Terif

In SC2 there is no „best“ warpath when playing against an able human opponent – you can do everyhing once or maybe twice, then he will adapt and develope a counter. Key to victory is to choose your strategy according to the situation and your opponent - especially depending on which strategies you used the last time(s) against him . Nevertheless there are a few standard strategies for both sides at the moment in V1.05a: - Allies should always take Norway as soon as possible (usually Nov 19, 1939), there is nothing Axis can do against it without a high risk of loosing the war early. - Axis can choose: 1) either to take Poland first and walk west or 2) my standard strategy in the meantime is to conquer LC and Denmark in turn 2, Warsaw usually falls in turn 3 (+-1 turn depending on weather and enemy defence abilities). When you take France makes no real difference concerning the goal to win since the earlier it falls, the sooner US readiness increases – sooner or later have both their advantages. - Germany better always conquers Denmark, or Allies will do it and destroy the german Kriegsmarine in the Baltic - After France the only standard move is conquering Egypt. The rest depends on the situation and which strategy you want to use this time : E.g. If Allies defend Egypt heavily and with their fleet, you can think about a quick Sealion first and to take out Egypt a bit later so UK surrenders. Another option (besides just killing the defenders without mercy... ) against a heavy allied defence in Egypt is to simply leave it to them and concentrate on the continent. If Allies really want Africa they will get it sooner or later anyway and this way Axis can save all the transport and operating costs + don´t need to divide their forces. To prevent Allies from conquering Algier, there will often be a race between the 2 sides who is there first – and Axis take Tunis and Algier right after France. In many games one of the first heavy battles then take place in the area of Algier that can go in either direction . In 1.04 another standard was to convince Spain into joining by diploing it. After USA and Russia were in the war, most of the minors then got conquered. In 1.05a with the changed diplo costs and range, this won´t work any more and Axis will nearly never be able to convince Spain to join. Investing into USA/Russia makes no sense any more for UK, so they will block Spain and with the reduced readiness increase per diplo hit, Axis usually will not get enough hits so Spain would join before USA or Russia comes in and blocks it completely. This lead to so far 2 main approaches now: 1) Axis only attacks Egypt (or even leaves it to Allies) after France and tries to keep readiness as low as possible. This way Axis have extremely low losses, no operating costs and can save a lot more mpps than with an aggressive approach. So at the time of Barbarossa their economy is not that big, but they are very strong in units (while Russia is pretty weak without any readiness boosts by DoWs and Western Allies also not able to do D-day in the next time). USA will be out of the war till mid 1942, so Axis have the power and time to march through till Stalingrad and beyond without too much resistance. 2) Axis choose the aggressive approach, don´t care about enemy readiness and diplo Hungary and Romania (France surrendering and DoWing Russia increases readiness for both those countries, so if all fails, Axis only need 1 hit in Romania so all Axis minors join for sure). This way they can take Vichy and Spain already in 1940 together with most other countries. This was my strategy in the last couple of games – when Barbarossa starts, Axis have conquered all former neutral countries on the map except Turkey (Ireland, Norway and Sweden will be conquered by Allies usually). This way Allies will start extremely strong into Barbarossa, but Axis have already reached all their early goals and can concentrate their firepower in the main theatres. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Logically there is not only black and white – often the actual strategy will be something in between. As said at first: it all depends on the situation and the opponent which strategy you should choose . [ December 19, 2006, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

This only reduces damage for the defender = no damage for the ships. So if you build fortresses at the ocean with an enemy fleet nearby, they can start their training mission and kill a few of your soldiers each turn too . P.S.: Defence bonuses are mulitplied with the readiness of a unit. After a few bombardments, readiness of the defender will be pretty low and defence bonuses don´t really help either - i.e. then also enemy air can start training on your fortresses...

If you don´t want to join a league, then you have also several possibilities: - post at the Panzerliga Opponent Finder Forum , but say explicitely you want a game that does not count for the league (e.g. call it training game ). - post at the Battlefront Opponent Finder Forum - or use the ICQ Contact List to ask players from Battlefront here directly

There are three good reasons why you better don´t build fortifications near the water (except for Denmark to protect the straits): - while the engineer is building the fortification he will usually be bombarded from air and sea - you need to man a fortification to put it into use (i.e. put a unit into it). Axis have a manpower problem and simply not enough units to man the coast before an actual invasion and if you leave it empty the fortifications will be destroyed by enemy landings without a fight. If you build the fortifications inland, then the enemy can land and your units have enough time to move into their fortifications. - last but not least: fortifications have no active defence against naval units (unlike fortresses like Gibraltar or Sevastopol), they are built against land and air attacks, not against ships. So if you build and man them at the beaches, the enemy navy will only have a perfect training object and cause you a lot of damage and mpp drain over time...

