Game Balance

[dicedtomato]

I had the same reaction, Yogi. I had nowhere those tech levels or units, though the U.S. did enter the war late (mid-'42). And I invested very heavily in IT. Maybe Sombra invested in Intel first?

DT

[Rolend]

Well Sombra you must be one lucky person, I can't get that kind of tech level with the Americas and build the kind of forces you have by late 42, very impressive. I do think that it is VERY hard for the US to have the kind of resourses to pull off N Africa, Italy ,D-Day, invasion of S. France and own the skys over Europe with the current setup. However I think in some ways that is a good thing, give them those kind of resources and it would become an awfully one sided game.

[Sombra]

Well I go for industrial tech and production tech first. Some on intelligence. First research, looking what my opponent does I invest earlier or later in units. I want to be able to hit my enemy asap when the us enters the war.

[SeaMonkey]

Well I believe Sombra has got a good handle on the USA priorities. Might be a lesson for the other participants also.

I've hinted numerous times about the IT/PT advantage of obtaining the upper levels, especially USA which has the 20% multiplier.

Add in the intel 1% help for advancements and its not so hard to figure out how to get a large military force together.

Of course, a little luck helps also. :cool:

[markpoll]

IT5 & PT5 would be the answer

[Chris G]

hellraiser

Funny words from somebody calling himself Hell raiser. lol

[Yogi]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Of course, a little luck helps also. :cool:

I guess so, so far I haven't had any luck getting this type of MPP ability that early. Still, if it does take luck, I would again say that the game does not reflect properly what the US was able to do. That doesn't make it a bad game, it would make it a poor simulation.

[SeaMonkey]

But Yogi, this is a game for "what ifs" IMO. Its boring to simulate things that you already know happened, we want to experiment.

Imagine that the USA had a very large war despondent contigent of the populace. Isolationists and peaceniks with political power are not so farfetched for this period.

How are you going to control that, not even the President can. Pretend they were adamant about staying out of the European theatre, voila, you have the "luck" factor. They didn't want to ramp up the military industrial strength of the USA. There was a depression to contend with.

This is why I made my earlier comment in this "Balance" thread. A game with vast replayability, many variables, and yes luck, undermines predictability.

Isn't that what we all want?

Balance will come, but it is a mighty far piece down that road before fruition.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

But Yogi, this is a game for "what ifs" IMO. Its boring to simulate things that you already know happened, we want to experiment.

Imagine that the USA had a very large war despondent contigent of the populace. Isolationists and peaceniks with political power are not so farfetched for this period.

How are you going to control that, not even the President can. Pretend they were adamant about staying out of the European theatre, voila, you have the "luck" factor. They didn't want to ramp up the military industrial strength of the USA. There was a depression to contend with.

This is why I made my earlier comment in this "Balance" thread. A game with vast replayability, many variables, and yes luck, undermines predictability.

Isn't that what we all want?

Balance will come, but it is a mighty far piece down that road before fruition.

Actually, NO IT ISN'T WHAT WE ALL WANT!

I like true simulations. Ever notice ads for games like, change history can you do better than Lee, Patton, Rommel whatever? You only can answer that if you have the same situation. I commented on what a war simulation should be in an earlier thread.

On the other hand, we can easily both be pleased. Add what if's, variables etc. that can be selected and/or turned on and off. You want your variables great, you can have them. Let those of us who want to recreate a real sitiation do so. I have many games that use the historical and what-if's in their scenario selections. That's all I'm asking for. The more of us a game can make happy, the more games that will be sold.

[Retributar]

I agree with both SeaMonkey's & Yogi's post's,...both are correct!.

SeaMonkey!, ...i believe that the U.S. knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbour...but, let it happen anyway by purposely not taking precaution's, other than making sure that the Air-Craft Carrier's were out of harm's way!.

Why do i conclude that?,...well even in the movie...'PEARL HARBOUR'...the U.S. Army set up a Radar Station on a mountain facing the expected avenue of attack!. When the Radar Personnel reported a large contingent of Aircraft approaching Hawaii,...their report was officialy sluffed off as a group of B-17's coming in!,...so that in effect there was nothing to worry about!. [in actuality,...i was never aware of any substantial B-17 reinforcement's scheduled to arrive in that time period]

So after the devestating attack was done!,...and the American public was made aware of it,...it was then very easy to convince American's that not only Japan needed to be dealt with, but also it's partner's in crime as well! [Germany & Italy].

