Gunslingr3

I think you misunderstood an allegorical reference to MadMatt coming and closing the thread for turning away from the subject and into something personal. Wolfpack isn't bald and doesn't live in Texas. In fact, he probably doesn't even want to kick your ass. Perhaps if you weren't looking for a fight you wouldn't see the start of one in every post directed at you.

Against the AI it's not too difficult. As the Allies I redeploy a Med. based corps into Sicily as soon as Italy shows her hand. By then I've usually accumulated enough navy in the Med to at least stalemate the Italians. The AI pours a lot of strength into the boot in an attempt to safeguard Italy's limited income (and capitol!). If he brings in airpower and starts tearing up my ships I'll usually pull back and evacuate the Sicily invaders. Better to let him punch air, and weakening his East Front is really the goal. By the time he's pushing the Russians back the Americans are coming on board and against the AI an assault on the Cherbourg penisula isn't too hard to pull off if you let the Americans get an HQ first. Against a human it's a much different ball of wax. Because of the pressure that Russia was under I didn't want to waste time slogging through North Africa (at no consequential expense in troops or MPP's to the Axis). I decided instead to let the Americans fatten their income by invading Portugal and then rolling into Franco's despotic regime. Unfortunately I learned after the fact that the Axis already had pretty good industrial technology and long range aircraft. He'd seen me staging in the Atlantic, and as consequence put at least two tank armies on alert (stationed on the sliver of land bordering Spain). When I positioned my transports I saw the tank armies, but decided my own attacking contigent and air power could carry the day. I was wrong. Not being able to cut off Spain at the open of the invasion opened up the country to operational movement. When my troops invaded they seized a decent chunk of terrain (about the SW 1/3 of the country), but he was able to operate in LOADS of corps around the cities, and I knew the going would be slow. The next turn he brought in several air fleets and I realized I wasn't going anywhere. I hoped to at least hold an extra front while I built up another amphib force and tried to hit France, but the expense of maintaining the Spanish front precluded this. I managed to kill off several corps, but his air force was taking it's toll, and my line begin to shrink. In the end I managed to evacuate about half of the original force out through Gibraltar, but handing him Spain and Portugal compounded the industrial advantage he held over the Allies. It might well have played out differently if he had less research success, but I've learned that an amphibious invasion requires plenty of strength against a human. And also that the costs are too high in maintaining a front to build an effective second amphib force once you've committed to combat. The final lesson is that Germans must accept a pause in action in Russia if necessary in order to commit overwhelming force against a second front. A failed invasion costs the Allies irrecoverable time and MPP's. Gunslinger

Tanks don't attack soft targets any better than infantry. When seeking a breakthrough (in northwestern France for example) I let my unfair airpower and infantry make the hole, then send the tanks through it. If people find themselves bogged down in static/trench warfare in this game they're still learning to play it. Gunslinger

There are ramifications to your proposed changes. Maybe the game would be better with your change, but I would like to see how this change is supposed to be implemented. Instead of getting your feelings hurt because you didn't think this out completely, take a moment to think it out completely and answer the questions this change raises. Is there supposed to be no back and forth on this message board? Is your proposed change "obviously perfect"? If you want any hope of seeing changes implemented, it would help to think of what the programmer needs to change. There's more to it than just declaring "Let them attack twice!" If things were that simple you'd have made the perfect game years ago and I would have bought it. Now please try again, because this isn't the first time someone has whined about tanks and wished they could attack twice without explaining how and at what cost (in readiness, etc.) Gunslinger

If a MG bunker ever 100m and SIX kilometers of trench line ever kilometer isn't extensive, what is? Nobody claimed it was the Maginot with rec rooms and hot cots. Since your contention is entirely semantical tell me a better word for describing the Mannerheim Line. It's not like the Finns fought from their bellies in a slit trench. Gunslinger

What do you base this on? I personally find the tanks very useful. The fact that they can ignore Zones of Control and move around enemy formations without movement penalty is their chief advantage. It doesn't hurt that for only 30% more MPP's they also offer 2 extra movement points, 20% better Tank Attack rating, 150% better Tank Defense rating, 100% better Soft Defense rating and 50% better Air Defense rating. Start putting those base advantages with some experience and your elite Tanks Armies will really start to outshine your Infantry. I bet the Germans under the bombardment at the outset of Operation Cobra thought air power was too powerful too... Please flesh out your solution a little more. I'm curious, do you want to allow tank armies to fight twice in a turn? How much readiness loss should they suffer from the first attack? Should it be scaled with losses? How many action points should be lost after an attack? I can't fathom why you think that two different air wings couldn't attack the same target in a week (or month). The 'solution' to air power is having some airpower of your own to make his attacks too costly to carry out. Give it a try... Gunslinger

Here's an excellent site describing the fortifications in great detail: http://www.winterwar.com/M-Line/M-Line2.htm#figures Gunslinger

Marching on the Urals came up because of the suggestion of providing Finland with an HQ. Providing them an HQ would make this possible in Strategic Command because the units would have supply. I don't accept Finland marching troops one thousand miles to the Urals as a prima facie case. To assert it is possible deserves some explanation of how it would be achieved. First, you made that quote up. It wasn't written by anyone. I don't know why you chose to respond to a quote you created. What I wrote was: "Timoshenko came on the scene, regrouped the Red Army, and with better application of combined arms pushed through those defenses and won a favorable peace for the USSR during the Winter War." The Winter War ended on March 13, 1940, with the signing of the Moscow peace treaty. Under the terms of this treaty, Finland had to cede parts of Karelia, Salla and Kuusamo, the Gulf of Finland and certain islands, and the Rybachy and Sredni peninsulas, to the Soviet Union. The ceded area totalled 40,000 square kilometres. Furthermore, Finland was required to lease Hanko peninsula to the Soviet Union for 30 years, for use as a naval base. The total area ceded was three times larger than the areas captured by the Soviet Union during the war. Karelia had been one of Finland's most fertile agricultural regions and was also densely populated. The entire population of the region - 420,000 men, women and children - had to leave and move to other parts of Finland. The new borders undermined Finland's defence capability. No one disputes the war went terribly for the Russians, but can you explain to me exactly how, aside from continuing to exist, this peace was favorable to the Finns? Sarcasm is okay for you to use, but no one else? Wolfpack's point (which you apparently missed with his sarcasm) was that 200,000 dead is indeed horrible, but nothing compared to the kind of random, wholesale liquidation Beria was carrying out for Stalin without even the prospect of taking Finnish territory. This is a regime that tossed away millions upon millions of lives without batting an eye, for no gain outside of spreading terror among their own people. Gunslinger

I'm talking about what is, not what we will create. I believe the AI in Strategic Command seeks opportunities referencing a list of prioritized goals (seizing a city, reducing a resouce value, attacking a unit) based on a combination of hard coded responses and cost benefit analysis. A competent human being differs by seeking not simply to seize the next city or kill the next unit within sight, but by envisioning a strategic outcome and then deducing how to reach it from the opportunities available. Those opportunities change from turn to turn, but the strategic aim tends to shift much less. Some opportunities present themselves and outweigh the existing strategy. Response still has to be prioritized. I'll give you an example. My first hotseat game was '39 as the Axis. My overall plan was to hit France, Russia, then England & America. I rolled Poland, Denmark and Norway hastily, seeking the plunder for financing a strong attack on France. The British responded to the invasion of Norway, but my aircraft stationed in Denmark were able to work in concert with the Kriegsmarine and inflict considerable losses on the Royal Navy. Knowing that the Royal Navy was reduced, and knowing that some British infantry were going to be lost in Norway I began to consider adjusting the order of my overall strategy, and fortunately hadn't spent from my plunder. Instead of beefing up the corps and tank armies for an early invasion of Russia I was going to maintain my core forces strength and concentrate on airpower to take advantage of Britain's early setbacks. To make a long story short, the plan worked. I was able to drop highly experienced troops with heavy air support into Britain and secure the island before America or Russia could effectively respond. I don't think the AI in Strategic Command operates in this broad of a scope. Perhaps I'm wrong, I would love to hear from those who know. In the meantime I'll make the suggestions I think can be implemented in Strategic Command on the Strategic Command board (like concentrating fire to kill units, not strategic bombing in the face of better targets, etc.) and leave the AI philosophy to the phd's. Gunslinger

They won those battles from behind extensive fortifications that were constructed in depth in inhospitable terrain against a foe comprised of conscripts impressed into service and led by an almost headless officer corps. Timoshenko came on the scene, regrouped the Red Army, and with better application of combined arms pushed through those defenses and won a favorable peace for the USSR during the Winter War. I have never denied, or implied, that Finland didn't do very well for a nation of their size. That, however, is a far cry from being able to march on the Urals. Finland's manpower reserves were bled white just maintaining their static defense. Explain to me how they'd support this march from Helsinki to the Urals. I'm anxious to be enlightened... Gunslinger

