Desert Dave

I am going to propose a new, and perhaps controversial idea. If it is not advisable, we will know soon enough. Very few, if any, will post to this thread, yes? Rationales: 1) A tournament that would include many of the players on this board would, IMHO, require some sorting process so that you don't end up with the 16 best players on one side of the bracket. Incidentally, I would be willing to participate in any such tourney, provided there is one rule: NO public accusations of cheating. This would be handled in private e-mail ONLY. 2) Any potential match-ups would be easier to consider and undertake if we had some idea of how the other person rates themselves. This may not work, or may be locked, I don't know. ***But, there is one HARD & FAST rule: You can only rate yourself, and one or at maxium two others who are EQUAL TO or HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE. Guidelines: 1) If you do not like this idea of comparative game playing, please do not post. 2) NO flaming or criticism of any other, of ANY kind. 3) Keep your explanations/comments about yourself or another to 3 LINES or less. 4) Be HONEST as you can, please, no SANDBAGGING! If you do under-rate yourself too much, and several others rate you very highly, then we will know. If you are good, say so straight out. Now, keep in mind that all is relative, and just because you played one game that you did quite well in, or conversely, quite poorly in, due to poor research or too much distraction or whatever, DOESN'T necessarily prove much of anything. We are after GENERAL skill, so to make a tournament balanced and to help find opponents. And, remember this: you are rating against the best players in the world (... or at least, the most INTERESTED) and so to be rated, say -- middling on this board, is akin to being rated top 5% in a general game-playing forum, yes? And besides, many just play the game for fun, and don't really care where they stand. ______________________________________ Now, assume there is a tournament board, with 16 participants. Where do you and 1 or 2 (ONLY!) opponents rank on that board? I will start. Immer Etwas - rated #9. A little too impulsive and inclined to risk much without sufficient gain. Otherwise, fairly determined. Opponent: Bill Macon - rated #1. It's hard for me to imagine, after 40+ yrs of playing WW2 games, anyone who could be better. Anyone else?

I was mostly situated the other way 'round and very much enjoyed the pre-combat turn where you would plan for research and diplomacy and intelligence activities and the like. Either way, the idea of variants is one that I have long favored, and it seems to me there is a simple method to place them in context: You could divide all those that are possible (... BtW's zillion and even more!) into yearly possibilities, and have the random generator select from the specific groupings that are available and possible in any given timeframe. And so, Yugo's time for emoting on center-stage would come and go, and so would First Winter in Russian Steppes effect, and Ethiopian reinforcments for the Italian desert command, etc. But, you would also have a whole passel that might be enacted at ANY time, such as HQ Command malfunctions (... example: "Manstein is flabbergasted by Hitler's insane-man directives, all units under his sway are inactive for this turn only.") or -- sabotage in a Foe's factory complex, lose 10 MPPs immediately, etc. This kind of approach would add almost INFINITE variety to each and every game, and still keep it within the realm of historical possibility. :cool: And, even better, it would make every player aware, and constantly planning in ANTICIPATION, and so, all of these variables would slightly effect each person's strategical choices... one example of angst, from Brit perspective: "I sure hope Germany doesn't get the Z-plan in this game, because I DO NOT want to have to divert scarce resources to more naval builds." These sorts of pop-up event variables could even be a toggle-on/off choice, so that those who prefer to play without distractions could do so. And so, SC2 might not only offer expanded horizons in terms of the map and new units, but also in the way that "fate" or battlefield "confusion" could occasionally change a hopeless situation into a sudden triumph! I repeat -- this kind of approach would expand the game parameters in such a way that the "If it's Tuesday this must be Belgium" syndrome would be exorcised once and for all!

Not a bad idea. This would provide even more encouragement for those who would take ill-advised risks (... most companies, and individuals, are very-very meek and un-Nietzsche-like... has to do with the death wish, I think... ) and seek to satisfy the esoteric but high-spirited! WW2 gaming market. A year ago at this time we had... nothing. Nada. Not even a little fallen-sparrow in hand. Now we have a game that, trust me, is incredibly addictive, no matter any percieved or apparent flaws. For one anecdotal example, a well-meaning relative gave me Hearts of Iron for Christmas, but, you know what? I played it twice and put it away. It sits brooding like some plastic malcontent on my game-shelf. SC? I play a complete game a couple times a week, at least. Seriously, this is no small victory. For years & years many of us had hoped and prayed that SOMEONE would arrive out of the wild blue yonder and provide a WW2 Grand Strategy Game. Lo and behold, here we actually have it, thanks to Hubert Cater and Battlefront, and better yet, SC2 is more than merely a rumor. It's a great day to be alive and kicking spryly, yes? :cool:

LOL! Hey Sarge, c'mon down, you instantly qualify as a US Congress-person!

