Ludi1867

The file that caused my query in the first place has been sent. Thanx for looking at this Hubert!

The Allied player placed the BEF in Bordeaux before France offered (and the Germans accepted) Vichy. Bordeaux remains at a supply level of 10 after Vichy was accepted, and all other Allied units have been removed from the continent. Is Bordeaux supposed to remain at supply level 10 in this situation? I guess I have to double check the supply rules, but it sure is hard for the Germans to get ANY kind of supply way down there, and I am a little at a loss as to why Bordeaux would remain at supply level 10.

In a recent AoD game Tunis was 'invaded' (as a result of a computer generated DE) by the Axis because the Allies had successfully conquered Algeria (end of 1942, early 1943). While this is reasonably historical, what was hard to understand was that this 'decision event' fired at the END of the Axis turn. The consequence was that the Axis could do nothing – the DE was announced at the END of the Axis turn by the computer, without any involvement by the Axis human player who simply sat at his display in bemusement – while the very next turn the Allies could (and did) simply move into Tunis without having to declare war, or deal with any garrison, etc. The Allies would likely have easily captured Tunis in any case, but why does this event fire at the END of an Axis turn? It might make sense if it happened at the beginning of an Axis turn, when there is at least the possibility of the Axis moving a unit into Tunis, but for the event to fire when the Axis can do nothing but watch the result of the DE in disbelief, seems to make no sense. Was this DE supposed to fire at the end of an Axis turn? Or is it just a glitch? Or is it INTENDED to give the Allied player a bonus? I am really unclear as to why this happens as it does!

Hi Layabout While I welcome your enthusiasm, and certainly agree that NOT having Paris does cost the Axis a few MPP, there is a negative downside to DE 602 NOT being offered (as it will likely be rejected) to the Axis until Algiers falls. While you will, I am sure, never get into this situation, it is all too possible (as I have learned from personal experience) for the Allied player to not only be in trouble in continental France (ultimately everything but Paris captured), but Italian units start moving towards Algiers as well. The fall of Sousse is a bad sign, but when Tunis is aggressively captured then it is clear that things are going badly for the Allies. At this point – with Tunis captured and all of France – except, of course, Paris – in trouble, the Allies SHOULD have some options. Perhaps FRANCE should be given the ability to offer Vichy to the Germans if Tunis falls and France is in serious trouble? The benefit would be, if Germany rejects DE 602 at this point, that the capital is in Algiers AND THE FRENCH get several units (as well as the possibility of having units in the production queue arriving more quickly, if I read DE 602 correctly). These are useful benefits to the Allied player when things are looking very bad for the French. Currently the Axis player can completely AVOID DE 602 by holding off on capturing Paris until Algiers is captured. Now, this may never happen if the Allied player is skilful (clearly, I am NOT skilful enough), but the status quo, that allows the Axis player to completely avoid DE 602 if he is unscrupulous enough, is not reasonable.

There is a problem with DE 602 – if an unscrupulous Axis player chooses to NOT take Paris, even when every other city in Continental France has been captured and there is not a single French unit left in Continental France, until Algiers is captured, there is no point in Germany accepting Vichy. In fact, if the Axis 'plan' envisions NOT accepting Vichy then NOT capturing Paris until after Algiers is captured is a bad idea, in game terms. This is simply common sense from a game perspective, even if it violates reality in any reasonable sense. Therefore, to avoid pure 'gameiness' of this sort, DE 602 should be amended. The offer of Vichy to Germany should happen once the majority of France is conquered OR the majority of French units are destroyed. A random aspect might be useful here. As it is clearly intended that a prolonged defence of France and French territories (such as Algiers) should take place if the majority of Continental France is conquered and Vichy is refused, then this DE should fire without Paris HAVING to be captured, as it is now scrupulously avoided. And having Paris avoided, even when all of the rest of France has been conquered, is just wrong. For reference, here is DE 602: DE 602 - Germany: Create Vichy France?  Event fires: Once France has surrendered and Paris is in Axis hands.  Cost of accepting: 0 MPPs  Yes: The following countries are formed: Vichy France formed, as are Vichy Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, French West Africa, French Polynesia and French Equatorial Africa. French Polynesia receives a Corps. Germany is presented with DE 515, the UK with DE 100 and DE 101, while the USA is presented with DE 302.  No: France continues to fight, with Algiers becoming her capital while she receives units in Algeria, French Polynesia, Noumea, and air units (a tactical bomber and a strategic bomber) manufactured in the USA. Free French units may also arrive at a higher percentage chance. Syria, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa and French Polynesia will all swing 80-89% towards the Allies if Germany forces the surrender of France from Algiers. Once Algiers falls to the Axis, Germany is presented with DE 603.

