AAR, Jollyguy (Allies) vs. Terif (Axis)

[Jollyguy]

Have played three games against Terif lately, one with me as Axis in which he pasted me but which I learned a lot; the second where he was Axis and utilized a very creative strategy which I’ll keep secret, as he deserves to use it again IMO. Of course if he wants to mention it he can, but a little mystery and suspense is good at times!

In this AAR I’m Allied, and my strategy involved knowledge of the scripts and striking where the enemy isn’t, something Terif always utilizes to his advantage. What I did was wait to see if Terif tipped his Axis hand by using diplomacy on his minors. Once he did that I left my army in Norway, and moved all my Egyptian units up there too, direct from the Middle East, saving the mpps of having to transport them again from the Home Islands. I didn’t do any diplomacy and didn’t even take Casablanca, and directed all my mpps to building corps and eventually Montgomery to secure England, along with select research which will remain a State secret. Then, after he DOW’ed Spain and committed virtually all his spare land units that direction, I DOW’ed Sweden, disabling Stockholm port with my bomber. This drove US readiness down to about 46% from 60% I believe, so my US convoys were still intact. Sweden fell in two turns, I think one turn before Spain surrendered. I used this strategy as he always DOW’s Sweden around the time of Barbarossa and eventually pushes me out of Scandanavia all together. The only thing I did wrong was not building a paratrooper soon enough so it could take the Northern port, as he moved a sub there before surrender to block the ore shipments and maybe even mount a counter-invasion, but I eventually chased the sub away with a corp that hit him in port.

The interesting thing is that he is now building fortifications around Berlin instead of Western Europe, which I guess makes sense. Anyway, it’s May, 1941 and I’m using the extra mpps on what will also remain a State secret. He has Spain and Gibraltar and that’s where we sit. US readiness just started moving up again, and Russia awaits the inevitable Barbarossa, which I’m a little nervous about as Terif is the Master of adaptation, so I’m not sure what awaits me.

Bob

[Blashy]

Hopefully in the future patches will have some surprises to make "using" the scripts not so much a sure thing. I find myself guilty of that as well.

Scripts should be less predictable and not simple math.

I'm curious to know who will be the first to defeat Terif, Jollyguy or Liam.

[Colin I]

I still like the UK attack on Sweden, didn't work against Jollyguy but a more sophisticated try was effective against Arado. Never managed to hit Finland right though.

[Colin I]

To add: I'm with Blashy on scripts. Its one thing to know that attacking Sweden is likely to worry neighbouring neutrals. Its quite another to know the effects to near certainty. I'm very pro- less predictable scripts in 1.07.

[Terif]

Hmm...if you make script effects more random as they already are, you only increase the luck factor and turn it more towards a roulette game...

But SC2 is supposed to be a strategy game, so you should know more or less what the consequences of your action will be - just how it is now .

Effects are random but within certain limits and that´s a good thing IMHO cause I prefer to play a strategy game and not roulette .

Every strategy has its chances and risks, pros and cons and there are lots of different possibilities out there already to explore and try against different opponents, depending on their individual strategies .

[Blashy]

Terif, a few more random effects can EASILY be added to tone down this constant "play the scripts" that everyone is guilty of doing.

It would be FAR from turning the game into a roulette or luck based game.

[Jollyguy]

The only part of the scripts I don’t like relates to the partisans. The Axis player should not be able to avoid certain hexes and as a result never, ever have to deal with partisans. But other than that I agree with Terif in part, as I believe many of the non-DOW reactive scripts are percentage based. I.e., in this game, since I have Sweden, I’ve already moved my two Baltic, Russian cruisers away from port and the Finns have not reacted. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. But IMO the US should always react to an Axis DOW of Vichy and Syria as a game balancing mechanism. But I also agree with Blashy in part, as think it would add spice to the game if there was a wider range of reactions. Chess is pure strategy with no variation, while Poker is also a game of strategy but with wide variation. I think SC 2 works best somewhere in between.

Bob

[Blashy]

War is never pure Chess and right now IMHO the scripts offer so little variety that SC2 plays like chess more than anything.

