Order of Battle and Force Limits

[SeaMonkey]

"nor are its micromanagement features desired by many players."

Exactly....What I'm hearing is that with force limits both soft and hard, the mechanism is available for SC2 to model the historical belligerent's militaries. The "what if" model will be handled by the "soft limit" that penalizes the country's infrastructure(MPPs) for exceeding it(hard). IMO the only thing that needs to be decided is what defines the boundary between the soft and hard for each country.

[Edwin P.]

I agree, SC2 with the hard and soft limits offers a simple and effective way to place on a nations force structure.

In my view, this concept is fixed as part of the game design and players who want to see something added as an alternative option in this area should propose something simple and convince the designer that their "option" would enhance the game and its playability.

Another alternative to consider, might be to say that the force limits might be based on X points of units, Corps = 1 point, Army = 2 points, Carrier = 4 Points. Therefore a nation can build 4 Corps OR 2 Armies OR 1 Carrier OR 2 Corps and 1 Army. This is a bit more flexible than the Hard and Soft limits by unit type.

Still another idea, might be to allow the conquest of Oil Resources to increase the Force Limits of Specific types of units for specific countries. Ie Each Oil Resource controlled increases the Soft/Hard Limit for German Armor units by 1. This increases the importance of controlling specific resource hexes, especially for the Germans and Italians.

Or say that if you field more Armor Units than your Force limit then each turn every Armor unit has a 10% to lose half its action points each turn, due to a fuel shortage. So a unit might have its movement reduced from 6 hexes to 3 hexes if it experiences a fuel shortage.

[ July 23, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[pzgndr]

IMO the only thing that needs to be decided is what defines the boundary between the soft and hard for each country.

The limits option will probably be a generic game setting and not something for each country. Each country will still have unit type limits defined for the scenarios, but players would choose hard/soft/none for the game. This would be a player preference decision, and each option would produce a different style of gameplay.

If soft limits are used, the decision would be what effect additional units would have. Should cost increases be 10%, 20%, more or less? Again, different values of this editable parameter would produce different styles of gameplay.

Which style is the right style? Players will have to decide that for themselves. Those who have played 3R/A3R and/or WiF should be very comfortable with comparable SC2 force pool limits and the soft limits option that permits some reasonable what-ifs. Let's keep this simple and fun, yes?

[ July 23, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: pzgndr ]

[ev]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Ev;

According to the databook the correct figures are that Germany had 4637 combat aircraft in june 1944, and 5041 in december 1944.

Ah! This makes sense. I need a copy of your data book...

Thx.

[ev]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

...HOI went down this road, ... If you want to set out and account for every damn squad, tank, and aircraft, and all of the manpower, steel, coal, rubber, and oil and whatever down to a gnat's ass, and how all this interacts on a variable turn basis, you're looking at a boatload of effort to make it happen. Insert photo of Hubert saying "Who, me?? You want it when??"

I am not interested in managing each resource - steel, coal, rubber, oil, and whatever. I am only interested in manpower. And, I have one most important reason for this. Germany did not have the manpower to tackle Russia, Period.

Manpower shortage was Germany's first and foremost shortage since 1942. Long before they ran out of anything else, they ran out of able man to man the Russian Front. Allied bombing cut short Germany's oil and steel production. The loss of Ploesti was also a terrible loss for Germany. But long before any of these hurt Germany, Germany was already losing the war because Germany could not man the Russian Front.

Some historians argue that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war because Germany could never recover the men they lost in Stalingrad. Well, Germany lost Von Paulus Army at Stalingrad because it needed 100,000 men in each flank to avoid encirclement. And Germany did not have the necesary manpower before the battle for Stalingrad started.

[Retributar]

You are correct ev ...,however had 'Paulus' had the Panzer forces that were stripped away from him and/or had he been allowed to retreat in good time and order as he requested...that disaster could have been avoided.

He did request to retreat and have other forces assist in this effort...of course the request to retreat was rejected as Hitler thought that a rescue would take care of the problem.

If you have looked at all in the posting 'Something I Hope WILL HAPPEN in SC2'

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000295;p=1

...you will see that the German's were a very busy bunch...concocting a plethora of new weapons...some of which if produced in sufficient numbers might/could have turned their fortunes around in the war.

Numbers are not necessarily everything...as has been proven many times in history. Its Technology/Tactics/the unconventional & common sense that make or break a nation at war.

[ July 23, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

You are correct ev ...,however had 'Paulus' had the Panzer forces that were stripped away from him and/or had he been allowed to retreat in good time and order as he requested...that disaster could have been avoided.

He did request to retreat and have other forces assist in this effort...of course the request to retreat was rejected as Hitler thought that a rescue would take care of the problem.

True. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Hitler was attempting to do things for which he did not have the manpower.

Retreat was the correct strategic option. Retreat of course meant accepting the fact that the German Atmy had stretch beyond its limits.

Originally posted by Retributar:

Numbers are not necessarily everything...as has been proven many times in history. Its Technology/Tactics/the unconventional & common sense that make or break a nation at war.

I agree numbers are not necessarily everything. Still, given the technology available at the time, Germany could not man the Russian Front with the available men. During the winter of 41-42 Germany lost a lot of men. Germany had less men in Russia in December 42 than the previous year. And the length of the length of the fontline, from Finland to the Caucasus was mindboggling. In fact, huge sections of the frontline consisted of lone outposts far apart from each other. It was at best an extremely porous (sp?) line. The Germans could not even mount an effective patrol of the frontline, let alone defend it.

I will check this numbers for you later, but, I think Russia had something like 2.5 -3 million more men in the eastern front than Germany. ...sometimes too much is just too much.

[Retributar]

by Gerald L. Conroy

ORGANIZATION AND TAKTIKA:...NOT...primarily NUMBERS.

http://members.tripod.com/~Kekrops/Hellenistic_Files/Alexander_and_His_Army.html

----------------------------------------------

Quote - Napoleone' : Morale is as to numbers ... as three is to one!.

A L E X A N D E R

"The Great"

(356 -323 B.C.)

A L E X A N D R O S

by Plutarch

http://www.e-classics.com/ALEXANDER.htm & http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html#c

BATTLE OF GRANICUS:

Alexander began his war against Persia in the spring of 334 BC by crossing the Hellespont (modern Dardanelles) with an army of 35,000 Macedonians and 7,600 Greeks.

The Persians had camped on the other side of the Granicus River to prevent Alexander from crossing. The Persian force numbered 20,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry, and their position was strong. The river was deep, and its banks were high. The task of assault seemed to be impossible, but Alexander immediately led thirteen squadrons of horsemen across under a shower of arrows. With frenzied persistence they managed to get up the muddy banks and close with the enemy.

The Macedonian phalanx, meanwhile, had managed to get across the river and form up on the other side. The Persians could not stand up against their push, and soon the whole Persian army was running for their lives. The losses on the Persian side were 20,000 infantry and 2,500 cavalry, but Alexander lost only 34 men (others say 110-120).

---------

BATTLE OF ISSUS:

King Darius of Persia was on the way from Susa with an army of 600,000 men. Darius was in an equal hurry to get out of Issus(as Alexander was headed there), because when he saw the rough terrain, which made his cavalry useless, and split up his army, he realized that the Greeks could have the advantage.

Before Darius could escape from his own trap, Alexander had arrived. Alexander personally commanded the right wing, which crushed the Persian left. Darius panicked and rode away, leaving behind his chariot, his bow, his shield, his mantle, his army, and 110,000 Persian casualties. The narrow field of battle allowed Alexander to defeat the Persians.

Alexander was a master at ascertaining 'Terrain'...and how to make it work for him...as he has shown that time and time again. Also, he had little or no fear of numbers of the opposing army...and could easily spot/ascertain the weakeness in enemy postioning,...then, exploit it!.

[ July 23, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[ev]

Retributar, thanks for the great examples. I am printing the articles you referenced above. I am sure I will enjoy reading them very much.

