Minors tech

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Minors tech

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Minors tech

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Minors tech - 1/5/2017 5:57:39 PM

Dmondragon75

Posts: 129
Joined: 1/4/2016
Status: offline

I was wondering do minor countries also have their own research "tree" and is it adjusted somehow? Played just 2-3 games so far till the 1942 (AI isn't quite challenging), didn't see what infantry tech lvl are Swedish or Turkish forces (for example) once/if they join the war...

Post #: 1

RE: Minors tech - 1/5/2017 6:41:01 PM

Goodmongo

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline

Nope they don't. Look at production screen for your answers.

(in reply to Dmondragon75)

Post #: 2

RE: Minors tech - 1/5/2017 7:19:25 PM

Bmorgan077

Posts: 69
Joined: 7/26/2009
Status: offline

I find it odd that all the German minors get German level tech upgrades but the Italians don't. seems like it would make sense just to have Allied, Axis, and Russian research

(in reply to Goodmongo)

Post #: 3

RE: Minors tech - 1/5/2017 8:26:29 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

For what I noticed though, the Minors (at least Axis ones) do not benefit of the production discounts; thus you pay them always at 100% of the cost (upgrades, replacements, etc).
I agree at this stage Italy may as well use the German techs - it is quite odd to see Italians with lvl 0 tanks and Romania / Hungaria with Panthers!

(in reply to Bmorgan077)

Post #: 4

RE: Minors tech - 1/5/2017 8:51:40 PM

macroeconomics

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline

Personally, I think Minor units should get the production discounts, but they should only be able to be built at one tech level below the German max. Obviously they shouldn't be able to be promoted in the field to the German max either.

As for the Italians, historically, they did not benefit from German technology until mid '41, and even then only in fighters via German engine technology. Maybe have an event that boosts Italian air combat tech to equal that of Germany's 4 months after German air combat tech advances? In practice, the only items I always research as the Italian are industrial, naval warfare and ASW tech. Air combat and ground attack tech are sporadically researched. Ground units are used as garrisons. It's a bit sad, but realistically, the rules cripple the Italians and makes them very vulnerable. Which at least is accurate...

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 5

RE: Minors tech - 1/5/2017 8:57:27 PM

Dmondragon75

Posts: 129
Joined: 1/4/2016
Status: offline

Historicaly I think Italy research was divided from German, so I don't think Italians should use German tech upgrades, they can benefit from tech share to maybe finish projects before than normally.
My question was more referring to hypothetical situation, lets say Sweden joins axis in late 1944. If swedish units are on infantry tech lvl 0-1, and axis & allies are lvl 2-3, that wouldn't be quite realistic I d say. Thatswhy I asked do minors also have some research or their tech lvls are same at 1941 and 1944? How did programmers handle this problem?

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 6

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 2:21:49 AM

Malor

Posts: 92
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

I too feel minors should not receive the full benefit of majors research and tech.

Maybe keep the updates levels on the units, but have them only apply at a 50% or some other percentage to account for lack of training, leadership, etc.

Malor

< Message edited by Malor -- 1/6/2017 2:22:29 AM >

(in reply to Dmondragon75)

Post #: 7

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 4:46:52 AM

Meteor2

Posts: 429
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

My thoughts, too.
Romania with level 5 panzers and Ilaly with only level 2 does not feel right.
A cap for minors should be introduced.

(in reply to Malor)

Post #: 8

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 6:26:17 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

say Sweden joins axis in late 1944. If swedish units are on infantry tech lvl 0-1, and axis & allies are lvl 2-3, that wouldn't be quite realistic I d say.

If Sweden did join the Axis in 1944, I think that the Germans would have to pay for bringing them up to current standards [by shipping large quantities of materiel and training] ? Would you agree ?
The first time I got Turkey to join the Axis I was exited at all the extra units, but then I realized I would have to pay to bring them up to strength and upgrade all of them. It cost over 2,000 MPP's to do that. I think that is fair, as the minor countries did not have the capacity to keep pace with the major's and if a major wants them then they have to pay.
I agree that minors reaching the same level as majors is a little out of whack, but as a player I like the advantage I get from upgrading my Romanians and Hungarians with all the latest stuff so that they can compete with the Soviets

(in reply to Dmondragon75)

Post #: 9

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 8:05:16 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macroeconomics

Personally, I think Minor units should get the production discounts, but they should only be able to be built at one tech level below the German max. Obviously they shouldn't be able to be promoted in the field to the German max either.

