dougman4

Ecthelion, I’m in favor of any constraining influence with regard to reinforcements. Hopefully, a couple of different approaches can be coded as options. Your comment of pools not necessarily being constraining (at least in the near term) is insightful, and should be kept in mind when exploring that route. Urgrue, after a 48 hour hotseat marathon on the weekend. I spawned countless Allied corps in France and kept Germany at bay until Russia entered the war. The quagmire was extraordinary in size and depth and bogged movement. Germany could not mount any blitz, even though it took the Low Countries quickly. If this is to resemble WWII at all, Germany must be able to advance when it has superior forces. Early in the game, there is no time to make an intensive buildup of air power and rockets – and nor should Germany have to buildup up even more before it invades France (as the game is supposed to have already modeled the relative strengths of forces as the war began). In fact, delaying Germany’s attack in France makes the game unwinnable for Germany. Moreover, it is silly that you should need to have as much or more air units as ground units – and to win I find I must resort to more air than ground. Of course, if my opponent has (through luck) researched higher jet power advancements, there is no way whatsoever to advance in the quagmired battlefield. On both fronts, having units 3 to 5 units thick on both armies is the norm – with only a fraction of them actually getting to fight in a turn because of the constraints (can’t stack, can’t fire and move back for a new unit to move forward and fire, can’t deselect a unit after moving fire it later, no tank blitz ability, no retreating, magic reinforcements to full strength even when engaged with the enemy).

What a shame. We just don't understand each other. Maybe our children or children's children will do better. I've done my part. I learned the Russian language, studied Russian culture, traveled to the former Soviet Union, and married a Russian. We don't always understand each other; sometimes our conversations resemble the one above. But, it is possible to love, speak civilly, and live peaceably despite our differences. Until you’ve made similar efforts, please refrain from making this personal. Meanwhile, I hope EB doesn’t leave our discussion board. It is more fun with divergent views, and we can all learn from interaction. [ October 25, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

Urgrue, would that I could unclog the “bog” with superior tactics or numerical superiority. What invariably happens in my games, though, are massive fronts on the east and west. Each front is many units thick. The units are stuck, not one can move anywhere, as every hex remotely near the front is occupied. The most you can typically bring to bear for an attack is 2 or 3 units, never enough to kill a unit in one turn and it magically reinforces to full strength the next turn. So, you can see it has nothing to do with tactics or having sufficient strength – both fronts are completely engaged with many units deep that never get to fight because you can’t stack units or move units to the back after they fire. Urgue, I’ll champion any scheme that is a constraining influence on replacements, to include your “ghost” reinforcements!

Ecthelion, great ideas! I hope SC incorporates your suggestions as toggle-able options so that we can use them in PBEM and hotseat without having to depend on our opponents voluntarily complying with them. Sometimes, you can just inadvertantly forget as well!

RicKhan, SC is a brilliant concept. The SC designers are extraordinarily patient and responsive. What I harp on is not damning, because SC wondrously lends itself to customizability. If I were not optimistic that my concerns wouldn't be addressed I certainly would not spend time to address them. I love war games, and wish the best for SC. I wish I had been an original play tester as I may have helped tweak a thing or two. In any case, I don’t wish to impose on anyone. All I hope for are options I can invoke to play the game as I would like it. Unfortunately, no one would develop and include an option unless it is shown to be necessary. I think I’ve given voice or joined the chorus of likeminded gamers in the issues I’ve addressed. Broken record, guilty. Grating, doubtlessly. Apologetic, yes I’m sorry I feel it necessary. Once these options are included, I’ll never breathe another word about them again. However, I don’t think it is negative to suggest SC on a global scale would be tedious. An Asia/Pacific standalone I can see would be wonderful. I just wouldn’t want to play it with the same rules without the options that would make it fun, IMHO. I'm about to embark on another 48 hour SC hotseat marathon, I think I've earned my stripes to comment. [ October 25, 2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

I'd prefer SC2 simply be a customizable version of this one, with many toggle-able features. This game doesn't lend itself to be as global as Axis and Allies because it SC is much more detailed. I think you could do a Pacific/Asia version, but to connect it to Europe would create nightmarishly long terms with far too many units to be pleasant. Meanwhile, lets just get the current version right. There plenty of game balances to even out and un-quagmire.

