Desert Dave

You know I was wondering the same thing. In a recent game, Poland surrendered and yet I had 2 good sized corps near the capital, but in another game, they did NOT surrender with similar forces in contention. Likely a random event. :confused: I am not specifically answering your question because I don't know the exact "surrender conditions," of each country, but it would be helpful to know what they are. OTOH, maybe it IS more interesting to discover this (... and other vague rules-questions) over time, instead of knowing everything all at once. I believe Bill Macon questioned the propriety of this, but could be? we are supposed to discover little bits & pieces as we go, which maintains interest in the game, and provides the opportunity to solve these lingering dilemmas on the forum?

That link to the board-game site is also much appreciated by me. I thought I either owned, or had played all of the old AH games, but somehow (... how could this be?) I missed out on that Charles Roberts game -- "U-Boat." Anyone play it, or know something about it?

There were ways to make tough, almost impossible choices -- back then, And there are ways, if it comes to it, to make terrible decisions -- here and now. Each will do it as an individual. No one writing or reading on this forum was there. Everything is second hand. But, we are HERE now. Make your own individual choices, but it does very little good to tell and tell and tell anyone else -- how to make theirs.

Of course. It's that revolting Beast in each, Usually tamed, And then and again... demanding! it's way, But... rare is the day, thanks be, It's chewing right through! That pitiful short-length leash...

Bill, on this there is not a scintilla of doubt. If it isn't sufficiently PBEM balanced now, it will be soon. :cool: And, as you suggest, there are plenty of options for each to make the scenario that they find most challenging and enjoyable -- I know I have. Mostly I was commenting on a general area of interest -- to me. It is surely evident that this "psychological" impetus originates INSIDE of me, and so it may well be true that I am one of the only ones who is concerned with it. If there are no responses, than I will assume that to be the case, and move on -- there are very nearly an unlimited # of other topics to discuss. Nonetheless, I felt the strange desire to BEGIN to examine this touchy topic, but it sure enough shouldn't be explored beyond a "Reader's Digest" level, which is why I didn't elaborate. To do it justice would require a full-length book. After all, the psychological workings of the Human is not of surpassing interest to very many, primarily I think, because it can be quite threatening to bio-balance. And, it is mostly supported by fanciful theories, and not hard-science kinds of "facts." (though here we cannot pretend that these so-called "facts" haven't changed over the centuries, because they have, and will continue to do so) In addition, pscyhologists have a (well deserved in terms of jargon-laced reformulations of ordinary common sense) reputation as "witch doctors" who cannot often see -- the Mystery in the forest for the trees, etc. As for computer chess, I have never played it nor do I have any desire to do so. Face to face chess can be a majestic battle of wits, as any good boardgame, and in fact, I mostly prefer those to computer simulations. SC is exceptionally fun to play, and I am very thankful for Hubert's 2 year Odyssey.

Well, who wants to play a game half way through? As it stands, that seems to be the usual situation. (unless you wish to prolong the agony & ecstasy once Russia kneels over and surrenders). I think sometimes we (I am guilty of this as well)are TOO concerned with historical accuracy and not appreciating that -- unless the game is fun and competitive to the very end, it hasn't provided what we want -- namely, a spirited contest, as chess mostly is, where the latter stages are as competitive as the earlier ones. This brings to mind one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes (from Zarathustra): "An image made this pale man pale. He was equal to the deed when he did it; but he could not endure its image after it was done." What do I suggest? Well, there is this underlying psychological aspect to war-games, and especially WW2 recreations, wherein the player, being naturally aggressive, has very little opportunity (RE: Freud and "Civilization and Its Discontents") to express it fully, and thereby exorcise it (if only temporarily). And so, it is exceeding difficult to actually out & out say -- hey, it's OK if the Germans win. No-one would admit, in polite Society, that they take some sure and heady pleasure in mayhem & conquest, and most especially no-one would admit ANY satisfaction in seeing the German war-machine achieve its nefarious 3rd Reich ambitions. To be ambivalent or even conflicted-contradictory about this, or indeed many of the simplest things in Life, is the "normal" condition. To pretend that we (mainly males) are NOT innately aggressive, as if this could be conditioned out of us by some paltry requests (even, authoritative admonitions)to the contrary, is, in my estimation, nonsense. So. I am suspecting that we must "tip-toe" around our (mine, anyway) great glee in seeing the whole Euro-world aflame (and, by implication, ready for -- a NEW, possibly more Eden-like rebirth). Mostly we are afraid, in line with WB Yeats' timeless poem where he suggests... that the center will not hold -- O we are scared witless that another! bold and menacing attack on Western Civ is ever... just under the surface, about to rear its hideous, malformed head, and commence that sneering slouch toward Bethlehem. Well, this is no polemic, nor earnest thesis, for that would certainly take 100s of pages, so I will conclude by saying -- let us admit that we truly enjoy marauding and laying waste!... no disclaimers or slitted red masques necessary or required. Let the Germans win, let them almost win, or let them be smitten by an avenging Angel, but mostly, let the game reach utter completion, even if it bothers our "collective sense" that this would be... the final arrival of that faintly-promised Scourge... (... sorry, you may disregard this post in its entirety and continue to pretend if you'd prefer... )

Nor do I. A corollary to this topic was discussed many months ago, and it concerned a Carrier's limited # of naval planes having as much lethal punch as an entire Air Fleet which is posited to include fighter-bombers, and most certainly would include a much greater number of ground (NOT Sea) familiar and appropriately equipped planes. Air attack on a port should be treated differently (than even an attack on otherwise unremarkable coastal hex, IMO), but flying 200 miles inland and strafing tiny (compared to ships) and highly mobile units is a bit of a stretch. I would be hard pressed to even think of one maddened Admiral who would order such an unpredictable (in the sense that he would be highly unlikely to trust another branch of service to provide adequate cover OR topography intelligence) attack. :eek: I do like those opinions already expressed that ask for SOME AA for ground units -- few of this sized (Army & tank detachments anyway) units would venture out into potential killing fields without some minimal AA protection, even if only a couple of 20mm guns jury-rigged to a truck chassis. This could easily be fixed by allowing units to benefit from AA advances, and it wouldn't have to be the full benefit -- maybe even 1/2 rounded up or some such, just so they wouldn't be sitting ducks... yeah yeah, I know, smarten up and provide CAP, but I would still argue for minimal AA for ground units.

sogard, you have explained it so succinctly that even I can understand. I was beginning to wonder if any -- of all of our multitudinous and ordinarily gushing-loquacious board brethren -- knew what this truly odd concept -- tcp/ip, was about. Well, now I -- and those few other old-school sorts also know, and for that we are grateful. Since H is a dedicated gamer himself, I trust that he will find a sure & certain solution.

Just for the heck of it, I am going to give you one old veteran American's opinion of Canada in general. I have not traveled there (other than a brief excursion or two across the border in my VW traveling Van) much, and so this is based on non-specific perceptions... Rugged. Slow to be angered, but when they are -- you'd sure better be ready. :eek: Makes too much of a very minor sport, hockey. Fine and ferocious Navy. Good at making irreverant jokes, and even better beer. Understands (and plays) baseball as if it is of passing (... yawn) interest, and of little consequence (NOT! the genuine Myth & Magic that it truly is). Somehow -- and this is strange to me -- produces more rock & roll singers and war-game makers and odd diplomats than the small population might allow. Are learned and literate, but disinclined to boast or act didactic. More protective of Environment than USA, which is much appreciated since there is not a lot of pristine wilderness left -- thank you! And last but not least, Canadians seem to have a kind of... "worldly savoire faire" (... how they got this way is a marvelous mystery to me) which sometimes irritates Americans who -- due to feelings of insecurity I would guess, cannot accept "French" or even old Celtic culture.

I like this idea, in that -- even with a front depth of 50 miles, the reinforcement would surely be hindered by the uncertain deployment of enemy forces. Who but the most rash of commanders is going to rush replacements into a potentially treacherous situation? The local intelligence was not so exactly instantaneous. Seems as though the rate would be measured and with an eye to avoiding massacre of new troops, yes? However, I don't mind the increase in size of units -- all the way to 15 if possible, because (when combined with experience) this makes for the "elite unit" that you refer to. It is not so much an indication of the # of troops, but a much more coherent and "war-wise" approach to combat by those (Self surviving) savvy veterans.

For those of us who have recently emerged, blinking & scratching from out of The Dark Ages (and somewhat aghast at all the edgy oddness going on in this Strange New World) would someone be kind enough to explain how this system will work? For instance, do you have to pay Xtra $$$ for this privilege? Or is it similar to PBEM and you hook up with another player as per normal, only without mail delays? What's the story, morning glories?

Once upon a time I used to try and figure a break point, only it was on a clumsy surfboard out near Pacific Palisades -- you had to crouch down and do a little dance (... presumably to appease the Great Kahuna) and somehow FIT IN with the flow of the ocean universe... and not incidentally, show off for the California lasses strolling ashore... ) As for this one, it is uncertain, and probably should be, how best to maximize each unit. Mostly I go by hunch or intuition (after all, your subconcious is FULLY aware of your game situation, even if your mind is aghast at what perilous position you now find yourself in... again!) and try to keep each unit strong enough to withstand potential counter-attacks without being decimated to the extent that another reinforcement will reduce the hard-gained experience even further. :eek: I'm sure you recognize this casual ploy, and maybe even do the same, but as to precision -- I am fairly sure that this will never be attained (in any endeavor) but also confident that we as a species will never stop trying to reach... further and farther, even if the direction is toward the interior (as magic-inclined Carl Jung) rather than -- outward, to some distant but much becoming Star.

I am glad that this is an area that is now being... considered, and not implemented for certain (... you used the word "consider" 3 times in one short paragraph -- so who says! I am too often picking dandelions out in left field and slow to react to the crack of the bat?) And for old reasons already stated by some of us and also the newer ones herein, and because it would be something -- if it turns out to be TOO MUCH assistance to the Allies, you would have to turn around and have ANOTHER patch to fix -- what wasn't wrong to begin with. Having said that, I am all for leveling the playing field (... and having the groundskeeper dig out the dandelions BEFORE the game begins so I won't be distracted) so perhaps a compromise? Your initial inclination was to allow -- what was it? 3 or 4 "free" research chits for Russian and USA? Well, how about just restoring that, and possibly have the cost of switching to another area be only 50 MPPs each? This way you are not trying out a drastic change that would inhibit Germany's "blitz-ability." I like the others feel you need to preserve that initial advantage. I am wondering if there isn't a hidden psychological mechanism at work here -- given the historical outcome of smashing Allied success, and given the absolutely black-heart nature of the Nazi regime -- might it not be true that most folks are subconsciously intent that this Allied victory should happen again and again -- and most of the time, and an Axis triumph really upsets the collective sense of "righting that horrific wrong?" Well, no matter the musings about psychology, perhaps it is better to go slow on this, and get some additional feedback before the tech-tree is hacked into bits of kindling wood.

And you shouldn't, since you are enlarging the scope of this discussion, and that is always helpful. Thesis, antithesis -- synthesis, this is the ideal. But, it is not necessarily being "defensive" to argue your own point as best you are able. And we each have a certain style and manner of expression, which need not be linear-logical, but it is what we do best so we stick with it. Most, if not all of the ones who defend their POV on a particular topic, have also made suggestions or even been critical of other aspects of the game. Is your concern valid? Yes indeed. And you make some very good points. And I agree that is arduous and painstaking to try to accumulate experience for the units -- perhaps it WOULD be better to have a method to introduce trained troops instead of green? Given the rules, one thing I try to do is not max-out when I reinforce, so that I am maintaining the highest level of experience -- say, stop at 8 or 9 instead of going to 10 or 11.

Not an objection exactly, but... unless this applies to each amount allotted -- whether maxed out at 5, or 4-3-2, then why would you even bother spending 250 MPPs to move up to level 5? Stop at level 4 and you achieve the greatest chance for the amount of MPPs spent. So, in effect you are maxing each tech at 4?

On which side, and when? There are times when this could be said for EITHER side. Once upon a time in a thread long ago, it was supposed that the best play for the Germans would be to NOT contest any early British bombing raids, but now we understand that this mostly provides valuable experience to the Spitfires, yes? So just maybe it IS better to keep 2 or 3 Air Fleets behind (with HQ) to insure that the Brits are not developing unhindered experience. Maybe not, it is a strategic choice. (... this is why those Royal Navy ships attack Bergen or Brest -- to gain experience; next time notice how this vital category changes even when there has been no apparent casualties) I am beginning to appreciate that EXPERIENCE matters -- maybe even MORE than the much dreaded Hydra-headed monster, Tech Luck. Try this -- play a game on Expert +0, then play an identical game on Expert +2 and notice the difference in all aspects, not just air power. For the Russians, how about this -- when they have no experience, pull them back out of range, and ONLY attack targets of great opportunity (without chance of interception if possible, say, against Finn units or those Wehrmacht that have been mortally wounded or have blitzed too far out ahead), and that way you will slowly build up... experience. Not much to invest with? Well, surely you can squeeze one or two points (as the Russian, you get two for free, yes?) and so use that for Jets. As with other aspects of grand strategy, this is a matter of personal choice. Strategic Bombers can be very effective in reducing entrenchment, usually with little or no cost. Once again, pick your spots and build up experience. Tactical bombers are considered, in this version of SC anyway, as an integral part of the Air Fleets. Compulsory interception? This depends upon where you place your Air Fleets. Find the hexes where your planes will be most effective, AND not be decimated in the early stages (... or late, of EITHER side). It matters very much WHERE you position units, as is true in chess. And, as in all else, Real Life included, there are surely ways around every single strategem or affliction or threat, regardless of who or what borrowed or conjured them up. It takes patience, observation, practice, patience, learning, appreciating and finally -- accepting what CAN be done without worrying about what cannot.

I still think you had MPPs stashed under the mattress -- after all, I am infallible (... or is that H.A.L.?)

Well, I never really know for certain sure, but here I was trying a new code-talk (adapted from Hopi idiom and ideals -- these peaceful natives live nearby) So to! Delight my friends -- Heads, Yippies, Diggers, Outcasts, Freaks, Degenerates and Malcontents mostly, though, the few odd old soldiers thrown in for good measure, And! Confound any foes -- ALL! opposed to free thought, free & open exchange of ideas (... we used to have "Free Universities" when I was young and a citizen-soldier no longer) and FREE! healing & helping hands to ANY in need... well, I guess this leaves out the current administration and all but 1 or 2 US politicians, oh, too bad for plain old us...

Oh gosh darn -- good at this as well as all the other many million myriad things they are also good at? And here I imagined this was one of the last remaining machismo hideouts...

Well, it's not indisputable, because we are disputing it. Is it true that the German CAN take advantage of investing in Tech? Yes. But, he doesn't HAVE to and could choose more Black Forest-hewn broomsticks and machine gunning Pz3s instead. (... I wonder why some folks say things like -- this topic has been beaten to death? Of course it hasn't and besides, perhaps not everyone has expressed an opinion yet? Or, just as the debate concerning dualism versus body & mind intertwined, it hasn't been sufficiently exhausted? In any event, they can just work the right-side thread slider?) Anyway, the designer is highly unlikely to market a game that favors the Germans, either intentionally or by accident, which is why there are various levels to play at AND an editor for those who are more dedicated players. If you are beating the AI 70-80% of the time, then -- ratchet this old spavined vehicle up a notch, and re-wrench the leaf springs. If you are beating PBEM players 70-80% of the time, then -- either you are very very good, or the other is average, or luck has played its rare but powerful hand, OR -- you are onto something, and it is indeed a matter of Germany (... accidentally) receiveing too much of an advantage. Seems like the beta-testers would have noticed and commented (I am certain that they were/are all well-qualified as game-players in general) and the necessary adjustments made. As I have mentioned, I have found that a good Allied player, with deftness and some favorable results, can very successfully parry a good Axis player. Not always, and not easily, but it CAN be done. Perhaps we all need to work on our Allied strategies so to counter that perceived Axis advantage... I doubt very much, from what I have read on this forum, that the best strategy has been tried -- OR, more likely -- even revealed, since we tend to save our very best for difficult opponents who are quite certain of easy victory...

And so it's mostly only you and I who have experienced -- the best of times and worst of times as well... the thing is, the game is designed to account for early German superiority, otherwise they could not achieve the same kinds of "blitz success" as was actually the case IRL. So, if you reduce the Axis chances for some initial tech advantage, then you are balancing the game too far in favor of the Allies (...unless other adjustments are made). OF COURSE the Allied side must constantly play catch up, and it occurs to me that the much of the consternation has to do with NOT being able to play with the same whiz-bang toys! as the Axis gets. BUT, the Allies COULD choose to invest more in tech speculation, yes? Sounds as if they desire to have BOTH -- plenty of troops on the ground AND all the tech advances, and all at once too? Well, just invest MORE and make do with less to defend with. Can't have merely the best of times; must suffer through the worst of times as well, true?

Well, patch v 1.04 did NOT solve the problem of being unable to delete saved pbem games AND enter the password. I don't think this is a major hang-up, but is this unique to my system? In general, the pbem plays smoothly except for this quirky issue. Sometimes I cannot get the pbem box to close, and the "drum-beat" still plays when I minimize (have to use ESC about half the time). No hurry on this, it's not critical.

In a recent game playing the Allied side (v.s. the AI) I had successfully taken Sicily and was approaching Rome -- from north and south, since I had landed a force behind the lines, BUT the German did NOT respond, except for one unsupported Corps. Sure, they had their hands full trying to contain a beserker breakout on east front, BUT I also noticed that the Germans responded with 4! corps AND an army to just one! pitiful partisan thumbing its nose in the Yugo mountains. :eek: As well, the invasion of France was given up for a lost cause, since there was NO support for the few garrisons there, even when Paris was threatened. FOW was on, so I don't know how many reserves were available, but it seems there needs be some sort of response to greater threats (Italy near to surrendering; France in the dying throes)?

Game #1: Strategy went according to usual plan, BUT that audacious Corps in Belgium somehow held out with strength of 1, which complicated blitz through northern France, and now you add a couple more "poor dice rolls" and a tactical error made in frustration & haste, and what do you know? France holds out (due to HQ and deft gameplay AND...) until January of '41! :eek: Game #2: Again, traditional strategy (Poland, Denmark, Low Countries, France -- Scandinavia saved for later to prevent France from expanding too fast) and what now? Good dice-rolls, better preparation and no tactical errors, and so... France falls by early July. The point is, I guess, that in BOTH games the tech advances were similar, BUT -- there are more factors at play than only that one dimension, important as it is, such as attack/defense outcomes, opponent's distraction or haste... or their exhaustive patience or unique quirkiness, etc, etc. My conclusion is that there will be many many PBEM games played, and each will have normal and strange factors that will influence it, and so to concentrate on MERELY ONE, such as "tech-luck," or a series of galling dice-rolls, is to forget that there are always other critical factors that are equally important. In the post-game analysis, one can rarely point to one determining factor as being decisive. You may in fact find that the game ebbs and flows so much that there are 2 -- or 3 or 6 contributing events, and this is, in my view, a compliment to the game designer's excellent instincts for what makes a game interesting and re-playable. Excellent job Hubert! :cool:

And I as well. 3R & even A3R used the abstraction method and it was my least favorite part of their game -- rather an afterthought for what was arguably an essential part of the war. :eek: I agree that we need to open up the Atlantic, because as is the Allied pbem-player always kills (or, should be able to) those subs immediately, with little consequence. First, increase the dive % by 10 up and down the line. Second, decrease sonar of Battlewagons, and increase sonar for ASW equipped Cruisers. Third, make roughly half of the Atlantic a convoy route, meaning... instead of a narrow lane between Canada and Britain, make EACH HEX on much of the ocean a certain value that can be attacked. This would simulate changed plans, storms driving ships off course, Raider sorties that scatter the convoy, etc. The total amount would still be 40 MPPs, BUT, you would simulate routes from USA, South America and from Commonwealth countries (around Africa) by having variable values depending on (fairly close to historical -- it needn't be perfect) intensity of shipping traffic. Viewed from a birds-eye, I am imagining a map with many "flowing rivers" of hex-points, say from 2 to 5 in value, that all follow a path to England. Subs could randomly effect the hex they are in and all surrounding hexes. The total MPPs sunk could equal (presumably a "computer stat-analysis" could approximate this #) what is being accomplished now. Now, this version of SC precludes major changes, accepted, but we COULD enhance the battle of the Atlantic without altering the current set-up very much, merely by the three suggestions that I and others have proposed, yes?