New Tank Technologies

[ev]

Earlier today I read this great quote from Hubert:

I took a closer look at was the relationship between AT [anti tank] and HT [heavy tank] research. Previously in SC1 it created a sort of mismatch, so just looking at Bills documentation and the effects of research, I’m thinking that AT research should include TA [tank attack], but if this is the case then I think Heavy Tank research should include increases in SA [soft attack] and SD [soft defense].

This way attack/defence will be fully balanced between the two research areas (in how it affects combat between the two), and it will be a race, tit for tat, between AT and HT for advantages. On the plus side even if things are balanced, let's say Germany goes with a HT research philosophy and Russia goes with the AT research philosophy only and they both reach even levels respectively, Germany could have the HT advantage versus Soviet tanks if the USSR did not also pursue HT technology. Could make HT investments that much more appealing in SC2.

This quote is from:

http://www.experiencegaming.com/content.php?gameID=3506&contentID=426&PHPSESSID=ca1a3c0b880443aed396ff8c19daa32c

Well, this made my day. If I understand this correctly, tanks will be affected by at least two separate techs:

1. Heavy Tank Tech will increase tanks's Soft Attack and Soft Defense (SA/SD).

2. Anti Tank will improve Hard Attack and Hard Defense (HA/HD) for both tanks and infantry

I agree 100% on this choice.

I would like to suggest two more techs that should affect Tank Units:

Armored Recon Tech would improve the speed at which tank units moved (higher AP's in SC jargon).

The speed or AP's of SC units represent their tactical speed. By this I mean, SC movement capacity represent the speed at which the unit would advance when enterring enemy territory. Of course, tactical speed is substantially below "cruising speed". And, tactical speed is mostly limited by the speed at which recon detachments can advance. Hence a tank unit with better armored recon tech would have higher tactical speed.

Armored Recon Tech would be for Tanks as Motorization Tech would be for infantry.

Anti Air Tech would improve the Air Attack and Air Defense (AA/AD) for both infantry and tank units.

Putting all of the above together, , tanks would benefit from four techs:

Heavy Tank Tech for SA/SD

Anti Tank Tech for HA/HD

Anti Air Tech for AA/AD

Armored Recon for AP's

Infantry units would also benefit from 4 research areas:

Infantry Weapons for SA/SD

Anti Tank Tech for HA/HD

Anti Air Tech for AA/AD

Motorization for AP's

So each tech improvement in tank would have a counter part in infantry.

Finally, the Anti Air Tech should have a counterbalance in the Air Units. ...some tech that would make tactical air bombing more effective and help planes better survive anti air fire. ...not sure what to call it. ...and, it coud be one or several technologies. But, I digrees.

Back to Tank Tech. Any comments on the four tank tech's I listed above, individually or as a group?

[With Clusters]

Nothing, 'cept that's a lot o' tech.

Maybe they'll include it all in the next game w/ 'multiple unit combined attack' and other such things that will make the game (perhaps) more 'realistic', yet more 'complex'.

Maybe its time to debate "complexity" (limited stacking, combined multi-unit actions, etc.) vs "simplicity" (whatever gets you a fast turn around in TCP/IP games, or so the argument seems)?

Not to get me wrong, I'm totally looking forward to this, whatever Mr. Cater decides. I just think there should (IMO) come a time where games are not based on what's 'best' for TCP. Yes, its nice to be able to play someone 'real time', but perhaps there comes a point where that is not the best format to base a game upon? Perhaps a slower, more thought out (more time for planning, etc.) regimene is more appropriate for this sort of 'Grand Strategy' game?

Allright, I was gonna go off on how it was to play old board games and such, but I doubt you all would want to hear it. Plus, I realize I've been drinking beer for the last several hours, so I may be 'not in one's right mind'. Pardon the rant. Just my feelings after reading lots of posts regarding 'good ideas' that I know just wont be included because of certain ideas that I feel are probably already 'set in stone' for SC2.

Gah, when I wake up tomorrow (blinding headache!), I'm certain to regret posting this. But as the Persians once thought, it helps to get drunk when pondering important issues...

