Jollyguy

When I play, I concede when its clear that I can't win. I.e., I'm Allies, and Russia is split in two, Caucusses production lost. Or I'm Axis, and the Russians have completely reveresed the tide, the Allies have landed in France, and there's little I can do to stop them. IMO, to insist on pushing the game out to 1947 when it is clear the outcome is forgone, is selfish and inconsiderate. Most of us have time committments elsewhere. Besides, I've always considered it more fun to play the toward conclusion, than the ultimate conclusion itself. A couple times an opponent or myself has requested a few more turns, to make sure the icing goes on the cake, or to see if a planned attack makes any difference, but no one has demanded to play another four or five game years, which could entail additional scores of hours. Actually, if Rambo insists on a 1947 game end, he would be the first opponent I've encountered with this attitude. All other opponents I've encountered to date have been gracious in both victory and defeat. I've accepted their surrenders, they mine.

Supreme Axis; Here's how you deal with the Allied Dutch Gambit when your the Axis; 1) Hit Poland hard on turn 1. Rambo says don't use air, but I disagree. Play around with the opening moves, as there's a way to take Warsaw on the first turn, about four out of five times. (About one in ten times Poland surrenders on the first turn!) Sometimes you may have to operate a corp to Koninsberg to cover. I favor not declaring war on Denmark the first turn, but you could. Regardless, move your Essen corp to the Danish border. 2) On turn 2 operate your three strongest and most experienced armies west to the Low Countries, and also operate both tanks, and your hqs as close to your air as possible. Position all three airfleets so they can hit either Brussels and Copenhagen. Declare war on Denmark, hit it with your two capital ships and the corp and an airfleet if available, but it would be more important to reinforce your airfleets if need be (and if mpps are available), than hit Copenhagen, as you'll need it for Brussels. Position your sub a couple hexes above Copenhagen in that one hex that the Allies can only attack with one ship at a time, to delay Allied probes. Operating your units West costs money, but early in the game speed is much more important than mpps. The costs to operate the units are well worth it. You'll get it back at the other end by taking cities faster, exacting more damage against the Allies and keeping them off balance, and sustaining less damage yourself. Use the remaining armies and corps in Poland to chip away at the surviving Polish units. 3) Your ready to deal with the Dutch gambit. If the Allies declare war on turn 2, there's probably better than a 2/3 chance that you'll hold Brussels, as your air is backed up by HQs, while the Allies aren't, and the Allies certainly need air to take Brussels. If Brussels survives the Allied attack, move the Brussels corp out, and your best army in. Get an HQ as close to your army as possible, but not on the coast. Hit the hex to the south east of Brussels with your air and best land units. This will cause you some damage to you air, but will cost the Allies more. If the Allies counterattack your German army in Brussels the next turn, there's almost no chance they'll get you out, because you have an HQ. Plus, they'll weaken themselves more than the damage they incur. If Brussels doesn't survive the initial Allied attack on turn two, counterattack Brussels the next turn. If the Allies don't declare war on the Low Countries on turn two, then you must do it turn three. YOU MUST MOVE FAST AS THE GERMANS! 4) Now you'll have to slog it out with the Allies. If Denmark hasn't fallen, take it out, as you'll need the mpps to reinforce. Chip away at the Allies. If the Allies move their carriers in, and you're doing okay on the ground, I may hit them, but only if the ground action is going good. It may be worth taking France out a couple turns later to get those carriers, or severaly damage them, as the British will either never replace them, or take multiple, multiple turns to repair them. That's a game by game decision. Also, other than the carriers, in general ignore the Allied capital ships along the French coast and entering the Baltic. It is more important to take France fast. If the Allies come into the Baltic in force, don't be afraid to retreat all the way back to stay out of their way. If the Allies are determined, make them pay with surprise contacts if possible. If the Allies have ships on the coast of France, try to stay away from them with your land units, so you don't sustain bombardment damage. If the Allies are timid with their navy, you may want to try to sneak yours down the coast of France, under cover of air. And that brings up another point. I favor retreating my Atlantic subs, making the Allies come after them. That keeps more Allied ships off your back longer. If the Allies move their carriers into the Baltic while your in France, I would probably ignore them. Taking France is more important. Plus, if you take France fast enough, you may be able to move you air north, and hit his ships trying to get back to the North Sea. As Rambo says, it's important to keep an eye on opportunities that may arise, but only if they're too important to pass up. Otherwise stick to the important strategic goals. For the Germans this is to get through the Low Countries and France fast, so all but the most tempting opportunities would be secondary. Good Luck

