santabear

JJ: This is the kind of historical fact/'what if' that makes SC (and this forum) so enjoyable for me. Thanks for your good points--with which I agree. Even so, it would be interesting to see if Germany could get a bomb by beginning investment in it early enough, at least in the game. While the concept of the Italians or Russians building a nuclear device would be ridiculous, there is a possiblity that Germany might have been able to pull it off, I think. German technological considerations aside, if Russia had been knocked out of the war, at some point the US would have considered using nuclear weapons in Europe. When I play against the AI, it's possible to knock Russia out of the war, Sealion, then go to get the US. If this were to take longer than 1945, though, there might be the nuclear option available. I'm not sure how this might work (or not) in two player games, as my current $%^#&%% computer set up doesn't let me get online with the one that has SC installed. But it might provide some incentive for the Allied player to hang in even if "Sealion-ed"

Edwin P: Thanks for bringing this issue up. It's difficult to keep up with issues in multiple threads, and your post has enabled a lot of thoughts from other threads to get connected. I brought this up in the "Science and Technology" thread--and I'm not getting the hang of linking to it (rookie...)--so I will summarize my thoughts. 1. SC allows the creation of jet fighters that go far beyond what the ME 262 (I think that's the German jet...) could do; so it does allow technological "what ifs" already. 2. The US did in fact develop and use atomic weapons--they are not a "what if" scenario, they are an historical fact that is not included in the game. It seems unusual to have possiblities for techological speculation in the realm of jet fighters and to leave this techological fact unaccounted for. And now for some thoughts in response to Jersey John 1. American B29's in Britain; German flying wings and long range jet fighters are all addressed to some extent already in the game; perhaps the mechanics of "strategic bombers' and 'long range aircraft' should be adjusted to incorporate these ideas as well. 2. The war wouldn't necessarily have to go longer, would it? It's possible to develop jet aircraft in 1942 in the game; why not atomic weapons in 1944? 3. The US, in my opinion, shouldn't get a bomb, or even have an advantage over Germany in the race for it. If Oppenheimer had got on the wrong track and Heisenberg on the correct track (luck?) at the beginning, Germany could have got the bomb first. But only US and Germany had the science/engineering capacity to get one; I think only these 2 countries should have the possiblity. 4. I agree with Edwin P. that the cost of atomic weapons research would be very high in MPP terms; but that would make the strategic/economic part of the game more interesting and exciting, I think. 5. I'm not sure I follow Jersey John's point about the necessity for stabilizing the Eastern Front. Germany developed jet fighters when things were falling apart in the East. And Speer continued to wring increased military production out of the German economy even in 1944. I could envision a scenario in which German investment in atomic weapons research begins in 1941 and continues to build slowly until 1943. When Russia gains the initiative in the East (Siberian army?), the German player funds atomic research heavily leading to an atomic weapon as the Allies gather for Overlord. What to do then? Moscow? London? Russian forces? Allied invasion fleet? The strategic decision making would be fascinating. Making a scenario like that work within the context of the game; and especially making it possible without having SC become simply a 'race for the bomb' is the tricky part.

Iron Ranger: Thanks for the tip. Im working in Europe for an extended period, and have SC on my laptop, but'I have to use other computers to get online. I'm eagerly awaiting my return home to be able to get my rear end kicked a few times in two player games. The AI is fine, especially when SC is about all I have to keep me occupied, but it's obviously got a way to go to become General Staff material. This forum has really helped me understand the game, and has made it even more enjoyable. Thanks again.

Iron Ranger: Thanks for the tip. Im working in Europe for an extended period, and have SC on my laptop, but'I have to use other computers to get online. I'm eagerly awaiting my return home to be able to get my rear end kicked a few times in two player games. The AI is fine, especially when SC is about all I have to keep me occupied, but it's obviously got a way to go to become General Staff material. This forum has really helped me understand the game, and has made it even more enjoyable. Thanks again.

Iron Ranger: Thanks for the tip. Im working in Europe for an extended period, and have SC on my laptop, but'I have to use other computers to get online. I'm eagerly awaiting my return home to be able to get my rear end kicked a few times in two player games. The AI is fine, especially when SC is about all I have to keep me occupied, but it's obviously got a way to go to become General Staff material. This forum has really helped me understand the game, and has made it even more enjoyable. Thanks again.

Iron Ranger: Thanks for the tip. Im working in Europe for an extended period, and have SC on my laptop, but'I have to use other computers to get online. I'm eagerly awaiting my return home to be able to get my rear end kicked a few times in two player games. The AI is fine, especially when SC is about all I have to keep me occupied, but it's obviously got a way to go to become General Staff material. This forum has really helped me understand the game, and has made it even more enjoyable. Thanks again.

