Strategic Command 2? What changes?

[m45tion87]

What changes there would be in SC2? I suggest that there would be:

1. More realistic winter condition (slower troops ect.?)

2. More useful partisan (There are good suggestions in Partisan topic)

3. Airborne troops(?)

4. You can choose only one country to play (IF you want)

5. There should be chat in IP games

6. Maybe bigger europe map (Whole Norway, Finland. And bigger Egypt and Russia.

7. British could have some extra troops to Egypt from commonwealth...(Throught Suez?)

8. More diplomatic war map(?)

9. Minor coyntries should have also joining percentage (but ofcourse you can still attack against them )

Put your suggestions too!

[m45tion87]

Also, there could be new technology that improve tanks and infrantry so they can move faster in winter... (Look suggestions on top)

[Rouge]

A topic that has already been discused in great detail.

[JayJay_H]

m45tion, scroll back and have a look at earlier topics; most of this had been already taken into account

[JerseyJohn]

Have to agree with Rouge and JayJay --

It's a good idea in the spirit of organizing the subject, but in other forum pages a lot of us have posted volumes along these lines -- and often in more than one forum. My own experience was to flail away, writing tons, then going back to the days before I joined and -- whammo! -- not a single one of my thoughts were original.

*** *** ***

Agreed with the points you've listed --

I think it might be difficult incorporating airborne ops in the game mechanics as they weren't dropped in corps sized operations till pretty late in the war. Of course the first large operation, the Germans taking Crete, involved about that many troops, but most of them were flown in after the airfields were taken. Still a good suggestion and I hope it gets incorporated.

Winter and especially some sort of Russian Winter are sorely missing -- the reduced number of turns for bad weather months is good, and has an effect, but isn't the same as what Germany experienced in Russia or the Americans (briefly) in the Ardennes. Again, a fine suggestion and I hope it, too, becomes incorporated as I'm sure it will be.

[ November 08, 2002, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

in the spirit of organizing the subject

There are literally hundreds of suggestions on the table for SC2, many which are good or bad depending on what the scale and scope of the next version is. We need to be patient while Hubert decides what he wants to do. Once we all know what SC2 will cover, we can then better discuss the various suggestions. Ideally, Hubert should provide us a list of planned enhancements and items under consideration. Then we can provide meaningful feedback.

IMHO, the basic scale of SC is fine. Others tend to want more turns per year and/or smaller hexes. It's no secret that as you go from the grand strategic to the strategic and operational levels that the game necessarily becomes larger, more complex and longer to play. There's already a market for that - A3R, WiF, and soon HOI. SC's unique strength is that is quick and easy to play, but still provides a decent WWII grand strategy gaming experience. SC2 can be somewhat more realistic and historically accurate without compromising that strength and becoming more complex.

[J P Wagner]

A "Future Options and Wish List" forum for SC has been needed for quite some time. Afterall, it will give me the opportunity to once again pull out my "weekly turns with variable regional weather conditions" option from under the rug....

As far as more complexity, the pc versions of 3R and WIF are not very good and HOI has yet to come out and prove itself (though I will be getting it no doubt). Complexity does not mean that the game needs to become so undaunting, such as Grisby's War in the Pacific, but details and scale adjustments could be made to SC without undue sacrifice to ease of play.

[ November 08, 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[pzgndr]

scale adjustments could be made to SC without undue sacrifice to ease of play

Au contraire. Let's do some math. SC1 has 13-14 player turns per year. Going to bi-weekly turns would double game length to 26 turns per year. Do we keep the same map scale and unit action points? Of course not, otherwise you'd get in twice as much activity in a single year and that would be totally wrong. If we simply cut unit activity in half, the game would move slower and allow more time for defenders to react, and that would take the blitz out of blitzkrieg. To keep a more dynamic feel to the game (ie tanks moving about 6 hexes), we would have to cut hex size in half. And maybe that's OK, but it doubles the current map size and opens up the possibility of adding division size units to the game. Or at least rethinking army and tank group size units and dropping everything down to corps level. Now we're talking about potentially doubling the number of units in play, maybe more. So, just cutting the current game in half could quadruple the time required to play it. Again, that may be OK if we want to shift the focus from grand strategy to the strategic/operational level and get a richer gaming experience. Going to weekly turns would lead to even more complexity and definitely sacrifice ease of play. And maybe that's OK for some future spinoff of the game engine, but would be a significantly different game than what we have now.

Consider also that any major changes to the current game scale will probably require revisions to the economic model, unit databases, AI programming, and who knows what else. That's a significant challenge for a one-man programming shop and would greatly delay SC2. Programming, debugging and playtesting all take time. The SC game engine can probably handle more detail and complexity, it's just a question of how far down on the game scale Hubert wants to go.

I'm not saying that going to a smaller scale is bad or wrong. I'm just waving a caution flag and saying I don't expect SC2 to be significantly different regarding game scale. A larger map, normalized production, seasonal effects, force pool limits, improved AI strategies, and stuff like that are more reasonable expectations for the next iteration of SC. Once SC gets about as good as it can get, then some new version at the strategic/operational level would be interesting. :cool:

[Flash Gordon]

SC2, like any good sequel, should deliver the same...but more.

The basic formula in SC was sound. It just requires some tweaking. No doubt, some of these tweaks will go into the final 1.06 patch. The ones that would require extensive re-writing of the code, etc. will probably go into SC2.

I'm just hoping that SC2 covers the entire world. THAT would be fun and would cover a lot of what ifs? Also, a bit more diplomacy would be cool - maybe a way in which to encourage countries that are friendly to you to enter the war on your side? Right now, with the random war entry, some strange things can happen. One example is the entry of Finland into the war on the side of the Axis. This seems to be triggered by the entry of the USSR into the war with a delay of a turn or two. This can cause strange things to happen. Once, I waited too long as the Axis and the USSR declared war and began to push into Germany. They had gotten as far as taking Poland when Finland suddenly declared war on them (and got destroyed in the process). A better diplomatic layer to the game would be nice if it can avoid weirdness like this (why on Earth would Finland enter a war like that?).

[J P Wagner]

I never considered unit density, map scale, or how long it takes me to play a single game, as a major part of the complexity issue. Keep in mind, the game is not called Strategic Command I. That's a tag we put on it as with the tag SCII. So there is a mindset here that the next version of SC should follow close in the footsteps of SCET. It's as if some people don't veiw SCET as a completed game and expect the next version to simply tweek the original.

In my mind, SCET is a complete game, which I continue to enjoy. I don't want to see a clone of the original come out with a few bells and whistes. It should be treated as a new gaming experience which may include many of the suggestions mentioned throughout these boards. However, saying all this, perhaps the obvious next game will in fact be "Stategic Command Pacific Theater", then perhaps "Strategic Command Global Theater." Who knows? We'll just have to wait and see....

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

I support that point emphaticly! The russian front should include the northern theater and spread to murmansk and the polar circle! This would also be a terrain for submarine action/disrupting allied convoys (like PQ17) and give the wolf packs a chance to combat the land-lease supplyroute.

[ev]

I would really like a larger map.

I have given many suggestions elsewhere. But the one thing I would like most is a Gobal Map. Failing that, at least I would like the following modifications to the map:

1. Sweeden and Norway to link so you could move land units from one country to the other.

2. A larger deeper Russia.

3. The Canary Islands (Spain) or the Azores (Portugal) as ports to supply an Axis Fleet in the Atlantic.

4. A larger U.S. and a larger Canada.

...thanks for the great game you already gave us ...look forward to any future development.

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed with Flash, ev, JPWagner and the others; as I have agreed with them, on the same points, in several other past forums!

To me the big issues are the following:

1) Seasons. It isn't only a matter of turns per month, it's also a matter of what can or can't be done during certain parts of the year.

Winter is essential -- in Russia it's obvious, on other fronts it affects the amount of strategic bombing that would take place and the success of naval operations, such as the ability of U-Boats to succeed in their stealth operations. Also, in most areas severe weather such as heavy rain or snow storms could shut operations down either totally or partially.

Remember that classic line from Patton, "The Germans have not launched a major Winter offensive since the time of Frederic The Great!"

Which tells you something.

I can't believe seasonal considerations are beyond this terrific game's mechanics.

2) Manpower limitations. I love building new units as much as the next guy, but after a few years prolonged slaughter you start wondering if you're drafting 8 and 80 year olds! If this is done across the board it won't specifically handicap any particular nation and -- I believe it was Immers who pointed this out -- cutting down on the number of units and having to concentrate on their use and quality can only improve gameplay and strategy.

