Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War



Message

Chernobyl -> Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/14/2021 10:05:31 PM)

Why is it that HQ AAA upgrade costs a staggering 10%? Seems like 5% is plenty steep enough.

Also what is the reasoning behind why German mobility upgrade costs 15% instead of 10% like it is for every other country? Mobility is a very fun upgrade to use and 10% is quite expensive to begin with. If this makes Germany too strong then Germany could easily be nerfed in a number of other ways.



ThisEndUp -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/15/2021 2:25:27 AM)

My impression is that it's an attempt to model the difficulty the Germans had with motorising their army. Lack or rubber, lack of oil, etc. etc. It was definitely much easier for the Allies to motorise an equivalent division due to access to several key resources.



ThunderLizard11 -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/15/2021 3:12:43 AM)

I think it's fine as giving Germans another advantage would tip balance of game.



BillRunacre -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/15/2021 8:28:30 AM)

The reason for the AA upgrade to a HQ costing 10% is because the largest element of a HQ is the logistical support it provides, and that is spread out and constantly moving backwards and forwards delivering supplies etc. Therefore it's quite a feat to provide AA protection to it over a significant area, especially if it is advancing or retiring, i.e. isn't static itself.



Chernobyl -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/16/2021 12:30:59 AM)

Thanks for the explanations.
I agree Germany should not be made too strong. It just doesn't feel right to penalize them uniquely for mobility though. Penalize them somewhere else.



Elessar2 -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/16/2021 3:45:05 PM)

It's historical tho. The Germans basically scavenged every truck they could from conquered countries-when one broke down it usually was a total write-off because there were no spare parts for the thing.



Chernobyl -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/17/2021 2:37:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2
It's historical tho. The Germans basically scavenged every truck they could from conquered countries-when one broke down it usually was a total write-off because there were no spare parts for the thing.


And the Italians and Japanese had plenty of trucks and spare parts? Please. Not historical. Germans had a decent truck industry.



Elessar2 -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/17/2021 2:43:14 AM)

No, the IJA & the Italians weren't in any better shape. It simply was way beyond their means to motorize even a majority of the Heer, and the in-game cost reflects that. I mean, they didn't have enough just for supply purposes. This is all a matter of historical record.



Tanaka -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/17/2021 6:12:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2
It's historical tho. The Germans basically scavenged every truck they could from conquered countries-when one broke down it usually was a total write-off because there were no spare parts for the thing.


And the Italians and Japanese had plenty of trucks and spare parts? Please. Not historical. Germans had a decent truck industry.


He actually makes a very good point here. Japan and Italy should have the same penalty. And I play Axis.



OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/17/2021 8:09:41 AM)

I think both the German HQ AAA costs and the 15% mobility cost is perfect.

Concerning mobility: Even though Germany had a robust automotive industry...there were shortfalls from the very beginning of the war for trucks, hence why the looting (requisitioning) of France, The Low Countries, etc..of large amounts of transport, be it lt and hvy trucks, cabs, buses..what have you.

One thing I have found that is useful early on for Germany (when being frugal) is to motorize (mobility) select Inf corps for break through and value added versatility. Anything for Africa in addition to the DAK...give it mobility and AAA upgrades too.




PJL1973 -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/17/2021 3:31:50 PM)

Does the Axis have a penalty compared to the allies for long-range upgrades for aircraft as well? If not, then surely they should for much the same reasons as mobility would.



Elessar2 -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (9/17/2021 4:54:16 PM)

That mainly depended on the development of drop tanks.



mbitrick -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/8/2021 6:55:14 PM)

Historically, the German transportation network throughout the majority of the war was reliant on horses (up to 80% capacity in some instances) as the primary mode of moving men and materials throughout the Reich, becoming more common as one traveled closer to the front. The cost of mobility upgrades makes sense from this standpoint as an increased number of resources would have to be committed to convert a unit from horse to motorized transport.

Several other factors also played a role in German transportation woes. The dictates of Nazi economic policy, shifting production quotas, interference from the Gauleiters and a lack of raw materials (specifically rubber), made the production of replacement parts for motorized units by Nazi industry problematic at best, not to mention downright expensive to convert non-motorized units to motorized status. Finally, Nazi policies toward the Jewish population also robbed critical industries of key personnel who could have addressed some of these issues and made the production process more efficient thereby reducing costs

There are a number of works out there dealing with this subject. Two I would recommend are Horses of the German Army during WWII by Johnson, which details the role of German cavalry in both combat and transportation systems during WWII, and Industry and Ideology by Hayes (a dry read, but informative) which provides a look at the impact of German economic policy on industry during the war.



SittingDuck -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/9/2021 2:24:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Thanks for the explanations.
I agree Germany should not be made too strong. It just doesn't feel right to penalize them uniquely for mobility though. Penalize them somewhere else.


As Elessar comments, it is very historic. They underplayed the role of mechanization of their infantry, relying on horses. It was the German equivalent of the Maginot Line thinking - magical thinking, in a sense. So amazing to see them so dialed in on the most advanced use of armor (priority!!), only to minimize motorized/mechanized infantry (old school, didn't seem shiny..). Hitting hard in Poland, the Low Countries, even France - relatively short ranges. Outrunning the infantry not yet so big a problem. Eastern Front? Uh oh.

They got it later, but by then as has been mentioned, material issues were overwhelming.

