What size are the Infantry Units?

[SeaWolf_48]

I was under the impression that there are two sizes of Intantry units in SC. An Army unit and a Corps unit. When you buy a corps it cost 125 MPP's, and an Army 250. Therefore you would guess that a corps = 3 Divisions. Does an Army = 6 Divisions? Most Armies during WW2 averaged around 12 Div. per Army, some less some more. Is therefore the Army in SC really two Corps or a Half Army?

Also if a Corps is 3 Divisions why would you need a Corps to suppress partisans. That seems like overkill and a waste of Trained first line troops. It would seem better to eliminate partisans altogether, or make there size smaller. Most partisan units during the war were small, never exceding 1,000 men. In Russia only in the Pripet Marshs did Partisan groups get large than that.

When playing the German player I need to put a Corps (3 Div with about 50,000 men) in every city or a partsan group will move in. Believe me, Germany never did that (except Warsaw in 44) but did have second line occupation troops for this task, usually in the size of a battalion (1200 men) or a Division at the most (15,000 men).

There are two solutions for this problem, either make another unit a Occupation Division costing 30 Mpp's, or eliminating the partisan group altogether. The scale right now just doesn't work!

Back to my first question. What size is the army unit? Is it 6 divisions, or 12? If 6 then it would be like stacking two corps into one square, I like that! If 12 divisions then they should have more power and cost more. I think someone need to think this problem out!

Russian Armies were really Corps size units anyway. They shouldn't even have armies unless the army is two stacked corps.

HQ units in SC I think are Army Group HQ's. Then a HQ unit should be able to supply around 5 armies worth of troops. This wold be about 20 Corps worth, not just 5 units. If the Army unit is two corps that would mean that an HQ should be able to supply 10 doulbe Corps units or SC Armies.

While I'm on the subject, how many planes is a Air Unit? 1000 planes, 500 planes. If 1000 then no bomber units should be used unless they are for Germany bombing England, or the US and Uk bombing Germany after 1943. 1000 fighters or fighter/bombers attacking a corps would be very tramatic indeed. 1000 fighters attacking naval forces would be inconceivable (much bigger than Midway, a battle that changed history). Are there a 1000 planes flying from AirCraft Carriers. How many times did that happen. Only the US at the end of the war against Japan when the USN had 25 Essex class AC's.

All armies during WW2 in Europe had a different classification of units that were armored or mechinized. The Germans called them Panzer Grenidier Divisions, the Russians called them Mechinized Corps, the Brits and US called them Armored Infantry, even the Italians had them.

How about some units that reppresent this class of warfare. They would be alittle stronger, and move alittle farther than Reg Inf Div. Germany used them for panzer blitz tactics to follow the Tank units, they were the only units that could keep up with the tanks. Later they were given Tank Destroyers and were used to stop the Russian juggernaught. These units had Armored cars or half-track vehicles to protect infantry units on the move. Just a thought!

Finally, ships!

Are these units Task Forces. How many ships in a task force?

I don't know if it's just me but I would like to know the scale of the units in the game?

[ January 22, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Night]

WoW long winded lol j/k

Well i don't know exactly but honestly... does it really matter if it's suppost to be 6 divisons or 12? I mean it's a good observation with the corps being half the size of army but how does it really affect gameplay? Not like an allied army is bigger then a Axis one.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

There are two solutions for this problem, either make another unit a Occupation Division costing 30 Mpp's, or eliminating the partisan group altogether. The scale right now just doesn't work!

I concure. exellent idea. I've seen it mentioned before to allow a corp or Army unit to drop a garrison unit. I think that would be a much needed addition to address this issue. I really don't know the numbers on german Unit sizes but in american terms a Battalion or a brigade would be large enough to secure these points. To split and reform units would kick ass. Something i'd love to see in SC2.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Great Point. I'd go with having Armies that are four times stronger than corps. Armies should be decisive units. Not allowing stacking complicates all of this. The ideas that have been put forward, though, are very good ones. I like the occupation troop idea, but does it prevent a hypothetically much larger Army unit from occupying the hex an occupation garrison is in? I suppose it would, which makes very little sense except for game purposes.

