carverrt

David, Nice research handling. The Brits are back home, on the defense. But, if they see an opening they are likely to be just as aggressive as their Chinese friends. The RN took a beating but is staying on station. Singapore is building a strong defense. China is looking for weak Japanese formations… can’t kill them, but can slow them down. Not sure where to go with research, but reinforcements are in the queue. Robert

The BEF is fully deployed in France and General Montgomery is appointed commander. The snow fall slows German attacks and the loss of a French Army hurts. If the Allies can hold out long enough UK and Canadian Tanks will challenge the Panzers. In China just looking for survival strategies.

I have a coach! I will need the advice. SeaMonkey & Me!

New National Moral feature allows for a more resilient France. So, I’ll test this out and aggressively defend France. Keeping the Chinese in the war this time is a goal.

No, not so grand.

Hi Mathias, No plans for Global War Gold right now... but keep an eye out for the next update for SC WW1... Bill & I have soemthing cooking. Robert

Hi Mathias, Here are some answers… "why you choose the Chinese civil war as a ww3 reason, why not the iran crisis or cuban missile crisis?" --I use the Berlin crisis of 1948 as the catalysts. I looked for an opportunity to frame the game and found that in 1948 there were several crisis that could have lead to war between the West and USSR. The bonus was that the Chinese Civil war was going on at the same time. This set up the situation nicely for a global scenario. "why is Portugal an USA ally and why are the nuclear attacks so weak?" --The reason why Portugal is an at-start ally of the USA is that Portugal ended WW2 as an ally of the USA, so I just kept them there. Robert

Sure Mathias, what are the questions?

David, Let's play a game... show me how you beat China. Robert

Hi David, I think I fixed the sub issue – I increased the dive rate. Yes, the UK, French and American carries have different values. I took the suggestion of a player to implement somewhat more historical model. The US has the more flexible carriers displaying a large, experienced naval air arm with carriers that hold over 90 planes a piece; while the UK has one strike they have a better air defense reflecting a lower aircraft capacity and steel decks; and the French have a new fleet with an understandable weaker carrier force. I hope these are more realistic. Robert

Hi David, Don’t know for sure. I have on my list of to-do’s to increase the USSR Sub dive rate. Who is winning =-) Robert

Amona, Thank you for letting me know what you discovered. Yes, Tibet, Cuba, Bolivia and Afghanistan are all neutral territories because there is a limit to the number of countries the game can have. Bolivia and Cuba become territory of Central America, and of course you noticed that the Communists annex Tibet and Afghanistan. However, the Spanish guerrillas and Soviet Rockets not in Cuba may be a mistake. I’ll take a look at the scripts. I do appreciate the kind words. Robert

Peter, Yes, DEs with third and fourth order of effects sounds very interesting, complicated to set up, but interesting. You made a solid point by proposing the creations of a an environment conducive to a strategic setting.

Sharkman, You wrote: "My biggest problem with Global Conflict is that the air units get in the way of the ground units, they simply take up too much space." Yes! I found someone that shares my sentiment. My proposal is to go back to SC2 Blitzkrieg with the Global version and have just two types of air units; Tactical (Combine the fighters & tactical bombers) and Strategic (the bomber). I go a little farther... combine the destroyers and cruiser and call then light fleets. Call Battleships heavy fleets. I also think we can reduce the number of HQs by increasing the number of units a HQ can control and increase the range. Also, why have so many minor HQs for the Commonwealth. How about making them UK HQs...

I used Google Translator again, so the below might be off; but I thought it was the best part of the review... " ... with simple mechanisms, Strategic Command WW1 manages to sum up the whole dispute with reasonable accuracy. It is my opinion much more effective for this period as the previous episodes for the war 39-45." So, SC was made for WW1 games. Sounds good to me. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberstratege.com%2Fmagazine%2Fblog%2F2011%2F04%2F08%2Fstrategic-command-ww-1-tranchees-en-diagonales%2F Robert

So the Finns are the first with a review! The Google translator is a bit rough, but I could follow the message. I noted that the Finnish author caught a screen shot of Finland gaining her independence. I liked the term used to describe the game: “iron beer & pretzel.” Congratulations on a good review. http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fi&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdome.fi%2Fpelit%2Farvostelut%2Fstrategic-command-ww1-the-great-war-1914-1918&act=url

Hi Bill, That was a brilliant fix! It makes so much sense. I much appreciate the help. Robert

I look at Allied strategy from the standpoint of what can each country do best. I think the UK can build up her fleet and related technologies assuring max MPP each turn. The USSR can build units and strategy with an eye towards being on the defensive for two years, the best they can do is tie down the German army for that time. The best the Chinese can do is hold on and keep the majority of the Japanese army busy. The USA can affect the game early through lend lease to the UK so I build up USA industry technology first.

As I understand it, the Germans led the way early on in aircraft development and use. Eventually the French and British caught up. But the Germans countered with superior organization. The main utility was reconnaissance and counter- reconnaissance. Makes sense since the small bombs carried by those early planes could never have an effect of the mass of armies below, but did provide a new platform to see over enemy lines. So, I recommend you stick with two types of aircraft: fighter and reconnaissance. Give the reconnaissance aircraft a spotting range shorter than fighter strike ranges, but have the reconnaissance aircraft’s spotting range long enough to sit behind friendly armies and uncover enemy units & positions behind their front lines. I’d give the Germans greater action point strength: to simulate the organization of the Flying Circus (Jagdgeschwader) that moved its planes and logistical base from front to front with ease. A good use for the AT piece may be to make Division units (cavalry or infantry). These would be good garrison units, especially for Malta and Gibraltar; and if you include the colonial theaters this will add fluidity to battles faraway from Europe. Robert

Thank you sir!

Not sure, but I think it was in CMODS, so its not available... Robert

Hi Bill, Sounds good, I'll send it. Robert

Hi Hubert, Yes, the map was created with the Map Generator. This makes sense, as you can change the map size settings in the map.txt file. Robert

Al, Did you import Brute Force from PT? I ask because I am having problems importing the map from a PT mod to GC. Robert

Bill; Thank you for the offer. I might take you up on it, depending on whether or not we get a response on this thread. Robert