[New PBEM Tournament Part II !]

Hostilities have commenced in round II game Terry (Axis) vs. Reepicheep (Allies). We're using no LC gambit and no first-turn of Barbarossa amphibious invasion into Russia house rules.

Two turns have been completed on both sides; and Denmark, Poland, and the Low Countries have fallen to the Axis. An overextended Germany army in Belgium was destroyed; and a sub guarding the entrance to the Baltic was discovered and sunk. Air battles over western Europe commenced on the second Axis turn and have since been continuous.

In the Mediterranean, one Greek army succumbed to the Italians, while another was nearly destroyed. British support personnel are prepared for a hasty departure.

The French fleet is being mobilized for immediate use, due to concerns that it will be scrapped if France falls to the powerful Axis forces.

[PBEM Ladder]

I'd rather see ranks based on something militarily historical- gives one that period flavor. The proposed names sound way too much like something for an FPS.

For instance, you could use tanks instead:

#1. King Tiger

#2. IS-2

#3. Tiger I

#4. T-34/85

#5. Sherman

#6. M13/39

#7. Opel Blitz

(Or something to that effect.) And appropriate icons would be easy to get.....

[ July 11, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!]

House rule of no LC invasion, as well as no amphibious attack on 1st turn of Barbarossa, combined with 30% Russia readiness.

Sounds good to me! Perhaps 35% Russian readiness with 10% US readiness might be better, but that's not a big deal. The other suggested house rules, as KDG said, would be hard to remember; and I think the above three things would mostly resolve the issue.

[PBEM Ladder]

I like your outlook, Oak; the point should be good fun. And a good loser gets more respect than a poor winner.

The idea of every player playing every other player sounds good to me. The primary issue in SC would be time- but then such a tournament would essentially be like a ladder, only different.

By the way, I don't believe you can make PBEM more cheat-resistant without a patch to the game to make SC keep track of loads on the program side instead of the file side. Also, encryption and packing of savegames immediately after they are saved- with them being decrypted and unpacked only when the password is entered- might help quite a bit as well.

Wouldn't be fool-proof I suppose; but it would be quite a bit harder to cheat.

[Interested in PBEM?]

Count me in, as well; I've been waiting for something like this.

[NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!]

JJ, overall I think the scenario is great- I had a blast with it.

I do think that as it is in the tournament, it favors the Axis simply due to war readiness (though granted, the Axis are easier to play well). They start with Sweden, and can take Iraq, Greece, and Portugal without declaring war on them. That in itself is big, even if Russian readiness was normal. But their readiness is at zero- thus the Axis can build and build and build- and get an income of nigh-on 700 MPP's a turn. It's hard to lose like that.

As far as I can tell, the Allies' only hope against a decent Axis player is to stop them early when Axis MPP's are less than Allied MPP's.

Thus the scenario is great in the short-term (massive naval engagements in the Atlantic and Med, air battles all over the place, fighting in Greece and Tobruk, etc.)- but in the long-term, it's hard to conceive of a game in which the Allies could pull off a win if the Axis are not stopped early. In the regular scenario, though, that is a good possibility; the Axis can't romp as much as they'd like because they have to deal with Russia.

I figure it would be good to look at the average readiness Russia and the U.S. gain when Portugal, Sweden, Iraq, and Greece are attacked in the regular scenario, add that total to the regular starting readiness for both (but subtract Ireland from the U.S.), and then use those figures in the scenario. Perhaps a bit less than that would be good, but that would at least be a good starting point.

[NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!]

A few words on the scenario itself:

It was quite a refreshing change from the stock campaign. I enjoyed fighting in Africa around Tobruk (something that doesn't happen often for me), and the massive naval engagements were a blast. It's amazing how much difference one level of gun-laying (or whatever that research is) makes! And the large German fleet means it is possibly a good strategy to invest in it.

My main quibble with the scenario is the lack of readiness for the U.S. and Russia, but I reckon that's been taken care of already. All-in-all, great stuff, JJ!

[NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!]