3) Transatlantic operations, specifically Axis invasions of North America. On the one hand we'd all like the option, on the other hand it isn't very satisfying to do it and tell yourself, "well, it's impossible, but it's done."

This is a hard topic. The most sensible solution is to not allow it as it was not actually an option -- even if Germany somehow conquered the U. S. & Canada, which I honestly don't believe could have been done, but even if she had -- how would she have occupied those places, along with the rest of Europe and conquered Russia?! Like the 1940s Pop Hit Title -- "Something's Gotta Give!"

But, the proverbial 'realm of possibility' could have an Axis invasion force taking major U. S. cities, occupying D. C., and either preventing the U. S. from operating in Europe or forcing a peace outright. Unfortunately I believe all of this is truly beyond the game's limitations and, as was suggested elsewhere, conquering America to have her revert to neutrality is the alternate method. A reasonable compromise but I just can't buy it.

The Norway and Crete operations were the limit of German efforts along these lines. A logical extension would be small operations such as invading Iceland, which was a real possibility before it was garrisoned by the U. S.. An invasion like that would have weighed the Battle of the Atlantic very heavily toward the Axis.

4) Naval operations. This is closely tied in with map size. As it stands now Germany can't get it's naval units past Scappa Flow without winning a Jutland type battle. In reality she put ships into the North Atlantic routinely via the Norwegian fiords. When they were detected and shadowed, as was done with the Bismark and Prinz Eugen in May, 1941, it was usually initiated at the Denmark Straights, close to North America.

The English Channel and Skagerrak sea areas need a special rule. They were not open highways. It was very difficult and risky for Germany to run vessels through the channel -- they only did it once with capital ships, running the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen back to Germany via that route in '43. And they only succeded with great difficulty despite catching the Brit's totally by surprise and at that many small vessels and aircraft were lost on both sides along with heavy damage to Gneisenau by mines.

The Skaggerak area, linking the Baltic and North seas was never penetrated either east-west by the Russians nor West-East by the British. If I'm wrong here, I'd greatly appreciate being enlightened, but I don't believe I am.

5) MAP -- generally I like it, with the exception of the bizarre Atlantic oddities already mentioned. It has numerous faults around the edges -- North Africa is a drag and actually prevents the flanking tactics that determined victory for both sides. There is a single hex where the cramping is justified -- at Alexandria where the Qattara Depression is at it's northern extreme and flanking maneuvers are impossible. But the rest of North Africa is a study in aggravation.

6) A world map would be great but could only work on either a scroll basis or as numerous screens -- a major revision.

7) Diplomacy. It's been said too well and by too many others for restatement here. The automatic Yugoslavian coup becomes comical -- the entire world masses at it's borders and suddenly the Yugoslavs go nuts and join the Allies and are immediately crushed. Finland is another case. But this, too is a hard issue.

I'd be pretty satisfied with a Pacific Theater of the game that interfaces with the European Theater -- I don't begrudge buying a seperate Pacific package, at $25 each the two games are well worth it and the producer/developer deserves to earn more for so much further development and expansion.

8) Random USSR & U. S.

Also, I think Russia's armies should be severely handicapped in operations outside the USSR if Russia initiates the hostilities. It was the savagery of German occupation that motivated it's effectivness, not ideology or Stalin's leadership and certainly not his generals (with the exception of Zhukov and others who emerged after the first years catastrophes).

In the case of the United States, I think a German declaration of war is essential. Otherwise it's merely "Roosevelt's War" and would have lacked essential support among the American people. This is a very hard point as it ties in with Pearl Harbor.

When I was a kid there were numerous war time propaganda maps in existence that depicted Hitler smiling East of the Mississippi and Tojo smiling in the West! Americans believed that -- we still believed that had been the plan in the fifties and it was a propaganda masterstroke.

Sure, the random U. S. entry is an abstraction and takes numerous factors into consideration, but, combined with Russia's random entry, it's capable of twisting the real situation beyond recognition.

***

I hope everyone posts their revision ideas in this single location, so we can have it all more organized and comprehensible.

[ November 08, 2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

There is a chat in ip games. Press 'T' while playing.

