santabear

I'll add to the chorus of kudos. I'd also like to point out (again), that SCII needs to make transports (LCI/LST's whatever) a separate unit, and they should be more costly than they currently are. The current game assumes that transports are wherever the unit to be transported is, when, in fact, getting the transports to the correct spot took quite a bit of doing. Limitations of transport also affected strategic thinking substantially. If some approximation of this is introduced, the "gamey" strategy of using corps/transport as naval spotters or whatever would dissappear rapidly, I think.

Nope...I had no idea there was even supposed to be one.

The last few times I played SC (updated beta patch) I have run into a strange problem late in the game (roughly early-mid 1944). When I click "purchase units" or "research" the yellow overlay appears on top of the map grid--in other words, the background grey doesn't appear. If I position the mouse over one of the buttons (like "purchase unit") it will appear, and it functions properly. I just have to find the spot from memory. I've probably played 40+ games with no problem, now the last 3 in a row have had this come up. Any ideas? Thanks. Still love the game!

** bear scratches left ear, blushes, shuffles paws self-consciously ** Thanks, Edwin... [ June 03, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Historically, Russian partisans only became relevant in 1943. The Soviet government encouraged partisan armies from the beginning, but had no resources to aid them with until after Stalingrad. Russian partisans were also a regional phenominon. Some areas were really "off-limits" to the Germans, while others never had any partisan movements. I would suggest that SC partisans could be improved by giving an increasing chance of their appearing as the game goes on and by varying the locations in which they appear from game to game (to make "garrisoning" of swamps ineffective). In Russia, it's 2 corps for the Pripet marshes plus 1 corps or Balkan army to do "weed duty" and occupy whatever swamp is colored grey. The effect is to reduce the appearance of partisans to 0%. In Yugoslavia, it's two corps in the mountains and keep the cities garrisoned (Belgrade, Bulgarian city and Albanian city). Tito never shows up. If Italy gets IT lvl 2, the corps cost 100 each--for less than 1K MPP the partisan problem is solved for the game. This isn't right. If there are partisans in the game, they should show up SOMEWHERE. And Jersey: About Warsaw. There is some thought that the Russians actually couldn't advance on Warsaw because of supply problems, and that the Poles were the vicitms of very bad timing. I agree, though, that this was coincidentally so convenient for the Russians that it's suspicious.

I agree that AI games could be improved by increasing the strategic variety as Edwin described above. I would suggest, however, that the "alternative" strategies could involve the Mediterranean in addition to Edwin's suggestions. Perhaps there can be an increasing percent chance of invasion of North Africa/Vichy or Portugal/Spain leading to an invasion of Italy while Barbarossa is in full swing. I think Britain should invade/liberate Norway and proceed through Sweden if it can. ================================ AI doesn't seem to be as sensitive to the experience level of units as human players are. This awareness could increase at higher levels. ================================= AI seems to have varying levels of aggressiveness. In some games, he attacks anything he sees; in others there is an eerie silence along the French coast until Russia's goose is cooked. This variation seems to be unrelated to the level of the game. I suggest: Beginner: most passive Intermediate: most aggressive Expert: medium (since really good players will take advantage of over-aggressivness) ================================ AI tends to be inflexible. He tries one strategy too long before adopting an alternative. Any alternative adopted is usually not well planned. With some of Edwin's "pre-set" strategies, AI could shift strategies if "Plan A" isn't working. This flexibility could increase at intermediate and expert levels. ================================ It is too easy to figure out what AI is trying to do and to stop him, either by amassing superior force, by feinting him out of position, or by attacking a flank while he is focused on kicking down the front door. Whatever fuzzy logic he's using does a poor job of evaluating the enemy's actions and evaluating his plans on an ongoing basis. He only responds to force; inflict some casualties and he retreats--usually too far. If he attacks and forces a retreat, he advances--sometimes unwisely. If the human leaves a one or two hex 'no man's land' and sits in place, he attacks--often into a waiting ambush. As these problems are mastered, perhaps there can be a way for AI to stay 'dumb' at the beginner level and to smarten up at intermediate and advanced levels. [ June 03, 2003, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

JJ: VERY COOL PHOTO!!!!! The "Spain issue" has been well ventilated, I think. I agree that SC2 should have more serious penalties for moves that completely defy diplomatic logic. SC seems to feature the kind of diplomacy practiced by Attilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan: "The best friends are dead enemies." The man was living proof about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. "Selective learning" can be catastrophic. About the link: I'm glad to learn that Franco was a great humanitarian and benefactor of the Jews and of mankind in general. I suspect, however, that if he saw an advantage to allying with Germany he would have done so. Admiral Canaris, along with a handful of other Germans, are the guys we really should be thankful for in this story, I think. And to point out the obvious: The Italian fleet is often rampaging around Boston harbor well before Pearl Harbor. So maybe the Arizona and Oklahoma could show up? [ June 02, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Some AI thoughts: 1. Play against AI with FOW on, but turn it OFF every few months (game time) and play a few turns with it off. This seems to help AI the most (if he's Axis). If AI is Allies, leave it on. The best thing AI does as Allies is launch surprise Overlords. 2. Interesting settings (to me): Beginner level, +2 experience bonus (but don't invest more that 2 chits in jets). Intermediate +1 (the best overall game, I think), or +2. Expert +1 if you have a LOT of time--these games move very slowly. Expert +2 and play as Allies; if you want to see if you can really play the game. This is VERY difficult to win. 3. Play later scenarios as Axis. These are difficult. "Overlord" is almost impossible to win as Axis. 4. Don't stock up on air units. AI doesn't. 5. AI is a disciple of maneuver warfare. He will try to create a "line" between Kiev and Odessa, otherwise he'll use relatively few units and zip them around you. His attacks are brilliant, and he reinforces for counterattacks well. Don't build a million corps and smother him. Try to play Rommel vs. Patton. The game usually stays fairly wide open. 6. If you combine #5 and 6, the game can have a more realistic WWII feel. 7. In short, I have the most fun playing "Axis vs. Allies" with AI--trying strategies to see which side will win. If you play "to win" vs. AI you should be able to win 90% of the time if you start (as either side) in 1939. There are many ways to "sucker punch" him. 8. It seems like the HvsH games discussed in here have things like Britain invading Ireland, Allies making war on Portugal and other actions that would have had disasterous diplomatic consequences (and these players complain about "ahistorical" jets??). One advantage of AI games is that AI follows the "script" of historical WWII fairly closely. If you do, too (by adopting some restraint in techs and purchasing units), you can have some good games in the sense of "refighting" WWII. At least I've had great fun with it. HvsAI games will never be as creative or filled with intrigue as HvsH games. I think you have to accept that. And I think the HvsH players have to accept that games in which France invades Belgium or where Britain invades Ireland or Portugal aren't going to feel very historical. 9. Edwin P's recommendations/suggestions would be EXCELLENT improvements to AI. He's too aggressive with the British fleet as Allies, and futtzes around aimlessly between the fall of France and Russia as Axis. With some better overall strategic vision, he could be a tough opponent. [ June 02, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Another excellent thread with good ideas about the air problem. A few thoughts from the sidelines: I would note, along with Dan Fenton, that although the game has flaws when played against AI, it's easier to keep it balanced (if the human adopts some self-imposed restrictions). AI doesn't stock up on air fleets that way humans do. This is absolutely true. It's true because soldiers can HIDE from aircraft (in entrenchments, woods, move only at night, etc.) and civilians are stuck in the line of fire anytime the aircraft fly over. IF there were a better way for soldiers in SC to hide from aircraft, air wouldn't be able to kill ground units as easily as it can now. I, therefore, like the ideas in this thread that explore this notion. Finally, the only really effective air defence is an air force (interceptors). This was true in WWII, and I think it's still true today (though maybe less so with missiles--I'm not up on military hardware). In any case, what queers things in SC is the ferocious attrition at high levels of jets. Lvl 1 or 2 jets are wiped out by lvl 4 jets regardless of who attacks or defends. I think this is the crux of the "great air race" problem. Bill Macon's (and others') ideas of reducing attack values (especially at high levels) might give a player with lower level jets a chance to defend without losing an entire air force in one or two turns. Comprehensive solutions to this issue are going to be much better than the quick fix of letting air reduce but not destroy ground units. If the 'quick fix' is implemented, there will still be ways to "game" around this fix and the air problem will still exist, I think. Here is one strategy off the top of my head (I think it makes sense): Use air units to reduce all HQs to 1 or 2, then attack with ground units against some location in the line. If the defender leaves the HQs unreinforced, he risks losing them to a surprise ground attack/breakthrough. If he reinforces them he'll use up most of his MPPs for the turn, and risks losing fighting units. If he moves HQs back his ground units become more vulnerable. Since HQs can't shoot back, they are always vulnerable unless they have friendly air (that have a fighting chance) around. I think this strategy would tip the MPP war in the direction of the player with superior air fairly quickly. And a random idea: What if the anti-aircraft radar tech increased the air defence values of HQs along with cities? [ June 02, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

One observation: Rockets are handy in defeating Sevastopol if the Germans care to purchase any. And they make the coolest sounds in the game...

** Hello to everyone again. It's good to be back in the US...** I agree with Edwin that it should not be possible to shut down an enormous war economy by surrounding a capital city. I also agree with Bill Macon. There are several issues with surrenders and capital cities that should be resolved comprehensively. Along with the points already mentioned I suggest: Rethinking the "formula" of surrender of capital city combined with %age of forces destroyed. It shouldn't be possible for the Poles to operate an air unit to France and hide corps in swamps to avoid surrender. And the "French solution" of having an automatic surrender when the capital falls isn't necessarily a good one. I would suggest some kind of cumulative percentage chance of surrender on any given turn based on adding: a. a small increase for each unit destroyed (possibly graded by size/cost of unit). In other words, losing a corps wouldn't make anyone think of surrender. Losing battleships or entire armies would--to some extent anyway.) b. a medium increase based on each city/resource lost c. a large increase for loss of a capital city. In Russia's case, the loss of any of the three supply centers/capitals should contribute significantly. There would, then, be rare cases of a country surrendering with relatively minimal losses as well as some cases in which it were defended to the last ditch. I think it is too easy to bypass significant enemy forces, capture a capital and force surrender. To counter the "evacuate the French army to Britain" strategy, I would suggest tying the %age of "free French" forces to the length of time France holds off the Germans. Greater resistance in battle would create the kind of "warrior mentality" that would inspire more units to continue fighting. And a quick evacuation would simply mean that the forces vanish off the map in Britain. [ May 27, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Another thought-provoking thread from the dynamic duo... 1. Introducing uncertainty into the now-routine invasions of Norway and Sweden would benefit the game greatly and your ideas sound good. 2. Turkey definitely needs an HQ unit--they are suckers for an amphib. invasion a la Greece. Another unit near Ankara would help, too. 3. Greece is a trickier problem since there are two issues: Out of supply troops in the mountains and no defence of the capital. Trying to solve these problems with an HQ plus a unit near the captial probably makes the Greek army stronger than it should be historically. My suggestion would be: 1 army in capital, 2 corps + HQ around capital, 1 corps in mountains (1 hex nearer Athens with HQ between it and the capital). This would put the strongest unit in Athens, and block three amphib. invasion hexes. It would also give the Allied player the option to move the mountain corps back to defend Athens or to move it and the HQ up to attack Albania. In any case, the Brits would have to join in at some point if the Greeks envision recreating the glories of ancient Sparta.

