SCII and the simulation of WWII

[Machinov]

Hi everyone (and especially Hubert)

I’ve just been reading the FAQ for the new SCII and think that you (Hubert) must be doing a great effort to improve the game. Nevertheless, I think you should seriously take into account the following:

To be honest, the main problem of SCI was, as many other wargames, the absence of real “simulation” of what WWII ground warfare was about. You can experience neither huge pincer movement nor entrapment of enemy armies nor panzer breakthroughs, etc. In fact, it could be a good simulation of…WWI!, and the frustration it brought to both sides. If you want to succeed this time you need to achieve this type of warfare.

My ideas (actually taken from a game I think you must know well):

1) Forget “Panzer General”-sort-of-game interface: 1 movement & 1 attack. Go for “Clash of Steel” action points concept. The panzer units fighting at the front should have the chance to exploits their owns ruptures. “Actions points” can be employed for either combat engagements or advances. You wouldn’t need to completely change it to the way “Clash of Steel” did it (this would take much time if your movement interface is already implemented)…although it would be ideal from my point of view. It would be enough if you at least allow panzer units to strike twice (even more!) per turn (in fact Panzer General II allows this); and they are free to do it whether they have been moved or not. As for the other units, it would be necessary to free them from the “first movement and then attack concept”. Movement and attack must be completely interchangeable in sequence. The “action points” concept is very useful because it allows units at the front to be engaged in combat until they manage a breakthrough, and also exploit it! (in order to sustain a prolonged attack and advance you need both strength and lots of action points = panzers) . With the current system, this is impossible, because one always needs to rely on many different units that have to be moved to the attack point…and can only attack once!. Even if you manage to achieve a breakthrough and move panzers (in the rear) into it, you can’t go deep inside the enemy front (first of all because you don’t want to miss the only chance to attack that the tank unit has per turn; and secondly, and most importantly, because the gap can be so easily close by the enemy that is worthless). At the best, you could manage to get a very transient single breakthrough per turn…and to start a pincer movement you need two!

2) Differentiate between units shattered at the front (and no longer ready for combat but that can be “reconstructed” in rear areas and eventually send back to the front) from those first surrounded and then destroy (irreparable losses). The way it is now, even with the “morale” idea of the new version, is completely wrong. Units can be easily destroy at the front, so why to bother in a costly (and ineffective with the current interface) pincer movements strategy.

3) Air fleets must not be able to destroy entire units! This is unrealistic. Air unit must have effects in units transient combat readiness. Once again, have a look at “Clash of Steel”.

4) Limited units is a must!...with allies having an advantage in manpower, therefore more units. Axis would have the advantage of initial readiness, technology and gain of experience but must achieve its goals soon, otherwise it should start playing a defensive war from 1944 onwards, with more productions for the allies and more units available to be purchased. I reckon that the balance in a “asymmetric” type of game is the trickiest of all the problems the programmer has to face.

I hope you take all this into account. It would definitely make the game much stronger. Remember, what players like me want is to “feel” the WWII when we play, not just see a European map with Nazi symbols and known general’s names.

Remember, WWII was a massive series of Kessel battles or attempts (Kutno, Dunkirk, Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma, Izyum, Stalingrad, Kharkov, Kursk, Korzun, Kamenets-Podolsk, Falaise, Ardennes, Bupapest, etc). All the major WWII operations had in mind either the quick achievements of political goals (i.e. quick surrender of a country by taking its capital) or the destruction of the enemy’s army (Barbarrosa, Bagration, etc). The former implied lighting operations to disrupt the will of the enemy to fight and the latter huge entrapment plans. Of course, both of them were somehow co-ordinated and took place at the same time or as part of the same goal in many occasions.

Please, have a look at “Clash of Steel” and learn from it. It’s clear that you have already taken many ideas for SC from it, but none for the ground warfare I’m afraid... I know that many people have not paid attention to that game because of its poor AI and its numerous bugs; but the ones that have had the fortune to play “hotseats” WWII games for many years now recognise it as the best of the best WWII grand strategy wargames…make SCII the best of all!!!

[JerseyJohn]

Machinov

You've put your finger on it.

A lot of us have been saying this for a long time and there were several threads, last year and the year before in which we advocated exactly the type of system you're discussing here.

Also, we cited extensively not only the kinds of tactics used in Clash of Steel and High Command, but also other aspects such as the production system and varying diplomacy (which is more extensive in HiCom). Also production schedules and longer times for various items, battleships and aircraft carriers being the longest. No point going through it all, if you ever want to use the search engine for the original SC Forum, you're bound to find several of those threads right away.

In an interview with Curry, Hubert discussed both Clash of Steel and High Command and said he liked both games and played them extensively. So, there's no need tell him about them as he's already familiar with their concepts. Of those two games I'd have to say neither got it all right but between the two of them everything was covered and done properly.

Between the two DOS games, I think COS was the better combat representation primarily for the armored exploitation tactics you've cited in your excellent post. HiCom had better economic, diplomatic and intelligence features.

One of the things I'm personally looking forward to is seeing how many of those ideas Hubert will incorporate in SCII. Naturally they'll need to be his own version of them and seeing his interpretations of these features (several of which he's commented on) should also be interesting.

-

-

-

-

6k

[SeaMonkey]

And now, 7000 looms!

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey,

Thanks!

I don't put much into the volume of posts. There are people like yourself and JPWagner and many others who pack a lot of punch per post and that's really what counts, it's much more important than having a large total.

But I think I've always put that k count somewhere at the bottom of each post that started a new thousand, so I can see the date later and have an idea of what we as a group were discussing at the time.

Also, around 1,993 or so I decided 2,000 would be my retirement number from BF. I don't even remember why at this point, probably there was a lot of infighting and unpleasantness at the time.

Glad I didn't stick to it -- we don't have any of that these days.

So on to that next marker and looking forward to reading all of your great posts and all of those by other friends and fellow members while getting there.

[waltero]

I trust Hubert will bring us into the next level of war gaming.

There are Manny games out there.

Not 'one' can compare with Strategic Command!

I am sure SC2 will have all the right stuff.

Leave all other games behind, Strategic command has surpassed them all.

[JerseyJohn]

Great advertisement but there are games on the same subject that came out in DOS, High Command and Clash of Steel, that have many features that were superior to those in SC1. The thing is they don't run properly in Windows. Hubert knows about them because he's played them quite a bit himself. So, I'm trusting that he'll take the best of those games and combine that with the best from SC1 to create a game superior to any of the predecessors.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say SC1 is better than those earlier games and I never have. It's advantages were running in DOS and fast and easy to play. As I said, Hubert knows all of this better than any of us would and I'm encouraged that he isn't rushing it.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks for the kind words JJ, if I've contributed a miniscule percent of what you have then it will have exceeded my expectations.

You are ....after all, our "Forum Historian", glad you didn't leave us at 2000......here's hoping for at least another 6K.

[Machinov]

Waltero:

I do not agree. This is not just criticism of SC. It's to improve the game. The armored warfare must be simulated. Fronts need to be more dynamic, with offensives and counteroffensives taking place more often. SC is too static. Play Clash of Steel for a while in the Easter Front (just yourself with both sides) and you will realize what I mean.

JerseyJohn:

I do agree HiCom had many interesting features. Nevertheless, I have not seen any game like COS in terms of real ground warfare (I would really like to be told otherwise!). Imagine you know nothing about WWII at all and start playing COS. You would end up using your units as they have to be used:

1) When attacking: try to achieve breakthroughs, with panzer acting actively in the rear followed by motorized corps. All the efforts concentrated on trapping as many enemy units as possible in large pockets. Then use your strong infantry armies to wipe them out for good.

2) When defending: Strategic retreats, avoiding the enemy pincer movements. Use tank units as a strategic reserve to local counterattacks to clog the breakthroughs…and even try a Manstein-style counterattack to isolate and destroy the attacking armies!

Why do we have to say no to all this!? I think it is worth trying to get it Hubert! Imagine the possibilities of each side planning its major offensive…or a trap for the forthcoming one!

Hubert, if you manage to accomplish this type of warfare, SCII would be the greatest of all WWII wargames…if not, it would be a new fiasco (and there are too many since 1993).

[SeaMonkey]

Machinov,

No one is saying "no" to your premise, on the contrary, we all agree. Reread JJ's post, this has been discussed to oblivion and we are expecting SC2 to be remedial. HC is well aware(must I say it again) of the limitations SC1 provided in reference to your post.

Visualize the new map configuration, it is tiles, with more avenues for attack and defense.

Refer to the supposed new title, not SC2, but "SC Blitzkrieg". Does that have some meaning?

Remember SC1 was no slouch game, the evidence speaks for itself, witness the enthusiasm that still pervades this forum. Could we expect anything less from Mr. Cater?

You seem to be a veteran of the genre SC was built upon, have you lost your faith? Do you not expect to see improvement, consult the historical progression of the original SC...how many patches were there? Recognize the time element involved from the first official announcement of the second SC to now, I assure you HC, DD, and pzgndr have not been twiddling their thumbs.

Need I say more?

[ May 22, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Machinov]

SeaMonkey:

Hope you are right. I know a lot of discussions about this have been around from the beginning. I just wanted to highlight once again the importance of this...people seem to get lost in things that appear to make the game more realistic (production, diplomacy, etc) and forget the central question that remains to be accomplish.

Greetings.

[waltero]

I am not looking for a improved game of panzer general or third Reich.

Hubert and Strategic command Hit it right on the mark.

SC is a fast, quick simple fix!

So you say Hubert should take game A, B and C and come up with a new game.

I say Hubert take Game A, B and C, And use it as butt wipe or throw it out the window!

Hubert, SC only needs "you" to do that voodoo that you do so well.

[Machinov]

Waltero:

I'm not saying that SCII has to be COSII! I'm just saying that it's possible to make a game that simulates WWII! ...and SCI is not...and SCII might not be either. It can be good for you, but it is not what it's supposed to be. I think it's a good game though and I've enjoyed much playing it. Nevertheless, I also got frustrated. I was one of the first to try it out and...what can I say? Yes, I was dissapointed. I expected much more...because I have been playing plenty of hotseats since 1991 and I know what it's out there. All those all games you have not probably seen or heard of. I must say again that COS is one of the best (to me the best of all) and we need to be humble and learn of it. Nobody is gonna make a COSII. SCII is the most promising game which is about to be released...it only needs to make us feel we are playing WWII. That's it!

[JerseyJohn]

Waltero,

You don't make sense. What the hell are you saying, that he should redesign SC1 and turn into the same thing he had in the first place with SC?

Or are you saying Hubert shouldn't get any new ideas after he set up a Forum here seeking them?

Whatever it is you're trying to say it's coming out as a lot of negative nonsense. If you have nothing positive to suggest it would be better if you said nothing rather than go on a self-serving rant about having faith in Hubert. We all have faith in Hubert or we wouldn't be posting any of this.

None of us are asking for a sluggish piece of crap with too much micromanagement, which is what High Command turned into.

CoS ran just as fast and as simply as Strategic Command and had a lot of things SC doesn't have. The assumption is Hubert couldn't write similar features either due to the limitations he was working under at the time or because doing so would have meant copying someone else's ideas.

Fine, we've been discussing this at the original forum for three years and you were never there. Or, if you were, you were never one of the 10 or 12 prominent in the discussions (half of them have stopped posting at least a year ago). Now you've got this rush of enthusiasm which is fine, but you aren't saying anything about game design, only saying over and over again that went to the mountain and saw the light and now you have Faith, Brother.

You're mainly popping in and popping off. If you have something constructive to talk about that's great, but saying over and over that we should all shut up to leave Hubert working in a cave doesn't cut it.

SeaMonkey and Machinov

Yes, I agree SC1 definitely missed the cut and thrust feel that CoS had. To me CoS was the best battle level system in any strategic game of this level and attempting to simulate a strategic Blitzkreig.

To me Hubert's choice of tiles rather than hexes will correct the basic problem of stonewall defenses that plagued SC. With tiles, as SeaMonkey pointed out, there are a lot of points to attack from and thin defenses without reserves, as the Germans went against in Poland, France 1940 and the USSR 1940 will be prone to breakthroughs and envelopments. Defense in depth, such as what the Soviets had at Kursk in 1943 will hold up much better against these tactics and possibly make them unfeasable (as Hitler's generals advised him on the eve of that offensive, that the Soviet lines had too much depth).

I'm looking forward to the game and, as I said to Pzgrndr at one point, it looks a lot like that old warhorse, Tactics II. He responded by saying he's already got a T-II scenario in the works.

SeaMonkey,

Thanks for those earlier remarks, appreciated and likewise.

Hubert,

A remark once in a while would help, you seem to be skip over threads where a lot of good discussion is going on and after a while some people, myself among them, get really tired of talking in an echo chamber.

If you think an idea isn't right for what you've got in mind please tell us or there's no point in even discussing it, other than to have people pop in and pop off with remarks about how we should all shut up and let you work in peace.

That seems to be what you want so, having passed that point I wanted to reach, I'll leave the discussion for a while and go into lurk mode as somebody else said.

It is really insulting to post things and have it attacked as a lot of excess baggage because you won't come in and venture an opinion one way or the other. If it's excess baggage please say so.

[waltero]

I think it is great when some come up with original ideas.

As far as games go,I was hoping Hubert would go outside the norm on game design.

I stopped comparing the mechanics of SC and other games long ago.

The games you speak of are good games.

We all have ideas, at this stage in the game I trust Hubert will do His thing, making SC2 a great game!

Keep coming up with ideas.

Don't be disappointed if SC2 does not operate like some of the other games that we love.

Sure I get frustrated with SC and often times think it is gay!

I wish it would do this or that.

I see that SC Is great game and I think Hubert is on the right path.

Some people act like SC should follow along the same lines as other games.

[Edwin P.]

A few quick comments;

4. SC2 will have the option for limited number of units.

3. In my view Air units should be able to destroy entire units, and this is realistic. Air attacks, especially by 5 air wings - 500 aircraft, can render targets in open terrain combat ineffective. sink ships: AKA Midway, and destroy airfleets; especially if they are caught on the ground: AKA 1967 Israeli attack on the Egyptian airforce. The problem in SC2 was that the air units range was a bit too far and they could easily be operated from one front to another. In SC2 these problems have been addressed. The attack range is shorter and their are limitations on operating units.

2. In Sc2 your ability to reinforce a unit is limited by the number of adjacent enemy units. To bring a unit up to full strength you must withdraw it from the front line.

1. I agree with the comments above that the new tiles will make for a more fluid battle field; although I do prefer hexes.

[JerseyJohn]

Waltero,

Well Said! :cool:

To be honest, I'd have been overjoyed if SC were a perfected version of Cos -- it still had a lot of bugs last time I looked -- and I'd still love to see an improved, Windows version of CoS. Hubert knows that by now because I've been saying it from the start. But I doubt that's going to happen.

One thing I can say for Hubert that can't be said for the designers of the earlier games is he sticks with the project till it's feasable and good. As SeaMonkey pointed out earlier, we only need to look at all the patches he's made for SC, and with excellent improvements.

Another great thing is Hubert actually reads the suggestions and, if he thinks he has merit, he acts on them.

SC1 reminded me and a lot of others of CoS till we became accustomed to it and after that the differences were evident. Mainly things were traded off. To me CoS is a much more realistic game in every way but SC is more adaptable, more competitive between human players, simpler, and has a terrific scenario editor. So what's not to like?

Nothing.

I think SC2, with it's tile format, will finally end all comparison to both CoS and HiCom and, like yourself, I'm also willing to be Hubert will really surprise us with a lot of great new features while eliminating the weaknesses that plagued the original.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

I agree with your comments re: Clash of Steel and SC. SC is simply a more fun game to play.

One feature that COS did have was a more strategicly flexible Axis AI. It targeted either Russia, the Mediterrean or a Sea Lion; while SC's Axis AI only targets Russia. (ie 3 strategic options for COS vs. 1 for SC)

[pzgndr]

Forget “Panzer General”-sort-of-game interface: 1 movement & 1 attack. Go for “Clash of Steel” action points concept.

The thing is, the fundamental PG-style code has defined this game and remains at the core of SC2. To change it at this point is not likely to happen. Is it perfect? No, and for many of the reasons cited, but the code DOES result in simple and fast gameplay. The sequential unit move & attack scheme requires players to orchestrate their game turns, making SC a battlefield chess game in many ways. That's an interesting dynamic in itself.

I play many other traditional games with unit stacking, complex turn phases, and all sorts of complicated rules to achieve "realistic" effects. But there's always a price to pay for that sort of complexity, and there's no reason EVERY game has to be all things to all players. SC is what it is -- and has done rather well for itself, yes? -- and SC2 will build upon that foundation.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

I agree. The AI for both sides was much more aggressive and less predictable in CoS. For one thing, I believe the computer player saw everything, while the human had FoW. Thanks to the seazone format, the AI player was able to launch amphibious operations with little trouble, and often did. If you left any Italian city ungarrisoned, for example, you could be sure there'd be a UK amphib against it in a couple of turns.

[Machinov]

Pzgndr:

No, I don't agree. Look, the "action points" system is as simple as what we've got. In fact, COS is even simpler than SC in many aspects. Now, it looks like SCII is going to implement back a system of movement and attack orders (that's what I understood from the FAQ and all the stuff about defining routes of advance, etc). Once again, that remains me all those "complicated" old games (War in Russia, etc). That's what is "complicated"!!. Actions points in COS are simple to understand and can be mastered in a few turns. They made the game as fast as SC...but with all the advantages I mentioned above.

PG-style was perfect for...PG!, a tactical-level game. PG is ok because you move units that are batallion/regiment size at the most. Here, there is no "front". Units can be moved more or less freely in the battlefield until they encounter oponents to fight with. You just needed to move all the different units in a coordinated manner. For the defender, it was a matter of defending bridges, forming counter-attack kampsgruppe, etc. Again, in PG the front was intuitive rather than real.

The problem is that it was copied for a grand strategy game. Here the fronts need to be real...but you need to make them dynamic! You cannot pretend to move your units as chess pieces. They cannot be used just once per turn and that's it. That leads you to stack situations as the ones everybody has felt in the Eastern Front in SC. In fact, the deployment and use of units is even less intuitive. Can you plan in advance how you are going to use them exactly? There's no room for that!

I'm really looking forward to seeing how the tiles system performs in the new version. Maybe it's great and fully successful. I hope so. I just want to say that keep your mind open to any variation needed to accomplish the main goal of SCII: Simulation of WWII.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn

In SC2 the ability of the AI to launch amphibious invasions should be much improved as an amphibous transport can move next to a tile and invade on the same turn. Thus the AI has to only perform 2 actions to conduct an invasion instead of 3.

The intelligence tech in SC2 should also benefit the AI. Ideally the Tech Catchup factor does not apply to the AI tech. (Hint, Hint).

I remember reading aways back, that the AI in COS had 3 scripted strategies for each side and that it would randomly select one of these strategies each game. Although people always suggest the the AI should evaluate the current status of the game and then select a strategy, I tend to believe that SSI's approach is the simplest to implement and keeps the AI from jumping back and forth from one strategy to another. It also reflects real life, where a nation often selects a strategy at the start of the war and sticks to it.

Example: If you want to launch a Sea Lion you have to start planning it from day one.

HC, any hints?

Will the AI in SC2 be more unpredictable?

[pzgndr]

No, I don't agree.

Fine. I do not disagree with what you are desiring, just trying to put into perspective what SC2 is and is not. It is your choice to decide whether or not to accept what is. What may come to be in some future project is another matter.

[harpooner]

I have been a wargaming grognard since I was young. There would be nothing so satisfying as a good computer simulation of WWII, and so far COS has come closest. But SC gets high marks and is quite enjoyable. I have hopes that SC2 will get it right. SC is not as good at representing the flow of the fronts accurately as I would like. I have played thousands of hours of board war games, especially, World in Flames, Drang Nach Osten, War in the East, War in the Pacifc, Third Reich, etc.

So far COS did it best, and one of the reasons for this is that it was somewhat modelled after World in Flames. Dynamic fronts with active Zones of Control and blitzkrieg elements is needed, but the right balance must be struck. Playtesting for equality of position is crucial. Take your time on this. And a worthy AI opponent would just be too much to ask for. It is extremely hard to code it well.

I am sceptical of tiles rather than hexes, but then again my favorite game is Civilizaion 3 Conquests and it uses tiles. I have always wished it was hex-based as I was raised on hex-based wargames.

SC can handle more complexity. I could stand to introduce a half dozen or more new unit types. I really really like the COS system. I completely agree with those who have argued for implementing more of its systems into SC3. Nothing has come close to it for fun-factor or for realistically simulating the ebb and flow of the Eastern Front.

All in all SC is a VERY good game. As far as I can tell it is the best hope for a worthy simulation of the historical possibilities that existed in WWII. I look forward to playing

SC2 soon as well.

I like the idea of not allowing air or sea units to have lethal bombardment.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Some of us are lurking, I've said my piece (mostly

regarding the Battle of the Atlantic), so what else

is there to say? I do agree that air or sea

bombardment should primarily affect readiness %,

with a strength point loss here and there, but not

be able to kill a unit outright 99.5% of the time.

[Retributar]

Unfortunately 'John DiFool the 2nd' the allied carrier escorts were destroying german submarines with slaughter-house efficiency. Maybey not at 99.5%...but, not too far from it.

I tried to find the old posting with all of that information...but,i could not locate it!.