Jollyguy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 In your AAR of game w/Diced Tomato you mentioned that you didn't attack Denmark, and reading between the lines you seemed to infer that by leaving Denmark neutral that the Allies couldn't effect the Norway/Swedish convoys. Is that correct? I mean the Northern German port is still there and can be reached by the British bomber, but does it not assume any importance with a neutral Denmark? Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Leaving Denmark neutral has not much to do with Skandinavia (although this is only possible since Axis is not going there ), but more with that there is no incentive to conquer it : Attacking Denmark gives Iceland + Bomber to UK and increases both US and russian readiness. So Germany has not much to gain by attacking it, it only gives a lot of mpps as a present to the enemy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Hmmm, so this is why you didnt do it to me in our game? Either way your going down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 All Terif has to say is,....'I'll take you out at the Knee's and bring you down to my size',...'Then we'll see who's going to go down!'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Bit of a wash. The bomber ain't going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yep, France went down first against my Axis - 2 turns of clear weather and in the game vs Fartknock3r it surrendered already in turn 4 = November 5, 1939 and now in Juli 40 strong axis forces are knocking on the door of Egypt @Lars: Bomber is not the real problem - but Germany only gets 16 mpps/turn from Denmark while Allies get twice as much (Iceland, USA + Russia) . So no reason to conquer it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Er, that's 432mpp a year. What the heck, US and USSR are coming anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 You forget that US and russian income is tied to their activation percentage and so they are not only coming in earlier, but also get more mpps each turn during the years they are neutral - so Germany gets perhaps 432 mpps/2 years (27 turns are 2 years ), but Allies in average >900 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Now why do I have 27 turns a year stuck in my head? I know I've seen it somewhere. Well, can't dispute your math I guess. But what about access to Norway and the North Sea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 you were lucky with the weather! it was just a minor setback. I'm still pumped and ready to give some nice *** kicking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Right now there is no incentive to conquer Norway, Denmark etc... Somehow something is amiss here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yep, access to Norway is not needed since Germany also doesn´t conquer it . Conquering it means only Axis needs at least 3 units to guard it, US and russian readiness increase and most likely the loss of the norwegian mpp income since UK now with an active Norway can eliminate the convoi by bombarding its starting port there - so not really a good idea for Germany to take Norway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Spinello Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yup, if what Terif says is true then this aggravates the Norway issue ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 I agree that with this out there many Axis players won't bother with Denmark now. In one game I had an amphib transport loaded and ready to hit Denmark, but when I read Terif's AAR I didn't DOW and landed the corp back on friendly territory. Glad I did. I gave up on Norway recently, as it's not worth the bump in readiness and the cost/benefit analysis doesn't work because of the vulnerability of the northern port. IMO the Axis should have an option to redirect the Scandanvian convoy to another route, or pay to upgrade another more eastern, Baltic port to receive the ore shipments. In an indirect way it's gamey for the Axis not to hit Denmark & Norway, but you can't blame them as there is every reason not to do it, and no benefit to doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 In Sc1 we had the cookie cutter problem . now In SC2 for the axis its better to simply ignore the neutrals. :confused: Besides the middle play in SC2 is kind of boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 There should certainly be more of an incentive to at least take Denmark, maybe even Norway. Like others said, if it ultimately hurts the Axis in the long run there is little reason to do it. For example, it'd be a better strategic choice if I knew taking Norway would net me a lot more MPP's than leaving them be, but at the cost of having to garrison it. It makes for more interesting choices and a better risk/reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Just use axis minors corps to garrison the cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well crap, is there anyone worth invading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 No. Thats the problem Hubert killed a little to effectivly the cookie cutter. There is no reason at least before the US and Rusian enter the war to attack any neutrals. MPwise it hurts you, transport cost, garrison units... Suggestions: - depending on the neutral and its size Germany could hire additional units => recruitment of natives for the german army - Reduce further the range of amphib transports. => Norway could be used by the allies as a start point of an invasion in Germany. - Random diplomatic events: Under certain circumstances a country could raise its alliance to one side . For example Vichy France could join the allies as soon as Brest and Bordeaux are conquered by american troops => its an incentive for Germany to secure these countires beforehand. [ June 23, 2006, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Sombra ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 SC-2 is sketchy, at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 I was thinking the exact same thing, that now we have a reverse cookie cutter. In SC 1 it was attack everyone, in SC 2 it is attack only who you absolutely have to. I wonder if we should also have random events occur beyond the control of the players. The problem with scripted actions is once you figure them out, you figure out how to utilize them or not to your advantage. I'm a CPA, so in my field we called them "loopholes." Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 @Bob --- Yep, you are correct. All the time wasted on scripts, events, & diplo are just standard abused strategies as declared by the Legend pre-release. -Legend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well, I like the variability of diplomacy, and I like dueling diplomacy, i.e., in my game w/Blashy where he went after Sweden and I went for Spain. Most of the scripts are fine, and the players can transparently see the consequence of a certain action, which is good. IMO this discussion and much more like it are aimed at future patches. I'm sure Hubert will read and put on his thinking cap. Still loving SC 2, and probably, no, I do...have too many games going already and need to pare the number down. Wouldn't be doing that unless I was still enjoying myself, which I am. And I like discovering the Denmark tactic and things like it, as to me it's like a puzzle, a puzzle that I solve at a very small fraction of the time it takes Terif, but I still enjoy learning about the game mechanics regardless, and consequently how to improve my own play. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Originally posted by Jollyguy: I was thinking the exact same thing, that now we have a reverse cookie cutter. In SC 1 it was attack everyone, in SC 2 it is attack only who you absolutely have to. That is the whole point of war is it not? Only attack those you HAVE to? We all know Hitler attacked everyone and did not need to do so. 1- Take out Poland. 2- Take out Benelux to access France. 3- Take out France. 4- Take out Egypt for a complete Control of the MED 5- Try and entice Spain to have absolute power over the med and free up any garrison units 6- Prepare for Barbarossa and try and take out Russia. Sounds like what should have been done. Any other country you get on your side should be through diplomacy (except for Axis minors). NOTE: Norway should have more importance because historically it did because of the raw materials, that has been discussed and IS still being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Spinello Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 What really helps to make up for the lost mpps is to have events that eventually give you a free corps for Denmark and another free corps for Norway - at least that´s what Dave (Honch) did in his scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts