Good Soldier Svejk

Thanks, Hubert, Well, it seems to be working fine with the earlier version (other than the warning popup). Good to get the clarification. Salute!

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).

Righto! Thanks, Hubert! Salute!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

Fair enough! Thanks once again, Hubert, for answering our questions! Salute!

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!

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!

Thanks, Hubert!

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!

Just a thought about U.S. production (since it's come up several times). Taken turn by turn, the production number does seem to be low, but only if you attempt to play the U.S. as if it were a continental power (Soviet or German, to a lesser extent GB), as RB indicated. The great advantage of the U.S. is that it is overseas (both in the game and historically). As long as the Royal Navy is still largely intact, the U.S. has the luxury of doing what other countries can't do who are on the "front lines": stockpiling. The U.S. wasn't going to come out of the gate in '41 with major forces, but had to build to that point. The production rate, I think, handles this nicely (just a thought). Salute!

Well, my friend, I quote you: "With all do respect to you Good Soldier Svejk this is incorrect and stupid." So much for respect, and your comment on an airforce having its orders is correct, but a foolish assertion (I submit with equal respect). Yes, an airforce may have orders to sit on the ground and not intercept, as you say (I grant) but if they do, and there are enemy air units within range, they will be destroyed there, on the ground, not intercepting. This option, I would submit, if chosen knowingly is foolish. Hence, my point, that your units will be drawn into combat whether you like it or not is, in fact, irrefutable. In fact, not incorrect, but correct. Just because they are on the ground being bombed and strafed, does not mean that they aren't in combat. They just aren't defending themselves (and not surviving, either). Salute!

"Nay" on toggling air units (I'm afraid). At the level of this game, these are air "fleets." An "airstrike" in the game represents from a week to a month's (depending on the season) worth of air campaign. Those air operations are going to include suppressing and dealing with the defending air force. So, in reality, your air units would get drawn into combat if they were in an area where the bad guys are operating whether you liked it or not. Committing air units to a theater equals committing them to the battle. The current rules reflect this well, I think. Additionally, history doesn't indicate that air units sat on the ground and gave up their airspace to hostile aircraft. On the contrary, the very last mission that was still being conducted, by any airforce, but the most obvious example is the Luftwaffe, who, to the very end of the war and under conditions of allied air supremacy, were still flying interceptions (not bombing). If you toggle off the intercept, then what you will have is an inverse result: the first thing that would go is interceptions and the last the bombing. Additionally, I could see a checkbox for no intercept/escort would be more of an anomaly and more "gamey" than what we currently have. The likely tactic that would develop would be to see both sides, with healthy air forces, each in their turn bombing with impugnity since the other side would rather be holding its strength for bombing than intercepting. With the rules forcing interceptions, you are able to replicate an air campaign. Look at two examples: the RAF in the Battle of Britian was about to abandon the south to preserve themselves before the Luftwaffe shifted priorities; the Luftwaffe, who had no place to run, were ground down. How else would you bring an enemy air force to combat if the player could just checkbox his units to not intercept? I think that the points about ground units artificially covering strategic targets, however, are good, and I also think that some adjustment over multiple interceptions over the same target could be made. Salute!

About Tech Level Tweaks (as quoted below): "Instead make each level more difficult to get. Level 1 tech you would only have a 20% of success at 5 points and level 2 tech you would only have a 15% chance of success of getting level tech 3. To get to a level tech 5 of Airplanes (Jets) you would have to be very lucky. New Formula Level Tech 0 at 5 points – 25% chance of moving to the next level Level Tech 1 at 5 points – 20% chance of moving to the next level Level Tech 2 at 5 points – 15% chance of moving to the next level Level Tech 3 at 5 points – 10% chance of moving to the next level Level Tech 4 at 5 points – 5% chance of moving to the next level I believe this would keep players from trying to only dominant one tech level like Airplanes and make you spread the tech advances around." 1) This table makes sense, but assumes maximum tech points allocated (5). How would the breakdown go for less than maximum levels of research (the percentage per point isn't always a round number)? 2) My concern that the already commented upon "luck" factor for research would become even more exagerated. I realize that in the "real world" research breakthroughs are volatile, but that doesn't make for a satisfying game system. I wouldn't want my game decided by one or two "die rolls" (to use an old grognard type of phrase). Under this table, the best you can do is still the same 25 percent chance, with all the volatility that comes with it. In short, assuming both sides invest equally, if one side gets a few good "die rolls" in tech, then the game would be even more skewed by tech volatility than it is now. Personally, I would rather have more decided on the board and less in the die rolls that go on in the tech tree. I think the progressively smaller chances of achieving a tech level are a good thing, but if you're going to reduce the tech percentages on the high end, then you probably ought to increase them on the low end, like maybe starting at 30 percent for the first level and 25 for the second, etc (not sure what the right figures would be; it would take some testing). 3) My last concern is a philosophical one (one that I'm aware may not be shared). There's a fine line between rules (and rules changes) that are "technical," meaning that they are intended to better reflect history, abstract a real function, or address a functional issue (like play balance or a rules gap) of the game system, and those that address the "style" of play, meaning how a player decides to approach the problems posed in the game and by his/her opponent. It is the contesting styles that are the attraction of games like this. In short, there's nothing wrong with the style of a player who tries to dominate a single tech field, and we should be wary of approaching rules that would make everyone play with the same "style." Having said this, I do think that these suggestions (with above reservations) do make good technical sense, and could allow for differing styles and better tech play. Good stuff!