Another AI quirk: Move the army on the Belgian border to immediately behind the Maginot line, disband the French air fleet and scrap enough ships to build an HQ. Operate British Malta air to France and fly in air from Britain. AI only attacks Maginot line (to prevent the attack it believes is coming) as in Edwin's original post. I discovered this experimenting with Night's radical strategy. Several German armies, panzers, etc. die in front of the Maginot line before it attackes the low countries. This has worked in over 10 consecutive games. I'll post a follow up as soon as AI figures out it's being conned. My record so far is a German surrender in March, 1940 using a combination of this strategy and Night's radical strategy. Warning: If you go to the offensive too soon the Germans will cut the French into "Freedom fries."

Hmmm. *Bear scratches head, removes flea* This sounds like a great concept--making the resources more meaningful, but I don't understand some of this (as will be apparant from my questions). Could you explain? ====================== Why do transport values for Sweden and Vichy France go down after occupation (but values for France, USSR, etc. are apparently unchaged)? Germany invades and conquers Sweden. Ok, Sweden is no longer a "trading partner" but Germany can just take iron ore. Whatever shipping issues existed to conduct two-way commerce are simplified bringing loot back to Germany. What am I missing? Why can't the Germans ship oil through captured Vichy ports? France falls to Germany: Germany takes French resources (apparently at full value). Why is this different than in the case of Sweden? I understand that within the game, the object is to reduce "frivolous" declarations of war. But what is the historical basis here? ========================== Why can Germany convert minerals to oil? Synthetic fuels? ========================== What does "investing 10 MPP to gain a 1 MPP base increase" mean? A one-time investment of 10 MPP to gain 1 point/turn for the rest of the game? This would work like compound interest--invest 10 MPP on every turn (and you would have to start early): First 10 turns--100 MPP invested, +55 return, net -45. Next 10 turns--100 MPP invested, +145 return, net 0 (over 20 turns, 200 invested 200 gained); but this would give a boost at the most critical juncture of the game Next 10 turns--100 MPP invested, +255 return, net +155 (over 30 turns, 300 invested, 455 return) Germany is the country who would have 'spare' MPP to invest early in the game. By the time Britain could invest, it would be too late to get a reasonable pay off. ======================= Hopefully the MPP+ system eliminates "plunder," which makes no historical sense. (Or SC2 could include a "rapine" category for the Ghengis Khan types--"Germany plunders 367 MPP, 458 women and 382 children from Poland" ) ======================= It seems to me the net effect of this change would be to accurately reflect history: the Axis has no chance to win unless they can wrest control of the seas from Britain and the US. It will make naval power much more relevant to the game. This is good, historically speaking, but I don't think the SC naval system is up to the task just yet. SC, like Hitler, is a "lion on land, and a mouse at sea." I also think this system also would require a better way to model the submarine war than the King George V doing sub hunting duty. And there is also the problem of the Middle East map. If the Med becomes a crucial theater of war, the map is going to have to allow some real military operations in the desert. I don't think Rommel ever advocated the "conga line" method of attack that has to be used down there. Could an unsupported/unsupplied Italian corps be transported in (remember the 'wandering amphibious operation' issues) to shut British production down to zero? It would be worth building an Italian corps every turn or two and floating them randomly around the Med if that were the case. =============== Most of these points are likely the result of my incomplete understanding of your system, I'm sure. In any case, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket--it just takes us bears longer to figure things out sometimes. [ May 16, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

This strategy would work even against a human if Denmark is neutral. If there is a German corps in Denmark, it could be rough for the Royal Navy, since the Kriegsmarine would know they are coming. Edwin: Have you ever experimented with an amphibious landing (from Helsinki) behind German lines to retake Riga? Assuming the German Baltic fleet isn't a factor, that could screw up the German advance nicely. And there are some swamp hexes around there, so you might catch a lucky break with partisans appearing to help the landing. If the Germans have taken Sweden, it might be possible to liberate that country instead (provided things are going well in Russia). Do you have any thoughts/experience with these ideas?

