Shall we have the same MPP concept in SC2?

[vveedd]

I have been thinking about MPP concept in SC1. It is simple but maybe too simple. Let me explain what I have in mind - In SC1 all resources mean the same to players – MPP and nothing else. It is doesn’t matter if player occupied mine or oil field (except how many MPP he will get). Maybe SC2 game developers should consider a little bit complex concept like some other games have. My idea is that SC2 should have separate oil fields resources, mine resources and money itself and units price should be pronounced in those 3 resources. For instance – Air Fleets costs xxx Money plus xxx Mine Resources plus xxx Oil. Every movement of units should cost also. In that way economic warfare will have much significant role in game. Actually this suggestion is nothing new – we have similar concept in lots of RTS and turn based games. For instance Hearts of Iron game have it but much more complicated then this idea.

[Exel]

I partly agree and partly disagree with you. On one hand a more realistic economic/resource system might improve gameplay, but on the other hand SC is by nature a very abstract game and thus such a system might not fit in. I also don't like the semi-realistic system you described where there are only a couple of main resources (be it oil, minerals and money or gold, wood and food) - it isn't really any more realistic but adds complexity. MPPs are at least a honest abstraction.

[rleete]

I agree with Exel. Makes it too much like Warcraft or somfink.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Exel:

I also don't like the semi-realistic system you described where there are only a couple of main resources (be it oil, minerals and money or gold, wood and food) - it isn't really any more realistic but adds complexity. MPPs are at least a honest abstraction.

I agree but in SC1 there are mines and oil fields. Why? There is no difference except in MPP value. We even have statistics screen for resources. Absolutely irrelevant information’s for a game. And icons are just for eye candy. What is worse there are little differences between towns and mines / oil fields. It will be a waste that SC2 have the same unused and irrelevant stuff. In this semi-realistic system there are some differences between resources type. Maybe is not the best idea but I wanted to keep simple.Some more significant differences between resources type should be in SC2.

[ March 24, 2005, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Edwin P.]

Perhaps a much more limited form of vveedd suggests?

Each Oil resource you control increases the build limit for armor units by 1.

You control 2 Oil Resource tiles and your build limit for Armor units is +2. You lose these tiles and your build limit for Armor units decrease. This would give Allied and Axis forces an incentive to seize Oil hexes.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by rleete:

I agree with Exel. Makes it too much like Warcraft or somfink.

I agree again. It shouldn't be like Warcraft (wood, food, gold and stupid stuff like this). I have in mind something similar concept like in Civilization 3 game.

[rleete]

While I see your point, and even kinda-sorta like the concept, I also see it being used in such a manner so as to change the entire face of the game. If you get into a distinction between oil and mines, don't you have to differentiate between the types of mines as well? Coal vs. iron ore vs. titanium, etc.

Oil was a strategic resource, but there are others not even represented, and it could get to be a mess. For instance Speer comented after the war in his book that he didn't understand why the Allies didn't devote more bombing raids to the hydro-electric dams (the Ruhr?). That alone (he said) would have had more of an impact than some of the carpet bombing of the city centers. So, now power plants, too?

Then what about civilian manpower? Food stocks? Probably a bunch more I can't think of right now. It opens a whole can of worms, and I would rather play a WWII game than a "grab the resources" game (Warcraft is only one example, but there are many more).

[Lars]

At the end of the war, Germany was still cranking out tanks and planes and making synthetic oil to run them on. If you don't allow Germany to build units due to losing some resource, the grogs will be out for your blood with example after example of how the Germans got around it.

I think you're just going to have to accept the abstraction and let it go. The MPP hexes are just there to give you something to fight over, a little reward for doing it, and a reason to garrison the place after taking them.

Unless you want to totally change the nature of the game, of course. But beware, it usually becomes a bean counter's nightmare. Where's the rubber? the electric? the tungsten? etc....

[Lars]

rleete, you bastage...

[rleete]

Just consider it a case of great minds, parallel ideas, etc.

But I posted it first.

[Panzeh]

If grogs had their way every time, the game would always be favored heavily toward the Axis because they have a knack for picking out every little advanced thing they developed then totally ignoring the allies in this respect.

