Batavian

Heavy Junk, I agree although I think (people, correct me if I am wrong) that it was heavily used in human vs human play in the tourny. Perhaps in the next tourny, house rules may avail us the use of this strategy. House rules may also help with regard to dominating air fleets, as JerseyJohn details in his thread "Topic: Solution for Bullying Airfleets".

Heavy Junk, I agree although I think (people, correct me if I am wrong) that it was heavily used in human vs human play in the tourny. Perhaps in the next tourny, house rules may avail us the use of this strategy. House rules may also help with regard to dominating air fleets, as JerseyJohn details in his thread "Topic: Solution for Bullying Airfleets".

I'm curious as to what people feel is the best strategy. As many have discussed, there are advantages either way. Personally, I prefer the Allies attack and capture Brussels, but I may be in the minority here. Maybe one of the moderators could run a poll here.

HeavyJunk, Probably others could answer this better, but let me give a shot. Don't think you got an actual answer to your question. From what I understand, the "Italian Gambit" is a strategy used by the Alllies. It comes about due to an exploit in the game, not a cheat, not a bug. If the Allies send an amphibious unit just off the coast of Italy, before Italy has entered the war, the can safely land the unit and take the city of Bari. How? When Italy enters the war this way(an Allied declaration of war), the city of Bari, and for that matter the city of Venice, are not garrisoned. Therefore, one can immeadiately take either or both of the cities unopposed. With the supply gained from these cities, one can suppport an invasion and create havoc for the Axis player. That's not all. If one prepares your navy, one can take out the Italian navy as well. In a game I played against the AI Axis, I declared war on Italy. I occupied Bari and Venice and destroyed most of the Italian Navy immeadiately after my declaration of war. The occupation of Venice did not last long since I could not support the unit at all. However I was able to hold Bari, using my navy to bombard any Axis units that tried to dislodge it. Eventually, I was able to take Palermo, and then Rome, forcing Italy to surrender. Germany tried to fight to hold northern Italy, but since this drew away strength from the invasion of France, France never fell. That, of course, is a best case scenario, against the AI played at 0% difficulty. Against a human opponent, it would be much more difficult. However, it would cause the human player to be distracted and quite probably delay the fall of France, possibly critically. On a side note, if anyone has tried this "Italian Gambit", has anyone noticed the way the AI foolishly moves its unit out of Palermo in a vain attempt to retake Bari? All that does is allow me to walk into Palermo (amphib landing) and easily kill the former Palermo garrison due to lack of supply. So comments anyone? Did I, a relative newbie, describe the Italian Gambit reasonably accurate?

HeavyJunk, Probably others could answer this better, but let me give a shot. Don't think you got an actual answer to your question. From what I understand, the "Italian Gambit" is a strategy used by the Alllies. It comes about due to an exploit in the game, not a cheat, not a bug. If the Allies send an amphibious unit just off the coast of Italy, before Italy has entered the war, the can safely land the unit and take the city of Bari. How? When Italy enters the war this way(an Allied declaration of war), the city of Bari, and for that matter the city of Venice, are not garrisoned. Therefore, one can immeadiately take either or both of the cities unopposed. With the supply gained from these cities, one can suppport an invasion and create havoc for the Axis player. That's not all. If one prepares your navy, one can take out the Italian navy as well. In a game I played against the AI Axis, I declared war on Italy. I occupied Bari and Venice and destroyed most of the Italian Navy immeadiately after my declaration of war. The occupation of Venice did not last long since I could not support the unit at all. However I was able to hold Bari, using my navy to bombard any Axis units that tried to dislodge it. Eventually, I was able to take Palermo, and then Rome, forcing Italy to surrender. Germany tried to fight to hold northern Italy, but since this drew away strength from the invasion of France, France never fell. That, of course, is a best case scenario, against the AI played at 0% difficulty. Against a human opponent, it would be much more difficult. However, it would cause the human player to be distracted and quite probably delay the fall of France, possibly critically. On a side note, if anyone has tried this "Italian Gambit", has anyone noticed the way the AI foolishly moves its unit out of Palermo in a vain attempt to retake Bari? All that does is allow me to walk into Palermo (amphib landing) and easily kill the former Palermo garrison due to lack of supply. So comments anyone? Did I, a relative newbie, describe the Italian Gambit reasonably accurate?

Thanks for your comments Rambo.

Jollyguy...your figures convinced me. My strategy was flawed. Thanks to all for the feedback.

Thanks for the help Yohan. It was interesting in one of my earlier games as the Allies that Italy entered the war earlier than I expected as was able to sneak a tank into an unguarded Paris. Up to that point, I was doing well at holding off the Germans but the Italians "back-doored" me so to speak. It was interesting in that Italy conquered France instead of Germany and gained the MRP's instead of Germany.

You know what would be interesting is to do a poll on what people think is most important research tech. Does anyone know if there is a Strategic Command site with a poll out there? Or can we set up one here on this forum?

Quote taken from Hubert in his post on Allied Strategies... "Ok, what I have done is made sure my Allied ground units in the Med have not moved to keep Italy out of the war as long as possible" I did not know this. So if I don't move any of my allied ground units in the Med, this will delay Italy's entry in the war? Is this true?

Curious to hear the opinions of what you consider the most important areas to research. My instinct would be to go for "Anti-Tank" first as it has the effect of increasing the maximum strength of your armies and corps. One might consider, concurrent with "Anti-Tank", is "Industrial Technology" to offset the higher cost of these larger strength units. I would probably then go for "Heavy Tank". Here's my ranking for the rest... 1) Anti-Tank 2) Industrial Technology 3) Heavy Tank Followed more distantly by... 4) Jet Aircraft 5) Anti-Aircraft Radar 6) Long Range Aircraft 7) Rocket Lastly... 8) Gun Laying Radar 9) Sonar 10) Advanced Sub 11) Heavy Bomber In short, emphasis on stregthening ground first, air second, naval third. What are others opinions?

Jon-J, What do you think of the play balance of human vs human games? I see that you will take all challenges with you as Axis. Do you feel Axis have an advantage over Allies? Curious as to your opinion.

When playing as the allies, I always conquer the Benelux countries. Not only does it give the Allies a much needed MRP boost, but it puts them in a much better defensive position against the inevitable German onslaught. One can also invade Germany in an attempt to take Cologne, the mine next to Cologne, and/or Munich but these attempts are almost always disasterous for the Allies. If you do choose to do this, you must have an HQ unit with you for supply. Even then, you will need a little luck. I would not recommend.

Thanks for the post i/o error.

That might be worth tracking...number of comparisons to COS. Actually, I am guilty of asking the same question too about a week ago. A search of this forum will provide all your answers.

I don't subscribe but I have copied the brief review below... It's a satisfying re-creation of the struggle that defined the 20th century. But because it lacks a challenging AI, it eventually falls apart as anything other than a multiplayer game. - Tom Chick The link for this review is: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2875157,00.html They gave it a 7.2 out of 10. Players (total of 84) gave it a slightly higher 7.3 out of 10. This is one reason why I have been asking so many questions about "human vs human" play.

PBEM is available as well as internet play via TCP/IP.

Well, I have searched the forum and have not found a single human vs human game finished. Your game with Carl appears to be the only one posted, and even that is not finished. I'd like to hear from any two that have finished a game. So, let's hear from ya people!

Thanks for the reply. I'd have to say I agree with everything you said, although I am still a newbie when it comes to SC. I do like the ability to play a person over the internet and am hoping to get some feedback on this feature. But that's a whole other topic. Thanks again for your comments.

Just curious.

Bill, Thanks for the comments. As you might have guessed, I have played COS and am a big fan of the game. I have not played SC as much so I cannot honestly comment on all SC has to offer. Both games are very good. The most exciting features I like in SC are the improved interface/graphics and the human vs human play it offers. We may differ abit about our opinion with regard to the AI. I have not found SC's AI much of a challenge. Neither did I find COS's for that matter. For the record, I played SC using the default settings...i.e., no AI experience advantage and beginner level (0%). I will let you know what I think of SC's AI once I tune the settings up a notch.

I'm interested in your opinion on which you prefer, SC or COS. Of course, I am assuming you have played both. What do you feel are SC's strengths over COS, if any. Thanks. On November 13, 2002 03:06 PM, Bill Macon wrote: John, someone who has been registered on the forum since June isn't exactly a newbie. Maybe a lurker, but not a newbie. But yes, the SC vs COS discussions have been endless. Stomping back and forth over the same bloody ground, as upon the smoke-shrouded Cornfield at Antiedam, accomplishes little. At this point we can only hope that Hubert will thoroughly consider all the ideas and suggestions posted thus far, as well as all the good features from COS and other games, and integrate the best of them into SC2. In response to original post by Batavian: I think most know that these two games are almost identical to each other. I was a huge fan of COS (Clash of Steel). I played the demo of SC (Strategic Command) and opted not to get it as I felt it did not have enough new/different features to warrant a purchase. SG felt like it should have been called COS v1.2. For those veterans of COS, honestly, what is there really new about SG that makes it better/different than COS?

I'm interested in your opinion on which you prefer, SC or COS. Of course, I am assuming you have played both. What do you feel are SC's strengths over COS, if any. Thanks. On November 13, 2002 02:27 PM, John DiFool wrote: Okay, yer a newbie, so I'll cut ya some slack. There must be 20 threads scattered throughout this forum addressing this very topic, so feel free to go read them first, then get back to us, ok? John DiFool In response to original post by Batavian: I think most know that these two games are almost identical to each other. I was a huge fan of COS (Clash of Steel). I played the demo of SC (Strategic Command) and opted not to get it as I felt it did not have enough new/different features to warrant a purchase. SG felt like it should have been called COS v1.2. For those veterans of COS, honestly, what is there really new about SG that makes it better/different than COS?

How well balanced is the play? Anyone ever finish a game?

Did you guys every finish this game? Curious as to the outcome.