All patch requests/ideas here (thanks)

[pzgndr]

See, my philosophy is that a strategic war game should demand that the player make strategic choices. ... I just don't think that IT is really an "option," in the sense that anybody has to think about it.

Not to argue, but SC2 should provide sufficient balance which makes strategic choices just that - choices and not no-brainer must-haves to crack the game. Not sure how to actually achieve that lofty goal, but we should keep it in mind. Maybe provide some fixed industrial growth rates and also have IT research to provide modest additional growth?

Half the fun of this game is being able to try different strategies. If everyone uses the same "winning" strategy each game, how much fun is that after a while?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by arby:

I still dump 5 chits into IT as soon as I can. It's a no-brainer.

No, it can actually be a brainer, as I am one of those who won't dump 5 chits into IT.

Because of diminishing returns, those last two chits are hardly paying their own way, true?

[Just Curious Department: RB = ar-by, hey! ... I get confused, is it arby or Russ Bensing or... hmmmm, I thought you couldn't have 2 names for one IP? Or, you can if you identify yourself as the same person, with exact same addresses, etc? Or, you can have 2 names with 2 IP #s? Moderators, what's the story here? :confused: ]

I do believe that you are right on the money if you are pinpointing IT as the culprit in the Axis advantage. I have long campaigned for considering IT as a wholly separate category.

My original suggestion was that you should NOT receive ANY return on investment for IT (... unlike the other categories, where you now get 1/2 refund, which is a great improvement on the original idea of a full return).

This would reflect the applied research of actual improvement to infrastructure and construction of specific factories/think-tanks, as opposed to "pure" research where you are mostly shuffling papers around. Professors and envelope-pushers can be expensive -- except when they are brainwashed or coerced, but hardly the same as investment in concrete structures.

IIRC, Bill Macon has proposed that receiving a research gain AND having increased sized units is a DOUBLE advantage, and suggested that the improved unit should remain the same size (... correct me Mr Bill if I am mis-stating your position).

I think that all 3 of us are trying to address the essential issue, which is: there is no apparent way for the Allies to finally match, and then SURPASS the Axis economic production capability.

No problem that the Axis can quickly become strong, and even increase industrial capability. The problem arises when the Allies cannot do the same (... that is, without liberating conquered countries) or, in the case of USA and Russia, do even better.

I think the solution might be arrived at in two areas: 1) somehow reduce the effects of IT, as several have proposed; and/or 2) somehow find a simple and non-intrusive way to INCREASE the relative economic output of USA and Russia, perhaps by manipulating real (or imagined) city sizes... you could also vary the economic growth rates as Mr Bill has suggested.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

their own way, true?

I think that all 3 of us are trying to address the essential issue, which is: there is no apparent way for the Allies to finally match, and then SURPASS the Axis economic production capability.

No problem that the Axis can quickly become strong, and even increase industrial capability. The problem arises when the Allies cannot do the same (... that is, without liberating conquered countries) or, in the case of USA and Russia, do even better.

I think the solution might be arrived at in two areas: 1) somehow reduce the effects of IT, as several have proposed; and/or 2) somehow find a simple and non-intrusive way to INCREASE the relative economic output of USA and Russia, perhaps by manipulating real (or imagined) city sizes... you could also vary the economic growth rates as Mr Bill has suggested. [/QB]

THE MAINLAND VALUES (no africa colonies) for the major nations:

Russia 480 MPP

USA 180 MPP

Germany 120 MPP

France 100 MPP

UK 80 MPP

The problem is that Russia alone, has the same MPP as all the other major countries combined!!!

The other problem is the high pillage rates.

Germany is favoured by this because they can attack minor countries and also get alot of plunders.

A VERY simple way to change this is adding some resources to USA (most), UK and Germany (leist) AND reducing the plunder rates.

[GroupNorth]

2) somehow find a simple and non-intrusive way to INCREASE the relative economic output of USA and Russia,

Yep I'm all for this option. There are two ways to do this: easy or fancy. I've touched on both before.