Yes, on the same computer you can install SC2 as often as you wish or need. I.e. you can install it a second time and update only this installation to 1.05a. So you can play both 1.04 and 1.05a. P.S.: same with all previous or following patches (e.g. if you have still 1.02 games, just make it 3 installations with all 3 different patches)

Seems you are speeking about a game vs the poor AI . But try it against a human opponent and any able player will happily sink your amphibs with the german Kriegsmarine immediately.... ...and on the path via land you will get your entire winter war where Russia often will be beaten by the finish forces (with some german help of course ) - can end either way depending on where both sides lay their main focus.

LC = Low Countries = Benelux

For multiplayer a short outline of todays standard strategy: - LC and Denmark turn 2 - When France falls doesn´t really matter. Axis have enough time for all their goals till Barbarossa and the sooner France falls, the sooner Allies get their readiness boosts...simply evens out, so no real gain for Axis if they conquer France earlier - at least not if they have higher losses then and against a good player they will have.. . Usually France falls around April 1940 with the first or second mud turn after the winter. - After France the only must have for Axis is Egypt. Till Barbarossa they don´t need to conquer additional countries since with 1.05a a conquered Scandinavia doesn´t improve their mpps any more (changed from 1.04). - With Barbarossa and USA joining Axis can conquer the rest of the neutrals except Turkey. Everyone else then can and should be annexed. Nevertheless, this is only the standard against a passive (and unexperienced) allied player . Against a better player Axis will be forced to change their strategy accordingly...e.g. there they will have to also conquer/liberate Tunisia and Algier during 1940. In the end - against a good human player - it comes down to: "it depends on the situation and what the Allies are doing" . If you don´t change your strategy accordingly to what happens on the battlefield, you will have a problem sooner or later and usually loose the war .

n0kn0k - we had the same thought at the same time

LoL - you two are speaking about two totally different things... Remember, Taojah is only playing against the AI and therefore speaking about a game human vs AI. And against the AI you can do everything you like, even buying no additional units and will still win... Liam is talking about a multiplayer game against another human player - and this is something completely different .

Depends on what you wanted to do...but from the description I guess you tried to operate german units into Albania in order to then send it via transports to Africa ? If that´s the case: You need a land connection of friendly hexes to a city to be able to operate units. With Yugoslavia and Greece still neutral, Albania is cut off and you simply can´t operate units into the city there. First you need to conquer one of the countries around it.

- bomber defence (BD) influences how much damage a bomber takes against this target - bomber defence bonus (BDB) in contrary protects defending units in this terrain/on this ressource and reduces the damage for the defender - Anti-air tech only increases the damage for attacking bombers and bomber tech only increases the damage for ressources the bomber attacks. - bombers will be intercepted by enemy airfleets if they are in range of the target and then there will be an airfight between bomber and airfleet. If there is also a friendly airfleet in range that has not been in action this turn, then it can fly escort for the bombers and this means both airfleets will fight against each other, while the bombers can reach their target without airfight So the answers to your questions are: 1)No, these are two different values - BD increases the damage for the bomber, BDB reduces the damage for the defender 2)BD has nothing to do with the strategic attack value of the bomber. The higher the strategic attack of a bomber, the more damage it will do to a ressource. But anti-air defence will also increase the damage for the bomber - so with higher tech both sides will simply take higher losses 3)BD of the defending unit is multiplyed with its readiness (for ressources: BD+Anti-air level multiplied with its strength where str 10 is 100%) - as a rule of thumb you can say each point BD means expected losses of 1 for the the bomber when attacking that target 4)No, they only increase the damage for each other (bomber and ressource). Since bombers are much more costly than any ressource, bombers used to reduce enemy ressources are pretty much neutralized with anti-air lv 2+ as then it is too expensive to attack a ressource with bombers only to reduce enemy mpps - then bombers have only a strategic value: to bomb enemy operating centres out of order and reduce entrenchment before a ground attack. 5)The other way around: Ressources have 100% while bombers without HQ are at max 75%, so they need HQs to get also around 100 (+see point 4) 6)No, it only depends on if the target of the bomber is in range 7)No, only both airfleets battle against each other