Lack of intuition. You can look at the map and imagine how it will be (or how you hope it will be) several turns hence. With a limited game, chess for example, there are only 64 locations, and a max of 6 unit types and 32 units at start. In a situation like this the AI can attempt to resolve the future via brute force - literally plotting out millions of combinations of future moves - and make it's own moves accordingly. Imagine how much more complex a relatively simple wargame like SC is. How many moves are possible? How does the computer know what moves are useless and should not even be considered? Hubert can answer definitively, but I'd be suprised if the AI in SC 'sees' past the possibilities of a single turn (it does seem hard headedly resolute in continuing amphibious invasions, but this might be due to the fact it already has the men on boats and each turn it 'sees' sending them in as the best option). AI will continue to be improved, but I think it's application is to roles of limited scale. AI is fantastic for quickly prioritizing limited options, but I've yet to see any demonstration of how AI could generate and implement strategy. I think it just works, turn by turn, for a more favorable position. I haven't seen it do anything indirectly clever. Advance two turns in one direction simply to create a larger pocket before swinging the gate shut, etc. In the end AI (thus far) simply represents the situations considered by the programmer, and responses he has prioritized. Gunslinger

They could, but doesn't that put them in a bad position? I've had the allies attack the German border (both by just coming across the Maginot and by invading the Low Countries. Both times I was able to throw them back because they were astride the river hexes and in poor position to defend. The Poles can be eliminated in two turns, three if things go badly. Then they take that plunder and experience and turn on the French. If the French and British are attacking from the word go then they are repairing, and not building many more units. Have you tried this (allied storming of Germany) against yourself to see how quickly you could defeat it? When the AI came at me it let me conquer France faster than I normally would have and provided me with extra turns of research after the plunder. Gunslinger

None taken. I still can't find where he did mention the size of the Finnish army with respect to Germany, Japan, or Italy. I missed it entirely, even after rereading the thread. I see him claiming a 20 to 1 causualty rate attained by the Finns, but that isn't what I'm asking. I peeked for grins into a resource when I got home and found Rumania posting more men under arms in 1941 than Finland for the Axis (686,000 and 400,000 respectively). By '44, when Rumania and Finland were knocked out of the war those numbers stood at 1,225,000 and 270,000, respectively. If you give the Finns an HQ, you are also handing them the ability to march to the Urals alone (they could get supply from the HQ). Is that realistic? With regard to demands for more map in the north, is there any consideration for the strategic limitations imposed by the terrain? Rolling across the artic circle isn't exactly the same as rolling through the Steppe. Wasn't the fighting limited to a few key points, and wouldn't increasing the size of the map in the north open up avenues of advance that, in reality, didn't really exist? Gunslinger

Some more specifics about what 'went wrong' in your campaign would help. I'm curious myself whether it's an issue of play balance in the scenario, or if your strategy ran headlong into a good strategy. Can you tell us what happened? Gunslinger

No offense, but isn't that similar to saying Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world (in 1990)? What's the drop off between 1, 2, 3 and Finland? Gunslinger

Against the AI I haven't had too much trouble mounting or repelling an amphibious invasion (I've never seen the AI attempt Sea Lion), but against a human it's much more difficult. If you don't have near absolute control of the air expect to lose what you so cheaply deposited on his shore. You'd also better hit a wide front, if not two seperate ones (the north and west french shores for example). If he can bottle you up cheaply with a few corps and pound you from the air you're going to lose a lot of money. Gunslinger

Isn't the point of this game "woulda, coulda, shoulda?" The only thing I'm aware of that I would consider a "gamey" tactic is the surrounding of Moscow and subsequent inability of the Soviets to build while you eliminate them. Hopefully this can be addressed by patching Soviet supply rules to effectively recognize three capitals at all times and simply use the closest one to which there is a supply path. Before someone would get me to agree to not use my forces the way I want it's going to take some explaining. Why can't the French forces posted in Algeria be used to attack Italy? Just because the French chose to sit back doesn't mean you have to. Also, why couldn't the British make the BEF a larger contingent? What if they thought that was the key to victory? They certainly could have, they just chose not to. As for the Romanians, perhaps in the history you've created they have been promised a large enough share of the spoils to make lending Hitler their troops for Sea Lion worth their while. If you start limiting what people can do, you're going to end up playing out the same basic strategy each time. Where's the fun in that? I like to mix it up when playing with my friend. Just because I invaded Spain last time as the Allies doesn't mean I will this time. And just 'cause he got level 5 Industrial tech last time doesn't mean he will this time. I still see hordes of corps in my sleep... Gunslinger

Press 'Alt' and 'Print Screen' at the same time. This will save the screen capture to memory in Windows and it can be pasted into Paint, etc. Gunslinger

Air power will quickly reduce naval units, particularly once you get your air fleets some experience. Keep in mind the game is abstracting the elements of WW2. I never looked at one of the battleship counters as just one ship. I think the Royal Navy had more than what would otherwise be represented. Handled by abstraction as well. Consider those initial daylight raids experience gathering. Higher experience units will start to get much better loss ratios during strategic bombing. HQ's are points of supply. Supply level of the hexes your units are in is part of determining their readiness, which determines what percentage of their strength makes it to the fight. These are extremely important for naval invasions (until you secure a port) or for attacks against the USSR with scorched earth rules in effect. HQ's also gain experience and provide a morale bonus to units under their control. Control is apparently determined during the supply phase and is automatic. If the unit is within a few hexes of the HQ, and of the same nationality (and not a minor) it is under the control of the HQ. The HQ can control up to 5 units. The unit you see on the 'board' is an abstraction. It represents submarine strength, not simply U-30, etc. This was addressed in a patch. Not sure if the demo you played includes this adjustment, but it's much easier to repair units and not lose enormous amounts of experience. The AI improvements in the last patch have given it more legs. Expect a more aggressive opponent than in the demo. Gunslinger

It's a shame this game wasn't reviewed with the AI behind the newest version. I still win on Expert, 0 as either side, but you have to play the AI like a human and have patience. My first game, at Expert, +2 ended in a loss as the Axis in September '43. I got bogged down in France (took over a year to take!) because I went at Sweden immediately after Poland (doable if the computer doesn't start with all his units +2 exp). The "proactive defense" in Russia is a big improvement. All the whining about having to have the CD is amazing. I'd encourage people to try the patch and see if that's really what they want to play against instead of beating up the original AI. Gunslinger

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are worth taking because of the plunder and resources taken. The cost for Denmark and Norway combined is usually at most two or three points of repair. Sweden is a little tougher, but worth it considering the resources. The more turns you are getting those extra MPPs (not to mention the plunder) the better. Having Scandanavia also helps for some reason with the supply of Finland, making the taking of Leningrad easier. I usually declare on the Russians before they do on me, and when that's the case I'm beating them back hard enough to not worry about the Americans. Gunslinger

I just won last night against 1.3's improved AI on Expert, 0. It makes for a much more aggressive defender and, like a human, will punish unescorted tank armies that roam into the hinterland without a defended supply line. You don't have to make the tanks more powerful, just use your combined arms and most importantly - patience. When making my encirclements flow along his lines for the weak point. Manuever is as important as firepower to the tank army. I tend to find/blast gaps of at least two or three hexes width for my tank armies to pour through on the shoulder of either wing. I make my encirclements on strategic scale, don't try to bag just two or three units. It's rare that I will make the hole in his line and link up in the same turn. Do not expect the computer to sit passively by when you threaten his flanks. If you leave gaps between your tank spearheads and your main line he'll cut you off and you will find your tank armys ground up. Once entire army groups are cut off they are recieving reduced supply, and thus have reduced readiness and cause less damage to your infantry and air fleets who are mopping up the pocket while your tank armies serve as steel curtain. The additional cost of replacing armies and corps instead of just reinforcing them is obvious. After reducing several pockets last night the computer had hardly anything left (the Urals were defended by planes that flew away after contact, Stalingrad was surrounded with only one defending corps the next turn) Gunslinger

The only change I think would be useful (without increasing the complexity of the game) is to include the U.S. ports in the areas that subs can engage convoys. Because of the size of the Royal Navy it's not too difficult to screen the existing intercept zones. I don't worry about maintaining a battle in the Atlantic as the Axis though. I prefer to spend the money on tanks and planes that I can use in Russia after I've knocked the British off (against the AI). I don't think I'd devote much money to subs as the Germans even if I didn't seize England. The damage I've managed (both to convoys and enemy naval units) doesn't justify the cost. Gunslinger

I mean no offense, but people seeking to complicate the game play of Strategic Command miss one of it's more beautiful aspects: it's abstraction of key facets of WW2 into a simple to play game. Someone could always come up with a higher level of detail for any aspect in the game. I think Hubert has found a nice balance for a game of this scale. Gunslinger

Rockets without any tech advance are pretty useless, but when you get them up to level 4 or so they can be pretty useful. Air Fleets are superior because they have greater range, are more mobile, and can perform more roles (escort, spotting, combat air patrol). Rockets serve as artillery in this game. They are limited by a horrendous mobility (and they can't fire after they move), but their advantage is that planes can't intercept their attack (try using Russian fighters against ground targets with experienced Luftwaffe pilots in the vicinity) and each level of tech improves their attack values and their range. This allows you to pile attacks on a unit that perhaps only two of your units actually border irrespective of enemy air cover. On a mobile battlefield rockets are just too slow to be much help, but if things are starting to stalemate they make a nice edition if you can keep them safely tucked back from the line (and the enemy air fleets). Once they get high levels of experience even fighters have a hard time knocking down their strength. This helps them maintain the experience they accrue. Gunslinger