Brian (the semi-wise)

One of the things that I like about SC1 (as it is now called - that's so cool), is the research tree, the chance of getting a new goody, that might help one, actually will help one, win the battle, or change defeat to victory. At turn end, you get to see convoy losses, mmp production, and most enjoyable, a research gain. It's almost like going up a level in a D&D role playing game. In the original SC1, before patches, research discovery added 10% value in the industrial costs. That, based on public opinion, was patched to be only 5%. And wisely so, I think. But it's fun to see your armor evolve to being better, airplanes turning into fighters, etc. So my suggestion is this: Have the research levels go to ten, and make the progress less, say 2.5% improvement, and let them occur more regularly. I would even go so far as to suggest that even if one doesn't research a particular field with mmps, there is an off chance of making a discovery. If I am not mistaken, that happened in WW1: They needed night flares, and it resulted in the development of the mortar. But anyways the theme of this post is more discoveries, but less impact with each one (L0 airplanes versus L1 sneaky jets in waiting is a case in point: the difference is huge)

So, this tournament has started already, yes?

Earl of White wins this;

Earl of White wins this;

We started as me being Allies, and Earl being Axis. I crushed him. I reinforced the Poles, I brought down ships to denmark. At the last moment, i moved in the Med. I crushed him. I through everything i had. Russian prepared for War. It was July of 41. Easy. Easy win. It took him 30 turns or so. So, we reversed. And he crushed me. I left some key german cities vacant, not expecting him to be impolite, and he took half of germany. and made a wall. it was well done, and being on the downside of mmps, losing air by the moment, i had to concede i crushed him, but he crushed me better. i lost.

Wow!I'd love to be allies against, even, Rambo, with those bonuses. Is it even possible to lose as allies with those kinds of bonuses? That's an Air for England right away, an HQ for the US right away, and 20 corps for Russia, right away. Seems to me, it's all over before starting.

Maybe even Disband British carriers?

Maybe even Disband British carriers?

Now that I'm actually thinking about this, and playing a hot seat game with myself, I'm realizing that this tournament injects a whole new set of possibilites (and replayability) into old strategies. I mean, with the exception of the set rules, there are some opportunities to go way way ahistorical, which is ok (and actually great), and develop some new and bold strategies. Some might call them gamey, but since the whole point is just to get to Paris, who cares? It might even create a new strategy for the long term games. Here's some ideas (untried as yet) that might be exploited: For the Axis: 1) Take Poland, then Hungary, maybe Rumania, then swing West in full plundered force. 2) Dump the Navy. Might not matter. 3) Take Latvian countries. You're there, take them, then swing West. 4) Combine 1 and 3 and just hammer with massive air. There's more, but that's off the top of my head. For the Allies: 1) Disband all air, make a couple of headquarters (French and British) and put a double line of corps up that can only be chipped away with the maginot holding a serious part of the line. 2) Move everything out of the Med, right away and again, double line of corps and have all air ready to defeat the Axis. 3) Have the Brits take Ireland AND Norway and rescue French with plundered forces. 4) Think Portugal. 5) Ignore the German subs. They only count in the long run. 6) Invade Denmark if Germany doesn't. Remember one unit will stop Italy in it's tracks. 7) Use every British ship in a do or die stop the Germans bombardment. Then land a corps in kiel. 8) You don't have to worry about Sealion, it won't get that far. So strip England dry. Anyways, that's off the top of my head and it shows me that this game has depth, such that you could actually have tournaments with this platform with many of the other scenarios. Just make the win be fast as you can, or what ever criteria. It makes you rethink the game. And it's consequences. Curry, very cool tournament. The AAR's should be interesting. ___ We are the consequences of our decisions made. And not made.

This seems right on target! You don't want it as a pop up of general given input. that where you want to do your AAR report. Everyone loves a good AAR, if it's not to windy, right. That's where you type it, while watching the game, instead of having to toggle. I don't know much code, but you set up an SCemail address (Hubert can do this stuff. I know he can, a series of SC2 AAR addresses), reserve an AAR address for example of the game your going to play. Then while it proceeds, you can, if you want, type in oh, say about fifty words or so onto the screen, and have it be both talk (to the bad guy your playing) and the eager reader. I love this idea, or I completely missed it's point. In which case, I love my idea instead. Brian, the semi wise }}}}}}}signing off smile

Hmmmm.... Again, adding variables of serious complexity... I would simply go with no sea invasions from october to february, except in the lower med. Too complex is too many issues.

