[Optional Variants]

Bill, you are right that many situations can be set up with the editor, but nothing would be more disheartening than to receive a message like this, right when you are on the verge of taking Stalingrad:

Hitler interferes with OKW's Osten plans: HQ-Manstein and all his units cannot move or attack this turn! (... and it is his full-strength units that surround Stalingrad!) :eek:

Now, I can appreciate the rationale that might suggest -- there would be cheating in the PBEM.

However, the great majority of games will be played solo anyway, and each person could deal with it as they wish (or, even leave the box unchecked).

I am thinking more of those unexpected, and as John DiFool reminds -- non-intrusive or unbalancing, events that would cause the player to suddenly! adjust to some strange new occurence, say like the appearance of an Anzac corps in Egypt, or Iraq tilting toward the Axis.

This needn't be too elaborate, just some occasional SURPRISES! now and then.

[Optional Variants]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

...But I still would like to see some variants

added, if for no other reason than spice. Perhaps

some extra tech here and there, or the Yugos don't

have a pro-allied coup, or the Russians had no

purge hence have better leaders to start with.

Just as long as they aren't too imbalancing of

course.

Likely way too radical for the first version, but this idea really has some merit! It could very well solve a lot of those special requests or fine-line items that we all have asked for.

This could be optional (a check-off box) for those who don't care for sudden surprises. And some events would be random and confined to when they most likely would have occurred, and others would be possible for the entire game.

For instance, pre-game variants might be: Z-Plan (an extra U-boat and the Bismark at the start, but less ground forces), or France gets a tank group at the beginning.

Later, you might have winter-effects during Dec to Feb, or a bonus # of MPPs for Britain (extra material from India/S Africa). Or, the appearance of an Anzac corps in Egypt, etc.

Diplomatic events such as -- a turn for the better or worse in Iraq (this would compliment Hubert's idea of representing percentages of involvement by Minors) or Ireland, or there could be a one-time partisan uprising in Egypt. Think of it -- there are hundreds of other possibilities! :eek: or,

This would force us to be flexible and allow for fate/chance.

I don't know how difficult this would be to program, but it would provide a lot of excitement and almost limitless replayability!

[DISBANDING STRATEGY... YIKES!!!! STOP AXIS!]

Woody Allen jokes at the mike,

While Stephen King strums... and strums!

And Mother Mojo strobes the light!

As Warhol paints the drums,

And Hubert smiles and hums -- O Canada!

This 60s trip -- is just about done!

[invadeing russai]

Some help for Sweden, maybe a Cruiser, or greater USA resentment?

Tougher Russia, though I am a little leery of that one... am I the only one who has trouble there? :eek:

Royal Navy gets some assistance in the Med.

[A 3D Strategic Command?]

... somewhere in our fabled land

Is one another

Who understood -- some of

What you've all just said.

They ain't the likes of me, however,

Who's never found that cleaner world,

Or whereat? The Fountain of Youth?

Or rhyme or reasons in the moon,

Whether in 4-D, or 3, or only... 2.

But, one wonders... what

That other one does

... when the joint is jumpin'

And the band is blue & brash,

And the dancers,

And the sax-man,

And the Holy Goof too -- all!

Do their 2-step thing -- in real time,

In a real world,

And not in Euclid's head!

[I HATE THE RUSSIANS]

As originally posted by Wolfe:

Actually if you don't invade England it seems to take an awful lot for the US to enter the war. IIRC, I once took the lowlands, France, and Sweden early.

And that is another Minor (Sweden) that might need some fine-tuning?

Why shouldn't Germany just take Sweden when they finish with Norway? :cool: They likely have a HQ and some powerful units at hand -- just continue on across the border, yes? The invasion of Low Countries & France could wait another turn if necessary.

Perhaps the SC-Final Edition has some alterations (... I agree with those who have suggested at least a Cruiser for Sweden), such as Germany receiving the MPPs from the mines. There could be a small convoy-route from Stockholm to Kiel that the Allies could intercept?

As to your other point, I too have noticed that USA SEEMS fairly nonchalant, though that may be different in the full game.

From the Demo, I have found that the Axis (... default settings anyway) CAN carry out some large scale Blitz-marauding, and essentially get away with it. :eek:

And taking the Baltic States means that much less land to over-run, AND makes Russia defend in an awkward manner -- Germans pressing from on top of them, and surging up from underneath.

