Terif

Zapp: 1. I didnt know about it until now. Your memory of our games is obviously not very good... You were amused when I told you that I keep all my saves. Originally it was only because I was too lazy to delete them after my games, but now I am happy to have them. If necessary I can prove with them what really happened (Both Rambo and you seem to have a bad memory when I think back of some threads not too long ago...). 2. To develope AA as Allies is really a waste of mpp. I never did it and will never do it. Even with the AA thing its not worth researching it... 3. As Axis AA can be useful if you want to defend France. Therefore I sometimes developed it when I planed to defend it. It is very expensive for Allies to attack axis units in AA protected cities. But they have to if they want a bridgehead in France. 4. Only if Axis use all (or nearly all) airfleets in France, they can use the AA thing. Otherwise they simply cant attack, or they will be destroyed in the counterattack. The AA only slightly increases the damage for the enemy, but does not reduce the damage for your own air. But if all/enough axis air is in France, then UK airfleets retreat out of range anyway and axis air can only attack an allied city/port to force an interception. This causes a lot of damage for your own AF, therefore you have no advantage in the end. There is only still the disadvantage that your air is missing in more important places. Summary: Condor is right, nobody detected this "bug" cause it has simply no effect on the gameplay and is not noticable in a normal game. Now players have more incentives to go for AA tech, but I think it is still a waste of mpp to invest much in this area. AA is nice to have, but usually there are lots of better investments.

You tend to blow up things... . Like most other "bugs" you "discovered" too, this one is certainly not a big factor. Like you admitted, in France it is pretty useless. Later and at the end, a lot of other things are much more important... e.g. Jet tech, strategy, which units you built etc... One Lv AA only increases the defence value in a very special situation for a very limited amount of units similarly to one Jet tech lv...a nice side effect, but surely not important for the result. And "super carriers" simply cant really use this AA thing: it only works if they get intercepted, but the key of an effective carrier war is just NOT to get intercepted by enemy air, it damages the carrier too much and the one extra damage point for the enemy from the AA really doesnt matter. If you dont believe it, stop playing, stop the Tournament or whatever. Thats your choice. But if you want my advice: Stop complaining about this and that, start having fun with playing the game. Enjoy it DURING the game and try to have a good game. If you want to discover something, then you should discover the fun in SC again... [ November 16, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

To answer your question Rambo: I did not know about this until know. There are still new things to discover in SC. I just tested it too and it is correct: when an airfleet based in a city attacks and gets intercepted, the anti-air tech level increases its defence. But fortunately in a normal game with one of the original scenarios this interception thing is not important and usually not noticable. Only UK has 1 tech level anti-air and only London to potentially use it. But usually it can attack from London only very seldom if Germany doesnt make a lot of mistakes or go on a ship hunt before France is dead... . A lot of people complained about the "useless" anti-air tech. It seems it has another slight (unintended ?) advantage, so its a bit more valuable to research it. A nice feature, but not decissive.

Hi Friendly Fire, If you want to play with an experienced Veteran player, send me an e-mail.

Zapp: You make a problem out of a thing that is no problem. Only in the first turn of the game you can "calculate" (or simply try it out) the expected losses. After the first turn this is simply senseless, you cant calculate it in advance (or with enough effort you could, but then you need an hour per turn... thats no fun and I cant imagine somebody doing it, including me..). But with the rounded values everybody knows/sees what combat results he can expect (it is written at the top of the SC window). You dont need a calculator to find the best attack row (like when it would not be rounded), you just need to have a look at the monitor. To quote Les the Sarge: "SC is a good simple fast easy to play design with a very fast simple easy to use interface." I can see no need to make it complicate. [ November 08, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Thats the good in SC: Not luck determines the winner, only the strategy and tactic. Luck normally evens out during a game. You know exactly what you have to expect. It is a pure strategy game with a very very small luck factor. Otherwise it would not be possible for me to win most games . E.g. if you want to kill a unit and you see your first 2-3 attacks didnt do enough damage, then you can save your other 2-4 (air-)units, reposition them, reinforce or simply attack a better target...

