Good Soldier Svejk

Good People, I'm generally confused, I realize, but I'm particularly confused this morning concerning the turns. I read in the rules that the turns are: Summer 1 week Fall/Spring 2 weeks Winter 1 month This leads to the following breakdown, I think: Month Turns Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 2 Apr 2 May 2 June 4 July 4 Aug 4 Sep 2 Oct 2 Nov 2 Total: 27 There is another thread that states that the year is 27 turns long (which I am in agreement with), but that each side only gets half of those turns, one side getting 13 and the other 14 , which vexes me greatly (I'm confused). I would like to spare myself clicking through a "blank" game and recording the date-stamps of the turns, and it would be nice to be able to know how fast the calendar is moving along with the turns. So I'm asking of the smart people here: Are turns alternate, rendering 27 total turns per year (13 and 14 per player: player turns), or are they sequential, rendering 27 game turns consisting of a total of 54 player turns (2 player turns equalling one game turn)? Putting it another way, in the winter months would both players alternate getting one turn, causing the player who moves in December to also move in February, skipping January, or would they both get three turns, each moving once in each winter month? Salute!

Not quite WWI. You are correct if your opponent attacks like you defend, in linear fashion. To succeed in SC, you must mass and think beyond the front line units (and beyond simple ground units). This is a strategic game, and a major offensive does have to be gathered and echeloned. In short, you must concentrate power to achieve a breakthrough and then must have follow on forces to move through it (which, in this game, can also attack once through the hole, an aspect that often seems to be overlooked). So, in the situation that you describe, which is very much like the situation that confronts the Axis as they reach the French border, if you mass three or more air units vs a single corps, then hit it with two full strength armies (in the adjacent hexes, assuming that it isn't a "bend" where you can hit it with three), I guarantee that it will not be there at the end of the attack (or if it is, then you are extremely lucky; repeat the procedure another turn and it will work then). You may not even have to attack with the second adjacent Army to make it go away (in which case, that army is free to attack the next unit, which can lead to an even bigger hole: read on). Next, if the attacker has prepared for the breakthrough, he has positioned a couple of fast moving corps and perhaps (even better) two or more armor groups behind the assaulting front line units (which, you are correct, aren't moving any longer). If he has the numbers and quality that you speak of, maybe he has an air unit left over (or two). These ground units now move through the gap (since zones of control don't lock) and can attack themselves after moving; one or more of your units holding the flanks of this hole can quite possibly get hit by three or more units (the breakthrough units that wrap around it and one or more from the front) plus an air strike to finish it off--the hole is now two hexes wide and occupied by lots of fast moving, hard hitting bad guys. Try it. It works on a front as narrow as France. It surely will work on a wider front like Russia. Salute!

Interesting, I'm of the opinion that the finite number of HQs is a nice touch. It keeps nations in perspective to each other. It's not as if Italy, for instance, still isn't able to launch major operations. It just that it won't be able to embark on lots of them at the same time that would rely upon a HQ to succeed (like in N Africa or during an Amphib). Seems right to me. Every unit isn't assigned to a headquarters, anyway. It seems normal to have more forces than headquarters can support, which means that you will have to rely upon cities and "normal" sources of supply for units. In my games, for instance, I usually have many more German units than I do supporting headquarters. Salute!

Double Post Don't know how that happened :eek: Ratz!

