I need some perspective on building my mod.

[Liam]

It's an eventual target, it's a supply nightmare, if you want the Caucasus to be a feesible target you have capture frontline cities like Rostov, then cut it off at Stalingrad, even then the Russians still have full supply even cut, so I've noticed and can place new units there from Urals-Caucasus. Turkey is a must for supply to kill that region

The Mountains make it very hard for a player to mount a successful campaign and the Geography and politic system are fairly accurate. The Germans attempted to thrust into the Caucasus and failed

Originally posted by Blashy:

I doubt even a Western democracy would have surrendered when it had lost 10-15% of its population but still had 90+ million to fight and was now outproducing the enemy 4 times to 1 in pretty much ANY area.

But indeed, Germany was after the Caucausus and this is what I find is missing from the current campaign. The Caucausus are not "attractive". If the oil fields produced at 50mpps, that whole area could be worth 100mpps per turn for Germany, very attractive.

[Blashy]

Reducing unit prices would be a good option if somehow I could block neutral countries from purchasing units until they join the war.

Overall I think this would even be a good thing for the default compaign (USA and USSR can't buy units until they join the war).

The numbers work out ok, but as we all thought, they occur too soon.

[Liam]

Probably a good idea Blashy, that or if you could delay the production of any unit till a deadline after they enter the war. If I am successful with IT and Production as USSR, I can have every tank in the field by December of 1941... That is definitely pushing it but I have done it... Every Corps as well

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I doubt even a Western democracy would have surrendered when it had lost 10-15% of its population but still had 90+ million to fight and was now outproducing the enemy 4 times to 1 in pretty much ANY area.

10-15%??

That's what they lost DEAD in the war - the live population of the Ukraine, Baltic States, etc. under Axis occupation totaled a bit more than that.

In 1939 the Ukraine, Belorus and Moldavia had about 50 million total, the Russian Federation 109 million, the various other bits of the USSR about 25 million (see here )

Also the only thing Russia produced more of than Germany, in toto, was Oil - they produced less steel, aluminium, and coal, and had fewer industrial workers - both "normal" and forced.

but of course they did allocate much more of it to the war effort, hence produced more useable weapons (tanks, guns, aircraft) with fewer resources.

[Blashy]

I might have found a work around.

Keep the unit cost low, but start the industry modifier VERY low for USA and USSR, this way it will only go up via IT.

25% instead of 75% for USSR with IT increments of 15% instead of 10% so at L5 it would be 100%.

20% for USA instead of 80% with IT of 20% = L5 120%.

I would prefer if I could simply manipulate IT increments but as I said earlier, it only goes up to 25%.

So a mix of unit cost, industry modfier and IT seem like the only way to go.

[Blashy]

Well, when you produce 4-5 times more oil, you don't need to produce as much coal as the other guy who needs to change it to synthetic oil.

[Guest Mike]

Absolutely - I argued as much with somone else recently!!

But ti is a mistake to say the USSR outproduced Germany in raw materials.

And of course a lot of that Russian oil was exported and was needed for massive amounts of transport due to the size of the country.

[Blashy]

I gather I should have specified it was outproduced in every area for military use... except submarines, hehe. SEVERELY outproduced.

[hellraiser]

"but of course they did allocate much more of it to the war effort, hence produced more useable weapons (tanks, guns, aircraft) with fewer resources."

Yep, indeed. Believe it or not but the USSR had a better productivity that Germany. Less power, less steel used to produce a tank for example. And in 41-42, soviet tanks were far better than the german ones...well they lacked radio comm and xperienced crews, but still

The reds were simply amazing during the war. Think that they were the key allied power, the western allies never faced more than 1/5 of the german Wehrmacht (perhaps xcept for the Ardennes Offensive).

There is another thing that was crucial - soviet fighting spirit and resilience - very difficult to mod into a game -> maybe increased morale past a certain date? Or 1 xtra xp bar? I mean those features were as crucial as the war production, if not more.

[Liam]

Soviet ideology toward military was similar to other areas. Quantity vs Quality. This persisted past WW2 and into the Cold War, however they learned in Desert Storm it was nolonger going to work. Not at least in a Desert War.

German's had some other goodies, they plundered the gold out of the bank's of how many Minors and France? That financed much of the Axis war effort, technically how many MPPs would this represent in SC terms?

[Blashy]

Well, when you conquer a country you get plunder, that's the extra MPPs. All countries combined that's over 500mpps.

[Blashy]

I tried USA at 0% industry, that means ZERO mpps until it achieves L1 Tech, quite funny.

Start USA at 20% Industry, so it will be making 4 times less MPPs. IT increments is 20%. At maximum that is 120% industry so 216mpps. I made units 5 times less expensive. So in terms of units that's would be like making 1080mpps.

USSR 25% w/ 15% IT = 100% at L5.

Tech still has the same costs and maximum investement is 2 chits for L5 tech and 1 chit for L3 techs.

We'll see how that goes.

[Hubert Cater]

While I of course take exception with Blashy's assessment of SC2 not reasonably simulating WWII , is anyone else finding that the current IT mechanisms do not allow the Allies to build up a reasonable production base to overcome Axis advances in the early years?

I only ask as it is of course a difficult balance between game play and keeping the game within a reasonable framework of WWII and as noticed within this thread if you allow for too much Allied production early on it can skew the game too much and too quickly in the Allies favour and thus the idea behind the current IT implementation.

[Blashy]

Well the game is 50-50 and that is your goal. Which you are close to succeeding.

But that is not WW2 reality. USA's GDP alone was bigger than ALL Axis powers (including Japan). It produced 300k warplanes while UK, USSR and Germany put together produced a total of 350k.

Even at L5 tech that equals 324mpps while Germany can easily be producing 500mpps at L0 tech...

USA was producing about 50% more than Germany in 1941 and quadrupling Germany in production in 1942, now take about 1/3rd of that and ship it to the pacific and Germany is still looking pretty small versus USA. You'll never see that in SC2's default campaign, it is impossible.

USSR was producing equal to Germany in 1941 and doubling for the rest of the war. Another impossibility.

UK had more warplanes than Germany in 1940, another impossibility.

If you decide to make the default scenario 50-50 then it is impossible to make it historical. You have to gimp the Allies.

And no IT will give the Allies their due.

USA would need to have industry modifier of 100% to start and increments of 80% for IT which at maximum USA would make 900mpps that would probably give it their due.

USSR would need increments along the lines of 40%.

It is very easy to limit allied productio early on by using IT to increase production, some games it is faster, some games it is slower. Right now I can't do it because of the limits in the editor I'm keeping my fingers crossed you'll change that . And of course limiting chits invested in each tech keeps it reasonable.

Obviously the victory conditions would change, but they would be realistic.

I understand the idea of making it 50-50. It will appeal to a greater majority, not as many people will find it "fun" holding off the Allies long enough to Achieve an Axis victory via peace or armistice. But that was Germany's best hope for "victory" when it faced all THREE majors and the default campaign has it that all three will join.

[Hubert Cater]

Blashy, not to worry, I think we all know where you stand on the subject

I am just curious what the game play experience has been so far, for other players *hint* *hint* so I can make appropriate adjustments, if applicable and as necessary.

[Retributar]

Industrial output and production numbers are one concern, the other that i have...is that if now you rely on those numbers, but now at the same time make all militaries equal for the same level, then the 'Technological' and 'Military-Skills' difference's are wiped out!.

If all player's are equated with the same Tech & Military abilities, then using Industrial Output and Production numbers alone will make this game very unequal and totally unrealistic!.

[Blashy]

Technological and military skills are not equal.

You have 5 levels of tech in alot of areas. Not everyone is at the same level at once. Well I'll agree that with no limits on chits invested per category that does become the case.

But if you have a game with limits on chits like I've been testing you end up being very surprised. I'm in a game in 1941 where Russia still has no IW tech, with being allowed only one chit some game you get unlucky, like this one. But overall progression will be slower and rarely equal on both sides in many categories, so it is up to the player to maybe take advantage of the current situation if possible.

[Liam]

HC,

In regards to Industrial Technology and Production Technology. It's a tough question to answer.

Frist off, is that in terms of the balance to gameplay, I'll usually sink about 6 to 8 chits if not more for USA into IT. Several into Production, though a less lucrative Research Area. As the USSR, I'll sink in a good 5-6 in IT and 2-4 in Production. This will if luck prevails yield me about an equal Military by the beginning of Barbarossa if the Payoff happens in a timely fashion. Now if I do not hit my Quotas the Allies will be semi-weak. I expect to have at least IT 3 or 4 for USA by Barby and 3 minimum for the USSR. This is a prerequisite for most Major strategies.

Thing is it is heavily reliant on Luck. Plus the USSR in particular must also have her land techs maxed in order to hold out or at least max them out in the 1st Winter of Barbarossa.

This is all very essential to the Out Produce the Axis Strategy. A very cautious Axis player will by Summer of '42 built nearly every unit they can build except goody units...

Likewise with these ITs done right so will the USSR. I do not think it is wise to beef up the USSR too much, nor to leave all this to luck. IMHO it should be more reliant on fact, the Allies will max IT out and use it as a UberWeapon..Though should be slightly hindered in LandTechs to go early offensives against the Axis.. This is not the case in Strategic Command 2.. You can go on the early offensive as Allies with luck you can also outproduce them early!

Raising the cost of bringing in Spain and the USA into the fold of War is very essential, to balance. Also limiting some of the Uber ITs that the Allies achieve. It is almost useless for the Axis to research anything aside from Land Techs.. 90% of successful Axis Players will research only those and LR Air

I hope this gives you idea on how the real hardcore players play their game and what they invest in.

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Blashy, not to worry, I think we all know where you stand on the subject

I am just curious what the game play experience has been so far, for other players *hint* *hint* so I can make appropriate adjustments, if applicable and as necessary.

[Kuniworth]

I think the best way to solve this would be if tech would be more dependent on time invested than on luck. This would make it much more easy to plan for an increase in allied production without tilting the game to soon.

HC; a change here would be good.

[Blashy]

Personally, I like the luck factor... represents more a "what if" scenario. What if industrial progress had been made a little earlier by some of the Allies... what if it had been made a little later. Either way it was going to come, they outproduced Germany so heavily it was bound to happen.

As for Allies being able to start maneuveurs too early... what is too early? Western Allies were in Africa in October of 1942. In summer of 42 the Soviets were making some progress against the Germans.

Germany had the upper hand from Sept 39 to about Spring 42, less than 2 years. From then on (the last 3 years of the war) the Allies were pretty much pushing instead of being pushed.

IMHO, a feature to make neutral majors not able to purchase units until they are at 90% would be excellent. The turn they join, they might have alot of MPPs waiting to purchase units, but then they have to wait for all of them.

[SeaMonkey]

I like the luck factors too. Makes the game journeys different everytime.

What I would like to see is a slower increase in the land techs, as Kuni alludes to. Now I know this would not benefit Germany, but it would make the minors more viable early, at least.

Perhaps allow the IT advantage of Germany to be the same as the USA, 20%. I think this promotes a historical feel as Germany was reluctant to gear up for total war.

A 20% parameter for IT tech levels for German investment might provide enough incentive to promote a player's attention.

It would also provide for the historical decision of the Nazis to go over to an immediate war footing instead of waiting on Speer's implementation.

[Blashy]

Tech progression is easily solved with a few changes.

The most significant one is limit chits invested.

I've tested 1 chit of L3 and 2 chits for L5 and it makes progression more linear and adds excitement to the game. I put it in my mod. It adds too much fun to pass up with the bonus of being a little more historical and not everyone maxed out in the major techs by 1942, hehe.

Also makes Intelligence slightly more attractive.

[ November 03, 2006, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Liam]

I suppose what you're saying would be nice, but the Maxing out Techs keeps balance, you cannot change it and defines the difference between a substandard soldier and a high quality one.

I.E. US PARATROOPERS, were top grade, and expensive to train and outfit. It took a long time to get those men into the field. As were German StormTroopers and Crack Elite Soviet Guard Troopers... These troops possessed some of the first Automatic Assualt Rifles, big guns in numbers, Mobility, etc... Something that say a Buglarian Corps did not possess. In fact it would be shocking to think a Bulgarian corps possessed a Bolt Action Rifle of 1900s grade?

Do not throw in one lot with the other. Now a Spanish soldier might have a Fairly modern weapon... Though not heavy equipment like that of the German, British and American Armies. Majors that spent billions outfitting their troops, it's a matter of cash. As the Polish still had Cavalry Units, they were effective but weak vs Mechanized, Armored Vehicles even light Panzers with paper Protection...

You have to distinguish from one Army and the other.

As far as the Luck Factor is concerned, beware. It's nice but I will tell you, what Terif says about it is true, he's won 100 SC2 games, so there isn't that much luck involved with him. Though I'll admit games I've played him ended 2 years shorter because the luck didn't go even "fairly" my way... I've also seen other games where it dictated the outcome of the war. If you invest in IW, 4 out 5 times you will eventually get it. In time to save Moscow, probably, no. In time to save Stalingrad, probably, have you lost the war by then? Probably... So do not discount it, it has a massive power in Industrial Technology.

IT makes it so that when D-Day happens, 2 million American's land with 5 or 6 Fighters and 3 Heavy Bombers, able to strike Berlin! That is the difference, and in 1942! Is this historical? Well, many of you do not know how to tweak the game to do this, but I have done it... I mentioned above for the formula, over invest in IT and forget anything else, once obtained, overinvest in the military techs you desire... % chance means most of the time you'll hit your mark... Allies can outproduce Axis in 1941! I have done in 1940 and brought the USA in, I could likely do it very easily the way the game is setup. With the Swedish and Spanish prerequisites for Germany, that's a huge bump in US readiness. So the next logical move is the UK buys the US with it's money, by 1941 Spring is the average US join date now! By Summer of '42 she can build what Blashy's say 50,000 Aircraft if she wants... Unneccessary in SC2 but still neat...

[Blashy]

If the Allies could outproduce the Axis so easily it would have been done over and over by now, yet vs. Terif he kills people easily with Axis, he even mentioned 3-4 days ago the game still slightly favors the Axis.

Remember, Hubert's goal is too make the game 50-50.

This thread about my mod is to make Allied production get their due but in a progressive manner. I just received a nice gift from Hubert in the next version of the editor that will most likely give me exactly what I need to have this occur MUCHOS GRACIAS AMIGO! .

As for tech limits, I suggest you try it first, I have over 20 games (probably much more) testing chit limits per tech and it has made the game much more exciting and a more historical progression. I really can't express in writing how much it enhances gameplay, its just a fantastic change.

As for Paratroopers, I like how they are, yes they were outfitted superbly, but they numbered in the 30 000 on DDay, smaller the rest of the time, so their stats in the game are IMHO fine, as they are of equal numbers STR as corps or armies so Hubert did a good balance of slightly reducing their A/D numbers to compensate for their huge manpower.

[Liam]

Blashy, you want an example of how I can outproduce your Axis Terif thinks of every unit movement Axis must move much, Allies later do not need to worry about MPPS, I bet ya by 1941 Barbarossa I outnumber your Axis 2 to 1 every time just about