The Germans would have fared a lot better if Hitler would have allowed Manstein and other great German soldiers to run the show. In operation Barbarosa, Germany pitted 3.3 million soldiers vs. 5.4 million Ruissians. The Germans captured millions of Russian soldiers and occupied hundreds of thousands of square mile of Russian territory. The Germans manage to achive similar great results in the summer of '42.

Germany was pretty good at grabbing Russian land, and, encircling Russian soldiers. However, it was not able to hold on to whatever it gained. I urge you to read this article:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#ted

Another article I would like you to read is "Deep Maneuver, past lessons identified for bold commanders." by Ronnie L. Coutts, Maj, British Army. You can get this article in pdf format from the cgsc library (same site referenced above).

[Retributar]

That's too much reading ev ...but...yes, i got the 'gist-of-it'...there was a manpower shortage...as well as fuel, aircraft...and other shortages. The Germans couldn't properly hold on to all that they had gained!.

What we have here is a problem of biting off much more than can be chewed. If i was the Germans i would have tried to take 'MOSKAU'...but,upon the stiffining of Russian resistance...would have created a defensive arc from the NW to the East ...then concentrated most of my best formations to take out Sevestapol and the Caucasus Oil-Fields.

It was no 'state-secret' that Germany was short of this precious resource...so then...whynot make it a primary target...instead of forking off into 3 directions?. The game will give you a few MPP's more for taking the Caucasus Oil-Fields, but not be able to really reflect just how important it's capture would have been or how much it could have assisted the German war-effort...that action alone in reality...could have decided the war!.

[ July 23, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[pzgndr]

I am not interested in managing each resource - steel, coal, rubber, oil, and whatever. I am only interested in manpower. And, I have one most important reason for this. Germany did not have the manpower to tackle Russia, Period.

This would be a slippery slope to walk on, attempting to micromanage one resource and no others. I'll provide a quote by Don Greenwood from The Gamer's Guide to Third Reich:

Similarly, there are those critics who claim that the game would have been more interesting with BRPs spent on technology to introduce bigger and better weapon systems. But given three-month Game Turns, can't one more readily assume that such technological improvements are occurring simultaneously for both sides (or near simultaneously as shown by changes in Initiative which provide devastating "double turns"). That is, can't we assume that the Russian introduction of the T-34 is soon balanced by the German Mk IV with an upgunned 75 or Panther? Do we really need to drag the players through the mechanics and record keeping of such technological improvements? Isn't it easier on the players to just assume that such developments have a counter-balancing effect at this time scale? Or do we really need to introduce new armor counters with greater strength to reflect bigger and better tanks? Surely the Panzer Corps of 1944 is more than a match for the Mk II's which conquered Poland, but is it not also true that those Panthers are now facing Shermans and SU-85's rather than cavalry? The relative strengths of these forces as measured against the opposition has not changed. Thus the emphasis remains on questions of grand strategy, not tactics. For the effects of technological advances and also to introduce new situations into our game, we fell back on the Variant chits - a less obvious but far more elegant way of showing the importance of technology in the game.

Now a lot of that refers to tech, but the key idea of "relative strengths" is important with regard to manpower also. True the Germans were bled white. It is also true the Russian faced manpower problems of their own in 1944 and 1945, despited the quantity of divisions shown on paper.

So we return full circle to just what the abstract strength point means on the SC unit counter over the years. If we attempt to quantify details such as men, tanks, airplanes, etc. such as many fine games do at the tactical and operational level, we quickly lose focus on the overall grand strategy. Grigsby's latest WITP is a good example. WWII on a daily turn basis with all those interesting details. That's fine for an operational level game, but not if you want to play the entire 6 years of WWII in less than 36 hours of game time!

I need to break here, but I'll come back to this shortly.

[Retributar]

All valid argument's----- POSTED IN ERROR-IGNORE!!!.

[ July 23, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Kuniworth]

Is this the sequal to the boxoffice hit "kill Bill"?

[Retributar]

All valid argument's pzgndr ...and so it should be that SC2 with a few more enhancement's should reflect your evidence and argument.

