I/O Error

Dammit Norse, I was JOKING! But hey, that is a pretty cool plan, with excellent pictures.

You're right and I'm wrong, it even states that in the manual someplace. (But jesus, wasn't this thread several pages back by now? )

One way to put it in perspective is to try and operate an Italian army east of their starting position in North Africa or a German army in Canada without a headquarters. Pretty soon you get a mob that just can't do anything. [ October 22, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

Edit: Replying to Lou Wigman We knew you were, that's what we were assuming. (The AI doesn't build up 25 air fleets.) I suggested changing the setting for the Soviet Union so that the Axis player does NOT get that much time to build up his forces. I mean if you really want to cripple an Allies player, just set either the Soviet Union or the USA to "Neutral". [ October 22, 2002, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

Excellent advice Norse, seems perfectly in line with the few PBEM games I have under my belt on either side. Soviet players that follow your advice, conquer. Those who do not, lose. Hey, is there any chance you could come up with something this effective for the French against the Axis? Pretty please? Lou Wigman: I recommend changing some of the game options. I would suspect that you are playing with the Soviets set to "Neutral". Under that setting, they are always the victims of Axis attack, and are never able to attack first. The first time I fired up SC and played the AI, I was terrified to see "Soviet Union prepares to war". I barely managed to get a blocking force of cheap units there in time, and that just totally screwed up my overly slow-paced invasion of France, lol. Even against a mere computer opponent, that was a pleasant shock. [ October 21, 2002, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

Of course! Ask your questions. If they've been answered before, the forum regulars will tell you what the answer was, and if they are new the creator will see it too.

I strongly disagree with your calling that a "gamey" tactic. That was quite literally what helped save the Soviet Union. (As a contemporary example, that single aspect of the Eastern Front was perhaps the only thing that "Enemy at the Gates" did right.)

This is not a major problem, but it is something that bugs me. Does anybody else have an issue with the way headquarters gain experience? The manual says, "For HQ's, combat experience is dependant on how well units under it's command perform in the field." Seems good. Below, they say this: Attacker Losses < Defender Losses | + 0.1 Attacker's HQ, - 0.1 Defender's HQ. Attacker Losses >= Defender Losses | + 0.1 Defender's HQ, - 0.1 Attacker's HQ. I'm replaying Panzer General II this weekend, and this is why this came up. In their system, experience is gained regardless. Admittedly there's no HQ system, but the SC method seems flawed. Surely there are times when attacking, and taking more losses than your foe, will be a success in a strategic and a tactical sense? And that your command structure will gain valuable experience? There is the argument that an officer never really learns anything until he is forced with disaster and is forced to overcome it. Now, the unit experience system is fine. But when you have HQ's that can LOSE experience because some other unit does poorly, that seems wrong. I mean, did Soviet generals actually LOSE command experience when their troops lost many soldiers, but still managed to hold or take ground? Thoughts on the matter? I'm sure this must have been mentioned before, but I had no luck finding similar threads in a quick search. Regardless, there aren't any on this page, so please post with your thoughts. [ October 19, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

Probably just as well I missed that one, lol.

"Herr Sturmfuhrer, zee orc is grunting at me again. Please make it stop."

It's a nice idea, and I know we all like to hear good constructive advice like this, but I suspect it just isn't possible. I mean, eventually somebody is going to sit down and code a WWII strategy game that has EVERYTHING. It would take twenty years, but it could happen. It's just that SC, in its current form, isn't that concerned with the nitty-gritty. Which is both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on whether I wake up as a grognard or as a "wargamer lite" that day.

Holy CHRIST! That's just not human! Amazing how we all seem to have missed that, good eye. It's like we're looking down the ranks, and we see: "human, human, human, human, strange PO'ed ape like creature, human, creature's slightly more refined brother, human, human..." etc.

Of course. However, it IS still possible to play according to realistic ideas. We just have the option of throwing history one hell of a curveball. That's the whole point of us playing all these war games anyway, nothing wrong with that. Besides, outside of a hardcoded error message popup saying "transatlantic invasion impossible", how could you possibly prevent it? We have only ourselves to "blame" if historicity goes out the window, you should know that.

