Jollyguy

Terif has been gracious enough to play me over a series of games the past couple months, and let me give you a description of what that's like: Let’s see, Terif is the school of sharks, me the helpless prey getting torn to shreds; or how about, Terif is the victorious boxer, hands raised above his head with nary a mark on him, me, the bloody pulp of an opponent lying prostrate on the mat, both eyes blackened, teeth knocked out, and blood dripping from every pore. However, I’ll tell you this: Playing Terif improves your game TREMENDOUSLY. A few losses against Terif (and mine are piling up, just look at Panzerliga, I’m rrweeks), will elevate your game against any other opponent. I have already incorporated Terif style moves in my other games, and also had the pleasure of seeing how he improvises, as when he says: “In SC2 there is no „best“ warpath when playing against an able human opponent – you can do everyhing once or maybe twice, then he will adapt and develope a counter. Key to victory is to choose your strategy according to the situation and your opponent - especially depending on which strategies you used the last time(s) against him .” he really means it's, it's not just a legal disclaimer or something. In our games we have had some crazy lucky diplomacy, mainly that favored me, and that doesn’t dissuade him. He simply reaches into his bag of tricks and extracts a modified strategy that works. TaoJah, I sense that you’re getting antsy to play human opponents, which I encourage, as that’s where the masterpiece that is SC2 really emerges. If you’re up to it send me a first Axis turn. I consider myself a good but not great player, so it would be an interesting match. And Hellraiser, I keep asking you for a match but you don’t respond. I’m not sure I could beat you, but I think after getting battered and bruised by the Great One numerous times and still asking for more (through swollen eyes), I could give you a run for you money. If you're available send me an Axis first turn. I prefer to mix tcp & pbem. I’m in Seattle, my recollection is that you’re in the States somewhere? And Liam, if you’re reading, I’m looking for a Friday night, highspeed tcp/pbem opponent, drop me an e-mail As to the specific question. I have seen Terif’s opening Axis moves several times now, and in 1.05a he doesn’t walk anymore. It involves operating west to hit Denmark and the LC’s on turn 2. It took me probably an hour of a self-hotseating to replicate his moves, but I have it down now, right down to the German corp that is motorized but not at IW and AT 1, which is used to take Copenhagen after the Luftwaffe blasts those poor Danes and separates them from their fine ham. And I second Hellraiser’s analysis, as he’s always nailed the concepts. The problem as he knows is that when playing Terif it is in the execution, Terif's being great, your’s always a step or two behind...on a good day. Bob

Have to agree with Terif. I've been playing him a number of games now, and when he's Axis he always moves enough airpower and naval units near Finland to make any major Allied attack on Finland very expensive, if not untenable. IMO the best Allied defense of Finland is to have your engineer build a fortification in the hex north of Leningrad, and put a tech'ed corp there. Doing so I was able to hold off Terif into post-Spring 1942, but he took Leningrad eventually. Against a less experienced opponent Finland is probably worth a shot, but I've tried at least two times now against Terif, and concluded I would have been much better off placing my units elsewhere. Bob

Oh, okay, I misread your post by Colin, thought you were taking him up on his request for pbem play. Anyway, thanks for you input on the AI side (saw you in the credits), as its good to see SC2 bolstered in that regard, as the forum is much better when both sides (AI & HtoH) are addressed. Everyone has their preferences, but not everyone prefers to plod along with pbem, or set appointments to block-off chunks of time for tcp. I've spent many an hour with Civ 3 and enjoyed it tremendosly, and I'm sure SC2 has taken steps in that direction with the 1.05 patch. Bob

TaoJah; Hey, if you're up for another game send me your first Axis move, no house rules, no soft limits. I prefer tcp mixed in with pbem, but I'll go pbem only if that's all you can squeeze in. I can do one or two turns a day during the work week, several on weekends. I'm in Seattle, so let me know if you can fit in a tcp session now and again. I can usually do one tcp session a week, Friday is my favorite, but also Saturday on occaision. Bob

I also like randomness. Yea, frustrating sometimes, but in the long run it averages out. And like a good poker player, a better SC player will win most games, but luck gives a less experienced player a occasional shots in the arm with a good string of luck. Bob

Well, with only two options, I would vote to keep as is, as I believe Terif has the more persuasive argument. In all other areas of the board the Allies can bring dozens of units to bear to force a landing of their choosing, but not in the Red Sea, ONLY because the map is a limiting variable. Under those constraints, in no way should a handful of (minor) Axis garrison units guarantee that the Allies cannot land. So, if the Red Sea map area is not going to be expanded, I say keep as is. However, if the map is going to be expanded to allow tens of Allied units to eventually pop-up, or as Sea Monkey says, another invasion route opened up (Iran, like what happened in reality?), I say modify to Red Sea only and make the Allies fight, like in other areas. Bob

Looking at a map of the Red Sea, IMO the Rdd Sea arrows should have little effect on the solution. IMO Allied capital ships should be able enter the area as the vanguard of an invasion force regardless, and fight it out, with transports following, regardless of the two arrows being covered. However, it is inconsistent with other narrow spits of land in the game, like in Denmark, and the Black Sea, and Sicily/Boot of Italy, that controlling the hex after a land unit passed by, or positioning a blocking ship/unit that has to be destroyed first, blocks access, but not in this situation. I.e., to get into the Baltic an Allied player must first land a corp to open up the passage, then his navy can pour through and battle with the Kriegsmarine. So, I like the expanding gameplay option of the reverse Suez Loop strategy, but it should be consistent. So, a Red Sea naval battle should be an option, and perhaps if the Axis player gets sloppy and doesn't garrison the Suez with a unit, then the Allied player could also land a unit there, followed by the rest of his invasion force, or even land units on both sides of the canal in an attempt to sieze control. Afterall, keep in mind that a British/French did this exact that thing in 1956, in conjunction with Israel. Bob

Well, this is part of the discourse needed to hash out this exploit. We can’t literally apply historical parameters to this though, as it is a game. Terif needs to put on his thinking cap and give us his opinion on if this strategy tilts balance (significantly) toward the Allies. It’s also possible that even Terif doesn’t have all the answers yet, that the strategy needs to be beta tested more. My sense in this game is that Terif played this ace-in-the-hole as a last resort, as Hellraiser had a fairly good western defense set up and was conducting a good campaign. Perhaps if the Axis researches production technology and infrastructure more they can produce/replace cheap corps to garrison, and operate them around the continent, while they apply the weight of their offensive capability to Russia. Perhaps the change in Axis strategy is that the Kreigsmarine and Italian navy need to stay in the Med, and can’t venture too far into the Atlantic as happened in most prior games. Maybe the Axis needs to commit its navy to control those arrows, and move a bomber to West Coast of Africa, which Rambo did to me one game, while defending France with entrenched minors and fortifications (this might be the best solution). My guess is that fully entrenched minor units in the immediate vicinity of Egypt will make the strategy more difficult, as Hellraiser only had a lone fighter in Alexandria as a garrison. Then perhaps the Axis can try to contain the incursion. Keep in mind Terif had a large percentage of his Russians around Iraq/Iran, and Hellraiser was applying effective pressure, so if the Med could have been contained maybe the Axis moves east and cuts off the Caucusses. Hellraiser would be the best person, using 20-20 hindsight, to answer if he felt a slight modification in his strategy might have yielded better results. I will say this. I do like that a new can-of-worms has been opened. It takes a lot longer for a game to become stale when exciting new strategies are being hatched now-and-again. Bob

Here's my post from the tech support side: This loop strategy will of course be subject of debate, but IMO I'm not certain that it should be eliminated. Possibly modified, but I like the fact that the US/Allies can go the other way regardless. The main risk I see is it possibly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies, but Terif could probably respond to this better. My guess is that fully entrenched units in Axexandria and the environs make it more difficult to exploit this, and that Hellraiser was the unfortunate first victim of the strategy. That would draw Axis units from other fronts, which is the cost to the Axis. Perhaps there could be the equivalent of a US Home Guard activated around the Suez, maybe like the Commonwealth units the UK receives. But I repeat, IMO this should be allowed, its just a matter of balancing structure. Terif of course could better address this. Bob I am squarely in Terif's court here, as the Allies, especially the US with their amphibious ability, would have just landed at the Horn of Africa and marched in from there, same as they did in North Africa. So, the SC 2 map may end where it does in Africa, but in an abstract sense it doesn't. From a gameplay perspective its good for the Allies to have another strategic avenue of attack. As usual Terif discovers these possibilities, but its the rest of us that benefit, as gameplay has just expanded to a significant degree. Terif: In your opinion, does the Axis side need some game balancing help, or can the Reverse Suez Loop Strategy be countered by a good Axis player within existing balance? Bob

