Thoughts for Version 2

[arby]

1. Give serious thought to changing movement to 2 for armies and 3 for corps. This will emphasize the importance of tanks, which, after all, is what WWII was about.

2. Research has to be toned down a bit. As it stands, luck can often be the decisive factor in the game.

3. Strategic bombing is a waste. At absolute best, with a full-scale bombing attack, the Allies can deprive the Germans of around 20 MPP's per turn, or less than 5% of their total at the peak. Attacks against really important targets, like mines, don't work if the opponent takes the simple precaution of stationing a corps on target. If SB's attack a strategic resource, any unit on the resource should be ignored.

4. Some of the techs have no purpose. Get rid of gun-laying radar and rockets. (Rockets also have no purpose; I can't imagine a winning strategy that would depend on vamping up rocket technology and then building a bunch of the things.) The German player is much better advised to build submarines than ships, so GLR becomes meaningless to both. Anti-Aircraft radar is also useless. One way of changing that would be to make it benefit units as well as strategic resources. That would give a strategy alternative to attempting to gain air superiority.

5. The economies are seriously out of whack. It's not unusual by the end of the game for Britain, which for some reason picks up MPP's from countries that the US has liberated, to have a greater production than the US, and for the Soviets to have three times the US production. Start the US at Ind Tech 2 and 250 MPP's, cut the Soviet base by about 50, but allow around 50 to be sent Lend-Lease from the US to the Soviets. This would introduce another strategic economic decision into the game, and probably wouldn't adversely affect play balance.

6. People have talked about including the Pacific theatre next time. How about including the Mediterranean theatre instead? Expand the map by a row at the bottom and allow England (and the other countries, for that matter) to operate units into the Med. That should allow something to get going.

I haven't talked about the AI because, in a game of this scope, there's no way you're going to come up with one that approaches what a human opponent, even an unskilled one, will do. Letting the AI cheat, through the bonuses, is about the best you can do there.

Hubert, don't get me wrong. This is a great game. I've played a half-dozen games against the AI, and I've got about 5 PBEM's going, but none of the latter past mid-1940, so consider the source. But I think there's some merit to my suggestions, and at least to discussing them.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by arby:

People have talked about including the Pacific theatre next time. How about including the Mediterranean theatre instead? Expand the map by a row at the bottom and allow England (and the other countries, for that matter) to operate units into the Med. That should allow something to get going.

I would agree -- there isn't sufficient reason to bother with it right now, until the rest of the more important areas are solved, so how about providing a true rationale?

Adding Suez City, perhaps value 5, and allowing around the horn movement, with appropriate delay, would give the Italians GREAT incentive to take Egypt (... get those hulking BBs out into Atlantic) AND, make the Allies WANT to defend it. You might then add counter-balancing game length MPPs to the Axis in some way.

I too am very satisfied with the game :cool: , and am commenting because I would like to bring the entire map into play... as for only one hex row in North Afrika, I have an idea:

How about taking a hex-row from Turkey? After all, some of the other countries are a little mis-shapen, and someone commented about how much BIGGER Russia actually is compared to the alloted size. Any chance?

[[Wiking]]

Some nice points...I'm only playing my first game right now so I can't really comment yet. Ah when I think about all you poor Europeans who have to wait for your copies of the game! Nothing beats having a friend in the Slovene Foreign Ministry just coming back from the States...could you guess what he got me for my birthday?

[Prinzregent]

I think, the Russians schould be playable.

Like in Storm across europe

[Sheff]

You've made some good points. However, in response to your wish to remove rockets from the game. I say poppy-cock! Those babies are very lethal at lvl 4 and 5. An axis campaign (39 Expert+0) focused on testing the use of rockets proved to be most amusing. I almost felt that developing them to their full potential was a gamey strategy it worked so well. You should try it sometime.

If you intend to have them removed from the game for play-balance reasons, this I may agree with. At least tweak their power. Expensive, yes; but by no means are they silly little things. If you don't believe me just try it for yourselves.

[Gunslingr3]

1. Give serious thought to changing movement to 2 for armies and 3 for corps. This will emphasize the importance of tanks, which, after all, is what WWII was about.

Do you mean give them just 2 action points? Unit movement seems pretty well scaled to me. WW2 wasn't all about tanks. Tanks may have come into their prime, but infantry anti-tank weapons were catching up by the end of the war.

2. Research has to be toned down a bit. As it stands, luck can often be the decisive factor in the game.

When did fortune stop playing a role in war? This isn't chess, there is always an element of luck. You make your own luck by putting money into research yourself. The research model is oft maligned, but to my thinking it's what gives the game the most replay. Your success in research has to affect your overall strategy.

