Jump to content

Something I hope will not happen in SC2

Recommended Posts

1- The map in SC is too small to make good maneuvers. I've had troops to spare but nowhere to move them quite a few times, which is frustrating.

2- That airfleets are not the be all and end all of winning the game. WW2 was won on the ground, take D-Day, they bombed and shelled those beaches like hell, yet the enemy was still there and had very minor casualties.

I agree air control is a key factor, but it does not mean victory, in SC it does.

I'm in a game where I was making 750mpps as Axis they Allies for over a year were about 625. I had troubles early on getting France and because of that I did not have times to build a big airlfeet (only 4) and I was slow to take the 1st 3 cites and 1 mine in Russia.

Yet after making over 125mpps, I could never manage to maneuver troops due to a lack of space.

The biggest issue was the Britair AF, if AA gun tech was any good I could have held it back, but not with the current AA tech to Jet tech.

Just a gripe I have. It was a good game but for the last 30 turns it's just been a slow crawl with no chance of doing anything innovative :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even though i don't have the game or a demo of it yet 'Blashy'...i already suspected what you are now saying.

Especially about the Map being too-small...i was thinking if it was 48 deep instead of 38 deep which i think it is...that it would be a lot better...for gameplay and maneuver as you say!.

However...i would like to see what some of the other testers have to say about it as well!.

[ June 04, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Blashy.

I have the feeling that part of the "clutterness" we preceived in SC1 resulted from two things:

First: The Tank Groups were too small. The Tank Group was conceived as a Tank Corps (3-4 Divisons). But, your opponent could make a front of Infantry Armies (8-10 Divisions). The game needed an Army size tank unit to pit against Infantry Armies...

The German's had to form Panzer Groups of 2-3 Panzer Corps each when they attacked Russia. Panzer Armies with double or triple the strength (and cost) of the Panzer Groups in SC1 would have made for a much more fluid game.

Second: the 50 mile per tile scale... made the front's too narrow (particularly France).

I suspect Hubert had very good reasons for chosing the 50 miles per tile scale. I have no inside info. But, please check what I wrote here:


On the other hand, the editor will allow us to make a smaller scale game. I would really like to have a 25-30 mile per tile game, with only corps (Infantry, Tank, Cavalry and Artillery Corps) ...oh yes, the Russians had Cavalry and Artillery Corps. Cavalry Corps were effectively used in the winter. Meanwhile, the Artillery Corps was the Russian solution to avoid spreading valuable artillery along a 1,000+ mile front.

Using the SC2 editor we could modify the Rockets into Artillery Corps, and, we could modify the Infantry Army into a Cavalry Corps. The Panzer Groups would be rescaled as Panzer Corps. The Infantry Corps would remain as is... making the necesary adjustment for scale.

The Russian Front will be 1,000 miles or 400-333 tiles from north to south (depending on whether you chose 25 or 30 miles per tile). I don't think any player, certainly no German Player) will manage to build 400-333 Infantry Corps. So I have the feeling we would have a lot of room to maneuver.

Of course, drawing the map would take a lot of time. Hope the editor is user friendly. Any way, after I have played SC2 on both sides more than a few times, if Hubert does not publish a 25-30 mile per tile variation, I may give it a shot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing it sounds like SC2 will have is 'build' limits (editable I presume, of course), meaning, each power will only have so many units of any given type to build and deploy. This would prevent a player from clogging up the battlefield with endless corps, or buying a massive airfleet. Should keep things more fluid. Certainly will make the Axis player assign his given assets carefully, and make full use of his minor allied units, despite their lower quality. And if done right, should keep the Russians stretched thin (especially if the 'build' limits change with time, as I previously suggested) trying to defend their massive territory. Am I correct in this understanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As originally posted by ev:

On the other hand, the editor will allow us to make a smaller scale game. I would really like to have a 25-30 mile per tile game, with only corps

The work goes on!

