Bullwinkle

I disagree. It seems that the U.S. is always ahead in that department. At least that's what I observe playing the AI.

I agree with most of your assessments. My changes: Montgomery should be a 6 while Alexander should be a 7. I'd keep Manstein at 9. What about Guderian? I'd make him an 8.

I just "winged it" with what I could remember of his detailed procedure to crush the Germans at the start of the game. I am using v1.06 with Expert, +0 settings. Despite forgetting to move or reinforce the Poles twice, I was able to defeat Germany in early 1941 and Italy in December of '41. Russia came in but wasn't used. Finland came in but was useless. No other minors appeared in the fray. A strategy like this sets the game on its head. I'll have to try it at a +1 setting to see what differences there are, but certainly even without Russia, the Axis are in deep trouble.

BOTH!!!

Sorry. The final date has been etched into the programming, which Hubert says is very difficult to change.

I get whomped no matter how easy I make the settings, playing Axis in the Overlord scenario. Just wondering if anyone has tried to win this and how successful they've been.

I play the AI exclusively and I can tell you that it will not invade Britain even if its completely vacant! I do this all the time when playing Allies with no concern for Sea Lion.

Sometimes as Allies I like to take Norway & Sweden. This means that the German fleet in the Baltic will be neutralized, giving free range to the Russian ships when they come in. Plus the income from Sweden is worth it IMO and it's harder for the Germans to take/hold on to Denmark.

Good point, the U.S. would be limited at first to a war at sea. But it wouldn't have prevented us from declaring war.

Historically speaking, I believe the U.S. would have come in, but not Russia. Russia & the U.S. were far from friends - there was resentment in the U.S.S.R. left over from the Russian Revolution when the U.S. backed the White Russians. This is not to say that the Soviets would not have attacked Germany - remember when Barbarossa began 3.5 million Germans attacked 4.5 million Russians stationed on the border - hardly a normal border garrison. It is widely believed that Russia would have attacked Germany when they were preoccupied in the West. Operation Yellow went too quickly and if Sealion was completed in short order as well, the Soviets would have probably held on to their non-aggression pact. The U.S. was isolationist to a fault but would have been persuaded to join the fight since Roosevelt was an Anglophile.

Well I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my anti-war views here and really glad to see that others can see through Dubya's B.S. that he keeps shoveling down the throats of the American people. There are so many aspects of this to discuss, I can't address them all. One of the salient features to me is the fact that Bush tries to keep this country in a constant state of fear in order to gain more control of it. Now, I'm going to state something that is very unpopular here but something inside of me knows that it is true. That is that Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen. I'm not the only one who really beieves this. There was a colnel in the army who did and he was immediately dismissed I know others who have always had that same feeling too. The reason for letting 9/11 go is in concert with his bent on attacking Iraq. He wants total control of this country and dictators all over the world do it by fear. Now we have levels of terror alerts to keep us in line. He's cracked down on our human rights and put a Nazi-clone like Ashcroft in charge. The guy reminds me of Heydrich, in fact. Now I know that these are my views and they may not be popular but I believe them with all my heart. My gut knows them to be true and I always trust my gut instinct. It saved my life in 'Nam. Jersey, I know how painful it must have been to see the smoke from the towers. But there is no connection between bin Laden and Hussein. They are different types of terrorists. bin Laden's the guy you're after (although Bush doesn't talk about him anymore because Saddam's an easier target). I'm not on Saddam's side in this, of course. But I believe that if Saddam & Bush had been raised in each other's countries and rose to the posts they have now, that the world would be in the exact same situation it is now. They are cut from the same cloth IMO. I could go on all day, but I've said enough.

Not to make this a political discussion here, but you guys are way off base. I was one of the peace marchers locally. This warmonger you call a president (he's not MY president) has had his sights set on Saddam since he was selected (not elected) in the 2000 election. He's obsessed with Iraq because of the oil and because his daddy is really running the show - and Saddam did try to assassinate him. Sure Saddam is a SOB. No one doubts that, but so are several of the leaders of this world - most notably N. Korea - and we're not going after them, are we? Furthermore, what is our exit plan? They had a meeting in London of the 15 different factions in Iraq a few months ago to try and iron out what kind of coalition government they could create when Saddam goes. Know what happened? They ended up fighting amongst each other so badly that 3 of them walked out of the talks! Can you imagine the chaos that will result after we get rid of Saddam? It will cost us billions each day we stay there and we'll be there for years. A recent poll in Britain showed that most people viewed the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace. They are right. I've fought in 'Nam and I will never again wish any kind of war upon anyone - American or Iraqi - and certainly not to satisfy the goals of an a$$hole like Bush.

Jersey, speaking of computer games, one of my favorites is Carriers At War by SSG. The computer always plays a challenging game. It's still on my hard drive after all these years. Which segueys into my favorite AH game of all time - Midway (as long as you can trust the other guy not to cheat). I haven't played the newer version mainly because I no longer have a live opponent (my wife absolutely refuses and my 3 year old keeps knocking down the screen when I play against him) so I don't know if it's better than the older version I loved so much.