Winter not modeled? And suggestions on Partisans. First, regarding Marshall Winter... I thought this, too, that winter turns were just shorter months and not otherwise signficant. However, as I'm playing German in a pbem game I notice that, out of the blue, my HQs units drop from being supply 10 one turn to 8 or even 6(!) in some cases on the next. Furthermore, even units adjacent to a headquarters couldn't be reinforced to their maximum levels and their supply levels were lower than they should have been given the distance to the nearest HQs. It was Feb '41. The only conclusion I can draw for why my supply levels mysteriously dropped so dramatically by themselves (I hadn't done anything different from previous turns that I can think of--maybe there is some other explanation?) is that it there was a winter effect in the Feb turn. It would be nice for the manual to give you a hint about such things if my conclusion is correct. Anyone else notice this or something like it or am I mistaken? About Partisans... Here's another suggestion (as long as we're on it). The topic of Partisans has come up before. I think, as others do, that for simplicity, and to maintain the integrity of the game, new rules and units should be added with care. It is, however, an anomaly to have partisan units running around like conventional corps cone they appear (invading neighboring countries, leaving swaths of controlled territory in their wake, etc). I have a simple solution:make partisans static (make their movement factor 0). Partisan activity is (was) regional, anyway, not mobile. This would still require the garrisoning of areas (as one does now), but also would give a bit more of a historical flavor. There would be key garrisons and mobile security forces that would respond to uprisings--which is precisely how things worked in the rear areas. The whole country wasn't garrisoned, which is what you wind up with under the current program since you have, in effect, conventional units (like airborne drops) showing up and operating behind the lines. If this would be too limiting on partisan activity, maybe they could be allowed appear in more places than they do now (if that's possible), and in proximity to more units, like allowing them to appear adjacent to air units and HQs. Just a thought. Salute!

Arby Said: " I usually do Barbarossa in spring of 1941, and try to have 6 planes, 7 tanks, 9 armies, and 2 corps." Even if you don't buy more HQs, this is a pretty tall order to have on hand by Spring of '41 :eek: I guess you probably have to have some good luck with industral tech levels early on in order to afford this sort of force by then. Are you playing with the scorched earth option? If so, I don't quite see how you can manage without additional HQs. When the cities get set to 0, you need them to sustain supply. What have you got left defending the West? Seems to me that the rest of the map would be pretty empty (need a cooperative allied player; once I saw that much force in Russia, I'd be on my horse in the West). Interesting point about Russian forces. Does the size of the Russian Army grow the later you declare? I was under the assumption that the longer you staved off the declaration, it was to your advantage because you would be massing force against a fixed starting defense. Where is the "break point" in the process where the Soviet Defense gets larger?

Thanks for the clarifications on the effects and rules, RB You mentioned: "the Caucasus was a goal of the Germans, simply because of its production. Not going after this makes no sense. Unfortunately, the game mechanism unduly rewards the German player for accomplishing this" Seems like maybe there is some medium to be struck here between enough of a handicap and too much of one. About my own refernce to Stalingrad, you mention, quite correctly: "The Germans did in fact seize Stalingrad, and it didn't result in Russia losing 40% of its industrial capacity and manpower. It shouldn't work that way in the game." My point, however, was not so much about the effects of taking Stalingrad itself in the game (which I agree should not have an exagerrated effect and does not warrant a change), but about the "what if" should the Axis, either by bypassing or taking Stalingrad, drive to the eastern map edge. Perhaps it makes a bit more sense in that light (I hope--things I write always make sense to me, ). I've only one and a half pbem games, so can't comment on your own experiences regarding the continuous front in Russia (my brief experience has been quite different, so that may be another basic point of departure). Salute!