Well, ahem, and admittedly,

Hubert is doing all of the good hard work, anyway, onward we go! :cool:

OK. You want to make a grand campaign scenario that is TWICE-over.. the currently proposed map-size? IE, 25-mile tiles?

No problem, you can easily do this, though, your tile calculations are a little off. Don't ask me why.

Using the SC2 editor we could modify the Rockets into Artillery Corps, and, we could modify the Infantry Army into a Cavalry Corps.
Not a bad idea. If you do indeed make the "rockets" category into an artillery corps, I would suggest this:

L0: Basic artillery.

L1: Heavy, LR arty.

L2: Basic ground-to-ground rockets.

L3: Improved GtG rockets.

L4: V-1

L5: V-2

(Note: L4 & L5 would be closed to all except Germany, obviously, and... perhaps, USA, who might get L4 if you are feeling charitable, and assuming some "supernatural act of Thor"... and, even L2 or L3 should be closed out for most WW2 Powers; also, L1 should be closed to some of them)

Next, we would need some of our talented mod artists to make some icons for each country, at each level, then we could plug them and viola! we got our awesome artillery pieces! ;)

I may give it a shot...
Sounds good! Let us all know when you have a good and faithfull game up and thoroughly tested and running like... a swift mountain Cat fast after that... lamely limping baby antelope! smile.gif

[ June 04, 2004, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...sorry for the typo above guys. 1,000 divided by 30 is 33. 1,000 divided by 25 is 40. The Russian Front would measure 30 to forty tiles if tiles were 25-30 miles each.

In SC1 the tiles were 50 miles, so the Russian Front was only 20 tiles wide. Substract the Prippet Marshes and the marshes north of the Black Sea and you could cover the front with 40 Infantry Armies... which I did manage to do when playing either Germans or Russians; and, Tank Groups could not effectively punch through... which I think is Blashy's concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Hubert had very good reasons for chosing the 50 miles per tile scale. I have no inside info.
The SC scale is consistent with similar grand strategy games such as 3R/A3R, WiF, CoS, etc. While many details of operational warfare necessarily must be abstracted at this scale, it does allow the game to be playable within a reasonable amount of time. While the editor itself is user-friendly enough, grand schemes to create monster games will take considerable time to make and to play. Be careful of what you wish for. ;)

I am expecting the new force pool limits to resolve many of the current complaints regarding "too many air units" or "too many tanks" etc. And by keeping overall forces in some sense of historical balance between air/ground/naval units and between different nations, this should greatly improve things.

Of course, the limits will be optional (hard, soft, or none at all) and can be adjusted in the editor. This should provide ample opportunity to create games that are lean and mean with lots of maneuver warfare, or games with high limits that permit attrition warfare slugfests, or something in between. Also, by adjusting resources and unit costs in the editor we can further influence the overall balance of forces. The idea is to make the game "feel" right for both historical accuracy and play balance, and SC2 should allow us to achieve that. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel comfortable with the idea of absolute force pool limits. I would feel more comfortable with a limit on the number of new units you can create in the course of a year.

An absolute force pool limit leads to some odd situations: For example, you can loose an army in Stalingrad, and, assuming you have enough MPP's to buy uniforms and guns, the loss in manpower does not matter. But a limit on the number of new units that can be created in a year would mean that a unit lost is lost for good.

As a matter of fact, my prefered scheme would be somewhat more elaborated: I would place limits on the total number of combat "points" that can be purchased in the course of a year. Purchase of both reinforcements and new units would count against these yearly limits. As per this scheme replacement of ground losses would cut against your force pool limits as much as buying new units. Thus a German player replacing lots of ground losses in the eastern front would be constrained from creating new units to send to France. But, the German player could chose not to replace those losses in the eastern front and use the limited manpower in new units to fight in France.

The limits I propose would be yearly limits to represent new youngsters comming of age every year. In the event a player does not use force pool in a given year, I would suggest 80% of the unused force pool carry forward into the following year. For example, say Germany had a force pool of 300 ground combat points for 1940 but used only 200. So 100 ground combat points for 1940 remained unused. The German player would carry forward into 1941 80 of those 100 points. Then in 1941, the German Player would have 300+80=380 ground points in its force pool limit.

