Shaka of Carthage

Shaka of Carthage (Axis) concedes to Sand Castle (Allies). Bid was 200.

Shaka of Carthage (Allies) defeated by Kenfedoroff (Axis). Don't remember Bid, or even if there was one.

I'm curious. Read somewhere among this thread, that the recommendation is for there to be two (2) capital ships per SC naval unit. If so, what is the numbers for the subs? I wonder if part of the problem with the UK not being hampered by German U-boats (among others), is that the beginning two (2) sub units the Germans get is not enough. Maybe getting four (4) or six (6) subs at the beginning would be better.

Minotaur You will have to make some assumptions if you are trying to fit the Order of Battle into the units you see. Not every Corp or Army had the same number of men. And we are using "generic" units which do imply they are the same. And the real problem is the manpower issue as you stated. Historical Germans could not raise the number of units the "Greys" do by '41. Even assuming the "what-ifs" went Germanies way, still could not have reached the military size we as players do. Very interesting how I sound like some of the people forty (40) or fifty (50) pages back who voiced the same complaints.

Shaka of Carthage (Axis) concedes to IrishGuards (allies). Bid was 200.

Shaka of Carthage (Axis) concedes to DalmatiaPartisan (Allies). Bid was 150.

Wildcat70 Thats nothing. What until you have to nap between the turns!

KDG The examples you gave (Pearl Harbor, D-Day) don't really prove your point. It is impossible for a Corp size or larger formation to "sneak up" on an enemy city.

Shaka of Carthage (Axis) concedes to Waltero (allied). Bid was 100 (?).

ROFL! Rules Lawyer... yea, there were many a night when a certain moved caused a complete stop in the game while we argued about if it was legal or not. Amazing how the inclusion or absence of a comma can change the meaning of a sentence. Ahhhh... the good old days!

You do realize that the saves from a PBEM game are going into the PBEM folder? And the ones from the TCP game going into the TCP folder? You can do what you want, just make sure you get the right file (from the correct folder), and then move it into the other folder you want. I don't remember if the extensions are the same (ie ....SAV). I think they are. I did this once from PBEM, after ending my PBEM turn. Then I went into the PBEM folder, got the file, moved it into the TCP folder.. Then I opened it and awaited for my opponent. I think those were the steps. It was a first time for both of us.

Bill Macon Your mods are one of the reasons I have gotten obssessed with these SC changes. Once I got the real version, played it, then played your mods, I was not satisifed with the standard ones anymore. See what you helped create? I understand your point about the L1/L2 limit, but I'm not convinced I can reflect the organizational difference and abstract the manpower issue without using higher limits. Regarding the equipment, the only problem, is that as soon as we get that Tech increase, all of our units reflect it. Even though its abstracted, that means to me that all of the older equipment was replaced by the newer stuff. Manpower solution for SCII, III, etc can be anything. There are much better methods if we are starting with a clean plate. I've played way too many East Front games where the Russians are willing to lose men as long as it hurts the Germans to change now. It bugs me to no end in SC that Germany can keep replacing units as fast as the Russians can kill them. Takes away the whole "quality vs quantity" thing.

Wachmeister Since you have already started a scenario to test some of this out, I'll outline the direction I was going in. I also have a post where I gave the experience bars for each of the nations. If you want it, let me know and I will search for it. Also, did you set the A/T levels like above? Starting forces (assumes '39 scenario): Germans would get what they had just before May '40. Reasoning is that after Poland, they expanded the Panzers forming new units, but only putting half the tank strength in each new unit. However, to keep the player from using them, those new Panzer units would be strength point of one (1). This way the player has to add MPP's a little at a time, unless he is willing to dilute the three (3)? bars of experience. The PG's expanded also, but I don't remember how many. I think we would have somewhere around 40 mech divisions, but I don't have my notes in front of me. Infantry units went thru an expansion also, but I don't remember the numbers. Remember, for both the mech and non-mech... four (4) division per Corp. So all those starting German units would be three (3) experience bars. Any newly raised units would be zero (0) experience bars. So Germans can raise new units, or his "veterans" he can keep properly reinforced. France, as would have in May '40 (but no Tank unit). OR... difference between units in '39 and '40 scenario, give player in MPP points. Italy, UK, same as France. Italy would get a Air unit. Maybe even a Armor unit (since all they would need is two Armor divisions and two Motorized divisions. Italian Armies would be broken down into Corps for initial setup. US and USSR get what they had in '41. Minor nations have no units larger than Corps. Any Armies should be split into two (2) Corps. Whatever naval units that were already in the process of being built, should be given to the player as a one (1) strength unit. NOW FOR THE HOUSE RULES... Germany, Italian, etc infantry units subtract two (2) from Action Points. This would include the Russian Corps. These are your horse drawn units. Only the Russian Armies, US/UK units could operate as motorized units. The Russian player, before he formed a Russian Army, should be disbanding two 3 or 4 experience bar Corps (ie the nucluese of this "Shock" or "Guard" Army). UK player cannot build any armor units. Naval units, other than German subs, cannot be built. Building Naval units from scratch would take two (2) years. I'd rather disallow then add another set of conditions. Thats about what I can remember. I will edit and add any additional items or changes as I come across them. Hope this helps. There are still a few other things to work out (like German manpower being "drained" by the SS and Luftwaffe), but those are relativly minor to the above.

