Mozzer

I've got to add my voice to this particular chorus of approval. I feel that at the moment the North African aspect of the war really does'nt work. The map obviously does not go far enough south and so turns the cut and thrust of desert warfare into an unrealistic trench war. The way the map is in North Africa you simply cannot concentrate forces in a realistic way. I was looking at the High Command map last night and whatever you say about the AI and the interface you have got to admire the map which stretches from the North cape of Norway from the north deep into the desert in the south and from the USA (albeit abstractly represented- you cannot invade it) in the west to Kuwait and beyond the Urals in the East. I realise that this has been discussed before and there are memory restrictions but North Africa is where the map really lets us down. Perhaps being British I add more emphasis to this area than it warrants but at the moment, nothing happens in the middle east in the grand campaign. I really agree that Alexandria should count as a deployment centre for the British. It is not perfect but it would help recreate the importance of the middle east to the British strategy. The idea that all British troops would be dashed through the Med is unrealistic when the safer, but longer Cape route was available. Clash of Steel had an option whereby you could transfer troops round the cape to the Middle east. Previous posters are right to emphasise the arrival of Commonwealth troops from India, Australia, New Zealand, etc, which would not have gone through the Med. Furthermore, I feel that you should have to capture Alexandria to completely defeat the UK. If the UK had fallen, the plans were ready to carry on the fight from the middle east using troops from the Commonwealth.

I've tried the old 'all out attack on Russia and see how far you get' strategy and have managed to marched to the gates of Moscow by the time the demo ends. It seems the key is just to use your armoured units and corps just to overwhelm the Soviet defences by constantly moving forward, exploiting the gaps that the (early on) too few Red Army units are unable to pug and leaving isolated units to be mopped up by second echelon units. I might come to eat these words but marching to the Urals does not look too difficult. The problem is that I left France and Germany utterly undefended, used every last troop on the attack on Russia, and the British did.... nothing!! Save drop a few bombs on a couple of cities, the British did not land troops at all even though there were no forces at all between the Channel coast and Berlin! Perhaps that is because of the FOW and the Brits not realising that but it seems a bit unrealistic. Love the game though!

I agree with Stormbringer on the issue of diplomacy. I think that this is a really great games but there seems no way of influencing the diplomatic aspects of the war. For example as Germany you just seem to sit tight and wait until Rumania or Finland or Hungary join the war on your side. There seems to be no way of pressurising potential allies to join your side or disuading them from joining your enemies. Furthermore, with the minor countries like Rumania there is no indication about how close they are to joining you, whether they are inclined towards you or the allies or what effect your actions have on these countries. Can Spain be won over as an ally for Germany as could have happened? What about Turkey which in the middle years of the war have gone in either camp. Just as major countries have a rating of how close they are to joining so I think should minor countries and that these should be subject to some kind of political points as suggested above. The diplomatic aspects of the war were as important as the military; if Turkey or Spain had joined the war it would have had enormous consequences. I always like the Clash of Steel diplomacy where minor countries had a leaning and you had diplomatic points which you could use to put pressure on them. If you were doing well minor countries were more likely to join your camp. Put too much pressure on, however, be too pushy and your overtures could be counterproductive.

That North African territory looks a bit tight! The distance between the Meditteranean coast and the southern edge of the map looks like about 2 hexes. This was a problem with COS too! Surely if the map doesnt give enough Western Desert to play in there is no way that you can recreate the tactics of the Afrika Korps. Don't forget that Rommel was numerically outnumbered by the 8th Army and used the open flank of the desert to use his panzer forces to turn the flank of the British forces- sometime successfully (Tobruk, 1942) sometimes now (Alam Hafa, 1942). If there are only 2 hexes it will always mean a battering ram of a battle always trying to force yourself through the narrow gap rather that the open thrust and parry of desert warfare. The only place where the desert narrowed that much was El Alemain of course where the Quatara depression narrowed the available front considerably! Oh, can you build new fortifications? Like in COS where you had that nifty engineer unit that you could build the Atlantic Wall/Siegfied Line?

I agree with Andrew. Losing your capital will be important but should vary in its effect from country to country. I have got Stolfi's book on my bookshelf and he makes a convincing argument that the capture of Moscow was the move most likely to lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union but only if other objectives had been captured too. I think that COS models this well by saying that you must capture Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and some other optional cities (Gorki, Sevastapol, Baku, etc) and this starts to accumulate Russian 'collapse points' which when they go above a certain level will cause the USSR to collapse. I think that worked well. For the Soviet Union to collapse just because one PzIII gets into Red Square seems a bit unrealistic but the capture of Moscow in its strategic and psychological impact would have meant something big. As for the UK it could be argued, convincingly, that even if the UK had been captured the British would have fought on from the Empire, protected by the Royal Navy. Serious contingency plans had been set for this eventuality. Therefore the capture of Cairo (the middle east was seen as an alternative base in the event of the collapse of the British Isles) or even the invasion of Canada (getting into real 'what-if' land here!!) would possibly be needed. Actually, I hadnt thought of that. Sorry if I am asking something asked elsewhere or something that is in the FAQ, but can the Axis player invade the USA or Canada? What fun! If the Germans had defeated the USSR in 1941, knocked us Brits out in 1942 or 1943, it might not have been unrealistic (especially as this game seems to promise the potential to explore some real alternatives- ploughing lots of cash into a huge German navy, post-USSR collapse ala Z-Plan) for an invasion of America!!!

From the description and the screen shots this looks like an an update of the classic WW2 Strategy in Europe game from SSI 'Clash of Steel'. From the shots of the European map the cities, rivers and borders seem in exactly the same place. This isnt a criticism as Clash of Steel was an excellent game. If youve never played it I would definitely recommend it and it is available on many of the 'underdog' and 'forgotten ware' sites. Its one of my favourite games ever so an updated and improved version would be wonderful! Typical, you wait for years for a WW2 grand strategy game and then two come along at once like our British buses. The other WW2 grand strategy game being developed is 'Hearts of Iron' by Paradox Entertainment. Oh, by the way, couldnt you refer to the occupants of these fair islands as British rather than English as the Scots, Welsh and Irish (as well of course as our kith and kin in the rest of the Empire/Commonwealth) all played their part in defeating Hitler!