Steve C

Okay, I will do the uninstall / reinstall. Thanks, Hubert. Can I retain my saved games by moving them to a different directory, or will they be left intact in the SC folder and I don't need to do anything ?

When I first got SC and after loading v1.06, everything ran great. I started PBEM this week and now I'm having problems: 1) Music works in initial menus, start a game, the mouse click sound works but none of the movement or battle sound effects work. 2) Sometimes music keeps playing, even after I quit the game. Reboot clears the latter problem but my sound effects are gone. Also, I'm getting an occasional error message about version DirectX 7.0 when I have 8.0. Could my opponent's PBEM attachment have corrupted my game ? The v7.0 DirectX thing might be symptomatic of that if that is he has DirectX 7.0. What do you recommend to restore my sound effects ?

In my last game, playing Axis, the AI decided to invade France, 7-8 transports worth, mostly US troops. This was in '43. I had four u-boats and dished out some punishment to the transports as well as doing a couple of air attacks. I had an Italian army at Brest and another a hex away from the coast, other stuff in reserve, but it wasn't like I had lined the coast with troops by any means. Next turn, I was quite surprised to see the invasion fleet turn tail and sail away. Bradley, "Ike, we're taking some losses here. Sure you want to invade ?" Eisenhower, "Nah, screw it. Let's go home." Funny thing, they sailed all the way back to the US instead of just landing in England. [ February 06, 2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

In my last game, playing Axis, the AI decided to invade France, 7-8 transports worth, mostly US troops. This was in '43. I had four u-boats and dished out some punishment to the transports as well as doing a couple of air attacks. I had an Italian army at Brest and another a hex away from the coast, other stuff in reserve, but it wasn't like I had lined the coast with troops by any means. Next turn, I was quite surprised to see the invasion fleet turn tail and sail away. Bradley, "Ike, we're taking some losses here. Sure you want to invade ?" Eisenhower, "Nah, screw it. Let's go home." Funny thing, they sailed all the way back to the US instead of just landing in England. [ February 06, 2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

Sea Monkey posted the same issue recently, except his nemesis was the 8 tank units (his opponent let him off easy with only 5 air fleets). :eek: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=002026 I guess the key is to chip away at the Axis wherever and whenever you can to keep the MPP down. Easier said than done. Does seem to be hard to bear when the real-life Luftwaffe was stretched exceedingly thin already by '41. Perhaps there needs to be a cap on air fleets, but setting any limitation opens up a Pandora's box. [ February 06, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

What do you guys think of the reports which can be viewed in SC and what would you like to see changed / improved for SC2 ? In SC, the reports are pretty bare bones. The MPP levels are a huge essential, displayed front and center on the war map as they should be. The Strength total is something I pay less attention to, perhaps less than I should. The loss summaries are so minimalist that I don't get too much out of them. Same goes for the turn summary which you can turn off and on. For SC2, I would like to see the following: MPP Trend Chart - Shows a timeline with the MPP of the five major powers over time. Loss Summary - Broken down in more detail, summarizing by unit type. Historical Summary - Bullet list of the major events, organized in a journal format with tabs for each year. Sort of a Cliff's Notes AAR, if you will. Unit Histories / Battle Honors - Similar to Panzer General. Of course, there are many more units in SC, but I'd at least like to have a better accounting for the performance of my Leaders. Tech Development Chart ? What else ? Of course, we all like the $25 price of SC. Best bargain in PC gaming. But I'd be willing to pay a few extra bucks for some more detailed accounting. And it wouldn't get in the way of SC's clean style of play, adding complexity only when you choose to view it, not micro-management forced upon you as part of the basic game mechanics. [ February 06, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

Hmmm. WWI might be excellent from the political standpoint,with some very interesting "what ifs" if you started out at peace anytime after 1900. And I'm a huge fan of WWI naval action. If anybody knows any good PC games on the latter topic, please clue me in. The Western Front stalemate would make for a boring affair if it happened to reproduce itself in the game, plus your technologies might or might not add to the game ("Dang, four chits on super zeppelins and nothing's happening yet !") The infant tanks and planes of the age would detract away from the rock / paper / scissors interaction of infantry / armor / air that we enjoy in SC. I kind of like your original idea, taking SC modern. All the basic building blocks are there already. But first, let's have SC2 - the definitive WW2 strategy game. [ February 05, 2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

