Baron

I just lost a game to Rambo where he did me in with rockets. Cheaper than bombers Placed in fortifications built by engineers Well worth the tech invested Arguably a better investment than aircraft of any sort at higher tech levels Bombed the snot out of the Brits Very impressive strategy!

Man, I wish everybody was as wise as our resident poet. I think we should all stick our collective heads in the sand as the world goes to hell. Just don't be surprised as to what happens to the end that isn't buried in the sand...... As for me I have respect for any veteran even if I don't always agree with them.

Could someone more knowledgeable in scripts explain to me how Malts effects supply in the Med? What I want to justify in my own (admittedly feeble)mind is how an Island that is bombed down to 0 supply every turn can still cause so much havoc to the supply lines in the Med. Historically when Malta was under heavy pressure it lost its effective :confused: ness in interdicting the Axis supply lines to N.Africa. I don't see this same dynamic id SC2 v1.6. :confused:

Jesus, I am your next opponant in the tournament. I did not receive your email on the list that Rambo sent. Please contact me at taz@swva.net. congrats on your victory! Baron

Im took Konigsburg, not Berlin. His attack started off extremly well - he took the low countries and Denmark on turn 2. A combination of aggressive Poles cutting his supplies and poor weather hampered his advance. As he pointed out a slow or bad start in this game produces a lingering death for the Axis. He decided to throw in the towel sooner rather than later. A salute to a fine opponent!

The Allies survived into the spring in France. The British and French have formed a strong defense around the French capital and have had all winter to dig in they await the German onslaught..... Wait news is coming over the wireless that Konigsberg has fallen! Apparently the Poles who have been fighting a war against the German supply lines since last fall have broken through and captured the city. Hitler in a fury had ordered Rundstedt (sp?) to Berlin where he was going to have a bad case of lead poisoning. The General, knowing this acted first. In a General's Revolt the armed forces arrested Hitler and the rest of the heads of the National Socialist Party. A ceasefire is in effect as the terms of the German surrender are arraigned.

Sign me up. I can do tcp/ip in the evenings pbem anytime. ICQ 17-722-997 email taz@swva.net

17-722-997 I gues I should have typed it right also .. I must have been born blond

17-772-997 I should have added that at the first part...

I'll go round with you if you still need an opponent.

Shoot me an email taz@swva.net Baron

Lars, I too like the refinement. I'd also like to see the intel help out. If your intel level is 2 and the enemy units is 1 then you'd get something like this: At distance 5 and strength 12 then spotting strength would be 12-5=7 +1 (2 intel - 1 intel =1) = 8. I like to keep things simple. The older I get the more I like simple things As to your earlier question about Strength relating to range - err I think I might have been having a brain fart...

I propose an easier way to reflect this: 9-10 strenght = 5 squares (full sighting) 7-8 strength = 4 squares 5-6 strength = 3 squares 3-4 strength = 2 squares As always a unit would be able to see adjacent units. 11-12 strength = 6 squares 13-14 strength = 7 squares It would be nice to see these ranges increased by 1 square for every advance in long range air also.

Liam, I want the change (in air and naval bombardment) so that the attacker has to change the order of his attack. While the ability of air and ground forces destroying a ground unit is not a game breaker in and of itself it does open up otherwise limited fronts. Italy,N.Africa,Brest are all prime examples.By changing the rules to not allow a naval or air factor to destroy the last ground factor you force the attacker to use his ground units to do this. What this acomplishes is a limiting or narrowing of the front. With the attacker having to use his ground units to blow holes in the front you limit his explotation and make defense much more effective on narrow fronts. No longer will a combination of naval/air squadrons be able to blast a hole for ground units to exploit. I'm sick and tired of a lone cruiser sailing up and blasting away the last 2 or 3 factors of unit. (50 mile squares, max effective range of a 16" ship gun (carried by the Nelsons) 20 miles. It just wouldn't and further more didn't happen. Using the rules as they currently exist it would be impossible to replicate the Italian front. Game: Just blast away with your planes, then your ships polish off the enemy, then your ground unit advances into the hole at no penalty to movement or combat. What should happen: Blast away with your planes, your ships, then your ground unit eliminates the enemy and suffers the loss of movement that would have been required to destroy the remanants of a 30K unit and exploit the breakthrough. I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. I'm just having a hard time articulating it

I was just wondering do we have an ETA on the next patch? I hate to have more than 1 version of game going at the same time. I like what I've heard on the improvements for the next patch and again I'd like to put my 2 cents worth in on what I'd like to see but still hasn't been addressed. Surface Raiders - ships on the convoy lanes should have a chance on inflicting casualties. Heck during the early part of the war most U Boat attacks were at night and on the surface. Air and Naval forces should never, never, never be able to destroy the last factor of any ground unit. We've all been over this before. Is the game realistic? Is it historical? Point is the name of the game is STRATEGIC COMMAND. On the strategic level in the 1940's it was impossible to devestate a unit the size of a corps or army to the point of its destruction using air or naval forces. Ok I know its more like 10 cents worth now. Still enjoying the heck out of the game!! Thanks HC!

It appears somehow that Napolean must have risen from the dead. I'm playing a human opponent and Paris fell 4, yes count them, 4 turns ago and the French are still fighting! Now I'm playing as the allies but I imagine the axis player has a few choice words to describe this situation

Liam Harder to gain experience ????? I agree with almost every point except the one above. When you are getting shot at you gain experience very fast if you live through it, I don't care what nationality you are. What I would agree with is that the Germans had an experience edge in the beginning of hostilities (Poland) due to the higher training standards they had. I would however, contend that the soldiers of the Western allies that survived their first few battles were every bit as experienced as their German counterparts. Were the soldiers of the 1st ID or the 101st inferior to anything the Germans could throw at them? I’d say not. What the Americans, in particular, lacked in experience they more than made up for in initiative. The Germans that fought in Normandy were amazed at the effectiveness of American artillery they encountered yet most of the American units in Normandy were “green”. Have you every seen American troops in action? It is organized mayhem but man can they fight! I think it comes from the very ideals Americans hold dear like individual freedom. We hate to be told what to do! So we are very unpredictable when confronted with a problem. I believe it was Patton (here’s to you Rambo) who said to tell the troops what to do but not how to do it. Their ingenuity will amaze you! Man what a lot of hot air to just disagree on 1 point 

One of the funniest things I remember about my last tour in Iraq was passing one of my units convoys going South right out of Baghdad. We were in what we called "Indian Country" because convoys were often hit in the area, you’ve probably heard of the airport road - the most hit road in Iraq, and we were passing it going north while our sister platoon was going South. Anyway the gunner of this truck had to take a dump and there he was his ass hanging off the side of the catwalk letting it fly at about 50 mph right in the middle of Indian Country! Man did we laugh! I also remember his action pretty much summed up what we felt about the place... Below is an exerpt from Military.Com about a unit I served with for 4 years. I was activated after being home for 4 months to take care of this units families and their issues while they deployed in OIF 3. The article does not tell the soldiers side of the story. I was in a similar ambush while on my tour and I can tell you you feel horrible about what happened to the people we were protecting. While recovering their bodies all I could think about was their families at home and what would become of them.It also shows how little the civilian knew about military procedures and how little the press investigates stories before they run with them. It makes me want to puke! No lack of conflicting emotions in war. Yes it is hell! Civilian Says Guardsmen Fled Convoy Associated Press | September 29, 2006 RICHMOND, Va. - A Virginia National Guard unit came under scrutiny after a video seemed to show troops abandoning a civilian truck convoy during an attack by Iraqi insurgents, resulting in the killings of three unarmed drivers. The video, obtained by ABC News, shows a military personnel carrier racing away after insurgents open fire and disable four Halliburton trucks last September near Balad, Iraq. "I do not know who the driver was of that Humvee, but he abandoned us," civilian driver Preston Wheeler of Mena, Ark., who taped the footage, told ABC News. Wheeler said almost 40 minutes passed before U.S. troops returned. Military officials said Thursday that there was an immediate investigation, which found that no personnel had abandoned the convoy and they responded properly. "They fought back bravely while waiting for reinforcements and attending to the casualties," Lt. Col. Michelle Martin-Hing, a spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, told The Associated Press in an e-mail. In fact, Martin-Hing said, investigators recommended that one Soldier and one civilian be nominated for awards for the actions during the Sept. 20, 2005, incident. Virginia Guard officials confirmed Thursday that its 1173rd Transportation Company was on active federal status at the time. Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Chester Carter III referred all questions to the Tampa, Fla.-based U.S. Central Command, home of key command centers in the U.S. war on terrorism. Wheeler said that while the troops were absent, he crouched down in his truck and watched two truck drivers being shot at point-blank range. "They just killed 'em. They just killed him. Oh my God," Wheeler said in the video. Wheeler can be heard on the tape pleading for help on his radio: "Please help me ... I'm fixin' to get killed. I have no gun back here. I am by myself!" Those killed in the attack were Keven Dagit, 42, of Jefferson, Iowa; Sascha Grenner-Case, age unavailable, of Sierra Vista, Ariz.; and Christopher Lem, 40, of Lyndon Station, Wis., said Cathy Mann, a Halliburton spokeswoman. They were killed while delivering the mail, according to a news release from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The military investigation found that "individuals at the front of the convoy reacted as they were taught by pushing forward and getting out of the kill zone of the ambush," Martin-Hing wrote. "What is not visible in the video being shown is that they collected the casualties they could reach and laid down suppressive fire with their weapons to help get those vehicles that could move from the front of the convoy out of the kill zone," she wrote. The troops then set up security, called for support and medical evacuations and directed the movements of other gun trucks farther back in the convoy, she said. In a news release, KBR, Halliburton's engineering and construction subsidiary, did not address the details of the incident but said the military has "command and control" over its convoys in Iraq and is "required to provide security."

Lars, I reach that conclusion very simply. We know when the war started and we know when it ended. If the Axis forces survive longer than they did historically then I'd say it was a "victory". I don't believe that they would have won in any sense with the rest of the Western world arrayed against them combined with the mistakes they made. We do have to gauge victory somehow. With all the variables built into this game the one constant is the date I think as the only constant it could and should be used to judge victory.

I think Terif does a great job of learning and exploiting the rules of the game. Most IT departments have the same type of system in place before they push a software patch so that there aren't any bad "surprises" I for one do not like dissecting the rules or mechanics of a game because it doesn't interest me. I'm the kind of gamer that wants to install the cd and start playing the game right out of the box - hence the "beer and pretzels” analogy. I do however applaud their work. There was such a clamor to get this game to market by all of us players that allot of bugs shipped with initial version. As someone pointed out it took 7 patches to get SC1 "right" and it then went on to evolve into SC2. Is the game where it should be at this point? IMHO I’d say no but I believe it is getting there. Below is a list of improvements I’d like to see. Most are just rehashes of others ideas but one or two of them I’ve mentioned before and I’d still like to see implemented. 1) Better naval rules: I realize that WWII Europe was primarily an air/land conflict but by making the naval rules more entertaining I believe it would add to the game. Surface ships on the convoy routes should inflict damage. They did not inflict as much as the subs did but they did inflict some. Furthermore they were not on the shipping routes as often nor were there as many of them as there were subs yet they tied down considerable resources to prevent them from getting to sea. When they did even more resources were used to try and hunt them down and by being at sea they helped the air and sub forces. Does anybody remember the story of PQ17? 2) The Axis powers should get at least a minor victory if they survive longer than May of 1945, any other result would be an Allied victory period. 3) The conversation about the morale rules has been very enlightening. However there is an aspect that has not been considered. The war weariness effect. Having been deployed in combat twice in my life I know that the longer you are there the harder it gets. How often can I tempt fate and get away with it was a very real aspect of my experiences. What I propose is a morale penalty if a country has been at war with a certain country for more than a certain amount of time. I’d enforce this penalty against the Axis as the onus was on them to attack and succeed. As the war got longer the Allies got stronger and stronger. The “ants and the elephants” comes to mind. So what about a cumulative negative effect on Axis morale for every winter at war with the USSR after the first one? I choose the USSR as they caused most of the German casualties. An additional penalty could be added each January that the US and UK are in the war. These are just some suggestions I think would add to the game and that I’d like to see.

I may be alone on this but I find it hard to find TCP/IP or PBEM people to play. Due to the international community this game has the time zone issue is a real problem. I signed up for Panzer Liga but I've been gaming in several clubs for years and I'm not going to waste my time on 2 training games to be able to compete on the ladder there. I for one take issue with the "smack talk" crowd. I'm not for censoring their post but that kind of talk is not going to endear them to newer players. You can call me old school or a whiner but I like what Teddy Roosevelt said "walk softly and carry a big stick", let you accomplishments speak for you not your voice. I for one have never met anybody who told me how great they were that I cared about. I'm a beer and pretzel type gamer. I enjoy the playing of a game and the meeting of new players more than I care about winning. That’s probably why I'm one of the worst players on the forum. I don't use "cookie cutter" moves the get a certain result. I like trying new things, many who have played me will attest to my unconventional moves and poor win/loss record. I also like the editor but finding an opponent who is willing to play your modified game is also a handicap. Everyone has their own opinions and that’s why so many of the discussions here on the forum get so nasty. Not everybody likes it when someone says they are wrong or don't agree with somebody else’s view. It is possible to disagree with a person and not resort to name calling. So in summery In my opinion I think a rather "hostile" attitude towards newbie’s and the challenge of finding opponents are the biggest factors holding up this game.

What about just limiting the number of points a side can buy in a turn? Diplomacy is a long term endevour. Even if a country could be "bought" it would take time for that country to come to war footing. Look at how unprepared Italy was, any of the minor/major contries brought in early would suffer the same types of problems. Furthermore Foreign aid would be going to different countries at the same time, not all to one country and then start on another. I like the idea of only having 5 points in play at once but if you limit each country to 1 point a turn/per country nobody is going to be forced to break the bank in counter spending. Thus it would take at least 5 turns to get the maximum influence on any given country. I would also not allow diplomacy the the major powers USA,USSR at all. These countries had their own agendas and nobody in Europe had anything extra to through their way to influence them.Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

I'd love too. I was really hooked the first time we tried it.

I'm tired of looking for people who are not busy on IRQ to play SC2. If anyone wants to play a pbem game please email me @ taz@swva.net. I'm looking to play Blashy's scenario or the East Front scenario. Thanks, Out

I had the good fortune to play a few turns of this scenario today. Man,it is great! Making this operational scenario really shows the potential of this engine. Great job!! I can hardly wait to play the finished product.