My 2 cents, LC turn 2 as Axis: Condor: if you place your units right, you can have with Bock (he is marching, not operating): 3 AF 0-2 2 Army/Tank 0-3 1 Corps 0-1 (from the river) In total a damage of 13 (Brussel Corps at full strength), not only 12 . For the calculation of the probability the events are independent from each other as Zapp already mentioned. There are some formulas to calculate the exact probability. I had them during my study, but I am too lazy at the moment to search after them and translate it in english . Anyhow, from experience I can also say, the probability should be somewhere between 90-98%. I guess its over ~95% since in my last ~50 games as Axis it only failed once if I remember right...

Hi Cat, Sombra already covered most of your questions, so only some additional information: - You can attack Skandinavia and Vichy/Med simultaneously. And dont forget to position enough units at the russian border. Readiness should not increase before June 22, 1941. So you have enough time to conquer everything you want . - Norway: When you have destroyed the Corps in Oslo, you can capture the port by moving a land unit adjacent to it (+ land a transport via port to take the city). - Med: entrenched units in a city are protected, so you first have to remove the entrenchment by attacking with multiple units. Additionally if all land hexes around a city (or fortress) are occupied by enemy units, the defender can only reinforce to a maximum of 5. Your out of supply units in Africa have not much strike capabilities, so you either have to use a HQ to support them, or you can use your transports: when they arrive and unload, the units start with full supply for one turn. E.g. to conquer Alexandria just land 2 units east and west of the city and kill the defender. But first you have to reduce the entrenchment and the strength of the unit. - rockets improve both strike range and attack strength by 1 with each tech level. At level 0-2 they are pretty useless. With Lv 3-5 and 2-4 bars experience they become deadly weapons. But its only worth researching them if you expect a long game (you need a lot of time for research and additionally 10-20 turns to collect enough experience). In a short or normal game, you can use your mpps for better investments than rockets.

Hi Cat, Sombra already covered most of your questions, so only some additional information: - You can attack Skandinavia and Vichy/Med simultaneously. And dont forget to position enough units at the russian border. Readiness should not increase before June 22, 1941. So you have enough time to conquer everything you want . - Norway: When you have destroyed the Corps in Oslo, you can capture the port by moving a land unit adjacent to it (+ land a transport via port to take the city). - Med: entrenched units in a city are protected, so you first have to remove the entrenchment by attacking with multiple units. Additionally if all land hexes around a city (or fortress) are occupied by enemy units, the defender can only reinforce to a maximum of 5. Your out of supply units in Africa have not much strike capabilities, so you either have to use a HQ to support them, or you can use your transports: when they arrive and unload, the units start with full supply for one turn. E.g. to conquer Alexandria just land 2 units east and west of the city and kill the defender. But first you have to reduce the entrenchment and the strength of the unit. - rockets improve both strike range and attack strength by 1 with each tech level. At level 0-2 they are pretty useless. With Lv 3-5 and 2-4 bars experience they become deadly weapons. But its only worth researching them if you expect a long game (you need a lot of time for research and additionally 10-20 turns to collect enough experience). In a short or normal game, you can use your mpps for better investments than rockets.

At the moment I am already subscribed at the PBEM League and the Panzerliga. At the moment I dont have the time to subscribe (+ do enough games)additionally in the ZL. In the Panzerliga you have to collect points to climb up the ladder so it doesnt matter which opponent to play. In the ZL you have to play the right persons to improve your rank. At the top positions most games will be against the same (2-5) opponents each game (either to achieve or defend the highest rank). After enough games this is not so interesting any more, since the games/strategies are repeating when you only play the same people. What I like about the Multiplayer (Internet) option: to play as many different players as possible. They have a lot of new ideas and also do unexpected moves/strategies, which is part of the spice of the game for me. I always try to develope new strategies and counters. When the point comes that this is not possible any more, then I will most probably stop playing SC. But at the moment it doesnt look like this will happen in the near Future .

