Tigleth Pilisar

I don't like the math of this either. If I'm 3 levels up from a guy, I make 4 points for beating him and lose 11 if I lose. As a not-so-thought-out suggestion, how about a win being worth 2 points plus the number of levels ahead the opponent was. If the opponent was any number of levels below, the win is worth 1 point. Losses are -1 point no matter what. I just had sports in my head where a win is 2 points, tie is 1 and loss is 0. The above might be ok. But once it starts, you are going to have to play a lot of games to get anyone at the higher levels, to even allow new "fresh blood" to advance quickly. Since PBEM games take so much time, you might be months or a year before anyone even advances one level.

Lets just start a PBEM ladder and worry about cheating later. I like the oath not to cheat idea, and am interested in the JJ experience titles/categories. I can't understand all this worry about cheating. In business its kind of like saying, "lets not open a store because someone might shoplift." Yeah, they might, but should fear prevent us from going forward? Maybe we will lose 1-2% of sales to theives and we'll do what we can about it, but what about the 98-99% of business that customers happily pay and we happily collect? Bottom line is the PBEM ladder will only work if the players are credible and don't cheat.

I'm in for PBEM. About cheating, I don't really care about it. I expect my opponent not to cheat, but if he does it makes victory more sweet. I don't find much point to cheating. What's more important - to be a champ in the eyes of a bunch of computer geeks or to feel the internal rush of victory won fairly? (Don't take the geeks thing too seriously ) I've won and lost - in fact Jollyguy is giving me a kicking right now! I may have learned more in the losses than the wins. I don't see why there can't be a PBEM ladder. Just like the tourney now running. Who cares about cheating? If you are at the top of the list, but you know you cheat, what's it worth? You are wasting your time and will never know how good you really are. I've always believed your sin will find you and destroy you. Or you reap what you sow. Or what goes around comes around. Or if you're not honest, others won't be honest with you. Basically nothing is ever done in secret - it always comes out, in time, and in ways you don't want. Funny to say, but what you do in games reflects who you are. I'm happy to say that I have played PBEM with many guys who have put their name on this list, and I found every one of them to be high class :cool: - wouldn't even suspect cheating (mind you I wouldn't really care if they did anyway). In fact, part of the reason I bought SC was not only the fantastic design but the good quality people here on this forum - I read discussions before I bought and realized the players tended to be more serious about gaming, mature, competitive but still laid back. I liked that. Cheaters will get taken care of by nature - just have fun with the game.

I think the generalities in the TCP and PBEM player differences are reasonably accurate, and agree with some of the subsequent clarifications made. Two points to add: 1) I've wondered about the quality of moves in TCP vs PBEM. I've only played TCP once and felt I had to move quicker because someone else is live and waiting. In PBEM turns I take my time. Sometimes I watch the opponent's replay turn and then go off and have supper while I'm thinking about what I might do. So I wonder if there is more "quality" to a PBEM move because more time can be spent on it. On the other hand, there is "lack of continuity" if the turns are not sent quick enough, which would decrease the quality of PBEM play relative to TCP. 2) Instead of being married as the "deal-buster" for TCP, I'll suggest that it is simply responsibility. If you don't have some responsibility, do yourself a favour - get some. I've got a wife and four young kids. I've got a demanding job and unfortunately a major disease . I need to care for my house, be involved with my wife & kids in a major way, participate in the lives of my friends, travel, play sports, be involved with my faith, and also need time to relax. :eek: I get more juice from drawing the best out of other people at work, at home and in friendships than I do from putting myself first. I admire the man who can help others live their lives to the fullest more than the one who is focused on living his own life to the fullest. Hey, I'm no saint, I'm just tellin' ya leadership in the real world appeals to me more than playin' games all day on a PC. We're all different and that is fine. Games to me are a bit of relaxation, they feed my desire for competition, and keep the mental juices moving. Bottom line, they are fun - especially this game. I don't have time to sit & watch another guy do his moves for 30 minutes at a time, but then I want to win and don't want to miss seeing his moves either. So PBEM is perfect for me.

