NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!

[disorder]

JERSEYJOHN-- here is a small reward for your unending struggles and for dealing with the never-ending customer service requests from all who use your "labor of love"(the scenario).

consider this a free gift from the rest of the pbem committee! go on...take it! it helps your stamina!

thanks for your time

[ June 30, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: disorder ]

[JerseyJohn]

Mr. d

Thanks for the link saucages, one of my favorites with eggos over easy and soft. I hope these unfortunate creatures died a quick death as opposed to those Butcher's Tales from the Crypt we had a few months ago.

Regarding the scenario. The main problems are totally out of my control so I suggested a few House Rules that might correct the problem, instead the response is by then somebody else will have made a new scenario! Yeah, sure, there are lots of scenarios, it's something that's just put together between TV commercials.

As for playing two simultaneously, it seems to me we already discussed it. So, since this thing is such an automatic win for the Axis it means everyone will always lose with the Allies and the scores will always be deadlocked at 1 to 1. Except I have a sneaking suspicion it will turn out that half the field will be going 2-0 with the other half complaining the scenario was just plain biased, I suppose the only possibility is it was personally biased against the persons who lost their games.

I have no persoanl attachment to either the game or the scenario, I'm really tired of listening to all the damn complaining and the absurd suggestions that, after half the field has been eliminated, all the rules and even the scenario itself ought to be changed.

The truth is some of the players in this thing are leaps stronger than some of the others. There was nothing that could have been done about it. If you lose that's all there is to it, if you win it means you've played one game with the scenario and you don't know it that well so maybe next time, when the USSR is at 85% in March of 1940, it won't seem sucn a good idea to pump the starting Soviet War readiness to 60%!

And thanks for your time.

It's 5:31 a.m. here, time to slaughter some hog in the cruelest possible manner and have my suasage links -- still squeling -- and eggs.

[Gavrok]

I'm easy re the scenario being used....if we stick with the same one then all and good. Willing to put to vote with absolute majority required however fully expect to use the same scenario. I'm sure that after just one sitting of this we can all wring out a few more surprises on this one.

JJ's houserules jumped out at me as those sort of rules that I'd have loved incorporated within the game. Agree that there are always difficulties re houserules and again I'm easy to play without any. My liking for them is based upon real-life thoughts rather than particular game-balancing. Anyway no game can be perfectly balanced......and balance itself will swing depending upon experience levels of the players.

[JerseyJohn]

Gavrok

Exactly right. There are too many variables and playing level is one of them. I have a feeling that in some instances it happened that there was a big gap in playing level during Round One and if the more experienced player had the Axis it was a one sided game. If the more experienced player would have had the Allies he would still almost certainly have won.

The Game Killers, to me, are a few things I've got no control over. One is the LC Gambit, another is the lack of a Russian Winter, and a third is the abuse of amphibious operations. The House Rules were designed to deal with those problems.

It's conceivable to adapt House Rules at the end of a round providing everyone agrees to it. But to bring in another scenario is not only ridiculous unless it was part of the original intent, but also a bit insulting. What does that mean, that the one we started out with is worthless?

This whole issue is asinine. It's starting with a Baseball Season and deciding after Opening Day that what everyone really wanted was a Tennis Tournament. Anyone who wants to tweak the scenario on their own is free to do so, rename it, change everything, it doesn't matter at all to me. But as far as the tournament goes this is the scenario (version 3) everyone received and agreed to use. That's all there is to it, the US Open doesn't suddenly cut down to 12 holes because 18 would be too demanding.

[KDG]

I'll end up losing in the first round, and I've made some suggestions on what I feel would make the scenario slightly better, but I wouldn't advocate changing anything in the middle of the tournament. I'm also hopeful another is held.

For the next tournament I would suggest allowing everyone a couple days to tool around with the scenario to get a handle on which ever side they will be playing. I personally made a number of mistakes playing it the first time through which has led to my downfall, which has led to a less than competitive game, which is the only thing I hope for.

Thanks for the scenario and tournament, look forward to the next one.

P.S. Any chance for a balanced Scenario that could be decided in 30 days(which would give a min. of 35-40 turns)

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

What is a balanced scenario?

Your suggestions were good ones, as I said from the start and I appreciate the feedback. But before all this goes by the wayside I'd like some hints on what constitutes a Balanced Scenario as opposed to an Unbalanced Scenario. Because I've heard this several times already and haven't got a clue what that's about.

Also, regarding the amount of time it takes to play. That was never a consideration. Terif has volunteered to adjudicate unfinished games. If the two players want to finish it up before that, they're free to do part or all of it IP.

Or they can trust Terif's evaluation. With a record of 193-1 he wouldn't have much trouble reaching a fair and informed decision.

I agree that everyone whose playing in one of these things should have some time to look the thing over in the scenario editor -- I sort of assumed everyone had done that before they ever started moving!

The idea of this tournament was to have something where absolutely nothing was at stake and nobody would grumble if they lost. We happened to arrive at an elimation setup because it is the easiest to run and there's no problem with people dropping out.

If the players want something where they always have a game going they should insist on a Round-Robin Format where everyone playes everyone else; in the end the best score wins. If you want to have everyone playing a game with the Axis and a game with the Allies against each opponent that's easily arranged and pretty much what I wanted in the beginning. The trouble is such a tournament might never end!

The scenario used should be Hubert's 1939 Fall Weiss. There will be players who know that thing inside out and backwards and the players who don't pobably won't have a prayer against them from either side. But that's good, it's a learning experience. If not Fall Weiss, then the 1940 French Invasion would be another good choice. It would end more quickly and would have the advantage of eliminating the Dutch Gambit and probably the Italian Gambit as well.

For the record: not long ago the Ladder consensus was that the Axis had a decisive advantage in the oriiginal scenario. Then it swung over to the Allies, who all of a sudden couldn't lose.

Anyone who doesn't like the scenario used here doesn't need to beat around the bush, my feelings are neither delicate nor hurt by this sort of thing. I'd rather just hear that than some of these other remarks about it being unbalanced, whatever that means.

[ July 01, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

A balanced scenario is one where Terif plays Terif and it ends in a draw. :cool: I wish I could answer that question. Perception plays a big part, and each player may be more confortable with either the Axis or the Allies.

One thing I'd like to see is allowing the AI to play itself, thus these scenarios could be made, then play tested while you sleep. This wouldn't be perfect, but it is a start. Hopefully they will have this for SC2.

What could be done in the future is allow each competitor to bid on which side they would prefer, thus if a player thinks it is unbalanced, then they can bid accordingly. This suggestion is only for future tournaments, which I hope that you continue to sponser.

My suggestion on the 30 day was so that we could have even more tournaments, thus allowing me to play in them more often since I'll have less time waiting between rounds after losing in the first round. :cool:

Any suggestions I've made you have listened to, and I've appreciated that. I'd make the suggestions whether I'm winning or losing. I'm playing one of your modified scenarios right now that I tweeked slightly vs two different players. These scenarios keep the game fresh.

Thanks again for your contributions, they are appreciated.

[ July 01, 2003, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Reepicheep]

JJ, overall I think the scenario is great- I had a blast with it.

I do think that as it is in the tournament, it favors the Axis simply due to war readiness (though granted, the Axis are easier to play well). They start with Sweden, and can take Iraq, Greece, and Portugal without declaring war on them. That in itself is big, even if Russian readiness was normal. But their readiness is at zero- thus the Axis can build and build and build- and get an income of nigh-on 700 MPP's a turn. It's hard to lose like that.

As far as I can tell, the Allies' only hope against a decent Axis player is to stop them early when Axis MPP's are less than Allied MPP's.

Thus the scenario is great in the short-term (massive naval engagements in the Atlantic and Med, air battles all over the place, fighting in Greece and Tobruk, etc.)- but in the long-term, it's hard to conceive of a game in which the Allies could pull off a win if the Axis are not stopped early. In the regular scenario, though, that is a good possibility; the Axis can't romp as much as they'd like because they have to deal with Russia.

I figure it would be good to look at the average readiness Russia and the U.S. gain when Portugal, Sweden, Iraq, and Greece are attacked in the regular scenario, add that total to the regular starting readiness for both (but subtract Ireland from the U.S.), and then use those figures in the scenario. Perhaps a bit less than that would be good, but that would at least be a good starting point.

[KDG]

Here are the war readiness factors based on DOW's by Axis, as posted by Leopard in another thread.

