Game Play

[Russ Bensing]

I've now played all or a good part of over a dozen PBEM games. For the most part, it's been great; haven't had so much fun with my pants on for years. But I've noticed some problems with game play. I'd like to start this subject to address those issues and see if some of you others who have now competed against live humans have had the same experiences. I'll start with everybody's favorite,

TECHNOLOGY

There have been numerous complaints about this, that it is too dependent on luck, that it is not realistic, etc. Defenders argue that the luck evens out, and that it randomizes the game, enhancing replayabiity. The second argument, I think, is valid; the first is not. Because of the later entry of the US and the USSR, the production constraints imposed upon the latter, the lack of production by the UK, and the ability of the German to "seed" his research very early on, it is a rarity if the German player is not substantially technologically ahead of the Allies throughout the game. Yes, the Allies might be comparable in one particular area: Britain and the US may have jets, the Russians may get up to L4 or L5 anti-tank. But the Germans will have this and more across the board. A recent game I'm concluding (late 1944) has the Germans at 5's in all the key areas: armies, tanks, jets, and L/R aircraft (and, I assume, Ind Tech.) And this affects gameplay in other respects, which I'll explain in a subsequent note.

There are a number of suggestions to tone this down, but many of them detract from playability and the randomization that, admittedly, is part of the game's appeal. Here's my suggestion: same as existing system, except that you can't switch investments, and once the tech is maxed out, you lose what you've invested in it. This will eliminate the normal routine of investing heavily in one tech (say, Industrial), getting a quick 3 or 4 in that, and then switching most of the chits to another tech to max that out as well. It will more likely result in one of two things: either the player sprinkling his chits among four or five desirable techs, or deciding to pursue a particular strategy (tanks? subs?) knowing he will be doing so to the probable exclusion of others. This will have the benefit of keeping the random effect while adding more strategy to the game.

My next gripe is...

[Russ Bensing]

THE EASTERN FRONT

There is probably no topic of WWII which is as engrossing as the Eastern Front. It involved epic battles, thrusts and counterthrusts on a grand scale, and was inarguably where the war was won and lost.

And this game does not capture that at all. With two players of any skill, the Eastern Front quickly degenerates into a replay of WWI, with both sides in straight linear form along the width of the front, the Germans using tanks and planes to hammer at the Russian line, forcing it back hex by hex. The intelligent Russian strategy is to throw up as many corps as possible, hopefully buiding a double line of them, making a complete breakthrough impossible. But it also eliminates possibility of the Russians ever seizing the initiative. In the games I've had, the winning Allied strategy is to hold the Russian front until the Germans start having to drain it off to defend against the western Allies.

Part of the reason for this also lies with the Tech engine. What allowed the Russians to win on the Eastern Front was their numerical superiority and their tanks, which were as good or better than all but the Panthers and far more numerous. Neither of those show up here: by the time a German player launches Barbarossa, he will often be outproducing the Russians (because of Ind Tech improvements) and usually have more advanced tanks and planes as well. The corps strategy is dictated because of the absence of any other viable option, such as a counteroffensive.

Beyond changing the tech rules, I'm not sure what else to do here. Another factor which helped the Russians was winter; that also is not replicated in the game. But doing so would require some fundamental changes to the code, and would get us back into the weather rules, which could alter the game entirely.

Problem no. 3 is...

[Russ Bensing]

SUPPLY

Only in one very narrow aspect. A smart German player will not head for Moscow, or Leningrad; he'll head for Stalingrad. If he gets to the Eastern edge of the map, just below Stalingrad, he will almost invariably win the game, because of an anomaly in the supply rules. The rules require all supply sources to be able to trace a route to the capital. As far as the map is concerned, Russia ends at the Eastern edge, and supply to and from the Caucasus is no longer possible. This has the twin effect of cutting the Russian MPP's by nearly 40%, and preventing the Russian from building any more units in the Caucasus, leaving the Germans to roam there at will and gain those supplies for themselves.

