Narayan Sengupta

Logan, I'm not having much luck with burning a CD today either. Can you post it online someplace along with a link so that I can grab it? Thanks, Narayan

Shaka, The problem is that as soon as you weaken the player (Side A) enough to where taking on the AI (Side is a challenge, then when the player plays as Side B, he steamrolls right over the AI as player A. Narayan

Shaka, You are right about the carriers being disproportionately strong against land targets. However, I feel they are too weak against sea targets! :lol Narayan

JerseyJohn and Shaka, The only way I can think of making this work is to sacrifice one of the four aforementioned factors of balance. The work around, as I see it, is to have varying MPPs and research points for the Axis and Allies that are biased against the player - since we must recognize that the player has a tremendous advantage over the AI. Thus each campaign would have an Axis setup and an Allied setup where the MPPs and research are the only things that are different between the two setups. Perhaps the other thing is to recommend certain starting settings for experience, etc. BTW, I'm also enjoying this dialog! Thank you, Narayan

Shaka, And BTW, it was very kind of you to write up your OOB. Thank you! Narayan

"Those are the types of challenges you have ahead of you." Shaka, Actually, I have designed five or six campaigns so far, including the first custom campaign ever for Strategic Command, so some of these challenges are actually behind me. But still, I haven't been able to find a way to make everyone happy. So I really value your feedback on this and am grateful for it. It doesn't look like anyone has the magic answer on this. But it would be really nice to find a way to make things balanced, historically accurate at the start, and give (possibly) historically accurate results regardless of which sides the player plays.

Rambo, In WWI, France (and the British Empire and Russia) bled white saving America from conflict. Granted, we came in for some pinch hitting in the 9th inning, and that helped line up the winning play - which was fantastic. We used French weapons, by the way, including tanks, aircraft and artillery. In the American Revolution, the French had half of the troops at Yorktown in addition to the French fleet that allowed Yorktown to happen. The French had troops on the ground much of the rest of the time too, and helped to finance our fleding revolution. And while Louis XVIII was hardly altruistic in his support of the 13 Colonies in their quest for independence, he ironically paid the ultimate price for that sacrifice. Those 13 Colonies became the United States of America because of French financial and military and naval aid. And the United States of America was officially born in... France. For Louisiana, Napoleon did want the money. We still benefited. For Libya, overflying France may have been the most direct route for a few of our F-111s working with the carrier borne aircraft, but if that wasn't available, why not take one that was 5% longer over Spain or one of the other countries instead of whining about it? Do you remember what terrorism was like in France in the 80s? Luckily, our first real exposure to the terrorism that other countries have faced for years was two years ago. But that's the kind of environment other countries have faced for years. We're into fighting terrorism now, all of a sudden. Why didn't we ever do anything about terrorism when France had car-bombs going off almost every day for 10-15 years? From what I know, former members of the Reagan administration finally came forth and said that much of our premise of declaring war on Gaddafi was made up (kind of like what we are contemplating against Iraq?). There is nothing that compares to 9/11. But I do believe that France had hundreds of car bombings over the years. That adds up. France has 1/5th the population that we have. So 600 deaths would (to totally oversimplify) be emotionally equivalent to our 3000 deaths. France didn't do anything because they already felt defenseless. They felt they couldn't retaliate without backing from others, and even then, they wondered what would happen. You have to remember that the fear that we have now lived with for the past few months is what France had for many years. This is what the rest of the world frequently lives like. If we were that concerned with losing F-111s (which must have a fuel guage), why didn't we use carrier-based tactical bombers instead? Also why not rant against England for consistency sake? The U.S. wanted to provide strategic recon for Israel during the Six Day War (or whichever war was going on during '73). England wouldn't let the SR-71s use their British bases, so we had to fly them straight from the continental U.S. to the battle-area and back. Of course, we have come to the aid of the French many times. They asked for our help in Vietnam, and we got there eight years later. They asked for our help in WWII, and we got there five years later. They asked for our help in WWI, and we got there three years later. They asked for our help in '56, and we said "no". But when we asked for their help for GWII and did not get it instantly, we pitched a fit. Foreign policy is all about consistency. Why does everyone have to do what we want all of the time? Does the US ever tow the French line? Do you still follow your parents orders or do you just boss them around all of the time? We did help rebuild France. We also bombed the s*** out of it. Of course, that was justifiable, if unfortunate. But French cities (Caen, etc.) were bombed as hard as German ones. France feels that we are the spoiled child. After all, it was France that helped birth us. And now we have grown up, and we tell them what to do. We tell pretty much everyone what to do. Only the British seem to listen. But we do tell everyone to be either with us or against us. I can't imagine doing that to my parents. The French have an exaggerated sense of worth? True. So do we, don't we? We think that we are 90% of the world's importance, though we are 5% of its population. We dump our pollution, etc., on the world and wonder we people get concerned. On my many trips to France, in talking with people, etc., I can tell you that they DID want us to help them out regarding the Middle East and terrorism. But there is a sense in Europe, etc., that we only use them when we need them and abandon them when we don't. And the gold reserves was during the Nixon era. I am just trying to explain the French perspective a bit. I don't think that it's as one-sided as we think. There is also a larger issue here. Does everyone that we have ever helped have to kowtow to us in 100% of our disagreements with the rest of the world? I don't know that we have to slice the world into black and white. That really makes no sense and smacks of extreme jingoism and self-righteousness. Are we sure that we are 100% right in all of the decisions that we make. Why shouldn't we have to ally ourselves with other countries' decisions instead of the other way around? Your turn! Cheers, Narayan

