Panzer Cmdr

I believe the air power issue is an issue and limits should be placed based on resources. In this manner it allows countries growth via conquest. I don't like having arbitrary force pool limits. I wish more HQ's could be created (I liked the idea of being able to convert a veteran infantry into a HQ, or veteran tank into a mobile HQ). Sogard - You have got to lighten up and get off your high horse. Your remarks are offesive and you mind is closed and full of colorful courtroom quotes. I am a veteran (Desert Storm) and so was my father(WWII) and grandfather (WWI). Many gamers (WWII) like to play the Axis because they are the underdogs (not because we are Hitler youths). People respect the effeciancy aspect of the regular army units and do not worship the SS as you imply. One of the things my dad did say that he did not like was that when our pilots/crews had to bailout or hardland (after bombing Japan) many times the Russians would pick them up. The Russians would not simply return them to the US, but would either hand them over to the Japanese or they would interm our pilots. As stated the Germans did not have a monopoly on not playing by the rules.

I too have been in the predicament of "you spend more time with your computer than me". My wife has seemed to loosen up on me though lately (probally she is too tired after chasing the kids all day). I even have tried to get her interested in playing some games. She says "That looks to much like work, you have to keep thinking about what you are doing". I try to tell her that is the fun, TV gets to boring - not like you can sit there and give input into the show and perhaps change history. I'd much prefer to excersice the brain and work on world domination!

Yes I have noticed this too and I have the latest and greatest patch. I have seen interceptors take staggering losses even against unsecorted bombers. A friend and I (Axis) were playing the 1944 sceneria, so the Germans even had higher level tech AC but I can't rember for sure but I believe experience was equal or close.

Sogard, I vote with Bill on the idea that you can't just look at Historical maxes. If Germany does defeat Russia, it would be more likely that Germany could have supported a much larger airforce. This is where the idea of tying unit building/support to resources would help. Such a change would have to be an SC2 thing moreso than a patch. I like the idea of having each land hex have some value in resources, this may prevent Russia from just abondoning their west front. Although I guess we could keep the option of scorched earth. (this option is silly though, I think all countries would try to destroy supplies/equipment/etc. rather than letting the enemy get them- I'd rather see this as an action: like the Russians would have to have a unit in the city and it would have to select 'destroy city/resource' and perhaps take 1 turn to do so.) Thus if you left a city wide open the enemy could simply swoop in a reap the benifits. Perhaps it should also not be automatic the repairs to cities/resources and also have to station a unit there(or next to for harbors)and give action to rebuild city a point per turn.

Yes, try not to declare war on those minors until you are sure that you can overrun them in 1 or 2 turns if possible. Also you may note that once you conquer Great Britian there is no way for the Allies to continue to support (send replacements to) a minor country. I believe that those resource points to are just lost to the allies since GB can no longer aquire the points. In a past link I suggested (perhaps others too) that it would be a good option to select which axis/allied country supplies it. Then make it only a %effective depending on geographics and enemy influence. Say Germany declares war on Romainia, there is an option on who supports Romania for the Allied turn. Russia is right next to Romania so they may be 80%effective. The US is far away and could supply Romania but only at 50% effectiveness. The existing resource points themselves I think would be good to stay in the country. These points could be used to build units at no added effeciecy cost. This would allow minor nations their own MPP source. So Romania gets perhaps 30 MPP's turn-this could be used to replace units and even buy new ones. Russia could lend them MPP's (here is where we can put the effeciancy rule into effect) Russia lends 100MPP, it shows up after a turn into the Romania bank as plus 80MPP, some is lost in the transfer due to red tape, convoy issues, losses in transit etc. This amount that Romania banks then would be the only amount available to plunder by Germany. (sometimes it is crazy that you get more plunder from a place like Portugal that you do from Romania) Then anything Romain builds could be at one of their cities. Allied countries should not be allowed to place there own newly created units directly into minor countries (nor even operate). On a (another) side note, it would be good if minor (even major) collected money each turn once the game starts. Limited to 1/2 normal war time level. Thus the US would get 90 per turn until they enter. Russia may need to be toned down some as them getting like 240MPP per turn would start them out with a bunch by the time Barbarossa gets started. This may be evened out by reducing some tech levels or implementing limited research investment to be going on prior to war declarations. This would make it more tempting perhaps for the axis to declare war on Russia instead of waiting.

