Bill101

First of all, it looks great, and I'm really happy with the way it looks and the ideas from the forum that have been incorporated. I do hope that there will be an official Pacific campaign added shortly after SC2 is released (or a very good mod of one created, I don't mind which, as long as it is good). Some things I'd like to see, if they aren't already there. The first point means the most to me as it will make the naval war far more realistic - allied submarine warfare isn't as well known as the German U-Boats, but it was also very important. 1) Axis shipping should also be vulnerable to submarines, especially in the Med where the allies sunk about a million tons of Italian shipping. It would be good if this was in the editor too so that in a mod of the Pacific campaign the US subs can take a heavy toll of Japanese shipping too, just as they did in real life. 2) Friendly territory not linked directly to a friendly major ally, such as Malta and Egypt, should have some basic supply as at the moment, but in addition there could be some ability to send extra supplies by convoy. Again, these should be vulnerable to submarine attack at relevant points on their journey. 3) When having submarines (and surface ships too please!) interdicting shipping lanes, it would be good if not only did the opponent's countries lose MPPs as at the moment, but they also had the odd strength point here and there taken off units passing through the interdicted areas. [ April 15, 2004, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I understand why people want a time limit in TCP/IP, but what would happen if you're about to do your move, the phone/doorbell goes, and by the time you've dealt with the caller your turn is over. Something like that could ruin the game at a crucial moment, causing a lot of frustration. Maybe the answer is just for slow players to stick to PBEM? Or a pause button could possibly be added for TCP/IP, with the proviso that it cannot be turned on and off at will (i.e. used for thinking time).

Maybe you should have ordered it direct from Battlefront.

I once had the Axis attack Turkey at the same time as Russia. It was very frightening! Once the Axis have Turkey then Russia is virtually indefensible in the south, while in attempting to bolster up Turkey's defenses, the Russians weaken themselves in the Mother Country. It's a win-win situation for the Axis. If the Axis are bold enough to attempt this then they have a very good chance of winning. Turkey is a bit like Spain - it's very difficult for the allies to defend.

Wehrmacht: The Waffen SS might have had a million men in 1945, but that doesn't mean that they were all excellent soldiers. Casualties and the need to find lots of replacements had diluted their quality. As to Germans being no better than the western allies, pace Rambo, a friend of mine who spent the whole war fighting the Germans doesn't agree. On average, man for man, they were better. It has to be remembered that by 1944/45 things were changing as the Germans were scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower replacements. Just how many of the German soldiers in France on DDay were fit and able bodied Germans, rather than members of "foot and mouth" battalions, or east european conscripts? Les is also right about the Waffen SS during the first few years of the war. They got their backsides tanned in Poland, and it wasn't until a few years later that they became good. As to elite units, they should be both expensive and rare. I think that the current method of gaining experience covers this - the Germans generally have 4 star armies on the eastern front by 1942/43, and the allies can get these too if they play well.

I liked the Talonsoft games, but what I'd really like to see Battlefront do is to use the Combat Mission mechanism to create games based on other periods of warfare. How about using the mechanism to recreate 17th-19th century warfare. We could have the Thirty Years War, the wars of Louis XIV and XV, battles between the Turks and Christians in Europe, the American Revolution, the rise and fall of Napoleon, the Franco-Prussian war, etc, etc. (maybe not all in one game though!). It'd be like transferring table top wargaming onto the computer (which is what I think Combat Mission has done for WWII). I play table top wargames, and some of my fellow players have told me that they would be interested in computer games that have a stab at recreating history while being easy to play. A friend of mine recently bought Cossacks but passed it on to someone else pretty quickly, disappointed with its lack of historical accuracy. He had hoped for a game that would have allowed him to refight some of the battles and wars I've described above. Turn based orders, with action packed videos, beats real time strategy any day of the week. [ March 21, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

And the French did exactly the same thing Rambo! As to India/Pakistan, the decision to partition the sub continent was more a response to the ongoing violence and hostility between Muslims and Hindus. The British tried to stop this violence, but once they realised that they could no longer hold on to India, they just wanted to get out as quickly as possible. I've found a (admittedly rather simple) link to it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/india/partitionrev2.shtml [ March 20, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Regarding partisans, I think that Spain should work like Yugoslavia and Russia, with home-grown partisan units appearing. There was an anti-fascist resistance movement in Spain during the war already, and the conquest of Spain by the Axis would have provided more recruits to the guerillas - though it would not necessarily have made them any more united. An allied conquest would probably have seen the guerillas come out into the open, as they would have welcomed the allies, but at the same time it would probably have seen Franco's supporters take to the hills in their place! Hopefully partisan units in SC2 will appear a bit more at random than in the current game where we can easily prevent them by putting garrisons in the right hexes. However, your idea of allowing the UK to spend MPPs on partisans is good. My idea is that if the UK invests, not only should partisans be more likely to appear, but they should also be better than without that investment. Maybe a partisan unit without investment is strength 5 but without experience, while one with investment has that 1 point of experience? I also think that Russia should be allowed to invest in partisans, both within the USSR and also in Greece and Yugoslavia (where the UK could be able to invest too, if the game mechanism allows them both to be investing in the same country). Better partisan warfare will help balance this game, and it will also give more opportunities to the allied player, thus making it more interesting for them while the Axis are busy conquering all the neutrals before they invade Russia. I agree with all your other points, except for the one relating to giving Gibraltar to a neutral USA. The UK would only have done such a thing if it could have continued to use Gibraltar to refuel, and also to pass through to and from the Mediterrenean. If the game mechanism would allow this, then I'm happy with your idea. Or perhaps a 20% chance of the USA joining the allies in the event of an attack on Gibraltar could be built into the game itself, thus avoiding any transfers of sovereignty. Gibraltar is a place that the British feel very strongly about, and there would have been massive opposition to a transfer of sovereignty to any other country. [ March 16, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

The Kriegsmarine can be just as useful in the Baltic after the 2 Russian Cruisers have been sunk. This is because their presence will help prevent the allies from carrying out any ambitious moves of their own into Scandinavia and the Baltic. I have used German ships effectively (ok, sometimes they've died doing it!) to stop allied landings in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. If you send them through the channel to France then you might regret it later, and by then it might not be possible to send them back again!

Can you send me the file too please. We can always play this once we've finished our other game if you like.

I've had Italian HQs that have reached 4 stars of experience, which means that they are adding 8 points of strength (their original rating of 4, plus their experience) to all of the units under their command. HQs are essential if fighting in mountainous terrain, in Russia, and if attempting to carry out any large scale amphibious landings. For Italy and France they probably wouldn't be my first purchase, but especially with the Italians they will be needed later on.

And you might want to see if you can rent a copy of "The Wall" too (and I'm not talking about the Pink Floyd film!). I think it was based on a novel by John Hershey.

I think that fortresses like Brest Litovsk are too small to play a role in this game. The Atlantic Wall could play a role, but it's drawback is that it only helps defend the coast. Once the allies have landed any troops in the Atlantic Wall who are attacked from inland shouldn't benefit from it. I don't want engineer units having to go around repairing everything, but they could be used to build fortifications. Rather than disbanding a corps, I think that an engineer unit should cost about the same as an army, though with a combat value roughly equivalent to a corps. The engineer unit would have to move into the hex where it wanted to construct the fortification, and it could then build the fort at a rate of 1 strength point per turn, to a maximum of 5. This construction should also cost MPPs, say 25 per strength point. That way, the West Wall would cost 250 for an engineer unit, plus 125 MPPs per complete fort per hex. This is just an idea, perhaps someone who knows how much it really cost to build fortifications could amend the prices.