In my poker playing days in the card houses of California, the rule was simple. You had X amount of seconds to act on your hand, or ask for "time". If you didn't ask for "time," and time elapsed, you missed the opportunity to bet, call, ask for cards, etc., as play passed you by. I only made the mistake once of not asking for "time" (it cost me the pot). In SC 2 I believe an option should include a clock, similar to chess matches. The clock would take into account the average length of turns for that period of the (TCP) campaign, but could also be adjusted up or down by a percentage. Players could of course suspend the clock if i.e., the baby needed changing, or the wife demand refreshing. Otherwise, the turn would end, and info be transferred. All of us would eventually forget to ask for "time" once, but believe me, we would only do it once. That's my idea

Bill; I believe the Axis bias is significant. I could liken it to a complicated jigsaw puzzle. The first few times putting it together is hard, but it becomes easier each time. A good Axis player who follows the script should win better than 9 times out of 10 against even the most skilled Allied player. The only real way for an Axis player to lose is to do something outside the script, i.e., a Sea Lion. Now, with that said, you might get the idea that the current level of imbalance is huge. It's not. I would say 1.06 moved Axis imbalance from a 4th and 50 situation for the Allies, to first and goal on the ten. It is VERY close to balance. The reason is that we now 5% ind tech, and an overall research slowdown. That was huge. But the other significant variable that wasn't addressed, and I believe it was because we were so focused on rapidity of research in 1.05 and earlier versions, is: US and Russian readiness. You make US and and Russian readiness more random, and increase it overall on average, and your going to see more Allied victories. As the game is now, the Axis simply has to hit the right minors in the right order, and he can build a huge base of mpps. Once that's done, he can patiently bulldoze and swamp the Allies with units. It's common sense. Assume the Russians don't come in until Jan 1942. Between lets say June 41 and December 41, the Axis player can accumulate another large pool of mpps. I haven't added it up exactly, but its probably between 2500 and 3000 mpps. Do the math. That's 7 airfleets! While we're on the topic, maybe transfer of the Siberian army should be a little more variable. Have them arrive when Kharkov gets approached sometimes, etc. Mix it up. That's what makes sports contests interesting, you never know what's going to happen on any given Sunday (as the saying goes). Do the same here, swirl all the significant variables around, and keep them moving. As SC sits, people can figure it out like...a jigsaw puzzle. Drop the right pieces in place as the Axis player, and it's solved. Victory almost every time. I would also like to see more variability on the minors. Maybe Greece and Iraq comes in on the Allied side sometimes. Maybe give the Allies an infusion of units or mpps sometimes. If Barbarossa is late, sometimes the Siberians arrive earlier. If Sweden is hit late or on the same turn as Barbarrosa to avoid the bump in Russian readiness, maybe no Finnish entry. If Cairo falls, Iraq goes to the Allies and Russian readiness moves up. If the Germans hit Spain, maybe Vichy moves Allied and Russian readiness bumps up big. If the Italians hit Gibralter and get ships and subs into the Atlantic, American readiness moves up. MIX ALL THE MAJOR GAMEPLAY VARIABLEs UP INTO A BIG OL' STEW!

The outcome of the first match between ZappSweden as the Axis, and Rambo as the Allies, is not a surprise to me. SC is the BEST strategic game I've ever played, I LOVE it, but it still carries a significant Axis bias. An Axis player who learns the right moves to make, and becomes skilled along the way, should win virtually all the games he plays. In the first draft of this post I actually explained exactly how the Axis player can win almost everytime, but on second thought deleted the "roadmap" before hitting the "Add New Topic" button. It's more challenging for other players to learn how to do it, rather than someone simply telling them. Don't get me wrong, I believe Rambo is the best SC player I've encountered. But touting how many heads he "cracked," etc., etc. as the Axis, was like someone behind the wheel of a Ferrari bragging about how many Fords he beat. A Ford is a fine car, but it ain't no Ferrari. A very good Allied player can hang in there against a very good Axis player, but they don't have the advantages afforded the Axis player. The outcome is vitually foregone. That’s why I don’t like to play the Axis anymore, there’s no challenge there. The challenge is trying to win as the Allies. I consider myself a VERY good Allied player, which means more times than not I can beat an Axis player who is only good or average. But pit me as Allies against a VERY good Axis player, and I should lose almost everytime. I don't believe the game should possess that degree of certainity. On a good day even a mediocre professional sports team has a chance against the best team, but that can't happen in SC. 1.06 was HUGE improvement over 1.05. It pushed the game out at least another year. But as I've said in other posts, SC, while very close to balance, is not quite there. Ignoring other issues which can wait for SC 2, IMO there is a very simple fix available now to move SC 1 to balance: On average increase US and Russian readiness. That alone may do it. Give me Russian entry in June 41, and there's a fair chance that I can prevail as the Allies, regardless of the Axis opponents skill. Russian entry in July or August, I've still got a chance. But when Russian entry gets pushed out to late 1941, or early 1942, forget it, game over for the Allies against a skilled Axis opponent. If SC 2 is due out relatively soon, then a 1.07 patch isn’t necessary. We can wait. But if SC 2 is a year off, then it would be GREAT to see just a few more tweaks to SC 1, to make this great game even better.

For the Axis there is an available counter to the Dutch gambit. It just requires the Axis to put his thinking cap on...and think. IMO, against a skilled Axis opponent the Dutch gambit is an Allied disaster. Yes, it does stretch out the fall of France, but on the backend the Allies really pay for it.

An excellent alternative for those with limited time is PBEM play. You get to play against humans within your own schedule. Many of us start a game TCP, then PBEM it back-and-forth until we can TCP again. I would highly advise you to buy the game. I'm also a long time wargamer, and let me tell you, SC is IT! Best strategic wargame I've ever played. You could also play hotseat with your buddies, and have a blast talking smack to each other.

I think what Rambo meant is moving an entrenched unit to go after an Axis unit. I.e., leaving hex A to move to hex B, to attack an Axis unit. Attacking in of itself from an entrenched hex does not diminish the attacking units entrenchment levels. That only happens when you leave the hex. And I agree with Rambo on some Allied players who violate the integrity of their defensive line to go after an Axis unit. Doesn't make sense. They'll move 3, 4 units to try to take out an Axis corp. Doing so tosses your entrenchment level out the door, leaves holes in your lines, and costs the Axis player a paltry 60 or so mpps (the difference between buying a new corp vs. repairing an existing one.)

I absolutely do not think Rambo cheats. I've played him in long TCP sessions, and he is simply a very good Axis player. There are games where certain individuals take to the game's mechanics like fish to water. Rambo has done this. 1.06 was a significant improvement over 1.05, but there's still an Axis bias, which a very good Axis player can capitalize on. All he's done is studied the game closely. And all this hoo-haw about file names. Give me a break. We've all sent the wrong file before, or the other guys turn back to him by mistake. When you have a number of PBEM games going, and are swapping and zipping files between TCP and PBEM, it can happen. IMO, what is needed to beat Rambo is just a little more tinkering with game balance. I don't know if we're going to see a 1.07 patch, or a 2.0 version to SC 1, but IMO the game is close to achieving balance within it's existing structure, but isn't quite there. Rambo is virtually unbeaten simply because he's figured out the Axis advantages built into the game, and applied them. If those advantages were honed down just a little, you would see him beaten on a regular basis. That's actually why I don't like to play the Axis anymore, because that's not where the challenge is. The challenge is winning as the Allies. If game balance isn't addressed now, then we're just going to have to wait for SC 2. But I would LOVE to see one more patch to SC 1, because this is a great game that can only get better. And I believe the game balance changes needed are minor compared to the changes made when upgrading from 1.05 to 1.06.

I'm in a 1.06 game where I've contained Barbarossa, the Axis advance never got that deep, and I was able to establish a fairly stable line. Now we've settled down to pretty much a short-term stalemate. Question: Does the Siberian Army always transfer, it's just a matter of when, or could there be situations where it never transfers?

Immer Etwas: On the post where you responded to me mangling your name, in a robust Bush'ism type manner I might add, I didn't get a chance to respond. Probably because I was to busy laughing out loud! I thought your response was quite humerous, and didn't take any offense at it. When I went back and saw how far off I was on your name, I laughed again. I think I was just rushed when I did that post, as I usually do try to make sure I've got names correct. Your response kinda reminded of that scene in "The Sting" where Paul Newman intentionally mispronounced Robert Shaw's character's name, "Liniment, Lindeman, Lonaman" etc., just to get under Doyle Lonnigan's skin. Bob

Dale H, there is PLENTY of Med action now. Maybe you haven't bumped into a human player yet who utilizes Med strategies, but I have on numerous occasions. I have both initiated Med campaigns, and been on the receiving end of them. Depending on how the game unfolds, the Med can play a key part.

I disagree with ZappSweden that it is a foregone conclusion that the Axis will dominate the Med. But I also disagree with Emmerwatas that the Allies can hold of ANY Axis Med attack. The point is that the Med now can become a real battlefield, which can go either way. Both sides need to look at it strategically. Also don't mind the transports as naval units in reports. Nice piece of intelligence!

