Bill101

There's a simple solution to this which I've used in some games. If the allies are winning and won't need the Americans, then just don't use them. A gentleman's agreement to thus keep the game interesting, or if you are playing the AI, your own decision, must surely suffice?

John, there were far more than "three factions, the fascists, the monarchists and the communists" in Spain in the 1930s. If there had only been three as you suggest then the republicans would probably have won, whereas instead they were divided into Anarchists (numerically probably the most significant), Socialists (not far behind), Catalan and Basque Nationalists, those loyal to the republican constitution, the communists of the POUM, and last (and at the start of the war probably the least significant) the Communist Party aligned with Moscow. Franco's side also had more divisions than you suggest, but he managed to coerce them into co-operating more successfully.

What I don't understand John is why you were investing so many Axis resources into taking Malta?

The beachhead supply system (or the chance for the allies to construct a Mulberry harbour) would offer some strategic options to the game, but I totally disagree with adding bridges.

I never thought this would be an issue, and as I often don't reinforce to maximum finding a happy medium that pleases us all might be difficult.

Perhaps the smaller production values for conquered cities and resources already reflect the costs of garrisoning? I'm loath to add anything that will increase the complexity of the game.

Just done it! Allied victory in May 1947 with +114, using the house rules and expert/+2. What a tough game though, and as Wellington said of Waterloo, it was a close run thing. DDay took place early in 1944 and I managed to liberate France and half of Spain, and (just about) hang on to them until the end. Unfortunately the Axis never seemed to run out of MPPs to repair their airfleets, so it was a constant battle in the west, swinging backwards and forwards between DDay in early 1944 until the end. In the east, well, that was a very different story. When DDay was launched the Russians had 3 corps and 1 HQ defending half the Caucasus, Stalingrad and the northern half of the Caucasus having already fallen. I had a similar force, commanded by Zhukov and backed up by a rocket, holding the Urals. The good thing about DDay was that it really diverted massive Axis resources away from finishing off the Russians, so while my small army group deep in the Caucasus was slowly beaten down and eventually the one surviving corps and HQ had to be evacuated to Iraq, Zhukov slowly retook most of northern and western Russia. Just before the end we had retaken Stalingrad and another force was fighting the Germans NE of Warsaw, but with all the oil fields in the Caucasus in Axis hands Russian income was very low. I think that a rocket strategy for the Russians, might be the way to real victory, i.e. actually destroying the Axis, rather than just holding them. I might try that one next.

Hi Brad It was on the Expert/+2 setting. I also had the problem of the rampaging Panzergruppe, but once I had a couple of corps nearby it settled down. Unfortunately it was settled on one of my cities deep in the Caucasus! I used the British troops already in the Middle East to entrench in the northern most hex of Iraq, with a HQ also in the mountains. The remaining corps were placed on all the Iraqi resource hexes. The US troops ended up defending Egypt. It's funny how they ended up swapping positions, but I'd had to pull back the British due to a lack of MPPs to repair them, and then I gradually rebuilt them in Iraq.

SeaMonkey, I've just finished a game using the two house rules you suggested. The first didn't make any difference as I've never needed to make any UK units before London is liberated, but the second, preventing allied troops from fighting in the USSR, certainly did. The Soviet Union surrendered in late 1944, just when DDay was on the verge of liberating France and US troops had cut the land link between France and Spain. Sadly with the Russians out of the war we had to slowly withdraw from France, and then we spent the next two years fending off continuous German landings in Britain. Fortunately Iraq and Egypt remained allied, providing enough MPPs to fund the war effort, so this was possible and the game ended with London still allied and the Axis winning but with a negative score. Great fun once again. My next mission will be to actually win without using allied troops in Russia. I'm sure it can be done!

Couldn't resist the temptation to play it on the highest setting. It took a bit longer (18th Sep 1945) but the same strategies paid off. I'm even thinking of playing it with partisans off, but that might be tempting fate too much! Playing this scenario has been like playing SC again for the first time, and my girlfriend hardly saw me over the weekend as a result. Don't let Hubert play this scenario otherwise SC2 will be delayed by another month...

Although leaving a city ungarrisoned does suggest the likelihood of a revolt, in reality it is not so simple. Let's say that it is the Autumn of 1940 and Hitler leaves one of his conquered cities ungarrisoned. Will the citizens revolt? Only if they are stupid, because the revolting citizens will be largely lacking in organisation, training, armament, etc, plus they will know that Hitler will be down on them like a ton of bricks should they so much as demonstrate in the streets. Other factors come into it, such as the overall war situation, whether there has been time to prepare for a rising, whether there is a prospect of a liberating army reaching them in time. While there were a number of risings in cities during the war, none occured except when "friendly" armies were approaching. The exceptions in the Ghettos of Poland in 1943 were risings of desperation, and while they are very heroic and inspiring they were not in the grand scheme of things very significant militarily.

That was great fun! I played on intermediate level and conquered Germany in Jan/Feb 1945, but they didn't surrender until mid July, which was a bit of bad luck, the Italians having gone down at the start of July. The colossal amount of Russian partisans produced was a major factor, as was the fact that the Luftwaffe had no real strategy. The AI also kept getting its units cut off in the east. However, I mistakenly thought in Aug 1943 that my Russians were on the road to Berlin as I had some units in the vicinity of the German border, but the AI managed to launch a major counter-attack which drove me back to Minsk for a while. I didn't understand why the AI was trying to use an Italian HQ to batter down my defences in Egypt, but the 8th Army sure enjoyed the experience! Thanks Brad for a very enjoyable and all too addictive scenario.

I'd be very interested in having a go at this. Please could you email me the file. Thanks! Bill

I'd suggest buying SC1 so you can get experience of the game before SC2 comes out. If you want a tough challenge then there are plenty of opponents willing to take you on, plus I'd be really surprised if you'd be disappointed with SC1.

I don't agree. We all know we've got something to look forward to, and even if we have to wait another year, it'll be here before we know it.

Edwin P wrote: "I also disagree with the suggestion for HQs having an increased Air Defense rating, for in practical terms the best air defense is another air fleet." So it is, but why should a corps have some air defence when the logistical apparatus backing them up does not? It's not consistent and it doesn't coincide with reality. I'm only thinking of a minor ability to inflict damage on an attacking unit, and I would include both attacking ground and air units in that (but not naval).

The simple solution is for HQs to have some AA defence, as they would have had in real life, even though in some situations this was rather limited. Yes, they should be vulnerable to air attack, but they shouldn't be totally defenceless either. Remember also that the HQ represents all the logistical support for the front line troops, it is not just Rommel and his staff car.

Maybe once the UK has fallen the USA should be the power controlling all the allied minors (i.e. receiving their incomes and having the ability to spend these MPPs to reinforce all minor allied units).

Wow, you must have been slowly conquering them if you ran out of time. Unfortunately I don't think that anyone's solved that one.

Lars wrote: Would there have been anybody still willing to stick his head up after the civil war? If the Axis had invaded Spain then it is quite simple: those who had continued the struggle against Franco would have been joined by others to oppose the foreign domination of their country. Partisan warfare continued in Spain from 1939 until 1960, with the high point being the 1944 invasion of the Val d'Aragon when 15,000 men crossed the French border. And if the allies had invaded then there would most probably have been a right wing resistance movement. Spanish partisans should definitely be included.

And a merry christmas to you too Hubert!

Small diversions (i.e. corps) into Scandinavia are the best way to divert Axis resources, as by landing in the right place you can cut off supply from Germany. This will reduce production in the cut off territories from 80% to 50%, and it will also encourage the Axis player to provide garrisons to prevent you from doing this. Again, this will cost him MPPs. Landing just to the west of Kiel in NW Germany is the best place, but it is often strongly guarded. Therefore you can always attempt to land (and an attempt is nearly as good as an actual landing, providing that he doesn't hit your corps with the Kriegsmarine or the Luftwaffe) anywhere north of that point. The threat of landings does hinder the Axis, so it is something that is worth using occasionally during a game. [ December 24, 2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I think that repairing one fleet would be a major task for any port, and repairing several fleets is really asking too much so I'd recommend that things are kept as they were in SC. As to a naval HQ, I'm not sure that it is really needed, but I do think that your idea of a higher readiness depending on the nation has something to it. Though maybe it can just be factored in already into allowing a country to start with either a higher tech than the other, or with more experience or entrenchment for their starting units. Ok, it's not quite the same thing, but the end result should be similar.

Although I always find Rambo's posts of some interest (and they are often amusing even if not intentionally so) I doubt that a temporary ban will do him any harm. He has, after all, mentioned a new girlfriend recently so I'm sure he has more exciting things to do than talk on this forum. Just as Kuni was allowed back after a long ban, I suspect that if Rambo is contrite then he'll be back. Hopefully in time for the release of SC2. Perhaps he'll realise that God doesn't exist in the meantime! :eek:

LOL Dave. Talking to both at once, I'll have to work on that!