Bruce70

In SC terms non-combat effective means destroyed, so the division was effectively destoyed on the first day. From the previous paragraph I would assume that 53% strength translates to 'combat ineffective'. So again in terms of SC that means strength zero. Also we are considering the effects of the units deployed for this operation. How many air-fleets/strat bombers is that in SC terms? What if more were used? 1. would add a considerable amount of complexity to the game and surely couldn't be considered as a change for SC1 2. I am dead against. This is a "what-if" game. If a player wants to mass their air attacks why shouldn't they be allowed? If there is a problem with massed air attacks IRL make it a similar abstracted problem in SC, don't make it impossible. 3. I realise you are suggesting changes to improve the playability of the game but even so the rules should be justifiable in some way. I can't think of any justification for this. Surely Brittain (for example) could have built nothing but air-fleets if they had wished. [ September 18, 2002, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Bruce was taken and I am too boring to think up something else.

I was only trying to expand the discussion... don't know where profusely is indicated. Whats the purpose of your comments Sir knob? To inflame....Article name and author should be sufficient even for a knob. My source was printed in the March 2002 World War II magazine, (by the way, nice ad for battlefront.com.) The author is a living member of the 79th. And you? Some knob no doubt.</font>

I do not have any real knowledge concerning the ability of air power to destroy a corps/army IRL (but I am happy to listen to arguments on both sides). But in SC, if you destroy a unit that does *not* mean that literally every asset that belonged to that unit has been destroyed, only that the unit as a whole is *effectively* destroyed. So if the attack following (or during if you insist - it makes no real difference to SC) operation Cobra (and others) suffered minimal casualties and minimal time delay (by comparison with the time scale in SC) then the unit *was* destroyed for the purpose of the SC abstraction. In SC if a unit has *any* combat strength left at all then this represents a 2-4 week delay for the attacker that does the mopping up since there is no movement after combat. I do not think this would be realistic. Therefore IMO air power must be able to 'destroy' ground units in SC. Perhaps it should be more difficult and I certainly think ground units should get AA advances, but certainly it should be frequently possible.

I believe you mean Brian. I didn't give any references and I don't label someone as a "Troll" simply because they have an arrogant way of stating their case (neither did Brian for that matter). A "Troll" is someone who 'posts with the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses or flames'. [ September 17, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

I do not believe that is the answer even *if* there needs to be one. Unless it was physically impossible IRL then it should be possible in the game. *If* there were good reasons why this was not a regular occurence IRL then those same reasons (or some abstraction thereof) need to be modelled in the game. For example a limit on the number of total airfleets (representing shortage of pilots as you point out) could be a possible solution. But even then you have to ask "could more pilots have been trained IRL?". Increasing the amount of reciprocal damage, as you put it, would be a better solution IMO, which brings us back to the question of AA research for ground units not on a strategic target. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that this should be included in AA research. I haven't heard an argument against it (but I could easily have missed it) while several people have suggested it in various threads. Are there any nay-sayers to this proposed change?

We are talking about what would happen if practically every tactical bomber of either side attacked a single 50sqkm area for two weeks and more or less without opposition. I think the results of that would be pretty devestating. But perhaps we are concentrating on the damage rather than the policy. Why weren't air fleets used in this way week in, week out? and do these reasons exist in the game?

Just thought I would add that, in the games I have played, air power is only used against one or two units per turn. So it isn't really the "norm" in any case - most combat is undertaken without air support. Most of us prefer to concentrate our airsupport but if we spread it around it wouldn't have a large impact at all.

Just because it wasn't the norm IRL doesn't mean that a player shouldn't be able to make it the norm in the game. I don't know if the damage model is right, but the point in question (as I understand it) is "is it possible?". Cobra proves that it is.

Well I don't think that the game system should stop you from being rash, but there should be consequences. OTOH, while it would be possible to rush in replacements to bring the unit up to 100% assets in 2-4 weeks, would it be possible (no matter how rash) to reach 100% combat effectiveness in 2-4 weeks without a rest from the front line to reorganise? If unit strength does just represent assets then I think it should be possible to reinforce completely on the front line, but with the consequence of reduced readiness. But if unit strength incorporates combat effectiveness then it should not be possible. I think that it might be a more intuitive system if unit strength did only represent unit assets and make readiness a more important factor in the combat system.

Actually I didn't say that I didn't like it. What I meant was, since it does increase it must not represent unit assets. Great idea. You would tend to save your elite units for when it really mattered.

They are triggered when Berlin is "threatened". Not sure exactly what this means but I guess if you stay some number of hexes away from Berlin you are safe.