As for the Italians, historically, they did not benefit from German technology until mid '41, and even then only in fighters via German engine technology. Maybe have an event that boosts Italian air combat tech to equal that of Germany's 4 months after German air combat tech advances? In practice, the only items I always research as the Italian are industrial, naval warfare and ASW tech. Air combat and ground attack tech are sporadically researched. Ground units are used as garrisons. It's a bit sad, but realistically, the rules cripple the Italians and makes them very vulnerable. Which at least is accurate...

I agree that the Italians should benefit from German aviation tech advances, perhaps at one level below the level available to German units.

It is more than engine technology, as some Italian air units were equipped with German aircraft, probably as the Germans had moved on to improved models.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/6/2017 8:09:25 AM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to macroeconomics)

Post #: 10

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 9:24:50 AM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

To be honest - of all the things that may need a change, this is something I can live with. In the end minors pay full price for their troops, upgrades and replacements; so if Germany can funnel resources into upgrading them with up-to-date equipment / train their personnel etc, by all means.
Leave it so.

There should just be an option where Germany can pay Italy techs for example.
Germany historically also offered to send technicians to Fiat and provide blueprints of Pz.III in '41.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 11

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 10:31:11 AM

OxfordGuy3

Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

In CEAW the axis minors are always a few (CEAW) tech levels below the Germans, although the Fins not so much, though it's a different game, where manpower is a factor as well etc., so there's more incentive to build up and use the minors

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 12

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 10:37:55 AM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

Technically manpower is a limit here as well - at least I perceive it in the maximum amount of forces allowed per type (Which I deem too low for the Axis given the map size still but that is another tale).
Given my perceptions can be wrong because I am playing vs the AI but currently I am using as many Romanians / Hungarians the base pools (playing with soft limits) allow in Russia. So they've their HQ, their panzer unit and their fighter plus a bunch of infantries.

Meanwhile for Italy I just adapted and not produce nor tech armour - you get 1 at start. You lack funds anyhow for big armour, so best stick with infantries.

But it's not a gamebreaking aspect in the end of the day.

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)

Post #: 13

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 10:47:17 AM

OxfordGuy3

Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

Technically manpower is a limit here as well - at least I perceive it in the maximum amount of forces allowed per type (Which I deem too low for the Axis given the map size still but that is another tale).
Given my perceptions can be wrong because I am playing vs the AI but currently I am using as many Romanians / Hungarians the base pools (playing with soft limits) allow in Russia. So they've their HQ, their panzer unit and their fighter plus a bunch of infantries.

Meanwhile for Italy I just adapted and not produce nor tech armour - you get 1 at start. You lack funds anyhow for big armour, so best stick with infantries.

But it's not a gamebreaking aspect in the end of the day.

There is a force pool cap, which makes the minors units a little more useful than they might otherwise be, but there is no tracking of the manpower required to replenish depleted units - e.g. there is no manpower impact (only MPPs) for reinforcing 10 infantry armies from 5 strength to 10, which reduces the real impact that the attrition of the war had on available manpower and it's quality.

For Italy, I've been doing much as you - ignoring armour units and tech and focusing on infantry, navy and (when I can afford it) air, seeing as Italy starts with some tech invested in the latter and two air units at the start.

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 14

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 1:59:01 PM

Goodmongo

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline

Had this argument before but will say it again. Manpower was not an issue. Never was. Training and equipping the units were the real issue. MP in a game like this makes little sense. It ends up being highly abstracted anyway.

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)

Post #: 15

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 2:09:22 PM

OxfordGuy3

Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Had this argument before but will say it again. Manpower was not an issue. Never was. Training and equipping the units were the real issue. MP in a game like this makes little sense. It ends up being highly abstracted anyway.

It's not that big a deal, I can live without it, will stick to hard unit number caps, though.

