Bill101

Shaka wrote: "... Nor do I think that any invasion should cause a "uprising"." But it is historically accurate. Consider the strikes in the French railway system that coincided with the allied invasion, the rising in Paris and other areas when the allies broke out from Normandy. Looking further east we have Operation Tempest in Poland culminating in the bloody and hard fought two month struggle for Warsaw. Then at the end of the war the Czechs rose up in Prague. While none of these were very successful, they all hindered the Axis war effort. I think that factoring these things in somehow would be good, and they are all events that occured when a major allied force was moving into the vicinity. The exact method needs to be worked out, and I think that this thread is moving towards that. [ November 03, 2003, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Strategic bombers do become rather effective when they have reached level 2 or more of research, and are in good supply with a HQ. Have an air fleet to act as escort and they will soon reduce Axis resources to ashes. Repairs are expensive (it was in real life too, which is why the bombing strategy is still debated) but the damage they do will steadily reduce the Axis economy.

Give the USA a strategic bomber or two. That way, coupled with the British one (if it hasn't been sold) the allies can launch the historically accurate bombing campaign against Germany, something that just doesn't happen enough in most games.

I'm not sure that the UK could have any influence over the chance to create Russian partisans. To the best of my knowledge they had none in WWII, and I couldn't imagine Stalin agreeing to it.

I like the idea of funding partisans in occupied countries. Shouldn't be overdone, and it's main effect could be in minor reduction in Axis MPP income. As to armed risings, well I've always thought it a bit strange that as Axis you can invade all countries except the USSR and Russia, and just leave them totally empty afterwards, with no negative effects from the conquered population. I think there should be a rule that every conquered country should be occupied by at least one unit from the occupying power. If this wasn't complied with, then the MPP income from this country's resources should fall. There could also be a % chance of an uprising should allied forces enter the country. To stop raiders triggering off invasions, maybe such an effect could be limited to occuring only when an allied HQ enters the country. So, for instance a corps landing in France will have no effect, but when an allied HQ lands in France there will be a chance for a rising (one 5 strength partisan unit, with effects on Axis supply just as in Russia). Sorry for the digression. Back to Ultra: if something along these lines is introduced then it will require some good programming, otherwise it could be a hackers delight for creating a FOW sniffer for SC2. Something I'm sure none of us would like to see. [ November 02, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I think there's something to this, but seeing every unit might be a bit much. I'm not an expert on Ultra, but the difficulty with intelligence is the time it takes to decode it, distribute it to the relevant people, for them to then read it all and act on it. Perhaps just a sighting of German HQs, and their movement, if any, might be better. The reason being that the positioning and movement of HQs does give away long term plans, while still leaving enough to the imagination and guesswork of the allied player. In other words, it gives them a clue but not the whole story.

I agree with the two posters above. This is now a dead issue unless Hombre Plin resurfaces and provides solid evidence. By solid evidence I mean the file or whatever it is that this sniffer is supposed to be. When or if you get it, forward it on to Hubert so that he can ensure that SC2 could not have the same problem. Why not email Hombre Plin direct? His silence on this forum suggests that he hasn't looked at it in a while.

It is a good idea. One for Hubert to play around with I think. However, what you said about air fleets I disagree with. The Luflotte that the Germans had were a mixture of fighters, reconnaissance and bombers. To change that the air war will have to be fought in an a-historical way. I think that the best thing would be to just give strategic bombers a bit more bombing power, and air fleets a bit less.

I've just play tested this out in a hotseat game. On the turn of 3rd March 1940 the Axis have bought their 6th air fleet, and I'm just 25MPPs short of having enough for a 7th. Admittedly I did operate one Panzer unit for the invasion of the Low Countries that wasn't needed (I did operate a couple of other units that were), so I could have done it. Or if the plunder had been slightly greater... While I made no repairs whatsoever, my conclusion is that it is possible for the Axis to have 7 air fleets by this turn. I didn't buy the extra land unit, but then an extra corps could have been bought if the plunder was greater. It should also be borne in mind that my attack on Poland didn't go as well as usual, even though I was playing against myself! [ October 30, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I think it's realistic, up to a point anyway. 8 turns is an awfully long time too. It's about how long the Poles hoped to be able to fight for if France launched an offensive in the west at the same time. Early in 1939 Stalin was interested in an alliance with the west, but when the UK and France prevaricated and only sent some low level diplomats or military figures to see him, he decided to opt for an alliance with Hitler instead. He was an opportunist, and if Germany was stuck fighting a war on two fronts his actions might have changed. Even though you might lose, it sounds like an interesting situation, and next time we play you can make up for this defeat against Terif.

