Terif

SC is still alive and has a growing comunity - Perhaps not at Battlefront but at Panzerliga and in the PBEM League . At Battlefront some old members loose interest, retire and reappear from time to time, but thats the way it goes with every game. At Panzerliga there are more than 50 active players and a lot of new players too (96 registered players for SC at the moment) . So like others I am more busy there - where the action is / training new warriors - and step into Battlefront only from time to time. [ May 30, 2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

I already was in the Epcot Center and Cape Canaveral+Kennedy Space Center - have still some nice T-shirts and posters from there . But Bratwurst...to say it in german: Pfui..igitt In english: I dont like Bratwurst ...a Schnitzel would be fine :cool: [ May 26, 2004, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

These are the expected combat results. So you can see before the combat the expected losses of the attacker (your unit) and the defender (enemy unit). The real result in combat has only a difference of +-1 (=random factor) to the expected combat results. So it is possible to plan your attacks in advance and choose your targets. You can see before combat if it makes sense to attack a certain unit or not and which units you will most likely be able to destroy.

It depends on the situation: Supply, HQ Support, which unit types are involved in combat... There is no table to relate this - at least not that I know. But in the end it is more or less an academical question: In the game you simply dont have much choice - sooner or later you have to reinforce or you will loose your unit. If you leave it understrength, it is always a risk and usually you will loose more than you can gain by taking this risk - and in critical situations or if you want to make breakthroughs you need full strength units or they will be destroyed in the counterattack. BTW: it is better to collect experience with full strength units than with understrength ones - they still loose strength points in combat and you have to reinforce them to a minimum strength from time to time where they then loose much more of their experience than if you had reinforced them earlier. Bottom line: If you dont reinforce your experienced units they are approximately nearly equal in combat power to reinforced units. But understrength units are much more likely to be destroyed by the enemy so in the end it is usually better to reinforce. [ May 25, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

attack_type_value: This is the attack value for each type of unit e.g.: an army has an attack value of 4 vs tanks and soft targets (corps: 2 ) defend_type_value: The defence value of a unit vs the enemy unit depending on the type of unit: e.g. army vs tank/soft target = 2 (corps = 1) You can see the values for each unit type against each enemy unit type either at the end of the manual or directly in the game in the purchase section where you buy your new units. Ah, I just found the explaination in the manual: "Note: Attack or defend types are listed in the Combat Target Values Table, and can be of various types depending upon the units involved in combat. Defence bonuses are determined by terrain and are outlined in the Terrain Values Table. In the case of negative values returned by these formulas,the results are then returned as 0." [ May 25, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Thats pretty easy: if you decide to reinforce, then if possible always reinforce to maximum strength (sometimes you dont have the mpp/time to reinforce, thats a different story ). There is the possibility to save a bit of experience by reinforcing point after point. But by doing this, you will loose a lot of time - time that your unit could use to collect much more experience in combat. Not to forget if you do it right your units are always busy: either they are in combat or marching/operating to the next battlefield. If you dont reinforce them in one, then you will loose time and mpps. If you leave your units understrength, chances are high they will not survive the next combat and experience has no use any more for a dead unit... BTW: the experience bars are only an optical indication to give you a rough idea of the current experience. But internally the game calculates with the exact values - so only reinforcing until your units loose the next part of their medal to keep experience doesnt work . [ May 25, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

An army has an attack value of 4. So even without experience they only need a readiness of 88% or higher (strength + supply + HQ support = 27+ points) to do a damage of 4 in average. At the start of the war without tech/experience and low HQs they usually only do 3 damage. But only a bit experience, a better HQ or some tech is enough to move them over the 27 points so they can do an average damage of 4. To reach an average damage of 5, combat units need around 1-2 bars of experience and with 3-4 bars they can reach 6 average damage. At the start of Barbarossa Germany should always now have the better HQs (Manstein, Kesselring etc.) with ratings 8/9. This alone is enough to reach 4 damage in average (each HQ rating point is equivalent to one strength point=one Lv AT). Lower HQs like Bock/Rundstedt are now usually experienced and provide also a HQ support of 8+, so the units supported by them also do 4 damage (in contrary to the beginning of WW2). In this aspect you have with AT only the advantage that even new bought armies supported by a new low rated HQ can do 4 damage (instead of 3). But that are only a few units that really benefit in this aspect from AT since most german units are either experienced and/or supported by higher rated/experienced HQs. BTW: your russians had the problem that you didnt gave them the opportunity to entrench or to use natural defence lines(this would have reduced the damage), but the battles took place in the open field or your units were destroyed immediately after you bought them - since you bought your armies/tanks directly at the front (if I remember right) . [ May 25, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Blashy, that was mainly because my units in Russia were experienced from the battles before- together with experienced HQs thats what makes most of the difference (e.g. each bar experience from a HQ has the same effect as one level anti-tank and experience of combat units is even more important than that from HQs since it increases their attack value) . My lv 2 AT only increased the combat effectiveness by 6,66 %, experience and HQ support made the difference .

