hellraiser

@terif - somehow u want to pass to us that if u were axis u wouldn't have surrendered so soon, am i right?

Terif played very wisely with the western allies spreading the landings (very annoying i admit it ) and drawing away the much needed in the east german forces. I do not know the exact battle of order of axis troops but i think that if the axis player noticed he couldn't keep the momentum in russia, he should have entrenched and deal with the western allies after their landing. Otherwise he should have pushed deeper into russia and let the allies reach the rhine if this was the price to pay for knocking out russia. Or maybe the western allies were too strong for germans to employ this tactic? Give us some more insights

thanks for the great input guys ... booo to those who are pesimistic, kudos to those who are optimistic As I mentioned, this is not extensively tested (1 or 2 times in meVSme game) but I am happy to notice that though risky and difficult, it is not a dead option

in turkey u can't get stuck i think as for egypt...it may be a little more difficult if uk defends it at all cost maybe we can play it to see how it develops

99% i'm in for friday ... i will confirm on icq

Well, I am not an experienced SC-er – I have played only several games vs human opponents but after reviewing what’s written in this forum about different strategy options for playing axis, I understood that the majority of the players play the same way, more or less. Either the game was explored so in-depth and its limits were reached or maybe there are some other options that need discussion – options that were not considered feasible since we have the ‘cookie cutter’ strategy Most of the players seem to rule out the Turkish option for axis player. Why? Because ussr readiness jumps a lot and you will have a very early war with Russia and axis player prefer to keep Russia out of the game for as long as possible. This is true if the axis player previously played a standard game and DOW-ed a lot of neutrals. My idea is to avoid DoW-ing a lot of countries. And I mean A LOT. You will not dow Norway, Sweden, Spain, Portugal or Vichy france – at least not until you are at war with Russia and USA is preparing for war. You only DOW Denmark and maybe the LC - say maybe because hopefully the allied player will dow LC The game play I envisage is focused to gain the upper hand in MPPS – not by conquest of neutrals but by stripping the Allies of a large part of their MPPs. The obvious drawback is lack of plunders and additional MPPs these neutral countries add up to axis income early on. But the problem is: does Axis player need those early mpps so much? In the short run yes…maybe In the long run it is debatable. My idea - of course it is not mine, others had it before me – is to DOW Turkey and attack USSR through Caucasus. If troops are placed properly, USSR can lose all its Caucasus cities and resources in 2-3 turns (including Stavropol). This will make USSR gain only 290 MPPs per turn. (I will explain how one can do this later). Back to DoW stuff. Not DoW- ing those neutrals will keep US and USSR readiness very low – any allied dows will further keep US out for more turns. Phase 1: You get Poland, Denmark LC and France. (Hopefully the allies try a dutch gambit which is the best thing for axis in this situation). Phase 2: Conquest of North Africa – UK cannot keep Egypt no matter what. If they commit too many forces they will lose them not to mention the risk of a SeaLion. Phase 3: Conquest of Turkey via amphibious landings – USSR war readiness will jump to around 75 or a little bit more – and will stay that way for a long time. (You will have an early war with USSR as beginning with 22nd of June 41 ussr readiness is going up.) Phase 4: Preparation for the invasion of USSR – major assets are airfleets – at least 7 stationed in turkey (lvl 2 jets and LR 1 are attainable by this time even with fewer axis MPPs); 3 or 4 tanks ready to encircle