Yeah, Good one ! I liked People's General. Then there's always The Operational Art of War. As I recall, there were some good Cold War scenarios. US vs. China ? That's a real can of worms, Shaka. Leaving nukes out of it for the sake of arguement, US naval / air supremacy seem like a gimme, but what kind of inventories do we carry for smart weapons ? The Chinese army is huge, and being a Communist state, I don't think they'd sweat huge losses to wear us down. The last big test of quantity vs. quality was the Russian front and we all know how that turned out. Not to say the Chinese could compete with us globally, but things would get mighty unpleasant for Taiwan, S.Korea and Japan (and Russia, India ?). Back on topic, interesting thought, Les the Sarge. I think SC is a good enough platform that a modern era version could have a lot of merit down the road, once WW2 has been fully developed. [ February 05, 2003, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

LOL, Wildcat. I know the feeling. I have played as Axis twice so far, initially as Beginner and the last time on Expert / + 0. I figured out the Soviet border staffing pretty well based on info posted here, so there were no nasty early surprises from the Russkies. But the AI opened a can of whoop-ass on me in my first game by launching Overlord in '42, caught me napping in France. Sharp lesson learned, the last time I garrisoned better and left air units in spotting range of the Channel. In Russia, the AI was disappointingly passive. Even on Expert, once I killed off all its armor units, it never rebuilt these, instead it seemed content to spawn corps around the cities and hunker down on the defensive. I was really hoping to see it pull of some Uranus/Neptune, Bagration surprises out of the hat. Even the Siberians just got fed into the Wehrmacht meat grinder, though I suppose they'll have a lot more impact playing at Level +1 or +2. I am really hoping for the AI to pull off some wild schemes in future games to keep things lively. So far it has seemed to stick pretty much to historical precedent. [ February 05, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

Welcome, Paqman. I'm a n00b too, so if you want to play PBEM at least, lemme know - e-mail me. I guess the way to get "worthy" is to just jump in and start playing other people. Good question about the dial-up connection. I've been wondering about that too. But I have to assume that not all the online players have high-speed access.

In 1940, I think few countries had seriously planned for large-scale amphibious operations. Certainly this applies in particular to the Germans. I gather that Sea Lion was mostly a pipe dream when you look at the motley collection of river barges and scows which the Germans would have had to use, hardly seaworthy under the best of cirumstances, let alone having wasted much of the Kreigsmarine in Norway and with air supremacy hanging in the balance. But, if you look at the relative strength of the armies, if the Germans could have got over in force - they would have prevailed. In SC terms, the generic transport capability adds to the "what if" attraction of the game, if not being precisely realistic. I have no issues with Sea Lion being quite feasible in the game, it's the potential Axis invasions of US and Canada which seem farfetched. Even supposing that by commandeering the shipping of the other European countries as well as England, that the Germans could have mounted such as trans-Atlantic invasion, the US Navy would have been steaming through the Panama canal to meet the threat. Oh well, it's only a game.

Kurt, I have both games. I also have Europa Univsalis, which I like. I don't think the EU engine is entirely successful in making the leap to the 20th century. Overseeing fortification building, manpower allocation, etc. at the province level, things which seem to work okay for Early Modern Europe seem less appropriate to the centralized 20th Century state where a number of other things are added to the game which you also need to keep track of. There is a lot of micro-management in HoI that you needn't bother with in SC. Then, at least for me, the combat in HoI is way too unclear and simplistic relative to all the tedium which preceeds it. Imagine that you own a fast car which you meticulously tune and prepare for the track, and then only take it out of the garage to polish it or drive 1km to the grocery store. Weak analogy maybe, but that's what it feels like to me- the reward fails to justify the effort. As for the AI in HoI, I kind of threw up my hands in disgust after doing the tutorial and playing some initial moves and took the game off my hard drive. Honestly, I don't know how good it is compared to SC. I have heard that the game has been extensively improved with patches since the initial release.