EASY: USA gets a moderate initial bump in MPPs. Then the USA gets an extra number of MPPs per turn. Example: Total Income for war entry turn is 200, then 225, then 250, 275, 300... etc.. to the point where the USA might be making 1400+. (Remember, in SC2, they must buy the costly units, carry the UK, and have the option to help the USSR)

FANCY: Include the option for a player to mess with his nation's Domestic Economy. Before the USA jumped in the war, it was spending only a tiny fraction of its overall economic output on re-arming. Germany's economy too, despite the fact that its forces were highly aggressive, was still focusing the vast majority of its output on non-military production.

Only the Soviet Union, playing catch-up, was dedicating large percentages of its economy to re-arming from the 1930s onward.

Make sliders for each nation's war economy. The USA is the least militarized; USSR is the most. All belligerents nudge then up, turn by turn. Major events and political leadership affect how much they can be influenced each turn.

[BriantheWise]

uh

Sorry, I made a patch suggestion outside of this forum. But i think it was in a different direction.

[BriantheWise]

I read all your notes, and have to say that at this point in the thread, this is the most sophisticated thread I've seen in a while, that hasn't gone down the tube.

Thank you. I hope you don't mind I join.

I think the idea of A3R's concept of variables, suggested by Mr. Bensing, hits it all. Add variables. But make it a choice/option.

I agree with Arby. I would never put five chits in tech. Not now. 2 is ideal and a spread for the rest (Anyone ever play Hitlers War, decent game, easy, same principle - diminishing returns).

I don't think the game needs to be "fixed". I am loving it just as it is. But I do wish that there was a way to mod the platform toward new variables. For example, I think this game, could be mod ed ed, to an excellent WW1 game. That would be excellent. Lose, for the most part, the planes and armor, change the borders and key alliances/countries, and you have a whole new game. Same platform, different game. And WW1 is so rarely touched upon, because it's so hard to replicate. This platform could do it.

Personally, I would pay the $10 or $15 for that expansion pack (by the way, this game is way under priced. I paid $50 for HOI, and it's scrap. I paid $30 for this with shipping and handling, and it's simply beyond).

I think (and sometimes I really do think), that all of the suggestions, changes, requests, could be handled with Bensings variables idea. Even, paratroopers, though I don't like it, not feasible, couldn't do that, don't want to go there.

I think there should be one last patch. I think it should be Advanced Strategic Command, and I think we should pay for it.

nuf sed. My thoughts.

Thank you

ps: Jollyboy: What do you know about SC2, that we don't...I'd like to help.

[JerseyJohn]

Great thread. Missed most of this Forum but I have to agree with things starting on the entry about German production from 1943.

Germany was being heavily bombed at the time by U. S. Day raids and British Night attacks. Thousand Plane attacks like the one on Hamburg were beginning -- Albert Speer, who was running Germany's production at the time, said a few more along those lines would have ended the war!

Yet, despite this fact German industry continued to produce and even increase. Manufacturing had to be spread out in what normally would have been an inefficient manner and a million or so over-aged men and under-aged boys who might, under wartime conditions, have been useful aiding industry had instead to be used in fighting fires and manning anti-aircraft batteries.

If Germany isn't being bombed in 43-44-45 etc. why should her industry automatically delcine?

A great point and a great thread.

Brian -- don't feel bad about the misplaced suggestion, I followed you in there!

[Liam]

No no no!

You're going about it all wrong!

Germany becomes overly powerful due to being able to transport anywhere she wants. While during history she was rather limited due to lack of transport capacity and support ships to stop allied air raids and such. Getting into the Suez and the OVERLY powerful Italians assisting their German counterparts it was makes the game unbalanced. If you cut anything more off Germany you'll make her into a little girl.

It should be a challenge to access to the Middle East. The game should be made more a challenge operationally is what I am getting rather than shortcuts here and there.

[Liam]

Oh, and if you're going to jip the Germans anymore than they are already. Give them tech 2 subs to begin with at least. Partially historical and maybe the brits won't chase em down so fast.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

In forums past I took your stand about transport, the problem is changing it to something more realistic.

True, Germany launches Sea Lion without having to worry about where she's getting the ships from that carry those troops, but within the game mechanics how do you change it? If you penalize Germany in terms of transporting troops what about getting them across the Mediteranean to North Africa? Eventually they had an Army Group in Tunesia (it was put together just in time to surrender, but that's beside the point).

In the historical framework Germany was using Italy's transport capacity but how do you show that here and is it worth the trouble?

About the only way to keep it in the game framework that I can figure is making it cost maybe four times as much for Germany to transport units as England spends. Perhaps it should also vary by distance with the U. S. and Britain having the lowest expenses, which, if Germany had to spend four times as much and distance were included it might make Sea Lion barely possible and a cross Atlantic German invasion a total impossibility!

By Jove Liam that is one brilliant idea we've just come up with!

[ January 10, 2003, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[arby]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

If Germany isn't being bombed in 43-44-45 etc. why should her industry automatically delcine?

I'm not suggesting it decline. Several points.

First, MPP's represent more than industrial production or defense spending; they also represent manpower. That's why I'm not in favor of substantially increasing American MPP's. One good point about the current method is that it forces the Allied player to be careful with his American and British units, because they're difficult to replace. This is historically correct. Had we sustained losses at a rate even a fraction of what Russia did, Roosevelt would have been impeached and we would have retreated behind Fortress America.

Second, while German military spending did increase in 1943 - 1944, it's ability to fight the war, in terms of manpower and weaponry produced, which is what MPP's are supposed to represent, declined relative to the Allies.. And that, to repeat, is the basic problem with the economic model in this game: there is rarely a point where the Allies outstrip German production.

Last, I'm not trying to turn the Germans into "girls." I'm actually not even raising this as an issue of game balance. Again, my philosophy is that if you model the various aspects of the game correctly, game balance will take care of itself.

I'm not particularly wedded to my idea; there have been a number of others which have been offered. But for the most part they all address the same point, which is that the Germans maintain a production edge on the Allies throughout the war, and that this isn't historical and needs to be changed.

[JerseyJohn]

arby

One thing is certain, this is one of the more complicated issues and we've been bouncing it around in a lot of past forums. Every time I get too carried away thinking about how well German industry was functioning I see a photo of those wretched unfortunates they were using as slave laborers, probably the least efficient use of a human being, and it serves as a reality check.

Beyond doubt they were reaching the point of diminishing returns on several counts even had they not been enduring those bombings. Then there's the effect on industry of their rail network not only being damaged but having also to use so much of it's irreplacable rolling stock to further their final solution madness.

Sound as their industrial complex itself was, the Nazi heirarchy was so medeival and corrupt that, if it hadn't been for Albert Speer ending up managing it the whole thing might well have fallen apart due to (dis-)organizational idiocy among the political hacks running things.

Which is another facet of all this; the Third Reich itself seemed to have a built in self-destruct mechanism. Which is fortunate for everyone.

[ January 10, 2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

Great posts. I'd also like to see some random variables. Something that might allow a good player to beat someone that is slightly better than them. I'd also like to see some of the techs improved, as many are unused.

[Edwin P.]

Great thread,

I would like to see, as mentioned by others earlier;

1> Fog of War Option set by player - so the AI (or the other human player) could see all and the opponent (Human) operates under fog of war.

2> Non-Historical Option for the player to pick the starting Technology Bonus, instead of having it preset for the UK and Germany.

3> The value of all US resource hexes increase by 1 every six months after they enter the war to reflect the increasing US military capacity. This might be a more resonable solution that giving the US a large MP bonus.

4> More aggressive and unpredictable Axis & Allied AI that incorporates the strategies used by players - ie take Greece in one turn, an occasional Operation Sealion, Allies invade Iraq and send Air Support to Russia, Dutch Gambit, Axis invasion of Norway, and a concentrated Axis attack in Russia (perhaps 30% Southern Thrust, 30% Northern Thrust, 40% Attack along the whole front), along with the AI not ignoring cities that are left ungarrisoned - ie Brits leave Egypt and AI does not respond, or Russions leave eastern Finnish border ungarrisoned and Finns ignore Moscow.

5> In fact, in SC2 I would really like the option for players to develop their own AI formulas/subroutines and exchange them with other players.

6> Ability for the Russion play to break down armies into corps for say a cost of 50MMP.

7> Ability to spend MMP to fortify a hex above its normal rating. Say 100 points to add +2 to a clear terrain hex. This would allow the Axis to create a fortress along the Rhine in the east and the Russions to fortify their cities.