3. Strategic bombing is a waste. At absolute best, with a full-scale bombing attack, the Allies can deprive the Germans of around 20 MPP's per turn, or less than 5% of their total at the peak. Attacks against really important targets, like mines, don't work if the opponent takes the simple precaution of stationing a corps on target. If SB's attack a strategic resource, any unit on the resource should be ignored.

Only 20? How do you figure that? There are three or four ports alone within reach of England, that's 32 points, there are at least three mines, that's 28 points, then the cities, all of which can be ground down if not defended. And that's all only on the Western front. Take Sweden and you can play havoc with the Baltic resources, or maybe snatch Greece and harass the Balkans. Also taking into account that to defend these resources and cities requires at least a corps, there's another ~125 down the drain per resource. Think of them as the manpower devoted to anti-aircraft artillery (this was a substantial number of men during the actual war, it practically was another front).

4. Some of the techs have no purpose. Get rid of gun-laying radar and rockets. (Rockets also have no purpose; I can't imagine a winning strategy that would depend on vamping up rocket technology and then building a bunch of the things.) The German player is much better advised to build submarines than ships, so GLR becomes meaningless to both. Anti-Aircraft radar is also useless. One way of changing that would be to make it benefit units as well as strategic resources. That would give a strategy alternative to attempting to gain air superiority.

I haven't built any strategies around rockets myself either. They are expensive, slow to move (can't transport!?), and reward poorly considering the investment. That being said, I'm not sure a week is long enough for me to declare they are useless.

Anti-Aircraft Radar isn't useless. When the other guy takes higher casualties to his expensive air units I'm all for it.

Gun Laying Radar exists so that all units have a research component to improve them. Perhaps with the existing scenarios it is a waste, but if someone puts together Plan Z they might want it. Why take it out?

5. The economies are seriously out of whack. It's not unusual by the end of the game for Britain, which for some reason picks up MPP's from countries that the US has liberated, to have a greater production than the US, and for the Soviets to have three times the US production. Start the US at Ind Tech 2 and 250 MPP's, cut the Soviet base by about 50, but allow around 50 to be sent Lend-Lease from the US to the Soviets. This would introduce another strategic economic decision into the game, and probably wouldn't adversely affect play balance.

Liberation is not the same as conquest. If a country is attacked, and then joins the Allies (Britain) and is subsequently liberated by the Americans, yes it goes back to the power who had it before it was conquered. If you conquer something outright (Vichy, etc) as the Americans, it will add to their MPP's

America achieved enormous production levels, but this doesn't necessarily translate into MPP's. Just because America made all the boots and tires for the Allies doesn't mean it could field 200 Divisions. This was a trade off. The U.S. fought a war on two fronts, made innumerable supplies for it's allies, AND put troops in the field. After you build up your army you start to reach a point of diminishing returns, whereby adding more armies means forgoing reinforcement. The MPP levels do a pretty good job in my opinion of enforcing a historical relationship between the size of the various countries armies.

6. People have talked about including the Pacific theatre next time. How about including the Mediterranean theatre instead? Expand the map by a row at the bottom and allow England (and the other countries, for that matter) to operate units into the Med. That should allow something to get going.

The Med is there, you just have to be willing to use it. Maybe you opt for the American strategy of France first, but against a wily human opponent you might be better served by Churchill's desire to 'peck around the periphery'. Allowing Allied units to go around the horn, and increasing the size of the battle area in Africa just benefits the Allies at the expense of the Axis. How does this improve the game? Was there a big desire to battle in the Sahara?

I've seen a few quirks in the AI, but not as often as I've been impressed. I can't count the times I've marvelled at how well made the map is. The number of hexes from particular areas seems very deliberate, as does the placement of cities, mountains and rivers. I think people should give the game more than a week before trying to institute wholesale changes.

If you'd like to give me level 2 Industrial Tech as the Americans I'll take it without the extra 70 MPP's and play you anytime.

Gunslinger

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by gunslngr3

The Med is there, you just have to be willing to use it. Maybe you opt for the American strategy of France first, but against a wily human opponent you might be better served by Churchill's desire to 'peck around the periphery'. Allowing Allied units to go around the horn, and increasing the size of the battle area in Africa just benefits the Allies at the expense of the Axis. How does this improve the game? Was there a big desire to battle in the Sahara?

boy a mediterranen first strategy what an idea , kinda like in Operation Crocodile 2.1 email me for the camaign.

Ok shamless bump, but i agree rockets shouldnt be eliminated. 1 of the 2 main problems has been adressed already, hubert sed the next patch will allow u to play into 1948. But that editor still need work.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

Do you mean give them just 2 action points? Unit movement seems pretty well scaled to me. WW2 wasn't all about tanks. Tanks may have come into their prime, but infantry anti-tank weapons were catching up by the end of the war.