Oil consumption of some kind would be nice, though, or at least some way of making oil matter more for the axis

(in reply to Goodmongo)

Post #: 16

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 2:19:36 PM

James Taylor

Posts: 638
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline

I think in the end you'll need to take as many resources as possible with the Axis to fend off the USA-USSR MPP advantage.

Upgrading the minors is an exercise that'll likely dilute the Axis effort when things are critical, yet it remains a choice and selectively can have its uses.

There are many choices in SC3 that can distract the effort of either side, depending upon the circumstances.

The successful commander is the one that can remain on the clear path to victory as it slowly unfolds.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)

Post #: 17

RE: Minors tech - 1/6/2017 3:56:35 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

I believe Oil Consumption is also accounted, as abstracted.
Mobility upgrades are costier for Axis for what I've read in the manual.

(in reply to James Taylor)

Post #: 18

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 12:57:30 AM

Meyer1

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: macroeconomics

Personally, I think Minor units should get the production discounts, but they should only be able to be built at one tech level below the German max. Obviously they shouldn't be able to be promoted in the field to the German max either.

As for the Italians, historically, they did not benefit from German technology until mid '41, and even then only in fighters via German engine technology. Maybe have an event that boosts Italian air combat tech to equal that of Germany's 4 months after German air combat tech advances? In practice, the only items I always research as the Italian are industrial, naval warfare and ASW tech. Air combat and ground attack tech are sporadically researched. Ground units are used as garrisons. It's a bit sad, but realistically, the rules cripple the Italians and makes them very vulnerable. Which at least is accurate...

I agree that the Italians should benefit from German aviation tech advances, perhaps at one level below the level available to German units.

It is more than engine technology, as some Italian air units were equipped with German aircraft, probably as the Germans had moved on to improved models.

Not really, the aircraft sent to Italy were up to date models.

As for the game, since Germany is paying their MPP to equip the minors, I don�t see a problem with them having the latest technology. They don�t have a production of thei own.
Perhaps Germany should be allowed to buy for Italy also.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 19

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 12:59:39 AM

Meyer1

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Had this argument before but will say it again. Manpower was not an issue. Never was. Training and equipping the units were the real issue. MP in a game like this makes little sense. It ends up being highly abstracted anyway.

Oh, but it was. Germany, for example, had to choose between the manpower for the armed forces versus manpower for the industry.

(in reply to Goodmongo)

Post #: 20

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 3:52:43 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Manpower and Oil Consumption were absolutely two huge strategic considerations during WWII, and I would be curious to hear the developers' reasons for not including them in SC3. Inclusion of MP an OC would add a level of complexity to game play, and it would be a real nice design decision to make both of them optional, so that beginners need not bother with them.

The argument that both are abstracted in the current game is not accurate. Playing 'Commander: Europe at War' will easily demonstrate this [and I'm not advocating buying that game as it is multi-player only, and in some areas it is very far behind SC3 in development].

Manpower:
CEaW addresses MP by assigning each country a % level of full manpower based on historical population and draft measures. As the player adds replacements to units, this % drops. As new recruits are drafted, this percentage rises. If the level drops below 75%, your units' effectiveness takes a hit. Below 50%, below 25% another hit. It very accurately portrays the real life manpower issues that all countries faced during WWII. All countries historically had to weigh the balance between casualties and results. This is in no way represented in the current SC3. It is actually quite the opposite if one side gains an MPP advantage, resulting in the taking of losses not mattering because the player van easily replace them with MPP's at no penalty.

(in reply to Meyer1)

Post #: 21

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 4:02:58 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Oil Consumption:

CEaW addresses OC by assigning an Oil Production number to each country, and the use of units [air and mechanized] subtracts from this number. If the number hits zero, these types of units cannot be used. SC3 in no way 'abstracts' this hugely important aspect of every countries' strategic planning during WWII. Oil consumption never enters the thoughts or planning of SC3 players.

I am not being negative in these two posts, I think everybody knows that I love SC3 and am very dedicated to it. I also know that I will not change some palyers' opinions who don't want to understand the strategy gap that is caused by leaving these two aspects out. If the developers decision is to never include MP and OC in any future version of SC then I respect that decision. However, in my opinion it would make a great game even greater.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 22

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 10:31:25 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: macroeconomics

Personally, I think Minor units should get the production discounts, but they should only be able to be built at one tech level below the German max. Obviously they shouldn't be able to be promoted in the field to the German max either.

