mcaryf1

Actually British road signs are still in mph and how about ships are their speeds described in kilometers or knots/nautical miles where you come from? Regards Mike

Actually the game engine can model nets and minefields. For example if you allow Finland to have a number of DD units with zero AP but good naval defensive values that can be strung across the Gulf of Finland then the Russians can be denied access to the Baltic until they have expended effort to destroy them or until they have knocked Finland out of the game. This then represents the actual anti-submarine nets and minefields that were really deployed. If USSR has some sub units located inside this blockade then they cannot get out but they can prevent the Axis from making unrealistic amphibious assaults on Leningrad so it works both ways. Regards Mike

Hi Crispy Determining whether a ship is really located in a port has been rather complicated in Gold as there were not enough port locations so ships near a port are probably intended to be in a port but the game does not allow stacking. Thus I have tended to be fairly relaxed about allowing rebuilds in my Axis Triumphant scenario. It seems to turn out that it is more often reasonable than not allowing them is unreasonable from a historic perspective! If you examine the fate of battleships in particular in WW2 a significant number of them were sunk whilst in ports - Taranto, Pearl, Alexandria, Mers El Kebir, Tirpitz. Of course AOD with its larger scale should have more port capacity but it might be onerous to have to check the precise location. I doubt very much that it would have a game changing impact as both sides can potentially benefit but it would help the naval aspects of the game potentially to have more going on. Regards Mike

I just want to comment on the earlier strike against the Italian fleet units that were effectively in port. This rather mirrored the actual raid on Taranto although of course that was when the countries were at war. The actual outcome of Taranto was that only one of the sunk/damaged Italian ships was not eventually refloated and repaired. I think it is a good idea for the game/scenario settings to match the reality of the Taranto and Pearl attacks by allowing naval ships sunk in port to be rebuilt at a fraction of the cost and delay of constructing new ships. Some reward for a sneak attack would still exist but it would not be as devastating as total loss of the opponent's units. I do not know what the re-build settings are in AOD but I would suggest that naval units with supply 10 should be capable of rebuilds at something like 20% of the cost and delay. Regards Mike

I am interested that the Allies control the Baltic. Was there any restriction on access to the Baltic by ships and subs operating out of the Leningrad area? In the actual war the Germans and Finns constructing a barrier of anti-submarine netting and mines so that there was no access for the Soviets to the Baltic for a lot of the war. Regards Mike

Hi Lofty The main issue is the income as that is obviously increased unless you change the rates but of course combat attrition is also greater. Most movement and range is somewhat understated in the standard game (in 1 week elapsed a fit man could walk 140 miles in reasonable terrain!) so making the turns weekly does not give unrealistic movements. Regards Mike

Hi Sapare My apologies as I was one of those that highjacked your thread to ask about AP ranges. The trouble with your original question was that there is no single answer as the amount of the globe covered by an SC square depends on where it is relative to the Equator because the map is essentially a projection of the globe. The circumference of the Earth is about 21,000 nautical miles at the Equator so if AOD is 484 by 200 then the squares at the Equator are about 42 nm by 105nm. However as you head up or down towards the Poles the amount of ground covered by each square is much less so the scale reduces and through Europe it might be about half that size. Another way to think about it is that the surface area of the Earth is 500 million square kilometers. There are 96,000 SC squares in AOD so each square on average would represent a bit over 5,000 square KM so about 100km x 50km but of course as pointed out above the squares do not all represent the same size on the ground. Regards Mike

Hi Lofty Actually you need to ask also whether the turns are alternate or simultaneous. The standard games are 2 weekly alternate hence elapsed 4 weeks between player turns. My mod Axis Triumphant, a substantial changed High Tide, is two weekly but simultaneous. Regards Mike

Hi Bill and abukede I guess I need to wait until I see the whole array of unit types, relative strengths and relative costs until I comment too deeply. Also I do realise that I am probably more interested in historic comparisons of weapon systems than I am in acheiving game balance so my point of view is not necessarily the same as most players. Regards Mike