Yes Jersey, 1914 was that bomb that you were thinking of. I don't know about you guys, but back in the early 60's we were DESPERATE for the next AH release. It didn't matter what it was, as soon as it hit the stores we'd buy it. Back then they would put out about 2 games a year so they had a very hungry audience - at least we in Buffalo were back in our high school days. Yes, some were clunkers but they did produce some classics as well. When SPI came along, AH was doomed. I had a lifetime subscription to SPI and so now have tons of magazines containing tons of games. My favorite? The Plot To Assassinate Hitler!!!

No, I haven't tried that one, but I've been wargaming since Tactics II came out in 1958. I've seen some horrendous games since that time which make CMBB thrilling! So I know what you mean...e.g. AH's 1914...don't get me started!!!

Interesting that you should write. I bought CMBB for only 1 reason - because I loved SC so much that I wanted to support Battlefront! Actually I hate CMBB - I am not a tactical person and I couldn't even get through the tutorials. This game is BORING. Compared to the price tag of CMBB, SC was such a steal that I felt that I owed Battlefront more money so I wasted it on CMBB. True story.

Steve, don't bother with the Expert settings. Instead set the computer to a +2. I guarranty you that it will be more agressive.

I had tried the CMBO demo when it came out and wan't impressed - I'm not a tactician. I was looking forward to CMBB simply because I've been studying the Eastern Front for over 40 years now. However before CMBB came out I discovered Strategic Command. A wonderful strategic game for only $25!!!! I couldn't believe it! What a steal! I've played it over 30 times and I can still find variants in it. So now I've purchased CMBB - I stink at it - I even lost the tutorial battles - simply because I want to support Battlefront products. It is well worth the money even if CMBB grows cobwebs in my PC, which it certainly will. Perhaps I should have tried the Arnhem game.

It is generally agreed upon that the Mediterranian is a waste of time for all concerned. I play solely against the computer and this is the strategy I use. Take out - in this order - Poland, Denmark, Low Countries, France. At this point I don't try to take the UK - it is difficult and I don't want my resources eaten up by the British before the Russians attack. So I head east and get ready to take out Yugoslavia. Meanwhile I have my Italians take out the British fleets in the Med and then create 5 corps & an HQ to attack Iraq when the time is right and then come up the Caucauses to get the Russian oil fields from the rear. By the time Russia attacks, I have ~2-4,000 MPPs - enough to deal with Russia and enough to hold off the Allies in France until Russia is finished. My current settings are Expert +1, only scorched earth and free french on.

Welcome to the club. War in Siberia simulates an attack by Japan on the USSR in which the Russians would have to post troops on the Manchurian border. So if you enable War In Siberia, you would handicap the Russians. In reality they kept forces there until late 1941 when their spy in Tokyo (Sorberg(sp)) told Stalin that Japan had no intentions against the Soviet Union. Stalin finally believed someone and brought those forces back just in time to save Moscow. As for the custom scenarios, read through the history of postings here and you will find several.

Welcome to the club. War in Siberia simulates an attack by Japan on the USSR in which the Russians would have to post troops on the Manchurian border. So if you enable War In Siberia, you would handicap the Russians. In reality they kept forces there until late 1941 when their spy in Tokyo (Sorberg(sp)) told Stalin that Japan had no intentions against the Soviet Union. Stalin finally believed someone and brought those forces back just in time to save Moscow. As for the custom scenarios, read through the history of postings here and you will find several.

I was befuddled/amazed at the AI in 2 recent games. I play AI only because 1. I don't have the time for 1-on-1 and 2. I don't know how 1-on-1 play even works. I've never played anyone any game over the internet and would be lost in doing so. Anyway, to my point. I'm using v1.06 with settings Beginner and +1. I was playing the Axis (FOW, FF, Scorched Earth on). In my first game I took Poland, the low countries, Denmark, & France rather rapidly, so I saved the game at that point. Russia came in late and the US even later. While moping up Russia, the US/UK attempted D-Day but to no avail. I simply covered all available landing hexes with Italian corps and that was that. Their air power scattered itself over various targets and so was ineffective. It wasn't much different in Russia, where I was able to go into the Balkans with a few corps and take the oil reserves. Even in situations where the Russian unit only had to move 1 hex to retake a mine or oil field, it stayed in place. OK, so on my second game I started where I had saved the first - right after the fall of France. This time Russia & the US came in much earlier. But what surprised me was the change in their tactics! The Russians heavily defended the Balkans and always retook available mines & oil fields when they were vacated. When D-Day occurred, the Allied air power focused on those units inhibiting invasion and so were able to get several units ashore. This never happened the first time. I won the second game too, but how & why did the AI behave differently? I really don't believe that it actually learned, but I have no other explanation for the change in play. Any ideas???

I know this is off topic, I was just wondering, having read your moniker. I live in Western New York. P.S. for those of you who use this word incorrectly, let me point out that the singluar of 'corps' is 'corps', not 'corp'.

There have been many reports of a mutual truce during Christmas even on the Eastern Front. And that's saying something! If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. Shanti

lol! that's funny. Actually he was a Persian God whose cult moved to Rome. His birthday was Dec. 25th. There were so many in the cult that the Romans created their own Saturnalia celebration around that date. Much later on the Christians moved in and used that date for their own purposes. Believe me, Jesus was not born on 12/25. Scientists think it was in April.