Muddy Global and Real Global

[masterclaude]

Hello to all the 4 stars Generals out there! Here, it’s masterclaude just passing by. Hope you all enjoy your summer including those stuck in the southern hemisphere on a beach with nice ladies or with penguins. I’m taking the opportunity here to talk about my Mod Giant Conflict and the much awaited Real Global coming very likely this year on the SC2 platform. First of all, I haven’t got much feeback from the forum itself about Giant Conflict maybe because Weapons&Warfare mods seem to be already museum relics . Not that sure( 116 downloaded so far) because from what I have seen over the past years in multiple threads , SC2W&W is still the standard by which we can gauge overall progress in the Serie. Plus, SC Blitzkrieg and W&W are the best sold ones so I felt a Global mod would reach more people in this respect. I’m also contemplating a conversion to SC2Blitzkrieg because the 1.09 Global is very basic, too much to my taste. I dont think I go for a conversion upward to PDE or PTO though.. We already got good Global mods with Big AI Brute force and Nupremal World Pacific one. I followed over the months their serious efforts to get things right with unrelenting experimentation and correction , a tremendous work modders like me do appreciate for its own value no matter what the result could be. ( It’s a pity , I have not played Nupremal Global . Well, exploring the PTO Demo, I was impressed by the agressiv, efficient AI and the non-stop action but in the end the game did not appeal much to me mainly because I disagree with some design decision like geographic disproportion , unlimited supply for moving fleets, unrealistic fleet radius vs Time span, etc, some of which can be fixed through the editor but the 29 countries slot only is sort of a fun breaker for modders looking beyond the Z scenario .) That said PTO brought interesting stuff, but it does not change fundamentals of the game or gameplay for all practical purpose. I passed my turn.

Knowing the Real Global is in advanced stage, I don’t feel like converting my mod to PTO either. Real Global will make our mods obsolete to some point so for the benefits of you guys with only Blitz and W&W SC2 copies I may complete Giant Conflict in september. As it is now, I must admit my mod has many problems with scripts firing wildly and some other crucial events that fire just once in a while. It`s still playable if you are patient (average 10 minutes per AI turn) and is defenitely fun with a real opponent ( mine got tired though, he had been testing it with me for 5 months!( He said: Complete it damn it and I will come back! Having me stopping in a middle of a game for modification finally drove him crazy))

Real Global is not yet at the doorstep but they are working real hard to deliver an enhanced and , most of all, playable Global campaign for SC2 (not SC3 which is, apparently, a different project not for a near future). Against old wise opinion, making a new stand- alone wargame takes time essentially because of thorough playtesting and constant touch-ups, not working on the general design per se.

That RealGlobal is somewhat tricky for sure as I assume the present game engine cannot handle more layers of code and scripts without making game turns too long and buggy.(so the need for a SC3 engine) If you know about programing in general and Eifel software specifically , you understand you cannot make things Very big and Very complex at the same time. There is a point of diminushing returns. Too many variables often freeze lots of mechanism or spark off weird, unwanted behavior of the game. You must cut corners here and there or even sometimes put down theses walls painfully erected a month ago. Same thing with the detailed frame of the game where adding new units , new functions, new interactions , (Diplomacy and political status, to name few, will be more flexible hence needing a lot more coding, with additionnal contries- 58 minors so far instead of 38) leads to inextricable mess so there is no other way, considering time, money and resources reasonably assignable for such a product, than going small with a cautious step by step approach. Had we a team of 30 programmers with a million dollar budget , I guess we could have all theses special requests repeatedly popping up in this forum, treated and shaped in a playable manner for SC. It is not the case but we have almost something as good with Mr. Cater who is among the most dedicated designer in the Wargame circles. That counts and make SC more attractive because , we know, will and dedication matter as much as knowledge and expertise when it’s time to bring and keep a wargame up to fan expectations. Besides, Mr Cater seems to be very focused and, judging by his timely interventions, knows how to sort out relevant additions without concession to one current of thinking or another.

