The bugs and flaws are gone. Now remains some balancing 1.07 patch

[zappsweden]

I have been very sucessfull in my latest games.

The important issue that most players i met have missed is the mediterranean issue. In my latest allied game I almost abandoned the mediterranean (i left only some corps to hold the position for a while) since allied poor sea ports and possibility of being trapped in Egypt cost so much losses. The important Normandy invasion is in danger of failing if Allies takes too much losses early on.

In my axis games i often encounter allied players that DO try to fight for africa. My axis response to this is a combination of 3-4 Axis air fleets, 1 axis HQ, All Italian navy and some ground units. The result is deceisive. Air units have good values against navy units, so the axis air and the fully supplied italian navy wears the allied navy down and Egypt falls.

The key is going for the centre of the mediterranean. Allies must then choose wether to go east or west. If they do turn east they will be trapped in Egypt and destroyed. If they turn west, Egypt is an easy target. After Egypt falls, axis can send their air fleets away from africa since they are needed in Russia and France. The same turn USA joins the war, Axis can invade Palestine (Vichy France) without political penalty. From that supplied position, Iraq is next (1-2 turns later).

Note that this doesn't hinder my other activities at all. After France falls i have 3 HQ as germans. Immediately 1 goes for Sweden and Norway, 1 goes for Africa and 1 Stays in France to counter any Allied air activity. Since building units cost twice as much as reinforcing them, the mediterranean wars will cost the allies very much eventually, if they try to hold Egypt.

Proposals for balancing:

1. Some allied ports need to be stronger than level 5 in the mediterranean (preferrably the Egypt ones).

2. The Suez loop need to be faster, be both ways (but only ONE return square) and include navy (ofcourse).

3. The starting corps in Egypt needs to be an army.

4. Russia needs slightly better starting position to avoid early disaster.

[ December 11, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[J P Wagner]

I don't think there will be anymore patches for this game, so it's time to accept the game as is and look forward to SC2.....

[pzgndr]

3. The starting corps in Egypt needs to be an army.

This one can be handled with the scenario editor now. Perhaps add a low strength HQ and Tank Group to the Egypt setup as well. Try Martinov's, Dgaad's, or my mod, or create your own. There's some basis for starting additional British cadre forces in Egypt, which can then be built up over time. This is also faster then building in Britain and then transporting, which addresses your #2 point, and helps with play balance in the Med.

The key for Axis strategy is the central Med as you point out. However, the key for the Allied counter-strategy is the eastern Med. Just as the Germans can throw in 3-4 air fleets to dominate Italy and Libya, Britain can op move air fleets and strategic bombers to secure Egypt and protect its fleets. Either the Axis gets lucky at breaking the stalemate before USSR enters, or they don't. Put the burden of risk on the Axis to seek battle in the east rather than risking the British fleet in an early battle in the center. Once USSR enters and draws off Axis air superiority, the British begin to gain the upper hand. Take Iraq after US enters to open up a supply path to Moscow and those 5-factor ports are then able to fully reinforce your fleets just like a 10-factor port, which addresses your #1 point. This all requires patience and perserverance on the Allied player's part, just like it actually happened.

[zappsweden]

Bill.

In your "allied should defend Egypt theory", did u assume a scenario added HQ or did u mean that the HQ should be paid for and sent from Britain in a default 1939 scenario?

Without an HQ they are doomed against the luftwaffe.

Also, how much navy did u mean the allies should divert to Egypt?

By the way, you are welcome to try that tactic as Allied against me.

[ December 11, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by zappsweden:

That is why the mediterranean wars will cost the allies soo much eventually, if they try to hold Egypt.

And it will cost the Axis a pretty penny as well.

The Germans will spend MPPs for Op moves for their Air and HQ, unless you fly all your planes down to Sicily.

But, that won't do any good if the Allies do not get impatient and strike too soon for Tripoli. In that event, they have to be op-moved to Libya.

And the Axis will take some losses, maybe even substantial losses, which will have to be repaired.

And the Allied Air left in Britain will be gaining great experience with bombing runs if you send enough Axis air to the Med to make any appreciable difference.

Small losses to strat bombing, but it all adds up, especially since the new V 1.06 research limitations do not allow such quick advances as before.

And the Italians will not be able to take Greece so very easily. Or, if they try, then Libya will be that much more vulnerable.

This can work with either the default '39 scenario, or with Bill's excellent mod.

I know, because he worked it against me. I got my foolish Axis head handed to me... Bill is a truly formidable foe, in the Med or otherwise, and he is... relentless...

... like that Lion long-lived on the Savannah, steadily following the dik-dik herd, and Lo! what do you know?

There, just a FEW steps behind, is the wounded laggard, poor little dik-dik, and nobody nowhere on Earth notices nothing, except for... the Big Cat, slowly, surely, gradually gaining ground.

It's a long, and endlessly lingering day under that brilliant Afrikan sun, and -- old Lion? He ain't even broken a sweat yet and he's got... all the time in the world....

If you look closely, say, if you were an emboldened Francis Macomber out on safari, you would even see -- you'd swear it so!... the bare beginnings... of an ancient and easily indolent smile... :eek:

[zappsweden]

I have posted a message in the opponent forum(English). It is called "SC, Challenge for Bill Macon OR Immer Etwas".

You are all welcome to try it. I hope that you ARE right that there is a way for allied activity in mediterranean. Prove me wrong!

[ December 11, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[pzgndr]

In your "allied should defend Egypt theory", did u assume a scenario added HQ or did u mean that the HQ should be paid for and sent from Britain in a default 1939 scenario?

The Allies have a very tough time in the default scenario against a determined Axis player. It's still possible to buy a HQ and transport it to Egypt prior to Italy entering, and perhaps get another Corps or Army down there in time. The Canadians can also help. As long as you don't move ANY Med garrisons, you're free to move through the central Med. I'm in no way saying this is a surefire win for the Allies, but does provide for a challenging fight and may divert enough German resources to help the Russians.

Let's face it, the situation will depend on the decisions players make. And at some point, either player will be forced to decide whether to continue the fight or cut losses and retreat. Admitedly the Brits can't retreat, but loss of Egypt is not the end of the game. Unit losses in a prolonged fight are greater than the MPP value of Egypt, and if you're not spending there than you can be spending MPPs someplace else.

[blackbellamy]

As the Allied player I find I can seriously contest the Med battle from the get go. It doesn't matter if the Axis brings a bunch of Air Fleets down to Italy because the battle is at Tobruk and Axis planes can't reach there from Italy. I welcome any attempt to move Air Fleets closer, into North Africa itself, because this usually means supply problems for them and they are eventually wiped out or have to re-base.

Either way the Axis player only gets a short window to operate in the Med since the war with Russia is just around the corner.

If the Axis doesn't pull all air to the eastern front he won't be able to roll over Russia easily and as the Allied player that is exactly what I want. The Brits don't mind trading fleets and air for a stalemate in the East.

[Friedrich_der_2]

The war in the Africa/Egypt is complete unimportant. I always play axis and I never engage German troops in north Africa. The Italian fleets wipes out the French ships than they attack one English ship at Gibratar or/and the Spanish city (I always conquer Spain after France).

After defeating England Egypt is mine. And I need the troops at the Eastern front so I go directly for England after France. My Italian troops go for Spain and some German troops are in Yugoslavia and/or Norvege and Sweden. They are relacated to the eastern front when Russia declares war.

Why should I engage in Africa? It needs a lots of troops and I cannot win as much MPPs as in Norvege and Sweden.

Sven :cool:

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Sven1969:

The war in the Africa/Egypt is complete unimportant. I always play axis and I never engage German troops in north Africa. The Italian fleets wipes out the French ships than they attack one English ship at Gibratar or/and the Spanish city (I always conquer Spain after France).

WOuld you be an AI only player? These tactics of yours won't work easily against an allied player of any worth.

[Yohan]

Don't forget taking Iraq boosts all ports and cities in the Med for the Allies!

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Yohan:

Don't forget taking Iraq boosts all ports and cities in the Med for the Allies!

Isn't that only if the road to Moscow is open?

[zappsweden]

Most replies i have seen here says that:

1) it's not worth the cost for germany to send troops to Africa

2) Allies do have a chanse to hold off Germany in Egypt

3) Axis forces drawn away from Russian wars are just what Allies want.

Answers to the statements.

1. To transfer troops to Africa, Germany pays mostly 40*3 (air fleets)+ 50 (HQ) +35 (tank) +25 (army)=230 MPP. also, the cost is 40*3 to transfer the air back. so 230+40*3=350 MPP

For germany, The gains from occupying egypt is 15MPP. Palestine is 5MPP, Southern france is 10 MPP and Iraque is 40MPP. A total of 70MPP in increased income.

As i said earlier, this does NOT affect the scandinavian wars. Sweden and Norway is occupied in 1941. When France falls, units head straight on for Egypt, Sweden and Norway. Avoiding high operational movements to Italy is prioritiy. Air units fly as fast as they can to italy, to force the allied fleet to split from malta. then comes the cost of transferring troops over the ocean.

2. Germany will have an HQ with supply=5 so the troops will have supply 3-5. Allies cannot counter this with navy. If england transfer 2 or more air units to egypt, germany just transfer 2 additional there, having a 5-3 or 5-2 odds in air units. The german HQ has better experience and higher value (Mannstein). I don't think that allies can transfer canadian units, a bought hq and air units there. If they do, England is almost undefended and a smart axis player throws in a 1941 sea-lion. Allies don't have the cash to build troops, reinforcing casualties and doing research at the same time, in the early-mid game.

3. True that axis needs much troops for Russian wars. A good axis player gets France in mid 1940 so they have lots of turns to fight for egypt before russian wars. The difference is, germany air units will return from Africa as soon as Egypt falls, but allied HQ and whatever ground units there will be gone forever, which puts less pressure on the French coast, which means Germany can focus more on Russia.

They same turn that USA enters the war, Germany attack Vichy France i.e Palestine and southern France. 1-2 turns later Iraq is swallowed by the german masses. This also act as a Russia threat so the 2 ground units force russia to draw 1 unit south to cover the kaukasus-iraque border.

I have played GOOD players and the allies lose more than Germany in Egypt, believe me.

[ December 12, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Friedrich_der_2]

I fully agree zappsweden. But I am only a parttime player with familiy, a job and other hobbies

But I think it is more important to destroy the english fleet in the Atlantic and to capture London before Russia declares war on the allies. As playing the allies I try to invade France right after Russia declares war.

I think you should focus your troops on the main goals. That what I also read in the book "On War" from Clausewitz. Is my first book on military strategy I am a complete newbie

And I never played against a human player :cool:

[ December 12, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Sven1969 ]

[zappsweden]

Sven, it is true that in REAL WW2 it was more important to occupy London before Russia enters the war.

In SC there are rules and moves that can make it a blunder to attack England.

Imagine the following:

England plays cautiously and France too. France falls in early 1940 but much French troops escape to England. UK doesn't care about the mediterranean and transfers home most of it's navy.

Say that you are axis and play against an allied human player. If you attack England under these circumstances the UK troops are already heavily entrenched in london, mountains and other cities. The invasion of England then takes too much time and US enters the war. Even if u get London the UK doesn't surrender in this game. You have to almost wipe them out to defeat them. If US troops begin arriving in UK the situation is critical because the sea-lion invasion also causes Russia to enter the war much earlier.

The tactic you choose can not be completely decided until you know what the opponent is up to, and that is the strong point in this game. Big variation from game to game.

The weak point is that the mediterranean, in my opinion, offers too bad odds for the allies to even bother wasting resources there.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

The tactic you choose can not be completely decided until you know what the opponent is up to, and that is the strong point in this game. Big variation from game to game.

The weak point is that the mediterranean, in my opinion, offers too bad odds for the allies to even bother wasting resources there.

Game theory: if the Germans always KNOW that you

will choose to abandon the Med (as you just stated),

then they will then gain a significant edge by

planning for this accordingly.

I'm not about to attempt to devise a sample space

for this situation, but if what you are saying is

true, then SC has a saddle point: the Allies should

always abandon the Med, and the Germans should

then always take the Med. Makes for a boring

game tho.

However I'm not convinced. For one thing, if the

Allies roll over dead down there, it might have

dire consequences for the Russians in the

Caucausus in '42/'43. And as I said a good

Axis player will blitzkrieg through the Med so

fast it will make your head spin, if he is sure

you won't contest him.

In any event you probably should decide what to do

based on a ~75%/25% split: a fourth of the time you

WILL contest the Med, so as to screw up the Axis'

Perfect Plan, but the other times you will go with

the Britainnia First strategy. After that it all

depends on how long you can keep the enemy in the

dark about what you are doing.

John DiFool

[Friedrich_der_2]

Zappsweden I fully agree with you in one point. I the axis defeat France too slow Germany has a problem. But in most of the games you can defeat France fast and the AI concentrates some troops and Navy in Egypt. This gives me the chance to land a tank and 4 armies this the Manstein HQ in England. Supported from 4 air units (later 5) with Rommel HQ England is in trouble.

Either if the war in France is slow I think you have to attack England. Germany cannot win the war with England in the back. So I prefer to attack England at everx cost after defeating France. The war in Egypt costs a lots of MPPs and do not solve the English problem. And after occupying London it is a matter of time until you get Manchester and England surrenders.

[zappsweden]

5. Limit operational movements of GROUND UNITS (to about 20 hexes). It's kind of irritating when whatever amount of UK/US troops approaching the french coast, the axis can transfer twice the amount from deep Russia. The result is that axis gets an undeserved big chanse of throwing the invaders out to the sea, even if they have neglected the defence.

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Sven1969:

Germany cannot win the war with England in the back.

Of course she can!

[JayJay_H]

'Endsieg' can even be gained in every campaign up to Fall Blau 1942 (German Victory with UK in the back) Why not? Everything is possible after USSR surrendered. Just a matter of time then until the nice little brittish empire will collapse and USA soon follows

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by JayJay_H:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sven1969:

"Germany cannot win the war with England in the back."

"Of course she can!"</font>

[GumbyDude]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

5. Limit operational movements of GROUND UNITS (to about 20 hexes). It's kind of irritating when whatever amount of UK/US troops approaching the french coast, the axis can transfer twice the amount from deep Russia. The result is that axis gets an undeserved big chanse of throwing the invaders out to the sea, even if they have neglected the defence.

Agreed. Very frustrating that transports have to stop at the beaches and sit there for a month or more while the enemy builds beach defenses. Then you can't land. I did that to the Germans in my game as the Allies and he's doing it to me now. I swarm the coast with transports, but he easily blocks them. I move and he moves the same units back and forth. Basically have to rely on air to bust open 1 or 2 hexes then land.

To make this more realistic: I'd rather have transports be able to move and then unload in the same turn. To avoid a quick "load-move-invade" move, the process of loading should take entire turn and transport can't move the same turn they load. That way, a transport loads and sits in port that turn and enemy knows you are coming next turn, but doesn't know exactly which hexes will be invaded.

Also, someone commented on opening up supply path from Moscow to Egypt. I'm playing a game now and I still can't get full supply in Egypt. Germany attacked Turkey (a mistake IMO) in an attempt to attack middle east and southern route to Russian oil fields. I stopped him around the strait and we'v ebeen battling there. I still can't get full supply in my cities but I can op move from Finland to Egypt (controls Norway/Sweden/Finland too). Perhaps it's a version thing? I'm 1.04 right now to switch to 1.06 after this game.

[JayJay_H]

Dont you mess with Wernherr v. Braun - you dont know what your dealing with *G* even though you already have limited information about the secret flying saucer program

[JerseyJohn]

JayJay_H

The world has lost it's fear and needs to see them again --! :eek:

[ December 19, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bullwinkle]

Hey Jersey - I liked the Bullwinkle clip. Thanks for the entertainment! (there's never enough of that!)