Strategic Command Developer Diary (Blog) Now Active!!!

[Kuniworth]

A russian artillery penetration corps consisted of two artillery divisions totalling 700+ guns and mortars.

Every artilllery division consisted of 10,900 men and 350+ guns, howitzers and mortars.

[Micheal Wittman]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Here I am dreaming of the new unit strategies for WaW and what do I get.........negative vibes..........

Just can't help it can you SO? Always pessimism and sending out those negative vibes.

Now I'm completely bummed out!

One of the few enjoyments I'm allowed on this planet, playing SC and interacting on this forum........but NO!!!!!

We have to go and ruin that too!

Always whining and crying, you humans really take the cake.

If y'alls ancestors would have acted this way, they wouldn't have discovered crap.

They'd have been to worried about facing the unknown, what with no HealthCare, and poor ole blind Sam on the corner selling pencils doesn't have an Ipod to listen to, and the world is too warm, and ....and...

AAAAIIIIIEEEEEE!!!! Someone come shoot me....please.

I like that movie

I'll go back to my reading now.

[arado234]

I think it would be nearly impossible to make a strategic ww2 game "historically accurate".To much would be involved(ultra etc.)The most realistic ww2 game ive ever played was squad leader.Because its right down to squad and single man commander its possible.That game had alot of rules and took along time to play some of the scenarios.I cant imagine how a strategic game could be made if you paid that much attention to detail.I personally would make some changes but overall sc2 allows for some very interesting and fun play because it ISNT radically historical.You can always set some basic ground rules before you start.

[targul]

I must agree I like most of SC2 also. Only complaints for me are no hexes and supply rules are poor. Unit costs are strange. Not sure why you need to pay for commanders. Overall though game plays well especially some of the mods.

[SeaMonkey]

Unlike SO, Micheal got it......all tongue in cheek!

[SeaMonkey]

Well I guess I'll explain this for the umpteenth millionth time.

All field combat organizations from all nations of WW2,(and even today) ...well at least the majors, had assets that were not attached permanently to them.

Those assets were available in routine and special combat circumstances.

Among other things, anti-tank, anti-air, and artillery combat formations were juggled from organization/theater to another depending on the operational needs.

A couple of other attachment type units were ....yes you guessed it ....engineers and paratroopers....imagine that. They were special type units that corps and army formations could request for certain strategic needs.

Now....do I need to explain further.

Do you need some historical examples....or perhaps your intelligence is sufficient to "GOOGLE".

So they are a viable historical represented abstraction in SC of Hubert's design decision.

I'm OK with that. Perhaps you can sway HC's design parameters with a rational presentation of an alternative, but regardless the units are in for WaW.

Don't like it....go play something else!

[Commander Darken]

Greetings,

all in all I like the idea of the SC2 WaW-Expansion as it gives the game a new dimension.

But I still miss mountain-troops and pioneer-troops. And russian cavalry-units, too.

The first one should be able to move quickly through mountains, the second one should be able to move across rivers without loss of speed, the last one should be very fast, but not able to fight tanks.

And perhaps you could include the big German railroad-guns (1 unit having advantage against fortified troops).

Of course those troops are not so important for the "BIG" game, but I'd like to see them in scenario-games (f.e. Battle of Bulge, Battle of Stalingrad, ...).

Have a nice time with SC2

Commander Darken

[ev]

There is a third way to handle specialized units. ...of course, this is SC3 stuff already, but this is the idea:

We could retain the existing Unit structure, but each country could build a non-unit pool of specialized resources. This pool of specialized resource would not be placed in the map. But they could be "attached" to a Unit boosting a given capability of that Unit.

To elaborate further. a given country could build a Mountain Resource, and attach it to an Infantry Corps. This would make the Infantry Corps better in Moutain Combat.

Some examples of resources and their effects could be:

Anti Tank - boost anti tank defense and anti tank attack.

Anti Air - boost anti air defense and anti tank defense.

Armor - additional tanks boost armor strength.

Artillery - increased soft target offense and dense, increased anti tank

Bridge - speeds up river corssing (should be different from combat engineers or pioneer).

Pioneer - on defense speeds entrenchement, on attack causes more de-entrenchemnt of the enemy unit.

Infiltrator - Lowers morale and disrupts opposing unit.

Mountain - faciliates mountain crossing and combat

Recon - increases movement capability

Ski - Better in Winter Warfare.

Supply - Extends supply range.

When constructed, resources should be assigned to an abstract pool. When a player decides to assign a resources to a Unit, the Unit should have a minimum supply level of 8.

