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

[pzgndr]

Wow, great response from Hubert! It's always interesting to hear about how SC was developed, which somehow makes it all make more sense.

FWIW, Shaka, Immer Etwas and I had some discussions this spring about relative economic numbers used in High Command, Clash of Steel, Third Reich, and World in Flames, and then bounced some ideas off Hubert. There's certainly a lot of interpretation in how one can go about cutting up the economic pie and accounting for how things changed through the WWII years (like economic growth rates, etc.)

What's always nice to hear is that Hubert acknowledges some of the shortcomings in this first version and is committed to making SC2 more realistic and historically accurate. (Was that really Rambo asking about historical accuracy?? ) Looking forward to SC2! :cool:

[Hubert Cater]

Curry

Thanks for the feedback. I thought about including all the homeland defence units in the game but I envisioned too many potential problems with this so several compromises were made.

For starters, while there were US air forces at home, some of their makeup and use throughout the war differed greatly from those used in either the Pacific or European Theaters. For example while the 1st Air Force was mainly concerned with air defence in the Northeast Air District, 2nd and 3rd Air Force served mostly to train bomber crew and all other air crew types respectively. 4th Air Force did also serve as air defence but in the Southwest Air District, and 11th Air Force served in defence of Alaska so I would naturally exclude them as part of the Pacific side of operations and out of the scope of SCET.

The 6th Air Force served in defence of the Panama Canal but again my guess would be that its size and makeup would be radically different then its European or Pacific counterparts.

On the ground side of things the US did have the 2nd and 4th armies that never went overseas, and while I don't have much data on them offhand I will assume their duties were broken up in terms of serving to defend both coasts, so in reality we are talking about 1 extra army that could be theoretically sent to the ET.

So why not include all of the above in the game? Well, the US starting units do include the homeland defence units comprised of 1st Air Force and the 2nd and 4th armies (although one probably served on the west coast and IIRC neither was available in December 41) and the 1st and 3rd armies which did exist at the start of the war although also they did not arrive in England until ’43, and ’44 respectively. So I felt that the US as implemented in SC, does begin with a balanced amount of home defence and combat ready units, but to include the rest would result in, I felt, the potential disproportionate use of US units in the ET. i.e., what do most US players do with these available units now, basically send them all to the ET theatre for the fight right?, while the US homeland is left empty

Again, if the makeup, strengths and purposes of the remaining US air fleets at home were more like their US counterparts serving in Europe then perhaps this would make for a plausible what-if, i.e. what if the US had sent these similar units to Europe, what then sort of thing? then perhaps I could be more sympathetic to the cause of increased US MPP or starting units but I took the liberty during the design to exclude them for mostly the reasons stated above. Another consideration is that while countries like the USSR were concerned with attack and defence all on a single front and pretty much throwing everything militarily capable in there, the US was concerned with combat on 3 fronts, the ET, the PT, and it’s homeland defence. Would it have been realistic for the US to send everything they had to the ET and leave the homeland defence bare? Maybe, maybe not, but unlike the USSR, or Germany which as you said did have manpower and equipment shortages, the USA IMO was not fighting a similar “total war” or a war of “ultimate survival/destruction” as some of these countries were. Question could be, politically at home, what would it have been like if FDR fought a total war, and is it realistically possible that this could have happened?

FYI, this is not the only case where I took such liberties, while this may be a surprise to some, the USSR in June of 1941 had probably the largest submarine arm of any country at approximately 220 subs. Are these reflected in the game, not at all actually. While some sort of representation could have been included for the large amount of USSR subs, I felt that it would not be appropriate to the “feel” of the game as much of the sub fleet was either obsolete, differently trained, and simply not used in the way the u-boats were.

Lastly, while the idea of invading the US I agree is a little bit of a stretch, the main idea here with having the US on the board was an attempt to have a simulation of transporting troops to England or North Africa or whatever, coupled with portions of the convoys that also travelled across the Atlantic, i.e. to give both the Axis and the Allied player something interesting to do in the Atlantic. Again I will agree with most criticisms that this has many flaws and is in general probably the weakest part of the game, but the good news is that I have taken many considerations to address these issues for future incarnations/versions of SC.

