Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Mass Air Groups

 
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 >> RE: Mass Air Groups Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/14/2018 12:39:04 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 716
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: online
While we are discussing changes... How about giving a small National Morale boost (1000 nm?) to Germany if it declares war on USA first? That way you have a choice on whether trying to luck out on an additional turn of USA neutrality or just get it away when it's about to happen anyway. Plus it gives an incentive for an historical war declaration.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 61
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/14/2018 1:12:07 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 832
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

While we are discussing changes... How about giving a small National Morale boost (1000 nm?) to Germany if it declares war on USA first? That way you have a choice on whether trying to luck out on an additional turn of USA neutrality or just get it away when it's about to happen anyway. Plus it gives an incentive for an historical war declaration.


Only problem is that the declaration of war didn't result in a NM boost when it happened back in the days.

A better incentive would be if the Axis would get a DE, offering 1 sub (at a prize) next to the US coastline IF the Axis sides agrees to declare war on the US on the historical date (initiating operation Paukenschlag). The Allied player, on the other hand should get a follow up DE if the Axis player agreed to his own DE. Maybe a British NM push, a Russian NM push (not sure if this isn't already part of the game, if yes, ignore this NM push suggestion)

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 62
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/14/2018 1:28:52 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 716
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: xwormwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

While we are discussing changes... How about giving a small National Morale boost (1000 nm?) to Germany if it declares war on USA first? That way you have a choice on whether trying to luck out on an additional turn of USA neutrality or just get it away when it's about to happen anyway. Plus it gives an incentive for an historical war declaration.


Only problem is that the declaration of war didn't result in a NM boost when it happened back in the days.

A better incentive would be if the Axis would get a DE, offering 1 sub (at a prize) next to the US coastline IF the Axis sides agrees to declare war on the US on the historical date (initiating operation Paukenschlag). The Allied player, on the other hand should get a follow up DE if the Axis player agreed to his own DE. Maybe a British NM push, a Russian NM push (not sure if this isn't already part of the game, if yes, ignore this NM push suggestion)


In my mind I had a 'German prestige improves from honoring Tripartite pact' justification but it doesn't work if Germany ends up having to declare before pearl harbor. I like your idea better.

(in reply to xwormwood)
Post #: 63
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 11:16:17 AM   
ivanov


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: Spain/Poland
Status: offline
A historical note to the DE 603 decision. In real life, it would be extremely hard to bring Spain to the Axis side. Capturing Algeria by Germans would probably have a reverse effect, because Franco wanted it in Spanish zone of influence. Most of the Spanish high ranking politicians were bribed and under British influence. So if anything German capture of Algeria would bring Spain closer to Britain. A hypothetical success of Sea Lion, could increase Spanish leaning towards the Axis, because it would decrease the British influence in Spain.

< Message edited by ivanov -- 4/15/2018 3:22:46 PM >


_____________________________

Mickey Mouse

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 64
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 12:53:38 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 6890
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
But you could have Germany make an agreement with Spain to meet all of Spain's demands, including giving Spain French Morocco, if Spain were to join. There were three different times of serious discussions between the two countries, on the fall of France, again in August and again in October. Conditions were different each time. When France fell, it seems the reason that Hitler turned down Franco's offer to join the Tripartite was that Hitler wanted German bases in the Canaries, but Franco wouldn't allow it.

I think these things could be built into SC3, but there are also offshoot negotiations that include Italy and Vichy, just to complicate matters.

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 65
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 1:05:13 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 2056
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ivanov

A historical note to the DE 603 decision. In real life, it would be extremely hard to bring Spain to the Axis side. Capturing Algeria by Germans would probably have a reverse effect, because Franco wanted it in Spanish zone of influence. Most of the Spanish high ranking politicians very bribed and under British influence. So if anything German capture of Algeria would bring Spain closer to Britain. A hypothetical success of Sea Lion, could increase Spanish leaning towards the Axis, because it would decrease the British influence in Spain.


That's certainly true, the UK spent a lot of money in Spain and there's no knowing how beneficial it was. Paul Preston covers this in his biography of Franco, which is worth a read as I've not seen any other book cover as much about (Nationalist) Spain in WW2 as this one.

In terms of the Germans, the idea here is that they are giving territory to Franco. How much might really have enticed him to enter the war is an unknown, but it seems reasonable to have that possibility.

_____________________________

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

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 66
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 2:28:41 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 763
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: online
Please note the following is simply and strictly a comparison and observation.
I make no claim to superiority (and some things that work in one do not translate to the other).


Gibraltar
It is certainly very different from what I was used to as a WiF player.
There you had to give Spain Gibraltar, which means invading it. Against a prepared Commonwealth player who put some effort into defending it was near impossible.
On the other hand German could easily prevent Russia from joining the Allies until the fall of 1942 or perhaps a bit later through the use of numbers and border ratio.
So if the Axis wanted the Rock they would have to go through Spain (which also meant collapsing Vichy).
It was one of 3 main Axis Strategies: Barbarossa 41, Barbarossa 42 (Spain/Gibraltar 41) or Sea Lion 41.

Mass Air
In WiF, and every 'Odds based Combat' game I've played, air power is a force multiplier not so much as a force in and of itself.
Ground support (both offensive and defensive) is limited to matching the numeric value of the attack or defense strength of the units involved in the combat. So you can't send your whole air power at
one attack. Additionally defensive support (due to the way odds work) was often point for point more effective.

Carpet Bombing, to attempt an outright destruction of unit(s) in a hex, could only be done by Strategic bombers and due to the tables was not effective until later more powerful bombers were used in mass (along the lines of 1,000 bomber raids also used against German cities in the later parts of the war). Even then it was still a bit of crap shoot as to it's success.

The active side could also fly ground disruption missions which are more helpful then basic ground support, but they are limited by other factors in the game by mechanics that are not present in SC (nor should be).

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 67
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 3:21:54 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
quote:

Carpet Bombing, to attempt an outright destruction of unit(s) in a hex, could only be done by Strategic bombers


Perhaps some dive bombers are more precise in that role.

In another famous grand strategy game the relation between tanks and tac. bombers was 10:6, not 7:10 like in SC3. That game is called SC WWI Breakthrough in his scenario Storm over Europe, and it was very well balanced, according to the best players.

SC3 offers the best aerial combat mechanics I ever witnessed in any WWII-Game. It`s also very well referring the meaning of air superiority in WWII.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 68
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 3:22:06 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: Spain/Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


quote:

ORIGINAL: ivanov

A historical note to the DE 603 decision. In real life, it would be extremely hard to bring Spain to the Axis side. Capturing Algeria by Germans would probably have a reverse effect, because Franco wanted it in Spanish zone of influence. Most of the Spanish high ranking politicians very bribed and under British influence. So if anything German capture of Algeria would bring Spain closer to Britain. A hypothetical success of Sea Lion, could increase Spanish leaning towards the Axis, because it would decrease the British influence in Spain.


That's certainly true, the UK spent a lot of money in Spain and there's no knowing how beneficial it was. Paul Preston covers this in his biography of Franco, which is worth a read as I've not seen any other book cover as much about (Nationalist) Spain in WW2 as this one.

In terms of the Germans, the idea here is that they are giving territory to Franco. How much might really have enticed him to enter the war is an unknown, but it seems reasonable to have that possibility.


Hi Bill,

Giving territory to Franco certainly makes sense. If that would work in reality, we will never know. In real life Franco asked Hitler for huge amounts of aid ( including food products which was problematic for the Germans at best ) and offering very little in return. So eventually Hitler came to a conclusion, that having Spain on the Axis side would be a liability rather than help. It's also hard to estimate the scale of British influence on Franko's ministers but certainly it wasn't insignificant.


_____________________________

Mickey Mouse

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 69
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 6:36:12 PM   
elxaime

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Regarding Spain, some observations of my own which agree that, as currently simulated, Spain can join Hitler a bit too easily. To wit:
*

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 70
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 6:41:53 PM   
elxaime

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Regarding Spain, some observations of my own which agree that, as currently simulated, Spain joins Hitler a bit too easily. To wit:

- Franco's territorial and resource demands from Germany seem likely to have purposefully been made so exhorbitant so that they would be near-impossible to fulfill. Bear in mind also that Hitler by now was a proven serial liar and Franco would not have placed much faith in future promises

- the war weariness in Spain was very real and the destruction to the Spanish economy was staggering; Franco had won only through massive German and Italian support

- Franco, while a nationalist, presided over a sometimes uneasy coalition of fascists, conservatives and staunch Catholics; as pointed out above this meant many were subject to the influence of a variety of foreign powers



(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 71
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 7:06:37 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 716
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: online
From what little I read it seems Spain was very close of joining right after France, with Franco trying to pull a Mussolini for a quick grab of a war 'already won'. Spain would have been probably a shaky ally (low national morale) once it was realised the war seemed a long one. While it seems people agree they would have been a net economic loss, the balance of the game sees them providing a bounty to the German coffers in units and mpps. There relatively large army also benefit from german tech.

