Shaka of Carthage

I'm not sure when you want to address this, but in my case, I would not be interested in playing a game unless there was a restriction on the number of air units.

Yep.

I'd like to second what SeaMonkey said, especially since its been mentioned quite a few times already. In light of the announcement that there are no more patches for SC, the next release should be a editor for SC. Most of us at this point would be happy with the ability to modify the unit values. Thats not a difficult thing to do. Perhaps the editor should be the next "this is what I want" topic.

No problem.

Yes. The art of scoring, is to play, without worrying about the win.

Rockets are not artillery. Comparing the attack values against ground units is fruitless. Rockets are strategic weapons. They are a poor mans strategic bomber. The "fixes" for rockets should be within that context, not some sort of artillery weapon.

SeaMonkey Looking at a bomber while you are ... bombing. Thats very creative. :cool:

Iron Ranger I second and third(?) what was said. Take a break from SC for a couple of weeks, then come back. Its not Mr H's fault. He has done exactly what he set out to do... provide a perfectly balanced game that has the flavor of WWII. When you get back, we can have a discussion about something called House Rules and Historical Responsibility. Until SC2 comes out, thats the only choice for those of us who want more than a game. Btw, I like your idea of the Siberians being a option for the Allied player after Sept '42. Thanks. I'm gonna steal it and put it in my enhancement suggestions.

Immer Etwas First, SC is suppossed to be a representation of WWII. There was no such special detachment for any nation on the scale you want. For good reason. But I can be open minded, so lets play "what if". What if Mission: push back the veil of UNKNOWING. fairly inexpensive, and highly effective at its assigned mission. find out what the Devil is going on ! out there in no man's land! TO&E: armored cars, Pz IIIs (or equivalent), and various other recon assets, such as small planes and commando type raiders. half-tracks loaded with engineers and otherwise specially trained troops such as forward observers and commandos. There are clerks and cooks and a rudimentary HQ and supply and security garrison and intel, etc. Not to mention the security and support personnel Intrepid WWI fighter aces Like any detachment, which depends on the controlling country's doctrine... it can be larger than a brigade, and smaller than a corps. Commandos won't happen. No one is gonna give you commando trained troops for this. They are too valulable for commando missions. WWI Aces I assume you mean aviation assets. We'll ignore the size of the unit for the moment. As you say, its somewhat based on the doctrine of how the unit is to be employed. Result: You've just described the Mission and TO&E for Armored Cavalry. Important part See, the thing is... WHY NOT? Why not have another unit, or two or four? The more CHOICES a player has to make in order to set up and deploy his tactical forces, then! there are many more DIFFERENT KINDS of encounters that are possible. Short Answer The unit you are proposing, would never survive the modern battlefield, hence it was never formed. Long Answer Assuming we have the ability to raise and sustain this new unit (which has eliminated everyone historically except for the US), understand a problem this unit has. There are two (2) basic recon doctrines... see without being seen or fight what you see until something stronger comes along. If you go with the "see without being seen" doctrine, you are back to the Recon battalion assigned to the division. If you want the "fight" doctrine, you are talking Armored Cavalry. Armored Cavalry can fight, but it is not organized to fight a sustained operation. Thats why its called armed reconnasiance. If you organize it to fight a sustained operation, you now have a combat manuever unit, be it brigade, division, corp or something in between. Only the rich have the luxury of forming such a specialized unit.

Recon Unit You're talking Armored Cavalry. Only the US had something along these lines. And even there, its at best a Brigade sized unit. Ground Recon was the Battalion attached to the Division. The spotting range, while perhaps too long, works fine for the scale. The Commandos/Partisans are not really represented in SC, but I've always thought of the "accurate" spotting covering this. It would be nice if every now and then they blew something up, but maybe one day. Air recon, which was the primary purpose of Aircraft units in WWII, is represented by the spotting range. The method could be argued, but the effect is there. Even if the often argued Paratrooper unit becomes a reality, I still don't believe it justifies a Recon unit.

I agree that mandatory houserules should be limited to fixing "bugs" within the existing game system. Gamey moves are not "bugs". Ladder games should be allowed to have optional houserules, as long as both sides agree to them.