Hubert

[Shaka of Carthage]

Thank you Mr H for the response. Always good to hear a designers thought process.

There was some mention by others about the "total commitment" of the US. I'd like to add my $.03 on the matter.

Around 1940 and up until Germany invaded Russia, the US was making plans to be the manpower backbone of the Allies. To that end, the US was planning on building a 213 division Army by 1941. Those numbers were carefully caclulated based on what the US industrial capacity was capable of at the moment and after expansion and the deseprate needs of the UK.

So while the initial output of the US was what you would consider light manfacturing (ie aircraft, war supplies, etc), the heavy manfacturing (tanks and artillery) was also in place for that 213 division Army. Even so, it was recognized that not all of those 200 division would be capable of combat in the ETO and PTO, so less that half of those divisions were earmarked for overseas duty during '41.

Then Germany invaded Russia. And from then on, the majority of the Germany military was involved against Russia. So the US was able to scale down its military to the infamous 89 division Army that was actually used.

So in some respects, while a 1942 or 1943 entry of Russia into the war would result in a larger US military, we also have to be aware that the UK was not in favor of the US having such a larger military involved in WWII. Why? Because the UK was worried about what the political positioning was between the UK and US, especially in a post-war enviornment (ie who the "world leader" was). It wasn't until 1950 or so, that the UK gave up its claim.

Hence, unless the UK is succesfully knocked out of the war, the US would never have exceeded that 90 division Army. In some ways, I guess what I am saying, is that it would be nice to have some sort of mechanism to double the US MPPs (whatever that number may be), if the UK is conquered. But unless that happened, the US would never have committed as many troops to the ETO that it could have. And that assumes the US would have had the political will to carry on the fight. But thats another subject.

[ October 26, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Edwin P.]

Shaka of Carthage - it would be nice to have some sort of mechanism to double the US MPPs (whatever that number may be), if the UK is conquered.

Now that's a great idea which would also make for some interesting sea battles and lead to a gradual buildup of the US Navy and give Germany time to subdue Russia.

[ October 26, 2003, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Curry]

Hubert, thanks for the post. Another well done post. I understand your thinking on the US reserve units and actually did know that most of those air fleets were for training. But didnt want to defeat my own argument.

I also understand on not having a US home guard.

For play ability the us or allied player should always guard the usa or canada. But many players dont and I have often just sent a corps over to the US/Canada and can take a city. It causes them defend the homeland.

Again thanks.

[Curry]

Shaka,

Excellent post. I sure agree that the USA had the ability and resources for a much greater force but for many reasons, diplomatic and political, it wasnt ready to commit to what it could do.

However, I also truly agree that would all have changed if the UK fell to the Nazi's. The US political will would surely have all changed. Your idea of doubling the US MPP is a good idea. But would it stop all attempts at a Sea Lion invasion? Would it hinder the play ability of the game?

[Curry]

Jersey, ---

Understand about those bunkers.

I was in the Big Red One just after Nam and had many friends who were carry over's from the Nam days and tell me stories of the bunker rats. They told me be glad that I was 6' feet tall, because the shorter guys would have to go into the many bunkers of Charlie after them.

[ October 26, 2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[JerseyJohn]

Curry

A scary thought to be certain. Like you, while I'd hate to be dealing with a bunker from the outside I think it would be worse to be on the inside; sooner or later someting, somehow, is going to get to it.

One of my high school friends had to check out those Vietnam tunnels and bunkers during the late sixties. Ten years later he joked about it but it was always with a nervous laugh.

The Big Red One! At least you were with a unit people have heard of. The few times I mentioned I was with the Forty-Second Bomber Wing I've always gotten odd looks, as though I were only joking around!

[ October 27, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

I think doubling US MPPs in the event the UK falls is misleading. Doubling the size of the army would actually have diminished the nations industrial output! More able bodied men taken out of the workforce who consequently need to be provided for by those still in it!