I can't figure airfleets in any sort of numerical context. At the start of the '39 Campaign I think Germany had something like three thousand combat aircraft, so that would make it 1000 per airfleet. But what happens later when it might have fifteen? I suppose 15,000 operational combat aircraft is within the realm of possibility, though historically I doubt anyone -- with the possible exception of the United States on a global basis-- had that many operating all at once.

Naturally the U. S. manufactured prodigious numbers of aircraft, but many were sent lendlease and many were replacing earlier types being removed from frontline service.

For game purposes I'm sure a naval unit is the ship with it's escorts. I can only see the naval part of SC in very abstract terms for reasons already beaten to death in numerous forums. In terms of the game system I can understand doing it this way, all battleships being equal and all, which they definitely weren't, but presumably the game has to handle it that way. As I've said often elsewhere, I think SC needs a major overhaul of the naval part of the game, starting with the Atlantic itself.

After that, of course, there's weather, but that's a different subject and should be discussed in a different Forum.

[ January 23, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Stragetic Command is on a certian level. That level needs to be altered. I think that the map is too small to include a full # of troops, equipment, airplanes, etc... You stack up how many armies on th Eastern front and then you're through?

Ships usually never left the safety of their own aircover. If they did, it was high tide for them. The Bismark is testimonial to that. By D-Day there were no German Aircraft around to incercept the landings and if there were, Allies had plenty of their own to protect their own. Mostly aircraft prayed upon the weak, i.e. Allied Shipping, transports and Vis Versa. Aircraft were used as Raiders, Recon, escorts for ships and for soldiers on all fronts. I think they may have mixed of the level of tactical strategic in this game... Adding more detail would be a good decision. And you're right Partisans would never take on half corps size. That is redicilious. They'd been lucky to be 1 strength size, and extremely vulnerable to any attack. The AirCraft Carriers I I don't know how many if any ever operated in the N.Sea doing anything. I don't recall much about their role. In the Medditerrean I could see them as valuable to strike Italian ships and shipping...<being hard to find many airfields in N.Africa early in the War>They were very expensive I doubt the Allies would've risked them on foolish suicidal missions like they do in this game. In fact I don't think any Carriers would be available for actual combat in the Atlantic. All would've been sent to the Pacific and anything at home would be purely Big Guns. With many little E-Boats, gunboats, Farmilie Bs as troop support and destroy vessels...Europe Isn't and Island and any naval war would've been decided by land based aircraft not Carriers.

I think they should double the strength of Armies and Corps and do away with large Carriers and also place in Recon aircraft<for unit spotting isn't very accurate either>. That cost a certian amount of money. Perhaps we could have a Garrison size Corp that was cheaper, that would be accurate, that had extremely poor combat ability. Force Bombers and U-boats into a stricter Strategic role and less tactical... Then giving both sides equal bombing capabilities. Both could reach each other capitol's, London Berlin in 1940. Or, like battleships duel role soften coastal batteries, knock out supply though be far more effective because in this game I barely ever see strato-bombers used...

That would be far more accurate...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Hello everyone. Long time lurker, read all seventy something pages of posts and have been a wargamer long before there were computers. Also former military veteran, business software developer, and have fantasies of one day completing my own conflict simulation.

Now, for my $.03 (see above).

SC is one of those rare games that has gotten the design issues correct, having created a easy to learn, realistic, yet playable WWII grand strategy system. It is much more than a "beer and pretzels" game, yet has not fallen into the "complexity equals realism" trap.

The way I see it, units (Corps, Armies) are abstract representations of combat units, not the units themselves. Otherwise, you would need Corps and Armies that are unique to each nation, even assuming the weapons were identical. And then you would need some sort of combat modifier to reflect national superiority of one unit to another (ie German unit being much better than the Russians, and somewhat better than the US/British). As such, our generic Army being twice the size of the Corp makes perfect sense.

The inability of the Corps to stack is a design decision that can be attributed to not having the Corp zone of commands intermixing (even though it is probably more a software issue, like the map size). Also makes it easier to understand that the mechanized units (PanzerGrenadier, Armored Infantry, etc) are part of the Tank Group, along with the pure armored units (Panzers, Tanks, etc, not the tank destroyers btw). Also, when I mention units I am talking division size units.

Motorized units (trucks, jeeps, and logistical support they require, hence only Russian, British and American Corps) technically would be faster than the foot bound units. That is another realism versus playability decision that game designers make, just like the paratrooper issue.

Notice the trend? Designers have to make decisions between playability and realism. While everything you say about Partisan sizes is correct, without creating a new unit (as was suggested) or adding additional code to reflect an abstract way of handling it, the approach that was taken, of using a exisiting unit, of reduced strength captures the flavor and strategical problems the Axis powers were faced with.

Finally, you want to be sure you have different opening options? The customized campaigns capture it by giving you research points to invest at the beginning of the campaigns.

On a personal note, I get quite a chuckle out of the AI pulling a Dutch Gambit on me, especially since it was something Hubert added based on the posts submitted. Nice touch. Is it realistic? Only if the French Government was willing to let itself be replaced, though it could plead it was an act of desperation. But if you take that away, then you would have to take away Germanies ability to invade Sweden, Switzerland, etc... where would you stop? One of the beauties of SC is the "what if's".

And yes, I do have my own suggestions , but I will leave that for another post.

Thanks for reading my ramblings.

Barry

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka of Carthage

Couldn't pass on the opportunity of making an entry right after your first post.

Glad you stopped lurking.

Agreed with everything you said above. You have to understand we work according to a Hubert factor, the object being to suggest things we know Hubert will never adapt in a million years but that we happen to enjoy ranting about.

Now make those suggestions already, they've all read mine and I've read all of theirs now we need yours to argue over.

Reality is not a big consideration; some of us are even allergic to it.

[ January 23, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Hello everyone. Long time lurker

From one lurker to recent lurker (myself) I just had to respond to this post and say thanks, a very refreshing read and brought back a lot of memories of the design phase/decisions I went through when working on SC.

I'll add that it's probably no coincidence that your own experiences in designing software gave you an appreciation of some of the design decisions and choices I made in developing SC.

Notice the trend? Designers have to make decisions between playability and realism. While everything you say about Partisan sizes is correct, without creating a new unit (as was suggested) or adding additional code to reflect an abstract way of handling it, the approach that was taken, of using a exisiting unit, of reduced strength captures the flavor and strategical problems the Axis powers were faced with.

This was exactly it, and while I know the current system is not perfect you've essentially nailed down what I was trying to achieve. It has also been brought up that the Partisan units should not be able to leave their home countries, and while this may or may not be accurate, the choice was made to not include this restriction. Why? Basically with the current implementation there would really be no fear of rear guarding or even the requirement to use Axis resources to deal with the partisan problems.

I know I might be opening a can of worms here, but another one that comes up often is the implementation of subs, not a true recreation I agree but again without overcomplicating the question I asked myself was what was the best way to include this feature in the current game? Again the decision was made to generally accept an abstraction whereby Allied capital ships represent fleets lead by the named ship, and subs represented wolf-packs. Then the abstraction expands into various strategies including economics and overall grand strategy:

- Does Germany commit to the building of subs or even a navy for that matter? if it does then resources for an attack on Russia should suffer, so a balanced approach may be necessary etc.

- Do the Allies commit their naval and air resources to fighting the sub threat? (as represented by their naval units and air units in the game). If so does this weaken their resources for homeland defence against a possible Sea Lion etc., or long term strategy for an eventual D-Day etc.

- And so on...

This was also the reason for the current price of subs, if you lower the price then you will have more subs on the board, if you have more subs then you have to lower their combat ratings or increase the number of Allied naval units, if you have more subs then you have to lower the values of sunk shipping and subsequent lost MPP's for the Allies. I have also resisted the requests for higher dive percentages as well primarily since I am using the above abstraction. Why? Well Germany lost a lot of subs (~70% casualties in the sub arm) and since each sub represents a wolf-pack, it should remain costly and not easy to win the battle of the Atlantic (as Germany never did), unless you decide to commit the resources, i.e. purchasing more subs or investing in research to advance the sub design etc., but at the same time have the probability of suffering in other areas of the war machine if you choose to do so. In fairness though, there have been suggestions since the original release that I feel would make things a bit more realistic without overcomplicating things, but due to a variety of reasons will have to wait...

