Catacol Highlander

The return of some kind of tcp WeGo will see my return to CM for the first time since CMAK. BF have missed out on a lot of my money by taking out the feature that made CM a true wargame... but I am delighted at the prospect of a return to something more thoughtful rather than the click-fest that the few games of CMBN offered me. Inability to rewatch the replay aside, this is absolutely good news.

Patch 1.03 is imminent. Games started under 1.02 will obviously be finished under 1.02. As soon as 1.03 is out then any new games must be played in 1.03.

Just to make sure my post in the beta forum is spotted (as its pretty quiet in there!!) - the bug whereby axis minor forces can be hit by a Soviet winter reduction has not been fixed. I just had my Romanian forces hit by a 30% reduction in strength in January 1943 in a current pbem game.

However - an extra thought. Ladder results suggest so far that players are beginning to work out the game and the axis is dominant. If axis capitals are made harder to capture then it makes the game even more tough for the allies. I think some slight gameplay adjustment to make it a bit more difficult for the axis to gain a dominant position by 1942/43 might be a good idea. I suggest 2 subtle changes that might just slow the axis down a little: 1. Add a couple more fort squares to the area around Chungking to allow a greater chance of Chungking surviving beyond 1941. This will help dilute the Japanese effort a little. 2. Give the French Army some more ground units to force the Germans to commit all their forces and a few more mpps to take them out. Currently it is possible for the Germans to attack France and also send units to North Africa quite easily at the same time (as soon as Italy joins) and this makes the allied position very difficult. In addition the force representation in France in 1940 anyway is wrong. The French are outnumbered 3 : 1 in tanks and also outnumbered in infantry. That is ahistorical. The French had a lot of tanks, though used in small numbers in infantry formations often, and on paper a lot of infantry too. It is not so much the time it takes to destroy France - I have played 2 games recently where it took until Sept 40... but it is the fact that it is done at so little cost and with opportunities to send German units to North Africa so early. Personally I would give the French 1 more armour unit. I think that would give the 3 German panzer units a bit more to worry about! Either that or start the Brits with a tank unit. The BEF contained armour, and the opportunity to decide to send it to France or North Africa in the early stages gives the UK a bit more relevance. These 2 adjustments would balance it up a little better early game.

Bill/Hubert - you spying this thread?

The island hopping thing is interesting. I find that I do it because the historian in me says that it has to be done... but Amona is right that there is little need to bother really. For me the issue with naval units is supply. The game engine takes one supply point off every naval unit that takes part in combat or convoy raiding or whatever... but it does not penalise a ship for being at sea that does nothing. That makes no sense. I can sail the Bismarck all the way over to the pacific without a single supply stop and there is no penalty to movement range or combat efficiency at any stage. The way to make island hopping attractive is to allow the ports along the way to recharge supply. Naval units should lose supply just by being at sea - US carriers that stay in the pacific for turn after turn should lost combat efficiency by losing supply... and then the island basis fulfil their role by resupplying the ships. I think this would be within the capabilities of the engine because land units have their supply rating affected by proximity to supply centres... so put a BB in a port or adjacent to a port ought to possible for the engine to register resupply. It works already with subs that are reduced to 0 by convoy raiding and then have to head for a port. If this were done then suddenly the vast allied navy in 1945 would need to look at its supply situation very carefully if it chooses to sail all the way from the pacific coast to Japan. High supply ratings for Jap ships around their home islands could then be a real problem for the allies. The only downside would be increased need for micromanagement.... but I think it is a price worth paying.

And while I'm thinking about it - because it is also relevant to capital capture - I dont think that paras should be able to land on major cities. It is unrealistic. No para unit could ever have done it. If the engine could do it I would make it impossible and then reduce the purchase cost of paras a bit.

Agreed. Historically pockets of Fascists fought on after the fall of Rome so not ahistorical to give Italy a second capital. And the ability to take both Seoul and Tokyo with amphib landings after a zillion air attacks from carriers is a bit of a flaw. Does make Japan rather vulnerable to pure naval power. Historically there is no way that Tokyo could have fallen without a land battle of sorts. I would even more strongly support this if I have read another thread correct as started by Amona - am I right that the Jap Navy is going to be reduced in size? If so then allied naval power and amhib landing on its own gets even easier. Personally I would try to move all major capitals away from coastal tiles so that similar things cant be done to London, for example, either. London also would never have fallen without a land battle had Hitler ever attempted it.

Hello Tmanusa - you're in! I'll get you an opponent now...

I have sent a few emails out individually to players about this, and hope we can move past it now in terms of the ladder. I have also played around a bit with diplomacy. In the past in Gold I used it quite a lot as axis and in some games managed to get Spain, Sweden or the DEI to join though never more than 1 of these and on about 50% of occasions would fail altogether usually because of UK counter investment. The long term benefits can be huge, but when facing such massive axis diplo spending it is worth being aware of the damage it does to short term axis attacks in China, Africa and eventually Russia. One thing Layabout - if you invest 8 UK chits for 40% in Spain and the axis has invested the full chits for a total 65% chance in Spain also then the UK will NEVER get a diplo hit. The two numbers are used to create an aggregate average chance... so with the example about axis chances are reduced to 25% each turn. Until the US and USSR join the conflict the allied side cannot ever outspend the axis in diplomacy so 1940/41 is the big chance for the axis. Once the game hits 1942 the roles are reversed and diplomacy can be very effective for the allies, especially if the US fully uses her power in this area. Actually few allied players seem to do it - myself included. It might well be an underused area of the game in 1942/43/44 in the European theatre.