[Exel]

In a realistic war game I see two choices regarding economics and resources: either the system is totally abstracted, like in SC, or maxed up realistic, with dozens of resource types in a delicate balance, sort of like in Victoria. Anything in between is just foolish, since concentrating on just a few resources isn't realistic but it aint simple either. It would just add complexity.

Look at Hearts of Iron for example; it has Oil, Steel, Rubber and Coal, and what's the result? The "realistic" resources mean that countries with other types of important resources than the four selected ones get nothing and are thus ahistorically crippled, while others are boosted. That or the resource types in question are abstracted to also model other resources than what their name implies, and then what's the point of having "realistic" resources in the first place?

Since SC is an abstract game I would go with the abstract economics system as well.

[hellraiser]

Nah...the MPP concept is brilliant as it is. It keeps the game abstract and easy to play. There is a lot of new stuff already in the game that frightens me

If a standard SC1 game can take 10+ hours, if you mix in rubber, diesel fuel, icecream and condoms as resources it may take a lifetime ... Yo, condoms are much needed, how the heck can a panzer group survive in the russian wilderness without them? There are diseases in the east, you know ...

Now, leaving the joke aside, I enjoy this type of grand strategy stuff with less of a micromanagement and more focus on major things. SC 1 did a great job in this respect and I expect SC2 to add a few more items while keeping the game system simple, quite realistic and enjoyable.

[vveedd]

Rleete, Excel you are both right but my idea is to keep it simple but not too simple like in SC1. Mines and oil fields should be enough for resources(and what is good we are already have them on the map). Actually coal, iron and some other materials we are getting from mines isn’t it? And I don’t agree that will change entire face of the game just a little . To my opinion it will be enough just to implement rules like this:

1.If players do not have at least one mine and clear path from it to capital they can’t buy or upgrade corps and army units.

2.If players do not have at least one mine and one oil fields and clear path from them to capital they can’t buy or upgrade tanks, air fleets, rockets and naval units.

3.If players do not have at least one oil fields and clear path from it to capital all units movement are reduced.

[ March 25, 2005, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by vveedd:

Rleete, Excel you are both right but my idea is to keep it simple but not too simple like in SC1.

I'd rather have the honestly abstract MPP system than a more complicated system that tries to be what something it really can't be. I agree that the cities, harbors, oil fields and mines could have some very small strategic differences, but those would really have to be mostly cosmetical. The biggest problem with making the few resources significantly different is that then you'd have to add plenty of others as well in order to not to destroy gameplay and realism. While minerals and oil are important for warfare, even more crucial are for example food and manpower. How could you justify giving mines a more significant role while not having food production simulated at all?

To my opinion it will be enough just to implement rules like this:

1.If players do not have at least one mine and clear path from it to capital they can’t buy or upgrade corps and army units.

2.If players do not have at least one mine and one oil fields and clear path from them to capital they can’t buy or upgrade tanks, air fleets, rockets and naval units.

3.If players do not have at least one oil fields and clear path from it to capital all units movement are reduced.

This is exactly the kind of problem I tried to portray with my Hearts of Iron example. Those resources are important, but they are not that important. Should Finland not be able to have tanks just because they don't have oil fields? Should Russia not be able to buy infantry units if Germany takes their coal mines? Should British units be cripples in mobility because they don't happen to have access to oil from on-map resources? I don't think so.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Exel:

This is exactly the kind of problem I tried to portray with my Hearts of Iron example. Those resources are important, but they are not that important. Should Finland not be able to have tanks just because they don't have oil fields? Should Russia not be able to buy infantry units if Germany takes their coal mines? Should British units be cripples in mobility because they don't happen to have access to oil from on-map resources? I don't think so. [/QB]

I agree, this rules should be more flexible or this problem should be solved by trade agreements or with something else. It was just an idea. I have been playing Civilization 3 World War II in Europe scenario and it come to my mind after Germany (me) lost his oil resources gained by trade agreements. My plan was to attack UK but without oil I couldn’t build amphibious boats so I must changed my plan and attack first somewhere where was oil resource. This was cool and very close to real events in WWII so I wanted similar situations in SC2.

[hellraiser]

Come on man!!! Oil rush? Like the old California gold rush? Next thing would be everyone running back and forth, searching for clues in order to get the tile containing the Holy Grail!!!

The MPP concept is way better IMHO for this kind of grand scope games. Going the 'diversified resources' way would take out much of SC's purpose.

