Terif

As new years collection here some screenshots from my last year games : Conquering Russia with 4 german corps: French fortification line, awaiting D-day... Russia and Germany preparing for the last huge battle of this war... ... more than 20 units destroyed within 1 month, Russian losses twice as high as Germanys – End of the war : Losses when Allies surrendered:

That´s the theory if no bad enemy would exist... - unfortunately there will be battles in SC2 and with the high attack values experience doesn´t matter: Even your high strength unit will suffer major damage in Russia - usually with 2 army attacks your high strength unit will be dead, experience or no experience - and if necessary a corps to finish it off. Even if it is only attacked once, it will loose most of its experience collected in the previous wars against helpless minor countries. P.S.: A large part of the readiness (and readiness is what matters in battle) comes from HQ command where the combat units experience has no influence.

For AI games you may be right - but not in HvsH games : For once, I have so far never seen or owned in several hundred games a ground unit with more than str 12 ! And they usually will not survive the first year of Barbarossa too... And this has a reason, since in HvsH everyone will research Infantry Weapons and Anti-Tank. Usually at least IW are at Lv 3 till Barbarossa or shortly after and that means: one battle and even if it survives, all your hard earned exerience is gone after reinforcing . Side note: elite reinforcements costs twice as much than the normal version and so it is doubtable if it is really worth the additional costs as in Russia you don´t see much difference except for the first turn when they start fresh and with full supply. After the first real battle it will be lost in any case. At least I personally don´t care about experience for ground units - only for air units it really matters for me - but that´s up to everyone himself, lastly elite units are also a prestige object that you can be proud of (even if they have no real additonal use in combat ).

@Night: HQs in SC2 certainly do not represent only "a few hundred men" - this is an abstract strategical game of larger scale . Anyway, in SC2 you already have the desired effect (except for french HQs - they will die one way or the other..): As long as HQs are used in the right manner, they will never die from airstrikes, very seldomly take damage and usually not even been attacked since this is a waste of airpower Only in some rare cases they will die - if their commander is unexperienced in warfare (e.g. placing HQs in marshes when nice fortifications are nearby as much better places...) or does a grave mistake like I did once in France, so I lost my only non-french HQ to airstrikes...so only a single HQ in total got killed by air in several hundred games .

Yep, I also never lost a HQ in SC2 to airstrikes (except the french ones obviously, and a german one by mistake in the french planes ). If the enemy can muster so many and obviously experienced airfleets that he can destroy a HQ in a city or even mountain, then he could have destroyed all your ground units with them much more easily...I personally are happy about any airstrike against my HQs (as long as they are not unentrenched in open terrain.. ), since this means he didn´t do losses to a vulnerable combat unit . Remember: Cities and mountains have a defence bonus of 2, i.e. full strength HQs absorb 2 damage points, each entrenchment level increases this by 1... i.e. airfleets do only expected losses of 0 even against an unentrenched HQ and need at least around 2 medals of experience to achieve even 1 expected damage point ! So in the end if the enemy killed you a HQ in a mountain or city, this means he could have killed with the same amount of airstrikes something around 20-30 strength points from your combat units (+ crushing their morale/readiness), which means with some supporting ground units could have wiped out all your ground forces instead... [ December 30, 2006, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Attacker Losses: Experience means that a defenders experience increases the losses of any attacker by 1/3 of the experience multiplied with the readiness of the defender and experience of the attacker reduces these losses also by 1/3 of his experience multiplied with the readiness of the attacker. Defender Losses: The same, only the other way around...damage increase by 1/3 * Attacker Experience * readiness, reduction by 1/3 * Defender Experience * readiness This means that experience only matters a bit if the according units are in good shape/readiness since it is multiplied with the readiness. But even if the units would be at 100% readiness, each medal of experience increases/decreases damage only by 0.33 points ! But in (soft)ground warfare attack/defence values are usually between 4-6 (tanks even higher). In consequence, experience doesn´t really matter in ground warfare, it is simply a more or less neglectable effect. Another story are air units - they usually have a high readiness and combat values are with only 2 pretty low and ground units have only a defence of 1, so here experience can make a huge difference and leads very fast to expected losses of 0 for the AF and losses of 2-3 when attacking ground units. Concerning your observations: - yes, attackers can only reduce their damage if they have collected exerience, otherwise they take full damage - defenders on the other side can reduce their losses not only by experience (makes no real difference, defenders usually have none or nearly none anyway), but much more effective by choosing the right terrain for defence (=Defense Bonuses) and entrenching there

The readiness of a HQ only depends on its strength and no other factors like for other units. So with str 10 they have 100% readiness, with str 5 = 50% readiness etc. An interesting thing about HQs: Airstrikes don´t cause a morale drop, which means in the right terrain (like forests, cities, mountains, fortifications..etc) they are pretty much safe from airstrikes since the defence bonuses will prevent them from taking much if any damage as long as their strength points are close to maximum. So HQ hunting with long-range air like complained about in SC1 is no viable option any more in SC2 . P.S.: the effectiveness of HQ support for units under their command depends on the strength points of the HQ, so if you leave a HQ e.g. at str 5, then its command bonus will also be halved . This means it is useful to reinforce damaged HQs always to full strength as soon as possible if you want to support combat units with them (+ it greatly improves their ability to survive enemy airstrikes). [ December 29, 2006, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Yep - it´s not complicated: fortifications simply override any terrain bonuses, i.e. only the bonuses from the fortification applies. This also means it makes not so much sense to build fortifications in mountains since mountains already have higher defence bonuses than fortifications. Rivers have nothing to do with fortifications, so their effect will be unchanged (halved attack values for attacks accross rivers)

Land units sunk at sea (TP/amphib) can still be rebought - but never at reduced cost. 0 supply means their name will be removed from the list of available units, so you in deed can´t build the same unit any more (unless you rename another one ) - but still have a pool of new recruits.

First task of the fleets is to secure the entrance to Med and Baltic (= 1 ship in Gibraltar port after Spain joined or got conquered and 1 ship ready for Denmark port). Malta is another object to be surveiled so its garrison doesn´t wilder in your backyard later ). Second task is usually to destroy the russian Baltic fleet when it enters the war so these waters are secured. Aside from that the fleets have several possibilities: - sink british merchant ships in the Atlantic - unite italian and german fleet in the Atlantic (can be a deadly surprise if some UK cruisers want to hunt the raiding subs but instead get sunk by several axis battleships...) - Gibraltar is always a nice place for a trap where some ships of the Royal Navy can be sunk that try to damage axis ground units sieging Gibraltar - Same for the Suez loop: some Axis subs and/or surface ship awaiting the british evacuation fleet from Egypt can be a nasty surprise (just sunk Liam his tank and corps transport there in our game... ). That are only a few examples - in the end each Axis player has to decide where and when to strike against the allied fleet or if the fleets are better kept as permanent threat. Logically you need to change time and place in every game against the same player, otherwise he will await you there sooner or later and make short process of your fleet .

Don´t know where that rumour came from, but permanent kills are not implemented in SC2 - it doesn´t matter if you kill a unit at supply 0 or 1-4.

Yep, bombing a city to 3 makes only sense if you wait to kill the unit in the next turn. Only the current supply from the beginning of the turn is relevant to determine if it can be rebuilt, i.e. the supply you can see when you click on the unit you want to attack .

Yep - it is pretty simple: If the enemy unit has supply of 5 or higher at the moment it gets destroyed, then it can be rebuilt at reduced costs, otherwise not. Nothing else matters . P.S.: when you are standing next to an enemy unit you can see its supply level so you know if it can be rebuilt or not in case you destroy it.

