Jump to content

Good Soldier Svejk

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Good Soldier Svejk

  • Birthday 08/19/1959

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL


  • Location
    Washington DC
  • Interests
  • Occupation

Good Soldier Svejk's Achievements


Member (2/3)



  1. Thanks, Hubert, Well, it seems to be working fine with the earlier version (other than the warning popup). Good to get the clarification. Salute!
  2. Er, Hubert (if you're out there), I downloaded and installed the temporary fix from the link in this thread (so far, so good). I'm in the midst of a PBEM game in which both players were using v1.02 (so far, so good). We both got the patch above, but I installed it first. When I got his turn, there was a popup that told me that his turn was created using a different version, v1.02, and that I was using v1.04. The popup suggested that there could be some problem given the two different versions. The turn loaded fine, and he received my turn without trouble. My friend has held off loading the patch because he isn't sure that he wants to upgrade to v1.04 (and I had no intention of doing so, either--we were both happy with v1.02, except for the pbem crash problem). We''ve exchanged a few more turns without incident (except for the popup that I see each time I get one of his turns). I'm a bit confused. The download here is smaller than the v1.04 download and has a different name. Is this error message some kind of anomaly (based on some association with later versions) or has the "temporary fix" listed in this message actually changed my version to v1.04? Bit confused (scratches head).
  3. Salute all! I've noticed references indicating just how OLD :eek: some of you (us ) are, and also how far back into the roots of gaming you go. Okay, out with it (you old buggers --and you young ones, too ). When did you first become aware of wargames? What was your first game (and when did you start playing)? Me: First Hooked: Saw Peter Young's beautiful book, "The War Game" in a public library back in the early 70s. First pseudo wargame: Feudal (pre Avalon Hill version) First real wargame: Luftwaffe (Avalon Hill) Began playing Luftwaffe in 1972 or 73...something like that--I'll have to check the the rings on trees or take a core sample from the ocean bottom or something like that to get the date more precise ) Salute!
  4. Have experienced the pbem crash. I'm at work, so can't refer to the game files: "Just extract it into your installation folder" Excuse my ignonrance, but I just want to be able to slap this into the right place when I get it home (downloaded and put on a disk here at work...shhhh, again ) Is there a sub folder called "installation" under the SC folder or by "installation folder" do you just mean the SC folder (and not any sub folders). Salute and thanks!
  5. Good Point. You said: "Now as America Historical entry u are looking at late 42 before this Air Force command is working at peak." I don't think that the actual 8 Airforce was in full swing until before this date. The U.S. did have to build up to this (and the game does reflect it). I agree, however, that U.S. production should probably increase in some way with time. Salute!
  6. I think resource allocation answers for numbers almost any way that you look at it. Arifleets, especially high tech level ones, are very expensive (both to buy and to replace losses). If a player loads up on them, then he either has massive resources (imagine how many other units you would be swamped by if he didn't buy all those airfleets) or his forces are seriously lacking in some other area. The same goes, I guess, for any unit, though, to a lesser extent (again, especially if you're talking high tech level units). If you limit air units, then you probably need to limit others (most notably naval, if you're talking capital-intensive programs, they don't come any heavier as far as national effort than major naval units), and that's a slippery slope that leads to another kind of game, I think (more along the lines of a straight history: pull out the actual WWII Order of Battle and play with actual units vs managing your own resources). Salute!
  7. Good point, Bill, and thanks. I have seen these sorts of results in a PBEM game, too, though, so I don't think it's a problem limited to the AI and those sorts of difficulty settings. I don't intend to blame the game system for my own (many) flaws (although that's a handy thing to do). I've gotten a few air units clobbered by not managing them correctly or taking risks with them. And I can accept those sorts of setbacks. I would say one thing in defense of the interceptors being "overmatched." It does create a built-in strategic penalty for abandoning or not contesting the airspace in a theater. So long as you are "exchanging blows" with the opposing airforce, then things even out (you force him to intercept and he loses disproportionately, but then he raids you and evens things out). If, however, you abandon an area or get blown out of it, then you aren't going to easily return there since your opponent will be able to force you to intercept before you can launch a mission (if he detects your return). In other words, you are going to have an uphill climb ahead of you to contest the airspace if, for whatever reason, your opponent has gained air superiority. You're going to have to compensate for not having the initiative in forcing interceptions by having numerical superiority (or technical superioirty) to compete. This is a nice touch, whether intentional or not, strategically, but I think that in other situations, the exagerrated losses to interceptors causes other problems. Now that I've come down on boths sides of the issue, I'll shut up for good Salute!
  8. About the factors contributing to heavier losses for interceptors vs attackers, I agree that other things begin to contribute, but my impression is still that something is not quite right. Thank you for sharing your test, and I'd be interested to hear about other cases. I'm not quite sure that figuring in losses incurred by the target (port or unit or whatever) is a valid factor when considering the relative losses for a separate event (the air:air combat). If the raiders lose 1 to interception and the interceptors 3, then the interceptors got shot down at a 3:1 ratio, regardless of how many of the raiders get lost to anti aircraft over the target. My initial point, though, that I have yet to see any other unit in the game lose 7 or 8 points to a single round of combat like I have interceptors (regardless of the combination of factors were involved), still holds, however. And the 4 and 5 point losses which are routine in interception are still extraordinary cases in any other situations (all of them also having many of the same and varied contributing factors like leaders and supply in various combinations). My guess is that whatever factors cause a minor loss differential between interceptors and raiders at low levels seems to grow exponentially--as I said, "out of whack"--as levels and factors progress. It might be a mathematical error of some sort in the program? In the absence of more subtle mission planning (like dividing incoming air points into ground attack and air superiority), the losses between raiders and interceptors needs to be looked at, I still modestly propose. Salute!
  9. Salute, all, Is it just me, or does anyone else think that intercepting aircraft take exagerrated losses? It isn't unusual, it seems, for interceptors, even when intercepting like aircraft and similar numbers, to lose heavily, 4 and 5 points isn't unusual, and I've seen as much as 7 and 8 on more than one occasion. And they don't seem to inflict anywhere near these kinds of losses in return. Compared to all the other combat in the game, these numbers are warped. (I can't think of another situation where a single combat dropped 5 or more points out of a unit). I'm not one for suggesting tweaks and fixes, but it seems to me that this might be one area to look at for the next version of the game (or the next update). My guess is that the intercept on/off toggle issue would be solved if the intercept combat resolution wasn't so skewed. Salute!
  10. Fair enough! Thanks once again, Hubert, for answering our questions! Salute!
  11. Good Points, I agree that there is a fine line between knowing too much, like the specific "formulas" for surrender, and not knowing enough (and they both have their consequences on game play). I have noticed the same with test runs of Polish surrender, but haven't been able to draw many conclusions (but have lots of speculation, which I'll spare you). In short, "The number of units remaining" as an explanation doesn't quite seem to account for the variables (even in a general way). Since surrender is such a pivotal point of the game, I think having a bit more information about it would be a good thing. Salute!
  12. Hello All, I have read that a nation's surrender is contingent upon three things: 1) Loss of capital (or capital and alternates) 2) Number of remaining units 3) National characteristics My questions: 1) If a country loses its capital(s) and still does not surrender, is there a probability of it surrendering each turn from then on, or will it only surrender if loses more units, eventually reaching some limit? 2) In either case above, when calculating the value of remaining units for surrender, are all units equal or do armies and HQs, for instance, count for more than corps? 3) If there is a probability of surrender, does it grow with time? 4) If a country loses its capital(s) and does not surrender at that point, is it assured of not surrendering so long as it does not lose another unit? Any observations would be welcome (or even answers ) Salute!
  13. The rules talk about distances to cities and supply levels for units, but not for HQs as a source of supply (or if they do, I can't find it). I'm not playing v1.04, so my HQs are not stringing supply to each other, by the way. I'm finding that my HQ supply levels aren't consistent. Can anyone tell me, definitively, what the correlation is between HQ supply levels and their distance to cities and how, exactly they are calculated (I'm getting the impression that terrain costs are greater than the tables would indicate--not everything is there). Maybe an example or two might be included in the FAQ section in the future to help out dummies like me. Thanks! Salute!
  • Create New...