Polarized opinions about what a good wargame should be have always been around, I could summarize this in few words: Fun and Playability VS Realism and Accuracy Mind you, we, wargamers are not always realistic when we ask for realism in our game. Realism is a subtle concept within the particular wargame environment that obviously needs clarification if we look at what people implied by that in all wargames tribunes. ( I will expand on that someday. )

As it is, in the real world , we need income to make a living, so wargame designers as well.. I understand why realism maniacs like me are pushing for a game with more depth closer to the holy grail WW2 game total simulation we have been dreaming of since the beginning of SPI and Avalon hills board game. I understand but I do not endorse it for SC nor believe in it - at least for the next decade – even though new software can show up but don’t be too optimistic, software is one thing, having the guys who could put such a game together is another thing . Stop by WiFlame forum at Matrix, you’ll see what I mean, they have my blessing ( not my faith), I wish them good luck anyway!

So where am I heading for? The first major requirement of a game is : good selling prospect. It means SC2 GLOBAL will not be a revolution and cannot be. On the other hand, making sure Battlefront keeps a good pool of customers for the SC serie helps everyone even realism maniacs who might be disappointed ( like I was a bit with PTO since I wanted more changes) with a not so daring design. The truth is realism partisans are just a very noisy fraction of the wargamers out there. 80% of gamers, at least, do not bother much with facts like : this country would not have been able to build Heavy Bomber or did not have any port for Capital ships or was almost starving in 43 and so on. They want the Illusion of realism with proper OBB and units moving and fighting at will ( which was not the case, far from it . In Operational Art of Warfare by Koger, sometime half of your troops do not respond anymore because, as you kwow, their C3I is too poor or repeated battles had made them too weak. But even that game cannot be tagged realistic. Toaw has been around for more than 10 years, note it down! ) My point is the official game should and must be easy to learn and play , eventually, reaching most of the crowd that makes this business viable, BUT the Editor should give an alternative to the grognards. That is why I have only small ( Ok, BIG, I know) requests for the Editor not the game itself

- Make resources customable so we can set a village, a port, etc to the exact maximum supply source level we want. A port could then be no bigger than 2 or 3 or 4 as anyone see fit while another port could be at 6. Picture this: Tobruk at 3, Benghazi at 4, Tripoli at 5, Alexandria at 8. Much more realistic constraints

- Setting transport and amphibious transport accordingly. We could set the maximum transport or amphibious transport allowable per each port point level. So a level 3 port could only send or receive a 3 points transport or if we want set it at 2 transport points per level. Then that level 3 port could receive or send a 6 points transport. Same thing with amphibious . Ports could have separated settings for both transport and amphibious.

- Disband unit on a one point basis. Then having the choice of taking that fixed or random % of MPP in exchange or that strength point to reinforce another unit of the same type.

- Put a maximum point replenisment per turn for any unit. So, in one turn that type of unit could be reinforced up to that specified amount only ( would be fine - although harder to code - if it is set on a country basis with the unit Edit combat target data ) For instance, a fleet can then be reinforced each turn by 2 points only even in full supply.

- Maximum operationnal moves distance customable or/ and Transportation point with an MPP cost and a country limit per turn. For instance, Italy could get up to 45 transportation points in a turn, China 25, India 35, etc. Unused points could not be accumulated. ( I know you are working that one out)

Every one has its list. As time goes by, mine gets hopelessly longer and longer. So I just put it aside and dream of the Real Global with whatever improvements you guys in Heaven prepare for us. I have learned to be down to earth but i never stopped dreaming . Sure the Gods are kind !

Masterclaude

[SeaMonkey]

Ahhh masterclaude you definitely have the attributes of a wargaming master, my compliments on your insight and a very interesting post. Since you seem to know something about programming, in your opinion what is the best language to develop the global wargame with?

I'm in agreement with many of your ideas, they are the basis for the wargame foundation and I'm also in your realm of feelings about MWiF. I'm really sorry they didn't take the advantages of the virtual CPU engine and software to make a game that is based more on the spirit of WiF rather than the actual boardgame presentation. Too bad!

Anyway I wanted to express my appreciation on your global efforts and also my disappointment that you didn't move on to the PT improvements, but I understand why you didn't, the still looming limitations. One thing though, I think PT needs someone(I wish I had the time) to develop a truly balanced campaign(no matter that its not realistic) for Japan and Allies to game with. I believe SC in its current PT form is fully capable to deliver and I had hoped scottsmm would complete his endeavor as he was on the right track.

