Peter Palchinsky

Of course your strategy is sound, CH, since SC is a game and you understand the bottom-line. I want to play with more national limitations instead of making the best out of a slugfest, like throwing away French forces like they're free cannonfodder. Anyway, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE you detailing your strategy and rethinking it along the way. It definitely adds to the overall AAR and gives purpose to your decisions. Maybe Marc will provide us more detail on his strategies since the Eastern Front has kind of gone into stalemate mode.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed that the entrance of Spain would've been such a game changer in Europe...the biggest thing I thought would happen is the fall of Gibraltar. One moment CH was planning the fall of Italy and an expedition to the Far East, the next moment he's engaging German ground superiority with his undermaned UK forces much earlier in the war than he would without Spain, and he is now losing land power he needs for long term success. If only the USSR had hit the Germans when he landed in Spain, then maybe the losses would've been less severe. If this were real life, he'd have been dismissed as head of state, but SC doesn't enforce such limitations, so players can gamble where historical figures could not. Anyway, given the large UK losses that CH just suffered, I wonder if each nation has different values for the effects of unit losses on their NM. I would doubt the USSR has the same vlaue per unit loss as UK or USA (and the same goes for the respective Axis nations). However, do these effects decrease over time as the war "drags on"? For instance, Churchill came to power mainly because of relatively minor UK losses (both unit and key terrain) in Norway; however, by the Fall of France a month later, the BEF was about to be written off except it had an admirerer in Herr Hitler. It seems Churchill might have survived the complete destruction of the BEF, so maybe the effect on NM is not as great as it was before the fall of France; however, he probably wouldn't have survived the destruction of the RAF in 1940, so there are limits to what a nation will endure. Although SC is more game than simulation, the tools for NM allow for pseudo-simulation of politics, so it would be interesting to see these effects in the current AAR game. Since CH chose to use his UK strength in the wrong place and had his tail kicked (huge losses from a UK perspective), then maybe his UK NM should see a dramatic drop of 10-15% after so many losses, so quickly. This might make players use UK forces more wisely (as they would've been used in real life), than to toss them away as a distraction for Stalin's purposes. Anyway, SC would get more interesting if the Allied and Axis players had to accept political limitations associated with unit losses for each of their respective nations, rather than treat them as some worldwide monolithic force that is interchangeable and fights and dies for the exact same cause. It would be neat to see a news flash here and there as a result, and perhaps a change in gov't, which might lead to continuance of the war, but with further restraints, like unit build limits or restrictions on where a unit can serve on the globe. For example, if an Allied player ever managed to recreate history and invade N Africa in Nov 1942 with US/UK units (has anyone done this successfully?), but is hit like CH in Spain and overrun, could there be a DE caused by such a loss that stipulates that US units are restricted to operations in NW Europe with scripts for enforcing it? The same might go for CH in the current AAR game, where his losses in Spain force a DE that restricts his UK forces so the war in Europe has to be dealt with more wisely, AND perhaps a DE pops up to Stalin saying where are you, your western allies need an active eastern front or they will decrease lend lease (how to script an "active front"?). Maybe this is a bridge too far for SC now, but the tools that Hubert et al. are providing with each new game engine seem to be swinging SC more towards simulation than game, so I hope political realities keep seeping in and the use of DEs keeps increasing. PP

Thank you!

Cantona, there wasn't a cgn file in the zip folder, so I couldn't load the campaign in the game. PP

Honch, Still playing v3 and France finally surrendered on Aug 30, 1940 because of NM=0. I know you will fix the drop in NM because of Brit units in Belgium, but another possible problem surfaced. Since no German units ever occupied a piece of France and since a couple Italian units crossed into the French Alps, France actually surrendered to Italy! Please fix this script, so in case of French NM=0, then default surrender is to Germany. P.S. Below are the snapshots before/after surrender. Notice the Brits occupy Ypres, so the Belgians have not yet surrendered.

Very interesting discussions on this thread today. Another aspect that seems unrealistic is when a unit conducts an amphib assault (or parachutes in) and is at 10 supply, but then drops to zero supply the next turn if it doesn't have a supply source. Maybe this is fine for some players, but what commander keeps his job after using up all his supplies? The drop in supply should be incremental as said by others. This would happen in all situations where units are cut off from a supply source.

LV, also the game really shouldn't allow ahistorical events like an allied invasion of Spain. In reality, it would be very difficult for France to justify it, let alone, the British going along with a French invasion. Unless a random event or German diplomacy triggers Spanish feelings to become pro-CP, then there should be limits imposed on declaring war. Bill, can there be a mechanism that at the minimum prohibits a DOW on countries that are leaning towards your side? I don't know how to apply this to neutrals unless you could also prevent allied players from declaring war on them too (obviously CP wouldn't have such a restriction). PP

Have you also considered SS volunteer units from conquered nations? Maybe have them arrive as understrength corps or just allow Germany to purchase them somehow, or a DE that allows the German player to invest in their creation, probably following fall of France or after Jan 1941, whichever comes first.

Honch, what does French concern with lack of Brit support depend on? I've kept subsidies at 5% and deployed all 3 corps of BEF plus Gort HQ to Belgium, where there's heavy fighting, but French NM keeps plummeting. It went from 72 in April 1940 to 19 in August and it seems they'll likely surrender even though no German troops have set foot in France. I'd like to know how to stem the NM loss. Thanks. PP

Since SC1, I've felt something was wrong with how easily units can be eliminated. Historically, most battles ended with one side retreating, not being totally destroyed, which is rare in real life, but very common in SC battles. The current retreat mechanism helps alleviate this, but seems to wait till ground units are around 1-3 strength points before the unit may OR may not retreat; however, I suggest the following changes to the retreat mechanics: 1) Non-artillery ground units retreat by default if they are at least 50% strength or less AND are attacked by another non-artillery ground unit. 2) To change the default setting, allow players to choose "No Retreat" by right clicking on the unit. Then the current retreat rulles are in effect where the unit commander may or may not retreat when the unit reaches 1-3 strength points. 3) If terrain/entrenchment level aren't factored into the current retreat mechanism, then they should be. For example, if "no retreat" is selected for a unit in a fortress, then it is more likely it will not retreat compared to a unit behind a river. 4) Artillery units must retreat when attacked by non-artillery ground units except for anti-tank/AA/garrison/partisan units. 5) Naval units attacked at sea by naval/air units should retreat (like submarines do) if at 50% strength or less. If in port, they retreat at any strength following an attack by a non-artillery ground unit. Retreat from attack by air units might lead to 'gaming' issues, but should be experimented with. 6) Air units retreat at any strength following an attack by a non-artillery ground unit. This will reduce ahistoric uses of air units as "paratroopers" to fill gaps in the line.

I agree and suggest diplomacy costs be adjusted per nation with allies having generally cheaper rates than axis.

Honch, I'm playing v3 as allies and only comment is that USSR income of 0 seems extreme. If US is at 20% mobilization why is USSR at 0? That doesn't reflect the militarization of Soviet society. Please clarify your rationale. Thanks. Other than that, I really enjoy your mod. Have you considered modding any other scenarios...a 1941 mod starting with Barbarrosa? PP

Defensive air support would be useful in North Africa campaign since both sides usually have TAC available and ground units are hard pressed to stay alive very long. Interdiction sounds very good too. Seems like it could be a mission during the friendly turn and/or have it take effect during the enemy's turn within a certain radius of friendly TAC unit's base. Given that turns represent weeks, it seems like air units are missing crucial historical mission sets, like interdiction and DAS. These combat multipliers are currently missing for the defenders. Right now attackers wipe out defending ground units without accounting for these historical factors. Artillery units have helped alleviate this imbalance, but they are very limited in number and reach. Air units need to be improved to fill the gap.

I hope Bill can find the time to weed through this entire thread and capture the salient points...I honestly don't know how he keeps up with everything. Anyway, another improvement area for SOE is defensive air support. Artillery units already do this, and I think 'flying artillery' should too. Tac air units need a toggle to allow them to attack enemy ground units that attack friendly units during the enemy turn, or to remain silent. A problem may be providing escorts for this new mission, but maybe not. PP

Von Moltke planned to split the army evenly between east/west with advances from Pomern/Silesia towards Warsaw for a quick defeat of Russian forces in Poland AND a limited attack into French Lorraine to seize valuable mines and other French territory close to Germany. Then he hoped the army's fortifications and superior firepower would blow away enemy counterattacks AND gain sufficient leverage for the forefavorable peace terms (annex Russian Poland and demobilization of French forts so German army could reduce expenditures following a peace treaty.

The artillery pieces shown obviously have the wheels to move, so all you need are a large team of horses/oxen or tractors; however, the animals will need a lot of wagons of food and replacements along the way, and the tractors would need fuel and constant maintenance. If the area of travel has not been turned into "moonscape" like terrain, then forced march is possible, but like it has been said, the small scenarios shouldn't use forced march to account for the terrible wartime terrain.

It also could be money from Croatia because I noticed 2 Croatian garrison units each have "USSR" where their nationality is supposed to be.

Honch, I also noticed that the German player continues to receive MPPs from the USSR after Barbarossa begins and continues there after. PP

Honch, I noticed couple things with current version. 1) Romanian garrison appeared in Kishinev and VI Corps in Cernauti even though Bessarabia had been ceded to USSR. 2) Italian units stationed in S Italy (everything from Naples south) have been struck twice and reduced 1-2 strength points each time (June-July 1941). It reminds me of Long range desert force strikes. There is no explanation following AI turn. PP

I agree with your reasoning and looking forward to the next release. Thanks for the attention you've given to the details; especially, the remake you gave the Italian armed forces.

Trial isn't the right word; I should've said qualifying round, which is used to arrange players by skill level. Regardless, I agree more players should be eligible to go to the next round.

Why not use this time as a trial period since so much is being debated? After this round is over then go ahead and rank everyone in their leagues. Then rearrange everyone by thirds into 3 new leagues: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Then the 3 leagues each play one of the campaign games by mirror by pairing up players by rank. They continue playing until eliminated by double elimination. Then there will be 3 winners representing each league who play using double elimination to get a grand winner. This might be more fun for the majority of players since they would get to play at least 2 campaign games.

One thing I wanted to ask you, Honch, was your use of the second capitals for Belgium and The Netherlands. This seems like WWI, not WWII. Do you have a basis for using second capitals for these two countries? Thanks. PP

Kommandant, et al., I vote for the Kommandant/Glabro system because it allows players the chance to earn points instead of having a bunch of players with zeros, which could happen under the other system. However, the casualty ratio must be used for ranking everyone within each score grouping (e.g. all the people who scored 10 points should be put in rank order, and so on). After scoring each player within their league rank each grouping (e.g. all the 10's) according to the number of casualties they inflicted on the opposing players (in all games combined) divided by the total casualties they received (in all games combined). This will normalize the data into a ratio, which you can rank from least to most (in other words, worst to best). The casualty ratio will always be different and is most useful here. I'm not sure who qualifies to go to Round 2 (maybe the top 3 from each league?), but I think you will have to rank everyone within each league to be fair. Then you'd start over fresh with the next round. Also, I wouldn't have a separate scoring system for each scenario (e.g. Race to Sea) because it opens up to much room for ambiguity and unfairness. I understand it's too late for Round 1, but either the scenario is good for league purposes (the casualty ratio will have the final decision), or it shouldn't be played. Lastly, there have been non-responsive players in some of the leagues, so I suggest sometime this week you ask us to submit names. You have to think how that might affect the leagues. I think it's fine as long as each league has its own rankings, but I don't have the whole picture of how bad it really is. PP

I like all these suggestions, Glabro, but especially the one about air units. I've always felt something amiss when one can use air units like paratroopers. PP