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

Sidetracked earlier and never got to comment on your research input. Agreed totally, the best initial approach is to spreasd research chits around. Aside from your own results I believe there's a spy allowance that aids an advance in an area where your enemy is ahead of your. I. E., if Germany researches bombers she stands a chance of making a leap due to captured British aircraft (where let's say Germany is L=1 and Britain is L=2 or 3). But it's obvious you wouldn't receive such a bonus if you weren't researching that area.

[ January 22, 2003, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> See, my philosophy is that a strategic war game should demand that the player make strategic choices. ... I just don't think that IT is really an "option," in the sense that anybody has to think about it.

Not to argue, but SC2 should provide sufficient balance which makes strategic choices just that - choices and not no-brainer must-haves to crack the game. Not sure how to actually achieve that lofty goal, but we should keep it in mind. Maybe provide some fixed industrial growth rates and also have IT research to provide modest additional growth?

Half the fun of this game is being able to try different strategies. If everyone uses the same "winning" strategy each game, how much fun is that after a while?</font>

[JerseyJohn]

zappsweden

Agreed, the pre-determined openings do a lot to kill the game. If not random placement then at least a sizeable MPP allowance at the start to offset the effect of immediate attacks. Bill's latest revision to his '39 Mod makes allowance for this with Italy and Russia , which I am glad to see.

[KDG]

Also in Third Reich you could save BRP's and increase them each year. Thus you could have an economic strategy as well. Wouldn't that be sweet.

[SeaWolf_48]

Yes the Burp's in Third Reich worked well. If someone still has the formula that they used would you please issue it here on this forum.

I don't like now how Italy now can become level 5 in anything. They should only be allowed 5 research pts. total, and only able to reach level 2 or 3. The US should have around 18 Res. pts.. Uk should have 12. Germany around 12. USSR aruond 8. But not all countries the same!

One way to keep thing the same, let the level of industry keep building and not limit it to level 5. Units would increase but will cost less.

Is this kicking a beehive?

[KDG]

BRPS worked like this.

Every country had a growth rate, from 20% to 50%.

Every country received BRPS for the whole year.

Lets say 100 BRPS. At the end of the year, what every you had left, say 40 BRPS, would be multiplied by you growth rate. So growth rate of 50%, multiplied by 40 BRPS, gives 20 BRPS. Then add this to the 100, so you have 120 BRPS for the next year.

This could be done in our game as follows. Assume per turn of 120, with lets say 700 saved for end of year, dividing by number of turns for the year, 14, giving us 50. Multiply by our growth rate of 50%, giving us 25. Add this to our current per year turn of 120 gives us 145 per turn for next year.

Other modifications would be required, but this would make things more interesting for England aid to France, Germany invading or save up some points, USA wait a year to invade, etc.

[Wachtmeister]

An area for consideration is the relief of surrounded or otherwise out-of-supply units. Currently, such units cannot be resupplied or at least reinforced until the next turn. Given the time scale of each turn - 1 week to 1 month, depending upon the season, it seems logical that relieved units should be reinforcable immediately after a supply route is opened - subject to their supply level after relief. When "pocketed" units are relieved, a week, much less 2 weeks or a full month seems like plenty of time to rush in reinforcements.

Allowing immediate reinforcement would also aid invasions where units must be wedged into any available vacant coastal hexes, and fight to open a supply corridor to an HQ or port.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Whew! Large amount of posts, with numerous suggestions. I'm going jump right in, but I want to take a different approach on my responses.

This thread has a mixture of SC and SC2 suggestions. They should be seperate, since they are two totally different enviornments. I've tried to summarize the suggestions, so I apologize if I missed someone.

HQ costs too much: Current SC costs are relative, with the better leadership costing more. This really is more of a MPP issue.

Iraq should be Commonwealth: Another MPP issue.

Stop Dutch Gambit: Another MPP issue, since as was pointed out, this really is an issue with how Germany gets plunder.

US MPP too low: Another MPP issue.

USSR should have more units: Also was brought up by stating that the USSR units should not be on the Polish border, where the Germans can easily kill them. Both of these are really addressing the fact that historically, the Russian military was able to raise a large number of units, quickly. They did this by building divisions that lacked the support infrastructure of "western" divisions, since they were never intended to be withdrawn from combat and have its losses replaced. Instead, the divisions were built from scratch again. Not to mention the fact that there was no such thing as basic training. So here is my first SC suggestion... Western Corps should take at least two (2) turns to build. Russian Corps can be built in one (1) turn.

