Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

SD4 Plunder

 
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 >> SD4 Plunder Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
SD4 Plunder - 10/30/2013 11:24:31 AM   
mcaryf

 

Posts: 169
Joined: 7/11/2003
From: Uk
Status: offline
I think there might be opportunities for “Plunder” to play a bigger part in SC than it does. Currently capturing some major cities results in a small MPP haul which can of course be adjusted by scenario designers whilst a surrendering country can yield large quantities of booty but I do not think this can be edited.

In practice recycling captured enemy equipment and deploying POWs as free labour did play a significant part in WW2. I guess the use of slave labour by the Axis powers is better known than the fact that the British used Italian prisoners to improve the harbour defences at Scapa Flow after they were penetrated by a German submarine and many Axis POWs worked in food production. The Germans were particularly good at recovering and repairing tanks from the battlefield both their own and those of their enemies and fielded several units equipped with T34s in Russia.

First, however, I would like to suggest a naval opportunity. SC currently treats raiding surface ships as a somewhat poor relation to submarines with a typically lower Raid value in the standard scenarios. In fact surface raiders had a significant additional potential in that their larger crews gave them the option of capturing merchant ships and putting a crew aboard which they often did. My proposal here is that surface ships acting as raiders should be able to steal as well as destroy MPPs. This could either be a fixed percentage of their Raid value, say 50%, or a proportion that could be set in the Editor.
Of course in terms of value the captured merchant ship itself should be regarded as an extra asset in its own right so 50% is quite modest and it might help justify raiding by surface ships which is otherwise not very cost effective.

With respect to land units the owning player gets the advantage of a cheap re-build if the unit is destroyed when its supply is more than a value that can be set in the Editor. I guess this is intended to distinguish units that might have surrendered or been cut off as opposed to those where the owning player can salvage some equipment or men. Apart from the fact that the opponent cannot rebuild I am not sure whether the player who destroys a low supply unit gets any further benefit. My proposal is that where a unit is destroyed below the rebuild threshold the opponent should be awarded some MPP bonus which might be 10% of the construction cost if supply was zero (i.e. surrendered) and 5% if it was between supply 1 and the minimum rebuild number. These values could perhaps be adjustable in the editor. In another of these SD posts I have mentioned capturing research. I would propose that any land unit destroyed with supply zero would give a random tech bonus in any research area where that unit was in advance of the opponent. Both the Axis and Allies took care with respect to when and how they deployed units with advanced technology. This addition might cause SC players to exercise the same caution.

Regards

Mike
Post #: 1
RE: SD4 Plunder - 10/30/2013 1:42:38 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3028
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I would agree to have more flexibility in the editor. Personally though, I have never cared for plunder as implemented and think it skews the game a bit. It takes time to consolidate gains made in war and the windfall players get now that immediately goes into production isn't realistic. From the Third Reich boardgame, players didn't get any plunder upon conquests and didn't get any BRPs until the next Year Start Sequence. In many cases players are compelled to weigh the costs of declaring war and fighting a campaign (ie, paying for offensives and combat losses) versus the possible economic benefits. That's not so clear in the SC games and in many cases players are rewarded too much for aggressive behavior. There are pros and cons to consider for having plunder or not having it. But again, I'd prefer to see the flexibility in the editor so campaign designers can experiment with different ideas.

(in reply to mcaryf)
Post #: 2
RE: SD4 Plunder - 10/30/2013 7:45:12 PM   
mcaryf

 

Posts: 169
Joined: 7/11/2003
From: Uk
Status: offline
Hi pzgndr

Perhaps a delayed benefit from plunder could be implemented with my proposed "Turn Counter"!

I agree with you that the plunder from surrendered countries might be too big a factor, however, the Germans did use oil captured in France as part of their stockpile for Barbarossa. It will be interesting to see how the oil aspect is implemented in SC3. It was again a factor in the late war deployment of the IJN as they still had plundered stockpiles available in Singapore but really they wanted to deploy their naval units in other areas.

Regards

Mike

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 3
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> SD4 Plunder Page: [1]
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

0.355