El Globo

The only reason I can imagine for these answers is that you are all drunk ! BTW sorry for the spelling mistakes, next time I'll do it all in my native language (french) and you will post your inspired answers in french ! ++

Hi, I don't have time and will to read 1600 posts so sorry if these subjects have already been discuted. Some suggestions for next patchs : 1) A possibility to do some land lease by giving military points to a major ally. This land lease could be subject to attrition losses if the path cross enemy subs, corsair ships, air interdiction range etc.. 2) For the editor it would be fine to give better flexibility to allow major countries neutral or opposite from their historical side (france, britain russia). This could make possible what if like axis urss pact or more logically a patton vs stalin what if... 3) The period could be advanced to allow spain war or other minor conflict. As the game doesn't take into account real technology setting a date in 1937 won't change too much. 4) It is impossible (for me but I doubt you do better) for the axis to invade england before Barbarossa, so I always manage my games the same way which conducts at 100% to a victory (generally more than 300 points often 0 land units losses 0 air losses and a few ship losses) generally before mid 1944 : as axis I invest fast in technology to reach 5 lvls while in the same time I spend research in longue range and better fighters. I NEVER use strategic bombers, they are really costly ****s. I have read much about them but for a cheaper price upgraded fighters are no doubt quite much better...You don't make air superiority with bombers also. I don't understand how someone can discuss this fact, and bombing ports or ressources is really a waste of air units. Subs and cruisers deserve nothing, it is a waste of economical power, the only ships I construct are carriers to crush usa and canada. I keep the initial allocated ships to counter allies until their fleet are done then I disband them. IA doesn't construct ships so they aren't a real threat across the sea. The same scheme applies to britain : I mass 4 or 5 air fleet in france with a dedicated hq and crush all I see beginning with air units then hqs then lands units. IA never construct air units in number to counter air threats, and when HQs are killed then none are available. HQS should be replacable, if a leader dies, another is promoted thats all, otherwise the ww2 won't have last more than a year ! And for the french, free french units should be constructable, they took a part in ww2 (especially in africa, italy, south france) with units like 2e DB and commanders like Leclerc, Degaulle, Juin, they're better than 1914 Gamelin and the loosers like... Initial setup for the french are underestimated, you seem to forget that they had 3 tank divisions DCR and 3 lights (I Think)and one or two more armies. I have the exact order of battle in the excellent Heimdall edition book. Their tanks were better than germans, but without radios, strategy and air supports they logically died. I think one or two tanks units would be correct. I tried an alternate initial setup with 1 french tank, 1 hq and 1 more army and it is playable for a human axis. And why french begin without even 1 HQ ??? Ok they were more than incompetent but the initial 4 ratings ones should fit. In fact every major country should have at least 1 hq at start. Anyway it is a funny fast and not brainstorming game. Regards,

If the game is going to be improved, here are some potential ideas : Put a port in Ireland (Dublin) and Belfast (GB) as it is not a desert, and naval moves should be allowed in and out. Only one hex to attack Le Caire is too small, we have to bring massive support for only one unit. At the best two land units could attack, one to the left, and one from Sinai...And no naval support is allowed due to the blocking harbor. Corsica and Sardaigne are useless deserts, they did have ports (small one, not for ship facilities, but enough to move troops), some retreated troops from axis moved there, and these bases could be useful to base air units and survey the path to Gibraltar. Anyway, considering the lack of action in mediterranee, it could be considered useless. The US industry is quite too small compared to the URSS one's. Furthermore, the game should enable land lease (gives of MPP from a country to another) for the allies AND the axis. Considering the research strategy it could be more useful for the axis to set the Italy to NEUTRAL, declare war against it and plunder its MPP, thus gaining the advantage of already researched german technology with italian industry MPP (didn't tried but I'll do). When a new level is gained in technology, it could be useful to have a button which allow automatic upgrade of existant units, providing you have the necessary funds (perharps by stages, or by random units, not all in one time, cause for Air and tanks it would be impossible to spend so much in war time in one round). One thing would be great, I read that the game would last to 1948....thus, it would be great to allow a URSS "AXIS" side to allow "what if" scenario like Patton vs Stalin, a sort of started cold war. Anyway, by 1948 the nukes would have been used since a long time, and perharps the germans had it too... For paratroopers, I agree that they would be very useful. BTW transported naval units should make amphibious assault (Malta, Gibraltar) as we can't actually. Perharps the game should enable to buy some fortifications (Atlantic walls, gothic line, siegfried line...).

Thanks for your answers, I'll try. Yes I'm french(Intelligence Artificielle). Just tested a game with no fog of war and it is instructive as we see all enemy moves and purchases. It help to understand. Merci à tous / thank to all.

Hi, Just bought the game and tried it at medium difficulty with both sides. I set the parameters to more historical possible with fog of war. Reading these posts, you all seem to manage to defeat the IA with both sides, and with hard parameters for some of you ??? I'm not a die-hard wargamer, and I'm not to good in strategic wargames (but I'm good in tactical ones like Combat Mission). I'm fond of history and I think I know quite well the whole ww2 history and materials (which is supposed to help in choices), but I'd like to know, please : Could you help me to understand the game and how to manage each side, because I really feel dumb as systematically the IA seems to be advantaged in any battle, regardless of which side he plays. I did 2 games, the first as the axis (which I lost by mars 1945 with a last stand from the italian !). Last game I tried to play the allies, as I felt they were economically advantaged, and the situation would be more easy, but I didn't managed to achieve the IA performance. How does he makes experienced units with the reinforcement xp loss ? His planes got better results than mine, even if I put a least as many fleet as he does (mine are never experienced cause I have to repair them all the time). He seems to handle well its Battle points as when Axis, he could buy corps to guard towns, reinforce all units, attack, relocate at high costs etc (I took a look with fog of war off)... Bombers are really ineffective, they almost never damage units targets and are crushed.They do almost nothing to industrial targets, certainly not worth of spending even 1 unit of them. Even with level 5 jet fighters (as the axis) I was challenged by lesser planes of the allies !! My planes seem to take more damage when attacking enemies than the opposite. How do you spend your points ? Do you invest in research (like I did) or you buy numerous units ? I would be grateful for tips, because these battles seem to be non-sense to me compared to tactical game like Combat Mission where your moves and knowledge of materials and artillery conduct in logical and understandable victories or defeats. In Combat Mission the IA is limited and easily defeatable, but in this game it looks like he has a full and treacherous knowledge and analysis of each unvisible computerized factor before attempting anything, so its results are previsible and systematically in its favor. But if you are all saying the truth about your victories, there must be explanations about all that, I would be grateful to listen. pfeyret@free.fr