[SeaMonkey]

Uhhh, ev, they way I read it AT tech increases the tank attack(potentially) of only infantry units. This is a rock, scissors, paper syndrome.

In other words a level 5 HT research SA value would be negated by a level 5 AT research HD value. Or a 5 AT HA value will be negated by a 5 HT SD value. We're talking tanks vs infantry and vice versa. But I do see your point of AT research represents larger gun calibers and HT research equates to better armor protection.

[ June 11, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Lars]

Why not just call it Tac Air tech?

Could reflect the whole gamut. Dive bombers, armored planes, rockets and napalm, and of course, better ground control and coordination with attacking units.

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Uhhh, ev, they way I read it AT tech increases the tank attack(potentially) of only infantry units. This is a rock, scissors, paper syndrome.

In other words a level 5 HT research SA value would be negated by a level 5 AT research HD value. Or a 5 AT HA value will be negated by a 5 HT SD value. We're talking tanks vs infantry and vice versa.

I like the rock, scissors, paper syndrome.

In infantry we have a tech that makes infantry better against other infantry (IW) and we have a tech that makes infantry better against tanks (AT). I would like to see the same dichotomy carry forward to tanks. One tech making tanks better against units of its own kind and another tech makes tanks more effective against infantry.

Likewise, in infantry we have a tech that makes infantry move faster, and, I would like a corresponding tech that makes tanks faster.

A lot of techs? Not quite. It may seem that way at first glance. But, most of what I did was rearranging old techs. When you look at it carefully, I only added to new techs:

Take first, anti-tank tech. I am only extending anti tank tech from infantry into tank strength. It used to be that Heavy Tanks acted as an all in one tech for tanks. I am changing that, but only through sharing borrowing from preexisting antitank tech.. So I did not add a new tech there.

Now look at anti-air tech. This would be the same tech both for infantry and tank units.

When you look closely at it, I am only adding two new techs: Amored Recon and Anti-Air. The other stuff was already there. I merely rearranged things a bit following Hubert's goal that:

attack/defence will be fully balanced between the two research areas

(quoted from Hubert's diary, see above.)

I am building on Hubert's insight, but taking it a step further...

[ev]

Originally posted by Lars:

Why not just call it Tac Air tech?

Could reflect the whole gamut. Dive bombers, armored planes, rockets and napalm, and of course, better ground control and coordination with attacking units.

Yes, perfect. I think your message came in as I was typing my last entry. But, any way, as far as air-to-ground, this is exactly what I mean.

[Retributar]

TANK-SPEED:Im not really sure, but the speed of tanks for the various participants didn't change really very much at all...as far as i recollect...there wasn't much improvement. The Allied(US-Britain-Russian) tanks were lighter and faster....the German tanks were heavier and slower. It would take on average a minimum of 5 Sherman tanks to destroy 1 Heavy German tank...if the German tank didn't have supporting Panzer-Grenadier's to help protect it!.

As far as Hard and Soft defense for tanks,...well...as the tanks were upgraded into new production models...that was automatically included in the model-upgrade process!. You dont really have to research up-armouring tanks,...it was usually very evident from battle-field reports as to whether this was a necessary undertaking or not!.

[SeaMonkey]

From the WW2 encyclopedia:

France preWar tank speeds in mph

FCM 21, 15.5 tons = 11 mph (slowest)

Somua 35S, 19.5 tons = 29 mph (fastest)

Germany

preWar Pz 1A/IIC, 5.4/8.9 = 23/25

1939 Pz IVD, 20 = 25

1940 Pz IIIG, 20.3 = 25

1941 Pz IIIJ, 22.3 = 25

1942 Pz IV F2, 23.6 = 25

1943 Pz VG, 44.8 = 29

1942-44 Pz VI I/II, 55/69.7 = 24/24

Italy

PW L3, 3.2 = 26

1940 M11/39, 11 = 21

1940 M13/40, 14 = 20

UK

1939 Matilda II, 26.5 = 15

1941 Crusader I/II & Valentine, 19.0&17.5 = 27&15

1942 Churchill VII, 40 = 12.5

1943 Cromwell IV, 27.5 = 32

1944 Comet, 35 = 29

USA

1941 M3 Stuart/M3A1 Lee, 12.2/26.8 = 36/26

1942 M4A3 Sherman, 31 = 25

1944 M4A3 (76mm), 31.7 = 25

1945 M26 Pershing, 46 = 30

USSR

PW-42 KV1, 47 = 17.5

1940-42 T34, 34 = 34

1944 T34/85, 32 = 34

1944 IS2, 46 = 23

one other interesting fact is operational radius on a tank of fuel, varied from Tiger 1 a paltry 65 miles before refueling to the T34 Model 42 of 250 miles. Most are in the 100-150 mile radius.

[Retributar]

Here's an Excellent site for 'Specifications of Soviet AFVs'.

http://www.battlefield.ru/specific.html

WOW!...this site has more than i even 1st expected!...this is the 'Main-Page'!.

http://www.battlefield.ru/

3D Models from the main participants:

http://gunpoint-3d.com/ [in order to save these pictures in a Folder i had to add an extension on to each picture in order to save a view that thumbnails could see...otherwise it saves the picture with a generic icon.

For example when using 'save picture as'...i used F(Front),S(Side) & R(Rear)...pz3l_F, pz3l_S & pz3l_R.

[ June 14, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Red Fleet]

The German tanks at the end of the war (Tiger, King Tiger, Maus, Elefant and so on) were heavily armoured and equipped with powerful weapons, but on the other side lacked sufficient speed. The progress in weapons and armour r&d were quicker than for lighter materials and more powerful engines.

So may be the heavy tank units could have less action points? The player cannot have everything, he can go for powerful OR fast.

@retributar: Excellent webpage. Thanks for the info

[ev]

Hi guys. It is very important not to confuse the speed of the tank with the AP's represented in the game.

If I understand the above info, even the Tigger could travel at 24 mph. If you assume 8 hours of driving per day at 24 mph, a Tigger could cover 1344 miles in a week. Which translated into 26.88 tiles per turn in SC. Even if we assume that the Tigger could only run for five hours a day, we still have 840 miles or 16.8 tiles per turn. The game limits the movement of tank units to 5 tiles per turn.

The movement capabilities represented in SC represent the speed of advance when entering enemy territory. Units are spread out, checking every corner for possible enemy possitions. And they are advancing cautiously, expecting enemy fire at any time.

In the tank units, most recon work was done by recon and mech infantry detachments. The speed (or lack there of) of this recon activity was the main limiting factor when advancing into largely undefended enemy territory. And, this is the speed I believe is represented by SC Action Points.

Now, the speed of recon activity was in part related to the speed of recon vehicles, but, there was much more to it than just speed. Motorcycles, for example were fast, but they were too vulnerable, so cyclist had to be very careful (dismount) when approaching suspected enemy possitions.

Furthermore, to the extent that the recon units were capable of suppressing an enemy rearguard, the whole army could continue their advance without commiting slower more cumbersome heavy tanks and equipment. So better armed armored cars like the German Pumma, greatly contributed to the speed at which Panzer Divisions advanced through enemy territory.

An interesting note, the German Panzer Divisions usually had a full recon batallion where the allies had only a recon company. And, not only they had more men, but the recon batallions had heavier equipment, like the Pumma. I believe one of the reasons the German Panzer Divisions performed so well was due to better recon.

[Lars]

Originally posted by ev:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

Why not just call it Tac Air tech?

Could reflect the whole gamut. Dive bombers, armored planes, rockets and napalm, and of course, better ground control and coordination with attacking units.

Yes, perfect. I think your message came in as I was typing my last entry. But, any way, as far as air-to-ground, this is exactly what I mean. </font>

[ev]

For the sake of convenience, we speak of Tank and Infantry units in SC. But "Tank Groups" and "Infantry Armies" were not made solely of Tanks and Infantry. Particularly with regards to Tank Groups (or rather Armored Groups), this can be very misleading.

A German Panzer Group (which translates into English as Armored Group) was made of 2-3 Panzer or Armored Corps. Each armored Corp was a mixture of 1-2 Panzer and one 1-2 PanzerGrenadier Divisions. A Panzer Division was made of:

One recon batallion mounted in either motorcycles, halftracks, or armored cars, or a combination of these.

A panzer regiment made of 1-2 tank batalions +1 mech infantry batallion (after 1940).

A panzer grenadier regiment made of 1 mech infantry batallion and 2 motorized infantry batallions.

A batallion of combat engineers.

Several companies of anti air, anti aircraft, panzerjaggers, and/or self propelled guns.

And several batteries of Divisional Artillery.

One such panzer division could have in excess of 15,000 men and in excess of 1,200 vehicles; but, only 100 tanks.

PanzerGrenedier Divisions had even fewer tanks. Instead of having on Panzer and one PanzerGrenedier Regiment, they had two Panzer Grenedier Regiments. At most they would have one tank company. But most often they only had a couple of PanzerJagger or Self Proppelled Gun companies.

SS division usually had more of everything. But normally did not have more than to tank batallions.

A large full-strength Panzer Corps made of two Panzer and One PanzerGrenedier Division could have 50,000 men, 60,000 vehicles, but only 200 tanks.

That same Panzer Corps would have 3 Recon Battalions and 6 Mech Infantry Battalions. These nine batallions could muster 900 Armored Fighting Vehicles viz a viz the 200 tanks mentioned above.

Allied tank formations had more tanks and a smaller number of the other AFV's. Nevertheless a typical Allied Armored Division would have two tank batallions and 6 infantry batallions. Such an Armored Division would also have a large contingent of Artillery, Anti-Tank, Anti-Air, Recon and other combat detachments.

The Tank was the most important weapon of the Armored Formations. Heavier tanks capable of surviving enemy anti-tank were critical to overcome infantry possitions and breakthrough enemy lines. But Armored Formations are much more than just Tanks. And, different elements of the Armored formation were responsible for other tasks. Anti-air guns were responsible for anti air cover. Anti-tank guns were responsible to cover the flanks of the advancing formation from armored counterattacks. Recon batalions were responsible for inspecting alternative avenues of advance and finding enemby possitions. And, so forth.

The SC research engine can be used effectively to represent each of the different parts of the Armored Formations. Such a comprehensive view of the Armored Formations would better represent the tradeoffs faced by the warring nations: should I spend more on heavier tanks? or do i need to improve my air defense? or, perhapps I need better recon so my tank formation can find the weak spots in the enemy line faster, and improve their reaction time to changing circumstances? Do I need to put longer cannons in my tanks with faster velocity munition so they can fight off enemy tanks, or am I only concerned about soft targets, so I only need a heavy armor to withstand the first shot from a hidden anti-tank gun.

It is worth noting that Guderian, and his followers within the German high command, believed tank formations should alway be organized around two types of tanks: a heavy tank whose role was to breach through infantry and anti-tank gun lines, and a light tank whose role was to fend off enemy tanks.

The Panzer III and Panzer IV were designed to work as a couple, where the Panzer III was the light tank to be used in more fluid situations, and the Panzer IV was the heavier, slower tank to be used against entrenched infantry possitions.

Under the original (Guderian Scheme) each Panzer Division would have a batallion of heavy tanks and a batallion of light tanks. The lighter tanks had to meet several important requirements: They had to be faster, of course. They had to be lower, so they would be harder to hit. Their turrets had to traverse faster. Their guns had to reload faster. Their ammo had to travel faster through the air.

Meanwhile, the heavier tanks were designed to fight infantry. That is why the original Panzer IV were armed with slow velocity guns which were not very good in the anti-armor role.

Under this scheme The Tigger was to be the replacement of the Panzer IV. While the Panther was meant to replace the Panzer III.

Many in the U.S. camp also shared this dichotomy of labor between anti-tank and soft-target roles. When the U.S. started the war, the notion was that the main role of the tank was for attacking infantry. Meanwhile, anti-tank work would be the job of Tank Destroyers and anti-tank guns.

