Colin I Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Wanted to open a new thread in response to a number of assertions about "super" strategies be it diplomacy (infamously Spain), Russia (Turkey, IW3), Sealion, tech investment (we can't afford non-mainstream investments) etc. The conclusion tends to be the game is broken if a strategy does well. Some maybe true but I have the feeling that some are to do with playing style and the idea that if your opponent follows one strategy you only have a few good responses. We are getting channelled by following what we think are optimal strategies. If a strategy is so good, then why not challenge a decent player to a game and tell them the strategy you will use? I think they will find a response. For example, I would like to play an Axis player who tells me he is going through Turkey to Russia in a given year. I might lose, but can think of counters - maybe they won't work but its fun to try. Turkey is an extreme example, many people believe its a problem, but you get the idea. My point is predictability makes you vulnerable and perhaps there is more play in not following dogmas than some people believe. I'd rather see this explored in a few challenge games than conventions on what you can or cannot do, or any further changes in forces. I've been vastly entertained by the strategy of using an Italian engineer to fortify the Geerman-Russia border to fend off the Soviets whilst getting busy elsewhere, premptive strikes on the US fleet and by the attempt to drop long range US paras directly on Berlin (apologies for not crediting those responsible). Those are very alternative moves - would like to see more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Colin the game is not broken. For me it is already much better and interessting than SC1. Still some areas of the game should be improved because certain strategies are "to good" to be ignored. Sealion is till pretty easy . Yeah you can make it very hard to carry our or even prevent it but only if you put all your resources in it. Pretty boring for the allied player. There are other examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rclawson007 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Colin, I agree. If every Allied player immediately sinks 3 chits in Spain to counter the Germans, then the Germans have already won the first gambit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 Unclear writing on my part - I was actually doubting some of those "the game is broken" assertions and was trying to suggest some are linked to laying style and tunnel vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Well in one game I surprised my Axis opponent, put my Allied chits in Russia instead of Spain. Russia joined in June of 1940. I've done this twice for Russia but in other games as well. Things will be better if we ever get diplomacy chits to always be active and no canceling out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 Yes - I'm surprised more people aren't influencing major powers. Modifying US or Soviet entry even by a few turns can have a huge impact and paying 150 mp (as Axis, not sure if cost is the same for Allies) is often worth it. There are LOTS of interesting strategies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 Cancelling out chits seems to me a product of the "Spain is the only strategy" mentality. Diplomatic side is proving intersting in my game with Bob, but I'm not sure I want to talk about it yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Mason Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I played a game using the german engineer to fortify the russian border. It seemed to work OK as I made my attacks in the south, etc. I agree with Colin I, and also add that against a HUMAN opponent, lots of these tricky moves just aren't going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts