Desert Dave

JMB, Any new updates on your Art-work? And, did you ever get your site finished? Your stylish units really make the game more appealing! Thanks again.

But... I thought you said that we had beat that old ragged-eyed Nag to untimely, premature death, yes? So here we are clinging! to an empty fist-full of ghost-mane -- on our skeletal ghost-horse, which is fortunate, if not neck-hackle raising, because then! when we arrive at the Coyote-haunted destination, we can participate in the traditional ghost dance, and while we're at it, send up a ghost of a prayer... for that ol' deceased nag's happy resolution -- in Ephemeral Heaven!

I will also use John DiFool's list, and try to keep within bounds of what is possible. 1) Sub War: Currently, there is little chance of U-boats doing any significant damage in the crucial year of 1940 (even, '41), and then Russia is looming in the gloom, so the tendency is to avoid the Atlantic battles altogether... so -- a) increase dive rates by 10% per boat per advance, and/or put a raider like the Graf Spree out there at beginning to help sub survival. 2) Free French: Reduce chance of naval & air to 10% -- max of ONE ground unit. Seems like if there is a chance that naval units can escape to Allies, there should also be a (smaller) chance that Axis could capture and convert. 3) Production: Favor "delayed" production in some easily apprehended way, but that will have to wait. 4) Armor APs: Favor attack/move on same turn, with 3 AP penalty -- 2 AP penalty if attacked unit is destroyed. Also will have to wait. 5 Tech Luck: I very much like this, since it makes each game unique (... and provides justifiable rationale for victory defeat -- of course! I won/lost, I got/didn't get lucky, etc) Could be toned down a little, ie 8 total, with max 3 or 4 in any one area (... can be a house rule). 6) Supply: Don't completely understand the calculus yet, so nothing to add. 7) Strat Bombing: I have begun to appreciate the possible tactical uses of this unit more and more; however, cost should be reduced to 450 MPP or so. If there were an additional MPP cost to repair cities/resources, it would make the actual bombing campaign more enticing to implement, but that MIGHT entail too much micro-managing (... could be a pop-up, with cities listed -- repair Y?N, with up/down arrows for how much)? 8) Map: One more hex-row from Tobruk to Palestine. Once I advocated taking a row from Turkey, well -- how about removing one row from the Black Sea? (... rarely comes into play) or a combination of both? Need Trondheim and more room above England, but that's also for later. 9) Weather: Somehow, I really miss the "first Russian Winter effects," I don't know why. Weather, fair or foul, is such a vital part of everyone's life I guess, and it surely affected strategical decisions, especially when to attack, or not. The idea of seasonal map-changes also has aesthetic appeal. Will likely have to wait. 10) Other: Please, please -- "Variant Counters" (... random pop-up boxes) to effect Diplomacy (entry %) and occasional tactical combat bonuses, such as massive artillery barrage for one turn, and other surprises, etc. This would greatly add to game replayability.

If I ever get to Australia, and one happy day I sure enough hope to, and then -- as the raw, whipsawed greenhorn that I will necessarily be, what with being way down under! and ah, too too aesthetic-American, , (...and as our little travel-story goes) -- when I get lost amongst all the howling wind & weather and the native fire-feather'd creatures join forces -- with those out of some mythic-rambunctious Aussie past, and they rear! as one eerily keening Beast to... greet me, :eek: , O it is then! that I shall haul out the trusty cell-phone and call... the feistiest mate! ever found standing on two oak-limber legs -- on any of the known 7 continents! -- pardon me, 8 -- to include Atlantis, but of course... Husky 65! :cool:

You are apparently asking for a prolonged anarchy. :eek: Social survival of the fittest. King of the tree-dwindling jungle. Fastest damn draw at the ol' OK Corral, oh, all that -- free form, fast blast discordant, spontaneous and loose-shoe, blue blue blue! horn... Jazz. The "common good," is easily determined. You look all around and in places other than your own 4-square, Nature-hacked homestead. You notice whether there are emaciated or leprous, or otherwise torn & afflicted souls. Then, you do something, anything at all, that you possibly can, about it. To do otherwise -- all the while paying slave wages to your intellectual conceits, is understandable, but weak. Very, very weak. Just as you have the right to speak freely (... well, Ashcroft hasn't had quite enough time to completely undermine that little bothersome Constitutional "right" ... ) BECAUSE -- others have, and are, fighting your overseas military battles, and OTHERS are maintaining the roads that you drive or ride -- mighty stallions! on, and OTHERS are insuring that the red meat that you eat is safe and relatively germ-free, etc, ad infinitum. Or, do you like to pretend that you can do those sorts of things and many mundane more, all by yourself? Sure fire, the Wild Wild West mentality is now -- just as ee cummings' beautiful blond & blue-eyed Buffalo Bill, utterly defunct. To counter biological imperatives (... shelter, food, sex) requires some dedicated effort. It CAN be done, else we would yet be swinging the broad axe at the drop of every venemous grunt or syllable. ANYONE can swell up at the neck and strike maddened blows. I would imagine that it takes an enlightened individual to forego all that salivary blood lust, and just -- trust in the Greater Power (or, do you suppose that you are Immortal, and know all there is to know, and can turn flailing hail storms into a gentle, flower-misting rain?). All right, you have Ayn Rand to keep you company. I have Marcus Aurelius and Soren Kierkegaard et al, who very often come calling on me, and sure! We share in my personal blend of bark-sweetened, herbal tea! Fair enough. I am satisfied, and so, apparently, are you. [ August 27, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

Yes, I am talking about a potential SC2 because -- if there is to be one -- and I for one surely hope that Hubert will follow up on this, it cannot be very much the same as SC and attract sufficient new interest to make it worthwhile, can it? You distinction between the complexity of game mechanics (internal computer decisions and calculations) versus user-interface is noted and appreciated, and for this version I would agree that we cannot, and should not, change very much of either one. However, for SC2, Hubert has already stated that -- IF he chooses to do it, he intends to expand the scope and map, and that he has a long list which he has been compiling for possible new features. Who knows what that might be? If you keep the next game, say 95% the same as the original, then you are merely glossing or sharpening, whereas a more "complicated" game -- both in mechanics AND interface, would satisfy those who want more choices -- both "historical," and in terms of strategic options, which would necessarily involve changing mechanics and interface. Some of this could be offered as user choices, that could be clicked -- on or off. And it could be made in such a way as to provide a more muscular game, without making it a tedious exercise, IMO, and if anyone could do it -- since he is so good at listening and creative give-and-take, it is Hubert. But, it is fun to speculate, isn't it? And it gives everyone a chance to participate, no matter how much, or with what degree of detail or passion. As long as folks remain interested, you will retain a devoted group who, by word-of-mouth (... an entrepeneur's best friend, as I know from experience), will eventually increase your sales, and thus -- your inclination to do another version in the first place.

To me, it is very simple. Each living soul on our planet has equal value. I am the same as the President of Wherever, and likewise, the same as any homeless hobo. So are you. Because all have equal value, then each needs receive -- at miminum, enough shelter from storms, and enough food so to sing & flourish, and enough healing attention so to ease the soul-wracking throes, regardless of "accidental" lot in life. (... so you have a Will, and so you have acquisitive, materially avid nature... well, so?) If they are able (... and the Global Corporation hasn't laid them off -- all the while blithely pocketing obscene windfall profits, then! declaring bankruptcy and thumbing the nose from that fenced-off, snarling-dog-guarded, police protected mansion in Malibu) they should work for the common good. Archaic, almost biblical notion isn't it? The COMMON good. Imagine that. If they are willing to lend a hand -- even if merely the sweeper-upper at The Last Picture Show, then they should indeed receive what they need. Marxism. Welfare (... when did this so kindly inclined word become -- perjorative?). Capitalism. Socialism. ALL such intellectual concepts are MERELY that, and NOT rationales or justifications for miserliness, no matter how finely or closely argued. And no matter the amount of self-promoting papers or advanced degrees or claims on Wisdom there might everywhere all at once be. Even if... every human save ONE, says so. I do not promote the Bible, though I have read it all the way through, and my favorite saying by Jesus the Carpenter, is this: "the way you treat the least of my brothers and sisters, is the way you treat me." To me, it is very, very simple. [ August 27, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

Aloid, thoughtful ideas all around the town. Sometimes those who live outside of USA tend to view us as monolithic -- with the government monopolizing world attention, when actually -- we have as many viewpoints, and philosophies as there are people. For certain it is always an interesting place, if not easily understood... even by those who were born and raised here.

Usually true, at least thus far, but not so often -- reasonable or righteous. All is not so Manichaein, is it? I say let's have more of these sorts of wondering, whole-world wandering folk: Spartacus, saints Theresa of Avila and Calcutta, Kierkegaard, HD Thoreau, Carl Jung, Ghandi and... hmmmm, and what the heck????? Not so many! if ANY... of late, who have been quite as Enlightened or Thoughtful as is obviously needed... to insure that the real Common Wisdom keeps plenty apace -- with the Western-most notion of a fast forward motion... "Progress!"

From the standpoint of simple game-playing fun and enjoyability, I am in favor of delayed production. You could have a yearly chart to access, with dates indicating when your eagerly awaited Stukas will arive. To me, it makes it more exciting when you are desperately! in need of the Bismark or detachment of Panthers -- that will not arrive until too late? Hey, you should've anticipated the coming storm! Only problem being -- the uneven turn length, which would, I suppose, only prove that Winter months are a time for actively defying the closed shop foreman and engaging in Union "agitation." :eek: On point two, without Lend Lease, Murmansk convoys and other major changes, I don't see this is viable right now. I agree with those who say that the USA total also accounts for these things, but it was always gratifying (... from Allied perspective) to look forward to and finally receive the constantly increasing USA production. Both of these issues would certainly "complicate" the game in the sense that you would have to be more aware and plan ahead -- I guess it depends if you want to make it a truer chess match, or keep it simple so that grand-strategy will not be so... intimidating. Surely, there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue.

I certainly agree. Perhaps the idea was to make it harder to reinforce North Afrika, since you have to go the longer way around (... that Air Fleet at Malta, without HQ, is no real hindrance to supply efforts)and are more liable to be interdicted by Royal Navy. But, the end result of making Tobruk the only port (instead of the more easily defended short route to Tripoli), is to make it even LESS LIKELY that the Axis player will show any sustained interest in North Afrika. The very few MPPs gained was reason enough not to bother with the area in the first place, but seems like we should have more incentives, not less? Now, I realize that many will argue that -- on the scale of SC, North Afrika was a sort of romantic sideshow, but I would like to see any changes that would bring the whole southern map more into play.

The idea of "liberal progress" -- gaining ever more powerful momentum since The Enlightenment, surely "won" WW2. Whether this is a good or not-so-good prospect, I leave to the imagination. USA eagerly filled the vaccuum and the Marshall Plan was an active bid for new and hungry markets on the Continent. Influence peddling never had it so glorious since the days of hawking all-purpose "medicines" out of the back of a traveling wagon. Interesting to note that Gigantic Corporations have come to dominate our planet (re: Eisenhower's omniscient warning about Military-Industrial Complex -- now merging with real AND imagined imperatives of the National Security State). Iolo is closest to truth with warning of never ending wars between haves & have-nots -- between the defenders of the Status Quo and the spoiling "Outsiders," though this will depend on charismatic leaders arising out of the soil, so to speak (... ah, briefly, then searched out and ciphered or, "adjusted" as in the movie Blade Runner?) and whether they can rally support across philosphical/spiritual boundaries, namely the constantly tending chauvanistic national states. Environmentalism, which came of age in the 60s, may be the one common haven, in that the (... bare) majority are interested in preserving the earth. I am thinking more of the deeply interested German variety than the "dilletante" sort ordinarily found in USA. Who lost? "Communalists" of every type and indication. More specifically, Britain (which is why they are so oddly and uncomfortably "married" to USA now) and France -- with nuclear power as their last shuddering gasp, and as Krikke has suggested, the long-suffering Russian people. In a certain sense then, may be that The "physical" Earth has lost. :eek: (... on a lighter note -- the mighty poor and deprived American baseball players may go on strike this coming Friday! Good! Let them. Use fresh-faced and easily excited kids again. Maybe then we can have our old game back... ) :cool:

As with just about anything else, in this wargame or in the larger entrepreneurial world, you need spend bukku bucks. When I can rotate 5 or more subs -- most of which I do not even purchase unless I have reached tech-level 3, between the main convoy lanes and Marsailles, then I have "succeeded," if that's the right word. So, you can hit the Brits for an average MPP loss of 25-30 very nearly every other turn -- is it then worth it? May be. Because you will reduce their fleet, and be in a prime position to deny troop transport from USA. Also, they will not be working overtime and covering London lowlands with coast to coast Spitfires and night-fighters. But, without a second front, Russia is sooner than later doomed, no matter how inept or unlucky you are with dice rolls. I guess the hard part -- at least psychologically, is to overcome a natural reticence (... viewing those vastly amassing Red hordes can effect you, dare I claim it? -- subconsciously?) to make that initial 2000 or so MPP investment. Imagine what bristling, ice-blended spearheads could be constructed for the Eastern Front with that much cold hard cash? I would say that I have employed this Raeder-raider strategy about 3 or 4 times, and in each case the results were... a little hard to guage, since I was able to destroy well over half the transports that made invasion attempt. But, would the Eastern front have broken loose a whole lot sooner if I had turned out Panthers & Grenadiers instead? Now, if the AI would be more patient, and wait until '43 or early '44 to invade France, it may well be a different story. Or, if AI would circle around south, and put Italy to the resistance test. But, with a human player, I don't know (yet) if this all-out UnterSee effort would be worth it... I guess we'll see, and when we do, we can report back.

I would be curious to hear how everyone is handling ol' Joe Stalin's (... feverish) requests for a second front to take the heat off his beseiged beserkers. I haven't gotten far enough in PBEM games to add much, but as the Allies against the AI -- do you follow historical precedent and hit north coast of Afrika? Or, go right for Sicily (... not wishing to activate Vichy for the Axis), or what? In my games playing the Allies against the AI, I thus far have tried two strategies -- 1) Invade Italy, but as was true in the initial instance, crawling crag by crag up that rugged boot can be bloody tough :eek: , and/or 2) Invade Iberian peninsula, whether or not the Axis have conquered it. You can gain precious MPPs and Euro ports, and cause Germans to hastily reinforce, thereby relieving the Russians. More than anything else, I am curious -- what have been the second front choices, and the results against human players?

Norse, just my 2 cents, but I don't think any of the others are spoiling to get you, and they can surely comment for themselves, but I would favor a truce, yes? We have established that each of us can be passionate about our care & concern for this great game -- let's all ease up (... me too) and have some fun, fair enough?

Ah -- Behold! The Craziest Show on Earth! (... and to some, the scariest-strange thing, It was a mighty miraculous birth!) Clowns with bulbous red noses! And jugglers with show-stopping, slow Toppling, batons in the air! And no one ever supposes That the Games - once begun, are anything but fun and storied and fair! And see the one time Lepers -- faces creased From laughter -- not anymore! anymore tears, And looksee! the lame ones -- kicking up heels! And the blind ones -- yell the Mystery bold! And tell of spilling-out pots Of honestly sought, rainbow-end gold! ... well, it's only the Freak Show, And yes, don't you know -- you ARE invited, Yowsa! Come one & all! O ... will you tarry then, and tell us? You were humble but also excited, brave Since briefly afraid... but ever always! Faithful -- to the old old idea -- yes, yes Yes! There really truly IS... another Growing and Great! (... here, through The unhinged gate , it's Never too late!) garden called... Eden, Out there...