However, there is something in some of us...that just love those nitty-gritty-micromanaging-details...we just do...it's an exhilaration in itself to study those intracracies...hoping to outdo or outperform history.

For example i like to play 'IMPERIUM GALACTICA II - ALLIANCES' ( 5-Years Old Now and still selling for 34.95 and up on Amazon.com ) occasionally...and in that game...for instance...you build a Destroyer...then Research and build a Heavy-Destroyer...while upgunning and upgrading them throughout the game. Then later you build Corvette's and Heavy-Corvette's and repeat the process until you can afford to build BattleShips.

Solarian Battleship:

Tech Improvements available:

Kra'Hen Cruiser:

So instead of the game engine just building Generic-Warships for instellar combat...keeping all sides equal at the same time...therefore not allowing for technology differences.

YOU decide where to put which and what upgrades and improvements into your equipment,or whether, ...instead to research the next level of ship-technology...hoping that if you do so, that you will not be attacked while preparations are ongoing for the next advanced ship to be researched...and then produced...it is facinating to watch it all unfold.

While such a research and development and improvement cycle may not be practical for SC1 or SC2...its still fun to discuss it...and maybey someday...someone from this discussion forum will create a game incorporating some of the ideas that have been forwarded. HOI took a good stab at it ...but, had too many quirks in it to make the game truly believable. Even so...it was great fun to study and experiment with it...for me anyway.

[ July 23, 2004, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[pzgndr]

OK, Part II to my previous post.

The thing I found with force pool limits in 3R was that Germany would find itself stretched thin on the Russian Front in 1942/43 despite having BRPs. This would inevitably create an opportunity for the Allies to create a breakthrough and exploit a weakness. The 3R economic model which allowed the Allies to rapidly expand their production also helped. These things are lacking in SC1. Once the Axis crosses the magic line in Russia, there's nothing to stop them from building more units and no relief for the Russians.

On the flip side later in the war in 1944/45, Germany would normally run short on BRPs and could not afford to build enough units. Nor could Russia build a ridiculously large army, despite a growing economy. Both of these things seemed to temper some of the more unrealistic things I've experienced playing SC. The idea is to recreate a historical "effect." This could be done with more detail and more complexity added to the game, but essentially the same effect can be achieved with more abstract force pool limits in a much simpler manner. Not perfect of course, but a much needed improvement over what we currently have in SC1.

However, their is something in some of us...that just love those nitty-gritty-micromanaging-details...we just do...

Right, and I am also guilty here. However, there is also something about being able to actually PLAY and COMPLETE game after game and being able to enjoy it. SC allowed us to do this. SC draws the line at a reasonable level of detail which provides more than 3R did but perhaps not as much as some would like.

If you really truly are a glutton for micromanagement, there is HOI and WITP. Or you can check out Schwerpunkt's RGW and upcoming AGW. Or Matrix's upcoming computer WiF for the hardcore dreamers in the crowd.

[Retributar]

Again pzgndr ... i would myself for the most part follow the plan or outline for SC2...it is a good one and a practical one...i will not argue that.

Where there is an opportunity to incorporate new elements into the game ... it should be considered as in other instances it has. Thats all we want...is as good a game as this lineage can produce under the present constraints. We...even though we are not programmers and developers...want this product to succeed as much as Hubert wants it too...we want a game that for its Genre' is ... 'A Cut Above The Crowd'.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Alot of interesting points have been made about why it should be one way or another. What we are really discussing, is game design.

I understand the design decisions that were made for a product like 3R. But we are talking about a design that is what, 20 years old now? And one that was made for a boardgame.

Abstraction is necessary in some areas to achieve effects. Thats one reason that I have constantly argued that if we are not going to have a true representation of a 50 mile hex for the Atlantic, than abstract it.

But in an age of computers, where the processing and caculations are done at a level that the user doesn't see, there are important areas that need that level of detail so we can model the effects of different high level decisions that the players are making.

The effects of oil and manpower (IMHO), are two of those areas. If a computer can be used to provide eye-candy (which is not necessarily a bad thing), why can't it have a more sophisticated model of oil and manpower usage?

I'm also not saying that SC2 should have these things. But SC has the foundations for designing a model using its basic components, so why not develop something that could be used by SC2?

[SeaMonkey]

"The limits option will probably be a generic game setting and not something for each country. Each country will still have unit type limits defined for the scenarios, but players would choose hard/soft/none for the game. This would be a player preference decision, and each option would produce a different style of gameplay."

Bill are you saying the limits(hard) are unmoddable code? I'm also reading into this that the limits are specific to unit types(is this an editable parameter)? Again I'm assuming that the players will have the option to enable the %MPP penalty for building over the hard limits by choosing soft limits? Will the players be able to set the amount of the % penalty?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by SeaMonkey:

I'm also reading into this that the limits are specific to unit types(is this an editable parameter)? Again I'm assuming that the players will have the option to enable the %MPP penalty for building over the hard limits by choosing soft limits? Will the players be able to set the amount of the % penalty?

Very interesting discussion, but as Shaka has reminded, this is surely... a game designer's decision.

Many myriad ways to go about insuring that the OOBs and "manpower" for each Nation is accurate enough to provide a VERY fun and VERY exciting and VERY challenging game.

I would defy ANYONE to show me... that ANY WW2 GS game currently on the market, no matter how old or new, PERFECTLY replicates "manpower."

This is ALWAYS an abstraction... which ideally fits into ALL of the many, many other "abstracted" features and dynamics.

Taken altogether, they will fairly faithfully re-create a WW2 GS game.

To answer your questions (... and a few others besides):

1) You can edit HOW MANY units each Country, to include the Minors, can build.

2) You can edit HOW MUCH each of those units will cost, for ALL countries on the map.

3) You can edit HOW LONG it takes to produce each type of unit (... also to include Minors' units)

4) You can edit COMBAT target values for every unit... belonging to all of the WW2 countries.

AND,

***You CAN EDIT the percentage cost for EXCEEDING the limits YOU!

Have already set (... presuming you do not accord with the Designer's WELL RESEARCHED and WELL CONSIDERED parameters).

This percentage COST for building MORE units than have been allowed, can vary from 10% to 100%... in 10% increments.

So.

You are strategic commander for Britain; you face very serious "manpower" shortages in 1944, just as it happened in real life.

Let's assume you are at the limit for... say, Air Fleets (... YOU have set this limit... at 5).

If YOU have set the additional COST for EXCEEDING any unit, to include the AFs, at... say, 30%,

Then you CAN build that 6th AF, BUT it will cost you the "going rate" PLUS 30%

[... BTW, this over-build percentage can be DIFFERENT for each and every country, major or minor]

Now, the "going rate" can be nearly any number, depending on how you want to build that 6th AF.

Your research may have achieved L3 Jets, and L2 Long Range, but you can elect to build at ANY level... say, L1 Jets and L0 LR... Plus 30 % for the "over-build" penalty.

Example: (... and this obviously also depends on what "production tech" level you have achieved)

The L-1 Jets and L-0 L/R AF would cost you, let's say, 460 MPPs... now, with the 30% penalty (...for ALL of Britain's added units) it would cost you 460 + 138 MPPs, or... 598 MPPs.

This abstraction clearly reflects the difficulty you now have in summoning sufficient pilots (it is... another DEMAND on "manpower," just as with exceeding the limits on Infantry or Armor or when christening a bristling new Cruiser).

Now, I ask any long-time gamer, as I am (... over 40 years and counting)... HOW CAN YOU NOT? establish your VERY OWN... OOBs and "manpower?"