Anyway, I digress. My point is that the research that lead to tanks that were better suited to attack soft targets was different from the research that lead to better anti-tank weapons, whether those weapons were specialzed tanks, tank destroyers, anti-tank guns, or whatever. Furthermore, there was a division of labor between the different elements of the Armored Formations, where specialized units were oriented towards performing different tasks: recon, anti-air, anti-tank, etc. Thus, research of different combat system was necessary to improve upon the performance on each of these areas. In my posts above, I propose a way in which the SC research engine could be used to model this fact.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ever hear of "can't see the forest for the trees"?

There is alot of detail that is being quoted to support the reason why there should be this tech added or that tech modified. While each detail by itself is correct, the overall conclusions that are being drawn are incorrect.

As a game designer, one of the first things you have to decide on are the time and scale relationships. SC/SC2 represent that with a Corp sized unit and a 50 mile hex. Then comes the movement rates of your units. One of the hardest things to do, is to understand that as your scale gets higher, the more you have to abstract what that movement rate is representing. The importance of the range for ground vehicles isn't that important, as the relative movement rates betweens your various formations. All of us oldtimers who have played many, many boardgames, know what I'm talking about.

Which leads me back to the Armored Recon Tech as a tech that would increase the AP of a armored unit. Recon vehicles would have no effect on the overall strategical movement of a Armored Corp. Why?

Because long before they could take advantage of that "faster" or "longer" range, the armored fighting vehicles would have broken down. Whats true in todays armored vehicles was even more true back in WWII... that the more you drove them, the more they broke down, and the faster they would break down if you didn't perform daily mainteance on them. That attrition rate, more than anything else, determined the speed at which any large formation of Armored vehicles could advance.

[Shaka of Carthage]

One of the things that was "broken" in SC, and was never fixed, was how a Armored unit fought a Infantry unit.

Armored units had thier Hard factors increased by the Heavy Tank tech.

Infantry units had thier Soft factors increased by the Anti-Tank tech.

Armored units never had thier Soft factors increased.

I forget what factors that were used where, since I don't have access to my home computer... but it came down to the fact that the Infantry units always got stronger as they got Anti-Tank, while even with Heavy Tank tech increases, the Armor units fighting Infantry, still fought them as if they where at tech level 0.

That was the problem.

So you can fix it by changing the combat formula, or by changing what factors are used in combat, or by changing the values in the combat factors.

It really doesn't matter which method you take, as long as the Heavy Tank tech increases the combat ability of a Armored unit, while the Anti-Tank tech increases the combat ability of a Infantry unit only when it faces a Armor unit.

Since the soft factors are representative of the artillery that the Infantry units have, the last thing you want to do, is have some sort of tech that changes the soft factors. The only nation that should be different than everyone else, is the US. US artillery re-wrote the book on how artillery should be employed and pioneered time on target as a method of targeting. No other nation could match them. But there are other ways this can be handled in SC2, without messing around with a tech advance for Soft factors.

[Retributar]

All in all...food for the belly...not belly for the food!.

[ev]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

...

One of the hardest things to do, is to understand that as your scale gets higher, the more you have to abstract what that movement rate is representing. The importance of the range for ground vehicles isn't that important, as the relative movement rates betweens your various formations.

I agree with your comments, and, particularly with your reference regarding the importance of relative movement rates. In fact, that is exactly where I am coming from.

Hubert is incorporating a Motorization Tech that will make infantry faster. This is a good idea. But no matter how many trucks you give to an infantry unit, they cannot drive their trucks all the way up to the front line. Only armor can do that. So armored units should be able to move faster through enemy territory, or whenever there is a chance of bumping into enemy units.

Trucked infantry could move as fast as armored units when moving behind the lines along secured paths. But, SC does not draw the distinction between movement behind the lines and movement entering enemy territory. Unfortunately, SC only has one movement capability which I understand roughly represents movement entering enemy territory. And, here armored units should clearly outperform motorized (trucked) infantry.

In SC1, Infantry Corps moved 4 hexes while an Armored Group moved 5 hexes. Motorization will increase the spead of Infantry Corps. I would guess that each tech level would increase movement capability by one AP per tech level. If so a Motorized Infantry Corps Level 5 would have 10 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Likewise an Infantry Army would have 9 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups.