Just completed my game with Tigleth. At turn 50, he conceded, making it an Axis victory. He was a fine opponent- quite a pleasure to play. Good game!

A brief AAR:

Poland, the Low Countries, and Denmark were quickly conquered in the matter of a couple turns, as I recall. I then set up to take Norway while the campaign in France was still underway.

German air superiority proved devastating in France. The campaign there was halted for a turn or so as a massive naval engagement occurred near Norway after it fell. The German navy was mostly destroyed- but much of the Royal Navy went to the bottom as well due to air support. As I recall, most of the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean met the same end.

After that, U.K. troops were evicted from Norway, while France was overrun. Greece had been finished off, while an attack on Tobruk was repulsed through a series of good rolls on my part (Tigleth really should have gotten it).

I took Vichy France, but left Spain alone, as the U.K. appeared to be remarkably empty- and I was thinking of doing Sea Lion. (Turned out to be a mistake to not take Spain.) I used my navy to lure more of the Royal Navy to its doom, pounded the English countryside with air fleets and rockets, and finally launced Sea Lion. I had made a serious mistake, though, and pulled back for a few turns; for I had blown the London port to 0 with rockets, not thinking that I would need it later....

Once it had 'healed', I really launched Sea Lion, and was able to successfully complete it. I had a defensive line set up for Russia, and began moving stuff back that way, as well as to Spain (which had not joined). I could not take Iraq, as Russia moved stuff in- and a Canadian unit was still holding Malta. I did manage to get Alexandria and the Suez; and the Italians battled in that region until the end of the game- finally taking Iraq.

I conquered Spain and Portugal, while moving steadily east in Russia; and at that point I was making over 700 MPP's a turn, which was rather devastating for the Allies. By turn 50, it was essentially over.

[ June 25, 2003, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!]

As I said over in the PBEM Etiquette thread, I figure I'm an advanced intermediate; but if that's all right, I'd like to join. And I would be happy to help out new players after games (presuming I won). (Thanks, JJ!)

My e-mail address is philip.nelson6@KEYverizon.net . (Take out the KEY to get my address- spam bot blocker.)

[PBEM Etiquette]

I hope the new Z-ladder accepts PBEM Ladder games, which is really the only way I can play...

I concur with that sentiment, Tigleth. 'Twould be nice if there were something like that for us folk who only use PBEM. I did check out the tournament, JJ; but I reckon I'm an advanced intermediate and thus don't qualify. KDG actually might know better than I, as he's the only one I've been playing recently.....

[An Amalgamation of Ideas]

Thanks, JerseyJohn! Like I said, I've read many- if not most- of the threads in which you fellas hashed things out; and I don't want to trouble you to take time to post links to things I've read. But if there was a discussion about the same-time/turn-based idea (excepting the one I started a long time ago), I would indeed be interested.

Shaka, some replies:

Moving an air unit ... you suggest that it should cost MPPs. What costs are you trying to reflect? Moving the immobile Air Force infrastructure to a new location? As far as limiting the distance per turn, we already have that. If you are referring to the fact that you can "operate" the unit halfway around the world in one turn, then, yes, you do have a point. But thats true for all the units performing an operate move.

Yes, I'm referring to moving the ground support infrastructure. For example, an air fleet could rebase a couple hexes away without penalty, but (for example) would have to pay five MPP's to move three hexes, seven to move four, twelve to move five, eighteen to move six, and so on.

And in general, I think the cost of operating units should be tied to how far they are moved- instead of the one-size-fits-all cost we have now. Also, I do think there should be limits on how far things can be operated.

Manpower and Oil ... agree. While I won't go into detail (since I already have wrote a couple of topics regarding this), I will mention that the military manpower pool would increase as nations were conquered. It just wouldn't be as large an increase as one obtained from a "willing" ally.

Good point- I hadn't thought about willing allies such as Romania. I don't know enough about manpower from conquered territory to really argue that point- I just know some of it would be used to power the industries in the conquered territory, while some from 'home' would be required to police the area. Not sure what the net difference would be. It does seem that that sort of manpower probably would be good primarily for conscripts- but not for tank crews, pilots, or sailors; thus at the scale of SC, I'm not sure it would be a significant contribution.