Higher strength points increase the readiness of a unit (3,33 percent points per strength point). As can be seen in the unit formulas a higher readiness increases the damage for the enemy. But it does not decrease your own losses on by itself. It only decreases your losses if your unit is entrenched, has a terrain bonus or is experienced. This is also the reason why you e.g. dont need HQs for Russia while you are defending. With a corps defence your units dont do much damage to the enemy anyway so a slight percentage increase doesnt really matter. And you cant noticably decrease your own losses with a higher readiness (your corps have no experience, usually stands in the open field and entrenchment reduces only the damage for the first 1-2 attacks). The main advantage of research are the higher attack/defense values - a nice side effect is the higher readiness/more strength points (= unit harder to destroy). But it has also a disadvantage cause each tech level that increases strength also increases the costs both for buying and reinforcing by 10%/level. Therefore it is e.g. not very wise to research anti-tank higher than lv 2-3. When you have neutralized the enemy tanks you can stop researching - each additionally level then only increases the costs for your units without much additional benefit. Unit formulas (see manual): 1)Readiness = (supply + strength + command rating + combat morale bonus) / 3 2)Multiplier = readiness / 10 3)Attacker Losses = defender_multiplier * (defend_type_value + defender_experience / 2) - attacker_multiplier * attacker_experience / 2 4)Defender Losses = attacker_multiplier * (attack_type_value + attacker_experience / 2) - (defender_multiplier * (defender_experience / 2 + defender_entrenchment + defence_bonuses))

Yes, from the original campaigns the Fall Blau (1942) campaign is quite balanced without bidding (but mostly because it is not played very often ). For some more campaigns you can have a look at Panzerliga: http://www.panzerliga.de/dt/docs/szenarien/szenarien_sc_1.php E.g. Amonas 1939 Fall Weiss Mod2 (the third szenario) is a very balanced campaign for two experienced players

Rambo: I know (and like )your Hero Style play - thats you and thats more than ok . Yes, to play competitive and winning by developing the better strategies was a lot of fun . But nevertheless for me the most important thing was always to have a good and exciting game while playing. In the meantime my main focus is in training new players. With a loss percentage of below 1% of my games, winning is really not the question for me any more or an incentive to play . The first year of SC was the best one, there were a lot of things and strategies to discover (e.g. how to take neutrals, russian readiness, conquering Med/Africa etc.). To improve gameplay I also provide all necessary information. If someone wants to know the basics of SC he simply has to read my strategy guide . But obviously we have different opinions about other types of information : I still think it is not good to provide informations for everyone how to cheat or how to exploit certain bugs. It doesnt improve the game or gameplay, it doesnt increase the fun in the game, in contrary it can only harm the game and destroy the fun playing it (if you publish it cause you want it to be fixed, then better mail it to an administrator/Hubert). It has nothing to do with ego, or to keep secrets for your own, but simply with responsibility. If someone likes SC and played it for a long time he should think about the consequences before he makes something public: e.g. there cant come any good from making cheating methods public. And If you only discovered it after over 2 years playing: be happy that it is not that easy to discover. If you dont make it public, nobody can use it to destroy the game. Or e.g. (if you would know it) would you publish an easy method how to build - and bring to explosion - an atomic bomb in the USA, when you know there is no countermessure possible to your method ? Probably nobody would do it like all the time before, but who knows maybe someone would try it and be it only to see if it really works... [ May 23, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Zapp: - learn to read (or is it because you like to turn around the words in someone elses mouth ?) - stop lying/talking crap - learn a better behaviour Then we can talk again - until then I simply cant take you serious any more. Your only interest in the meantime seems to be to find ways to damage my reputation and to kill SC as a multiplayer game.

Here you are right - but I guess you will only find it in your imagination . If it would be like you think it is, then a lot of people would have tried to cheat against me to beat me, but that is simply not the case. Its not your fault for thinking about and finding a method how to cheat (I still think it isnt practibel in a real game). All I say is that until now nearly nobody used/uses it. But when you make it public and give instructions how to do it, then you make it much more likely that someone will use it in the future. Same with the AA Bonus: Before it has been made public it was no issue and (as far as I know) nobody used it by purpose. Only after its publication it became popular for a few players to base their strategy on it. Fortunately it also has some disadvantages and countermessures are possible, but nevertheless like others too I dont like it if someone uses it to the extreme cause it can destroy a part of the game - and usually when the opponent has lost his AFs during the try to exploit the AA bonus he surrenders...

Yes, if you play a normal game you will it most likely not notice. But if you are suspicious, you can take care of the signs and I am pretty sure you will find out if or if not - especially when you combine it with your experiences from other games (surprise contacts, attack/move sequence etc.). But lastly the theoretical possibility to cheat is not decisive. If someone cheats he has nothing to gain, but only to loose his reputation if he is cought. We play SC to have fun in our spare time, so why should someone cheat ? It only destroys the game for him. If you can only think during your games: "Oh my god, he could cheat me" :eek: - and have no fun any more - you really should think about stopping to play lol . Have fun in the game and not in hunting ghosts . Like I said earlier based on my personel experience: in the last years SC was as good as free from cheats and - more important - cheaters and I am very confident that it will remain free of them in the future.