Ham: Thanks for the interesting links. Field-Marshal Mannerheim: You did a great job in 39, the Russians had too many men to hold them off forever, though... A few observations: 1. The Russians actually tried to play somewhat fair with the Finns--they made several offers to buy/lease/trade for land immediately north of Leningrad (breathing space in the north for Leningrad was one of the major concerns vis a vis Finland). 2. The Finns fought against Russia for territory (in the second phase of their war), but were also somewhat humane, I believe, particularly during the starvation siege of Leningrad. This conflict was one of the most civilized episodes of WWII (tough fighting among soldiers, no killing of civilians), which likely explains why Russia was relatively generous to Finland in 1944. 3. Russia declared war and attacked Finland in 1939. There was an armistice in 1940. In 1941, Finland attacked Russia. (I think I got it right this time, JJ )

Bill Macon: Agreed, especially if the higher per-unit cost is implemented. If not, I think the decision to cash out research chits would be triggered by specific events. EdwinP: I assume that AI now uses some kind of "zone" system with the Siberian army trigger. In other words as the Germans approach Moscow there is an increasing probability of the Siberians arriving (up to some very close distance at which the probability = 100%). Certainly the system can't be as simple as having one line of hexes always trigger the Siberians--we likely would have noticed that by now. So: I would quantify "continuing the advance on Moscow" as entering the next "zone" of hexes--or coming immediately adjacent to Moscow. In Russia, AI would probably want to err on the side of cashing in too late to save Moscow, since there are the other two "safety valve" cities, and another turn or two could provide useful tech advances. ============================ There should also be a protocol for the order in which chits are cashed in. Expensive units like jets wouldn't be as useful in defending a capital as, say, IT. Here is a suggestion: First to be cashed in: Anything naval or air-oriented Sonar Gun-laying Radar Strategic Bombers Long Range Air Jet Aircraft Next would be primairily offensive weapons Rocket Technology Heavy Tanks Last would be the ones most useful for defence Anti-tank weapons Industrial Technology (I think I'm missing one here, but I can't remember which one...I hope you get the idea)