Supplies ... Are you referring to a maintenance cost in MPPs per unit? Or are you referring to actually having to purchase supply points that units consume? Could you elaborate on this point please?

I'm basically referring to the former, though I think it should be possible to adjust how many MPP's you are spending per turn on supplies by reducing the future supply levels of units. For instance, a German tank group in the U.K. has a maximum supply of five. If keeping it at its full supply cost 10 MPP's per turn, it would only cost 5 MPP's to keep it at half supply. And if you wanted to reduce its supply to 3 next turn to free up MPP's for something else, you could do so; thus its supply would only cost 3 MPP's for that turn.

And it's supply could cost even less if it simply sat and did nothing for a turn. And now that I think about it, it would be good to be able to 'save' supplies to prepare for an offensive. Ergo, if maintaining a tank group without combat cost 1 MPP a turn, and you were sending it 3 supply points a turn, each turn it would gain 2 supply points.

Also, perhaps understrength units wouldn't require the same maintenance costs as full strength units, while overstrength units would cost more.

Destroying the fighting strength of a unit ... You are correct that the combat power of a unit is a small percentage of the total strength of that unit. But the SC model is fairly accurate, if we accept the fact that the strength points represent the combat power of the unit, not the total manpower of the unit.

Yes- but refitting strength points costs less than rebuilding a unit. I'm saying that if you lose 100% of the fighting strength of a unit, you should still be able to refit the unit provided the basic support infrastructure is in place (determined by how much territory is overrun by the enemy forces). I would say the 'ghost' 0-strength unit prior to refitting would either be automatically retreated to a nearby HQ or city behind the lines, or returned to a pool from which it could then be deployed.

Otherwise, you're paying extra for something you already have.

"wacky" proposal ... Basically the argument against Turn based movement and Real Time movement. The simulatenous movement concept is the way to go, but you are talking about a whole different game system now. Let me make sure we are clear though... simulatenous movement would consist of me entering my orders for my units, you or the AI would enter your orders for your units, then we both would "watch" our units execute those orders at the same time.

Exactly.

One of the basic concepts in wargames, is that for you to win a combat, you need a 3:1 ratio in combat power. Different nations accomplish that different ways, either thru superior numbers, superior tech or a combination.

Finding "three corners" is no different then trying to cut off enemies line of supply or attacking the flanks and rear.

My point was that if air fleets could not damage units- and if nothing else were unchanged- one generally could not advance at all against an enemy line without finding three corners to exploit. I agree that attacking from as many sides as possible is preferable, but it shouldn't be the only method of advancing.

Strength of an SC unit is a representation of the combat power of a unit, not the total strength of the unit.

People don't like to get shot. It hurts, and sometimes can actually kill you.

The guys in combat don't have any clue as to the location or strength of the enemy they are facing. So they take some time to prepare an assault. Send out patrols (ground or air), bring up additional ammunition, etc. Then, ideally, launch artillery or armor attacks that reduce the defender to the point where you can walk in and take prisoners.

But that does not mean units can't advance at all. As it is now in SC, it would generally impossible without the kills from air units. I can kill eight strength points of a corps with two experienced armies with HQ support- but that two-strength corps will refit next turn, and I will not have advanced an inch. That's not right (regardless of how air support works, actually).

Attack gets launched. Defenders no longer there. Attackers advance until the find the next defensive line (if any) and repeat the process. They are not aware that they have "eliminated" the enemy unit. After advancing about 20 or so miles into that hex however, with no further resistance, they realize they have gained control of the hex. Now the combat support elements start to move to a different location. Hence, the SC unit "moves" into the new hex. Can all of this occur within one turn? Designers interpetation. Generally speaking though, nonmotorized units could not but motorized ones could.

