Questions to Terif and to other veterans

[Desaix]

Terif,

you proposed this rule in your post for the games against Zap:

- optional: no Anti-air research (only the starting levels for UK/USA). With veterans I play only with AA rule in the meantime to have a more land based, better and longer game, but here it is up to you.

This brings me 2 questions :

1° - How does this rule bring a more land based game ? Using a air based strategy costs Jet and LR research and AA is the only cheap way to partialy counter it without going into Jet and LR tech race that leads to a complet Air game... So as far as I can see, preventing AA will lead to a more air based game... But of course I am missing the 480 games experience you have over me... So can you explain the logic behind forbiden AA ?

2° - In a previous post about landing on Dow, you expalained how the landing on Italy (except RRI) was giving more startegical options but the landing on Russia was restricting them... So why did you ask for "top games" to have some Italian options limited ? You also wanted the game to be more land based, so to limit the air based startegies... Why is it better to limit strategies ? Are some game breaker ?

Desaix

[Terif]

Question 1:

- The problem is that some veterans don´t use the AA for a better defence of entrenched land units against enemy attacks. In the meantime it is a bad habit to place all AFs into cities and to force enemy intercepts - since then the AA level increases the combat value of the AFs placed in cities (1 lv AA is equal to 1 lv jets).

Allies/UK have usually not enough mpps to research Anti-Air - so there will be no catch up -, this gives Axis a huge advantage in case they are lucky to get AA advances. But Axis can only use this advantage if they have air superiority in the west and UK has only jets 1-2 - otherwise western Allies will destroy the AFs before they can force intercepts.

So the players that want to use the AA bonus always have to buy a lot more AFs than normal to be superior in numbers in the west and they need luck to get LR (so targets are in range), Jets and AA. Therefore with an AA strategy Axis can´t afford so many ground units and it will be a pure airwar. Usually they go into the defensive on the ground - waiting for the necessary techs and battling for air superiority.

So in the end:

With an AA strategy Axis needs luck to get the right techs. If they don´t get them in time they have lost since they are too weak on the ground. Especially since when AA research is allowed Allies need a larger bid to compensate this posibility that Axis gets lucky and researches several AA advances (since no one is ahead there is no catch-up and it is simply luck if Germany can reach lv 2+ or not).

That´s why I play without AA research now against other veterans. When it is allowed, most of them buy only air, try to get AA and neglect their ground forces so they have to go in the defensive on the ground. This creates a static game and is highly luck based. Do they get their desired techs in time, they have a chance, otherwise they have lost - doesn´t make so much fun when there is no action. Since air is everything Axis have, such games are often decided withing 1-2 turns during one single, huge airbattle where one side looses most of its air. So it is waiting around 2 years, then one big battle and Game Over .

I have experienced it is a much better game without AA research .

[hellraiser]

pure air wars suck

AA is a bit buggy IMHO - u use that to call out fighters to intercept and trash them using the city bonus - bleah - if RAF hits a german held port does the intercepting LW fight the battle above London? LOL

[Terif]

Question 2:

- If Allies want to defend the Med, this is against an experienced player only successful possible in combination with an italian gambit.

So I prefer it to play without a landing rule for Italy because then Allies have a lot more strategies available.

- If landings in Russia are allowed and the axis player knows how to execute them, then Axis will conquer Riga during the first turn + land near Leningrad and bring Finland in the war. So with landings Russia can´t defend its northern coast any more and also Minsk + Smolensk + Kharkov will fall like domino-stones. With landings Axis can avoid the first 2 russian defence lines that are normally also the strongest ones (behind the river Riga-Minsk and behind the swamps west of Leningrad).

So the front is wide open in the north and Axis can move over the open terrain. In the end this limits Russia extremely, since it neither can conquer Finland nor defend the western part of their homecountry. Not to talk about invading Turkey and Iraq.

Therefore I prefer to play without landings in Russia.

- In competitive games most veterans play with a no landing rule for all major countries as standard rule. The game with Zapp was for competition (not so much to have fun )and he always plays with this rule, so I logically offered the standard rule and not something else .

- So far no strategy is a "game breaker" except the Rome invasion that is forbidden. Nevertheless, some strategies make more fun and provide more action and differences, others less.

So it depends on what you prefer. E.g. the landings in Russia: if you want to allow it, then you know what will be coming and can prepare. This also means that Allies need more bonus mpps via the bid to compensate for the disadvantage of loosing its best defence lines in Russia.

[hellraiser]

Question:

Assume no landings on majors rule; barbarossa kicks in; german corps move northwards encircling the red army above koenigsberg thus gray-ing some hexes in the process - Another axis unit disembark in one of those grayed hexes - is it a rule breaker or is the axis player allowed to land on hexes he took control in that very turn ?

[Terif]

No landings in Russia mean no landings in Russia .

So you are not allowed to land in russian hexes you took control of. This would lastly eliminate the rule since then you only had to move a tank north and could land near Riga and take the city again + landing additional transports along the coast till Leningrad - from the last landing the hexes are grey... . So if it would be allowed the whole rule would be senseless .

[hellraiser]

hihi, just checking

you know rules can be twisted in many ways to fit your needs

[Liam]

Some tend to forget the current aggressive French Strategies and constant Minor DOWs by the Allies that didn't exist before either. MPPs are harder to come by for an inexperienced Axis Player vs an Experienced Allied player. Not just but those Carriers, once you upgrade them to level 4 or more they're pretty King with Experience. Plus they take no damage attacking Land Units... People all along I've played on this forum have used the AA Bug over London I think it just politically correct to use it right back at them. I'm fed up with hearing these whiners about the AA Bug. Both sides, INCLUDING THE USSR can research them. If the Allies just become a bit more defensive instead of getting HUGE MPPs to run unrealistic ahistorical offensives right away then the bug wouldn't be neccessary...

I think the AA Bug is as important at deflecting Carrier Hits, and UberExperience strategies..

The last time I played Allies the AA Bug was no factor. VS Terif it was no factor either... VS Rambo it is quite a factor but the fact is he has Level4 GunLaying Radar, so nothing can even smile at the Atlantic, perhaps he should've invested that in AA. I put 1 Chit into and got level4 AA, and 4 Chits into Jets and took till 6 months after Barbarossa to get level 1 Jets for Germany.. These are the basic Facts, with luck, we should get a chance to play it out...

Also taking Riga doesn't neccessarily mean the fall of the entire North. I see so many Allies hold Riga with a Tank and row of Corps.. Historically Riga is one of the first cities that fell, it's merely the fact that the space between two points is too small.<in other words our SC Map> Plunder is too huge... The game is balanced by Skill in the end and not by Bugs.. The only gamekiller mentioned here is the Rome One...that and the usual, both sides have Aces and exploits

[Desaix]

Ok, I see what you mean now Terif with the AA rule...

In summary: Germany can start AA researche to have more air bonus cumulated for city based AF and allies won't have enought MPP to compet on a 3rd tech for air balance...

So came out his no AA reasearch rule.

But this AA is not an air only tech as it can also be usefully used to LIMIT air attacks on ground troops in cities/ressources... So we can say it is a mixed land and air effect tech. I undersand that the air aspect of this tech cumulated with the 2 other Air tech can be a run for Air based game...

But when you forbid it you also forbid the effect on ground units to defend against air... I am sure you wouldn't want this aspect to be limited but the game is build like this...

I think that maybe the Air issue should be adressed directly. The "air war" games effect is brougth by the cumulation of all the air tech together. So why not trying to set a rule to limit directly air fields tech ? Jet, Lr and maybe AA can be considered as air tech...

Have you tried house rules of limiting Air tech reserch investement to 3 points or 4 points in each of the tech ?

So air units will be slower to get powerfull, range will be shorter for longer, etc... What are your opinions on this ?

[Liam]

Des, you want to do it right. AA Rule, no more than Level 2. Jet Rule, no more than Level 3, Long Range Rule no more than level 2...

Perfect.. Less HQ Sniping, less UberCarriers, no trick or treat Axis slam Allied Air... Force UK to evac France a month or two early instead of October or Sept. which is a trend lately and spend the extra 250 MPPs on a chit in one of those areas instead of trying to win the game in France

[Kuniworth]

Perfect answers guys. Can you feel the gayiness(happiness)?

[Terif]

@Desaix:

Yes, originally the AA tech was used to limit the air attacks on ground troops and in this function it is a good tech.

But unfortunately in the last time more and more players tend to use it only as an air tech. So Axis places all AFs in cities, build not much ground units but only air and try to trash the Allies by forcing intercepts. And in this function it is a very bad tech and can really kill the fun in the game.

To play without AA research is the best way to avoid the destructive tendency of the AA tech.

An alternative house rule could be, not to allow Axis to attack with air from ressources. But in the game reality it is too complicated to take care of this all the time and creates many new problems.... No AA research is simple and fine .

This is because in a normal game where Axis don´t use the AA bonus excessively, time is against Axis like it was historically and how it is better for play balance too. Axis get some mpps more than Allies after Barbarossa and before D-day, but the allied carriers even out this advantage cause they get more powerful with time and tech. That´s also the reason why carriers should better not be limited by jet level restrictions - if you have jets 3 or 5 makes not much difference for pure airbattles, but for carriers it is a huge difference. Since Allies are usually inferior in mpps and units, they need the better units to be able to beat Axis in the long run – and these are the carriers and ships .

The main problem is, when Axis are allowed to use AA, then the long term balance strongly shifts towards Axis cause when they reach AA lv 2+, then Allies are pretty much dead if they have not won the game already at this time or can kill most of the axis air in the first strike. With AA Axis have more mpps/turn, more units and now also have the better units. Since AA also works against carriers, they will be trashed too by the axis air – AFs are toast anyway if Axis can do the first strike or have enough AFs to strike back (and that´s why axis players build only air when they want to use the AA bonus, they need to be superior in numbers...) - and Allies have only disadvantages left. So with time and AA research Axis get more and more powerful instead of the opposite in a normal game without AA.

Therefore Allies will have only a small time window to beat Axis: a couple of turns after Barbarossa started and where they get their bonus mpps – at this moment they have more units and are stronger than Axis (in case of an appropriate bid). If they can´t kill Axis within the next turns, they are most likely dead cause then there is nothing that could turn the tide again when Axis are getting more and more mpps and more and more AA too in the course of time – even if AA stays the same, if it was enough to break Allies the first time then it is also enough to keep them down in the future too – AA is unfortunately a permanent bonus and Allies can´t even it out or catch up. Even if Allies would have the mpps to research AA, they couldn´t use it cause they have only London and maybe Manchester to start attacks from. Germany in contrary can use with some LR a dozen AFs/cities to benefit from the AA bonus.

Summary:

In a normal game without AA for Axis (or if Axis don´t use it by purpose for its AFs), the advantage will usually shift several times during a long game. Sometimes Axis is in the advantage and have good chances to win, sometimes Allies – and with the right strategic decissions they have always the chance to turn the tide and this for a pretty long time. As long as one side is not 2:1 superior, game is in most cases not over and the other side still has a chance to turn the tide and win. This creates very interesting games that make a lot of fun.

AA can prevent this possibility. Since only Axis can really use this technology, it gives them a huge and increasing long term advantage and when they are in the advantage after Barbarossa, they will keep this advantage and Allies have nearly no chance to break this advantage. At the point Axis got enough AA, it is a downhill game for Allies, even if they could gain the mpp upperhand for some time. Axis always can kill their AFs with the AA bonus, so every strategic victory would be only a pyrrhic victory.

And that´s the reason why in the future I will only play without AA research as Allies against veteran players (or with such a high bid, that Axis are dead at the moment Russia gets its bonus mpps ). It is a much better game without AA, not luck based (does Axis get AA or not, together with LR...?), bids can be reasonable and the game makes a lot more fun when both sides have a very long time the possibility to decide the war for their side – even if the enemy is superior at the moment. That makes most of the fun for me: the posibility to turn the tide at every moment of the game until nearly the end (usually 1944-47...). And this possibility only exists without AA research.

[ November 26, 2004, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[zappsweden]

I was the one making the AA Bug official:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=003125#000000

Terif, now at leist you can admit being wrong when you said the AA Bug was a "nice feature", that "I blow things up" and that "this one is certainly not a big factor". I rest my case.

[ November 26, 2004, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

AA-Bug is a huge find, 95% of the players exploit it. Way back then (year ago), I thought something was fishy with Zapp's attacks from London, it proved a glitch (or an unknown) use of this particular technology.

[Dragonheart]

This bug was giving your style of playing a boost rambo as it favours your Rack-Strategy. When receiving enough tech in time and not stopped earlier in the game, you prooved to be unstopable with this tech when playing axis.

I manged it only once to win despite missing an early allied advantage but i had to give up hole northern russia without a fight for that.

[Terif]

As long as nobody misused it (or even if he wanted to, was not able cause he didn´t know how... ), the AA bonus WAS no big issue. As long as only a couple of AFs use it and not the whole strategy is solely based on it, the AA bonus IS only a nice feature.

Remember, the last 2 years the AA bonus was no problem and in deed not a big factor. The habit to excessively use the AA bonus and to base the entire strategy only on this is a new habit and not very old – but in this new form it can destroy the game or at least the fun playing it.

BTW: As Axis I never used the AA bonus by purpose and in large numbers since I always considered it an unfair axis strategy – so in around 95% of my games I even didn´t research AA (If I don´t want to use it, then I don´t need it and only for ground defence it is not really worth it). Perhaps this was the reason why it took so long until somebody developed a strategy around it that worked – since I didn´t use it, nobody was able to copy it .

