A little gift to wet your appetite.

[Blashy]

I don't have time for a complete AAR, this will have to do. I currently have a couple of games on the way with my friend.

Post questions if you have any and I will gladly answer what I can according to NDA.

NOTE: Sorry, screenshots had to go bye bye for a bit .

[ February 23, 2006, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Edwin P.]

Dear Blashy,

How long did it take to fortify the tiles around Moscow?

What good does this do if the tiles are not garrisonned?

I assume that the MPPs of the Allies are not showing up as you, as Axis, can not see them. Or is it because they have none-left to spend?

Is Iceland allied because it was invaded? or because it joined the allies? Historically, it stayed neutral until the British invaded (and the Icelandic people did not resist).

[Blashy]

1- Fortification is quite long actually, but in the editor you can change it. 40 days per side is the default setting.

2- It does nothing if the tiles are not garrisoned, but since the Axis headed south, I had to move those units on fortifications.

3- You can't see allied MPPs.

4- Iceland declares independence from Denmark if Denmark is invaded. A pop up occurs stating that UK Garrisons Iceland, hence it becoming allied.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

3- You can't see allied MPPs.

Not even at Intel Level 3?

Seriously though, have you ever invested in Intel as a player? If so do you think it was worth it?

And many thanks for the screenshots and your in screen comments. It really helped me visualize changes arising from the larger map size and the reduced number of units both sides have to work with.

I assume that there are more Soviet cities to the east of Stalingrad as the map area remaining appears to be quite extensive, from my interpretation of the the world view map at the bottom of the screen.

[ February 22, 2006, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Blashy]

East of Stalingrad you still have 4 cities and 2 mines, you can see a tip of one of the cities in the shot.

Intelligence I can't comment as I'm working on it in the upcoming games as a hardcore strategy to see what happens.

[Mr.Dozer]

why is a tank and also a army defending a russian city?

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Mr.Dozer:

why is a tank and also a army defending a russian city?

If you mean Leningrad, that city is a PAIN to take, so an Army with the best possible tech can often just not make it worth bothering to take.

As for the Tank, tanks get a bonus defense on cities, you'll pay a high price to remove it, better use AFs to take out its entrenchment or you'll be loosing alot of hitpoints from your offensive unit.

[Night]

I don't understand why you can play many differnt full games, and we can't have a demo. That just doesn't make sense.

I don't know about everyone else, but the eastern front looks very... gamey. In other words, There are like no unit's in the middle and north of the map, specifcly near Moscow. So why would the Axis not advance there? If they don't have the resources, then why wouldn't the Russians counter attack in that area and sweep south behind Axis forces? It doesn't seem to me that much strategy has played out besides just move a group of unit's forward and attack a city, and move unit's to defend a city that is threatened. I hope it isn't really that simple.

Can you explain how many MPPs the Russians are working with at this point? They seem to have much left in terms of resources, however it is not reflected by their military which seems to me to be extremely small, and on top of that completely defence oriented. 4 of the 6 unit's are actually garrisoning cities and really can't be moved out at all. By this time in the war the Soviets had a good amount of tanks and troops massed to attack around Stalingrad and turn the tide of war, in the ScreenShot it looks like Russia is just trying to delay the Axis victory for as long as possible.

In the Western front, I notice a lack of tank groups. Do the allies find it less useful to invest in tanks and tank technology then historicly? Do the Germans find their own armor ineffective at stoping a French invasion? I realize it is still only 1942 and the western allies are far from full strength but the absence of armor is interesting.

All in All I can't wait to play. But looking at these screenshots gives me more question's then answers. The German positions in Russia are unbelievable. In SC1 if you held that setup, you are asking for armor or some corps to sweep behind Army Group South and cut it off, on top of that the unit's that are actually in the rear are AF unit's which will just get run over at high cost. It seems that with this setup of less clutter the loss of, say, two unit's in a single turn would spell the end of the fight. Just my observations.

[Don't Shoot Me]

Point taken about the russian front. It certainly does not seem to try to represent the some 4 or 5 million men the russians had on the front at the time. Maybe these things can be adjusted in the editor.

[Kuniworth]

I want a continious front as in sc1 but with retreat rules. Seems kinda weird in the first picture with massive holes in the front between units.

[Blashy]

I find it funny how you say, I would do this or that, just by looking at one screenshot.

You can NOT have a line like SC1, which was totally unrealistic, there was NO room to maneuver a counter offensive of any kind.

The reason the Russian ended up with less units is because the Axis used all their available diplomacy to keep the Russians from joining and in doing so, the lower the join % the lower the mpps, so Russia was not as prepared due to the Axis telling them through diplomacy "we won't attack... we promise!"

And don't compare to SC1 in terms of strategy, there is no similarity because of SC1 too small map and humougous amounts of MPPs.

And there is no demo because it is beta, all beta games feel complete at some point, but they are not, if they were, they would be released. You think Hubert is not anxious to start making money?

Remember that I did not do an AAR so you do not know the full tactic and how this game progressed, just enjoy the screeshots and the small tidbits I write, it is the best I can do at this time.

[Codename Condor]

I told u. With production queue and some fancy aspects like diplomacy, units upgrades,... no MMPs left to have a nice army.

[Codename Condor]

and i agree about being a joke the russian front. How u ended up like that? well, just tell us if u have being buying chits and subs...BUT in 1942 german army should be much bigger than that.

Anyhow, game looks ready for playing. Just release the game and we will tell whats wrong so u can release first patch.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Blashy:

You can NOT have a line like SC1, which was totally unrealistic, there was NO room to maneuver a counter offensive of any kind.

Front lines is not unrealistic, that is how the war was conducted. Germany had what 50-60 corps units attacking Soviet union? THey had continous fronts of course, problem here is that sc1 and sc2 simulate all those corps by having army sized units operating on a map in which armies only occupy one hex at the time.

[Kuniworth]

Oh and in the same time the russians had what 4,5 million at the start of barbarossa?

Even if the germans in sc2 could reduce the size of russian mmp this first pic of russian strength seem completly stupid. But I guess there must be some kind of FOW involved.

[Codename Condor]

agreed Kuni.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

You can NOT have a line like SC1, which was totally unrealistic, there was NO room to maneuver a counter offensive of any kind.

Front lines is not unrealistic, that is how the war was conducted. Germany had what 50-60 corps units attacking Soviet union? THey had continous fronts of course, problem here is that sc1 and sc2 simulate all those corps by having army sized units operating on a map in which armies only occupy one hex at the time. </font>

[BRO,JD]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

You can NOT have a line like SC1, which was totally unrealistic, there was NO room to maneuver a counter offensive of any kind.

Front lines is not unrealistic, that is how the war was conducted. Germany had what 50-60 corps units attacking Soviet union? THey had continous fronts of course, problem here is that sc1 and sc2 simulate all those corps by having army sized units operating on a map in which armies only occupy one hex at the time. </font>

[Hubert Cater]

Gentlemen,

In terms of the fronts I believe those screen shots were under Fog of War so we might not have been getting the full picture.

That being said, keep in mind that there are many more options for game play than there were in SC1 as well as game settings... and from the looks of it, this game was not *entirely* based on the default settings that will ship with the game.

Also, everyone plays differently and I think Blashy's posts just highlight that there is a lot of flexibility for customized games (and strategies) which in the end is a good thing as you can certainly set the game to be as historical or ahistorical (as Blashy has shown) as you like.

[Retributar]

If it was such a continuous line, explain how the Russians manage to sneak pass that line with a whole bunch of armies and completly encircle the 6th army?

I believe this is regarding STALINGRAD...unless im mistaken!,...the line 'Was-Continuous' as far as i understand, but, was not EQUALLY strong everywhere throughout this Continuous Line!.

Also, if im not mistaken...the SOVIETS purposely attacked the ROMANIANS because their forces were not of the same Staltworthiness as that of the GERMANS.

The ROMANIAN line crumbled relatively easily...allowing SOVIET forces to barrel through this Continuous-Line which then permitted the cutting-off & surrounding of 6th Armee!.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Builds corps only as a solution?

[Don't Shoot Me]

Good points Retributar. Also, the Italians got whacked. Their position on the flank was steamrolled the first days of the offensive. They were never a cohesive force on the eastern front after that.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

You can NOT have a line like SC1, which was totally unrealistic, there was NO room to maneuver a counter offensive of any kind.

Front lines is not unrealistic, that is how the war was conducted. Germany had what 50-60 corps units attacking Soviet union? THey had continous fronts of course, problem here is that sc1 and sc2 simulate all those corps by having army sized units operating on a map in which armies only occupy one hex at the time. </font>

[hellraiser]

Blashy, WW2 was a war of mobility but every side tried to keep a uninterrupted line across the front nevertheless. The example chosen by you was not a good one - at Stalingrad, the encirclement of the 6th army was possible because that contiguous line formed by the Axis was broken on the flanks (Soviets chose wisely to strike the romanian held flank, insufficiently equipped with antitank guns - they had a 37mm AT gun which was a joke against the T34). So actually that was a breakthru rather than 'sneaking past'. In WW2, 'sneaking' could be accomplished by small sized units not by corps/armies/etc. And a platoon/company/a unit of small size wich actually had chances to sneak past the defenders, couldn't possibly cut off an entire army group, that's for sure.

"It was not a continuous line and there was room to maneuver, even move parts of those units in secret." - Actually at Stalingrad the soviets secretly concentrated some of their larger units BUT behind their own lines - the german air reconnaissance failed to accurately assess the size of those forces.

The only 'room for maneuvre' in WW2 was behind your own lines or behind enemy's line (after a succesful breathrough)

Now, there is someting intriguing about the use of diplomacy in your post. When I first read your post, it seemed to me that Axis had used a lot of cash to keep Russia's readiness down - this means red forces were weaker than they were supposed to be when they joined? I mean, by using diplo-chits, can Axis actually negate red military strength? Maybe i did not understand it the right way, so please shed some light upon this issue.

[vveedd]

Blashy I like your AAR but must agree with guys. Sneaking units? This is the most stupid thing I ever heard. If you don’t know history well better don’t talk about it. I didn’t see screenshots but to my opinion the main problem is supply rule. I have talked with Hubert about this when SC2 was in beginning stage but he didn’t share my opinion in this case. When units are without supply they should be automatically destroyed. This is, actually, rule from Third Reich game and it works absolutely great. Never seeing gamey situation with that rule. On contrary, never seeing better battle simulation (for instance, once I putted Italian units on flank and, of course, Russian player destroyed them and made a breakthrough. Look familiar?).

Maybe applying this rule in SC2 will be too much but at least units without supply should not move. In that way players will have to watch about flanks and will not be enable to go deep in Russia with group of units.