Thoughts for future SC:

-Have Spain as an Italian minor (or inactive Axis major). It gives Spain on a separate, lower Nationale Morale pool and tech.
-Have Spain joining cost mpp every turn to the german player. If you want to get fancy you could have a land convoy that you can adjust the mpp you transfer. Below a certain threshold, it loses national morale. Gets Germany a sightly useful sidekick at a cost. Basically you don't take the Spain route for the money but for Gibraltar access and maybe some support units. Maybe boost neutral Spain trade so that the 'economy choice' is to keep it neutral but Axis leaning.

(in reply to elxaime)
Post #: 72
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 7:34:10 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: Spain/Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

From what little I read it seems Spain was very close of joining right after France


Nope, in reality it never was, @elxaime explained the reasons very well.


_____________________________

Mickey Mouse

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 73
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 8:01:56 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 716
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ivanov

quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

From what little I read it seems Spain was very close of joining right after France


Nope, in reality it never was, @elxaime explained the reasons very well.




I read the same thing as sPzAbt653 that it had initially had fell through over the canary islands.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 4/15/2018 8:31:55 PM >

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 74
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 9:25:54 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Google "Spain WW2 american university law review" read "The Spanish Neutrality during the Second World War"

The University Law Review is an interesting article on Spain in WW2. I don't know it's accuracy.

The DE 603 overhaul discussed is a major improvement in the game, DE 603 should change considerably. I don't have a problem with how easy it is for Axis to take Malta because Malta has major implications for Axis supply. Axis Gibraltar attacks should have a major negative implications on Spain & other Country Diplomacy. Gibraltar has large implications for the Allies in NA.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 4/15/2018 9:27:35 PM >


_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 75
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 9:37:38 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
In my opinion both Spain and massed air are well done. This coming from a guy who constantly suffered for 4 in game years from Sugar's air superiority.

It seems that in real life GB invested several chits of MPPs in Spain and Germany did not, thus if Axis conquered Algeria in real life it wouldn't bring Spain to the fold anyways. But what if in WW2 Axis bribed and assisted Spain while GB did not? Would Algeria bring Spain into the fold?
I believe it is not a problem that the Decision grants a big boost, but the definite inevitably that when fired Spain enters the Axis and the Allied player is defenseless to that (because most of the time Axis will go for Algeria if he is post 70% mark with Spain. You could:
1) Make it a random boost between 15-35%
2) Add in the mix that it will not fire as long as the Allies maintain 2 naval units adjusted to each major port of Spain

Regarding massed air; When an air unit destroys an army unit it doesn't mean that a few hundred bombers managed to kill 40-60 thousand soldiers -the personnel of several divisions- merely that they managed to destroy these divisions's function to fight. If the unit was in supply these men are supposed to have withdrawn back to the reserves. If a player manages to bring 4 extra HQs in the mountains of Algeria or the deserts of Libya, this translates as an enormous effort to keep up with the logistical problems of 2000-3000 warplanes.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 76
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 9:49:16 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
It's impossible for Allies to offset Axis Spain Diplo investment after France falls.

Almost everyone disagrees with you on DE 603.

The Mass Bombings in extreme areas are silly for this game.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 4/15/2018 9:53:31 PM >


_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to Ktonos)
Post #: 77
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 10:49:26 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
What have I said abt DE 603 in the above post that everyone disagrees with? I pointed out that it isn't necessarily ahistorical. I also mentioned that a minor tweak must take place.

The majority of those stating their opinion on the matter believe DE 603 is wrong. But most of the people who are usually ok with things as is seldom post about it.

In any case it is my opinion and I can state it regardless of how many disagree with me.