I know you have a problem with the geographical indiscretions of PT but I'm sure you understand why the islands have to made in their present configuration given there is no stacking and the limitations of amphibious assaults. Still, it seems a man with your abilities would be well served to produce the "Japanese High Water Mark" campaign for us many patrons to test your obvious extensive developmental skills. Sure would be nice if someone would come up with something that would allow at least an even chance of either side's success instead of the presently skewed OpZ campaign. Currently the Japanese player is hard pressed to make the same gains that were historical and the game features make the outer islands irrelevant, best they start as significant with the Japanese already in possession.

Anyway good luck with your WaW world campaign, surely it'll be better than the one that came with the expansion.

[Bill101]

Currently the Japanese player is hard pressed to make the same gains that were historical

Hi SeaMonkey, I'm intrigued and interested to know more here because I've never found it very hard to achieve Japan's historical achievements, and neither have my opponents.

Obviously results vary from game to game, and the Burma/India theater is the one place where the Japanese can be a bit slow taking ground (though some players have told me otherwise, so maybe it's my own strategy that's at fault!) but do you find it elsewhere too? Can you be a bit more specific on where you find Japan gets bogged down?

Not wanting to hijack this thread feel free to either start another or email me at Bill@furysoftware.com. Thanks!

[pzgndr]

- Make resources customable

- Setting transport and amphibious transport accordingly

Not sure how customizable these could be, but hopefully a properties feature could allow you to set parameters for individual resources? For ports, a "size" parameter allowing for how many transport actions (load or unload) are possible. And if a port is captured or bombed, it would take time to increase to max capacity. This would prevent players from capturing a port and immediately transporting in an entire army group!

- Put a maximum point replenisment per turn for any unit

Not sure I agree with this unless some other things are done. Yes it often seems that units can be reinforced too quickly. But on the other hand, trying to add elite reinforcements 1 per turn takes forever, and the AI might just sit there slowly reinforcing and not doing much. There are tradeoffs to consider. One idea may be to reconsider the generic formulas where supply >5 allows reinforcement to 10+. Something like:

Supply Strength

>8 10+

>5 8

5 7

4 6

3 5

2 4

1 3

0 Cannot

[SeaMonkey]

Hey B101, I think it is a bit more of the Japanese having to make the tough decision whether to spread out into the islands or put heavy pressure on the Chinese, seems a no-brainer for me, its the Chinese strategy.

I'm sure that if there was some relevancy to taking New Guinea, Celebes, Bismarks and Solomons, etc. then maybe it would be achievable without the Chinese escapades. Thing is China gives the Japanese player a good theater to get plenty of experience for his combat units, the islands don't. There are good returns for Chinese operations and to a lesser degree, Burma and India, but weather and supply can be such a hinderance it is just not realistic to pursue the India escapades.

Don't get me wrong Bill, I think the campaign plays historical, but I know what happened historically and its fun for a few games to play the Japanese until the newness wears off. Then, well you know how us players are, we long for something else, something a little more gamey, something that both sides can pursue in conquest mode, albeit unhistorical, but in the context of WW2 Pacific theater.

Course its just my opinion, rest assured not everyone shares it, and you are to be commended for a good historical representation in OpZ. Its just we have the hindsight and its not as much fun knowing you're going to pummeled on the defense for the latter half of the game.

[Bill101]

Thanks SeaMonkey. Hopefully the next patch will provide some more pleasure then!

[masterclaude]

Hello Seniors! Here it’s masterclaude leaving at the moment until next saturday. Keep that thread alive as you wish with whatever stir up the hornet nest provided we get some enlightment here ( even if it hurts!). I am glad we have 3 other high performance brains for the race.

I will answer in due order to each of you.

First of all , few words for Sir Sea Monkey. Thanks for your appreciation. You certainly overestimate me! ( you can, I don’t mind). Talking of a new engine and programming langage, I must state this first: I am not a professional although I spend lots of time with them since many friends of mine work for Ubisoft as game developers so I am kind of immersed in those discussions whether I want it or not – huum, frankly I had never liked the computer era but dinosaurs got extinct, you know so I had to adapt in my own way to this new world, not easy though to use a keybord with tyranosaurus fingers.

Years ago, I tried to make my own game with some of the developmemt tools available out there with tutorials and guidelines. I am afraid you wont see my name in any game credits. I hardly managed to get something a bit like SC1 but it made me realized a part of the challenge in building a new game engine or a design.

