Tigleth Pilisar

I sent you an email. I'm not sure about timing but would be fine with getting a game going sometime. I've often found opponents at http://www.panzerliga.de/en/index.php

Lefty, you right click to change it to Auto-Assist Then you left click on the HQ to see the units it commands. They have a green silouette and the ones it could command are blue. HQs have a different max number of units to command based on nationality. You need to detach units before you can attach new ones. If the unit has already acted its command can not be changed. After left clicking the HQ, you right click the green or blue silouettes to attach or detach. You can move the HQ and still alter the units it commands, so you can move closer to an out of range unit and then select it. I forget if this is true if you didn't have clear zones of control to the unit, then you get zones to the unit, then I think you still can command a unit that started blocked by zones of control.

You should try to "read" the scripts. I'm no programmer, but it is generally easy to understand. I'm not looking at them right now so I might be off but in general I think: Has to be after 1941. Germans have to get a unit by the mountains west of Moscow, by Moscow, by Kharkov, or basically any city North or East of those. I forget about Rostov. You are safe as the Axis taking Leningrad and up to Smolensk. If the axis move close to these areas I think there is a 40% chance every turn of the Siberian transfer. The other thing is once the axis are within a square of the mines SW of Kharkov, USSR rebuilds the Urals and they start producing. So advancing quick as the Axis just gets USSR prepared faster (to an extent). The other thing that I find quite unfair is the US transfer of the Pacific fleet if Spain is in. If the US strategy is to hit Peru and then attack Spain, then the US gets 1000 MPP of stuff (Carrier, destroyer, battleship) that would take over a year to produce right away. I think if Spain attacks the allies this might be fair, but if the allies attack Spain the US shouldn't get as much.

Supply, efficiency and morale are all key to understand, as are the effects of artillery, special forces, bombers, and so on. Entrenchment is also important as are the terrain modifiers. Lots of detail if you want it. If you ignore it and just bang units against each other you will never beat a veteran player. One other thing on supply - US, UK and France supply each other, but USSR does not and vice versa. If you think of coming through the Caucasus as the UK player to support the USSR, it won't work the way you think because the Russian cities won't supply non-USSR ally units or HQs. When you attack, try to demoralize first (pick units that demoralize) then units that don't demoralize as much will have an easier go of it.

I don't know the percentage increase but invading Yugoslavia significantly increases Russian readiness. Much more than SC1 I think.

Thanks guys.

Can anyone tell me how to maximize the units in the Siberian transfer as Allies? I know this stuff is probably in the manual or one of the subfiles or something. I remember getting 2 corps, 2 armies, 2 rockets, 2 air units, 2 tanks and 2 HQs long ago in the Siberian transfer. Now in all the multiplayer games I play it seems the Axis is going for Spain/Britain/Africa and I tend to have a much larger force in Russia before the Siberian transfer happens. Now commonly I don't get any corps and a couple other units are typically missing too. My guess is that there are certain triggers as the Axis or Allies that reduce the transfer. Does anyone know what they are?

Also, readiness and morale are very important factors. If you have a unit at strength 6, it is very likely that readiness and morale are also low. You can't just hammer ahead as an Axis player, but have to have a balance between agressively moving forward to take units and objectives, and resting units to keep readiness and morale high. Also it is key to use aircraft to reduce enemy morale and readiness as well. Finally, weather has a huge effect as well. It takes many battles with human opponents to learn the little details like perhaps destroying supply from cities prior to destroying units to make units cost more when rebuilt. I don't think you can become a very good player learning against only AI. After playing multiplayer several times, you will find it impossible to lose against AI at expert levels even with bonuses to AI whether playing Axis or Allies.

Blashy suggested "And it affects the player... he looses 20mpps!" ... if Moscow is taken. Is this true? Moscow is lost, but Stalingrad is the new capital. And so doesn't Stalingrad's MPPs go from 10 to 20? Therefore if Moscow is taken the cost to Russia is only 10 per turn?

I'm glad some members agree with my comments about a few of the positive enhancements with SC2 - hardly review quality text though Thanks for your feedback, and particularly yours, Hubert. The next thing is to take my own advice and get some more PBEM games going!! And walpurgis, I'm glad to have read your initial criticism came when you had only played for 20 minutes, when we all know that full and irrecoverable addiction requires beginning at least one Russian campaign. (What Axis player could get fired up about taking Poland, or even France for that matter?)