Is this a Zero-Sum game? All right, you win. But first, I will ask you to refrain from making inferences that are without merit. If you feel that I have stated that the game is "crappy or stupid because my thing wasn't in," I will now ask you to retrieve from ANY of my posts since April -- and properly quote me. My feeling is that I have actively supported the game from the beginning, and will continue to do so, this discussion notwithstanding. If you can prove otherwise by quoting me, fair enough. Otherwise, like I say -- you can win. In terms of my own suggestions, I have more than adequately explained my rationales and reasons, with the possible exception of supporting the idea of tanks being allowed to move and attack in the same turn (I had added -- with a two MP penalty). In that instance, I felt that everyone else in the thread had already made sufficient explanation, and therefore didn't need to go over the same rationales again and again. If I had disagreed with them, I would have said so, and (... to my OWN satisfaction, NOT -- YOURS, or anyone else's) laid out my own reasons, all right? Not everyone can be an analyzer par excellence, and so IMHO, you shouldn't demand it of them. It is completely agreeable to me that they should merely state their opinion without need of detailed exegesis -- I can live with that, why can't you?

I don't know about you Wolfpack, but my reading of the posts since April have indicated to me that MOST are both pretty reasonable, and fairly well informed. Most are NOT half-cocked, whining or stupidly unrealistic. You have employed a common rhetorical device very often used in debates, namely -- an appeal to emotion (... ah, yes, I have used it myself, though try not to, etc...). We are dealing with a group, myself included, who have waited 8 or so years for someone -- anyone! to create a game like this, and so, at times the suggestions will include a long, long fantasy-list that goes back a long, long time. Quite naturally, I think, an awful lot of opinions will exist, and the time for expressing them is... if not -- here and now, then -- when? Sure I know that my suggestions will probably be discarded, but I enjoy trying to include myself in the creation process because I can finally, after 8 long years, have a chance to give my thoughts & opinions on GS war-gaming. Here I am, with an electric-eclectic group of people from all over the world who truly enjoy Grand Strategy games, and discussing ALL the possible aspects with others of a similar (... some would say -- strange, but what do they know?) nature. Now. Am I happy with SC? No. I am positively thrilled! If it never changes? I will STILL enjoy it every bit as much as the next guy. I appreciate ALL the comments on this thread, pro & con and thoughful, or -- even those that are a kind of... "spontaneous wishful thinking." :cool: You cannot remotely improve anything -- if that is even one of your goals -- whether a game, or your own tending-degenerate thought processes, without challenging ALL preconceived opinions. Unlike the case with ol' Socrates, Hemlock is not on most Opponent's wine list. And so -- bring it on! ALL unrehearsed, uncensored, unbiased, AND -- considerate, fair-minded and friendly opinions! BTW, I am still for Para, Destroyers, and some kind of Variant Event table, enacted randomly to help insure infinite replayability -- you?

So, what are we saying here? Play the game as is, and like it! OR -- just shut up about it? NO SUGGESTIONS ALLOWED! :confused: If that's the case, then you would have to go back and erase half of the posts on this forum, yes? I have had great fun with this game, more so than with any other I have played in the last several years, and that covers a lot of territory. :cool: I also have made suggestions as to HISTORICAL enhancements. In fact, several of the suggestions that some have made, have been incorporated into the game by Hubert, such as the Russian Cruiser in the Black Sea. So, what? Now, we need be determined to protect the VERY FIRST version of the game? Or, is it the latest, v1.03 that we feel needs a big brother's attention, which also includes some historical additions? Freaks shall inherit the Earth, O Yea brothers. Historical freaks included, who are usually interested in having fun AND incorporating any of those aspects a game-designer might eventually elect to add, which will increase the "realistic" feel of the contest. These are NOT mutually exclusive concepts, are they?

I would agree. The armor does seem a little TOO static and inert, but, you would need to account for the time and disorganization of the attack itself, so how about -- the attack would reduce the movement by 2 points, so that you could move 3 then attack, or attack and move 3, etc? This would allow for some reasonable blitz break-throughs when it is armor alone that is attempting this (... remember, that at this scale the tank detachment would also include mechanized infantry to protect the flanks -- good idea though of including follow-up corps to accomplish a similar effect).

True that you would normally find HQs and Air Fleets preserved, so that they would be the last targets, but I was thinking that the Urals and Caucasus tend to be poorly defended by infantry. Friar Bellows reports that he has seen infantry placed there, but in all the games I have played I have only seen ONE infantry corps guarding each area as the game winds down. What I was suggesting was for the AI to plan ahead and say something like this -- "hmmm, I am in danger of losing Moscow, and they are even coming 'round the bend toward my precious oil reserves, so I will forego some of the other reinforcements and begin building perimeter defenses for these two EXTREMELY vital areas." So that you would end up with the HQs and Air Fleets protected within a ring of entrenched corps -- see what I mean?

The Allied AI buys far too many Air Fleets, at the expense of other offensive weapons, such as tanks and Armies. Now, this tactic does serve to reduce the corps (AI mostly targets them -- and Brest, even when past a viable point, though I realize you MUST have a port) that are defending the (... premature?) '42 invasion of France, and it does force the Germans to either re-call some air from Russia, or maybe better -- simply build many corps as potential targets. But in general (... and also very true of Russia) the AI greatly favors Air Fleets at the expense of ground forces.

A couple of comments on the AI: 1) I think that this was mentioned before, but one AI tactic that I would like to see changed -- when Germany has Russia on the ropes, they always seem to end up with too many Air Fleets and HQs, and not enough infantry. When you finally reach the Urals or Caucasus area, they are left defending vital areas with only the air and HQs. Perhaps there could be some kind of a ratio coded in, so that the AI wouldn't buy more Air Fleets without first checking to insure that they have enough Armies? (... this also seems to be true of USA and Britain -- an awful lot of Air, and not enough tanks or expedition armies) Or, place more corps in that area and just leave them so that their entrenchment is such that they could offer stiffer resistance. Those mountains around the Urals could be a truly tough area to conquer. :eek: 2) Also, could there be some kind of choice made so that once in a while the Allies will save up resources and invade North Afrika or even Italy, instead of always making a '42 invasion of France? Seems as though this ultimately fails every time -- it doesn't seem to require enough of a German defense so that the effort in Russian is hindered much, even when the Siberian reinforcement arrives.

Very nice -- I have been mostly playing the Axis in campaign '39, since there is more to do in the first couple years, and a greater challenge overall, and so hadn't worked out a lot of Allied tactics, but that is a pretty good plan. Once in a while I had disbanded the Brit bomber to help pay for Montgomery, thinking that I would have no use for the SB until '43 or '44, but yours is a good tactic. Occasionally I had operated it to Egypt to help against the Italian navy. This underscores the need for more convoy routes, say -- from USA and South America (Venezualan oil!) so that the "small ocean" can be easily expanded. You would have to somehow account for Lend Lease and off-board resources, but hopefully that can be included in SC-II. Anything to help us more faithfully re-enact the Battle of the Atlantic would be well received by me. :cool:

Good point, and for my zwei pfennig, I would agree, except for a few of those small discrepancies that are so ahistorical that they stretch boundaries of disbelief, such as -- having jet-sounds in 1941. There aren't very many of those however, so kudos to Hubert, once again. In general I view it this way -- there are the 3 "Ms" -- momentum, morale and missed opportunities. For momentum/initiative we have the MPPs gained from plunder, which provides an opportunity to make hay while the sun shines, so to speak. For morale, we have HQs and experience gained in combat -- this is an excellent game-design decision which gives the adept player a chance to carefully nurture certain units so that they become reliably fierce spearheads, etc. And as for missed opportunities, we are (... mostly) not akin to those two raving lunatics -- occult-haunted Hitler & preening Mussolini, who, in retrospect, apparently decided to do every inane thing in the political/tactical world to short-circuit the better instincts of their often dumbfounded :eek: military leaders. Instead, we can cooly :cool: and calmly use the resources at hand to enact our own version of world conquest -- using those what-if strategies that we prefer... I like it! (... and as I was raving about a two-turn conquest of Sweden! to my neighbor just the other day, well... )