Jollyguy

Hey, you're still playing...same. My computer blew-up and I lost your e-mail, if you're up to a game send me an Axis first turn, I have a new Allied strategy. Bob.

I agree with Sharkman, Italy’s entry into the war shouldn’t be so easily manipulated. I should also point out that an Allied DOW of Italy comes at a fairly low cost to readiness for the benefits gained. Most of the Italian navy can be sent to the bottom, with French ships used as cannon fodder and blockers. I’ve also taken Sicily. FYI, when I’ve played Axis I’ve had this done to me also. But I don’t agree with mcaryf1’s comment for head-to-head that would allow the Axis too much time to play with Italy’s entry. Most games the Axis puts pressure on the Brits, or the reverse, the Brits gain some ground if the Axis ignores the theatre. I think Italy should come in pretty much historically, when the panzers are rolling through Paris and the French surrender is imminent. Bob

I don't think I agree that Germany has too many U-boats. If the Brits don't get too adventurous and get even anti-sub 1 and naval warfare 1 they can generally contain/minimize the U-boat threat. And then, if the subs do breakout into Atlantic it's usually piecemeal and they can eventually be tracked down like the scurvy dogs they be. I find an extra ration of grog usually inspires the RN to heroic deeds. Bob.

Just a comment that I believe you're timelines to finish the games are way too tight. I doubt I will finish any of my 4 games in that timeframe. If need be we can turn them over to the referee to render a decision. Imo, with working folks like myself; spring here; and summer around the corner, and others with families and holiday plans, you need to allow a much, much longer period of time to complete these games. I would say until after the summer, but that's just my opinion. On average we do not get in even one turn a day, more like 3 or 4 a week. That's the reality!! Bob.

Just had the same thing happen to me. I did see a unit available in the queue and didn't have $ to buy back, but perhaps good idea to move disband away from operate. Bob.

I have only seen retreats on units at 1 or 2 strength. It also opens up possibilities to set units farther back to pick them off.

I think this bug has been fixed in Gold. I’m Axis and in the middle of a Sea Lion in a tourney game. My opponent, who deployed the entire RN to the Med to hit Benito thus making a Sea Lion feasible, hit a u-boat from Manchester. That made it the most attractive city to land and take first. The next turn I took London and got the prompt that the English moved their capital to Canada. Bob.

This has been mentioned a number of times before. If Manchester is taken first then UK entirely surrenders, lock-stock-and-barrel, no second capital. Now, the UK should not leave the Home Islands defenseless...like I have done at times when I wanted to try an ill-advised Med strategy and had the RN hit Benito. But at the same time the Axis should not be able to game the outcome by taking Manchester first, then London. It shouldn't matter which order the cities fall, a second capital should still be available. Dragon discovered this bug early and pulled it on several players, so I made it a house rule that if a Sea Lion London had to go first, and I later in the interest of fair play revised it that Manchester also had to be defended by an Army, so the Brits couldn't get too gamey themeselves. Bob

Go ahead and sign Jollyguy up. Bob.

I made a copy of 1.06 and then downloaded the patch, and it gets almost all the way there, I hit the finish button, then I get this error message: "Zlibl.dll is not loaded on your computer." I think it then says to reload the program. Tried a bunch of times but no luck. Any ideas? I dont want to play Gold until the first patch, as the China production makes them look like a monster, it needs to be corrected as Hubert said. Thanks. Bob.

$25 is a steal, I'll be one of the first to buy. Everyone needs to make a living. We spend $25 on a pizza and it's gone in a couple sittings. This expansion will provide months and maybe even years of entertainment. Bob

After SC2 I took off 3 years or so, maybe even 4. So here's what I've learned the hard way from both sides in SCG: 1) SCG is much more strategic. The player needs to focus on key areas of the globe and key weaknesses of the enemy. I.e., for Japan it's their convoy routes. Disable the Dutch East Indies port and it deprives the Japanese of considerable mpps. Same for Brunei. From the Allied side imo island hopping can be done as you aim to reduce Japanese economics with land, air, and naval, including subs, trying to get closer to the Home Islands. The Japanese simply can't afford to replace their losses as easily as the Germans. For the Germans it's their tanks. Slow down the tanks and their advance is slowed considerably. 2) Time is the Allies...ally. Units can be lost if it buys time. I.e., the longer Burma can be held the better for the Allies, same for the Middle East. Garrison units on the perimeter islands in the Pacific can buy time, etc. Destroying units is not as important as buying time and trying to achieve strategic position. 3) Imo the Germans still need to concentrate primarily on Russia. I built an uber Kreigsmarine against Sandy and it was fun, but imo the Germans need to hit Russia hard and fast. Imo the Kreigsmarine should primarily buy time complementing the attack into Russia. That part is the same as what Terif used to do in SC2. 4) There is a bigger economic component to SCG. In SC2 the bias was on combat techs, but in SCG I think ind tech and prod tech are important. 5) You need to fight on both fronts. In one game w/Sandy I threw everything against the Germans and little in the Pacific, and the Japanese grew to a monster. 6) There were no tac bombers in SC2, so it's only been the last few games that I saw my opponents deploy them expertly that I realize their ability to breakup an (armored) attack when escorted. So like Rambo said, experienced air and tac can anchor a front for some time. 7) Tac bombers mean Malta has much less chance of surviving. In SC2 taking Malta was a major, major effort. 8) Use weather and terrain to your advantage of course to blunt the opponents strengths. I.e., the Russians should of course attack in the winter/rain, when the Luftwaffe and Japanese planes are grounded/less effective. 9) There's just a lot more moving parts to SCG than SC2, and much more depth. There's still more to learn no doubt. Bob

e-mail is rrweeks@comcast.net Thanks Bob, aka Jollyguy

Same, can't wait, this looks like yet another masterpiece to follow the previous masterpieces. Unbelievable how this game just keeps getting better. Swapping units and intercept of Paras and changes to subs and research alone is worth the money. Bob.

