Bill101

Manstein. Simply because he was both very good and left an excellent set of memoirs. His book Lost Victories explains the strategic options available at each stage of the campaign he is describing, before going on to describe what happened. I've read it 3 times, and I'm sure that I'll read it again some more times. Not sure I'd agree with his politics, but you can't have everything. At least he does have joint top ranking in SC with Zhukov.

John, do you mean that if I set the minors to historical then Greece will join the allies? I never knew that! I've obviously been playing with everything set to random for far too long. The Greeks did quite well against the Italians in Albania if I remember rightly. I wonder how often in everyone's games are the Italians as inept as in real life? Not very often in my experience.

Thanks for this John. You're quite right about the realistic likelihood of neutrals joining the allies. I did start designing a campaign scenario based around an Eastern European alliance about a year ago, but when I playtested it it seemed to give the Axis more of an advantage rather than less. I put these suggestions here because I would like SC2 to be a bit more balanced (I'm not really too keen on bidding), even though I had some doubts myself about the main suggestion. That said, there is no historical reason why Greece can't have a chance to join the allies in late 1940. Given Mussolini's relative independence from Hitler's plans that you described, having the Axis player finding an extra enemy when they least want one could be useful to the allies. I'm thinking of something that would take control of Italy's foreign policy out of the Axis player's hands and into the hands of the AI, at least just as far as Greece is concerned. Hence a random chance, starting after the fall of France, that a message pops up saying "Italy declares war on Greece".

I thought it was interesting too. Thanks Curry. Just had two thoughts, not sure how good they are, hence the posting: 1) Perhaps there could be something built into the game so that a really aggressive Axis player risks having ALL the neutral minors join the allies. Such a situation could be where the Axis does too much cookie-cutting, and acts very ahistorical, such as by invading Switzerland; Sweden; Spain or Turkey. It could be something that has a small % chance of happening, but it might be enough to prevent all but the bravest from carving up the whole of Europe in the first 2 years of the game. As long as it didn't happen too late to help the allied cause, it could really change the face of the game. However, there should just be a chance of it happening, never a certainty. 2) In the real war, Greece joined the allied side in late 1940, but was only conquered in April 1941. I know that they joined in because Mussolini attacked them, but perhaps there could be a random factor built in, a bit like there is for Yugoslavia, causing them to join the allied cause before the Axis are ready to invade them. The extra MPPs and entrenchment would be useful, possibly opening up a route for the allies into Europe if they are in a strong Mediterrenean position when it happens. [ November 28, 2003, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I'm getting really confused about how it is determined which units are supported by which HQs. I've got two games on the go where I've got more than one HQ in the same vicinity, with plenty of units in adjacent hexes, and in both of them when I load up my turn I see that the better HQs have only got one or two units under their control, while the worse ones have got everything else. The worst one was where I had Manstein with 4 stars commanding no one, while Model with no stars commanded everyone surrounding Manstein. And it is in the middle of a (so-far) unconquered Germany, so supply isn't an issue. I wouldn't mind quite so much with land forces, but when it's my precious jets that aren't getting the best support possible, it leads to lots of wasted MPPs. It doesn't make sense to me, but hopefully it can be resolved before SC2 comes out.

Agreed. I think that there should be tougher penalties for non-historic actions. Let's make it harder, but not impossible, for the Axis players. Also, there should be tougher penalties for the allies attacking neutrals like Ireland. Either a bigger reduction in US war readiness, or the need to deal with partisans.

I've often wondered whether Canadian MPPs should rise to 100% when the USA joins the war, thus giving the allies a small equalising boost.

