Bill101

Hi Ronnie Turns can be either based on the seasons or days. If seasonal, the turns might cover just 1 week in summer, 2 weeks in spring and autumn, and a month in winter. If days, the turns are measured in days. So a scenario could be set so that each turn is 1 day, or 3 days, or 7 days if we wanted weekly turns. I hope that makes sense! Bill

The one thing in Japan's favour if they had landed in the USA was the fear their arrival would have caused. This was a big factor in their conquests of Malaya and Burma (where they were outnumbered by the defenders) and it would have certainly helped them here. However, apart from all the US weaponry, economic potential, manpower, etc, I think that the biggest issue the Japanese would have faced was space. Part of this is the sheer distance they would have had to travel to get to the west coast, but also because the USA is a massive country. The numbers the Japanese would have been able to arrive with would probably have been tiny in comparison with the defender's potential, so even if they managed to secure a few cities, the chances of them being able to move on and take some more are very remote. I think it may have lasted a little while, it would have made for some very interesting books/films/wargames, but there's no doubting the end result. Perhaps the National Guard would have been still rounding up some Japanese soldiers in remote areas on the west coast in the late 1940s?

Combined arms is the best way, air attacks, infantry attacks, and tanks racing through the enemy lines like you're saying. But tanks should only really go charging through enemy lines if you have overwhelming strength and others are acting in support. Otherwise you can easily end up in "A Bridge Too Far" type situation.

I think that's why I prefer Clausewitz - because I don't like wishy-washy philosophical types. Admittedly not all of Sun Tzu is like that, but I think that what Clausewitz wrote was more akin to what I want to read on the subject, and he has inspired more of my victories too - which helps!! I think they are both very different from each other, and whether or not one is better, Clausewitz certainly gives a better idea of what 19th century warfare was like.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has been inspired by Clausewitz! My wargaming improved immensely after reading On War. I still think it's unsurpassed as a guide on how to beat your opponent, although there are a few contenders for that title.

No, it's not cheating at all, it's just taking advantage of the situation. If one of the paratroop units gets killed then he won't be able to reform it, so he will miss out on the cheap cost of rebuilding a destroyed unit. As a result he will have to use them wisely to ensure that he gets the best out of them.

Are you referring to the shelling of Henderson Field?

If the port is below 5 then it won't be able to receive convoys, so ideally you need to bomb it to four or less. You must have some good long range air tech?

How about maximizing artillery research at either 0 or 1. That will help reduce its effectiveness. You can modify the sound, in the campaign.ini file (which is in the campaign folder) you need to change the sound line to read: #CUSTOM_SOUND= 1 Then make a sound folder in the campaign folder and add your own wav files to it.

If you have two dates, i.e. 1939 and 1940, then the 1939 one will stop running once you reach 1940 and only the 1940 one will then be operating. To ensure you get the results you want, why not set up a tiny scenario with just two countries, some simple purchase scripts, lots of MPPs available, and see what happens! To make it easier you can turn off the production delay.

I see, thanks Colin. That makes sense. We did discuss whether or not to include the atomic bomb when play testing, but when we looked at the production figures for atomic bombs during the time period in question it was felt that they would have been a game stopper - the US had hundreds by 1948. There were a few other reasons too but I'm afraid that I can't recall them at the moment.

I'd be interested to know why that might be, as I can't help but wonder whether it's because there was no real war in Europe post-1945, so those of us who normally play historical wargames have a problem with refighting hypothetical wars?

