santabear

JJ & Edwin: Your US ideas sound good to me. Clearly the US gov't. would see the "good" reasons to go to war, but as JJ mentioned the population lagged some (long) way behind. It would probably come down to the ability of Roosevelt to "lead" public opinion--and the kind of random events you suggest would likely be the keys. (My original post used the words "might enter the war"--I agree it would not be a certain event. The US didn't even declare on Germany when Barbarossa started--as usually happens in SC. And there is still debate whether US would have declared on Germany after Pearl Harbor. Hitler saved the Allies a lot of headaches by taking the initiative!)

Agree 100% on Finland. In SC they seem to be too much influenced by what happens to Sweden, and not enough concerned with USSR. US: The US might enter the war even if it weren't "needed" (i.e. French surviving, Russians whomping Germany), in order to safeguard US interests in Europe. It would not be in the best interests of the US to let the Russians win the war in Europe and thereby dominate the continent. Therefore, the US might delclare on Germany just to get their foot in the door at the peace settlement. So that particular quirk might be somewhat 'realistic.'

You can also build "packets" of units to invade USSR. I like to have 1 HQ, 1 tank, 1 army , 2 corps in each 'packet.' You can build these around random German cities and operate them to the Russian border when you need more Lebensraum. Four of these groups plus an odd corps/army or two will work. If you can get five of those you can do a number on the Russian border units. Remember that an HQ can serve 5 units. These packets allow for an extra corps to wander through, or for adequate support of some air. Start your invasion of Russia with more units in the south; it's much easier to reinforce in the north. And get some corps/tanks to 'shoot the gap' between Odessa and the town north of it. The Russians can hang you up forever in there. Once you're behind Odessa, it gets easier. You just have to worry about that damn cruiser...

In SC, it seems like the useful choices would be to play Hitler, Churchill or Stalin (though Mussolini might be fun if you went wild in the Med). As it is now, the Axis player IS basically in the role of Hitler; the Allied player has more of a dual role. I think it might be fun to play just Russia or just Britain/US. This might be another way to add diplomatic variety to the game without having to make major changes in the fundamental design.

One bear's opinion: You raise some good points, especially that a neutral would do SOMETHING to prepare defences if it saw an attack coming. But a turn in SC is two weeks to one month. When the Germans had the Blitzkrieg market cornered (39-40), they knocked small countries out in just about that time. So the result in the game isn't too far from historically accurate. It's possible for the Germans to do Low Countries, Denmark and Norway in one turn (each!), but they have to get their air organized. Greece also falls like the rain in Spain to an amphibious assault.

I appreciate the kind words--from the members of this forum they're meaningful. Liam's post reminded me of one other thing (that dovetails with the thread about AI): Playing against AI, especially when he gets an experience bonus, is a great way to develop your "technique." The AI is not brilliant tactically, but it's relentless at exploiting any human mistakes. Play some AI games, and you'll learn what NOT to do quickly. (As in: "I'll just zip this tank unit back three hexes to get that air unit." Bye, bye, tank!) [ April 13, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Some elementary stuff about breakthroughs. Some of the 'real pros' can no doubt expand on this! Or perhaps someone with a good memory can post links to earlier discussions...Jersey John? Best opportunities for a successful breakthrough (the first three items are in my priority order): 1. Find a low-experience unit; preferably one that sits in a 'bulge' in the line where you can get 2 or 3 whacks at it. The experience and strength of the unit are more important than the size. An experienced corps can be tougher than a rookie army. And avoid entrenched units if possible. The best 'candidates' are new units that have just moved into the line, or units that have been seriously wounded and have been heavily reinforced in the previous turn. 2 . Look for clear terrain: No swamps, rivers, etc. to slow down your breakthrough. 3. Look for hexes that are furthest from towns, so your opponent can't "operate in" or "purchase" instant reinforcements. (in SC, everyone is like the Russian Army, units go into battle right off the trains...this is a little weird) 4. Air, air, air: Try to kill the unit with your air, so adjacent ground units can follow through. 5. When you get a hole, zip tanks (or corps) through to attack neighboring hexes from the rear. From the initial penetration hex, you can widen the gap to each side (hopefully). 5a. If you don't have a lot of spare units, be sure to have at least one "free" unit to stick in the hole as a "place holder" You can then move through on the next turn. Try to keep the momentum of the breakthrough so he can't reinforce. 6. Try to get as many of "your color" hexes behind the enemy line as you can--it runs them out of supply and they become easy targets. On long fronts (like in Russia), tanks are good for this. Try to get two penetrations about 4-6 hexes apart, then "connect the dots" with a tank running south from the northern hole, and one running north from the southern hole. Then the infantry can work to surround them. Even if you lose one tank unit, you can surround and destroy several of the enemy units; or force a large scale withdrawal. If you can pull this off with corps, so much the better--they're cheaper. 7. Avoid the temptation to go too 'deep' into the enemy's backfield too soon. Work north/south along the line, killing his 'up front' units. A one or two hex gap can be reinforced, a big hole will force a withdrawal. 7a. Avoid the temptation to try to go too far too fast. Keep your units together in case of a counter attack. Don't let them get too weak, or out of supply (keep a HQ nearby). 8. Remember you're really trying to force a withdrawal...not necessarily to kill everything in sight. Capture ground, resources, MPPs... 9. If the enemy doesn't withdraw, try to turn large fronts into small, isolated groups. Make him pay for being heroic! [ April 12, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Ancient One: Thanks for the definition--I've seen that word in here many times; now I know what it means (I also agree, it's not "realistic"). Sometimes I feel like a real cub compared to the veteran wargamers...

