Von Epps

"Other things I've noticed include: Engineered fortifications in the water/land hexes prevent ships from again entering the hex." ________________________________________________ I noticed this at the Kiel canal. Once I fortified the square, Oops! No more access through for my Navy.

More Talk...Lynn Swann was the star receiver for the Steelers during the 70's, 80's. The point was, which was wasted on a kiwi, that he caught a lot of flack from the press, because he took ballet classes, supposedly to somehow improve his game on the field. I am not sure how, but I thought it might be of some relevance here.

Favorite: AirFleet - I love the way they can just wear other units down, ie...readiness, morale, entrenchment. Their effectiveness, at high levels, is hard to beat, offense/defense. Nothing more pesky than enemy fighters pre-emptively raking over my assembly areas! Worst: Carriers, no real spotting, weak defensively, expense, and production delay. Too much almost self inflicted damage vs. inflicted damage.

Those Germans are efficient!?! Wow!

Here! Here! Mobile units are much more capable of surrounding and isolating pockets of the enemy. Realistic, since you rarely see units lined up elbow to elbow, with no room for infiltration, by an enemy.

I think entrenchment is the easiest answer here. Historically, it would be the right thing to do. Even though attacks could be made to lower that entrenchment, those would be costly, at first, and that is realistic, and subsequent attacks would reflect the decreased state of readiness, and capability that a sustained attack would inflict. My opinion is that no position can be totally protected against a determined foe with resources. Experienced war gamers know that offensive operational success is largely based on striking where your opponent is weak and vulnerable, and you are strong. If Germany is strong enough to concentrate it's efforts on rolling up the defensive fortifications on the border, I think it should cost them, but not be impossible. If WWII taught us anything, it was that mobile forces have the advantage over static positions, especially in defense.

Isn't Hubert a Canuck himself? Given that fact, I think that if anyone had thought of making Canada a Major Power, it would have been him. You have to consider the game scale in this. How would increasing Canada's ability to act on her own, seperate from the UK, affect the overall gameplay? If your argument is you wish to, in your opinion, more accurately reflect technology advancement for certain Minor powers during the war. How do you justify Romanian advanced subs tech, or Canadian research advancement that isn't directly proportional to the UK's own. I think that the units available to Canada to purchase, coupled with the MPP contribution via convoy does, at least in spirit, represent an accurate contribution, in respect to the scale of the game, ie...Armies, and Corps sized units. Would you feel comfortable adding an army sized unit of Canadian tanks, tech 3 or 4, or is it enough that you could purchase a Brittish unit, presumably with donated Canadian MPP's, and renaming it after a Canadian unit, while still under the command of an overall Brittish Commander? Lastly, in respect to Axis minors, and their abilities, and inabilities. If modern weaponry was so prevalent in some units, why were they so incapable of offensive operation, seperate from german forces. Was it Romanian Cavalry spearheading pincer movements into the rear of enemy formations? Once again I think it is more accurate to see them in a more supportive role.

I just have one question. The dancing class? Is that some kind of training regimen, kind of like what Lynn Swann used to do, while he was with the Steelers??? Does that help, here, on some, conscious, or unconscious level that I am not aware of? Maybe it is just a Kiwi thing.

Doesn't anyone think that the idea of spontaneous spottting of enemy units would be an added depth rendering attribute to the game. I think that the original post referred to this and everyone got off topic. Aside from the capture and study of enemy equipment and technology, Intel. could, and perhaps should be interpreted more literally, and historically. Finding out that your enemy is massing troops on your border, or discovering that he has left port would add a little more realism to the game. Just a thought.

I love that! Leave it to the french to have a huge Navy, specifically submarines, right before the onset of WWII. Kind of seems like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I was just finishing off the brits, while playing as the Axis, and had recently taken Ireland by force. After bombarding an English target I moved my naval unit into the Port in Ireland, I think it is labeled as Dublin, but is positioned more like Ulster, anyways along comes a british army unit on the AI turn, and it is somehow able to attack my cruiser from Wales, across the channel. This seems quite unrealistic to me, even with artillery (of the day). Without redrawing the map is there any way to block this kind of activity? Rough seas...While I agree that ship damamge while at see can and does occur, I think that you should be able to refit your ships without losing experience level, for doing so. If anything you should be given experience for weathering it out. It isn't like 10% of my crew was washed overboard and lost at sea.

Your problem is the corps/other unit two hexes below Warsaw. I keep just the two corps units ie. Warsaw and Konigsberg. Keep in mind that there are other modifiers, that continue to effect the %. DOW, on other countries, and a special modifier after 1941, 42, etc...for russian % to increase against Axis. You might try investing in some counter diplomacy points, to stave off the inevitable Russian entry into the war.

I remember the old card game, and thought it was pretty cool when I was a kid, but I have been searching for a better version of Fighting Steel for years. How would you compare it to that game? I hope that there will be tactical strategy, such as maneuvers, and patrol assignment options, included. I take it, that this is turn based rather than real time action???

I was messing around with the Demo a little bit more last night and I did happen to see a couple of minor power generals. I hope that this is not a spoiler, but I think I saw Marshall Antonescu, and General Mannerheim. I wasn't able to see how they were incorporated in game play, but I was shocked to see them at all. As far as Army group B being a hodge podge, it was true, Mannstein often had certain difficulties getting orders out to all of his different sub commanders, because of the necessary time for translation, and what not. Shooting from the hip was a little more difficult for him, in this case, and he often expressed his frustration with this necessary evil.

I am a new poster, but I was an SC1 guy, and have been patiently waiting for what I think is two long years, and several proposed release dates. With blood in the water I feel frenzied once again. I guess it speaks to the value of the work that has been done, that all of us keep hanging around this web board. I was wondering if anyone could remember the old game that this was originally based off of. Blitztkrieg, or something like that, I think it was called? I think it came out in '92 or 93, had two dimensional graphics, but the politics, the map, and the basic combat play was much the same. It is funny to compare it to what is being offered today. In some ways it has changed very little, and in others it is worlds apart. Now I look back on it, I have to wonder how many countless hours, I spent playing, the past versions, and almost regret pre-ordering this one, thinking about how many more hours I will be compelled to devote, before I get around to that yard work I should be doing. Anyhow, sorry to rant, but I had to say after playing the demo several different times, this game is nearly the perfect game for me, and I hate that I have to stalk my mailman the way that I do everyday.