CvM

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

I'm just hoping that SC2 covers the entire world. THAT would be fun and would cover a lot of what ifs? Also, a bit more diplomacy would be cool - maybe a way in which to encourage countries that are friendly to you to enter the war on your side?

I'm not too keen on that. I think it's important to realize what SC is, and what it can and can't be.

There's a preview of Hearts of Iron over on the Wargamer Board; HOI has gone gold, and will be released next week. It sounds pretty promising: it covers the whole world, you can play any country, it's incredibly detailed, there's diplomacy, there's this and that... But then you read that it took the guy who previewed the game six hours to play the first three years, and that's before the war started. (The game covers 1936 to 1948.) Plus, you run into Bensing's Rule #146, which is that in any computer game, the AI's competence is inversely proportional to the game's complexity. It was pretty neat reading how the German player could persuade Czechoslovakia to join the Fascist alliance, but I'm betting that by the third time you play the game, anyone who hasn't flatlined his latest EEG will have figured out exactly what you have to do to make that happen.

I'll get HOI, and maybe it will be the definitive global strategic level WWII game, and maybe not. Or maybe it will be, but it'll be real hard to come up with PBEM players who will be around for the four or five months it'll take to complete a game.

With SC, I can complete most PBEM games within a couple of weeks. There's some things that definitely need to be changed in it, but I believe that making it into the definitive global strategic level WWII game isn't a desirable, or even achievable, goal. No pun intended, but there's a world of difference between modeling the Eastern and Pacific Theatres. Hubert's done a fine job with this game, but he's one guy, and expecting him to create a game which accurately simulates tank combat in Russia and carrier combat in the South Pacific is expecting too much. I'd rather get the European Theatre right. (And it's not, yet.)

Same thing with some of the other ideas. Paratroops are nice, but not in this kind of game. Having subs fighting the Murmansk convoys would be cool, but not in this kind of game. I'm not even keen on little things like choosing when to intercept air attacks. The great virtue of this game is the ease of playability. Correcting some flaws to make it function more realistically and more fluidly seems to be a more worthwhile and more achievable goal than trying to make the game everything to everybody, and winding up with something that really doesn't work at all.

[m45tion87]

I'm still new here so I don't know everything...

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by m45tion87:

I'm still new here so I don't know everything...

But you will, son, you will.

[pzgndr]

I'd rather get the European Theatre right. (And it's not, yet.)

I agree. Get ET right and perhaps expand it to include Pacific Theater scenarios (separate map, but essentially the same game). A worldwide combined game could be an objective for SC3, but I dare to speculate that far out.

I'm guilty of suggesting airborne units in the past and I understand the arguments against them, but I still think there's room in the game for limited numbers of specialized corps, including mountain and cavalry and garrison units. Maybe limited as 5- or 8-factor units. Are they critical? No. But they would add some historical flavor, there is some legitimate strategic value to having their unique capabilities available, and if limited by higher cost and force pool limits (except garrisons) they shouldn't be a problem. If Hubert can add them as options or variants, then that would be fine.

[Valadictum]

Hi folks, I've been quiet for a while, thought I'd speak up rather than just lurking.

Hmmm, one of the old ideas I had (maybe rehashed, can't remember)was to:

Design your own style of army corps/armies from a range of available division types that changes with research. These would materially impact the mobility and firepower of unit types to make radically different games especially when playing against another human opponent.

This could be combined with promotable generals of army corps who gain experience and can be turned into an army commander and eventually an HQ unit with ratings that are made by the game you are playing. This would mean not having to rely on a set list of HQ units apart from a few at the start and it would mean you can't afford to just use corps for garrison work, or you limit your future HQ commanders when you need them.

[Emil Seibold]

Is there an SC2 in the pipeline?

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

Having subs fighting the Murmansk convoys would be cool, but not in this kind of game.

Hmmm. I was just thinking of the same scene when axis subs operate against north atlantic convoys: The appearing of a small popup message saying that axis subs disrupt allied convoys in the Barents Sea/Norwegian Sea or the Northern Ocean and USSR looses a specified amount of MPPs when they (the wolfpacks) are within the range of murmansk; that works with Liverpool and St Johns also. Wont be too unrealistic, and wont cause any needs for changing the SC game engine as well!

