santabear

I *think* I remember getting rockets in the Siberian transfer without having any rocket tech. Can this be?

As SC2 gets closer to release, I'd like to raise a point that might be minor to some, but it's important to me. That is the music that goes along with the game. The music for SC is nice, but it's very poorly "performed" (synthisized). If that music is kept for sentimental value I'd like to see it at least re-recorded with a modern instrument. I also think there should be different music if the Allies or the Axis win. But even better, I think, would be some first-rate music. Some obvious choices would be Shostakovich (Fifth Symphony, Seventh "Leningrad" Symphony); Bruckner; Wagner (Siegfried's Funeral Music); and perhaps Beethoven's Ninth Symphony if the Allies win. And some "period" (American big band swing, British, Russian and German songs/marches) would make the game "feel" more like it were taking place in the 1940's. These touches might make the history buffs feel a bit more like the game were actually more of a period piece. Does the "plastic" sounding music in SC bother anyone else?

Doesn't this time pressure come from the Allies invading France? One of the big items for the Axis is to knock off Russia before the Western Allies can invade--conversely the Western Allies HAVE to invade to keep Russia in the war. Or am I missing some nuance of strategy in HvH games here? (This is an honest question, not a criticism)

Me too! I'm sure it will be possible (somehow) to beat AI. And if not...well, I hear that humility is a virtue...

I still enjoy this game as much as when I first ran into it. I've posted several times in this forum about how to get decent games against the AI--my schedule just doesn't allow me to play HvH games (too irregular to be responsible about sending moves back and forth)--but I do enjoy re-enacting/changing historical scenarios with SC. I've never got into the idea of things like the Allies invading Belgium or attacking Ireland--or any of the weird things that happen when SC becomes just a game. My most enjoyable times have been discussing historical stuff in this forum with some of the more veteran SC'ers. I think the SC community for me has been folks who are more interested in the history of WWII than in wargames per se. So, as I said earlier, SC is very much alive and well for me. I'm looking forward to SCII when it comes out, but until then I can still try to hold off the Allies in the Overlord scenario. Anyone who says that it's "easy" to beat AI while playing Overlord as Axis must know something about this game that has escaped me.

Well, it surely must give Hubert, et. al. some satisfaction to know that SC "classic" was so successful that we're all clammoring for more!

Well, it's hard to know what "level 5" jets represent, but if one imagines anything like the current US air force working in WWII, the game isn't that far off. The problem is how quickly and cheaply these "death machines" can be created. Any one of the numerous rules/devices to address this makes SC a very good game. And if you ever want to work out your aggressions and conquer the world, just play against the AI and research jets and LR...

OK. So I've won several times (with exp. bonus and no Allied units in Russia). This scenario is tough and FUN! I can beat it consistently at +0, but it's about 50/50 with +1 bonus. I've yet to win with AI +2--Russia falls faster than the proverbial prom dress... If you can "experience up" the Allied carriers while taking back the UK (as opposed to having them sunk...) the latter stages of the game go smoothly along the traditional "Allied ueber carrier" lines. The naval warfare aspect of the beginning of this scenario is the best I've played. A real "Battle of the Atlantic!" Trying to hang on in Russia is what's tough. Thanks to Brad for a great job!

Militarly there wouldn't be any reason for the US to get involved, but politically there would be great incentive. US involvement would give them the opportunity to influence post-war European politics to a much greater extent than if they remained neutral. Stating the obvious department: There was no military reason for USSR to declare war on Japan in 1945--that was a political decision. Similar considerations might have entered US calculations.

This sounds very cool. I wonder who would win in AI vs. AI games. It seems that either all games should end in draws or that Axis and Allied wins should balance out over a large number of games. If one side tended to predominate, it would be a sign that the game balance needed to be rethought. I think AI vs AI in the current SC version would lead to mostly Axis victories. Thanks for the encouraging news!

Lots of interesting historical speculation--I think FDR was primarily concerned with keeping Britain and China from being overwhelmed--knowing that Germany and Japan would succumb to long wars. If the US wound up getting involved in the war (likely), that was an acceptable price to pay--if it was able to stay non-beligerant so much the better (though he had no illusions about the near-impossiblity of this, I think). In any case, it seems to be difficult to get too much Pacific strategic implications involved in SC. The net effect of these various nuances seems to be to alter the percent chance of "war in Siberia." Unless I've misread something, maybe that could change from an "on/off" setting to a "percent chance (that could be specified)" and "random" setting. Players can use their imaginations about why the Red Army is still in Siberia while the Germans are skiing in the Urals... (how infuriating IS it when that happens??)

