Quantity vs Quality in SC

[sogard]

My read of history is that Germany began WW II with some significant advantages which account for Germany's early success:

1. Hitler did not quite get the war he wanted (in September, 1939, Hitler did not believe that Britian and France would actually fight over Poland), but, Hitler's foreign policy did give him the opportunity to divide his enemies and fight a war against only some of them (several small wars where he demolished his opponants in turn just as his model, Frederick the Great had done in the 1700s). This, STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) represents rather well. The Soviets and the Americans are just lurking off stage and the game does permit Germany to fight only against France and Britian, along with Poland, at start.

and

2. There is no doubt that the German Armed Forces had appreciated how the next war would be fought much better than their Allied counterparts. I do not think that the German HQs alone reflect that the Germans understood combined arms (the cooperative use of air, armor and infantry), command control (Gamelin had no radio at his HQ and relied upon motorcycle dispatch riders to get orders to subordinates) and just what the tempo of operations would be (the Allied response to the panzer drive to the coast in May, 1940, was always at least 48 hours late because they continued to think of their 1918 experience). Each Allied nation that joined the war had a very steep learning curve to move from peace time to war time mind sets (this was even true of the United States Army which really did not sort all this out until 1942/1943).

I think that the way SC currently works actually under values this. I think that German units ought to start the game with at least some experience. This would reflect the better training and doctrine found in the German Army. I would bump this up even with the existing HQs (although I would be careful about giving the HQs themselves any at start experience). One would also see the Germans lose this advantage if their combat losses were severe enough so that when the units were reinforced, their experience level would go down.

Right now, the advantage that the Germans possess in SC is mostly quantitative and not qualitative (although I recognize that is some of what the at start German HQs are suppose to represent). But, the Germans themselves recognized, from the start, that they were not likely to win the war strictly in quantitative terms. SC now sees the Germans winning an "American style" war with their sheer numbers determining the day, if nothing else.

This is what I think is the one element where SC fails the most. But, how to change this? If one ups the quality of the Germans at this point without addressing the quantitative advantage that Germany presently possesses, the current game where Germany enjoys the advantage (even with very inventive and counterintuitive Allied strategies of disbanding units and altering the Allied force structure) will only be made worse.

However, it does seem to me that SC has many of the elements which would permit Germany to exhibit the qualitative advantages while still giving the Allies the quantitative edge (remember that by 1940, the British alone were producing more aircraft than the Germans).

[ September 27, 2002, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[arby]

I think that's an accurate assessment. One of the problems that any WWII game has is in recreating the blitz of France, simply because there's no way to make the Allied players as stupid and the Germans as brilliant as they were at that point. From a doctrinal standpoint, they were fighting two different wars; the Germans won because they were fighting the right one. This was largely duplicated on the Eastern Front, at least for the first year or so.

I played a customized game where the Germans got one additional experience level at start; to compensate, the American player started with Ind Tech 5. No contest: I took the Allies and got my butt kicked, then took the Germans and kicked butt. Of course, that was giving them 1 level across the board, including ships and planes. I'd limit it to ground troops, plus give the UK 1 Ind Tech at start, maybe play around with it otherwise.

[Hubert Cater]

I think that the way SC currently works actually under values this. I think that German units ought to start the game with at least some experience.

I'm not so sure, as you pointed out, with the Germans starting with HQ's where their Allies do not, they immediately start with an advantage plus German ground/air units will also receive a combat morale bonus for all combat once their HQ's start to get some experience. The idea I had is that once Poland falls and the Germans take on a few of the other minors like Denmark, Norway etc. the current experience system should put their troops at an advantage by default once they get ready for the Low Countries, France et all etc. At this point if you've played your cards right the Germans have gained the experience you're looking for from approximately 6 months of combat.

I liked the idea of balancing out some of the playability rules by giving the Germans some HQ's for the initial advantages, but having the experience earned from combat and not automatic.

For a test, try giving the Germans no HQ's or giving the French an HQ and the Brits and HQ from the start and I think you'll see how much of a difference there will be, especially considering the factor where this frees the Allies up to spend some money on other things and not worry about quickly building a command structure via HQ's that the Germans already enjoy.

Hubert

[VonBraun]

Well the Germans early accomplishments were mainly due to their use of combined power and had nothing to do with "experience". yes ofcourse they were rather well trained, but I think that would be better represented by starting the game with a much higher readiness factor opposed to their enemies. Experience is gained on the field of battle, applying your doctrine and training in a real life situation.

just my 2 cents worth.

p.s. Hubert --- SC simply rocks, I highly look forward to your other projects. If SC2 would involve the entire globe, I would be a happy camper 8)

[Hubert Cater]

... I think that would be better represented by starting the game with a much higher readiness factor opposed to their enemies.

That's exactly the idea with the HQ's :cool:

p.s. Hubert --- SC simply rocks, I highly look forward to your other projects. If SC2 would involve the entire globe, I would be a happy camper 8)

Thanks!

Hubert

[sogard]

I understand what you are saying about the fact that the Germans start with two HQs does give them a qualitative advantage (although not from the start and not on the individual unit basis which would reflect superior training and experience). However, the game still lacks the ALLIED quantitative advantage.

Other than pure game balancing reasons, what other explanation do you have for ridiculously low production value for the United States and to a lessor extent, Britian?