Yep

Yep, it all depends on the viewpoint I prefer SC2 as a game with many different strategies and opportunities where you can make a lot of choices depending on what your opponent does Re: many freebies for Allies - one way to see it. But on the other side this gives Allies the opportunity to take the initiative in certain areas and start some action or cause Axis to implement countermessures to prevent Allies from conquering certain nations...resulting e.g. in the race for Algier where it is a cat and mouse game who will get or keep it . If this would get changed and Allies have a penalty so it is not worth conquering minor countries for them any more, then they will simply lean back in the future doing nothing on their Isle and the middle game could develope into something pretty dull... Every change has consequences - the question is only if good or bad for gameplay experience and fun .

You really don´t need Malta to conquer Egypt – you could do it with all your air + bombing it out of order with the fleet, but this would only be a really large waste of mpps and time if you do it . If Germany sends a HQ to Africa together with air and strong ground forces, that is all you need to conquer Egypt. To be superior to UK in Egypt Axis don´t need much supply - supply 1 so they can move (for the attack/move feature) is enough and a HQ even with Tobruk out of order still provides 5 supply. The combat efficiency (readiness) comes from HQ support, strength points and the 25% combat bonus when attacking before moving. So even without any supply your units can strike with at least 75% readiness which is more than enough to take out any defender if you rotate your units in an attack . Never make the mistake to place your units next to the sea (in any theater) if it is not really necessary and enemy ships are nearby. The desert is large enough, no need to place your air near the water. If too many Royal Navy ships are in the Med, better keep your italian navy save in port (and think about a Sealion... ). Then you only need them once to screen the seapath when you send your ground troops to Africa - here you could loose a cruiser or two if you encounter blockade ships, but that doesn´t really matter. Your forces have safely reached Africa and that´s all that matters. With enough airpower Egypt will sooner or later always belongs to Axis . P.S. Little Patch-history excursion: Till V1.04 Axis (Italy) got additional mpps from Scandinavia when they conquered it and that was also the time when the most interesting battles happened at the northern front and Axis regularly battled for Scandinavia right after France - but since some players found it not right/unhistorical it got changed for V1.05a. The change of strike range and that it now takes into account land and coastal contours prevents ground units from attacking a ship in Denmark port from Sweden in 1.05a. Before that Axis could not block the entrance into the Baltic if Allies had Sweden and that was a good incentive to conquer/defend it in any case. But now Allies can´t force an entry in the Baltic any more and so this for itself slight change caused a huge strategical change. Without Allies beeing able to enter Baltic, there is no real need for Axis any more to battle for Scandinavia and this theater is now pretty much dead for Action. Morale of the story: be careful what you wish for...historical accurracy may be good, but sometimes even slight changes have a huge (and not always good) impact in the game . [ December 24, 2006, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

@TaoJah: 1) Not if the Axis player knows what he is doing : Axis only need to defend Königsberg and to keep Denmark (2 fortifications with defenders in the sea/land tiles and it is safe). If Germany stations a cruiser in Denmark port, no allied ships can enter Baltic. Then northern Germany is for one thing pretty much safe against any invasion - protected by the german Kriegsmarine. And even if Allies land there, they have no supply and no hiding while Axis can operats units all around them - so they will simply be crushed from all sides in a short slaughter . 2) If you play the variant to keep allied readiness low, then you will still conquer the Middle East countries, but wait until Russia and USA are in the war (i.e. somewhere around spring/summer 1942 they will be conquered) - same as with the other still neutral countries like Vichy France or Switzerland. So as said above, with this strategy you have the choice if you want to conquer Egypt if it is heavily defended, or if you simply leave it on its own and concentrate on the continent since you don´t benefit that much from conquering it as in a more aggressive approach and will have high costs. Depends on the players choice which way he wants to go . 3) Against an able player: No If Russia falls before summer 1943 (and even this is very early), then the Allied player has done several things severely wrong... 4) Yes, partisans are fully activated, i.e. they will still appear after a russian surrender and Axis have to keep their anti-partisan garrisons. Nevertheless with Russia surrendered game is over unless 1947 is pretty close or western Allies already sieging Berlin. Axis then can concentrate on the west and will also far outproduce western Allies. London then usually falls within the next 6-12 months and Axis achieves major victory. [ December 24, 2006, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Yes, only important are Axis units near Madrid - so everytime Spain enters the war (no matter which side) USA will transfer naval assets from the Pacific sooner or later. But declaring war to Spain as Allies is let´s say...suboptimal . Because of a few ships this nice birthday present to Axis - pretty bad idea unless Allies have already won and want to conquer Spain .