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 78
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 10:50:55 PM   
nnason


Posts: 208
Joined: 3/4/2016
Status: offline
1. Huberts comments are right on.
2. This a game not a simulation. As I have said elsewhere a game has to be fun for both sides so some "unrealistic" rules are needed to allow balance between sides. Like Herbert said, making any change, especially for some of the innovative suggestions herein, will likely have unintended consequences and game balance implications.
3. I for one appreciate this very long list of ideas but I think caution and game testing are in order to maintain balance.
4. Perhaps some of these ideas can be incorporated into a mod to game play and test.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

We are watching the thread and listening to all the feedback. Often the best thing for us to do before we jump in as it is usually ideal to hear all the different points of view.

That being said, many of the game rules have been in place for well over 10 years and can work just fine until players discover strategies that challenge the logic of existing rules and design decisions. Having in game flexibility to move air units around as shown above is one of them and in the past spending those MPPs to operate that many aircraft as well as placing the required HQs would simply mean a significant weakness in other areas of the map. Typically some strategies only work until the appropriate counter strategy is devised and then all is well again and no intervention is needed from our end at all.

Now in this case it could simply be that one player is very good at working within the rule set no matter what we do, or it could be that long term this strategy doesn't pan out as let's say those extra MPPs spent in the screen shot above eventually come to roost as it results in the Soviet player being able to survive in the USSR and eventually tipping the balance there. For example MPPs spent to move all that air to North Africa eventually needs to be spent to move it back if they are rapidly required elsewhere at some point.

Sometimes we just need to see how dozens of games pan out before making a change if the strategy above only relates to a short term victory and not a long term one.

From our end there are a lot of "developement what ifs" and it's just a matter of being careful of what you wish for as well. For example the game could be made much more realistic, which usually leads to more micro managing, which usually leads to less fun for most players.

It could be that Sugar's game play works only for him, or maybe for everyone, or maybe it is just short term and doesn't win in the long term but even still it found to be offensive to those that want realism no matter what. At the end of the day it is difficult to please everyone, that's simply a reality on our end, and that is something to consider as well.

* * *

Again, the game can always be adjusted, but from our end we've quickly discovered that for each change there can be unintended consequences and we have to be aware of that so that it doesn't turn into a game of whack a mole on our end of constantly changing rules to fix our fixes etc. Which is usually why we sometimes take a wait and see approach. Also, the game is getting older now and the tournament results so far indicate the game is within the realm of balance and we have to balance out any potential changes, time and effort, with also having the ability to move forward and focus on other projects. Unfortuantely in order to survive as a business we need to move our efforts forward at some point, again another simple reality on our end, and also one of the reasons we don't necessarily respond to each and every post as that takes a lot of time as well.

So all of the above bein said, there are a few options for us at the moment:

1) Wait and see if the massing of air fleets is a sure fire win strategy, despite the feeling of it being ahistorical. I suggest this only because the image above is not a free move and does cost MPPs, quite a few when considering the back and forth cost, and one of the big things players do seem to enjoy in game is having flexibility to try different strategies. Of course with the built in pro and con system of having to expend MPPs in order to do so and that those MPPs might cost them elsewhere if needed elsewhere.

2) Add further restrictions to the flexibility in order to achieve either game balance if needed, and/or to add more realism. Again this tends to lead to more micro managing and for some much less fun, but if that is the desire of the majority we will be open minded to that.

3) Change air unit statistics if needed, but even here it is likley to change the dynamic of the game and require careful and considerable adjustments as it will potentially hurt the Axis the most in the early years and the Allies the most in the later years. I'd almost suggest to those that would like to lower the effectiveness of bombers to to simply try this out with the default game, i.e. make just this one change, and see how it goes as my guess is it would require quite a few games to know what sort of long term effect this one change would have on overall game play and if it would solve the concerns outright. I realize from reading above that there are mods that have done this, but I am guessing the mods have other changes in place as well so a simple one element change to the default game would paint a better picture on our end of what else may or may not be needed.

Hope this helps,
Hubert





_____________________________

Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 79
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/15/2018 11:50:27 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote]ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

here is my post on DE 603 ( taking Algiers and getting Spain)


Above is a post I have written several times on DE 603


I agree with your thoughts on this and the new idea I've had for raising Spain's pro-Axis threshold for the Decision to fire would achieve the same result, and be much much easier to implement our side than what I'd previously been thinking of.