Liam has hit upon a very good solution to the problem of neutrals. When certain neutrals (non-historical) are invaded, in a future SC, make the penalty sever enough to make the player reconsider. Example, what if the invasion of Spain by Germany had as a possibilty, Russia DOW on Germany? Would Germany still consider it worthwhile? What if Spain joining the Axis caused a possiblity of Italy joining the Allies? What if the Allies (UK/France) DOW on the Low Countries caused US and Russia to declare itself neutral? What if Axis invading Sweden has the possiblity of causing Russia to invade Germany? All of these are possible. So maybe a possible "fix" for SC II to control picking off neutrals is to revise the readiness penalties.

Liam has hit upon a very good solution to the problem of neutrals. When certain neutrals (non-historical) are invaded, in a future SC, make the penalty sever enough to make the player reconsider. Example, what if the invasion of Spain by Germany had as a possibilty, Russia DOW on Germany? Would Germany still consider it worthwhile? What if Spain joining the Axis caused a possiblity of Italy joining the Allies? What if the Allies (UK/France) DOW on the Low Countries caused US and Russia to declare itself neutral? What if Axis invading Sweden has the possiblity of causing Russia to invade Germany? All of these are possible. So maybe a possible "fix" for SC II to control picking off neutrals is to revise the readiness penalties.

I'd like to respond to Terif's post about Houserules. In regards to the Air, I agree that no mandatory rule is needed. The game is balanced as it is. I've never wanted to force everyone to play with that restriction, I have just wanted the ability before a game starts, to agree on optional rules with a player, and have it count as a Z-league game. It was my understanding that I didn't have that ability in a Z-league game.

Posted May 25th. Other than the responses shown, no further response was received. ================================================== zappsweden There are two decisions that you made that I would like to be reconsidered (ie I'm appealing your initial rulings). I have presented my arguments on why they should be changed. I await your final decisions. ================================================== Z-league PBEM Games Issue: Can a PBEM game be counted as a Zappleague game? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are alot of players who may be limited in thier ability to play TCP. This also allows the option of starting as TCP and finishing as PBEM (or vice versa). From the response about House Rules, I gather you are concerned that PBEM games open up the opportunity of cheating. My response is the same as below. ================================================== Z-league House Rules Issue: Limit on the number of air units. (US 3, USSR 3, Germany 4, Italy 2, UK 2, Fr 2) quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, z-league will not allow any house rules. The idea is, if those house rules are good (and tested in fun games) they will be standard i.e set as rules of the z-league. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you are being a little too rigid about the House Rules. Forcing it to be part of the "standard" set of rules eliminates any player from taking a chance and trying the House Rule. In effect, there is no possibility of optional rules and stifles creativity. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is too much confusion, possibility of accusations and stuff if ppl use house rules. [Example] Say, one person accidently buys one air too much [House Rule limit on number of air units], does that means he loses instantly or does he have to sell it next turn? What if he already bought it and used it in a battle? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Valid point. You are concerned about the opportunity of abuse. You would handle it the same way you would if you thought the person was cheating. I'll tell you what I would do, since everyones response would be different. After being told, or pointing it out, I would ask that they correct the mistake. As in disband the unit. Any losses I sufferred as a result, I would simply accept. Can't undo it. Second time I would do same thing. Third time, I'd finish the game, but would no longer play that person using the House Rule (probably not at all). ==================================================

I thought for sure by now someone else would have answered this. Dutch Gambit is when the Allies declare war on the Low Countries, to deprive the Axis of the plunder. Actually capturing the Low Countries as the Allies is the next logical step, because now the Allies will receive the plunder as well as having a better defensive line against Germany. You can think of this one as Dutch Gambit II. To counter both possiblities (DG I and DG II), most Axis players will move (by operating) units away from Poland and unto the Low Countries border, so on Turn 2 the Axis can declare war and capture the Low Countries (if its done right). The Allies can counter this by DOW on Turn 1. That seems to really upset some Axis players. But there are drawbacks to this in terms of defending France.

I understand exactly what you are after now. For the system to work the way you propose, there has to be the possiblity of inaccurate information. In other words, when I see a unit, maybe its not a real unit. When I see the type of a unit, I may have the wrong info. When I see the strength or experience of a unit, it may be the wrong numbers. That way, the more the "favorable" conditions are in your favor, the more accurate your information could be. Hence, that unit that I just tried to attack may "disappear" when I move my unit to perform an attack. Or when I attack that Armor unit, I may find out that its a Corp unit instead. It would be an interesting feature.