We are writing books to each other. Very thoughtful process in design. Another vote I have that wouldn't count is that you don't change the scenario until a winner emerges from the tourney. Would it be appropriate to ask the winner to design the next scenario? Perhaps it could be reviewed by some of the more experienced TCP players before launched into the PBEM tourney world? I agree with the boosting research chits to Russia as opposed to hard wiring tech (in this fantasy setting). I understand what you did with balance in the Med, but I actually feel both Italy and the UK have too many units. I'd suggest Iraq being neutral as well (although the UK did benefit somewhat from their oilfields I understand). In particular I think the Italians have too much air and too many ships, and the UK has too much command (HQ) and should have to decide whether to move units into the Med for an offensive vs Iraq (and suffer some war readiness penalties) or defend vs the Italians in the west. I also still think the French shouldn't start with 2 HQ . Out of interest, I've played this scenario vs the AI where I've been the Axis. I gave Russia 1500 MPP, 6 tech chits, 30% readiness, and several hard wired tech advances on Expert. The AI is still sadly no match for a human . I hope round 2 of the tourney starts soon. It looks like otherwise a new tourney couldn't start until Christmas! Unless...a simultaneous one was started! Easy to say when you are out .

Jersey John I want to thank you personally for designing this tournament scenario and for facilitating dialogue. As a player "blown out of the water" in the first round as Allies, I think it was a very enjoyable game. I considered myself experienced, but there were many things I learned in this scenario, such as the value of gun laying, and how hard it was to get outside of the range of tech 4 or 5 ranged enemy aircraft. As Allies I usually can make the fall of France very slow and costly while still evacuating enough units in the end - but in this game I think I would have done better just evacuating France as fast as I could. My strength in the base scenario betrayed me somewhat ... but that is why it was fun! Losing so badly as Allies, you'd expect me to complain about their side. Fortunately, I've had a chance to play your scenario non-tourney with others as well, and against the computer, so I think I have a more balanced view. Bottom line, I vote Yes for item # 1 and #2. But No to all the small house rules. Basically I think the 20-35% Russian readiness makes sense as well as the no LC gambit rule. That's it. I think also that the Russian situation may not be reflective of what you were trying to accomplish in the scenario. That is, my understanding was you were trying to create a reflection of Germany waiting a bit and being stronger before going to war. We are dealing with fantasy here, but it seems Russia should be a little more ready in your game as well. I was surprised Russian tech was not better. I mean the Germans are going to have some mean tech after having 10 chits invested for 25 turns when they DW on the Russians, who barely have the tech they did in the original 1939 scenario (Tanks are higher while the wimpy Rockets category is knocked down). Perhaps it sounds here like I am complaining for the Allies. But I think you should consider a much higher Russian tech level to make this fantasy authentic . Perhaps even take a French guy or two out to keep the game balanced, like the second HQ. I mean were the French ever going to be ready for war? As far as balanced, to me it means either side has an equal chance of winning. But they must be played differently and that is fine. I think the best suggestions I have read are - 20-30% USSR readiness, no LC gambit and the next tourney having double knockout so that each entrant plays both allies and axis. Oh, and finally have an unpoliced committment to do at least one to two dozen turns per week for tournament participants. No rule or consequence, but a gentleman's understanding to get in as many turns as possible during the tournament. Thanks again Jersey!. My loss in round 1 may disqualify my comments (which is fine), but I certainly hope to participate in any future tourney - particularly if you are involved.

Terif Incredibly clear! Thank you for testing my situation and clarifying that Canada is part of the UK even though green in the PBEM tourney I am in. I also didn't know that upon liberation, all the UK minor cash was reset to zero. There is therefore no bug, and I agree with your assessment on the uselessness of a max for UK minors (aside from cosmetic benefit which I agree is not worth it). What do you think, however, of JJ's suggestion of allowing minors to both build and replace units? It does seem unfair that I'm getting 120 UK Minor MPPs/turn and can not use them. Especially when Russians are defending Iraq but can't collect anything because it belongs to UK minors. Although you have pointed out the game is working right with respect to Canada sending UK minors their MPPs even though green, would it not make more sense to be able to send Canadian MPPs to the US if "commonwealth" units can not be created? Stated another way, would it be of benefit to allow either UK minors to build units or allow minors to transfer MPPs to allied majors (perhaps at a penalty)?

