Jollyguy

I think your "mug" idea, or something like it, is a good concept. I don't know that I would make it a per turn event, but maybe four times a year. Variability such as your mug system has been suggested before, with an eye on SC 2. Another variant could be that each opponent has to drink a real mug of his favorite brew in conjunction with pulling a chit from the virtual mug. After downing several drinks, game variability would become extremely random.

Shaka; Your analysis of where Axis mpps peak needs to be recalculated. I've never done the math exactly, but I believe Axis mpps can actually top out in the 900 to 1000 range. What I think you overlooked is that resource hexes move up to 8 and 10 value when connected to certain other countries. Your correct in stating that Sweden starts at 35 mpps, but it then doubles to 70 (or thereabouts) if connected to Norway and Denmark. Norway would also increase if so connected. All minors when connected to proper adjoining countries move from 5, to 8 and 10 values. So your calculation of 486 mpps for Germany would need to be moved-up, on average to around 600. It could get to the 800 range, depending on how the minors are split up between Germany and Italy. I've had games where I got the Germans up to about 750 mpps, the Italians 200.

Related to intelligence tech, a minor modification I'd like to see is when you get an advance, your unit icons do not automatically change to the next higher advance. I.e., if your at level 0 tanks, and achieve level 1, the tank icons stay at level 0 until you increase the strength of a particular unit within spotting distance of the enemy. This would allow for disinformation, and lead to uncertainity, which would increase the variability of play. If your deploying new technology, the enemy (in a strategic sense) isn't going to know about it until he encounters it the first time on the battlefield. This already happens with most other advances: industrial tech; anti-tank; anti-aircraft radar; subs; rockets; gun-laying radar. I.e, with anti-tank, the enemy doesn't know you've achieved an advance until you increase unit strengths upward. With anti-aircraft radar, the enemy can only surmise about an advance after his air units take punishing damage from attacks on resource hexes. But two of the most important techs, air and tanks, the enemy knows the moment the advance is achieved. And you should also be allowed to keep cheaper, lower tech units. If you want to deploy level 0 infantry to the Med, because you only want garrison troops there, then they should cost that much to buy and reinforce. But if you need level 3 infantry to face the Russian bear, then those would cost more. Similarly, maybe a level 0 airfleet is good enough to keep an eye on things near Sicily, but you want your best air deployed in France or on the eastern front. Good threads Russ. I too believe that SC 2, with proper modifications, will let Fury Software retain title to the best computer strategic wargame on the market. SC one has already achieved this status IMO.

In a game I have going, my opponent, as the Axis, has taken Moscow, and my capital moved to the Urals. I've retreated south toward the Caucusses, and north to the Urals. He touched the east side of the map below the Urals last turn, which prevented me from placing units in the Caucusses unless I sent a unit out and "reconnected" with the south. Once I did this, I could place units in the south again. The 1.06 version changes state: >added three city supply system in the USSR, so Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Stalingrad can all be central supply areas to eliminate gamey encirclement but no capture of Moscow< My read of "all" in the above statement is that if one capital is captured or surrounded, the other two can continue to function as full capitals. Ergo, if one of the remaining two is captured or surrounded, then the last one should be able to function as a full capital. In the game I have going my opponent temporarily "surrounded" my Urals capital by touching the east side of the board, resulting in a "gamey" inability to place units in the south. But my interpretation is I should be able place units in the North or South, as both remaining capitals should allow that ability. Please let me know if my interpretation is correct, and we have a bug, or if I'm incorrect, and the German does the strategic ability to take Moscow, then cut the board in half, denying Russia the Caucusses, as I believe the capital always moves to the Urals if Moscow falls. Thanks Bob

IMO, the Axis should be penalized for sub interdiction by the Allies, same as the Allies are by the Axis, and gain experience for doing so, same as the Axis does. I play almost exclusively Allies. Most of my opponents know by now that I buy one, sometimes two British subs, and get good use from them. I believe SC 2 should allow mpps to be deducted from the Axis if the Allied places a sub in the Med, X # of hexes from the (Italian) African ports, or the Italian ports on the mainland, assuming the Axis still possess ports in Africa. In the same vein, an Allied sub in the Baltic, interdicting the Norweigan (Oslo), Swedish, Finnnish ports, or Axis mainland ports, should also subtract mpps. In short, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. The most historical variation, though, is in the Med. The Allies strangled Axis resupply to Africa. Deducting mpps for an Allied sub in the vicinity would be a realistic variation.

