NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!

[Jollyguy]

Although I prefer pbem because of my schedule, and Panzer 39 was busy at school and in the middle of tests, we still managed to squeeze in a couple two hour plus, tcp sessions, between pbem turns. We did this on a Friday and a Saturday night, when we both had a bit of spare time. This really moved the game along.

[Iron Ranger]

Due to personal disagreements with one or two aspects of this game (SC) I need to withdraw from the turniment. Good luck, interesting senerio JJ.

My thoughts on this is that with so many units and high level of Tech the first punch is the most powerfull. Who every plays the frist two turns best has a huge advantage.

In my (unfinish) game the allies took LC turn one - destroyed the Itialian navy on turn two - took spain on turn 4 (even air war over LC now) - knocked the Germany naval down to shat on turn 6.

[xwormwood]

This are really sad news , Iron Ranger.

I can understand your disappointment about Huberts announcement that no further improvements are to be expected in SC, "parte the firste".

I felt a bit empty when i read it as well: yesterday we were on the race for perfect wargaming and today the race has ended. But we all knew that this point would be reached some day: everything seems to be said, and what to do now (just like the masses who followed Forrest Gump running through the USA, maybe you remember the scene when Forrest decided to stop running because he was tired and one member of his fellowship approached him asking "and what about us?")?

Maybe you should simply relax for a couple of days as well.

And after this break play only against different players, which don't play only to win. Those, who simply want to have some fun while playing.

Play new sc-recruits, and enjoy new attacks which are not already "corrupted" from ladder or league-game experiences.

I have had lots of fun playing (and losing) against you, and i wish everyone else such a nice and competent player to learn from.

Anyway, take care till you have fun to play & visit us again.

To bring the classical quit-message from Wing Comander: "they (we) will be waiting while you sleep".

[ June 14, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[JerseyJohn]

Iron Ranger,

Sorry to hear you won't be staying around, you're a real asset to the Forum community.

I think xwormwood is exactly right, play for the fun of it and don't get too worked up about the outcome. No game is perfect and this one is particularly frustrating because so many of us go back so far in this hobby and can write a tome on exactly what we'd like this sort of game to be. The frustrating thing here is it's easy to imagine how much better SC would be if it were just a little better in this or that area; the open letter brought to light an incredible flaw and you can imagine that I was disappointed to read that nothing would be done to correct it -- still, it does play well enough as a game, but we all want more.

Your own unfinished game shows how flukey SC, and especially this sort of scenario, can be. The big complaint was nobody could possibly win with the Allies, and in your game the LC gambit cracked the Axis wide open; which happened to me as well in a social game. So, hopefully, at least the decisive Axis advantage argument will be dropped.

Here's hoping you'll reconsider and at least do some posting. If not we'll all miss your fine ideas, observations and contributions.

Your one of the positive mainstays whose loss would noticably diminish the Forum, so, once again, hopefully you'll change your mind.

[ June 14, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Iron Ranger

I second and third(?) what was said. Take a break from SC for a couple of weeks, then come back. Its not Mr H's fault. He has done exactly what he set out to do... provide a perfectly balanced game that has the flavor of WWII.

When you get back, we can have a discussion about something called House Rules and Historical Responsibility. Until SC2 comes out, thats the only choice for those of us who want more than a game.

Btw, I like your idea of the Siberians being a option for the Allied player after Sept '42. Thanks. I'm gonna steal it and put it in my enhancement suggestions.

[Terry]

Jusdt read through the threads as I've not been on for as while.

1) The view of deciding how unfinished games are tobe judged appears fair and considered.

2) I think the scenario is ok balanced, although US and Russian entry could be a tad higher at the start.

3) Hubert may well not be going to tweak SC1 anymore, but I'd rather he got on with SC2 to be honest.

4) And everyone's right - its just a game for fun (sometimes this is lost in all the posturing that goes on in the boards). Play silly tactics and see what happens (althogh I advise aginst the allies declaring war on Turkey as I recently did to see what happens!. Seek out new players and boldy lose like no one has before!

[Iron Ranger]

Its not Mr H's fault.