Yes, there we are different : I dont think it is good to make things public that you cant improve this way, but in contrary if they are known to a lot of people increase the danger that someone cheats you - and harm the game . If someone doesnt know how to do a bad/forbidden thing (cheating) then even if he would be willing to do it, he cant do it . [ May 23, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Rambo: Yes, it is possible that you dont notice it if someone cheats you. There are certainly ways to cheat out there you cant notice. The problem of possible cheating exists since the first computer game . Lastly its a matter of trust: If you trust your opponent or not. If not, then dont play him.

1) Sometimes it might work, but usually it causes SC to crash or at least to disconnect (perhaps this depends on the computer system) - something your opponent will notice when it happens too often 2)You can notice it if your opponent moves or not even if you cant see it directly. Simply move the window around and during any enemy action the window freezes for a part of a second. So you know he is active (you dont know what he does, but you know he is in SC doing his turn). If he uses the cheat, he is inactive during the first few minutes and this you will notice if you are suspicious and take care of it . If your opponent starts moving after you sent your turn, then it is simply impossible that he used this cheat. In the end: Surely it is possible to cheat in every computer game if you really want to do it and are willing to spend the effort to find a way. But winning by cheating is worth nothing and lastly you only cheat yourself. SC is fortunately nearly free of cheats and cheaters, at least this is my experience from over 500 games with probably more than 100 different opponents. The - not so - amazing thing is, the cheating issue usually comes up when someone has a burnout syndrom (or simply dont like SC any more and wants to make it bad) and search for an excuse why he stopps playing The fear of cheating seems to be overexagerated. As far as I remember any time someone accused somebody else for cheating in the last years, it came to light that it wasnt the case and the accuser simply didnt know something about how SC works (e.g. disbanding units=getting some mpps back, how combat works, spotting ranges, how to use your brain cells and memory to remember where the enemy moved his units to...etc). But in the end its pretty simple: If you dont trust someone, then dont play him again - thats the best way to avoid possible cheating. Looking for ways how to cheat and then posting it as a "How to do" guide for everyone is certainly not a good one - not for the game and not for the honest players. [ May 23, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Yes, you can see it as a little bug. But on the other hand you could also say it would be a bug if you could reinforce/operate/transport them: for transports you have only a 20% chance to become Free French. But if you move them via Suez instead, you now have a 100% chance. So in the end it only evens out the advantage of the Suez transportation. BTW: if you could liberate France - then you have french mpp - you can spend mpps for them again . For me a bug is only something the programmer didnt want to work this way AND it unbalances the game/isnt compensated by something else. But if something is a bug or not, depends on the definition .

Yes, this way to cheat in TCP is only a theoretical possibility, but simply not practical applicable in a real game: causes crashes (2 sessions)or at least lost connections, nobody has the time to do it during TCP and even if it would work it is simply noticable for the opponent.

Yes, a good AAR with a lot of side comments and smack talk :cool: would be a pitty if it ended this way. Concerning the reloads: As far as I can see from Aesopos explaination it seems he 1. loaded the turn PBEM 2. Opened a second SC session to play it TCP 3. His system crashed and he had to restart and reload the PBEM turn (= 1 reload, 2 times loading in total) So here reloading for itself doesnt mean necessarily he cheated. But it certainly was no good choice to try to start 2 SC sessions. This gives the impression of a try to use Rambos advice (FoW sniffing). But fortunately this is only possible in theory not in a real game (causes crashes, lost connections, nobody has the time to do it during TCP and even if it would work it is simply noticable for the opponent). So as CT said: With PBEM theres always the reload possibility/problem. If you want to play competitive, want to prove something or simply dont trust your opponent any more, then play TCP.

And another so called "Bug" that is no bug, but an effect of the burnout syndrom... lol For transporting you dont need a minimum supply (thats something else than operating). You simply cant transport your french corps, since France has surrendered and you dont have french mpp any more to spend for transporting . French transports on the way to Suez when France surrenders stay french units - already mentioned long time ago and you can easily check it when you click on them. Perhaps this you could call a little bug, but it only evens out the advantage that you have a 100% survival chance for your transports instead of 20% everywhere else - the price is you cant reinforce,operate or transport them any more after their arrival. Anyway, it nearly never happens in a real game - where should french transports on Suez route come from if you dont try something crazy... Suez supply (ports provide no supply) is certainly no bug. But it depends on the definition: if you call everything you dont like a "bug", then it is... . [ May 22, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

One of the advantages of SC: You can change your play mode any time from PBEM to TCP and vice versa. Simply move your PBEM file to the TCP folder and you can continue your game TCP. When you have to switch back to PBEM just do it the other way round.

hihi

Theres no difference between PBEM and TCP - you can see the odds in both modes before combat. Sometimes it can be helpful to read the manual : "Regular combat is whenever a land unit has been selected to attack another unit without moving first. This can be achieved by left clicking on a unit and then moving the mouse cursor over an enemy unit until a valid target is found. Valid targets are those that are within strike range of the attacking unit. Once a valid target has been found, both the attacker and defender information is shown at the bottom of the screen as well as the expected combat losses at the top middle portion of the information bar. This can be seen below:" (page 30)