I am no member of the ZL, but if I could vote I would say: 1. Yes 2. No 3. (Yes) (only to make it possible for Russia to defend its northwestern part, but its no problem to even this out with a higher bid instead) 4. No 5. Yes (Its only a gamble, if it fails, Allies can surrender, since they have no real chance any more) 6. No 7. No 99. No The vote is about the mandatory house rules in ZL. They should guarantee a balanced game (playability point of view !). Only strategies that leads to a huge advantage of one side and inevitable shift the balance should be forbidden. Therefore we only need minimum rules. You still can use additionally every other house rule you want (if your opponent agrees) to customize the game for your needs. The mandatory house rules are only the framework to guarantee a fair game when nothing else has been arranged. To protect USA via HR is not necessary, they have enough units at the start (+ get 180 mpp if attacked) and Axis have no chance to conquer it. Axis can only do some damage, but at high costs. In deed I can see no advantage for Axis when attacking USA, only disadvantages...But if they want to die there for nothing, why should we forbid it with a HR, its their decission. BTW: Dragonheart: Only the Rome gambit can be the reason for an early end of the game. Every other strategy/gambit so far has its risks/advantages/disadvantages and only provides a small advantage if successful - if there would be no advantage, nobody would choose that strategy, but its not deciding or even ending the game . Edit: Oak: I fully aggree, except the turn 1 DOW at LC. This gambit/roulette play is no winner for Allies. It is only a small advantage for Allies if it succeeds (against veteran players). But if it fails they have lost automatically. I had already the "pleasure" that players tried this gambit turn 1 to achieve a little advantage and when it failed they surrendered and wanted to restart the game. Its better to forbid it in advance. It only creates a lot of trouble for both players. [ November 06, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

The italian gambit means: Allied DOW at Italy + destruction of as many italian ships as possible. This can also include landings in italian North Africa and in the 2 italian cities Bari and Venice to destroy the ships in port (if Allies have enough transports ready ). The consequence is: Axis need some turns to reconquer Bari and Marseilles, most of the italian fleet will be destroyed. If Allies do it right, they can conquer Tobruk (perhaps some turns later), so it is difficult for Axis to throw the Allies out of the Med. Axis has not much ships any more and no good airbase in Africa. But if Axis really want to conquer the Med, they can do it. It is only a bit expensive: they need a lot of air, perhaps some subs and it needs time (marching from Tripoli to Alexandria...). Chances are perhaps 50/50 - or something like that - that they can conquer the Med before Barbarossa. So it can create a lot of interesting battles in the Med. All depends on how much both sides are willing to spend in the Med. This strategy is no "game breaker" its not such a huge advantage for Allies. Sure, they can get/hold Egypt and Iraq, but they need a lot of units there to do so. These are missing elsewhere and expecially this weakens the french defence. Therefore France will fall earlier, and there is no real threat any more for Axis somewhere else than in the Med. Summary: The Italian gambit has advantages and disadvantages. If successful it can provide a small advantage for Allies, but this depends on what both players do after the gambit. A lot of interesting battles can occur in the Med.

Pium: Yes, nearly There is "100%", but It is the success rate of the Rome gambit, not that I would be 100% certain about something hehe

Thats a good idea Zapp

From a playability point of view I disagree In this aspect. It is possible to forbid the Rome gambit (just say: no landings in and around Rome in the same turn Allies DOW Italy and one turn after) and still allow the ´normal´italian gambit. This would give Allies a lot more possible strategies, especially in the Med. And the normal italian gambit is no automatic win for Allies, in contrary: it is risky and provides only a small advantage when successful. From a historical accurracy point of view I agree with you. It is unrealistic that you can assault a major power and they dont react to the transports standing at their coasts... It would be interesting to hear some other people what they think. If they want the possibility of an italian gambit or not.

Sombra: I agree with your view concerning the Italian gambit. Without it the Med is Axis. When the ´normal´ italian gambit is done, a lot of interesting battles in the Med can occur, that both sides can win. Only the Rome gambit has no counter and no real disadvantage (+ should be and is forbidden). But like a lot of other questions, it depends on the point of view: Who prefers the historical accurracy doesnt like the italian gambit. From a playability viewpoint it is an interesting option with risks, advantages and disadvantages.

Long answer: It does not increase the combat strength for figthers (everything else is correct). But you have a better overview, can reach more targets and you can better combine your naval(carrier) and air attacks. So in this strategical sense your fighters have a better combat value, but not directly in the air fight against another airfleet.

Short answer: No

OK Zapp, lets extend the cease-fire. I accept your peace offer. I moved to the german SC League, there are a lot of new/different players that I didnt play dozens of times... So at the moment I have no desire to come back to the ZL. But perhaps I will play again in some competitions or cups, there we can meet again on the battlefield. Summary: No war in the forum any more (=Peace), perhaps we can start a new war sometimes at the SC battlefield - ingame (or hopefully SC2 ) .