Under my scheme, Russia and the U.S. would continue to build their force pools while Germany, France and England fight it out in 1939 and 1940. As a result, Germany and England would be more likely to run out of manpower earlier than Russia and the U.S. - which is historically correct.

I don't have a strong opinion on wheather there should be separate pools for air, naval and land. If there is going to be one single point, I would somehow want to reflect the fact that land units require a lot more manpower than either air or sea units. So, if we are to have a single force pool, purchase of land units and replacement should have a larger impact on the force pool (higher cost) than purchase of air or naval units or replacements.

One important thing to note is that the force pool would not increase as a country conquers cities or whole countries. As Germany expands, it takes over cities and countries that produce more MPP's but my force pool remains the same. The additional MPP's may allow Germany to buy better equipment, but not to buy a larger number of replacements or units.

I feel very strongly that the force pool limit should take into account replacements. After 1942, Germany had a serious problem replacing its losses in the Eastern Front. The main problem faced by the German High Command was not that they could not make more units. I believe in 1943 the Luftwaffe fielded something like 12 or 15 divisions made of excess recruits. The main problem Germany had was in repalcing losses in the frontline units. And the main reason for that problem was that each time Hitler's acolytes fielded a new SS or Luftwaffe field division, they took away precious manpower the Wermacht needed to replace losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blashy, it sounds like you tried to take advantage of multiple fronts early on. When I first played SC I was anxious to invade Russia when I played as Axis, but then I learned that leaving Russia to last was best. I would conquer pretty much the whole world until I cut loose on Russia with tanks and infantry.

In short, don't quit on the game because Russia bugs you. Conquer the world and then take care of Russia. SC is fun because there's more than one way to win.

Sorry for my off-topicness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the world, EVERYTHING except UK, USA, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey and Canada, I even held part of Canada for a while, as well as one oil field and one mine in the USA.

I did wait till last minute with Russia, but since I could not have enough troops for a DoW on them my opponent made a good line, I still took 2 cities and one mine, yet after that with the Overpowered Jet Tech and Air Fleets win you game "feature" in SC and me not getting Tech I could not rely on my Airfleets to keep up.

I had plenty of troops but there was nowhere to maneuver them.

The map was just too small for me to maneuver and the fact that we could pump units forever was not of any help.

I'm not dissing SC, HC made a great game for his 1st crack. I'm simply expressing frustration on a few flaws, even if they've been stated before =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ev "I don't have a strong opinion on wheather there should be separate pools for air, naval and land. If there is going to be one single point, I would somehow want to reflect the fact that land units require a lot more manpower than either air or sea units. So, if we are to have a single force pool, purchase of land units and replacement should have a larger impact on the force pool (higher cost) than purchase of air or naval units or replacements."
Hi ev.

Like always are very good idea to create a replacement pool. It would make sc2 more historically accurate. I would prefer one force pool, only that naval and air units would take less manpower. It´s like you said.

ev "One important thing to note is that the force pool would not increase as a country conquers cities or whole countries. As Germany expands, it takes over cities and countries that produce more MPP's but my force pool remains the same. The additional MPP's may allow Germany to buy better equipment, but not to buy a larger number of replacements or units.
...but losing cities to the enemy would mean losing recruitment centers for me, would it not? Especially Germany transported a lot of people from the occupied territories to the Reich for forced labour.

May be you could add a small amount of "collaborateur"-manpower to the force pool. The Wehrmacht formed small units, often SS, from the occupied countries that fought against former "oppressors". The Wlassow army might be a good example as the Croatian SS corps.

Regarding balance: A force pool would make sc2 more historically accurate, but may be bring it out of balance (especially for multi-player games). The allies could just wait until the Reich is exhausted. So if the feature is included it should be easy to turn it off in MP-games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that your force pool should not increase as you conquer countries.

