Shaka of Carthage

KDG Interesting. So its not so much the loss of the first line, but rather the loss of these armor units in addition to the first line? Zappsweden Isn't that suppossed to be the point? When the Axis invade Russia, they either have to kill the Russian units faster than the Russians can build them, or they have to remove the ability of the Russians to build the units (ie reduce Russian MPPs).

I like this idea as a prelude to combat in SC. Matter of fact, I think this should be the method that determines how many research chits and/or tech levels that you've achieved. In addition, whatever diplomatic moves that were made here should determine the alliance influence (ie pro-axis, pro-allied or neutral) of the neutrals. Once the war started, then it would be as it is now in SC ... diplomacy occuring as it does now in SC as a results of your actions and the effect it has on the readiness % or wheter a neutral joins your alliance or not. This way, those who wanted to deal with the diplomacy side of it could start in 1938. Those who don't want to be bothered, could start in 1939.

JerseyJohn Because he's losing his combats. And why? Because the opponent is getting a better combat bonus than him because his HQ has a better Leadership rating. Valadictum Why are you opposed to the random leadership? As was pointed out, you didn't know the ability of your Generals until they actually performed. I doubt seriously if the first Russian HQ someone buys is one of the "4" rating leaders. I think we currently get a combat bonus based on the leadership rating, and the HQ gains experience based on how the units perform under its command. Are you saying that you would want the Leadership rating to go up or down based on the units under its command? But what about the HQ experience then? SeaWolf48 Having HQ's supply six (6) or more hex's away is no problem. I believe they can do that now. But you're example does point out that the five (5) unit limitation appears to be a probelm. I think the problem is more that we are dealing with generic HQ's and units, that are difficult to translate into German, Russian, US, etc HQ's since they all operated differently. What other game allowed HQ's to defend? Grigsby's (?) did.

JerseyJohn For future reference, feel free to say anything anyway you want to me. It won't bother me. I don't remember suggesting anywhere that we shouldn't be making suggestions to Hubert. I believe it was my statement that we should give some more thought to the type of suggestions that we offer to Hubert. Maybe I should preface everything with "in my opinon". I have no illusions about being a diplomat. When I read suggestions that are good, I say so. When I read those that are frivolous, I say so. Maybe I can phrase my response in a nicer way, but the results would still be the same. Maybe this is another of those issues on how we view things. Criticism of an idea is not a criticism of the person or there self-worth. Its just a viewpoint on thier thoughts. Maybe I do come off as condescending when I respond to posts. Not my intent. Rather, I try to explain why I feel the suggestion should not be used. Not trying to show superior knowledge. Just trying to point out the why. We both agree. Everyone should suggest whatever they feel is important to them. Hubert can decide on what is important to him. But if there are impratical ideas, it should be pointed out. Its like the issue with the map size in SC. It has been pointed out that the map size is a limitation of the software. So when someone suggests it be increased, we, not Hubert, should point out that it cannot be done in SC.

JerseyJohn Yes. But we are talking about SC and the things we would want SC to reflect. SC cannot, nor should it attempt to reflect minor items that did not effect the overall outcome. I agree that losses were heavier if you didn't have the ability to recover your pilots or aircraft. I don't agree that the increase is significant enough for it to be included in SC. Agree, but here is the crux of the matter. Why? What were the major reasons that allowed this to occur? If the game system reflects this without "special rules", you can recreate the Battle of Britain within SC. I know radar was one of them. As above, what were the major reasons behind this? And does SC reflect it? Not trying to complicate, just trying to point out that wargames can only handle the major reasons. That 80/20 rule. If they can capture the 20% of the reasons that caused 80% of the effect, the system is good. I don't like to disagree with something without offering an alternative. Nor do I like to point out a problem unless I believe there is a solution. Hubert gets bombarded with suggestions. Even if they are valid ones, I don't think he should encourage us one way or the other. We all have different tastes, so its fun to read the different things people want. But we do need to remember what SC is. As a game, its an elegant, simple and realistic representation of the essence of WWII. For this reason alone, it will go down as a classic. As a simulation of WWII, is where it falls short. Almost 99% of the suggestions address this. And why? Because the Germans, Russians, Americans, etc don't act the way they did historically. Address those problems without destroying what SC is, and Hubert will have a cash cow for the rest of his life. Thats why I think its important when offering suggestions to concentrate on the one's that will capture that 80% effect. Otherwise we might as well wonder why there are not artillery units.

