Fubarno

I just sent you my challenge for a game.

Damn! That Rocky and Bulwinkle shtick got me chuckling real good. Thanks and keep it up. If I understand the errata of the 1.06 patch, not occupying Warsaw actually hightens the war reddiness of the USSR by 30%. This eliminates the gamey strategy of not finishing Poland off to prevent USSR from annexing the Baltic countries. It seems more realistic to me to have Russia jump in early than for Germany to invade France first, before Poland, when they just declared war on Poland to start WW 2.

Against the AI is one thing but try this strategy against a human opponent and there is going to be trouble for the Allies. I think the statement of this thread that the game favored the Axis mostly referred to head to head competition.

[ November 08, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Fubarno ]

I think it was William the Conqueror that said, "..good fences make good neigbors." Unfortunately there are people that don't honor fair play. It is nice if one doesn't have to worry about it though through measures that prevent any question of cheating.

Disrupting supply is exactly what I have used them for and it works as a minor hindrance or worse depending on the dispersement of Axis troops. I try to move them across the Axis rear to disrupt their supply line. If they are lucky they might capture a city center or link up with the front line and become fully supplied and reinforced. They also force the Axis to garison the city centers and countryside which is a further drain on mpp's. My complaint is that more countries don't have a partisan contingent. Surely the U.K., Canada, and the U.S. would field partisans. France, Holland, and Norway also had partisans on a much smaller scale then the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Italy had a large anti-Fascist partisan uprising in the north after they surrendered and were occupied by Germany. These are some details that could add to the surprise and richness of the game, Of course there are no video cut-scenes of partisans blowing bridges and railroads and ambushing supply convoys but most people turn those things off after a game or two and the game was only $25 afterall. Edit; cool pictures of the partisans. They look like a fun bunch. [ November 06, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Fubarno ]

I thought Hubert added a reload counter. I have never reloaded nor seen opponent give me a message that they have reloaded so I don't know whether it works or not. Hubert,...?

Thanks Hubert, it seemed like something that would help subs, not unbalance the game, and be easily included in a patch. Great job, as always.

I don't think I have seen this suggested and it isn't a huge deal but, why don't sub packs gain experience when they successfully conduct surface raiding? Bomber and fighter groups get experience when they do strategic bombing. If the sub groups did get experience from successful surface raiding, and it makes sense that they would, it would help to improve their capabilities in a small and subtle way, tweaking the battle of the Atlantic just slightly and making subs more compelling. [ November 03, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Fubarno ]

Remember that these are very large units and should have many assets at their disposal. Do you really think a modern WW2 army of 150,000 men or a corps of 50,000 men wouldn't have spotter planes, let alone massive ammounts of tanks, artillery, etc... or even a wing or two of fighter bombers at their disposal? An "army" designation doesn't mean that it is just alot of infantrymen, but includes all the equipment to make it a effective fighting organization at the "strategic" level in WW2.

All German Axis minors are blue, ie., Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc..

In did a test on the spotting of subs as I was also curious about this and I couldn't find the info in the manual. Bombers spot subs 5 hexes away. Fighters spot subs 4 hexes and carrier groups at 3 hexes. All others must be adjacent to spot subs. Hope that helps.

Jollyguy, I like your suggestion that AA research extend to unit capabilities and not just reflect city defence. I don't know about the mobile AA unit suggestion. This is Grand Strategy gaming. [ October 23, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Fubarno ]

I, having played out 6 PBEM games, winning 4 and losing 2, and have yet to see this quagmire develop that many people experience. Don't the strength points of units reflect its organization and not just manpower. If a corps is 40,000 to 60,000 men and it is reduced to a 1 strength, does that mean all that is left are 4,000 - 6,000 effective troops? Or does it mean perhaps that maybe 20,000 are left and they can be reorganized to be more effective, as well as adding more units, equipment supplies, etc? Remember that this game is an abstraction.

My feelings and experiences are that the axis side has the advantage and the allies need to be played to perfection (and have some research luck) against a skilled axis opponent. This opinion doesn't take into account the strategy for a quick knockout of Italy by France and England which can be a game killer and leads to early Axis loss. (See the recent post by Norse). The opportunity for Germany to have 10+ advanced fighter groups ruling the skies of Europe at mid game makes allied chances problematic, in my opinion.

How could Moscow "spawn" one air unit, one tank unit and three armies every week/turn? That would be a huge expenditure of mpp's which are not available. Don't sensationalize the discusion. Are you referring to the transfer of Siberian armies? This only takes place once. Surrounded cities, other than capitals, can't even produce units, but cities that are not surrounded should be able to produce units next to enemy units, at the SC scale. Remeber, each hex is 50 square miles. Not to mention, removing the ability to build in and around cities that have adjacent enemies would unbalance the game even more so in favor of the axis. It's hard enough fending off the Teutonic hordes from overrunning mother Russia.

Norse, I have been working on a strategy such as this after my fiasco in our PBEM game, but my question is, how did the fighter groups near Marseilles assist. Do they have 1 tech advance in range?

Must say, best AAR I have read. The dry humor quite funny. Looking forward to the next installment.

I'm 3 for 3, 2 as axis and one as allies. I'm in 2 others now, both as allies, that are undecided. I'll be someones punching bag as the allies.

It's different than PG2 in that SC is what is called a "grand strategy" game. In grand strategy one takes control of the political, economic and strategic direction of an entire nation or in the case of SC, the entire Axis or Allied operation of the European theatre; land, air, sea, commerce raiding, strategic bombing, industrial advances, weapons improvements, force selection, etc. SC is a simplified and fun abstraction of WW2 in Europe that can have formulaic and historical results or totally deviate from history and have unlikely results such as Axis Jets flying from occupied Canada while axis troops land in New York and grind towards Washington D.C. to force capitulation in mid 1944. In PG2 one is controlling a corps or the units of maybe one or two army groups with a specific goal. In SC you control the coarse of the war and decide what your goals are and the implementation of the "how" to achieve those goals with ultimate victory being just that,.. ultimate victory! Download the demo which gives you one year, starting in spring 1940, to see if it's your cup of tea.

Two good army units supported by 1 or 2 air units all under the direction of a good leader will make a guaranteed hole. Panzer units just behind the armies go through the hole and attack the defence line from the rear. If one doesn't let the panzers get cut from their supply, they are going to punch another hole on the next turn and cut off some enemy units. If you do it in two places and connect the two pincers, you'll cut off a lot of units from supplies and they'll be easy pickens' for the follow-up units to wipe out. Yeah,.. what everyone else said too.

I sent you a proposal. No not for marriage or anything, war, of course. I already have me a wife.

Now, if someone with graphic skills would just make a SC map relief that highlights the prime surface raiding areas of the Atlantic and Mediterannean for us novice untersee warfare admirals (hint, hint, somebody?). The British bomber unit can be flown to either the tip of Cornwall, Belfast region of Ireland (no supply though), or operationally moved to Canada and effectively eliminate any chance the sub packs have of surface raiding and avoiding the allied navy.

Hey, okay, since nobody will answer my question I'll have to figure it out for myself and anyone else who didn't feel like experimenting with hotseat and FOW on. Here's the 411! Aircraft carriers spot subs two hexes out. Bombers spot subs 5 hexes out, making them great for sub hunting in addition to their other duties, making them much more worthwhile in my eyes now. They're effective in bombing subs too. Fighters spot subs four hexes out. Cruising a sub next to hostile territory will not cause the sub to be spotted unless a land unit is adjacent. Advanced sub technology and sonar only effect combat and not spotting. I think I answered all of my own questions. To everyone else, thanks for nothing.

What are the rules for spotting subs with different units? I looked through the manual but could not find the definitive answer. Obviously a ship adjacent to a sub will spot it. Also, I noticed that a carrier group spotted a sub from a 2 hex distance, or will it spot from further? How about air groups and bomber groups spotting range for subs? Will a sub be spotted cruising next to hostile coastline, occupied or un-occupied by enemy units? Does increased sub technology decrease spotting ranges? I have heard that it increses the chance for a sub to dive and avoid combat but what about spotting. Does sonar technology increase the chance for spotting a sub? Again I know that it improves ones killing ability against subs. Sorry for all the questions butI can't seem to gleen this info from the manual.