Whoops, sorry for the previous post. Tried it again and it's working now.

When I enable Display Last Turn Summary, it never summarizes anything. The three menus come up but there's no data there. I have the 1.06 patch.

I'm not so sure of this. The plunder is a real shot in the arm for the cash-starved British and the additional 24 MPP every turn from Baghdad and the two oil wells is very, very welcome. I played my first game as Allies this week and essayed this strategy: build a British HQ and armor unit ASAP, ship them to French-controlled Beirut along with the Canadian army and take Iraq. Yes, it did piss off the Americans (+1 to -7). They didn't declare war until July '42 but I think this may have had more to do with my delaying the fall of France into '41 than the reduction in war entry %. Also, the Axis AI wasn't too agressive with raping the neutral countries, took Denmark but nothing else, so probably that helped keep the US war readiness low.....LOL, and the Russians didn't care less even though Iraq is right next door. But if you're gonna do it, do it before France goes down so you can use the superior logistics through Beirut and the French corps stationed there. Also, running the transports straight through the Med is a lot quicker than going around the horn and safe since Italy is still on the sidelines. Anyhow, this game was too easy a victory on Beginner / +0 setting. April '43 was a glorious month for the Allies. Montgomery got his victory parade down the Champs Elysees and T-34's rolled through the rubble that was Berlin. I'm ready to ramp up to Expert / +1, try the early Iraq conquest again and report on how it works out. [/QB]</font>

Well, I think the problem with surrender is there's no real way for SC to duplicate the sole motivation for it: man's desire to live. Allowing the surrendered troops to redeploy would work in an 18th century game where you allow the besieged fortress garrison to march out with "the honors of war" but in WW2, it was truly a case of "For you ze war iss over." So it wouldn't ring true for me, nor would some other artifice such as getting MPP for surrendering. In SC, I'm an all-powerful Churchill, Hitler or Stalin, and damn it, I want those little 2D guys to fight to the last man if I so choose. Dealing with a pop-up window asking for surrender, or worse, just having a key garrison vanish off the map because my opponent or the AI spent some points to make it happen would detract from my enjoyment of the game.

[ January 31, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

This is an interesting idea, Kurt. I'm curious, how do you envision the surrender concept working ? Spend X number of diplomatic points and the troops in that city would automatically surrender ? I don't think that would work: just think of the 101st at Bastogne, various fanatical SS units, almost all Japanese troops and the unpredictable Russians. So it would be a die roll affair, "spends your points and takes your chances" ?

8 level 2 panzer armies by Nov '41 ? :eek: :eek: Dang, throw in the air fleets and headquarters to go with 'em and that's not chump change MPP. Guess I better practice some more against the AI before I start playing people who can do things like that.

Well, Hank - you have more HoI experience than I. When I booted it up and tried it out, it just didn't appeal to me. Dunno, the things that I liked about Europa Universalis just didn't seem to make the leap so well to the modern era. Maybe it's just me, but fussing around with economic priorities in your provinces, arranging supply convoys, worrying if you have enough rubber / oil stockpiled and so on just detract from the fighting. And once combat starts, it's so abstract there's little enjoyment in it. Think of all that detail, such as the massive R&D system, appointing / firing cabinet ministers based on their management styles, etc. as long and teasing foreplay, without the satisfying conclusion you have every right to expect based on what came before. Call me a lightweight and you'll be correct. But if I'm going to dig into a detailed wargame, let it be Uncommon Valor, not HoI....The chess-like nature of SC appeals to me highly, few wargames get that style of play right. I for one want SC2 to essentially retain the flavor of the original, incorporating improvements without bogging down in complexity. [ January 29, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

LOL, did that also activate the Pope's Swiss Guards unit at the Vatican ? Great story, Konstantin. Yeah, there's nothing quite like a good multiplayer strategy game, FTF ! Last time I did that was on a ski trip to Tahoe. We were playing MB Conquest of the Empire, an even contest until my wife's niece suddenly launched a back-stabbing invasion of her fiance's provinces, breaking their alliance. He is a German guy, fairly serious and he didn't take it too well: "Farah, vy haff you launched ziss stupid attack ?!" I took advantage of it to attack from the other side and we knocked his Caesar out of the game. Surprised they still got married after that.