Does anyone have any numbers to show what effect this had on the percentage of losses? Its easy to pick out one or two things, and say that we should make changes to reflect that this happened. But it is much harder to prove that it had a significant enough effect for it to be reflected in a game or simulation. Thats why I mentioned radar, especially because of the reference to the Battle of Britain. It was a significant factor in that it negated the purely numerical advantage the Lutfwaffe had. [ February 12, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

While it would be nice to have the combat effects of weather, lets not get confused about what those effects are. The Russians where not any better at fighting in bad weather than anyone else. They were just willing to accept the manpower losses those conditions meant. Attrition warfare.

Zappsweden So in your opinion, if the Russians lose thier entire first line units, the war is over? Any representation of the Eastern War assumes that Russia will lose its initial army. Just like the fact that Poland will always fall to Germany. Russia is provided with more than enough MPP's to build itself a new army. The key is where to place the new defensive line. Even if Germany makes it back all the way to Moscow in the first few turns, Axis now have serious supply problems. Just as a fluke, why don't you try this. When Russia is invaded, buy Corps and place them by Moscow. Move the Armor and Air units back to Mosow. Don't bother to defend anything, other than leaving a Corp in the cities. Keep buying Corps. Once they reach Moscow, count the number of units you have.

Ahhhh... thinking about the game. That too, is one of my favorite pastimes. Again, JerseyJohn has the right of it. The HQ units have replacement troops and reserve units, that represent the people being cycled back and forth due to attrition. If not, then yes there is a problem, since it is too strong as a unit otherwise. While I agree that the HQ should cost the same, with a random leadership factor, can you imagine the complaints when someone got just "competent" Axis HQ's while the Allied HQ's were all "superior"?

Regarding the WWII games, pretty much agree with what JerseyJohn said. My only comment is about Computer Third Reich. Third Reich should be judged on its merits as a boardgame. Not the computer version. The computer version was an attempt to bring the boardgame to the computer, basically just a port. All it pointed out was that designing a game for the computer vs one for manual play are two totally different creatures. It would have been alot better for the users if Computer Third Reich just used the computer as an aid for playing the game. Like what Aide de Camp does. Thats what happens when the marketing types get to decide things they know nothing about.

Zappsweden has it right about the bombers. They are very deadly, especially at the higher tech levels. Just have to be careful in your choice of targets. Don't assume though that they can be used without fighter escorts. They need the fighter escorts to protect them, otherwise, it could become more expensive to replace the losses. And while its true that the size of the Atlantic is an issue, subs can be used effectively. Don't attack with them, let the enemy ship "surprise" itself. Of course, the higher the tech the subs have, the better. And yes, if he has more ships around, they will try and eliminate the sub, but its a very cost effective way of tying up his naval forces. Invasion of USA is not realistic, agree. I don't think the AI will argue with you if you decide that you have won a total victory once the USSR and UK have fallen. Interesting about allowing a choice of Vichy or not. Since France has fallen, what are you suggesting if Vichy is not formed? That France moves it capital to one of the colonies, instead of thier being Free French? I don't think there are enough resources in Algeria and Syria to make them a viable nation. No Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact? I don't think we can do justice to this unless we had a more comprehensive Diplomatic system. But you could get the same effect of there being no agreement, by invading the Baltic States. The ability of the Editor to modify more than it can now ... while it would be nice, and would allow us to "tinker" with the system, I think it would cause problems for the AI.

