SC3, the layer of uncertainty

[SeaMonkey]

This is the obvious thread for posting your ideas regarding FoW, and to some extent decision events can have that effect also. Somehow we need to create a condition that has somewhat of a neutralizing factor for our hindsight knowledge of WW2 if we want to simulate the apprehension that the political and military leaders must have felt.

Among other ideas, I want to throw something out there that has the possibility of changing the initiative, kind of like the bump up of units' morale and readiness when a nation has performed successful invasions. This will be a bit different though, remember the VPs inherent in the capture of locations proposed in the 1st layer thread? Could that be linked to an initiative change and what exactly would the effect be?

Do you ever find yourself growing tiresome of the SC early game, you know...Poland, Denmark, LC, Norway, France, USSR, etc. How about the Germans always going first? What if a player could change the order by gaining the initiative, have two turns in a row or at least a second limited turn. How about select a commander's Army Group to receive the extra offensive incentive, purchased with MPPs, sort of an offensive chit, something at a player's discretion to use when he wants, dependant on other layers, interactive.

Think about it!

[pzgndr]

FOW should provide a chance for bad/inaccurate intel. Partially spotted units could have say a 5% chance of displaying a similar but different unit type:eg, infantry instead of armor, fighter instead of tac bomber, etc. Of course, once you move to attack you'd see the correct unit information, but having some chance of being surprised would be nice.

I still play CM and appreciate this feature. Often my guys will spot a Tiger tank and that gets me thinking (or panicking) about how to deal with it, and then it turns out to be a Pz IV or Panther and I rethink my plans. Minor thing, but adds something to a game.

[Big Al]

There are some things you can shift and others you cant and the game remains WW2. I tend to think that shifting an imporant event (that is not a game breaker) to have a balanced advantage/disadvantage is the best way to do it.

For example I have in my mod the Winter War decision.

If USSR doesnt fight it there is no 100% 1st severe winter but Finland doesnt come in.

If USSR DOES fight the winter war then some units get experience, they do get the 1st severe winter, and they increase their mobilization.

Its an example of taking something that matters and gave it 2 options that impact the game to change the normal.

But there are some things that break the game or make it complete fiction that really you cant add.

Like you can add Turkey or Spain coming into the axis side if certain extreme conditions are met that mimic reality but you have to balance it with something else.

Like if the German's successfully invade UK then Spain activates, but then the USA also comes in much more early.

But manipulating something like the USSR-German pact... well I cant see how it would work.

Or having Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria be a USSR ally. That would be a fantasy scenario because the USSR was the only communist state and none of the others were.

One idea might give some options about what kind of units are built at start pre-game. Give Germany the option to have more subs, more air, or more ships built at start but not something unbalancing.

[david12345]

This is the obvious thread for posting your ideas regarding FoW, and to some extent decision events can have that effect also. Somehow we need to create a condition that has somewhat of a neutralizing factor for our hindsight knowledge of WW2 if we want to simulate the apprehension that the political and military leaders must have felt.

Among other ideas, I want to throw something out there that has the possibility of changing the initiative, kind of like the bump up of units' morale and readiness when a nation has performed successful invasions. This will be a bit different though, remember the VPs inherent in the capture of locations proposed in the 1st layer thread? Could that be linked to an initiative change and what exactly would the effect be?

Do you ever find yourself growing tiresome of the SC early game, you know...Poland, Denmark, LC, Norway, France, USSR, etc. How about the Germans always going first? What if a player could change the order by gaining the initiative, have two turns in a row or at least a second limited turn. How about select a commander's Army Group to receive the extra offensive incentive, purchased with MPPs, sort of an offensive chit, something at a player's discretion to use when he wants, dependant on other layers, interactive.

Think about it!

My memories are fading, haven't played 3rd Reich in over 20 years, but..

3rd Reich accomplished this by having whoever had the most money go first for the year. At the end of the year, the remaining money (money not spent) is factored into the growth rate of the country (each country has a static growth rate that never changes). So the more money you saved during the year, the more your new base for the following year would be. So the last turn of each year and the first turn of the next year, you could have a flip and someone would go twice in a row. In practice, the axis would go first the first several years, then as the USA and Russian money comes in, at some point there would be a flop. The would help the allies gain the initiative.

example: Germans base 200 mpp, growth rate .50

Left over money at end of year: 100

100 x .50 = 50

new base = 250.

now add all conquered territories, etc. for the total.

You add up the UK, Rus., USA and compare to the Ger. Jap. money. Highest total goes first for the year.

Of course these numbers are just for example.

