Bill101

I think it would be good if we could connect units to HQs ourselves, but we would probably want the computer to automatically assign where we didn't, otherwise we could spend half of every move assigning and reassigning until we got it right, making online games a bit slow. Another thing I'd like HQs to have is a few AA guns and a low defensive combat value. Not a great deal, but it would be nice if they weren't such easy pickings. After all, all armies put AA guns and troops to guard their supply lines, yet in SC the HQs (which partially represent supply lines) never do any damage to attacking units. Not even when they are entrenched in a city with level 5 AA radar!

There is a small chance that the French navy will still fight on after the fall of France, but unlike the air force and army, it is based on a die roll. Generally it is better to either use the French navy in an aggressive role, or sell it off to buy more troops. If you are selling it off, it is usually best to deal with the German subs first. Also, unless the situation demands otherwise, sell off the ships the turn AFTER moving them into port, as that way you will get back more MPPs, as the amount you get depends on their supply that turn. Hope you enjoyed at least a couple of hours of sleep after your game!

If during the campaign against Russia the Germans take a city, and later on they move out of it, operating in an Italian unit, the city will stay German. I prefer to give Yugo and Greece to Italy, so that they can create units all along the western Balkans.

And I've always found it interesting how a country that did have a sizeable strategic bomber arm, the USA, never has one in this game (unless you play one of the later scenarios). If you're playing the earlier scenarios it just isn't worth the extra MPPs. I think that it should be added to the USA's starting order of battle in SC2.

I've got 2 games of 1941 on the go, and in both the Axis have conquered Sweden. In the one where I'm Axis I used my Italians to do it. However, we balanced the scenario a bit by bidding, giving Axis the extra MPP for a change (on a 1:4 ratio - every 1 to Italy = 4 to Germany). In both games the bid was the same, with an extra 75 for Italy and 300 to Germany. The first one I'm playing is nearly over and it has been (and still is!) very tough. We only have 4-5 turns to go and the Axis hold most of Germany, Italy, the Balkans, and Odessa and Kiev in Russia (the latter possibly only temporarily as I've just retaken it). We had a situation for a while where Torino changed hands about 7 times in 8 turns, such a tough fight which I've never seen before in this game (and I still hold it ). I think that the alternative of reducing the USSR's MPPs has the same effect, and I'm glad that people are starting to play scenarios other than the 1939 one more.

No, unfortunately not. I normally do something else while I'm waiting, and not watching the computer's move does make the game ever so slightly harder. Hopefully skipping the computer's turn will be possible in SC2.

Yes, happened to me once aswell. It was when I was new to the game and I was invading countries in the historical order (i.e. Norway and Denmark in early 1940). As a result I was late in attacking in the west. I presume that if the Axis don't attack the Low Countries then there's a chance that the allied AI will. Good on it too!

Unfortunately not, apart from changing which countries are active, and whether or not they've surrendered to allies/axis or joined either side. Maybe SC2 will (if we're lucky!) contain something that would allow us to do so.

Hi Oliva I don't think that's insuperable. One side starts off with well organised and disciplined regular troops, backed up by para-military forces, the other starts off with para-military forces backed up by regular troops. Having more resources at the beginning wouldn't guarantee victory to the Republic, just as in SC in the 1939 scenario Germany's MPP income per turn is far less than the UK and France's put together, but Germany still manages to conquer France 99% of the time. Thus I see it as a battle starting in 1936 with good forces but few resources on one side, against large but inferior forces with good resources on the other. Franco's rebels will have to be aggressive and move quickly to seize resources. If they fail to do that then the Republicans will have time to increase the quality and strength of their forces. So, one thing that would need to be taken into account more is the quality of troops and their equipment. A tech research for Infantry weapons or similar could do it, with the regulars starting on a higher level than the militias.

Or hopefully going to make a version of SC to do the Spanish Civil War. I think it could be done, with room for at least the major political groups on both sides and foreign intervention. The only difference I'd probably make to the programming of SC would be on resource distribution. For example, a Republican held city like Barcelona or Madrid would probably be providing support to most or all of the political factions on the Republican side, whereas at the moment all the MPPs of a resource are given to only one recipient. So, of it's 20 MPPs, maybe 5 might go to the UGT, 5 to the CNT, 5 to the regular army, and the rest to the smaller parties (this is just a purely hypothetical example of what I'm thinking of, and it's probably all academic anyway). Though as Hubert lists politics as one of his interests this might interest him too? Here's hoping anyway...

Hola Nosepo Si, es verdad que van a sacar una segunda parte, pero nadie entre nosotros sabe cuando. Hay más campañas en estos websites: http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/SC_Downloads.asp http://ww2n.com/schq/cam.htm

I'm sure a lot of players, myself included, have carried out a landing on either Canada or the USA before the UK has fallen. I think that if you land in the USA in a serious competition game then fine, it's up to you. If it's a friendly and you are playing it more for fun then it's better not to. That aside, I've been thinking that a house rule to the effect that landings on Canada and the USA aren't allowed unless both UK and USSR have fallen would help balance the game a little in favour of the allied player. Currently the Canadian Corps must be the least used unit in the whole game - the allies can't use it AND the Canadian army for fear of an Axis landing in Canada. Or another way round it, thus releasing up both Canadian units for service in Europe, would be to give the UK one extra Cruiser, with it's mission being to guard the Canadian (and later the US) coasts.

Why don't you play one of the other campaigns in SC? I've started playing the 1941 one with a couple of people, and it has revitalised my interest in SC. I'm not surprised at a loss of interest in SC, as most of these AARs are just replays of the first 5-6 turns, over and over again. Here's a suggestion - play the 1944 scenario, both ways (i.e. have 2 games running at the same time), and whoever holds out as Axis the longest out of the pair of you is the winner.

I'm glad that I'm not the only fan of Kohan on this forum. I probably play it as much as SC! It's a great game, by far the simplest and easiest to play RTS game I've ever come across, and it knocks Age of Empires and Cossacks for six. It can also give a very good game whereby winning against the AI is an achievement to be proud of (set 3 AIs against yourself on hard level and you have got a corking game). However, making a WWII RTS is a completely different matter. I think that turn based, SC style, is the way to go, unless someone develops a workable strategic level Combat Mission style game (i.e. where you issue the orders, then watch a video to see what happens).

I think that a lot of the game could easily be turned into a board game. But the following would also be difficult to do while keeping it simple: 1) supply rules 2) Damage to resources. 3) Experience levels. 4) Research could involve a lot of (secret?) die rolling every turn. Taking the basic concept and possibly ignoring some of these things might be the answer. But can we have SC2 first please?

John wrote: "The great thing about losing to Rannug is he explains everything thoroughly and improves his opponent's game even while beating him." That's certainly true as I've beaten the LC gambit a couple of times since. I just need him to show me how to do DDay properly now!

I think that my games against Rannug have seen some of my worst playing. Not being able to take the Low Countries once he'd done the gambit on me. I was all confident when he first announced this strategy that I challenged him to a game, knowing full well what he was going to do. He did it, and I just got my backside tanned. We fought it to the bitter end, with Russian armies charging into Berlin. That was the only part of the game where I did well! My attempts in our current game to launch DDay have failed miserably three times! :eek:

John I think you mean J.F.C. Fuller. To say that he had fascist sympathies is actually quite an understatement. I've never seen a book of his theories available (I have looked at some of the histories he wrote), but a contemporary of Fuller's who also influenced German thought was B.H. Liddell Hart. I'd strongly recommend his book Thoughts on War. I've read some of his others, but this one is definitely my favourite. He can't be classed as a great general though - his highest wartime command was in charge of a platoon of infantry for a short time at the end of WWI! There was mention of De Gaulle above. He was one of the better French commanders in 1940, and his book Vers l'Armee de Metier, translated as The Army of the Future, is another one of those prophetic works from the 1930s. If only the French High Command had read it!