Hehe, you're right, this thread is all over the place, but it's all good. Well, I don't think we entirely disagree on my point. And you may well be right that WW2 was not the forgone conclusion that it may seem in hindsight. I'm sure that in mid-1941, it was Japan and Germany who thought their victories would be a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, there's no denying that in a war for the long haul, the Axis was at a disadvantage from the standpoint of manpower and industrial potential. I'm an SC rookie, so forgive me if my comments are unqualified. But I get the impression that the SC is leveled out relative to the historical strengths and weaknesses of the combatants in the interests of balanced gameplay. Take the Italians, for example. In my first game playing the Axis, I am finding them to be a huge help. Whereas historically, it's hard to see them as anything other than the weak sister of the Axis. They needed to be bailed out by the Germans at almost every turn. Yet in the game, they have helped me stop an Allied Overlord attempt cold in '42, crush partisans in Yugoslavia, conquer Greece, Iraq and soon to overrun Turkey. So in my opinion, certain compromises had to be made in the interests of compelling gameplay, be it the units themselves or the relative strengths of the powers. And it all works, very well indeed.

I think you're referring to my post towards the end of the original thread, JJ.

Good thread, interesting point made by all. I hear 'ya on the rockets, they're a fun unit but unrealistic in effect. By the time you get them up to level 4 or 5, and all those experience points racked up by raining death from several hexes out with little chance of suffering attrition in return, the SC rocket units are a Saddam Hussein wet dream. But on the other hand, it's part of SC's attraction, the "what if" aspect, jets being another aspect of it. Could the V1/V2 program have played a significant role had Germany concentrated on that from Day 1 ? Debateable. Certainly their tactical effect in the game is ahistorical. The same issue applies to customized amphib / para units for Allies only, German blitz power (and offsetting amphibious weakness) and so on. Overall, I can certainly live with the design decision to have generic units and weapons development shared by all. No doubt, it detracts from the realism. But if the game designers had gone overboard with it (such as limited mobility for German infantry to reflect the historical lack of motor transport, or the mighty power of US industry at max capacity), we could have a game with ultimate Allied victory as a foregone conclusion. [ January 27, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

Nice link, Holzem. I enjoyed the vibrant account of the Soviet disaster. LOL, those communiques are priceless, especially liked the one about executing the scapegoat Facist "saboteur". Goes to show that there may be more enjoyment to be had with HoI than I thought. I certainly prefer the SC approach with the details largely hidden under thc covers letting you concentrate on the great ebb and flow of battle. Versus HoI: having to arrange convoys, micro-managing economic priorities in your provinces,futzing with that dinky economic priority slider and so on. But to each his own. Certainly the research development tree in HoI is a thing of beauty, a mighty oak in comparison to the sapling in SC. Which brings us back to the main point, where indeed do we go with SC2 ? If Europe again, how does BF improve upon the original ? Panzer General -> Allied General -> Pacific General -> PG 3D -> PGIII Scorched Earth ? Now there's a downward spiral not to be emulated, to be sure. I vote for the Pacific theater first, tie it all together globally with SC3 once the vastly different scales of the Pacific fighting and vital role of the navies are refined as SC2. I agree, the Pacific is difficult due to the sheer size of it. Then you have the complete opposite with the unit scales, island battles restricted to a few thousand by supply constraints: how to reconcile that with the titanic struggle of millions on the Russian front in a seamless package ? I like the concept advanced by SeaMonkey of being able to drill down to different operational levels at the player's discretion and perhaps therein lies a key to being able to integrate the differences in scale between the two theaters into a conherent global grand strategy game, [ January 25, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Steve C ]