Be careful of the conculsions you are drawing. You may want to consider the effect radar had. It acted as a force multipler, since it allowed the smaller number of British aircraft to have some idea of where the Germans were, hence, allowing them to concentrate on that area.

SeaWolf48 You are correct, in that oil is one of the two critical shortages that Germany faced (the other being manpower). Currently SC does not reflect this. As JerseyJohn mentioned, I offered a possible solution for SC (not SCII). Short version being that the current oil wells would produce oil points, and the mines would produce mineral points. Each MPP required a certain number of those "raw materials"... so if you had a shortage, it would have effects. Oil shortage would reduce the supply level of the nation and Mineral shortage would reduce the MPP's you could produce. This way, the Allies could target the mines or oil wells of the Axis and if they were reduced thru strategic bombing (or captured), could cripple the Axis economy.

The problem with a nation falling when the capital falls, is that it is possible to do so without killing off more than one or two units. The fact that you don't know exactly how many of the Polish troops you have to kill is good. It is what gives us the randomness of the Polish campaign. Otherwise, what is the point? Blast the unit in the capital, move in a unit and bam... Poland has fallen. Much too gamey having the ability for Poland to fall if you enter Warsaw.

DalmatiaPartisan Interesting point, that letting the Allies move first removes the "initative" from the Axis. Maybe we should think of this as a "what if". Allies find out about the Molotov-Rubxxx(?) Pact and react first?

KDG Yes, I do think that overall the Allies are stronger than the Axis. Thats why, even for the Ladder games, I don't really bid. I'll take whatever side the other person doesn't want. Hmmm... France doing a DOW on turn 1? And they can capture Low Countries turn 1? I've never seen that, but I believe you. Ahhhh... you probably have to take an Army from the northermost Maginot line? Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that if the French move first, and they capture the Low Countries (turn 1), the game is over? Please confirm if you feel this is true. No matter what France does, it will fall. Its just a matter of when and how much the Axis have to pay for it. Twiddle I'm willing to try it out. But I think others should try it, otherwise it may be "biased" in the eyes of others. What I would really like to try is this AND the "Nationality" mods I suggested.

What is the problem with the way it is now? If you use all of the forces as they are deployed, you can take Poland in two (if lucky, one) turn(s). If you pull forces off for the western front, you can still take Poland in two turns. Isn't that fast enough?

The new Diplomacy system, if its based on the Tech R&D, would not be difficult to use. My only problem is that I haven't seen anything in the outline of its use, that is going to give me anything more than the diplomatic situation I have currently. Currently the "readiness" of a nation already represents which way the nation is leaning after being presurred diplomaticaly by the Axis or Allies. I was hoping to read something more along the lines of so many additional diplomatic chits being earned when the oppossing alliance commits a diplomatic no-no. Like Allies committing a Dutch Gambit would give the Axis more chits, since the Allies have just broken a treaty. Or if Axis invade Spain or Sweden... that should gain the Allies more chits, since these were Pro-Axis nations that were invaded.

The new Diplomacy system, if its based on the Tech R&D, would not be difficult to use. My only problem is that I haven't seen anything in the outline of its use, that is going to give me anything more than the diplomatic situation I have currently. Currently the "readiness" of a nation already represents which way the nation is leaning after being presurred diplomaticaly by the Axis or Allies. I was hoping to read something more along the lines of so many additional diplomatic chits being earned when the oppossing alliance commits a diplomatic no-no. Like Allies committing a Dutch Gambit would give the Axis more chits, since the Allies have just broken a treaty. Or if Axis invade Spain or Sweden... that should gain the Allies more chits, since these were Pro-Axis nations that were invaded.