Landing just west of Kiel (from the western side of the Danish peninsula) or in southwestern Sweden will do the trick of cutting off Scandinavia's supply, and their MPP income will fall too! Have lots of corps ready to do these things, and to threaten elsewhere. Do this just before or at the same time as you invade, and do your best to keep your target unknown from the enemy. If you bomb France one turn, and attack Brest with several fleets, then the enemy may expect a landing there rather than in Norway which you haven't attacked. Remember also that a threat to land can be useful too, for the Axis might operate air fleets, and send troops and HQs to Norway just in case, only to find your transports landing somewhere else instead. [ October 23, 2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I would say that its best to attack Norway then Sweden if you are relatively weak in the west, as this will boost up your income and deprive the enemy of quite a lot of resources. I always look at resources with a view to not only what they will give me, but also what their capture will deprive the enemy of. For example, the mine in Norway which is giving the enemy 16MPP, if captured will give me 10MPP, thus it will swing the economic war 26MPP in my favour. If you look at things from that point of view then liberating Norway and Sweden will swing MPP production 182 points in the allies favour (I hope I've done my sums right!). Landing in France will not have the same effect as France is not worth so many MPPs to the Axis. Another problem with France is that once you liberate Paris the UK or US no longer receive MPPs for French towns and ports. The French get the MPPs, but it will be quite a few turns before you will be able to build your first French unit. However, if you are very strong then go for France, and then advance on Germany. I've done it before where I took Norway, Sweden, then Denmark, and finally I landed in France. It all took a while, which means that the Russians have got to be doing ok.

Presumably when your opponent told you about your pieces 15 hexes away you asked them for an explanation. If so, what was their reply? Did they just say "yes, I've been cheating" or did they try to explain it away? I can imagine scenarios where I would have a reasonable idea of the position of some enemy units, but if they could tell where lots of yours were, with unit names, strengths, experience etc. then it's more than surmising.

You're quite right about the USSR! Shows I didn't do my homework properly. Therefore I definitely agree about keeping it on random. Bill

How about trying this out to see if it gives a more balanced game, thus avoiding the need for bidding: Play the 1940 Fall Gelb scenario, with the USSR set to historical and the USA set to random. In this scenario the UK is relatively more powerful than in the 1939 one, with level 1 in gun laying radar, more units and a HQ. By setting the USSR to historical the Axis player has just 13 months in which to do all their cookie-cutting before they must start Barbarossa. Keeping the USA to random should discourage the UK from invading Ireland and Iraq until later. I'm thinking of giving this a try, and if you'd like to just send me an email.

I've been thinking for a while about two things relating to HQs. I don't know if they're relevant unless SC2 will be similar to SC1, but here goes anyway: 1) There have been calls in the past for minor powers to have HQs as part of their initial set up, such as Franco for Spain and Smigly-Ridz for Poland. I disagree. The greatest benefit from having HQs is their effect in improving supply and readiness, and the smaller countries just didn't have the resources for a large and highly efficient supply system. Currently minor powers' troops do benefit from being in the vicinity of a friendly HQ in terms of supply, so the only thing that could be gained would be a bonus to their combat factors. The way to do this is not to give the minor powers HQs, but to allow their stronger allies the ability to purchase them on their behalf. What this means in practice is that Franco is a reasonably good military leader, but it takes the gift of resources from, say, Germany, to activate a Spanish logistical service and command structure capable of making a difference on the battlefield. Once activated, just as German HQs only give combat bonuses to German troops, so the Spanish HQ in our example would just do the same for Spanish troops. 2) Given that the USA was a major military and industrial power, shouldn't they have more than 4 HQs available for purchase? I've been in games where the US have lost or sold HQs (the latter when they couldn't evacuate them from Spain in time), but surely the USA could have easily replaced the loss of logistical support? To have the USA running out of HQs seems unrealistic to me. Bill

I'm for keeping the status quo. The most I would agree to is the suggestion made above that you have to wait until the following turn before using the MPPs, though that might require some fiddly programming to work. It is totally realistic to disband units as it happened during the real war and allows more flexibility in our games. Bill

What on earth is the FOW sniffer? I just try to use my common sense and take a look at the Reports screen once in a while to work out what my opponent might be up to. I don't think people should worry too much about cheating in this game. Not even move reloads, because while they could have some effect, it is long term planning and investment that counts. This doesn't mean that I condone cheating, far from it, but there's too much worrying about it. If someone is sad enough to hack the program then they really should get a life. Bill [ October 19, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

You both need to make sure you are playing in the same version (i.e. with the most up to date patches). They can be downloaded from this site in the downloads section. If that doesn't work then post a message on the SC Tech Support forum. Good luck Bill

Or the reinforcement of the Middle East by Indian, South African etc. troops is activated by either Axis troops entering Egypt, or their naval forces (including transports) moving into the hexes in the vicinity. I'm thinking of something that would work a bit like the Siberian transfer - it would be triggered by the Axis player, thus making Egypt harder to attack. Just a thought. Bill

I was tempted to test out your game until I saw the disclaimer. Fair enough, I understand why, but is your game likely to cause any problems if I download it? Has anyone else experienced any? I'm happy to try it out, but I don't want to risk losing my computer in the process. Back to SC. I think that if people are tired of the game then they should do/play something else for a while (like Combat Mission ), as otherwise by the time SC2 is finally launched we may be fed up with the concept of the game. Bill

I'm afraid I'm still not an expert on how to keep Russian war readiness down, but I'm a bit better at it now (thanks partly to Curry). Some people are experts at it, as I've learnt to my cost! You're right Gunnar - I'd forgotten that you did invade in the west, a long time after I expected you would. Sometimes I wish we could re-run a video of our favourite games, or at least have a summary of events to refer to. This is especially relevant when you have 6 games or more on the go at one time, and have trouble remembering what's happened.

I had something similar in a game with Gunnar some months ago. Because of his LC gambit (which was pretty new to me) I took ages taking France. I didn't have much of a clue how to keep down Russian war readiness either, so before I new it I was at war with them, with not enough of Europe in my hands. However, I had been experimenting with rockets, and I slowly drove into Russia up almost to the gates of Leningrad, before having to retire back a little due to the lack of supply. What kept me going was conquering Spain in late 1942 (I think), and having a relatively strong Italian air force. Lack of success in jet research for the Germans did cause problems for a while, but my wonder rockets knocked hell out of the Russians (killed Chuikov with 2 shots!) and saved my bacon. We had air battles a plenty, with the Luftwaffe and allied air forces (most of whom were in Russia) trading losses. When it ended in May 1947 Germany and Italy were still in the game, but the Russians were in the vicinity of Berlin. The allies hadn't done an invasion in the west, but had invaded Iraq and moved loads of troops (including US armies) to Russia that way. I probably didn't use the best strategy, but it was one of the most entertaining games I've had. It also seems to be very rare to get a draw in this game, so for me that game is so far unique.

Recently I've been trying out buying a cheap HQ asap and shipping it to the Med. I think Monty can wait until later in the war. I think it all depends on what you think is the greatest threat, and where the opportunities might lie. Sometimes just saving up several hundred MPPs and holding them in reserve might be a good idea until the Axis' intentions become clearer. My problem is getting France to hold out for a long time without resorting to the Low Countries gambit. One solution might be to create lots of corps and ship them to France? Bill

Good post Jim. I also think that the SC forum is doing ok, despite a few hiccoughs. We can't expect things to always run smoothly, and there are still plenty of people here enjoying the game, with new ones joining all the time. BTW I found SC looking at the Battlefront website, while looking up Combat Mission stuff. Bill