Recording a loss to Sandy, he was Allies me Axis, so I guess I'm out? Sandy is a very good player with a good strategic sense and I wish him the best in the coming battles. I also learned a lot playing him, as SCG proved to be a bigger challenge to put my arms around than I expected, a different animal than my glory days of SC2 years ago. So I'm looking forward to the next tourney to see if I can redeem myself! Bob.

I like the idea of mines especially, and cavalry would be interesting. The Germans could use mines in the Baltic. However, the Allies might need a minesweeper unit. Don't like the chemical and nuclear weapons though, it would be out of scope for SCG. Bob.

How do you capture/post screen shots? Bob.

One other thing that's annoying. A Brit carrier arrives in 1942 in Manchester's port. If the Axis happen to be blockading at the time it's automatically sunk. The Brits should have some say if there are Axis units lingering outside the port. Same in India if they chose the Australia second capital option. They should be able to delay the launchings.

You could also cap elite reinforcements, lets say to one star or two stars. Even a two elite highly experienced lite unit is pretty potent, so perhaps one star worth of elites. I like the concept of elite reinforements, but your right, a 13, 14, 15 strength unit is just a bulldozer on steroids basically chewing up opposing units.

I think Colin has a very good point, and that could be incorporated, too. Currently there is no penalty to the Axis if they achieve an early breakthrough and head toward Iraq (Turkey in mind), or south into Africa. I also think there should be a significant penalty if the Japanese send units too far west into the Indian Ocean. Dragon does this so the Japanese can take Vichy and/or a Portugal base, to supply / op Japanese units. The US is kept on a very short leash on moving it's units pre-entry, yet the Japanese can send units far and wide with only minimal penalty and achieve a very large strategic objective. Since the bias is Axis though I wouldn't try to "balance" the changes...the changes need to favor the Allies. So I'd be against penalizing Russia for taking Finland/Iran/Iraq/Turkey as they are fairly weak as it is and they really, really need that plunder and those extra mmps The Germans in most cases can put the Russians on their heels fairly quickly, joined by the Japanese moving west once China falls. Another option would be just give all the help to the Russians, about 1000 mmps worth, along with a tougher Turkey and a few other minor changes. Another tank, a tac-air, and some more land units and earlier placement of the engineer and possibly some pre-built fortifications and maybe more robust partisans might do the trick. Fans of the original SC will remember that it's entire imbalance was in Russia and that's where the bidding went, so I'd be okay with just bolstering the Russians here. The problem in SCG is that once the Western Allies have built up and tech'ed up that the Russians are generally fairly weak if not headed out the door, and the Japanese have romped all over the place. Bob Bob

I don't agree with Sharkman's comment. I've had games where around 1943 the Allies have plenty of teched bombers that are trashing the Axis. It depends on how the game develops. Not every game can be like this, but the Allies in many instance can go this route. I think on balance the number and delivery of Axis naval forces is about right, the Allies have counter strategies and if they are patient and play cat-and-mouse correctly they can sting the Axis navies. Bob.

Hubert, I think a concensus is building on the board that the Axis have an edge. See my thread on Axis Bias. I think if the Allies got let's say 5 extra chits spread around that that would go a long way, lets say 3 to Russia and 2 to the Brits. I thiink for China I would swap that anti-air for an infantry. Oh, and start the Yanks out with motorization, it's off base that the Japanese have motorization and the Yanks, with GM et. al. don't. I would also make Turkey a bit harder to take down; make tactical somewhat less potent against infantry; Give a bit more inducement to the Allies for the first, expensive French decision; and perhaps an army instead of corp in Singapore. I'm still putting my arms around the game but I think balance is fairly close. If you give the Allies just a bit more and the Axis nothing it could smooth things out. So, ballparking, I'd say an extra 1000 mmps to the Allies early in the game primarily in the form of research chits would go a long way, as it would free up mmps to try to slow down the Axis momentum just a bit. I wouldn't touch anything for Poland/France/Benelux/Norway/Denmark/Yugo/Greece as it's important for the Germans to be able to hit hard and first at first. I also wouldn't change the Middle East, in most games the Allies can put up a stubborn defense there. Bob

Sandy's Axis defeated my Allies in a game that see-sawed toward the end, but finally saw the Allies mortally weakend and roll-over and suffer a major defeat, as the yellow- tide of Japanesse amphibs were sent out far-and wide. They even liberated the poor Japanese-Americans who had been interned in the US interior. Good game, we both learned a lot. Bob, aka, "Jollyguy."

The thought occured to me that Dragon could be Terif, too. Both have/had .de e-mails, and both studied the heck out of the game at it's onset, down to knowing exactly where the U.S. naval units pop-up in the Pacific after DOW, to plant waiting ships outside port. And Dragon also has a Terif like knowledge of how terrain effects unit movement, and where to surrender space for time. I never studied the game to the nth degree like Terif did ahed of time, preferring to learn along the way. Terif deserved a PhD in SCology, he was Magna Cum Laude. Bob

No, I think the easier route is to revive Rambo's SC 1 epiphany of bidding. I remember SC1 bidding started low, all for the Russians, but ended up at around 6k to 7.5k mmps. I think here both the Brits and Russia need extra $. I'm thinking $750 for the Brits as that would allow them to do the French decision after surrender and also Singapore or whatever, to slow the Axis momentum a bit, and let's say $500 for the Russians, which would allow them to brace their defenses a bit. If the Brits had some extra $ to begin with there are multiple ways they could deploy it to harass the Axis. Bob