JJ: OOPS on the Finnish war; my only excuse it that it was early in the AM. I did read a history of the Second World War once upon a time...that's the war with the Germans, right? :confused: About Stalin: He bought time by sending war material to Germany, whose industry was geared up to immediately put it to work making weapons. As with Chamberlain's Munich deal, there is a real question as to whether the time bought was really a benefit. Not only is it easy to say that it was a net loss after the event; Stalin knew when he was sending war materials to Germany (that the USSR could have used) that he would have to fight her eventually. He had to be concerned about an attack by Germany even WITH the non-aggression pact. This non-aggression pact was made with a government who had broken every previous pledge. Stalin's ONLY insurance against a German invasion was the French army. The non-aggression pact was a great deal for Germany, meaningless for Russia. Hitler would have invaded Russia the day after the pact was signed if he thought it was in his best interest to do so. He had to wait until the French army was gone until he could go after Russia. ====================== Hitler was extremely eager to sign the non-aggression pact. Why? Because he was unsure of what Russia would do and he wanted an assurance that if he became involved in a war with Britain and France that he wouldn't wind up in a two-front war. The pact gave Hitler that assurance. It gave nothing to Russia. ======================== Stalin failed to recognize reality (he was good at this), and began shipping war materials to Germany. His safety depended on the French putting up a good fight, but (while the Nazi-Soviet pact was in operation) he called Britain and France the 'true warmongers' since they wouldn't make peace with Germany. This led to the French communists (who should have been the most anti-Nazi Frenchmen of all) tending to become anti- ("capitalistic") war, further weakening France's resolve. He repeatedly called on France and Britain to make peace with Germany (what did he think the Germany army would do THEN?) His policy was thoroughly confused, with disasterous consequences. His policy regarding Finland was also a fiasco--actually Wirth's book (Russia at War) has a good account of the diplomatic mess he created; a chapter that should be read by anyone who thinks the book is kind to Stalin. The run-up to June, 1941 is usually cited as Stalin's worst moment. It was the mistakes he made in 39-40 that led to the horrendous Russian suffering, though. By 1941 the situation had become irretrievable. France was out of the war, Germany was stronger (think of how many "experience ribbons" the army had gained), and Russia was still not ready. That year or two that he "bought" with the Nazi-Soviet pact was a disasterous year for the USSR. No wonder he went into a funk when the Germans invaded. It's a miracle he didn't kill off his own country. A wiser policy would have been strict neutrality. If the Germans had attacked Russia in 1940, at least he would have had a "second front." And Germany would have had significantly fewer "MPPs" without Russian raw materials for those years. Imagine if Stalin had responded to Hitler's pleas to meet Ribbentrop "on Aug. 22, or at the latest on Aug. 23" with the same kind of exasperating delaying tactics that the British had just used on him. Hitler would have had a difficult choice to make. Any potential concern with Britain remaining neutral in the face of a German-Russian war should have been tempered by Maisky's reports from London, where, clearly, the rank and file of the House of Commons weren't about to let Chamberlain welch on his guarantee to the Poles. ============================= Check out this piece of advice from his Charge d'Affaires in Berlin (a quote from the Soviet history quoted in Werth): On August 8, Astakhov exprssed the view that the Germans would not observe seriously, or for any length of time, any obligations they might enter into under such an arrangement. "But I believe that, on a short-term basis, they would like to come to some kind of agreement with us along the lines suggested, and so to neutralize us ...What would happen next would be determined not by any obligations enterd into by the Germans, but by the new international situation that would be created." ============================ And, for balance, the "official" line as articulated by Molotov: "Some of the French and British socialist leaders...are determined that the Soviet Union should fight against Germany on the side of Britain and France. One may well wonder whether these warmongers haven't gone off their heads...[Laughter] If these gentlemen have such an irresistable desire to go to war, well then let them go to war by themselves, without the Soviet Union. [Laughter and cheers]. We'll see what kind of warriors they will make." [Loud laughter and cheers]. This was very expensive amusement. ============================ Chamberlain: I think it is too easy to look at Chamberlain as a "man of peace," and to overlook some of the more sinister undercurrents of Tory politics--particularly the anti-communist side to their policies throughout the 1930's [Hitler really knew how to play the anti-communist card in both his domestic and international politics]. Whatever his motives, he was diplomatically inept, and worse, would not take advice from the many people who could have helped him. Churchill was NOT the man to prevent WWII--that would have been like having a pyromaniac as fire chief. He would likely have started it sooner--which might have helped in some ways, but would have hurt in others. Once it started, he turned out to be the right man for the right job (he was, actually, perfect for Britain in 1940). And the British empire wouldn't have lasted much longer, WWII or not, I think. Finally: Although I get angry every time I think of both Stalin and Chamberlain, it's good to realize that none of this would have mattered without the chief villan, Hitler. That is so obvious I sometimes take it for granted. Recently, though, I spent some time in Poland visiting Auschwitz, Majdanek and other similar sites. Somehow, since then, I've been playing SC only as Allies... [ May 16, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Here are some simple thoughts for further refinement: AI should reclaim chits if a "supply center" falls (Moscow, Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk, London, Manchester). In addition: Russia: AI should reclaim chits 3-4 turns after Siberian army transfer, if German advance continues toward Moscow. Britain: No additional condiions. US: Reclaim chits if more than 3 Axis units land in US.

Edwin P continues to be a source of excellent ideas. A few of my own (albeit less excellent...): 1. I agree about having air defence benefits localized in cities. My understanding of WWII is that air defence depended on having (at least local) air superiority. There wasn't any really effective AAA (just ask the Germans in the cities wiped out by the American air force)--certainly not for ground troops. If they were caught in the open by enemy planes they were in SERIOUS trouble--a few .50 cal machine guns or whatever didn't do much. And naval anti-aircraft defence depended on having aircraft carriers, not AA guns on the battleships. 2. If there is a partisan tech, I think the current engine for partisan appearances needs some refining. They pop up in predictable and often illogical places (mountains between Turkey and Russia--goat farmers get mad at the Germans?; swamps near Finland east of Leningrad--that part of Russia is about devoid of people--and they interfere with supply in the URAL MOUNTAINS for God's sake...); and simply plunking corps in swamps and mountains elimintates any chance that they will appear. This would nullify any advantages of the technology. Historically, there weren't any partisans worth mentioning until 1943 or so, and then only in certain areas. Whether through Edwin's tech suggestion or through other refinements, it would be good to see this acknowledged in the game. The tech idea would probably do well with this. At first, Russia was too concerned about survival to put many resources into the partisans, later they did with significant effect. It is strange to have Soviet partisans but not the French resistance, too. Again, the tech could help to rectify this. It should NOT be possible to reinforce a partisan unit as though it is regular infantry. I have been able to reinforce Russian partisans to strength 13 when the Russians have "anti-tank" technology. If there is a tech, partisans should become a separate kind of unit. Otherwise they would become a cheap way to build high-tech corps--making the 'unlimited manpower' problem that much worse. 3. My vote is to modify the "sonar" tech into a more general 'ASW tech' that would not only assist with detection, but would counter the 50% dive probablity at high levels. Since one has to hunt submarines with capital ships in this game, allowing subs to survive and inflict significant damage on a battleship group is too much. There should either be a counter to the dive % or a "cheap and nasty" (Churchill's phrase) naval sub hunting unit that could be built for this task. Hunting subs with battleships is problematic in many ways for the game.

Ditto on the kudos to JJ for the thread. My thoughts: 1. It's not the job of the game designer to protect undefended countries (nor to protect areas with no air defence). If Canada is defended it won't be conquered, and in fact it becomes a sinkhole for Axis resources that are drained away from the areas of decision. 2. The economics and communication of both the US and Canada need serious help in future versions of the game. Both are way undervalued economically and the land border between the countries isn't on the map. Why in God's name would the US ever sail men or equipment to Canada? (Transport from South Dakota to New York, load them on ships, sail to Halifax, unload, trasport to Ottawa...yeah, right) 3. SC can be played "realistically," I think. In other words, if the player(s) follow the historical "script" of WWII, the game works out fairly well. And it's fun to do that. But after 100's of games, it's also fun to be able to try some really bizarre ideas. When I do, I often get my ass kicked by AI. But then, my record is an allied victory by February, 1941 vs. AI (using several 'non-historical' ideas). That's fun too, and what makes this an outstanding GAME is its flexibility to allow both. I personally would like to see it tweaked for greater realism without losing its ability to induge our whims from time to time. 4. I think a trans-Atlantic invasion in either direction would have been impossible. Well, impossible for the Axis and nearly impossible for the allies. Britain was the key. Thanks again JJ.