Easily 90+% of Nazy manpower came from German recruiting.

The more MPPs would permit as state for Germans to invest in more tech (hopefully not luck based), build more defenses, better supply lines and repair mechanized units (planes, ships, boats, tanks...) . Stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blashy, what I'm pointing out is that these are not flaws at all but human error. Instead of buying troops you should've bought research. Instead of attacking Russia while there were still wars in US and Canada you should've waited. Whenever I attack Russia I make sure of four things: 1) I have Finland and enough troops to easily stretch out to the Urals and then to Moscow. 2) I conquered the Baltic States before it was annexed so that I would have more territory. 3)I have conquered Iraq and Turkey and have enough troops to easily seize resources and close in from the south. And 4) that I have the whole Russian border lined with tank groups and army (no space at all between them), and then that doubled with about 10 Lv 5 air fleets. And if I have the time I also like to have Lv 5 tanks, anti-tank weapons, and air craft (long range too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that

1- Airfleets are the gamebreaker

2- I had more troops then my enemy but because of not having more airfleets I could not maneuver enough, yet airfleets should not be a MUST for you to break the enemy line.

Just to breach the French line you need airfleets, if you don't you won't break it. That should not be the case. 2 tank groups supported by an HQ attack 1 army with no HQ should be a total mismatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...my 2 cents concerning airpower in SC1 premise: equal opponents ! (E.g. a Veteran will win with nearly every strategy against a not so experienced player...):

Airfleets are important but certainly no game breakers on their own. Only if the opponent follows the wrong strategy - same applies for Jet tech. You need a certain amount of airfleets as Axis, but if you buy too much, you will loose against an equal opponent who follows a more balanced approach.

As Germany jets are pretty unimportant. If you dont get jets (and UK does), then simply dont fight against England in the air - its not necessary. Germany has enough other fronts where it can use its air and in France some corps are more than enough for defence. Russia starts with Lv 0 jets, so german air should have no problems there. And as long as they put enough pressure in Russia and continue to attack also on the ground, Russia has not enough mpps for airfights - and when they do fight in the air, then axis ground campaign will move forward much faster ;) .

Russia doesnt need jets as long as they are in the defence - they cant afford airfights independently of the jet level. Only UK should stay more or less competitive in jet technology with germany since they dont have another front where they can use their air. But still when they are behind in jets, they usually only have to wait some turns until they catch up - simply dont attack if germany has some air in France and UK is 2 or more jet levels behind - german air in France will be missing in the east, so it is no real problem to wait ;) .

In the end: technology is only decisive when the player doesnt change his strategy accordingly. E.g. if you are too far behind in Jets, dont fight for air superiority at this front, shift your focus and increase research. If you want with your head through the wall...the wall is stronger ;) . Strategy has to change with the situation and tech levels or the unflexible player will loose - and this has nothing to do with tech or airfleets as a "gamebraker" ;) .

The best strategy in SC is to buy balanced forces. The right mix consisting of armies, tanks, corps and airfleets is much better than an air-only strategy. Only if the opponent also believes that air is everything and also choose an air-only approach it is possible to win with this strategy (against an equal opponent !).

This is because air is pretty expensive to buy and reinforce. Against land units air is ineffective compared to tanks/armies - they are 2-4 times more mpp effective than air ! And jet technology makes them even more ineffective, cause it increases the costs for both buying and reinforcing by 10%/level.

To kill an enemy unit in a defence line you need either 2 experienced armies/tanks, the enemy is damaged, or you need some air to make breakthroughs. So in the offensive air is usually necessary to protect your units and to move forward - and thats even pretty realistic: if you dont have air, you cant make a successful offensive against a well set up defence line. But still you can kill some enemy units (luck/ experienced units) or move forward if the enemy is not well prepared and gives you the opportunity.