Where the game has some weakness is that we cannot dial things back (or forward) - increase/decrease - based on chronological and/or situational circumstances.



SittingDuck -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/9/2021 2:28:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PJL1973

Does the Axis have a penalty compared to the allies for long-range upgrades for aircraft as well? If not, then surely they should for much the same reasons as mobility would.


No, the only place they have a penalty is on the mobility thing.



SittingDuck -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/9/2021 2:30:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Mobility is a very fun upgrade to use....

Thanks for the explanations.
I agree Germany should not be made too strong. It just doesn't feel right to penalize them uniquely for mobility though. Penalize them somewhere else.


Provide alternatives?

Also, would it not be good to have some historical basis in them?

Finally, I understand it might be fun to use. As would if Germany could launch atomic strikes in the heart of Russia. But fun is relative, historicity is big here.



DrZom -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/9/2021 8:16:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck


quote:

ORIGINAL: PJL1973

Does the Axis have a penalty compared to the allies for long-range upgrades for aircraft as well? If not, then surely they should for much the same reasons as mobility would.


No, the only place they have a penalty is on the mobility thing.



I had not considered it before: Do US mobility upgrades to infantry cost the same as German? Shouldn't it cost the US much less, given the enormous vehicle production capabilities and the fact that the US was building units from scratch?

This is a very interesting subject.



SittingDuck -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/10/2021 1:43:48 AM)

No, they don't have a reduction in upgrade cost. This is balanced out in their massive MMP production rate. The US can afford whatever they really want, if they prioritize.

I don't think this is an across-the-board thing. I believe the German penalty was to reflect the particular challenge that existed in the area of auto manufacture. Whereas America was just geared up in total and has big MMP.

Another way to do it would be to give the Germans the regular upgrade rate and reduce overall MMP production.

How would that feel to you, as the German player? Which would you prefer?




SittingDuck -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/10/2021 1:51:25 AM)

What I'm saying is that there is a static mobility upgrade cost, with the exception being to Germany. Look at this this way: Germany is WAY ahead of all other nations in their infantry/aerial/armor techs, both the actual unit stuff and the 'doctrinal' research (is what I call it, kind of HOI-ish - I can't recall the actual term for that research). Is that not historical? Do they not there have an advantage?

Sword cuts both ways.

I think it's feasible to come up with a standardized mobility percentage for all nations, but now if you want to replicate the lack of raw materials and other things mentioned above, which the Germans foresaw cause they KNEW it would happen at Barbarossa (and naval blockading, etc), how do you do that?

To say Germany, which had severe materials shortage (aka, why did Barbarossa occur as an option - not for the actual 'living room' itself) should have the same as others also puts into play the principle that we need to standardize starting positions on various techs, in a sense. Historical replication.. or no historical replication.

Or, drop their economic power down a notch (and then totally impact them in their entire economy). Nope, we really don't have specific materials and other things represented in a war economy modeled, so we can't penalize them for not being able to source that. Hence, it comes indirectly.

Hope that helps.



Chernobyl -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/13/2021 4:09:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck
As Elessar comments, it is very historic. They underplayed the role of mechanization of their infantry, relying on horses. It was the German equivalent of the Maginot Line thinking - magical thinking, in a sense. So amazing to see them so dialed in on the most advanced use of armor (priority!!), only to minimize motorized/mechanized infantry


This reads like someone who just watched the history channel about 'Hitler's greatest blunders!' The Germans made use of every vehicle they could, they just didn't have the production that USA or Russia had. Also you're forgetting that Germany ran out of oil in 1942. The Germans were always attempting to produce and acquire more trucks (Himmler even attempted to negotiate the lives of 1M Hungarian Jews for 10K trucks). Germany made plenty of industrial mistakes (as did every nation) but to imply the Wehrmacht failed to imagine mass motorization is silly. They simply didn't have access to the quantity of vehicles (and fuel!) the Allies did.



Chernobyl -> RE: Reasoning behind HQ and Mobility Upgrade Costs (12/13/2021 4:18:08 PM)

I think it would be a bad idea balance-wise to lower the cost for Germany.

But I do think ideally it would feel better to increase the penalty for mobility to the same level (no idea why Japan should get cheap motorized infantry). It's not a big deal but the status quo feels slightly wrong to me.

Also side note about upgrades and supply: the Allies ALREADY get the cheapest upgrades of them all. And the reason for that is because destroyed units (in 5 or greater supply) get bought back with full upgrades extremely cheaply. The cheapest way to get (normally prohibitively expensive) upgrades is to fully upgrade a *unit which was previously destroyed. The Germans and Japanese can go for quite a long time before losing more than one or two units ground units. The fact that bought-back units get super cheap upgrades is one of Russia's greatest advantages. Not saying Russia should be weakened (it should be strengthened) but is the intention really to permit USSR to buyback a 1/1/0 unit as a 2/2/1 unit for a bargain price? It almost makes feeling destroying Russian units counterproductive sometimes - like the only kills worth going for are those in low supply. And then the game becomes less about defeating enemy armies and more about creating situations where enemy units will be in low supply (4 or less) and targeting those units for destruction. Often I find myself avoiding destroying enemy units just to wait for their supply to lower. Sometimes this feels intuitive (pocketing enemy units) but often it just feels gamey.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125