As others have done, many thanks to Terif for sharing his knowledge of the game with us. I have to go back to the manual to examine the supply/MPP relationship, I see! But I do have a question: I have seen in several posts (in this thread and elsewhere) about an Axis "quick defeat" of Norway. Another thread had a line about Norway doing "it's usual quick flop" or something like that. I have yet to attack Norway (against AI) without having a major fight; the British navy comes over, British units land in Bergen...all kinds of problems. And Oslo hangs on like grim death. Obviously I'm doing something way wrong. Terif (or it seems almost everyone in this forum can do this): HELP! And PS: In my experience, the "Dutch gambit" is a winner for the Axis; I don't know how else the Axis can win unless Russia is set to "neutral"

As others have done, many thanks to Terif for sharing his knowledge of the game with us. I have to go back to the manual to examine the supply/MPP relationship, I see! But I do have a question: I have seen in several posts (in this thread and elsewhere) about an Axis "quick defeat" of Norway. Another thread had a line about Norway doing "it's usual quick flop" or something like that. I have yet to attack Norway (against AI) without having a major fight; the British navy comes over, British units land in Bergen...all kinds of problems. And Oslo hangs on like grim death. Obviously I'm doing something way wrong. Terif (or it seems almost everyone in this forum can do this): HELP! And PS: In my experience, the "Dutch gambit" is a winner for the Axis; I don't know how else the Axis can win unless Russia is set to "neutral"

I have had variable luck with the French fleet becoming "free French." The first time I tried it all the units stayed alive, so I thought that was normal. The next time all I got was one lousy cruiser. The unit in the Med is a sacrificial lamb; the Axis can kill it immediately after Italy enters the war, so it's best converted to MPP. The others make handy artillery to beat up any Germans silly enough to wander into coastline hexes; then you can try to sail them to Britain or sell them for scrap MPPs. If nothing else, having them banging away at the Germans in the Low Countries keeps the German air away from the armies for a few turns. I agree completely about the French air fleet. It's nearly as useless as the battleship in the Med.

And now something a bit more 'on target' for this thread: It just occured to me as I was responding to Shaka that SC Technology allows the creation of absurdly (by WWII standards) powerful jet fighters, but has no nuclear weapons research possiblity. It doesn't feel right to me that the game lets us explore such a theoretical "what if" in regard to aircraft without acknowledging an undeniable hisorical component. If the game goes past August, 1945 the US gets the atom bomb. (This is another solution to the 'unlimited manpower' issue, I guess) Obviously an atom bomb or two could really foul up the game as a game, but it's worth considering how far nuclear weapons had been developed by the time jet aircraft reached the stage implied by level 5 jets. Also rockets turned into "missles" fairly rapidly after the war, I think. (But I'm on pretty shaky ground here...someone correct me if this is wrong). But I'm sure about the atom bomb For those involved in the MPP debate: Consider how many MPPs were represented by the Manhattan Project (unbelievable...); this is probably another reason the US only gets 180 MPPs. But there is no payoff: The US never gets atomic weapons.

Not to clutter up this thread too much, but this is a fascinating arguement. Shaka: If Germany had defeated Russia, Britain and the US would have starved all of Europe to death if necessary to beat Germany. The economic/food blockade of Europe still would have been effective. Germany actually had to export coal to the Ukraine because of Russian passive resistance and their stupid occupation policies. If the Germans had waged war rationally in the East, they could have (likely) won. But the way they fought ensured that Russia was a net loss economically to them. There's also that "atomic bomb thing"...with Allied control of the air over Europe and B17's with atom bombs flying over Germany, Hitler could have put his armies wherever he wanted and still lost. Without a German surface fleet and control of the air, the German army was never going to make it to the one place it had to be to win the war: London. Britain fought alone when Russia had the non-agression pact with Germany as was nearly their ally. The British and Americans as allies would never have given up against Hitler as long as Churchill and Roosevelt were in charge. If Britain had fallen, though, the US probably would have made peace with Germany, regardless of whether or not Russia was still in the war. I believe that the US and British regarded Russia as a 'dispensable' ally until after Stalingrad. There weren't many tears shed in either government when the Russians were getting there heads knocked in. And the poor Russians couldn't have made a separate peace because the Germans would have killed them all. It was a very, very strange alliance. But thank God it worked!