[Terif]

Yep, luck plays no role in SC2 right now - which I personally like - only strategy matters, not how lucky your are .

P.S.: Axis DoW of Vichy and Syria already always causes USA to react: the span is 8-15%.

[Blashy]

We are not talking about luck being the defining key to winning or loosing.

But certain improbabilities should occur that will cause players to adjust their strategy, if they are successful or not is up to them.

Right now it is simply that their is virtually no chance of anything unforeseen occurring and that is not how things go in a war.

So minor changes would bring more dynamics to the game and slightly more realism.

[Jollyguy]

I know Vichy and Syria always bring a reaction, which is what I meant to say. Certain events should always carry a reaction, such as these two and more, but others could be addedor made more variable, as Blashy is saying.

Bob

[Liam]

I think that adding luck in is really awful. I think rewarding a player for making good and innovative decisions is positive. How do you do this effectively? That is hard to say... And since we're modding history I think that what historically would be wise should be wise. Fact is the USA doesn't care 2 pennies about Syria, never did.

The Scripts might benefit with more variables within a historical context or a reasonable context that is less predictable but not Earth Shattering. Just as 4 attacks on the Paris tank, that 9-10 Xs should kill it may not kill it... and can change say 500 MPPs, what is a few percent here or there... Combat Rolls when it counts can really change a game, but if you planned for any possibility shouldn't break the game. Though I'm sure 1 in a 100 might...

We're not talking about some Major rehaul just enough randomness in regions to take away from the same exact Manuevers every game... rewarding an invasion of the Balkans By Germany? By having no real dreadful outcome, then perhaps the Allies can invade Scandanavia with the same...

P.S. Greece is a forgotton subject, some smaller alterations that could be made, Yugoslavia and Greece should give Germany something juicy. Instead of a pure focal point on Mediterreanan supply on Gibraltar and Malta, how about Eastern Med supply from Crete??? It was bitterly fought over for that purpose, and could abstractly make the Mediterreanan war a little more intrigueing... I could look at some alterations for the Atlantic War too, it's a little lacking. The Royal Navy is only used for Land support attacks, and U-boats are never used for Raiding

We could use Cheaper U-boats that do diddly vs surface ships that are harder to find-detect-destroy... So many non-random goodies I can imagine and I did imagine the Cheaper Rockets and Paras? Everyone has embraced those Also purposed Engineers being cheaper or converted to Garrison Units instead, Forts now replace Corps and Garrison hording... Now, onto the Atlantic War and the Battle of Crete? let's all join in adding some variety to our vanilla and worry less about luck

Poker over 500,000 games, doesn't have as much luck... SC over 150 turns doesn't have much either... So you have to look at the "bigger picture" Chess "0% luck"

[Jollyguy]

Agree with Liam as to randomness and predictability. I.e., why not have the Poles hold out longer on occasion, as now they almost always fall in 3 or 4 turns. Or maybe have them setup a bit differently sometimes, or entrench in Warsaw every once in awhile. The German sub could also be placed randomly sometimes. That's just a start.

Although I have to say, all-in-all SC2 still holds my interest, but that's not to say that a few of these suggestions wouldn't help.

Bob

[Terif]

All good suggestions to spice up the game at a first glance and since SC2 is a game that develops further with every patch/enhancement some things will surely change in the future to add new spice in the game from time to time

Nevertheless players will always accustom to any change within a short time like they did after every patch in the past and then demand for the next batch of spice .

So if you include more improbabilities, then players will only adjust their strategy so these improbabilities will not occur any more or at least not be able to threaten their strategy/side. So there won´t be more variability in the end, only new basic strategies as the past proved – in all 6 patches only the basic strategies changed with every patch .

P.S: there is already a lot of variability in the standard campaign possible – if you explore and use different strategies in your games...and there are lots of possibilities as Jollyguy can certainly confirm...I am using a different approach in each of our games .

In any case you have to be careful what you change in the standard scenario cause every change affects game balance and everyone has a different opinion what he considers realistic, historic, good for the game...etc.

That´s why there is the possibility to create own scenarios or take the standard scenario and change the things in a way you personally want to see them .

