New twist: 1947 Stall-Mate or Stale-Mate, you decide.

[jon_j_rambo]

What is the definition of victory? How do you win? As the Allies? As the Axis? When does the software stop? How many points for what? Does time become a factor? Taking last causalties? Shouldn't stronger units mean more? Why do the Germans get points for killing partisans, they are strength-5? Are there levels of victory? Destroy all the enemies pieces? Take all the territory? Have the most MMP's? Or is it, somebody gives up?

What's with the stall-mate / stale-mate 1947 rule?

I read that if Italy & Germany exist & hold a major enemy city, the game continues for years? When is this stall-mate checked? Is it at VE-day? May 1945? What is the deal!

It is a big deal. Because if the Axis don't have clearcut victory conditions or cannot get those conditions...or they can use 1947 Stall-Mate strategy you can extend the game 2-years.

It doesn't matter to me. I just don't want the "Language Lawyers" to get a free ride.

If the Axis can buy 2-years of the game, it will open entire new strategies. You can play more defensive, just sit on your ass & collect MMP's, build-up a super-Atlantic wall for the Allied pushed. Then get back to your slow victory.

Currently 1-year game play TCP/IP takes about 8-hours total.

I'm sure there are comments about this issue, I haven't read much on it.

Captain Team-USA

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

My opinion, anytime my games see me outdo history I win.

Still got France in a month past the date they lost, I call that a French Win.

Allies get ashore and can stay ashore in 43, that is an Allied Win to me.

Germans knock out an Allied player like defeat Russia, thats a German Win in my books.

I am only fussy about historically accurate for this reason.

I am not trying to beat the player, I am trying to beat history. I am just using the player to make the chances varied.

So in 47 if nothing was accomplished better than it was in history, then I say I lost.

A recent long campaign of Steel Panthers had my game go a cool 43 battles. No losses once and I think it was 37 decisive victories.

I trashed places like Stalingrad eh.

But the game ended, and Germany ended the war as defeated. My battles did't save the fatherland eh.

Oh well, 37 decisive victories later and I called the game a massive victory for me personally.

[Archibald]

The Axis do have clear cut victory conditions. They win outright when there are no active major powers left to oppose them. On rare occasions playing as the Axis against the AI I've even managed to knock out the Commonwealth before the Americans declared war, resulting in the end of the game in August 1940. I wouldn't advise trying this against a competent human.

If neither side gains total victory by May 1947 then the game assumes mutual exhaustion and calls a halt. The stalemate victory conditions then apply:

From the User Manual Update for v1.06

STALEMATE VICTORY CONDITIONS

Axis Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th, 1947)

- Both Germany and Italy have not surrendered, France has surrendered and either London, Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad are in Axis hands

Allied Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th 1947)

- Either Germany or Italy have surrendered or

- England, the USA and the USSR have not surrendered and either France has been liberated or Italy surrendered and both London and Moscow are not occupied by the Axis

I would assume that anything else is a draw, although perhaps Hubert could clarify this?

I don't see a problem with the Axis player opting for a long term defensive strategy, indeed historically after the failure of Fall Blau they were on the strategic defensive. The aim of the game after all is to win, not to play an exciting game.

The more I play Strategic Command the more I begin to appreciate the subtlety of the game mechanics. This coupled with Fog of War makes it a superior challenge to Third Reich for me personally. After perhaps a dozen games against human opponents I'm beginning to appreciate the mixture of bluff and calculation required to win. Against an aggressive player used to quick campaigns I could see how a calculated and cautious style could frustrate them.

[BriantheWise]

I kind of agree with Rambo, Les And Archibald on all of this.

Here's my personal take on all of this and Rambo's notes on the other threads.

I love long books. It lets me know the characters longer. Tai Pan, Noble House, The Waste Lands, The Wheel of Time, etc.

Similarly, I love long games. CIV2 and 3, War in Russia, Some roleplaying games, those kinds of games.

And that's one reason why I love SC. It Can go on a very long time. In fact one of the things I do Not like about playing ICQ is starting games that do not finish. It makes me feel like I started a great book, and then it got lost.

The victory conditions award the winner early win victory points, but perhaps not enough. I've seen the AAR's of the game between Zap and Rambo, but not the map specifics. So if Zap is just prolonging the game for extra killing of units and the points therein, I'd get bored.

And I probably not want to play the game.