Personally I like using light tanks, the big monsters don't hold that much interest for me. Of course the open expanses of the steppes might change my mind.

[Disclaimer: The changes that I am going to suggest would more than likely throw the whole SC system (well play balance and AI at least) out of whack. So these changes are suggested for SC2 even though I am going to discuss them in the context of SC1.] First of all what does unit strength represent? There are three possibilities IMO. Unit Assets - the actual hardware and personel of the unit. I think this is unlikely since I cannot see any reason for L5 tank units to have 50% more tanks and crews than L1 tank units (please correct me if I'm wrong). Resource Investment - an abstract representation of the resources invested in that unit. This is certainly true (in a literal sense) and it does make sense for a L5 unit to cost more than a L1 unit but I doubt that it is the whole story. Combat Strength - the fighting ability of the unit. I think the unit strength probably represents an amalgum of these three (Hubert?) but probably favouring 2 and 3. So how do reinforcements work? There have been some complaints about reinforcements, most notably: "it should not be possible to reinforce units on the front line" - If we are talking about unit assets then this would seem to be possible provided a unit is in supply. But if we are talking about combat strenth then is it really possible to raise the combat effectiveness from 10% to 100% in 2-4 weeks just by throwing replacements at it (whether the unit is on the front line or not)? I have no experience in the matter but I think that reoganisation of a low strength unit would take longer than that. The second complaint is a general disatisfaction in the way experience works. Now if you replace 90% of a units personel in 2-4 weeks then you are going to end up with a green unit, there is no way around that. But if the unit is rebuilt over a longer period then perhaps the experience rules could be relaxed a little since the experienced core would have the time and relative numbers to instill some of the vet culture into the new recruits. Now this might be utter bollocks so feel free to say so. Now to my suggestions (finally). 1) Reduce the rate at which reinforcements can be made. It could either be a flat rate (say 2-3pts per unit) or a variable rate (say 50% of current strength - rounded up). Significantly understrength units would require several turns to reach full combat effectiveness. While assets can be replaced quickly, this simulates the reorganisation required for the unit to operate effectively. 2) *Slightly* relax the experience rules. This is to provide some disinsentive to disbanding the unit and rebuilding a new one. This is a valid thing to do IMO but there should be some consequence. If you rebuild a unit you retain unit identity, which could be considered a form of experience. 3) Allow understrength units to be merged. Another way of maintaining unit experience. The readiness of merged units should be reduced to zero for the next turn to simulate the associated restructuring and to disuade players from doing this with front line units. Comments/criticism welcome...

Yes it is, just like Finland. [can't believe I said that, I'm in trouble now!]

Minor countries cannot build armies, so I gather that is the reason it is there at the start.

Play balance is the main reason why I have tried to make it clear that suggestions are for SC2. Sometimes it is easy to get carried away with suggestions for SC1 since we got used to that in the beta stage, but now that the game is out the only real tweaks that can safely be made are ones design to correct any perceived problems with the current balance. Suggestion to improve the game that are not directly related to play balance should be left for SC2 IMO.

Its not too much to ask for, but that doesn't mean it will get a high priority or that it is easy to do. I agree with J Wagner, and agressive AI is a good thing.

That is very surprising, I usually see it many times every time I play Yelnia.

Just turn cookies on, complete the order, then turn cookies off again, that's what I did.

That is why it is important for green units to attack low-risk targets. The only possible justification for this would be the transfer of troops from the pacific theatre and I don't think that happened often enough (but I am prepared to be corrected) to bother implementing. No amount of training or expenditure can produce veteran troops. The ability to join understrength units would be a better solution to the 'problem' I think.

I suspect that the AI just 'saw' that Norway was empty without 'seeing' that you had troops in Sweden. I have invaded Norway that early quite successfully as the Allies but I wouldn't try it if there was a sizable force in Sweden.

I played on +1, FOW, all countries random, v1.03, Axis. Conquered all countries except Finland (they didn't join!), Switzerland (somehow missed them), Turkey, Ireland and Canada ("accidentally" got USA first). Score was over 300, not sure what the exact number was.

I assume he meant Spain. I have never had Turkey or Sweden join either side. BTW has anyone had Finland NOT enter the war. I was playing (as Axis) at +1,FOW and all other settings default (ie random USSR) and conquered USSR without Finland ever joining. I took a defensive stance againt Russia and conquered just about every other minor power (ended up with a huge score!) before going on the offensive. I guess that was the reason but it was a bit of a surprise.

With the way the A$ fluctuates it might be good or bad that I have already been billed - just have to wait and see.