Isn't what you are suggesting more a matter of playing style? AI has been "taught" a certain style and plays that way. What you are asking for would be better if it expanded its methods of play. If we add what you are asking for to its existing methods, then I have no problem with that.

Wachtmeister I agree that by using the IT, if the Axis invest in it, they could "catch up", negating the effect. The only way to counter that at the moment, is to have a "house rule" that would not allow investing in that tech. I already have plans on using the experience bars to simulate the training (includes doctrine) and leadership. But I still need something to counter Germany and Russia buying and replacing units one for one. Once I do get these changes straight, I plan to put together a scenario to see how it works. Glad you would be willing to try it. [ February 22, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

I'm not sure if you have read alot of my other posts. So I may be repeating stuff you already know, if so, I apolgize. Gist of the majority of my suggestions have been in how to modify SC to behave more like a WWII simulation, as oppossed to a WWII game. One of the things that I have not covered is the issue of manpower (that and oil I feel are the two major resources that determined alot of what occurred in WWII). Having to work with SC as it exists, is there some way to reflect the manpower issue? Germanies manpower was half that of Russia. So Russia could afford the manpower losses as long as they didn't exceed a certain ratio. Not reflected in SC, cause as long as you have the MPPs, you can build the units. Since the economic unit in SC is MPP, I needed to abstract the manpower into something effecting the MPPS. Thats why I came up with using the Indus Tech to reduce the cost of Russian units. Not so much as a reflection of its industrial power. That is more the number of MPPs you produce. In this context, the main benefit of the A/T Tech Level is that it increases the cost of the unit. That brings us to the "generic" Corp or Army. I in effect have a Red Corp or a Grey Corp. Not Russian or German. What I am trying to do, is turn them into Russian or German units. Since the Corp has three (3) or four (4) divisions, no matter what nation produces it, I needed some way of making them different. The training and leadership issue can be solved by the experience bars (only for the starting units though). German unit would have two or three experience bars. Russian none. And that does bring up the other point, that a Russian real life "Army" would be equal to our SC Corp. I am assuming that my Russian "division" has around 10,000 men.. so four of them would be 40,000 men. While my German division has about 15,000 men... so four of them would be 60,000 men. You would then have to add the non-divisional slice of men in the Corp. I think I am using 20% for Germans, Russian less and US more. I believe the other point you brought up, was that to make the Corp equivalents, the Russian unit may need more men in it. Thats assuming I want the units to be equal. Instead, I am basing it on the fact that the generic Corps are identical, so my differences have to be in the experience and MPP costs. Basically, if I can get the effect right, the method doesn't matter. US troops at level 5 in 1939? No. Only because US basically had no Army in 1939. I am using '39 as a starting point for the Germans, UK and French. I have to use '41 for the starting point of the US and Russians. US infantry division in '41 would have had the Level 5, only because for all practical purposes, they had permanently attached tank and tank destroyer battalions attached to them. And the secondary reason, is that they should not be easily raised... US had manpower issues, so instead of the 200 division army, ended up with 90 divisions. So if the US player has his Corps and Armies upon setup, he will have to be very careful, cause he does not have the MPP's to easily replace them if they are lost. Same constraints the US military was faced with. Regarding research, you think we should be putting MPPs in every turn, not just purchasing a chit and placing it? The problem with MPPs every turn, is that it can become tedious. As far as some research being cheaper... agree that the R&D costs are not the same for each tech, but as long as we have the same relative costs for everyone, we get an appropriate effect. [ February 22, 2003, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