If Baron can join this ladder, then I guess I better join as well. I am not likely to win a lot of matches, but I can act as cannon fodder and may even learn enough to win one eventually.

Hi Mike While I do not want to get into a long debate about Finland and the Winter War – your points are correct, and I really don't have a problem with the decision event that basically covers off the Winter War now – I would have to say that I really do not understand your proposed solution. The problem for me is not so much with the Winter War, but with when the Soviets attack Finland AGAIN after the German invasion begins. If the Soviets are prepared and make this attack well before Finland joins the Axis then Finland is really in trouble. One of the main reasons they are in so much trouble is because the Finnish units enter the war completely unimproved. So level 2 Soviet Armour (rough estimate) and level 1 or 2 Soviet infantry attack unimproved Finnish infantry, and the results are usually not pretty. An attack like this is not all that unreasonable (if ahistorical) but my problem is that Finnish units in this situation should NOT be level zero, as that IS unreasonable. Does your proposed solution address this sort of situation? If so, how?

Strategic Command (SC) is a great game. However, neutrals are attacked far too often, and often too easily, in this game. There have been suggestions to increase the diplomatic costs for attacks on Ireland, for example. Yet so far little has been done. This suggestion is to alter the game engine to make neutrals less technologically feeble as the game progresses. Neutrals cannot conduct R&D, which only seems reasonable given the constraints and nature of the game. But as time passes and technology changes neutrals become inherently more feeble – and therefore even easier to attack. When attacked, neutrals should instantly become aligned with the faction opposing their attacker (this is the intent, I believe, of the current setting in SC but anomalies still occur - see the post by Pacestick regarding Italian fighters NOT intervening during the invasion of Tunisia for one example). They should then become INSTANTLY outfitted with the technology level of the dominant (or closest) major power in what has now become 'their' faction. Some examples should make this evident: When the various neutral low countries are attacked by Germany shortly after the main war campaign commences, then a level zero technology for most units seems sensible. After all France is the main power for the Allies at this point, and the level of technology of most French units is indeed zero. However, a real invasion of Finland after the USSR becomes fully mobilized still finds Finnish forces at level zero technology. This seems much less sensible. By the time in the war this can occur the main opponent of Russia – Germany – should have a number of technological advances. These should be reflected in Finnish forces, and are not. The result is that Finnish forces are generally fairly easy prey – at least they are significantly easier then they would be if upgraded before deployment to the level of the primary opponent of Russia, Germany. Finally, the introduction of the Atlantic Wall in Assault on Democracy is an innovative improvement. However, an unintended consequence is to make the invasion of neutrals such as Portugal and Spain (if Spain is still neutral by this point) more attractive. To avoid the Atlantic Wall the Allies can now land in the Iberian peninsula. The opposition put forth by the neutrals there will STILL be at level zero tech, even though it should be 1943 or 1944 at this point. The invading powers should have significantly advanced forces by this point in the war. The main Axis power, Germany, should ALSO have significantly advanced tech forces. So level zero forces are rather easily brushed aside – and this is NOT the way it should be. If getting the game to recognize the tech level of the main opponent of an invader is too complicated, then it might be easier to have the tech level of the invaded neutral be the SAME as the tech level of the invading major power. This is less historically reasonable, but it may be more easily accomplished, and would still make neutrals somewhat less of the easy sport they are now. One less than optimal result would be to have neutrals in the low countries in 1939/1940 have tech level one infantry weapons tech, as Germany – which would be the invader in this case – starts with that tech. However, neutrals would still be relatively easy prey, and if the change makes neutral less of an easy sport then it is an improvement worth making. SC is a great game. Making neutrals less of an easy target would make a great game better.