To be sure, the Caucasus was important in the war, but not to the extent that it is in this one. In my last game, the Russian line was actually a diagonal from Riga to Rostov. Why? Because the German player knew that the other cities were inconsequential: he was trying to cut the map in half. There's not much danger in such strategy, either, for the reasons I mentioned in the preceding note: it's almost impossible for the Russians to mount a counteroffensive, such as they actually did when that exact strategy was employed against them.

This can be very easily remedied: change the rules for computing MPP's so that they count regardless of where they are and whether they can trace a route to the capital. Supply rules for units would be unchanged, except that all cities would be deemed to be "in supply" at all times.

Now, the last one...

[Welshwill]

I agree with your assessment on both of the above points. Your idea to restrict the research invest to one catergory makes alot of sense but I don't see that it would overcome the problem of the inbalance that occurs. If the Germans decide to pump all their booty into research then they will still have higher tech levels earlier in the game. In the past I have suggested that you restrict research by date i.e. you don't end up with King Tigers and Me262's in 42!

One other idea is that previous units purchased at a lower tech level don't get upgraded, true to the facts. I mean when the Germans deployed the Panther they weren't able to issue every unit with the new tank and they still had to rely on the Panzer III & IV.

[Russ Bensing]

THE SUB WAR

For the most part, there isn't one. I've had exactly one game where sub warfare was used as intended, in a strategic sense. I've had one or two others where it was used in a semi-strategic sense, i.e., to sink British fleets and thus gain control of the seas. In all the other games, nobody really bothered. The effort required wasn't worth the bother.

The strategic bombing works much better than I had thought it would, and does accurately reflect what happened in WWII. The reason it does this, I think, is because the Allied player has no viable alternative for the Western allies at that point in time. It takes a while to mount an invasion, so might as well bomb things until we reach that point. Taking out 10, 20, or 30 MPP's a turn might or might not be a big deal, but it's relatively cost free, and it's not like you have anything better to do. And when it comes time for the ground war, those planes you built and the experience they've gained from bombing strategic resources will come in might handy against ground unit.

None of that's true for the Germans. The cost is substantial. That 260 MPP's for a sub is 260 MPP's that can't be used to build a tank for the Eastern Front. And one subs not going to do much good; it might deprive the UK player of 30 or 40 MPP's before it's found and sunk. To have more of a chance of survival, you have to build a number of subs, and that's a number of tanks that you're losing from the Eastern Front. And the subs don't have the dual strategic/tactical role that planes do.

A number of people have offered suggestions about abstracting the sub role. I'd like to keep subs -- they can be useful for trying to gain sea supremacy in some games -- but I think abstracting is a better means of reflecting the true strategic warfare role of the sub, as it was in WWII. Let each player devote a certain amount of MPP's per turn to strategic sub warfare -- subs for the Germans, ASW assets for the Allies -- up to a certain limit. (Maybe 50 MPP's a turn? Maybe 100?) The difference between the two is deducted. Improvements in Sub and Sonar Techs (but not Industrial) increase or decrease the value of the MPP's (by 10%, 20%, etc.) The British player is probably going to get bled by it in the early stages of the game, just like in real life, but by 1943 the Allies should have the upper hand, just like in real life. But maybe not. It would offer a strategic option to players that isn't there right now.

I'm sorry for the wordiness of these posts, and I certainly don't mean to convey a sense of dissatisfaction with SC. As I said, it's one of the most enjoyable war games I've ever played, and I've been playing wargames for the better part of 40 years. Like all things, it can be better, and I think these suggestions do improve it, while retaining the playability and excitement of the original.

[John DiFool]

SUBS

I dislike abstractions, hence I dislike the

suggestion that we take them off the map and

stick them in some off-map box. I like

moving them around the map; I don't like it when

they are sunk, of course. That can be fixed

however if we increase the Evade percentage and

decrease the damage done both ways when engaging

with actual naval assets [but in accordance with

the relevant tech levels]. The problem with

abstracting is that the subs aren't available to

detect and sink amphibious invasions.