No, I said I would only support your idea when a unit is COMPLETELY encircled, and perhaps not even then. I don't agree with your "increasingly encircled" idea.

You have to take the capital(s) AND you have to conquer a certain portion of their other cities. Over and above making good sense, I suspect this prevents gamey tactics like concentrating ONLY on the cities where you know a capital can be moved to. Wouldn't that suck?

The problem with the idea of "no buyings units next to enemy units" is that the scale in SC is HUGE. Each hex is hundreds upon hundreds of miles! In my opinion, it would actually make the game more unrealistic if they put in this rule. Now, if this was a toggle option, that's another matter entirely. People can play their individual games as they like. Hell, I'd love to try that a few times, at least. Just don't force it on all of us.

Although I have pursued the same train of thought, I quickly gave it up as a bad idea. As it is, defensive positions can have an overwhelming advantage. Defense Close Air Support would merely make stalemates and wars of attrition all the more common. (Personally, I suppose I like to imagine that the CAS is indeed happening, just automatically when a unit attacks. Consider it an integral part of the game, like we assume artillery to be.) [ October 16, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

My, you ARE new to this board, aren't you? Anyway, as a serious answer that's basically impossible. The kind of people who gravitate towards games like this and CMBO/BB are NOT the kind of folks who steer away from dicussions of history/ideology/anything else. Usually heated ones. Nice idea, but... kind of lacking in the reality department.

That sort of rule makes sense in something like Panzer General II, where the units are MUCH smaller and the scale is MUCHO GRANDE smaller. When you're talking about Corps or Army level, we're seeing hundreds of miles of terrain. Most definitely, enough for a supply route and reinforcements. In a game using a scale so grand, I say your idea is a poor one unless units are actually cut off entirely.

That would be true for MOST countries. But when we consider Stalin's absolute refusal to believe in an imminent German attack? Hell, you'd think there would be a line of code in the game about this. </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">IF Country = Soviet, Transports.OnCoast = PEACE END IF IF Country = Oh hell, absolutely anybody else, Transports.OnCoast = WAR END IF</pre>

Well hell guys, they weren't worth a whole lot in real life either. We can't complain too much when they conform to realistic expectations. I suppose they could be very useful once you get to level 5 rockets, but who is actually going to have that much time to devote in anything other than a REEAAALLY gamey round against the AI?

Hmmm... I suppose I CAN see the relation between the two in looks, but that's really only if you (like me ) you played A&A lo those many years ago and fell in love almost automatically with any game that carries a passing resemblance. Think of this as Axis & Allies... with much more detail... much more "realism"... much more strategy... much more replayability... Then yes, sure. This is like an advanced version of "Axis & Allies". Might I throw in a VERY hearty recommendation to slap down the paltry sum they are asking to buy this game? I mean, this is a top notch game at "bargain bin" prices! As a relevant point, PC Gamer gave this sucker a whopping 90%. I believe that speaks for itself.

To the absolute best of my knowledge, the answer is no. (Wouldn't THAT be a nasty situation! Say goodbye to manuever warfare! )

As a shorter version of agreeing with dgaad, it's a LOT harder to create a new unit from scratch than it is to integrate new soldiers into a unit that still has some of the grizzled old NCOs lying around. In my opinion, SC has it being done just about right. That small cutting edge of experience and skill can be crucial to the creation of a unit, and that's as true for a Corps as it is for a Company.

Look, the fact remains that he was justified using that tone with you. Take out experience? You might as well say you prefer arcade style gamestyle to true strategy. "Can you really deny that currently, whoever gets a large disadvantage in experience is set upon a downward spiral?" Of course we can't deny that. What's your POINT? That's reality, mon frere. Try comparing a Waffen SS unit to a garrison unit when they're equipped the same. There's a slight difference in quality and ability! To use American battles in France as an example, they were almost always going up against troops who had cut their eye teeth on experienced soldiers long ago. Hell, some of them had even marched through Paris and half-starved outside Moscow. Experience is CRUCIAL. [ October 08, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]