..Russia/U.S./Total

Ireland 4 6 10

Norway 5 8 13

Greece 5 8 13

Denmark 6 8 14

Low Countries 6 9 15

Portugal 4 11 15

Sweeden 4 15 19

Spain 5 15 20

Vichy France 5 16 21

Iraq 18 18 36

Baltic States 33 7 40

Turkey 36 9 45

[ July 01, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[JerseyJohn]

KDG & Reepicheep

Excellent, now I understand the issue a bit better. Thanks for keeping with it. Now that we're narrowing the issues down let's get them organized by (1) what we can do about them and (2) whether we can suggest the solutions as house rules in Round Two. I don't think it would be fair to the people who lost for my to go back and tweak the scenario's essentials; things like MPPs, etc.. War Readiness might be okay if everyone agrees on it.

Okay.

Issue #1 is USSR War Readiness.

This is directly tied into the Low Countries Gambit. I've had two games so far where the Axis have been completely screwed because the Allies invaded and held the Low Countries. What happens then is Russia, starting at 0%, prepares for war right about the time France Falls! This swings things in the opposite direction and makes it impossible for the Axis to get a fair chance.

Solution Second Stage

House Rule, NO LC Gambit -- Allies cannot declare war on the Low countries, and USSR War Readiness raised to 30% as in Hubert's Fall Weiss scenario.

This is an extremely easy solution to enforce. Before the next round all the players turn USSR War Readiness up to 30% and when play begins if, at any point, the Allies DoW on the Low Countries, they LOSE!

ISSUE #2 -- Soviet Unpreparedness

There is a tendancy for the Axis to hit the Soviet Union with devastating effect and never stop. The Russians never build enough troops to hold and are never able to reinforce the Units that survive the initial onslaught.

Solution Second Stage

House Rule 2a,

The Axis can only launch Barbarossa during the months of May, June, July and August This will prevent a large build-up along the borders late in the year and an unrealistic fast moving breakthrough invasion when there would either be impassable snow or the dirt roads would have turned to mud.

House Rule 2b,

The Axis cannot launch an Amphibious Invasion along the Soviet Baltic Coast on the first turn of Barbarossa. If they do, they LOSE.

House Rule 2c,

Axis Units inside Russian Territory, including the former Baltic States, cannot launch airstrikes or ground attacks during December and January. This simulates the effect Russian Winter had on the Axis. Again, if they do, They Lose!

I like these measures better than raising the amount of MPPs the USSR starts with and I think these rules will help Russia much more.

NOTE: No Seasonal Amphibious Invasion Rule as it is already very difficult for the Allies to successfully invade occupied Europe.

Let's Make this a package deal in two parts. Solution #2 is multi part but it is all tied together.

If you're either still playing or have won your first game, please cast a vote on these measures.

I'll abstain as I'm not a player and I think we all know what my votes would be in any case.

As one of the players I think disorder should feel free to vote without worrying about having a vested interest or anything along those lines.

Solution First Stage ----- Yes or No.

Solution Second Stage -- Yes or No.

Eager to see if this satisfies everyone.

[ July 01, 2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

Adding to our ongoing discussion about Play Balance. I don't really see it that way. I don't think Terif or anyone else is the mirror image of what they are playing the other side in thise thing. Chess is much more symetrical than SC and no one plays Black the way they play White! Sure, it's the same style and all that, but there's a subtle psychological difference. In chess, white is supposed to win and black is supposed to be content if he draws. But as often as not players on either side lose because they press to hard for the full point -- I'm talking about really good players, of course, not people who drop their Queen on move 4 and say, "Ooops, done it again!"

Now, getting to SC. The Allies know they're supposed to win, yet, in effect, they're playing the black chess pieces. The Axis has to have all the early initiative and advantages or there's no game! By the Game we're talking about a number of years. So Game Balance needs to be thought of not only in terms of starting quantities but also in terms of time quantities.

The Axis has to achieve certain goals at certain stages or, in the end, he'll lose. The Allies need to keep away from those goals until the appriate time has come and gone, and if he's still got the UK and USSR there's always a hope of winning.

My Brest-Litovsk Aftermath Scenario, which not many people including myself would enjoy playing, starts out in Sept 1939 with the USSR pressed back to Rostov, Smolensk and Leningrad. Yet, it's the Axis that has the hard time winning -- and usually it's the Allies who do so! Making that scenario was the eye-opener.

Germany and Italy, being set in the center of the map is what makes the whole war in Europe so interesting. If they can eliminate one front or the other early enough they'll win. If they can't, they won't. It's as simple as that. The reason it's all so interesting is because the situaltion can never become balanced in terms of both sides having an immediate equal chance. As soon as it does the balance tips to the Allies because they've got more countries and more directions to attack from; which means it immediately losses it's balance and tips in favor of the Allies.

I think Terif playing on each side and somehow maintaining a fog of war -- pretty talented guy -- would find ways to win sometimes for one side and sometimes for the other. There would be few draws. We know he's got 193 wins and we know he's got 1 loss, but I don't know how many draws he's got. By the nature of the game and the nature of people who excel at these things I'd be willing to guess he's got very few. If this were a game prone to deadlocks not many of us would want to play it very often.

A good scenario is like a good fighter plane, it has to be a little unstable to do it's job properly.

Correcting flaws in the design and tweaking doesn't mean adding balance, it just means cutting down on the instability. That's why, in my suggested house rules and tweaks I recommended raising the USSR to 30% without touching US War readiness. If both countries enter at the same time and too soon it goes beyond stabilizing and balance and sets the advantage squarely in one players corner.

Thanks for posting those war readiness figures, they're interesting and help a lot.

Glad we've been having these discussions; expressing these views has clarified a lot of issues in my own game outlook.

[ July 01, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Reepicheep

Glad you like the scenario, I've enjoyed it more than any of my others.

I understand what you're saying but I think it would be wrong to raise both the US and USSR % because with the US at 0% it ends up coming in around early 1942 even if Germany doesn't do much invading.

As you've no doubt noticed in the posting a few entries back, I've suggessted some House Rules along with raising USSR to 30%. I think these provisions, if taken in it's entirety, both parts, will solve the problem.

[KDG]

I will say that I've played both Tigleth and Reepicheep, and both players beat me more than I beat them, and both are very even, but Reepicheep seemed to win easily as Axis vs. Tigleth, thus why I've mentioned minor tweaks for future games.

I like the following: House rule of no LC invasion, as well as no amphibious attack on 1st turn of Barbarossa, combined with 30% Russia readiness.

Reasoning:

All are simple to implement. Being one that finds concentrating at home a problem(wife, kid, puppy, etc), these are simple rules that need to be remembered only once, and if accidently broken, you could go to the previous turn and replay.

They are also a mild change, and we don't want the pendulum to swing to greatly, thus the minor tweak.

Since I will be out of the tournament soon(Russia MPP down to 300, being attacked from the west and the south), all I can do is make suggestions.

By the way, would it be useful to have the computer be able to play itself in SC2? We might learn alot about the AI, and see ways to tweak the game.

[ July 01, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[JerseyJohn]

By the way, would it be useful to have the computer be able to play itself in SC2? We might learn alot about the AI, and see ways to tweak the game.

I think the two sides would mainly mill around and move units back and forth. I can't imagine it doing anything very decisive. Occaisionally the AI seems to have an interesting reaction to offensives, but I doubt either side would initiate anything interesting enough for the other side to look for a good reaction.

[disorder]

jerseyjohn--

speaking of

time to slaughter some hog in the cruelest possible manner

im finally back from fargo, land of permafrost.

what in the world are you doing up at 5a.m. posting on battlefront?!?

interesting discussion on the house rules. if terry continues his outstanding play (turn 68) he may have the vote on "house rules" and not myself.

i freely admit, i am still a beginner

kdg--

P.S. Any chance for a balanced Scenario that could be decided in 30 days(which would give a min. of 35-40 turns)

What could be done in the future is allow each competitor to bid on which side they would prefer, thus if a player thinks it is unbalanced, then they can bid accordingly.

correct me if im wrong, but it seems JJ and i both have a deathly aversion to bidding. i dont know where he got his from, but i got mine from seeing the pendulum swing from side to side.....axis/allies allies/axis. depending on which way the current wind was blowing!

i think there would be more chance of a tourney with two games played at the same time. and high score win! but i am willing to consider it all if there is a new one! that is the job i was appointed to!(well SELF-APPOINTED to). smile---listen---smile again---keep the scenario tourney going!

regarding time....the only thing that could be done with an elimination like this,would be to have a "round robin" as was suggested, and you would have to lose twice to be OUT. but as for turns in a "game" we can pare it down, but i agree with jj's statement about this.