[I HATE THE RUSSIANS]

As originally posted by gorski:

The Russians do not invade because you DoW on the Baltic States. They invade when their war readiness hits 100%. While conquering the low countries and France, if you only DoW on the Baltic states, the Russians will leave you alone.

And this MAY prove to be their early undoing.

Lately I have tried the strategy of invading the Baltic States on the turn before France falls (... before Russian annexation) just to see what might happen. :eek:

Well, the Axis gets approximately 300 MPPs for conquering, and the Russian war-readiness goes to 80%, give or take a few.

To break the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact so easily may be a problem? Given the impulsive and land avid attitude of the Germans, this may be viewed as a historical what-if? that could well have happened along these lines. And the Russian response would have surely been muted due to lack of adequate preparation.

I wonder if their would be any value in a one-year restriction, so that Russia could ALWAYS secure the Baltic States?

Or, if it is better to let alternative history have its way?

After all, the Axis just cannot attack every minor in sight, lest the USA enter too soon.

In this case, Russian war-readiness only rises to 90-97% even AFTER Greece and Yugo is invaded.

Interesting dilemma.

[Kickin the french]

There was a very narrow historical window for WW2. The convergence of Scientific Revolution, rise of Nationalism, and Industrial mass-might.

So. I would argue for superior production (Henry Ford's model-T assembly line technique) as the single most powerful determining factor.

Of course leadership matters immensely -- in the small-scale tactical encounters, which is why the Germans even lasted as long as they did (long-standing military tradition & training).

This may be why WW2 is so popular among gamers, myself included. The coming SUPER WEAPONS had not yet made the world wide techno-war obsolete (mutually assured destruction).

You can still what-if? everything and... had the Germans ousted Hitler and the occultish Nazis (say, with Rommel as head of State) then we MIGHT have had a brokered peace in '42, or eventual German hegemony. :eek: Always interesting to contemplate.

[Kickin the french]

Originally posted by Otto:

It was the ineptitutde of the French commanders that lead to thier sorry defeat.

That, and Hurryin' Heinz Guderian.

Speaking of whom, I absolutely think he should be included in the German Leader's List! After all, without his radical tank doctrine -- proclaimed throughout the 30s, those two ancient enemies, the Teutons & Franks, might STILL be trading curses and machine-gun bullets all along a narrow blood-soaked front. :eek:

[Question on Egypt and game play]

As Originally Posted by Straha:

Indeed it would make things much more aligned with reality if we only had the option to reinforce through the Suez (with a time delay penalty, and the transports actually having to go to the Southern tip of the Atlantic on the map to have at least some risk of being exposed to subs).

I would agree, and I seem to remember that Hubert was going to give some due consideration to this "around the Horn" idea?

This is my favorite theatre of Ops in WW2, perhaps due to the mythic stature achieved by The Desert Fox. :cool: (... mostly due to post war memoirs of respectful Brit Vets)

As Allies -- in the full game, you have 8-10 months to place whatever you want in Egypt. I foresee no real difficulty in holding the Med (allowing for a series of poor "dice rolls," or fiercely-determined Axis).

Nonetheless, for later on it would surely prove beneficial to at least have the option to reinforce the long way 'round Africa.

I would also like to see -- say, a 2-4% chance of receiving (being allowed to build for that turn ONLY, provided MPPs are available) ANZAC corps; that way, they may or may not show up on time, which would increase the tension for the Allied commander. :eek:

[Mod Help!]

Otto,

Appreciate it. I and all the others who need some help with this will know where to go.

[Mod Help!]

I have been admiring the creative artwork of the mods, but, the thing is I have never used these and do not know the first thing about how to include them in a game.

For all of us (... only me? :eek: ) who have never used them, would someone in the know please post a kind of User's Guide.

Especially, how to download and then put them in a game, AND -- how to go back to the original icons (which I kind of like).

[Father's Day]

Love your Father,

Love your kids,

And sometime today -- say so

In your own special way,

You'll be glad you did.

[Is industrial technology too strong?]

As originally posted by Hawk:

The parts I enjoyed most in this game was the defence of France and Russia. The former because I was able to withdraw some forces in good order and the latter because the desperation I felt when fighting a mobile defence.

