SC-2 needs to fix the USA, time we got the historical love & respect

[Iron Ranger]

Smmmm - Smmmmm - is that toast I smell, no wait its oil, yes oil from a master lock I smell - I can hear now - clink, clink, clink

[Curry]

..

[ October 24, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Curry]

Iron, ( I am addressing the right guy this time

I agree with your view of the USA. The over all point is the same. USA is still much much stronger. Yes like you say at the start, army weaker, navy stronger, and its MPP grows from the 180 into a giant.

[Curry]

I like this time, all of us North American's are up and posting and the Euro's are in their beds. Wait until they wake up ... perhaps get another view of things.

[JerseyJohn]

That's where I fit in with my runaway insomnia, I'm awake, though drowsy, when they do their posting.

Unfortunately, I usually roll over and agree with them as well! --

[ October 24, 2003, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[CC Baxter]

The US is understrength within SC. I presume that this in part is to represent the diversion of resources to the Pacific theatre. Rambo's wish-list is very exact but the point of the game (and grand strategy in general) is that you have the raw materials at your disposal and can then "buy" what you require to execute your strategy.

The disparity between historical American economic and military might and that represented in SC can be simply addressed by giving the US more MPP with which to "buy" the Rambo wish-list.

[SeaMonkey]

Come on Guys, SC is not about a judgement simulation of the past, present, or future deeds of any one country, race, or religion...Forget it! This answer will come later. If you want the US more powerful, just give them 5 IT level and a crap load of MPPs when they enter, debate over, nuff said.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The problem with statements stating that the US is not represented properly, is that the majority of them are made from a belief about the relative strengths of the different nations involved, not a true understanding of the actual strengths. Iron Ranger and a few others who have been part of the debate and more importantly, looked into some of the actual numbers, have given a good overall statement about whats wrong with the US MPPs and military units.

Over the past year, there have been some lively debates about this topic, some of them quite detailed. Of course, very few of us will go back and read the old archives, since there are so many of them. And instead of me picking on Rambo's specific points, let me just give my general viewpoints about the US in SC.

The US MPPs in SC are too low. Yes. Without getting into the specifics, they should be around 200 to 300, with the ability to grow to around 400 to 600. But the most important part that everyone seems to forget, is that the Russian MPPs in SC are too high. Russia should be roughly 180 MPPs. And even after relocating the factories to the East, the Russian MPPs should never exceed 250 MPPs or so. The next points about the US MPPs, is how do you represent what went to the Pacific theater and what was sent to Allies? SC, 3R, COS and High Command have all taken these basic numbers, and depending on how the individual designer interepeted it, changed them around for playability purposes.

While I don't know the reasoning behind Mr H's decision process, I suspect he is of the same opinion as I... WWII was decided in the East. As in Russia. While the Western Allies contributed, the decisive blows were being struck in Russia. The US did not "win" WWII, though it greatly contributed to the Axis defeat. The US did defeat the Japanese, but they were not part of the Axis.

The US Navy is not properly represented in the Atlantic. But neither is the UK and Candian navies. Thats because the missions that those navies allocated alot of ships to, is not part of SC naval warfare.

Armored warfare... Using SC terms, the US should really only have one (1) Tank Group. Germany should have eight (8) and Russia roughly three (3). The mobility aspect of the Allies isn't represented in SC, since the Corp/Army units should have one (1) less action point (ie horse drawn transports), while the US/UK units keep the current action points (ie motorized transports). US doctrine used armored divisions like infantry divisions, since with the exception of a few commanders, the US still thought of tanks as armored horses. The UK was even more stuck in the tank as a armored horse rut, and never achieved the proper coordination between armor and infantry forces. Thats why they get no Tank Groups.

The US should have more strategic bombers, but not as initial units. You should have to purchase them. But again, the reality in SC is that we have foresight and don't believe that strategic bombers can defeat the enemy by themselves. So we don't buy them.

Until the Air is "fixed", its tough to critize AAA, radar, etc. With limits on the air units, you can represent the Battle of Britain accurately, as long as you understand that the UK can lose the air battle, especially if they don't have HQ support.

[Bullwinkle]

OK, here is all I have to say.

Rambo - I don't care that you comment on the game's deficiencies. That's fine with me and what this forum is supposed to be about.

But when you go off on one of your tangents - about how the Germans deserved to die, etc. etc. etc. And your continual crowing about how great you are (which actually indicates a bad inferiority complex), I get riled up.

You claim that you live life on the edge, but in fact you're a Christian, conservative, super-patriot. That's not "on the edge" at all. It's radical right-wing garbage, the same as is spouted by fanatics around the world. "My country right or wrong", etc.

As far as posting every 6 months, as you well know I play against the AI. Thus I have little to say that would help those of you who compete against each other. Therefore I post only when I have something worthwhile to say - and to protest your bull**** is worthwhile in my book. Views like your's make me sick.

Keep your posts focused on the game and not national policy, religion, or your ego.

Curry - I've been around here longer than you. Check out the ID nrs. I included you in my rant against "The Great Rambo" because you simply came out and said that you supported his post. I assume that means that you supported ALL of his post - even the disgusting notion that all Germans deserved to die. If that is not the case, then the fault is your's for not being more discriminative.

And I am amazed that hey haven't locked this thread.

[jon_j_rambo]

Bullwinkle --- Have you lost it? Dude, you might have some issues, so I'm going to help you.

The attack on Dresden was historical & the Germans got what they deserved. I never said "ALL should die" (where would that leave Mr. Schindler?)...The Germans started the war, they dictated the rules of engagement, is it really a surprise to you what happened to Germany? What were nations suppose to do when invaded?

I believe the United States deserves more bombers & technology in SC to conduct strategic bombing of Germany just like the real war.

It's funny how you only want people to speak things that "don't stir you" & get bothered by something that was never said. Gosh, you sure do get upset by imaginary things, learn to control your anger.

You would like to label me Right Wing? Obviously you never read my many takes,"Never be in a political party or organized world religion." Where did this Right Wing comment come from,? Get a grip. I voted for Ross Perot, I think he's an independent. I don't care for politics & politicians, they're maggots for the most part, who live off others. I make an honest living, & recommend it to everybody.

The US should have a bigger Navy than UK. UK/USA should share their technologies...anti-air, sonar, jets, long-range, etc...........

It's a great game (SC), look forward to (SC-2) with a more historical playing of the United States.

Camp Rambo, Boise, Idaho, USA >>>>>>>>> OUT

[Korut Zelva]

Germany would not have been defeated without the US. That I believe is a TRUTH!

If I remember well, 90% of German combat deaths were suffered on the Eastern Front. North Africa, Sicily, France, USA was only met with a Germany all tangled up in Russia. The USA main contribution is to have prevented the Russian to overrun the rest of Europe.

However, I agree that the Supply thing in North Africa should be changed should they take Algeria.

[ October 26, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Korut Zelva ]

[Lee]

The people of a country always end up paying for the evil acts of their leaders.

That's why when these low-life socialists try to take over a nation, like they

did in Germany and Russia, the decent citizens should kill them immediately

before they gain control.

Or else they in for great suffering; first at the hands of the government itself,

and then from the other nations that have to fight this barbaric government to

stop whatever bad things they are trying to do to other countries that are free.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

The problem with statements stating that the US is not represented properly, is that the majority of them are made from a belief about the relative strengths of the different nations involved, not a true understanding of the actual strengths

I think Shaka has nailed it on the head here. To be honest, one of the main reasons I have not usually participated in discussions relating to certain specifics of the design in SC, especially the various economies and military capabilities of each country involved is because it really does come down to a "belief" or "individual perception" about the relative strengths of the nations involved and in the end each one being highly debatable within it's historical context.

It has been interesting to see and watch the various debates over the last year and a half, but... perhaps it is time for me to actually sit down at the keyboard and "defend" or better yet "explain" my design and/or design decisions so that everyone can have a better idea of what I was actually thinking when making SC.

In the beginning... back in '99 when I was thinking what sort of game I wanted SC to be, I pretty much went with a basic economic system as represented by the MPP, i.e. so many resources will represent your military industrial capability. Keep in mind that since SC was going to be my first game I didn't want to get to far over my head (I wanted to design something that I would actually finish) and I wanted to keep the design as simple as possible. "Why overcomplicate things when general abstactions will do?", was the primary thinking at that time.

I also decided to only have the current participants in the war as "Active", i.e. countries like the US and USSR would be off the board until they either entered the war or were declared war upon. Thinking back, perhaps this was not the best decision since it did create a few complications as we now know, various gambits against majors, and the difficulty in correctly modeling a country's industrial war preparedness as well as what should the relative strength of the military be once it enters the war etc.