If the two players want to finish it up before that, they're free to do part or all of it IP. that was the way it was set up.

you have the option to play until 1947 in one evening(by direct connection) or til 1947 by pbem (app. 3/day needed for abt 45 days), OR... you can play until dec 1939 and call it a tie and let the game be decided for you! what more can a person want?

ps ...if worlds collide and the stars align correctly for the first time in 2700 years and i lose in the first round, i do hope my opponent goes on to kick everybodies butt!

[Reepicheep]

House rule of no LC invasion, as well as no amphibious attack on 1st turn of Barbarossa, combined with 30% Russia readiness.

Sounds good to me! Perhaps 35% Russian readiness with 10% US readiness might be better, but that's not a big deal. The other suggested house rules, as KDG said, would be hard to remember; and I think the above three things would mostly resolve the issue.

[JerseyJohn]

disorder

"I'm finally back from fargo, land of permafrost.

what in the world are you doing up at 5a.m. posting on battlefront?!?"

I'm a hardcore insomniac -- the result of three decades of mostly graveyard shifts. Probably around half my total postings have been made around 4-6 a.m.. Immer suggested an herbal tea cure instead of my usual bottle of booze and that helped for a while, but it's a lingering problem.

"-- interesting discussion on the house rules. if terry continues his outstanding play (turn 68) he may have the vote on "house rules" and not myself. i freely admit, i am still a beginner -- "

But becoming more dangerous all the time! You and Terry ought to both vote, I think anyone who is still in the Tournament ought to vote; the more input the better.

kdg--

"P.S. Any chance for a balanced Scenario that could be decided in 30 days(which would give a min. of 35-40 turns) ... What could be done in the future is allow each competitor to bid on which side they would prefer, thus if a player thinks it is unbalanced, then they can bid accordingly."

(disorder) "correct me if im wrong, but it seems JJ and i both have a deathly aversion to bidding. i dont know where he got his from, but i got mine from seeing the pendulum swing from side to side.....axis/allies allies/axis. depending on which way the current wind was blowing!"

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

"i think there would be more chance of a tourney with two games played at the same time. and high score win!

Bingo! CLANG-CLANG !!! Mr. d I believe you've arrived upon a winning idea.

"ps ...if [...] i lose in the first round, i do hope my opponent goes on to kick everybodies butt!"

If the conditions you've set for your loss come to pass, worlds colliding and all, I think we'd be finishing this thing on a more celestial level. Before any of that happens, I've got to get get a glimpse of Fargo, sounds like my kind of town, sounds like it belongs in New Jersey!

Reepicheep

"House rule of no LC invasion, as well as no amphibious attack on 1st turn of Barbarossa, combined with 30% Russia readiness."

Sounds good to me! Perhaps 35% Russian readiness with 10% US readiness might be better, but that's not a big deal. The other suggested house rules, as KDG said, would be hard to remember; and I think the above three things would mostly resolve the issue.

Glad you like them. I'd also prefer something easy to remember and I think you're right, perhaps raising USSR & USA readiness would do the trick.

But personally, when I play against the AI from now on I'm planning to use the Barbarossa and Russian Winter House Rules. I have a feeling that two month reprieve might be exactly what the AI needs to help it perform more effectively.

I'll try to write those things in a more concise manner so they'd be easier to keep track of. I really think something is needed in Russia; that's usually where the Allies lose the game regardless of the scenario.

[ July 02, 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Jollyguy]

I've played the pbem tourney mod a number of times now, and IMO, Russian readiness is set too low. I've seen the discussion on this, but I'm not really sure where it should start. No DOW on Sweden is a big one, as most Axis players will wait until the same turn as Barbarossa to hit Greece and Portugal and/or Iraq. Ireland already in the war is a plus for the Brits, that probably cancels out no DOW on Sweden by the Axis, so maybe the US is okay.

So, I would vote to increase Russian readiness. Someone mentioned 35, but wonder if that would be too high, or maybe not, I'm really just not sure. But 0 is definately too low.

Bob

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Jersey John

I want to thank you personally for designing this tournament scenario and for facilitating dialogue. As a player "blown out of the water" in the first round as Allies, I think it was a very enjoyable game.

I considered myself experienced, but there were many things I learned in this scenario, such as the value of gun laying, and how hard it was to get outside of the range of tech 4 or 5 ranged enemy aircraft. As Allies I usually can make the fall of France very slow and costly while still evacuating enough units in the end - but in this game I think I would have done better just evacuating France as fast as I could. My strength in the base scenario betrayed me somewhat ... but that is why it was fun!