BTW: there is already a good example of what improbabilities can do to the game when they get introduced without thoroughly thinking about their real effects - in one of the last patches such an improbability already got introduced:

If Axis attacks Syria and Iraq, there is now a slight change that Turkey will join Allies. HvsH games have already proven that this was not such a good idea... players still attack them since they have no real choice here, but when this improbability occur, most players simply quit the game and start a new one....not really a desirable effect that this change for the sake of more variability caused .

[Jollyguy]

I agree with Terif on game balance. The game is very, very close to balanced, so anytime something is changed there has to be an offset to the other side...except for the partisans, that needs to be fixed!

Bob

[Blashy]

If someone quits just because Turkey joined after invading Syria and Iraq then he lost the game a long time ago. It is FAR from being any type of game breaker.

And it happens VERY rarely, so much that it has not happened to me ONCE so far.

[Desert Dave]

Liam:

Instead of a pure focal point on Mediterreanan supply on Gibraltar and Malta, how about Eastern Med supply from Crete??? It was bitterly fought over for that purpose, and could abstractly make the Mediterreanan war a little more intrigueing...

And,

So that the Allies could not base

Long-range heavy bombers

On Crete so to smash to smithereens

The Ploesti oil-fields.

I agree... could have a "Crete Effect"

(... similar to, but less effective

than "Malta Effect")

And I have supported that very idea

For a couple years now.

[Moonslayer]

I love strategy games but cannot stand chess... that's because it's not strategy imho... it's a memory game (which I hate). Similarly I don't look at the scripts for sc2, I learn by playing not by memorising the scripts. One of the main reasons I am not a fan of playing this game pvp is because I don't want to get a butt whooping because I hadn't memorised all the scripts. That's just dull imho.

More randomness is good in my view... the more random the better. War is random and so should games be. The better strategist should have an advantage because they can foresee the consequences of certain random fluctuations but at the end of the day anyone should be able to beat anyone else on the day. As it stands I would not have a chance against certain people (Read: just about anyone on these boards) because I refuse to play the memory game.

[arado234]

I think the one thing that does make sense is that when a minor country is attacked the defending nation should be able to place the troops in question where they want them.I dont know about having poland holding out longer.Remember they were attacked by both russia and germany.They had no hope.I also think there should be a penalty for violating neutral airspace to attack another country,especially if the country in question is already leaning towards joining the country fighting the country violating the airspace(i think that makes sense).If you want to add something else this could be one addition.

[Liam]

I hear what some say about the Chess-Predictability factor. None of us want a ChessGame or a Poker game. Strategy Wargames are not supposed to be either. Do not be diluted by all this talk about Infantry Weapons 3, and getting it by the Spring of 1940... or That Turkey Joins and the game is over. I tricked Terif in a game, in one battle and that is Grand Strategy, that is the Map. And what we come for, this is a thousand times more elaborate than chess. You can finish a Chess match in a few minutes...

SC2 should take 10-20 hours

If properly utilized the proper Tactics and investments seem to be unstoppable.. Though it's true, refinement of the perfect strategy makes for a tough opponent, that is the vanilla game. There are many routes and avenues to a perfect strategy for you. None have to be indentical, you can learn to make the Perfect Moves for you and win. Though in this game, certian things must be... You must be smart about not offending certian nations by certian moves, you must invest properly, you cannot pursue a deadend or weak strategy in 39 Fall Weiss, it'll be the death of you. You can pursue all sorts of Variables, but the first 2 years of the game are usually predictable and sort of boring but the last 2 or 3 are soooo very joyous and have a trillion possibilities. And HEY for a 50 dollar strategy wargame, it's about as close as you'll get to a decent WW2 recreation for an Armchair General...

I.E. In my game vs Rambo right now IP... and PBEM.. I have Tigers in 1942, FW190Ds, and he's attacking through Spain and Portugal. France is too fortified for his tastes. The USSR has an extensive Rocket Program that is Blasting Away tens of thousands of German Ground Troops on the Eastern Front, and millions mixed Axis/Allied troops are clashing across the Continent from Iberia, to Iran, to the Ukraine. The Kriegsmarine may be actually more powerful than the Royal Navy!!! Partially due to luck and a lot of investment... We're only in 1942, I wonder by 1944 what King Tigers, Level5 Subs, Jets, etc.......will do? If neither side surrenders there will be IMMENSE technology on both ends... And Russian Rockets5, almost a little too high tech

[Ottosmops]

Originally posted by Moonslayer:

I love strategy games but cannot stand chess... that's because it's not strategy imho... it's a memory game (which I hate).