Thank you for posting the stats for the medium bomber, CVL etc. I guess there would be an argument for giving the CVL a single strike otherwise it seems to be at too much of an advantage in terms of MPP's invested as compared with a land based medium bomber. Thus players would have to deploy the units in pairs if they are to have a strike accompanied by an escort. I am also doubtful that a full blown CV should have better anti-land unit target stats as well as twice as many strikes as a medium bomber. I guess it depends how many aircraft you think a carrier unit includes as compared with a medium bomber unit. If a carrier TF consists of 2 x real US CVs then it is a maximum of 200 planes (UK would be much less) a number of which are fighters not bombers. The US alone deployed around 6,000 medium bombers in 1943 and 9,000 in 1944 so unless the US has more than 18 medium bomber units each one would represent around 500 aircraft so at least twice and probably 3 or 4 times as many bombers as a 2 x CV TF and each individual land bomber would typically carry about twice as much ordinance as its sea-launched equivalent. Regards Mike

Hi Bill Thank you for your answer - I interpret it as meaning that differentiation is principally by means of tech levels rather than by adjusting the underlying unit characteristics for different countries. It does of course get very complicated to model historic advances by using tech levels as IJN carrier fighter advances after 1942 to improve defence, (e.g. armour to protect the pilot) actually resulted in reduced range due to increased weight. Regards Mike

I was interested to see the comment that an Italian land based fighter unit would have stood no chance against RN carrier aircraft. In reality of course the RN carrier planes were extremely poor in air to air conflict and only had success at Taranto because they were night capable whilst the Italian planes could not operate at night. This brings me to a more general question about AOD - are all country units the same in terms of combat values, disregarding tech levels, or has there been any attempt to match the underlying units to country capability? Thus are Japanese carrier aircraft inherently longer ranged or does that capability require them to start with better tech? The difficulty with that is that Japanese army fighters were actually short ranged at the same time as Japanese navy were long ranged but tech levels potentially makes the capability available to both types. Regards Mike

Hi Mathias You probably need to address some of those issues to Hubert and his colleagues as I just use the editor to make different units etc. If you look in the bitmaps folder you can see a group of "explosion" sprites. I guess you could make changes to those for a mushroom or gas cloud but the effect is very fleeting and I do not know how the game engine decides what explosion effect to use. With respect to natural disasters or man made disasters such as the raid on the dams, you could create the effects through strength and supply decision events and you could display associated images but again you would need to modify the game engine if, for example, you wanted to change the type or look of a tile. In my scenario once the Axis has captured Egypt Malta is subjected to a series of random strength point losses to represent Axis bombing raids so it is costly for the Allies to attempt to maintain a presence on the island. If you wanted to simulate Vesuvius erupting you could do something similar. Ideally I would have liked to create the effect of continuing strength point losses for units placed on a city struck by nuclear weapons. However, since I wanted the player to be able to choose any location as a potential nuclear target I could not use DEs with fixed values. Perhaps if Hubert introduced a facility for DEs to somehow pick up location parameters from the players then it would be possible. Such a facility would also be useful for laying naval minefields. At present you can effectively only deploy them after the game has commenced near to one of your own ports so they are essentially a defensive tactic. In my scenario the Axis AI has a random probability of adding new naval minefields in the Bordeaux area if an Allied naval presence is detected there but of course it can only do that so long as it possesses Bordeaux. Regards Mike

I should have added a comment re rocket and plane equipped subs. You can simulate this by providing rocket units with very long ranges and conceptually these are either ICBMs (a bit too early) or notionally rockets launched from undetected subs. With respect to planes, there would never have been enough planes carried by subs to create much damage. The planned mission to close the Panama Canal could be implemented with a DE triggered if a Japanese sub unit approached within a certain distance of the canal. I chose not to implement this as I thought the AI would not understand it and anyway a proper implementation of naval operating ranges would mean that this would just have been an inconvenience and more a disruption to trade than naval operations. Regards Mike