Here I can only say: If Axis have problems with the french fleet, then they simply moved their units to the wrong places . As long as France is alive, the german Kriegsmarine better not goes into naval battles. Just keep them in the baltic, so no french ship can harm them. Place a cruiser in Kopenhagen port if necessary, then the enemy can´t move through. Italy only needs to move its ships into port, there they are save as long as it doesn´t forget to protect the cities these ports belong to with ground units . If then enemy amphibs land in Italy, this is only a waste of mpps for Allies as they spent a lot of mpps for the amphibs and also only looses them pretty quickly without beeing able to do much harm. Besides, if Allies bring in Italy earlier, then this also increases the italian mpp income earlier which more than compensates for everything Allies can do against a protected Italy. In the end it makes already no sense for the french fleet to do kamikaze (or better: suicide ). The only targets they have are ports and cities...totally useless to attack them at this stage of the war. Therefore the main purpose of the french fleet is already to act as a threat so Axis can´t use their fleets while France is still alive and to keep them in the hope they become free french ships .

When Spain goes to Axis, then Allies get a fourth carrier - so they have 3 UK and 1 US carrier. Allies (and Axis) have more than enough mpps to buy everything they want if they spend their ressources wise - and USA + Russia have to always research Industry Tech since this greatly increases their income. One mistake you should never make is to repair (or upgrade) your ships (be it as Axis or Allies) - otherwise you will loose the war at land since ships are very expensive to repair and upgrade. If Allies know how to use their ships, then Axis never can threaten their supremacy at sea any more as soon as USA is in the war.

- For one thing in SC2 there is a research cap of 750 mpps for Germany and on the other hand there is usually also no catch-up effect on the higher levels. At least not in Heavy Tanks and most likely also not in Jets since there are more important things to research, so you are pretty sure the only one researching it and in contrary to SC1 there is no race to reach level 5, so no catch-up . That means to reach level 4-5 in deed in average needs a bit longer. - experience plays no real role for land/naval units. Only for air units that are sent on anti-ground missions, experience is valuable. In any case you always need to reinforce to full strenght whenever possible, as readiness and therefore combat efficiency highly depends on the strength of a unit. In SC1 each command rating and HQ experience bar had the same effect as one strength point of the unit, so it was still powerful even at low strength. But in SC2 this has changed and there is a multiplicative relationship with the strength points of the unit. So it is important to keep them at high strenght. - Concerning playing Axis, SC2 is pretty similar to SC1 : As new/unexperienced player you will have a problem to win with Axis as you make many mistakes. But when you have played some (multiplayer-) games and learned how to play Axis and the basic strategies, then this changes so more Allies have the problem . In SC1 this lead to the bid systems with currently around 10.000 bonus mpps given to Allies to balance the game. This is not necessary in SC2 so far, but Allies are surely not in the advantage between equal players that are experienced and know what they are doing . P.S.: Partisans can easily be prevented, same as in SC1 by placing units at the right spots and Axis have more than enough minor units (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland etc.) to do this job