This loop strategy will of course be subject of debate, but IMO I'm not certain that it should be eliminated. Possibly modified, but I like the fact that the US/Allies can go the other way regardless. The main risk I see is it possibly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies, but Terif could probably respond to this better. My guess is that fully entrenched units in Axexandria and the environs make it more difficult to exploit this, and that Hellraiser was the unfortunate first victim of the strategy. That would draw Axis units from other fronts, which is the cost to the Axis. Perhaps there could be the equivalent of a US Home Guard activated around the Suez, maybe like the Commonwealth units the UK receives. But I repeat, IMO this should be allowed, its just a matter of balancing structure. Terif of course could better address this. Bob

I concur with a prior poster that the scripts are great ideas, but for real variability every script should be tied to a more random percentage of probability. Then a player could gamble on doing a risky move. I.e., U.S. naval units near Spain would only be X% likely to trigger a response from Franco, and maybe the response could even be favorable in a small % of instances. I know many of the DOW events are like this, so IMO if the scripts were too it would leave more gameplay options open. Bob

Wow, this sounds as bad as the carrier bug in SC 1, when the Brits would park their carriers in port and receive the AA bonus also. I laud Terif though for pointing this out, as he has with other bugs, as I beleive his objective is to shape a better game. Can't blame him for taking advantage of it either. And it looks like Terif has figured out another Axis cookie cutter, which with the morale boost is even more deadly than the its predecesor in SC 1. If not corrected bidding might not be far behind, which I know no one wants in SC 2. I have a feeling Hubert will address this, as a 560% boost makes it seem like AH's eugenics paid huge dividends, and he finally achieved his goal of Aryan Supermen, with attendent bizarre results. Looking forward to patch 1.05, to see how this is addressed. Keep in mind the Axis player could also string together minor invasions one turn after another, or hold them as aces-in-the-hole. So although morale is a nice feature of SC 2, it's obvious that it needs to be tempered to reality. Bob

BioWizard Wow, thanks for sticking your game out and showing the rest of us that in the long, long run the Allies have a chance, even when by all appearances the Axis have run the table and sent England into exile. If I remember, Pfeifer was higher rated on Panzerliga during SC 1 than Terif, so you've definatly beaten one of the premier players. If you could, send me an e-mail. At the moment I'm taking a prolonged SC 2 break, but plan on resuming play in a few months, and I still linger on the board. Would love to lock horns with you sometime. And the next patch looks like it will solve the mpps in limbo problem that you encountered. I'm sure Hubert will read your post, so he's going to have to take your come-from-behind victory into account as he balances the game and redirects those mpps. And, after reading the Terif/Rambo AAR, it clearly seems to me that the Eastern Front is where victory or defeat awaits the Axis, not out West by putting a feather in one's cap for taking England. Bob

I agree with Liam, transports should take more damage from capital ships. I've bumped into transports with BBs and inflicted a couple damage, and then rushed other ships in and they sometimes inflict no damage. It seems SC 1 handled this better. However, perhaps the thinking was that transports came with a destroyer escort, and that's why they take less damage than SC1? I remember discussion of destroyers in SC1, so perhaps thats it? Bob

Terif; Do you care to comment on patch 1.03? There are so many changes it makes your head spin. I see script changes for North Africa, Denmark, Norway, which is interesting. It would appear that Denmark will be attacked more, same for Norway, as if I'm reading right the US bumps but not Russia. Also wondering what the change is for North Africa, as that was a loophole for the Allies, being able to attack so freely with little consequence. Also those script changes for Iraq and other Middleeast countries, it seems the attack Syria to get Iraq in tactic will be altered. Also wondering how that Turkish HQ will effect things. Cheaper armies and other units. And the change to Sea-Lion readiness seems like a trade-off for the Germans having lower amphib range. And these are only the ones that come to mind. All-in-all the deck seems to have been moderatly reshuffled, and how this effect gameplay will be interesting and probably incredibly varied. Bob