In terms of playing the game, there is no difference in the 'feel' of summer or winter combat. Everything works the same in winter, except that the date changes faster. Ideally, it would be great for the players to feel the effects of winter more in terms of restrictions on units (movement, combat, visibility, greater losses, etc.). And in a perfect world, the winter effect would be greater in really cold weather climates. There should also be a 'mud' factor in Russia. When the German generals weren't complaining about the cold (duh...send warm clothes to the troops, guys!), they were REALLY complaining about the muddy, bad roads in the winter. One historian puts forth the theory that Russia's terrible roads may have been her salvation. The muddy roads stopped the blitzkrieg.

I forgot to put in the previous post: Thank you to eveyone who's offered suggestions. They've helped a lot!

As Axis I've always killed the AI when it tries to invade Holland. I'll have to try it with the Allies as the 'good guys' to see how it works. I actually won a game yesterday by delaying in Poland, delaying in France, operating/transporting out the entire French army, fleet and (small) air force. When they were on British soil, they stayed around after France fell. The air force was worthless, but the other stuff came in handy. I got lucky when the computer decided to attack THROUGH the Maginot Line; so I had many turns for the British to invest in IT, jets, build units, etc. And by that time Russia woke up. Is it normal for the AI to bash against the Maginot line? If so, someone needs to program in the German Staff College patch. No one in their right mind would have tried that in reality.

Another minor change in the game that might have a significant effect during play would be to introduce a pronounced weather effect on air/ground combat for summer vs. winter. Not only are the level 4 & 5 fighters practically invincible, but they operate in sunshine, at night, through fog, rain, snow...whenever there's something to kill they're on the job. If this were a tactical game the weather effect could be more specific, but since turns are weeks or months one could degrade the performance of the air during winter months to reflect fewer sorties due to bad weather. Reduced air effectiveness for 4-6 months would allow the 'mostly ground' armies a chance to get moving. Germans-summer; Russians-winter... PS In my most recent effort as Allies vs. the computer I managed to get level 5 jets with level 5 long-range for the British...needless to say the Third Reich died during the ensuing "jet Sptifire" blitz. (Thanks to all for the hints offered in response to my plea for help...the 'delay in Poland' worked beautifully; can't wait to try the others!)

Shaka: Thanks for the response, and within the limited scope of SC it IS combat on the Eastern Front that is decisive. But I believe that WWII was an air/naval war; the war in which air power came to the fore as the decisive arm (aircraft carriers vs. battleships, etc.). Germany ran wild in Europe with her land army; but her air force was only a tactical adjunct to the army and her navy wasn't able to overcome the British/American control of the Atlantic...and you can't make a successful amphibious landing from U-boats. She was unable to knock Britain out of the war, and so was forced to open a two-front war by attacking the USSR. I believe that without air and naval power the Allies would have lost the war, regardless of how well the Russian armies ultimately did. Stalin was crying for a second front from the moment of the German invasion, and he and the Russian generals consistently maintained that without British/American help it was impossible to achieve ultimate victory over Germany (this was their line WITHIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY after Stalingrad; even the post-Kruschiev "official" Russian history of the war makes this point). Allied control of the air stopped the Germans from invading Britain in '40 (Thye MIGHT have been able to pull it off but their losses would have been horrific), and made Overlord possible. American air power killed the German reinforcements as they tried to counterattack. And remember that the Battle of the Bulge only worked for the Germans until the weather cleared up. SC does a good job of giving some feel of the naval/air aspects of strategic warfare while remaining playable. It's far from perfect at this (as was pointed out in the "SC Pacific?" thread). The real issue is tactical air in this game, I think. And here we're in agreement: The level 5 jets are like the Martians in War of the Worlds, zapping anything they see out of existance. The fact that weather has little (no?) effect on any combat, and particularly on air/ground combat also causes realism problems.

Regarding rapid (more rapid than it seems right) technological advances: Does anyone else think that it's strange to have both Allies and Axis with fleets of jet aircraft opposing each other by 42-43? It seems a little odd to me to have WWII tank and infantry units operating in an environment with Korean War era aircraft. Even with some anti-aircraft points, anything on the ground or water is toast with level 5 jets prowling around (as has been pointed out several times). Perhaps the solution lies in de-emphasizing the role of aircraft in general--but air power is what decided the war militarily, isn't it? I think the solution may be found by making jet aircraft harder to attain rather than by de-emphasizing air power in general. The normal air units that begin the game seem relatively well balanced with the other game units. Jets skew things rapidly, though. And historically, they were not only hard to do technologically, but there were problems (albeit mostly in Hitler's mind) about deciding whether they could be useful as fighters, whether they would place too great a strain on the pilots, etc.