Leopard and All: Thanks for the discussion of one of the most interesting features of the war. I've put this somewhere else in this forum, but I'll repeat it since it's on topic for this thread (sorry for the length). I don't think Wirth gives full credit to the two 'statesmen' who turned Hitler loose on France: The major villian in starting WWII (next to Hitler) was Neville Chamberlain, who had little or no understanding of foreign policy or diplomacy and who was a tempermental, petty person besides. For almost 10 years the policy of Britian had been to try to get Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to wage war on each other. France was nervous about this policy since it involve encouraging German militarism, but they played along since it offered such rich possible rewards. The Rhineland, Austria and Munich were all part and parcel of this policy. With each step, France became more vulnerable but Britain believed she remained secure. When Chamberlain came back from Munich, he treaured the document from Hitler that said that Britain and Germany would consult on issues of concern to their countries--"Peace in Our Time" meant peace between Britain and Germany (and Russia could go to hell). And then came Hitler's invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia--which any reasonable person would have concluded would be OK with Chamberlain. The problem was that it made Chamberlain look like an idiot to the British people and, worse, threatened his ability to remain in office. He executed a horrible flip-flop and guaranteed both Poland (bad move) and Romainia (worse move). He actually wanted Poland to cooperate in giving a guarantee to Romania, but got hoodwinked by Colonel Beck (another jerk), into giving a guarantee to Poland without conditions. The only way that Germany could get to Russia was through Poland or Romania, so this was a sure-fire recipe for war. If he wanted to stop the Germans, he needed to ally with Russia FIRST, then invite the small fish to join the "Grand Alliance." He went at it ass-backwards. Stalin was smart enough to realize what was going on, and he made some effort to come to an agreement with Britain and France. His pesant cunning, though, got him to think about turning the tables on the British--and in doing so he lost sight of what was in the best interest of the USSR. His major mistake was in sigining an alliance with Hitler. If Russia had remained neutral, Germany would have had to be much more cautious about invading Poland, and certainly more cautious about sending its entire army to France in May 1940. By removing Hitler's concern about a two front war, Stalin ensured the destruction of the 'second front' the Russians were to yearn for in 41, 42 and 43. The non-aggression pact was a bad idea, even given the attitude of Britain, Poland and France. The 'secret protocol' and subsequent grab of eastern Poland and the Baltic countries turned out to be a trap for the Soviet army--they wound up being shot at from both sides when the Germans attacked. In short the problem with USSR/Allied relations before the war is that there were NO USSR/Allied relations. Each side had a relationship with Germany based on trying to use her to take advantage of the other. Hitler, of course, was a master at taking advantage of people who thought they could use HIM. That's how he came to power in Germany, and it's how he almost conquered Europe. In any case, Churchill's estimate of the Russians as the 'most completely outwitted dupes of the Second World War' is overly kind to Stalin. He acted very foolishly, both at this juncture and just before June, 1941. Chamberlain was a menace as a leader of a world power in such a critical time. May they both rot in hell. PS I don't think calling this treaty the Nazi-Soviet pact is perjoritive. The Germans called themselves Nazis, and the Russians called themselves Soviets. And using the names of the signatories is misleading. It was a "Hitler-Stalin" pact, not a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Those two were just tools of the real leaders. PPS On top of all of this, after France had been defeated, Stalin went out of his way to wage an inept war on Finland that further alienated the British and, more importantly, demonstrated the problems of the Red army to the Germans--just in case they need any further encouragement to attack the USSR. [ May 14, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

JJ: Thanks for the info on McCarthy-ism. It was before my time... ...but very interesting reading. Leopard: Please do post your thoughts on the Nazi-Soviet pact. Some of us (me at least) are more interested in the run-up to the war than in the event itself. Rambo: Good analysis of the WWII leaders, except I think you over-rate Comrade Stalin. The USSR won the war with him as leader, it's true, but they could have won more easily and with fewer casualties with almost any of their other leaders in charge, I think (Khrushchev for example). And our man in Red was second only to Neville Chamberlain in responsiblity for turning the German beast loose on the world. I don't dislike Russians, I don't even dislike Communists, but Stalin was bad news for the world.

Agreed to the extent that they attacked the enemy at what the THOUGHT was a weak point. Operations were planned in great detail and every possibility was calculated (see the Hitler quote in my signature)

Also got this to work at expert +1 w/o disbanding Beirut corps. Thanks for making the game more fun!! ...it was the best gun, period. It killed almost anything the Germans could point it at...tanks, people, aircraft, whatever...