ev

In order to reduce the luck factor you can put all your research chips in one or two cathegories. If you concentrate 5 chips in a single research theme, you will get fast research very quickly, and fairly steadily. If there is a statistician out there, please come and correct me. But if you place 5 chips into one single cathegory over 10 tunrs you have: * a 98% chance of getting at least one tech improvement and a 50 * a 96% chance of getting at least two tech improvements * a 92% chance of getting at least three tech improvements * an 84% chance of getting at least four tech improvements. * and, a 68% chance of getting all five tech improvements, within 10 turns. If you extend the period to 20 turns, there is a 92% chance you will get all five tech improvements. That's pretty good. But you need to concentrate the max of 5 chips into one cathegory to get this kind of certainty. When you spread your chips among more cathegories, you increase the unpredictability of your outcome. First, you never know which cathegory is going to improve, so you cannot plan your long term strategy. Second, though you may get the windfall of having improvements in many cathegories in a single turn, you likewise have a greater risk of getting nothing. So your volatility goes up. When playing the Axis against the AI, I normally put 5 chips in Jet Engine. And at least 3 in Industrial Tech. By now all games are starting to look the same (I regularly win at Intermidate +1 or Expert +0) Maybe next time I will self impose on myself a maximum limit of 3 chips per research area.

Should the development of Radar help your Interceptors? During WWII, I believe the British mainly used radar as an alert sistem to scramble interceptors. Maybe I misread something, but the radar sistem in SC increases the airdefense of cities, but does not do much for Interceptors. On the other hand, in SC Inteceptors always attack bombers before they bomb the target. In WWII, sometimes the Interceptors reached the bombers only after they hit target. Brithish Radar made a difference mainly because it allowed the interceptors to scramble before the German bombers hit target. I think there should be a random chance that interceptors arive "late", meaning after the target city or unit was bombed. Advances in Radar should then increase the probability that "intercepting" occurs prior to the bombing raid. Note: I would not extend the benefits of Radar to field units since WWII radar was not very mobile. I would limit the benefic of radar to cities and ports, and, maybe forts, which are also static. I would also consider extending the benefit of radar to Cariers, Battleships and perhaps Cruisers. The chace of Interception occuring prior to the bombing raid should be affected by the following variables: 1. By Radar Technology, if target of the bombing raid is a city, port, fort, carier, battleship or cruiser. 2. By the proximity of Interceptors to the target of the bombing raid. 3. By the readiness level of Interceptors. 4. By the speed of Interceptors (Jet Aircraft Tech Level). When the above conditions are very unfavorable I would make it very difficult for Interceptors to arrive in time... before the target raid takes place.

Thanks for your comments JayJay_H. Keep in mind a couple of things regarding my suggestion: First, you need to find two units of the same type that are good candidates to join. Then, in order to join these two units, these units must be brought together. This means that you lose one usefull turn for at least one of them moving it around next to the other one. Meanwhile, the other unit remains unreinforced. In fact, you may be forced to pull it off the frontline, else it may be eliminated by the enemy. Finally, in the turn you actually join them, you cannot use them either. So you lose another turn worth of their use. Contrast this with regular reinforcements: they are readily available, hence reinforced units can stay at their assign posts, holding the line. They cannot move or attack, but they hold the line. Which is still a very important function. If we could play test this idea, I bet you would rarely use it in the middle of a bitter campaign, where reinforcements would be most readily available. However, you could use it after a tough campaign is over. For example the Axis would probably use it right after taking France in 1940. I think this simulates rather well the options faced by real life desision makers: they can use green reinforcements which is much more expedient, or they can regroup units which takes time and requires to pull units off their assigned job to join them with another unit.

I see your point, but I meant to apply this Virtual Coast Guard to units that remain parked (for more than one turn) along the coast (enemy or neutral). Landing pennalties do not keep you from parking an Allied Convoy next to Sicily waiting for Italy to join the Axis and suddenly invade. The Allied player could use the same tactic in northwest Norway, waiting weeks on end until the Axis player finally invaded Norway... And the Axis player could do the same in the US.