Thanks, I think all of us are looking forward to playing the full game, and feeling some of this desperation (... or elated triumph, as the case may be... and the skill might dictate). :cool:

[Question on Egypt and game play]

As originally posted by Camicie Nere:

It SHOULD be difficult for the British to reinforce Egypt; it was in real life. And yes, a determined Axis player can indeed dominate the Med by giving significant German support to the Italians.

However, not a domination to the extent that Britain loses Alexandria, AND a third of her fleet. :eek: (... and allows easy access to those oil wells in Iraq, AND threatens Russia from the south!)

Perhaps Hubert has already improved the AI in this area.

As the Allied player, you can always commence reinforcement BEFORE Italy declares, bringing the BEF down from France, the HQ from Britain, and perhaps trading your bomber for a tank group.

This would also bolster the vulnerable fleet, since the transports would need protection, and a BB might stay behind. Additionally, you could insert a corps into Malta and use that Air Fleet in Egypt.

PBEM players could find many ways to insure that the Med remains safely in Allied hands. It has been the Allied AI that has been problematical.

And so, knowing there is NO AI that is perfect, we accept its inherent limitations.

[Is industrial technology too strong?]

As originally posted by Hawk:

I don't know how many games I've played during beta. In all of these games, industrial technology has only had a heavy impact in a couple of those games, so I wouldn't wory too much about it.

This is an area that really intrigues me... Hawk, would you care to elaborate on some of your successes and failures, and what your general strategy was? (Without giving away your potential PBEM secrets, of course )

I still believe that this one element of the game adds a tremendous flavor. Perhaps the full-game will disabuse me of this notion, but for now I can see where this will be one sure and certain indication of the opponent's strategic tendencies.

[Invasion of Norway]

I have always had this idea of possible intervention in Norway in mind, but since playing both sides in the Demo, I wonder...

If you as the Brit commander do commit a force substantial enough to clear Norway -- what is left to defend Britain? A few merry dairy-maids plucking at flowers high up on the cliffs of Dover? :eek:

I'm not sure that Britain would have enough MPPs to effectively dare excursions until later in the War?

Nevertheless, a good potential strategem to keep the Germans thinking...

[Can one attach and detach units from an HQ?]

On this one I kind of like the idea that we have to position our forces in such a way as to maximize the HQ-effect.

This simulates IMPERFECT command & control, since not every dispatch or order is handled precisely.

I could see a lot of entanglement and mis-steps in trying to personally pinpoint HQ control. Likely we would make mistakes in the heat of battle, just as real commanders did.

[I Finaly Beat the Game In Under One Year]

I offer the following in a positive spirit, in hopes that a tricky situation might be resolved... and perhaps it ALREADY has!

I understand that this is primarily a CONTINENTAL war, with most of the decisive action occuring on land hexes (we will be mainly concerned with the full 4-year war between Russia and Germany -- very little naval action).

But, the naval Zones of Control were critical to the movement of men & materiel throughout the course of WW2. True that there were not many Dreadnought sorts of encounters, where fleets would slug it out for extended periods. :eek:

Now, other games such as A3R have used a system where temporary CONTROL would determine if transports/merchant-marine got through or not.

In any event, the defeated force (... say, 10-40% damaged) would often withdraw to safe-harbour in order to preserve the fleet.

This could be effectively represented under the current schematic (IMO, a SUPERIOR one to A3R, and potentially, a GREAT one) if only the damage was significantly reduced in each encounter, thereby allowing the fleet to fight another day.

I am guessing that many will be unwilling to spend MPPs for brand new BBs & Cruisers, BUT they would be inclined to repair (at least several steps anyway) ships that might be salvaged, and that retain hard-gained experience.

[I Finaly Beat the Game In Under One Year]

Insofar as "tweaking gamey strategies" is concerned, I offer one more (may have already been addressed for the gold demo):

The British situation in the Med is DIRE, to say the least. It is far too easy to lure them into utter annihilation. :eek:

Here is how: Build Italian Air Fleet and place in Libya. One German Air Fleet assigned to southern Greece, while Athens is STILL under seige -- the RN will always come to the aid of Greece, so you have the Italian navy poised to be SURPRISED at southern tip of Greece.

Once initial damage is done (by exaggerated surprise effects and both Axis Air Fleets, finish them off with Italian BBs.

There are variations of this, but the point is that Britain is always eliminated in the Med (at least in my games), allowing invasion of Iraq, conquest of Egypt (by invading far shore to surround and limit reinforcements in Alexandria) and else and otherwise complete domination of the Med by the Axis. Conquest of Malta and Gibralter optional, though not really required.

In the interest of maintaining some rudimentary historical authenticity, I suggest that Royal Navy be bolstered in this area (again, this may have been addressed, either by additional ships, or improved naval-war game mechanix).

[Is industrial technology too strong?]

As originally posted by Straha:

Indeed, the "gambling approach" to tech development is something which routinely makes me curse in many games ("Storm across Europe" is another example) ... but that's just me, I'm simply jinxed in these things.

The thing is, you may choose NOT to invest at all, other than say, a small amount in Industry.

If I spend the full allotment -- 2500 MPPs, and you don't spend any, then you have 10 more Armies, or 7 more tank detachments, etc.

Will my few advanced units be able to successfully parry your advantage in sheer numbers? It would depend on your immediate and long-term goals, and so -- it would depend on your unique philosophy of gaming. To me, this makes the game much more variable and exciting. :cool:

You could think of random success in tech as just another of those LUCK factors that influence any battle.

And over a 10-game series, the luck would tend to even out.

[Is industrial technology too strong?]

As originally posted by DevilDog:

However.....does anyone know how much a level 5 army or tank group cost with level one industrial tech? My guess is they would be impossible to buy. So you have to have the industrial tech in order to be able to build many of the upgraded units. I'm sure Hubert has tested and balanced the tech levels as much as possible.

I'm willing to bet if you go for only industrial upgrades, although you will produce a lot of units, they won't do very well against the numerically fewer but stronger units produced by an opponent who researched unit upgrades.

Interesting point. You would have to have that rare game where the two initiatives would converge perfectly.

Having thought it over, I think this is my favorite aspect of SC-ET, because it will make each game unique. It may very well provide the tiny difference between two equally matched opponents (... and provide rationale for defeat ).

Which is better -- cheaper units that are not reinforced, or fewer stronger units? Like much else, it will take the full game to help determine this.

[Russian Campaign]

This is another one (along with Ireland when playing the Allies) that I somehow missed entirely.

So, I tried it -- twice. Averaged 292 MPPs in plunder. Subtracting the cost of assaulting two mountain hexes, net gain was 50-60 MPPs (I tried it from the German side once, and another time waited until Italy joined, to attack from 4 sides).

USA average influence was +16%, Russia +6%.

On the face of it, it seems to be a reasonable ploy. However, there is no long term gain (no cities or icons... just a little sprite of The Gnome of Zurich ) and attacking all these minor countries adds up (Sweden? Spain? Vicy? etc)to be an eventual detriment to Axis plans of hegemony.

Tempting, but choices must be made to insure USA does not start piling up troops & hardware too soon.

[Excellent Customer Service from Fury]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

SC does have a lot of great features. There have been several posts over past few weeks praising the game and indicating everything is fine the way it is, but feedback is important - even if it appears as criticism.

I too would much prefer that SC-ET more closely resemble A3R than Axis & Allies, but I am only one of myriad many.

Likely the target audience is 25-50,000 more or less dedicated war-gamers, PLUS PLUS! an indeterminate number who might be intrigued by a FUN WWII-genre game, as happened with Panzer General.

My guess is that Hubert will implement those things that seamlessly fit his original concept. And many of those will be changes that he was ALREADY contemplating. All of our input may have helped sway his mind in a few areas.

I would disagree, however, that those who came to praise Caesar are MERELY happy with "things as they are." The great majority have also -- at one time or another, asked for their very own favorite concepts.

Now, SuperTed has confirmed that there will be aspects included that haven't even been discussed, which is hardly surprising, since beta-testing has provided FULL-LENGTH-game kinds of insights.

So, to sum it up -- LET'S HAVE IT! (... two years can be a long long time to the game-maker) and then we'll see.

[ June 07, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Rating the Units]

Sometimes I worry that Hubert will regard these suggestions as a kind of slow water-drip torture, and become all tweaked-out. (... similar to freaked-out only the freakee not so liable to reach for the lager or Prozac).

WHATEVER the final decisions, I am very satisfied with this game -- I have been waiting an awful long time for a turn-based Grand-Strategy model, and will be glad to get it.