Strategic Command Design Challenge!

[Timskorn]

I thought this would be a fun exercise for everyone. Whether or not SC3 will be made, another expansion for SC2 or something completely different this is still a good way to hone your designing mind. And if SC3 or something similar WILL be made, maybe something from this thread will contribute toward its design.

The challenge with design is complex. You have to weigh in many different factors and intangibles that may not even have anything directly to do with your idea. For every idea should spring forth many more questions. So for this challenge, you will present your idea short and sweet within a tight framework. Your goal is to convince the reader (Ie, typically the designer/programmer) that this is a beneficial addition that has little reason not to be added. Below is the template to use when posting your design concept. It can be as complex or simple as you want, and could even be a design doc on why hexes should replace tiles. A really good design doc would also include picture examples of what you're trying to describe, but isn't necessary.

Engine: (Whether your idea should fit into the existing SC2/WaW game engine or for an entirely new engine, like if SC3 would be a real-time game for example. State NEW or CURRENT)

Synopsis: (A one-sentence description of your idea)

Design Summary: (Maximum 3 paragraph description of your idea and an example of how it would work in-game. If your idea requires more than that you should rethink what you are trying to accomplish. Be concise!)

Problem #1: (You must objectively think what problems your idea would create. You don't need to solve it here. If you don't fill these out you haven't thought enough about it! One or two sentences max)

Problem #2: (Examples: It breaks another feature. Too programming/art intensive. Doesn't fit with the overall design. Would it actually make the game funner, or just more tedious, etc.)

When fleshing the idea out, try to imagine yourself as the designer and not just the player. What are the pros and cons of this concept? Can you think of an alternative way to convey the same idea that would take less time to implement? It usually doesn't make good business sense to invest a lot of time and money into an idea that you can get relatively the same benefits from doing an easier concept. Not many people want to spend 20 hours doing something they can do alternatively in 5 and get a similar effect. Is your idea FUN? Or do you want it simply because its historically accurate? Can it be both but with some novel compromising/sacrificing? One of the toughest things to do is having to trim the fat off your idea, but rarely does an idea go from your brain to paper to implementation without having to lop off its leg or arm in the process.

Feel free to ask questions on designs too. Be constructive with your criticism. Nobody wants to hear why so and so doesn't agree with it without a good reason why. If you want to truly critique, offer your own design doc that would replace/enhance the persons your being critical of.

Have fun!

[SeaMonkey]

Engine = RTT...Real Time Term.

Simultaneous execution of a plan designated to run for a game time(hours to weeks) dictated by the players' agreement.

Delegation to a command structure of leaders with different capabilities using a variety of combat forces organized by the player, yet retaining the ability for the player to micromanage at the lower combat levels.

Grid based map with transparent lines of longitude and latitude that can be turn off or on.

An active semi-transparent border defining ZoCs exerted as the units move through the turn emitting a configuration in relation to the unit's activity. Say for example, small arrows protruding off the border(ZoC) line in the direction of the units attack, thicker designates an higher intensity assault, perhaps XXXX for a defensive orientation(barbed wire). These are dynamic and change as the battle turn rages.

Combat success is a result of the usual parameters with emphasis on unit cohesion through the command structure and the force mix as a function of the task objective designated by the players' orders.

Simple Nato type units floating on the map grid changing color shades as a reflection of the unit's success in completing its mission, say darker green for highly successful to bright red for complete failure as a function of cohesion, again dynamic through the simultaneous turn. The dynamic unit boundary lines(ZoC exertion) could also be used in the coloring scheme.

Perhaps a predetermined(prescripted) "emergency order" allowed during the turn by each player. An "if-then" sequence to change the turn plan execution, subject to the receiving units' cohesion and communication efficiency, but never guaranteed.

More details to follow.

[ January 02, 2008, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Timskorn]

Nice Seamonkey, if a little wordy. I think I understand your concept though. Essentially a "wego" system where you're playing the Head Coach, designating high level orders as well as managing smaller details, right?

[SeaMonkey]

A little wordy??? :confused: Moi? Banish the thought Tiger.

Yeah, a WEGO, simultaneous. Imagine those WW2 maps of battlefield deployments showing the front lines and unit echelon borders.

Well I want to make them dynamic, like in the beginning each unit has a circle of influence, a patrolling perimeter, but the circle becomes misshapen as it moves and performs across the battlefield. Like if it had a recon attachment it would ooze out down a road in the direction of movement, be limited by a river, only a small encroachment up an incline.

You get the picture. :cool:

[SeaMonkey]

The command structure allows you to ratchet down to any level. Say you have an Army Group led by Guderian, perhaps seventeen corps size units total, arranged in 3 armies, each with a commander. Guderian also possesses a pool of assets allocated to him by the Theater commander.

You could give your orders to Guderian and watch the whole AG perform, or allocate the assets to the different units, or army commanders along with orders to them or to the individual units. Now the more you let them(your commanders)control the units the more their actions realize their special traits. The more you micromanage....well I hope you have special abilities, better than your AI leaders.

Is it getting clearer?

[ January 02, 2008, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Ottosmops]

That's a great concept, SeaMonkey, and exactly my thoughts of a true strategic wargame.

Where can I buy this game?

[Lars]

Just go ask the developers of Road to Moscow.

[SeaMonkey]

Now you do know this new system will allow multiplayers on each side. One side delegates the command structure, settles on a supreme commander, each player issues his orders as the turn is passed around and finally zipped up and sent to the opposing side's "Supreme Commander".

Still SC, just a different name.

[Timskorn]

Engine: CURRENT

Synopsis: To make carriers operate more effectively, especially to simulate the Carrier War in the Pacific

Design Summary: For a fun and more realistic model of Carrier Warfare, particularly in the Pacific, a change in how carriers operate is required. The main objective is to turn them into the most potent and effective ship available to the player in not only dealing with other enemy ships, but in support of land invasions without creating too much micromanagement. In return, they also become the most vulnerable and pursued unit at sea, being the primary target of enemy ships, carriers and aircraft thus resulting in a Carrier War for naval superiority. The core change in design is two-fold. One, Carriers have the ability to launch their fighters defensively and offensively (like how artillery operates). Two, Carriers have the ability to change stances to prioritize targets while striking in defensive mode.

Design: Right-click on a Carrier, select "Stances" from the list and select one of three.

A. CAP: Fighters from the carrier only fly defensive missions to protect the carrier, or any friendly ships adjacent to it, if attacked by enemy air or if the carrier is directly attacked by enemy ships. If the carrier is attacked directly by an enemy ship, defensive fighters deal damage first, then ships.

B. Carriers: Carrier will defensively launch fighters as soon as an enemy carrier enters its LOS. If the enemy carrier is running CAP, fighters resolve combat first. If the enemy carrier is under any other stance, both fighters ignore each other and strike their targets.

C. Any: Carrier will defensively launch fighters against any other type of ship that enters its LOS.

Tactics: In a Pacific Carrier War, knowing which stances to use when will be key to fighting enemy fleets. On CAP stance, enemy ships and aircraft are free to attack and manuever within your carriers LOS without its fighters being launched in defense. This is purely a defensive stance to protect your carrier and any ships next to it, and to reserve the full strength of your fighters to be used on your turn. On Carrier stance, you take the first opportunity you can to strike at their critical ships if they happen to cross into your LOS but this leaves your carrier vulnerable to direct attack. Using carriers in "Any" stance too much may weaken your fighters against unncessary targets leaving them too weak to attack effectively on your turn, but is a good stance to damage incoming enemy ships before they can attack your fleet. Remember, in a Pacific War, you will likely have two or more carriers together which you can mix and match stances.

Problem #1: May open a Pandora's box to program an entirely new naval combat system.

Problem #2: Should carriers still "die" at sea even though only their fighters were destroyed in combat? Should carrier fighters have different stats than normal fighters/tac bombers to abstractly represent both the fighter and dive bomber/torpedo wings?

[Gorgin]

If some or all of the carrier's aircraft are destroyed, it should be able to resupply with fresh aircraft if it is with flying range of a base and not have to necessarily return to port to resupply.

[Lars]

Engine: Current

Synopsis: Operational level version of game with larger map and true multi-player for the five majors. PBEM or TCP with chat. Single player, pick Axis or Allies vs AI.

Design Summary: Comparable to TOAW, but you would have the production and diplomacy aspects, plus the coordinating required between player teams. Main units of maneuver would be Army Corps/Air Wing/Sea Squadron level to avoid micromanagement hassles at the divisional level on this scale. Greater demand on player to handle the increased number of units balanced by the fact that he will only have to handle one country's worth.

Problem #1: Getting somebody to play Italy.

Problem #2: Getting somebody to play Italy.

[Bill101]

Originally posted by Lars:

Engine: Current

Problem #1: Getting somebody to play Italy.

Problem #2: Getting somebody to play Italy.

You missed out problems 3 & 4, getting someone to play France!

Wouldn't it be best, were this to be implemented, to have the Axis have one player and the Allies two, split between the western Allies and the Soviet Union?

[Lars]

Ah, so I did.

Sov player controls France. It'll give him something to do.

[Edwin P.]

Engine: Current

Synopsis: AI controlled Allied Major Power. An Allied human player could play as the Western Allied or the Soviet player. An Axis human player could play as Germany or Italy.

This would make for a more challenging game vs the AI as one can't control the movements of allied nations.

Design: Requires that country units move in a specific order. Example; Germany then Italy then Russia then USA then UK.

Problem 1: Coordinated attacks involving more than one nation may not be possible.

[arado234]

Can you imagine the arguing over strategy.That would be a blast.

I think you could find people who would play Italy.I wouldnt care which power I was(unless it was France).I think the whole idea playing with multiple players is a GREAT idea.Hope it happens sometime.

[Edwin P.]

Engine: Current

Synopsis: Experience advantage bonus/penalty to a submarine's chance to dive. This reflects the advantage of a battle tested naval commander vs. an inexperienced naval commander.

Design: Each level of experience advantage increases/decreases a submarine's chance to dive by 5%.

Example: A Submarine with 2 medals of experience vs a Destroyer with 0 medals of experience receives a 10% bonus to its dive percentage.

Example: A Submarine with 2 medals of experience vs a Destroyer with 3 medals of experience receives a 5% penalty to its dive percentage.

Design:

Problem 1: Experienced and hi-tech level subs become even harder to attack when facing non-experienced warships.

[arado234]

Edwin P.the sub vs destroyer would also have to include tech.?

I could see how it would get complicated with a level 5 tech.sub with no experience bars vs a destroyer with no tech.but 4 experience bars.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Engine: SC2 + future

Synopsis: Most generals get a specific kind of bonus, based loosely on their historical record

Design Summary: Bonuses could include any of the following:

1. Increases supply level by one for any controlled unit (Monty?)

2. Gives a bonus to attack (Hoth) or defense (Chuikov) to any controlled units

3. Gives a bonus or two (attack and/or defense/etc.) to a specific kind of unit (Kesselring-fighters; Guderian-tanks)

4. Increases/decreases effect of "surprise" attacks (Rommel)

5. Can provide an extra bonus point to action points for 1-2 units under their command (Patton).

Problem #1: More added detail for those who dislike added detail; Law of Unforseen Consequences

[Timskorn]

Good idea, and good point by arado. The dive % is currently still tied to tech level, correct? If this would be in addition to that, you could lower the bonus from 5% to around 3%. A +4 exp. sub would then get a 12% increase to dive chance, which substantial especially when added to its base % chance to dive. Then a destroyer with experience would simply help negate or lower the bonus, but not eliminate a subs ability to dive altogether.

[Timskorn]

John: Yes!! I love that idea. This would add a bit of historical flare and also make HQ units more than just a rating. They could still operate just as they are now for people who don't want to mess with the details, but for experienced players they could attach specific units to an HQ to maximize their bonuses. I also like this because it would make lower-level HQ's viable.

Some other possible problems would be balance issues and exploits.

[emf]

Engine: Current Global War

Synopsis: Linking a resources efficiency with infrastructure research.

Design Summery: More specifically, in Siberia, all resources are at 50% efficiency. If you invest in I.R. then the resource should go up, but no higher than 10. Since the argument could be made that the reason for them to be at 5 is the lack of adequate roads and railroads, this would give added reason for the Soviet player to invest in I.R. Of course this could go hand in hand if the Engineers were given the ability to build roads and railroads. This would also give Para's and Special Forces the task of cutting the roads and railroads, and forcing the resources back to 5.

Example: Vladivostok is a level 5 if you get a hit on I.R. then it would go to level 6.

Example: if, in the above example, all roads and railroads coming from the western part of the map are cut then Vladivostok would go back to level 5.

Problem 1: Will the new land arrows provide the same function?

Problem 2: How to program this? if Vladivostok is called 'X', 'I.R.' is infrastructure research and, 'path' is a chain of tiles to the western edge of the map, 'path 1' unbroken and 'path 0' is broken: if X==5 && I.R.==1 && path==1 then X=X+1.

[PowerGmbH]

ENGINE: SC3

Synopsis: Solution to Political Constellation, due to historic background, necessary for a real Global Campaign

Design Summary: China (and Vichy-France)

specially as well as Great Britain should have the possibility of being at war only with one of the Axis Partners. THis also would be the Case For Russia and Commonwealth. I.E. Australia at war witrh Germany but Not with Japan, and China at war with Japan but not with Germany.

Solution: Each Allied Minor gets activation Percentages towards each ONE of the Axis Partners. Same for Axis Minors. That Means in Effect: the Setting for the minors is not only a General Activation towards Axis or Allies, but an Activation Towards Britain-Allies or US-Allies, or in Axis Case i.e. Hungary towards Germany only.