Interesting problem, I think that it is being examined from only one side, however. Both tactics mentioned would work against either a hasty or a moderate invasion attempt. I believe that someone else has mentioned how often the allieds conduct a landing in Europe (like in '42) shortly after the U.S. enters the war, which in reality they were nowhere near being able to conduct for years. What this string says is that the game may be better, historically, than it was given credit for because there are some fairly simple ways to thwart a "quickie" invasion. In short, if the allies really build up an invasion force, to include supporting naval and air units, they would pound the corps until holes began to appear. In the case of Arby's defense, excellent at keeping early "quickie" invasions away, knocking one corps out of the line would produce the necessary gap--or conducting two landings, one behind the other in two different places would also suffice since the blocking corps had been committed elsewhere. A broad front invasion would also work: more hexes to cover than units available (although risky once ashore with a small force). In the case of lining the coast with corps "Westwall" is what the Germans called it, you would suffer attrition and have to be constantly replacing these units unless you put them there really early and they got good and entrenched before the allieds came back--however, given Russia, I don't see how you could invest like this in the West while at the same time getting ready fro the East. And if you put them there late, they won't be sufficiently entrenched to survive a good pounding. A concentrated air attack combined with a naval bombardment from one hex could clear a hex in a single turn, leaving a gap for a landing, forcing the line to collapse or shorten to respond, leaving other gaps. If you've got so much in the West that you've also got a reserve behind a continuous wall of units on the coast, then an invasion of Europe is a moot point; the Axis, in this case, needs to be the one conducting the invasions (the point is moot). In either case, a major effort, preceded by an air campaign (aircraft are expensive to replace) would eventually cause enough attrition that a gap would appear and a landing could take place. I'm not saying it would be easy or that these aren't good ideas for defending Europe, but suggesting that the conventional definition of what constitutes a viable invasion effort of "Fortress Europa," should the Axis be using such a strategy, has to change from the "ship a few transports over and drop them on an empty hex in France" to something more like the D Day preparation and buildup: kinda more like history, eh? Fog of war would make it harder for both sides, but, again, if we're talking about a preparation on a scale of D Day, then the Allieds should have sufficient strategic bombers posted to see into France. For the Western allieds to have a chance, however, against either of these measures, the war in the East has to be ongoing, otherwise the German will be able to replace losses in the counter-landing forces and attrition won't work. Interesting stuff! Salute!

Interesting problem, I think that it is being examined from only one side, however. Both tactics mentioned would work against either a hasty or a moderate invasion attempt. I believe that someone else has mentioned how often the allieds conduct a landing in Europe (like in '42) shortly after the U.S. enters the war, which in reality they were nowhere near being able to conduct for years. What this string says is that the game may be better, historically, than it was given credit for because there are some fairly simple ways to thwart a "quickie" invasion. In short, if the allies really build up an invasion force, to include supporting naval and air units, they would pound the corps until holes began to appear. In the case of Arby's defense, excellent at keeping early "quickie" invasions away, knocking one corps out of the line would produce the necessary gap--or conducting two landings, one behind the other in two different places would also suffice since the blocking corps had been committed elsewhere. A broad front invasion would also work: more hexes to cover than units available (although risky once ashore with a small force). In the case of lining the coast with corps "Westwall" is what the Germans called it, you would suffer attrition and have to be constantly replacing these units unless you put them there really early and they got good and entrenched before the allieds came back--however, given Russia, I don't see how you could invest like this in the West while at the same time getting ready fro the East. And if you put them there late, they won't be sufficiently entrenched to survive a good pounding. A concentrated air attack combined with a naval bombardment from one hex could clear a hex in a single turn, leaving a gap for a landing, forcing the line to collapse or shorten to respond, leaving other gaps. If you've got so much in the West that you've also got a reserve behind a continuous wall of units on the coast, then an invasion of Europe is a moot point; the Axis, in this case, needs to be the one conducting the invasions (the point is moot). In either case, a major effort, preceded by an air campaign (aircraft are expensive to replace) would eventually cause enough attrition that a gap would appear and a landing could take place. I'm not saying it would be easy or that these aren't good ideas for defending Europe, but suggesting that the conventional definition of what constitutes a viable invasion effort of "Fortress Europa," should the Axis be using such a strategy, has to change from the "ship a few transports over and drop them on an empty hex in France" to something more like the D Day preparation and buildup: kinda more like history, eh? Fog of war would make it harder for both sides, but, again, if we're talking about a preparation on a scale of D Day, then the Allieds should have sufficient strategic bombers posted to see into France. For the Western allieds to have a chance, however, against either of these measures, the war in the East has to be ongoing, otherwise the German will be able to replace losses in the counter-landing forces and attrition won't work. Interesting stuff! Salute!

My mistake It was Arby who made the point about the Polish garrison's effect on Russian DOW. Thanks for setting it straight Salute!

Comrades, In the hints and tips thread, Harala added this reply to one of my questions on Russian DOW in random games: "One of the things the manual doesn't tell you is that the Soviets will declare war if the Eastern Front isn't properly garrisoned. I think I read here that that means at least 2 units in 1940 and 3 units in 1941. I know the former is correct; not sure of the latter." Seems to me worth repeating in this thread. Sounds like a really good thing to know :eek: Anyone else have input on Polish Garrison and Russian DOW? What constitues a "garrison?": units in cities? in Poland anywhere? in the hexes adjacent to the Russian border? Does it matter? Salute!

Fascinating stuff, and very important since, as has been said, the manual is silent on these factors (you even have to read between the lines to find that there is a gauge for the entry of Major countires in the war). Anyway, I've had two things happen to me when playing single player that I'd like an opinion on: I was Axis on both occasions. On one occasion, after knocking off France and Poland, I stumped through Denmark and Simultaneously Yugoslavia and Sweden. I then declared on Greece. The only ally I had at the time was Italy. In the same turn, I got the "Russia Prepares for War" message and then got the "Russia Declares War" message. This was all before I knew about the "war meter," so wasn't watching for effects. However, if I read the claims right, taking Sweden, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Poland, and France won't bring a Soviet DOW, correct? So it must have been Greece that was the difference (this seems a bit odd)? Second, can countries like Yugoslavia declare war on the Axis? I swear that in the first game that I ever played, I ignored Yugoslavia, but then it declared war on me (hostile units showed up there--I guess it joined the allied side: dumb considering that Bulgaria and Rumania had recently joined the Axis camp). Is there some way to gauge when something like this will happen? If so, what are the criterion for something like that? Salute!

Good Points, Friends, The raw production numbers you cite speak for themselves, but we must remember that not everything produced in the U.S. was destined for the European Theater--there was the War in the Pacific, which was a priority for the U.S. (especially early on). Exactly how much materiel went to which theater (and to alllies) is beyond my ability to research. Splitting the U.S. production in half, though, still argues for a larger capacity. Maybe some of the "missing" U.S. production capability is present in the production capabilities of Britian and the U.S.S.R. (lend lease, etc, factored in)? A larger issue is the abstraction of the U.S. in general, which probably must be done to suit the game balance (given that victory means having to conquer all the allies--the U.S. included). Taking the Northeastern U.S. (even if it were possible) would not be enough to bring about surrender, for instance, but that's all that there is of the U.S. in the game. You would have to have another campaign of the size of the Russian Campaign to take the continental U.S. (and probably Canada, too). Now that I've babbled too much, I'll summarize. I'm in agreement with those who would believe that the U.S. is "sized" the way it is because of game balance rather than reality. I'm not sure what a stronger U.S. would do to game balance (haven't played it through enough times). Salute!

A thought, It's a jest not an attack. Take care, Norse (in case there was further misunderstanding)

Oh, Dear Me, Such strident suff :eek: I fear that my fedora's brim has been quite wilted in the blast--alas. I shall have to have it replaced. I wonder if it was worth it I think Daystrom has a fine sense of perception on the matter. Salute!

Glad you brought up Iraq. I've been thinking alot about it. After the coup, how cool would it be to have Godzilla appear there? Now THAT would be cool (so cool :cool: )

Friends, Good point is made: the corps and armies have tanks in them (divisions of them). So there's lots of the "mechanized" movement going on below the level of the units here. Most people seem to be unable to make the leap into the scale of this game, which is strategic: even grand strategic. If you actually crave accuracy, there would be no "tank" unit at this level: just Armies and corps (regardless of what they were called, like a Soviet Tank Army, which at that level had all arms in it). Where would the fun be in that, though? The salient feature of the system is that movement and combat are interwoven. So you can punch that hole and push the tanks through, who then can attack, unlike in a standard boardgame where all attacks are resolved in a separate combat phase which is distinct from movement, which leads to having a second "mechanized" phase. A major breakthrough attack in WWII (examine the Eastern Front) had a massing of uncommitted breakthrough forces behind the assault divisions (the ones that made the hole). The breakthrough units would then pour through. The most obvious examples are the Soviet buildups for their offensives and coutneroffensives. The same units that hit the front line weren't the same ones that shot down the arrows of advance after the rupture had been made. A good "blitzkrieg" in SC must be prepared for, and would have to look pretty much like that: assault units to make the hole and uncommitted units behind them to go through the hole. As mentioned, air units (and rockets) add to making that hole. If you can't manage one, then don't blame the units. Salute!

