Strategic Command Design Challenge!

[Ottosmops]

Engine: CURRENT

Synopsis: Automatic reinforcements to save a couple of mouse clicks.

Design Summary: After the player ends his turn, all of his unused units will be reinforced according to the algorithm described below. Also, the player could intentionally start this process every time during his turn.

The player should be able to activate or deactivate this option during the game as he wishes. Manual update (as it is now) should be possible at any rate.

Details: Three variables per unit could be used to control the behavior of the algorithm:

1. PRIORITY: range 0 to 9, default 4, units with higher priority are first reinforced.

2. UPPER_STRENGTH_LIMIT: range 1 to 10 (or 15?), default 10. A player might want to keep a unit deliberately at low strength, e.g. a Corps for garrison purpose.

3. MAX_POINTS_PER_TURN: range 0 to 9, default 9. A player might want to reinforce a unit slowly, if he needed it not urgently, e.g. the German BBs.

The values of this variables could be changed in the same window, which is currently used for reinforcement. A check box APPLY_PARAMETER_SETTINGS_TO_ALL_UNITS_OF_THE_SAME_KIND would be convenient.

The algorithm should try to distribute the MPPs in the currently handled priority class in a way, that the resulting strengths are almost equal, e.g. if a unit is at strength 4 and another at 6 and there are MPPs for 6 points available, then both units should end up at strength 8.

Problem #1: The algorithm could not give the results the player considers best.

Problem #2: Where should the button AUTOMATIC_REINFORCEMENT_NOW be placed?

Problem #3: The player should always see, how many excess MPPs he has per nation to buy other things. How to present this information to the player?

[Timskorn]

Yes, another good idea powergmbh! And as you mention, that would help so another new unit would not be required for this. I think there's a lot of possibilities to make this work which is definitely a good thing.

Ottosmops: This is another one of those things I think a lot of people wished was possible at times. I've found this most wanting when new tech has been researched and I have to manually upgrade almost every unit. I suppose the current setup is acceptable, considering most players probably want to retain full control over which units are reinforced/upgraded and when.

[Timskorn]

Engine: CURRENT and/or NEW

Synopsis: Context-sensitive feedback

Design Summary: One of the #1 stumbling blocks for new players in a game, and even old players to a new game, is understanding the mechanics involved in the gameplay. For wargames especially, feedback is critical in helping players understand why they cannot perform certain functions. Why can't I reinforce? Why can't I upgrade a unit? Why can't I amphibious transport? Why is my unit out of supply? Why can't I op-move this unit?

Simple explanations can go a long way in helping all players understand the game better. This is particularly crucial for new players who can be turned off by wargames because of even the simplest confusion. Two additions can go a long way in aiding new players in understanding and enjoying a wargame. One is to give simple and concise feedback on why a function is not currently available (Reinforcement, upgrade, op-move, etc) such as "Low Supply Level" (For reinforcements) or "Cannot Upgrade when adjacent to enemy unit", etc.

And two, is to provide "First Time Use" pop-up help. When first using a type of unit or function, a pop-up box appears and explains the basics for the unit or function. The first time a player selects an HQ, for example, it can briefly explain its purpose and how critical they are for supplying troops. Or the first time your cities are bombed, convoys are hit, unit destroyed, etc. This option can be turned off under Options, or the pop-up box can have a selection box to "Turn Off Help" to permanently disable it. This is in lieu of a tutorial so people can just jump right in and play (which they typically do anyway!).

Problem #1: For #1, lots of little things to add help text for and which might confuse a player if not described properly.

Problem #2: For #2, may require quite a bit of programming to create pop-up boxes with options you can choose on it such as "Close" or "Turn Off Help", and to track and make sure the same help box doesn't keep popping up over and over everytime you select a unit.

[PowerGmbH]

Some Additional Information for the

AUXILIARY CRUISER Project:

ENGINE: Current

SYNOPSIS: Auxiliary Cruiser (i.e. Famous Atlantis Aux-Cruiser in the Pacific)

DESIGN SUMMARY: A new Ship that has following Specification, for Programming:

1) This Ship is a type "Submarine", same Engine Procedure for "Raiding and Silent".

2) Attac Values: All Zero only Naval Attac = 1

Defense: All Zero. Moving Points: Same as

Transports.

3) Cost: appx 60-80 MPP ?

4) This Ship has a Special Supply Rule: Normal ships out of Supply go down 1 Supply Point by Round. This Ship goes Down 1 Supply Point every 2 Rounds ( so in a 24 Rounds = i.e 1 Year Campaign , this ship could stay out of any Harbour about 20 Rounds without beeing Completely out of Supply.

5) This Ship is to be a Supply Base for Adjacent Units. This Means: This Ship (as long as its own Supply is >0 ) gives a Supply Value = 4 all around itself.

The Idea of this Project is for Submarines to have a "mobile" Supply Base similar to a Land-HQ but only giving Supply no Reparations.

6) A possible Layout of this Auxiliary Cruiser is like a single "Transport" Unit.

7) THis Unit When Raiding MPP from the ennemy gets 50% of the Raided MPP as Own Value accounted, (i.e.Raiders got Ships captured and Sent home, as well as valuable cargo.)

This Unit could be Specially Interisting in Pacific War Scenarios or whenever the Whole World with it s endless Oceans is the Game Zone.

Historically Interisting is The Background of the Axis Auxiliary Cruisers that where Laying Mines in Australia, and Bombing Industries in Far away Pacific Islands Like Nauru.

Problem 1: Maybe one more Ugly Units the Axis Forces may use against Great Britain...But Britain Can as well...

Problem 2: None.. should be easy to Program and nice option as cheap Marine Unit helping Subs.

[ January 17, 2008, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: powergmbh ]

[scottsmm]

what about adding a new feature allowing you to make deals with the enemy majors a ceasefire if you will. For example if your Germany and crush the soviets in Barbarossa you could make a deal with them and they would give up territory so that they wouldn't lose the war. Or you could be losing and do the same thing.

Engine= WAW or SC3.

Design summary

1.Add another feature to the game that let's major countries a chance to come to an agreement and stop the war.

2.Assign values percentage to game engine that would allow it to work. almost like Diplomacy but a must stronger case in which the entire war could end for a few years.

3.Let both cpu and player be able to use this feature.

4.In order to gain territory you must put in coordinates for the territory that you want.

Problem 1= might not be accurate and could cause crashing problems.

Problem 2= might take an advanced cpu to fully understand this feature.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

lpark:

Am I right to infer from above that a viable russian strategy is not to garrison the front cities at all??? I've been thinking at least had to have corps in them as speed bumps...

Timskorn:

You can, but in my opinion it isn't worth it unless you know your opponent is going into Barbarossa weak (Ie, he has troops gobbling up minors at the time). Otherwise your garrison troops only stall him by a turn or two and feeds his air and ground units with experience.

Hence my proposed counter to this gamey strategy is as follows:

Engine: SC2/WaW

Synopsis: No Scorched Earth for undefended cities

Design Summary: Simple: If there is no unit in a city then when it is taken the supply level doesn't drop to zero when it is conquered Kind of hard to torch a city when there's no troops in it. Ultimate aim of course is to force a country to garrison its cities even if it stands no chance of holding them.

Side Issue: Apply this to mines and oil? Or even better yet force the defender to actually have to torch the city/resource manually BEFORE it is taken (that's a separate idea I guess).

Problem #1: Can't think of any-defender is now at a slightly greater disadvantage than it was before?

[Spectre of War]

This is a great thread. I have spent some time reading all the ideas, and have had a couple of my own.

I would like to see the 3-d units to show the level of damage. For example, an armoured corps will have different icons to show readiness and/or damage.Full strength will have a tank icon, but when understrength (7 or less), they will show personnel carriers,providing they are motorized. When they are mauled (4 or less) they will become infantry, noticeable by the armoured symbol in the corner.

I felt the original 3-d icons need some reworking, but adding SS, marines and specialist units is too much. Their impact on the strategic war as a whole was not huge. The SS just had better equipment, marines are only as useful as their naval and air support. Mulberry harbours are of limited value as they would be destoyed! in any rough! water, hence the timing for 'overlord'.

Saying all that, I'm sure some minor tweaks wouldn't go astray.

Expanding the rail rules so they can be damaged/destoyed in sections by partisans ans SF, and rebuilt by, not engineers, but corps (30 days per section)?, effectively sapping the enemies strength

Always The Spectre of War

[Spectre of War]

i would like the talk about why I think SS, marines and mulberries and expand on my previous thread.