[ November 10, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ]

[ev]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I think Russia's armies should be severely handicapped in operations outside the USSR if Russia initiates the hostilities. It was the savagery of German occupation that motivated it's effectivness, not ideology or Stalin's leadership and certainly not his generals (with the exception of Zhukov and others who emerged after the first years catastrophes).

You bring many interesting and valid points above, but I would like to expand on this one point I highlited.

When playing the Germans, the risk of Russia attacking me in 1940-42 is a mayor element in my mind. Set up Russia to Neutral, and, the Germans will wipe out all of Western Europe at Expert +2 no problem.

Still, you bring a valid point. I just wish to propose a different solution. Many years ago I played a board game (telling you many years ago) published by SSP (not SSI) called War in Europe. In that game, Russian Production could not be boosted to full capacity until Germany occuppied at least 3 Russian Cities.

Perhapps we could borrow something from that game. All Russian cities could produce at half strength (5 MPPs) until one, two or three cities are occupied by the German Player. From there on, Russian would produce at full capacity until the Germans are defeated. How does this sound to you?

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Perhapps we could borrow something from that game. All Russian cities could produce at half strength (5 MPPs) until one, two or three cities are occupied by the German Player. From there on, Russian would produce at full capacity until the Germans are defeated. How does this sound to you?

I agree, I think that the Russian production is too strong at the outset, there should be some 'trigger' that shifts production to east of the Urals.

CvM

[pzgndr]

Still, you bring a valid point. I just wish to propose a different solution. Many years ago I played a board game (telling you many years ago) published by SSP (not SSI) called War in Europe. In that game, Russian Production could not be boosted to full capacity until Germany occuppied at least 3 Russian Cities.

Perhaps we could borrow something from that game. All Russian cities could produce at half strength (5 MPPs) until one, two or three cities are occupied by the German Player. From there on, Russian would produce at full capacity until the Germans are defeated. How does this sound to you?

At the heart of any WWII grand strategy game is the economic model. It has to be comprehensive and it has to make sense. In SC Russia starts with a LOT of MPPs to represent mobilization, but everyone is mobilizing so why is this special? Plunder provides a LOT of fast cash, both too much and too soon. These and other issues should get reviewed for SC2. Some ideas:

1. Stabilize the economy. No more plunder or very little (maybe 1-2 turns worth of total country production). Production should be based on actual resources each turn and normalized on a per-month basis. In addition to Scorched Earth for Germans only, it should also be applied to Russians to represent rail conversion problems and the German's own scorched earth policies. And a similar random effect could be applied to all captured resources, or at least damage sustained during fighting should take time to repair (like Tobruk, Brest, etc.)

2. In addition to Industrial Technology reducing costs, growth rates could be applied to the home resources of the major powers, like the Russian cities idea. Either individual rates can be considered for everyone, or perhaps a one-time random increase from 10 to 15 points per resource for US and USSR about a year after entering war. These two countires both experienced rapid expansion of their economies for war, moreso than the others. There needs to be a better way to reflect this in the game. Variants or options could be used to simulate higher growth for the others so that we retain what-if possibilities.

3. With a stabilized economy and no plunder, how do we simulate the rapid buildup of German forces in the early years and Russian mobilization after Barbarossa? The recent scenario mods offer a clue. Provide low strength cadre units at start. It takes time to build them up to full strength, but you're paying reinforcement cost - not full purchase cost. The savings should offset the loss of plunder. It may just take until April before Germany can afford to tackle Denmark and Norway! Cadre units need to be considered as part of the at-start force pools, and maybe some extra MPPs if necessary.

4. MPP transfers should be allowed between allies. For Russia, this means some way to simulate Murmansk Convoys and Lend Lease. Perhaps allow US and British MPPs (100 each) to be loaded onto transports and shipped around Norway and Cape Horn, with various delays and risk of interceptions. Right now the only way for the western allies to help Russia is to launch D-Day too soon. It should be a strategic decision to help Russia survive 1941 and 1942 while the west builds up slowly for the inevitable assault on Fortress Europe.

These are just some ideas. Other games like WiE, 3R/A3R and WiF provide examples of economic models that have many features worth borrowing. IMHO, we need to get this right for SC2.

[ November 11, 2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Bill Macon ]