New Idea: Operational Objectives - ie TORCH

[Edwin P.]

Major military operations are often assigned Names - such as TORCH (allied operation to conquer French Morroco and Algiers) - that reflect strategic goals. The success or failure of these operations can have diplomatic consequences.

Operation TORCH

Perhaps in SC2 allow players to select an objective. If the Player achieves the objective within a specified time frame then the player gains a free diplomatic chit, if they fail to achieve the objective then their opponent gains a diplomatic chit.

Example 1: When France Falls the Axis player can select an operation called called Iraqi Oil or Sea Lion. If Iraqi Oil is selected and Iraq is conquered within 12 months the Axis gain a diplomatic chit, otherwise the Allies gain a diplomatic chit. If Axis decide not to select any operation they do not gain a diplomatic chit if the objective is obtained, nor do they lose one if they fail to achieve the objective.

Example 2: When the US enters the war the Allies have the option to select one of three strategic objectives; Liberate French Algeria, Liberate Norway or Liberate Paris.

While the Allies agreed on the strategic priority of their war effort— Europe would be liberated before Asia—they deadlocked on a method of achievement. American members of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) wanted to strike at Nazi Germany with an amphibious assault from England in 1942 or 1943, thereby forcing the Germans to divert units from the east and easing pressure on the Soviet Union. But believing the American proposal premature, British CCS members favored an Allied thrust into either Norway, where a linkup with Soviet armies could be effected, or northwest Africa in conjunction with a Red Army advance to the west in Europe.

If the Allies achieve the selected operation within 12 months they receive a diplomatic chit, otherwise the Axis gains a diplomatic chit.

The results of this could be most interesting, especially if a pop-up announced the success or failure of the military operation to your opponent and the intelligence tech gave your opponent a chance to learn about your operation's objective.

Allied Recap:

Step 1: US Enters War

Step 2: Operational Choice Option Appears on that Turn

-- None (Default)

-- Norway (Objective: Oslo)

-- North Africa (Objective: Algiers)

-- France (Objective: Paris)

Step 3: Select Choice if any and assign Operational Name

Step 4: IF Objective is Selected AND Objective is achieved in 12 months then Allies gain diplomatic chit, if not then Axis gains diplomatic chit.

Axis Recap:

1. Paris Surrenders

2. Operational Choice Option appears on that Turn

-- None (default)

-- Iraqi Oil (Objective = Bagdad & Cairo)

-- England (Objective = UK Surrenders)

-- Moscow (Objective = Moscow)

-- Stalingrad (Objective = Stalingrad)

3. Select and Name Objective

4. If Objective is selected and Achieved in 12 months then Axis receives diplomatic chit, otherwise Allies receive diplomatic chit.

It should be noted that each objective is achievable within the time frame, but only if the player devotes substantial resources towards it. The benefit for acheiving an announced objective comes from the demonstration of success, the cost comes from the diplomatic and political costs associated with failing to achieve an announced objective.

Regarding Intelligence - Perhaps have the name and the objective of the operation leak out on a date based on the relative strength of the Two sides intelligence Tech. For example - Normally the objective and code name leaks out in 12 months. An enemy with tech level 1 would learn of it in 10 months, tech level 2 would learn of it in 8 months, tech level 3 would learn of it in 6 months from the date when it was selected.

[ May 10, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

This would be very cool, if done properly! Even better, how about many different small games which can be played in a couple of hours, like the France Campaign tourney. If a "point system" was made, it would be even better. Penalties for taking too many casaulties, requiring strategy at times rather than pure suicide, save the Russians

[Shaka of Carthage]

What Edwin P is proposing won't work, because of Borg economics. You sent an objective, gain your goody. Set another object, gain another goody. And so on. Success will reinforce success, not unlike the plunder bonus so many people have complained about.

What Rambo is talking about are called Victory Conditions. This way, you could create a scenario, set the Victory Conditions as part of creating the Scenario, then when the scenario ends, the computer can tell you who won. Save something like this for an future release, not part of the initial release.

[Edwin P.]

I suggested that at the Fall of Paris (for the Axis) and when the US enters the war (for the Allies) that the respective powers have the right to select an objective. These two windows would be the only time that the respective players could select an objective..

I also made these objectives somewhat difficult to achieve, especailly in light of the fact that the players at that point in time do not know the disposition of enemy forces.

[Roosevelt45]

I think this would be veeeeeery nice.

But it would be even nicer if you could set some of the conditions of the operation like time frame.If you think you can complete your objective in 6 months than you have the option to set the timeframe to 6 months.The reward will of course be bigger than if you set it to 12 months but the chance of failure will be bigger as well.

For example:

-42 months: 1 diplomatic chit

-12 months: 2 diplomatic chits

-6 moths: 4 diplomatic chits

or somthing like that.

Also I don't know about the Baghdad objective it seems to me that, even though you have to cross the Medditerranean,it's a lot easier than the UK or Moscow objective.

[Norse]

Cool idea Edwin!

[SeaMonkey]

Like I said Edwin, we need the event editor ala TOAW. The "if", "then" scenario could be configured to deliver a reward for a certain accomplishment.

[ev]

I agree that great success should have some sort of diplomatic reward. However, I would structure it a bit differenty:

First, there should be a diplomatic penalty for invading a neutral country. It should be a large penalty, but, it should vary from country to country.

Second, when the invading powe subdues the neutral party, there should be a bonus for finally taking over the neutral country. This bonus should be small. There should be a net diplomatic loss for invading a country even if the invasion is successfull.

Third, if the country is subdued in a lighting Blitzkrieg, there should be a second bonus. What constitutes "lighting" would have to vary from country to country (say 2 turns for Poland, 1 turn for Benelux, 1 turn for Norway, etc.). The total bonus received from a lighting conquest should still be less than the diplomatic cost for invading the country in the first place.

The initial diplomatic penalty for invading a country should be much larger than the bonus for conquering it. The bonus for taking over a country only reduces the diplomatic cost of invading a neutral country. Of course, the worse diplomatic outcome is to invade and never conquer.

Fourth, The capture of key cities or ports should cause a small diplomatic bonus to the capturing party and/or a small diplomatic loss to the party that lost that city.

Fifth: Germany should receive a diplomatic bonus in the event Russia declares war on Germany. But, the opposite should take place if Germany is the offending party.