TaoJah

It's against human players. A DOW of the UK on Syria, Iraq and Iran does not lower the readiness of the US or the USSR. And an Axis player usually doesn't DOW these three until the US and USSR are already in the war.

IT's the way the AI works. Once you get through tthe initial "frontline", he breaks up and operates back and forth all around the map.

Are there players that take Syria / Iraq / Iran (probably in that order) with the UK troops they get for free in Africa ? In theory it looked good, but apperently... - The cities and mine in Iraq / Iran, Syria don't get higher then level 5 when they connect to Moscow. - You can't operate UK units from Iraq into Russia, not even the airplane. - You can't operate Russian units into Iraq (didn't try it with the Russian airplane but I guess that won't work either). - The UK troops do not get supply from the Russian cities (didn't try to get supply for Russia from the UK cities in Iraq, but I guess that won't work either). So, basically the only advantages are that you get the plunder for the UK and the MPPs. If I do it anyway, is the area defendable against the Germans coming in from Africa ? Or should I try to operate to Cairo and get the heck out of there as soon as possible ?

Yeah, those raids costed you alot of MPPs, hehe. - First the UK in Africa. You pushed it back, but it costed alot of MPP. You amphibied German troops from Spain to Africa and then trasport them back to Spain. That costed alot and I don't know if it's needed : what can the UK do around Casablanca anyway if they don't have Gibraltar ? I think I would have build a fort north-west of Gibraltar, put a unit in it and let the Brits have their tea in Casablanca and tangiers, who cares ? If they drive to Algiers, that's another thing, but there is plenty of time to defend that later. - Then a small raid from the UK on Kiel, so that the navy could come in and sink the German navy. That could have been prevented by putting a fortified unit in the Kiel strait. - After me taking Sweden, there was the UK raid late '41 on Koningsberg, with the help of my airplanes in Sweden. Again, you operated 4-5 corpses to it, not much of a choice there, really. All UK units were killed, but my HQ got away... - Simultanious in late '41 a landing of the US in north-east Germany, taking Hamburg, Kiel and Essen, all undefended. That could have been prevented by putting units there, no ? Now you had to operate a bunch of troops there and operate them back once their job was done. Alot of MPPs wasted... Unfortunatly, the Russians couldn't really take adavantage of the gaps that were in the frontline, due to a terrible, terrible timing of the '41 landings : winter striked and the Russian were imobilised... 1942 came and went, with the US and UK building all the lost troops back up, the Germans pushing Russia back, eventually attacking and more overtaking most of the Kharkov line, but then another landing... - In the srping of 43 the US and UK landed between a defended (but bombed) Brussels and (again an undefended) Kiel and Essen. Hamburg fell to, due to a non-entrenched low level guard unit there... Once again, you had no choice and operated alot of troops to drive the American and British troops back. But that left the Russian front weak and this time the Russian were ready to take full advantage ! In no time they stood in Warshaw (ignoring the 10 Axis troops that camped around Minsk and Smolensk) and the Axis conceded the game... Somewhere during the Russian push west, the Allied retook an undefended Finland with an American amphiby from Sweden and landed after some bombing in Bordeaux too, just for the heck of it. All in all I think you left the north-west of Germany too undefended : put some high level German troops there in the beginning of the war and leave them there, entrenched. A couple of fortifications there can do wonders too, you can leave low level troops in those.

That will only work if you keep Germany and Russia seperated : those two are unbeatable if on the same side. Even against the four others together.

Is it... euh... frowned upon to block straits with ships ? Everyone does it, so I do it too, but it's kinda cheesy, no ?

You don't need range 5 to take Berlin and Munich, range 4 is enough if you have Sweden (like I did). But no, that was not the reason why I got to range 4 : I got to range 4 so I could spy alot better with my planes. The change for an early knock-out was just a bonus.

Wouldn't it be more realistic without fog of war ? The scale of the Waterloo battleground was so small that there couldn't have been alot of surprise encounters like on a Western-European scale (altough there were some surprises at Waterloo, including a last minute apperance of infantry units surrounding the Franch Old Guard, if I remember correct).

Yes, I would have attacked both cities with bombers too, but I wanted the paras to be ready first, of course. Oh, well, a wasted opportunity that will probably cost me the game, my British and American troops are about to get slaughtered, I think.

Rambo, sorry for not seeing your TCP/IP request earlier ! Terif, thanks. I could have won the last game with two stealth paradrops if I knew that : I had paras in range of Berlin and Munchen, but I didn't know the supply 7 rule.

Under what conditions can paratroopers prepare to jump ? I transported a brand new UK paratrooper to Sweden and it wasn't allowed to prepare when it stood next to a supply 8 Headquarter there.

Since when is saying "I am gay" imposing your view on others ? This pretty much sums up my view :

Contrary to what you may think, it's very rare that a bank forces a family to sell their house. This will even be more true in a bad house market : imagine what it will do to the value of the houses if 4 million people are all at once forced to sell... I am not a fan of banks, to say the least, but they don't just sell houses like that : they give counter-proposals, often adjusting the rate downwards, spreading payments over more years, give you a payment free month or two... Of course, this is the RATIONAL explaination. The trouble is panicking people : once they see rising default numbers, they make a HUGE deal out of it and start talking about "25% of American job's rely on the Good-Health of the Housing Industry", "the U.S. Dollar collapses" and even a "New Replacement Currency". From a RATIONAL economic point of view, nothing is lost when payments are spread out over more years. It's the irrational reaction that is scary...

The US was neutral when Germany invaded Poland. The US was neutral when Germany invaded Denmark. The US was neutral when Germany invaded Norway. The US was neutral when Germany invaded Luxemburgh. The US was neutral when Germany invaded Belgium. The US was neutral when Germany invaded The Netherlands. The US was neutral when Germany invaded France. The US was neutral when Germany invaded Crete. It was only in match 1941 that the US did anything serious : the Land-Lease act that gave 32billion of military equipment (no soldiers) to the UK and 18billion to 37 other countries. They didn't commit any soldiers until Pearl Harbor was attacked. Saying that the US was never truly neutral is untrue. After the war, everyone denounced the evil Germans for what they did in their camps. But before that was a known fact, there were plenty of people that didn't mind a strong Germany to stand up against Russia and the British emire.

It's a good list, except for two things : the already mentioned "sleep key" and point 4. It can make a big difference if you can upgrade units in the production queue. First oif all : you can build them faster since you only have to pay for the non-tech first and can pay for the techs later. Also there is a difference between having a full-tech unit to place on the map or a low-tech unit that you got to upgrade first before you send it to the front : you can place a full-tech unit right next to the enemy. I am not saying that it is a BAD thing that we can upgrade units in the queue, but it does make a significant difference in situations where you are defending and need those troops ASAP. It will favor the Russian defence the most IMHO.

After the Allied took Norway on turn 4, what usually happens next ? Do Allies usually take Norway back ? If not, do the Allies take Sweden somewhere down the line ? And if so, do the Germans defend Sweden ? Take Sweden back ? And if Sweden stays Allied, do the Axis take back the port in the north to get the ore shipments back ?

I think that if Germany invests in subs enough, they can prevent the US from shipping out. The problem is that this will cost alot : you need like 400MPP into sub research and another 1400MPP to get seven subs. That's alot of money...

That's not true, experience over here proofs that. It doesn't say "we, the intrested people" on your Constitution or "we, the informed people" or "we, the people that read the rich-men-owned papers". People will care when they got the hope that their votes matters. Have a little faith in "we, the people" ! Also, I don't agree that politicians will only campaign in the most populated parts of the country. Again, experience here shows otherwise. A place where 100.000 people live will get more attention then a place where 20.000 people live, of course, but all those 20.000 towns add up, you know...

I guess it's for game-balancing reasons that they don't get a garrison. Most small countries can easily be taken in one turn : Norway, Denmark, Iraq, Swiss, Portugal, Low countries, Tunis, Syria, Algeria. If you give Iran a garrison, then you'll need more units to take them on the turn you DOW them. But historical, they should get a garrison, me think.

I think a presidency and a parlement is indeed the best form of governement. But the problem in the US is the voting system : only half the population care to vote. And of those 50%, 20% will vote Democratic, 20% will vote Republican and 10% are swing votes. That means that your entire political system is based on who gets those 10% (the numbers aren't accurate, but the argument is valid for 8, 10 or 15%). I prefer a system where you HAVE to vote (like in my country). Sure, you can argue that "if you're not intrested enough in politics to vote, you shouldn't have a say", but on the other hand : it are the 50% that don't vote that are send to Iraq to die for oil, whose jobs are lost due to economic politics, who will pay off the debt that the US is piling up to give to Haliburton. And while you're at it : the only vote that should matter is the popular vote, not the rigged elections that you got going at the moment. And certainly not a decision of the 11 70-something judges. Now stop posting here and go play my next email turn !

The Russian winter only comes in 1941, right ? And if it comes in other years too, will it affect cities that the Russian gained back on the Allies ? Will it affect cities that the British troops recaptured from the Allied in Russia ?

Euh... They should get something from the second HQ, where the second HQ acts as a level 5, no ? If you would have this (where A is an army) : C98765432H98765432H432A The first HQ gives supply 10. The second HQ gives supply 5 and can move 2 hexes. The Army has supply 1. If you would have this (where A is an army) : C98765432H987654321000H432A The first HQ gives supply 10. The second HQ gives supply 5 and can move 1 hex. The Army has supply 1. So, indeed, the chained HQs only affect the movement of the second HQ not the supply it gives. Note that it only works with 2 HQ : a possible 3th HQ will not get the movement bonus. If you would have this : C98765432H98765432H432H432A The first HQ gives supply 10. The second HQ gives supply 5 and can move 2 hexes. The thirth HQ gives supply 5 and can move 1 hex (like all HQ do all the time). The Army has supply 1.

We could use a key that toggles numbers per hex that show the supply. It's been asked before. I don't think Hubert Cater answered to it, but it would be a great feature.

MS Paint will do the trick... Just hit Prt Scr, open MS Paint, paste and save it as 1.jpg.