Another poster asked how I gave Russia units without activating them. I didn't! I'm a first time user to the scenario editor. I didn't realize "activating" meant they joined the war. I though it meant activating them to make modifications. So I guess the only option is to give Russia and America extra $ to begin with, which would also work.

If it's blunting the Axis advance in Russia you want, then the change would seem to be a fair amount more provided to Russia, in initial mpps and/or units, and more to the Americans. This wouldn't address the Axis strategy, though, of conquering every minor on the board while England can do nothing but watch. So Russian readiness would also need to be increased. The changes to the mod I'm working on do this. I've given the Russians 900 mpps to start: two, 2 strength low quality HQs; four, 2 strength corps, all around Moscow. I've given the US one each: 2 strength HQ, bomber, and tank; started the US at 3 ind tech, and given them 5 chits. I've left American starting readiness at 0, but bumped Russia up to 36, from 30.

Bill; I have two games going with your 1/4/03 updated 1939 mod. Thanks for doing it. The games are both in 1941 now. I believe your changes were evenhanded, in that you gave both sides something (politicians are good at that too!) My input so far (I'm Allies in both) is the Axis shouldn't get the extra experience or advances, as it's an Axis imbalance we're trying to address. The extra experience lets the Axis slice through Poland and France like a hot knife through butter. In both cases France fell around May or early June, 1940, even with the extra $ you provided France. That's too early IMO, as it allows the Axis extra time to conquer additional minors, and accumulate more mpps. I'll get back to you with additional comments as the games progress, but one would be to increase Russian readiness from the standard 30, to 36.

This game between Zapp and Terif is an excellent example of the Axis imbalance, and also why Russ's idea of wildcards would be good. Granted, Zapp may have made some Allied mistakes, but all-in-all, I think they will only hasten the outcome by a turn or two. Result: Resounding Allied defeat. Properly scripted, Terif will now be unbeatable, and can join the ranks of Rambo. He knows who to attack and when. The Axis will build a huge mpp base, get up to about 800 mpps per turn, and fully fund his research. The Allies can only hang on at first, but the end will inevitable. It sounds like Terif is an excellent player, but figuring out the loopholes in the game and winning everytime doesn't make you better than everyone else, it just means you discovered the right formula, and are good at staying to the script. I also know the Axis script, but find it boring, which is why I almost always play the Allies now. I want challenge, not another meaningless X on my scorecard. I'm already leaning toward not playing the standard 1939 scenario, and playing mods instead. Russ and I have one of Bill's mod games going, and are pondering changes to it, to make it more playable. I'm also playing the same scenario with 82ndReady. In both instances I find the mod much more interesting, simply because...it's different! Who wants the same meals everyday! Boring!

The problem is your HQ can't penetrate the supply sapping characteristics of the mountains. If you had one of the Russian Caucusses cities, you could operate the HQ there. But absent that, you can only go so far. Your units can even get out of supply around the mountains of northwest Norway, and also Turkey. They can actually get trapped. If your HQ is trapped, you may need to bring a second HQ adjacent, to resupply, then back it up. In short, mountains can be hell on supply and movement.

