Anyone Ever Have A Game Where The Allies Came Back To Win?

[sogard]

Has anyone ever seen a game in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) where France surrenders in either June or July 1940 that resulted in an Allied victory?

What I am looking for is a game where the Allies came back to win from a close to historic outcome in 1940.

I have never seen it. In order for the Allies to win in all the games that I have seen, the Allies must do substantially better than their historic counterparts. This usually means that France must survive well into 1941.

This question would really only apply to games between two human players (either pbem or hotseat).

[ September 29, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[arby]

Originally posted by sogard:

Has anyone ever seen a game in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) where France surrenders in either June or July 1940 that resulted in an Allied victory?

What I am looking for is a game where the Allies came back to win from a close to historic outcome in 1940.

I have never seen it. In order for the Allies to win in all the games that I have seen, the Allies must do substantially better than their historic counterparts. This usually means that France must survive well into 1941.

This question would really only apply to games between two human players (either pbem or hotseat).

I've had at least three games where that happened. One was against JollyGuy, I'm doing the same thing to another player right now, and I had it done to me once: The Russians manage to hold out in the East long enough for the Western Allies to mount an invasion of France. If the Allied player is doing it right, he should have total air superiority in the Western theatre, just as the Germans have it in the East. In all three cases, France had fallen right about on schedule, maybe a little earlier, in fact. (Most players seem to invade France and the Low Countries by the January 1940 turn, and I've even seen it done in the December 1939 turn.)

In fact, I'm not sure that the defense of France makes much difference. In one of my earlier PBEM games, the Allied player did the full court defense: he was building units in Britain and shipping them over as fast as he could, he was using his ships to defend against my invasion of Denmark, the works. For a while, I thought that I wasn't actually going to take France. I finally did, but not until October of 1940. Still won the game rather handily. I had another guy do the same thing, except he was even landing British corps in northern Germany. I did a Sea Lion on him.

The disadvantage of too active a defense, especially by the British, is that they could be dumping those MPP's into research and getting a head start on the Germans in Ind Tech, LR air, and jets.

[ September 30, 2002, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: arby ]

[DevilDog]

I had a game as Allies where not only did France fall, but so did Sweeden and England. The Axis player did a simultaneous invasion of them both. However I was able to drag it out long enough that Russia came in with all but a few of his corps overseas. I made it to within a hundred miles of Berlin before he was able to begin an effective defense. Needless to say, from there it was just a matter of time. He brought everything on the invasion of England (like 5 armies, 3 tanks, several corps and two HQs) - by turn two I knew I had no chance to hold the island. But I knew that once London fell Russia might come in, and would for sure come in when Manchester fell. So it was just basically a matter of delaying the fall for as long as possible.

[ September 30, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[Gman]

So would you say England is better off just building up the home island while the Battle of France is on. This way once France does fall hopefully England will have enough defences to thwart a Sea-Lion?

[sogard]

Unclear from your post DevilDog, did the Allies win the game you describe?

I have a pbem game where the Germans have invaded Britian and just took London. The Russians have just entered the war. Game is still in progress and I don't know if they will win and, to be fair, my Axis opponant is till figuing out all the nuances of the game.

I still do not see how, with experienced and equally matched opponats, the Allies would ever be able to duplicate a comeback that we saw in history (with a French surrender in early July, 1940).

[DevilDog]

Yeah, the Allies whom I was playing won that game.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Actually, i believe the defense of france is vital. The Uk should contribute, but not all of its troops. It needs to send a BEF, and maybe a corps (canadian if you wish) and evacuate them the moment the line in Northern france is broken. This way, England is contributing , getting a little bit of exp. points for his armies. And buys time to Dig in in England. The British player must however conserve the Raf as much as possible, especially during the battle of france. It is the most important unit the Uk has following the fall of paris.

CVM

[pzgndr]

I still do not see how, with experienced and equally matched opponats, the Allies would ever be able to duplicate a comeback that we saw in history (with a French surrender in early July, 1940).

A couple of the big Axis advantages right now are rapid research advances they can afford eraly in the game and (relatively) cheap purchase costs for advanced units. Hubert has already been considering research tweaks and will probably factor in the 10% cost increases for unit builds that's been missing. That should help a lot.

I tried to generate some related discussion on Another Play Balance Topic, but apparently presented some ideas too sublime for polite conversation? I recently played as Allies against the AI at Intermediate +1 settings and came back to win in May 45, which is about the best balance I've seen yet in my SC games. Granted the AI isn't human, but still a fair challenge at those settings (at least for me). In the other post, I tried to raise the old Lines of Communication argument to justify limiting ALL builds to home country. This will help slow the German steamroller the deeper into Russia it goes. So slower research, increased build costs for advanced units, and builds limited to home country will all provide some moderation to what appears to be an Axis advantage right now.

Once the Allies did turn the tide in late 43 in my game and get going in 44, especially the Russians, the Axis simply could not keep up and melted away. My other comments were oriented toward slowing down the Axis some in order to turn the tide a bit sooner (which is the gist of this topic), and then slow down the Russian steamroller which can and does get out of hand if you get that far (which is a different topic). But there's a lot of overlap.

[sogard]

I appreciate what you are saying; but, my experience is that solo games against the AI are not really good indicator for a game where both sides are played by a human. Quite simply, the AI is predictable and locked into a predetermined pattern.

I don't think you can get much useful from playing the AI. Play some more pbem and you will quickly see what I am talking about. A human will exploit the holes in the game's design which the AI will never do.

[iolo]

I managed to lead the Allies to a win after losing France in the summer of 1940 (late July I believe).

I was actually pretty sure I was toast, but the barbarossa campaign wasn't too well executed. The german player couldn't break through the layers of corps and eventually the British fighters (highly experienced from the strategic bombing of France) helped knock out Brest and give us a foothold. And the rest is history...

[pzgndr]

I don't think you can get much useful from playing the AI. ... solo games against the AI are not really a good indicator for a game where both sides are played by a human. A human will exploit the holes in the game's design which the AI will never do.

Frankly, I am getting more than my $25 worth of entertainment from playing the AI, which is actually pretty good - not perfect nor complete, but pretty good as most games go. As I pointed out, I played a very enjoyable game at settings appropriate for me. That's useful.

The main point about humans exploiting holes in a game design, any game for that matter, begs a question. What exactly are people looking to "get" out of SC in its current form? The game lacks, shall we say, a certain degree of realism and historical accuracy necessary for a WWII simulation worthy of semi-serious study of grand strategy. Playing other humans willing to exploit the current game's weaknesses, be it L5 jet technology by 1942 or German seaborne invasions of North America or whatever, and then observing equally implausible game results proves ... what?

SC is a fun game, but at this point it's just that. Some more tweaks and adjustments can make SC1 better, but a lot of what's necessary to make this game a more realistic challenge along the lines of 3R/A3R or WiF will have to wait until SC2. That needs to be kept in perspective as we continue to evaluate and judge this game.

[sogard]

I wish I really knew how good SC1 could be. I am most curious as to what Hubert will do next. I hope that with tcp/ip implemented, SC1 will also be made to provide a more balanced, if not more accurate, strategic WW II game.