I have played this game for several months now, and because of my peculiar computer set up, can only play it at home against AI. Here are my observations: 1. The AI is easy to "sucker punch" and rarely does anything unexpected. If it does "get creative," it's usually easily beaten. (He's only a computer after all) 2. Playing as Axis against Allied AI a human should win nearly every time. As Allies you should win "most" of the time. 3. Adjusting the settings to "expert" and "experience bonus +2" makes the AI significantly more competative, but the games move much more slowly. The AI will capitalize on any "technical" mistakes you make and destroy units--and they're a lot harder to replace cuz you don't have many MPPs. 4. The AI is an excellent way to get the hang of the game. Play a game or two with "fog of war" OFF, and watch how AI executes attacks, and where he (?) places HQ units. It's a good illustration of basic SC techniques (at least it's worked for me). 5. The game is VERY worthwhile played against AI if you enjoy the idea of trying out different strategic approaches ("what if the Germans attack Russia right after Poland," etc.). I've had hours of enjoyment from it, and it hasn't yet got stale. 6. There are scenario updates (or you can tweak your own) that are designed for human vs. AI play. You can give the little fella a handicap, as it were, with the scenario editor.

It's been pointed out many times that unit experience in this game is very important. Anyone who forgets to apply that priniciple to naval and air units will pay a heavy price later in the game. For anyone new: If the British operate the air unit out of Malta (and put a corps there), the Italian navy can become a killer force as well. Letting that damn Russian cruiser run around in the Black Sea too long is a mistake as well. Lure him up by Rostov (Sea of Azov?), and slip a unit or two down to close the straits at Kerch. Then your air can get him. A unit by Rostov that can attack the port helps, too. See also Terif's hints (in this forum). MANY useful hints there, including advice about carriers. I also think that these aren't really 'gamey' tactics (if that's supposed to be a negative term). The object of war is to win--not to 'play fair.'

Bill Macon: Bless you for your efforts to pull everything together. I came to this game relatively recently. Although it's fun and exciting to think of the game as a "work in progress," it's difficult for new people to jump into the middle of all of this and to keep things straight. I've tried to read everything, as well as to dig through old posts--it's a lot to dig through to find a one or two key pieces of information. The guide you're working on will not only make the game more enjoyable, it will help a lot of us follow some of the technical discussions in here more intelligently! It's possible to learn the game from just playing it, but inevitably things happen that defy logic. And the manual fits Napoleon's definition of the ideal constitution: Brief and obscure. Thanks for your efforts. PS Thanks also for the "revised" Fall Weiss scenario; it like it much more than the original.