I'm curious... had an epihamy while playing a game. One way of representing the manpower differences, if the Russians had Indust Tech of 5, but Anti-Tank of 0 compared to the German/UK IT of 0 or 1, and Anti-Tank of 2... now I have the ability to show that the Russians can raise more infantry units (ie less MPP) then the Germans. So in effect, making the manpower cheaper for the Russians than the Germans. See below for my reasoning, if you want. Thats what got me thinking about the aircraft, how to represent the Russians producing lots of cheap aircraft, to counter the German superiorty. So my question is this: Assume the Italian airforce is in the game. If the Italian Airforce which was considered obsolete, is rated as Lvl 0, then what should the German airforce be at? Purely equipment compared to equipment, not training, leadership, etc. British has obsolete aircraft also (believe the stuff on Malta), and where in the process of building Hurricanes and Spitfires. Hurricanes, Spitfires and ME-109s are considered modern equipment, should they have a tech rating of Lvl 1 or 2? If so, then what is the next step up? Not familar enough with aircraft to know the answer. Figure someone out there would know the answer, and save me the time of looking it up. P51's were suppossed to be the best fighters of WWII.. so are they Lvl 3 or 4? Since "jets" would be Lvl 5. Lvl 0 ----- obsolete aircraft Lvl 1 ----- whatever Russians used Lvl 2 ----- Hurricanes, Spitfires, ME-109s Lvl 3 ----- ?????? Lvl 4 ----- P-51s (along with Long Range) Lvl 5 ----- Jets I'm curious because I was thinking that if Germans and British started with Lvl 2 aircraft, then if we gave the Italians an air unit, at Lvl 0, it would represent the obsolete equipment they had. ================================================ Starting Anti-Tank tech levels Russia....Level 1 German....Level 3 US........Level 5 UK........Level 2 Fr........Level 2 I am trying to represent the differences in equipment and have some way of abstracting the manpower use. In other words, the Russian units should be cheaper to raise than the German ones, among other reasons because they had more manpower. I've now got some flexibility by manipulating the starting units and the starting MPPs to reflect the manpower issues the various nations had. This, along with the experience bars representing leadership and training and the default levels of Indust Tech, allows me to get closer to representing "national characterstics". Here is some of my reasoning. Corps and Armies represent Infantry divisions. Combat power of them is based on artillery. That would be the "soft" factor we have. But we also have a Anti-Tank factor. Units started out with 37mm antit-tank guns (ie 45mm russian model a copy of german 37mm). UK 2pdr is equivalent. Then since more tanks were around, units upgraded to a 6pdr, 76mm, 57mm type weapons. Next step was the 88mm, 17pdrs, etc. At same time, you now get those Assault Guns, Tank Destroyers, etc. So I come up with something like this. Level 0 ---- rocks, spit, whatever inf can come up with (obsolete stuff like Anti Tank Rifles). Level 1 ---- Standard A/T Wpns of 2pdrs, 37mm, 45mm. Level 2 ---- more A/T wpns than normal, but still 2pdr, 37mm, 45mm. Level 3 ---- A/T wpns 6pdr, 76mm, 57mm. Level 4 ---- German use of 88mm. Temporary attachment of Tanks or Assualt Guns. Level 5 ---- permanently attached TD, Tanks, Assault Guns.

Shaka of Carthage (Allied) concedes to Codename Condor (Axis), bid was 250.

Thats my job.

I thought Rambo was Hubert?

Definitions from a 1998 archived list. ================================================= Wargamer: one who can be trusted and reliable in a gaming adventure; view the game in terms of social responsibility in addition to a significant investment of time and energy of all those concerned. Outcome of the game may be a win or a loss but will not defines their self-worth. Greater priorities in life may supersede the game. Computer Gamer: Used to playing on a computer. Manipulation of any loopholes in the computer program, taking advantage of the computer format (reloads etc), or alteration of the code to give an advantage of the opponent is a credit to your computer savvy and is a just reward. What the opponent does not know will not hurt them; besides they are likely doing the same thing.

I have no idea what the solution should be. Know why? Because we as players have more knowledge than our equivalents did. The problem I have with "random setups" is that all the conditions based on the situation may be invalidated now. Example, you random setup Poland... if Poland lasts longer than three (3) turns, it is successful... since now the Russian readiness will start to rise. And what about France? What is to prevent them from invading Germany? We don't have the same constraints as our historical counterparts did. I think what people are after would be better served by using a scenario where the major nations are given MPP's equivalent to thier startup forces and they get one turn to build what they want. But even then, you would have to have some sort of "gentlemans" agreement so that the inactive nations (Russia and Italy) were given a one turn grace after the DOW. And this wouldn't satisfy the issue of minor nations setup being the same. So maybe it is best just to leave it the way it is.

