[options]

i have a question or suggestion - i am all for making this game as flexible as possible. there is a lot of discussion of various perceived flaws, faults, changes, or ideas about certain aspect of this game. I personally feel that this is a game - a game whos basis is in history, but a game nonetheless. i know there is the party out there who would prefer a game modeled as historically accurate as possible, then there is the camp that wants to have infinite possibilities.

My comment is this, cant we have both? The campain editor is a terrific tool that enables the user to tailor the game to his own preferences - but only to a degree. I would personally like to see more options given in both the editor as well as in the game setup and play itself. Options to automatic interception or not (PLEASE LETS HAVE THIS ONE). Option to or not to allow the building of units next to enemy units. options to allow unlimited builds. options to limit the number of operational redeployments per turn.

one option i would love to see is user defined initial placement of units. giving the human player some degree of flexibility to place what units where he wants them, is in my mind very critical. i know there may be limitations on what can be placed where - for example no more than x units in egypt, a minimum number of naval units in the med, requiring a ground unit on the capital, etc... so some limits may be warranted - but I really think giving the player the choice as to how to set up his forces would open the game up and allow a great deal of freedom.

for example allowing the user to choose his initial setup would end the madening debacle that is often italy. i know the strategy of pre-empting italian decleration of war to seize ports and industrial centers works against the computer and even human players. I know many players use it - i do myself. But this and other situations are not fun. i dont know what people mean by "gamey" i personally like this being a game. but this is played for enjoyment. there is simply no fairness, no fun in having a MAJOR nation succeptible to this kind of attack with absolutely NO way to defend against it.

Giving the player the opportunity to place his own starting forces would go a long way to reducing this risk - while allowing a greater degree of freedom with other aspects of the game. germany declares war on spain - why should the units all start on the interior and not at the border - you dont get to make that decision and there is NO reason you should be able to. What if turkey is invaded from syria - why should ALL of the forces be in the north. yes historical accuracy may dictate certain strenghts and placements - but lets at least have the OPTION of this flexibility.

I think having more options would quiet some of the critics, allow for a wider variety of games and strategies, and in general make for a more fun game. I know many others may comment on this and I encourage that. What I would most like to see is one of the creators or designers respond to this posting - if your out there hubert or anyone else can you please comment on this?

[Goodbye to all that]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As for the flak people post to each other I find it quite entertaining in a soap opera kind of way

No. It's not entertaining. It's stupid. Take a perfectly decent forum for adult discussions about Strategic Command, WWII grand strategy, and healthy debate about suggestions for improving the game (a GAME!), and turn it into the Jerry Springer Show. It's getting old. All the off-topic stuff and personal zingers should go to General Discussion, or better yet go offline and send an email.

What started this thread was a customer leaving OUR restaurant because a food fight was going on, again. Is that what we're all about? No. Grow up already. :mad: </font>

[Defensive use of air fleets]

Originally posted by I/O Error:

Although I have pursued the same train of thought, I quickly gave it up as a bad idea. As it is, defensive positions can have an overwhelming advantage. Defense Close Air Support would merely make stalemates and wars of attrition all the more common.

(Personally, I suppose I like to imagine that the CAS is indeed happening, just automatically when a unit attacks. Consider it an integral part of the game, like we assume artillery to be.)

I can agree with some of your reasoning - and it may be that I have not thought this out to the nth degree to see what effects a chance in this part of the game would have. But you have to admit there is a healthy dose of frustration on the part of whoever is intercepting.

I have had german air units, experienced, fully supplied, attached to a HQ, and when intercepting they get the hell knocked out of them. I have see one air unit - not meeting the above situation, it was a worst case scenario - go from a 9 to a 1!! And you dont have the option or choice to intercept. It is just done for you. I think you should be able to toggle your air units to be able to intercept or not.

It is frustrating to watch your air units beaten up for no good reason. I would personally much prefer the damage be done to the ground unit - it is cheaper to reinforce.

Also there seems to be a huge discrepancy between "the haves" and "the have nots". By that I mean unless your air units are at the same tech level, same strenght, same hq situation, they have NO chance at all.

I cannot use my air units as russia, I either have to hide them somewhere they cant be hit - or I spend an huge amount of limits mpps trying to keep them from being wiped out.