I am confused about the discussion of "realism" in games, especially as it applies to SC. A totally realistic WWII game would end with the Axis losing every time. That is what "really" happened, yes? Any game that gives the Axis a chance to win has to break with an overly pre-determined set of events. I can't imagine that a "deterministic" game could be any fun to play. To me, the issue seems to be consistency, not realism: 1. Consistency within the game itself (are results later in the game consistent with actions taken earlier?); and 2. consistency with one's "personal" sense of reality (how each player views WWII in this case). I think people will find this game more or less realistic depending on their personal views of the factors influencing the outcome of WWII. My personal view is that the German army outclassed the Allied armies throughout the war, but the Allied air and artillery superiority (88's not withstanding!) gave them an unbeatable edge--essentially Germany lost the war in 1940 when she couldn't cross the channel to knock out Britain. So the issues discussed in this thread seem to make the game "realistic" to me. Air rules. Folks who see the war as having been "up for grabs" until the Russian army gained the upper hand (post Stalingrad) will find the game proportionally less realistic, I think. [The "why did Germany lose the war" argument is in many other threads...I'm not trying to start that discussion again. There are lots of good arguments on both sides of this issue, and a whole lot more 'sides'...I acknowledge that! I'm just an air and naval power freak... I'm just trying to make a statement about realism in SC. ] Why, then, is this game NOT realistic/consistent? Why is it a poor engine for historical simulation? It seems to me that there shouldn't be a need to argue why the game isn't bad. The "burden of proof" would seem to rest with those who find the game deficient in some way. (If THOSE arguments are in another thread, forgive me...and post a link...I'd like to read them!) Doesn't it come down to the notion that sometimes the "world" of SC doesn't conform to what individuals believe would have/might have happened in WWII (if some things had been different)? Does that make the game "unrealistic?" Or does it provide another way to think about history and examine our preconceptions? Isn't THAT what simulations do? [santabear is spraying his fur with flame-proofing...fears he will get singed soon...]

Aha. Never thought of the campaign editor threads. Thanks, JJ.

There has been some discussion of this already--if you're new like me click 'search' at the top of the page and type in "diplomacy" or "diplomatic options" -- you'll have a whole evening's worth of reading... ...but one thing that I haven't seen any discussion about is the option to break up the Axis/Allies as they actually were. Britain can't declare war on the US, for example (you get a "The US is on your side" message even if the US is still neutral). And France and Britain start out allied and at war with Germany. It would be fun to be able to create some new alliances, and it seems that all it would take would be to 1)be able to set the start date to 1938--anyway before the German attack on Poland; and 2) declare war on any country. Probably some extra code would have to be added about neutrals, etc--but perhaps many of the pre-sets (Romania, Hungary, etc.) could simply be "turned off" (they would NEVER fight unless attacked) if there were a declaration of war that violated the Axis/Allies groupings. If the diplomatic scene got very crazy they would try to stay on the sidelines in any case. The USSR would likely stay neutral, too. The US is the only country whose actions would be tough to predict--and therefore difficult to program. I would like to be able to try at least two scenarios: 1. Britain joins Germany to "fight communism." There was a lot of British support for this idea throughout the 1930's (and earlier). (USSR fights, US doesn't) 2. The "nightmare scenario" of British diplomacy: France allies with Germany against Britain. (USSR is neutral, US supports Britain) If this HAS been discussed before, could someone just post a link to the discussion? Thanks. SB [ April 09, 2003, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Playing against AI, I have delayed the Russian entry until November-December, 1941. I have had the "top level" OOB on Russian entry, but as many as 1600 MPPs. So the possible top number for those may be higher than what Iron Ranger noted. Another AI "bug" is that the Germans can line up a major force on the Russian border, let the Russians take the first shot and launch a devistating "counter attack." No Russian border unit escapes alive, usually. Most real life armies would be less eager to charge into encirclements...

I do like the concept of this thread. I don't like: 3.2 & 3.3: I agree that the deployment is dumb, but then Russia's preparations for war were about as dumb as they could have been. The current deployment also is a great test of skill for the Axis player. The Axis can score a knockout, but it takes some skill to do so. 8. & 9. The problems should be addressed in other ways (discussed in other threads). 10. In a WWII game, the air should rule. If your ground units are getting killed by the other guy's air, you gotta buy some airplanes. I think the "jet thing" needs to be tamed a bit, but not the role of air power in general. Selective interception would be nice, though.