With-out that strong Anti-Axis sentiment, yes , as you concluded, the U.S.A. may very-well have stayed out of the European Theatre'.

Now!...as Yogi mention's...for true 'Historical Situations'...we need the "same situation's" to try to re-create the actual event!...in order to see what we can or cannot do to change history!. Variable-What-If's would also be welcomed to in order to study what might have resulted from a variance in the situational status!.

By the same token, the hypothetical variable that you mentioned SeaMonkey about the possible effect of isolationist's & peacenick's may very-well have caused the U.S. to accept Japan's intervention's in China etc,...so then effecting an acceptance of the situation thus avoiding the attack by the Japanes on Pearl Harbour!.

If this 'Isolationist/Peacenick' entity had enough political pull,...perhap's the U.S. would have ended up staying out of the European War!,...that would have not been an unplausable result!.

---------

Sentence Wording Corrections Effected.

[ May 21, 2006, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[SeaMonkey]

Fair enough then Yogi. You want a reasonable facsimile of conditions and circumstances facing the historical players and then proceed down your chosen path to conclusion.

Only one problem, IT CAN'T HAPPEN. Why? What do you have that the historical commanders didn't? Very good, yes.... hindsight.

There is no "unknown quantity" that faced the original historical participants. They didn't know how things would turn out.

You want something, that if you proceed down the exact set of original decisions then you will have the original conclusion.

OK by me, we can toggle off and on, but I really think you need to pursue a different game engine then SC2, or learn to manipulate the editor.

Perhaps your inclinations can be met on a smaller scale, operational in scope( doing better than Rommel, Patton). I just believe you will always see something lacking for this GS scale and we so want you to be happy.

[SeaMonkey]

Retributar....with all do respect...CRAP!!!!

Come on...don't be a conspiracy theorist, you give the human population to much credit.

Yeah, keep telling yourself..."Its only a movie" :cool:

The animal, although cunning at times, usually is not sophisticated enough to pull off such grand schemes. It takes a lot of coordination with his fellow, inept, disagreeable cousins.

Look around you, everybody has there own perspectives and opinions. Now look at history. I ask you, is it ripe with misinformation, intelligence breakdowns, attitudes of complacency. Is it so hard to believe that things get overlooked everyday. Just examine one day out of your own life.

How many people make mistakes, everyday.....and some cost them their lives. Large groups of people make idiotic decisions together(jonestown), Waco, etc. Seems pretty apparent to me, but don't bother to listen, I'm just one of the 95% stupid, inane people of this planet that are manipulated by the other 5%.

[ May 21, 2006, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Sombra]

I think the question was if the US is represented in a historical way. I think if played right they are even earlier to rock and roll then they did in WW2 with other the words the US can be stronger if you are unlucky they are weaker.

he US did the big D-Day in Summer 1944. If you do only build up the US is running out of units to build at this time.

If the allied player is able to stop the Germans in Rusia in 1942 -1943, you will see a quite historical race to Berlin from Rusia and America. You will simply produce the axis to its "death" then.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Fair enough then Yogi. You want a reasonable facsimile of conditions and circumstances facing the historical players and then proceed down your chosen path to conclusion.

Only one problem, IT CAN'T HAPPEN. Why? What do you have that the historical commanders didn't? Very good, yes.... hindsight.

There is no "unknown quantity" that faced the original historical participants. They didn't know how things would turn out.

You want something, that if you proceed down the exact set of original decisions then you will have the original conclusion.

OK by me, we can toggle off and on, but I really think you need to pursue a different game engine then SC2, or learn to manipulate the editor.

Perhaps your inclinations can be met on a smaller scale, operational in scope( doing better than Rommel, Patton). I just believe you will always see something lacking for this GS scale and we so want you to be happy.

At least we are closer together Seamonkey, but I don't agree with your conclusions.

1) It can happen and I have seen it in other games both board and computer. Yes we do have hindsight, but that is part of the fun, although even with it we often make the same mistakes.