...

To play a strategic game means to make reasonable decisions.

Reasonable decisions must be based on facts.

Facts must be represented somewhere, usually in the memory of the player.

That's unavoidable for every game, be it Chess or Poker or SC2.

The better your memory and the more relevant information you have stored, the stronger you can play.

Intuition is always based on information.

Of course I don't say, that everybody should become ambitious, you can have as much fun to play ... just for fun, as I do.

[Terif]

I can only second Liam and Ottosmops here

The first year(s) will always be more or less predictable (and should be as it is a strategy game based on history). But if you let SC2 develope its charm in the later stages and don´t surrender (often unnecessarily like in the turkish case) too soon, you will encounter and discover lots of different possible variations, see thrilling battles all around the map in various areas and come accross countless different strategies that are possible in SC2 and often lead to unanticipated turnarounds and fascinating games .

[Ottosmops]

Originally posted by Liam:

I hear what some say about the Chess-Predictability factor. None of us want a ChessGame or a Poker game. Strategy Wargames are not supposed to be either.

...

And what we come for, this is a thousand times more elaborate than chess. You can finish a Chess match in a few minutes...

SC2 should take 10-20 hours

...

But still chess masters use several hours for their games. And they would use more, if they could. :cool:

Abstractly seen, there is not much difference between SC2 and Chess (and other comparable games). :cool:

Both are deterministic and have a very large but finite game tree.

The size of the game tree says not much about the difficulty of a game. Anybody should be able to add two arbitrarily large whole numbers, though the set of the whole numbers is infinite.

Neither does the number of moves in a given position determine the difficulty of a game.

Imagine a game, where you have only two legal moves in each position.

Would such a game be easy?

Not necessarily, as you could read further ahead in such a game, and you would have to do this, to find strong moves.

So except that SC2 is a strategic game as many others, what makes it appealing to the players?

I think, it's the connection to reality.

The game mechanics are not arbitrary, but they copy some aspects of reality. The movement abilities and the strength of the units mirror real life entities.

Research and diplomacy also work similarly as they do in real life.

The military environment and the reference to history also attract people.

So the player finds the game familiar from the beginning, he doesn't have to learn abstract rules.

But to become a strong player demands time and dedication.

And again, in this respect, I see no difference between SC2 and other games or activities.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Ottosmops:

Abstractly seen, there is not much difference between SC2 and Chess (and other comparable games).

There is one BIG difference : random events.

The weather, research and diplomcy all depend on random dice results. Of course, over the course of 100 games, it evens out. But in one game between two players of equal strength, the one with the most luck will win.

That's not the case in chess : there is no luck whatsoever involved.

[Terif]

Not quite Taojah - since I am just watching a poker game this is a good comparison :

Between equal players in SC2 it is much alike a poker game where you have to bluff or surprise the enemy with unexpected strategies, attacks and withdrawals so you can strike at the places he least expects it and lure him into deadly traps .

Random events, tech etc. where the dice comes into are only playing a side role and determine which paths you can choose or which are now more appealing/likely to succeed.

And luck doesn´t even out during 100 games, but more like during 100 (or 1000...) random events - and during the course of a game there are more than enough random events so it nearly always evens out within one game as long as you continue to play and don´t let you scare away by some unfavorable event(s) at the beginning.

Besides, random events as it is now have only very little objective effects in game reality - you only have to use the better strategy and win one more key battle than the enemy where several thousand mpps are involved and even if all random events would have went against your favor, these small effects are more than evened out .

Nevertheless bad luck can have a huge psychological influence, especially on how you continue a game (aggressive, passive, with rage in your stomage... ). But as long as you don´t let yourself throw off track, random effects only change the strategies under which you can or should choose, not the outcome of the game .