I would also prefer [for SC II] that the convoy

routes [i.e. several of them-from Asia, S.

America, a northern Murmansk route] could be

shown on the map [toggle on/off] and the subs

positioned accordingly, which would make the

British >really< have to embark on a Sub Hunt

[since the subs won't have to be within 5 hexes of

Halifax or Liverpool=Killing Fields].

JD

[ September 08, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

SUBS

The problem with abstracting is that the subs aren't available to detect and sink amphibious invasions.

I'm not suggesting that subs be entirely abstracted, only that the strategic warfare aspect -- intercepting convoys -- be abstracted. You could still build them to prevent an invasion or to try to sink British fleets to gain control of the sea.

[Tony Reale]

The thing that you have to realise is that this is in no way a simulation of WW II. It is a game. Fun to play, but very un-realistic.( Italy wiping out the Royal Navy.Italy building 15 point infantry units, American jets being destroyed by German Fighters.And the absence af American Industrial output.) It is after all a fun game to play. Take it for what it is.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Welshwill:

I agree with your assessment on both of the above points. Your idea to restrict the research invest to one catergory makes alot of sense but I don't see that it would overcome the problem of the inbalance that occurs. If the Germans decide to pump all their booty into research then they will still have higher tech levels earlier in the game. In the past I have suggested that you restrict research by date i.e. you don't end up with King Tigers and Me262's in 42!

That's a possibilty. The only drawback is that it takes a good bit of the randomness out of the game. You know that you're going to have level 1 tanks in 1941, and that's that.

One other idea is that previous units purchased at a lower tech level don't get upgraded, true to the facts. I mean when the Germans deployed the Panther they weren't able to issue every unit with the new tank and they still had to rely on the Panzer III & IV.

That's another possibility, although it might create some problems with gameplay. Gee, is this my level 1, level 2, or level 3 tank that I'm attacking with?

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Tony Reale:

The thing that you have to realise is that this is in no way a simulation of WW II. It is a game. Fun to play, but very un-realistic.( Italy wiping out the Royal Navy.Italy building 15 point infantry units, American jets being destroyed by German Fighters.And the absence af American Industrial output.) It is after all a fun game to play. Take it for what it is.

Well, no, it is a simulation of WWII. That's why it's called "Strategic Command: European Theater" and has pictures of marching German soldiers on the cover, instead of being called "Warquest VIII" and having pictures of alien warships on the cover.

Now, you may mean that it is not a realistic simulation of WWII. The points you mention do not necessarily indicate that; a game which exactly parallels what happened in history is not much fun to play.

Which is the point: I titled my this topic "Game Play," rather than "realism" or something like that, for a reason. It's not much fun trying to compete with someone who has level 5 jets, tanks, and armies, while you're still in the stone age. It's not much fun recreating trench warfare on the Eastern Front.

What I'm trying to do is stimulate a discussion as to how the game's playability could be enhanced. I'd like to do that within the constraints of realism; no alien warships. But just saying, "Well, the game isn't realistic anyway," doesn't contribute much to that. If you're satisfied with SC the way it is, that's fine. I'm not; I think it could be better.

[Welshwill]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Welshwill:

I agree with your assessment on both of the above points. Your idea to restrict the research invest to one catergory makes alot of sense but I don't see that it would overcome the problem of the inbalance that occurs. If the Germans decide to pump all their booty into research then they will still have higher tech levels earlier in the game. In the past I have suggested that you restrict research by date i.e. you don't end up with King Tigers and Me262's in 42!

That's a possibilty. The only drawback is that it takes a good bit of the randomness out of the game. You know that you're going to have level 1 tanks in 1941, and that's that.

One other idea is that previous units purchased at a lower tech level don't get upgraded, true to the facts. I mean when the Germans deployed the Panther they weren't able to issue every unit with the new tank and they still had to rely on the Panzer III & IV.

That's another possibility, although it might create some problems with gameplay. Gee, is this my level 1, level 2, or level 3 tank that I'm attacking with?</font>

[Tony Reale]

If you were to "simulate" WW II, all nations would compete with their "Historical" capabilities.

This is "not" a simulation. It is a game. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy it, even within it's un-historical parameters.

[Kuniworth]

Russ!

I think all of your remarks are valid and I certainly hope that Hubert will consider them.

[gorski]

I find the battle for the Atlantic in sc very interesting. The allied player can't kill all the German ships in the beginning. After France falls, the axis player can achieve air superiority off the shores of France and have the combined Italian and German navy operating under air cover. This would be especially effective with long range air craft. At this point, building one or two subs could result in a decisive victory in the Atlantic.

Eastern Front: I think pushing to the edge of the map in order to prevent the Russians from gaining mpp from the Caucasus is just as gamey as surrounding Moscow. I will not use either of these tactics against a human.

Gorski

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Russ Bensing:

There are a number of suggestions to tone this down, but many of them detract from playability and the randomization that, admittedly, is part of the game's appeal. Here's my suggestion: same as existing system, except that you can't switch investments, and once the tech is maxed out, you lose what you've invested in it. This will eliminate the normal routine of investing heavily in one tech (say, Industrial), getting a quick 3 or 4 in that, and then switching most of the chits to another tech to max that out as well. It will more likely result in one of two things: either the player sprinkling his chits among four or five desirable techs, or deciding to pursue a particular strategy (tanks? subs?) knowing he will be doing so to the probable exclusion of others. This will have the benefit of keeping the random effect while adding more strategy to the game.

First of all, quite thoughtful comments on many of the problematical aspects of this game (... as befitting an attorney from Cleveland, a middling lake & loam land wherein my much beloved Indian baseball club gambols and... sometimes misses the long elusive World Series victory -- by ONE SINGLE LAST STRIKE... perhaps due to once upon a time being christened -- "The Spiders"...) :cool:

As for tech, I have always argued for allowing the probabilities to have their whimsic say.

Sure enough it is a relatively small sample size, but the anomaly caused by outliers is going to be fairly rare, and is cause for a learning opportunity (or, on-the-fly change in strategy) and NOT an occasion for wondering how we may have offended the gods.

I agree however that some moderation is in order, and proposed limiting research to 3 per area. I now also coincide with your thinking, in that there should be some penalty for switching to another area (... after all, there is some resemblance and synergy, in that general empiric-technic tasks have similar underpinnings, BUT not completely).

Therefore I suggest that the cost be one-half of original investment, so that you pay 125 MPPs to switch.

We must remember that the play-testing has balanced the game in such a way as to account for the early Axis advantage. If we now curtail that early "blitz-ability," then we certainly must go back and adjust other game-play factors so that the Allies are not now even MORE favored, yes?

[gorski]

Russ, or anyone else, how many games have you won/lost and playing which side? I have won one game as Germans so far.

Gorski

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by gorski:

Russ, or anyone else, how many games have you won/lost and playing which side? I have won one game as Germans so far.

I've won about five games as Axis so far; I've yet to lose one. I've won about the same number of games as Allies, but most of those have been because the German player made a mistake, like forgetting to cover the Russian front at all or deciding to adopt a defensive posture and not invade France. I've lost two games as Allies, but one was a customized game which may have affected play balance. The other game that I lost, and another that's approaching the end and will be a draw, were the result of the German player having vastly superior techology.

I think that a good German player will defeat a good Allied player seven or eight times out of ten.

[pzgndr]

The thing that you have to realise is that this is in no way a simulation of WW II. It is a game. Fun to play, but very un-realistic.

There are many good points in this discussion, most of which have been debated before. Things could be done to make SC more realistic, more accurate, more historical. That does not mean completely changing the entire game, adding more complexity, or taking away the fun-factor. This is not necessarily a zero-sum situation; we can all eventually have both through advanced game features, optional game settings, and variants.