Bill







_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 80
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/16/2018 4:51:25 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 786
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

Regarding massed air; When an air unit destroys an army unit it doesn't mean that a few hundred bombers managed to kill 40-60 thousand soldiers -the personnel of several divisions- merely that they managed to destroy these divisions's function to fight. If the unit was in supply these men are supposed to have withdrawn back to the reserves. If a player manages to bring 4 extra HQs in the mountains of Algeria or the deserts of Libya, this translates as an enormous effort to keep up with the logistical problems of 2000-3000 warplanes.


I totally agree.

What the Russians did in Operation August Storm to the Japanese comes to mind. 2-3000 aircraft and support transported over thousands of miles, using a single track and in complete secrecy. So there is a precedent for accomplishing such a task.

It should be rare and very costly to be sure, but possible.



_____________________________

World War Three 1946 Blog
World War Three 1946 Series on Amazon


(in reply to Ktonos)
Post #: 81
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/16/2018 6:55:12 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: online
No matter the historical conditions, as a possibility in this game Spain is worth far too much, even if you have to pay the price for the DE: more than 200 MPPs/turn of value (that's more than double the worth of Italy, at least this can't be historically correct), 1 more than mediocre HQ, 3 armies, 1 light tank, 1 fighter, 1 light and heavy cruiser each, many corps and garrisons, and a force pool consisting of an additional med. tank and a tac. bomber.

Those are additional benefits to their strategical meaning.


(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 82
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/16/2018 9:28:22 PM   
Harun

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 1/16/2018
Status: offline
With German tech levels vs. Italian.

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 83
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/16/2018 11:05:57 PM   
LordOfPants

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/5/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ivanov
Giving territory to Franco certainly makes sense. If that would work in reality, we will never know. In real life Franco asked Hitler for huge amounts of aid ( including food products which was problematic for the Germans at best ) and offering very little in return. So eventually Hitler came to a conclusion, that having Spain on the Axis side would be a liability rather than help. It's also hard to estimate the scale of British influence on Franko's ministers but certainly it wasn't insignificant.


It's been a long time since I read up on it, but from what I remember the aid Franco was asking for was pretty much just what Spain would need to keep from starving. Their own infrastructure was in awful shape from the civil war, and they relied heavily on food imports and coastal shipping. So Franco was really just asking for enough food to cover imports, and other stuff to make up for not being able to use coastal shipping anymore (since the UK would interdict it pretty badly). Spain was really an economic basket case, and I'm pretty sure that Spain's rail network would have been strained badly trying to supply a major army and air force attack on Gibraltar.

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 84
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/17/2018 1:51:22 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 6890
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: online
Some comments about Gibraltar being tough to capture make me have to comment that it was not, because it's fresh water supply came from Spain and once cut off from this the garrison would only be able to survive 4-6 weeks. The German plan was not for a major effort, it involved two regiments, some rail guns and LW support.

Malta was in a similar situation until the Allies took Tunisia and Libya. Without ground based air support it was indefensible.

Historically, Hitler didn't understand the huge strategic importance of both locations.

(in reply to LordOfPants)
Post #: 85
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/17/2018 8:38:19 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 832
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

Thoughts for future SC:

-Have Spain as an Italian minor (or inactive Axis major). It gives Spain on a separate, lower Nationale Morale pool and tech.
-Have Spain joining cost mpp every turn to the german player. If you want to get fancy you could have a land convoy that you can adjust the mpp you transfer. Below a certain threshold, it loses national morale. Gets Germany a sightly useful sidekick at a cost. Basically you don't take the Spain route for the money but for Gibraltar access and maybe some support units. Maybe boost neutral Spain trade so that the 'economy choice' is to keep it neutral but Axis leaning.


I like both ideas!

_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 86
RE: Mass Air Groups - 4/17/2018 11:59:23 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
I think it would overcomplicate the matter. Just give a straight cap to each minor's tech bonuses. For example have Canadians & Finns be at lvl 2 infantry weapons, Romanian maybe at 0, Spanish at 1 etc.
Alternatively you could add a tab named something like "Tech assistance to minor powers", where each parent power would have a list of it's minors and an option to subsidise each's tech to be on par with his own.

(in reply to xwormwood)
Post #: 87
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Mass Air Groups Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.182