Should the game allow joining and splitting units? It would be nice to be able to join two experienced units that suffered heavy damage and thus savee my experience level instead of diluting it with green reinforcements. Also, if I am really short on MPPs and the Brits are about to invade France, and I just had some heavy losses in my subs... does it make sens to reinfroce them? It probably would be more advisable and realistic to join them into one unit. Units should be adjacent to each other in order to join. Also, units should not be allowed to move or attack on the turn they joined or split. ...but perhaps they should be allowed to reinforce further after joining. When joining units, the resulting experience level should be the WEIGHTED AVERAGE of the two units. When splitting units, the resulting experience should be the same as that of the original unit. I would not allow HQs to split or join.

well, they sort of do... In my first game as Axis I left some Russian Cities without a garrison. One was taken by partisans. I lost its production for a couple of turns until I destroyed the partisan unit. When I retook the city, it was destroyed by the Soviets, so I lost even more MPPS later on. You avoid this if you garrison your rear cities, but that also cost MPPs in the form of troops removed from the front line. I think the present partisan format is good enough. However, I would like Hubert to allow us to buy half strength units to use as garrisons.

Invading Italy seems very risky. Anyone out there tried the following: Park the British Med Fleet in Malta together with one Airfleet. Reinforce the French Med Fleet with 2 Cruisers from the Atlantic. As soon as Italy Declares War, knock down as many Italian ships as possible. If you knock out the Italian ships, my guess is that Italy wont be able to hold North Africa later down the game... The Axis player would be forced to bring the Luftwave into the Med (and away from Britain) just to hold Lybia. ...I will try this next weekend. If any one out there have tried it, let me know.

Good idea, but there is a problem: If we follow your idea as is, Axis invasion of Norway would be all but impossible. You could not land on the week you declare war, hence giving the Allies too much of time to react. One solution: Allow them to park, along the coast for only one turn. Next turn, either you move them out or you must declare war. this would prevent you from parking them along the coast for an indefinate period of time. Second solution: Create an abstract Coast Guard. By 1939 many countries had a coast guard of PT Boats and/or Gun Boats that would have detected and caused some damage to an invading force. I would propose that any naval unit parked along the coast of a Neutral or Enemy Nation should be subject to (1) a random risk of detection, and, (2) a small random attrition by the local Coast Guard.

The AI seems to use a cluster defense. I have played Axis at Expert +0 and Intermediate +1. I defeated the AI. But, I see the merits of a cluster defense. The cluster defense has a main advantage. If the clusters are large enough, the Germans need a lot of units to contain a single pocket. A German player that invested heavily in research won't have enough units in 1941 to surround large clusters. And if you do not have enough units, the Russians can end up surrounding the Germans. Once the Axis get enough units on the board, a cluster defense becomes a lot more dificult for the Russians to execute. The Russians must be ready to counter attack the Axis attacker as soon as it surrounds a cluster. This is when the Axis is most exposed. I have very little experience yet playing the Russian, but from my experience on the other side of the board, this is what I think you need to make a cluster defense work. You need to build 2 counter attacking forces, each with at least 3 tank group and an HQ. One counter attacking force should be north west of Moscow, and one should be north west of Rostov. If I have any airfleets, I would keep them next to my HQ and use them mainly for spotting and attacking Axis HQs. HQs are expensive to reinforce, and they dont hit your planes back (though you will still suffer losses from interceptors). Also, make your clusters big. You must force the Axis to stretch his line when surrounding your clusters, else your counter attacking units will not have chance. Your clusters can include more than one city. A cluster that holds Smolensk and Kiev is a huge bite for any Axis player. Remember the Finns. An aggressive advance against the Finns is a headache for the Axis Player. Use your Navy, 1 army, 2 corps and an HQ, and the Finns will suffer. Your main problem will be the German Navy. Some air power will keep the German boats away as long as the Minsk and Riga clusters hold the Luftwaffe our of reach. If the Germans transfer AirFleets and other German units to Finnland. go into defense mode. The resources the Germans have committed to Finnland will make it much easier for you to hold the front elsewhere. When playing Axis, I often end up splitting Russia in two, driving through Odessa, Rostov and Stalingrad. Once I cut off the Caucassus from Moscow. I start picking the oilfields with my tanks while my infantry moves in to take the southern cities. Rostov is key. I dare say Rostov is the decisive battle of the Russian Campaign. It is more important than Moscow, since the capital can be moved elsewhere. The Urals are very far away and hard to take if properly defended. Stalingrad won't fall if Rostov holds. (Hubbert should consider telling the AI to take better care of Rostov. The AI does not defend the Crimea, this makes it too easy to outflank Rostov.)

Cut the head off... I see your strategy. Once I did something a bit like this. I drove through the Ukrain, Stalingrad and all the way east ...thus cutting off all of the Caucasus. It worked ... Now, how did you manage to surround Moscow. Did you take at least Minsk and Somlensk?

I found intermediate +1 to be challenging and fun. i.e. I won but it was not a push over. (FOW on and Random for all countries) I found expert +2 to be to difficult. i.e. I still don't know how to win here. (FOW on and Random for all countries). I tried expert +2 with Russia Neutral and had an interesting game. You can experiment with options such as invading Sweeden and Iraq and then decide whether you want to go for Britain and US or Russia. (FOW on and all other coutries Random) Next time I will try Expert + 0 or +1 as suggested above.

I agree. But please note my suggestion on how to delay production: We can buy all units understrength (at say strength four or five) and be forced to wait till the next turn to reinforce it. Also I would limit how many reinforcements you can add to a given unit. e.g. 5 points to a Corps per turn, but only 3 to a Tank Group and 1 to a Battleship. Thus it would take a lot more time to bring to full strength certain types of units. ... and also it would take more time to bring to full strength high tech units. This system would allow a player to chose between using understrength units immediately or else waiting until they are brought to full strength,

Building 6 subs is a lot. Specially if you are getting ready to fight Russia. More important, the purpuse of the sub war should not be to sink the British Navy. The German subs were meant to cripple the British War Production without having to face the Royal Navy. And in fact, I don't know of any big naval battle between Axis subs and British Battleships during WWII. German subs raided huge amounts of British and American ships transporting equipment and goods during the first years of the war. Until the Allies acquired adequate tech, the German subs put a lot of preasure on the British economy while avoiding the British Navy. But note my empahsis on "avoiding". Subs were hard to catch. They were raiders, not front line troops. They used hit and run tactics. They were not intended to face Battleships in a major naval battle for the dominion of the seas. I would like SC to better duplicate "raider" nature of submarine warfare. ..so the German player can harass the Brits for a couple of years with a couple of subs, while it commits the bulk of its resources to the Russian Front. The sub war should be an alternative to a battle for naval supremacy. Right now subs may be an effective unit in a battle for naval supremacy, as you already witnessed, but they are not effective "raiders" in this alternative war. And, that is a pity, because that is in fact where subs excelled, both in the Pacific and the Atlantic theaters of WWII.

I agree there is a problem. Elsewhere (on reinforcements) I suggested the following idea: New units should be adquired understrength. Perhapps at a strength of 4, and, reinforced in subsquent tunrs. If a player wants to defend a city with raw untrainned recruits, those units should have a substantially lower strength. If you want units to be up to strength, it should take you some time to reinforce them. In 41-42 the Soviets threw waves of untrainned troops to the battlefront. These were not fully trained "green" units. Their battleworthyness was substantially below those of "green" fully trained German, British, or American units. The game could simulate this by allowing all units to be purchased understrength, say at strength 4. On subsquent turns they could be brought to strength through reinforcements, they were not destroyed by the opposing player before hand. Needless to say, this will make the Russian Battlefield very bloody. ...and, so it was. Players will be faced with the constant dilema of either moving forward their weak units to close a gap in the line, or waiting for their units to be up to strength. A dilema faced by all generals since Anibal attacked the Romans. This will also make lines a lot more vulnerable to breakthrough, the eastern front will be more fluid, and, I hope it will make the game even more exciting. In the topic on "Reinforcements" I also suggested that there should be a limit on how many reinforcement points a unit could receive in a single turn. Please check my note on that topic.

I see your point. ...learned something new, thanks. I thought the spotting range for land units represented land patrols moving around the main body of the Army to spot nearby units. ...just for arguments sake, if armies have scout planes at their disposal, why do we limit their spotting range to two hexes?

I agree, subs should be harder to spot. And, I really like your idea. I guess, this would not apply to Airfleets, Bombers and Cariers ...only to Cruisers and Battleships. Right? If I may suggest another idea: Once a sub is attacked by a Cruiser or Battleship, the sub should be allowed to retreat to another hex and regain hidden status. Remember the sub marker represents a dozen or so subs. In real life A surface fleet may detect and destroy one or two subs, but the rest will immediately retreat and hide. Of course, airpower is a different story. I am suggesting this only for subs being attacked by Cruisers and Battleships.

Please note a correction to my previous note: I propose that you buy units at a core strenght of 3 or 4 points. If you want to bring them to full stregnth, you will need to take some time to reinfroce them. You may chose to throw them to the frontlines without reinforcing them, but them you should expect them to have the same fate that many Russian units had when thrown to the frontline before being ready. ---i.e. they were easily wiped out by the German units. As time went on, the endless wave of battle took a tall on the German units, and by the end of 1941 they were worn down and unable to take Moscow. But many untrainned Russian Soldiers paid dearly to wear down those Panzer Groups.

When plaing the Allied side, I used the following tactic to defend France: Defended heavily the Maginot and Ardenes, forcing the Germans to advance trought the northern most hexes. Used my fleet to attack any armies along the coast of Belgium or Northern France. This forced the Germans to advance through a very narrow corridor. Which is very difficult. The only way the Germans could breakthrough this narrow corridor is through heavy bombing. In order to prevent this I had a Fr. HQ and a Brithish HQ backing my airplanes, and made sure they were always reinforced. I also brought in the Canadians to help along the northern coast where the Brit planes could cover them. And I brought all my troops and airplanes from the Med. into France and England. I have done this twice (1st begginer, then Intermediate +1). Always held up France. My Fleet were pounded heavily, but so were the German planes. And without planes, the Germans could not breakthrough in France. And, even if they had, I don't think they could mount See Lion (without planes).

I am all for limiting reinforcements. See my note above. Allow me one more suggestion: Right now you can buy new units at any city at any time, provided you have enough MPP's. Thus a Russian can buy several corps, armies and even tank groups next to a threatened city ... provided that city is not isolated. Now, to some extent this is fair and realistic. The Soviets threw untrained troops into the front line all the time. And, in some cases they threw in untrained tank units, without paint straigth from factory (believe it was in Stalingrad, and believe some were driven by factory workers). But these units were barely battleworthy. Many infantry soldiers did not even have riffles. They were not "green" troops with a few months of basic training and equipment. They were substantially below green and most of the were slaughtered. They stopped the Germans, but they paid an awfull price. Towards the end of the war, the Germans, also did a similar thing with the Volks Granediers, throwing boys and elderly into the front lines. Again, these units were not nearly as battleworthy as a regular "green" unit. I would suggest that all new units are bought at a core strength of 3 or 4 points, and subsquently brought to full strength through reinforcements. If you want to throw them into battle at their initial purchasing value, fine; but don't expect them to have the same fate the Russians had in 1941. If you want them to be truly battleworthy, take a bit of extra time to reinforce them. Now, I also feel we should revisit the idea of reinforcement limits. Previously I suggested that units should have limits on the amount of reinforcement they could receive, and furthermore, infantry corps should be easier to reinfoce, while tanks and airplanes should take longer. Combine both of this ideas: tanks and airplanes would take more time to be fullly trained and operational, while infantry corps would be ready very quickly. Also high tech units will take longer to go up to 14 and 15 strength points. But, it should also take longer to train units into more sophisticated weaponry. And, if you are really desperate, or you simply don't want to wait until you bring your units to full strength you can always throw them into battle understrength. ...often you won't have a choice at this, and we will see more weak units in the battlefield, near breakpoint levels, and a more fluid and nervecracking frontline. (Probably not for the faint of heart, but, I for one would enjoy it a lot.)

I always play the full thing starting in 1939. Sometimes I play Expert +2 with Rusia Neutral ...so I decide when to attack Rusia. I still get pounded at Expert +2 if I let Rusia attack me before I am ready. Sometimes I play Intermediate +1 with every other option at Random. Don't play historical. Like to have some unpredictability built in.

I liked Zeres idea of forced retreat and Hans Michael idea of overrun. WWI's static warfare was broken by the tank, because the tank was something else, not just a stronger infantry soldier. Mechanized Units including tanks, engineers, infantry, artillery and close air support could keep "momentum" going. Allowing a tank group to overrun the last remnants of a beaten down unit would be a very good way to simulate this special hability of the mechanized formtions. These are some of the requirements I would impose on overruns: 1. Sufficient movement allowance: Overruning a unit should cost an extra movement cost on top of regular movement expenses. 2. Overwhelming odds. The attacker should have overwhelming odds over the defendant. Overrun should be used only against weakened units. I would probably require 5 to 1 odds. But some playtesting would be appropriate here. Actually 5 to 1 odds is not that dificult to obtain. The attacker would probably be an experienced, well supplied, full stregth Tank atttached to a good HQ. The defending unit would probably be a badly battered corps, or occassionally a badly battered army. 3. The extra movement points and the required overwhelming odds would make it very difficult for infantry to overrun, but in theory, it should be possible for infantry to overrun other infantry, except for the following caveat: 4. It should be harder to overrun a fast moving defender. Where the defending unit can move at least as fast as the the attacking unit, the defending unit should have a random chance to retreat from an overrun. If the defending unit is even faster than the attacking units, it should have an even better chance to retreat from an overrun, (This simulates the hability of mobile units to conduct a mobile defense.) 5. I am inclined to recomend that an attacking unit that just made an overrun should also be allowed to perform a regular attack after it finished its turn ...unless the defending unit succesfully executed a mobile defense. This simulates the delays and disruption caused by an efective mobile defense. But. again, play testing is needed. 6. I do not know if a unit defending from an overrun should be allowed to retreat over friendly units. Any ideas here?

Part of the problems with Replacements in SC is that you don't need to plan for them. You got hammered last turn in a critical spot, and you bring reinforcements directly from your production pool into the most critical point in the battlefront. And this reinforcements are not just light untrained infantry. They can be heavy tanks or airplanes. A player should be forced to plan reinforcements in advance. This can be impemented through the use of Reinforcement Pools, which must be filled up one turn in advance. So if you don't buy enough reinforcements in advance you are stuck with week front lines and the oponnent can achieve a breakthrough. I would suggest making at least three reinforcement pools: Air, Ground, and Naval. In theory, your could have a replacement pool for each and every type of unit. But for now, just 3 pools would be just fine. Of course more expensive Tank Groups would require more Reinf Points, while Inf. Corps would require less Reinf Points, to achieve the same increment in actual strength. The AI could probably handle this well. First you need to keep enought units to make the front. Second you need enough reinforcement to bring them to full stregth. Then, you need reserve units and reserve reinforcements that can be set as percentages of your font line strength. ...anyway, I am shure SC staff can come up with even better algorithms. But reinforcement process right now is way too easy and quick... and, consequently, too many a battle become a battle of attrition instead of a battle of breakthrough and mobility. And again, I also would limit the amount of reinf points a unit can receive in a single turn. I have been thinking on this since my last posting. I would suggest the following; Inf Corps max 5 points x turn Inf Armi max 4 Tnk Grp max 3 Air Fleet max 3 Rockets max 3 Bomber max 2 Subs max 2 Cruiser max 2 Battleship max 1 Carrier max 1 Yes, it would take months to repair a Battleship or a Carrier. But that's the way it was in real life.

I always play with FOW on. I would like an option with an even stricter FOW: At Kursk the Germans were not aware of the entreched armies that lied 50 miles behind the front line waiting for them. In the Low Countries, during operation Market Garden, the allies did not now there were panzer units fifty miles behind the frontlines. In Midway the Japanese air scouts missed the American Fleet, and when they finally spoted, their radio failed. Before the Battle of the Buldge, and before Fall Blue. The Germans managed to bring the attacking units just behind the lines without being detected by the enemy air scouts. My point: there should be a random posibility that air scouts miss to see something. During WWII, in ordert to avoid detection, armies travled at night, to preset locations where they could hide from air rec. This was difficult, and sometimes it failed. But many other times it worked. A few other items It should be easier to detect an army that just moved last turn, than a static army. From a programers point of view, units with 0 entrechement are those units that just moved last turn. Any unit with an entrechement of 1 or more should be much harder to spot. Air rec should be particularly unreliable in forest, swamps, and cities. Right now Russian partisans cannot hide from German Air Rec in the Prippet Marshes. This makes it very easy to hunt down the partisans. Infantry should be easier to hide from air rec, while tanks should be harder to hide from air rec.

Same here. It would be great to go global. The Pacific War, China, India, Burma, etc.