Can we not have a decent simulation of WWII that is also fun to play, or is the only substantial customer base for SC comprised of fantasy gamers? Combat Mission, by comparison, strives for authenticity right down to gun ballistics and vehicle accelerations. You don't have to understand that level of detail, just play the game and have fun. Same can happen with SC. :cool:

[gorski]

I think that a good German player will defeat a good Allied player seven or eight times out of ten.

I can't argue with that. With HQ's being able to supply each other in 1.04, the Germans will have an even easier time in barbarosa.

Anybody have any bright ideas for stopping Germany?

Gorski

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Interesting things,

But there have been several points about isolating portions of the Soviet Union like this:

"Eastern Front: I think pushing to the edge of the map in order to prevent the Russians from gaining mpp from the Caucasus is just as gamey as surrounding Moscow. I will not use either of these tactics against a human."

First of all, all supply is not dependent on connection to the Capital. You just can't build new units in cut off areas, and I believe city values are reduced (as are maximum reinforcing levels, if I'm not mistaken). This seems to me to be a good simulation of the region fighting with reduced capacity (it's not "connected" to the rest of the country; there are resources, but it just doesn't benefit from the "national" effort in the way other areas might). So, you can create a "bunker" in the south, and it can probably fight on for awhile. Just don't expect it to hold out against a coherent, fully supported campaign, with the sort of resources that it doesn't have (it shouldn't--that would be "gamey").

I'm not sure that just because the landmass of the Soviet Union is bigger than the map that there is a problem with the "map edges."

Given the topography and infrastructure of the Soviet Union, driving to the Eastern edge of the map, past Stalingrad in the south, does mean, essentially, that you've cut the Western hafl of the country in half. Sort of like with Rome, "All roads led to Moscow" (certainly looking at a railroad map, the lifeblood of the era, even more so than today, shows this). The rerouting of supplies would have been significant (and the routes remaining limited).

As far as driving to the Urals (map edge east of Moscow), you've reached the extent of the productive portions of the Soviet Union (even industry that was being displaced wound up here). The Soviet Union might not have surrendered had this happened, but for game purposes, the term "surrender" applies--the Soviet Union's capacity for significantly affecting the Axis effort against the other front(s) would have effectively been ended. In short, had the Axis could have shifted effort elsewhere at that point.

Additionally, as far as "gamey" charges go, if the German drives to the East Edge of the map, then what? The "gamey" charge cuts both ways. Are you suggesting that we reward the Soviet player who ignores the basic principles of war and leaves holes hundreds of miles wide in his front and instead "clumps" around "objectives"? Maybe there should be a rule for exiting units off the East edge of the map, some sort of "payoff" for reaching it and consequences for the Soviet if the German can exit units in this way.

Here's an alternate point of view. I very much like the terrain control rules in the game. It is the only game that I've seen that replicates the strategic pincers maneuvers and makes them viable (and also the dangers inherent in pushing them too audaciously: those lead units can get hammred by counterblows if they get too extended from supply and support). You can't ignore the fact that you are being surrounded just because you're sitting in an objective or supply source. Read history. It is not replete with discussions of ignoring gaps in the front, allowing themselves to be encircles; quite the contrary, everything is about containing breakthroughs.

Salute!

[Hubert Cater]

Great thread starter Russ and great follow ups guys. I've bookmarked this one and will get back to you on it from time to time with what will be considered as viable changes. I've just got TCP/IP at the top of the list right now, but as soon as that's finished up I will get back here ASAP.

Hubert

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by John DiFool:

I dislike abstractions, hence I dislike the

suggestion that we take them off the map and

stick them in some off-map box. I like

moving them around the map

And I as well. 3R & even A3R used the abstraction method and it was my least favorite part of their game -- rather an afterthought for what was arguably an essential part of the war. :eek:

I agree that we need to open up the Atlantic, because as is the Allied pbem-player always kills (or, should be able to) those subs immediately, with little consequence.

First, increase the dive % by 10 up and down the line.