Both of you have very good points. I like the idea of force pools (perhaps these could grow as new countries are conquered/join and new 'volunteers' are found. The 'volunteers' being based on a %support for the country. You would be limited on manpower and you may only be able to support x amount of new units. This should also effect replacements too though, but perhaps at 1/2 the penalty to account for fixing wounded and non-replacements fixes of just reorganizing etc. The ability to build an instant sub in newly conquered france could be solved with the idea of timed purchases. It should take varying lengths of time to build units and each city/factory would produce specified unit. So now that you have that factory/city on the west coast of france you can start to produce that sub and it might be available in 3-4 months. I forget what game it was (perhaps Empire Deluxe) but it had a good concept that gave production time bonuses if you continued to produced same unit types at specified city/factory. Berlin may build a bomber fleet and it may take 6 months, if they again build another bomber there it may take 5 months - maxing out at half normal build time of 3 months eventually. Then if now they want they make a tank and next build another bomber back at the full 6 month time (this could sybolize retooling and regaining lost effeciency of work force. Other games took into accout actual resources so if you only produce so much steel per year you are limited to the amount of tanks to build. If SC take on this approach major changes would have to be made in resources. Perhaps each hex could have some resource value (either make that hex in Russia a crop hex (these could help in force pools) or an oil hex (needed for air, naval and tank production) or hex could be a combition of resources (say each hex provides x amount of food, x amount of oil, x amount of minerals) This could get really complex. In all things if would be great though that no mater how detailed the game got- enhancements could be made as options that players can turn on or off.

Good point Gorski, those names could reveal too much - or perhaps you could trick a player and rename a new airfleet "Malta Fleet" and rename original Malta Fleet to something else. It would be good to also rename HQ's and have ability to edit them. I liked the idea of being able to convert expeirended armies into new HQ's as an upgrade option. (that may be a bit hard to program though)

Yes, Axis & Allies is fun. Do you have the computer game? It is ok but I think it is pretty boring compared to SC. It is a bit to cut and dry; no terrain benifts, unit experience, HQ's (leaders) and the AI did not seem very good. It is just a bit too basic and the effects (die rolls and exploding pieces) did not wow me after the first day. The board games are great but it can get hard to get people together to play, and then you got to worry about the cat jumping onto Europe and sending those Ruskies into the Atlantic. Especially for us married with young kids it is hard to find time to get a gameboard group together, you can play the computer game at night when the kids get their baths and go to bed. With the more powerful computers and some new but simple rules I think a full scale SC-World War is doable. So what if you need a Pentium 4 or game graphics card to play. Us die hards would have to just upgrade. Hubert will have to find the line between what changes are doable and worthwhile (versus those that have no value added) or perhaps what changes can be made and then give players the options to put those changes in effect.

As stated in a previous reply, I think the concept of airfleets/bombers operating from airbases only would help equalize war. Planes should not just be allowed to land just anywhere (swamps, mountains or woods for example) but even in these places it may be possible to build airfields since it could be argued that the whole 50 mile hex is not complete forest, swamp etc... just make it cost more MPP's to build in these areas. Again this change would be more of a major change for SC2 and probally not just a patch. It may be also allowable to operate air units from cities to with a general note to say it assumes each major city has an airfield. A country would thus only be allowed to build a maximum of airfleets/bombers equal to sum of available cities/airfields (only new aircraft can be placed at a city or airfield - so if America put an aircraft at a British Airfield it really would not limit America's limit) This would be especially good for a proposed SC Pacif, where it would be silly to just keep landing planes on islands and instantly operating from there. This would allow strategic placement of airfields, capturing of key islands (perhaps those with enemy airfields) and in turn it will make air power planning more strategic and less of an option to just buy as many airfleets as possible).

I believe the option as mentioned would be great but not as a patch but for SC2. As a new thing airfleets should not be allowed to just land anywhere - they should only be able to operate from cities or from established or newly built airfields. In this manner it would be realistic in FOW to know where airfields are and that if you attack an airfield you are likely to find aircraft there. If the person had decided not to have any aircraft on "patrol" then they would be hit by surprize and not be able to inflict damage back on attacker. Though it would be ok to have some air defenses fighting back from the airfield. As things are you can land airfleets on the tops of the mountain ranges and swamps as it would be to land on flat ground. The idea of having to operate from fixed airfields, and thus allowing the capture and construction of new airfields would be great - and this would help to reduce the impact of airpower. For instance, would it make sense for germany to have 20 airfleets if they had only 5 cities and 1 airfield. This would thus only allow them to have only 6 airfleets. This would encourage the building of new airfields or capture of new cities. With the desired pacific/world playground the idea of building new airfield on viable newly conquered islands would be great. It would be a shame just to have instant ability to land airfleets on new islands just anywhere. Again this all leads to what depth players wish to go, but I believe that this game is great and that the talented Mr. Hubert is up for the task and will prudently tweak things.