John If you need any help researching the Polish army, or Poland as a whole between 1919 and 1945, just ask (send me an email). I've got some good books on the subject, including some first hand accounts. Also, the owner of the Polish armour site, Michael Derela, is very helpful. He's answered a number of questions for me in the past. This can be found at http://derela.republika.pl/armcarpl.htm

Kurt and Rannug: Thanks for the compliments! You are both excellent opponents too, and anyone who hasn't played you both has definitely missed out on part of the SC experience. I also can't believe that you haven't yet played each other! :eek: As to endorsing players, I would say that most people are fine to play with, and I'm enjoying my first ever game with Les, even though I have no chance of winning. [ March 08, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I hope that they will, but we don't really know. SC2 is currently in progress, but so far we have been told very little about it. A lot of your comments have already been brought up and discussed over the last year or so, and it is hoped that some of them at least will be resolved in the next version.

LOL. If I had do you think I'd be giving it away for free?

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but could we please have the ability to pause the video (in PBEM play) in future versions. There is nothing more annoying than watching a crucial battle on the video, and having the phone ring, or someone knock at the door etc. Small thing, but it would be a nice feature to have. Thanks.

I for one would love to see the Pacific Theatre covered, and I think it could be done with a few tweaks to the current system in SC. But I think we'll have to wait until SC2 is released to find out.

Exactly Edwin, that's the way I see it working too. Simple, but effective. You would also have to have buttons on the regions that were under your control to add the MPPs to amend the traffic flow. Or perhaps we could just have 1 free amendment every turn, otherwise it could get a bit costly for low producing countries such as the UK to distort their radio traffic over a long period (if you've sent lots of troops to the Middle East then you'll need to distort the traffic flow over quite a few turns). At 25MPPs per turn, over say 6 turns = the loss of 150MPPs to the UK. In 1944 that might be ok, but in 1940/41 the UK just can't afford that loss of MPPs.

It would be good if you could spend MPP to reduce the level of traffic too! It isn't necessarily that complicated, but perhaps it would be better if it was defined by area rather than country, given that they are not all of uniform size.

JJ wrote:Then again, Germany from even the coldest viewpoint wasted so much in not only human skills, but human life itself, that it seems pointless to discuss it's conduct. I agree John. It's funny that when I read about Nazi Germany I find myself criticising its colossal inefficiency (I can't help it), yet at the same time I'm glad it was so inefficient because otherwise they might have won. [ February 29, 2004, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Another thing I've just thought of is that scrapping naval units doesn't just free up sailors for service in the trenches when things are desperate, but it also frees up all the clerks, fitters, mechanics, supply troops, dockers etc. who were involved in some way in maintaining the naval units. Some of them at least can also be switched to a different role, thus adding to the country's military infrastructure.

I beg to differ about navies releasing their manpower to other services. It's a while since I read it, but if my memory serves me well about 100,000 German sailors reinforced the crumbling Wehrmacht towards the end of the war. Just as Luftwaffe personnel were transferred too (and I'm not talking about the prestigious Luftwaffe units like the Herman Goering division either). Towards the end of the war the British army was also receiving men from anti-aircaft units and other units that were no longer needed, to serve as infantrymen, for the British were running out of infantrymen too. Yes, it is historically correct to disband units that haven't been beaten up, but in real life it only happens when they no longer have a useful function to perform. That is something that no game could decide for us, so I think the 10% idea is ok. Yes, it is gamey to sell a battleship to buy a HQ, but I can't see another way round it, unless by selling a battleship you get a discount on your next Corps? Or, perhaps the navy can only be disbanded in the mother country, and instead of getting MPPs you get a weak Corps (say, at strength 5). This Corps would be created as near to the port as possible, and only if there is space for it. That avoids it being created hundreds of miles away from the port where the sailors docked. [ February 29, 2004, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I think that you will still get a bonus from the fortress even if you are at 0 entrenchment. Forests have both good and bad sides to them in real life defence, but I think that a small bonus to infantry defending them would be more appropriate.