The SS were no better soldiers than the Wehrmacht they just had better equipment. I have renamed units to have wiking,das reich etc. People may disagree they were hand picked, but so was Einsatzgruppen and they were just rapists, murderers and the insane. I don't think the are needed to enhance they game, unless you want to recreate Himmlers dream as well. sic

I had a think about marines for awhile. Marines are a seabourne assault force, lots of head, little tail. Without proper naval support and air cover they are toast. Besides, they had a struggle of it against starving japs with rifles and cannon made in 1900, with TOTAL naval and air support. How useful they are does depend on the area of op's, but they are of limited use without support.

Mulberries are another item of very limited value. Does anyone know how long they lasted, or how long they took to build.

Please tell me if I'm wrong. I think HC did think about these things before he omitted/added them.

A bit more detail with the maps would be nice.

If I wanted to play civ.....

Spectre

[xwormwood]

At least towards the end of the war the Waffen SS wasn't handpicked anymore.

My Grandpa was drafted into the Waffen-SS (from an regular Wehrmacht 88-Unit).

[jon_j_rambo]

My family was "handpicked too", but picked for another location, a camp. My Great Uncle, Great Aunt, & Uncle J. You Buntas didn't get 'em! They got out in the early days, before Barby in the Balklans.

My other Uncle (older) was handpicked. He sunk U-boats for the US Navy.

"What were you thinking? You stupid Germans. Haven't you ever heard of General Motors?" --- Webster in Band of Brothers.

[PowerGmbH]

Another New Idea:

Engine: Current

Synopsis: change convoy Routes

Design Summary: in the Convoy-Window, the Allied ( and Axis Player ) can click on the convoy Route, and set Manually another Route ( from a prepared List )

I.E. he clicks the Canadian Route ( where the Axis Boats where Raiding ) and sets the Route Number 2, so on the Next turn the Subs "Raid" on a Inactive Line.

This will represent the flexibility of Allied Convoy lanes which where not statically passing "through" Sub-Raiders.

Maybe Set a Maximum of 2 or 3 Convoy Lines so that the Axis Boats can in case of superiority raid all of the 3 option lines.

The Same would even on a mayor Scale Work for a Global-Map.

Problems 1: Maybee too easy for Allied Player to evade Axis Subs?

Problems 2: ??

[emf]

Engine: Current

Synopsis: Change a minor countries' major parent

Design Summary: When a minor country get a hit on diplomacy it should go to the major that invested the most chits.

Details: Lets say that Italy wants to invest a chit in Norway, if Norway get a hit it should move towards Italy. As it stands now, since Germany is Norway's parent, Norway would move towards Germany, no matter how many chits Italy has invested. Now if both Germany and Italy pool their chits in Norway which ever country invested the most should get the hit. If they invest the same then it should go the country which is either closest geographically e.g. Norway to Germany and Algeria to Italy, or when a country has traditionally a sphere of influence e.g. Iraq to Germany and Greece to Italy.

Soviets and Western Allies may never pool their chits together since they are non-cooperative, they may still invest in the same country, however which ever invests the most chits gets the minor.

Problem #1: May interfere with scripting.

Problem #2: May prove problematic in multi-player.

Problem #3: May be difficult to program.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Thanks EMF, as I've always wondered why certain Med minors aren't Italy's minors, and in fact Italy has no minors at all.

[PowerGmbH]

John DiFool the 2nd:

Well Italy was very interested in Abyssinia, Somalia and some Territory over there. Countries around this Battlegroud are not on the map.

I dont think that a Vichy Tunisia, or Greece, or any other country would tend towards Italy as a minor.

But the idea that the one who puts the Political Input gets the Political outcome is almost realistic and would be good, really even if it is "only" Italy...

[emf]

As a follow up to powergmbh's suggestion about independent minor states, I suggest that the mpp's the majors spend on diplomatic chits should go to the minors, to be spent on new units, reinforcement, etc. The computer should descide what to buy from allowable builds. Once there are no more units left to build then the mpps should be saved, and when commited to a side may used to rebuild and reinforce their units.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by powergmbh:

Synopsis: change convoy Routes

Design Summary: in the Convoy-Window, the Allied ( and Axis Player ) can click on the convoy Route, and set Manually another Route ( from a prepared List )

]

I like the idea and suggest this enhancement;

1. It costs X MPP to change a convoy route. This prevents a player from changing the route every turn.

Example: It costs 75MPP to change a convoy route.