As I see the 'SC' ideea: You are given a certain historical setup BUT you are allowed to change the way history was written. The MPPs just come as a fuel for your ambitions: diplomatic takeovers, military aggression, etc. The more simplified is the economical game system, the more you can focus on devising strategies to beat your opponent while - very important - keeping the turn length reasonably short so as to make sense to play it vs a human opponent.

[Desert Dave]

Interesting discussion concerning the Economic

Aspect of WW-2, ETO.

I would tend to side with hellraiser and Lars

In that you do NOT want to slow the game down

With too much... fine finicky detail.

However, there are several consequential ways

That you CAN alter the Economic schematic

In that - astonishing! Editor. :cool:

Adjusting a Nation's economic potential

By way of its overall production capability, for one, AND two, through "efficiency," IE, maximizing the resources at hand.

ALSO,

For those who DO want to place emphasis

On... black bubbling-through crude, IE, Oil,

Well,

You CAN edit each of the "resource values."

So that, let's say, instead of each oil tile

Being worth 30 MPP's (value=3 Xs 10 = 30)

You COULD make that tile worth 50 (value=5).

As currently constituted (... and here, remember that ALL things may change, a little or a lot, right up to a threshold pre-release date),

Russia has 4 oil tiles,

USA has 3 (2 of which cannot be reached)

Rumania has 1,

And Iraq has 1.

[... you might even use the Editor to place an oil tile in Saudia Arabia and/or Iran]

OK.

Say you "value" the Oil @ 5.

Each tile then becomes a greater

Percentage of an economy, and MORE critical

To each Nation's strategic plans.

(... leaving out "synthetic oil" - after all, you really don't want to clutter the game with too much detail, else it'll take forever to play)

You wonder?

Well then, aren't we NOW a little "out of balance" in terms of relative economic POWER?

Yep, BUT you can then slightly adjust another economic factor, as with GNP (size of economy) OR with super-utilization of available resources (efficiency).

Since both of these are "researchable" categories, you may simply decide to award a certain Nation some slight advantage at game's beginning, so to off-set an undue value attached to the OIL tile.

Or dial down its' potential increase for each research achievement, and/or set the highest attainable level at - one less, etc, and etc.

MANY ways for each designer-player to "adust" the economic game... not to mention, by way of scripting a few more convoys (... as I did when I added Venezuela, with it's oil sent to USA).

**And, as said, there is yet a chance that there may be an additional method for replicating assorted "trade goods" being moved around the board, depending on diplomatic influence, though, that feature is still... "in consideration."

Anyway, YES, you CAN provide Xtra incentive for the Axis to try and turn the corner @ Rostov and attempt to seize those Oil derricks in Caucasus region... though, given the new force pool limits, I wonder if GErmany would then suffer the same fate as actually happened?

Stretched too thin - across them cold and treacherous Steppes and... just trying for too MUCH, and not keeping that slender spear-head aimed dead-on - toward Moscow.

Or, Russian player could opt to develop strat bombers and the long range tech so to attack GErmany's one oil tile in Rumania... same way Allies might reach it from a bomber base in Crete, ah, assuming Student's airborne doesn't arrive there first.

Or, to play a strong Diplomatic game and see if you might convince Iraq to join your side... after all GErmany DID have pro-Axis elements in place in that country.

As for invading and grabbing USA's Oil?

LOL. Lot's of luck, I mean to say.

You'd need carriers to counter the coastal P-47 & Wildcat air base defenses, yes?

Well, NOW you'd have to plan way, WAY in advance, since those flat-tops take quite some time to arrive off that new "build queu."

No longer can you simply save up some plunder money and slam down a whole gleaming fleet of Axis carriers and soon sail off on your grand conquest adventure.

So. Make OIL more vital, or not.

As with so much else with this SC2-Blitzkrieg! it really IS... your choice. :cool:

[ March 25, 2005, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[vveedd]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

Come on man!!! Oil rush? Like the old California gold rush? Next thing would be everyone running back and forth, searching for clues in order to get the tile containing the Holy Grail!!!

The MPP concept is way better IMHO for this kind of grand scope games. Going the 'diversified resources' way would take out much of SC's purpose.