2) We don't know how things will turn out in a good simulation either. We still have to make the decisions good or bad. There is still the "variable" of combat results on any attack. There is still the decisions of which path of attack, which line to defend, which units to sacrifice, save etc.

3) I don't want something that has a set conclusion, but yes, if you were to proceed down the exact same path as done historically (although that is unlikely) a good simulation should give very close to the same result as actually happened.

4) We can take any "scale" you like, but just as an example, a game of the battle of Gettysburg. If you give Lee more troops he may have a better chance, but the real skill is to take the same troops against the same strength enemy and do better. If playing a whole campaign game, yes your earlier decisions may change what happens at Gettysburg. That can and should happen in SC2 as well regardless of scale. If the Axis do well early in Russia, D-Day may be a tough thing to pull off. But not because of an artificialy weak "pacifist" US that can't get enough mpps to do historic actions unless they get lucky.

Too often when those of us who like simulations say we want more historic accuracy, others think it means we want the exact same results. That is not true. We want the historic accuracy, but plan to change the results. If I didn't care about historic accuracy, I would probably be playing more Science Fiction games instead of what is supposed to be WWII, Civil War, Napoleonic or whatever period I choose to play.

[SeaMonkey]

Hey Yogi I understood what you were after the whole time, just trying your convictions, showing you another perspective, not necessarily one that I even agree with.

You agree, we must address all possibilities, excluding the outlandish?

As you have stated, I agree that the set of probabilities has to be defined by the era's limitations.

Anyway, Sombra has restated my preliminary conclusion which he seems to also agree with.

The USA has the mechanism to provide for an historical military buildup. Will it work out that way everytime....most probably not. But given a certain set of actions and a % unknown luck factor, the odds are that it will occur to a reasonable degree a greater percentage of the time.

[Desert Dave]

Seems pretty apparent to me, but don't bother to listen, I'm just one of the 95% stupid, inane people of this planet that are manipulated by the other 5%.

LOL.

Well SM,

Machiaveilli was a turnip seed

Floating in the gilded soup-spoon

Of a Renaissance Prince, and

Rasputin?

A gnarled knave merely

Concerned for the welfare

Of the babushka, peon - the fellaheen!

House Of Rothschilde?

Only happily! insuring

That the avaricious Mass remain content,

As penny spending children.

The original FreeMasons anyone?

[... examine the back of the USA

dollar bill - what you witness there?

Pyramid and "Big Seeing Eye" suspended above, hey!

What the dickens is that all about? LOL! and

don't forget, Paul Revere and

Geo Washington and Ben Franklin were

active members, hmmmm :confused: ]

The marauding Maltese Knights,

Searching their non-common hearts out

For some fantasized - Cup of Blood?

Or, as some would story-tell it, opposed

To their ancient and bitter foes,

The Illuminati!!

Infiltrating every major Instituion

In every major city

In EVERY country in the world,

Bringing secret "reason"

So to dispose of all

That there... worthless "superstition."

See,

"Paranoia" is simply... heightened awareness,

Didn't you know?

And "conspiracies" NEVER exist, LOL,

Unless, of course, has been briefly revealed

By the interested, earnest

And those still believe in

Liberty & Justice for all!

Who've concluded - they do indeed!

Exist and thoroughly thrive, I mean!

Gee, I bet you think that JFK was murdered

By Lee "super power duped" Oswald?

LOLOLOL!

Nix nix,

Connect the dancing dots,

Examine 'em thrown-down chicken-bones,

Consult yer "all-seeing" subconscious,

Alpha clear to Omega,

And viola!

There you go!

Yer... in the know!

[dicedtomato]

Folks,

I accept that SC2 is an abstract game that makes compromises in the name of playability. But if realism doesn't matter, we'd be playing Risk or some stupid RTS clickfest.

I like to feel that the game I'm playing bears a resemblance to the conflict it's supposed to simulate. I like to feel that I'm learning about why history turned out the way it did. The sub war in SC2 doesn't feel historical. I don't get the feeling of overwhelming U.S. industrial might. I don't get the feeling that Germany faces real dilemmas in where to attack, other than just conquering everything. If I want Germany to take over the map, I'll play Hearts of Iron.

DT

[SeaMonkey]

"Didn't you know?"