A classical summer-offensive / winter-build-up game in the east . - Summer 1941 Axis conquered the territories Riga-Minsk-Kiev, to move into wintering grounds near the mines. - Summer 1942 a massive aircampaign with 6 AF followed by 7 ground attacks destroy the mighty russian fortress behind the river south of the 2 mines, so german forces can break through. Therefore Russia decides to retreat its unprotected forces towards Rostov/Stalingrad while the fortress system around Kharkov had to hold off the invaders which before finally beeing eliminated they accomplished excellently and even managed to destroy several heavy axis pieces before winter was near and both sides started entrenching and building up. Meanwhile western Allies were not passive: Starting in Cassablanca, the outmost western city in the african desert, they started their desert war, liberating city after city, destroying several italian armies entrenched in them...finally reaching Tobruk and Egypt. In front of Tobruk Royal Navy encountered the first light naval battle with the italian fleet that retreated towards the east after they lost their sub and superior allied forces arrived. In Iraq 3 axis armies supported by Manstein and several corps were battling with some russian forces in the mountains and got obviously orders to stay and fight till death – no retreat, no surrender, directly from german high command. In Egypt and Syria the italian fleet got trapped with no way to escape any more. 2 ships destroyed by ground forces in the ports, the crew of the last italian remnants paniced in front of the allied battleship fleet supported by 4 carriers and surrendered without much of a fight. Till winter 1942 the last axis forces that retreated till Iran got eliminated after a last mountain battle. During this campaign US forces conquered Albania and Corsica. The last italian battleship was hiding in Venice port, licking its wounds and receiving extensive repairs after it got in a battle with a US battleship group and 2 carriers bombarded it in port. Since due to constant repairs a destruction from sea was impossible, UK special forces landed in northern Italy. Taking Torino and cutting off the italian boot at Venice. So they forced the battleship group out of their hiding to leave their now threatened port position and UK naval forces waiting outside the harbor gave him the death blow – the italian fleet was no more. UK special forces evacutated immeditately when facing german elite units in Switzerland and Venice, escaping with their boats. Simultaneously in southern Spain both spanish cruisers went into their last combat and got sunk by several light allied patrol ships. In the Atlantic the last 2 german subs got sunk by US destroyers after damaging several convoy ships. At the same time Allies also invaded Scandinavia via the empty Bergen, moving further inland. In Sweden Axis gathered a powerful force including german HQ and heavy pieces for defence – but when they spotted 3 US HQs with all available armies and both tank groups, while Royal Navy broke through at Denmark - entering Baltic - they started evacuation. In the effort to secure evacuation, the german Kriegsmarine got eradicated – but except for a german army, all swedish defenders were able to escape, so they did their duty. So in a pretty much simultaneous battle at 4 places - the eastern Med, southern Spain, Atlantic and Baltic - the entire axis fleet got sunk. Losses were 2 allied vessels vs 16 axis ships . The last ground battle started in summer 1943: During winter, Russia had rebuilt all lost units from the last summer battles and built extensive fortifications between Rostov and Stalingrad, awaiting the enemy in a 2-row defence line behind the river...but the enemy never came. Instead Axis had built their own defence cluster between Kharkov and Vologda with their 6 airfleets in the middle. So the 3 allied powers decided in their winter war conference in Iceland to end the war in a gigantic battle of encirclement and annihilation: - Russia launched the battle with its main offensive from Stalingrad in the east, immediately liberating Rostov - A second army group attacked from the north via Moskov - UK attacked from the south: landing a strong force under O´Connor with tank, army and several corps in Northern Italy, destroying a defending german corps and cutting of the italian boot. As a distraction also some forces landed in Normandy, cutting off Brest. - The main strike of western Allies got lead by Patton and Eisenhower when they landed in Königsberg with their troops, marching east towards the battle around Kharkov to cut the last german survivors there off from the west. So in the end the german pocket in Russia was under attack from all 4 directions, all 7 german tanks got destroyed and the AFs in the middle of the corral already under direct attack when Axis surrendered unconditionally. To support the last offensive, another task force liberated Denmark. Clark stayed in Sweden as well as Montgomery to command the 8 allied AFs and bombers there. In a massive bombing campaign, german cities and mines got totally destroyed and burned down in firestorms – Berlin completely eradicated to str 0, the last defender fleed the city so it was empty with US tanks approaching when Axis surrendered in July 1943. An interesting and good long game, with the biggest ground battle in history fought in the last days of the war – Germany operated all available german units from all over Europe into this battle so there were only minor units defending the west and all german units caught in one huge pocket... under attack and crushed from all sides .

However, the Suez option as it is in 1.04, is everything else than a very favourabel option for Allies since it is risky and extremely expensive since Allies have to send their units as amphibs and a large part of their fleet. With these ressources they can invade much more easily anywhere else. So lastly this is only an interesting option for the right opportunities and nothing that will be used in every game...more every 10th game or so... . In other words: if you really want to eliminate this option so be it, it wouldn´t be a too great loss, nevertheless a loss of playability. And so I come to my conclusion from some posts above : It depends on if you want to sacrifice a part of the playability to achieve a closer historical accurracy. I personally would prefer not as I play SC2 as a game, but that depends on everyone himself and in the end this is the decission of Hubert .

@SeaMonkey (+Blashy): I understand that you want it to be a simulation of WW2, that´s ok and for AI games or mods I wouldn´t say anything against it. But SC2 is first and foremost a game for me that I want to play in multiplayer on the standard map and not against the AI - and when I play a game I want to have fun and long and good battles with many possibilities for both sides - not to narrow it down to what has been done in history...then I don´t need to play the game . And it is pretty simple: If you limit the arrival to the red sea with the current small map, then only suicidal or new players will enter this area again with an invasion force since 3 defending units are more than enough to stop what can arrive in the Red Sea, i.e. this option is virtually eliminated in multiplayer games. As for the Persion Gulf invasion route - nothing against it, but it can´t replace the Suez option since this can be defended even more easily as Axis only need to place there 1-2 units to block anything.