LOL!... college of hard-knocks, maybe... C'mon Kuniworth, you can join the club, it's open to EVERYONE!... we're all in this brief and terrific Existence together, we don't care for separate and unequal groups on this forum, do we.

Jim, if you are this "superstitious," then you surely would be one who would realize that there are ALWAYS antidotes and opposite-solutions to every affront to the common good. I would simply request that you remain an active particpant, in hopes that you might serve as additional antidote to the crude-edged and sometimes mean-spirited flux & flow of modern-age Nihilism. Black is not a color or a void, but mostly absence of joy and creativity. IMHO, the kind of ill-consideration and rudeness that you speak of is... merely a temporary problem, because no-one can maintain or sustain such invective or idiot-ignorance for very long, especially if there is active opposition. The human psyche is resilient and ever concerned to find the... better angels of our collective nature, yes?

No, it can actually be a brainer, as I am one of those who won't dump 5 chits into IT. Because of diminishing returns, those last two chits are hardly paying their own way, true? [Just Curious Department: RB = ar-by, hey! ... I get confused, is it arby or Russ Bensing or... hmmmm, I thought you couldn't have 2 names for one IP? Or, you can if you identify yourself as the same person, with exact same addresses, etc? Or, you can have 2 names with 2 IP #s? Moderators, what's the story here? :confused: ] I do believe that you are right on the money if you are pinpointing IT as the culprit in the Axis advantage. I have long campaigned for considering IT as a wholly separate category. My original suggestion was that you should NOT receive ANY return on investment for IT (... unlike the other categories, where you now get 1/2 refund, which is a great improvement on the original idea of a full return). This would reflect the applied research of actual improvement to infrastructure and construction of specific factories/think-tanks, as opposed to "pure" research where you are mostly shuffling papers around. Professors and envelope-pushers can be expensive -- except when they are brainwashed or coerced, but hardly the same as investment in concrete structures. IIRC, Bill Macon has proposed that receiving a research gain AND having increased sized units is a DOUBLE advantage, and suggested that the improved unit should remain the same size (... correct me Mr Bill if I am mis-stating your position). I think that all 3 of us are trying to address the essential issue, which is: there is no apparent way for the Allies to finally match, and then SURPASS the Axis economic production capability. No problem that the Axis can quickly become strong, and even increase industrial capability. The problem arises when the Allies cannot do the same (... that is, without liberating conquered countries) or, in the case of USA and Russia, do even better. I think the solution might be arrived at in two areas: 1) somehow reduce the effects of IT, as several have proposed; and/or 2) somehow find a simple and non-intrusive way to INCREASE the relative economic output of USA and Russia, perhaps by manipulating real (or imagined) city sizes... you could also vary the economic growth rates as Mr Bill has suggested.

Sure have. Against the AI, U-boats are instrumental in fending off the Allied invasion of France. This effort will be greatly aided by at least one research advance to help with dive % and sheer survivability against the massed fleet sorties near Brest and in the Bay of Biscay. Be sure to provide adequate air-cover with decently rated HQ, since the Allies will use at least one Carrier for support, and every once in a while will have long-range air so the Brit bomber can also interdict. Also, once your own Strat Bomber (... you do buy one of these, yes?) gains targeting experience out in the forbidding Russian tundra, then, send it back to southern France to engage in naval bombing. Against a human Allied opponent, well, it all depends on how diligent they are at maintaining dominance of the sea-lanes, but I would say that in general, a U-boat plan can be equally as successful. If you are able to build enough of them -- around 4 or 5 (... as all else, this depends on how well your tactics & "dice rolls" are going on other fronts), then it is likely that you will be able to punish the Brit economy by attacking the convoy lanes. When they do find you, you will not only have gained invaluable experience from howling wolf-pack attacks, but will usually have the advantage of surprise! in any fleet encounter. Also, it often takes them some time to pinpoint your location, which only drags their readiness % down, and so this is yet another factor in your favor. To sum it up: sure, this is a very wise investment.