the first Russian city near Turkish border. Two corps or whatever ready to disembark and occupy the two mines below Rostov; Phase 5: DOW USSR First turn: Airfleets bomb Stavropol and the other Russian city in the Caucasus (not the one near Turkish border) out of order – lets say strength 3 – so USSR cannot buy or operate troops there. German tanks on Russian – Turkish border move forward and attack and encircle the garrisoned city near the border so USSR cannot operate troops there. Note: some 2 or 3 italian strategic bombers may be purchased in order to assure that those cities are bombed properly – you can scrap the bombers later if u like. Second turn: Russia buys, invests in tech, whatever – even if they buy a powerful army near Rostov they can only attack Stavropol in turn 3 and it is unlikely that they can recapture Stavropol anyway (you will have 2 troops there). Some german air keep the 2 cities below 4 – the others either move forward to cover Stavropol skies or assist a DOW on Iraq. (in this case have a corps prepared in turkey to get the border hex between Russia and Iraq) – Dowing Iraq can be postponed in order to keep US readiness down for more turns (US readiness is already on the rise). The 2 corps landed on the 2 mines secure Stavropol; German tanks move north towards the other Russian city as well as capture the border city. The European USSR border can be defended easily by Axis (armies and corps or only corps; maybe 1-2 tanks) – Axis can even mount some attacks aimed at destruction of some soviet border armies – Russia is not able to mount a decisive attack unless they have some tech which at first they don’t have. With Caucasus secured, germans have one big priority – raise the city levels to 5 so they can reinforce them and strengthen the front there – until then, fend off any Russian counter attack using mainly airpower and prevent those nasty partisans from appearing over there – cheap Italian corps can be transferred for this purpose in turkey on turn 2. Also fresh corps can be disembarked near Stavropol – the Russian cruiser there is a joke, really Note that USA is still some good turns away from joining (probably they will join during 1942 or so) and UK still limited to those few MPPs they get from their main island, malta and gibraltar. MPPs will start to flow in Axis’ coffers and by the time USA joins, Germany is rich USSR will barely be able to replenish losses with 290 mpps/turn and will need a long time to tech up in order to threat Axis in any manner. At the moment the axis military power is weaker than usual (other games) in numbers but Axis do not need so many troops in this stage. They need to keep the European fronline compact and hit Caucasus – any attempts by UK to get its nose on European mainland can be easily repelled. USA will join very late and by then, Axis should be extremely strong. Italy can be used for buying bombers and assist the ussr southern invasion or buy ships to whack UK and US at sea. UK carriers won’t have many places to train - no Bergen, sorry only Ireland and, less probable, Brest. By denying USSR a lot of MPPs, confine England on his isle and keeping US readiness down for a lot of turns, Germans win the MPP war and have time to build a powerful army that will most probably be able to win the war. Flaws: The big flaw I see at this moment is an Allied DOW on Spain which would make romania and hungary not join axis thus Axis gets a terrible mpp blow. - this is a little far fetched as Romanians and Hungarians didn’t bother about Franco and the gang In this case it is very difficult to carry on – Hungary and Romania (or at least Romania) must be attacked as well – As I remember dowing romania makes ussr very angry ... But this option is not tested by me so far (it might work, who knows?) Do any of you think that this Turkish option as explained above is feasible versus a human player? [ September 23, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: cosmin ]

do not worry they will try to balance as much as possible the standard scenarios. As for the editor - players will be able to further balance the gameplay, not unbalance it. Remember the use of bidding systems in original SC - they were needed to balance the game not otherwise. History enthusiasts will tweak the game to fit their liking, powergamers will do the same. Basically every owner of SC2 will be happy

hehe sombra maybe sometime we can continue that game (hellraiser on my icq, remember?) in which you had russian troops replace uk troops in iraq and NA after my succesful sealion. That game is very open i think ... as russia has mpp advantage. Anyway, i thought about a different axis strategy lately, opposed to the classic cookie cutter approach and I will need some inputs from good players in order to tweak it ... or abandon it Maybe we can talk on icq this week end about it

ref mechanization: corps and armies able to move more hexes ... but what about poor hqs? will they crawl at the same speed as in SC1? j/k now seriously; i dunno if it is such a good ideea to implement mechanization as a tech which will force players to buy mech troops; maybe it would be better to make it a buying option with very high cost associated - i mean there will be situations when you desperately need to close gaps with cheap stuff and you won't be able to buy it - u gotta spend mpps on trucks, gas, etc as well regular / motorised infantry units buy option - let me decide which type i should buy depending whether i am on defence or offence. cheers

documented reply i may say ref siberians xp -> my bad i didn't check ... make it 2 stars then ref shifting forces to W indeed shifting forces in the west is the beggining of the end for germany ... why should any1 do that? Corps and macaroni are so cool in defence... Allies still have to capture Berlin to win the war and that ain't so easy. ref russia's defence: anything but a russian corps defence seems to be very difficult to pull off by the allied player. After reviewing some AARs it seems that the vast majority of players who tried an aggressive russia against a tough axis player failed miserably. 2 stars xp are achieved fairly quickly ... not to mention good HQs xp from previous battles. IMHO 2 stars are quite something. And yes, sometimes axis spearheads get mauled. Usually if axis player do not gain proper intelligence (waste an airfleet attack one turn so u can rebase and gain that intel about russian T34s lying in wait to rape unsuspecting wandering tigers) previous to launching the assault or become unsupported by HQs. I quote you: 'attacking a HQ supported tank is always expensive' I think a cautious axis player can manage to keep a quite compact frontline reducing the exposure to russian counterstrikes. In my opinion, as axis, you either decisively breakthrough and exploit it immediately or you shouldn't bother to breakthrough - take the steamroller tactics instead: kill slowly but surely otoh it is always easier to talk than to walk... i am more a pub table-strategist than a good player ... but i like talking nevertheless cheers

imho it would have been very interesting to have the possibility to adjust the siberian transfer or at least its xp - remember that the transfer occured in time for the defence of moscow and the siberian troops although lacking combat xp were extremely well equipped compared to their germans enemies(thing that can be represented as 1 or 2 star xp for the sake of simplicity). This might make a difference because having the siberians + tech researched by the time germans threaten moscow will allow the allied player to mount a solid counterattack on one of the german flanks which may change the course of the war.

It is difficult to counter 2-4 star crack troops axis deploy later in the game even with more allied mpps. that's why russia usually fails in defence - even with high AT science, it's zero xp units are cannon fodder. they cannot hope to mount a powerful counterstrike against a continuous german frontline consisting of high xp troops and hqs. In this game the western allies do the difference by timing perfectly the overlord stuff. russia is there only to buy time. quite historically inaccurate because the war was lost in russia not anywhere else

i guess dow-ing italy has a single purpose: hinder or, less probable, interdict axis operations in the med - destruction of italian navy will make the transport of troops to N Africa very dangerous. But there are some aspects to consider here: as Terif mentioned, if Allies commit to many troops/ships in the med they are open to sealion. Allied succes in the med (capturing north africa italian provinces and directly threatening iraqi oil will force axis player to attempt a sealion as complete possession of north africa and iraq is a war winning factor. Axis player should not bother to destroy RN deployed in the med or attempt to reconquer north africa - it is too time consuming and time does not favour the axis player at all. In this case, allies must hold UK until russia joins and have red troops immediately replacing uk forces in iraq/N Africa. Most probably the axis player attempting a SL will not have enough forces to mount a full scale Barbarossa (as a lot of troops are engaged in the UK or getting reinforced and transported back on the mainland). Germany should establish a 2 rows corps defence supported by HQs in the east which is more than enough to repel any attempts of the russians to break the front (limited attacks against russian border armies should be performed if possible). This will buy enough time to redeploy the veteran troops in the east and start the 'real war' OTOH, if allies mount a small scale assault on italy (capture the 2 undefended cities and attempt to destroy italian ships) axis player should immediately open the connection to sicily and op move there a german hq and at least 2 air units. If allies were lazy and did not transfer the ships towards the gibraltar strait, the RN in the med is trapped with the only purpose of delaying as much as possible the conquest of egypt. If the allies were smart and moved the ships west of sicily, germany will have additional problems when trying to get their hands on vichy france - buying italian subs should be considered for screening the transports headed for algiers. In my opinion the med theater should be used only for delay purposes. The allied player should focus on disrupting the axis normal timing for dowing european countries and hope this will be enough to have a weaker attack on mother russia. Nevertheless, as allies, one should not commit atlantic RN ships in the med. Rely on med fleet and the 2 french BBs for carrying out attacks there. Allies must hold UK at all costs (and ships are the most important defensive asset of early war UK) as UK is the major asset of the allied player. Maybe i am right maybe i am not, i am not so experienced and probably there are more factors to consider. I am sure more experienced players will participate to this discussion as it is one of the most interesting and important aspects of the game.

thanks for the reply. i guess it is a tough job creating such a game with all those demanding fans around

ICQ 161578956/hellraiser

i guess limiting transport capacity, though it may be realistic from the ww2 perspective, it is not so good for a game. In SC we start from several facts existing at a certain moment (say 1939) but we don't play it exactly at it was 'played' in those years. We apply different strategies and tactics. So, if Germany wants to build 100 transports and attack UK, why not? A good solution to respect the economic part of the game is applying delays and/or high costs for building assets that a specific country did not build or build very few. Think that building stuff that you normally don't build will first need to shift some industrial capacities towards the new stuff (time and costs) or build new industrial capacities focused on the new stuff u want to build (time and costs).

USA would have been a very tough cake for Germany to digest ... the descovery of the A bomb would probably have conducted to a stalemate. So, US could have cared less had the USSR and UK surrendered

"I'm not going to sit here & have a bunch of Euros who have been living off our protection for the last 60 years diss the USA. You be speaking German or Russian, or dead if we didn't take care of business & finish the job." Yes, now we speak English I think no one with at least a common sense of history would deny that the USA were of great help during very difficult times for a lot of Europeans countries. Common sense euros should be grateful to US because of that help. However it is difficult to just accept that US gets its nose stuck almost everywhere around this planet sometimes in disregard of local inhabitants' interests. Again, ppl with a common sense of history have to accept that the USA is just another empire. The Romans did it, the Turks did it, the Russians did it, the Germans did it, the British did it, the Japs did it ... now it is the USA time. They interfere because they CAN and they are pursuing their interests even if they limit others' interests by doing that. The american expansion is more sophisticated than previous expansions (second only to the Roman expansion): it started by exporting a very appealing life style which, to be honest, a lot of Euros imported it happily. The tools of their expansion are: pragmatism, efficiency, organization and of course a powerful military force. Recent developments of the political, economical and religious life on Earth made the USA use more and more the military power for stating something. Sometimes to defend something, sometimes to conquer something, under the perfect disguise of 'respecting the human rights', 'war on terror', etc. No, the real reason is expansion and protection of abroad interests. Everyone has to live with that, our forefathers lived with far worse perspectives than we do: at least we have the McDonalds and Hollywood films It is a natural evolution: survival of the fittest and prey on the weak are the principles. The USA is just another empire, a more advanced and sophisticated empire but still an empire. And an empire is like an organism: it is born, it lives, it dies. Now, the USA are at the peak of its power but certainly one can notice signs of decadence already. Especially the ones living in the USA.

okie ICQ no: 161578956

I would like to try my luck in a TCP/IP game. I played against the AI and against a friend of mine; i am not extremely experienced at SC vs a human player, but i think i can put up a good fight. Anyone interested? my mail: cosminerul@yahoo.com or sometimes i can be found on mirc: server: irc.utonet.org, channel #prismatic; nickname: hellraiser

the war was lost due to the huge economical differences between the two coalitions. Germany's production couldn't keep up with USSR's production not to mention that of the USA ... The germans' inability to destroy russian economy was the losing factor. It was a war in which quantity mattered a lot. A lot of bad decisions were taken by both adversaries but if for Germany bad decisions translated into unreplaceable losses, Allies' and USSR's bad decisions were offset by their huge economic potential. Overall, strategic wise, the Allies and especially USSR were superior to Germans. Dragging Germany in a long attrition war was exactly what USSR needed and they did it brilliantly. They knew Germany wouldn't be able to resist more than a few yers. The Red Army (especially it's commanders) improved a lot as years passed and after 1943 it was at least on par with German Army from the point of the view of war tactics (they learned the blitz tactics lesson very well from the germans and applied it with devastating effects). Again, at equal tactic skills, the sheer quantity of manpower and war material fielded by the USSR won the war.