units move up in strength. All ground units attack w/ pretty much fixed amounts throughout the game, really only gaining with experience.

The higher the strength of a unit, the more jets required to kill it, since ground attacks are constant.

And, since air units don't increase their ground attack values, either, having even more of them is necessary, because it takes more to get the job done.

They do in a round about way, that is in the gaining of experience through frequent kills. With jets knocking off one or two corps(or should I say corpse) every turn, gaining the kill experience without losing strength, it is not uncomman to see germany with exp. 3 jets. They then can womp on even more corps, gaining even more experience, until victory.

So what we need is some combination of the following:

Ability for ground units and or tanks to cause additional damage through research, even if its a small amount with each tech gain(+1 defense 1st level, then +1 attack next level, etc).

Reduce jet experience gain by not allowing them to kill off a unit(say reduce only to 1).

Have a tech that increases air defense affect more than just cities and resources, possibly the surrounding hexes as well(may not be needed if above changes take place).

[santabear]

I am confused about the discussion of "realism" in games, especially as it applies to SC. A totally realistic WWII game would end with the Axis losing every time. That is what "really" happened, yes?

Any game that gives the Axis a chance to win has to break with an overly pre-determined set of events. I can't imagine that a "deterministic" game could be any fun to play.

To me, the issue seems to be consistency, not realism:

1. Consistency within the game itself (are results later in the game consistent with actions taken earlier?); and

2. consistency with one's "personal" sense of reality (how each player views WWII in this case).

I think people will find this game more or less realistic depending on their personal views of the factors influencing the outcome of WWII.

My personal view is that the German army outclassed the Allied armies throughout the war, but the Allied air and artillery superiority (88's not withstanding!) gave them an unbeatable edge--essentially Germany lost the war in 1940 when she couldn't cross the channel to knock out Britain. So the issues discussed in this thread seem to make the game "realistic" to me. Air rules.

Folks who see the war as having been "up for grabs" until the Russian army gained the upper hand (post Stalingrad) will find the game proportionally less realistic, I think.

[The "why did Germany lose the war" argument is in many other threads...I'm not trying to start that discussion again. There are lots of good arguments on both sides of this issue, and a whole lot more 'sides'...I acknowledge that! I'm just an air and naval power freak...

I'm just trying to make a statement about realism in SC. ]

Why, then, is this game NOT realistic/consistent? Why is it a poor engine for historical simulation?

It seems to me that there shouldn't be a need to argue why the game isn't bad. The "burden of proof" would seem to rest with those who find the game deficient in some way. (If THOSE arguments are in another thread, forgive me...and post a link...I'd like to read them!)

Doesn't it come down to the notion that sometimes the "world" of SC doesn't conform to what individuals believe would have/might have happened in WWII (if some things had been different)? Does that make the game "unrealistic?" Or does it provide another way to think about history and examine our preconceptions? Isn't THAT what simulations do?

[santabear is spraying his fur with flame-proofing...fears he will get singed soon...]

[arby]

Originally posted by scrapking:

[Shaka of Carthage]

This is my response to the realism, accuracy question.

That answer depends on why you are playing a wargame. In my case, I play wargames because I want to experience history. And just as important, I want to experience the "what if" possibilities. Kinda like an interactive book with multiple endings.

The essence of a historical wargame is to provide that historical event within pre-defined limits. A great historical wargame will offer different variety in how the event is presented.

Stay within the limits of the historical event and you've got realism. Properly represent the forces, terrain and situations and you've got accuracy.

And there lies the reason for so much debate. The interpetation of the events and facts. Combat specifically and war in general has a huge number of variables. This gives us variety in the number of games covering the same subject. But it also leads to the trap of believing that complexity equals accuracy.

[SeaMonkey]

I might add my dear Shaka that because we are the recipients of hindsight the accuracy and realism we all nurture is actually a fleeting impossibility in the context of SC. It is actually the "What ifs" and the randomizations that provide the simulation of the unknown that faced the participants of WWII. So I would suggest that we all concentrate on the mechanics of the conflict while not undermining the great enjoyment this game has bestowed upon us. And all for a paltry $25, best bargain I ever got.

[ April 11, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Liam]

I don't think we need to attack each other folks in order to bring out the obvious. Tanks are obsolete by '41-42 when AT tech comes into play. Armor is an essential part of our armies. WW2 any realism at all would make armor improve faster and cheaper at least! Even in WW1 sims I find more use of tank armies! That's a shocker! I don't care about the math, or the mechanics.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Great post, agreed entirely. The math really turns me off in topics like this one.