I'd disagree with that, but the main thing I was alluding the primary aspect of WWII, at least in Europe, was mobile warfare. I don't think the game at present adequately represents this. Lowering infantry movement values is one way of doing this; changing unit capabilities, such as by giving armor movement after combat, is another.

Only 20? How do you figure that? There are three or four ports alone within reach of England, that's 32 points, there are at least three mines, that's 28 points, then the cities, all of which can be ground down if not defended.

How many bomber fleets are you going to need to do that? Maybe four? Five? So you're devoting 2500 Mpps to deprive the Germans of 60. For about a fifth of that, the Germans can ensure that every single target other than a port is defended, in which you're swapping a corps that the Germans can reinforce for 6 pts. for a bomber fleet that you have to spend 25 to reinforce. I just don't see the math. Devoting those resources to a air fleets and infantry units, to gain air superiority and an earlier invasion of the continent, will cost the Germans far more.

America achieved enormous production levels, but this doesn't necessarily translate into MPP's. Just because America made all the boots and tires for the Allies doesn't mean it could field 200 Divisions.

No, it couldn't, but it fielded a helluva lot more than Britain did, and built more tanks, planes, etc., to boot. As I said, I'm not talking a lot; in fact, for the Allies as a whole it would be a wash: what was added to America would be subtracted from the Soviets. But then allow lend-lease, which is more accurate and also introduces another strategic choice.

The Med is there, you just have to be willing to use it. Maybe you opt for the American strategy of France first, but against a wily human opponent you might be better served by Churchill's desire to 'peck around the periphery'. Allowing Allied units to go around the horn, and increasing the size of the battle area in Africa just benefits the Allies at the expense of the Axis. How does this improve the game? Was there a big desire to battle in the Sahara?

As somebody pointed out, enlarging the area and making the Suez important would benefit both sides. As it stands now, there is virtually no way for the Axis player to take Suez. If he could, and thus allow the Italian fleet into the Atlantic, it would again add substantially to the strategy of the game.

I think people should give the game more than a week before trying to institute wholesale changes.

I don't disagree with that, which was the reason for my "consider the source" comment. I wanted to start a discussion, and I guess I did.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

As somebody pointed out, enlarging the area and making the Suez important would benefit both sides. As it stands now, there is virtually no way for the Axis player to take Suez. If he could, and thus allow the Italian fleet into the Atlantic, it would again add substantially to the strategy of the game.

Um.......how would taking Suez allow the Italian fleet into the Atlantic??

Into the Indian ocean perhaps, but even that only after securing Ethiopia (again) and Yemen to allow passage past the Horn of Africa.

In fact Suez was not all that important, except as a supply route to the Mid East from India & Australasia - if you take the Mid-east then it is no longer important!!

[pzgndr]

Considering how we have been discussing "SC2" since before the beta demo was even released, it would be helpful now that the Gold version is up and running if Hubert could provide some insight about the future. Like everyone, I've had ideas (some good, some not so good) about enhancements I'd like to see, but we've reached a point where some feedback would be very useful for guiding our discussions. Hubert has indicated he's not ruling anything out and is probably enjoying our debates. However, going round in circles with the same general ideas popping up every few weeks is getting old.

So, if I may, a simple request for Hubert - Please give us some direction. Based on all the comments so far, and what you are willing/able to do with the game, where do you see SC2 heading? What additional player feedback might you be looking for? What's within the scope of SC1 patches versus a new SC2 version of the game? Stuff like that. When you get a chance. Please.

[iolo]

and what about paratroopers?

haha, just kidding

[Canuck_para]

For SC2 I would like to see the Battle of the Atlantic less about large battleship groups crushing submarines. I know the battleships also represent smaller ships as well but it was still more cat and mouse than bull elephants fighting. I think I would like to see strategic warfare as an off-board management system. Same could work for the bombers.

[iolo]

If anyone remembers, how did the Strategic Bombing work in 'Hitler's War'?

[Gunslingr3]

I'd disagree with that, but the main thing I was alluding the primary aspect of WWII, at least in Europe, was mobile warfare. I don't think the game at present adequately represents this. Lowering infantry movement values is one way of doing this; changing unit capabilities, such as by giving armor movement after combat, is another.

I've personally managed some pretty spectacular breakthroughs and envelopments with the existing setup (tanks ignoring ZOC for movement). If you increasingly overpower the tank, who will buy armies? If you lower the action points for corps and armies, how will they keep up across the steppe? Would this effort to make the game more 'mobile' actually result in the opposite?

If a tank can move after combat, can it attack again? What if it runs into a hidden unit? Does it suffer AP loss for combat? How much? How do you suggest impacting readiness for the next battle?