The strength of the game is the community of players. SC2 is nice because the game isn't all about eye candy like a first person shooter - its about strategy that tries to get a balance between history and gaming. If you are playing against AI on expert level with full handicap, it is tough to lose. Admittedly, at that difficultly it takes time to learn how to win and you do have to understand the game pretty well, but AI is repetitive. Only playing a human player through PBEM or TCP/IP can bring the game to life for you. Will the Axis player try to take too many neutrals first? Will he use a sub strategy, rocket strategy, air strategy? What will he do with North Africa? Will a Sealion work? Or if the Allies, how will he form a Russian defense? Will it be an orderly retreat or a constant counterattack? How will fortifications be used? Will he build for D-Day or try to hit neutrals, or come in through the Mediteranean? Research plays a large role. One key to replayability is that a "good" player can't do a canned strategy - it must be partly based on reconnaissance and intuition of the strategy of the opponent, and be able to react to it. Ultimately, AI just doesn't compare to humans even though the scripting frenzy for modders seems to be alive. As others point out, a major difference is the editor, allowing alteration for different custom campaigns. However, I'm not a programer and don't have the kind of time to make my own maps and scripts, so maybe like me you can't really use it. However, there are others in the community who seem to have the time and inclination to add variety to the game. As for your real point (comparing SC1 to SC2), I think SC2 is significantly better. Reasons: 1. Squares instead of hexes. Yeah I thought real wargames only had hexes, but the squares allow more ground combat to occur rather than the mandatory air strategy in SC1. 2. Research is designed far better. In SC1, a small investment in research paid a lifetime of dividends in tech advances, which made no sense. 3. Unique units - one simple thing this fixed is allowing to continue to build cheap, low tech units for defending areas in the back while more expensive high tech units for fighting at the fronts. 4. Greater diplomatic consequences for attacking neutrals. I'm not sure I love the new diplomatic chit system, but I do like that if you invade a neutral, the neutrals around the invaded one react. Further, there is a tangible MPP increase to Allies when war readiness improves due to attacking neutrals. 5. Control of countries prior to joining the war. This is a great feature that eliminates the ability to do a "scripted Barbarossa" for example. Further, attacking Allies earlier means they likely have not built up as much, while building up as the Axis to the last turn benefits the Allies by giving them more MPPs and time to prepare. 6. Bigger map, convoy routes, enhanced Middle East and Egypt, commonwealth forces. And I guess the final thing I like is that the combat system, most units and the way supply and command is used is exactly the same. I think it is a good system and so these things have remained the same. So could this have been SC1, version 1.08 rather than SC2? I don't think so - too much of a structural change. I like what was changed and I like what has stayed the same. I'm hopeful that projects like Kuniworth's Eastern Front mod will keep the game fresh for a long time. As for the cost - 45 bucks - it is absolutely nothing! Probably less money than your phone bill, or connecting to the internet for a month. Or depending on your income, ten minutes to four hours work. If you really want to have fun sometime, I'll play against you in an email game. tigleth.pilisar@shaw.ca

What I don't like about the old system "pay and then pray" as you put it, is that the MPPs are all spent up front. You can continue to benefit from 250 MPP spent in 1939 without paying a penny after. It doesn't make that much sense. I would be in favour of a budget - a certain amount of money dedicated to research every turn. This would reflect the ongoing cost of research. I would also add some sort of cumulative effect of spending money on a particular tech. I'm not sure how it would work, but lets say 2,000 MPP (nearly) guarantees an advance. Every 100MPP spent increases the % of success by 5%. So once 1,000 has been spent you have a 50% chance. These numbers and the formula could obviously be different, but the concepts would be 1) Have to keep paying for research to succeed, and 2) get some cumulative benefit for past research. History could be added to research by giving countries certain bonuses in different techs, giving them a bit of unique advantage. Or at certain historical dates a cumulative research effect could be added as a bonus for future research. That way the player would only access the bonus for, say, tanks if he was researching tanks.

I'm glad there will be some realism regarding unit facing. Have you heard anything about zoom or scale?

I played SC1 for about 500 days consecutively (I don't mean all day jeez... I guess that's about a penny a day I spent on the game - pretty good value! :cool: Although there is a ton of variation in the basic game as you move through the ranks of playing the veteran players by internet, things do eventually get similar in the Fall Blau game. And there just wasn't enough flexibility to make enough other mods. (Don't get me wrong - Jersey John in particular made some very entertaining games. But there was too much cast in stone). So I guess I hope there is a little more "randomness" in SC2. Not with combat results, but perhaps with unit placement or terrain or resource values or even AI for single player. Basically, REDUCE SCRIPTED GAMEPLAY so players have to think each turn, rather than knowing ahead of time what is going to happen with neutrals or the start of USSR or whatever (whether it be moving away from predictable unit placement or highly predictable diplomatic results). And offer more maps.

