dicedtomato

And give the Axis additional air and tanks? Not likely. Diced Tomato

See my post on increasing the number of U.S. air and tank units, Blashy. Given the limitations of the SC2 system, adding more infantry armies to the U.S. pool isn't the answer. Better to give them lots of aircraft and tanks to build. Expensive, high-firepower units to soak up all those U.S. MPPs. Diced Tomato

SC2's bombardment system is ludicrous. There is neither a fortress nor a Level 6 entrenched capital that can't be taken in a single turn by using massed air fleets. The Germans benefit from this; three or four experienced air fleets practically guarantee a drive to Suez and the Urals. On the other hand, massed Allied naval bombardment is equally ridiculous. Brest becomes a naval parking lot as seven or eight Allied flotillas systematically bombard Brest. The problem is the readiness and entrenchment loss inflicted by air and ships. A defender with Level 6 entrenchment and 100 percent morale can be reduced to Level Zero and 10 percent morale in a single week. It's not realistic and it's not fun. Morale loss should be limited to no more than 50 percent in a single turn, no matter how many bombardments are made. Entrenchment loss should be limited to no more than 1 in a single turn, unless made by ground attack. This will give Moscow and Gibralter a fighting chance. It also means that instead of bombarding a target to death, the Germans will either have to wait several turns for bombardment to take effect, or go in with ground troops and take losses. Diced Tomato

SC2 does a poor job of modeling the U.S. military. The U.S. had a limited (but still large) number of divisions compared to Germany and Russia, but those divisions should have better firpower, mobility and logistics. SC2's tech system doesn't really account for this, because everyone can and does reach the same tech levels eventually. Here's my idea. Increase the number of air fleets and tank groups in the U.S. force pool. America should have lots of MPPs to spend. Give it lots of expensive, high-firepower toys to build. Diced Tomato

Blashy, you're not just mixing apples and oranges. You've concocted a fruit salad of facts! A list of divisions doesn't tell us much. China had lots of "divisions" that were nothing more than the local warlord, his mistress and a few bandits-in-uniform. Russians divisions were small; the counterpart of a panzer division isn't a Soviet tank division, but a tank corps. As for army size, the U.S. had four times the population of Poland and twice that of Germany. Yet the American army is only slightly larger than Poland's, and half the size of Germany's? I think what happened is that SC2 uses the maximum size of the German army, which drafted everybody it could. But the U.S. is limited to four armies. With a population of 132,000,000, don't you think America could have mobilized more than four armies if it wanted to? By 1945, the U.S. still had plenty of reserve manpower that it could have tapped in an emergency. Germany and Russia were sending old men and children to the front. Diced Tomato

Next to dental surgery, there is nothing more unpleasant than having your failures dissected on a public forum. Oh, well, this is punishment for challenging the German General Staff! I'm annoyed with myself for the Iraq debacle against Terif. However, it made little difference. As in most strategic WWII games, Russia is the game-breaker. I had a fair number of units with decent tech, entrenched, and the Germans still go through them like a hot knife through butter. The real killer is German air power. Massed air fleets doom any attempt to hold a city or river line. Against a methodical, well-executed German attack, I'm not sure what to do with Russia. Retreating to the Urals just delays the inevitable. What's interesting is that by the summer of 1942, with Russia reeling, the U.S. had not entered the war, which gives Germany a free hand in the East. There should be a big US entry hit for losing Moscow, or launching Barbarossa. Diced Tomato

In the spirit of Roman gladiators and kamikaze pilots, I challenged the German General Staff to a match, knowing what the inevitable outcome would be. Every session that I played Sombra and Terif, I would first face the sun and shout, "German master players, we who are about to die salute you!" I would not use my game against Sombra as a test case. I rarely play the Axis, and learning how to play them by fighting Sombra is like learning boxing by fighting Mike Tyson. My Sealion was clumsy and totally impromptu; I was offended that Sombra thought he could leave England defenseless. Even though it cost me the game, I derived considerable satisfaction from proving him wrong. As it is, the Western Allies are the weakest and least fun side in the game. For the first half of the game, the British can do little more than watch Germany point to any spot on the map and say, "I'll have that." And we want to weaken the Western Allies after Sealion? That doesn't make sense. The British capital should move to Canada, where it would have gone historically, and where it would be safe. It would also keep Alexandria from instantly becoming the world's biggest supply center. Diced Tomato

Actually, Blashy, I was going to suggest that you take a break. You're here 24/7 defending the historical realism of SC2. Such a futile task must be exhausting! I don't appreciate being confused with Rambo. You don't need a Universal Translator from Star Trek to understand what I'm saying. I indeed recognize the immense skills of the German military. However, they were not good at everything, which seems to be a fact that some SC2 players don't understand. Nor is it reflected in the game, which is why the U.S. army isn't much bigger than Poland's, but the Germans can take the North Pole in 1941. Diced Tomato

It's easier if I itemize all the mistakes here: Rolend: Hitler was itching to avenge Versailles. Guess which country he wanted to take revenge upon? Not Russia - they practically surrendered in 1917. It was that good ol' German punching bag, also known as France. Lars/Blashy: You're kidding about German logistics, right? Everything I've ever read on Barbarossa makes clear that German units were desperately short of vehicles, fuel and manpower. I'm also curious about your definition of "genius". Apparently a sign of logistics genius is dispersing your armies across a front stretching from Riga to Rostov, not stockpiling adequate supplies, and relying on 36 different brands of trucks, each of which required its own set of spare parts (the downside of looting). Blashy: Are you aware of the deep loathing that many Soviets felt for Stalin's regime? Why do you think so many soldiers were eager to surrender in the beginning - until they realized that captivity meant almost certain death? I expect some Russians would have fought on if Moscow fell, but the dictatorship was already reaping the results of decades of terrorizing its own people. Diced Tomato

Blashy, this is what I've been trying to tell you. You're advocating that the game should be a certain way because of history, yet SC2 is unrealistic in so many ways. Let's take two examples. I think you're right that the U.S. would not have declared war on Germany had Britain fallen in 1940. I also agree with Sombra, in that it's possible that the Soviet people so hated Stalin that losing Moscow would have caused a Russian collapse. So let's imagine a game where the U.S. sits on its thumbs while London becomes New Munich, and Stalin's head is stuck on a pike because Moscow falls. Think it would be fun to play the Allies? Meanwhile, the game allows the Germans to conquer the Middle East without breaking a sweat, even though Germany didn't have the logistics to support two panzer divisions divisions, let alone 20 + three air fleets. It's not a question of the game having to play out exactly like WWII. But if history is the goal, than it should give players the historical choices - and limitations - that their real-life counterparts did. Personally, I think we should stop talking about realism and just concentrate on play balance. Given the type of game that SC2, I'd rather it be fun than realistic. Diced Tomato

I knew you were going to mention Stalin's envoy to Germany, Blashy. Do you know anything about it? I don't, which tells us how significant it was. Think about it. If Russia was doing so badly that it needed a truce, Germany would have taken that as a sign of weakness and pressed the attack. Vice-versa for Russia. Neither dictator could make peace, if for no other reason than it would have made them look weak and eroded their domestic image of "infallability". There were lots of peace feelers in WWII. But they never went anywhere. The Axis fought long past the point of hopelessness, and the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender. We're talking a war of Holocaust, terror bombing, 20 million Soviet dead. Compromise was not an option. Diced Tomato

So Stalin is Churchill's bigger brother? Trying to imagine what their father was like. If taking England is a German mistake, then we need to stop pretending that SC2 bears any resemblance to historical simulation. But for play balance, it does makes sense for Russia to join the war when England falls. Diced Tomato

By Sombra's way of thinking, there shouldn't be any partisans in the game, nor De Gaulle and the Free French, not to mention the Free Polish, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks, etc. Only fool or lunatics would have sided with Britain instead of Germany in 1940. Or maybe life in the New World Order wasn't so rosy? As for Hitler and Stalin smoking a peace pipe, I think the rest of you are smoking something. We're talking two paranoid mass murderers here. Imagine scorpions in a bottle. Now imagine scorpions in a bottle signing a peace treaty. I can't even contemplate the effects on play balance without feeling nauseous. If Germany can totally conquer Britain, which presumably means eliminating the entire British fleet, then I'd say it's worth delaying Barbarossa. And a Russo-German truce that allows all that German air to transfer to the Med or a late Sealion? Yippee! Diced Tomato

If conquering England in 1940 is a mistake, then SC2 is a very strange game. Diced Tomato

My battle versus the German General Staff (Oberkommando der SC2) continues with simultaneous games against Terif and Sombra. Playing against the Axis Terif has taught me a valuable lesson. Never order the UK to invade Iraq unless they bring overwhelming force. Iraq went pro-Axis on the first turn of the game (!)Unwilling to forego 30 MPP, the British moved their Egyptian garrison (minus a corps in Alexandria) into Transjordan and then Iraq. The plan was to take Baghdad and then operationally move back to Suez. But Baghdad held out for turn after turn, leaving the British stranded at the end of long supply lines. Meanwhile, Panzerarmee Afrika and their Italian auxilaries took Suez. The end result was two armies, a corps, an air fleet and O'Connor lost for nothing. Terif is now systematically driving through the Caucuses while his northern armies are now adjacent to Moscow. Property values in the Urals have suddenly gone up. The really interesting game has been Axis Me against Sombra's Allies. A botched attack on Benelux on Turn 2 was miraculously retrieved when Allied commanders, feeling pity for the inept Teutonic hordes, declined to reinforce the depleted Brussels garrison. But lulled into a false sense of security by Axis incompetence in Belgium, the British stripped Britain bare. All but one army and airfleet were transfered to Egypt, where they promptly took Tobruk in summer 1940. Fortunately, while the Axis were stupid, they weren't THAT stupid. Realizing that five British armies and corps in Egypt in 1940 had to come from Britain, the Germans launched Sealion with every unit they could muster, plus their fleet and two subs. The lone army in London hung on until fall, aided by suicidal attacks by the British fleet. Britain fell in fall 1940, just in time for the U.S. to declare war and Soviet war readiness to go through the roof. Germany frantically redeployed German and Italian troops to Poland. Russia declared war in May 1941. Tentative German probes across the border were crushed by Russians with higher IW and AT. However, aided by the Luftwaffe, Riga and Minsk fell. Meanwhile, Spain joined the Axis. The UK replied by taking Sicily (the garrison had been sent to Russia). More surprising was the Allied declaration of war on Greece, and the landing of an Anglo-American force. Greece fell, but Axis reinforcements punished the invaders, while the Italian and British fleets exchanged blows. More to come. Diced Tomato

Sombra has discovered the essence of playing the Axis. If the Axis have so many opportunities to make mistakes, that's because they have so many opportunities to succeed. I've played a lot of paper and computer strategic games. My experience has been that a poor Axis player will lose quickly and in humiliation (this I speak from personal experience). But a good Axis player will tend to win more often than not. They start the game with the initiative and the resources to make a winning strategy. But the only way to test SC2's play balance is to clone Sombra and have him play himself. Diced Tomato

Are we playing the same game, or do you have the special Lord of the Rings version? Gandalf must be magically producing fighters, because I can't figure out how the British can produce four aircraft (1,500 MPP) when they're down to 60 MPP a turn after the Axis take the Middle East, and the U.S. doesn't Lend-Lease until mid-1941. Diced Tomato

Sombra, I'm curious to hear your plan for building a large Russian army while still achieving a minimum of IW2/AT2/HT2 by mid-1941. I'm also curious how you build a large Russian army when the Germans don't attack Norway, Yugoslavia or Greece, which means Soviet war readiness (and MPPs) don't rise. Axis conquest of Suez gives a little bit of a boost, but when you launched Barbarossa in our last game, I doubt my readiness was above 70 percent. As for building a unit every turn, you might be able to do a basic corps. But an army costs at least 170 MPPs, which another 70-80 to add tech. You can save time by building vanilla units without tech, but the Russian steamroller in 1941 is more like a steam bicycle. PS. Check ICQ. I offered to play you as the Axis. DT

Counterattacking as Russia didn't work real well for me against Sombra's Germany. The Russians invariably took much heavier losses, probably because the German troops have plenty of experience points. You can't put your HQs too close to the front because German air will destroy them, and even if you successfully counterattack, the air will finish your weakened units on the next Axis turn. I play Russia a lot in strategic games, and you reach that Point of Meatgrinding where Russia loses more than it can replace. I did have some success in killing Sombra's panzers, but when Germany attacks with 5 or 6 Panzers, four air and lots of IW2 or IW3 infantry, Russia has problems. I had IW3, AT2 and HT3, and it didn't save me. The Siberians help, but they come too late. An aggressive Russia can hurt a sloppy German. But against a methodical player like Sombra, it doesn't work. Yet staying on the defensive doesn't work either, so I'm not quite sure what to do with Russia. DT

No, we're not missing the point. The game has no point. When we complain that the Allies are too weak and the Germans can conquer everything, we're told that's historical. When we demonstrate that the game isn't historical, then we're told that it's meant to be fun. The designer and playtesters can't make up their minds, so neither can we. DT

I Alt-Tab out of TCP/IP game all the time. As long as you wait until the "turn has started" message flashes, you should be okay. The problem is Alt-Tabbing back into the game. At least on my machine, I watch a black screen for about 30 seconds until SC2 appears. DT

Sombra, I just read your AAR against Jollyguy. What happened to his Russia also happened to my Russia when I played you. By the time the Siberians arrive and get into position (the armies and HQs are slow, especially if there's mud), the Germans have taken a lot of production cities and have decimated the Red Army in the process. DT

Pzgndr, the game may be correct in terms of the number of U.S. armies. The problem is that a U.S. army should have more firepower, supplies and mobility than a German or Soviet army. SC2 tries to model this through tech, but Germany is likely to have the same or better IW and HT than the U.S. I never got into Third Reich, but I have played a lot of World in Flames and War in Europe. Those games give the U.S. a lot of aircraft, plus WiF has offensive chits (which give extra combat power). The U.S. may not have a huge ground force, but it can build lots of O-chits which magnify its ground strength. All those U.S. MPPs don't do any good if there's nothing to spend them on. DT

I think Russia needs all the help it can get, Sombra. By the time the Germans finish taking Western Europe Middle East, they've got all those troops and air fleets with mega-experience. Meanwhile, the Brits are trying to get by with 60 MPP a turn. DT

I estimate the average turn is about seven minutes per side, or about 15 minutes for the whole turn. In a PBEM, by the time you watch the replay and e-mail the file, it's about the same. If there's about 150 turns in a campaign game, then we're looking at close to 40 hours to complete a game of SC2. Add in a 140-page manual with lots of formualae, and we're not talking Panzer General here. For 40 hours - the same amount of time as standard full-time work week - I am going to have higher expectations than for Panzer General or some goofy RTS. Most RTS and FPS players wouldn't touch SC2 with a 10-foot pole. The people playing it are wargamers, and it's going to be judged by wargame standards. DT