Hi Mathias At present I have concentrated on using this scenario as a way to see whether the game's mechanics can function reasonably well with different unit characteristics. Whether you choose to regard the Japanese WMD units as firing bacteriological, chemical or gas shells probably does not impact that. A true implementation would need to include the impact of weather on these types of weapons and ideally any use of nuclear weapons should convert the locations targeted into impassable areas but I have not yet devised a way to do those things. As it is my "nuclear weapons" will typically destroy any unit in open ground but cities give some chances of unit survival and the city itself recovers its productive capacity in the normal way. However, my experience is that nuclear weapons can have an impact on the game and as I mentioned in a previous post I have seen an Allied AI defeat an Axis AI by invading Japan after a barrage with nuclear armed rockets. The AI seems to be less effective at deploying Rail Guns as WMD and they sometimes seem to end up on sidings. As I expect to port the scenario to AOD I decided that I would not try to develop the graphical look of the scenario further, e.g. mushroom clouds, until I understand what different options might be availble with that variant of the game engine. By the way one other addition I forgot to mention was the creation of ports and some naval activities in the Black Sea. Initially the Russians are the only ones with naval units there but the Axis did really bring small submarines overland to contest that sea and there were amphibious assaults and naval evacuations of trapped forces which are now possibilities in the scenario. Regards Mike