Les the Sarge: Add me to the list of those who hope that you will stick around. Now that you have the game, you will surely learn new strategems and have even more ideas for SC2. I am quite certain we could all benefit from your extensive gaming experience. [ January 07, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

One good thing to do as Axis invader, is to insure that you knock out the 2 Russian tanks that are poised just behind the front lines. Make sure that you have enough firepower on the Axis line (... more experienced Armies than corps, and backed by high-rated HQs such as Manstein and Kesselring) so that you can blow a sufficient sized hole in the Russian front. Then, you will have at least 4 Panzers, or 2 designated Air Fleets for each missing Panzer, which will blitz through the opening you have just made and smoke the 2 Russian tanks (... exposed either by long-range Strategic Bomber recon, or by fast advancing German corps). Almost always you will knock the Russian tanks out with merely Panzers; you will have sufficient sized tanks left so to absorb any counter-attack. Also, move a few corps up to protect the armor flanks and prevent 3-4 hexside attacks on your now vulnerable Panzers. Very occasionally you will have to send in the tank-busting Air. Once the Russian tanks - a potential offensive threat in any possible future, is removed, Finland will probably not require dispatching an Axis HQ and ground units to Helsinki (... if necessary anyway, be sure to sink both Russian fleets on the first or second turn after invasion). Now, Russia is reduced to static defender, and has very little in the way of counter-attack capability. Next, you MUST get the first 5 cities in the Scarlet Arc as fast as is possible. Focus fiercely and utterly on taking Odessa, Riga, Kiev, Minsk and Smolensk, along with the 3 mineral resources in the vicinity. Forget any other ploys or straggling units or partisans, except: destroy any reduced-sized unit if possible, since it costs an awful lot more to build from scratch, than to reinforce. Once all of this is accomplished, then you can rest & refit and hoist a high toast to Odin and prepare for the eventual onslaught of the beserker Siberians.

Perhaps the very best idea I have seen thus far for restoring some semblance of play balance. :cool: I would agree on 2 HQs, of a lower quality (... maybe 4 or 5) AND placed just far enough behind the front lines so that they do not in any way influence the initial German blitzkreig. Then, they could be moved forward or backward depending on the individual player's preference for counter-attack or static defense (... or on realistic fear of Air attack). This would save a whole passel of MPPs, and since the AI is reluctant or hard-pressed to buy any HQs at all, it has the other great advantage of insuring that Russia will be able to put up a reasonable defense (... before the Siberian transfer) without flooding the board with hoards of corps.

Very nice idea, simple and elegant, similar to board-game bidding I have seen in tournament play. Kudos to Rambo for thinking of it, and to you for promoting it. :cool: Who would have to bid first? In a tournament, the moderator could determine that by random chance. Otherwise, whoever challenges another to a game would have to bid first, unless the choice of sides is agreed upon. Alternatively, you could have points awarded depending on WHEN the Allies are conquered (... presumably when Russia is beaten). Best if this is included in SC2 so that you could quit at any time and still have a victory total. You could compare these point totals in any group of 4 players and the better Axis margin of victory advances to the next round. For that matter, you could simply compare the dates of Axis conquest. If there is one Allied winner, then that could be considered the superior victory. If two Allied players win in the group of 4, then, again, it would depend on victory points at the time of the opponent's conquest or concession.

Thinking.... thinking... And still can't figure out why there is even an issue with this? :confused: What possible difference could it make how many times a certain topic is discussed? Sounds to me like over-mini-me-micro-management, when you can simply scan & read and skip & sing and throw the kind of flowers that enlighten, yes? I personally have no problem reading old ideas and even responding once again to an issue that I may have addressed last April? What difference? The moderators know. Sure they do, and they will organize and lock and remind and ban as they see fit, why do we need to wonder at their rationales or motives? All you new guys (... I still hate this tag... eveyone is the same, how could they not be?... ) POST AWAY! I say, post and ask and doubt and fluster -- about ANYTHING you want!

I'll give this one a try. Anyone who notices an error, and it won't be my first or last, please set the record straight, yes? In Russia you must insure that there is a unit of some kind covering ALL the swamp areas, and also the Ural and Caucasus mountain ranges. Partisan activity does not occur until the Axis has approached these areas. I say "approached," because you CAN get partisan activity merely by being next to these hexes; you do not have to occupy or surround them. They seem to happen EVERY time you stray away from these "hot" areas, at least it does to me. :eek: Evidence suggests that it is random chance, but quite likely to happen within a couple of turns. The Russian partisans can be a major pain, and especially now that they can influence supply (... I'm sure you've noticed how the cities will revert to zero when they are in the area). If you are the Axis and advancing and a little shy of spare units, this can cause all sorts of problems. The partisan unit can eventually connect with Russian cities and become full-sized. Anyway, partisans almost necessitates that you garrison rear areas and this only helps the Russian front-line defense.