Personally, I don't think this advances the game much. But it's an idea to be considered. And all ideas are good. (I just want the Pacific)

First of all, I hate when someone says Yo. As if this is a word with some meaning attached to it. Second of all, I really hate it when it's followed by Listen Up. It's like I can't hear without this preface. Combined, I am automatically irritated. That said, in SC everything is relatively static, as far as MMP's are concerned. And that is good. But in SC2, I do believe that the war output should be more accurately reflected. (Again, and I've said this before, it's a computer, so we don't have to go with 5% increments.) England began slow and picked up speed towards 1943, but after that, Britain actually declined. They were exhausted and that should be reflected. Russia was exhausting itself by 1945. Italy was getting tired by '41. And yes, the USA was getting totally ramped up all through 1946. It should be reflected. (that's why we had a recession in 1948 and it was deep and bad). The MMPs don't need to be static. They can fluctuate based on many inputs, activities and the passage of time. Just my thoughts that I'm sharing...since I'm listening up. Yo.

Awesome. I'm in and can play TCIP best. My email is bpoulsen@hotmail.com. Can't play much on weekends. I can also play by email. Just don't remember how. This looks interesting

The whole research issue is a difficult crutch. You have to have it, and Hubert balance it well over some editions, but still, luck one way or the other, can truly unbalance the game. If you invest in it. Once upon a time, industrial research improvements reduced unit costs 10%. And that was an absolute number. 10%. Now it is 5%. And that is good. If you invest in Jets, and get a research breakthrough, you get a plus ten percent effectiveness (roughly - I really don't know the mechanics, but something like that). Same with most everything else. We are in the age of the computer, people, and the design can support increments smaller than 5% or 10%. It would not complicate the game or the calculations to simply shrink the percentage improvements down to something more realistic. Think pfII, to pfIII to pfiv, a, b c, d e, to panther, and tiger. Baby steps, with a window set up just for research that informs you: We improved our armor - bigger fuel tanks: 1% We improved our infantry - better canteens: 1% We improved our fighters - 0% no research. We improved our bombers - radar breakthrough: 5% etc. You could make it half percents if you want, or even less. The point is that if you are researching something, in the scope of this game, you get something, generally. You could also get: We didn't improve our tanks at all, despite all the research funds you gave us, because we are lazy. Further, a research chit shouldn't have absolute cost, or an absolute return on investment. A little here, a little there. And the Germans should get more ROI than say, the Italians (no offense) in certain fields. Further, more areas of research - this has been mentioned in another post and I agree with it. Logistics (movement allowance and prep), Counterintellingenc (visibility), and so on. The fact of the matter is that Hubert translated a brand new version of 3rd Reich and Clash of Steel on his first try, honed it, and has made a classic. There are many opportunities for SC2. I would love to help in any way I can. I love this game. Brian

JJ, I guess it just goes to show you, us, and Hubert (actually), what an excellent game this is. From my rusty bucket of brains, it's the best game I've ever played since before computers (3rd Reich). I'll buy the SC2 the day it comes out. And I'm ready to play some of this SC1 stuff too. I'm back. (this is the dimwit who proposed and sold the dutch gambit, that Hubert already knew about and planted in the game as a risky but fair option to take - it continues to amaze me how precise the various calculations are). brian the semi wise

No offense, but the idea of Turkey entering the war because Germany, at the height of their power, either in the game or in reality history, invades Sweden, is, well, in my opinion, ludicrous. Aint gonna happen. Now if Germany, or Italy, invades Irag, then I can understand that the Turks might get itchy.

Tech is the chance. Tech is the variable. Too many investments in AF, without getting some tech improvs, makes it a waste. Exploiting if you do get them, makes it wise (like me, Brian the Wise). That's called playing the game. This is not chess, people. This is random. Think. You buy five AF. Your opponent gets luck and has level 3. Your investment is, hmmm, reduced. That's the game and the game is good. you take your chances.

too much beer moon should close this one

Agree, sadly, with Rambo. Put a tech on "IT". Always. It pays for itself.

i've been gone so long. i love the game. My old name, Brian the Wise (discoverer of the Dutch gambit), is closed down. This name was made out of fun. Does anyone know how to change id and get back on track. I so much want to play some games on line, but without my egotistic names of then.