Thorough and simple answer: you can. :cool:

(... the collateral issue of "Oil requirements" is already accounted for in other ways; no need to confuse basic OOB/manpower with that peripheral and arbitrary "enhancement")

[ July 24, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks DD for a very informative, detailed response....answered all my questions. Now we know how SC2 features are to be used to script each country's OOB and military limits, specifically. Now that this step has been concluded, is it time to pursue the historical military configurations for each country and what their capabilties should be or evolve based on what parameters of conquest/resource accumulation? And what is the beginning time period......Sept 1939? The beginning OOBs are pretty much set in stone with a little "wiggle" on echelon configurations, corps, armies, tank groups, etc. One question now comes to mind with all this contemplation. Will there be a way to script a modification of the hard/soft limits during the game to represent the accumulation of additional strategic resources through conquest? Example: Germany acquires a certain tile with oil/mineral resources and now becomes able to field another motorized(TG) formation without the % penalty for exceeding its TG limit, as well as if it loses said tile a greater % is enabled for reinforcing all TGs, or something to this effect?

Gosh....are we ever satisfied?

[Liam]

LETS MAKE THIS SIMPLE

If you're not adding Destroyers I'm not endorsing ForcePools that're BattleStar "Galactica" Intricate

Simple is that Historically a nation of a certian population, say 50,000,000 can recruit a percentage of that for military Service. That's as complicated as she needs to get

Oil, Ore and other resources are sort of 'ify' and including their specs in this game will be hard. Not that I wouldn't love the extras. We could even with an editor later make them a bonus resource to simplify the effects they might have. i.e. Nations get a percentage off mechanization, initial Armored and Pilot Training Experience with half a Bar, etc... etc... etc.. for each Oil that possess or Likewise cheaper Tanks for more Ore they possess.<though wasn't ore plentiful in WW2 Europe, the industrial aspect of it was more a precise part of the whole>

[ July 24, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Edwin P.]

Excellent summary DD. Much appreciated.

[Kuniworth]

Immer:

Problem is how to look upon reinforcements - they reqiuer manpower as well but can't be modelled.

I believe Ev:s suggestion to be a good one but even if it will not happen the current model will be awesome. Looking forward to the game.

[Desert Dave]

... even if it will not happen the current model will be awesome. Looking forward to the game.

My sentiments... quite exactly.

EVEN IF I do NOT see some of my very favorite aspects of WW2 included... in the way that I would personally prefer, well, I remain in agreement... this WILL indeed be an awesome game.

As I have mentioned before, the folks who post on the SC boards ARE, simply... the most knowledgable and impassioned "gamers" that I have EVER encountered.

Now, IMHO, Hubert is one of those... one of us, as well.

He is a faithful "gamer" and more than ANY designer I have ever known, or known about ... CARES about making and presenting a GREAT and original game.

Rest assured that ALL of the topics presented and discussed in this forum... are care-fully considered; you all have just as much chance as I do in "influencing" the eventual game.

KEEP ON! Suggesting and speculating! I surely intend to. :cool:

In my case, and no matter that I have played EVERY single WW2 GS game EVER made, board or computer (... this truly IS my main avocation and interest) I really, REALLY like... North Afrikan desert warfare and "the naval game," whether it be U-boots prowling along the moon-doomed convoy lanes, or Mediterranean war-ship skirmishes.

ANd EACH of you has some certain area that intrigues and mystifies and "charms"... you.

Each of those special areas of interest is EQUALLY as important as... ANY of mine.

For instance, this area of OOB/Manpower IS important, and WILL be care-fully "modeled," I assure you. I do NOT mean to say that it is merely "incidental" to fun and historical game play.

Keep in mind that this is an ongoing "process" and it is hardly over.

MANY aspects yet to be harmonized and actualized and finalized... if you recall, Hubert did what all great game designers do... "improved" SC1 AFTER receiving additional input following the initial release of SC the Original ... no reason to believe it won't happen again, with SC2-Blitzkrieg! as well. :cool:

[SeaMonkey]

Food for thought: from WW2 Encyclopedia:

Population/ No.in Armed Forces

France 42 million/ 4.6 million

Germany 78 million(1938)/ 17.9 mil.

Italy 43.8 mil./ unknown

Japan 72.2 mil. (37)/ 9.1 mil.

UK 47.5 mil/ 5.9 mil

USA 129.2 mil./ 16.4 mil

USSR 194.1 mil/ 30 mil.

These are of course estimates and rounded.

The data for the minors is also available.