Hi Amadeus Having been 'prodded' by Catacol Highlander, I would be interested in joining your Tournament. I have tried sending an e-mail to the address you gave in the first post in this thread, but if that does not work, please consider this an official request to join.

I am surprised and confused by part of Bill101's response: as far as I have been able to determine Germany and Italy can ONLY invest one chit in ANY area of research in this scenario. Is that not correct? Overall I have found German R&D to be somewhat slower than Soviet, but ALSO I have found research to be incredibly varied in this scenario. Why? Well, part of it is the restriction of ONLY one chit in any area. That means that breakthroughs are incredibly important in this scenario. You CANNOT prioritize any area of research, and what to do after putting a single chit in infantry, air and armour research is really hard to tell. So far I have NOT been impressed with the balance of this scenario at all.

Hi Mike Your loop ideas are actually quite interesting. The one thing I have to add to this discussion is intelligence. The key reason that Axis raiders succeeded so frequently early in the war is that German naval codes were pretty much impenetrable to the Allies early in the war. The Bismarck sortie was not stopped by decryption, but Allied chances of interception were definitely improved by the breakthrough in decryption that occurred just before that vessel entered the Atlantic. Intelligence actually proved quite important in the Battle of the Atlantic as well, although it was only part of the overall Allied response. The actual details are quite complex, but should not be forgotten when you are thinking about adding more 'historical reality' to the game, which in essence is your objective here I believe. When it comes to your loops it might be interesting to tie them to the intelligence advantage (or disadvantage) as it exists in a game as opposed to simply putting a termination (or activation) date in for them. Termination and activation dates have the advantage of simplicity, but intelligence advantage has the advantage of reality – as well as making intelligence research even more useful than it currently is. One of the great challenges would then be balancing a game with all these various possibilities integrated into it, but then that is also the whole point of most games of this nature!

Allied warships have the ABILITY to CHOSE to raid convoy lanes or not. However, it does not seem to make any difference whatsoever when it comes to the convoy lane that passes close to Norway en route to the Baltic. If the Allied player CHOSES to raid this convoy lane then it is eminently reasonable to have the Norwegians be irritated by this. However, the Norwegians recently proclaimed their irritation at the presence of an Allied warship that was well outside their territorial waters and NOT raiding. It happened to be adjacent to the convoy route, but I had – quite deliberately – CHOSEN not to raid. Nonetheless the Norwegians moved 17% closer to joining the Axis (went from 10% to 27% in one turn). I had ALSO placed the French submarine so that it was not adjacent to the convoy lane – although it very well could have been placed adjacent. This is irritating, especially as this problem has been raised before. There is currently no way that Allied warships can operate close to Norway at all without raising the possibility of forcing Norway into the Axis camp inadvertently. This is patently ridiculous. If the Allied player CHOSES to raid the convoy route then there should certainly be the possibility of negative consequences. But when the Allied player deliberately CHOSES NOT to raid it is ridiculous that the Norwegian's react. I also checked the graphs to confirm that no damage had been done to German convoys (which, of course, there had not been). The Allies should have the ability to operate in the open ocean (at least one square from Norway) without the possibility of irritating the Norwegians. The current situation is simply wrong. I can forward the save game files for my turns (I am currently in a PBEM game, so my opponent's files are his to decide what to do with).

Xworm It wasn't just fast passenger ships that were relatively safe – find ANY troop convoys that were attacked in deep water and you will be lucky. Troop convoys in disputed waters, such as the Bismarck Sea, did result in devastating losses to the troops, but this was NOT anywhere near where loops usually go. As for fast vessels being more in danger if the war lasted longer, the only possible answer to that is 'perhaps'. Type XXI U-boats, which were finally becoming operational as the real war ended, MIGHT have been able to sink a fast ship, but the limiting lines of submerged approach on a fast passenger ship were still pretty small even for a Type XXI. Basically a U-boat needed quite a bit of luck to sink a fast passenger ship because of the geometry forced on U-boats by the speed of the passenger vessel – it is actually quite hard to sink them. I have done the calculations and its really not easy at all – especially if the large ship uses any kind of long leg zigzag (which they should and usually did). The main problem with proposing operational movement for troops is the seamlessness of the oceans. Do you charge by the increment? (ie for every ten squares travelled charge so much MPP?) What do you do? The current system requires troops to embark in amphibious ships or transports, both of which already cost MPP. Therefore there already is a cost to use naval movement for troops. The main concern raised (aside from yours) is the slow pace of this movement, both for transports and naval warships, not the cost. Operational movement offers the possibility of faster (potentially MUCH faster) movement, but it is difficult to see how the cost factor would be addressed. Charge more MPP for a longer move or one flat fee for ANY movement at sea? I really think the operational movement approach would be more complex, and would offer less intercept possibilities – even less than the loops do. And, finally, how many naval engagements actually occurred where the loops are? Most naval engagements happen near 'something', whether it is a strategic destination or a place where shipping is likely to congregate. The convoy lanes already offer a reasonable (gamey, but reasonable) way to attack (and defend) merchant shipping. Aside from these battles (and even GRAF SPEE, a ship operating primarily as a raider, was cornered at a strategic location, the Plate River) how many battles occurred in the open ocean? Very, very few. In game terms having the occasional intercept in the deep ocean may be 'interesting', but that is really a game thing – not historical reality at all. After saying all this I do think that the loop 'speed' is much too slow, but it is scaled to the game (I am trying to be fair here). If reality were any guide ships would pass through the loops much faster than they do. But if wishes were fishes, etc.... Mike I take your point that amphibious shipping as configured in the game CAN be researched to the point where long distance lifts are possible. However, this is difficult, unless you use the editor. I avoid the editor (for many reasons, but I will just leave it at that). Without editing or a LOT of research, the game rather penalizes the western player. Which is simple enough, but wrong. The western Allies were primarily naval powers, which in this game are made somewhat similar to the Axis for simplicity. Fair enough. Its just not very accurate historically!

Loops in AoD are ONLY for naval shipping – not merchant shipping. What is the difference? Well, in the game (and this is very much a GAME), merchant shipping is abstractly depicted as a convoy 'lane'. This convoy lane can be raided by submarines, ships or aircraft, although submarines are the primary warships employed in this role. Is this a kludge? Absolutely – you will NOT see 'lanes' painted on the water in any ocean of the world. Even more significantly, convoys in World War II were regularly routed along different paths to AVOID U-boats (who sometimes had intelligence that allowed them to intercept, sometimes just got lucky, and other times simply were placed on the expected great circle convoy route and told to scout for ships). Do convoy lanes work in SC? Well, more or less, yes they do – although they are most emphatically NOT historically correct. Now, loops can ONLY be used by transports (which represent embarked land units) or warships. There are serious problems with loops – Mike has certainly noted that the speed of naval units in SC is very, very slow, something I have complained about for years – but causing intercepts to be avoided is not really a major problem. Xworms argument that 'loops have killed my interest to play this expansion' is therefore not really very valid, as it can only be because naval ships and transports are not being intercepted as readily now that loops are available. But historically naval warships and transports with military troops embarked were not often intercepted in mid-ocean. As a game mechanism to reduce work and preclude interception of these vessels in mid-ocean (a rare occurrence), loops more or less work. I really don't know how to fix the speed issue. It is a definite problem, but there are a number of related problems that are simply not addressable in the current configuration of the game, so I am simply accepting it as an SC anomaly at the moment, as any fix I can think of rather disrupts the game. (Examples of the issues that the game currently doesn't address? Amphibious operations by the Allies included massive lifts across entire oceans – much of the force involved in Torch, as just one example, sailed right from the continental US. This is pretty difficult, verging on impossible, to emulate in the game. The Axis were not really EVER capable of this level of amphibious sophistication, but in the game the mechanism used by both sides is pretty much the same. And in terms of simplicity that works, but as a means of recognizing the incredible versatility of Allied operations in the Second World War, it is not nearly as good. But we are playing a GAME). So, while there are significant problems still evident in this game, the addition of naval loops is, for the most part, a good addition to the game within the parameters established by the game. Is it close to historical reality? Well, not really. Is it closer than previous iterations of SC? Actually, I think it is.

Hi Rankorian and XWormwood I am glad you are enjoying your 'honeymoon' period with this game Rankorian, and there is certainly a whole lot of things that the game does right. It is certainly the best game of its type for naval warfare in general. However, having said that, there is still room for improvement. I have more or less given up on the speed of naval movement, which now more closely approximates elephants mating than the reality which occurred at sea, but I really am concerned about the problems that exist in the inshore areas. Naval ports should be very difficult to attack by submarines – it really did not happen very often (once, as I say, and the commander of the boat became the first one in the Kriegsmarine to receive the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross – a pretty exceptional performance). Similarly, naval units should not be able to loiter in the coastal waters of an enemy so easily. It really is too easy now. As for Xworm's points about diver or 'special' attacks, there is actually a lot to discuss there, and SC has made some effort to address the topic of special attacks with their Decision Events (DE). In the First World War there are DE that allow attacks on enemy harbours by Austrian or Italian 'special' units. In the Second World War there is a DE that allows the Allied player to undertake the CAMPBELLTOWN attack on St Nazaire. Now, there are a number of other events that might be considered – the X-Craft attack on the TIRPITZ, the Italian 'special' attacks on the ports of Alexandria and Gibraltar – but these are not necessarily critical to the game (although they were fascinating operations). In particular, inshore operations in the Second World War game are significantly constrained by the possibility that tactical aircraft might inflict serious losses on an attacker. By the time that an attacker has such air superiority (or command of the air) that the concern about an attack by enemy tactical aircraft is minor, the player defending the shore usually has bigger things to worry about. In any event, a major aerial offensive is now very important in the Second World War setting before operating naval forces close to the enemy shore, or else the offensive player is taking a significant risk. The situation is rather different in the First World War. Tactical aircraft are much less common and considerably less effective against naval units. This is entirely consistent with the historical record. However, the historical record also indicates quite clearly that operating naval forces close to enemy shores was risky, and often resulted in significant casualties. THAT does NOT happen in SC WWI or Breakthrough, and that is unfortunate. If certain chokepoints, such as the exit to the Kiel Canal, are fortuitously seized by an aggressive Entente commander then the naval war can be VERY different than historically because there is NO direct cost to placing naval forces near an enemy coast. There is also very little that can be done to divert enemy forces loitering in your coastal area for prolonged periods … and this is very wrong. I think Xworm may have a good idea with using a variation of the weather check to inflict damage on naval units operating along a foreign coastline. It would not require much change to the existing engine, and although perhaps random, if it works and causes commanders to start being concerned about placing units in enemy coastal squares than, hey, why not? So although SC gets the major naval aspects more or less right, it has unfortunately left some loopholes that are completely wrong. And once your honeymoon is over, perhaps you will agree that SC would be even better if it did not encourage completely ahistorical moves by players.