Two ideas (Full Version)

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



Message

KorutZelva -> Two ideas (7/26/2018 2:55:58 AM)

Diplo chits and conquest

I wish diplomatic clout would be a bit more impacted on the situation on the ground. If the UK lost london to Sealion how effective would have been their diplomatic efforts to sway minors? How about conquering someone original capital gets you one diplochits from them. The UK lose London, suddenly the UK only has 4 diplochit to play with and Germany has 6. Germany could start the game at 3 diplochit and acquire its 4th and 5th from conquering Poland and France respectively.

USSR and border mobilisation

This seems like an antiquated feature that adds an unnecessary learning curve for new players. You want Barbarossa opening to be all shock and awe but this mechanic just increase the logistic annoyance to pull of something you essentially WANT to happen. I mean, Stalin dismissed reports of German build up as English trickery to draw him in the war, you have an excellent historical reason to just remove it.



xwormwood -> RE: Two ideas (7/26/2018 9:56:09 AM)

Clash of Steel used a system where you could gain pressure points from great victories. With them you could put pressure on a neutral (and this could even backfire).

When it comes to the initial USSR unit placement, maybe one solution could be to punish a player from moving the western units out of harms way. National morale could drop, prices could rise, even up to the point where the Baltic neutrals could try an uprise, maybe even the Ukraine. Even Turkey could become impressed if the Axis roam unopposed through Russia.



KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/26/2018 1:46:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xwormwood

Clash of Steel used a system where you could gain pressure points from great victories. With them you could put pressure on a neutral (and this could even backfire).



I like this mechanic. Too bad no game has stolen this in 25 years. [:'(]



nnason -> RE: Two ideas (7/26/2018 4:02:30 PM)

Diplomacy and trying to determine how to spend those points to gain or prevent the opponent from gaining has been considerably discussed on this forum. This is good and the above idea about pressure points is a good one. However,this is just one of the many many good ideas about how to expand and/or modify SC. To help out the developers, we gamers should hold some kind of off/on-line forum to discuss and provide definitive and prioritized feedback. Key question would be what do we want in order of priority and how much is it worth? For example, would we gamers be willing to pay for a major current game enhancement vice pay for a now module such as the Pacific theater? I for one want both and would be willing to pay a decent amount for each. And I don't have a preference either way as long as both get done.

Forum will only work if we have rules, a definitive outcome, and a be done by date. If enough people will chime in as willing to participate, I am willing to propose draft method.



Trump2016 -> RE: Two ideas (7/26/2018 4:09:47 PM)

While I agree that it is very unhistorical that the Soviet player should in any way abandon their borders of troops, the game unfortunately allows Axis/Allied manipulation through chits and other diplo events to affect its production before it enters the conflict?



pjg100 -> RE: Two ideas (7/26/2018 4:15:36 PM)

I like both ideas. It is silly that the UK can exert full diplo influence when exiled to Canada; reducing it would provide further incentive for Sealion, which is (if the Allies prepare for it) a high-risk strategy. I liked some aspects of the old Politics in Flames add-on to WIFFE from ADG, which gave due consideration to the negative and positive effects that political suasion applied to one country might have on another (e.g., attacking Greece could give you more political clout with Turkey). However, one thing I saw in playing that a few times was that a system that adds to one side's political clout based on success can become unbalancing.



Dorky8 -> RE: Two ideas (7/26/2018 9:58:25 PM)

none of this makes sense to me



BillRunacre -> RE: Two ideas (7/29/2018 8:22:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

USSR and border mobilisation

This seems like an antiquated feature that adds an unnecessary learning curve for new players. You want Barbarossa opening to be all shock and awe but this mechanic just increase the logistic annoyance to pull of something you essentially WANT to happen. I mean, Stalin dismissed reports of German build up as English trickery to draw him in the war, you have an excellent historical reason to just remove it.


Hi KorutZelva

Can you explain this one to me please as I'm not sure I'm understanding the issue or potential solution being suggested?

Thanks

Bill



KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/29/2018 8:34:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

USSR and border mobilisation

This seems like an antiquated feature that adds an unnecessary learning curve for new players. You want Barbarossa opening to be all shock and awe but this mechanic just increase the logistic annoyance to pull of something you essentially WANT to happen. I mean, Stalin dismissed reports of German build up as English trickery to draw him in the war, you have an excellent historical reason to just remove it.


Hi KorutZelva

Can you explain this one to me please as I'm not sure I'm understanding the issue or potential solution being suggested?

