Sir Whiskers

Sorry, my bad. I just noticed your posting concerns only modding the current game, not how to change air for SC2. That said, does the anti-air research category affect air defense by units, or only locations (cities, mines, etc)? I was under the impression it only worked against strategic air attacks.

Just a thought, but what if, when using air to attack ground forces, it only reduced the effectiveness rating, in addition to reducing entrenchment levels? That air no longer causes strength point damage? Seems to me this would solve the problem of massed air destroying any defensive line the opponent can create. The effectiveness reduction would make the enemy unit more likely to take damage when attacked by ground units, but at least it would require ground units for the attack. This would place ground-attack air back in its proper role, supporting ground units (not taking the place of them). If this is implemented, one question to answer is if any of the reduction should carry over to the next turn - I can see pro's and con's for this, so I'm curious what others think.

Dgaad, interesting idea on the German economy. I've always thought it should be the opposite - give Germany the one-time looting, but very little long-term benefit for a conquest. Historically, Germany outfitted entire panzer divisions with captured tanks, trucks, etc., but because of the essentially "gangster" nature of their occupations, they managed the conquered territories very badly. If you reduced the amount of production a conquerer gains by half the current level, you would considerably reduce the potential for Germany to produce hordes of air fleets, tank groups, and armies. It would also simulate the brittle nature of the German war effort - it had to keep conquering, as Germany simply didn't have the economic infrastructure to support a long war. Using this change, once the eastern front becomes a war of attrition, Germany would quickly run out of MPP's to reinforce its existing units and build new ones. Naturally, all of this is IMHO - opposing viewpoints are always welcome.

No problem, Jollyguy. I agree that the Italy strategy won't work consistently against an alert Axis player - I said as much in the other thread. Against the AI, of course, it's a killer. Concerning the Free French deployment, you may be right that it doesn't affect play much. I stopped testing after seeing how much could be evacuated (2 corps in the Med, 4 armies, 1 air fleet, 1 HQ in England). To me the key unit is the HQ - this unit makes the Free French forces a real threat in a second front invasion. The Axis player will have to leave stronger forces in the West, weakening his assault on the Soviet Union, perhaps fatally. I'll keep testing and see if I can find a better counter to this. Norse - while I personally consider this option unbalanced as is, I appreciate your Allied strategy posts. They've prompted some good (and heated) discussions and improved my game. Good job.

I think Norse has shown us an excellent example of a gameplay option which is seriously broken. Even knowing what the Allies are trying to do, I can't come up with a strategy to stop this. Allowing the Allied player to gain several Free French armies, an air fleet, and an HQ for the sacrifice of the French fleet and the slightly earlier fall of France is, IMHO, unbalancing. In a game with a human opponent, I would have to insist that this option be turned off, given how easily it can be abused. I'd even go so far as to suggest that Hubert limit the option to a maximum number of Free French units (3-4), selected randomly by the computer. Then the Allied player would gain some benefit, but not the doubling or tripling of the British ground forces which occurs now.

Concerning a counter-strategy, the key point to notice in Norse's printscreens is the date: May 1940. If the Axis player assumes the Allied player is going to attempt this gambit, he conquers Poland in 2-3 turns, operates everything back the next turn, and conquers Benelux by Jan 1940. UK barely has time to get 1-2 carriers in position and no time to build and move additional strategic bombers. Without the air attacks, this strategy relies too much on a few lucky rolls. If the allies fail to take Rome, the Axis player simply operates in an army and that's all they wrote. I've tried this in a solitaire hotseat game three times and only succeeded once (the Axis didn't attack Benelux until Feb or March that game). Out of curiosity, if you're in a PBEM game and the Axis player follows the above strategy, how would you take advantage of it as the Allied player? After all, you don't HAVE to attack Italy - just convince the Axis player you might.

Russ, thanks for the clarification. I still want control over my air units, but I concede your point that such control may not fit the scale of the game. I think you make an excellent point about the types of changes that are sometimes suggested. One common suggestion is the addition of airborne units. Yet, when we consider how those forces were used in the war, it's difficult to see how they would fit in with a game of this scale. If Hubert ever decides to create a lower-level version, then airborne troops would have an important role. In a grand strategic game such as SC, they just don't seem to fit, IMO. Ditto for giving partisan units to countries other than Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and adding HQ units to minor country forces. Tinkering with the areas you suggested (supply, Lend Lease, subs, etc.) are more in line with the game's scale - though, as another poster noted, we still have to carefully consider how such changes will affect the balance of the overall game. I've held off posting a number of suggestions solely because I'm not sure they'd make things better, rather than worse.

Russ, I have to respectfully disagree with two of your points: 1. It does not strain the bounds of credulity to believe that strategic headquarters would assign air assets (or any others, such as supply, for that matter) to particular units. During the Stalingrad campaign, do you really believe that OKH allowed luftflotte to support any unit that happened to be in range? At the beginning of the campaign, the squadrons supported the attacking units. Later, they supported the defending units within the Stalingrad pocket and, when able to given the weather, the units attempting to link up with the pocket. Luftflotte generally had clear priorities, and I feel the current situation in SC limits the player's ability to re-create this. 2. Your objection seems to be that suggesting changes to the game is "gamey", while playing as is somehow demonstrates a superior grasp of strategy. Yet any game, of necessity, enforces particular rules which, to win, a player must learn and master. For that reason, any successful strategy is "gamey" - otherwise, the same strategies I use in SC would work just as well in World in Flames or Third Reich (they don't). While general strategic principles are indeed universal - apply superior force at the point of contact, maintain a reserve, take risks only for commensurate gains, etc. - applying such principles without taking into account the specific rules of the game will not guarantee success. SC is a grand strategic simulation, so I agree that any additional "micromanagement" forced on the players must be carefully considered. I don't agree that any additional complexity is necessarily a bad thing - that logic, taken to extreme, would remove the player's option to build the particular units he wants, deploy them where he wants, etc., simply because it requires "micromanagement". I consider it a sign of how well Hubert has balanced these elements that we in the gaming community tends to disagree about such relatively minor aspects of the game.