I helped beta test this 1.06 patch, and let me tell you, it is a TREMENDOUS improvement over 1.05. What all SC players need to do is digest the changes, because 1.06 plays almost like night and day compared to 1.05. The Allies actually have a good chance of winning, and the Axis must actually budget and plan now. No more flood of research advances and glut of mpps. The research slowdown means the Axis won't be blessed with a steady stream of tech advancements. Plus, there's a 50% penalty for switching research areas. Plus, industrial tech is only a 5% improvement now, which makes a significant, cumulative mpp difference over the course of a game. Plus, those Russian partisans can be real pesky, they really effect German supply and resource centers. Plus, that Suez port opens up the Med for much more action. Plus, subs get experience now for disrupting convoys. I could keep going on with the "pluses," but I think everyone is going to like what they see. Also, I don't believe 1.06 is compatible with 1.05, because the changes were just too many and too significant.

I agree with Hubert about my previous suggestions, keep the fixes simple, not major modifications. I don't mind the Free French, just get rid of the option to evacuate 2000 + mpps of units to England. The plane and a few land units is reasonable for the Allied player that doesn't want to put up a stiff defense on the mainland. But supplanting a modest Free French force with an HQ, a tank, and several armies, and maybe more, is overkill. Also, I wouldn't want to see any of the Med Vichy colonies handled differently, maybe for SC 2, but not SC 1. Their placement in SC 1 is strategic, changing it would upset gameplay. The not take Warsaw thing is totally, totally gamey. Overall I don't mind gamey, but if someone tried this on me I'd consider stopping the game and moving on. Having Russian readiness climb if Warsaw is not taken in X number of turns would be an ideal solution, as those Russians are a sly bunch, and they'd definately react in some protective manner if something squirely was happening on their borders. Putting a corp in Sicily is also an easy fix.

1) I don't mind the Free French, but there should be a practical limit on it. In a TCP game last night I evacuated a modest four French corps to England, plus the French airfleet, and moved the two French Med units to Malta and Egypt. My opponent took Paris, but France didn't fall until the next turn, after he destroyed two more units. Although I haven't seen it yet -- but have seen discussion of it on this thread, I believe this leaves open a gamey strategy of evacuating the bulk of the French units to England and denying the Axis the French plunder, as the Axis will never be able to destroy enough French units sequestered on the English Isles to get past the required threshhold. (Let me know if I'm incorrect in this assumption.) Solution: Preferred would be a substantial penalty to the Allied player for following this strategy, in either MPPs or US/Russian readiness. I don't mind gamey strategies, as long as there is a cost for doing so. 2) Gamey strategy of destroying all Polish units but not taking Warsaw, so Russia can't occupy Eastern Poland. I believe this strategy just evolved. Perhaps there is an appropriate penalty in place, but we just don't know it. Yes, the Axis player doesn't get the plunder, but he could trigger that anytime if needed by leaving a corp next to Warsaw. Maybe you could enlighten us on how this is handled. My guess, the Eastern European minors join later. If this is correct, let us know, otherwise, the penalty for this type of Axis strategy needs to be beefed up. 3) Allied landings in Sicily, et al. at Italian DOW. I really don't mind when this happens and I'm playing the Axis, as the Allied player generally loses more mpps than it's worth, plus his transports sometimes get hit if Italy DOWs at the end of the Allied turn. But this tactic is annoying, and probably historically improbably. Italy should probably start with a corp down there. Maybe split one of the two armies near the French border into two corps. As to Allied DOW's on Denmark and the Low Countries. I have no problem with this, as there are appropriate US/Russian readiness penalties to the Allies for doing so. I know some Axis players on this thread are still perplexed on how to counter this Allied strategy, but there is a workaround.

Also keep in mind the German planes likely have experience, enhanced by HQs also with experience. Whoever said they are ready to throw the game out the window is easily discouraged! This game poses incredible complexity, masked behind a deceptivly easy interface. I prefer to think of SC as a satisfying challenge.

Do you have an HQ to backup your planes? No HQ = notably inferior combat performance.

Before anyone commits to a sports season like schedule of 25 games, which could rend untold damage to eyes, marriages, and the novelty of SC, why don't you wait for patch 1.06. As Hubert mentioned in a prior post, he is on vacation for a couple weeks, but when he gets back, "there should be a nice and shiny new patch ready to go for everybody." I mentioned to someone I was playing PBEM with that playing as the Allies against a competent Axis opponent, is like facing Randy Johnson or Nolan Ryan in their prime everytime, and always starting with an 0-2 count. Basically, in human against human games, the dice were loaded in favor of the Axis. Of course the Axis is going to win the lion's share of the games in that case. Hubert has been open to soliciiting input, and very responsive responding to it. I have every expectation that the 1.06 patch is going to go a long way in smoothing out the playing field.