Hueristic This is so true. Put the flag down. America as a nation has never been serious about its defense. It has no threats, and the biggest moats in the world... Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Wasn't true back then, and it has gotten much worse now. We needed three (3) years in WWII to get ready, one (1) year in Korea and never did in Vietnam. Not such a sterling performance.

Low Countries attack is coming anyway, its just a matter of time. You have a good point about the Med. But I would think that the importance of the Med would be enough of a reason for the Allies to decide to protect it or abandon it. In some ways. the "gamey" technique of moving the French forces so you get "freebie" Free French has a counter.

The forum is kinda slow, so in the interest of "knowledge" expansion, here are my comments. Currently the scale in SC is 50 miles a hex. This will not see any major change, otherwise, you would be dealing with a new system. To expand just to cover the North Atlantic at its proper scale, would require a map slightly larger than the existing map we have. So we would have to double the size of the map to get the proper scale of the North Atlantic. If you wanted a Global SC, you would have to have over 60,000 hexes. That would be about twenty-five (25) SC maps to have a Global SC. Without getting into the other difficulties, I wouldn't look for a Global SC anytime soon. MPP may or may not include manpower. But even if it does, its not the only thing that is in MPP. You would need a "manpower" value to keep track of. Not impossible, but not something you can get using MPP. Having terrain influence the combat result would be an interesting feature. You've lost sight of the scale with the different terrain type definitions and effects. 2,125 square miles is a larger area. The definitions and effects you are asking for are more appropriate at an Operational or Tactical level. The accuracy of movement determing multiple combat actions is a whole nother discussion in itself. Defending is inherently stronger than Attacking. Thanks. You can send me my $5 teaching fee. Having Spain at zero MPPs is a bit harsh don't you think? While maybe not all of the civilian economy would have been shifted to wartime production, having none of it is extreme.

SeaWolf_48 I have the same book. Also The Moscow Option by David Downing. They are both interesting reads, but be careful in drawing definitive conclusions from what is written. But it is fun to try out what they are suggesting in SC.

Scorpion_sk Your terminology is confused, since you are mixing up two different concepts. So I would like to offer you a summary of the "state of SC". While opinions differ, I do believe this summary almost everyone will agree with. As a game system, SC if just about pefectly balanced. The two sides are evenly matched and equal opponents generate hotly contested games. The AI offers a competent opponent with lots of replay value. Human against Human takes it to a different level. SC has shortcomings when you compare it against "historical" events. As a result, to achieve that historical feeling, certain house rules have to be agreed upon to create the desired result. Obviously SC2 would give the gamer side of it more as well as giving the historical people the options they want. The key would be not to destroy one in the attempt to achieve the other. That is what most of the debate is about. Gamey options have been found, and there is a certain amount of "hysteria" that occurs until someone finds the counter. Its no different then when "bugs" were found and we had to await a patch to correct it. Air is the most powerful unit in the game. And in the game it works, since both sides have the ability to purchase the same type of air. And yes, the Air tech is the most dominant. But the tech advances themselves are not predictable. There are different opinions on how the combat model should operate, just like there are different opinions on how the armor should operate. For you to drop in and state. there´s a lot about SC that is just fundamentally wrong. In my opinion, the game is unsalvageablet... You are right. Its just your opinion. But this one takes the cake. Perhaps we could just consider SC1 to be a "practise work" from Hubert, and allow him a year or three to develop the real game. Not that SC wasn´t fun , but it just wasn´t enough in the end for me - it is too gamey... Thanks for letting us know what else you have, along with that opinion.

If you want to see the effects of Germany entering Russia as a "liberator", simply turn off the Partisans and the Scorched Earth options.

SeaWolf_48 I believe almost everyone agrees with what you said. The problem is how to do it. The details is where everyone disagrees.

GoldenPanda I tried that approach. But I got the standard "house rules are evil" response. Maybe you should consider the solution Immer Etwas came up with in another thread. Activate Italy, reduce the forces to represent the early entry and make sure the early turns provide enough MPPs to build up the Italian forces to the current scenario numbers. [ June 04, 2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]