I was asked in a post on the AOD forum about unit types I considered for my Axis Triumphant scenario. I think it best if I post about it in this forum as Axis Triumphant is not currently developed as an AOD scenario. The following is a list of the major features in Axis Triumphant including the various unit types which are created mainly by utilising minor country units or modifying existing ones e.g. Special Forces become infantry divisions and anti-tank units become tank divisions in capabilities although I have not yet developed new symbols for them. Additional Unit Types Land & Air Instant militia units (most minor countries plus USSR garrisons) Infantry Divisions (all countries SF units) Tank Divisions (major and a few minor countries A/T units) Mustard Gas shells (for use by Allies, rail guns) Mustard Gas Bombs (for use by Allies rockets) Nerve Gas shells (for use by Germans rail guns) Nerve Gas Bombs (for use by Germans rockets) Biological warfare unit (used by Japan rail guns and rockets) Very Long Range recce planes various types (USA, UK, Japan via minors) Extremely Long Range recce over sea (Japanese Emily units) Big Wing Fighters (2 strikes, 3 intercepts for use by Allies) Big wing TAC (2 strikes for use by Allies) Fighter Bomber units (Germany, UK and US via minors' fighters) Kamikaze Fighters (Japan via Thailand) Kamikaze Bombers (Japan via Thailand) Player deployable A-Bombs (US only via teched up rocket) Atomic Bombs are extremely expensive highly destructive units Naval Mine clearing engineers (2 strikes major countries engineers) AA Divisions (range 2, hits 2 all major countries) Static offensive fortress units (Axis AI via Bulgarian units) Japan has many poor quality Chinese mercenary units (actually Thai units) Germany has Osttruppen “volunteer” units (via Baltic States) Major country HQs are very expensive but some can be acquired via events Major country HQs can control more units over longer ranges (not all the same) Many countries’ units differ in their combat ratings and relative costs Naval CVLs (US and UK – one strike general purpose CV) CVEs (Japan, US and UK one strike CV in both land attack and anti-sub variants) Older style BBs (UK and US provided by Canada and Philippines, some in mothballs) Note all BB units get 2 strikes but modern ones have much higher tech potential Heavy Cruiser Squadrons (Japanese CAs with 2 strikes – Kongos and Long Lance) DD Flotilla (instantly re-buildable units, only 1/3 deemed to be destroyed) SS Flotilla (instantly re-buildable units, only 1/3 deemed to be destroyed) DEs (cheaper and quicker to build for UK, US and Japan anti-sub role) PT Boats (small attack or suicide craft for US and Japan) Japanese submarines that carry aircraft (extra spotting range) Kaiten submarines (cheap expendable subs for Japan via Thailand) Anti-submarine nets (Finland historic to block Baltic access from Leningrad) Naval mines (deployable by Germany, Italy, UK and Japan via minors) Minesweepers (deployable by UK (Iceland), Italy (Libya) and Japan (Pakistan)) Rocket firing landing craft (2 strike amphibious units) Extra long range amphibious assault (Allies and Japan via expensive research) Some Free French naval and air units can be deployed prior to liberation High evasion (up to 80%) transports - very few liners used as transports were intercepted in WW2 All naval units have 20 percentage points of evasion divided between offence and defence Economic Data You should play with hard build limits on or the map can become too cluttered Turns are seasonal, 14 days elapsed (28 in winter months) and simultaneous Oil wells yield 4 MPP per strength point – oil is the critical resource as it really was A number of “factory” cities generate units for the owner e.g Baku generates HQs Germany, USSR and USA get extra oil fields, Germany’s is synthetic oil plant Japan/China has extra (historic) mines explaining why Japan wants to occupy China Finland has nickel mine in far North (historic) Many units are much more expensive to reflect the real WW2 cost relativities Naval units take historic times to build e.g. modern BBs are 4 years. Amphibious and transport costs largely included in other payments e.g. research Re-build times and costs heavily reduced for many units deemed not fully destroyed USSR gets an extra alternative capital USSR gets a “National Redoubt” beyond the Ural Mountains plus forces in it Most US Lend Lease aid to USSR goes via the Far East (historical) Tonnage War costs impact all major powers except China and France Chinese aid convoys can be interdicted near Calcutta Malta supply convoys from Alexandria or Gib can be interdicted Allied supply routes to the Mid-East can be interdicted in the Indian Ocean Western Allies get opportunities to send special convoys to USSR e.g PQ17 Germany can force a temporary armistice on USSR if Allies do not send enough aid Hitler can send economic aid to Mussolini if Italy’s situation is bad Map, Political and Victory Changes Additional towns in France, Calais and Caen, to facilitate AI Allied invasion Extra port and fortress at St Nazaire to facilitate Axis defence Additional town in Algeria to provide supply for AI Operation Torch Extra port in Finland/Baltic in case AI blocks its own ports with mines Road link to Tromso so Tirpitz can be rebuilt /repaired there Extra port by Kiel Canal to prevent Allied subs diving through canal into Baltic Additional towns in Dutch East Indies to facilitate AI (Allied) invasion Extra towns/cities in Russia – Kirov and Saratov to help AI withdraw if Moscow falls Additional towns/ports as bases for Germans in Northern Norway and Finland Allied refuelling port near Archangel (historic) Allied naval base at Addu Atoll in Indian Ocean (historic) Additional naval base in Ceylon (historic) Midway reduced in size (realistic) Soviet Far East reception port and rail link for Convoys (Not historic but was needed otherwise IJN can interdict too easily) Created Libya (was Tibet) – needed some minor units for Italians Italian convoy route from Libya – can be interdicted by Allies North Atlantic area used for convoys significantly increased in size by zigzag Thailand becomes Japanese minor ally to provide units – virtually historic Philippine exile capital in USA to provide USA with a source for minor units Pakistan created from part of India to give Axis access to units if they conquer India Axis AI can win by conquering USSR, China and India – invading USA is too hard! Morale will have an effect on level of victory attainable If you have any questions about the historic justification for the inclusion of any of these units or other changes please ask and I will explain my reasons. I covered my thoughts with respect to omitting helicopters and submarine missiles (the Germans did develop them) in my post on the AOD forum. Regards Mike