I am relatively new to SC, and have been playing Axis (vs. the computer) and have experimented with and refined multiple stratagies, scenarios, etc. In search of new worlds to conquer, I have tried to play as the Allies a few times and have been kicked around Europe like a soccer ball. Unless I play at the "green" level, it's hard for me to do as well as the real French Army did...which is pretty damn depressing! Could some of the vets post a few hints about good Allied strategies? Hold on in France as long as possible? Declare war on the low countries first and try to invade Germany? Retreat to Britain and invest in jets? I'd love to know what's worked for y'all. Thanks.

As I've mentioned in other threads, a Barbarossa that includes an Axis invasion through Turkey into the Caucasus runs the Russians out of MPPs faster than anything. And if you have invaded Norway/Sweden, an amphibious landing between Riga and Leningrad works wonders. Other than that, a broad front attack that exploits whatever weaknesses the Russian develops (and there will be weak spots if you force him to defend from the Baltic to the Black Sea) has usually worked better for me than an overly-scripted set piece attack. I think with real, human armies in the field it would be difficult to improvise on a strategic level as much as one can in this game, but it works wonderfully in SC.

Not wanting to reopen old cans of worms...Again from a newbie viewpoint. The GAME of Strategic Command is all about MPPs (economics). It's not even about accumulating MPPs for yourself (they come almost automatically), but really it's about denying them/taking them away from the opposition. Whether this is 'true' to WWII depends on your historical view to a certain extent. I think the real-world MPPs (US, USSR, Britain, etc.) were much more fixed than the game represents them to be; even as the USSR was getting trashed in 41-42, they moved everything east and still produced enough stuff to win at Stalingrad before Lend-lease really kicked in.

I had no idea the game designer was part of this forum. So, firstly, THANK YOU. I have loved this game from the first time I tried the demo; and still can spend hours bashing the hell out of the British and Russians (though it still pains me to occupy the USA). After reading this thread, what leaps out at me is the (very realistic) notion that once a country's skilled workers were drafted into the army, their production was affected. Albert Speer had a hell of a time trying to keep German industry operating when the Army was gobbling up every man it could find after Stalingrad. (Not to mention the trouble in the occupied countries with the SS/Gestapo/Einsatzgruppen killing off essential workers). Might there be a solution along these lines? i.e.: If you draft all or most of your country's manpower into the army, your production is going to be affected. So the cost of that corps for some Russian swamp would not only be the 100 MPP it costs, but it would be the 20 MPP you lose every turn thereafter. If this is off the beam, put it down to a rookie. But I REALLY LOVE THIS GAME. Thanks, again!

If the Axis player can build up the Italian fleet, Italy can take out the Alexandria fleet in conjunction with taking Turkey and opening up the Dardinelles (sp?). The whole Black Sea/Crimean situation changes when an Italian fleet is available to attack Odessa and Sevatstopol in conjunction with land attacks. The best sequence is: Knock out fleet and take Suez (hurts Britain) while building up for attack on USSR. Take Turkey, continue buildup. Attack USSR. Italian fleet wipes out that damn Russian cruiser and rules the Black Sea. Forces in Turkey operate/walk (slowly!) through mountains of Turkey and take the Caucasus (sp?), killing Russian MPP at the beginning of the campaign. This makes the Russian's problem acute: even with 1200 MPP to buy corps, the Russians get stretched very thinly trying to defend Odessa, the Caucasian oilfields and the Ukraine at the same time. If there is a spare unit or two to threaten Riga, you can stretch out the Russian forces to the point that the German armor will run wild. Of course, this is against the computer. A human opponent would likely be a different matter!

I enjoy playing Axis vs. the computer in various historical and non-historical variations. In almost every case, the Axis does well by investing in research (industrial) as soon as possible--followed closely by jet aircraft research. There is more than enough combat power to take Poland, France (including Vichy) and Spain (including Gibraltar). By the time you've accomplished this, there should be some return in terms of productivity and air strength. After that, you can use your air to keep the Western Allies at bay and your ground forces in the East. I haven't found that it pays for the Germans to cross water to attack Norway or Sweden. But get some MPP for Italy, and the Italian fleet can rule the Med--in conjunction with a German/Axis minor invasion of the Balkans and Turkey, the Italians can take Suez. That kills the Brits' MPPs. The few times I've played Allies, I've had to use most of the MPPs to hang on in France a bit; but again I invested in industrial/jet aircraft research for Britain. You've got to control the air over the English channel, and those two items seem to be crucial in that respect.