It should be possible, but cumbersome to remove resources from a Unit. Resources would be removed from a Unit to the Pool - they cannot be transfered directly to another Unit. (Thus, it takes 2 turns to transfer the resource to the new Unit). The unit surrendering a resource must not be in an enemy zone of control. And, may be, it should cost 1 MPP to remove the resource to represent operating costs.

Or course, there should be a limit to how many resources could be attached to any given unit. I suggest a maximum of three resources per unit where each of the resources is of a different kind. Perhapps, Elite Units could receive more than 3 resources, say up to five.

[targul]

Not positive how the military operated in WWII but in the military of the 60's and 70's attached units were extremely rare.

The division has a TO&E that provided all the needs of that division. Combat units had exactly the same TO&E weather in combat zones or out. Only difference was in combat zone there would be a greater attempt to fill those TO&E's as completely as possible where shortages in stateside and non combat units would receive priority 2 for those fills.

Each Division had a DivArty. This controlled all the division artillery assests. Infantry battalions had a battery usually 105mm guns assigned to their support. Brigades had an artillery unit assigned to them these where either 155 or 175 in a few cases some of each. Division itself didnt really have artillery it was just a command operations center that would assign priority to call missions if there was an overload. It also was the coordinator to helicopter and other air support. Corps would have access to request of shore batteries of naval guns and air force support.

AA is typically assigned to Corps level and Army level. Those during the Vietnam war where not required so I cannot say how they would have been handled if they were even available.

Anti tank units are assigned to the Divisions. Each platoon has an anti tank squad and these increase based on level same as artillery.

When we entered Cambodia in January 1970 we were aware the Vietnamese had tanks. There was no augmentation to the units for these tanks.

My battalion encounter a platoon of Vietnamese tanks. I was leading the battalion of Loation Infanty. We had 3 LAWS for anti tank. After I expended these I requested air support. My troops were equipped crossbows and spears so they did not have standard army TO&E. My next command was to get out of there so I do not know the final result of those tanks.

But the primary purpose of this post is attachments are extremely rare. In fifteen years I never saw one. My last 7 years I speent as a Personnel Management Supervision at Brigade and higher levels. It would have been one of my functions at that time to make those attachments and I never did one. I did find a special need one time and as required by Army Regulations I requested a TO&E change. These are rare but I did get it.

[ev]

Attachments did occur in WWII. For example, the British designed and used specific armor to support the Normandy Invasion. The Russian's stripped some units of artillery, while others had their fair share. etc. Germany's Fifth Column were likewise moved around.

But more important, each country organized their "standard" units in a different manner. The Finns had more skii troops. Certainly Rommel and Monty did not have ski troops in North Africa.

Resources as I conceive them would be a means to give your units a make your units different from the units of other countries. As a German Player I may add mountain attachments to the units that will defend Italy, the Alps and the Carpatian Mountains. Once attached, I would keep them there. The Finns may add skii troops to all their Corps. ...and so forth.

I would not want a player to constantly attach and re attach resources. Instead, I would like the players to use resources as a means to design the compostion of his army to best fit the way he intends to use it.

[targul]

I do not mind different types of units but the attachment system as I have seen it in other games just doesnt work very well so I would prefer we learn from those who have tried it and not do it here.

[Retributar]

I am of the opinion that the 'Attachment'- System worked just fine in the game called 'PEOPLES GENERAL'!.

I thought that it was 'TERRIFIC!!!'.

[SeaMonkey]

You are always an enthusiastically insightful human Retri!

My compliments.

And you're right too!

[ev]

Can we have small armored corps in addition to large armored groups? Sort of like the difference between small infantry corps and large infantry armies? Why?

I think of the Tank Group as the equivalent of the German Panzr Groups during the Russian Campaign. The Germans had four panzer groups at the outset of Barbarosa. At least two of these panzer groups were army size. Panzer Group's 1 and 4 were smaller at the outset of Barbarosa - more like a large corps. Yet, by 1942 Hoth's Panzer Group 4 had been augmente to army size (and not just on paper - Panzer Group 4 lost one Corps inside the Stalingrad pocket and stiill had substantially over half of its total strength outside of the pocket).

On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of cases where a corps, instead of an army size unit would be most appropriate:

The French never had a full armored group.

The British armored elements in North Africa did not amount to an Army size unit.

Rommel only had one german armored corps in North Afrika - not a panzer group.

The armored units stationed in France '44 were split into independent headquarters for the Normandy and Calaise areas.

A small armored corps would have a good soft attack punch but substantially weaker in other areas. In SC 2 the armored group had strength values of (4,4,5,5) for (SA,SD,HA,HD). For my new armored corps I would propose something like (3,2,2,2).

Most player would agree with Guderian that they should concentrate their armored force into large Tank Groups. But, what if the resources are not there, as was so often the case in WWII? What if you can only spare a small corps size armored force for a possible counter attack in Normandy?

[targul]

Nice argument ev I would not mind seeing smaller armor formations available in limited numbers.

[SeaMonkey]

Can't agree ev. The unit density is approaching critical mass for this map size already.

To many units to manage = micromanagement, the exact opposite of what is one of SC's attractive traits.

As I've always said, complication should be inherent into the design features and not for the players to grapple with.

An accurate premise, ev, but none the less a difference of perspective. Germans are allowed 6 panzer corps, that is what I invision a SC Tank Group to simulate.

German Pz Corps = a couple of Pz divisons, perhaps one, in addition to two other mobile divisions, Pz Gr, or Motorized, with their attached assets (3 to 4 total). And we still have motorized corps.

This is of course a loose definition, the task dictates the force composition.

SC has got it right!

[targul]

Well, SM not sure I agree they have it right. It does a good job but it is not as good as it can be since nothing will ever do that.

I like EV's idea especially in Africa. Corps in Africa and Armies just make little to no sense for me. Italians at the start would not even have a full army in Africa. They only had 6 badly supplied and equipped divisions. Germany at its top could have barely reached a corp if that.

The Allies had even less. At the start they had the 7th Armour an understrength Division that was well trained and raady for battle. The SA, Indians, New Zealands, Australians and misc brigades and battalions would have only amounted to a small army at best in the theater. And these arrived piecemeal. Maybe two corps in all.

Therefore the forces as the stand are overstated in Africa.

None of this means Africa does not play correctly because it does. What it means is you could do that theater with the correct forces if you made that area only capable of supporting Division and Corp level instead of Army/Corp level.

[SeaMonkey]

"None of this means Africa does not play correctly because it does."

Case closed!

Targ, I'm not going to debate this with you, its totally unproductive.

You're talking operational scope, which SC does try to capture, but the essence is strategic.

If you want Africa more correctly then play DD's excellent rendition "Thunder Under the Sun". For more detail there is "The Campaign for NA" in TOAW format.

SC is a compromise, listen to yourself, you know that!

Everyday, minute by minute, we all practice, or should, the fine art of compromise.

After all isn't that what life is all about?

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Can't agree ev. The unit density is approaching critical mass for this map size already.

To many units to manage = micromanagement, the exact opposite of what is one of SC's attractive traits.

As I've always said, complication should be inherent into the design features and not for the players to grapple with.

An accurate premise, ev, but none the less a difference of perspective. Germans are allowed 6 panzer corps, that is what I invision a SC Tank Group to simulate.

German Pz Corps = a couple of Pz divisons, perhaps one, in addition to two other mobile divisions, Pz Gr, or Motorized, with their attached assets (3 to 4 total). And we still have motorized corps.

This is of course a loose definition, the task dictates the force composition.

SC has got it right!

I see your point. However, if the Tank Group stands for only an armored corps of 3 to four divisions, then it should not be so much more powerfull and so much more expensive than an entire Army Unit. One or the other seems out of whack.

There other things that bother me about the so called Army Unit. First, the cost difference between an Army Unit and an Infantry Corps is too small. Second, the Army Unit should be able to take more losses than a Corps unit - have more strength points.

I would like to elaborate on this last point, becaus I feel it is quite important. In SC2 strength points are mainly a measure of how many hits a unit can take. As you lose stength point your morale drops and this indirectly affects performance. But, by and far, strength is a measure of a units ability to take more punishment.

If you pack more men into a smaller area, this may increase your ability to inflict damage on the other foe (combat values as represented in SC2). However, the main advantage of packing more men into a small area is that you have more depth. You can keep a reserve out of the front line, using them to plug holes if you are defending, or to defend against a counter attack if you have succesfully occupied new territory.

If the above reasoning is correct, the main difference between an Army Unit and a Corps unit is that Armies should have more strength points (instead of higher combat values).

Of course, less combat strength would make an Corps a poor unit for attack, since it would loose a lot of strength in the initial attack, and thus be veary weak to defend against a counter attack. Meanwhile, an army with a lot of combat strength would be much better suited for an attack since it would have a decent chance of holding the newly obtained terrain.

I would make an Army Unit much more expensive (say 200 MPP's. But I would give it 20 strength points. Of course it would be al but impossible to frontally assault such an army. But that would be historically accurate. ...and result in a more intesting game. Since Armiy Units would be very expensive there would be fuw of them. However, since they have more strength points, players would concentrate on attacking the corps units in order to surround the Army Units (remember Stalingrad...and so many other battles in the eastern front).