Well if I didn't, I do now! And yes, I should've, but maybe I'm a part of the 5% and just smoke screening my way through so no one knows.

Better to conjure up more conspiracies, half truths, downright lies and misgivings.

Arranging my deceitfulness to run amock through this Earth's populace, keeping everyone diverted from the real purpose.......the "secret" agenda.

OHHHhh!!!! I give up, y'all are way to smart for me...you see my evil intentions.

We want to subjugate you all....MUHha, Ha ,ha.....Muha, ha, ha.

And I promise to stop, if you'll just send me one MIIILLLLLION dollars.

[Blashy]

Western power is and has been worked on for some time for a patch.

[Liam]

USA is not very powerful but I don't think that was Hubert's intention, 2 Islands.. UK and USA both overpowered would be too much for the Greys to handle. The Reds are Uberstrong... If you know what you're doing, the momentum is this, you clear the minors and North Africa, there is then the big showdown against Russia... Is it historical, if Hitler sacrificed enough resources noone can say because it didn't happen. However unlikely that may have been. North Africa in one place in my opinion that could've been overrun. UK? That is another story

Things like Level3 Subs, that is another story.

Things like Tiger Tanks in 1941, Unlikely very very unlikely. Jet Fighters in mass production in 1941, very very unlikely. Full Mobilized Tech for USA and UK and Russia no.... Took them all time to mobilize

Germany started 5-6 years earlier that is why they won they got ready for war and they fought it right. Then their superior enemies with superior #s not quality did the same and outnumbered Germans 3-4-5 to 1 in some instances and there you go. No amount of Minor Conquests could provide Germany the Material, Manpower to and that's a fact, she bit off more than she could chew Diplomatically she could've made a Minor Victory after France and sued for Peace

that is the best she could hope for and that doesn't mean Stalin wouldn't have taken the Cake but maybe just maybe...something else politically would've occurred... Maybe more would have opposed Stalin than you think but doubtful two madmen, with the largest Armies horded on a continent that is what you've got.. Atomics were not in play, Germans would've needed superweapons to defeat the Size of the Russian Army, Airforce..... and few mistakes

[Blashy]

This is a historical game, so the Industrial might of USA has to be in the game.

Right now it is not and the consequences for being extremely aggressive all over the map are also not in play.

USA will join eventually and will outproduce Germany (it already was beforehand in terms of general industry). Germany is the one that should be pressed for time from the get go, now it is the other way around.

USA took North Africa in Nov 1942 and Sicily was in summer of 43, there is no possibility of this occuring at this time and so it is not historically accurate. USA, UK and Canadian units were used for each of these operations.

But, it is being worked on and the game will get there eventually.

[jon_j_rambo]

It's about time. USA should be loaded with crap...Tanks, Ships, Bombers, etc. It's still a laughing stock.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Why do i conclude that?,...well even in the movie...'PEARL HARBOUR'...the U.S. Army set up a Radar Station on a mountain facing the expected avenue of attack!. When the Radar Personnel reported a large contingent of Aircraft approaching Hawaii,...their report was officialy sluffed off as a group of B-17's coming in!,...so that in effect there was nothing to worry about!. [in actuality,...i was never aware of any substantial B-17 reinforcement's scheduled to arrive in that time period].

Not only in the same time period, but on the same day - in the middle of the attack!!

In the midst of the Hickam action twelve unarmed B-17's being ferried from the mainland arrived over Oahu. Eight of them managed to land at Hickam, and of the other four two came down at Haleiwa, one at Bellows, and one on a golf course near the northern tip of Oahu. Enemy action destroyed one of the planes and badly damaged three others.

From http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Guard-US/ch7.htm

The B-17's werr being ferried from the USA to the Philipines as part of the US's beefing up of their military in expectation of an attack by the Japanese in that direction.

[jon_j_rambo]

Pearl Harbor was a setup. They knew we were going to be attacked, it was to rally the people at the sacrifice of lives.

[Guest Mike]

The US Navy had no conception of being able to attack Japan itself from Hawaii, and so couldn't imagine a scenario where the Japs would do the reverse.

The little yellow men were simply cleverer than the big white men - a very unpopular conclusion in some quarters that obviosuly still can't be accepted!