Since it is quite unlikely that there will be another patch, these kinds of mods are the answer to almost all (... never say never, eh?) the apparent Axis-domination strategies. Having tried his scenarios, I intend to e-mail Mr Bill with a series of suggestions to improve them. I would encourage all who enjoy playing this excellent and addictive game to take a moment or two and do the same; that way, we can eventually get a mod that will be challenging to even the best of players. :cool: Bill: perhaps we need to break the scenarios into Axis and Allied versions, since it is hard to "balance" when you are trying to accomodate both sides. There ARE solutions to Air superiority and Atlantic U-boat ops and Med theatre and Dutch gambit, etc. We merely need to take the time and find them. Sharing a common appreciation of the game is one way to do that.

Just got back from a week-long excursion to Durango... snow-boarding at Purgatory highly recommended for all you hell-bent Xers! :cool: ... tho, beware the Celebs who are slumming there, or, rather, make great haste to duck their kiss-a** entourage, who would bury you under the ice-floe merely to bask in the dim glow of their profane and glibly patronizing psuedo-saint, yes? (... come to think on it, many false messiahs ALWAYS lurking 'round -- tossing witless bon-mots to them mee-moe-mindless followers, even on internet ether boards... :eek: keep an adze-honed eye out, yes?) Anyhow, late last night and early this morning (... couldn't wait to get back to the game, you know how it can go?) I played Bill Macon's excellent '39 scenario mod. And I played it Expert +1. All went according to the Manual of Grog (... Jeewees, what a MASSIVE tome... yee what's got spools of testosterone should add this gargantuan weight to your work-out regimen, right along with your usual dainty doses of 'roids) And therein the problem. The Allies could not land anywhere on the west coast of France! I say, I say again - COULD NOT. (... and this has now happened three times in a row, so we are not in dilemma) The AI bases its strategy almost exclusively on Air superiority. Adequate idea, and fairly historical. However, if you have planned Rommel-like -- presuming he might be unhindered by raging, mental-age-3 sorts of lunatics, as were ALL Nazis, then and now, then you have got the situation under control. Of course, you had foreseen Air Dementia and contested EVERY single Allied Strat Bombing campaign with your best 2 or 3 surviving Air from French annihilation + an experienced HQ, and so your defensive Interceptors can now prevent all attempts to punch out a hex or two on the Continent. And, you had researched U-Boats so that they are now able to parry any Allied sorties in the Bay of Biscay. As we know, a Strat Bomber will also be helpful. And you had purchased an Italian HQ along with 4 or 5 black shirt corps to help with the "hedgehog defense" of France, oh, north and northeast of Paris. So. Whatever can the AI do? :eek: Nothing. Save, beat its hapless head against your authentic Fortress Europa. Solution (... one among many, sure, let's hear it): for SC2 we create an Amphibious unit that can attack from the beaches of Iwo SC. This would be pretty much necessary if there is to be any Pacific version of SC, since there are one-hex islands that must be assaulted, yes? You can either do this with, or without stacking. With stacking would allow shore bombardment, and/or two marine units storming the beach a la Audie Murphy or 'ol Sarge Stryker, Jon Wayne. (... here I borrow from Bill Macon's long-ago idea that there can be "stacking points." Two to a hex. Army = 2; all others, including ships = 1.) Otherwise, you could maintain the current schematic of one-unit-per-hex, as long as the Marine unit was OUTRAGEOUS enough to possibly dislodge the dug-in defender. Of course, this powerful unit would cost a Croesus sort of arm and a leg. Perhaps even research into Higgins kinds of landing craft might be required. See, you just cannot count on the Allies being able to establish SUFFICIENT air superiority (... anyway, against a capable Axis player). There needs be another tactical device so to get them gung-ho grunge-gyreens ashore. Hence, and a long way to go I know, mea culpa, the absolute need, IMO, for a Marine unit in SC2.

I would like to second this proposition. That way, each person, serious or light-hearted or fey, could actively participate in those areas where they feel comfortable. No-one wishes to be a scold or nag, and no-one that I know of wants to act out of place, as an "unofficial monitor." Each of us has been guilty (... not only you, JJ) of some occasional off-topic shenanigans, but as long as they remain within the bounds of good taste and apply due consideration for each individual's DESERVED dignity, then I see no problem. I also agree with JerseyJohn when he suggests that there CAN be some certain "kidding around." And of course -- any and all decisions as to what is or isn't appropriate is in the hands of the "official" monitors, and NOT for any of us to take that role upon ourselves, yes? I am happy to curtail my own tendencies toward... inappropriate BS, and will take some responsibility for at times being, ummm... overly cynical and without easy grace. Anyway, let's all participate in the great fun that will be... increasingly possible SC2! :cool:

Many of us surely expected your intervention. Padlocks are designed for a good and sufficient reason. Mindless nihilism is hardly a substitute for measured and cogent commentary. Unless of course there is a need to over-throw a terrible Tyrant, or briefly explore the Collective Unconscious... anyway, appreciate your Xtra effort, and here's hoping you will yet enjoy New Year celebrations.