I'm afraid that this isn't the case. It is true that they weren't terribly successful in causing damage, although production in London was hindered by the constant alarms caused by V1s, and the attacks on the port of Antwerp 'caused considerable damage and greatly hindered the operation of the port' (Alfred Price, The Last Year of the Luftwaffe, 2001, page 89). However, and most importantly, there are a number of drawbacks to using scripts to represent rockets: 1) There is no financial cost involved. 2) It is hard to vary their targets - they were used in NW Europe in 1944-45 but what if the Soviets have captured the Romanian oilfields and I, as the Axis player, want to use them to destroy the oilfields and prevent them from supplying the Soviet economy? Or if I want to use them elsewhere? There could be plenty of different situations and it could actually be a nightmare to script all the variables. 3) Rockets had a noticeable strategic effect, but not in the way intended: they diverted a lot of allied air power away from bombing Germany and German troops and into locating and destroying the launching sites. Having them as units makes them targets, which means that their attacks can be disrupted. There is no ability to directly replicate this with scripts.

I actually think this is an argument FOR including Soviet artillery units. Give them just 1AP (allowing motorization to give them another), then every time the Soviets get a breakthrough they will be likely to outrun their artillery and we will be able to recreate Manstein's methods. Without separate artillery units we can't as organic upgrades won't recreate this situation. As this had strategic consequences I think it should be represented in a strategic game.

I see the point but I think that to get this accurately representative we would need both light AA (i.e. the Flak divisions deployed in France) and heavy AA (Flak units equipped with 88mm and 128mm guns that could be deployed to defend against strategic bombers). The only downer is that we'd be helping to complicate the game with more unit types...

I would prefer to hav AA as a separate entity, so that it can be deployed in vulnerable areas to assist in the defence of static resources. For instance, if the allies are bombing the hell out of the Ruhr then in addition to the local AA (which is represented by upgrades to resources) I would like the opportunity to move other AA units there. This is totally realistic and also had its equivalent in the field, as the Germans deployed dedicated AA divisions in France in 1944 (for all the good it did them).

I actually think that having a few artillery counters makes sense, as they represent concentrations of heavy artillery that can be moved to bolster units at vital points. One classic example of this, admittedly from WWI, is when in August 1914 Austrian heavy artillery was sent to deal with the Belgian forts. Here, the deployment of heavy artillery had a strategic impact that affected the whole of the German offensive on the Western Front. I guess I'm saying that I don't have a problem with artillery units as they are, though perhaps they can gain experience a little quicker than I would ideally like (the same applies to AA).

No, it's just a discussion on possible features for a future game, call it Dhucul's wishlist.

Great list, I've put a few questions beneath some of your suggestions: I can't help but wonder whether this would make submarines rather obsolete. I can see why, but there is a danger of adding complexity to the game play, and also, how would this work in combat? Are you thinking of an upgrade that just boosts a unit's soft and hard attack factors, or something that gives the unit the full artillery capability as we currently know it? Tricky one this! I see the argument for it (e.g. Malta) but I wonder if the destruction of the attacker if the assault fails is not a bit much? Realistic, but my worry is that this would add a level of complexity to the game without giving as much benefit as one would like. It would also have to be done in such a way that a calculator doesn't become a necessary gaming accessory, where players will spend time adding up how many units they have on the map that they might want to move and dividing it by the number of oil resources held. There is a danger here of slowing down game play... and this is a pretty important factor.

All games in the Strategic Command series have the ability to play multiplayer via TCP/IP, and I have played that way before (though I usually PBEM). If you open up any of the games and click on Multiplayer then either Network or Join Network. Which games in the SC series do you have?

I don't recall that problem in WAW - was it a mod you were playing?

All I can say is that we're getting there! Playtesting has been going full steam ahead and we've been having a lot of fun with big naval battles, massive carrier strikes, landings, etc. There's still a little way to go and we'll undoubtedly be releasing some more information and shots then...

Have you moved any HQs by sea recently? That was a bug that we first noticed in this scenario whereby you could actually earn MPPs by transporting HQs, but I do believe that bug was repaired in a patch. Otherwise I really don't know, because until France surrenders you shouldn't get any plunder.

Try hitting F3 during the game, I think this speeds up the AI's turns as it strips out some of the animation.

Great to see this finally being released. Well done!