Is it because STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is hard wired in a fashion that the game does not permit an increase in the size of their production as the game goes on?

I suggest you take a look at Richard Overy's masterfull WHY THE ALLIES WON which contain production figures for all the powers in WW II. They do not bear any resemblance to the pretty, but inaccurate picture, painted, at the moment in SC.

Finally, I hope no one missconstrues my post. I think that SC is a remarkable computer game. It has tremendous potential. I just wish that it resembled the real WW II a bit more; but, that is my personal bias in gaming. I prefer accuracy (in general terms) even at the expense of some game balance (you can always swap sides and give the other fellow a go with the side that is perceived to have the advantage) although I understand the desire of any game designer to produce a game which is fun to play for both players.

[ September 28, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Hubert Cater]

Other than pure game balancing reasons, what other explanation do you have for ridiculously low production value for the United States and to a lessor extent, Britian?

Well like I've said before, MPP's is more than just production, it can represent men, replacements, factoring in of lend lease etc. In general terms consider US production as approximately 50% of it's full value considering the War in the Pacific so look at it as 360 MPP if you like with half going to the war in Europe.

I know that there have been some comparisons to the Soviet MPP and how it seems grossly higher than US MPP, but as said above it automatically takes into account Lend Lease, plus the huge number of men to replace enormous 'in the millions' of casualties on the eastern front.

Within the historcial context, US and Allied production takes time to build up into a potent threat and I think that this is closely resembled in the game. Early on the US is free to build without having to worry about constantly replacing losses as on the USSR does on the eastern front, and by late 42 onwards the US can press upon the enemy with a sizable force in either North Africa or elsewhere etc as they did historically. As was once pointed out in the forums by another gamer (can't remember the name), the US could not send over hundreds of thousands of men to their slaughter as did the Russians or there would be political consequences to be paid at home.

The current model could have been tweaked to start out slower in production early on and then steadily increased, but this was the idea with 'Industrial Technology' research. Adding in a few extra US research chits as part of the proposed balancing items for the game will most likely help in this regard.

Nonetheless I can still see why US and Allied income can appear to be low at times, and I think that this has more to do with the fact that Axis income can get so high, without much need to stop and repair once in a while, as would be the case if other factors were included to hinder the Axis war machine, gearing costs, weather costs etc., as suggested by other gamers which may very well be suited to a future version like SC2 perhaps.

As a final note, the at start US ground forces for when they join the war already include some armies that were formed later on in the war (so ground troop wise they start off stronger than they did historically), and testing ensured that total US production (for number of armies and air units available for the European Theater) during standard gameplay would roughly match the available forces that the US had available by D-Day.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[sogard]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I think you have identified the problem Hubert, not only in getting a game that has a historical feel to it; but, also a game that does not have a significant Axis bias (when in WW II, one would say that the historical record indicates that there was an Allied bias in the overall power relationship between the powers).

Part of this I chalk up to the fact that I think you designed a game in which you figured that most players would be playing the Axis in solo games. Thus, you wanted to make the Axis more fun to play. You let them have 20 Air Fleets and run rampant across Europe. That is certainly what the audience that shows up on this forum wants (just look at all the Panzer monikers posting here).

As long as the game dynamic continues where, if the Axis has any success early in the game (say the collapse of France by August, 1940), for all practical purposes, the game is over. Germany and her super power partner, Italy, (just look at how much more robust Italy is in this game than in real life -- does anyone believe that Italy's economy ever approached 85% of the British war economy?) have a cake walk.

If you have a historical fall of France, the game is over. The Germans just build and build and build, get stronger, kill more units and build more HQs. The game puts no limit on their numbers.

This is the reason that I originally proposed the idea of some sort of limit on the total number of units that the various powers could build.

It is obvious that you have been thinking about this and are considering some response to the mounting evidence through after action reports of games that the game is skewed significantly to the Axis.

Once you implement tcp/ip, I suspect the evidence will accumulate even faster because games will be able to be finished faster. I suspect that it is going to be difficult, after the game is out for a while, to find an opponant who will be willing to play the Allies.

Thus, unless something is done, STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) may only be seeing repeated solo play.

There are some who will argue that innovative Allied play (scrapping of Allied units, building a French HQ and an early tech buy, invading Italy as soon as she declares war to take advantage of the sill Italian set up when she enters the war) is the solution; but, if the German is patient and grinds the Allied down, the Allies will never be able to replace their early losses and the Axis armed forces will become gigantic. (However, I will admit that against either a newbie or unskilled Axis and with a dollup of luck, the Allies can win -- it just won't happen very often against reasonably equally skilled players.)

I look forward to coming tweaks in the design; but, I think the game design may require something which effects the dynamic which creates the Axis giant against a weakening Russia and her anemic Western Allies. Again, SC, as it currently exists, is a remarkable achievement in computer game design; but, it needs some more juice in order to provide a balanced game or anything that resembles history by 1942.

[sogard]

I think I am going to start a new topic folder from this; but, I will also post it here so folks can understand where it is coming from:

Has anyone ever seen a game in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) where France surrenders in either June or July 1940 that resulted in an Allied victory?

What I am looking for is a game where the Allies came back to win from a close to historic outcome.

I have never seen it. In order for the Allies to win in all the games that I have seen, the Allies must do substantially better than their historic counterparts. This usually means that France must survive well into 1941.

This question would really only apply to games between two human players (either pbem or hotseat).