Gamey Bastards Welcome!

[SuperTed]

Now that thoughts are turning to playing entire campaigns against other humans, it would be a good idea to get some ground rules in place. Some players will likely have no problem playing a wide open style with no restrictions, but others will want to tweak the gameplay with rules to suit their personal tastes.

If players know what the gamey strategies and game limitations are, they can discuss what rules they'd like to use, if any. I suggest starting the ball rolling by listing the gamey strategies and rules suggestions below.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

how bout no "wait off their coast and then declare war?

[SuperTed]

CVM,

That is a great start!

What would you suggest to prevent that?

[LC-]

also how many hexes do you concider coast? I mean, are you saying that you cant even load your troops onto transports before you declare war or just the people who have the transports ready to disembark their troops after declaring war?

This rule doesnt bother me either way. Surprise attacks were a part of all wars, but I can see why this may be concidered gamey since you cant get a neutral country ready for war at all.

[Straha]

Yeah, surprise attacks aren´t gamey. Pearl Harbour was mean, hideous, stupid, or whatever, but it was not gamey, and so wasn´t Barbarossa ...

Straha

[ July 10, 2002, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[Aloid]

Un-do move feature turned off.

No replays from the saved game if you F*&K up.

Allow DOW anytime. Deal with it! heh!

French units must wave the little white flags by CN.

Italians too.

Never play sober. :eek:

Aloid

[ July 10, 2002, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Aloid ]

[Bruce70]

Re: Surprise Attacks

As a middle ground you could allow neutral countries to communicate visible troop movements to both sides. So you would be able to see the transports off the coast but not be able to do anything about it. This would at least tell you that your opponent was busy elsewhere and you could start planning a counter attack.

[Otto]

SuperTed, great thought!

Once the game is released, (and I have a feeling it might be soon), we can compile a set of guidlines that players can follow if they wish. (OK, I know this is nothing new.) What is new is that I can post these guidelines on my site in black and white for all to see.

Maybe even a SC ladder?

[gorski]

I think Hubert has these issues handled already(hope?) I know he stated that the surprise DoW has been fixed. I think his solutions were give major countries a starting mpp allotment and make certain coastal hexes territorial water so you can't move there until after DoW. The undo move discussion is on the board somewhere. I don't recall wether Hubert or someone else suggested that undo move be a selectable option.

Aloid and I have played about 8 pbem games against each other. Anybody else out there played much SC PBEM?

Gorski

[Otto]

I don't agree completely. I mean I do think that Hubert has handled these things well, he has made a very historically accurate game. Unfortunatly for Head2Head players, "historically accurate" means the Allies have an advantage. These guidelines can be used to eliminate some gamey characteristics and balance the game.

Gorski, out of curiosity, who seemed to be winning your games, Axis or Allied?

[Norse]

A cheap allied player can sink the Italian navy before the Italian player can even move it. This is how: Send the French fleet to the med, group it with the Royal Navy, and idle outside the Italian coast where Italy will start with its naval units. When Italy joins the war, then the allies can hit the Italian fleet and cripple it tremendously, even if France surrenders the next turn.

I suggest Italy is given the chance to move his Italian fleet one time, before the allies can hit it.

How cheap aint it to be the Italian player, and have the fleet sunken before you can even do anything. Italy should be given one move first.

Test this against the AI.

What do you think?

[pzgndr]

Surprise is a key to victory, so we don't want to stifle it. The fleet issue could be resolved by starting fleets in port and not permitting naval attacks against fleets in port. For Italy and Russia, this would mean adding some ports. The no-attack rule would provide safe-havens and prevent navies from being hunted down and eliminated, although air cover does help when it's available. Another counter to the surprise issue which Hubert has addressed is to setup units already entrenched. It still permits surprise invasions and attacks but makes them more risky.

House rules are fine, but be careful making rules that are difficult to enforce. Some things are obvious, like transports sitting off the coast when DOW is made, but with FOW it may be very difficult to see what an opponent is doing. As campaign game experience accumulates and suggestions are made, I'd like to see more options added to the game which implements formal rules. This would protect the integrity of human play and also permit the same play against the AI.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Norse:

A cheap allied player can sink the Italian navy before the Italian player can even move it.

I have used this tactic myself, and I agree that it is problematical, if not unfair.

How about this -- there is a box you can check that allows the game rules/politics to be changed once the game has begun. Allow the Axis (ONLY, since USA and Russia were more independent and not "under the boot" so to speak) to choose WHEN Italy enters the war.

The Axis could announce -- "I am now changing Italy from Neutral to Random or Historical entry."

I don't know how this would effect eventual Italian entry, since I haven't been paying strict attention to War-entry percentages for Italy, but I assume they would still declare on the Allies fairly soon after the change. If they didn't, well that one or two turn delay would be the price to pay for choosing to save their fleet.

Perhaps this would prevent the Allies from ALWAYS using the French fleets to bushwack the Italians, feeling that -- since it is an uncertain possibility, they may as well hunt down subs or defend the north coast of France.

Also, this ruse may balance the game a little, because the Axis would have this one small advantage of knowing WHEN Italy is allowed to begin War preparations.

Any thoughts?

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Straha:

Yeah, surprise attacks aren´t gamey. Pearl Harbour was mean, hideous, stupid, or whatever, but it was not gamey, and so wasn´t Barbarossa ...