How do you usually use air power when you ARENT the one with air superiority? Any strategy you have found that works would be helpful.

But I still think the answer is optional interception. Please Hubert, just this one teeny thing and I promise I'll be good.

[My Take on the Game]

Originally posted by James Ott:

Also it seems to me that an HQ should be able to supply and command twice as many Corps as Armies. Since corps buidling is the preferred Russian strategy, this would also help play balance.

I SO SO SO SO SO agree with this idea. I understand that on this scale the idea may be that each unit represents a functional unit of its own. Thus each individual unit would require the support provided by a HQ. However I am not entirely sure what all is involved in an HQ supporting a land or air unit. But it seems to me that an HQ could support MORE units of a smaller size (corps) than larger ones (armies). This just seems a logical and easy fix. Allow a HQ to support 2x the number of corps than other units. Or perhaps allow a HQ to only support a limited number of air units. Perhaps this can be one small fix to what so many feel in an imbalance to air power. If one HQ could only support 3 air units (or a combination thereof) then that would either raise the cost of a large air force - by requiring more hqs, or it would reduce the effectiveness of the air force by operating without an HQ. Any way I look at this it seems that tweaking the support provided by HQs to reflect the demands of the individual unit only improves play and enjoyment of the game.

[High Command]

Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:

I have to agree that the release of the computer version of 'Third Reich' was a travesty. If that game had been released by Russian design group, they would have been all shot :mad: ! The game never worked right and had tons of bugs even as a production release, guess they never heard of alpha/beta testing?

This also assisted in the demise of the Avalon Hill computer games division and Avalon Hill as a whole probably. Part of it was saved and bought up by Hasbro Games.

It seems I may be the only one posting here who has no background in board games. I have not played any of the games that have been mentioned here or in other posts. So I cannot say what the computer version of 3r was in comparision to the board game. And I will admit the computer version can at times have some very frustrating bugs in it. But after I downloaded the patch I havent had any problems with it. And there are aspects of the game which, in my humble opinion, are far more fun than the comparable aspects in SC.

For example strategic warefare in 3r may be nothing but investing and a number showing up - but at least it does give somewhat an accurate weight to the value of uboats and strategic bombing. Germany can, as they did in reality, almost break Britains ability to fight on.

Also there is the freaking OPTION of intercepting fleets. Air power does not have to be an all or nothing thing - whereas in sc if you dont have the numbers, experience, or tech levels - air fleets are nothing but a nuisance and drain on your mpps.

Also there are limits on the number of units and redeployment. All of these may be included in the board game, I dont know. Perhaps it is a fantastic game that was ruined by the computer version - but I enjoy the game, so I suppose ignorance is bliss. And there are things that can be learned and taken from the pc game and perhaps used to improve SC.

[High Command]

Originally posted by Morten Kay:

I have very fond memories of Third Reich. And now I have found my old CD with, but it all it do now is crash :mad: . Prob. because of my windows xp do any one of you have a solution for that problem?

/Morten

I have third riech pc on cdrom. My computer is running windows 98, not xp. I dont claim to understand the innerworkins of software - but I do know I cannot get the program to run inside windows - it only runs if I shut down to dos and run it through there. Once I do that I dont have any problems. Also there is a patch for the game that fixes some of the bugs from previous versions.

[Invading Turkey]

Originally posted by Amy Aemilius:

Has anyone invaded Turkey as the Axis or the Allies? What are the benefits of such a strategy for either sides?

I have invaded as both the axis and the allies, usually the axis. It takes time, as the terrain severly limits you. It usually requires a number of air fleeets, corps, and tanks. But you do get access to the black sea, and you are poised to land units or drive across the mountains and hit russia from the south. And even if you dont make a sustained push and open a huge front there, the mpps you get from all of that oil and industry make it a very worthwhile gamble.

[Research!]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

I agree with the assertion that research shouldn't be resolved completely by luck. Luck should play a large part, but if you just remove the possibility of extreme events happening (like Jollyguy's that is, Welshwill's was quite reasonable IMO) then there would be no "ruined" games while the vast majority of games would be unchanged.

I have read the dozens of comments about technology and I would like to add my two cents worth. Whatever your belief or opinion on the matter there are others who feel differently. Some think the randomness of the current system makes the game more interesting, some think it can be too random.