Sorry, wrong : - intel never decreases the base chance each chit has (5% from lv 0 to 1, 4% from 1 to 2, etc..=5,4,3,2,1 system) - only if there is a tech difference betweeen 2 nations, then intel either increases the additional research bonus by 1 for each intel level difference, or it reduces this additional bonus by 1 for each intel level difference, but it can´t fall below 0, i.e. your base chance is still there ! So in your example: L1 tech for USA L1 tech for Germany 0 Int Tech for USA 4 Int Tech for Germany 4 Chits in for USA Chance for both a US and german hit is: (4% - 0%) x 4 = 16% There is no tech difference, so intel has no influence at all. Only if there is a tech difference, then Intel increases/decreases the catch-up bonus. But the base chance is more than enough so usually everyone reaches IW3, AT3 till 1942 - no matter of the intel levels any side has.

Supply is explained in detail in the manual that you can find in your SC2 folder - not the printed one, this is not up to date. But in the version on your computer the supply section got substantially enhanced since other new players had the same questions as you . My multiplayer guide with basic staff (can also be used against the AI) you can find here

Lastly it comes down to historical accurracy vs playability : If you want it to be historical accurate, then you would also have to forbid/make impossible all other large scale invasions in different locations than France (like Cassablanca, Portugal, Scandinavia, Northern Germany, etc...) - since historically Allies didn´t have the capacity/abilities to do that in WWII. And there are many other things too you have to change if you want a historical simulation. But then you really narrow the game down and it is no longer the good game it used to be. You can repeat history, but that´s it...at least to me that would make no fun. Not to be able to pass Suez when it is conquered by Axis may be more historical, but then an invasion there to liberate Egypt is simply no option any more and that part of the map is dead for action. Sure, could be new/unexperienced players will still try it, but any able axis player will simply turn it into a death trap so it only will be suicide mission. For multiplayer games IMHO we need an open game with many interesting possibilities and what ifs to get the best and most interesting games that are fun to play. From this view point I can only say leave Suez as is, or this option is dead in mulitplayer between experienced players - it´s not a really huge loss as it won´t be done too often in any case since it is not the most attractive invasion site compared to others, but nevertheless.

Keep it as is because: - it is more realistic that Allies have the option to invade Egypt and can´t be blocked so easily. As long as the map is not enhanced to the south, keeping Alexandria as second entry point is the best way to achieve this. - and the most important for me : I like to have as many options as possible and I see no reason why this option should be removed so Allies have no realistic possibility any more to liberate Egypt via the Suez route. Would only leed to a less interesting game.

Not really.. : Allies have the numbers, but they are splintered into different fractions and each side has to fight on its own. If western Allies land somewhere, they can´t operate between different landing sites so they can´t quickly order reinforcements by if necessary. Axis have not so much income and units, but they are able to concentrate what they have wherever necessary and achieve superior firepower in that theater until the enemy is beaten and destroyed. Especially in the west this means the total loss of this front for quite some time - and during that time Axis can move its forces to the next battlefield and beat the enemy there . So in the end this means: - no toe to toe with Russia, if Axis takes on Russia, then every battle should end with around twice as much losses for Russia or more. - Axis can defeat Russia if played right and then conquer London to end the game in a total victory. Allies don´t have to play horrible, only Axis needs to play better than Allies . For Axis strategy here really matters and to know when and where to strike.

As long as Axis have their figthing forces intact, they don´t need many mpps and 400 is more than enough. In SC2 the income situation is not really deciding, in one well fought battle you can destroy much more than the enemy ever can outproduce you. They do not need Africa to win the game and if they use their combined forces in the right manner, they have a good possibility to win in such a situation. Spain may be missing, but on the other side this flank is secure and they don´t need to fear an invasion from this side - has all its two sides of the medal . So I would say this game seems to be fully open - wish both sides good and interesting further battle .

Sorry, here I certainly do not contend . The mere image that Axis simply blockades any allied task force and be it 10 times larger with those few units seems to me totally unrealistic if not to say ridiculous in reality and for SC2 gameplay this is only stomach-churning for me .