Actually any good programmer can use almost any language to some good as long as he has defined the scope and complexity he wants for his game. Some languages are better for some tasks but there is more involved. For instance, what is your time table? 2D or 3D? How big or accessible is the library for your language? Libraries are real time-savers. It’s more or less having a Home Depot store across the street when your building your house without the need to go out in a forest cut your trees et prepares your pieces of wood by yourself

C++ is a standard in game industry but projects would require considerably more time to build up than using Eiffel for instance. By the way, you can download Eiffel studio for free and see by yourself its possibility. My friends said it is a wonderful, friendly-user development tool but they have issues with language compatibility or memory use. I don’t think Mr. Cater would made the jump and almost start from the scratch with C++ since he can use Eiffel right away but, for an expanded more complex SC3, he will have to rework deeply his game engine down to the basement. Then again , it’s a business decision. Is there a market for a sophisticated wargame that could justify another minimal 3 years of coding slavery? Well, it’s up to him but I will take what he gives for I trust its skills and, as I previously underlined, its focus.

Now, what about this controversial Z! I would cowardly say no more work on mod for me at this point ( still an 100 hours to put on Giant Conflict). I want precisions on Fury next game (Global campaign, as everything point out, although they are working on something else too, maybe within the same package?) which announcement or some official news should be around next month. Then, I will move on to another mod, Z or a smaller theater.

As the question of balancing that scenario in PTO, (I have not played it , but played a lot of pacific wargames including the recent Admiral Edition), we are crossing that fuzzy frontier that separates an historical wargame with any fictionnal open-free scenario. Obviously, Japan could not stop the US military might after 43 nor go further than its 42 high water mark no matter the adjustement or cheats we introduce in this scenario. A poor Allied player may allowed ( to its dismay) India or China conquest and even a landing in Hawai but it is absolutely unrealistic from any side we look at it. Moreover, Japan ALREADY got a boosted army and navy in PTO –Z.

Let me bring few facts out:

- The imperial fleet , although well trained fighters, had no substancial logistic capacity for long term operation. The fleet was so old that one third of its units, even BEFORE PH, had to be modernized, repaired or patched one way or the other while the naval industry could not deliver even the minimal merchant ships tonnage needed to keep Japan domestic AND war economy rolling . In brief, 1941 Japan is a sinking country( huge debts, goods and raw material penury , even food problems) before any Doolittle bombers came over. PH was a desperate – not too clever- attempt to take advantage of Allied problems in Europe. At the time, maybe it made sense because the whole world expected Russia to collapse soon. Bad calculation!

- The japanese outer perimeter strategy was doomed from the start as it gave US planners that attrition war Japan could not stand for long and easy isolated targets they can pounder with a huge numerical superiority. What strategy then? When PTO came out, I read a thread where gentlemen debate about the feasibility of an Hawai invasion. Let me tell you this: unless Americans would have simply got out of the way or use slingshots, even with the best weather, the best timing, with the entire IJN on support, NO landing party could have stayed there more than a month or 2 before its annihilation. Supply lane simply too long, see what happened at Guadalcanal much closer to japanese main bases? Same thing for Australia. As far as PTO is concerned, holding island is almost useless except as staging bases for risky if not suicidal advance eastward with no mpp gain.

- As the Co-prosperity sphere incorporated more countries and nationalities it became clear Japan lacked even the minimal engineering staff and equipment to put to good use those new resources or even soldiers to garrison these thousands square miles of shores, cities, ports, mines, road, etc. Too much too fast. Better political deals with colonized nations might have helped and relieved Japan a bit- namely with extra manpower or local militia (maybe some political scripts could be added for that matter) . Anyway, Japan could not repulse any concerted, well planned counter-attack for long. Allied clumsiness made more for the Sun Empire resistance than anything!

It would take 10 pages just to mention Japan shortness in various technical areas but I understand that, for game purpose, we give the Japan player some munition and extra guns. So, balancing the scenario? What I did in Giant conflict may help, at least as a reference, to explore more options.

One main problem many diagnosed in SC2 is logistic. Yes, it is great to be able to move units around but in real life they have logistic tail. That is why outer islands meant something in WW2.

Having the fleet spending supply each turn would have been better and getting island ports activated through scripts (plus full scortch earth) would mean US advance significantly slowed down. Then, you can increase fleets move rate and THEN the japanese forces can be spread quickly as far as their 42 High Water mark before Allies could react. Nothing but History

Another point is China forces and commitment in the war. After PH, Nationalist and communist troops were pretty passiv, keeping static positions, turning the whole theater into a guerilla fight not much threatening for Japanese occupation. Sporadic activities all over the front resulted in battles casualties seldom amounting to less than few hundreds a week for japanese. Not exactly a big drain. In PTO, China units seems to be stronger than what they had been in WW2 so it might be appropriate to squeeze them a bit. In Giant Conflict I turned Chinese armies mostly in militia-partisan weak units, numerous but not very dangerous.

Finally the outcome of the Pacific struggle was actually decided in Europe. Axis progress in Europe could have been the only break for japanese forces. A more ferocious and expensive Atlantic Battle for the Allies way past march 43 would have made a sizable difference in the number of ships (merchant too) deployed in the Pacific. More than anything, though, the amphibious allied limited capacity meant that any landing disaster in Europe would have changed the whole pacific advance schedule. Some Event script could do the trick. It is one of the reasons I was asking for a limited transportation point system or port system to make sure an allied player would not launch an Okinawa a D-D operation every 4 turns.

It brings me to Pzgndr answer whose advice is always welcome and studied carefully. You know the golden rule when bargaining: ask more so you get what you want by giving up on something marginal.

Well, to say the truth, if we can get what you foresee as a possibility I am more than happy! I would just be more precise with the replenisment point limit. I don’t prone a one point limit but an upper limit ( any) that could be specified through the editor for

A) ALL units or

EACH type of units ( whether customable on a country basis or not)

But, you are right, The easiest most logical way to obtain some similar effects would be changing sligthly the supply point vs resource point table as you suggest.

Ok! Got to go! Hope you have good time next week , gentlemen, and while you are meditating on this fascinating world of units and tiles, well, don’t forget to kiss good night to your wife!

Masterclaude away for a week

[SeaMonkey]

Enjoy your week MC and I never forget my #1 priority, "the kiss". As far as overestimating you, possibly, but in comparison to most people, sans our forum members, you have a very good grasp of WW2 history, especially the underpinnings.

Bill101 I'm sure I'll be most pleased with any new patch, like I always have, just hope it allows more than a few H to H encounters before its novelty wears off. One thing I will have to give credit to our old forum buddy Terif for, is that he knew about replayability, he understood the balance and the nature of providing a playing field for multiple strategies. It would be nice to see his stamp of approval on a "what if" PT campaign, no matter that it strays wildly from what was actually possible.

One of the things the Japanese military hierarchy had hoped for was to cause enough casualties and war weariness for the Allies so that they would offer a conditional end to hostilities. Of course with some of the atrocities and especially the "sneak" nature of PH attack that was not to be, but it might be a good set of conditions for Japan to pursue in that "what if" campaign. Not sure how that can be accomplished with the present game engine but eventually I know our SC team will work something out.

I have such great faith in you guys, I'm a witness to the progress that is just short of amazing for this series. In 7 years I have yet to be disappointed and I'll probably be around for another seven as long as things continue on the path of the past.:cool:

[scottsmm]

SeaMonkey, don’t worry I've decided to take up the challenge of designing this type of scenario again. The only thing that I need is for people to give me a little help with a simple question. Why in the world can I not download my own god damn mod and have it work correctly in the editor? Is it because almost all the work was done on it by v 1.00 and 1.01, and I currently have v 1.02? The problem that I keep encountering is the editor crashes on me with a message saying "cannot find unit scripts blah blah", but when I type unit in the start search, guess what comes up... and not only that but those unit scripts are perfect, no errors which would cause the problem were found by me.

Note I play tested my almost finished product 4 times and I played on Expert +1 experience twice for each side. I ended up getting 4 major victories. So based on that I feel like I designed a fair mod for both sides. Major victory scripts are the same thing for Japan as a tactical victory, and for the Allies it's getting Japan to surrender by Aug 15th, and if the Allies managed to get Japan to surrender no later than Jan 1st 1945 then the Allies would get a decisive victory. Considering the fact I made Japan a formidable opponent I don't think many people would be able to achieve this, unless they were totally reckless and EXTREMELY lucky.