That also brings up the issue of the defender retreating. What I think SC is trying to do, is thru the combat results (ie unit destroyed) represent the fact that the attackers attacked fast enough to "overrun" the Infantry/Armor and are now wracking havoc among the Artillery and Combat Support. Hence, you no longer have a unit to withdraw. But, by some chance, if you still have a couple of strength points left (ie Infantry/Armor people), you can pull the unit from the front (ie withdraw/retreat).

I understand what you're saying; but the problem I outlined in my previous point still applies- advancing is basically impossible without air support unless you can find three corners from which to attack. That needs to change- advancing ought to be possible against a broad front without air support (the Battle of the Bulge, for instance).

You would like to make a distinction between "consecutive" and "simultaneous" attacks. And that assumes our nations have to ability to coordinate simultaneous attacks among multiple Armies. Another level of complexity and open to various interpetations of how WWII Armies operated. Remember the unit scale we are operating at. These are not company or battalion assaults. These are multi-division assaults spread out among 150 miles, that occur over a one-week time frame. Not going help the Russians much.

I don't have the knowledge of the subject to really argue the point- I was indeed assuming operations like that were launched. But that does bring up another point- engagement. It seems that units only engage others for very brief periods (a second or two )- whereas if a corps attacked a tank army, it seems to me they would be engaged in combat (probing, assaults, and other small-scale stuff) long enough for another corps to be able to attack the tank army's flank while it was focused on the first corps. It doesn't have to be simultaneous attacks. And it still seems to me that a defending unit's ability to disengage from one combat and then focus completely on one from another direction isn't realistic. Perhaps that could be represented by giving a defender an efficiency penalty for each enemy unit adjacent to it (not counting the attacking enemy), and inflicting a readiness and supply penalty for each combat in which it engages on defense. (That's presuming simultaneous combats are not modeled.)

Anyhow, thanks for the discussion- I believe I've learned some stuff already.

[An Amalgamation of Ideas]

John, I should have mentioned while I post only rarely, I read many of the threads here (I'm allowed to surf the 'Net at work- but not post). Thus I have a good idea of the gameplay discussions that have gone on here. I know some of what I included has been discussed frequently, but I think a good bit of what I wrote is at least new twists on old ideas.

Plus, I was trying to put together some ideas I liked and thought were realistic into a package in an attempt to show how the summation of them might result in a balanced- and more enjoyably realistic- game (some ideas are good, but taken singly would unbalance the game as it is now).

Tiglath, I agree- the catching-planes-on-the-ground idea is not very important- but it would be more realistic (I think), and would not require any more micromanagement.

Anyhow- thanks, fellas!

[An Amalgamation of Ideas]

This is intended to be an amalgamation of suggestions for the sequel to SC dealing primarily with air power and land combat. The game is fairly well balanced and a great deal of fun as it is; but as is generally accepted, there is room for significant improvement.

First, a couple axioms:

#1. The key to SC's playability is its elegant depth.

#2. SC should be as realistic, yet as fun as is practically possible.

Also, the ideas contained here are not all my own- many folks here have contributed to them; and I couldn't name them all.

Now, the interaction between air fleets and land units should be improved; and the best way to go about correcting that is to look at their historical capabilities and requirements. As has been said, they weren't used to destroy armies outright; they were primarily used to suppress and disrupt units, and destroy supply convoys. I don't know if suppression really applies at the scale of SC; but if it did, air units probably should have the capability of suppressing strength points, as well as reducing supply and readiness (and readiness should be a defensive factor if it isn't already). A fully-suppressed unit would not be able to inflict much damage- if any- and would attempt to retreat if attacked.

Regardless of suppression, I think air fleets should affect the supply and readiness of land units- not their strength (and that applies to HQ's as well, though I reckon HQ's don't have readiness).

In regards to air-to-air combat, I think the effectiveness of air fleets should be reduced somewhat the farther away from their airbase they have to fly to engage in combat. The effect could be applied to ground attacks, but less significantly.