How many bomber fleets are you going to need to do that? Maybe four? Five?

No, I was doing fine with just three. The original Brit with one purchased each by Britain and America.

So you're devoting 2500 Mpps to deprive the Germans of 60.

No, I spent about 900 and the Brits had level 2 Heavy Bombers. I was knocking out 60 points of production per turn (keep in mind that the MPP loss is both immediate from the treasury, and cumulative from loss of production value) before turning on the cities. German cost to garrison those cities and mines is ~125 per resource. 5 rounds of lowered production by 60 costs him 300. Strategic bombing is a long term aim. Money the German is spending on corps in France is not being spent against Russia. Against a human playing the Germans amphib invasions are much riskier. You might prefer to buy an army and leave it parked in England, but at least you have the option of buying a bomber and delivering some hurt.

For about a fifth of that, the Germans can ensure that every single target other than a port is defended, in which you're swapping a corps that the Germans can reinforce for 6 pts. for a bomber fleet that you have to spend 25 to reinforce. I just don't see the math.

Don't keep hitting corps with your bombers. That is a losing proposition. But you can operate that bomber to another city, perhaps in the Med, and force him to start buying and defending there. Then shift it again, etc.

Devoting those resources to a air fleets and infantry units, to gain air superiority and an earlier invasion of the continent, will cost the Germans far more.

I believe the chief issue is when? If you start costing him money after Russia is beaten into a corner, you might not be doing yourself any favors.

Gunslinger

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

So, if I may, a simple request for Hubert - Please give us some direction. Based on all the comments so far, and what you are willing/able to do with the game, where do you see SC2 heading? What additional player feedback might you be looking for? What's within the scope of SC1 patches versus a new SC2 version of the game? Stuff like that. When you get a chance. Please.

The above is a good idea, its hard to give any suggestions as to sensible ideas for SC2 without knowing the scope, scale and setting of the next development.

Unit size, hex size, which theater and map boundaries as a starting point would allow people to give much better feedback.

No hurry, I have a spot of Lebensraum in the east to aquire in the near future anyway.

[iolo]

You guys quit bugging Hubert, every kilojoule of energy that he spends thinking about SC2 is a kilojoule _not_ spent working on TCP/IP!

[pzgndr]

The above is a good idea

Gadzooks! Husky and I agree on something. Bartender, a round of beers for the house.

[Hubert Cater]

So, if I may, a simple request for Hubert - Please give us some direction.

I'd love to but I'm not quite done with this one just yet and I can't even think about the next one until things are finished up with SC... well at least without giving myself a big headache

Hubert

[pzgndr]

Thanks Hubert. We understand you're still busy with SC and that's certainly the priority now. You've already mentioned another patch coming out soon to tweak some AI problems, and there's the TCP/IP patch coming. So when things settle down one of these days and you get a chance to ponder the future, please share your thoughts with us.

[Hubert Cater]

Sounds good, but just a word of warning, it might be a little while

Hubert

[El Globo]

If the game is going to be improved, here are some potential ideas :

Put a port in Ireland (Dublin) and Belfast (GB) as it is not a desert, and naval moves should be allowed in and out.

Only one hex to attack Le Caire is too small, we have to bring massive support for only one unit. At the best two land units could attack, one to the left, and one from Sinai...And no naval support is allowed due to the blocking harbor.

Corsica and Sardaigne are useless deserts, they did have ports (small one, not for ship facilities, but enough to move troops), some retreated troops from axis moved there, and these bases could be useful to base air units and survey the path to Gibraltar.

Anyway, considering the lack of action in mediterranee, it could be considered useless.

The US industry is quite too small compared to the URSS one's. Furthermore, the game should enable land lease (gives of MPP from a country to another) for the allies AND the axis.

Considering the research strategy it could be more useful for the axis to set the Italy to NEUTRAL, declare war against it and plunder its MPP, thus gaining the advantage of already researched german technology with italian industry MPP (didn't tried but I'll do).

When a new level is gained in technology, it could be useful to have a button which allow automatic upgrade of existant units, providing you have the necessary funds (perharps by stages, or by random units, not all in one time, cause for Air and tanks it would be impossible to spend so much in war time in one round).

One thing would be great, I read that the game would last to 1948....thus, it would be great to allow a URSS "AXIS" side to allow "what if" scenario like Patton vs Stalin, a sort of started cold war.

Anyway, by 1948 the nukes would have been used since a long time, and perharps the germans had it too...

For paratroopers, I agree that they would be very useful.

BTW transported naval units should make amphibious assault (Malta, Gibraltar) as we can't actually.

Perharps the game should enable to buy some fortifications (Atlantic walls, gothic line, siegfried line...).