Shaka I know you like to work everything out into precise terms but after thinking about it and reading the entries presented here, I think by it's nature as a single element applied across numerous countries with varied industrial development and technologies stregnth point has to be a somewhat vague and abstract quantity. Maybe it's 60,000 men in one country, 35,000 in another 100,000 in a third. Maybe a country that produces numerous good tankers, airmen, artillerymen and sailors may not be as adept at fielding good infantrymen.

Santabear

Just noticed you posting several entries back concerning realism. Got a kick out of the image of the Bear's applying his flame retardant.

My view on this is about the same as Shaka's, but to put it a bit differently:

Concerning realism, where I think your point goes astray is the Axis might well have won the war if freed of some of Hitler's more dissasterous decisions. Countering that were some of the epic commands issued by Stalin needlessly losing huge numbers of Russians and even some of Churchill's beauts, such as stopping short of Tripoli and sending those troops to be knocked about by the German steamroller in Greece.

By recreating the details realistically, we have an opportunity to see if we couldn't improve a bit on the performance of the historical leaders, nothing more than that. Neither side should automatically win or lose. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the prevailing wisdom in this thing used to be that the Axis was unbeatable and from there it shifted to where, with correct play, the Axis could never win!

Which is good. Historians have been revising their opinions constantly on speculative issues so we're just trudging along using a game as our argument instead of legnthy historical footnotes.

SeaMonkey Glad you added that entry, especially as it was so well said.

arby

"In my view, the game is inaccurate in only one respect: it does not properly reflect the shift in strategic initiative which occurred during the war; the Germans maintain it throughout."

Yes, good points to keep in mind. There's also the minimal weather element concerning Germany's constant initiative. That's why I always put it high on the list. It would also help in terms of Mediteranean mud, etc., making Autumn / Spring offensives in Italy and the Balkans much more difficult. Not to mention more obvious things like Scandinavian and Russian Winters bringing all offensive activities to a complete standstill. All issues that have been hashed over repeadedly but as yet they have not been resolved.

Anyway, it's off now to have a look at V 1.07!

[ April 11, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaMonkey

...because we are the recipients of hindsight the accuracy and realism we all nurture is actually a fleeting impossibility in the context of SC.

The only thing our hindsight does is prevent us from making the same mistakes. Realism does not mean that we have to repeat the same steps. But it does mean that the conditions that caused those original decisions should be the same.

[JerseyJohn]

Good thread but I think the two of you are talking along parallel lines. We want to allow for what-ifs, as SeaMonkey is saying, but we want them to be based in an historically accurate context, which is what you're both saying!

It seems to me the only issue is SeaMonkey feels SC falls short of establishing the degree of historical reliability we're looking for. Yes, I'd have to agree and I don't think there's any doubt about that, which is why we all keep posting our ideas and suggestions. I've come to believe a lot of the missing realism can be compensated for through the scenario editor, but overall the game looks like it will have a fairly long developing stage, especially for those of us who'd like more realism.

Shaka I think your entry defines the idea very clearly.

So, unless I'm missing something we're all essentially on the same wavelegnth.

[ April 12, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

Yes indeed JJ we are all on the same page, but with a slightly different perspective. The comment you made about the mechanics/math, "nuts and bolts" of SC really hit home. I to am not enthuastic about examining SC to that degree although I may contribute to that concept at times. From my first days with SC, as with other wargames, I contemplated the "feel" of this game, nothing specific. And as the other games linger on the shelf/hard drive I'm still playing this one cause it just feels right. Yes it could be better but what couldn't. Anyway I enjoy the interaction with my fellow SC brethren of whom I feel you are the minister, keep up the good work, for we all count on you to get us through the doldrums and stimulate ideas, and thanks to HC cause 1.07 j u s t f e e l s b e t t e r.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Thanks for the good word and it's mutual.

That's exactly the right word, the game has a feel that rings true. As we've all been saying for a long time, the game scale necessitates a swap of greater realism for that intangible feel element, possible tradeoffs of playing ease for realism with greater complexity don't seem to be in the cards.

Some of us would be in favor of greater complexity but I guess the majority wants things kept simple. An answer might be two or more levels for the same game. The old Basic Game -- Intermediate Game -- Advanced Game approach.