I would strongly agree. Some have "abstractly" supposed Air Fleets to also consist of naval bombers. I guess that could be the case, and indeed, must be -- given the generic composition of the Air units. However, for SC2, I would like to see the Air separated into fighters/interceptors, tactical bombers and naval bombers. Perhaps even long-range fighters and bombers, available through research successes. In fact, you might implement a tech-tree that is more thorough, so that EACH kind of Air unit could be researched, but only if the player feels it is important to long term goals. You could keep the automatic interception (... though, there are good arguments why the player should have a choice of when to attack/defend) and have more, and greatly varied air-combat. You could also include the option to buy lesser sized units, and allow the player to purchase older models if desired. Just because you have advanced to L3 or L4 Air shouldn't restrict building choices... you may surely have some use for a size-5 ME 109, say, to be placed in an out-of-the-way theatre such as Norway. And so, should you place a specific NAVAL AIR unit in Bergen, or Tobruk? And if so, then there probably should be some fighters to defend them when they venture into the Med to attack naval vessels or convoys. What this would do would ENLARGE the scope of the game, WITHOUT unduly complicating it. After all, it doesn't really require all that much effort to push the buttons on a few extra air units, true? The idea being, the computer is capable of handling all kinds of calculation & scut-work, freeing the player to execute grand strategy. A complicated rule-set is no problem as long as the internal coding is sound. How many times have we all given up on a daunting game like WiF simply because the round-by-round calculations have become too tedious and time consuming? :eek: I am very much in favor of adding detail, as with this split of the Air into 3 or 4 categories... for SC2, why not shoot for the moon? Since most are agreed that SC is an elegant and straight-forward design concept, the addition of a few more elaborate combat routines for SC2 wouldn't be deleterious to the game... instead, would make a good game that much better. :cool:

But don't forget to scatter the sawdust in center-ring! And bring out the old flop-shoe Clown, sweeping the spotlight right under the rug! Else, you will likely find that They have all up and decamped for that one big 15-minute chance -- at Reality TV!

You and me both... it's not quite the same playing games on computer, no matter what elastic flash is splashed -- sometimes half-a**ed & slap-dash (RE: 6 months, AT LEAST, premature release of HoI) alas, all over the place of late. Sometimes... I get this crawling atavistic crick in my neck... as though, too many in this brave new-old Age are planning for a hasty exit, as though... somebody knows... especially in these times of a mind-less, soul-less, conglomerated Corporate-HQ, Where noblesse oblige has become a kind of privately snide and a mirthless in-joke to be played on the happily ignorant Public, and that... all is getting to be... very... very... TEMPORARY... :eek:

So would I. And not just differentiating between props and jets, but in ALL areas - those already included and just enough more of them that will still keep the game from being too-too micro. Say, 15-20 categories. Varying costs for each, oh, 100-300 MPPs per. Deliberate game design that would preclude covering everything, so that each game would depend on choices - not only for which category to research (... ASW, or Mobile Artillery, or Airborne, or late model U-boots, etc), but also on success ratios that take into account how successful your intelligence network has been. I won't go on & on, since this is an area that will undoubtedly be much-discussed before SC2 prototype is assigned to the beta-testers (... hope none will wander on over from HoI :eek: ).

That extremely intelligent being also surmised, oh just incidentally, that God doesn't "play dice" with the Universe, and/or, in other words => keep yer gaming room nice and tidy, since no telling when the late-night lights will dim once... twice... and go - oops! utterly out... the only thing then... is to feel around in the dark until you touch... well, that's another sort of story... :cool: You guys are amazing - great pics, astounding depth and breadth of creative flair (... I am sure everyone realizes what grasp of "real & imagined" history is required to make this kind of Wyrd Epic work, yes?)

I know from experience, these are the work of a man possessed... surely recommended, since Mr Bill will go to the last square inch, in the last contested hex, in the last WW2 GS-game in existence... in order to provide an accurate and intensely playable campaign. :cool:

Very true. From the whatever happened to? department: :eek: Goddard's grandson used to own a wargamer's store not too far from where I live... don't know if he is still there since I haven't bought a wargame in awhile, but I'll probably check this weekend while I am out browsing around... I still get mail from that store, announcing various gaming marathons for grogs, etc, so they must still be in business... If anyone needs to know the aero-specs and combat modifiers for tiny cardboard jets, let me know and I will ask him...