Yes I did install mods to the terrain and units from one of the guys on this forum. I will try to download patch and reinstall it again. If that doesn't work, I will remove game and reinstall - then update with patch 4 (and then try adding the unit/terrain mods which add more personality to game). Thanks for the help!

I tried to add the patch and got message that "Core files appear to have been corrupted. Program terminated." Has anyone else gotten this message. This was updating from V1.02 to V1.04 - do I need to patch V1.03 first. Thanks

It was necessary to Island Hop as stated to get closer to the mainland of Japan. My dad served in the Navy on bombers based out of the Aleutions in Alaska. These were the closest bases we had that could reach Japan and the flights were very very long. It was more effective and safe to get closer to begin a hard bombing campaing of Japan. It was known that many bombing missions would be required to begin to soften up any proposed landing.

I believe Canada would be treated like any other minor, only the U.K. can support them and only the U.K. gets there MPP's. (except of course when conquered they go to the conquerer). The U.S. would have to send their own troops to Canada to prevent Axis invasion.

I agree with keeping the same scale and lumping islands together. Also SC2 if made should be world wide. Japan unit color should be orange background, China yellow etc... Naval aircraft should be separate from the carrier, so that when you send those planes out to sink that old battleship 150 miles away you may lose some planes but not the carrier itself. This would also allow to use carriers as floating airfields to allow planes to be based further out to distant islands. Only navy fighters/attack aircraft should be allowed to use carriers and thus may cost more. This also would be better to have ability only to upgrade units to new techs and not automatic. Those aircraft stationed way out in Kon Tiki should not just be instantly turned to jets, they should need to be sent to a city (say at least size 10) for upgrade. The issue on individual country MPP's should be tweaked, i.e. currently if you lose G.B. then you can no longer support the minors. Perhaps there should be a choice of whom you want to support a country. Say if Romania joined the allies you could have England supply them (60% effective), if the U.S. supplies say (50% effective) or if Russia supplies (80% effective)- effectiveness as a function of logistics and relative closeness to a major port/supply source. So if an army cost normally 250MPP, and the US was supporting Romania it would cost 500MPP, Russia 313MPP and units would have associated level of tech of supporting country. The counrty supporting the minor would thus get the minors resources. Wow, such a cool game with so many possiblities! I hope Hubert can keep his sanity long enough to do an SC2. I thought in an earlier post Hubert flat out said there will be no SC2! Was he joking or was he just overwhelmed with all of us fanatics and our desired tweaks...??? Hubert we only "complain" because we love the game and truly appreciate your great support

Hey Hubert, love the game and enjoy this forum. I would guess that this has been mentioned before that it would be great if more HQ's could be built than are currently available. Trying to play a game and making Italy into a powerhouse can be hard with only 3 HQ's. Why are these just not like the other units, with the ability to rename as we wish. Their effectiveness could be based more on their experiance and not predetermined. Or if this was not possible what if it was allowed that army units (or even panzer unit as mobile HQ's) reached max. experience that a choice could be made to upgrade unit to an HQ? That could be a real honor for a unit and would give a player a tough choice, to loose a veteran attacking unit or gain an HQ. Just a thought. Your game is great for possiblities, thanks for keeping turn based play alive.

Who cares if the HQ unit is resupplied? It does not do any damage to you if you attack it, plus you keep getting experience for the troops you use to attack. It is very expensive for a country to resupply an HQ that is doomed - money that they could be using elsewhere or putting into research. In one gamey approach in the Barbarosa Campaign I kept attacking the English HQ in Africa and England kept pouring all their money in it to resupply. This took up all their money and allowed me to build up my "Sealion" Forces. A human oppenant with any sence would just let the HQ die and bite his/her lip - unless a rescue was possible...

I agree that HC was a good game and ahead of its' time in many areas. I enjoy SC graphics, especially with the mods that were made by dedicated players here. The HC production was really good and I agree it is better to have production lengths for different units, possibly with extra cost to speed up production. To creat an entire fleet in 1 month with SC can be a bit crazy. I also think the techs in SC can be a bit to powerful. In HC I believe the techs were a bit more subtle. Didn't it do limited things like it may make Mech Infantry better at Air Combat or perhaps able to produce in half the time? I do like SC and it is well worth it - and Hubert has been great and has done much in supporting us "the fans". I would like to see a Pacific version or entire World War with some added unit choices and more detailed research. I think all units should not get automatic upgrades, perhaps only be able to upgrade by taking a turn with a city... Well got to get back to work, good hunting to all.

My Tiger Tanks' engine is overheating - where is the info. on pre-ordering the game? Hubert said today is the day...