Les A mark of a great general is whether they generally had good ideas or not. It's not just whether they had one great idea, but whether they consistently came up with good ideas. I don't know enough about Patton, but here's one great and one awful example of generalship from the early 18th century: 1) The Duke of Marlborough's campaigns against the French and Bavarians during the War of Spanish Succession are an example of a great general at work. His crossing of the lines of Ne Plus Ultra without having to fight a battle was brilliant, as was his march down the Rhine to join forces with Prinz Eugen, before leading their combined armies to victory at Blenheim. He won all of his battles, and is rightly regarded as one of England's best generals. 2) The Jacobite Earl of Mar's campaign in Scotland in 1715 was a complete disaster due to his poor leadership. Having raised the standard of rebellion and assembled a large army which vastly outnumbered his opponent's force by about 5:1, he then threw away this advantage by dithering. He didn't know what to do, and just waited for ages hoping that something would come up. Being in rebellion he needed to act quickly and win a victory as soon as possible before the government could react, and also before his allies in England were defeated. To his credit he did send some troops into England to assist the rebellion there, but his leadership both on a strategic level and during the one battle he fought, at Sherriffmuir, was appalling. Unfortunately for the Jacobite cause, the leadership of the force they raised in England was also uninspired. If the Jacobites in 1715 had been led by generals of the quality of Caesar, Napoleon or Manstein I cannot see that things would have happened in the same way. Leadership and good decision making are without doubt a very important factor in warfare. Of course there are plenty of people who could make good generals but never get the chance to, but to say that all generals are equal, which is what your statement that "great generals don't exist" infers, cannot be true. [ December 02, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Les, I disagree. There's some truth in that, but just as some of us are better at SC than others, so some generals were better than others. I think this is borne out more by studying military campaigns (i.e. strategy) than by a study of battle tactics. A great general is someone who was almost consistently lucky, and the reason for this was because, to quote Napoleon, "they knew how to master chance". A good strategist requires nerves of steel not just for one hour or day of battle, but for the whole time from settling on a plan to its completion. My vast wargaming experience confirms this, as every strategic campaign we've fought at my club has sorted out the men from the boys in a way that tactical games never do. [ December 01, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I'd like the choice to play European or Pacific theatre, or the two joined together to make it into a representation of the whole of WWII.

John The good thing is that what you suggest can be playtested in SC by just setting USA and USSR to neutral, with an agreement made as to during which turn the Axis player will have to DOW on them. Both players will need to keep track of the number of DOWs, but that shouldn't be too hard to do. Alternatively, the USA can be set to historical, USSR to neutral, with an agreement that the Axis player must DOW on the USSR in the turn of 22nd June 1941. That way the Axis player can do what they like in the meantime, but with generally less time than usual before having to invade Russia. [ December 01, 2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Jersey John wrote: "is an arificially induced Soviet and U. S. entry really the answer?" I don't know, but we have to remember that in real life the Axis was led by two nutters, Hitler and Mussolini. If they had been led by sensible generals like Manstein, or sensible players (i.e. us in SC) then the Axis would win every time. I view the unpredictability of war readiness as a way of rationalising the fact that we are usually far more sensible than Hitler was in real life, and this game needs a balancer. Stalin was a nutter too, so predicting his behaviour on all events shouldn't be too easy. Besides, people who have played this game 100+ times have an advantage of hindsight which the real life leaders and generals didn't have. I agree that lend lease and other modifications (such as not allowing an Italian amphib adventure into either Greece or Egypt) would help, but when SC2 comes out I still would like it to have some elements in it that not even the top players can ever quite master.

John You're right (as usual) about the historical detail, but if that were the case then no playable game could be made to represent WWII unless it forced the Germans to attack Russia in 1941. The way this game works at the moment, the Axis player has to DOW on Russia sometime in 1941 (or possibly very early 42 if they've been really lucky). If they could avoid this until later in 1942 or 1943 then the Axis would win the game every time. Playability and game balance is the key here.

Isn't some unpredictability good for the game? Wouldn't it just get boring if things always went the same way, every time? I don't understand the Russian readiness either, and have paid with Axis blood as a result, but I didn't care. I just got on with the fight and did my best. Let's not have everything so perfectly programmed so that those who know the game inside out will always wipe the floor with those who don't.