I was just starting to waste my time surfing for a new wargame. This news made my day - won't need to bother looking anymore!

Wow! That thread is a marathon read. Looks like the juice is flowing. I find the most compelling tile arguement the addition of 2 more directions to move. More movement = more options = more strategies = more different games. I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted. The most compelling hex arguement is really the circle arguement or the "beeshive" arguement . It sounds funny, but hexes best reflect the reality of distances and logistics. The distance between the center of every hex to the center of every other hex is the same. And the perimeter touching each of the six hexsides is the same. Theoretically, a "unit" can be envisioned with roughly the same formation at whichever hexside it is attacking or defending from. Because distances between hexes and overlapping perimeters of hexes are equal, hexes best reflect the reality of movement distance. By contrast a square actually only touches 4 other squares, not 8. You could argue that the squares do not have independent borders and therefore the squares that are at a diagonal do share one point with each other. But the logical problem (at least conceptually in one's mind) is that the distance for 4 of the choices from the center of the square to the center of the adjacent square is one distance and the distance for the other 4 choices is 1.47x that distance. This is not really a problem of course, because movement points can be altered to reflect this, but mentally, many of us would like distance choices or increments to be equal (but then we are likely willing to adjust movement for terrain type anyway). The other logical problem is that 4 of the choices share a large common square-side, and 4 of the choices (diagonals) share only one point. Its tough to imagine the reality of this game-imposed rule. Are soldiers moving on a diagonal marching single file? And are those moving on a square-side proceeding under a wide formation? And what about supply and zone of control? For me, hexes create more realistic atmosphere. Movement is equal and hexsides are equal. But then perhaps tiles distort geography, distance and troop formation, but perhaps make for a better game because of more variations? And questions of supply and zone of control and breakthrough can be established by the programmer, and as long as they make some sense and are fun, why quibble? I think it is our role as customers to put forward our opinion, but Hubert's role to discern which of those views matter. I'll bet he only gets 1 good idea from every 100 ideas put forth by us, but even at those odds, isn't putting forth ideas worth it? And ultimately, I think this forum is more for us (customer) than the programmer anyway - that is we learn more than the developer does. All the best in game development, and keep up the discussions! Note: I posted this response there as well. Perhaps this thread could be kept to discussing the direction units point in 3D (real exciting ) and zoom ability, and we will keep the hex marathon discussion in the thread you linked to above.

Wow! This thread is a marathon read. Looks like the juice is flowing. I find the most compelling tile arguement the addition of 2 more directions to move. More movement = more options = more strategies = more different games. I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted. The most compelling hex arguement is really the circle arguement or the "beeshive" arguement . It sounds funny, but hexes best reflect the reality of distances and logistics. The distance between the center of every hex to the center of every other hex is the same. And the perimeter touching each of the six hexsides is the same. Theoretically, a "unit" can be envisioned with roughly the same formation at whichever hexside it is attacking or defending from. Because distances between hexes and overlapping perimeters of hexes are equal, hexes best reflect the reality of movement distance. By contrast a square actually only touches 4 other squares, not 8. You could argue that the squares do not have independent borders and therefore the squares that are at a diagonal do share one point with each other. But the logical problem (at least conceptually in one's mind) is that the distance for 4 of the choices from the center of the square to the center of the adjacent square is one distance and the distance for the other 4 choices is 1.47x that distance. This is not really a problem of course, because movement points can be altered to reflect this, but mentally, many of us would like distance choices or increments to be equal (but then we are likely willing to adjust movement for terrain type anyway). The other logical problem is that 4 of the choices share a large common square-side, and 4 of the choices (diagonals) share only one point. Its tough to imagine the reality of this game-imposed rule. Are soldiers moving on a diagonal marching single file? And are those moving on a square-side proceeding under a wide formation? And what about supply and zone of control? For me, hexes create more realistic atmosphere. Movement is equal and hexsides are equal. But then perhaps tiles distort geography, distance and troop formation, but perhaps make for a better game because of more variations? And questions of supply and zone of control and breakthrough can be established by the programmer, and as long as they make some sense and are fun, why quibble? I think it is our role as customers to put forward our opinion, but Hubert's role to discern which of those views matter. I'll bet he only gets 1 good idea from every 100 ideas put forth by us, but even at those odds, isn't putting forth ideas worth it? And ultimately, I think this forum is more for us (customer) than the programmer anyway - that is we learn more than the developer does. All the best in game development, and keep up the discussions!

