Two ideas

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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.
User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: Two ideas

Post by 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).

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.
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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. [:'(]
User avatar
nnason
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:47 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area

RE: Two ideas

Post by nnason »

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.
Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired
Trump2016
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:54 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by Trump2016 »

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
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:32 pm

RE: Two ideas

Post by pjg100 »

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
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:47 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by Dorky8 »

none of this makes sense to me
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5779
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Two ideas

Post by BillRunacre »

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
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

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.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Two ideas

Post by 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.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Two ideas

Post by 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.

User avatar
IrishGuards
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:49 pm

RE: Two ideas

Post by IrishGuards »

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
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Two ideas

Post by 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.





KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:54 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by 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.
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Two ideas

Post by 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!].
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Two ideas

Post by KorutZelva »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”