Ok this part of my rambling was a bit longer than I intended, but again while nothing may initially appear to be perfect the key was to try and come up with something basic enough that would as you eloquently put it "capture the flavour of the strategic problems" without overcomplicating the game.

On a personal note, I get quite a chuckle out of the AI pulling a Dutch Gambit on me, especially since it was something Hubert added based on the posts submitted. Nice touch.

Actually this was always in the game (pre-beta demo) but never intended to be a gambit. It was included if the Axis player decided to dilly daddle a bit too much and ignore the French, under the right conditions I wanted to have the Allied AI try and pull a reverse Shleiffen (sp?) and give the Axis player a bit of a surprise which it seems to have done in a few cases

Hubert

[ January 24, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Thanks Hubert for chiming in, it's not very often that the people that design sofeware games respond to any suggestions. This is by far the best WW2 forum that I've come across.

I run the design department at a small engineering company. We design refineries, pipelines, tank farms, power plants, truck terminals and many other things. Some people (cad operators) I get here think that knowing autocad (a computer design program)is the most important thing, others, designers, think that the drawings that they make, the product, the most important thing. I'd rather have a designer with poor cad skills, than a cad operator with poor design skills. It's more important to know how to design than to know the design tool.

My point is what is the final product?

[John DiFool]

[sorry for late reply, couldn't get my password

after the board came back up]

Hubert-just one observation. Play styles and

strategies, at least in the MP games I have seen

written about here, tend to almost evolve in a

sense, as more games are played and the results

discussed here. Some things are done virtually

every game (dumb example-Denmark invaded by turn

three at the latest), while other strategies

languish (nobody invades the Baltic States as

Axis anymore after the patch which introduced the

penalty).

You say:

- Does Germany commit to the building of subs or even a navy for that matter? if it does then resources for an attack on Russia should suffer, so a balanced approach may be necessary etc.

However I don't think anyone who is heavily into

the MP aspect ever builds subs as the German, for

reasons already discussed: in a sense that strategy

is extinct. Given that, isn't it possible that

they would need tweaking (in SC2 I acknowledge)

so as to make them a viable choice?

Now, if your position is, "The Germans wasted all

those resources (MPPs in SC) on what was an

ultimately wasteful venture with negative returns,

and would have been better off spending

them somewhere else", then that is fine I suppose.

As a naval buff I just would like to see an

interesting Battle of the Atlantic in SC2.

[The game of course doesn't model all the political

infighting that Hitler had to deal with-I doubt

he would have gotten away with a wholescale

dismemberment of the U-boat arm, for that reason.]

John DiFool

[ January 25, 2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Liam]

Subs don't really compete with Surface ships though. Also, it difficult when the Ally definitely knows where your at when you're blocking shipping! Historically there were main arteries, though check a historical map of subs sunk and you'll be shocked to see them scattered all over the Entire Atlantic and then some!

The Oceans were owned by the Allies... The seas were contested for a little while in the Mediterranean when Italian demolishin frogmen badly damaged British Warship in Alexandria. They never knew and never took advantage of their great advance either! I don't however see Allied ships freely traveling into the Baltic, do you???

It would have be suicide for them! Of course you have to be a bit flexible, perhaps a supply alteration for ships travelling sooooo far outside of their sphere of influence. Why don't transports suffer from supply? You couldn't ever make 100 thousand men sit on a boat for 5 months without them going stir crazy!!! They'd mutiny and revolt... There are great Strategic aspects to the Sea battles. Not that I see that should be foremost!!! I have many great ideas about land warefare and Aerial as well....

The sea could use a unit or two added, some size, and some more realistic goals. I have recently used tech 2 subs against an ally, in the process I lost the MPPs it cost to build the subs, but I sank 1 entire US army, I scared the hell out of my oponent. He's like where did these come FROM? It gave me forwarning to his invasion AND it's cheap!!!!

With Air and subs, it's hard to contest a Coast without the opposing side with Air. Which is fairly reflective on history... Though modified American and British patrol ships did locate and kill many subs during or nearing the end of the War in conjunction with Surface ships... It was a slaughter house as the designer said the figures were dead to 70%???? Egadss!

I guess though it's sort of a bad job, live underwater and die there never to be seen again