I'm beginning to think IT should also be hardcoded. Or, perhaps that research area is verbotten for the Germans and Italians until the Russians and Americans join. I also like Russ' variability idea..."wildcards." We need more variability of play, more variability of of readiness, so people can't figure out the script, and paint by numbers. Also, I'm beginning to think that research should be something on the order of 4,3,2,1,1 rather than 5,4,3,2,1. Possibly even 3,3,2,1,1. As it sits now, the Russians are hit with level 3 and 4 tanks and jets right off the bat. That's a hard one to overcome. If we don't get even more research slowdown, then give the Russians more money and units, perhaps through lend-lease. The Americans need more mpps, no doubt about it, and the Brits a bit more in Egypt As to Russ' random events. I wouldn't allow the players to pick them, at least not the major ones. Through gameplay some would become known as better than others, and people would gravitate toward them. Instead, like the old gameshows where the tv audience is given the answer, but not the contestents, at the start of each game each opponent would be alerted to something like, "In January 1941 pro-British elements will sieze control of Iraq," or "In March 1941 Uncle Joe will put down his bottle of vodka, get a moment of sobriety, and order an immediate mobilization and declaration of war on Germany," or, "In May 1941 German U-boats will sink American destroyers; limited American entry releases navy for escort duty, and mpps allowed to build naval units or be applied to research until America fully enters war." Each side would know his wildcard, or wildcards, and could plan accordingly, but the other side would be clueless. I think Hubert pretty much knows that we need a bit more work on the Axis mpp imbalance. Possibly also a bit more research slowdown, but if readiness was increased overall, this may not be as much of an issue. The problem is the Axis get conquer the entire board, get ahold of all that plunder, and build a massive force backed up by up to 800 mpps per turn. I'd like to draw more attention to Russ' idea of random wildcard events, which would tie in well to increased readiness overall, especially when the Axis becomes overly aggressive and attacks ahistoric minors. But one thing we're overlooking is Hubert has said SC 2 will include a Russian winter. You slow those Germans down for 3 or 4 turns, almost totally blunt their offensive capability while allowing the Russians to marshal their forces, while the Western Allies are also building up, and maybe game balance is directly effected. I have a feeling some of our ideas will be incorporated in SC 2, some unnecessary, as the new game engine will be an entirely different model.

Heith, yea, would like to give the mod a try. I'll email you this evening, at work now.

But that's the wholl point, Zapp. If the Axis timetable gets a solid disruption, or a series of mid-sized ones, then their conquest timetable is thrown behind schedule. That leaves an opening for the economic war to tilt in favor of the Allies. In your game, Spain has provided an access point for the Americans to deploy their mpps and attrit the Axis. If you tried to take Iraq now, without having Vichy under your belt, it would be tricky, as the Russians could operate units down to the oilfields once war was declared and to Baghdad, if you didn't knock Iraq out in one turn. It would also seem the Russians could start to think about taking out Finland, then threaten Sweden. I'll also bet the Russians are close to fully funding their research and buying six or seven HQs. Once that's done, they can start to buildup. It seems Spain and Iraq could be the keys to victory. If the Allies can wrest both from you, that would give them a decided mpp advantage, and if you look close at the map, a significant strategic advantage.

Jumping all the way to level 4 Russian anti-tank is WAY too much. Try level 1. These things are better done one step at a time, not by bounding leaps. In Bill Macon's mod, I would vote for level 1 anti-tank for the Russians, a bit more cash, and maybe one more chit. Then see what happens. I am looking forward to playing Bill Macon's mod, because I see a lot of possibilities opening up for the Allies with the infusion of extra troops.

As I've stated in prior posts, balance is closer than it looks. From what I can piece together, ZappSweden has been a bit reckless playing the Axis, and made a number of mistakes. With that in mind, I would say he has a better chance than not of losing this game. If he loses, give credit to Terif for a game well played.

Bill; I just looked over your 1939 mod, and find it very intriguing. I know some fellow opponents who may be receptive to playing it. I for one would like to try to the Allied side against a very good Axis opponent. Good job, and thanks for your efforts.

There are two mountain hexes in Yugo, where if you place a corp each, you'll never have another Yugo partisan. As to Russia, not sure. Would be impossible to cover all those Russian hexes anyway. In France, Italian entry is piqued when you get Axis units next to Paris, and/or the Allies move Med land units (including the Brit Malta air). No effect on moving naval Med units. I'm fairly certain you can move land units into the Med from around the Horn with no effect on readiness, but I don't believe you can do so through the Med with out increasing Italian readiness. Hope this helps

Rambo (Ken); No, but thanks. I enjoy SC as a diversion now, generally after a getting something done, through a series of chores, a hard day at work. I like to put a game on in the background and SC. With the Axis imbalance, it's no challenge to play that side. With the Axis imbalance, If I played the Allies, you would win. What I like to do now, while waiting for another patch or SC 2, is when I get the urge to game, I play as the Allied side against less accomplished players. They can throw some real curves, and also win X% of the time. They end up being good games, because even an average Axis player makes it tight in Russia, and things do get tight. I had one recently where the Axis was one hex from Moscow, and pressing in the Caucuses, before I turned the tide. In short, I only want to play games where BOTH sides have a chance to win. The only way I can do this now is to play as the Allies against Axis players of average or above average ability, but not top notch like you, Zapp, or Arby. In short, I don't mind losing, as long as I had a chance to win, and the game was challenging and fun. Plus, as a CPA, tax season looms. I wouldn't have time for the marathon games you and I knocked heads over in the past. But I'll tell you, the games you and I did have were some of the best. I learned a lot, and it improved my Allied play. See Ya Bob