Losing so badly as Allies, you'd expect me to complain about their side. Fortunately, I've had a chance to play your scenario non-tourney with others as well, and against the computer, so I think I have a more balanced view.

Bottom line, I vote Yes for item # 1 and #2. But No to all the small house rules.

Basically I think the 20-35% Russian readiness makes sense as well as the no LC gambit rule. That's it.

I think also that the Russian situation may not be reflective of what you were trying to accomplish in the scenario. That is, my understanding was you were trying to create a reflection of Germany waiting a bit and being stronger before going to war. We are dealing with fantasy here, but it seems Russia should be a little more ready in your game as well. I was surprised Russian tech was not better. I mean the Germans are going to have some mean tech after having 10 chits invested for 25 turns when they DW on the Russians, who barely have the tech they did in the original 1939 scenario (Tanks are higher while the wimpy Rockets category is knocked down). Perhaps it sounds here like I am complaining for the Allies. But I think you should consider a much higher Russian tech level to make this fantasy authentic . Perhaps even take a French guy or two out to keep the game balanced, like the second HQ. I mean were the French ever going to be ready for war?

As far as balanced, to me it means either side has an equal chance of winning. But they must be played differently and that is fine.

I think the best suggestions I have read are - 20-30% USSR readiness, no LC gambit and the next tourney having double knockout so that each entrant plays both allies and axis.

Oh, and finally have an unpoliced committment to do at least one to two dozen turns per week for tournament participants. No rule or consequence, but a gentleman's understanding to get in as many turns as possible during the tournament.

Thanks again Jersey!. My loss in round 1 may disqualify my comments (which is fine), but I certainly hope to participate in any future tourney - particularly if you are involved.

[JerseyJohn]

Tigleth Pilisar

Very many thanks for the vote of confidence in the scenario despite your first round experience, it's appreciated.

You hit the key point about it being a fantasy so, like the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath idea there's a huge amount of speculation.

Here were my basic assumptions:

USSR Left alone and with no immediate threats, Russia would have made slow progress. In the actual war, when Germany first invaded, the Soviet emphasis -- especially in the Air Force -- was on quantity over quality. Developers were not inclined to take chances because an unsuccessful inovation might mean a gulag!

They were able to produce some fine tanks, but interestingly most of the innovative ideas came from other countries, mainly America. These designs were rejected by the Western Powers, usually without any real consideration, before being offered to the Soviets. Characteristically, the foreign designers complained of not receiving the fees agreed upon, if any at all, after the Soviets had their hardware under production.

Regarding Soviet Rockets, I don't see how they can have any level higher than Zero as the Soviets didn't have any! Yes, they developed the Stalin Organs and other multiple rocket launchers, but that is artillery, not rockets in the V1 and V2 sense. Germany was the only country on earth with a rocket program. As usual the United States had the leading innovator, Dr Goddard, whose ideas the Germans pored over religiously, but in his own country he was thought of as some screwy eccentric. The U. S. Government had more immediate problems to worry about in the thirties, such as feeding it's citizens.

I think the Soviet research leves are okay but what they should receive in the game as compensation for being neutral so long is a lot of free MPPs (750, which would give them over 2,000 in 1942!) and probably 6 research chits. Part of the problem is, with the Axis rampaging through their country they can never afford to buy research.

This is realistic because, after the initial shock of invasion, the Soviets came up with some excellent weapons. By then they either advanced or perished. A lot of the best minds in all fields were suddenly being released from the Gulags.

I considered myself experienced, but there were many things I learned in this scenario, such as the value of gun laying,

That was one of the most important things I found out in designing these things, if you put the British level in this area ahead of the others they suddenly have the decisive naval advantage -- without it the Italians might suddenly start dominating the Mediteranean! I didn't want to make it impossible for the Italians, so I increased the size of their Navy and gave them an aircraft carrier. Because the Italians did have some good long range aircraft their advance is in that area, matching the UK and giving both 11 point aircraft carriers, but the Italians need to hold back till either their jet research or their gun laying radar increases, or they're no match for the Brits.

I originally set it up as UK GLR = 2, Germany =1 with France and Italy at L=0. That seems to work best. It was an important factor and not a level playing field.

In the air, the British have very long range aircraft right from the start. We tend to forget that during the Battle of Britain UK bombers were making regular raids upon Berlin!

Balancing this was Germany's ability to achieve local dominance. I felt the way to reflect this was in the following Jet Development:

Germany = 2, UK = 1, France & Italy = 0.

Germany easily dominated the air battle in both Poland and France and didn't have a snag till the Battle of Britain. There's always a lot of talk about the Spitfire's and Hurricanes and radar, all of which are key factors.

But another important factor is in the almost one year from the start of the war Britain learned a lot of air combat lessons. Far more than was learned by the Germans, who were more advanced to begin with.

During that time they also icreased fighter plane production considerably. The Hurricane was not a match for Germany's front line fighters, but was excellent for intercepting bombers, which became it's function. The Spitfire could take on German fighters on an equal basis but, in an overall sense, was not superior. Range was the key factor here. So the Spitfires protected the Hurricanes and radar gave their commanders a good idea of what planes were approaching out of which direction.

The Germans also had radar, and on a comparable level. What is rarely discussed is how the RAF, after the Battle of Britain, tried launching it's own escorted raids over German occupied territory and the situation was exactly reversed. Suddenly the Spitfires and Hurricanes were at the limit of their range and easy meat for German interceptors.

By giving Germany the initial Jet development edge I was hoping they'd hold dominance through the French campaign and if it came to an air battle over the UK both sides would have L=2. As the Germans start with L=0 LR and most players neglect it's research, the only thing they can hit in the UK is London, so by then a single jet level should not be decisive if the Brits haven't caught up. The Allied player, however, has to be skilled enough to know how to deal with this; he has to know that his air fleets need to be stationed beyond German range or he'll lose them. It's that simeple.

At the risk of sounding condescending -- which I really don't want to have it come off as -- I've tried to plant hidden aspects in the scenarios that would make things challenging for experienced players. As you mentioned, you were already pretty experienced at the start of this thing but the basic conditions were no doubt misleading. On land the Allies appear to be more powerful than they actually are. I wanted to advance them a bit as well, they wouldn't have sat idly by while Germany continued preparing for a war; on the other hand, they wouldn't have kept pace with Germany's preparations.

The balancing illusions are German naval power and Allied land power. If the Germans try to win at sea before the Allies make mistakes there, they lose their fleet. If the Allies become overly aggressive on land before the Germans make some serious mistakes, they lose some of their armies and France falls very quickly.

and how hard it was to get outside of the range of tech 4 or 5 ranged enemy aircraft. As Allies I usually can make the fall of France very slow and costly while still evacuating enough units in the end - but in this game I think I would have done better just evacuating France as fast as I could.

Yes, that's one approach. I like to hold France as long as possible, trying to hold the Belian border for a while and then creating as strong a defence of Paris as possible. Meanwhile, I try to evac one French HQ to Manchester, one turn out and offloaded by two ports from Brest. And the other French HQ to Gibraltar. If you just leave it there it comes in handy later on. If you can get it Egypt it's also very good as a supply extender when the Brits begin wandering away from Alexandria. Of course, bringing it to Gibraltar first, then sending it around the Cape after France falls is the safest, though costliest, way of doing this. No point sending it around the Cape if Paris is going to fall in a couple of turns, chances are the HQ will vanish in transit.

My strength in the base scenario betrayed me somewhat ... but that is why it was fun!

Thanks, that's the feeling I was hoping people would have when losing this thing.

I've had games as the Axis in this scenario where my opponents lost France in January of 1940 and in others they've held out till mid 1941. I did nothing different; the main factor is airpower. When the Allies get the tech lead early, a fluke, and build airfleets the Germans are hopelessly bottlenecked at the frontier. Despite complaints of Germany being too strong, I've added Luftflootes III and V near Berlin, but at 2 points each, in the opening scenario. I've also raised the Soviet and USA entry % and will have to see how those factors effect play. Generally, the game flows better with Germany taking France early rather than late, as long as they don't conquer the UK in 1940 or 41! As in real life, the Royal Navy should make this very hard to do, not so much by being sunk in the Channel, but by guarding the North Sea and Western coastline so the Army can concentrate on landings coming accross the Channel.

Losing so badly as Allies, you'd expect me to complain about their side. Fortunately, I've had a chance to play your scenario non-tourney with others as well, and against the computer, so I think I have a more balanced view.

Thanks again. I think these things always take a few playings before they make much sense. I'll send you the updated version along with the revised versions of the scenario disorder and I used in the AAR and the revised version of the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath and hope you'll find them interesting.

-- "I mean were the French ever going to be ready for war?" Great comment and observation. I don't believe so, not while they were being guided by 75 and 80 year old marshals who thought tanks were a noisy, smelly novelty item and what France really needed was to get back to the Horse! Sure, and perhaps the crossbow as well.

My loss in round 1 may disqualify my comments (which is fine),

Comments are never disqualified, and yours were very insightful and helped clarify several points. The vote won't count but is still useful as it will give still eligible participants something to consider.

... but I certainly hope to participate in any future tourney - particularly if you are involved.

Very appreciated.

I'm hoping to step back next time and be able to play in it; I felt that would have been awkward for me in this one.

Thanks especially for being such an excellent sport.

[ July 03, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Tigleth Pilisar]

We are writing books to each other. Very thoughtful process in design. Another vote I have that wouldn't count is that you don't change the scenario until a winner emerges from the tourney.

Would it be appropriate to ask the winner to design the next scenario? Perhaps it could be reviewed by some of the more experienced TCP players before launched into the PBEM tourney world?

I agree with the boosting research chits to Russia as opposed to hard wiring tech (in this fantasy setting). I understand what you did with balance in the Med, but I actually feel both Italy and the UK have too many units. I'd suggest Iraq being neutral as well (although the UK did benefit somewhat from their oilfields I understand). In particular I think the Italians have too much air and too many ships, and the UK has too much command (HQ) and should have to decide whether to move units into the Med for an offensive vs Iraq (and suffer some war readiness penalties) or defend vs the Italians in the west. I also still think the French shouldn't start with 2 HQ .

Out of interest, I've played this scenario vs the AI where I've been the Axis. I gave Russia 1500 MPP, 6 tech chits, 30% readiness, and several hard wired tech advances on Expert. The AI is still sadly no match for a human .

I hope round 2 of the tourney starts soon. It looks like otherwise a new tourney couldn't start until Christmas! Unless...a simultaneous one was started! Easy to say when you are out .

[JerseyJohn]

True, the AI is really just a punching bag.

I think the Allies have to possess Iraq; if they don't they've got to invade it! In the actual war the Allies used it's oil mainly for their Mediterranean and Indian ocean squadrons, very little of it's oil went to England. England mainly received American oil.

In the revised version, which I'll send you shortly -- I took a look at it after I cut off before and made yet another minor change or two -- Greece is not activated and Italy doesn't have as many units. Their Navy is the right size considering it's 1942 (despite saying 1939) and their ships under construction are completed.

Glad to see you're tweaking it on your own; these things are intended to be experimented with.

I doubt the winner of a tournament would want to be obligated to create a scenario for use in the next tournament -- that's like being punished! What we've already got in mind is far better; a trip to our sister Galaxy and a good time with a truly out of this world -- well, I don't want to get too specific. Oh, here comes my public relations friend from Andromeda!

"Thank you, Jersey. The winner will be lodged at Hilton's Flagship Andromeda Grand Hotel on the Planet Vanity. With oxygen, methane, ammonia and cyanide atmosphere compartments The Hilton Andromeda is the unanimous choice of creatures from all over the known Universe who enjoy darting around in comfort. Whether your desire is riding molten lava rapids or just relaxing in an acid pool, you'll find it at the Andromeda Vanity Hilton."

[ July 03, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

KDG resigns vs. XEDIEL. Russia down to 250 MPP's per turn, subs all over the atlantic....

Congrats to Xediel.

[Iron Ranger]

Having with steped out I don't have a vote but thought I'd drop a note here.

This is directly tied into the Low Countries Gambit.

Truely this is the key to this senerio. With tech at a 'mid' level, the number of units at start, number of minors pre-activated, and low readness of USA and Russia the game is determinded with a huge clash at the begining. The side that gains the initive should win, this is noramlly determined in the first 4 moves.

Suggestion:

Rather then playing a PBEM contest with the same senerio up to the top, why not plan on using a different senerio at each level. This way no one player can 'master' the senerio, each game is very different, there will be surprises in each game. I know my first 10-25 games were the most fun as I didn't know when countrys would activate, or the % for every move. Each game was a true 'unknown' with all the excitement of doing something the first time.

[Jollyguy]

I think a different mod for each level is an EXCELLENT suggestion!

Each game during a sports season is different, why not each scenario? We could use the same mod, but modify it, or use a totally different mod, a handicapped 39 scenario, you name it.

Bob