You need some airfleets to make breakthroughs and for spotting purposes - for Germany usually 7-10 airfleets when Barbarossa starts. But if someone buys much more he simply has not enough mpp left to buy the necessary ground forces (everything else equal). Things in SC are pretty well balanced smile.gif .

What many players forget: with a better strategy a player will have a lot more mpps/units than the opponent in the end. And then he will win the game DESPITE a lot of airfleets - cause he simply has enough mpps (much more mpp than the opponent). Airfleets above a certain number are inefficient compared to the same mpps invested in ground units, but if someone has won the mpp war, he can afford to waste some mpps. If he had invested them into ground units, he would have won also.

But one thing is right: since there is not endless space on the map, sooner or later there are enough ground forces and more ground units will not increase the speed of the advancements any more. So when the war is decided and its time to remove the last enemy survivore, the numbers of airfleets usually go up, cause mpps are no longer the problem and all mpps go into air for the last couple of turns before the enemy surrenders.


Air and tech are no game breakers. To produce too one sided is the first step towards defeat. As long as strategy changes according to the situation and tech levels, tech only changes strategies but not the chances to win.

Moral of the story: Dont complain about too powerful this or that...be flexible and choose the right strategy for each situation and dont hesitate to change it when necessary - then you will see: SC is very well balanced and no unit type is too powerful but fits well in the overall concept smile.gif .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you!...'Blashly & Terif'...you are both correct but, i suspect that 'Blashly' has some valid arguments here...that just can't be totally white-washed away with a sermon in strategy!.

From what 'Blashly' has been saying as well as what i have observed by looking at the map in the pictures myself...im gathering that the MAP is Too-Small!...and that Air-Power is Too-Powerfull...which is and can be a valid argument too.

True...in the last year of the War...Air-Power was devestating against ground units as 'Blashly' has been describing but, it was not that powerful for most of the war. So if im not incorrect in that statement...then yes 'Blashly' is correct...in that the Air-Units are Too-Powerful...at least for 75-80% of the War Period in this game!.

Really how can i be totally sure of what i say?, i can't...i will have to wait for a demo to see for myself!.

If i had a choice... i would prefer to have the Map-Size increased from between a minimum of 30% larger to a maximum of 100% larger!. This would help to balance out this Air-Issue as well as make the game more manuever friendly!...etc...etc!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I come from the point of view of game and unit balance. And from this perspective IMHO (after over 500 games of SC...)air is not too powerful, but exactly right smile.gif .

You also have to look at the mpps cost of each unit and per attack. To compare unit types only with their strength and not to look at the costs is like comparing apples and oranges - a mistake a lot of players make, when complaining about too powerful air ;) .

If it is historically accurate or not is not my approach, thats another question. Here you can be right that air is too powerful or not correctly represented.

But even in this aspect you can find many arguments and explainations that SC represents it correct since it is an abstraction and represents thousands of different aircrafts and not only fighters (here you can find a lot of discussions with pros and cons in the SC Forum during the last 2 years smile.gif ).

At the beginning without experience air is also in the game not very powerful, it is only as strong as a corps vs ground units, but costs over 3 times more mpps ;) . Only in the course of the war and after collecting experience (which AFs will loose in air battles) they become a bit better vs ground units (armies have still a better combat power at much lower costs..) . But still, even with expected losses of 0, they loose in average 0.33 strength points = ~ 7 mpp per attack. So the mpp exchange rate is even in the later stages of the war not much in favour of the AFs.

Map size is a different question. In SC1 Hubert couldnt make the map larger due to memory/technical reasons. In SC 2 it will be larger. Larger is good, but too large is perhaps not so good - at least not for HvsH games when you want to finish a game within a reasonable time ;) .

Anyway, in SC you usually have not the problem of too many units and not enough space. Not if both sides are still really fighting. This keeps the amount of units low enough. It is very seldom that you have too much units... ;) this normally only can happen when the game is decided, one side has as good as won and is only hunting the last enemy survivors - or if you produce too one sided: e.g. if you have enough ground units, then you should produce air units. If you continue to build ground units, already have no space to use them and complain you have not enough air, then you obviously make something wrong ;) .