If Rambo is against the wall in this game, Zap should move in for the kill, begin eliminating the major countries and be done with it. That's fun too, for the winner. And he should have a bit of mercy on the loser, time wise, since it's no fun to lose, really, when there's no contest and you don't have many units to move.

That's like a great book that didn't know when to end.

Just my opinion

[JerseyJohn]

Rambo --

". . . If the Axis can buy 2-years of the game, it will open entire new strategies. You can play more defensive, just sit on your ass & collect MMP's, build-up a super-Atlantic wall for the Allied pushed. Then get back to your slow victory."

Great topic. Your quote above is exactly what the Germans were trying when they passed on Sea Lion and stalled out in Russia. Glad you got the ball rolling on this, should be interesting to both players and history buffs.

[ January 02, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

STALEMATE VICTORY CONDITIONS

Axis Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th, 1947)

- Both Germany and Italy have not surrendered, France has surrendered and either London, Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad are in Axis hands

Allied Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th 1947)

- Either Germany or Italy have surrendered or

- England, the USA and the USSR have not surrendered and either France has been liberated or Italy surrendered and both London and Moscow are not occupied by the Axis

What if:

1) Germany & Italy not surrendered

2) England, USA, USSR (thought was Russia?) not surrendered

3) France not liberated

4) And all that city control isn't captured.

Does that mean you keep playing? Forever?

Figuring the stall-mate conditions is like trying to figure out the NFL-Wild-Card-Playoff.

We need a Language Lawyer.

Rambo

[Hueristic]

I interpret the rules as If the game ends Before One side Takes All the opposing sides Major Powers then. Those rules will apply to Determine the victor. If none of those Rules apply then the game is a Full Stalemate.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

STALEMATE VICTORY CONDITIONS

Axis Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th, 1947)

- Both Germany and Italy have not surrendered, France has surrendered and either London, Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad are in Axis hands

Allied Stalemate Victory Conditions (May 7th 1947)

- Either Germany or Italy have surrendered or

- England, the USA and the USSR have not surrendered and either France has been liberated or Italy surrendered and both London and Moscow are not occupied by the Axis

What if:

1) Germany & Italy not surrendered

2) England, USA, USSR (thought was Russia?) not surrendered

3) France not liberated

4) And all that city control isn't captured.

Does that mean you keep playing? Forever?

Figuring the stall-mate conditions is like trying to figure out the NFL-Wild-Card-Playoff.

We need a Language Lawyer.

Rambo

It means the Allies win. The game will end on may 7 1947 no matter what, but since the Germans have not captured the required quota of Russian cities, the victory goes to the Allies.

However it also states that France needs to be liberated from German occupation, this means the Allied requirments for stalemate ahve not been acheived, therefore, whoever has the most points wins the game.

Cvm

[jon_j_rambo]

It means the Allies win...(but later in the explanation)...whoever has the most points wins the game.

What's with that!!!

Allies win.

Whoever has the most points win.

Here we go again. I need a "Langauge Lawyer" to play this game. Maybe somebody should post an Excel spreadsheet & insert K-maps to exhibit the possiblities.

Remember son, proof-read your material.

It's a good thing I'm on this Forum.

Rambo >>> TCB (That means: Takin' Care of Business for you Europeans)

[ January 03, 2003, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[zappsweden]

I have now tried the 1947 rules. Mannerheim, what are u talking about? Allies should not win just because Axis did not fofill their objectives. If no side forfills the objectives it is a draw (pure stalemate).

Results from my testing:

1) in May 1947 the game ENDS no matter what.

2) Points (scores) are irrelevant.

3) Allies victory condition SEEMS to work.

4) Axis victory conditions does NOT work i.e in the manual it says that France is liberated in the axis winning condition (which should ofcourse be that France is NOT liberated). More serious is the flaw that "either Leningrad, Moscow, Londonm Stalingrad is captured" because it doesn not work. I held all my nations (France, Italy and germany) and took Leningrad but that produced a draw! I also tried taking Moscow but THAT produced an axis win.

5) the draw condition works i.e no side forfills their objectives=draw.

[ January 03, 2003, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

I would also like to clear out the situation in the game where I faced Rambo (me as axis).

In our Russian wars, Rambo did not try to delay my advance i.e he did not use the swamps, the "Riga river" or any other terrain to gain some time. Instead he operated EVERY unit from the frontline back to the Leningrad-Smolensk-Crimea defense line. This automatically produces a HUGE ww1-like front line war.

I tried to wear him out, so what? How else could i penetrate his defense in this type of front-line wars? Also, he did research jets for Russia and got good techs for it very quickly, which ofcourse made my breakthrough attempt a little tougher. Nothing says that axis must attack constantly just because they are axis.

He claimed, for no reason, that his Russian air fleets performed worse than mine, though same tech and both had HQ. Well, there is NO difference between countries in this game. If it were so, it would be the greatest flaw so far, since the manual says nothing about it.

The truth is that when i attacked his Russian air fleets early on, I got 2 of mine wiped out against 1 of his. My fleets also goes from 13 to 4 in some battles like yours did later, Rambo.

Since i broke his line in 3 places you could draw one of the following conclusions.

1) Maybe his front-line tactic was not that good.

2) Axis were already too strong so it was not the tactics fault.

Anyway, it was rather his decision not mine to make the russian wars look like WW1. It was boring for me too, but no where near as boring as now when the game is already decided.

[ January 03, 2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Archibald]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

What if:

1) Germany & Italy not surrendered

2) England, USA, USSR (thought was Russia?) not surrendered

3) France not liberated

4) And all that city control isn't captured.

Does that mean you keep playing? Forever?

Figuring the stall-mate conditions is like trying to figure out the NFL-Wild-Card-Playoff.

We need a Language Lawyer.

You don't keep playing forever. The game ends on May 7th 1947 no matter what. If neither side has fulfilled it's victory conditions then it must be a draw. QED.

[ January 03, 2003, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Archibald ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

If the Axis can buy 2-years of the game, it will open entire new strategies. You can play more defensive, just sit on your ass & collect MMP's, build-up a super-Atlantic wall for the Allied pushed. Then get back to your slow victory.

Captain Team-USA

Well, i both agree and disagree. The reason why an axis is "slowly winning" is (at leist in my games) that the UK has taken too much casualties and therefore poses no threat to the Axis, which in turn makes axis more comfortable in wars against Russia).

BUT, another thing that certainly makes this situation occur too often is that the US are way too weak. USA needs an improvement later on i.e the 180MPP gets improved to 280MPP sometime in 1942-1943.

This puts an even higher pressure on Axis to defeat Russia and evens out the Axis advantage in this game (in my opinion).

[ January 03, 2003, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Jollyguy]

When I play, I concede when its clear that I can't win. I.e., I'm Allies, and Russia is split in two, Caucusses production lost. Or I'm Axis, and the Russians have completely reveresed the tide, the Allies have landed in France, and there's little I can do to stop them.

IMO, to insist on pushing the game out to 1947 when it is clear the outcome is forgone, is selfish and inconsiderate. Most of us have time committments elsewhere. Besides, I've always considered it more fun to play the toward conclusion, than the ultimate conclusion itself. A couple times an opponent or myself has requested a few more turns, to make sure the icing goes on the cake, or to see if a planned attack makes any difference, but no one has demanded to play another four or five game years, which could entail additional scores of hours.

Actually, if Rambo insists on a 1947 game end, he would be the first opponent I've encountered with this attitude. All other opponents I've encountered to date have been gracious in both victory and defeat. I've accepted their surrenders, they mine.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I Never said that if the axis dont complete their objectives than the allies win! I walked you through the process. First I gave the list of objectives the AXIS HAD NOT ACHIEVED (ie. Capture quota of russian cities.) Therefore, at THAT STAGE, the Allies would win. HOWEVER, the allies CAN NOT claim victory since France has not been liberated. Therefore since NO SIDE has completed their objectives, the alliance with the most points wins the game.

Cvm

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I wargame the way I play chess (well ok I play lousy chess, but my wargaming is ok heheh).

To me checkmate is checkmate.

If you have me in defacto checkmate, then you win.

I don't play chess just to see each and every piece get taken, and I won't play a wargame just to see pieces get killed.

Playing wargames against players that will insist on playing the whole game out each and everytime to 47 for instance, regardless if their opponent declares them a victor is dumb (it also prevents me starting the next game sooner).

There has to be a valid reason to prolonging a game, and I can see none.

[zappsweden]

Ok, Carl sorry i did not understand exactly what you meant, but one thing is clear. A point win does not exist in this game. A draw will occur if no side has reached their objectives. In fact, the game doesn't even show you the score, so there is no way of using any point rule.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

There has to be a valid reason to prolonging a game, and I can see none.

I totally agree.