Hi Mathiasbw I will publish a list of all my unit types in a thread in the Gold forum as this forum should really be used for AOD but I will answer your questions. I did not implement a separate unit for helicopters because their functionality is available via paratroops or fixed wing aircraft units. I considered providing a submarine with facilities to simulate the German sub that could tow a V2 launcher. The Germans had intended this to be used to bombard New York etc but never actually did that as the capability came too late. An implementation in SC Gold would require SS units to have a strategic attack capability which the editor does not allow. I also looked at providing Japanese SS uniits with a capability to match the fact that a number of them could carry aircraft. The Japanese intended to use these to attack the Panama Canal and I thought about a Decision Event to knock out the loop capability that relates to Panama. In the end I decided not to do that as the AI would not understand it. However, I did give Japanese subs one extra point for spotting range to represent their capability to deploy spotter aircraft. Regards Mike

Hi al It is called Axis Triumphant - but it does really need a bigger map so I am looking forward to AOD so I can convert it. Regards Mike

Dear All Those of you that are impatient to try out the new units promised for AOD might be interested in a scenario for Gold which I have uploaded to the repository which is an adaptation of Axis High Tide. It is called Axis Triumphant and includes CVEs, CVLs, naval minefields, WMDs (atomic bombs and nerve gas), very long range recce planes and a host of other unit types created by utilising minor country units. The scenario is somewhat rough around the edges in terms of unit naming and graphics counters and it probably has too many land units for the scale of the map as it introduces infantry and tank divisions (as well as armies and corps) but with force levels that are fairly accurate for May 1942. My intention will be to port it to the AOD map as that scale looks as if it will be more appropriate. It has a number of new concepts including instant rebuilds for subs and DDs and an implementation of the tonnage war as well as the new units mentioned above and I would appreciate any feedback you can give me before launching into the major task of porting to AOD. I have deliberately modified some features of the map and unit types to make the AI more challinging. Thus I have noted where it likes to make amphibious assaults and added a few towns so that it does not suffer so many supply problems. I have also created super strength garrisons to offset the AI's deluded belief that a garrison is the best unit to guard a city such as Moscow! I have also given transports an 80% evasion both to avoid the usual AI holocaust of unescorted troop movement and to reflect the reality of WW2 that troops on fast liner transports were hardly ever intercepted in transit. I have provided a long post on the new features in the Gold forum. I hope you try the scenario if only versus the AI to have a quick look at some of the ideas as I would welcome feedback on them. regards Mike

Dear All Over the last several months I have made many posts on topics such as “naval realism” during which I have mentioned scenarios I have been developing. The forthcoming release of AOD has persuaded me that it is time to release one of them for those of you that do not want to wait any longer for CVEs, CVLs and very long range naval reconnaissance planes plus a host of other new unit types. I must apologise that this is a long post but I wanted to explain the scenario’s major features to tempt you to try it because I am very interested in getting feedback. My intention will be to port the scenario to the AOD map and feedback will be helpful before I undertake that. I anticipate that AOD’s scale will better suit the number of units the scenario deploys - the current map does give an interesting game but land units can become crowded. I have called the scenario Axis Triumphant. It uses the standard Axis High Tide as its base but starts a week or so earlier when the Axis really were triumphantly crushing the Soviet Spring offensive, breaking the Allied lines at Gazala and the Japanese were yet to suffer a major defeat. It gives the Axis player the opportunity to examine alternate strategies that might have exploited these triumphs more effectively and the Allied player will have to guess whether or not Midway is the next target. In the interests of historical realism I have adjusted the OOB’s to more closely match the historic capabilities of the participants in May 1942. I have quite closely modelled the naval forces and rather more broadly the land and air forces. I must apologise to grognards as I have not put much effort into historical naming for land and air forces. I will also apologise to those that like beautiful graphics as I have just tried to be functional with splash screens and the like. I have converted “special forces” and anti-tank units to be infantry and armoured divisions respectively but not changed their counters. Rail guns and rockets play the part of Weapons of Mass Destruction (nerve and other gas weapons, biological warfare and deployable A-Bombs - all actually available for use in WW2 even if not always deployed) but I still utilise the standard symbols. If you would like to know more about my thinking for naval warfare realism please read my series of posts on that. Essentially I have used minor country units to bolster the types of ship or weapons available to each side. You will therefore encounter older BB units, heavy cruisers, CVL’s and CVE’s, instantly re-buildable DD and SS units (the flotilla sunk at sea is treated as one third of the units deployed to that theatre), naval mines (minor country DDs with zero AP) and of course minesweepers as well as Kamikaze’s, suicide launches and Kaiten subs. Engineer units are modified so they can be effective at clearing ports blocked with naval mines, other land units may incur losses on that task. I should note that the Baltic States, Finland, Romania, Thailand and a newly created Libya provide Axis naval mines whilst Rhodesia and Sudan create Allied ones. The choice of minor countries to use for mine production was partly based on preventing mines from being indiscriminately placed by players or the AI in locations that could clog up the game. Mines are represented as DD units - this does give the AI some problems as it attacks them with inappropriate ships particularly if it is playing as the Allies since the Bordeaux area is typically heavily protected with mines. I allocate extra ships to the Allied AI to make up for the losses it suffers on mines but, if you play against the AI, it might be more challenging initially to play as the Allies. As mines are DD units they too can be instantly re-built at 1/3 cost so they will remain a persistent threat. Recce aircraft are provided by The Philippines and Canada for the Allies and Thailand for Japan. As unit characteristics do not show you evasion factors, I should mention that mines and minesweepers have high evasions. All naval units have some degree of evasion – typically 20 percentage points divided between defensive or offensive combat depending on national naval philosophies. Italians typically get 15% defensive and 5% offensive evasion. Italian ships were fast and their doctrine was to withdraw from combat unless they had local superiority. Troop transports were very rarely sunk in WW2 as they were often fast liners that could evade submarines and other warships. In my scenario transports have 80% evasion versus naval attack but be warned this evasion does not apply to land based air! I should emphasise that most country units’ capabilities vary one from another. German land units historically inflicted 30 – 40% more casualties on their opponents than they received themselves. They are therefore the most powerful in the game. You should carefully review any country unit to check the actual capabilities before you spend MPPs on it. You also need to review research increments. US submarine torpedoes were initially almost totally ineffectual but were soon improved. Thus US subs have poor initial stats but increment by 1.5 – the same is true for some other units. Units representing large formations will often have two strikes – this applies to armies, BBs and Allied aircraft. The Allied fighter fleets were too numerous to be all represented on the map so they get 2 strikes and 3 intercepts. Japanese CA units include the Kongos which were actually rated as BB/BC as well as heavy cruisers carrying formidable batteries of the deadly Long Lance torpedo, therefore IJN CAs also get 2 strikes. As I think that shore bombardment should be mainly relevant to landings I have reduced most naval attacks versus land but given amphibious transports a two strike shore bombardment capability. All naval units get more realistically long operating ranges and the operating range of amphibious transports increases significantly with research. I have imposed more realistic production delays for naval units (4 years for a BB) and as a consequence most new capital ships are already in the production queue or will be provided (mainly for the AI) by decision events. However, naval and land units can often be rebuilt e.g. to simulate battleships being raised after having been sunk in port. For land units such as armies I feel it is unrealistic that they can be totally destroyed by air attack. Thus unless they are cut off without supply you will usually be able to rebuild a land unit at a fraction of the normal cost and production delay. Some garrison units can be instantly built or rebuilt as these represent rapidly assembled militia. Liberated countries also benefit from shorter unit production times as their units are deemed to be formed from already available trained men or partially damaged naval units. I have created Fighter Bomber units both to represent historic Fighter Bombers and the air forces on single tile islands, such as Malta, where both fighters and bombers were based. For the Axis it is Finland that provides Fighter Bombers and for the Allies it is S Africa and The Philippines. A major innovation with respect to the naval aspect is that the tonnage war is represented. The standard SC convoy system recognises losses in materiel but does not account for the replacement of lost merchant shipping. In this scenario the presence of Axis or Allied raiders in various sea areas will result in an MPP charge to the other player to replace lost ships. Also in order to initially nullify the US advantage in production capacity the Allied player will be faced with heavy investment demands for Liberty Ship and Tanker construction. Failure to make these investments will result in escalating supply hits modelling the resulting lack of Allied shipping capacity. The Allied player will suffer tonnage war costs during most turns – I suggest you just quickly say “Yes” to the decision event. Failure to do so will result in supply hits and ultimately strength point losses. The North Atlantic convoy route will look a little strange as it follows a zigzag but this is to cover the sea area actually used by convoys and to allow the Allied player to spot U Boats. I have significantly reduced the convoying of MPP’s via the Arctic route – historically only 25% of Allied supplies went to the USSR this way. Initially there are 3 convoy events for specific PQ convoys which, if successful, will result in the delivery of tank and/or air units to USSR. After these 3 events a new convoy route opens in the Far East which is the route most supplies actually used. As you cannot have two convoy routes from a major country, this is actually modelled as empty ships travelling from the USSR to the US but it can still suffer interdiction losses and the actual credit to the USSR from Lend Lease aid is given via decision events. The scenario also features factory cities the possession of which will result in the acquisition of additional units typically in September of each year. The AI will usually receive extra units each year – human players will get them much less frequently depending partly on the difficulty level selected. Players should attempt to capture locations such as Stalingrad before September in order to deny the AI or human opponent their potential benefit. I feel that factory cities are a useful concept for SC – Stalingrad was producing over 30% of all T34’s for the USSR in the first half of 1942. Clearly the loss or retention of that capacity should be worth more than the standard MPP yield from a city. Factory cities are identified as such on the map but remember as a human player you will not get anything like the yield of units awarded to the AI for capturing or retaining them. In order to give the Axis player a chance to win, which they did not historically have in May 1942, I have assumed that the Axis did not implement the same racial policies as they historically did. Thus in addition to factory cities for tank and aircraft there are other large cities that will yield additional manpower and hence infantry units. For example India has been split to recognise the area covered by modern day Pakistan and capturing this part of India will result in the creation of an Axis minor ally with the capability of producing Axis units. Various cities in the USSR will also yield infantry reinforcements to either the Axis or the USSR. The map shows a few changes from the standard High Tide to include some extra ports and a national redoubt for the USSR which might well have been formed if Moscow had fallen. Incidentally there is a possibility that the Axis will be able to force a temporary armistice on the Soviet Union so that they can concentrate on defeating the UK. This event typically occurs if the Allied player does not take all the opportunities offered to send additional aid from the US and UK following demands from the USSR/Stalin for such aid to be forthcoming or if USSR morale becomes very low. The final and possibly most significant change is the treatment of HQs. In my view the standard game makes supply rather too easy for players. HQ units have a dual function in the game providing both command and control and sources of supply. As I wanted to limit supplies particularly for the Axis player they will start with far fewer HQ units than exist for example in High Tide. Thus the Germans cannot initially undertake offensives across the entire Russian front similarly for the Japanese in China. HQs are very expensive to purchase but will often be provided by means of decision events or in the case of Japan via staged payments. These DEs might occur when, for example, the Axis capture massive Allied store dumps such as did occur at Tobruk. In addition the Baku oilfield is effectively a factory for HQs and will yield one per year to the AI owner (less to a human). Because there are fewer HQ’s all major countries have HQ’s that can provide command and control over wider ranges and over larger numbers of units than in the standard game. Again not all country HQs are the same and you will need to try them to see how many units they can control and over what distances. I should warn you that the AI will not suffer as much HQ deprivation as you but it is not always very good at using them anyway. I have made some changes to the standard AI routines in High Tide but they are mainly the original (thank you Hubert) as I am still finding my way with that. I have, however, observed many games with the AI in charge. As a result of these observations I have made a number of changes to units specifically to help the AI be a better opponent. For example the AI tends to use garrison units to protect key objectives such as Moscow. To prevent this from being a total disaster I have created some expert Garrisons with lots of experience and additional strength points. These guard key locations. I have also made significant use of AA units (which get 2 strikes) as the AI tends to move its fighters inappropriately. For some situations such as guarding France I have been forced to use Bulgarian units with zero AP to ensure that the AI has an adequate garrison there. These appear if the AI is playing the Axis. Finally the AI tends to throw its naval resources into unequal combats, this is especially unwise given the extra ranges that all navies have in my scenario. To ensure that the Tirpitz remains a threat to the Arctic convoys it is actually represented as a BB from Finland with very limited movement. Finally I had to sacrifice historic timescales for some naval arrivals so that the AI gets them in batches which will provide more of a challenge when they are thrown as a group into battle. The game is set to play seasonally with 14 day turns except in the winter when they are 28 days. Income is effectively doubled for each winter turn which is a good opportunity to invest in research and rebuilding damaged units. All major countries start with substantial investments allocated to research. Turns are simultaneous so the elapsed time until your next turn is 14 days. I did this as the standard scenarios’ sequential turns effectively give 1 month between player turns which would be enough time for many naval units to circumnavigate the globe! As the scenario starts in May 1942 it should take only a bit longer to play than a standard scenario starting in 1939. The Axis AI can be victorious if it succeeds in conquering USSR, China and India which I have seen it achieve when it is playing itself. I have also seen the Allied AI achieve a victory including the invasion of Japan in early 1947. However, this success did depend on a huge battering of the Japanese with nuclear weapons. The scenario will be best versus a human but you might want to familiarise yourself with the many changes versus the AI. I recommend playing at intermediate level with the AI’s additional experience bonus at 0.5 or 1.0. If you regard yourself as an expert let the AI play itself for about a year and then try to win it for the less experienced side from there. I do hope you try it especially if you have already invested the time to read all of this post! Mike (Mcaryf1)

