dicedtomato

"If I want an historical simulation"? So you're admitting, Blashy, that SC2 is not an historical simulation? Have you ever read a serious book on World War II? Or does all your knowledge come from Wiki and the History Channel? Did it ever occur to you - or Hubert - that there was a reason why the Axis didn't capture the Middle East? Do you know how many trucks that would have required, or how inadequate the Italian merchant marine was, or whether some flea-bitten North African port like Tobruk could have sustained six German armies? You're living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. DT

Blashy, you need to stop being a salesman for SC2. Make up your mind; either the game is intended to be an historical simulation, or it's not. Lame justifications for why the U.S. Army is the size of Poland's, or why the Axis can conquer the Middle East without breaking a sweat, only make the game look ridiculous in the eyes of serious wargamers. DT

Poland in SC2 starts with about four armies. Blashy, are you telling us that the fully moblized U.S. Army in 1944 couldn't field more troops than the Polish Army? DT

The game is right and wrong (in contrast to Rambo, who is almost always wrong). The U.S. fielded a small army relative to its size. There was a deliberate decision to create no more than 90 divisions (the Germans had over 300). The U.S. had six armies in Europe by 1945, so the game isn't off by much. However, SC2 is wrong in that Hubert doesn't understand how the U.S. Army worked. There may not have been a lot of armies, but there a HUGE number of non-divisional assets (tanks, artillery, trucks, etc.) that were kept in a central pool and assigned to the armies as needed. So a U.S. army like Patton's Third should pack a lot more firepower and mobility than a German or Soviet army. One way to reflect this is to have the U.S. start with IW1 or IW2. DT

I've decided to take on the ultimate challenge. I'm playing against Terif and Sombra, who are chief and deputy chief of the SC2 German General Staff. Against their legendary Germanic organization and planning skills, I will pit my Anglo-Saxon pluck and grit. And if things get really bad, I will recite the dialogue from that episode of Fawlty Towers ("two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering and four Colditz salads"). My first game against the Axis Sombra ended in 1942, with Russia at IW1 and Germany at IW3. A brief attempt to play the Axis against the Allied Sombra convinced me that I was not General Staff material, so I took the Allies again. It was the summer of 1943 before Russia was crushed, which I considered a moral victory. Now I'm playing against Terif, who is the only player that scares Sombra. More to come. DT

The Axis in strategic games are best played by the chess master type. Someone whose mind is one giant spreadsheet ("Belgium on Turn 2, England on Turn 16, Iran on Turn 47"). I am in awe of such disciplined minds, mostly because I lack one. I'm more of an opportunistic player, which explains why I prefer the Allies. DT

Think again, Blashy. If the Germans have IW3 and Russia IW0, the Wehrmacht is going to wipe the map. Yeah, you can rebuild your troops cheaply -but they won't arrive for 3 to 6 months. In the meantime, the Germans pummel you even more and take your factories. It's the time lag that's the killer. But we can always put it to the test and try a game. I'd be curious to see how well your strategy worked. DT That is war in the 20th century, even in WW1 this was a constant factor. But make that tenfold in WW2. It was a race of technology. BTW, Ask me if I can have level 0 IW and AT as well as level 2 HT (default for Russia) but have PT and IT at level 5 and I'll take PT and IT. I won't say why, I'll let some of you discover why. Just think of your email... do you like spam? :eek: </font>

SC2 has become a racing game. Who will be the first to reach IW3 or HT5? That's not wargaming. It's Formula One. DT

Going back to the old research system in SC1 is not a stupid idea. The problem is that luck-dependent research doesn't fit SC2. Compared to many wargames, luck doesn't play much of a role in the SC series. There are some minor variations in combat results and weather, but otherwise the the games are fairly predictable. Follow a particular strategy (grab Benelux on Turn 2), and you'll get consistent results. The game is chess-like, and the players that really like SC2 tend to be master-planner types. Research in SC1 was also predictable. But SC2 turns research into a luck-fest. Tht wouldn't be a problem if other parts of the game depended on luck. If Russia blew its IW research, then maybe it could compensate by lucky results in ground combat. But ground combat is predictable; if Russia has IW0 and Germany IW2, the results are consistent and unpleasant. Going back to the old research system - but limiting how much each nation could spend on research - is the easiest solution. DT

The Germans didn't always have better tech. The Allies had better radar, better trucks, better communications, etc. I always enjoy watching people drool over some German wonder weapon that was often nothing more than a pencil sketch, a wooden toy in a wind tunnel, or an over-engineered monstrosity like the Maus. Before we complain that 750 MPP is too low, let's remember that the Axis outproduce the Allies for the first half of the war. Germany can afford 750 MPP. Can someone explain to me how the UK can afford 1,000? As usual, we're fussing about Germany, when it's the UK that's broken. DT

You still don't get it, Lars. You can pump 5 chits into Russian Industrial tech, and end up with IT1 in 1941. Meanwhile, the Germans - who only put 3 chits in IW - get IW2 infantry that devour the Red Army. Getting IT5 in 1943 doesn't help if Russia is reduced to a single city in the Urals. The problem is timing. Russia can't afford bad luck in IW before 1941. The Brits need success in GL if Sealion is coming. The Germans need luck in aircraft and tanks. DT

Really, Lars? So you've played the Allies in games where the Germans had IW2 and the Soviets IW0 in 1941? Tell us how you managed to win, because I couldn't figure out how to save Russia from the German phaser infantry. As I recall, Italy also had GL2 while Britain had GL0 (and the UK did invest in GL). Any suggestions for how Britannia should keep the Med? Oh, I'm sure Russia would have reached IW2 . But it doesn't do much good if Germany is the Urals. DT

The tech system is broken because it's too variable. We're told that it's supposed to average out, but it never seems to. In my first game against Sombra, his Germans had IW2 against my IW0 Russians in 1941 (despite massive Soviet research). This is a game-breaker. Tech is too random and advances too quickly. Going from HT0 to HT3 in two years is like going from Sputnik to a moon landing in six months. One solution is to borrow from the board game World in Flames. WiF lets players advance build units from their force pool, so you can produce in 1941 a fighter that would normally appear in 1943. However, you pay double or triple the production cost. Why not link SC2 tech advances and upgrades to a particular year? We can either increase the cost of chits, so that a 1939 IW chit costs 100 while a 1942 chit costs 150. Or, we can increase the upgrade costs, so upgrading from IW1 to IW2 costs 20 in 1940 but 10 in 1941. DT

Sorry, Stalin's Organist (love that name). Exel said the Axis Allies should be one tech level less than the Germans. I can live with two or three levels less. The tech system has problems (too variable), but the real issue is that the UK is broken. DT

Sorry, Stalin's Organist (love that name). Exel said the Axis Allies should be one tech level less than the Germans. I can live with two or three levels less. The tech system has problems (too variable), but the real issue is that the UK is broken. DT

Think about this. If the Germans usually had better tech than the Russians and Americans, and the Axis Allies were only one tech level lower than the Germans, than the Axis Allies should have equal tech to the Soviets/US. Now imagine a Romanian corps fighting a Soviet or American corps in 1944. Think it would be a fair fight? Tech in SC2 in abstract, but it's more than whatever new weapon is rolling out of the Krupp and Messerschmitt factories that week. It's more about advanced radios, better trucks, and new tactics. Life sucked in WWII if you were a small power. You didn't have the resources to produce equipment or to develop new ones. The Allies had enough equipment for the CW forces, which were an integral part of the British military. Germany didn't have enough trucks for its own military. You think Hitler was going to send lots of them to Hungary? Yes, the Axis Allies got Panzer-IVs and Me-109s - just in time to be pulverized by the JS-III and the Yak-9. If you insist on giving German tech to their allies, it should be at least two levels less (but not less than zero). DT

Think about this. If the Germans usually had better tech than the Russians and Americans, and the Axis Allies were only one tech level lower than the Germans, than the Axis Allies should have equal tech to the Soviets/US. Now imagine a Romanian corps fighting a Soviet or American corps in 1944. Think it would be a fair fight? Tech in SC2 in abstract, but it's more than whatever new weapon is rolling out of the Krupp and Messerschmitt factories that week. It's more about advanced radios, better trucks, and new tactics. Life sucked in WWII if you were a small power. You didn't have the resources to produce equipment or to develop new ones. The Allies had enough equipment for the CW forces, which were an integral part of the British military. Germany didn't have enough trucks for its own military. You think Hitler was going to send lots of them to Hungary? Yes, the Axis Allies got Panzer-IVs and Me-109s - just in time to be pulverized by the JS-III and the Yak-9. If you insist on giving German tech to their allies, it should be at least two levels less (but not less than zero). DT

Giving a lot of German tech to Axis Allies is a bad idea for a couple of reasons: 1. Ahistorical. A few German Lend-Lease Stugs and Me-109s are insignificant on SC2's strategic level. If Germany reaches IW3 in 1942, then the whole Romanian Army should not be upgraded to IW2. Remember that the Axis Allies were allied in name only. They frequently hated and distrusted each other. The CW units are different because they really were integrated into the British military. 2. The last thing the Axis need is more help. The last thing Russia needs is a half-dozen Axis Allied units that are higher tech than the Red Army. DT

Giving a lot of German tech to Axis Allies is a bad idea for a couple of reasons: 1. Ahistorical. A few German Lend-Lease Stugs and Me-109s are insignificant on SC2's strategic level. If Germany reaches IW3 in 1942, then the whole Romanian Army should not be upgraded to IW2. Remember that the Axis Allies were allied in name only. They frequently hated and distrusted each other. The CW units are different because they really were integrated into the British military. 2. The last thing the Axis need is more help. The last thing Russia needs is a half-dozen Axis Allied units that are higher tech than the Red Army. DT

Commonwealth units should be allowed the same tech upgrades as British units. Three reasons why: 1. CW forces in Europe tended to have the same equipment as UK forces. 2. The Australians, New Zealanders (and Indians, who strangely are not included in SC2) were considered elite. The Canadians were less so, but certainly no worse than British troops. 3. The best reason for allowing upgrades: it gives Britain teeth. The UK is a punching bag for the first half of the game, and Tech Zero CW troops aren't much help. Three additional CW corps upgraded to IW1 would give the British a fighting chance in Africa. Before anyone tries to argue that the Axis should get the same benefit, don't bother. Italy, Romania and Hungary fought the war with their own ((often World War I era equipment). DT

Commonwealth units should be allowed the same tech upgrades as British units. Three reasons why: 1. CW forces in Europe tended to have the same equipment as UK forces. 2. The Australians, New Zealanders (and Indians, who strangely are not included in SC2) were considered elite. The Canadians were less so, but certainly no worse than British troops. 3. The best reason for allowing upgrades: it gives Britain teeth. The UK is a punching bag for the first half of the game, and Tech Zero CW troops aren't much help. Three additional CW corps upgraded to IW1 would give the British a fighting chance in Africa. Before anyone tries to argue that the Axis should get the same benefit, don't bother. Italy, Romania and Hungary fought the war with their own ((often World War I era equipment). DT

If Terif scares Sombra, then Terif is a Dalek. DT

What happened to the ladder games? I remember there was a thriving tournament for SC1. Did everyone get bored with the game that quickly? I'm currently being beaten by Sombra. I was looking forward to some ladder games where I could be trounced - but in an elegant way - by Terif, Hellraiser and the other masters. DT ICQ 222-312-125 [ June 09, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: dicedtomato ]

I attacked an Italian fleet in Taranto port with a French BB in May '40. There was an I/O Error message (we were playing TCP), and then a Segmentation Error crash.

For me, it's crashed twice at the end of the first Axis turn in the '39 campaign (when I was the Allies), and it crashed once during the Allied turn (possibly when I ended the turn - don't quite remember). DT