Subs should dive more: Invest or edit sub tech. Balance is fine the way it is now. Note however, that the whole SC naval combat, Atlantic Ocean issue is one of its weak points. Fixing this is a SC2 issue.

Research too costly: Have you seen some of the earlier posts where the argument was that research was to easy and the results came to fast? As long as we all pay the same, the current method is fine for SC, as the results seem to arrive along a more "historical" time frame. But note that the MPP issue and this is tied together.

Ships should gain 1 point repair in port: Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I think this is more of a "Allied MPP too low" issue.

Airpower does too much damage to each other: Don't think in terms of aircraft. Rather, think in terms of sortie factors. If the strength points represent the sortie factors, then the reduction of the strength points represents the inability of the aircraft to conduct combat missions. Spending MPP's to replenish them is more you providing supplies to increase the sortie factor, rather than pouring in more aircraft. And should airpower be able to attack ships? At the level we are dealing with, yes; with apologies to all the close air support veterans who are spinning in thier graves.

Suez loop both ways: Yep, that should be in SC.

UK Corp in Alexandria should be Army: Depends on how you want to view the troop strength in Egypt. Since we know have a Suez loop, I think it is fine as is. I will admit that I think the '39 Campaign Mod is superior to the standard game setup. Very nerve racking for British Armor and two Corps to come knocking, with ?Wavell? HQ in support.

Different number of reserach chits for US and Russia: This is a MPP balance issue.

Higher penalties for German attack on V France and Spain: Once again, a German MPP plunder issue. Though purists would argue that Germany should not be able to attack Spain. Then again, what about Switzerland? Ability to attack certain "neutrals" is a whole nother can of worms. Ignoring the MPP issue, the current SC readiness results handles it fine.

Destoryers, Airborne troops, Variable starting position: SC2 discussion, not necessarily implementation.

Other than the one or two suggestions above, I think all of it comes down to the MPP balance issue. As ARBY stated, "Germany maintains a production edge on the Allies, which is not historically correct, since there was a relative decline". This one deserves another thread.

Finally, all of this is just one man's opinion.

Thanks,

Barry

[kenfedoroff]

First of all: Great ideas people.

My comments are colored by my beginning experiences in SC Ladder games where the players bid for the Axis position, (with the one time handicap given in MPP's to the Brits, USA, Russia).

From this bid/handicap perspective, the at start Axis advantage(imbalance) can be reduced to a comfortable level that is agreeable to both sides.

Therefore, I very much enjoy seeing everyones ideas for incorporating rules that bring actual WW2 strategic/political decisions into SC.

While SC, in it's current format allows for Strategic Bombing, Sub Warfare, Rockets, etc., most of these choices are not pursued for lack of incentive.

Arby gives an example on Strategic Bombing:

Originally posted by arby:

...See, my philosophy is that a strategic war game should demand that the player make strategic choices. Strategic bombing was a choice: the US and UK invested substantial resources in that, resources which they could have invested in other areas. Right now, an investment in strategic bombing -- investing in the tech, building bombers -- really isn't a wise choice for the Allied player, for a number of reasons: the damage which can be inflicted is negligible in light of the investment demanded, and the alternatives (early invasion of continental Europe) are more rewarding.

I haven't addressed the latter point yet, but as far as the first one is concerned, I'd implement the rule that only (Strat.)bombers could attack resources, including ports and cities. This is historically realistic; you didn't have P-47's bombing Hamburg. I'd enable bombers attack the resource, rather than the unit sitting on top of it....

The lack of incentive for sub warfare/surface raiders has been addressed in many threads.

One idea put forward,(the name of the author escapes me) which deals with Lend Lease, proposed that actual Allied convoy ship counters, (of varying MPP value), would be created on a regular basis for shipment to Great Briatain and/or Russia from N. America.

I feel this Lend Lease idea needs to be looked into as it deals with two issues in one.

1. It could force the Axis to pursue sub/surface raider warfare(because).....

2. Now the Allies can help keep Russia in the game, even when half of her cities are captured by the Axis blitzkrieg.

Again, thanks to everyone for helping make SC more fun.

Ken