How about we have an OPTION added to the game? Just like other options we now have to increase the random play of the game, such as free french, fow, etc... things that you can turn on or off as you wish.

It seems to me there has to be some way to have one system as it is, completely random and perhaps slightly modified as some have suggested (decreasing chances for advancement per level, etc..) and a second toggle that is totally incremental. You invest X number of MPPs for X number of turns you get this level. Perhaps limitations on when and how much can be developed.

This way if you want total randomness you can have it - if you want a more predictable scheme you can have that too. And I would so so so dearly like and beg hubert to consider this option too - Hubert, I like your game, but please please please create a toggle or option to intercept or not intercept air attacks. I ask so very little!

Ok now you can tear my comments to pieces - enjoy.

[Wish List For SC]

1. Allow for optional interception. It is totally unreasonable and very frustrating to not be allowed the choice whether to intercept air strikes. There is simply NO way to have a small air force. You either have total air superiority or you dont have any functional effective air power at all. Build one air fleet in russia or france - watch each turn as it is slaughtered in interception efforts you dont want it involved in - just to keep the unit from being destroyed you have to blow mpps out of your liited budget. Plus the whole interception thing seems out of whack. I have had level one german air fleets attack british units an a level 4 fighter intercept. The german lost 2 points the british 5! I dont mean to belabor the point but in most games I have to either have as many air units at the same strength as germanys or what I do have I have to hide. Not fun!

2. Somehow someway revamp the uboat/strategic bombing aspects of the game. Uboats are simply a waste of money, they dont do enough damage, dont destroy enough mpps, are detected too easily, should be cheaper and smaller in unit size, should be able to properly reflect the damage to british supply shipping that nearly won the war, should be able to impact british shipping from far more areas than just two ports, should be able to get into the atlantic without being immediately slaughtered by british ships yes I know that britain sealed off the atlantic to virtually the entire german navy, but the uboats primarily operated from the western coast of france - Ive never even gotten mine there.

3. this may be totally undoable - and I have to say here that I enjoy the game - I dont want anyone to confuse my suggestions as complaining or griping - but adding at least one row to the south, and perhaps the north would add so much to the game. as it is north africa is a non issue. it isnt worth anything, and it is virtually impossible to conquer anything

4. find some way to reflect the industrial capacity of the us, there is no way that britain at @ 120 mpps should be producing 2/3 the capacity of the us or more unequal russia outproducing the us 2 to 1. Couldnt there be some way to reflect a gradual increase in the production capacity of the us.

Anyway there are my two cents worth - I enjoy this game and I hope everyone remembers that this is just a game - it is supposed to be fun, not a history lesson, not perfect, not the cure for cancer - just a game to waste some time playing till someone guilts you into taking out the garbage.

[AI is too weak as Axis]

Originally posted by RicKhan:

Try playing Expert setting +100, +1 experience

or +2 if you feel especially Brave.

Historical minors.

Random Italian and USSR Entry

Historical USA

No Free French

No Partisans

No Scorched Earth

Siberian WarFoW on

Then Let us know how u did.

I just finished a game against a setup almost exactly as you laid out above - I was shocked to see how poorly germany fared. I could not understand what the AI was doing. Germany NEVER did invade the low countrys, denmark, yugoslavia, or norway. All they did was take forever to decimate poland and then set up on the border with france for attrition warefare.

So sad - oh and by the way one tactic that I have used lately in poland seems to confuse the german ai to no end. DONT try to pull your units back into poland and secure the capital. Instead spread them out as much as you can, venture into germany itself. Make the germans chase you down - the longer it takes the less prepared germany is for future efforts. Plus do you really care if you loose those units? They are lost anyway so piss of the germans while you can. Back to the complaint about AI. I was fairly agressive with britain - I took the two oil fields in iraq on the third turn and just left that unit there for the rest of the game, never attacking the capital. And I pre-emptively invaded italy and took sicily and the port in southern italy. I also used the french corp in algeria and brought it up and was able to land and hold venise for a few turns. So my rambling is leading to this.

I was fairly agressive - so perhaps I distracted germany from any offensive moves due to my scattered attacks. But it was really quite lame for the ai to not even attack denmark or the low coutries - it was as if they werent even going to try to win. Has anyone else come across a game vs axis AI where there was never a sustained offensive push?