Thanks

Bill


Basically don't have the USSR increase its mobilization because of the presence of german troops near Warsaw. For narrative and balance purpose you need a strong opening to Barbarossa. Having this hurdle doesn't add much, and adds an additional difficult for beginners for no clear gain. Removing it would be a small boon to the Axis, especially to the demographic most struggling with winning with them.



Taxman66 -> RE: Two ideas (7/29/2018 8:54:20 PM)

I think this promotes issues from the land of unintended consequences.

It would allow Germany to build up preparations for Barbarossa completely unhindered by any worry, while at the same time also allow complete maximization of stalling Barbarossa for as long as Germany desires.
Which reduces Allied income (via lower US/USSR mobilization) and also prolongs the start of the US mobilization per turn increase.



KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/29/2018 9:02:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I think this promotes issues from the land of unintended consequences.

It would allow Germany to build up preparations for Barbarossa completely unhindered by any worry, while at the same time also allow complete maximization of stalling Barbarossa for as long as Germany desires.
Which reduces Allied income (via lower US/USSR mobilization) and also prolongs the start of the US mobilization per turn increase.


You can already avoid the mobilisation penalty in Romania and Lithuania (if someone gets it). Realistically, you are only missing on one turn worth of USSR mobilisation. I'd say so what, axis needs the help according to tourney results. However, it could be replaced by a small flat increase in Jan (when its still low, just so that it's doesn't blindside a USSR war declaration.) It could have a pop-up saying USSR start massing troop at the border and it would also signal that its mobilisation will be going up from now on.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Two ideas (7/30/2018 11:18:43 AM)


Sorry I think the game works fine in this regard and this suggestion would be a major determent to the game. Stalin wouldn't increase mobilization with Axis troops massed at his border?

It would also dramatically shift the balance of power of the game. The mobilization increase is the offset for the Axis player being able to mass troops and wipe out all USSR reinforcements.




IrishGuards -> RE: Two ideas (7/30/2018 11:34:43 AM)

lotsa good points, my take is that ussr in addition to the units being mobilized in the 3 areas
they should also do as ussr historically did and have garrison limits in there military districts
as in WiE .. I also think garrison limits must be applied to all conquered nations ... !!!!
remember there is no surprise in SC, which is also a viable option, as increasing german units
relative to polish units for 1939 game start in some way
maybe even a surprise additional air strike which was exactly the case needs to be looked at.
IG



KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/30/2018 9:30:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin


Sorry I think the game works fine in this regard and this suggestion would be a major determent to the game. Stalin wouldn't increase mobilization with Axis troops massed at his border?

It would also dramatically shift the balance of power of the game. The mobilization increase is the offset for the Axis player being able to mass troops and wipe out all USSR reinforcements.





https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13862135



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Two ideas (7/30/2018 9:39:34 PM)

Sorry mate [:'(], its a dumb idea.

You guys should really stop promoting ideas that fit your strategy but are a determent to the game.

So let me get this straight having the ability by Diplo of driving USSR military spending to zero makes sense but when the Axis masses troops at the USSR boarder the BBC says they did nothing.








KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/30/2018 11:11:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Sorry mate [:'(], its a dumb idea.

You guys should really stop promoting ideas that fit your strategy but are a determent to the game.

So let me get this straight having the ability by Diplo of driving USSR military spending to zero makes sense but when the Axis masses troops at the USSR boarder the BBC says they did nothing.



Uh? That's your bread and butter mate, not mine. [:D]

My point is that it would help Axis beginners without significantly changing the balance of the game.

Historicly the USSR was mobilising at its own pace and wasn't phased by the German massing at their border (hence why they got murderized).



Trump2016 -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 1:01:47 AM)

Historically the Soviets would have been completely immune by any diplomacy by either side after the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed. They knew war was coming but the quick victories in the west, meant that the Germans got the jump on them in 1941.



KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 2:21:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trump2016

Historically the Soviets would have been completely immune by any diplomacy by either side after the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed. They knew war was coming but the quick victories in the west, meant that the Germans got the jump on them in 1941.


I would dispute that. The USSR pursued being a member of the tripartite pact for a time so reducing readiness isn't too far fetched.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 2:44:45 AM)

The first two pages of chapter one in Stumbling Colossus gives a rundown of Soviet Mobilization efforts which started in 1935. It all sucked of course, but by the time of Barbarossa they had increased their military from 1.5 million men to over 5 million. The Soviets learned lessons in Poland, Mongolia, Finland and Rumania, and after France quickly fell to the panzers the Soviets started creating their cruddy Mech Corps.