Sounds complicated, but really simple.

[SeaMonkey]

You guys are on it! Exactly right Big Al, there must be pros and cons, the decision should never be clear cut and Bill.....well convince Hubert,... your FoW scenario is spot on, but we really need to re-examine the whole SC naval scene for disclosure and chance engagements not to mention different mission oreintations. But that'll come later, I'd like to try the SoP demo........anyone??? feedback from using the seazones, perhaps in addition to a tile/hex format?

One thing I'd like to add is some doctrinal decisions at the beginning of the game for each belligerent to follow, or emphasize, perhaps having an effect on selective research programs they'd like to initiate.

[Nupremal]

I would suggest that intelligence allow a greater chance of mis-matching the unit, and they could also allow a % chance to get a free deception unit, which you would not see until you were next to it.

[Big Al]

For naval I proposed a system of coastal and deep sea hexes to Hubert but I came up with another easier idea.

Make all naval units invisible, like subs, but give each a chance to be spotted. Intel is only used when the units is not near an enemy base.

But you can say...

Base 0% to be spotted (outside intel)

near an enemy base: +10% to be spotted

near an enemy base with a land unit: +20% to be spotted

within range of an air units: +50% -5% per hex away from air units

within range of an carrier: +75% -5% per hex away from units

within range of an BB,CA,DD: +30% -5% per hex away from unit

within range of an SS: +15% -5% per hex away from unit

But it could take a lot of CPU time.

Or simple as.

Check if naval unit has enemy naval/air unit within range (25% base within X hexes if check is yes)

YES

+5% spot per enemy naval unit counted

+10% spot per enemy air unit counted

+20% spot per enemy CV counted

NO

does not appear on map

I incorporated evasion in my mod for ships to simulate missed spots, missed targets, CV planes missing their target and so on.

But the system is pretty good as is, you can get quite creative making scenarios. I know I pulled rabbits out of the hat for mine with ideas I came up with and through sharing with Nupremal.

[SeaMonkey]

This is probably not the appropriate thread but I'd like to know how many Allied players actually commit the UK to the Battle of France? Here's where I'm going, since France does not survive the Summer of 40 in most games, it is not unusual for the UK to only assist with peripheral units like air and naval and not risk land units like the BEF.

What I'm proposing is there should be some mechanism, likely a diplomatic hit to the Allied cause, if there isn't a ground commitment to the continent by UK forces. Like at least a Tank, Army and Corps with HQ support, subject to a variable diplomatic adjustment to the other minor/majors leanings not fully involved.

Maybe a VP(victory point)condition if France survives beyond the historical surrender date or some other Summer dateline of 1940. Think about this, potential allies/adversaries witness the alliance of France and UK as lip service and the UK commitment to potential future allies as just that. Seems like a big hit to take to your diplomatic prowess?

[Wushuki]

A possible way to make the start of the game more unpredictable and varied is by adding a "build-up" phase before the game starts. This is a special kind of turn in which the player is presented with a number of choices he can make regarding the start of the game. He is presented with 3 kinds of choices he has to make:

1. Technologies and unit purchase choices.
   
2. Unit placement choices.
   
3. One or several decision events that he has to reply to that determine later decision events and/or other things.
   

To start out with the first item on the list. The game gives you a list of all technologies and tells you to spend an X amount of resources on technologies. The first Y amount of technologies that you click get researched instantly, the next Z amount get a chit invested in it, but are not researched instantly.

Then it presents you with a list of units and an amount of MPP that you can spend on them, the player selects for example 3 corpses, 3 tanks (with upgrades), 1 HQ, 2 cruisers and so on.

Obviously this might lead to some balance issues. If cruisers and battleships are not as good as carriers for example, players might decide to just get carriers and destroyers. These balance issues are not impossible to deal with however and can be solved in a variety of ways. Some examples:

• A number of units can already be bought at the start of the game, this way players will still get cruisers and battleships.
  
• Each unit of the same type bought can be more expensive than the last, so that players cannot get away with buying the same type of unit massively.
  
• Prices may be different from standard prices, cruisers could be made a bit cheaper in the build-up phase for example and carriers more expensive.
  
• A certain amount of MPP has to be spend on the navy / airforce or land force and cannot be spend on other unit types. A nation could be forced to spend 1500 MPP on sea units for example.
  

Besides these other balancing measures can easily be thought of. The point is that it is perfectly well possible to make up some rules that prevent players from making the "one best choice" that might arise from allowing players to determine their own starting army. Because the point of this build-up phase is to allow the player to pursue different strategies from the start and to make this phase less predictable, not to give the player the best possible army in the beginning of the game.