This same scheme I would apply to Tanks: I would have Tank Corps and Tank Groups. Tank Corps would have 10 strength points while Tank Armies would have 20 strength points.

Army size units should be slower than Corps units, and maybe have slightly higher combat values. But the main difference between one and the other should be strength points - the ability to take more hits before breaking down.

I realize this may not be possible to accomodate for WaW, but maybe at least, we can have an editor that will allow us to assign larger combat strength points to Army size units.

...by the way, cutting down the combat strength of Corps Units may not be the best way to go because existing combat formulas are too leathal. And the only way to keep lethality down is to forgoe on research. So I must beg Hubert again, at least give us the option to edit upwards the maximum strength point for an Army size unit.

[SeaMonkey]

Just want to inject a couple other deployment aspects of Army vs Corps.

More targets in a given area usually equals more losses in the face of superior enemy firepower.

Targets that don't move to fast are easier to hit.

The definition of Army and Corps TO&Es are somewhat vague, they just represent an organizational layer and are mission oriented.

I agree Armies are usually greater in manpower than Corps, but not necessarily firepower.

We have the mechanism to tailor your forces with tech upgrades, an upgraded Corps can actually have greater combat strength than an inexperienced 0 teched Army.

Think of it as attaching a plethora of smaller specific tasked units to increase the organization's ability to perform the designated operation.

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

I agree Armies are usually greater in manpower than Corps, but not necessarily firepower.

...but, this is exactly my point. In SC2 the opposite happens. The Army Unit has more firepower (higher Soft Attack Value) but the same manpower (10 strength points).

An Army Unit should be able to attack an enemy unit, absorb a fair amount of loss during the attack, and then survive a counter attack. A Corps Unit should be able to make the same attack with similar fire power, but remain too weak to survive an effective counter attack.

You also bring up the point that a higher concentration of units should take more losses under combat. That is not always so. In practice, a large Army Unit would mount several defensive lines a few miles appart from each other. (Remember each tile represents a depth of 30-40 miles.) By spreading units in depth, most of the Army would be out of sight and fairly "safe" from an initial artillery bombardment. There are many accounts of such practice. One example is the Soviet defense of Kursk. But, an even better example is the German defense of the Oder crossing.

Defense in depth within the area represented by one single tile in SC2 was the best infantry defense against armor as well. This practice slowed down the supporting armor and exposed the armor to anti tank weapons. Again, a standard practice in WW II.

Carpet bombing performed by high altitude heavy bombers maybe the only exception. This is the one case where high concentration of troops would be disastrous. But such attacks were the exception rather than the norm during WWII. The truly large ground encounters in WWII were in the eastern front where the Russians and Germans had few strategic bombers. Meanwhile, the truly large air battles were in the western front, where there were far fewer ground troops.

Maybe Hubert could make heavy bombers more effecitve against armies: say damaged caused by heaavy bombers calculated as a percentage of the total strength of the defender. If that is not possible, I would still like the freedom to mod Armies with higher strength values.

[Kuniworth]

Thought I drop a line on progress on the new expansion. I have had the oppurtunity to rewamp the Battle for Russia scenario with this new editor. Difference is huge. It's now possible to have a cap on experience(set in this campaign to a max of 1) and chose how expensive upgrades should be. That make it easier to create long running scenarios like this one.

All of the soviet fortified regions of the Molotov- and Stalin-line are now in. Also as you can see there are some new units like cavalry corps and anti-air force(german flakkorps and soviet PVO fronts):

Other units I've included are airborne corps, artillery(soviet artillery penetration corps and german railwaygun unit 672) plus the use of the special forces type to reflect german ss korps and Soviet shock armies. They all appear on historical dates.

Railway-lines that were so vital for the war in the east is now included, which makes for a much more realistic supply and transport system. A nice touch is the possibility to use the new text edit layer to make small towns visible on the map:

You can also chose to upgrade minors(makes Finland a bit stronger):

Rain is no fun combined with mud. German advance on Moscow stall in november 1941:

[Hubert Cater]

I should add that this campaign will be included with WaW and has seen so many additions/tweaks that take full advantage of all the new Editing, Script and Unit options that it is just too many to list.

For anyone that wanted to play out Barbarossa as a grand campaign you will definitely love what this scenario has to offer

[ev]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

It's now possible to have a cap on experience(set in this campaign to a max of 1) and chose how expensive upgrades should be.

Great.

Can we set different experience caps for different units. Say "1" for infantry, but, "3" for air fighters?

[J P Wagner]

Kuniworth, excellent map..One question, were you able to use your original Battle for Russia map as a template to add all of the new additions, or did you have to remake the map from scratch?