This is from a Feb '98, Computer War In Europe (CWIE) "forum" (BWIE is the boardgame version of War in Europe). Units where Divisions, turns in weeks. ================================================= In a message dated 98-02-26 15:01:17 EST, you write: I feel my position will be supported by playtest, as CWIE rule 10.3 continues to manifest that playing the Soviets in CWIE is not a fair proposition. I had overlooked this CWIE rule that differed from BWIE. It is another nail in the Soviet coffin. Simply allow the Russians a free set-up from the beginning of the game like the Germans. I think it is far easier to change it than to create a "free" Soviet set up or some other difficult coding situation. Simply use the editor to turn on player control of Russia. With artillery on rail, I used to terrorize the Germans in BWIE. Sounds more like you are just upset that a pet strategy using house rules has been ruined. By the way, what other games use this tactic? All the games I know of dissallow other movement/combat if units use rail movement. Apparently, the Germans got all the goodies in CWIE, and the Soviets got left at the train station. I think it is quite silly to not allow player control of Russia. This gives the Russians lots of goodies to compensate for the German goodies. Ned "Hey, Fred, that war on the eastern front was something." Fred "Sure was, Ned. It could have gone either way." Ned "Hey, you want to play a game and simulate this war?" Fred "Sure! It should be a blast - a real nail biter." Ned "O.K., I'll be the Germans and you can be the Russians." Fred "Fine with me. This is a nice, even campaign. I'm happy playing either side." Ned "Cool. Now here is where you set up your units. It is my best guess from the history books." Fred "Sure. Now, did I get them all set up right?" Ned "Looks good. Now I'll set up my units." Fred "Hey, what are those units in the airborne box? Ned "Oh, nothing. I just thought airborne units would help me in my campaign." Fred "Uh, O.K. What are those, glider units?" Ned "Yup, I really like them." Fred "Do I see right? Do you have 9 Amph and 9 Naval units, there." Ned "Sure, they really help grabbing Lenningrad." Fred "Are those German artillary units?" Ned "Yup. It's only fair. You start the game with three of them." Fred "How come so many of your infantry divisions are motorized." Ned "Oh, I feel the Germans were capable of them if they wanted them." Fred "What are those 9 5-5's?" Ned "Those are mountain units." Fred "Uh, what are all those panzers doing here in Rumania?" Ned "They give my forces down there some punch." Fred "Why are we starting 6 weeks early?" Ned "Don't want to waste good weather. Besides, I conquered Yugoslavia and Greece last year." Fred "Uh, O.K. I think I'll rearrange my forces and have some of my bigger units on the board." Ned "Fred!!! That wouldn't be historical! Are you trying to ruin the game?" I usually don't include entire posts in such a short reply, but this is such an excellent example of the Russian player's dilemma!!!! ================================================= Sound familar?

Forum has been kind of quiet lately, so I thought I'd make a few comments and pose some questions in an effort to spice things up. If you get some free time, take a look at some of the "older" WWII strategy or operational level game archived lists... one's from mid 90's. Its kinda scary how alot of the questions and suggestions are almost identical to the one's in this forum. Finally read the SC manual, and a few questions. Curious what other members consider are the answers to these questions. * Each IT research level gave you an 10% reduction in cost. What is the number now? 5%? * "Soft" factor of a ground unit has no R&D item to increase its number. Seems strange, since all the other units can increase there attack factor. So a Army of '39 will attack with the same "soft" factor in '46? * Readiness factor of a unit will decrease when it moves. Has anyone noticed this effect? * "Normal" attack is when a unit attacks without moving. "Blitzkreig" is when a unit attacks after moving. Interesting. I'd be willing to bet money that at some point in the development cycle, Corps and Armies could not conduct a "blitzkreig" (ie could not move and attack). Then again, if I was such a good gambler, I wouldn't have to work for a living. * On one hand I like the existing manual cause it doesn't go into alot of details. On the other hand, I miss the fact that alot of the details are not explained. In a way, I guess I would like to see a "Designers Notes" manual included, that told what the formulas are, expanded on Axis and Allied strategies (maybe some examples from the playtesters), etc. * Cities, mines and oil wells are suppossed to give multiple MPP factors of 1, 2 and 3. Did I miss something, since I could swear its only 1, 2 and 2? * I'm confused on the Strength points. I "assumed" they were related to combat power. But it appears that are more a factor of how much damage a unit can take before it disappers. If that is true, I don't understand why a tech level increases this number. Isn't the increase in the relevant defense factor enough? If strength points are manpower (more or less), then does the increase mean that I am adding more divisions to my Corps/Armies? Confused. * I assumed the Anti-Air tech increased the Air defense factor of the ground units. Doesn't say that in the manual. So where is my counter to increased Air unit attack factors? Even if I didn't have a new tech items to give my troops, something should represent the additional Anti-Aircraft Artillery that the ground commanders would request. * Carrier gets a strength increase from two (2) different techs. Does that mean a carrier can theorticaly become a twenty (20) strength unit? Got a few more, but gotta meeting I am suppossed to be in. [ February 20, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

The only problem with a Roman era game in a SC type engine, is that there was no strategical manuevering during that era. There was strategic positioning, but no maneuvering. SC isn't strong enough in the diplomatic and economic areas to make a game in this era playable.