@Normal Dude: If you want you can upload it at Panzerliga - just send me an e-mail so I can send you the access data.

In 1.04 Italy got 30 additional mpps/turn from Sweden while cut off and with connection via Finland even 48 mpp/turn. Now in 1.05a only Germany can get mpps from Scandinavia via convois. As long as Scandinavia is neutral convois can´t be intercepted. But if Axis conquer it they don´t get a single mpp more than when it is neutral, it only gives Allies the opportunity to eliminate the convois by either bombing the ports out of order or occupying the start or destination port. But much more important: - A DoW increases US and russian readiness a lot, i.e. much more mpps for Allies - to conquer it Axis have to amphib several heavy units which is very expensive - and when Axis have conquered Scandinavia, they need to garrison it with at least 3 units (better 4 if they want to keep Oslo..). So in the end Axis only have to invest a lot of mpps to get Scandinavia, have high costs to hold it and get nothing in return mpp wise . So there is only the strategical advantage that they can´t be attacked any more from Scandinavia in their back yard the baltic and eastern Germany. If this is worth the costs and disadvantages, is something the axis player has to decide and highly depends on the overall strategy.

In 1.04 it was standard as Axis to conquer Sweden and liberate Norway right after France cause this increased their (italian-) mpps significantly. Now in 1.05a Axis economically have only disadvantages if they conquer Scandinavia, so this makes no sense any more and Norway usually simply belongs to the allied hemisphere . Nevertheless it can make strategically sense if the axis player chooses to leave Spain and/or Africa neutral so he has the units and time to secure his northern flank - it´s the choice of the axis player which way he wants to go.

Sealion is a totally different question... Against the AI or an unexperienced player it is surely a game winner - but against a good and prepared allied player it only means a short game and certain defeat for Axis . Surely, Axis will usually win the battle for Britain sooner or later if they throw everything against the isle, but at the time they get it, they will already have lost the war (e.g. see AAR here ). In any case - if Axis goes for Sealion, then Norway is more than ever the best choice for Allies since they can bring those units back to Britain any time within 1-2 turns and improve their income situation with the conquest.

Yep, good catch SeaMonkey - Bombers are intended to have full spotting range to prevent the old Sealion problem (see VERSION NOTES.TXT) but have not (=bug). Will report it to Hubert .

Norway is standard move for Allies in the meantime and it works 100% of the time if you do it right: - put your corps from London into amphibs in turn 1, place your army at Edinbourg and amphib it turn 2. - this way your 2 amphibs will reach Oslo at turn 4 and in turn 4 it never snows (P.S.: never invade anywhere during snow since your attack values are halved...). - when you land, do it with your corps first so it will take the landing losses and your army lands at str 10. This way your army has expected damage of 4 which means the defending corps is dead with 100% certainty (P.S.: don´t make the mistake to first move your army another hex accross land because then it would loose its 25% attack bonus and has only an expected damage of 3) And as TaoJah already said: Use your french navy to clear the path - if the Axis player is so crazy to sacrifice his fleet for nothing, be happy and help him with his kamikaze mission . P.S.: attacking allied ships with airfleets is a pretty bad idea and very expensive mistake many unexperienced players make (especially if they come from SC1 where it was a good idea ). But in SC2 this is one of the main reasons the game gets lost for Axis as among other things combat values of AFs vs ships have been halved from SC1 to SC2. [ December 20, 2006, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Bombers (and carriers) have their full spotting range concerning ships. Only for land and other air units this got reduced. So Allies still have the possibility to spot an incoming invasion force for Sealion with their bomber.