I agree with ZappSweden. An accomplished Axis player is simply going to bowl over ALL competition. Saying X% of the tourney games were won by Allies, therefore there is no imbalance, is comparing apples and oranges. I'm a good player, and when playing as the Allies, can consistently beat average Axis players who don't have enough games, and thus experience under their belts. But pit me against a very good Axis player like Zapp or Rambo, and I'll lose virtually every time. It only takes so long to figure out how to win as the Axis. Every determined player should be able to figure it out eventually. Kind of like opening Pandorra's box. Once opened, the secret escapes, and can't be put back in...except in this case it can. It's called another patch.

I'm starting to think that plunder should be reduced. Since its important to the Nazi war machine at the outset, give them another couple units in its place. Plunder is the real reason the Allies attack the Low Countries anyway. Or, have variable plunder rates. When attacking a friendly leaning minor, no plunder. When subjugating an enemy leaning minor, full plunder. Giving the Allies HQs at the beginning doesn't sit right with me. The game is designed so the Axis can roll West. Give the Allies to many training wheels early on, and game balance is thrown way off. It' from about 1942 that we need to address the imbalance. Starting the Russians with more corps and fewer armies at the frontier sounds like a good idea. That would allow the Russian player to patch together a line easier. A good Axis player surrounds and destroys almost all those armies as it is, if not all of them. We would still need to address the ability of the Axis to operate a massive army West, which hastens France's demise.

However, I just remembered something. For those who have been playing SC awhile, you may remember the "Iolo" Allied defense. He would sell the British bomber, all of the French fleet, and some of the British navy. He would buy various other units, move the French Med units to France (not caring about the increase Italian readiness), and do a full defense of France. The best way around that as the Axis was to operate units West fast, before he had time to set his defense. As a result, this Allied strategy fell by the wayside. So, if we only fixed the Dutch Gambit in isolation, the "Iolo" Allied defense would spring back up, as the Allies would be able to disband certain units and set their defense, before the Axis could get units West. That means there would need to be restrictions on disbanding units initially, or the $$ derived from doing so would need to be drastically reduced, or maybe disbanding large capital ships and airfleets would just be prohibited. One of the reasons raised against doing so was it wasn't realistic to cash in these expensive units that took years to field, and convert them to $$ (and other units), in a matter of weeks.

All this Dutch Gambit stuff is too ahistorical. Right now, between two good players, the Dutch Gambit is almost an act of desperation for the Allies, because he knows there's almost no chance of winning otherwise. If is succeeds, he's got a chance. If it fails, which it usually does between good players, then Allied readiness is set back, and it's almost a certain Axis victory. What happens now even without a Dutch Gambit, is the Axis player must prepare for it. So you end up with a large number of Axis troops operated to the border of the Low Countries every time by turn two or three, which means the Low Countries get hit early regardless. If the Dutch Gambit wasn't done by the Allied player, the result is the premature conquest of France almost every time, which means the Brits can't reinforce both Egypt and the Home Islands, which means the Axis ends up with an even more certain victory. I for one now ALWAYS operate the cream of my German units west on turn two, because I have to in order to defend against the Dutch Gambit, and because it's also the best strategy available whether the Dutch Gambit was done or not. For SC 2 I would propose the Allies cannot attack the Low Countries, period, and the cost to operate land units is three times what it is now, air units twice. That would be a fair exchange, as the Axis player would only be able to operate a few units over, which wouldn't be enough to take the Low Countries early, so he probably wouldn't do it. You would get a more historical conquest of France. This would also assist in small measure to correct the overall Axis imbalance, by chewing up a few more turns for the Axis. Over time the cost to operate could do down somewhat, but not to what it is now, representative of improvements in transportation systems and methods.

I'm going to second the need for another patch. Here's my suggestions: 1) Increase Russian and US readiness overall, especially for Axis attacks that weren't originally anticipated when the game was designed. I.e., Axis attacking Spain, Portugal, Gibralter from the Spanish side, Sweden, and Iraq, and Vichy early on. If Alexandria and/or Suez falls, readiness up. Italian naval units in the Atlantic, readiness up. Axis corps off Canada, not even landed, readiness up. Finnish entry should be less likely too, depending on how the Axis moved leading up to Barbarrosa. These outside the box items should really push readiness up, as they provide the Axis with a boon in mpps, especially since the resource hexes they get increase to 8 and 10. 2) If a country is subjugated, it's resource hexes can only increase to 5. There would be Allied biased exceptions. I.e., Vichy could increase to 10 for the Allies only. If a resource hex is liberated, it can increase to the max, 8 or 10 as the case may be. This would work going the other way also, so Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria would only go to 5 if taken over by Russia. The African, Italian resource hexes, since originally subjugated, would go to ten for the Allies if taken. 3) For an attempted Sea Lion, slightly quicker US and Russian readiness. This would allow the British player to defend Alexandria better. Also, England cannot surrender until ALL three cities are occupied. I had Britain surrender on me once when Manchester fell (and London), even though I had ample units remainng. (I believe some on this board are under the misconception that a Sea Lion is certain Allied defeat. It's my experience that even a successful Sea Lion results in Allied victory about 2/3s of the time! Next time you get Sea Lioned, just hang in there and watch what happens. It's very interesting. 4) I would be hesitant to increase British units on the Home Islands, as a full defense of France can already be tricky to newer Axis players, but start Alexandria with an army rather than a corp. And maybe have a couple corps show up in late 1940 from Eastern Africa, after the Italians were defeated, like a mini Siberian Army. 5) Allow Suez to ship the other way. 6) In late 1940 have a few hundred mpps show up in Britain, labeled "American Lend Lease Arrives." You could do this two, three times before American entry. You could do the same in Russia, maybe starting in mid-1942. 7) Start America at level 3 ind tech, and give them more units, and maybe two more research chits. Hell, give them three more research chits. And maybe another couple resource hexes. Maybe a tank and a bomber to start also, and always some cash, so they don't sit there the first turn with an empty wallet, unable to transport their units. Another ship wouldn't hurt, maybe a cruiser. American entry should get the Axis player a bit nervous! As it is now, a good Axis player almost scoffs at American entry. 8) More Russian partisans. They seem really hit and miss to me. Each partisan is 57 mpps to the Russians, which helps. 9) Maybe more Russian mpps. Maybe another oil hex. 10) Possibly move Caucesses capital to Grozny. I could go on and on. Increased Russian readiness would be easy to program. Some of the others would probably be easy to program (American increases), and others may be SC 2 material, but I'm throwing them out for discussion.

Exactly. After the shot in the arm provided by the Siberian Army, it's downhill for the Allies. The Axis temporarily slows their advance due to the Siberians, fixes their lines, then within a few turns resume the push. The Axis has accumulated a massive force by that time, and begins to tilt the economic battle of mpps in their favor. Eventually the tilt becomes an Axis flood. As more and more players figure out how to do this, there won't be many people willing to play the Allied side. In the ZappSweden vs Rambo match, when I saw that ZappSweden took Iraq, and had Sweden also, I knew that was it. That probably gave ZappSweden on the order of 800 mpps per turn, to a combined 650 or so for the Allies, with the disparity getting wider with every resource hex taken by the Axis. I'm looking forward to this being addressed in SC 2, but would LOVE for something to be addressed in SC 1 with another patch. I continue to think the easiest fix would be increased US and Russian readiness, but I'm sure there must be other ideas out there on how to deliver additional mpps to the Allies later in the game (I think balance is okay the first couple years, and fairly represents Axis dominance up to that point). What it boils down to is the Axis becomes an economic powerhouse, a super heavyweight, while the Allies are stuck being stunted wannabes, middleweights at best. It's also off balance when you think with a good sized minor or two under their belt, Italy basically matches US production, and out does England!

Yes, ZappSweden has it right. In my post on defeating I mentioned the Axis counter attacking Brussels if the Allies take it, but meant that hex below Brussels. That puts you in position to retake Brussels, as you have it flanked from a no penalty hex. The big advantage the Axis have is...HQs. They support their air and land units. Setting up to defend against the Dutch Gambit does cost some mpps in operating costs, but is well worth it.