HankWWIIOnline

Yes I tried that against the computer a couple times. Basically, it's almost an impossible situation. You don't have much time to build up your forces to face Russia, as they annex the Baltic States pretty quickly. So what you are essentially doing is a "Russia First" strategy, where you only gain one city and port but lose so much in terms of MPP's and military strength. You'll be facing both Russia and France and won't have the MPP's to support it. Game over.

Hey, I'm grizzled. Now show me some respect, n00b's. I've been in a lot of forum's, and seen how the old turds there can become very fond of them as if they 'ruled the nest'. Get over it, new people come in.

"and the German amphibious blitzkrieg to initiate the attack on Russia." I don't see a huge problem here. As the Germans, in a recent PBEM game, I took over Sweden. Russia had still to enter the war. I took my units from Sweden and set them up on the northern coast of Russia to aid in my attack. When I finally did attack, I was able to slice quicker into russia, and cut off a lot of units. Is that gamey? I hardly think so. Just because it didn't happen in WWII doesn't mean it's "gamey". However, setting up units to land in Italy before they join is gamey, I agree there. But since Germany, historically, invaded Russia first then they are free to set up whatever type of invasion they wish.

"The combat morale bonus is derived from an HQ's experience, so whenever an HQ is reinforced it will lose some experience and thus this will translate into a lower combat morale bonus from the parent HQ." So if I have an HQ at strength 2, but with 4 experience points...it translates the same as a strength 10 HQ with 4 experience points? If I knew my HQ wasn't in danger, I would keep it's strength relatively low for the increased experience bonus.

Yes, setting up an invasion of Italy before they enter is gamey. I would only do it against the computer, and with +1 or +2 Axis advantage. Maybe there should be a detection scheme set up so if 1 or more transports are in a hex near Italy's mainland (Before they enter the war), it'll make them join the Axis next turn.

Why don't you set your own rules and parameters when you play against PBEM opponents? Limit the Axis player to 5 fighter units at a time (Or whatever number you think is justified). Just because the game allows it doesn't mean you have to do it. In the games I play we usually have some rules set beforehand. For example, no switching of research points. Even if an area is maxed out, you can't suddenly place those 5 points in another area. Also, to eliminate over-use of Corp units we have it to where a Corp unit must be attached to an Army unit unless it garrisons at city. This way there are more army units fighting, with Corp units only being used as support. So until SC is fixed to perfection, use your own rules to compensate for the Axis advantage.

In my latest PBEM game, I decided to wait against Norway. First I took out the Poles, then on to Denmark then quickly into France. I broke through the front lines and my opponent began a full withrdrawl of his remaining units to England. Once I took France I went after Sweden instead of Norway, and invaded Greece with the Italians. At this point, it is late 1940 and the Axis pretty much owns Europe and are gearing up for Barbarossa. The US is at about 60% and the Russians are at a steady 55% war readiness. I didn't take Norway for a few reasons. Taking Norway gives the Allies an easy spot to invade an Axis territory. Not to mention target practice for their ships and carriers. I like having the buffer there. Plus it saves a little time so I can really build up for the Russians and establish a good defense in France. Against the CPU however, I would probably take Norway early.

The replacement system is fine. It is up to you whether to continually reinforce beatup units on the front, or pull them to the rear to reorganize in safety. I like having that choice. On top of that, in a lot of situations it is a waste to continually reinforce a battered front line unit. Usually the units it is facing will eventually have more experience and will progressively inflict more losses upon your patched up unit. All you end up doing is pouring MPP's into a front line unit, simply for the sake of keeping it there. However, in cases where you outnumber the enemy, patching up battered units on the front is to your advantage. Even if the enemy keeps pounding away at that specific unit (And you keep pouring MPP's into it), you will eventually overwhelm them. So the tactic of keeping that unit on the front is more effective in that situation.

2. Either that, or subs should take much less damage from an attack. Even if the Allied ships could locate the subs, it didn't mean they always cut their strength down by half. Subs are supposed to be elusive, and with the sub war being virtually non-existent (I even tried, later in the war, creating 5-10 subs to terrorize the Atlantic) these additions would help sub warfare considerably. However, this would mean the Allies would need to spend research points on sonar rather than jets, etc. Possible imbalance problem? Don't know, but subs do need to be more effective in some way.

One of them is definitely attacking Russia from the North and coming down on Moscow. They arrived once I was 3-5 hexes away from Moscow.

Yes...the Italians are in a good position to pick up some extra MPP's in the Med. In the long haul, you are gaining lots more and denying that much from the UK.

With the guy I play against, we have some rules regarding Corp units to prevent the WW1 style battles that happen on the Eastern Front. Plus, it is more realistic. Corp units are either Garrison-only, or are attached to an Army unit. So our styles of warfare are a bit different with this rule. If the parent Army unit is destroyed, the attached Corp unit must be disbanded. Also, attached Corp units must be within movement range of their parent Army unit. A strategy I tried, as the Allies, is sending most of the French and English fleet to Italy to destroy the Italian navy once it enters the war. In the long run I lost quite a few ships, but the Axis had absolutely no sea power anywhere. My long term plan was to invade Italy with US forces.

Yeah, I was quite surprised one game when I landed an HQ and some units in Finland to assist in the defense. Instead, I decided to attack and come down on Moscow from the north. I think it was early 42 when Russia shipped in their Siberian army, and pushed my forces all the way back and captured Finland. I was only able to save my HQ. Had I known that threatening Moscow so early would have brought in their additional units I never would have done so.

I still have an old V for Victory game. Okay, I found it! Dang...old memories here. It's Battleset 1: D-Day Utah Beach 1944. There's a sticker in the corner that blares "Uses Super VGA!". I might need to upgrade to play this one! Have all the manuals plus a single disk (3.5"). Says it has nearly 500 military units, including air, sea and land broken up into 9 major types of units and 50 sub types. 8 types of combat including probes, air attacks, and all out assaults. Realistic weather effects and weather forecasts. Comes with 6 scenarios along with the "Grand Campaign". I gotta figure out how to get this sucker running on my comp.

Command HQ was a really good one too, although it was WW1, WW2 and WW3 era. It did a good job of simulating, on a generic scale compared to SC, the entire world conflict. Don't think it's been converted to Windows though.

The first step, actually, is starting a new PBEM game alongside the other 3 you have going. And once TCP/IP is implemented, that first step will become much more easier to take. And once you have 4 PBEM's going and 2 saved TCP/IP games ready to play at any given moment, then you are set.

Man, can't wait. Nothing like a good PBEM game...but sometimes I just wanna get the thing finishes already.

I found if you spread you forces out in Russia, battling for cities from up North all the way down South and everything in-between...your success may take a long time, and may even face defeat. The last time I invaded Russia, I attacked strong through the middle and sent a group north and a group south (Both with accompanying HQ's). I struck deep South with my panzer units and took the two mining hexes down there. I pulled the tanks back and replaced them with armies from the minor countries. My intention down there was simply to keep the Russians at bay. I left the Southern part of Russia 'as is'. Up North I directed my main offensive, and slowly moved East to eventually come down onto the central Russian cities. I eventually brought panzers from up North and surrounded the central cities, eliminating many Russian corps and armies. I like focusing a strong offensive in either the Northern or Southern parts of Russia. In the meantime, pick away at the central cities (Stalingrad and the like) and keep the Russians from breaking out. Once you can break through the North or South, you can bring those troops towards the center and surround the Russians and collapse their defensive lines. Concentrate an offensive to the north or south, and keep a 'stalemate' war going everywhere else until you can break through with your offensive.

Historically probable? No. However, it's a game. People don't HAVE to disband naval units. Simply find people to play with that will not scrap a bunch of their navy if you wish to play games like that. I personally like more opportunities to do things differently. If I wanted a game where more 'user made' rules apply, I will find someone who is willing to play that way.

I fixed that problem by finding a girl that likes games as much as me.

I noticed that too. They both look almost the same too. Odd.

Ugh. Finland is horrible for the Axis at the start of the war in Russia. All they can do is make sure the Russians keep some troops in that area. My last game as the Allies I purchased a Tank Group, Army group and an HQ to take Finland out early. Not only did I get experience for my units but I plundered some much needed MPP's. I then was able to swing my units down south to help alleviate the pressure the Germans were putting on their road to Moscow. So far Finland only seems like cannon fodder and free MPP's for the Russians.

I'm playing a game right now where I decided to invade Italy as soon as the USA joined the war. I sent some of UK's ships down there along with the US ships, and the UK ships in the Med to try and take out the Italian fleet. Once I did that I landed troops on the island right off of Italy and began moving my troops inland. It's still a work in progress, but this tactic has allowed me to put sizeable pressure on the Axis early on instead of building up a huge army in the UK and hoping the Russians hold out.

Basically, combine Command HQ with the detail of SC and have the ultimate world-wide WW2 strategy game.

I was thinking more about CHQ today, compared to a game like SC. One thing in CHQ that really added to it was the fact your units could be 'lightly' enganged or 'heavily engaged' depending on how much the icons were overlapping. You could deal out more damage, but if you wanted to retreat...it was a bit more difficult. In SC, I find myself moving nearly beaten Armies, Corps and Tank groups to the rear area whenever I want and bringing fresh ones up. It just seems too easy to withdrawl units that should be in dissaray. CHQ, while a simple game, was quite detailed in many regards. The 'heavily engaged' feature was one example of this. I don't know if you can do this in SC, but CHQ's aircraft system allowed lots of flexibility. A single 'aircraft' unit could be used as strategic bombers (Bombing cities,taking away production points), fighters and fighter defense (As SC does, fighter defense being automatic), ability to drop airborne troops and also to be taken along on carriers. Lots of flexibility but easy to understand and use. I remember a CHQ game I played against my dad, which I built up about 10 planes and 10 infantry units in the UK and did an airborne operation against his forces in France in conjunction with a tank unit amphibious landing. CHQ, while simple, made you feel in total control of the war. Thinking ahead was a big part of it, as you had to plan your operations way ahead of time. Invading a heavily defended Japan was not an easy task, and without proper planning you would throw away a lot of units. I remember one of the first games of CHQ I played against the computer that lasted DAYS, set during WW2...I was the Allies. There was major fighting in Europe, back and forth. Through my own mistakes, I let the Germans break through to Moscow and my forces were split. I also had lost most of my fleet during a huge sea battle in the Suez Canal. It had been close, but I was left decimated. The UK stood alone, and with minimal sea power. The Germans eventually invaded and took Britain over. I did a full scale retreat of all my remaining forces back to the US. There I waited...very patiently I might add. I strung a heavy defensive circle of sea units near both of my Coasts and fought off numerous landing attempts. All the while I built up my ground forces in the US, preparing to re-assault the UK. The Japanese were pounding on California, and I almost lost my control of the Western seaboard. I eventually set off for the UK, engaging in another massive sea battle while my landing forces snuck by and hit the shores. A rapid advance was needed, before the Germans could counter. When all was said and done, I had finally fought my way back to Tokyo and Berlin and won the game. Of course, had a human opponent been playing the Axis...I would have not been so lucky. But it was such an intense gaming experience I will probably never forget it. That was over 10 years ago now.