There's some good and interesting ideas being discussed here. I just want to comment on this idea of Edwin's: 4. Polish Air Force If Polish Air Force Operates to Sweden then Sweden then it should become a Free Polish Unit under the control of Sweden. If Polish Air Force Operates to UK/France it should become a Free Polish unit after Poland Falls. In reality, almost all of the Polish air force that escaped went to Romania (about 100 combat aircraft flew there on 17th September 1939, as well as other more obsolete models). The Romanians later made use of the aircraft against Russia, while 5,000 Polish air and ground crew escaped via Romania and Hungary to France and Britain. It would have been beyond the Polish air force to escape (or operate in SC terms) directly to France or Britain, but I think that history could be portrayed as below: Polish air force operates to France or UK: 1) It arrives 1/2 strength in the west, and becomes Free Polish after the fall of Poland. 2) Romania has an air fleet added to her OOB, but at reduced strength (half the strength of the air fleet before it was operated). This will go some way to represent all those East Europeans who fought in the French and British air forces, and will also be a good game balancer in favour of the allies during those crucial early years. This helps the allies more because the Romanian air fleet will not only be weak, costing the Axis player MPPs to get it combat worthy, but it will also become obsolete once the Russians get jets. I'd also like to see the Romanian air force represented, hence my suggestion. [ November 24, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

If you want a game with someone who won't quit after 3 turns, and who doesn't have any hacking programs (and wouldn't use them anyway), then send me an email. I play PBEM, so yes, it is a little slow. But that is actually a good way to play because you get a chance to plan your moves between turns. Take up the challenge, and prove to the world that you aren't a newbie!

I've noticed that if I evacuate Malta, invariably on the next turn the AI will have an Italian corps all poised to land, even though they haven't got an air unit in position to see that the island is unoccupied. I don't mind really - the AI needs some help, but it is interesting.

Immer Etwas speaks for me. It is something that we will need to bear in mind now, either through preparing strategies to deal with it, or through house rules. I think that the allies, including the Russians, can benefit as much from this as the Axis. It certainly doesn't ruin a great game. Roll on SC2, but in the meantime I'm still having a lot of fun with SC1.

Zapp: You are right, I've just tested that. That is what needs to be amended, so that the radar helps both sides where applicable, rather than just the attacker. I don't think it's a major issue though. Someone could exploit it, but there will be ways to counter it (like developing AA radar and attacking too!). Besides, it's a discovery that helps the allies more initially. Maybe it's one step forward to abolishing bidding? [ November 16, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I think that something is being missed here, and that is that the research being discussed is into Anti-Aircraft RADAR. Radar helped aircraft to plot their own and enemy routes better, thus someone who has an advantage in radar will, everything else being equal, tend to do better in air to air combat than their opponent. During the Battle of Britain the RAF were aided greatly by their use of radar, as they could manouevre into the best position to attack the Luftwaffe. I'm not convinced that this is a bug. In fact it may be the effect that Hubert intended. Whether the range of this bonus should depend on the level of research achieved will have to be answered either by Hubert or by a WWII radar expert, as I don't know how far into Europe the British radar allowed them to see at the beginning of the war. [ November 16, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I think the operating idea is quite interesting. It isn't in the normal SC gaming style, but I'm sure that a bit of playtesting will show whether or not it is better.

Don't worry, it's not a dumb question! Cookie cutting refers to when the Axis easily conquer most of Europe while the UK is unable to do much to stop them. Later on the UK will have help from the USSR and USA, but by then it might be too late to stop the Axis having all of central and western Europe. Essentially, cookie cutting happens between the fall of France and the invasion of Russia.

With the Italians I normally try to build up an air force of 4 air fleets, and use them to help conquer Greece, Vichy, Switzerland and possibly Spain. With my income and plunder my Italians will normally research: Industrial Tech Jets Gun Laying Radar (if the fleet isn't sunk) Anti-tank Not necessarily in that order. I believe in building up a strong Italy, so that it can protect the quieter fronts while Germany launches attacks on the decisive fronts. Actually, you may find playing a human the quickest way to learn. Don't worry about losing, as you will get a chance for revenge later on. [ November 07, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