Twiddle In a way, everything you say illustrates my point. Instead of paying a bid of 100 (or whatever amount), just let the Allies move first. Poland ... we agree upon. France ... Germany already has a screen of troops on the border with France. If the French invade Germany, they have to grap a city, otherwise the supply problems force thier offensive to stall. Maybe for a turn or so, but even with a couple of units from Poland, those French units are toast. Now France has nothing left to defend itself with. UK ... Ok, so the Germans get no freebie attacks on Denmark. Assuming the UK naval will oppose, the Germans just have to make sure they invade Denmark with air cover and naval. Early Dutch Gambit... French can already do that by the threat of DOW on Low Countries on Allied Turn 2, Germany has to operate troops from Poland front anyway so it can DOW on Low Countries on Turn 2. Early German DOW on Low Countries without sufficient troops, just results in the French reaching the defensive river line anyway. And the extra MPP's that France and UK get are still less than a "100 bid", since the MPP's above 100 still don't make up for the 100 that USSR doesn't get. Seems like a viable alternative to me. [ February 10, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Quite a few people complain because there is perceived balance towards the Axis. One of the complaints is that the Axis player knows where the Allied player units start off... ie Poland and France. As an alternative, has anyone considered instead of a "bid" amount, how about just having the Allied player move first? Bid requires a change thru the campaign editor. So doing the same for Allied first is no problem.

Kurt88 & JerseyJohn Ok... based on the latest posts, here is the system as I understand it. Some nations are biased towards the Axis, some are biased towards the Allies. DP's invested in those nations would be given more weight if received from the side they favored. Other nations cannot be influenced by the DP's at all. Correct? As an example, if an Axis biased nation received 1 DP from the Axis and 1 DP from the Allies, the net result would be 1.5 Axis vs 1 Allies. Correct? The increase because of the bias is not relevant now. I just used 50% as a number. So if Axis invested 2 DP, the Allies would have to invest 3 DP just to remain even with the the adjusted net DP total. If the adjusted DP for both sides are even (as in the example above), then we are back to the same result right? So what happens now? No effect right? If the adjusted DP influence by one side was greater than the others, than now the new diplomacy effects can take place? If the above is correct, than the Allies would have to spend more DP's than the Axis, if they wanted to keep Romania out of the Axis. Since Romaina is biased towards the Axis, the Allies would have to spend alot more. However, if the Axis don't spend any DP's for Romania, then the Allies while spending more, will get the results they want. I am correct? Isn't this the effect we have already in SC? It asumes that the diplomacy is being balanced by the other side reacting to your diplomacy. Without having to accumulate and spend DP's. So what have I gained so far by the new method? Unless of course, you are also considering each side having the ability to increase the number of DP's they have. Is this your intent?

Kurt88 & JerseyJohn Ok... based on the latest posts, here is the system as I understand it. Some nations are biased towards the Axis, some are biased towards the Allies. DP's invested in those nations would be given more weight if received from the side they favored. Other nations cannot be influenced by the DP's at all. Correct? As an example, if an Axis biased nation received 1 DP from the Axis and 1 DP from the Allies, the net result would be 1.5 Axis vs 1 Allies. Correct? The increase because of the bias is not relevant now. I just used 50% as a number. So if Axis invested 2 DP, the Allies would have to invest 3 DP just to remain even with the the adjusted net DP total. If the adjusted DP for both sides are even (as in the example above), then we are back to the same result right? So what happens now? No effect right? If the adjusted DP influence by one side was greater than the others, than now the new diplomacy effects can take place? If the above is correct, than the Allies would have to spend more DP's than the Axis, if they wanted to keep Romania out of the Axis. Since Romaina is biased towards the Axis, the Allies would have to spend alot more. However, if the Axis don't spend any DP's for Romania, then the Allies while spending more, will get the results they want. I am correct? Isn't this the effect we have already in SC? It asumes that the diplomacy is being balanced by the other side reacting to your diplomacy. Without having to accumulate and spend DP's. So what have I gained so far by the new method? Unless of course, you are also considering each side having the ability to increase the number of DP's they have. Is this your intent?

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

SandCastle (Axis) beats Shaka of Carthage (Allies) who conceded. Bid was 125.