jfstup

thanks

thanks

are you refering to the board games HttR & KP? i didn't kmow there were cd games by those titles. if they are the paper games, i would have some comments to make as i have been playing board wargames many years.

correction to previous message--thats to take britain by sept. 1940, not 1941

a fun thing with the computer is to see how fast as the axis you can take great britain after running thru poland etc. and to my suprise sometimes the game will be over in 1941 if britain is conquered by sept.29th. but when that happens you only get about 170 or 180 victory points.

this game is great fun and user friendly game but unlike 3R,TOTALER KRIEG, AND AXIS&ALLIES it is unbalanced strongly in favor of axis player. there seem to be two basic causes of this. one is the victory conditions. the axis can run up a lot of points by destroying a lot of corps of weaker countries(for which they get 1 vp for each unit they elim. and size or cost or type of unit makes no difference) whereas the allies though causing lots of damage to axis units, seldom elim. an axis unit. the #2 problem is the economics of the game. the axis as they gain territories by conquest or minor allies gain production points to build and these never go down by attrition or use, so they are able to build far more units with more manpower and resources than they had or ever would have in the 6 or so years the war lasted. some have complained on this forum that the USA isn't given enough resources but as they were fighting a 2 front war their production may be closer to correct for the purposes of this game. i hope to hear pros and cons of these comments and i think you will love this game.

i was wondering about 2 corps in this game representing the equivelant of an army when in the board game TOTALER KRIEG it takes 3 corps to build a full strength army. who's correct? TK is a more detailed game but pretty much the same scale. also in TK if you are the axis and the dice are unfriendly you will take lot of attrition on your armor and you lose. any knowledge and ideas concerning these thoughts i would like to hear.

having played and liking this game very much, the weakest link in this game is the victory conditions which seem to be an afterthought after a well thought out game. no matter how well the allies play, the axis always gets a big lead by wiping out a lot of weak allied units(neutrals,french,and soviets) without taking almost any eliminations himself. worst yet, you get just as much reward for killing a corps as an army, tank, plane, or even a battleship! when playing a friend, we agreed to compare victory points at the end of each game with each of us getting to play the axis since the axis always seem to win in 1939 scenrio. i played the axis 1st and built 303 points. so he played the germans and after a slow start was threatning to reach my point level and i showed how i could disable all my remaining units and win because he wouldn;t have any more units to wipeout, thus no more victory points. i didn't this out of honour and he ended up with 296 pts. so we called it a draw. but inspite of this weakness it sure is a lot of fun which is the bottom line

1st question- yes 2cd question- adequate,better than most and once you win over the computer with regularity you can play solitare by using the hotseat method by playing both sides to fine tune your game and to have some fun. as far as having control over several aspects of the war this game is a lot like the axis&allies(board game also a computer version) and also avalon hill's 3rd reich

i think at this level, a game based on columbia's "pacific victory" block game would work rather well. of strategic level amer.civil war board games, i have played victory's "civil war", gdw's "a house divided", gmt's "for the people", task force games "grand army of the republic" and they are all outstanding games but i think "a house divided" would work better for a computer game because of its lower complexity.

i think at this level, a game based on columbia's "pacific victory" block game would work rather well. of strategic level amer.civil war board games, i have played victory's "civil war", gdw's "a house divided", gmt's "for the people", task force games "grand army of the republic" and they are all outstanding games but i think "a house divided" would work better for a computer game because of its lower complexity.

i agree that air units shouldn't be able to completely destroy a ground unit. i like columbia games rule for their pacific victory block game where a ground unit's last point must be destroyed by a ground unit. it can't be destroyed by air or naval fire or supply below 1 strength point. although i think an armour unit should be more vulnerable to air attacks than infantry(remember the falaise gap). i am glad to hear others say that headquarters should have anti-aircraft defense because if they are so valuable, they should be well defended. and they're not very valuable too far behind the lines unless their range is increased which is another idea.

dear sirs, the sound of SC has been somewhat corrupted. so when i reinstall the game (hoping this is the solution),will the 1.06 patch reinstall with it or will that need be done separately? thank you for your care, jfstup

these ideas have merit,but making landings tougher and more expensive would make the game more unbalanced in favor of the axis. so to implement these ideas, that factor would need to be considered.

east front is excellent game but it recommended that you get the volga front add on with it to overcome some of edge of map problem and also if you can afford it, get west front also for the same reason although it also is an ok game. for strategic level games of the am. civil war, "a house divided" "civil war" by victory games(0ut of print)and "for the people" by gmt. for a more complex strategic level WWII game "totaler krieg" is highly recommended and it is by decision games and cover approx. the same situation as strategic command.

i'm referring to 1939 scenerio which the editor doesn't allow you to add units to nations that start the campaign neutral.

it seems that if the ussr were given 2 or 3 headquarters at the beginning of their setup, they would have a better chance of holding out as they can hardly ever afford to buy them. maybe 2 poor ones close to the front and one good one far in the rear(zhukov). and i don't believe this touch would be to far out of line with history.

is there a way to add units to a country that starts the campaign neutral? example-the 1939 campaign when russia starts neutral, i would like her to have some hdqtrs in the mix when she is acvtivated to help balance the game. :confused:

would it be feasable to add include in the next patch the ability to play both sides from the same computer. i was thinking in terms of solitary experimental play. maybe you can already do that but i don't know how. if so.let me know. thank you your time and effort

do only units destroyed in battle count in the victory tally or do units that disappear when a country surrenders count also?

am i missing something? turns are represented as being 1,2,or4 weeks in scale. but they are player turns not game turns . so the correct scale (correct me if i am wrong[and i am sure someone will]) is 2,4,and 8 weeks per turn with each side moving and fighting to to be a full turn.

let's be patient! i am an old board wargame general and have many underdeveloped, poorly designed, rules badly written, improperly playtested wargames on my shelves while playing the few really good ones over and over. i to am (fighting this battle of impatience} but it is one we need to win. so let's wait for a really good game.

could breakdowns & buildups of army and corps be incoporated into the game, also it seems there should be some political restrictions of minor allies moving into each others countries and also of to many germans moving into their allied countries. about the ai,on higher levels, the only improvement seems to be that it rolls dice better rather than thinking better.maybe as in good computer chess games it would think longer at higher levels and make better decisions. also as the germans it seems possessed with attacking allied ships with their planes rather than knocking out the units