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.

Damn Jolly, get a new name because your current one is not very descriptive. I'm glad you and others think the game is perfect and in no need of further patching; I just don't include myself in your happy little group. As it currently stands, SC is a nice beer and pretzel game of WW2 grand strategy; it's just that I and others would like a bit more depth. If this can't be achieved in SC through patching or from a lack of desire on Hubert's part; then maybe we can see it in SC2.

My main gripe is that there are several loopholes in the rules that promote gamey tactics and then the game becomes Fantasy War and not a historical simulation of WW2. I've played 5 PBEM games and I think I've seen it all. The worst problem is the ease of mounting amphibious invasions. I've been on the receiving end of some crazy amphibious invasions as both the Allies and Axis. These usually involve setting them up just before a Major power goes belligerent. My two favorites are the 1940 French amphibious blitzkrieg against Italy and the German amphibious blitzkrieg to initiate the attack on Russia. It's just crazy and ruins the whole game for me because that just sets the tone for the game and there is no return to a reasonable simulation of WW2. I agree that winter rules must be included and the Operational movement needs to be toned down. I think the whole amphibious routine needs a workover as well as some Mediteranean tweaks. Very nice game but without a large number of houserules, which shouldnt be neccessary, I dont think I will play another PBEM game. I am confident that Hubert will continue to tweak the game and after a few more patches I will greatly look forward to some TCP/IP play.

Jeff, I agree. It is difficult to keep players from doing things in a game in order to win even if there was not a chance of a certain strategy beiong viable in the real world. I dont know what the viable solutions might be but the universal ease of the Axis, both German and Italian, to mount massive seaborne invasions is a big problem. My poor Russians have suffered in two different games from such invasions that would make the actual D-Day landings look like the raid on Dieppe. If it is possible, people will do it and I can't really blame them if that's what it takes to win.

I can only chime in here and appeal for some balance for the hapless Allies. I am playing 4 concurrent games as the Allies and 2 are soon to be lost, 1 is looking grim, and 1 I will certainly win because the Axis player is a novice and I think it is his first game so I disregard that one. Every game is the same with some minor personal deviation by the Axis player. The first few years the Germans tear through everybody which is fine and historical. In doing this they get a bonanza of MPPs with which to achieve a large Tech lead that the Allieas will never be able to erase. Then comes Barbarossa and the Russians get swamped, which is again historical but the problems arise when the Germans are able to pound the Russians turn after neverending turn with no letup. This situation is possible because the key element of the war on the eastern front is missing and we all know what it is; weather. Between the bonechilling winter and the wet season quagmire, a full third of each year was not really suited to offensive action in the east and this aspect is completely missing. The poor Russian never gets a breather and is forced to constantly feed corps into the jaws of the German avalanche. There desperately needs to be some supply problems for the Germans and combat bonuses for the Russian during these times. This forces the US/British to either launch an early D-Day, in an attempt to relieve the pressure from the teetering Russians; which is almost doomed to a bad end; or an ahistorical attack on Portugal and Spain. Since the Germans can instantly operationally move and build units in allied countries, this too is usually doomed. Combine this with the fact that the Arsenal of Democracy starts with a paltry 180 MPPs and no HQs and the German can continue to romp in the east even after the US makes an appearance. I wont even go into some of the more interstingly inventive ways the German can doom the Russians other than to mention one episode of a German amphibious invasion at the beginning of Barbarossa that made D-Day look like a minor outing. I dont think it will take much to balance things but there are a few key things that need tweaking to really improve the game. 1. Better Allied MPP generation 2. Weather in the east 3. Toned down tech research progression 4. Decreased loot from conquered countries This will be tricky to balance because you dont want to emasculate the Axis but I would like to see a game where the Germans run roughshod for the first few years and have a good chance to win outright by late '42 early '43 and if they dont then the Allied avalanche should smash them. As it is the German avalanche builds to a crescendo by mid '41 and never looks back, baring any hideously bad German luck. Very good game in spite of these issues and Hubert seems willing to continue to improve the design. I look forward to his continued developement.

Well it all started when I got RISK for Christmas around late 70's. Me and some friends played some all nighters of that and it was a blast. One of my friends saw 3R in the store and got it and I never looked back. We were in 7th grade and didnt use all the rules but it opened my eyes to a new world. The first game I bought was Caesar Alesia. I've only got about 10 of the old board games left but coincidentally, I'm getting divorced and an old friend and I are going to start board gaming again soon. I used to beat him to death in the old days, hopefully the old Arnold luck is still there. It was almost impossible but if you could ever get 4-6 people together, War and Peace was a great strategic Napoleonic game. Luckily, Matrix is doing a computer version of Empires in Arms with many enhancements. Ah for the carefree highschool days with friends and a boardgame. I think I'm going to cry. [ September 24, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Sol Invictus ]

I think some Allied production tweaking is in the works.

I think your no. 1 is the only trigger. I think I remember Hubert saying there was a time window as well but cant remember. Not sure just how close the Hun has to be to Moscow.

Your on!

If I were the German, I would send the Finns a bit of help and that would probably halt any Russian designs on Finland.

The Americans did have HQ support but they were'nt very battle hardened so that might account for it. I am only now beginning to appreciate the importance of experience with my first game against an organic opponent. And who are you kidding, we all know that Hubert has a secret fondness for the Axis.