Desert Dave

Mr C, IIRC, Hubert is seriously considering allowing the transport of units around the Horn of Africa. I believe that is the only off-map activity? As for your dreams, consider this: The Cognitive Behavioral interpretation has it that you are trying to INTEGRATE visual hallucinations and emotional episodes so that you will have some MEANING to your dreams -- a kind of dream reorganization. Psycho-dynamic theories (Freud et al) suppose that dreams originate in a disturbing, unconscious wish (this is the hidden, or latent content) and the dream material is transformed by a censor into more acceptable images (manifest content). In either event you are probably normal, whatever that means.

How about this? Replace the Corps unit as we know it, with two separate units. 1) Militia/Homeguard -- to satisfy need for inexpensive garrison, or for fighting partisans or for a kind of early-warning picket-line. AP would be 2 for all countries. 2) A special Corps unit -- a combination of APCs, armored cars, recon and light tanks (as Pz I, II, or even IIIs were) which would have the following AP values: France and Minors: 4 USSR and Italy 5 Germany, USA, Britain 6 The Army would remain the staple and the same for all countries. The tank detachment would represent heavier vehicles and groupings, so the value could stay the same for all countries (... or, alternatively, increased to AP 6 for some). This might satisfy the need for some variation among different countries, and the mech/motorised corps would represent those faster breakthrough units -- out ahead of the regular infantry.

Hubert, More than fair. More than most would do. More than that, we cannot ask. Thanks.

I was thinking of the research aspect as an abstract way to model industrial outlay and alterations in assembly-line production, as Chrysler or Rolls-Royce or VW did. There might be a better recourse. Seems like there could be some way to allow those nations which needed wheels for rapid advances in their offensives, to add it to their Armies (infantry or armor) as necessary. If it was an optional upgrade (with or without research), then that would satisfy the need for extra APs as required. If playing defense, then MPPs would be probably not be spent. I too wondered about HQ units only having 2 AP, since you would surmise that they would be more mobile than a corps or Army?

By April of 1940, I calculate Britain will have compiled approximately 800 or so MPPs (110 per turn Xs 6 + 30 from Canada Xs 5), so it all depends on what they buy and where they choose to deploy. I would guess they would want a HQ -- for home defense until it can be determined if Sea Lion is still an option, and then it might be sent to Egypt if the Italians are trying to push across the border (... or, even an invasion of Syria? attacking Tunis-Algeria?) This still leaves MPPs for replacements for lost Air or Naval units, and probably another Army. So, as per usual, it all depends on individual purchase choices. But, the point being, Britain may be weak at the beginning, but will have plenty of building options to improve their lot.

How about keeping the research option, so that USA begins mechanized-improvement at level 3, Britain and Germany at level 2, Italy at level 1 (due to access to German tech) and France and Russia at level 0. So Army and Corps are AP 3 (though Corps is smaller and better organized than unwieldy Army, so how do you rationalize the same AP?) and you would have to pay a certain number of MPPs to upgrade to mechanized/motorized. This way, each nation would upgrade depending on whether they chose to do research, and whether they are conducting mostly offensives, or -- like Russia early, and Germany later, relying on defensive doctrine. Now, all of this is speculation, and very likely will interfere with Hubert's well-planned and vastly tested AP. But, perhaps for another (next?) version of SC? (... before we're through, we'll have our personally envisioned dream-game yet, eh?

Here are a few of the problems with Italy that I found to be (mostly) true in other games like A3R. 1) Always short of spending cash, and having to ask boorish Uncle Heinz for extra. But, AFAIK there is no lending of MPPsin SC, so that won't be an issue (in multi-player games, the dynamic between the German and Italian player was interesting to behold, as it started wonderfully, and then, as it was in actual history, tending to rapidly degenerate :confused: ) 2) Inferior navy -- in quality (negative DRMs with 3R/A3R) though not in quantity. Well, we don't yet know if their individual ships will be down-graded (less hit #s or defensive rating; or, higher cost per unit). If they aren't, then I would expect Italy might very well be a legitimate contender in the Med. :cool: 3) Ability to transport units/supply across the Med. Not only for themselves, but for Afrika Korps and Rommel. If that Air Fleet at Malta (I am presuming that Egyptian, or even Eastern Libyian interceptors are out of range) can be neutralized, perhaps with German help (will they spare another Air Fleet?), then there is a reason for dreams of reaching oil in Iraq. All in all, very interesting game-strategies are possible. Sure, it's a tempting target for the USA-emboldened Allies, but I would rather defend that narrow boot, than southern France or an untimely strike into Yugoslavia.

But, Hubert... The calender doesn't flip over until BOTH sides get their turn, does it? In other words, for a one week turn, first one side goes, and then the other? So, USSR would still have 27 game-turns to accumulate MPPS in one year, yes?

Mistaken again. I meant to say -- where was your OPPONENT's carrier? In PBEM, you are not playing both sides, sorry.

SuperTed -- Did you not bring a carrier along to counter the German Air Fleet? The Royal Navy could at least match that tiny German screening force? I am yet convinced that Britain could successfully counter an invasion, though, I have been wrong about so many things in my life, that I hesitate to assert this too vehemently. I guess this is what makes face-to-face or PBEM so attractive.

Russian bear? That is a Behemoth of biblical proportions! :eek: My calculations are likely a little off, but at 5% of approximately 450 base MPPs times two years (until August '41 -- 50+ turns) to hoard beserker Armies and T-34s and you get what? -- 1200 MPPs! And that doesn't even include calculations based on accumulated totals. I guess that means the invasion of Novia Scotia is O F F -- off! I am thinking the German player MUST invade USSR sooner than later, AND capture (and hold as long as possible) every city and duma and mine within Panzergrenadier reach. :eek:

Did you hear the latest? :eek: That Grognardia judge has been suspended for three years by the International Wargamers Commission! Though why she would risk her reputation for Copenhagen, we haven't yet figured out. (... rumor has it that she is trysting with the Russian Grog, who unfairly exerted influence). Probably should have waited to help France regain some of that old Ancien Regime elan -- they're going to need some assistance here pretty soon, what with SuperTed on the rampage. :cool:

One part of the economic system that I really like is the cost (10% of current production value) for operational movement. This is going to force us to really pause and consider where we want (or need) the units. Move one army and one tank detachment and you are spending almost 60 MPPs! :eek: And a question now occurs to me -- the rules say that you can only move a unit to a city (of 5 MPP or higher) -- if the city is occupied, can the unit arrive at a nearby hex? Or, will you have to plan ahead and make sure that a city near your front is empty?

A couple of things on this list are striking. First, just how much the surface ships cost, especially the Carrier. I realize that this represents a grouping of the flagship along with supporting craft like destroyers, but it seems that only the USA might be able to afford (and utilize) any additional ones (... unless German player actually intends to invade USA or Canada) Second, there doesn't seem to be much difference in leader quality -- price wise, since we suspect that superior HQ leaders will provide great potential benefit. Likely, we will always buy from the top down, since the extra 15 MPPs doesn't seem to be too much to pay?

I'd have to agree with the majority here. Airborne would add that extra element of risk and therefore excitement. However, to keep it from becoming mostly a recon unit, I would imagine there should be limitations, like maximum number per country, and it cannot be reconstructed if eliminated on enemy soil. Of all the others, I too would like to see mechanized, and Straha's analysis seems accurate. A little more movement, and a little more punch. But, it has to be expensive enough, otherwise -- why buy the regular Army?

Until I got involved with SC, I was playing Civ3, though the latest patches have muddled the picture a little. Now, I am more interested, once again, and always, in WW2 gaming. Also reading William James' Variety of Religious Experiences, which I figure will help me to understand some of the comments on this board, most especially my own :eek: -- which tend to look odder and less coherent on the screen than when I thought of them. If anyone would care to read a great book about the Paris Occupation, I would recommend -- Night of the Generals by Hans Hemet Kirst I believe his name was. It's about a series of gruesome murders, and how rank has its privileges. The movie, with Peter O'Toole, was quite good. Hard to beat Cabaret for capturing that decadence and hovering evil, though.

Ah Mannheim, you are trying to get my goat, I see. However, I let him out to pasture this morning, and now he is over to the neighbor's yard chewing on his tree-tire swing. If nothing else, this saves me alfalfa money. I didn't mean to imply that those who prefer military icons are somehow lesser folk. I have played TOAW and found it a bit tedious in terms of locating units quickly and then having to continuously cycle through the stacks to see where specific formations are located. I like these icons -- and the single hex stacking, because I can survey my (rapidly expanding ) empire, at a glance.

Stirring triumph SuperTed! You've revivified a fairly drear Sunday evening. Where was the Royal Navy during all this, asleep at the tiller? Seems like they should have anticipated an invasion and sent out a couple of surface ships, or, are they planning a little sideshow up around Bergen, hmmmm? Supply would be no problem, just depends if they want to risk an army or corps (it would cause Jerry to keep additional units in Norway a bit longer, thereby sparing France a little mayhem)instead of using this opportunity to send it along to Egypt... very interesting possiblities arise.

What might be interesting is something like this: Right-click on a HQ unit and you would get a drop down menu with several choices, such as, 1) Reconnaisance. Perhaps a previously hidden unit would show up on the map. 2) Diplomacy. The internal game odds would shift very slightly in your favor for enticing an uncommitted minor. 3) Transportation. Improvement in roads or rails and general communications (reduced MPP cost for operational movement). All of those -- or others that might be imagined would cost MPPs, and you may or may not get any favorable results. It would be random, thereby providing a wild-card element. The problem would likely be -- how complicated would it be to include, as far as programming? This might provide further depth, and those that don't care for that could just ignore it.

I tend to agree with Mr Clark here. The current modeling of SC gives it that realistic and having-some-fun feel, as opposed to laboring over stacks of military symbols. The game can be both -- a serious attempt to knock the stuffing out of the opponent, and, a simple enjoyment of aesthetics. Wasn't it always great fun to unpack an old boardgame and marvel over the playing pieces? Axis & Allies is a good example of what I mean, and I suspect that Hubert is trying for that hands-on feeling. Including both options would be democratic, but if I had to vote -- give us the squad and tank icons! (... am I wrong, or does that tank icon change over time -- in the later game shots it appears to have metamorphed into a more advanced tank design?)

Hubert, Thanks for the tutorial. Back in high school, Calculus of Supply was my worst subject (... but then, it was only the fist edition -- perhaps you have gotten ahold of the latest and best version ). Here, I think the thing to do is -- just play the game. There is likely an easy, intuitional aspect that doesn't come always come across in text.

Let's see if I have this straight. As long as your HQ is at full strength, then you can receive full supply if you are within 9 hexes of an undamaged city in your home country. You can form links by using HQ-units as intermediaries (thus maintaining FULL supply and therefore, readiness... though, this would get to be awful expensive, given how much those HQ units cost!). But, if you are relying on damaged (understood to max out at 5?) cities in a foreign country, your readiness level could never be more than 50%? But, is it possible to increase readiness (when drawing from a 5-sized city) by simply letting the unit sit inert, doing nothing, neither moving nor attacking? This would simulate the build up of supplies in prepartion for an offensive? And, does this apply to damaged (conquered) ports as well, say -- German ships re-supplying at Bergen or Brest?

At the coming out party, do we have to wear bibs? I look silly in a bib. Point taken. At the individual or squad level, each nation's soldiers were equally brave and valorous, no doubt about it. BloodyBucket's original insight, which you elaborated on, that HQ units would make all the difference, is a good one.

SuperTed -- are the tanks clanking through the Ardennes yet? I am anxious to see how the static defense line works -- in Poland you were able to maneuver around the few units -- here, you'll need a breakthrough. (or, a lot of luck )

So in a sense you are arguing for letting each game player's skills determine what the attached units' rating will be? That's an interesting idea -- after all, what exact evidence is there that all that barracks training, in Prussia or traditional German military academies, did any good? OTOH, you are right to suggest that the HQ ratings (with subjective rating applied to the leaders) DOES establish a hiearchy of some sort.