Hello everyone, I haven't been keeping up with things so forgive me if this has been dealt with before--I've checked old posts, dev. diary, etc., but may have missed it. I'd like to suggest that players be able to "switch sides" in H vs. AI games. Often, I've thought it would be interesting to start as Axis, then to switch to Allies just before Barbarossa. Or it might be interesting to "help out" AI for a few turns and initiate some interesting strategic varient (Sea Lion?) that AI could then execute. (i.e. Game starts with human as Allies. France falls. Human "switches" to Axis and initiates Sea Lion: lands troops, puts airfleets in place, etc. Then human "switches back" to Allies and defends as AI executes Sea Lion attack with assets in place.) This might allow advanced players to get more interesting games against AI without having to program many subtle strategic nuances into AI. What do you think? :confused:

There is a lot of good advice here. I also recommend looking at Terif's recommendations in the players guide (or whatever it's called now). Yes, air is too powerful when jets appear. And no, it's not realistic for WWII. The only defense that I know of is to build an air force that can tackle whatever your opponent has--that is the only air defence that's available in SC--air superiority. If you can achieve air parity, the game becomes an MPP contest again. The "problem" is that this approach reduces SC to a random game: Whoever gets luckier with JT and LR air "dice rolls" usually wins. This is what's led to "house rules," "gentlemens' agreements" and so forth to limit the role of air in HVH games. And if you play against AI and invest heavily in air, you will always win. Hopefully SC2 is addresing this foible. In the meantime, it's possible to work around it and to have a great deal of fun with the game.

I haven't been around here in quite a while. Hello to everyone. And SeaMonkey, I'd LOVE to try your scenario. Please send it to: mvotta@email.unc.edu Thanks!

The paradox is that AI is decent tactically, but lousy strategically--and in a game called "Strategic Command," that's a considerable drawback. If you want good AI games without making your own scenarios, try playing the later scenarios (Kursk, Citadel, Overlord) as Allies, give AI Expert +2 exp bonus and try to win the war by May, 1945. Or play as Axis and try to extend the war past May, 1945. The later scenarios don't require much strategic thought, so AI can chug his way along decently. Also, against AI, use some self-control about how much air you buy/use. You will always be able to win against AI with an overwhelming number of air units--you'll have to restrain yourself on this... Playing against humans will actually involve strategic thought/decision-making that is extremely difficult to recreate with a computer, and the only way to learn this is against humans. [ February 24, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Jersey John, Checked into the forum and saw that you're under the weather. Please get well soon, we still think of you up here at the North Pole... All best, Santabear

Hi Jersey and Edwin. My dad was in coast artillery/AA during WWII. He used to tell me that they were told that their main function was to disrupt rather than to destroy enemy attack(ers). Edwin has hit on the key WWII concept: The ONLY effective AA defence is/was other aircraft. The Germans had AAA everywhere, but once the Luftwaffe was incapacitated, their cities took it on the chin. It's unlikely that aircraft flying over random field armies would have been significantly affected by AA fire, I think.

I think this is implied in some other posts, but maybe it will help to explicitly state things. Here is what I've found after playing against AI for about a year: Increasing the "difficulty level" from Novice to Beginner to Expert, etc. affects the percentage chance that certain events will happen. I.E. Russian readiness increases faster, it's easier to trigger unexpected attacks, Siberian reinforcements arrive later and in smaller numbers, etc. This setting also reduces the amount of plunder when new countries are conquered AND it significantly reduces the amount of "MPP income" received every turn. Increasing the "experience bonus" from +0 to +1 to +2 directly adds experience ribbons to AI units with the documented (player manual) effects on combat. These two settings are INDEPENDENT--you can play at EXPERT +0, for example; or at BEGINNER +2 if you like. In general, increasing the experience bonus requires the human to be a better military commander--maintainence of the objective; concentration of forces, etc. become crucial, and mistakes are punished severely. Increasing the difficulty level challenges strategic thinking--you have to use MPPs very wisely. Playing at high levels of difficulty and experience makes for very long games--you don't have the MPPs or the combat power to win quickly. If you like high levels of difficulty, play as Allies, of course, since the "hang on and wait" strategy works as Allies. If you play as Axis, you're likely to lose eventually no matter how skilled you are. Fun games are to play later scenarios as Allies, with high difficulty and experience levels AND try to win the war by May, 1945. It's a challenge, but do-able. AI is methodical, not creative. But he WILL methodically destroy you if you aren't very aware of what you're doing. Think of AI as Montgomery, not Manstein.

About the AI being an "inferior" opponent: The annals of military history are filled with stories of overly conservative generalship, poor strategic planning, and lack of foresight. Folks who are looking for a greater degree of "realism" should consider whether the plodding approach of AI doesn't actually simulate some of the inept generalship exhibited in real life. ======================================= Bill Macon raises an excellent point about the Expert +2 setting. It makes for an exceedingly slow game in the early scenarios because the MPPs mount very slowly--losses take a long time to replace. But in later scenarios the Allies have great numerical superiority, and can concentrate large numbers of units to destroy indiviual AI units. The trick becomes to maneuver units around to get them in position to ambush a +2 AI unit. It's a fun challenge for fans of maneuver warfare.

After just posting in the most recent AI thread, I got the idea to share some recent games I've found that might be interesting to those who play against AI, and who are looking for new challenges. 1. Play Overlord scenario as Allies, set Expert +2. You must win by May, 1945 or lose the war. If this is too tough, give Allies +4 or +5 Strategic Bombers using the scenario editor. (If you go this route, be sure to invest in long range aircraft...) 2. Play Kursk as Allies, Expert +2. You must win by May, 1945 or lose the war. This is great fun, because you must defend Russia against a suddenly very tough German army. Happy hunting to All! SB

Umple Day: The best results I've found are to play with FOW ON, but to turn it OFF for two turns every 8-10 turns. It helps AI quite a bit without letting the human know everything about what he's facing. Blashy: Your observation is accurate if you're playing at +0 experience. But if you play with +1 or +2 experience bonus, the AI strategy actually works well for it. Play at beginner or intermediate level, but set the experience bonus to +2. You'll get significantly more challenging games.

The "foreign general" was Charles de Gaulle. He made the remark at a reception in Moscow, no less. I think there's an account of it in "Russia at War" by Alexander Werth (which has been roundly trashed in this forum before, but which has some good information). Jersey John: I'm not sure about your enthusiasm for Magenheimer's book. He presents a lot of good new material, but seems to be pretty free in drawing conclusions from it. I also have never understood his concept of multiple turning points. I do, however, like the fact that he views the victory of the RAF over the Luftwaffe as the first (perhaps THE) turning point of the war. But I digress... About Moscow/Stalingrad: The circumstances were, I think, substantially different. With the Moscow railheads in German hands, the Russians would not have been able to unload or supply an army very well at all. They maintained control of the east bank of the Volga throughout the Stalingrad battle, and so had good supply lines. It was also a year later in the war. It would have been interesting to see the Russians try to run the Soviet Union's war effort from Kubiyshev (sp??). They might have still won the war, but it would have been even more of a near thing. ...a very interesting thread, and as always, a source of some new information! [ September 16, 2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Here are some relatively easy to adjust things I've noticed: AI's propensity to attack when surrounded in a city. It will often try to bash one of the surrounding units, take damage and then be destroyed easily in the following turn. It should be possible for an entrenched unit in a city to delay an attacker for at least one and possibly several turns with conservative play. Hubert claims to have adjusted this, but I don't notice much difference. AI too often seems to ignore terrain, especially river/stream hexes when planning its attacks--Leningrad and the southern Russian cities. AI moves eastward too agressively and triggers the Siberian transfer sooner than most humans would. Not so easy to fix: Once east of the marshes, AI seems to lose his strategic focus. Most humans will adopt a "Moscow" or a "head south and drain MPP" strategy. AI tries to advance on too broad a front and becomes easy to stop. (Actually, this is probably a re-wording of Edwin's original observaton).

I like Edwin's original 4 suggestions very much--they could help AI games a lot. In addition, SC2 should tweak the unit building/positioning mechanism. It would be very handy to select a unit type (like "corps") and then to place multiple corps by clicking on hexes rather than having to go through the whole dialog each time. I could envision the shaded hexes remaining as long as the player was positioning additional units. When the player clicked on a non-shaded hex, he would exit "place unit mode" This would streamline things a lot, esp. for the Red Army.

Speaking of "old" friends...hello again to some of my old friends in here. I've been travelling around so haven't been in here for some time. It's nice to see some familiar "faces" again. Re Ryder Cup: GO USA! And please try to keep the forum open as much as possible...I've learned a lot from this forum!