[Interception Out of Whack?]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

From a quick test, an inexperienced 10-factor German air fleet attacked the port near London and was intercepted by an inexperienced 10-factor British air fleet. German losses were -2 and British losses -3, but then the Germans took another -2 due to port AA. That's with no experience and no HQ command bonus for either side. Equal strength and supply, and same tech level. So, these very limited results seem OK based on all that.

Now throw in all sorts of changes to this situation and see what happens. It gets complicated quickly, but the bottom line is that if you're experiencing heavy interception losses, there's probably a good reason for it. He has a HQ and you don't. He has experience and you don't. He has higher tech levels and you don't. He has good supply and you don't. Etc. If you want different results, try changing whatever it is you're doing.

I agree with your suggestion, and I have adapted my strategy to account for this aspect of the game play. I guess what bothers me most is that I have to worry about it at all. Shouldn't I be able to determine whether my air force is used to repell enemy air attacks? In 3R and other games an air fleet is given the option of intercepting or not - and if it does intercept then it cannot also attack in the same turn. That sounds reasonable given that there arent actually "turns" in an actual war - forces are acting simultaneously. So would an air fleet be able to perform a major offensive AND be used to intercept. I dont think that is reasonable. Plus even if the air fleet was not used in comabt during that nations turn, the air force commanders would have had the option of intercepting enemy attacks or not. Toward the end of the war germany conceeded air superiority to the allies, with good reason. Any significant interception by german planes would have meant the total destruction of what little remained of the german air force. They were able to pick and choose when and where they would operate. I think we should be given that same option - to intercept or not.

What usually happens to me is I use my air force to attack ground units in support of an offensive - so that turn they take some damage. Then during the AI or opponents turn an air attack is made on a ground or sea unit and my already damaged air fleets are further damaged. I have never had a unit completely destroyed - but they are depleted to the point where you loose virtually all of the experience you have aquired when you reinforce. I just think there should be some way of giving the defending player the option of expending his forces in this way - not if they are attacked directly of course, but in support of ground or sea units within range. Anyone agree?

[Interception Out of Whack?]

Would anyone be in favor of some kind of option to NOT allow your air fleets to intercept? I am finding the same result you guys are, that my airforce is seriously damaged not by combat I initiate, but by intercepting air strikes that I dont really care to defend anyway. I would much rather have a corp or army take a hit of 2-3 (and that is about the limit in my experience) than to loose 4,5 even 6 strength points to an air force. Shouldnt the defending force have the OPTION of intercepting or not. I dont know of any other computer strategy game that has mandatory interception. Can this be an option in future pathes or versions?

[Balance to production capacity]

I am relatively new to playing this game but I would like others opinions on the fairness and accuracy on crediting MPP's. Upon conquering a nation, minor or not, the ENTIRE value of that nations industrial production is credited toward the conquering nation - along with the siezed "bonus".

What bothers be about this is - is it realistic to think that a nation who just conquered another, say Germany immediately after the conquest of Poland or France - receiving the full benefit of that entire nations industrial capacity? Shouldnt there be a turn or two before that happens? Or shouldnt there be some kind of build up period where over time the value of each resource returns to its pre-conquered value?

For example, upon capturing a city it can serve as a supply source but not contribute fully to the MPP's until x number of turns. 25% the first, 50% the second, etc... Does this seem fair or even possible to include?

Also one other thought concerning MPP's. When Germany declares war upon a minor nation, immediately that nations FULL industrial output is credited toward Britian. Does that seem reasonably? What usually happens to be is I attack several nations at once (Norway, Denmark, the Low Countries) and for however many turns it takes to complete the conquest Britian is bettered by those MPP's. She does not have to spend them on those minor countries units, she can horde them to build new ones in Britian. Not quite reasonable to me. Also would that production capacity even GET to Britian. Say Yugoslavia, or Poland, how are those supplies, goods, materials, fuels, etc.. somehow just transported across enemy territory to the UK?

Perhaps there can be some limit - that the production from an individual minor nation, unconnected by land or sea route to Britian, can only spend those MPP'S on units in that nation. This is less problematic on German minor nations because they border germany and the capacity of those nations was in real life added to the greater german industrial capacity.

Ideas, comments? One request - regardless of opinions can we try to keep this thread civil?

[Air power is much too strong....]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

How would people feel about this:

Leave air-fleets as they are when attacking a full strength unit. But as the unit is depleted, the number of viable targets decreases and the level of dispersion increases (if only because the previous attacks left holes in the line). The fewer targets would mean that tac bombers should be less effective against depleted units and the increased dispersion would mean that strat bombing should be less effective against depleted units. You could certainly argue against the reduced effect for strat bombers so maybe its best to leave them as they are since no-one seems to have a problem with them anyway.

The net result would mean that ground units would be slightly harder to destroy, without actually changing the initial effectiveness of the air fleets. It would still be possible to destroy ground units but players would know that they can do more damage by spreading their air attacks.

Does anyone object to this *in principle*?

I think your suggestion is fair and more accurate than the current rules. I guess what bothers me most about the current system is not that air power can destroy individual units - it has been done before. But this happened only in extream cases where virtually every sortie available for that period of time was directed toward one particular area and where the individual unit was vunerable (not entrnched, corps sized not army size). Taking one extream case and assuming that can occur as a norm to all units in all circumstances is just not accurate. Especially considering the level of technical sophistication of early war air weapons. Perhaps we consider this, no unit can be destroyed by an air fleet attack until those fleets are at tech level 4 or 5? Sound reasonable to anyone else?

What about this suggestion: allow a greater degree of damage to corps and armor than to army units. Cap the degree of damage to a certain % per turn - perhaps no more than a 90% reduction per turn of strength due to air strikes not supported by ground troops on tanks, 70% to corps, and 50% to armies.

And here is a question perhaps someone can answer or suggest a solution to. It seems I can never retain units with significant experience. Once they get there they are so weak I am afraid not to reinforce them. The only way to gain experience is to fight, fighting brings casualties, casualties lower strength.

Usually the only units I have with more than one medal are of very low strengh (6 or below). Is there a practical way of reinforcing these units without losing all of the experience gained? Simply not reinforcing them leaves your best units vunerable to a collective attack, Thus the dilema, reinforce and strengthen but loose experience or retain veteran skill but decrease strength?

I am sure there is a middle ground here somwhere, any suggestions on what has worked for you? Break even point?

[Air power is much too strong....]

I think that there should be a readiness and/

or supply hit in this case (as suggested earlier).

IOW each attack will improve the odds of the next

one. Simple yet does what we want multiple

attacks to do.

John DiFool

This sounds reasonable to me - it would more accurately reflect the possibility of a single unit fending off attacks by multiple opponents by consuming greater amounts of ammunition and supplies. I think it is entirely inaccurate to have a unit attacked - and after that attack its readiness and supply levels remain unchanged. If those values are affected during each turn by an attack they would add value to subsequent attacks by other units. Which is more accurate and in my opinion fair.

One additional thought - why do existing units automatically upgrade (not in unit strength but in attack/defend/movement values) when technology upgrades are made? Would it not be more accurate to require reinforcement or "re-armament" of existing units before they were brought up to the level of advancement as brand new units?

[Air power is much too strong....]

I would like to preface these comments by saying that I make them, not to start an argument or to be dissagreeable, but to make suggestions that I feel may improve the game play. I have not had this game for very long, just a few weeks. As have may others I have played computer strategy games for many years, and the variety and quality have fluctuated wildly. I initially was not impressed with the game, but after playing for a while I have learned to enjoy the game very much. However there are a few areas where I feel improvements can and should be made in any future releases. Some of which are:

Technology is too random and too unrealistic. There have been may comments on technology and many good points were made. My concern is that the tecnology is far to random, which may increase the variability of gameplay, which is a good thing, but it can also be unrealistic and quite frustrating. Being able to switch with no penalty from researching and developing sonar technology to advanced tanks and armor is, in my mind, not sensible. And the idea that you are investing in a percentage chance that remains constant is also problematic. As I see it, the more you invest, and the longer you continue that investement the greater your chances are of making advancement. For example lets say you invest 1250 in research and put all of it into industrial production - you now have a set % chance of improvement in that area for the rest of the game, or until you switch catagory of research. My suggestion would be to make the research significantly more expensive, BUT make it accumulitive. Say for every 10 MPP you purchase 1 research %. So one turn you invest 20MPP, 2% chance - the next trurn you invest 20MPP more, add another 2% to a total of 4% chance. I think this would more accurately depict the nature of research, the more you fund, the longer you fund it, the better your chances are for success. To ensure you cannot just "buy" technology, perhaps cap the total % chance available to say 33%, or 50%. Also make stiff penalties for moving research funds from one technology to another - say 50% reduction.

OK Comment number two. Airpower is simply too powerful in some senses and too weak in others. I know many others have commented on this, and there seems to be an unhealthy sense of animosity towards anyone who makes comments about the game. Dont dismiss someones ideas simply because you dont agree with them. Hear me out on this. Whether I am right or not, I cannot prove. But I dont think during WWII any corps or army was ever completely destroyed by nothing by air power. Yes they can be decimated, but not completely destroyed. Think about it. An ary, 60,000 trained, supplied, deplyed, armed troops with all of their equipment, supplies, everything based behind enemy lines - can be eliminated as a fighting force because of air power alone? In one week? No contact with ANY ground forces, several hexes from the front? I just cannot buy this. However I cannot overstate the importance of air power - I just think there should be a limit on the total degree of punishment they can inflict on ground troops - say in any one turn they cannot decrease a units strength by more than half. So an army with a strength of 10 cannot drop below a 5 by being attacked by air power alone - a 6 to a 3, etc... This would still significantly impact the unit without allowing it to be destroyed.

And here is my major grip against the game, you cannot attack with multiple units. How innacurate, and STRATEGICALLY unrealistic is this? One of the most basic of military strategies is to bring overwhelming force to bear on specific areas in order to break the enemy line. This is made virtually undoable unless more than one unit can attack at a time. Say a french corps is bounded by two german armies and one tank division. 30,000 french troops facing more than 100,000 german troops along with 25,000 mechanized units/tanks/etc... With those units having to attach one on one - I have found depending on circumstances you can end up with significant losses to the attacking units with little or no reduction of strength to the defender. In reality that sitation would have unfolded very differently - a combined attack would have been much more likely to succeed than the three units attacking individually, in turn. Please introduce this option in the future.

Another observation, strategic warefare is very inaccurate. Germans spend 300+ MPP to build a sub, ship it out to the atlantic, and it sinks only 20 MPP of britian before it is sunk! Or worse yet Britian flys a strategic bombing mission to hit a german port or industrial complex. It knocks a whopping 3 MPP from Germanys total - come on!!! Usually the damage to the bombers cost more than the damage to the attacked industry. During the middle of WWII germans subs were sinking thousands of tons of supplies sent to the UK each week. That is in no way reflected by one ot two subs having to be placed within striking distance of only TWO ports. Plus they invariably get sunk within a turn or two. As germany I never even bother - it is not a good investement to throw MPP away with little or no relative return. Also towards the end of the way when the allies were decimating german industry and supplies - germany at this point in the game is taking in 300-400 MPP a turn - the allies bomb two or three german supply or industrial complexes - with what result? What incredible damage did they do???? 5 MPP. Lets please look at this and see what other suggestions we can come up with. Perhaps making the strategic bombers and subs stronger, doing significantly more damage, make them cheaper , and perhaps make the subs harder to detect. Remember this aspect of the war was perhaps the key element in germany almost strangling britian into sumbission - and in the allies ability to choke off german production. That is simply not depicted in this game.

I have other comments which may be relevant, addiding additional space for activity in north africa - making it an actual relevant part of the game. Allowing production from or by Canada - yes the canadians actually contributed to the war effort - a rather significant effort I might add. Accurately reflecting the US industrial might. The US begins with 180 MPP. Come on, Germany begins the game in 1939 with 120!!! The US industrial might directed toward the european theater (not including that produced in support of pacific operations) was far far larger than britians, and approached that of the russians (with their overstated 500+ MPP). Let me conclude by saying that my ideas are not all right, if you disagree with me I respect that. But disagree with ideas of your own, discuss the ideas, dont just be a disgruntaled antagonist. Degrading and attacking someone elses ideas dont lead any more credence or legitimacy to your own. Let me know what you think!