SeaMonkey

Sorry guys, I just can't logically come up with an explanation how Copenhagen port should give Axis 10 supply to an HQ landed in southern Sweden. Likewise with Gibraltar supplying north Africa. So tell me, am I being obstinate, or is this truly a stretch of abstraction? Someone please convince me with a reasonable argument.

Hey..I'm OK with ambiguity, after all it is a strategic abstracted game. In fact I prefer to be in constant pioneering mode making discoveries as I dwell within the idiosyncracies of SC. Keeps things interesting. :cool: I do know players that take the manual as the finality of its written word and they are sometimes unhappy with the supposed disconnect from gameplay. You know...like arguing over the meaning of the written rules of our long forsaken boardgames, requiring the errata sheets. Never you mind Bill, I think you did a great job, I just feel sometimes the need to share some of the discoveries that may have been taken literally. Hmmmm Could that be one of the secrets....to a life fulfilling......sharing?

And another rationalization for thought, usually the Germans receive approx. 4200 MPPs(conservative conquest) for use pre-early Barbarossa (may41). I usually use 2200 of those for unit purchases. So .05(per PT level) X 2200 = 110, cost 100. Obviously later down the road there is a much better return, but May 41 is the break even point. PT....high priority research...perhaps, perhaps not.

I just tested it Bill and Terif is right, PT only reduces the cost of the initial purchase and not in the field replacements/reinforcements/upgrades. By the way has anyone noticed that you can get supply in NA from Gibraltar port, ie. across water, a direct contradiction to last sentence, 2nd paragraph, page 30? Already notified HC.

Interesting Terif as the manual leads one to surmise differently. 1st paragraph on pg25 under PT Research; "In general, advances in any of the above research areas(referring to the R&D section) result in cumulative production and reinforcement cost increases ....................... Thus to offset these(plural) additional costs(plural), developing PT will not only improve a country's IC but also the efficient use of raw materials." HC....is this one of those hidden agendas?

A perfect example at how SC game mechanics compel the players to perform somewhat to actual historical occurrences. I'd call that a game based on historical WW2 characteristics. Sure you can deviate, but there will be a penalty, possibly a reward if your opponent fails to act appropriately. Biggest Allied player mistake is to make an early landing in the vicinity of >5 Axis supply region. Same goes for the Axis overextending themselves in a likewise supplied Allied area, although in USSR, Axis has no alternative in the depth of the country. Remember that fact you Red Army practitioners! Come on Retri, what other prime directive has anywhere the preeminence of importance then for the Allied navies to protect the convoys from the "Arsenal of Democracy"? You fail to pay attention to this task, you likely open the door for disaster. In the words of Terif, "quite historical as well".

Page 19, reinforcements are based on the current cost of the unit. Page 25, Each level of PT reduces unit cost by 5%. It seems the conclusion is yes, although there is not a specific referral.

Great game and AAR guys, thanks for sharing.

Pointer on "Order Now" button!

Reporting......Vostro 1700 running Vista ready for download. Didn't I say it would be October.

I can understand a need to capture a possible "what if" for the French, after all they were a supposedly major power. Thing is if you do this, then there will be all sorts of ramifications to the game's balance. You will need different victory conditions and a variable USSR entry that possibly could allow them to be Axis. The main thing is avoid a WW1 stagnant fiasco and retain the blitzkrieg effect with more emphasis on the naval aspects/Med region. There is an editor and there are some conditions involved in Fall Weiss that can make the French tougher, but you have to gamble. Still, it doesn't matter, the Parisians are French Toast.

A numbered supply overlay for land units when they are selected.

Got to agree Liam, lack of an aggressive attitude is a sure recipe for disaster. As Terif has pointed out countless times, reiterated by Timskorn, you've got to feel when its time to fold and when its time to hold. Good recon helps out too. Hmmm, that reminds me of a song.

Damn it Liam, you gambled in Africa and then squandered the RN. That spells "gameover" against Terif.

More like A+, but a new class is starting soon.

Better watch out JJR, these French might be getting their teeth back with the likes of Nicolas S. at the reigns.

Damn it Man! Does this mean my laptop is of lesser quality than WaW? It arrived first! Probably.

I prefer to think of Terif's nickname as "Yoda loss" = Yodl. Alfred Yodl only wishes he had as good a grasp of strategy as Terif.

You know I would be in favor of a feature of this nature as long as the units are caught outside a city/village or fortification. I think you could argue that there maybe some case for them to hold out in forest and mountains for say an additional turn also.

You've got to be especially satisfied with your play after losing the Island. A round of applause for Tigerskorn!

Bon Voyage DD and we'll see you in Oct.

IR, just make sure USA gets a foothold on the continent, then you can place the air units as they come out of the Q. Like Lisbon, Casablanca, Tangiers, or Brest, just need >= 5 supply.

So that's 360 MPPs for USA at level 5. Couple that with PT 5 and you have a base unit purchase effectiveness of 480 MPPs per turn vs Germany's max of 247.

This would be an excellent time to comment on the "combat cycle". A good strategy starting with emphasis placed on producing all the ground units available, corps first, armies second priority. Best as the Germans seek to conquer the continent as units are rebuilt in the queue as soon as they're available. IT and PT assisted the rebuilt units start to cycle always being available every turn for positioning without ops MPP expenditure. As the game gets into the later stages this cycle can provide you great flexibility either on the offensive or defensive. Just remember to plan your conquests with the appropriate nation for placing future rebuilds, usually Germans for Axis. Try to preserve some armies for maximizing elite reinforcements, letting the recycled corps take up the extended postions, initial assaults. Teched/experienced TGs represent a good killing machine for this later on also as you assault critical fortified entrenchments. Since they are high priority targets indiscriminate use should be avoided. Those high experience units(not necessarily max strength) don't take many losses and this is what its all about, MPP efficiency.

I don't know Liam, I think there are some pitfalls for Axis early that are usually gamebreakers, like not getting Poland before 40. Then again the Axis can screw up and not take LC in one turn, allowing Allied intervention, although this is not a gamebreaker. Same goes for Denmark and Norway attacks that don't result in first turn surrenders. An attempted Sealion when the Allies are ready can also derail a game's longevity. Agreed a good Axis player will not allow these scenarios to unfold, I guess that is what you mean. To me anyway, it seems the conservative approach for either side ends in a game like Rambo and Timskorn are currently enjoying. The conservative strategy seems to dictate the momentum of the game causing the more aggressive player to be dependent on tech luck and not running afoul of a grave mistake. Of course the conservative is subject to not reacting properly to the aggressive player's actions which could also be a trap. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics change the strategies for WaW. I'm kind of expecting them to be very similar, but perhaps with greater variation to tech and force mix among others.