Ancient One

Yes that is how it is supposed to be; units can only move 1 upon landing, moving into mountains costs 2.

That sounds good. In my opinion the game in the demo was heavily biased in favor of the Axis (starting from that point with 2 equal players and assuming the game kept going, I think the Axis would win a vast majority of the time). Willgamer, in the next game try to put off fighting the USSR until mid 1941. The invasion will start with the Axis having a much larger army compared to the USSR, whose 1941 setup is only slightly stronger than the 1940 one. In my opinion the 1941 setup is actually inferior to the 1940 setup overall, as most of the Soviet forces begin right on the German border, making them more easily destroyed or surrounded.

What do you mean? They have more CVs in 1939 than in 1940? :eek:

It doesn't matter how big the Swedish military is if it's so poorly positioned as to allow you to take Stockholm on the first turn of the invasion. Also, I thought the iron ore is represented by the ports in northern Germany, adding the value of Sweden in the game makes the Axis far richer than they should be. This severely hurts the play balance of the game, which is already skewed in favor of the Axis. Am I the only one looking at this from a multiplayer point of view? [ July 30, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

Actually it was the Soviets that started the second war with Finland in 1941.

There doesn't need to be any "special/exceptional" rules. Nobody's saying that it should be impossible to conquer Sweden, but I'm saying that it should be a tough nut to crack and that it should not be so valuable. An easy fix would be to simply move the Swedish corps to directly south of Stockholm, and not make all the resources in Norway/Sweden rise to 8 after Sweden is conquered (why does this happen anyway, I thought this was only supposed to happen if connected by land to a major power).

Perhaps, but it would not be nearly as easy or as profitable as in the game (Sweden is effectively worth more than France).

An amphibious invasion is still the best way to take out Sweden. All you need is 2 airfleets, 2 armies, and 1 corps. Upon declaring war, unload an army north of Stockholm, and another one south of Stockholm. Make them both attack the city (usually 4 points of damage each), then make the 2 airfleets attack (this almost invariably finishes off the unit). Finally the corps (or whatever) enters the city. One time I didn't even need the airfleets, both armies did 5 damage! For relatively little trouble, the Axis get ~300 MPP immidiately, as well as a per turn income increase by 77 (yes I'm counting the Norway rise to 8 here as well). There's nothing the Allies can do to stop this, and there's no reason why the Axis shouldn't do it.

When I play I don't give Italy anything. Any MPPs to be had are better used by Germany than Italy. Better HQs, usually better tech, better position, etc.

There are other things I'm worried about too, such as the fact that it's still possible to take Stockholm in one turn, and that if Sweden is conquered everything in Scandinavia rises to 8, so conquering Sweden actually increases your income per turn by 77 MPPs (greater than France - 64 MPPs), making the Norway/Sweden total rise to 112! Sweden is just as attractive a target as ever, and just as easy to beat as it was before the "fix".

Interesting points, but Aircraft Carriers weren't that important in Europe. The Germans, Italians, and British built several Battleships during this period, there should at least be some incentive to buy them in the game. Anyway, I don't think Hubert really intended Cruisers and Battleships to be not worth buying.

I have the same problem.

Just how big is this group?

Looks good, however for the next patch you might want to look into fixing the balance for naval units. Submarines, when used offensively against the enemy fleet, are much more effective than what is justified by their price. Also, Aircraft Carriers are far superior to Battleships, certainly more superior than the small price difference suggests. In the game, with regard to building new naval units, I can see myself buying Subs and occasionally an AC, but I really can't see it as being worthwhile to ever buy new Cruisers or Battleships. I think that lowering the costs of Cruisers and Battleships by about 100 MPP each could be a good solution. Hubert, please look into it.

I don't understand why so many people think subs are underpowered. In my opinion they are by far the strongest and most cost efficient naval unit there is. In a recent game I destroyed the entire UK fleet with subs surprisingly easily. I could not have done that by building any other naval unit.

The USSR isn't too strong, wait until 1941 to attack when most of their forces are on the border and can be destroyed easily. Also, German forces will be stronger in 1941, you're not really supposed to attack the USSR in 1940.

I haven't had much experience with getting many tech advances in one turn, but I have experienced getting tech advances repeatedly in consecutive turns. A couple of examples are: One game I had 7 points invested in research: 3 in Heavy Tanks, 2 in AT Guns, and 2 in Industrial Tech. Industrial Tech advanced 4 levels in 4 turns (0.0001 chance), there were no advances in Heavy Tanks or AT Guns during that time. Also, in the last game I played, there was only 1 point in both Industrial Tech and Advanced Subs, Industrial Tech advanced 2 in 2 turns (0.025 chance). Is this due to the same bug that results in many advances during the same turn? I've also noticed that this happens to Industrial Tech much more often than the others, has anyone else noticed the same?

The minimum needed to garrison the border is only 1 corps in 1940 and 4 corps in 1941, there's really no need to have more than this unless planning to invade right away. It's easy to stop Soviet war readiness from rising, at least until the end of the demo. In the full game, is there a point where the Soviet war readiness increases regardless of German forces on the east front? It could seriously harm play balance if the USSR can be kept neutral until 1942 or 1943.

Yes.

It seems that USSR war readiness only starts increasing if there are many German units near the border. Am I the only one that thinks this is absurd? It's the opposite of how it works in Clash of Steel, and could have serious play balance ramifications.

The HQ command radius extends out to 5 hexes away from it. In addition, each HQ can only command up to 5 units.

They have 3 actually. When you click on a HQ the units under their command become highlighted.

Never mind, I've just read the Troubleshooting Guide and have found the solution.

The click delays due to certain sound conflicts that were a problem in the beta still exist. I thought this problem was supposed to be resolved, what happened?

I agree, and that's one of the reasons (among others such as tech imbalances and strategic bombing) why I'm not yet sure whether or not I'll buy this game.