Also, a major factor in the war- attacking airbases directly with air units- is not properly represented in SC because there is no way to catch air fleets on the ground. When attacking an air fleet directly with another air fleet, I think there should be a varying factor that represents planes caught on the ground- thus increasing the defenders casualties. Radar research could eliminate that factor, while an unexpected declaration of war could make it almost 100%. Flying over a great deal of enemy territory- and especially other enemy units- to reach the enemy airbase could significantly reduce the factor.

Finally, from what I know, I think it wasn't as easy to move air fleets as it is in SC. Moving an air fleet could be made to cost MPP's, with the total depending upon how far it was moved. And there should be limits on the possible distance per turn.

Now, another problem with air fleets- and other units in general is the number that can be made. A few suggestions:

I think there should beat least one more resource in SC- manpower- with perhaps oil as another. All units would cost manpower to build- with armies costing the most, and naval units and air fleets the least. They would cost manpower, as well as MPP's, to reinforce. Manpower would be set per nation, with a certain unalterable amount accrued per turn (unless home areas were overrun). Some casualties could be returned to the manpower pool (representing wounded), depending perhaps upon the distance from a HQ/city and whether or not units were encircled and then destroyed. Manpower would not increase as you captured territory (I don't think significant manpower was gained from that sort of thing- as some was needed to police territory and run industry anyhow).

One thing that is completely missing in SC is the cost of supplies- they are free in SC. There should be a MPP fee per turn for supplying units, while some could also require an oil per turn cost. Air units would probably cost the most, with corps being the cheapest. Subtleties such as a unit not requiring extra supply due to remaining idle for a turn could be included. Also, the supply cost would be dependent upon how much actually reached the unit. The primary gameplay trouble I see with this scheme is that you would need to be able to manually set next-turn supply levels (micromanagement?). However, I think that's historical- consider Rommel's situation in Africa.

Also, units were not built overnight as they are in SC. Some units should take a while to build, like battleships and carriers. Air fleets and tank groups could be in a medium range, while corps could be built quickly. I'm not going to be really precise about the actual times involved- it's the basic concept that counts.

One more thing- that change would make units more precious. But destroying units is perhaps too important as it is. One thing that is not really represented in SC is that fact that the actually fighting strength of a unit represents only a small part of it (as far as I know). If a unit is destroyed- as long as it wasn't encircled and destroyed- it should be possible to refit it instead of having to rebuild it due to the fact that the basic infrastructure would still be in place- it wouldn't be necessary to rebuild that. Note that that would promote encirclement-destruction- a key part of WWII.

Now, on to land combat.

Without air fleets, land combat would be all about finding three corners on which to attack. That doesn't seem right to me. For one thing- why does a 10-strength tank army have to stop if there is only a 2-strength corps in clear terrain in its way? It should be able to advance into that hex and overwhelm the defenders. And how can a defending unit be destroyed if the enemy units never advance into its hex? Is everyone lining up on the edges to fight? I think retreats (modified by possible suppression/readiness factors) should be included, as well as possibly assaults into hexes- in which the attacking unit is attempting to thrust deeply into the hex, thus increasing possible casualties on both sides. I think that should be included at least for amphibious assaults- that way you couldn't block invasions.

I also think it is not realistic for a defending unit to be able to defend at full power when attacked by three different units, modified by losses of course. For instance, a tank group can maul three corps attacking it- one by one; whereas if the game treated the three-unit attack as it ought to be- essentially simultaneous- the tank corps could do some damage to all three- but not nearly as much, and it should take more casualties due to the three-direction attack. That would help out the Russians immensely, I think.

And that leads into a wackier- though I think still good- proposal. It simply does not seem realistic to me to have one side sitting back for a week and conducting no operations whatsoever, and then taking the initiative while the other side sits back and does nothing but defend. I do think SC2 (or SC3- I know this is radical) should be turn-based; but like Combat Mission, where the units of both sides all act at the same time. It would mean a great many changes, but it would definitely be far more realistic. It would make TCP/IP play better, I think- both sides could conduct their turns at the same time, thus saving time; it would probably allow for better AI, as it could be 'thinking' while you are; and PBEM would still play about as it does now procedurally.