Arby wrote: "The first is to introduce another set of ratings, for sub attack and defense. Battleships would be low on attack and defense, and carriers would be low on defense. Cruisers would be high in both." I like the idea of doing something about Subs vs surface ships, but not sure about this specific suggestion. Aircraft were one of the decisive factors in anti submarine warfare, so a carrier would not be less effective than others (on the contrary). The second is that these counters represent collections of ships, so there would be destroyers, etc, in each of them (so not sure how much to differentiate ASW capabilities by "type" would work vs the current system). I think one problem with subs, and one reason why they get sent to the bottom too quickly with nothing to show, is that they don't return damage when attacked. Maybe if they simply did that (except against air attacks), in addition to the possiblility of evading, they would be more resilient (and hence last longer). As it is, they can be located pretty easily, and then attacked with impugnity by any class (or strength) naval unit. This might make for a simple fix to the problem. Salute!

Interesting things, But there have been several points about isolating portions of the Soviet Union like this: "Eastern Front: I think pushing to the edge of the map in order to prevent the Russians from gaining mpp from the Caucasus is just as gamey as surrounding Moscow. I will not use either of these tactics against a human." First of all, all supply is not dependent on connection to the Capital. You just can't build new units in cut off areas, and I believe city values are reduced (as are maximum reinforcing levels, if I'm not mistaken). This seems to me to be a good simulation of the region fighting with reduced capacity (it's not "connected" to the rest of the country; there are resources, but it just doesn't benefit from the "national" effort in the way other areas might). So, you can create a "bunker" in the south, and it can probably fight on for awhile. Just don't expect it to hold out against a coherent, fully supported campaign, with the sort of resources that it doesn't have (it shouldn't--that would be "gamey"). I'm not sure that just because the landmass of the Soviet Union is bigger than the map that there is a problem with the "map edges." Given the topography and infrastructure of the Soviet Union, driving to the Eastern edge of the map, past Stalingrad in the south, does mean, essentially, that you've cut the Western hafl of the country in half. Sort of like with Rome, "All roads led to Moscow" (certainly looking at a railroad map, the lifeblood of the era, even more so than today, shows this). The rerouting of supplies would have been significant (and the routes remaining limited). As far as driving to the Urals (map edge east of Moscow), you've reached the extent of the productive portions of the Soviet Union (even industry that was being displaced wound up here). The Soviet Union might not have surrendered had this happened, but for game purposes, the term "surrender" applies--the Soviet Union's capacity for significantly affecting the Axis effort against the other front(s) would have effectively been ended. In short, had the Axis could have shifted effort elsewhere at that point. Additionally, as far as "gamey" charges go, if the German drives to the East Edge of the map, then what? The "gamey" charge cuts both ways. Are you suggesting that we reward the Soviet player who ignores the basic principles of war and leaves holes hundreds of miles wide in his front and instead "clumps" around "objectives"? Maybe there should be a rule for exiting units off the East edge of the map, some sort of "payoff" for reaching it and consequences for the Soviet if the German can exit units in this way. Here's an alternate point of view. I very much like the terrain control rules in the game. It is the only game that I've seen that replicates the strategic pincers maneuvers and makes them viable (and also the dangers inherent in pushing them too audaciously: those lead units can get hammred by counterblows if they get too extended from supply and support). You can't ignore the fact that you are being surrounded just because you're sitting in an objective or supply source. Read history. It is not replete with discussions of ignoring gaps in the front, allowing themselves to be encircles; quite the contrary, everything is about containing breakthroughs. Salute!

Greetings, Having searched through and read the posts regarding the random diplomatic setting for the Soviet Union (and the U.S.), Random entry "within a historical context" seems to be variable, as the experiences cited indicate. It would be handy to have better idea of the range of possibilities that we're talking about. We know that the Soviets can be provoked into declaring war early, but assuming that the Axis do not declare war against the Soviets first, what is the latest that you have seen the Soviet Union declare war in a random diplomacy game? Were there any peculiar circumstances? Salute!