Interesting take on the varying army size, though, and I'd also like to see it represented somehow. If possible.

[ October 27, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

I like your submarine idea but still hate the carriers!

They're just too intrusive in the land campaigns -- we're talking about a handful of aircraft, not entire bomber fleets, which is what they play like!

[ October 27, 2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

Yet another great posting and a really enjoyable one as well.

If we can coax another out of you, and it's abusive to ask, what do you think of Edwin's Air Base idea? -- Transform a corps in a permanent air base and airfleets can only operate out of cities or these deliberately constructed air fields which would also serve as 5 point supply posts.

This is a basic summary from the earlier posts:

===

"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.

===

I think it's great; it would make it much more difficult to concentrate air fleets in a specific area; doing so would require time as well as expenditure, which would represent a deliberate buildup. With that idea I'd even go for air build ups in places like North Africa since those construction corps would have needed to be sent and would be consumed, as in a prolonged build up -- the corps, despite what I just called them, would be ordinary units.

Good Point about air fleets and armies. Every veteran knows that many units are little more than names and are not indicative of what they contain. During WW II, Naval Inteligence was designated as a fleet, though in reality it contained personnel but not a single ship!

[ October 27, 2003, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

For what its worth, I think USA is fine apart from the land separation from Canada. Which I'm sure from hearing this over and over from posters will not be an issue in SC2.

And I like how your goal was to keep the gameplay very simple, that's why I bought the game.

If SC2 was exacly like SC except it had a more complete editor and it was a full world map, I would buy it. Goes to say how please I am with SC.

Oh and remove the "luck" factor in this game (i.e; research)

[ October 27, 2003, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Edwin P.]

Blashy,

I agree. The simplicity and quick play nature of SC is great.

The things I would add is an improved AI, improved FOW, historical chrome and simple features that would make each game different: more techs, rare random events, and interactive events to spice things up and reflect the unpredicatability of war.

Events and Turkey, the sleeping bear of WWII

Random but Rare Events

PS: Blashy, sometime ago I suggested the concept of minor techs you could purchase where you gain the effect immediately, but they would offer limited benefits.

Ie:

Minor Tech: Improved Air Defense. Offers immediate +1 Air Defense Bonus to all cities for 600 MPP. Minor Tech: Improved Submarine Production which offers a 5% reduction in the cost of producing submarines for 100MPP. Minor Tech: Logistics, allows a HQ unit to support 6 units, not five for a cost of 300MPP. Minor Tech: Cold Weather Prep, defending units in Russia or Finland gain a 10% readiness bonus during winter months for a cost of 250MPP. Minor Tech: City Defense, maximum entrenchment level in cities is increased by 1 for a cost of 200MPP. Fighter Pilor Training, increases readiness of intercepting air fleets by 10% for 250MPP.

Minor techs reflect the allocation of resources resources to an area, not technological advances.

Ideally, you would have 12 to 15 major techs (the current SC concept) and another 12 to 15 minor techs from which to choose. Each minor tech could be purchased only once.

[ October 27, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Hubert Cater]

Jersey John & Shaka

Interesting ideas for sure, let me think about them

Hubert

[ October 27, 2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Iron Ranger]

Thanks for the post Hubert, its always nice to see where the developer/designer was coming from.

[Edwin P.]

Hubert, if you have the time for a quick comment;

What are your thoughts on an improved Fog of War in SC2.

Ie in SC1 terms

- Reduce the chance for air fleets to spot an enemy unit if the unit is within range(or to the rear of) of an interception capable enemy air unit. Perhaps have the chance vary according to the number of enemy air fleets covering the area or the distance from the spotting units location or the strength of air fleets covering the hex (say 2% per str point, so 4 fleets x 10str x 2% = 80% cover vs aerial recon) or no arial recon of enemy units adjacent to an enemy air fleet. It always struck me as unusual that an air fleet could spot land units behind a wall of 4 enemy air fleets with 100% certainty.

- No notification of a siberian transfer event to the Axis

- Air Fleets have a % to spot naval units in non-coastal sea hexes adjusted for weather effects. Example: 90% to spot surface ships and 50% to spot subs. This would give a chance for a task force to slip into range (remember Pearl Harbor) unoticed.

- Low cost & low strength air units that could be used for spotting but not interception or attack.

- Some sort of intelligence/counterintelligence tech (aka Ultra).

- Option for AI FOW OFF / HUMAN FOW On (As Suggested by Jersey John many posts long ago) to improve games vs the AI for those that play the AI often or some other toggable option to improve help the AI such as an option for AI units to get +1 spotting or AI knows when cities/nations are not garrisoned (ie Cairo/Egypt/Canada/Italy/Sweden/Denmark).

[ October 27, 2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

More than fair, looking forward, as always, to your views.

[ October 27, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hubert Cater]

Edwin P.

Good points on FoW, and this area will see some changes as well, especially for human vs. ai play

Ok back to work for me!

Hubert

[sonnenwalde]

5) Lets fire bomb Dresden like it deserved.

How can you say that thousands of innocent women and children deserved to be killed in a fire raid. The war was started by sick German politicians, not the majority of the population, who were no different to people the world over.

:mad:

[ErrantRecce1]

5) Lets fire bomb Dresden like it deserved.

Smart and American are not concepts that are naturally comfortable too close together. Not that it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen often enough.

One more improvement Hubert, for SC2. Whereas the UK and Germans, and even a little the French, had professional standing armies The USSR and the US, both had to raise armies, when faced with the war. There should be some way of expressing the relative inexperience of the US and the USSR, which would then also allow for more armies without really impacting game play. Until well after Torch, the US was still climbing the learning curve. The USSR were even further back than the US.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by ErrantRecce1:

5) Lets fire bomb Dresden like it deserved.

Smart and American are not concepts that are naturally comfortable too close together. Not that it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen often enough.

One more improvement Hubert, for SC2. Whereas the UK and Germans, and even a little the French, had professional standing armies The USSR and the US, both had to raise armies, when faced with the war. There should be some way of expressing the relative inexperience of the US and the USSR, which would then also allow for more armies without really impacting game play. Until well after Torch, the US was still climbing the learning curve. The USSR were even further back than the US.

So true for the Soviets, they just kept sending your everyday joe to the slaughter, figuring they would simply overwhelm by numbers, which is what happened.

As for the US, I somewhate agree, they might not have had the experience but they had better training than any other Allied country.

[ErrantRecce1]

Well, The USSR is a gimme for inexperience. As for the US, up to 1941, aside from walking some bombers across the border to Canada, the US was still the sleeping monster of late 20th century international humour. The military was still underfunded. The populace had more interest in the world series than the world.. it took til well after the US started fighting that they really could be considered a world class military. Look at Kasserine Pass, or Anzio, D Day. They learned by counting up their dead and repeating the exercise ad nausem.

[JerseyJohn]

ErrantRecce1

Let me get that opening statement straight -- you objected to a blanket remark about the Germans, as I did along with a lot of other Americans here, and counter with a blanket remark about Americans, and you somehow come out of this as the authority on smart?

Did you bother to read any of the other postings here, written by Americans, who dealt with the statement itself in much, much better ways than your counter-drivel?

Yeah, trading insult for insult, that's really smart.

[ October 27, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[ErrantRecce1]

Jersey, Poopsie;

I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the forum? Am I not allowed to express my opinion, about the statements made on the forum?? Do I not bleed when cut, am I not a neighbour? Where's the love Jersey? couldn't you be, wouldn't you be... why can't we all just get along?

Back to my request for SC2; I think that both the US and the USSR should have the inexperience thing, but that is it could ( should) be phased out, starting with when the country first starts into combat.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by ErrantRecce 1:

...why can't we all just get along?

Dare I suggest?

Because, at times, One doesn't MERELY dream of revenge, One... enacts it out.

The North Country is... cool. :cool:

In an awful LOT of far-out ways... just... elegantly Jazz-elan-like, and Big Bird the old 50s nifty be-bopping Cat... cool.

[ October 27, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]