Just a thought - weren't all Free French units equipped and supplied by either the British or the Americans, even after Paris was liberated? Leaving those units as British would mean that the British pay for their replacements, not the French, which seems more accurate. Of course, I think the Free French only fought with the Americans (once the US landed in North Africa) because of friction with the British, so maybe they should switch to the US at some point...

To follow up on Old Patch's observations, the US and UK naval planners also thought that they could produce smaller, escort naval units fairly quickly once any war began, so they concentrated their pre-war building on the larger ships (besides, it was easier to get funding from Congress/Parliament for big ships). Both countries found out, however, that the needs of the Battle of the Atlantic were much greater than anticipated and they did not have near enough escorts available for convoy duty until 1943. Even then, a lot of production capacity was being used to add new escorts and replace operational losses. Without the advent of long-range air, better sonar, escort carriers, Huff-Duff, and other advances, the Allies may never have won that battle. If Hubert ever designs on "off-map" box for the Battle of the Atlantic (where players place subs, escorts, and air units to simulate the convoy war), then building cruiser and carrier fleets, as well as long-range aircraft, could become critical.

1. Concerning sub warfare, I agree that as things stand, SC does not simulate the Battle of the Atlantic in any meaningful way. It is far too easy for the Allies to sweep the seas of subs, and far too difficult for the Axis to send more out. Though I don't see a fix for the current version of SC, in SC 2 (if there is one) I'd like to see convoys moved "off map", where each side deploys air and naval units, and the computer determines results (MPP lost, naval and air attrition, MPP arrived). This would also be an effective way of implementing Lend-Lease. Subs could still be used in a fleet support role (especially by the Allies) but, in such a case, they would not affect convoys. 2. I have to disagree about air being too powerful vs fleets, but the later point about the German air force not having dedicated anti-shipping air units is well taken. Again, we can't change this now, but in SC 2 differentiating units by nationality would solve this problem (and many others). In the same vein, US infantry could have more movement (all US infantry divisions were essentially mechanized), Soviet infantry could be cheaper to build, and so on. 3. How about allowing the player to decide (vs AI only) which units respond to a given airstrike, if any? For instance, how many times have you seen your Soviet air interdict an airstrike against an unimportant unit, only to then lose an important unit because no air was left to protect it. Rules could be included to allow more than one air fleet to intercept the same strike, if the player so chose. This would not work in PBEM, and it would slow the game slightly, but the benefit to the player would be considerable. 4. I agree wholeheartedly that the production system is too simplistic. Using a system closer to World in Flames, where different types of units require different build times would be preferable - requiring players to think several turns out. This would require having turns of the same length (1 month? 2 weeks?), but otherwise I can't see any other major problems. Yet another idea for SC 2. 5. Yep - simplicity is the best part of this game. More options does not have to mean more complicated, just more difficult to master. I was telling a friend about the game and now he wants the demo. If the game were as complex as Third Reich or World in Flames, he would never touch it. Games like this help bring new players into the hobby and should be applauded.

A few observations: James - The number of men under arms in the US and Soviet forces was, US 12.2 million, USSR, 12.5 million. Keep in mind these are peak figures. The Soviet Union lost so many more men because they were the primary land power opposing Germany from 1941 on (and their disastrous losses in the initial Barbarossa campaign). The United States lost far fewer men as captured, and was also much better at caring for its wounded. Welshwill - There is no question that the US out-produced any other country during the war, even considering that it entered the war late. What is interesting is the amount of waste inherent in the US war effort. The system for rotating replacement infantrymen into the frontline divisions was never properly established. All US units had enormous logistical tails (at one point during the invasion of Italy, the US had more vehicles in Italy than soldiers!) Also, a significant percentage of US production was used on strategic bombing, which yielded minimal results until 1944-45. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, simplified their production on a few successful models of weapons, vehicles, aircraft, etc. Wastage was considerable in 1941-42, as their forces were often retreating, but once the tide turned, the Soviet juggernaught just kept getting stronger. I'm not saying their system was superior, but it was able to inflict more direct losses on the German forces (at least until the western allies landed in France). Of course, if they hadn't received so many lend-lease trucks from the US, their later offensives would have been much more difficult, so US lend-lease acted as a "force multiplier" on other Soviet resources. While I agree that it seems absurd to assign the US 180 MPP, UK 130 MPP, and the Soviet Union 480 (!) MPP, perhaps we should look at the result of these design choices. The Soviet Union is able to keep taking losses and come back, rebuilding army after army. It can eventually be crushed, but only with a maximum effort - as was true historically - the Germans did not devote their entire economy to the war until it was far too late. The UK can maintain operations on the periphery, but that's all. The US can build up significant forces, but only over time, and in conjunction with the British. If we want Hubert to change these numbers to reflect economic output, we'll have to (as others have said) include mechanisms for Lend Lease, Battle of the Atlantic, variable unit costs by country, and so on. These are all things I'd like to see in the next version of SC, but for now I can live with them, since the game is able to give me a good challenge as is (at least at +1). My apologies if this post is just too loooong - couldn't stop myself.