Good idea! Seems more useful than the first post which asked for a reinforce all to max hotkey, which provoked my derision as to the ease of reinforcements to begin with. There is a pitfall with such a hotkey though. In some terrain or situations, you might not be entitled to max out. And, you might not have noticed that was the case. By hitting the hotkey, you might reinforce and only get say one reinforcement (ending your turn for that unit). Had you known, you might have chosen instead to move to the rear instead of leaving yourself vulnerable in the front line. [ October 25, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

JWagner, as the game now stands its pretty much if you use your subs - you lose them - thereby effectively ending any sub warfare in a war that was full of it.

Daamion, I truly appreciate your comments as this game is close to marrying a highly abstracted strategic style (Axis and Allies) with the exhilaration and fun of a tactical style battle resolution (Panzer General II). Working out a few kinks, and adding some customizable options, and I think we've a cult classic here that will have a long life and many subsequent upgrades. However, the shortcomings I continually harp on are rather striking – but also strikingly easy to fix if only through toggle-able options. Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin (CMBB), for example, does not lend itself to customization as readily. So, I hope the SC staff fully appreciates the wellspring of enthusiasm for the game they have stumbled upon, and will take advantage of the ease of customizable options to satisfy all of us.

JerseyJohn, we're agreed that Russia and Germany can reinforce everything at any time with the MPPs they receive - creating a quaqmired battlefield as it is so difficult to kill units with the current ground rules. And, I agree England's resources are comparatively limited. But, it seems proportionally suitable to me. England was not able to launch a war winning ground campaign by itself. To me, England is best served by doing nothing (in many ways this is a Seinfeld-esque game – where the best strategies involve nothing) and devoting all MPPs to jet power and air supremacy. Then, when US finally comes into play the invasion of western Europe can successfully commence, albeit at a quagmired pace.

EV, outstanding suggestions! I'm all for ANY constraining influence with regard to reinforcements. Any. A N Y or backwards, YNA! I'd submit though, it is not even a battle of attrition as the continuous stream of MPPs guarantees a continuous stream of reinforcements. So, there's really no attrition involved, just a quagmired battlefield. Please give us toggle-able reinforcement constraint options so everyone is happy!

Under the current ground rules (see rationale below), air fleets are the only way to reliably remove weakened pieces from the board. Any savvy SC gamer immediately spends big on jet power research. To not do so is to loose the game, as you would forfeit air superiority to your opponent. Even if you didn’t attack your opponent’s superior planes with yours, his planes would decimate yours in defensive support sorties. Since both players are forced to spend big on jet power research, the game boils down to simple chance as to whom the computer awards advancements more quickly to. The player who gains superiority immediately sets about building large quantities of air fleets, often exceeding ground forces. This abstraction, IMHO, is a harmful to game play. Ground rules that create the disproportionate emphasis on airpower are as follows: no stacking is permitted, you can’t attack and move units to the rear to bring in more units for continued attacks, you can’t move then deselect and then attack, reinforcements and building new units is unlimited even when enemy units adjacent, reinforcements are too cheap or there are too many MPP’s in the game.

I heartily agree, German U-boats are a joke in this game. I support any change that makes them stronger. However, I'd prefer the designers address the ground combar system first. Reinforcements and buying new ones are too easy (especially with enemy units adjacent), you can't shoot and then move, you can't move then deselect and then shoot.

Dgaad, agreed that the key is to remove units from the board, not beat them down. But, you can't do so because reinforcement is so easy and rules prevent enough ground attackers from engaging in battle (no stacking permitted, you can’t attack and move units to the rear to bring in more units for continued attacks, you can’t move then deselect and then attack). You can whack numerous units everywhere on the board and see them all get reinforced the next turn. It is silly, no army has ever been able magically resurrect the dead and create new armies to boot! I don’t care how it is fixed, whether you get fewer MPPs or units cost more or the relative cost between reinforcing and buying new units is tweaked. But, tweaked it must be. Or, simply create a toggle of options so that it is customizable and everyone is happy.

Fubarno, you are truly blessed to have avoided the quagmire. Either your opponents are embarrassed to resort to this fail safe technique or they haven’t stumbled upon it. I agree that operational strength is some sort of abstraction, not limited to manpower losses. However, equipment losses and other factors can’t magically be restored to full strength in a week while engaged with the enemy.

Fubarno, You criticize unjustly, the last thing I would do is sensationalize the discussion. Frankly, the unbalance in the game is sensational in of itself. Here’s a perfect example of how you could spawn one air unit, one tank unit and three armies every week/turn. Choose the 1939 campaign as the Germans. Take over Poland, Low Countries, and France. Then wait and do nothing (This game is scintillating isn’t it? Win by doing absolutely nothing!). The US is not in the game, and neither is Russia. It is dozens of turns before either country enters the war, and you earn more than double the MPP’s as England in the meantime and develop advanced research. You will have many thousands of MPPs saved up, even if you spend significantly on research. When Russia and the US finally do get in the war, your research is very far along and your units blow them away. Wait until the turn before US/Russia enter the war to buy units so that you buy your advanced units at the lowest price your industry research has advanced. So, not only can you buy advanced units cheaply, but you have thousands of MPPs with which you could buy the very units I said you could for many turns. The same thing can happen for Russia, if German concentrates on taking out US or UK and leaves Russia alone. In fact, situations like this happen more often than not in the games I play. The game is unbalanced, and other countries should be compelled to enter the war once a country has so many MPPs. Anyone ever heard of a country getting nervous at the huge military buildup of another? In any case, my German strategy above is a gift to all. Until SC is tweaked, you’ll never lose with Germany again if you employ it. In any case, limiting spawning of contested cities works against Germany just as much as Russia. If Germany concentrates on Russia, Germany depends on the Magic Spawn feature of SC to keep US/UK bogged down in Western Europe.

Yes, Geozero, SC does much more closely resemble pre-WW2 combat. The problem is that the game limits the land units you can bring to bear to attack in a turn. You can’t stack units. You can’t move units to the rear after you attack – DESPITE THE FACT YOU MAY NOT HAVE MOVED. You can’t move a unit to attack, deselect it, and then still fire it. You have no artillery with which to attack from long range (rockets are laughable), which given the scale is understandable. However, the very scale of the game makes non-stacking archaic. You couldn’t intentionally design a situation for quagmired battles any better. Every single relevant factor ensures SC battles are so. Even airpower! Whoever, by bad luck, is behind in jet power research has essentially lost the only remaining way to remove beaten down enemy units from the board. So, therein lays the cause for the bogged battles. I’m surprised you don’t have MPP’s left over after reinforcement for new units and research. That’s never been the case for me. I likewise caveat: This is all assuming playing the 1939 campaign.

Geozero, good idea! A resource pool would also be a constraining influence, I’m all for it. Make it a toggle-able option, it can only improve the game. It makes no sense for German to get typically 200 to 400 MPPs a turn to spend on new units or reinforcements indefinitely (SC games can go on quite a while as they often devolve into a quagmired trench warfare style). At some point, Germany’s entire population is dead. Naturally, the same goes for Russia or any other country. Dgaad, appreciate the constructive criticism. Here’s some of my own: 1st Point: Agreed, reinforcements should be cheaper than a new unit. However, reinforcements are priced too low because you can typically reinforce all units to max and have extra left over for new units or to save for research. There’s nothing to force you into hard choices. Hitler and Stalin and Churchill never had it so easy. Something broken or downtrodden, no problem – Presto – good as new! Seems ludicrous. 2nd Point: Each hex is 50 miles, not 100, so your logic is half as relevant. Adjacent units do have an impact on reinforcement and construction of new units. This impact increases as the city or unit is surrounded. This impact is also greatest in the zone of control (adjacent hexes) of a unit. If we agree that it should be difficult or impossible for a surrounded city (or unit) to reinforce or build new units, then it shouldn’t be unlimited for a city (or unit) to reinforce or build new units if it is surrounded but for one hex. I advocate a sliding scale that reduces reinforcements or new units as more enemy units are adjacent. 3rd Point: Don’t believe anyone’s disputed that MPPs are Military Production Units, the meaning of which is clear. 4th Point: Agreed, operational strength has many of factors, not all of which are manpower. However, manpower is a significant factor and not all equipment losses could be restored very quickly. 5th Point: No one in this tread including myself criticized operational movement.

Sometimes I get the feeling that players must believe it is only fun if all the pieces on the board are maxed out in strength. I'd submit that it is in fact more exciting if through battle you could visibly see the attrition. It would be fascinating to watch units with strengths under 5 duke it out for control of an important location. Everybody would be under the same rules, so your enemy would have to nurse the wounded units just as you would. But, you'd occasionally get to see them square off against other wounded units or have to withstand a battle against a fresh unit at a higher strength. However, none of this ever happens. It is comical: Player 1's Turn: a. Fight with units with strength of 8 or more b. Reinforce units of 7 or less c. Buy a new unit on the rare occasion one was lost on the previous turn. d. Research if you have 250 MPPs left over. Player 2's Turn: a. Fight with units with strength of 8 or more b. Reinforce units of 7 or less c. Buy a new unit on the rare occasion one was lost on the previous turn. d. Research if you have 250 MPPs left over. Repeat Repeat Repeat It’s like watching paint dry. I’m sure we could code this routine so we could play Axis and Allies or Panzer General II and see some variety and progression. [ October 23, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

EV, I like the way you think, as I have said before. Your Option A would definitely be preferable to the current status. My own preference might include a sliding scale with decreasing reinforcements as more enemy units are engaged (adjacent). Your Option B is clearly unique and rather thought provoking - but anything that is a constraining influence would improve the current situation. Let's add these ideas as toggles, so people have a choice in how they play! [ October 23, 2002, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: dougman4 ]

It is not REMOTELY how the Germans felt in WWII when attacking Moscow, for Moscow did not spawn 3 Armies 1 Tank Group 1 Air Fleet every week (i.e. turn) while engaging a German army adjacent to the city. Nor was Moscow able to reinforce all its surrounding military forces to full strength every week (i.e. turn). The Germans would have thought that MAGICAL. And, both features are ABSURD in this game. The sane among us continue to beg for the insanity to stop, or be given a toggle where we can reduce and/or turn it off.

Research remains undiminished because everyone must research to keep up with their opponents. So, similar units tend to go up against similar units. There is just no way to kill a unit before it gets a chance to reinforce. What's more, since everyone must research - it is only luck if someone is more advanced than another. This game shouldn't solely be about luck.

I applaud the opportunity to have it as an option. Hopefully, not merely as an on-off option but with the ability to choose the amount of spawning with varying numbers of enemy units surrounding a city.

Japinard, Beating the EI is relatively easy, and you won't appreciate what I'm saying by playing campaigns of any type against the computer. Perhaps if you bump the computer and experience settings to unbeatable levels you could simulate the experience. You are absolutely right about the normal way to try to kill a unit. 1. Un-entrenched him – GOES WITHOUT SAYING 2. Lowering his experience through forced reinforcements - NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE DISSIPATES AS YOU TAKE ON REINFORCEMENTS 3. Using combined arms tactics to overwhelm defenses (air power) - NOT POSSIBLE IF YOU DON’T HAVE AIR SUPERIORITY The key is air superiority. However, that is a wildcard entirely up to chance. Experienced players understand that jet power and industry are the crucial research areas in the early game. If both players spend heavily on jet air, and through chance one player gets advancements and the other player does not - then the game becomes un-winnable to the player without the advancements. Because, that player has lost the opportunity to take pieces off the board since air is the only way to remove beaten down pieces. The game is unbalanced, air shouldn't be the only way to kill a piece.

It might be possible to perceive spawned units at contested cities as “reserves” if they were limited in number. However, they are not, and it is implausible to me that so many armies can magically appear. No city can endlessly produce units, especially when engaged by enemy. This boarders on the farcical. I’ve begun to think people who don’t see the wisdom in such limitations have played against the AI more than savvy humans. The phenomenon is quite more pronounced with human opposition.