Or you can retreat the Finns back to Helsinki. Once they get closer to their capitol they can hang on fairly well.

Immer, Shaka and Jersey, I KNEW I liked you guys! (I'm assuming you're all guys--I apologize in advance if one of you is a female. And JerseyJohn, if you're a girl you might want to rethink that nickname ) Interesting responses to my posts, and I think I agree will all of them--I have to digest Immer's a bit more. A few more things (SB's philosophies of power politics and warfare). What do you think? 1. There are reasons that great powers become great powers, the most important being that they realize that power is a "zero sum game." In order for someone to gain power, someone else must lose it. They will never give it up voluntarily. And "sharing" in diplomacy means giving up power. So does becomming "allied"--it's always an interesting calculation for a nation whether they're better off with "x" as an ally or not. Often times, allies cost more than they're worth. (Isn't that right, Signor Mussolini?) 2. Even atomic bombs in suitcases will have a hard time changing the time-tested way of gaining national power: control the seas (now including the air above and the water underneath) and resources of the world. The reason that terrorism ultimately fails is that it is a political approach, and therefore a "tactical" approach. As many folks have pointed out in this forum, strategic warfare is about economics not politics. And strategic wars are what change the world's power structure. Terrorists may gain concessions from the world's powers, but they will never become powerful themselves--not in a strategic sense. 3. A strong EU could be a good thing, IF it would use its influence to force the US "back into" the United Nations. 4. The more pessamistic scenario: It is more likely, however, that if the EU gains "superpower" status, it will come into military conflict with the US at some point (of course, this might get everyone running back to the UN--Cold War II). The entire history of civilization points in that direction--two powerful nations never ally with each other, they seek allies among smaller nations in order to strenghten their position relative to the other power. Possible lineups for World War III: US Allies vs. EU: China (yes, China, because Russia will go with the EU), Japan (ditto) and, of course, Britain (it's interesting that they've already chosen sides; they're like the 51st state). Turkey, probably (because their traditional enemies will be w/Europe). Countries currently part of NAFTA. Most of Central/South America, assuming American presidents don't piss them off too much over the next decade or so. EU Allies vs. US: Woo. A toughie. Iran, Iraq (but that might be in doubt now. They might be the 52nd state, who knows?), Palestine (when it gets created...we're thinking long-term here). Balkans. Algeria (vive la France!)--north Africa. It's tough to envision any allies for Europe that are not geographically contiguous--the EU will not be a naval power, and it's tough to have allies if all you can do is send emails. If the EU ever gets serious about going the "Jacques Chirac" route they will have to get Britain as a solid (ie "military" member). They will need some folks who can drive boats! 5. Hopefully the next generation of leaders could chart a new course (as opposed to the grim thoughts in #4), but for the reasons I stated before (the desire for "more") it will be very difficult politically to do so. More democracy, coupled with nation/states with armies is a recipe for more war in the world, not less. The "common people" don't want war, but they do want things (SUVs?) that governments can only provide by becoming rivals with other governments. 6. If there really is to be universal peace in the world it will mean less democracy and the end of independent nations as we know them. If you have universal peace and leave the current system of nation/states in place, it would be like taking a "snapshot" of the world as it is in terms of power and freezing it that way forever. If universal peace broke out today, there would never be a Palestine, the Kurds would always be part of Iraq, etc. The only changes that would occur are ones that would be 'neutral' in terms of power and economics (Scotland could maybe leave Britain, for example). Worse than that, universal ("permanent") peace with the current system of nations would eventually result in "lazy" powerful countries living well, while hard working less powerful countries could never rise to the "top tier" of nations. And so the world as a whole would become less productive. (I know this sounds like an excerpt from Mein Kampf, but Hitler had some of this very right. He also had some of it VERY, VERY wrong!) There are high costs to war, but sometimes the costs of peace are higher. Wars can be beneficial IF you can manage to avoid "all-out" war. That's the trick. (Hitler understood this, too. The Germans were the last to go to "total war" He would have been delighted to have a series of small-scale conflicts rather than WWII. Especially in 1945 ) I apologize for the verbiage, but as I mentioned in my first post (way back on page 1, I think), this whole topic really hits a nerve with me. It's fascinated me since I was about 12 years old.

The policy was realistic and logical in the extreme, and it goes back to Roman times (perhaps earlier?): Divide and conquer. Create opposing groups in the third world who will keep each other perpetually weak by fighting each other. That way, no credible opponent to Western (European/American) domination of the world. It worked. Until the United Nations becomes the strongest force in the world, it is useless to talk about countries working together. Countries will relentlessly pursue their own ends, if only because the people in the countries always want "more." Politicians get leadership roles because they articulate what "the people" want. As Walt Kelley said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Independent nation/states will always create wars, the object of which will be to adjust the power hierarchy (sp?) among them. Don't lose much sleep about quarrels between Europeans and Americans. They will continue until both groups realize they must stick together or face a radical drop in their living standards. Then logic will kick in (I hope!)

Hi everyone. Two things. First, JJ: Yep. Hitler kept trying to get Stalin to think of the INDIAN Ocean as his warm water ocean. And Canaris was a genius, wasn't he? Too bad he didn't survive. He always found the little things he could do that had maximum effect. Brilliant. It is fun to invade Spain as the Axis in SC, though. You can usually take out Gibralter and seal off the Med for the British, then the Italians rule "Mare Nostrum" again. And the loss of the Med would have been a serious blow to Britain (in real life, too). Churchill once wrote to Roosevelt that continuing the war would be a "long and bleak prospect" if that were to happen. Other thing: I've always been partial to Bear Is., myself... [ April 06, 2003, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Rabtherab: Exactly. Tanks will screw up the enemy's supply no matter how outclassed they are in firepower. And when the enemy has to move units away from the main battle to eliminate a pesky tank unit it opens a hole for a friendly corps or army to gain a hex...or it creates an opportunity to 'stretch' the defenders. Then you can get there "first with the most (infantry)." This does not work, of course, if the enemy has air superiority. Then the tank dies an aerial death, and his army continues to beat on you. The tank units in the game seem to play pretty well. If you have Shermans or PkW III's and the other guy has Panthers or KV's (or good AT), you can't get through him. But using tanks as battering rams is contrary to what I've read about armored warfare in WWII. If you encircle an enemy infantry unit, it WILL die (though you might get scuffed up a bit) when it's supply runs out. Thanks to all for the discussion about attack values! I continue to learn stuff every time I visit here... SB

Thanks to all for the help. I think I had most of it straight, but it's always the details, isn't it? In case there are other beginners out there, I wasn't allowing for: 1. drop in supply across the Kerch straits (or whatever they're called) 2. time for Rostov to climb from supply level 0 (scorched earth). so zipping units down into the mountians was a real problem. Thanks again. I'll borrow Montgomery from the British for my attack southwards. That will slow it down to a reasonable pace.

I don't know if it's on topic or not, but I'll respond: I am not interested in military games (wargames) that focus exclusively on combat. The fascination of SC to me is the ability to work at the level of the government/army interface (research points, moving forces, declaring war, etc.). The actual "break through the line, encircle the enemy, take the city" stuff is less interesting to me. So I have almost no interest in a game that deals with combat at such small levels or time periods. I think this really comes down to personal taste. I have another idea that I will put in a separate thread.

Yes, please. I started the "Supply in Southern Russia" thread, but the questions are the same. Why does supply go haywire at seemingly random times? (See my other thread for a specific scenario). Help, my soldiers are starting to eat their shoes!

I'd like to point out that Nosuch's information is another bit of historical data that corroborates the idea that the Allies were not interested in just beating (killing) Hitler. They wanted to take down Germany completely. Two other things: 1. As long as Japan has to float stuff on the Pacific ocean to support its economy, it has to be friends with the US. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...) 2. Shaka's point about the EU is very insightful, I think. It explains a lot. (No doubt Jacques Chirac would like to be the first Emperor of the EU)