pzgndr

I've been playing with the higher settings, but no experience bonus, and getting some challenging gameplay. I'd rather see a smarter AI than one with special advantages. This begs a question. Does anyone use the lower settings at all? I could see shifting the scale a notch or two so the current +50% or +100% is normal and tougher AI levels added, if this is possible. Even on expert level, I'm seeing the AI do some questionable things. I'll try the experience bonus and see what happens.

True, but the record indicates the Russians were in the middle of deploying their army for a surprise declaration of war of their own against Germany in July 41. Hitler concealed the buildup of forces and beat them to it. Russia thought the bulk of the German army was busy in Western Europe, the Balkans, and North Africa. With FOW in SC, you could also come to this conclusion if the Germans are careful. (Gotta love FOW!) If the spotting rules would preclude seeing anything other than adjacent units on the border of a neutral country, ie no air recon, then neither side would really know what's going on. This would be fine. It would give both sides a chance to prepare for war in secrecy.

This sounds like another good argument to make neutral Italy and Russia active players. From the start, they should both be able to build units, deploy their defenses, conduct research, and perhaps fight minor campaigns if they choose. Italy could attack Greece and Russia could attack Turkey, for instance. Not wise, but possible. Regardless, they shouldn't have to be completely blind and unable to act until war is declared. And on the flip side, why should we have to settle for a default setup for attack when Italy and Russia get around to declaring war? Shouldn't we be able to prepare and take advantage of the element of surprise?

If we could get some free points as part of the mix, everyone would use it. It's not unreasonable to assume a baseload research capability exists, since players do start with the basic technological weapon systems of the period and they had to come from somewhere other than a Sears catalog. Invest more and see more returns. There seems to be some agreement that reducing the max per area may be appropriate, or some other way to slow down some of the advances we're seeing. This is something for Hubert to consider.

Jeff, putting any price tag on research and diplomacy can give them a life of their own, which I've seen in A3R, even if you raise the costs. I prefer subtler changes to the historical record, and limiting research to 2-3 per area (10-15%) would have a better moderating effect. You would still see some rapid advances and what-ifs, but not as quickly. Or perhaps change the percentage for each successive research point per area to 5-4-3-2-1, which would give percentages of 5-9-12-14-15% and represent diminishing returns. 20-25% per turn is just too much, regardless of cost. I also like the idea of free baseload research the more I think about it. It can represent lucky breaks as well as abstractions like Britain and US researching the same stuff and sharing results. Both sides shouldn't have to "pay" for each sonar/radar advance for instance. So some free points would help here.

I've got to reserve comment on research in general until I see the full game and documentation. Obviously some areas are going to be more or less important to you depending on which side you play. I do have a nagging concern at how quickly some things can change, like level 5 industrial technology or level 3 jets within the year of the demo. This borders on fantasy. You would probably want to balance your research in a full game, which would lead to more realistic progress, but obviously you can overload in SC and obtain fantastical results. Something to consider is a baseload of free research points per country and then an opportunity to buy a comparable amount of extra points, like 2 for Italy and France, 3 for Russia and Britain, and 4 for Germany and US. And limit the max per area to 2 or 3 to limit progress somewhat. This would provide for some research surprises (like Italy and France getting lucky with free research) while moderating some of the bizarre results of overloading. If you do manage to buy 5 points now and get a 25% chance in a single research area, you'll average a level increase every 4 turns. You can easily max out within a year, and then shift to something else. This really should not happen. I'm all for maintaining a what-if game, but let's keep things reasonable.

More important than release date, it would be nice to get a brief summary of changes Hubert is planning based on all the beta comments so far. There have been a lot of good observations and suggestions, but I think we're approaching demo saturation. The list of whatever revisions or additions Hubert thinks are worthwhile for the final release version should be close to complete. At this point, it would be nice to get an idea of what's on that list.

Interesting point about the MPPs. I raised a concern about pillaging/plunder yesterday. You get a reward for conquering, but nothing for liberating it seems. Maybe it's a one-time bonus, since you can't expect plunder each time a capital changes hands. Whatever, it would be preferable to have each resource provide some fixed production to whoever controls it and limit the plunder. Also interesting about France returning to power right away. This should take some time, or be dependent on having a majority of French cities back under Allied control. Either way, it should not penalize the British. I tried a Liberate Norway strategy and found it to be a very tough fight to take Bergen. Landed two corps and a HQ, plus bombed and bombarded the Germans there for several turns before taking it. A couple of comments. With a fleet on the coast and a HQ on shore, there should be some limited reinforcements available and supply benefit for an invasion force. And British HQ should be able to control Canadian and other Commonwealth units, and perhaps Free French forces also. Same for German HQs being able to control minor allies and Italian units, as previously requested.

Garrisoning capitals with an army rather than corps should make some subtle difference in reducing chances of partisans. They definitely need to be restricted to their own country. I don't think every country needs partisans in this game. France, Spain, Turkey, and maybe Ireland and Greece should be added. Speaking of country restrictions, there should be some limits on where minor allies can go. 3R has reasonable restrictions which could be considered for SC. Otherwise, we may see Finns in Normandy, Bulgarians in Norway, and who knows what else.

I take it that you guys are content with this reward system and sense of instant gratification. While Germany did historically plunder France and others, it took time and did not happen immediately. I assume SC uses a combination of pillaging and then percentage of normal production for captured resources. It may be more appropriate to reduce the pillaging and increase the production percentages to create a somewhat more realistic effect over time.

I commend Hubert and all the playtesters for getting SC to this point. I think the real difficulty for a WWII strategy game is not the game mechanics, but getting the AI, and politics to work well. This is where the hypothetical and possible need to come together with just the right mix of audacity and wisdom. That's tough, and was the biggest problem with the Third Reich PC game and others. From what I've seen, Hubert has done a good job with the AI and politics. The basic game mechanics should be fairly well established after all these years with other games. The scale, turn length, resource model, and the rest all have great examples to select from and implement in SC. Hubert needs to choose wisely and make appropriate adjustments, but the choices need to make sense. The U-boat example cited points out they are both too weak (because the damage they inflict on British convoys is relatively insignificant) and too strong (because the inflict relatively high losses on capital ships in unrealistic engagements). This is not an indication that SC has it about right; it is just wrong on both counts. The resource model is skewed too far for the sake of simplicity. The variable turn length creates a very abstract economy which may play well for many just looking for a fun game, but is downright irritating for everyone else looking for a decent simulation game. The lack of seasonal effects, justified by the variable turns, is also an irritating abstraction. Why not just make 2-week turns with a consistent production model and some seasonal effects? That should be adequate for the grognards without making gameplay any more complicated for those who just want a fun game. There's been a lot of haggling about what's "realistic" at this scale game, from airborne units to beach hexes for seaborne invasions. These are basics which have been adequately addressed in other games but are lacking in SC. It's OK to land whole armies anywhere on any rocky coastline, but not OK to airdrop a corps?? Granted, these aren't showstoppers, but why not include this stuff if you're going to call SC a WWII strategy game? I'd prefer to see unit stacking and multiple unit attacks and other stuff like that, but SC has a rather elegant game system which does make for quick play. Overall, it works fairly well. Retreats and advance after combat could be included. I like the HQ units and how they affect unit performance. I think some way of being able to change HQ links and designate subordinate units needs to be considered. I do like SC and again commend Hubert for his individual efforts to bring it to us. Based on everyone's comments on the beta demo, we should see some improvements in the release version. And I expect future versions will become increasingly more realistic with either additional options or advanced game features. Heck, over the past 27 years I've watched Third Reich go through 4 editions and then an advanced game version with its own revisions, so some growing pains can be expected with any game of this scope. SC should become a classic, just keep at it.

I played a couple rounds as Allies yesterday and noticed the Germans are able to pillage about 1000 MPPs when France surrenders, which is about the total amount of MPPs I was able to spend as France during the several turns fighting for survival. Does anyone else find this strange? Maybe give the conquerer an immediate MPP boost equal to the captured production, but don't have pillaging from non-existent treasuries. I'd rather see higher revenues per turn following a country's defeat instead of a one-time bonus.

Maybe add some reparations for not attacking. The real incentives should be to avoid early US entry and French partisans (which should be added, at least if Vichy is attacked). I'm also curious to see the AI in action during a full campaign game. Bring it on!

I also like the idea of Russia as an active player, even while neutral. Probably won't change for the SC release (?), but making Russia a separate side should be considered eventually. Bessarabia, Finnish border and possible Turkish campaign come to mind, in addition to occupying Eastern Poland and the Baltic States. Russia should be free to make these decisions, good or bad, and be free to deploy their defense. Control of Copenhagen and Gibralter should be required for any naval movements past them, or else limit range of fleets from friendly bases, to prevent unrealistic situations. Maybe surprise rules for armor can be reconsidered if ZOC is added. They don't need a bonus, just remove the penalty, to account for their mobile recon elements. I will also refrain from bringing up seasonal effects on the Eastern Front. :mad: If there are no MPP transfers (Murmansk Convoy or Persian route) and no relocation of Russian resource centers, I'm wondering how Russia survives in SC following a German invasion. Other than research to improve their remaining industry, what does Russia do in 1942-43 to improve their situation? Just curious.

Hubert, you should check out Xconq at http://sources.redhat.com/xconq/. There are open source code routines which may be applicable to SC, and perhaps some routines from SC you might consider contributing to Xconq. I could see porting a version of SC to Xconq with some work, particularly with the addition of a political model and declarations of war. Perhaps something for you to consider doing with your "spare" time after SC is finally released.

Another comment about retreats. I like the 30% loss threshold idea, which would prevent players from abusing retreats. It should be optional, permitting units to stay in place if desired. Since you give up entrenchment value, you may make things worse if you retreat. Overall, I don't see a problem with retreats at this scale. I do question entire armies being eliminated in a single turn. I'm also beginning to question max reinforcements. Perhaps there should be a limit of 3 or 4 factors per turn. Armies going from 1 to 10 just doesn't seem right, even with experience loss considered.

Hubert, that clarifies it, thanks. It would be helpful if the terrain descriptions could define these bonuses, in addition to the final documentation.

Restrict partisans to their own country only. Tweak the sub parameters some more. Reduce spotting, reduce ship-sub and sub-ship damage tables, increase dive chances. Just a little, maybe by 10%? Add ZOC for tank units. ZOC should cut off supply, reinforcements, and operational movements. Should also add +1 or +2 action points to cost of moving out of a ZOC. Allow German HQ units to control minor allies and Italian units. Add retreats and advance after combat options. Terrain modifiers. Still not sure if we get any by default, other than higher entrenchments which you have to wait for. Should get at least +1 in forests and behind rivers, +2 in fortresses and cities, etc. Either clarify or fix.

Diplomacy should be subtle, with players able to nudge things here and there. While I love 3R/A3R, I never really liked the A3R diplomacy because of a snowball effect. The more tactical success you had, the more diplomacy shifted to your favor and kept growing. It just led to some unbalanced games in my experience, so I kept with the historical events and variants. (With board games, you get to pick and choose these things. ) Variable US entry is good, and SC seems to do a good job with its political model. We need to see more of the game before we mess with diplomacy, I think. Supply is probably fine, but again we need to see more of the game guts to understand how the unit supply parameter is affected by HQ units. Being out of supply for a couple of weeks in this scale game won't halt units in place like 3R. Reduced supply will take its toll. Oil effects should be considered, beyond the MPP loss. Some loss of action points for tank units and air/naval perhaps.

Whoa! If my reading of the tea leaves is correct, we are already fragmented and not likely to change. The beer&pretzels crowd wants a fun game and is only moderately concerned about historical reality. The grognard crowd wants an accurate simulation of WWII with some more realism than currently provided. Hubert may think there's a comfortable middle ground, but he may end up irritating more folks in the long run than he pleases. SC has the potential to offer an advanced game with more detail and/or a full function editor for players to change game parameters and the map. This probably won't happen for SC, but should be seriously considered for a later patch or a future SC2. As for different players being able to play a consistent game, they should only require three files - game parameter file, map file, and scenario file. That shouldn't be a problem. This doesn't have to be like buying a Model T Ford - "You can have any color you want as long as it's black."

That's fine, the default game should be playable and fun for everyone. For those of us who cut our teeth on games with cardboard counters and paper rules and still maintain a burning desire to tweak whatever we want to tweak, a powerful editor would be great. Beyond the basic scenario editor currently offered, which is limited, something which will allow us to edit default game parameters and the map could be provided. I don't expect Hubert to jump and change the code every time someone makes a suggestion, but at least give us some tools with the game so we can tweak stuff if we want to.

OK, tweaking the spotting and surprise encounter is a start. I have managed to sneak subs through the English channel past three fleets so it's possible, not that it helped much. The real problem here is trying to fit a tactical naval system into a strategic game and it's like squeezing jello. Moving on, how about the convoy routes? Can these be expanded somewhat to broaden the opportunity for subs and force the British fleet farther from base? Can the convoy hexes be identified somehow so we know where they all are? It would help to know where to patrol, for both subs and fleets.

Some suggestions for the fall of France from Third Reich: Allow the French an opportunity to counterattack Paris before capitulating. Could also be considered for other major powers. French units remaining after capitulation should convert to Vichy, not Britian. Automatically relocate fleets in the Atlantic to the Med. Determine if French minors in North Africa and any units there convert to Vichy or Free French.

Hubert, could you consider spotting probabilities rather than ranges? Subs should be VERY difficult to spot until advanced radar is developed, much less have fleets bear down on them and destroy them. If spotted, they should be VERY difficult to engage until advanced sonar is developed. This is becoming VERY irritating. U-boats should be strangling Britain in 1941, but are relatively worthless in SC.

Maybe. The no-retreat directives for Germans and Russians hit a peak in 1941-42, then declined because they couldn't work. It wasn't an issue for the Germans before then, and pretty much irrelevant for the Russians after that. First we have to get Hubert to consider adding retreats, then we can haggle about options to restrict them! LOL