I guess loops it is. I rather liked an implementation that I think Nupremal had whereby ownership of strategic locations such as Midway impacted whether you could use a particular loop or not e.g. one or more loops that might enable CVs to emerge in a position ready to attack either Japan or the West Coast USA.. This gives a decent reason for wanting to capture that island and reflects the real reason why Japan tried to capture it. Another possibility might be a "fleet train" event whereby some loops only operate if you have spent money to invest in the sort of fleet train that the US built up so that its TFs could stay at sea almost indefinitely. Regards Mike

Hi Big Al Given the significant increase in map scale has the limit of 25 AP for a unit been increased? Global Conflict could only just give realistic naval movement if you set it to weekly turns so the ranges should be much more for a map with 6 times as many squares. A WW2 Cruiser could travel well over 2,000 nautical miles within a 7-day period. Regards Mike

Dear All I was being somewhat foolish with this problem but I will describe it in case it happens to you. The error message I received seemed to me to indicate that there was a problem with the licensing of my original SC GC but in fact it referred to the Gold expansion. Once I reinstalled the licence for that my problem went away. I can only assume that I somehow deleted the licence file by trying to inadvertently load 29 copies of the editor and subsequently shutting the system down. Anyway I hope I have attached the message that I think was misleading. The added complication was that my system would not contact the license web automatically so I ended up doing it offline. My thanks to the helpdesk who solved this at the same time as I did. Mike

Hi Schrullenhaft I sent you an email this morning (UK time) please let me know if you did not get it. Regards Mike

Hi Schrullenhaft The message I get is that Gold is an expansion product and also needs SCGC for it to be allowed to work. However, SCGC is present on the system and does still work so somehow a link that tells Gold about the standard product has been lost. I am guessing that whatever form that link takes was active processing the 29 versions of the editor and has somehow got corrupted or lost when I had to close down the system. I have a trouble ticket on the Battlefront helpdesk but they do not as yet understand what might have happened let alone how to rectify it. Regards Mike