I think the SC3 increase in Soviet mobilization due to Axis units in Poland and Prussia is reasonable, but the 10 hex radius might be too restrictive. It means that anything over 18 units will have to be held at least two turns march from the border, and with a possible 10% Soviet increase for each of those turns, the Axis player must plan out all of that movement before Soviet mobilization reaches 70%. [Historically the Germans kept most of the mobile formations well back from the front until the night before the invasion, but not ten hexes back!].



KorutZelva -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 12:02:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The first two pages of chapter one in Stumbling Colossus gives a rundown of Soviet Mobilization efforts which started in 1935. It all sucked of course, but by the time of Barbarossa they had increased their military from 1.5 million men to over 5 million. The Soviets learned lessons in Poland, Mongolia, Finland and Rumania, and after France quickly fell to the panzers the Soviets started creating their cruddy Mech Corps.

I think the SC3 increase in Soviet mobilization due to Axis units in Poland and Prussia is reasonable, but the 10 hex radius might be too restrictive. It means that anything over 18 units will have to be held at least two turns march from the border, and with a possible 10% Soviet increase for each of those turns, the Axis player must plan out all of that movement before Soviet mobilization reaches 70%. [Historically the Germans kept most of the mobile formations well back from the front until the night before the invasion, but not ten hexes back!].


I think the Russian mobilization pattern in the game follows the scenario of a USSR offensive in Sept 41 (Right before most of those 5 million troops were to demobilize as the mobilization enacted in 1939 was penned in for two years). I think that works. But once again, they had their own timetable they didn't speed things up when the Germans started massing at the border.



Taxman66 -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 2:07:20 PM)

1) Remove the 10 hex radius from Warsaw and replace it with "Axis units east of xxx hex column and north of xxx hex row."
Say East of German/Polish border and north of Baghdad. Adjust number to account for some/most German minor units.



Taxman66 -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 2:11:08 PM)

Or 2)

Eliminate the border build up completely but add some mobilization for certain minors joining Germany (Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Finland, Sweeden and Turkey). More for bigger scarier ones (Turkey, Romania) and less for Bulgaria.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 2:51:50 PM)

quote:

they had their own timetable they didn't speed things up when the Germans started massing at the border.

I see that as a fair statement. As I think you said, Stalin suspected England of 'causing mischief' between Germany and the USSR so Stalin didn't want to play into that.
SC3 obviously desires to have a mechanism by which Germany is pressured to attack the USSR. I suppose you agree with that. I certainly do, because without it Germany would have a cake walk. So there needs to be something, and perhaps Taxman is getting close to it ...



Hubert Cater -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 3:41:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva


quote:

ORIGINAL: xwormwood

Clash of Steel used a system where you could gain pressure points from great victories. With them you could put pressure on a neutral (and this could even backfire).



I like this mechanic. Too bad no game has stolen this in 25 years. [:'(]


Yes it was a good system, however the issue was because it was an instant effect, anytime you clicked on the pressure button and it didn't work, you could simply reload the game and try again over and over again until you were successful.

This is the primary reason Strategic Command uses the method whereby you may or may not have some success each turn and eliminates that type of abuse.



xwormwood -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 4:37:04 PM)

I never reloaded during my COS Times. [:)]
Another solution could be to use such points in a way where you get the results of your pressure only one (or more) turn(s) later, but not instantly.



Taxman66 -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 4:47:30 PM)

Maybe a temporary boost to your chits' effectiveness? Each chit gets a 1 or 2% bonus for a few turns? Over 5 chits that adds up and might be too much for chits applied to majors though.



xwormwood -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 5:04:34 PM)

Or a temporary chit (part of a plundered / freed nation). Usage of temporary chits could kick in DE for the opponent, too (counter, or new options to decide upon).



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 7:27:38 PM)

The effect of Axis troop positioning on USSR mobilization works fine in my opinion. There be some minor modifications like Taxman suggested.

The largest improvement would be limiting major country diplo investment, its abused at this point.



xwormwood -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 8:38:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

The effect of Axis troop positioning on USSR mobilization works fine in my opinion. There be some minor modifications like Taxman suggested.

The largest improvement would be limiting major country diplo investment, its abused at this point.


You need to add that you're writing about multiplayer games. And not the normal multiplayer games.



PvtBenjamin -> RE: Two ideas (7/31/2018 9:26:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xwormwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

The effect of Axis troop positioning on USSR mobilization works fine in my opinion. There be some minor modifications like Taxman suggested.

The largest improvement would be limiting major country diplo investment, its abused at this point.


You need to add that you're writing about multiplayer games. And not the normal multiplayer games.





HUH? I don't understand.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.46875