"the French didn't give a crap 60 years ago..." Huh? Narayan

That's a great idea. I would like to see strategic bombers miss every once in a while and hit adjacent hexes. Ditto with things like carrier strikes. Narayan

Interesting idea. How would you pull of an invasion on T1? From the UK perhaps? Narayan

Thanks for the patch Hubert. Here is the list for anyone else who is on dial-up like me: Changes Made For v1.07 (June 24, 2003) fixed Vichy France surrender issue after Paris falls fixed rare port control issue after the surrender of a country fixed DirectX compatibility bug with newer Video Card drivers, newer drivers didn't like the previous implementation of DirectX within SC, caused some flickering/blackouts when traversing through various game screens/menus fixed Carrier intercept bug, defensive bonuses no longer affect losses fixed country surrender bug that would not recognize enemy unit control of resources like ports etc., i.e. should remain in enemy control instead of automatically being assigned to conqueror (as noticed by allied players after the fall of France) fixed sub spotting bug during AI and TCP/IP games fixed MPP bug for USA and Italy when they are declared war upon, previous bidding would be overwritten fixed strength of Soviet Shaumyan Cruiser for Barbarossa, corrected to start at 10 Yugoslavian Coup now has a greater link to Axis actions taken against Greece, can still happen if Greece not invaded but less likely US interest in war tweaked to also take into greater account attacks on Portugal and Iraq on top of the previous settings for Vichy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland Spain tweaked to react to an Allied invasion of Portugal, may now join Axis slightly higher disinterest for US war entry when Allies attack neutral minors changed income for minors once either Germany or UK fall, minors will still collect for any remaining resources available added a 2 city supply system for the UK (London and Manchester) similar to 3 city supply system added in v1.06 for the USSR, counters gamey cutoff of London during Sea Lion There are also errata listed. I'm not sure if those are additional changes, or just clarifications to the game manual for things changed in the past, but I found the errata very informative, especially the part about daisy chaining friendly HQs. BTW, does anyone know if it is possible to use the Suez to S. Atlantic mode from the Suez back out?

JerseyJohn, I re-read this topic, and decided that I couldn't figure out WHY you felt that SC wouldn't handle WWI? I suspect that this is something that you have covered elsewhere in the 106 or 107 pages of topics here, but I'm on dial-up... Can you please explain what you have in mind? The things I have found a bit hard to model are: Generals* Austria-Hungary Starting American units* But that's about it so far. But the ones with "*" are always issues. Narayan

JerseyJohn, I believe you've done a good job of telling us how to determine if a campaign is balanced, but I'm still not sure how to actually achieve that balance. Rambo, I like your idea, but what I was looking for is balance using the current game engine. The reason I pose this question, is that it seems like we can design a campaign that is historically correct, using proper OOBs, balanced and historically playable for one side, but then one that is not for the other. Narayan

Gentlemen, I meant to add one other important factor, and it has been bugging me that I couldn't remember what that factor was when I finally posted this topic. Anyway, that factor is: A design that will also consistently allow for historically accurate results. So is it possible to have a campaign that does all of the above? If so, how? And thanks for your great answers so far. Narayan

Logan, I like your idea very much and would enjoy possibly collaborating on that one as well if you wish. Narayan

JerseyJohn, Lots of great ideas. I am currently working on a WWI campaign (once again, the great Carl Von Mannerheim beat me to it! ) with new WWI icons thanks to Logan! Night, Have you seen my Bite of the Bulldog campaign? The US is neutral. Narayan

Hi Everyone, What are some of the campaigns you would like to see designed? Narayan

Hi Everyone, I thought I would start a topic for everyone to discuss what is the best way to achieve a balanced campaign design. Balancing a campaign so that it is equally playable as the Axis or Allies, and use historical OOBs, locations, unit strengths, and research points is an interesting challenge to say the least. What do you do to make your campaigns balanced? If you haven’t made a campaign, what would be some of your suggestions? Narayan

Night, Not yet. I have been playtesting and am not quite satisfied with the results yet. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction since now France can hold the border, albeit with difficulty. Narayan

Thanks JerseyJohn, That's excellent advice. But I would want to make sure it's okay before getting it into any PBEM tournament. It would be pretty embarrassing if it wasn't well balanced at that point. Night and Kuniworth, I've started making some changes per your feedback. The English navy is much better now (and includes more subs and cruisers and stronger carriers, etc.) and is located more along the Channel. I've increased Soviet MPPs to 2000. And I've made another fifty or so changes so far. More notes to follow... Narayan

Has anyone here tried PGII or People's General with all of its new add on packs (for PG2, etc.)? Narayan

Thanks Logan, I can't get to my e-mail until tomorrow, but I'll look forward to your reply. Narayan

Kunniworth, I appreciate your opinion on that and will decrease it to 1. Have you tried this campaign as the Allies? One of the reasons Germany is strong is to prevent the Allies from staving off the Germans indefinitely. I found that as the French, it used to be possible to simply contain the Germans on the Maginot and Dyle. But now it's not. The German AI comes through and wins in about six weeks, just like in history. Narayan

Thanks Logan, They look great. Check your e-mail! Narayan

One more thing... what do you all suggest I do to balance the campaign? Right now I feel that it is very well balanced when playing the Allies. But most of your suggestions are from the perspective of playing as the Germans instead. So if I make the Allies tougher, then they can roll over the Germans more easily when the player is the Allies. I suppose entrenching certain units in certain ways will help. Narayan