As I see the 'SC' ideea: You are given a certain historical setup BUT you are allowed to change the way history was written. The MPPs just come as a fuel for your ambitions: diplomatic takeovers, military aggression, etc. The more simplified is the economical game system, the more you can focus on devising strategies to beat your opponent while - very important - keeping the turn length reasonably short so as to make sense to play it vs a human opponent.

You are talking nonsense now. Whole WW2 was resource rash war. Germany attacked Norway to secure Swedish iron, Romania was very important to Germany because of oil fields, Iraq was very important for UK because of oil fields, Germany wanted Ukraine because lots of wheat and so on. Hell, even today US attacked Iraq because of oil. I didn’t mean to complicate SC2 with my idea, just to add some more strategic (economic) goals. And players won’t have to running back and forth because these resources are indestructible, constant and static unlike in Civilization 3 where they can pop up anywhere. And I can’t see anything in my idea that can prevent you to change history.

[hellraiser]

My opinion does not deny at all the importance of resources and it doesn't contradict 100% your opinion. Just pay a little more attention to what you read

You get kiew, mines and all that crap when you advance into russia - oops, Ukraine's resources, right? You dow sweden/norway to get a hold on skando resources, right? Minor feeding fest is all about resources my friend.

We were talking about various type of resources and the possibility of modding them into a game. A whole different story.

I will invade countries because i need their resources (MPPs) ... If I don't have MPPs I can't build things and I can' research anything. It is a simplified economic system. I would really hate to go after a specific tile containing I don't know what resource which , if I don't possess, I can't build tanks, for example.

When Germany lost the romanian oil, they did not lose the capability of tank buildings, right? They fuelled the tanks with some left over stocks and some synthetic gasoline - sure, it had a great effect on their mobility, but factories continued to crank out tanks till the end, despite of nazis being short on gasoline.

This industrial shortage is modded in SC1 by MPPs. If Russia pushes you back to Fatherland, your MPP income would suck, hence your army would suck, and so on.

Every war is resource dependant. I think the current MPP model reflects this, of course in a simplified manner, but a model that works.

And it leaves a great deal of strategic options at hand. Having specific hexes containing specific (and maybe rare - for example chrome, or other rare metal, which one absolutely needs for building specific machine parts) resources would mean almost every game would be more or less the same. Without that hex, you can't play the game.

Come on, do you want every game to be like the race for 23:34 hex ?

[Exel]

Amen to what hellraiser said. MPPs are a great way to simulate the realities of warfare economics in an abstract manner. Much more than a more complicated, wannabe-realistic system such as proposed here to replace the well-working MPPs.

[vveedd]

Hellraiser, Excel you are absolutely right but why then we are having mines and oil fields on the map? I suggested my idea only because they are on the map and there is no significant difference between them. I wanted to make some differences. It make no sense. It will be better that Hubert put more cities instead of them. I am 100% for MPP concept and simple game, I am not a wargamer, I am playing games for fun.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by vveedd:

I suggested my idea only because they are on the map and there is no difference between them. I wanted to make some differences. It make no sense. It will be better that Hubert put more cities instead of them.

Now we're talking "practical" effects.

Basic multiplication.

IF you have no mines or oil tiles,

THEN you have to find another way to boost

A Nation's available MPP's.

Take away those resource tiles

And you'd end up with, say, every single

Tile in USA having a City placed on it

In order to have sufficient MPP's.

Also, you would surely tend to fight over

Or, seriously defend ANY valuable tile.

Oil and Minerals ARE more critical.

Perhaps you'll decide to surround your

Rumanian oil derricks

Or your Ruhr area minerals

With fortifications, using

The new Engineer unit?

Costly and time consuming, but

You could do that.

All of this is a Game Designer's decision,

Since you just can't do EVERYTHING

That is possible, whether it be economics

Or military units or diplomacy or research, etc.

Hubert has decided on certain

Features, figments, models and methods.

It's the way HE wants to do it.

Another guy might use some other plan

Of replicating, say, the Economic game.

All of the ideas presented herein are good ones.

But,

At this point, we have what we have

And there can be some MINOR adjustments,

So... any and all discussions,

Comments and suggestions are relevant

And welcome.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

All of the ideas presented herein are good ones.

But,

At this point, we have what we have

And there can be some MINOR adjustments,

[/QB]

Is this mean that the game is nearly over?

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Why don't you just make it that oil is more valuable than the others? It's a simple concept.