Second, decrease sonar of Battlewagons, and increase sonar for ASW equipped Cruisers.

Third, make roughly half of the Atlantic a convoy route, meaning... instead of a narrow lane between Canada and Britain, make EACH HEX on much of the ocean a certain value that can be attacked.

This would simulate changed plans, storms driving ships off course, Raider sorties that scatter the convoy, etc.

The total amount would still be 40 MPPs, BUT, you would simulate routes from USA, South America and from Commonwealth countries (around Africa) by having variable values depending on (fairly close to historical -- it needn't be perfect) intensity of shipping traffic.

Viewed from a birds-eye, I am imagining a map with many "flowing rivers" of hex-points, say from 2 to 5 in value, that all follow a path to England. Subs could randomly effect the hex they are in and all surrounding hexes.

The total MPPs sunk could equal (presumably a "computer stat-analysis" could approximate this #) what is being accomplished now.

Now, this version of SC precludes major changes, accepted, but we COULD enhance the battle of the Atlantic without altering the current set-up very much, merely by the three suggestions that I and others have proposed, yes?

[arby]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Great thread starter Russ and great follow ups guys. I've bookmarked this one and will get back to you on it from time to time with what will be considered as viable changes. I've just got TCP/IP at the top of the list right now, but as soon as that's finished up I will get back here ASAP.

Thanks very much, Hubert. It's good to know that the fourteen hours I spent composing those posts might do some good.

Well, okay, it wasn't fourteen hours. Maybe half an hour. So sue me. Wait, that's my line....

When you do get back, though, you'll also find Gripe No. 5, which I can't believe I forgot, and which is

THE MEDITERRANEAN

I've had exactly one game where there was any fighting in North Africa. In all the others, North Africa was completely ignored. The only way to fix that is to put in another hex row in the south. I know about the map size being limited, so the solution is simple: chop one from the north. Yeah, I know people will complain, but there's not much you can do in the north now anyway. You're certainly not going to remove a row from the South (which would essentially eliminate North Africa), so instead of having both the north and south screwed up, might as well fix one.

Look forward to hearing from you.

[arby]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

First, increase the dive % by 10 up and down the line. Second, decrease sonar of Battlewagons, and increase sonar for ASW equipped Cruisers.

Third, make roughly half of the Atlantic a convoy route, meaning... instead of a narrow lane between Canada and Britain, make EACH HEX on much of the ocean a certain value that can be attacked.

I like your ideas much better than mine. Here's a couple added suggestions, one which would involve a lot of work on Hubert's, and one which wouldn't. The first is to introduce another set of ratings, for sub attack and defense. Battleships would be low on attack and defense, and carriers would be low on defense. Cruisers would be high in both. This would allow subs to be used offensively against the former two types, but not against the latter, which is more historically accurate. As is now, if I do go to the trouble of building subs, it's for the purpose of hunting down his cruisers and eliminating them. The second change I'd make, which I'd make regardless of whether you do the first one, is to decrease dive values for increases in sonar tech. Right now, it's not symmetrical: subs get the dive benefit from research, ships don't get the correlative benefit.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Arby wrote:

"The first is to introduce another set of ratings, for sub attack and defense. Battleships would be low on attack and defense, and carriers would be low on defense. Cruisers would be high in both."

I like the idea of doing something about Subs vs surface ships, but not sure about this specific suggestion. Aircraft were one of the decisive factors in anti submarine warfare, so a carrier would not be less effective than others (on the contrary). The second is that these counters represent collections of ships, so there would be destroyers, etc, in each of them (so not sure how much to differentiate ASW capabilities by "type" would work vs the current system).

I think one problem with subs, and one reason why they get sent to the bottom too quickly with nothing to show, is that they don't return damage when attacked. Maybe if they simply did that (except against air attacks), in addition to the possiblility of evading, they would be more resilient (and hence last longer). As it is, they can be located pretty easily, and then attacked with impugnity by any class (or strength) naval unit. This might make for a simple fix to the problem.

Salute!