Anyhow, taken together, I think the previous proposals (excepting perhaps the same-time/turn-based idea) would realistically resolve quite a few issues with SC, while preserving- if not enhancing- the gameplay.

[ March 29, 2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[Suggestion- major game engine change]

I wasn't suggesting real-time (yikes!)- you would still have all the time you needed to sit back and plan your moves. But instead of getting the results immediately, you would have to wait until the enemy plotted their moves; and then the turn would be executed.

I believe that would be more realistic, more indicative of what actually was done at that level; and I reckon it would be more fun if done well.

[Suggestion- major game engine change]

I'm hoping this one hasn't been discussed somewhere else here already. Anyhow, the idea is simple- make a future version of SC same-time/turn-based like CM.

Obviously that would radically alter combat, but I think it would be for the better in regards to gameplay, depending upon on how it was implemented. Also, it would be rather unique, and would separate SC from the crowd, so to speak. I know of only two grand strategic wargames that use that system, and neither are WWII games (Risk II and Imperialism II).

One smaller suggestion: how about allowing optional assaults- combats in which more casualties could be taken on both sides, and in which if the attacker won, they would automatically move into the defender's hex and force a retreat (or surrender). Along with removing much of WWI from the game, that would also allow amphibious assaults on already defended hexes (like Malta).

[ January 15, 2003, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[THE SC WORLD CHAMPION LADDER]

Zapp, is PBEM acceptable for these games?

[Seeding Proceedings]

I would be interested in joining; but I don't play with TCP/IP- just e-mail. If that's not all right, I understand. (But I presume a turn checker would be for PBEM- not TCP/IP?)

[SC Christmas Tournament]

I'm interested. I don't play using TCP/IP, however (general security reasons); and also, I doubt I would be able to play a full game in a single working day.

Weekends and the 25th I should have plenty of time in early-to-mid morning, however (I work night shift, EST).

[ December 20, 2002, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[Some Allied Strategies]

Fellas, I took part in the PBEM Challenge Hubert had initiated a while back; and here is the report I sent him, altered somewhat. My opponent and I both listed our strength as being the Allies.

My Axis Attempt - Loss

Not having played the 1939 campaign against a human before, I was unprepared for dealing with a French HQ. It took me a while to figure out that the only practical counter was a fourth air fleet; and by that time I had purchased two or three research points. It took me far too long to get one; and I never conquered France, though I came close. Russia declared war too soon- I had moved a fourth corps out to the eastern defenses, and it looked as if their war readiness shot up suddenly. I moved it back (I didn't mean it- really! ), but it was too late. I was steamrolled. (And I probably would have lost even had I conquered France; I sustained fairly heavy losses in the campaign there, and couldn't have competed with Russia's industry.)

By the way, I won three advances- all in industry.

My Allied Attempt - Victory

As the Polish, I was able to take an opportunity or two to damage enemy units (a HQ, I think, and definitely a cruiser that had docked). I declared war on Belgium; and while I did not take it for a long time, it slowed down Germany due to loss of plunder and perhaps a stiffer French line. I moved the Malta air fleet to London, and moved the Mediterranean carrier to English seas. I sold the French air fleet and the British bomber to buy HQ's. I also garrisoned the western French ports with U.K. units so they would not surrender when France did.

The French lines were breached thanks to a foolish mistake and great Axis rolls. I attacked a tank group with the central Maginot garrison, and the French army was knocked down to 4 strength. Though heavily entrenched, they were destroyed the next turn- allowing the Axis to achieve their breakthrough in the center of the Maginot Line (I think my forces near Belgium would have fallen soon anyhow, but it was worth a chuckle or two ).

But I was able to turn France and the Low Countries into an Axis cauldron, both before and after France fell. Overall, I think my forces there scored two HQ's- Bock and Manstein, at least four or five air fleets, and various other stuff (no tanks, though). Most of that was a result of air power.

I lost both ports, a carrier (forgot about the German navy), and an air fleet (in attack- stupid move), and wasted a research point by selling it to get another air fleet. But I gained back Brest fairly quickly, knocked out most of the German navy, eventually wound up with five air fleets, improved Montgomery to full experience, and slowed down the Axis tremendously. The Axis eventually pulled out of range, leaving mostly Italian units as garrisons.