Once the technology and army has been selected, you can place it where you would like it. The allied player might decide to place the BEF in Egypt, rather than in Britain or he might choose to place his entire fleet in the UK. Restrictions can again be applied as necessary, some units might already be placed, some placement areas may only contain a certain amount of untis.

Finally, the game can present you with start-up decision events. It is best to actually do this before the other phases, but the other phases had to be explained first. Decision events could be things like "Should we focus on Poland or on France first?". They might determine future decision events, allowed starting placement locations, starting technology and unit MPP, starting technology and unit restrictions and so on.

If correctly implemented this could open up a near infinite variety of openings and will make each game different from the very first turn. There are of course risks involved and potential balance issues to be resolved, but these are managable and, as I have shown above, can be dealt with in a variety of ways.

[SeaMonkey]

Outstanding suggestions Wushuki, Days of Decisions scenario, I really like it, but you know the historical advocates will not be so cozy with the idea as you and I. Your post makes me think like the original Risk game in which each player takes an army and places it on the map and the placement continues in sequence until all the countries are taken.

I'm thinking of a modification where each player, and SC3 must be optional multiplayers per side, selects a unit in sequence known to the other players so that the opportunity to counter is possible, research remains secretive. After the first player, the next player gets 2 selections, everyone else one and on the next round the third player gets two selections and so on and so forth until all forces have been filled out to the pre-approved deployment levels.

[Wushuki]

It could be considered historical in the sense that it represents a start years before the actual invasion of Poland. During this time it was possible to develop the army into several directions. Part of the army was in place at that time already of course, which is represented by the units that are already placed on the map. As I stated above, the game can have many units that are already bought and/or placed and give you only a development choice for a part of them. Above I presented this as a balancing rule, but it might as well work for historical purposes.

This system would be preferable to actually starting the game before the invasion of Poland as that might lead to some horribly boring first turns.

[Kuniworth]

Back in black

I hit the sack

It's great to be back!

I've been let loose

from the noose

that kept me hanging around!

So now I'm back again. I see there are some discussions of sc3 going on, that's great that people start discussing this. We all know the benefits of the sc2 engine, now we like it formed into sc3.

The unpredictability you talk about Seamonkey is pretty much taken care of if you cvan evolve the political game. Putting chits in for different country is a way bit too simplified to simulate the 1930s-1940s. If the political diplomacy could get more attention it would lead to more interesting games.

As far as intelligence etc goes, the main principle should be to keep it simple. The more predictable combat is the more liekly we will get back the old chess feel of sc1. Focus should be on strategy rather than luck.

[aesopo]

PLEASE PLEASE make the engine capable of taking advantage of multiple cores, faster hardrives, ram and video memory in order for complicated scenarios to run faster.

SCROLLING ZOOM IN & OUT this would be very sweet

HEXES please

COORDINATED ATTACKS - please allow for coordinated attacks/defense of multiple units

game attack/defense mechanics right now still feels like beer and pretzels type

ALLOW FOR BREAKTHROUGH ATTACKS AND DEFENSIVE SUPPORT

[SeaMonkey]

Ahhh a blast from the past, welcome back Kuni, did you bring Rambo with you? Exactly right Kuni, diplomacy is really the axiom that evolves the equation, but I would like to see it involve unit deployments among other things.

A large deployment of combat units on ones border has a way of getting your attention, perhaps being antagonistic as well as humbling. Could depend on your own(major) military position or your secretive agreements with the neutral nation being exposed to strong arm tactics, all add to the unknown levels.

Aesopo.....agreed, especially the zoom feature and as far as the unit interactions, just wait, that layer will be the biggest departure from our present notions of SC. No longer will there be one or two strike parameters as the amount of combat will be AP driven, saving APs, going to other units, coming back and using the remainder APs later.

Just remember there are gormet versions of "Beer & Pretzels"

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for starting these threads SeaMonkey and all the posts gentlemen.

I'm keeping a close eye on these and will post some feedback when needed but in the meantime I am definitely listening

Hubert

[aesopo]

A great tweak would be the development of HQ skills-promotions-

such as desert combat/fox (15% defense and attack in desert area)

blitz extra movement exploitation

rugged defense, etc.

guerilla warfare, trench warfare, ace, wolfpack, fleet operations, etc.

HQs should be divided into army, air force, navy and corresponding units attached to the HQ. Air units can be attached to an army HQ in close air support role (Sounds complicated).

If a HQ has a unit engaged in a particular operation repeatedly, it is given that the HQ would benefit from the experience learnt.