Now with perhaps a better understanding of the limitations of the design I will start with the topic of choice here, i.e. the US, in explaining part of the overall design philosophy for SC.

We all know the US produced a ton of stuff during the war, and that it's industrial output, militarily, domestically etc. mushroomed rather quickly from 41-45, but in making the final decision as to what an appropriate per turn MPP value should be I had to factor in more than just the industrial numbers to have a proper reflection of what “I” felt this WWII sim should be. While I realize not everyone may be happy with this part, yes, I as the designer unfortunately , have the liberty to push the design in a certain direction, whether it satisfies my "beliefs" of WWII or it's to satisfy my idea of playability, or my idea of what makes a game fun .

Getting back to the design, for the most part, I attempted to gauge for all countries their total major military units (i.e. armies, tank groups, air fleets etc.) that participated in the European Theater during WWII and the required MPP for the duration of the game to get them there, not withstanding other costs incurred during the game, i.e. reinforcement, operation, transportation etc.

For a quick (and really an overly simplistic) idea as to why perhaps the US/Germany/USSR MPP numbers vary so greatly take a look at the following numbers of units in the European Theater:

USA

- 6 armies (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 15th (formed in Jan '45))

- 4 air fleets (8th, 9th, 12th, 15th)

Germany

- ~20 armies (25 total existed but some were renamed and/or reformed)

- 7 air fleets

USSR

- 43 Fronts (Army Groups) with ~50+ armies

- 18 air armies

While these numbers may be a surprise to some, an even bigger surprise might be that some will say by looking at these numbers the Soviets need a huge amount of MPP (bigger than what they already have) to produce this sort of output by game's end, but this would not be an accurate reflection either. Why? Well, while the Soviet numbers may seem initially impressive, what really made up a Soviet army, or air army? How many men were in these armies, what type and what numbers of equipment or support equipment made up these armies, were they highly mechanized like the US armies? etc.

To answer these questions quickly and more specifically, most historians would argue that what the Soviets called an army was more akin to a corps in terms of size and equipment, but nonetheless they did have a huge number of men and equipment fighting on the eastern front and this does need to be reflected for game play and thus part of the reason for a large Soviet MPP. While some may think the US is restricted, the Soviet player will never be able to produce 50+ land and 18+ air armies in SC because I also took the liberty in the design to acknowledge that this would make the Soviets much too powerful on the board especially coupled with what represents an Army or Air Fleet unit in the game. They can still produce fair amount of units but in reality or for a different game , they could have more but either smaller in size, i.e. a Soviet corps could be an army for game play, or an adjustment to Soviet army characteristics, perhaps cheaper and weaker relative to German or US armies etc.

In part, this could be viewed as part of the problem with the abstract generalization I used for SC, and in a sense it really does come down to Greens vs. Reds vs. Greys as Shaka has alluded to in a much earlier post. Since there are no country specific attributes, there had to be some liberties taken to reflect game play.

While country specific attributes could have been done, in the end it really becomes a numbers game, where you are just pushing the numbers around to satisfy your “feeling” or “belief” of WWII. For example, with specific country characteristics, you could make US units more mobile to reflect higher mechanization, but then you would possibly have to make the units more expensive to reflect the higher costs for more equipment per army. Then you could increase the number of per turn MPP’s for the US since they were able to cover these costs etc., and some might feel better because the US has a higher per turn income, but in the end it really is the same thing since the ratios are the same and the end number of units will be the same. Note, this only reflects income vs. costs and not the end performance of the unit, which would undoubtedly be better. While generic units were used for SC1 to not overcomplicate a simple game, the idea of having country specific units I think is a good one and is under serious consideration for SC2. At least the ability for the player to do so will exist, and I think this should make most people happy… well I hope

So getting back to the US, the question remains, if they were producing a ton of stuff, and yes their armies were more qualitatively equipped, more mechanized etc. this still does not account for all material they produced, i.e. why did they not field more armies in Europe, where did all the equipment go?

Short answer, some of the equipment stayed at home or went to the pacific or was sent to England or to the USSR in Lend Lease:

- US had 11 armies in total during WWII, 2 never went overseas and 3 went to the pacific

- US had ~17 Air Fleets (some renamed), 4 served throughout the US throughout the war, 1 served to protect the Carribean and Panama, 1 the Phillipines, 1 in Hawaii, and the rest served throughout the Pacific in various capacities.

Again, part of the numbers in SC for the overall incomes takes into account automatic adjustments for the above and/or for lend lease etc. and this might give a better idea as to why the various numbers are the way they are. So again, in setting up the US I had to make a decision to reflect WWII and to balance fun and playability, and while it may not be perfect, I felt it was the best I could come up with at the time with the limitations of the design, i.e. the US start out much stronger militarily than they do historically in Dec 41, but at the end of the war they should be in theory at about the same position.

While any of the info I posted above is just as debatable as anyone else’s posts since they reflect my “beliefs” of WWII, the good news is that I am listening and much of this has been addressed in designing SC2. What I am proposing is that there will be much greater editing control in SC2 so that if you are not too crazy about a particular design decision the ability to change some of the details will exist… within certain limitations of course

Ok I think that’s a long enough response and hopefully gives a better idea of where I was coming from, but feel free to debate any of the above and I will respond with any further ideas I may of left out.

Hubert

P.S. and yes I like the emoticon

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Korut Zelva:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Germany would not have been defeated without the US. That I believe is a TRUTH!

The USA main contribution is to have prevented the Russian to overrun the rest of Europe.

</font>

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

As always a great post, thanks for sharing your reasons -- actually, I think this may be the most detailed insight you've ever given and it's very greatly appreciated.

The 50 Russian armies can easily be figured as the equivalent of 25 German armies (Russians having understregnth units, an army would really be a corps etc....) so it works out perfectly. By war's end even the USSR was feeling a severe manpower shortage.

Totally agreed with your reasoning on the United States. Many of us have been stating the identical reasons from the very start. Much of the US industrial might needed to be directed into unseen items such as Liberty Ships and even a large proportion of the weaponry was sent to U. S. Allies instead of being allotted directly to American troops. As early as December 1941, with the Japanese hitting U. S. bases in the Pacific, American commanders were lodging the valid complaint that we were sending first rate equipment to Great Britain while American troops at Wake and the Phillipines were depending on often malfunctioning World War One leftovers!

Cutting to the chase, however, my main problems with SC do not involve any of these factors.

They are:

-- Lack of realistic weather effects in general and a Russian Winter in particular.

-- The Battle of the Atlantic and the size of the Atlantic Ocean.

-- Geographic anamolies such as the U. S. and Canada being separated by the Atlantic.

-- Extremely exaggerated dominance of air power in general and aircraft carriers in particular.

-- UK weakness in North Africa -- a link where Commonwealth troops from Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa could be formed directly in Alexandria would help a lot.

-- Distortion of the Russian Front; again, much of this is due to lack of weather, a critical factor on that front.

-- Amphibious Landings. The present system leads to incredible abuses such as floating armies looking for a cozy spot to land at! We all know, and you know it much better than most, that this is a horrible situation leading to gross distortions.

-- Map constrictions. A few more hexes along the southern edge would solve a lot of problems. The entire North African Campaign needs to be fought on land. Landing six Italian armies behind the British lines somewhere is, well, it really ruins the game and is totally unrealistic.

-- Unlimited units of all types. As many as ten airfleets for any single major power would be fine, but there would also need to be some sense to it. Logistically the Axis couldn't have dumped 10,000 aircraft in Libya and the Allies couldn't have operated an equal number out of Egypt. Things like this need to be considered. Certain places, mainly Britain, France and Germany could conceivably support huge numbers of aircraft, backwaters could not. So, in addition to limiting the number of air fleets, there should also be a limiting factor in the number of airfleets that can operate out of certain areas. As it is now we've got a huge air war all over the map and that pretty much decides the game. Perhaps the answer is to limit air units to operating out of city hexes, or perhaps cities and their immediately adjacent land hexes. I think that would work extremely well and range would become more of a factor.

-- Naval units. Shore bombardment is abusive and, as already stated, carriers have distorted values. Submarines also need revision as they quickly become useless at sea due to lack of supplies.

[Edwin P.]

Hubert

Thanks for the post and your update on SC2.

Looking forward to a SC2 with a deviously clever AI.

And the chance for an independent Turkey to annex Iraq and Vichy Syria.

[Hubert Cater]

Jersey John

Thanks for the feedback, and not to worry most of what you described has been carefully looked at and I suspect you will like the changes as far as they actually fit within the context of SC2... since I am not at liberty to say what that is just yet

Edwin P.

I can say that at least the AI will be on the same level as SC1 with the hope for some improvements, but if I spend too much time on the AI and the game is not released for a long time everyone will know whose request to blame

Hubert

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

Excellent!

-- Thanking you in advance,

I have absolute confidence that all those things have been made right and new features added which most of us have never even considered.

Equally certain that SC2 will be a truly Great Game.

[ October 26, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Thanks Hubert.

Thanks Jersey John - I like your take on limiting air units to city hexes or hexes adjacent to city hexes was most interesting. Its simple and effective.

What if you could disband a corps in a non-city adjacent hex to build an airfield. Thus adding a bit more flexiblity but at a cost of 125MPP and allowing one to station air fleets on Cyprus or Crete.

Hoping for a merry SC2 Christmas.

[Curry]

Hubert,

Thanks for the post. Can't say that I agree with everything in it but as you pointed out many of the things are debateable. But an excellent post and we know where you are coming from now.

One item in the back of my mind is what the USA could have put into the war effort against what she historically did. Germany, USSR, the UK, put everything into the war. At least and especially so in the way of man power. All those three nations were short men toward the end of the war (including with the ussr using women in many ways). The USA never got near that type of use of their manpower.

Another item is how easy it is for the axis to land a corp or an army in the USA. Now you stated I beleive that the US had air at home (you said 4 at home and one in the carribean/panama for a total of 5). But how is that air reflected in the game. Its not. Instead Italy can land a random army or corps and take Boston. I say let them have Boston - LOL, but serious not a reality.

In any case, the game you created is in my view excellent and game playability is more, no much much more, important than historical accuracy. To me its more of a game of Grey's verses the Red's and Green's like Shaka has wisely alluded to.

Perhaps some of us American's just like to bitch (we ususally just bitch against each other, I think its part of the bill of rights )

Again thanks for post - well done and we all look forward to SC-II.

[ October 26, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Curry]

Bowinkle, I dont care if you have been here longer than I or if you post once or a thousand times. What does that have to do with anything?

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Probably one of those ideas that's been building up collectively.

"What if you could disband a corps in a non-city adjacent hex to build an airfield. Thus adding a bit more flexiblity but at a cost of 125MPP and allowing one to station air fleets on Cyprus or Crete."

That's a great concept. HiCom has something similar regarding buiding airfields in otherwise useless and hard to use areas. I think it's a very good idea -- airfields of this sort could serve as 5 level supply points, which would enable a local garrison as well.

That idea solves a lot of problems and those assorted, useless, islands will come to life in a hurry!

Also good is the corps conversion as it represents not only an MPP expenditure, but the actual committment of labor and material to the affected site!

To clarify things, it would mean:

--Airfleets can only operate out of cities and air bases.

--Any square could be made into an air base if a corps is assigned the purpose and consumed in the process.

--Air bases would have a low supply capacity for other units.

This would also be good because, in situations such as North Africa, the committment of large air forces would now involve a deliberate buildup instead of the quick transfer of air fleets from across a continent!

Bravo!

Here's hoping it becomes incorporated.

[ October 26, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Curry]

Hubert,

Dont change the Carriers. !!! I will catch hell for this with many, but I like them the way they are. It's also one of the few advantages the allies have. Now I will have to go hide in my bunker after saying that, I'm afraid Jersey will come after me. . .

[JerseyJohn]

Curry

I'd never go after a guy in a bunker -- machine guns fit perfectly in those things!

The carriers are great, if they happen to be on your side. But they really should be changed for historical accuracy; there are other, better ways to help Britain in it's time of need.

[Edwin P.]

Curry and Jersey John

I also like the Carriers as is, even though they are expensive to repair and replace and I often play the Axis.

However, I would increase the value of Submarines to make it more risky to use carriers when they are not shielded by surface ships.

How?

Say that all units have only a 50% to spot a submarine unit in a non-port hex. This reflects the fact that submarines are harder to spot than surface ships. Each advance in submarine tech decreases an air units spotting chance by an additional 10% to a minumum of 10% as the subs are spending more time operating submerged.

Thus a land or carrier based air unit would have at best a 50% to spot a submarine unit in spotting range.

Submarine units should have a chance to avoid fire when moving into an unxplored enemy occupied hex equal to their dive percentage. Thus subs will be able to attack surface ships without being hit by return fire.

Stronger subs will give the Axis more incentive to engage in Naval warfare and make for a more interesting battle in the Atlantic.

[ October 26, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]