[ June 06, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terif, airfleets are not too powerfull per say.

But the ground units are not well balanced so it causes AF to be a must.

When one simple corps can resist 2 Armies with 1+ bar of experience, not even entrenched or at times with no HQ, it makes it unbalanced. In some cases it can happen (entrenched).

You even see 1 army resist 2 armies and 1 tank with HQ support.

That is why I say AF are gamebreakers, if you don't have them, you're not going to progress with a fast enough pace to win, on either side.

And Jet Tech, well that's ridiculous, what is the use of buying AF if your opponent is higher in JT on both fronts, if you do, you can't use them and that money is just sitting back waiting on LUCK to give you what you need, while your troops are being pounded by AF, which I find make way too much damage if you compare it to WW2 fleets. Bombers did heavy damages, even then, troops could easily resist. Just take D-Day. Shelling and Bombarding the beaches caused virtually no German casualties.

I have found that a game played with no tek in SC does balance out the AF factor a lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yes, you need airfleets if you want to break enemy defence lines and to advance. But it would be unbalanced if you could do it without any air support smile.gif . This would really be unrealistic if you could win the war without air and even against enemy air superiority at all fronts. If you produce too one sided you will loose the war, this is also right if you only go for ground and neglect your air forces.

So dont buy enough armies and you will loose. But the same applies for all other unit types INCLUDING airfleets ;) . And that is what I call balanced concerning unit types: you need all of them at the right amount smile.gif .

About jet tech: since we have a catch up effect it is very seldom that you are behind in tech longer than some turns, its only temporarily. If you are really 2 or more advances behind and want to fight with air at this front, then you have to invest the full 5 chits - and if necessary to sell other chits. If you do this, you have at least 35% chance each turn to reach the next level !

More important: as Germany it simply cant happen that the enemy has airsuperiority at both fronts. If this happens, you have already lost the war a long time ago or you made the mistake to split your airfleets and use them at both fronts (your mistake, not the mistake of the research system ;) ).

It can happen that the enemy has higher tech levels at both fronts, but that doesnt mean automatically air superiority. You simply have to unite your airfleets (or at least move enough air to this front) and fight at one front, then you will achieve airsuperiority, it nearly doesnt matter how much tech the enemy has. At least for Russia it is simply not possible to win the air war against all german airfleets since Russia has not enough mpp to keep its airfleets operational and simultaneously to replace its ground losses - except Germany has already lost the war.

So if you dont change your strategy according to current tech levels or invest the right amount of chits in tech, its your choice and you cant blame tech for the result ;) .

As for historical accuracy: maybe you are right, maybe wrong - there are a lot of different opinions. Here I dont have the necessary informations for an assessment.

For me important is the game balance. And within the current combat system SC needs the airfleets as they are, or it becomes unbalanced in one direction or the other. If you want to change how airfleets work, then you have to change a lot of other variables too to keep it balanced - in SC 1 simply not useful.

In SC 2 combat system will change a lot I guess, since now with tiles we have a minimum of 3 possible ground attacks instead of 2 - and with a new combat system it is also possible to change how air works. So lets wait and see what Hubert is planning smile.gif .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am considering buying Strategic Command and I'm looking for some input from somebody who has played it extensively to tell me the basics of how you play. I have a few angry questions :mad:

1. How do you make units? (where do you get money?)

2. Can you conquer the whole world?

3. What benefits/advantages do you get from conquering a specific territory?

4. Is the combat between units shown up clsoe when battle takes place? How is combat resolved?

Thanks! :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You purchase units from MPPs (money) received after each turn.

The more land you conquer the more MPPs you make per turn as well you get an initial plunder of MPPs from the conquered countries.

This game is only the European Theater but SC2 will have an extensive map editor that will permit modders to creat whatever maps they please (Pacific, world, Africa, whatever pleases you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...