There should be generals assigned to units that also earn these promotions. They can be reassigned to different units and promoted to HQs.

[Colin I]

Kuni mentioned political diplomacy. indeed, we need a political model that underlies war entry and other major decisions. Right now there are crude triggers, if A happens then B has X% chance per turn, etc. One problem with these is sometimes they are not based on history. e.g. Fall of France triggers other events where it is really being used as an indicator that opening moves are complete, not that the Fall of France would have had that effect directly. Vichy is entirely reasonable, some other events are really using this trigger as a convenience. Secondly, they are too predictable leading to gamey strategies by those that read the scripts.

Somehow the game must define each nation and what events threaten or placate it, what the consequences are. This could be more sophisticated conditional scripting but an underlying political model would be better. One thing is that currently nations lean to Axis or Allies, but you really want at least four indicators in Europe alone: Democracy, Fascist, Communist, Isolationist/Independent. So, early in the war US would have moderate D, low F and C and quite high I scores. I would decline and D grow in most cases. Germany obviously committed to F. A country like Finland has the drive to I but can switch between other alignments as it did. Finland with high F joins Axis BUT maintains quite high I which might allow it to switch sides later.

When nations interact a high alignment in F, C or D promotes cooperation. If I is high then it might be trade or concessions. If I is low then entry into the war as an ally is possible. Diplomats can target one of F, C, D or I. You can choose the direction you want to influence it, make a target nation less or more isolationist, for example.

[Snowstorm]

Yes indeed, seems like most of the old guard suddenly coming alive out of nowhere....gee, wouldn't have anything to do with it being a SC3 thread, now would it? Now if I can find a way to get JerseyJohn's attention...

Hexes and more diplomacy options are my vote. Diplomacy seems to need to have a greater effect on the game than it does in its present form.

Another idea would be to link a campaign from WWII to the Korean War with new and improved diplomacy ability...:cool:

[SeaMonkey]

To expand on some of Wushuki's ideas, what if before the game starts each player could choose between approximately 5 different doctrines/strategic goals.

For instance; 1. Germany decides that the UK will be their foremost war opponent and follows Admiral Donitz's plan to isolate them with a large submarine force and contest the RN's control of the seas.

2. Again, UK first priority, but Germany embarks upon a strategic bombing campaign to neutralize the Brits.

3. Germany decides to employ diplomacy gaining Polish help to attack the Soviet Union along with Balkins and Baltic states' assistance, emphasis on the ground forces.

4. Germany decides for a Western European initiative, attacking LC, Denmark, Norway, France and perhaps Spain to gain strategic deployments to cut off UK with submarines and LR air campaign.

5. Germany goes west with amphibious and air assault doctines to subdue France first followed by Sealion.

Each choice would be accompanied by a unique OOB deployment, research and starting diplomatic positions.

[Minty]

This Pre Game build up idea of Wushuki could also have diplo effects per Kuni's point. Want to build lots of Destroyers and keep the RN in the Atlantic , fine but withou a minimum commitment to Singapore then Australia doesn't join immediately. If Japan wants a larger surface fleet and commits fewer starting troops to China then it can do but USN will be larger to reflect congress approving a large pre war naval budget etc. USSR doesn't want to station troops in on Border with Poland then fine but expect Eastern europe countries to swing to Axis faster. DE send troops Zhukov to Asis NO - you get a to keep the MPPS and units in Moscow but mongolia swings towards Japan.

I'm not sure if this would work best as build up phase with a mega production round (say you start with 5000MPP and get to place the units ) or a series of each side having 6 ot 7 major DE events. eg built the BEF and sent it to Eygpt. If not then France doesn not declare war when Poland is invaded and only mobilises later. Us want to invest in Naval warfare to start the game on level 2 , fine but it will cost you 500MPP.

This is not just to add complexity. I'm an SC addict and have pretty much played PBEM everyday for the last 4 or 5 years. What is very frustrating is the first few turns where it is all the same and it takes until mid 40 for any strategic directional changes to bear fruit.

Now the risk is that is lots of DE are taken in one direction (Eg totally invest in kreigsmarine and expense of Army) then the game could get unbalanced really qickly. but then the same in any good game, make big bold dangerous moves early and you could win big but also get checkmated in 4 or land in Jail and not have the money to pay the fine because you bought too many Hotels (in this case the French take Munich because you have no army as you bought ten Red October supersubs sitting in Kiel next to the Bismarck and her 3 sisters ships.) It would lead to some fun I suspect the pros would still balance things out.