Sol Invictus

First PBEM game and I'm the Allies. Russia is getting hurt so I plan to launch an early D-Day invasion to take the pressure off of my comrades in arms in Russia. I launch a joint Anglo-American invasion on both sides of Brest and seem to have caught the German off guard. I land all my forces first before moving or fighting except for the American HQ, as there is no empty beach. No worry, I'll bring it ashore after I move the army off the beach. Well I'm happy everyone is ashore except HQ and I'm clicking around to determine the sequence of attack and after I click on the American army that needs to move to make room for my HQ, I acidentally click on a neiboring German corps and thus attack it and freeze the American army. I cant describe the shiver of horror that passed through my spine when I realized that my entire American invasion force would be without HQ support the next turn. The German made quick work of the entire invasion in several turns. ARRRGGGHHH

This has been batted around in the past but Hubert hasn't said if this will be changed. Make a houserule until then.

Very clever; yet these type of maneuvers are what I feel is the Achilles Heel of SC. I think most people are attracted to SC because they want to play a historical simulation of WW2 Grand Strategy. Not an exact repitition of WW2, just a game that replicates realistic possibilities. It seems to all come down to the difference between two types of players. One type approaches the game from the point of view of win at all costs by any means that the rules allow. I think this type of player actually enjoys coming up with and playing with very clever, "gamey" strategies more than trying to deal with the real challenges that the major powers faced in WW2. To this type of player it really doesn't matter if it's WW2 or the Boer War; its just a game that needs winning. The other type of course is the history buff that gains enjoyment from dealing with realistic possibilities that were faced by the actual countries of whatever war. I would never try to use certain moves because they were not possible in reality, but that's just me. Most of these clever moves have to do with amphibious invasions and neutral majors but there are other types. Alternate history is fine and even the most die-hard historical fanatic would have no problem with history taking a different course but some things are beyond the Pale. That is why I will never play another game without houserules or until the rules are changed. I'm not saying either type of player is correct or superior than the other; just that the two should never play against each other. Again, very clever move. Every time I think I have seen it all I am treated to another strategy that has no basis in reality or historical possibility. I think some of you enjoy torturing us more historical types with these things. :mad:

Yes you are probably in trouble. Never let Russia declare war first. They don't get any more soldiers but I believe they do get some more MPPs. The main problem is the you can't devastate the Russians that first turn and they get time to retreat and set up a strong defense.

Whatever you do, dont let Russia declare war first.

I would agree; all things being equal and assuming that no gamey strategies are used, the French amphibious blitzkrieg on Italy being the most troublesome, the Axis should prevail.

I'm with Yohan on this one; WiF and EiA are the two games I am looking to satisfy my strategic addiction with. WiF is still in beta so there is hope they will streamline the interface and I have great hope that EiA will be the Holy Grail of strategic Napoleonic warefare that gamers have been looking for all this time. SC does an admireable job at what Hubert intended it to do, which was provide a very approachable game of WW2 strategy, but there are some things that the game forces the player to do that I just don't like and greatly subtracts from my enjoyment. I place a very high priority on historicly realistic possibilities but trying to play with those self-imposed limitations is begging for defeat unless some houserules are agreed on. Hubert has certainly shown a great willingness to listen to and act on our opinions and I still have much hope that he will continue to let SC evolve into a more detailed and realistic simulation. As it stands, SC is a fine game and with some moderate changes I feel it could be exceptional. If Hubert decides that he does not want to make any more changes from this day on then I would simply congratulate him on an excellent effort and wish him much success on any future projects. He has my deep admiration in either case.

I would love that but as Husky said; probably not gonna happen soon. I feel the fact that I am an old 3R player has hampered me while playing SC. I am having to unlearn some old styles of play.

I think the reason some people downplay the effects of the Strategic Bombing Campaign are that it is hard to quantify. It's very easy to list how many Germans were killed on the Eastern Front but not so easy to list the diminishment of German warmaking potential because of the destruction of the Ploesti fields, railroads, port facilities, factories, the German need for air defense, Luftwaffe losses, and the list goes on. Whether the resources used in the air campaign could have been better used elsewhere is a continuing debate but the campaign had a definate impact on the war.

Norse, I certainly didn't mean to equate the Russian effort at Stalingrad with N. Africa; only trying to refute the charge that the Western Allied war effort had no impact on the total war effort; which is just silly.

Very good ideas but will have to wait for SC2 I'm afraid.

Cheese grits at that. Who wouldn't surrender.

I agree that the war was won in the East but I think you are underestimating the impact that America had on the war as a whole. The fact that the Russians won by using their soldiers lives rather than the U.S approach of using material, shouldn't detract from the effort that the U.S made. The U.S was also fighting a major war in the Pacific and captured more German soldiers in N. Africa than the Russians did at Stalingrad. I think the problem arises when Tech is added to the mix. It is very difficult for the U.S. to achieve the tech levels that were historical and Hubert has stated that this is a problem and will be changed.

I think it is very gamey for Germany to line the Baltic coast of Russia before Russia is in the war and to spring an amphibious invasion on them when they dont have a turn to react. If you dont agree then you should have no problem with the French gambit in Italy either. I'm not saying Germany couldn't have done something like that but Russia and Italy need to be able to react and not just sit there and wait for it. To put transports on a nations coastline should trigger an immediate declaration of war in the following allied turn.

I would understand Jolly's angst if anyone in the thread he is refering to said that the game was garbage or something similar but there was only some simple suggestions to make the game better in the poster's opinion's. I see no reason to get all worked up because not everyone feels the game is 100% perfect. Maybe Jolly is having a bad day. Who knows. I like the game and have told friends to pick it up but I will continue to hope for a more realistic simulation of WW2 grand strategy. I think SC or SC2 can be that.