Blashy; I intend to try to your mod soon. Right now I'm playing the Invasion of Russia mod and having a blast. For some reason I didn't think I'd enjoy it, but gotta tell ya, they are fun, and a nice change of pace, too. The Battle of Russia reminds me of the Panzerblitz games my brother and I would play all weekend. It's tactically oriented, no operating, and gobs and gobs of units. I'm looking forward to my next turn (I'm the Russians), and also enjoying not knowing what to do, not having a cookie cutter to fall back on. Bob

Liam; Yea, rematch is in order, but I'm waiting for the 1.03 patch. Can you tcp evenings? I can usually get one tcp session in per week, we could start the game that way and then pbem until the next tcp session. Anyway, I'll e-mail once 1.03 is out, or vice-versa. Bob

Hellraiser; Oh, got things mixed up when I responded to Liam in my post. Yea, tcp/pbem would be great, like I said to Liam, I'm waiting for 1.03. Bob

Colin; Given the breadth of our game it would have been likely decisive if you would have landed those Italians in the US and triggered the Home Guard. In my game with Iron Ranger, after he invaded Spain, the Pacific Fleet tipped the naval balance to the Allies and I was able to take control of the North Atlantic. Bob

Liam; Actually I prefer tcp/pbem games, starting with tcp if possible to jumpstart things, then pbem during the work week, then tcp Friday evening, when, armed with a few beers the inhibitions of my profession (accountant) are unleashed. I'm wrapping up a handful of games now but would like to play you sometime after 1.03 is realeased. I'll e-mail you or vice versa. If you remember we played a 1.0 game, I think the first for both of us. If I remember correctly you won after a huge Kursk type battle in Russia that you got the better of. Plus, this weekend I'm tied up with my company's annual picnic and chores around the house and errands. Bob

Ah, the Home Guard, I stand corrected then as I had forgotten that. Bob

As to force pools and soft build limits, one or the other needs to change for the US, because as it is now there is still a real risk of invasion of the US mainland. IMO the capabilities of "The Arsenal of Democracy" are still woefully underrepresented. Perhaps the US should be able to build garrison units similar to the Canadian and Iceland bombers, which can't leave their respective territories, but serve the valuable function of holding a resource hex. This would allow the US to deploy more combat units forward. Let me tell you, after IR DOW'ed an empty Iceland, as Denmark had not been brought into the game, he could have raided North America fairly easily, as probably 80% of my naval units had been sent to the bottom. Perhaps I could have intercepted his transports with the remnants of my repaired navy and the Pacific Fleet, but perhaps not. There are what, six cities in North America not counting the oil hexes, and the US can only build three or four corps? Whats left over to project into Europe? IMO a determined Axis player could go toe-to-toe with the RN with the combined German/Italian navies early in the game, and then escort a sizeable raiding force to the American shores. I guess this should be a viable Axis strategy as we are playing a game here, not repeating history, but IMO it should be a bit more difficult. Bob

Jon; Rematch, of course. But give me some time, I need a sabbatical from all the games I've had going. I'll contact you sometime after the 1.03 patch is released. Bob

Contrary to Blashy‘s assertion that the Allies stand no chance to win, I went two for three as the Allies against the heavyweights all playing the Axis, as Iron Ranger and I both agreed my Allies had better position and we called the game. My game against Rambo was rooted in diplomacy, but against IR it was primarily one slugfest after another, with some diplomatic help from a Russian readiness boost, but all-in-all it was just one battle after another. There’s also no doubt that IR would have done certain things differently, but so would I…we both learned a great deal about how SC 2 works during this game. Briefly, following our three epic naval battles around Spain, we both pulled back out west and repaired and re-armed and up-tech’ed. The Russians held the line in central Russia and even took back territory, and then hit Iraq and Iran with about ten motorized units and a paratroop landing in Iran, and then took Amman and Syria. Uncle Joe followed that up with an invasion of Turkey, which surrendered after two turns. IR then launched a limited counter-strike against Syria while at the same time advancing in force in Russia. I think he believed that I would have operated my Middle Eastern force back to Central Russia once Turkey was subdued to meet that advance, but instead I chose to give up territory for time, and repaired them. So, I was able to strike back around Syria and he evacuated west of the Suez. Meanwhile, he took Moscow and the other city across the river to the left of Stalingrad, which was okay IMO as after playing Rambo a couple months ago I realized the Russians are better off pulling back and hitting in force, rather than trying to defend upfront piecemeal and losing units one after the other after the other. Within a few turns I had operated back the bulk of my Mideast force, now at AT and IW 3. I took out his lead tank with three of my corps, plus got three more of his corps, and then set up a defensive line behind the river, and at the same time moved six level four tanks in from the right flank. I figured my level 4 tanks against his mostly level 1 anti-tank corps gave me the advantage, as I could us my cheap level 3 anti-tank corps against his tanks, and my advanced tanks against his screening, under-armed infantry. Out west IR took Iceland with an amphib’ed corp he had secreted through my much depleted naval screen, and which generated seismic ripples on the American and Canadian mainland, who promptly started a round of corp building. Unbeknownst to Iron Ranger, his Iceland landing also resulted in me evacuating most of my African contingent, as the US needed some fast garrisoning. IR then took Spain, triggering the US Pacific Fleet, which IMO tipped naval balance in the Allies favor. Plus, the Pacific Fleet arrives like the Siberians, fully tech’ed, which in this case was gun laying radar two; anti-sub two; LR two, and advanced aircraft one. I finally took Ireland after about a years delay, following the combined Axis fleet swarming England about a year earlier and sinking my transport meant to subdue those damned Irish and seize the Guineess factory one turn before I was ready to attack. With the Irish seeing things the British way I moved my LR 3 bomber west of Belfast and spotted two Axis subs which had been raiding, but which IR pulled back to port, possibly because of that bug where naval units turn, as his subs rotated in response to my Pacific Fleet and other repaired British naval units, including level 1 anti-sub British BB’s, cinching a noose around him. IR finished with Spain and took Gibralter, but I kept a US garrison in the African, Spanish city, and also the city west of Tunis, which IR started bombarding with fully repaired German BB’s and screened with at least one sub. Seeing that the pride of the Kreigsmarine was occupied elsewhere I took out a minor corp trying to relieve Brest with six, soon to be seven advanced English and US fighters, plus a level one bomber. The next turn I hit Brest along with my upgraded naval units, arriving from the US now that I had my garrison in place, knocking morale of the Brest corp down to the low teens and its strength down to 5 and the city to 0, and preparing it for invasion the next turn. So, by the late summer of 1943 we were fighting on all fronts, but IR, looking at the board, realized I was in better position to sustain my momentum, and we called the game. All-in-all one of the best games I’ve played, and one of the bloodiest. My impressions are that the game still has an Axis bias, but it is not unassailable, and this will probably be chipped away at a bit more in the 1.03 patch. And also contrary to Blashy, I believe soft builds must be activated, which it was during our game, otherwise the US can’t garrison correctly. I don’t see an Axis advantage in regards to cheap corps, as IMO the Russians and US both need to be able to build extra corps to cover themselves, and they benefit from soft builds just as much as the Axis. IMO not having soft builds on actually limits the game. I also believe new players should realize that if their willing to take their lumps and record their losses and scale the learning curve, that the variability of SC 2 means they too can win against the better players. I never beat Rambo in SC 1 after multiple attempts, and there is no way that I could have beaten Iron Ranger, one of the handful of players that has beaten Terif. What all this says to me is that SC 2 has many, many more moving parts than SC 1 did, making it harder for even the best players to predict all eventualities and cover all bases. With an ample amount of preparation and a little luck, I believe a competent but lesser skilled player could beat a better player sometimes. This could not have happened in SC 1. I’ve pared down the number of games I have going and await the 1.03 patch. Now if I could only figure out a way to beat Terif I would consider my SC 2 career complete… Bob [ August 03, 2006, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Jollyguy ]

Scook makes good points. My victory over Rambo was rooted in diplomacy…and probably aided by the fact that he had something like a dozen games going and didn’t bother to check his diplomacy screen regularly, and was hell bent on fielding more rockets! But anyway, diplomacy offers considerable variability, which, like the weather effects, some complained about at first, but I believe many are seeing can avoid cookie cutters and alter battlefield plans. So, my input would be not to change how the majors are done, as a wild card hit on one of them (can this happen with a major?) would really be interesting. Rather, I would increase the variability across the board and actually add more possibilities. As, like Scook said, you don’t want the game to become “stale.” But, you also don’t want it to be too random. But more breadth on the spectrum of variability would be interesting IMO.