As for the Italians, historically, they did not benefit from German technology until mid '41, and even then only in fighters via German engine technology. Maybe have an event that boosts Italian air combat tech to equal that of Germany's 4 months after German air combat tech advances? In practice, the only items I always research as the Italian are industrial, naval warfare and ASW tech. Air combat and ground attack tech are sporadically researched. Ground units are used as garrisons. It's a bit sad, but realistically, the rules cripple the Italians and makes them very vulnerable. Which at least is accurate...

I agree that the Italians should benefit from German aviation tech advances, perhaps at one level below the level available to German units.

It is more than engine technology, as some Italian air units were equipped with German aircraft, probably as the Germans had moved on to improved models.

Not really, the aircraft sent to Italy were up to date models.

As for the game, since Germany is paying their MPP to equip the minors, I don�t see a problem with them having the latest technology. They don�t have a production of thei own.
Perhaps Germany should be allowed to buy for Italy also.

The Italians might have been given up-to-date Bf109s, but AFAIK they were not given Fw190s, the point being that Italy should have access to German aviation tech, but not matching the highest level that Germany has achieved.

Likewise the British gave Hurricanes, principally to the Soviet Union, some of which were used, but mostly new production.

_____________________________

(in reply to Meyer1)

Post #: 23

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 11:18:19 AM

Bmorgan077

Posts: 69
Joined: 7/26/2009
Status: offline

I agree with all that sPzAbt653 said and I like the Commander game, but I must point out that
Commander is not multi-player only, its just that the AI is poor, and the game is best played
as mp. But the Oil and Manpower parts do work well and something like that would work in this
game as well.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 24

RE: Minors tech - 1/7/2017 4:24:18 PM

Dmondragon75

Posts: 129
Joined: 1/4/2016
Status: offline

I agree with You, oil & manpower were maybe Germany biggest problems in ww2. But to implement it in this game would probably change game mechanics alot and its quite questionable how would it work. Of course-we all understand that resources and manpower are incorporated in MPP. For me-this works fine, but on the other hand maybe some other solution could be incorporated. Maybe only oil should be made as individual resource out of MPP, cause of its great significance on transport, logistics and every other aspect of ww2 warfare. But still, I m very happy with the game so far, only problem I have is poor AI which makes game boooring, cant wait for PBEM game :)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 25

RE: Minors tech - 1/8/2017 5:12:19 PM

Patrat

Posts: 107
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: offline

I didn't feel like retyping my views again so i just copied and pasted them from the other thread we had about manpower.

No country reached its manpower limits because of casualties, not even the USSR. In Germany's case any losses they had during any year (except maybe 1944, I'd have to check) was more than made up by the new class of recruits turning of age.

The reasons Germany had manpower problems wasn't because of casualties, it was because of poor decisions made by the Germans regarding employment of women in industry and not drastically cutting back on their domestic production, like the Russians did. That and the fact that they were trying to field a humongous army and have a tremendous industrial effort at the same time. The Russians were able to pull it off, huge army, huge industrial effort, because they drastically cut domestic production and utilized women in both industry and the armed forces in great numbers.

Both the US and Britain made huge industrial efforts, but neither fielded an army anywhere near as large as they could have. Because they both made the decision to concentrate on production to equip not only themselves but their allies. And also because both made an huge effort in the air, which requires greater industrial effort and less manpower in the field. Any manpower problems Britain had were because of they were trying to keep up with the Jones's, (meaning the US). In other words they were fighting out of their weight class. The same thing applies to Germany also. Both Britain and the US casualties were tiny compared to the USSR or Germany. Britain's were much less than in WW1.

The long and the short of it is simple. To correctly implement manpower into the game would require a whole mini game inside the game. It couldn't just be having manpower points, it would also have to be about how you allocate them to industry or military. And then there is the fact the Germans used slave labor for industry, and obviously those slave labor points cant be used in the military. No thanks, I think MPPS and build limits handle the issue just fine.

< Message edited by Patrat -- 1/8/2017 10:14:50 PM >

(in reply to Dmondragon75)

Post #: 26