My appologies for my ignorance on MPPs. To repeat Terif's sentence "UK still gets all of Canada's production EVEN THOUGH ALL CANADIAN HEXES ARE US GREEN". You added Iraq's 80, Portugal's 10 and Canada's 30. If this is how it is supposed to work - then it is working. But to be honest, I can not understand how Canada can be green, and the US not get the production?? Again Canada is green because it is a custom scenario. As far as getting MPPs when minors are alive but the major not, I think it makes sense. However, I think the max should be the full strength cost of remaining units. Since minors can not add units with MPPs, it does not make sense to keep accumulating it. Where is it stored? The idea was to ensure minors could reinforce, not to create a big bag of theoretic cash. So make the rule UK minors can have a max of the sum of the total replacement cost of all units still alive on the board. So if UK minors had 1 army and 1 corps left after UK was gone, have the max at 125(army)+ 62(corps). Any MPP above that is just lost. This assumes replacement is half the cost of building and of course, minors never get any tech advances to deal with so the values would always be the same. If all units were eliminated, the war chest would therefore be eliminated. Doesn't that make sense? Where else would all this production capability, resources and so on be stored? Bottom line: I don't like that Canadian production counts for UK when US owns it (and it is green - not being able to turn it green in non-custom scenarios is different issue). I like that MPPs build for minors when the major is dead so that reinforcements can be done. I think a max on MPPs should be set for minors to make the number more meaningful and realistic.

Hubert In my game (custom PBEM tourney) Canada starts owned by the US. Iraq remained alive and Portugal remained alive because they had non-UK units on them at the time of the UK demise. Iraq produces 30 MPPs per turn because Russia is activated. Portugal produces 5 MPPs per turn. So my expectation is 35 MPPs per turn, not 120. Perhaps I am calculating wrong in ignorance. I assume the number on the resource indicates how many MPPs are produced. This understanding might be wrong, and I appologize if it is naive.

Maybe this should be posted in the 1.07 beta topic, but it might get burried. I don't think the calculation for Allied minors MPPs at the end of each turn where the UK has been eliminated is correct. I'm being pasted as the Allies in the PBEM Tourney and the Axis has taken the UK. UK minor allied units in Portugal and Iraq survived. According to the patch, these minors are still supposed to have cash build for reinforcing, which is happening. However, they should be getting 30 MPP or so per turn based on the value of the resources owned, but the UK is still getting about 130 MPP per turn. UK (which is out of the game), built up over 500 MPP in 4 turns! I can't spend it, but in 10 or more turns, liberating the UK might be worth a couple thousand MPP! I think this is a bug. It is probably not going to affect the Tourney or my current game, but maybe it should be looked at?

Vs AI, what are the best settings? I am pretty much addicted to playing against human opponents anyway, but there have been some good AI stories posted. I usually go Expert with no plusses, FOW on. I've won playing against +2, but I find the strategy is far different. You can not buy much aircraft because it gets the snot kicked out of it and is very expensive. So I've found it deviates too much from normal play vs humans. On the other hand, I have found it difficult to lose vs the AI. Do you use FOW on or off? I heard with it off the AI can be smarter. I recently played and it didn't seem much smarter. Interestingly, I was the Axis and it was the first time I saw the payload the AI Russians got in the Siberian Transfer. Three air, Two HQ, three armor, five armies and three corps!!! When I played with FOW on against allies I had no idea on expert that they got that kind of MPPs! It made it a little more fun, but it still didn't matter.

Nope... When you PBEM anyway. And assuming they don't take days...

Nope... When you PBEM anyway. And assuming they don't take days...

I'll try it out. I'll let my opponent figure out my experience level .

Fantastic PBEM rules. They are appropriate for any game play, not just PBEM. I am a big fan of PBEM and have met several very good SC players. I've got to watch a tendency to whine when I leave enemy units at strength 1 without finishing them off or yapping about having too many partisan's pop up against me . (violating the 1st rule!) I think rule IIX suggests not to ask third parties for advice on gameplay while a game is going on, which I agree with. However, advice itself is something I always seek with other PBEM players and find them often willing to share. At the end of major battles, after the use of key tactics or as a final review after the game I enjoy both giving and getting feedback. I hope the new Z-ladder accepts PBEM Ladder games, which is really the only way I can play...

As a satisfied SC owner I thought I'd try the CMBB Demo. I'm using the 1000 x 700 or so setting. I successfully got it running once, but most times, the mouse pointer disappears in the start screen or jumps around sporadically freezing then jumping. Often the mouse does not show up to point at selecting the different battles. I read on in this Forum some of the others having this problem. I tried the solution of the 800 x 600 resolution. Didn't work and now the icons on my desktop are all moved from where I had them. I see that sometimes you suggest updating the mouse driver but since my mouse has worked 99.99999999999999% of the time without freezing, becoming invisible, or jumping around (would of been 100% error-free until I tried CMBB), I am reluctant to fool around with changing drivers that might wreck other applications. So, I guess I'll give up on it - seems too unprofessional that on a PC Gamer magazine's 2002 'Game of the year' game (congratulations by the way) has such an amateurish feel to the start up. :confused: Or it could be my system is too old - PIII 550Mhz, Win98. I guess I'll just stick to SC or maybe SC2 when it comes out.

Both... Although to be fair, I'm not really sure what is on the ballot. Which flaws should be fixed, and which enhancements should be made? Are we sure there will be a SC2? Being a financial guy, I'd say Hubert is best off making SC2, a product he can charge for. Of course he has to trade that off with ensuring customers are satisfied with what is already delivered. Am I satisfied with SC 1.06? Absolutely! Do I want it better? Absolutely! By the way, has SC made large sales? I see Combat Mission BB has made "game of the year for 2002" by PC Gamers magazine (I may misquote since I don't have the mag handy and forget their shifting titles). Congrats, Hubert on the honour. I only ask about sales for SC because I see a lot of the same names posting. A few dozen die hards ... uh, I mean war generals well, ultimately, consumers . I hope sales warrant the kind of attention we ask for ... both because I'm selfish for more of this good game, and because I think the designer deserves success.

Just trying to summarize your thoughts: 1) Aircraft causes suppression (perhaps that means decrease in readiness, or some other reduction in ability to fight). - Agree 2) Aircraft attack/defence strength modified by range. - Agree 3) Aircraft land (catch em on the ground) assaults possible. - Ok idea, but unnecessary in my opinion. 4) Ability to advance onto enemy's hex? I think this is what you mean. An attacker can occupy the defender's hex and perhaps there is close combat, rather than attacking from a distance (a different hex) - interesting, and I think it would might work in the current game system. 5) Group offensives (ie: group several hexes for one combined attack against one hex). - I like this concept, but need to think more about its implication. You gave one example (3 corps vs 1 tank). Likely, this is a very good and practical idea for SC (just group unit counters for combined assaults). - A reserved agree, suggesting this idea needs more debate. 6) Simultaneous turn excecution - now this is revolutionary! The game would be completely different if this is how it played out. Personally, I find simultaneous turn execution the pinacle of gaming. It is the most realistic and most exciting way to play. A wholehearted Agree! An alternative to group offensives and occupancy of the same hex is discussed in the stacking and retreat for land units suggestion summarized in: Great ideas

I played an old Atari game called Eastern Front 15-20 years ago. Just loved it. In the advanced game it allowed you to set each unit in one of 4 modes: Entrench - better defence March - more movement, worse combat Normal Offensive - better offence, but worse defence vs counterattack. Units retreated in this game based on an unknown formula, but by entrenching them it was less common for them to retreat. Wish I could still play this game - it was a classic.