Hi Tracy My earlier post was too aggressive - I apologise for making references to our game in a negative way. No offence intended. The Chengchow move is possible so within the game. Knocking out Poland frequently does not happen on turn 1... but it is unrealistic to expect players to go with their very first attempt at turn 1 if it is a disaster - so in that respect my thoughts are a waste of effort. TCP turn 1s would be great - but also unrealistic with time zone issues. Enjoying the game even though you are ahead!

Clause - no problem on the Chengchow gambit: its possible in the game at present. However I was just saying that I think it was not supposed to be possible, hence why it will be removed in the next patch. I'm a bit annoyed with myself for not spotting that I could have played the move myself!

Poland can indeed fall on turn 1 - and it doesnt require all units. My opponent did it to me in the tourney - a "saved" turn? Armour was still able to advance west on that first turn. I am very much against using a saved turn like that. My preference if it were possible would be for every game to start by TCP therefore making a saved turn 1 impossible. Any turn 1 received with a date of over a day old should be returned to sender with my approval. A cunning way to prevent your opponent from seeing the date of a file is to send it unzipped. If the file is zipped then its original file attributes are retained and you can see the date that the game was created. If it is not zipped then sending it by email makes it very hard to find out the creation date - at least I cant do it and I am moderately capable. So insist that the turn be zipped so that you can check its creation date. However even that wont stop a player from starting up a game 10 times over looking for the best turn 1. Not every player is honourable. Guess what format my tourney save game 1 arrived in... Unzipped. It is worth being aware of just how potent a saved turn 1 leading to a good destruction of Poland can be. My tourney opponent who took out Poland in 1 turn then took out France in March 1940 because very good weather followed the end of Poland in one hit - and games like this leads to an easy axis position in the Med throughout 1940 and really puts the allies in trouble. So my wish would be that all players start fresh. In fact my REAL wish would be that somehow Hubert made the 1 turn destruction of Poland impossible - but that's not my call. For those aware of the Japanese fast move in behind Chengchow - that will be removed in the next patch. Also done to me in the tourney and it wrecks the Chinese position instantly and very much not part of the game as intended.

Thanks guys. If anyone wants me to set up more games then just let me know.

Jon - the email address I have for you is bouncing. If you want to be part of the ladder then please email me. ama1970@hotmail.co.uk

Dont agree Wormwood - I dont see any other companies offering sales on their front line products; indeed nor should they. We also need to remember that sales of niche products like SC are never going to be huge, and if we want Hubert to continue to make games then we need to support the company with money, and not ask for money off. However a compilation package of older products I agree would be a good idea.

I am sure those other companies will be delighted to accept your money. Meanwhile real fans of SC and other BF products will happily pay the full price in order to continue to support the wargaming hobby they enjoy. Your middle name Scrooge??

A reminder to all players that I need you to email me before I can set up matches. My email address is ama1970@hotmail.co.uk All those who have emailed me have already been given at least 1 game, but there are plenty left to set up. If you havent emailed already then please do!

A reminder to all players that I need you to email me before I can set up matches. My email address is ama1970@hotmail.co.uk All those who have emailed me have already been given at least 1 game, but there are plenty left to set up. If you havent emailed already then please do!

We will stick with the rules as they are. No change.

That's an interesting idea. Yes - I have seen Chungking under assault from the allies. The best way of achieving it is preserving some of the Chinese army in the hills west of Chungking and then sending Brit forces through Thailand. The Jap player can certainly deploy to halt this, but in so doing probably opens the door in Manchuria. So it is all about coordination and planning. If the USN also attacks at the same time through Indonesia then the Jap air force is stretched in all directions. I am not convinced that this is harder than taking the 4 capitals. To commit properly to taking out Berlin is a major undertaking and to do it while also preparing to assault Tokyo and Seoul will take some considerable skill. I think that a plan that only takes the allies as far as Paris in the West but incorporates a hit on Chungking as well as Manila in the Pacific feels more possible to me. But I will mull it over tonight. We have games getting underway, so if I am going to make a change I will do it in the next 24 hours. Whatever the decision players will have equal numbers of games as both allies and axis, so the playing field is level and fair.

Allies need to have a successful campaign in Burma. From there Chungking can be retaken. Either that, or a big Red Army offensive into mainland China. It is all about balance across the 7 years of conflict... Of course might be easier just to go for the 4 capitals!

Ha - realised that myself about 15mins ago when staring for the last time at the victory conditions. Change already made in the rules post to incorporate the unlikely targets of London and Washington.

Yep - results can be posted in this current thread too. To be honest I'm not bothered about hitting my mailbox - I get upwards of 40 work emails per day anyway, so one or two more wont make much of a difference!

Updated 12th March 2014: Victory Conditions Axis 2 point win: hold the 4 capitals of Berlin, Rome, Tokyo and Seoul Axis 1 point win: hold 1 of Berlin, Rome, Tokyo, Seoul PLUS 1 of London, Paris, Moscow, Delhi, Canberra or Chungking Allied 1 point win: hold London, Paris, Moscow, Delhi, Canberra, Seoul and Chungking Allied 2 point win: hold the 4 capitals of Berlin, Rome, Tokyo and Seoul Ladder Rules Matches played as full length games of the 1939 World at War scenario. All players start with 100 ladder points. At the end of each game the winner is given a points bonus as listed above; the loser has the same number of points taken way. All players must complete a minimum of 4 games before the end of December 2014 to qualify for a final ladder position. All game settings to default. Soft builds therefore off. Negotiated surrenders at any point are allowed. Both players must agree on whether it is a 2 point or 1 point surrender.