When then a Minor COuntry is Fully Activated, a Script may enforce its avtivation towards other Axis or Allied Parent.

Problem: A Axis Minor COuntry could get Fully Activated towards Germany, but could be as Well be Fully Activated towards USA at the same time.

Problem2: It s only Historic Background, and at least it s not a Politics Game but a Strategy Game

[PowerGmbH]

ENGINE: SC2WAW

Synopsis: Independent Minor States.

Design Summary: Specific Minor Countries (not all) get their MPP separatedly.

For Finnland this Means Finnland gets its Own MPP and mut with these supply and reinforce its Own Army.

China Gets Its Own MPP and must Reinforce from Its Own MPP. THis doesnt mean that Units form Other Nations are not supplied in this country or These units are out of Supply in their Parents Country.

Specific MPP Transfer from Parent should be possible, but done with Transports ( Specially in Case China-Supply, in order to do a Realistic Asiatic Scenario ) or with a Sporadic Convoy.

In EUropean Nations i.e. Romania or Canada this would result easy, while in Distant Partner-Nations i.e. Iraq , CHina, Finnland this may Result mor difficult with possibilities for the Ennemy to cut the supply ( specially Interisting in China and Asiatic Regions as well as Middle East.

Problem: What type of Help can the Parent nation sent to the Independent?

Will it be in Form of a german Corps walking to Finnland and Change Coulor to Finnish ?

WIll it be a Convoy line? that s not really apropriate...

I think the Easiest way would be in the COnvoy Window, to have a Little WIndow Opening that asks: how much MPP you want to send to CHina (Capital Kunming) Transfer Cost are: xx

This Transfer Cost is Calculated on base of the nearest Port or city from the Sender ( for China case this may be: Rangoon ) to the nearest city of the Receiver ( in Cina Case this is Kunming ), aditionally to represent Burma Road or The Hump or the Railway: if there is a railway the Cost is very low, on Road this cost is the Road-Fields distance multiplied with a Cost Factor, and if there is NO Road nor Rail, there is the Distance by a AIR_LIFT Factor which may be some more Expensive Transfer cost than Road. i.e. The Hump Transfer ( no Road nor Rail Link availabe ) means by air transporting i.e. 50 MPP to CHina costs 25 MPP, while sending 50 MPP via Burma Road costs only 12 MPP and Via Rail costs 5 MPP.

Waht about this?

Problem 2: the Independent may have very low MPP and need constant "parent" help ( as it was Historically...)

[ January 08, 2008, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: powergmbh ]

[PowerGmbH]

ENGINE: Current

Synopsis: Carrier and Light Carrier Approach

Design Summary: A Light Carrier Gets one Attac Per Turn and may have a little less Attac force for Specific units.

A Heavy Carrier Gets 2 Attac Points per turn and about 25% more combat power.

Light Carriers may be about 40% Cheaper than heavy ones.

Problem: n/a , or any contest?

[xwormwood]

Engine: Current

Synopsis: Implent a chit system instead of scripted events

Design Summary: create a pool with special events.

add every few specific turns special events.

Player would have to pay some cash to "draw" a chit out of the pool. Limit the chits you can draw (1 per turn or one per month etc.).

If you pay, you can draw a chit from your pool.

A result out of the pool could be

- an experience star for a unit on the map (adopted new tactics)

- one double attack for a none double attack unit (Peiper assigned to unit x)

- a moral boost (Churchills famous "we will fight them..." speech)

- some cash (Exile-Norwegians donate to your cause yadda-yadda-yadda)

- reduce buld time for a unit which is already in production (Speer looked into the production and found out that blablabla)

- revive a unit with strength 1 (survivers made their way back to their own lines)

- add diplo % (Canaris warned Franco about entering the war, Spain leans 5 % toward the allies)

- addjust the map (russo-finish Winter War)

- minor war entry (ireland)

- fuehrers / presidental order (stay there, move this)

- all as above but in the different direction, malus instead of bonus

- many more (Graaf Spee made it back home, Rommel captured, Prince of Wales to Asia, Blue Legion ...

Always add some historical info / background / explanation for the specific chit

Insert many more chits than in one, two or three games could ever be drawn.

Insert several blank chits.

Fill the pool dynamic according the actions a player takes.

Example: Axis invades Norway: fill Norway chits in the pool. UK buy a new carrier: insert "a new UK Carrier" chits etc. etc.

Allow players to pay for every chit of their opponent which the opponent didn't pay for in his round / turn / month. Remove the chit which got drawn in this case permanently out of the game.

Enable or disable this function before the start of a game

Problem 1: Luck factor slightly increased, so our chess player section won't like this feature at all

Problem 2: Balancing

[ January 07, 2008, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]