[PowerGmbH]

emf: WOW that s a great idea. you mean i.e. if you put 75 MPP ( 1 chit ) on Romania, when Romaia joins Axis, then Romaia gets a "Starting-Capital" of 75 right?, really good enhancement.

But, i.e. Britain sends 3 Chits to Spain, and Gemrmany and Itally 5 and 3, then if Spain Joins, would this whole bunch of MPP go to spain, means ALSO the 225 MPP from Britain? this could be a Real Challenge for a Player regarding the fact the MPP could go to the ennemy side...

The consequences could be to let a country "go" instead of investing in the opposite direction, and maybe better invest in an other neutral COuntry.

To solve this "problem" could be to reduce the ennemys "contribution" to a minor activated country by , say 50%, i.e. Spain would get 112MPP

[emf]

@powergmbh, yes that is exactly what I mean. As far as your example; Britian, Germany, and Italy all investing in Spain - well those are the consequences you must be prepared to take. Any time you give another country something you can't force them to use it the way you want, its a gamble. Look at the F-14s we sold to Iran before Khomeini came to power, if we go to war with them they will use the aircraft against us. Besides the mpps you invest in a country are for use only by that country.

[Marty Ward]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Thanks EMF, as I've always wondered why certain Med minors aren't Italy's minors, and in fact Italy has no minors at all.

They have Albania, though some would say it's not anything to write home about.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Spectre of War:

People may disagree they were hand picked, but so was Einsatzgruppen and they were just rapists, murderers and the insane.

Er, I have to correct you here because nothing could be further from the truth.

Well educated SS and police officers mostly.

The Composition of the Einsatzgruppen

There were approximately 600 to 1000 men in each Einsatzgruppe, although many were support staff. The active members of the Einsatzgruppen were drawn from various military and non-military organizations of the Third Reich. The bulk of the members were drawn from the Waffen-SS, the military arm of the SS. In Einsatzgruppen A, for example, the breakdown of active members was:

Waffen-SS: 340

Gestapo: 89

SD (security service): 35

Order Police: 133

Kripo: 41

(Taylor, Anatomy, p. 510.)

Each of the Einsatzgruppen were further broken down into operational subunits known as Einsatzkommandos or Sonderkommandos.

It’s always more comforting to write them off as insane murderers, but the reason it is so chilling, is because they weren’t.

[ January 18, 2008, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[PowerGmbH]

Lars: well taken in general point of view all war effort is insane. But a chess game is not, as is not the SC Strategic Game.

So on the Base, i think with the Special Forces "Brandenburger" or the British "SAS" its enough. These are at least only Option Units. The Strategic deployment of Bulk Units Like Armys and Tanks should determine the "Winner", not a "Rambo", "Tanya" or any "007".

I think the Global Interest in these Special Units should not be the Attac Factor, but more sth like the reconaissance Factor or some "Afraid" Factor.

I Even would Suggest Following:

Engine: CURRENT

Synopsis: Readiness Reduction by Special Forces

DESIGN SUMMARY: All Ennemy Units in 1-2 Fields Range around the Special Unis ( Brandenburger / SAS, MI6 , MARINES etc. ) receive a: Rediness Reduction of 15% in the First Line and 5% in the Second Line, when The Special Forces have a Strength Value more than 5.

Problems: Programming maybe difficult due to moving of these Units, so how to calculate readiness when the Units just arrives from 2 field behind the lines?

[arado234]

Lars maybe the members of the Einsatzgruppen werenot insane or uneducated but they were murders,One of their main functions was to follow the Army as it advanced and roundup the so called undesirables and either shoot them or send them off to the friendly neighbourhood concentration camp.Sounds like a bunch of murderers to me.

[Lars]

Not disagreeing with that.

Just it always bugs me when people write them off as abnormal They weren't.

[SeaMonkey]

Wait a minute Lars, anyone that stoops to that level of inhumanity is abnormal, I don't care what they've been programmed to do.

They may appear normal, they may act like a completely different person faced with a different set of circumstances, but sorry, there is truly something demented with a human that conducts themselves in the manner these people did.

Death is a better choice and yes there maybe more innocent deaths to accompany yours, but it is time to give your life for a principle when faced with a dilemma of this magnitude.

There is a place and a time to make a stand in defense of one's fellow species, let a situation like this define that moment, that is the normal thing to do, or should be, .....anything else is a deviation.

[Timskorn]

No hijacking the thread! Silencio! Vaminos!