Just three quick comments: 1) I like that you've added 3D graphics. Personally I buy your games because of the gameplay itself and don't care much for graphics ... but ... since you went 3D, might as well do it right. 3D is meant to give atmosphere. A bit more realism. I find it strange that units are always facing/attacking to the bottom right or southwest. This takes away from the atmosphere. Is there any way to have units point/face the last way they moved? Otherwise the campaign for France at the outset must look kind of funny - Germans shooting backwards over their heads! And I suppose the same of the Russians on the eastern front. It will look like they want to run when you attack them! 2) It looks like you have moved to a square system from a hex system? Is this right? I think the hex is the perfect terrain in strategy games and believe squares is a step back. This would be a debate, but I'm surprised at the change. 3) I assume that you can zoom in and out? Ideally through just rolling the mouse wheel? One thing SC1 didn't have was this ability (either you see the whole map or just the same sized section). I didn't mind or think it was even an issue in SC1. But commonly "3D" games have the ability to zoom in and out quickly, which would be neat. Sorry the comments were on the window dressing rather than the "meat and potatoes", but I thought I'd put them up anyway.

[sorry, this post repeated]. [ April 30, 2004, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Tigleth Pilisar ]

I think there would be more spice to the game if neutrals had: 1) Random set up from maybe 3-4 possible pre-coded combinations. 2) Fixed placement for some units but maybe 1 or 2 that can be placed by the defender. I think it would completely change the game if each player could place his units at the start, and as each major comes into the game. I think Third Reich has a good system for this - basically there would be rules on how many MPP had to be placed in each front/hex section, and it would be up to the player to pick how to set it up within those guidelines. This would force a general historic feel to a game, reflecting the readiness of each nation, but still give significant variation to how the game is played. I suppose if players agreed they could just say that they can move the starting positions in a mod. Each player would know the new starting points, but it might force a different strategy. No new units would be added. Of course, Russia and US would still end up the same assuming you are starting in 1939.

I think the US is relatively easy to defend against an invasion which is what keeps players away most of the time. In the example given, if the Axis control the Atlantic seas then it makes sense that the US not dump everyone from North America to defend the UK, and if they do, the smart thing is for the Axis to attack the US. You can't abandon a weak front and then expect the opposition not to exploit it. Players should be allowed to attack the US any time.

Johnny D:: I think two revamps should happen with tech: 1) Your probability of success increases the longer you invest in something. Perhaps reset when an advance comes. 2) Tech investment has both a maintenance and initiation cost. I think chance should remain so that players can not be certain of advancement (in the "real world" you can't be certain of innovation from a specific expenditure - some go bust and the so-called developer bankrupted), but that the chance gets better of breakthrough the longer you have been researching. The maintenance cost is a dubious proposition in SC because nothing else has a maintenance cost.

If you don't want chance, play Global Diplomacy. PBEM Games - Global Diplomacy Otherwise, luck is part of a game. In a normal length game, it goes both ways. I like luck because it forces you to change strategy. Agree its frusterating not to get the combat results you want. I don't believe the second air assault has a cumulative effect with the first. So if there is a chance for zero damage 6 times it can happen. And there is the same chance that a seventh would be zero too. I bet the first few attacks had a high chance of zero damage. Maybe he has at least +1 anti-air compared to you (which he almost certainly does). Maybe he was entrenched. Maybe he was in supply. Maybe your fleets weren't full strength or had a 6 commander. Maybe his unit had experience and better command... Maybe Winston was in town

Jollyguy My understanding is that there are no house rules in the tourney. The way the first game started is the way every game will be. Axis players who don't want an LC gambit can declare war on LC the first turn. Jersey John I don't think your rationale is sound. You conclude that the way to avoid critism for scenarios you make is to be a player, not a scenario maker. I think a valid solution has been proposed to reduce potential imbalance of scenarios: Both players play both sides simultaneously in 2 games at once. We still need to think through how to score games if each player wins one of the two games. Perhaps they both advance?! (Can this work? - why not? the organiser can make the rules.) I hope you get the chance to be a player, but I sure like your scenarios. I'm playing with the Brest-Litovosk scenario right now. I particularly like the historic backing you use for your "fantasy" scenarios. This whole scenario thing (along with human PBEM opponents) has really brought this game to life for me. All the sudden it is like many games in one! I can't wait to start another tourney.

Oak, I emailed you directly, as requested. tigleth.pilisar@shaw.ca