I never said it was his fault. If you read his posts on this subject (or at least the info I've seen) he was 'troubled' (thought long and hard) by going for the hard date route or the battle field condision route. He decided to go the battle field route, I think this is wrong, or 1/2 wrong (you put in a subroutine that split direcitons after a certian date, pre Jan 42 battle field, post Jan 42 player driven). The siberian transfer was the first turning point in the war and is in any game not played the cookie cutter route. To have it controled by the side that doen't benifit by the results is wrong. The same situation would result if the axis could only attack the countries the allies said were OK to DOW.

[disorder]

ironranger said--

I need to withdraw from the turniment. Good luck, interesting senerio JJ.

of course i'm sorry to hear you will not be involved anymore. good luck in real life.i took a short dip into the real world yesterday, and just got back today. take it from me, the real world is not all it's cracked up to be. have you ever been to FARGO???

but all that aside, on to business.

if my list is correct, iron ranger who was playing allies resigns to jo le souvrain playing axis. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING ONE AND ALL!

advancing to round two is the first round winner----

jo le souvrain!!!

all things are well again!

if you are still having technical problems mr. le suvrain, please let us know and we might be able to get them straightened out by round 2.

5 games left to hear from!

[JO LE SOUVERAIN]

I don't think i really deserve advancing to the next round :confused: Iron ranger had the allies in control in France and around italy and that was not about to change soon enough for the axis,so for me i did not win this game.

I will not complicate things and i will continue on round 2,but our game is saved and if Iron ranger is willing to reconsider it would be a pleasure for me to continue our match.

Le souverain

[JerseyJohn]

JO LE SOUVERAIN

Very gracious offer, it's good to come across someone with a sense of honorable sportsmanship.

[disorder]

i understand completely. if mr. I-ranger returns we can adjucate the game if unfinished in 45 days.

if not please accept our congrats!

[KDG]

News flash....

Russian leadership has been found asleep with bottles of vodka all over the floor.

As the war creeps into late 1941(I guess it would be 1944 for the scenario), with every country on the map having been invaded(except the U.S.), Russian readiness is only at 45%(I think Russia should start at 30% at the beginning of the game, like they do in the original 1939 scenario).

One wonders what will force the Russians into the war(destroy supply of Vodka maybe? where is that production plant. Maybe the British could sabotage it).

[ June 16, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[xediel]

not quite true... switzerland is still in the game

[KDG]

Oh, they are in it all right, secretly supplying the Germans with everything Swiss.....

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

"As the war creeps into late 1941(I guess it would be 1944 for the scenario), with every country on the map having been invaded(except the U.S.), Russian readiness is only at 45%(I think Russia should start at 30% at the beginning of the game, like they do in the original 1939 scenario)."

This is strange because in my games the USSR usually enters during early 1942 and the US a year earlier, which is why I set them so low.

[xediel]

As the war creeps into late 1941

by the early 42 it will be in the war !

[JerseyJohn]

xedial

Thank you -- exactly!

[KDG]

In the standard game, Russia would normally enter the war in late 1941. With less DOW's, you can keep them out until 1942. With more DOW's, middle 1941 is a possibility.

When every country is at war, 1942 shouldn't even be a possibility. With Axis taking Turkey, they can have endless amount of units waiting to invade the shores of southern Russia(which I know JerseyJohn you don't like about the game - i.e. Riga invasion).

I'm still not sure why you didn't leave Russia at 30% to start the game for this mod.

I really hope Russia is pretty powerful in this game to make up for the early German advantages. We will see.

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

You're right, I hate the way some events seem to unfold, such as Germany being able to hit countries that should trigger responses from other countries -- but don't! I believe, as you do, that Germany shouldn't be allowed to go on a rampage and not face the consequences of involving the USSR and possibly the USA.

On the other hand, I've had games where the USSR enters early and things are ruined. The main reason I've set USSR & USA at 0% is so the Allies can't do something like play the LC Gambit and hold France a year longer than normal, which boosts Soviet War Readiness considerably. I've alrady had that happen to me; Germany has to fight Russia long before she's prepared to do so and it's a game killer.

I felt it would be better to set it low and not have that happen.

Usually if the USSR enters after early 1942 it's very strong, a lot of units and MPPs.

The thing I really disliked about that Riga situation is the Axis made a massive amphibious landing (by itself very improbable) in the Baltic dureing January! Once ashore they streaked like greased lightening. These are things that have to be changed. They reduce the game to a beer and pretzel level and it should be more than that.

You're probably correct about the Soviet %, maybe it should be 20% but I'd have to adjust things to prevent an early LC gambit.

[KDG]

What would happen if you just gave the LC to the Allies to start(with just one unit, in the Capital). Thus once Germany takes the low countries they get the MPP bonus(which prevents the Allies from declaring war and getting the MPP bonus). Put an extra German Corps on the Western border, thus Germany could move into position on the 1st turn, attack in mass on the 2nd or 3rd turn just after conquering Poland.

I'd also go with a no amphibous invasion of Russia immediately after declaring war house rule.

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

Those are good ideas.

Regarding the Low Countries, up till 1936 Belgium was allied with France, then chose neutrality; presumably believing it's newly constructed fortresses could hold the border long enough for French assistance in case of attack.

I've experimented with different versions of these things but was hoping to keep the Low Countries neutral and run things as much as possible without house rules. But something along those lines might be necessary untill the game itself undergoes some revisions or provides them as options or in the scenario editor.

If the consensus of opinion is that changes along these lines ought to be adapted for the succeeding rounds I'd go along with it. I don't think we're talking about anything too drastic.

Soviet & US War Readiness = 15%

House Rules:

-- No LC Gambit, Allies can't declare war on LC.

-- No Baltic Amphibious Operations till USSR is activated for two full turns.

I think that's about all that would be needed.

We need some feedback from disorder on this, then some time for dissenting opinions, and if nobody objects I'd cast my vote for those changes starting in Round Two.

Would that be acceptable to you? We'll probably also hear from Jollyguy and I'd hope he'll also agree along with anyone else affected.

[ June 17, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

We don't need to make the changes for this tournament. For me it is a matter of perfecting your scenario (I feel like one of those commercials - We don't make this product, we make it better).

The real question on a scenario is: Who would win, Terif as Axis or Terif as Allies. Any scenario that you make that has equal victories on both sides, then you've done a good job.

[KDG]

Oh, and keep up the good work with the scenarios. Just wish we had more of an editor to work with.

[ June 17, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[JerseyJohn]

Yes to both of the above and thanks.

An expanded scenario editor would make a huge difference; in many ways the present version fills the intended function. As Hubert said a while back, he intended it primarily for editing; what we have in mind is a Campaign Editor where we can explore even more diverse possibilities and give free reign to the imagination. It's been suggested a few times that most people would be willing to create a full editor along with a map creator/generator as a separate product. I don't know if Hubert has any plans along those lines.

As I've stated on other occasions, I haven't got a problem with either side of this scenario. I don't care for the LC Gambit because to me it's a game killer and historically ridiculous. I don't like the amphibious system because it takes neither weather nor location into consideration; but those are both out of the current control of making a scenario.

No scenario is perfectly balanced.

To me, once a scenario is released it's out there to be tweaked by anyone who cares to change them. The only thing to be requested is they change the filename to ID it as their own altered version. There a lot of things I'd change in the scenarios I've got at Otto's, but I don't want to be a pest about it. I really just think of them as guidlines for anyone else to personalize and adapt as their own.

I've beaten good players on both sides and have lost as the Axis, the supposedly favored side, again because of the LC Gambit. To me it doesn't need many changes. House rules to cover the LCG and possibly to protect the USSR or to limit Amphib landings to summer months -- but again, none of that can be part of the scenario itself.

A little tweaking with the editor will customize any of these things to suit anyone who wants to use it.

My main interest, as was the case with the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath Scenario, was only to realize an historical alternative. Once made into a viable scenario there will always be room for improvements and variants.

BTW, I want to thank you for pointing out several areas where this idea could be improved. This one is pretty much set for me except as variants in my file, but your suggestions provide good and useful slants on projects in the works.

[ June 17, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[disorder]

we should stick with it. dont want to repeat myself, but,

now for the easy-going part . if all 8 ,1st round finishers(before being assigned opponents, and sides for round 2) unanimously post and agree, i say, let the chips fly, eh? what are they going to do, sue us?

good luck to all remaining first round players! your round is 1/3 over!