Though the Axis conquered Yugoslavia and were bolstered by the normal Axis minors, they did nothing else except prepare a (good) defensive wall on the East Front. The Russians declared war; and while their border troops were pummeled, the Axis could not mount an effective offensive- and they were thrown back without having taken a single Russian city. Also, due to the tremendous Axis air losses in the West, the Russians were able to conduct a successful air campaign.

The U.K. continually pulverized enemy troops within air fleet range, cleared Belgium and conquered it, liberated France with a corps or two, and began landing more forces at Belgium. The U.S. declared war, but their forces wouldn't have been missed if they hadn't. The U.K. launched an invasion of Germany from Belgium and France; and with the Russians pressing hard from the East, Germany was steamrolled. Italy didn't last much longer.

I only won one significant tech advance- level one industry for the U.K. (and I forgot to place the Russian chits until the end- not that it mattered). May have gotten something else near the end, but I can't remember (it was moot anyhow).

In conclusion, I suspect most players have not taken advantage of the opportunity to significantly hurt the Axis war machine in the battle for France. Also, I exploited the fact that interception generally hurts the interceptor more than the attacker (at least, it seems that way:)). In this case, it could be that with the Montgomery HQ and U.K. air fleets based in London, their potential is maximized- leading to that effect. Regardless, their efficiency can allow the Allies to gain momentum- and experience- and thus destroy enemy air fleets more easily. Overall, I think my opponent played well as the Axis; I suspect the U.K. strategy of grinding down the Axis in France mostly through use of air power is simply hard to counter. The Maginot if used properly forces the Axis to fight along the coast within range of London and the U.K. carriers, which can be devastating.....

I'm playing my opponent again; and this time he's fielding five air fleets to tackle France (and so am I in the mirror game) . We'll see how it goes....

[Some thoughts]

Howdy, all- first post here. :cool: I've enjoyed the game immensely, and am anticipating a series. Thanks, Hubert!

From my experiences with the game and from what I've read, here are a few suggestions or support for other ideas I've seen (in no particular order):

#1. Research is powerful, but too random; and there is little strategy involved. To achieve a similar effect, one might give the Axis a one in a hundred chance of winning after each turn instead. (It reminds me of the heavy-bomber tech imbalance in Axis & Allies.) I have seen some interesting proposals to remedy it, though I have none of my own. I do think some randomness should be removed, and more strategy added.

#2. I think the air-defense tech should apply to most ground units.

#3. I would like to see an assault option for armies, infantry, and tanks. Basically, it would be a high-casualty battle in which the attacking unit attempts to move into the defending unit's hex at all costs.

If it wins, either the defending unit surrenders, retreats, or is destroyed outright. If the attacker loses, it is repulsed with high casualties. Trouble is, I don't know how realistic that is. But it does seem odd that a 1-strength corps can keep an overstrengthed tank group from moving into the hex.

#4. I agree that sub-warfare needs to be changed.

#5. Surface-raiders would be cool. Seems odd that only subs can attack supply convoys.

#6. Carrier planes' invulnerability to damage from armies, tanks, and corps seems odd (and can give them a tremendous experience advantage). I'd say carriers need some tweaking. One major option- make carriers separate from the air fleets they carry.

#7. A possibility (not sure about its realism)- add aerodromes to the map, and make them purchasable, attackable, and repairable. If they are reduced to a certain point, air fleets should no longer be able use them. And air fleets shouldn't be able to land anywhere but functioning aerodromes or carriers.

#8. Adding oil as a consumable and necessary supply would increase the realism of the game, and help prevent air fleet abuse,as has been pointed out.

#9. Force units to be manually upgraded to the latest tech.

#10. Add a 'maximum-strength refit' button.

#11. Increase the map-size as much as possible.

Overall, I'd like to see SC keep it's simple-but-fun gameplay, yet be as realistic as possible. And I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. :cool: