KevGaming

It could be something to do with the email client used. Some people had this problem playing SC. It was discovered that some web based email, Hotmail and Yahoo, changed the text files when attached making them unreadable to your opponent. Try using a POP3 account to send the files. However if you are doing that then... We'll just have to wait for a patch.

Haven't played SC in a while but, your propasal sounds interesting. A game where the US is actually a threat hmmm ...

It is exceptionally difficult and time consuming to clear wire obstacles, remember these are rolls and rolls of barbed or razor wire. They can't be removed easily by explosives, as the wire has an annoying tendancy to be blown up into the air and then land again. This is the reason why so many attacks in WW1 failed so drastically, artillery just can't cut wire affectively enough to clear a path through it! Engineers would have to be equiped with bangalore torpedoes or similar to cut a path through them.

I think the Battle for the Atlantic doesn't get the recognition it deserves in this game. Both Churchill and Doenitz realised that the side that won the Atlantic war would win the war in the west. With this in mind I'd like to see Britain's surrender conditions modified to take the Atlantic conditions into account. At the moment the U-Boats are short lived units unless you can get a large amount of them. Even then are they truely useful to the long term strategic goal of winning the war? In most of the games i've played I use between 5-8 U-boats to sink Britain's navy then position them to blockade her. Ok this makes invasion easier but, can lead to a stalemate war of attrition which Germany will eventually win. However this is a drain on the forces deploying to attack/defend against Russia. Right back to the point of changing the surrender conditions. I'd like to keep the existing conditions of taking London and Manchester kept. Plus add the condition of taking London if the Atlantic has been closed for say 3 turns. This I feel would make the U-Boot a worthwhile strategic investment, and add some historical fears to the game.

Don't know if it is the kind of thing you are looking for but, Profantasy Software (the RPG mapping people)do an interactive World War 2 Atlas. More information can be found here: WW2 Interactive Atlas

How about the next big thing being Modern Warfare from WW1 to Present Day. Now you have to admit the idea is tempting even if it may not practical to get the last 100 years into a game like CMBO/BB

I think it would vastly improve game play and the strategies involved, if the major power's HQs could command their minor nations. Don't know if it would possible, but it would be nice to group units with an HQ. This would allow attacks to be co-ordinated better. Rather than the random method of attachment. I always seem to have my HQ units selecting corps instead of aircraft or tanks! Gets very confussing when you invade USSR or invade with the Red Storm!

Fantastic

On the subject of America. For a country that could mass produce ships, tanks, planes, etc like car assembly line. I feel that 180MPPs per turn are abit on the small side. Now I realise that MPPs are calculated by a formula. But in all the games I've played America's imput has been far less than historical. Just a thought.

Didn't notice that before, but you do have point about the faces. Although my copy the soldiers look ok on the CD but kinda pig like on the inlay card.

Jet research IMO is the defacto tech to get. Once the other guy has surpassed you in this, you generally get a good pounding from the air. Even worse if they get experience as well! That said it would be good to limit either the number of points you can invest or maximum tech increase in any given year. IE only allow 2 points per year increase or such. What say you?

Have to agree with Lars on this point. In my most recent game as the Allies the US of A stayed out of the war until late 1942. By which time most of my units in Britain were stationed in Scotland out of range of the level 5 jets with some long range tech air fleets the Germans had. Makes it much more exciting! [ August 06, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: KevGaming ]

Kinda defeats the purpose of playing somewhat. Don't you think? The key to getting more MPPs is to take over as many as the minor countries as possible. Oh, the subject of hacking is still a little hot round these parts. So don't mention it

I'll give you a great example of odd AI behaviour (possible bug?). My first full game (default diff, FoW on) playing as the Axis powers from '39 Poland. When the USA entered the war they sent over a unit of level 5 Jet fighters, which would not intercept my air fleets unless I attack the US army in Britain. Conversely the RAF would not intercept my air fleets if I attacked either of the American units! Bit strange that... :confused:

Hmmm... You may have a point there. Though the trailing group should catch them. Mibby was seeing things, as it was after 3am!

Just think of the lower rocket techs as damn BIG guns. IIRC there was a thread about this awhile back, and the consensus was to think of the tech level 1-2 as guns and the rest as rockets.

I've noticed some really odd goings on with America. I have 12 (yes that's correct!) U-Boot fleets plus a Cruiser guarding the approaches to Britain. Industrial Tech is great. A line of 9 subs stretches down from Canada to the middle of the Atlantic with no greater than two hex seperation, and the remaining subs and cruiser closer to Britain. Now I have had two SECs with US transports (battleships have already been sunk) then nothing, but US armies keep turning up in Britain! I have FoW on but may switch it off just to see what is happening. Has anyone else noticed these stealth transports? [ August 04, 2002, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: KevGaming ]

Just delete the SC demo folder.

Hey this forum is global. As I post this my time is 23:06. I live on the other side of the Atlantic.

You can avoid SEC events (at least on land) by moving Air Fleets close to the front line. Their greater spotting range allows you to see further into enemy terriory. It does however have the down side of having one least Air Fleet for attacking purposes Although saying it that if you employ a sound strategy and have thought in advance of where you are going to attack, loosing an Air Fleet for recon is not a disadvantage. Still. I do get annoyed when you encounter SEC when moving up to attack cities!

Going to join you on that one. I think if we took a poll the Axis '39 campaign will be most peoples first game. If only we had the game...

But they do pay for themselves in other ways. The way I use them is a two fold strategy: disruption of convoys and raiding on Britain's surface fleet. You only have to severely damage or sink a cruiser for a U-Boot to be considered paid for. Germany can replace it's U-Boot fleet much faster than Britain can build/repair it's surface fleet! And if Britain looses its' fleet...

For any that are interested in just how far advanced Germany's, development of U-Boots was check out Uboot.net and the Type XXI in particular. This could have been a war winning design if it had been produced early enough and in numbers.

Good advice there Panzer Lehr. It's going to be great fun trying to balance the land, air, sea forces needed to win the full game. If Russia stays out of the war for the first year it may just be all the Germans need to win the Battle for the Atlantic and conquer Britain! After that panzers east!

In response to Dragoon19. The battle for the Atlantic is not a war ending solution in and of itself, it was probably the most important operation to reduce Britain's ability to fight! Just taking 40MPPs off Britain ever turn is not enough to guarantee defeat. Britain does collect around 130MPP per turn. However if you combine the Atlantic battle with a Battle of Britain campaign you can really impair the ability of the British to defend their nation. If your subs can sink Britain's fleets and your airpower can interdict the RAF and bomb strategic targets, an invasion is relatively easy. Either one of these battles is a worry to the British player, but both can cripple him. And to answer your question. I agree I think Britain's surrender conditions should be modified to sue for peace, but only if BoA and BoB are in affect. [ July 22, 2002, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: KevGaming ]