Aikei

One of the things which make modern wars different from those of the 19th century and before that, is that in the 20th century armies became so large that it was actually possible to cover all territory between opponents. While the wars before that were the wars of movement, which emphasized some battles with the intention to totaly destroy one or maybe two or three enemy enemy armies, wars of 20th century were for terrotory control, where many battles occured each and every day. There should be a REAL change of mechanics to reflect that... I really don't know if it's worth it, SC engine is better off with WW1 and WW2, although franco-prussian war scenario seems good, but it is widely regarded as "the first of modern wars" by some.

I would love to see a Russo-Japanese War scenario, too.

It's not out yet.

I think you might be missing the [ symbol before IMG.

That's very nice to hear that improvements from assault on communism will be here. I was wondering if they are here or not. Thanks for the info, Hubert!

Attach the save to your post, I'm curious.

Thanks for your reply Bill! I will try a higher difficulty. Can you tell me if disabling quick logic improves AI somehow, or is it just a matter of speed (which is unlikely, I suppose)?

I understand your logic guys, and this is possibly one way of making it in the game, yes. However, I think historical RESULT shouldn't be the goal of the game, or it won't be a game at all. Since Germany would have to lose every game, allies would land in normandy each game etc. Yeah, no player would do this mistake. That's a big challenge for Germany to try to achieve historical result, not for France to try and make together with Germany some historical dance in order to lose. If you really want to play with this historical result, you can always start another scenario, in another year, say 1941, no need to make the player to repeat something which could very likely have gone a different road. However, when I start in 1939 as France (allies) I probably want to experience this early fight as France in a completely different way, and, well, I can't, 'cause France was artificially made too weak, and some people say it should be even weaker to surrender in 4 turns.

Why do you think France must inevitably lose? Historical deployment shouldn't predefine historical results of this deployment. I think France should've fared better than it did in real life. French army was at least as strong as that of Germany, and French also had allies like Belgium and the UK. France's equipment was actually better. They had some problems with bad organization of armored units, but still, Frace should've put up a better fight than they did historically. I think a competent player should actually be able to win given historical conditions. I find it very disappoiting that people think that France was very weak and should've lost anyway. I think the defeat was mostly caused by bad leadership, something which you, as the supreme commander, should substitute for. It seems that axis have some numerical superiority here too, but actually it seems, numbers were almost equal. And only 50% of all German divisions were ready to fight by that time, it should be represented by strength 5 of some divisions. Many were poorly equiped and consisted of men over 40. How is that represented here? There was only a small number of strong divisions, most were weaker and worse equipeed that those of France. In short: I think you made Germany too strong compared to France, and France shouldn't have lost (at least so soon) given good leadership.

I think the AI is pretty weak or I must be misunderstanding something. I am pretty new to the game, but already TOTALY won the two scenarios I played: the Russian Civil War as Whites and the world war 1 scenario as Entente. I really totaly owned the AI, in ww1 I almost took Berlin with Russians, but revolt in Germany happened before that. Austrians couldn't do anything to Serbs. France wasn't even invaded, Germans were stopped in Belgium and by 1915 the war was mostly on German soil. I won in 1916. I turned off quick logic for the ww1 scenario after I totaly owned Reds in Russian Civil War, thinking it will improve AI somehow, however I didn't notice many changes. I know, I used beginner level difficulty, however, according to the manual, it doesn't affect the AI, rather it lets the AI "cheat" which I don't like, I want a fair game. So, the question is: is AI really that weak or am I missing something? I have breakthrough v1.02.