Now, quite frankly, I don't see how infantry mounted on trucks could outmaneuver armored formations in the open steppes of Russia. Each time one of those truck columns bumped into an enemy possition you would have a major slaughter.

Of course, there are alternative ways to address this problem. One alternative is to give Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 10 AP's. This way, even the fastest Motorized Infantry Corps would still be 1 AP slower than the Armored Groups. Another alternative is to give the Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 5 AP's but provide some technology to make them faster as the game progress.

...and, there may be other alternatives I haven't thought off.

To sum up:

I agree that trucked infantry should move faster than foot infantry. And, I am glad Huber is allowing for the motorization of infantry.

I also the game should not allow level 5 motorized infantry to outmaneuver armored groups. The game designers should find a way to make armored groups faster than trucked infantry when advancing into enemy territory.

There are many ways to skin a cat... Others may find better ways to address this concern. But, I feel it is very importan we all give some thought to this problem and provide Hubert with some alternative solutions.

[ev]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

...

One of the hardest things to do, is to understand that as your scale gets higher, the more you have to abstract what that movement rate is representing. The importance of the range for ground vehicles isn't that important, as the relative movement rates betweens your various formations.

I agree with your comments, and, particularly with your reference regarding the importance of relative movement rates. In fact, that is exactly where I am coming from.

Hubert is incorporating a Motorization Tech that will make infantry faster. This is a good idea. But no matter how many trucks you give to an infantry unit, they cannot drive their trucks all the way up to the front line. Only armor can do that. So armored units should be able to move faster through no man's land and through enemy territory.

Trucked infantry could move as fast as armored units when moving behind the lines along secured paths. But, SC does not draw the distinction between movement behind the lines and movement entering enemy territory. Unfortunately, SC only has one movement capability which I understand roughly represents movement entering enemy territory. And, here armored units should clearly outperform motorized (trucked) infantry.

In SC1, Infantry Corps moved 4 hexes while an Armored Group moved 5 hexes. Motorization will increase the speed of Infantry Corps. I would guess that each motirization tech level would increase movement capability by one AP per tech level. If so a Motorized Infantry Corps Level 5 would have 10 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Likewise an Infantry Army would have 9 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups.

Now, quite frankly, I don't see how infantry mounted on trucks could outmaneuver armored formations in the open steppes of Russia. Each time one of those truck columns bumped into an enemy possition you would have a major slaughter.

Of course, there are alternative ways to address this problem. One alternative is to give Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 10 AP's. This way, even the fastest Motorized Infantry Corps would still be 1 AP slower than the Armored Groups. Another alternative is to give the Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 5 AP's but provide some technology to make them faster as the game progress.

...and, there may be other alternatives I haven't thought off.

To sum up:

I agree that trucked infantry should move faster than foot infantry. And, I am glad Hubert is allowing for the motorization of infantry.

I also the game should not allow level 5 motorized infantry to outmaneuver armored groups. The game designers should find a way to make armored groups faster than trucked infantry when advancing into enemy territory.

There are many ways to skin a cat... Others may find better ways to address this concern. But, I feel it is very important we all give some thought to this problem and provide Hubert with some alternative solutions from which he can pick and chose.

[Shaka of Carthage]

We're both on the same page in terms of what the effect should be, so no need in repeating it. Here is the gist of your latest post...

In SC1, Infantry Corps moved 4 hexes while an Armored Group moved 5 hexes. Motorization will increase the spead of Infantry Corps. I would guess that each tech level would increase movement capability by one AP per tech level. If so a Motorized Infantry Corps Level 5 would have 10 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Likewise an Infantry Army would have 9 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups.

Problem with above, is you are assuming the SC movement rates are correct. They are not. The movement rates for Corps and Armies in SC, already assume they are motorized.

What it should be is this...

Infantry Army (horse-drawn transport) ... AP of 2

Armor Group (already motorized/mechanized) ... AP of 5

I wont' bother you the detail, but I will point out that in some of my older postings I should why the above is the correct ratio.

Now, if we assume we have a tech advance that motorizes our horse transports, we can increase the Infantry movement rate to three (3).

And thats all we should care about and modify. The different types of motorized or armored vehicles would not have an effect on the strategical level that the game represents.

Wheter or not a Corp moves faster than an Army group AND that difference in speed should be represented at our strategical level is a different argument. But assuming we say yes, it should be faster... starting it off with a base value of 3, with a motorization increase to 4, would still leave it slightly slower than Armored Groups 5.

If the Tiles require the movement rates to increase, then the AP values will change, but the relative ratio between them should not.

Which leads us back to the "motorization" tech. If the R&D system is forced to give us a five (5) level tech chain, then that one point increase should only be given out at roughly around tech level four. The mechanics of how its done would be based on the R&D system.

If, for whatever reason, you have the situation you describe... then the design is faulty and we would be better off just turning off the "motorization" tech advance and setting the values for the Germans, Russians, etc at the horse drawn rates while the British and Americans would get a higher rate (since they were motorized).

[Liam]

People also tend to be missing something here, German Heavy Armor towards the end of WW2 was based on stopping Hordes of Soviet Armor on the Eastern Front. Almost every new design was inspired by the Edge in Russian Armor. These Huge Juggernauts weren't for offenses anymore, they were for enemy tank destruction. Sorta like Mobile Artillery of sorts. What their long Range performance really matters is unimportant when you can kill 20 Enemy Tanks to even out the fact that your Nation Can't produce 20 Xs the times of your enemy. So the idealogy there wasn't bad. You could almost put all this under 1 Category of Tech. Ideology of Warfare... Heavy Armored Warfare : Or Numerical Superiority : ETC>>>

[ev]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

We're both on the same page...

Problem... assuming the SC movement rates are correct. They are not. The movement rates for Corps and Armies in SC, already assume they are motorized.

What it should be is this...

Infantry Army (horse-drawn transport) ... AP of 2

Armor Group (already motorized/mechanized) ... AP of 5

I wont' bother you the detail, but I will point out that in some of my older postings I should why the above is the correct ratio.

Now, if we assume we have a tech advance that motorizes our horse transports, we can increase the Infantry movement rate to three (3).

And thats all we should care about and modify. The different types of motorized or armored vehicles would not have an effect on the strategical level that the game represents.

....

If the R&D system is forced to give us a five (5) level tech chain, then that one point increase should only be given out at roughly around tech level four. The mechanics of how its done would be based on the R&D system.

If, for whatever reason, you have the situation you describe... then the design is faulty and we would be better off just turning off the "motorization" tech advance and setting the values for the Germans, Russians, etc at the horse drawn rates while the British and Americans would get a higher rate (since they were motorized).

Yes, I think we are in the same page. But, I am afraid the game designers are thinking of several tech levels, (probably 5). Please check the following quote:

Originally posted by pzgndr:

The plan for mech research is to improve the AP of infantry Corps and Army units only. With like a hefty 20% cost increase per level. Most countries will probably start with historical levels. Players probably won't want to push for more mechanization because of the cost, but it's an option. If you do research and get a tech advance, you can upgrade some rather than all units. Depending on your MPPs you will be able to afford all this or not. But it will be your choice.

Notice he speaks of "Players probably won't want to push for more mechanization because of the cost." This sounds to me like you could have higher levels of motorization, i.e. faster units with higher AP increases.

Also notice they speak of 20% increase per tech level. If you have 5 tech levels, that gives you a total of 100% increase. Still assuming SC1 AP's that would make both al level 5 Infantry Army and level 5 Infantry Corps faster than the Tank Group. L5 I.A. 6 AP's L5 I.C. 8 AP's.

Now, again, there is more than one way to skin a cat. But my point remains that L5 motorized (trucked) infantry should not be able to outmaneuver armor when advancing through no man's land or into enemy territory.

[Desert Dave]

OK, all you great and grand speculators, let's just take... a hypothetical.

No need to assume or presume or mostly push around mounds of clinging cob webs with an old Wizard's broom.

Let's say... the AP for Armies starts out at 2.

Let's say the AP for Corps starts out at 3.

Also,

Let's say... the MAXIMUM that can be achieved with "mechanized tech" is... 3.

[... keep in mind, some techs might NOT extend all the way out to the end of the potential string of 5; for example, could be that Gun Laying Radar would have a maximum achievable level of 3 as well... just how much did naval surface ships actually change in the course of 5 years? How much faster can a WW2 era engine actually drive you hither and into the thicket?]

Therefore, the maximum movement rate for Armies would be 5, and Corps would be 6.

Now, what if the Armor started out... at 6.

Presto! The Armies & Corps would NEVER exceed the built in movement capabilities of the Tanks.

Presuming that you invested, and assuming that you got results, then you might eventually get to a level where Mech could JUST keep up with the tanks.

We'll see. Much incredible stuff to test yet. Including the secret methods for sweeping out cob webs! Sure, Hubert the Ace Alchemist is working on that too!! :cool:

Not only that, but as Shaka has reminded, max speed for any Armor or Mechanized unit has NOTHING to do with how far and how fast the unit advances on a treacherous field of battle.

There are breakdowns. There are pauses to allow recon activities. There is Commander hesitancy in the face of... the Unknown.

Who can forsee? That looming face in the distant copse of Evergreeen trees... which might be... drooling dross and monstrous deformed! :eek:

And, IF the cost of "mechanizing" your Armies and Corps is indeed expensive, THEN you would likely only increase movement for a PART of your forces. After all, you do not have unlimited MPPs, you are not Croesus sitting in a counting house counting and smiling all the night long, true?

The strike forces.

The mobile reserve.

These would be mechanized.

Some units would not be, EVEN if you had the ability. Since they are garrisons.

Some units would be PARTIALLY mechanized. Since they are the "mop-up" boys. Etc, etc.

Some countries such as USA and Britain would probably start out with a higher "mech tech" than the envious others.

Well,

All of this and much more WILL be thoroughly beta tested, so that EVERY SINGLE aspect will fit together quite exquisitely.

And, important to remember, remain within the bounds of historical precedent.

And, able to be edited so those who want to see if Patton could indeed throw the Beserkers out of Eastern Europe, with those new-fangled Menace Machines... could try it.

You do want to keep a WW2 GS game within reasonable parameters.

After all, Hubert,... who I again remind IS the sole designer of SC2-Blitzkrieg! , is NOT making Nazi Space Rangers VS the Warp Speed Geeks!!

[SeaMonkey]

"You do want to keep a WW2 GS game within reasonable parameters?"

Most indubitably!

[ev]

Thank you for your comments Dessert Dave. My reaction:

First, Tank Groups should always be faster than the fastest motorized Infantry. Armor allows you to move all the way into the combat zone, trucks do not allow that. If the best motorized infantry has 6 AP's, Tank Groups should have at least 7 AP's. Besides, my feeling is that Tank Groups should have close to four times the speed of foot infantry. So, if the basic foot infantry army has 2 AP's, Tank Groups should have around 8 AP's (+/- 1).

Second, any country that has the technology to build a Tank Group, also has the technology to build trucks, and whatever else is necessary to haul and infantry army. It is essentially a problem of cost. Therefore, I would give all countries the technological know how, but I would not motorize any of the units starting on the map on day 1. If the Germans want to motorize, they have the technology, but they would have to upgrade their units at a huge cost.

...remember, the Germans had PanzerGrenedier Divisions as early as 1939. They chose to pair those PanzerGrenedier Divisions with Panzer Divisions to form the Panzer Corps. But the Germans clearly had the technology to make a fully motorized (or mechanized) infantry army. In fact, they only had to bring together their PanzerGrenedier Divisions to form a PanzerGrenedier Corps or a PanzerGrenedier Army. This was purely a matter of choice. There is a great biography of Heinz Guderian which explains why they made this choice. I will try to get the reference for you later.

[SeaMonkey]

This is a good summation ev. Of course most countries had the technology to motorize or mechanize if they could afford the cost. I will digress with your AP assessment, the final allowable AP value should be the same for infantry and tanks. Reasonably, you are correct, tanks should be more agile than trucks in enemy contact, but this is about mechanization, not solely motorization. We are assuming that mechanization equates to armored infantry fighting vehicles, not just trucks.

[ June 16, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]