Whatever happened to that crispy bacon they used to serve in the mess hall before the war?

Dear Friend Waltero, Consider this a well deserved encomium. Bravely said and nicely put. Excelsior!

Hello, good fellows, A minor but important point: technically, rockets ARE artillery (all armies classed them under their artillery branches, whether they were a major or a minor sub-branch is another issue and varied by nation and as the war progressed). In a game of this scale, it's probably safe to assume, therefore, that a "rocket" unit represents artillery assetts, including rockets, maybe, as tech levels increase, increasingly rockets and missiles as opposed to other assetts. Regardless, you do have a "combined arms" mechanism in the game. Get over the name of the unit, "rocket," and think of it as an artillery counter and it works. As far as a rocket counter at this strategic level, it's mainly speculative, anyway--the only nation that actually deployed a ballistic missile was Germany; so who knows, exactly, what higher tech level rockets of other countries are supposed to actually be? My friends, I think that we should lighten up a bit. The level of detail in this game is deliberately abstract to reflect strategic decisions, for production, research and for employment of forces; you get to play the war leader who decides where to invest resources, how your forces are going to be structured, and in what combinations you will fight with them (and othe fun stuff, like which front to fight on and when). As such, it works pretty well, I think, rockets included Salute

Greetings and Hail, good sirs, I double checked last night and found that it had been a series of coincidences that had led me astray concerning the ability of units to hide under the "roof at the edge of the world" from air attacks. When the entrenchment of the target is reduced, and the supply level of the aircraft is high enough, the scunnion from above does, indeed, fall upon those who lurk in the last hexrow. Apologies for firing a half-cocked gun. Salute!

I'm almost certain that it wasn't a factor of supply, etc--Washington was an "open city" the turn before; the U.S. had just purchased a corps and popped it there. However, I'll check again tonight (I'm at work now ) and be a bit more methodical and report back (unless someone else has noticed the same and mentions it in the meantime). Salute!

Greetings, Do both parties in a PBEM game have to have the same version (patches installed) in order for the PBEM game to work? Salute! [ August 21, 2002, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Good Soldier Svejk ]

Hello once again, friends, I'm still playing version 1.02 (have got the latest patch/upgrade but haven't installed: another story). I'm running windows 98 SE, a 1ghz PIII with 512m of RAM. Anyway, I've noticed that units on the last hexrow seem to be immune from air attacks. I've noticed it when hitting Washington, whatever that Soviet city is on the edge of the board in the Urals, and campaigning down in the Iraq/Caucases area. At first I thought it might just have been a conincidence that air units would seem to not hit targets on the edge of the board--maybe I didn't have the supply levels necessary or that the odds just didn't work out (didn't have enough instances to support a conclusion, just always seemed that the air attacks there didn't work out). However, it was noticeable. My test case came after my initial air attack (a single airstrike from a 15 point jet based in Canda) came up short against Washington. I deliberately loaded Canada up with five-15 point Jets (both long range aircraft and Jet research maxxed out at level 5: these were some NASTY aircraft) along with a high rating Headquarters, and added a few 14 point carriers. They all attacked Washington, which was held by an understrength corps (something like a 4). Not only was the unit still there and at its original strength after every air unit has made an "attack," but not a single mission had resulted in a "hit" (the nice little explosion followed by sound effects)--nothing but a flicker (and the air unit being "used"), The ground assault, I'm happy to say, went okay. I've noticed this on the other edges of the board, too (as mentioned). Is this something that anyone else has noticed? If so, is this fixed in the latest patch? Thank you for reading along, Salute!

Greetings again, fellows, Apologies for cluttering the board with multimple messages. I see that none of the unit mods have strength numbers on them. I assume that they will be input as a function of the game engine (since the strength is vairable) I notice, however, that some of the unit mods have pips or dots on them. What are those? Excuse the ignorance and thank you in advance. Salute

Greetings, I see all these excellent modifications for new units (sprites, I guess they're called) and I'm certainly impressed (good work, fellows). It looks like I'll be playing this game via PBEM (when not fighting the computer). My question concerns the impact of these custom schemes on PBEM. Do both players have to have the same graphics for PBEM to work? Thank-you, kind sirs in advance and Salute!