Straha

Suprise attacks aren't gamey, but there are some problems with the idea of moving fleets off the shore of a neutral country and then attacking from sea. SOunds like a perfectly natural idea, but what can be gamey is the idea of having a floating army right off a neutral's shore (with no way to spot that army) for weeks while troops are moved long distances... and the neutral has no opprotunity organize a coastal defense. It's gamey because it exploits a weakness in the game engine.

[Canuck_para]

While we are on the Italian problem, would it not be possible to have nuetral Italian (or Russian) forces on the board that could be moved around in non-combat moves, ie sending more troops to Africa or the Russians moving troops south if the German are in Iraq?

This would prevent the fleet destruction that we see in the present game.

[Aloid]

Originally posted by gorski:

Aloid and I have played about 8 pbem games against each other. Anybody else out there played much SC PBEM?

Gorski

Me thinks this is a challenge?

I've not played any PBEM games, as I can't be sure to give a turn a day (that's the expectation???).

Will PBEM for beer...

Aloid

Hmmm, come to think of it, I've won all of those 8 games against gorski!!

[Valadictum]

Hmm, I've come to have a great deal of fun bashing the Italian fleet with the French. I might lose a couple of French ships but it means there's a French unit on the board that actually achieves something.

Attacks on ports are necessary as without the carrier attack on Taranto there may never have been a Pearl Harbour and the USA may never have joined the war. :confused: I guess the USA have to blame the Brits for Pearl Harbour?

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Posted by SuperTed

CVM,

That is a great start!

What would you suggest to prevent that?

In the preset engine, n all nuetral countries military units are inactive. At least i assume. Their are two option to fix this, but before i explain them, let me give you the setting. I park 3 armies, 1 tankgroup, and Rommel hq off the u.s. atlantic coast. Wait until they are in position, declare war, i land my troops who due to the 'suprise' of their assault, recieve an attack bonus. This usually makes it so i take a city on the first turn. All my tranports, passing unscathed through the u.s. fleet. Option 1 is, to have the targeted country, in this case, the US, to declare war on me and take out my transports. Option 2 is that the country's 'inactive' military units , escpecially the aircraft, scouted my armada, so they knew i was coming, thereby making my units not recieve the suprise bonus. Let me say i am 100% gonna buy this game, but the whole 'declaring war process needs to be revamped.

I can also explain my ideas for this in a future post if you wish.

Baron CVM

[Straha]

But there WAS a surprise attack on the Italian fleet!

Actually, it was even somewhat of a predecessor to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

In 1940, The English admiral Cunningham planned an airstrike on the Italian port of Taranto where the bulk of Italy's big ships were located.

The attack was carried out in November 1940.

A British fleet set out from Egypt. It included the aircraft carrier HMS Illusttrious with her 34 planes which inclueded 22 Fiary Swordfish Torpedo Bombers, also 4 battleships and a number of supporting cruisers and destroyers. On the 11 November the fleet launched two strikes. The first consisted of 12 Swordfish, the second of 9. The attack took the Italians by surprise. The swordfish achieved a big success and sank the battleship Littorio and hit the Conte di Cavour and the Caio Duilio with a single torpedo each putting them out of action for a lengthy period of time. The battle of Taranto is considered to have restored the British Navy's dominance in the Mediterranean sea.

Straha

[MrWinterbottom]

See? Gamey brits!!

[SuperTed]

Great stuff, guys!

Allow me to clarify one point. The idea of this thread is to identify potential points of contention between players and develop some rules that could be used to address these. The rules would have to work within the game engine. I am not asking for proposals on how to change the engine itself (there are plenty of those elsewhere in the forum ). Rather, I am suggesting that we work together within the system to give players options for how they would like to play.

Here are a couple ideas for you to consider:

1) DoWs must be made at the end of a player's turn, after all movement, combat, and MPP expenditures have been made.

2) A previously neutral country is allowed one turn where neither side may cross their borders.

3) If a country wishes to violate #2, they must purchase a corps and sea transport it to their enemy. This unit would remain at sea, to be destroyed by the enemy. The cost of this unit represents the diplomatic hit of treachery.

4) #3 never applies to the use of a seaborne invasion on a neutral country. So, a same-turn land invasion of Sweden is okay (at a price), but a same-turn sea invasion is not.

The assumption behind all these rules is that the players trust each other to implement them fairly. For potential ladder play, it is suggested that all saved game files be saved by both players. This will allow a judge to check for rules infractions, if needed.

What do you think?

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Good points well made. SuperTed, i a pbem game i think you should be able to declare war on 1 country, not a whole alliance, if historically accurate, for instance, if i want to declare war on JUST romania in 1939, the british player should not be able to send troops there?

Good idea?? :confused:

[Aloid]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

Great stuff, guys!

<snip> ... within the game engine. <snip>...

Need said "game engine" to know what is still gamey, and what Hubert has tweeked to counter it.

Don't ya know!

Shouldn't the diplomatic hit come in the form of other Neutrals siding with your enemy?

I still say DOW and invasion should happen any time, unless the tweeks are to weak.

Aloid

[Canuck_para]

I think land attacks should be allowed at anytime. This simulates the lack of prep most nations in Europe had when invaded. It is the Italian navy problem I have. Maybe Italy should get a turn to move after it joins the war to allow it to save its navy. I don't even care if the Brits invade Libya right away.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

Good points well made. SuperTed, i a pbem game i think you should be able to declare war on 1 country, not a whole alliance, if historically accurate, for instance, if i want to declare war on JUST romania in 1939, the british player should not be able to send troops there?

Good idea?? :confused:

CVM,

The truth is that would not be historically accurate. The alliances were designed for mutual assistance. So, the enemy of my friend is my enemy and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.