Dragonheart: Yes, rockets are nice weapons . Iron Ranger: I agree with you that the axis CC can be boring. But this depends on the allied strategy. If Allies choose to go the pure tech way, then its really a lot of sitting and waiting until one or two huge airbattles decide the war. But its in allied hands: they can also fight and delay Axis advancements. They have a lot of other possible strategies to force Axis in another direction/strategy. [ November 05, 2003, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Hi Iron Ranger, First I also thought, rockets are pretty useless. In the short run and in a short game, I still think this is true. But now I have used rockets in a lot of longer games and I think: with experience and tech (Lv4 or 5) they are deadly weapons and can win the war on their own. They only need air cover, so that enemy airfleets cant kill them from the distance. Then no enemy unit has a chance to survive their attacks or to make a successful counterattack. With full experience and tech, they sometimes can kill a full strength enemy unit with a single shot and 2 shots is enough for everything else (1 hex distance) ! But rockets are only valuable in a long game. You need a lot of time for research (no catch up effect will help you, you have to research everything yourself). And you need another 10-20 turns to get enough experience to make them ready for battle. BTW: in our current game you prefered to use your forced siberian transfer - instead of the 5000 russian mpps I use to create a long game. Unfortunately this forces me to use the standard "cookie-cutter" strategy to force the transfer in time. The problem is, with this house rule it is not possible to choose a different and more interesting strategy, e.g. "UK first" with a defence against Russia and a strike force against UK (rockets or subs or air war...) or a Middle east strategy...etc... With the forced siberians, Axis has no choice than to attack Russia with all forces and crush it as fast as possible. In my opinion every different/more interesting strategy is very risky and dangerous - and therefore unlikely - for Axis when Allies only need to delay Axis a bit in Russia to win by the house rule.

Rambo: I accept your apology. I hope you have learned that some things should not be said in public before you cleared it personally in private discussions. If I would ask: "Rambo, did you cheat ?" and repeat it often enough, a lot of people would think you really cheated. That is exactly what happened when you asked this in the now very long "witchhunt" thread and therefore I got upset - it is nearly impossible to defend against rumours. To make it clear: I do NOT think Rambo cheated, this was only an example. Its good to see your apology and that you are a man. You know the fact that I left ZL had nothing to do with you.

Are you 100% sure I said 100% ? It must be several month ago, I even cant remember when you asked me this...I very seldomly say I am 100% sure. Are you 100% sure that your memory is perfect after such a long time and a lot of questions and answers ? Usually I say: I think, I am pretty sure, probably, as far as I know.... I am flattered that you think everything is 100% correct, even if I said I am not sure, but I think...or something similar. I didnt really test it until some weeks ago and if I didnt test something I usually dont say I am 100% sure. There I am 99% sure, or is it 100% ? BTW: I am not sure if I ever said 100%. I really dont know and when someone can show me a post from me where I say I am 100% sure about something he gets a reward (this post here is excluded ) - I dont have the time to search for it myself in my nearly 2000 posts now (As I just notice this magical number I ask myself: is there a birthday present or so, when I reach the 2000 posts ?) lol [ November 04, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Condor: I am not almighty and not omniscient. Like everyone else I learned all the things I know about SC while playing and improved my knowledge from month to month. Yes, a long time ago I thought units would keep their readiness when operated. In the meantime I have learned they do not. When someone asks me something about SC, then I answer it with my current knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. If you think I would know everything about SC from my birth, then I cant help you .

hmm... carriers 3-4 is average (enemy HQ supported), ships 2 is lucky I guess. Expected should be 1, together with the +-1 random factor it can be 2. If you want, you can test it in Hotseat if a HQ makes a difference so that your ships make higer or lower damage (with and without HQ). But I guess it makes no difference, cause the attack factor of a ship vs air is so low. As long as the calculation result is between 0.5 and 1.5 the expected loss is still 1 (the calculation result will be rounded)... Anyway, it seems to clear this, we would need a large test-run or Hubert to clear this. But I dont know if its worth doing a long test, since this situation happens only very seldom... [ November 04, 2003, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]