It also requires a certain number of British units destroyed, I believe. I have had this happen as well and had to destroy more British for the UK to fall. I think this is also true of Russia, and of any country you capture (I see it particularly in Spain) - you must destroy a certain portion of that country's military.

I have found that SeaLion is one good response to an aggressive allied opponent (such as if the UK fleet is pulled into the Med, heavy allied air defence of France is used, or possibly even the Dutch gambit). As a result of the growing (and very interesting) aggressive allied tactics, is anyone willing to share a good 1940 Sealion tactic? First, as the Axis, I ensure air superiority. 4 Air units at full strength. Then I move my 3 German ships to the north of Denmark, in striking range. I try to amass 6-7 or so armies/tanks and place them to strike primarily at London. I only ship one HQ initially. Ideally, I attempt to run a corps by Manchester and possibly 2 by Edinburgh. This drains nearly every German unit. It takes 4 or so turns to succeed this way (depending on the defence) and often it may be enough for the US to enter the war. Thereafter, I have found that being patient works. Neutrals are easy to take because they become UK units which can not be reinforced with Britain out. The Russian offensive is sluggish, but the US has very little chance to successfully invade the west - especially if they come early. MPPs eventually really build up for the Axis. Other ideas?

I have ZoneAlarm. But directed it to let SC stuff through. I'll try disabling it next time.

When I try to "join" a TCP/IP game, my system hangs and the keyboard freezes. Reboot is the only way out of it. All other aspects of the game work. I have a cable internet connection. The opponent indicates "bad connection", so obviously "sees" my attempts. Suggestions?

Player Tigleth Pilisar signs up to the ladder. Hope that makes sense...

Good post. I think all wargames are ultimately about economics. My strategic decisions are usually based on math (since units in games are really collections offensive/defense and cost numbers), so your line of thinking appeals to me. Strategic Bombers Great identification of flaws. I'm not much help though on ideas here. From a game perspective, the strat bomber to me is a recon and naval unit, not an economic bomber or a ground unit bomber. The air unit is kind of an air/ground attack unit, with recon abilities as well. From a "game" perspective, a purpose needs to be attributed and then a unit designed for that purpose. possibly these units should exist from a "game" standpoint: 1) a unit good for attacking ground units. 2) a unit good for attacking/defending vs air units. 3) a unit good for attacking resources. 4) a unit good for attacking naval units. Currently 1 and 2 are merged and 3 and 4 are merged, in concept anyway. Not necessarily the best combinations. Clearly if you agree that the 4 "purposes" need to be addressed, you would agree that you need 4 kinds of "units". Or, if we merge functions to have less units, then there are many combinations. But to focus on #3 only - there really is no unit good at attacking resources. Why? Mainly because of the damage the strat bomber takes is 10x or more what they inflict. So, living within game rules, what could we do? 1) Research in heavy bombers costs less. 2) Start with higher allied heavy bomber research. 3) Heavy bombers cost less to build/repair. 4) Increase heavy bomber strat resource attack. 5) Increase heavy bomber defence. 6) Strat bombers attack strat resources in hex asssigned to attack rather than units, where resource value is >0. My suggestion is 1 & 3. I like strat bombing to be a "choice" as provided through research, rather than giving allies an advantage on a silver plate. Increasing defence makes them a better air vs air unit, an unintended effect so I wouldn't do it. Ultimately, I think air unit design can be better in the game, when combining the above purposes with historical authenticity. Subs: I'll agree with John DiFool - no zones needed. Subs are dual purpose, naval attack and strategic attack. I think they are adequately reflected, and priced in MPP properly (should not be cheaper anyway for sure). Alternatives I have read in these forums that would help are: 1) Make the Atlantic much bigger. Then the ally would have a tougher time finding them. 2) My ignorance will show up here: make enemy units only have 1 range of spotting against them (2 for carriers and 3 for air fleets). Maybe this is already in the game. 3) Improve their diving ability when attacked. Maybe by 15%? So starting subs have a 40% chance they will dive and tech 5 subs have a 65% chance of diving. More diving I think is more realistic than making them better at combat. Oops ... I'm going on too long, and rambling more than adding value I think.