Unfortunately somewhere in the last weeks/months someone developed a strategy around the AA bonus. Via games/forum/AARs it is now wide spread. So the knowledge is out of Pandora´s box and can´t be put in again. Before this, there was no need for a AA rule, but now it is necessary and at least I will use a rule in my games.

For Zapp:

Concerning your policy to make everything public (not only the AA thing..), no matter what it is or what consequences will follow:

Here we really have different opinions. I think that sometimes it is necessary not to tell about everything and to keep secrets if you know that it can and will do a lot of harm to others if you make it public.

Like e.g. in real life: If you have found an easy way for everyone how to build some weapons of mass destruction, biological/atomic weapons or some little bombs...etc. Then it is in my eyes not a good choice to make it public for everybody, but to keep it for yourself – and also not to use it (Besides that it is not right, someone would copy it and use it too and soon everyone could do it...) .

Ok, you may find this example exagerated. Yes, it is.

SC is only a game and nobody takes real harm if it – or the fun playing it - gets destroyed. Nevertheless I prefer to keep it intact and to have a good and enjoyable game. If I have to keep some secrets and not to use certain things, then so be it.

I know this can be difficult cause it bolsters the ego and you are proud if you „discovered“ something and you want everybody to know it that you discovered it - here comes responsibility into play. Sometimes it is better to not make certain things public.

[zappsweden]

Hmm Terif, is something a "nice feature" only because few ppl know about it and that they use it sparsely enough (in key situations) so that the rest of players do not notice? I cannot understand. Contrary, you would never call a secret A-Bomb a nice feature would you?

I think it is clear. A feature that is upsetting for players if it comes out is not a "nice feature" just because it is secret.

Question For Terif: For example, many months ago did you or did you not use the interception flaws (before the final patch) to grab an unbreakable air superiority for Allies already when Paris fell (resulting in free carrier practice i.e the super carrier strategy), winning games with it and did you or did you not know about those flaws when you used them??? :eek:

where they a "nice feature" also?

[ November 26, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Terif]

Don´t turn around my words in the mouth - like you did and loved to do it in the past..

First, when I don´t research AA as Axis, then I can´t use it "only in key situations so nobody notices" - even if I would have wanted to.

Second, I said clearly that I consider it an unfair strategy as Axis - I never did it, nor do I want to ever use it.

That doesn´t mean that I never place AFs in cities, AFs have to be bought in cities, operate to cities and in some areas they can only be placed in cities to reach the target - thats one of the reason why as AA rule it is better to forbid AA research and not to forbid placing AFs in cities.

So in the rare cases my Axis researched AA they benefited from it. But usually only the 1-2 AFs in the middle of my fleet were able to use the AA bonus at my side and not all of them - I never placed them only in the cities (like you perhaps noticed in our games...)and misused the AA bonus.

As Allies it is different, they have no other choice than to use London as airbase and since Allies are in the disadvantage anyway, there it is legitimate in my eyes to use the starting level (nevertheless until now I never researched a higher AA level for UK...) everyone is doing it even if they don´t know about the AA bonus since even without it cities provide better supply and protection – and I didn´t say something else if you read my posts again, I spoke from the AXIS AA strategy. Allies also can´t develope a whole strategy around the AA bonus. They simply have not enough cities to really use it – in contrary to Germany.

A "nice feature" means it has no important impact on the game. And as long as there was no AA strategy, this was the case. That you turn it around into hiding it from others to get an advantage is simply crap – you know it if you would be honest or have some honour and the ones who played me knows it too.

[zappsweden]

Ok, Terif. I now almost understand what you meant but I cannot understand that inconsistency in calling it a "nice feature". If "my shirt is very dirty and is ruined" is a bad thing but "my shirt is just a little dirty" is a nice feature, how does that work? Do you get my point?

Also, why did you leave out my questions about interception flaws?

I was not twisting words. My beliefs on this issue is based on previous issues discussed. In this case, knowing about interception flaws (before 1.07 patch) and evolving a strategy (super carrier strategy) using it is what made me wonder?

As most ppl have noticed, the "Super Carriers" for Allies disappeared after 1.07 patch. Now the carriers fucntionality is different. They start training on Ireland and then occasionally can get in a few hits but never the constant early pressure they once had before (ofcourse in the end-game they can). Since Terif was the master of it and the frequent user of it, I have my rights to cast doubts don't I?

Please give me an answer to my question and an explanation. When 1.07 came out removing the interception flaws you in fact said you thought the game was better BEFORE the fix... so what am I then supposed to believe?

[ November 26, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

AA-Bug is a huge find, 95% of the players exploit it. Way back then (year ago), I thought something was fishy with Zapp's attacks from London, it proved a glitch (or an unknown) use of this particular technology.

What should be said in this concern is that when Rambo and I played that game NEITHER of us knew about the AA Bug. Allied players place in London for supply=10 and better protection.

Just to clarify it, I publicly told about the bug as soon as I found out.

[jon_j_rambo]

This became a very heated fight when discovered between Zapp & myself. I nearly broke my keyboard when Zapp was attacking RAF via London against LF & I was taking the extra damage. I actually thought some cheating was going on & people thought I was nuts. Nobody believed, kind of a like some other findings, until it was sent to Zapp's Testing Lab (ZTL).

Problem is, people still think I'm nuts, maybe that's true, a matter of beliefs Who said life wasn't about beliefs (faith)?

Liam has become a Champion of RAAF, recently wearing me down into late 1944 with it as the Axis.

The Anti-Air technology is the hottest debated item in SC.

What does this all mean, no RAAF?

RAAF = Rambo Anti Aircraft Flaw.

[Desaix]

@Terif

Ok, I see better why you proposed the no AA rule now, instead of doing a general limit on air tech...

The air warfare is taking a lot of ressources and some startegies can be based only on this point... So, I still liked the AA aspect to counter it for "cheap". For example, Sealions are usualy done with huge air raids that can take an English city every turn... AA investement here could help slowing this as Germans AF would have more repairs... Same for Russia, despite of well organized Russian lines, Germans can take cities just with air bombing and a corps...

So my question and suggestion here is what about a : "No Axe AA research rule" as mainly Axe can abuse it and so it can still get some startegies opened for the allies ? Or it migth also be " No German AA" to allow Italian options maybe...

Another suggestion, but I prefer the first one, would be a "Russia only AA research allowed" to at least give this option to Russia...

What are your thougths on these ?

[ November 26, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Desaix ]

[Liam]

ROFL, I'm am pretty good with this but only due to Luck. I have never researched more than 2 Chits in my entire life on AA of SC games. If you'd like to check go ahead, I'll give my password out and everyone can check our old saves! In fact 90% of the time I have put 1 Chit into AA

I didn't know about this bug at all, until very late. I'm a slow learner... I think I knew like 7 games ago... I have been out of the SC School for awhile, I always used to use it for one purpose. To prevent Carriers and RAF Fighters getting Freebie Experience and making it holder to take Paris. That's why just 1 chit.. I haven't changed.

Rambo, I wouldn't speak, there are plenty of times, I place a fighter over Russia or UK and I get plus 5 Damage just for a strike on a entrenched Army or Corps. I know you've got some Major AA... Russia can use this strategy very well too.. Considering she has 2 or 3 years of time to research it and the Allies can tie up the Axis Air until then.

If Someone wants to go no AA, I suggest taking the +1 AA Bonus the UK Gets and trashing it and lowering our bid to 125-175 Range...With LR in my game vs Rambo, he was pinging me with 2 Fighters and would've had 3 including Brest, possibly a fourth and Fifth in Paris and Bordeux to hit Germany from... Germany merely has more citys in the West. One tends to forget King Longe Range Carriers<what is the readiness of a 15 Strength Carrier?> Would that not be a game breaker..

I have had Rambo, Zapp, DH, Terif all come up with 6-7 Carriers.. Talk about gamey, get lucky and get LR 3 or 4, what is the use for Land Units. All you need is 3-4 Corps, 2-3 Armies and an 2 HQs, with 2 Air to scout Enemy Air

[Liam]

Zapp and Terif,

both of you have taught me things. Both are decent fellows, just old school. I'm glad that you two made up and fought a match. I enjoyed reading your AAR more than any other ever. The competition and desire to beat one another was beyond anything. This sort of fun hasn't been on this board in a year or two. I would like to say I'd probably give Terif a better game as Zapp choked. I think he was facing too much pressure and went for too much. This is a common thing to do against a Reigning champion. The Man can win... He just needs to play his 'game' and be a bit more adaptive. Rambo, Zapp, DH, Cosmin, Avatar or even Me all can win with some genius to our strategy. Just Terif does it more<99percent of the time> cause he is looking at the gamemap three Dimensionally.

[zappsweden]

I will always remember (in my latest game against Terif) my Allied heroes holding Paris until August despite being "outrolled" already on turn 3 losing ardenner and losing and recapturing french mine on turn 4.