My experience is that British/Canadian units in Axis contolled France live on. Allied units in Vichy French territory at the time of surrender, however, surrender themselves. The lesson is don't have British/Canadian units in what will soon be Vichy territory upon French surrender. You'll lose them.

Anecdotally, I've noticed this effect also. It always seemed to me that airfleets attacking from river and swamp hexes seemed much less effective. Whenever possible, I now try to station my airfleets in hexes that don't have terrain penalties. I guess the solution is there needs to be two combat factors: 1) Air-to-air 2) Air-to-ground. I.e., an airfleet stationed in a city or mountain hex should be harder to attack air-to-ground. But the same unit in an air-to-air intercept should have the combat resolved by a different results table.

What hasn't been mentioned is the Allies attacking minors prior to US and Rusian entry has material implications on their. I.e., US is setback at least 6 turns for each DOW. 6 x 180 = 1080. Russia probably about the same, but from that side you look at the extra turns of MPP the Axis gets to build up for Barbarossa, lets say 6 X 300, or 1800. Plus, Italy enters earlier, probabaly another 300 mpps or so. Plus, the Axis gets the corps that come along with each country, 125 mpp per. Allied DOWs against minors may work against new players who don't know what to make of it, and thus allow the Allies to buildup a thick defensive line that may or may not get breached. But against an experienced Axis player, the backloaded costs and effects to the Allies of minor DOWs prior to US and Russian are basically a disaster.

I think I'll play Hearts in Iron...in about 25 years when I'm retired and can devote hundreds of hours to resolve one game! I mean, c'mon, the thing is on a worldwide scale, down to the province level!! Who has that much time! The beauty of SC is its countless potential outcomes masked behind an extremely easy to play game system. True, SC could use a few more tweaks, but I would still rate is as the best strategic scale wargame I've ever played. I believe the changes we'll see in the 1.06 SC patch will offer additional improvement, and rein in the the tendency for runaway Axis research. My guess, after 1.06 is released, the poster who claims he'll never lose as the Axis will have to eat his words.

I'll second Russ' ideas, but propose a research varient which I think follows historical accuracy, and common sense. I like the ind tech hardwire idea, but wouldn't bump Germany up to the next ind tech until late 1940. In reality, they needed to digest all their conquests, and incorporate the new industrial capacity of the vanquished countries into the Axis industrial grid. I also like the 3-2-1 chance of an advance, although something like 3.5%, 2.5%, 1.5% might be better. Two chits at 1% apiece, 2% total, means there would be a high probabiity that the rest of the game could go by without a final third advance. Which brings me to my second point. For arguments sake lets use Russ' 3, 2, 1. Leave that for lets say 1939, 1940, and 1941. But then start bumping up the chance for an advance for 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 by maybe .5 % per year. Also, remove ind tech from its hardwire status in lets say 1942, but start it at 5% for the first advance, then 6%, then 7%, 8% and 10%. Doing this, inverting reseach probabilities, would reflect historical fact. Once the war machines got in stride for both sides, they pumped out incredible quantities of machines and ordnance, more than they ever thought possible at the war's onset. It would also obviate to some degree the current awareness that the game's outcome is a given by 1942 or 1943. If the chance of research advances could start to increase mid-game, the variable uncertainity of outcomes would also increase. Germany by 1944 was producing more aircraft than they ever dreamed possible. Plus, it was 1944 when the first German jets, and in lots of varieties, started to hit the battlefield; when the first modified, heavier Shermans were deployed in large numbers and when the first American heavy tank made an appearance; when the innovative "funnies" of the Brits hit the beaches of Normandy; When plasma was in broad use by the Allies; when the Panzerfaust was perfected and deployed by the Germans. I'm sure there were many other technological applications that aren't coming to mind. In short, necessity is the mother of invention, and as the war progressed, necessities became more urgent, thus more invention occured. This simple reflected that fact that technological progress always receives a shot in the arm from war. With all this in mind, for PBEM and TCP play, I would remove the arbitray 1946 end date, or allow an option for the game to run, or made an option. I agree that marginal, tactical, and decisive victories should be recorded. Most wargames have these variable outcomes.

Norse; In a prior post I challenged you to a game. No response from you. I don't consider your strategies gamey, because IMO there really aren't any gamey strategies, because all major moves prior to Barbarossa carry action/reaction consequences to each side. But I do believe your strategies to be flights of fancy that will only work against the AI, not a real human opponent. So, do you want to play TCP or not? Bob