With the Italians I normally try to build up an air force of 4 air fleets, and use them to help conquer Greece, Vichy, Switzerland and possibly Spain. With my income and plunder my Italians will normally research: Industrial Tech Jets Gun Laying Radar (if the fleet isn't sunk) Anti-tank Not necessarily in that order. I believe in building up a strong Italy, so that it can protect the quieter fronts while Germany launches attacks on the decisive fronts. Actually, you may find playing a human the quickest way to learn. Don't worry about losing, as you will get a chance for revenge later on. [ November 07, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

One good thing about rockets which is easily overlooked is that they help to build up the experience of their HQ. I disagree that researching rockets inevitably leads to defeat. I have used them in two games, the first time I had 5 or 6, the second time I think I had 8 of them. The first game was a draw, the second I won. If research takes them up several levels, and your opponent doesn't have aerial supremacy, then you will benefit from having them. The second time I invested in them because my opponent abolished the Russian air force to provide MPPs to build a strong ground defence against my Barbarossa. Unable to penetrate his line, I built up some heavy artillery to take it out. It took a long time but it worked. So I would agree that they are only useful in the longer games. Their main drawbacks are their lack of manouevrability and their weakness when attacked. [ November 05, 2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Not selling all your research chits is fair enough. If that's all the evidence against Zapp then it's pretty weak. In fact, non-existent. I recently lost a game where I kept my Russian chits almost to the last turn (and I'm talking about until Russia actually surrendered, not when Moscow fell). I was still hoping for some benefit from them, and I'm not the quitting type. So, I think that either more evidence is required, or an apology for the accusations against Zapp.

Shaka wrote: But let me get back to the original point I was trying to make. Between your suggestions and Edwin P's percentages, your uprising effect was allowing partisan units to be formed because Allied units had entered that country. I believe that is the wrong cause and effect relationship. I don't think that this is the wrong cause and effect relationship. An uprising is only going to occur in either of two circumstances in Axis occupied territory: 1) Liberation is near at hand (all the examples I gave were evidence of this). 2) Out of desperation. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising is an example of this. They were heroes, but they had no chance of victory. I accept your points about scale, but I don't think that I've got the relationship the wrong way round. [ November 04, 2003, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

It's more the activation of latent hostility to the Axis occupier. I agree that these are small scale things. Since yesterday I've thought that a 5 strength partisan unit is a bit strong, but what I love about the Russian partisans in this game is their effect on Axis supply. If something like that could be programmed in, then I'd be happy. I just think that it would be great to give the resistance outside of Russia and Yugoslavia a presence in this game. Not a massive one, but just a little something.

I'm sure it happened during the raids on Germany, but I'll have to check the books I read (and they're in the library, so it won't be today). You're right about the altitude, so it would just be heavy AA (75mm upwards), if any. The problem of AA defence is an interesting subject, and a strategic game based around air battles could be good (SC3?). I have played some air war computer games in the past that weren't really any fun, apart from the flight simulations, but I've just thought that the SC concept could do it. Battle of Britain anyone?

Thinking about it further, it strikes me that it is wrong that HQs have no AA defense. When you consider that the HQ represents not just the command structure but also the logistical network backing up the front line, in reality they had a good share of AA. These would be placed at key target areas, such as bridges, railheads, and road junctions, and would tend to be a mixture of medium and light guns. Therefore I think that in SC2 a HQ should have the capability to damage attacking aircraft. In SC I always like attacking a HQ that's in range (be warned for our forthcoming game! ) as it's a cheap way to gain experience at no cost. It should just be made a little bit harder.

Perhaps if it flew over a city, port or mine, as these are the places that would have had the heavy AA guns. However, I don't think that they'd be very effective, at least not until AA research was getting quite advanced. My Grandad spent 5 years in AA batteries during the war, and he was convinced that they never shot anything down. Looking at the stats from air raids, AA fire did do some damage, but not a great deal (or at least not to the extent where it would knock off more than 1 or 2 points of strength). But I wonder whether this is already factored in to the losses air units receive when they attack a target?