daringly

I enjoy beating on the computer in solitaire mode. When you win, it is very anti-climactic. When you beat solo mode, can you give a game "score"? And a log of other scores (like Civ4)? Difficulty, xp and timing would all affect your final score.

I admit, the British had some of the worst naval air in WWII. If we want to keep carriers at their current effectiveness, perhaps decrease their cost?

If you love WWII strategic games, there is an amazing board game: GMT Games' World at War. It is a descendant of Avalon Hill's "Third Reich". I consider it the single best game ever made. There are a lot of similarites between SC2 and AWAW. If I could ever find a good computer version of AWAW, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Very close. Any unit that is eligible for elite reinforcements - so if a strength 11 unit could be reinforced to 12, it would get a gold background as well.

I mis-typed. Battleships and CRUISERS should be vulnerable to carrier attacks. Carriers should be more vulnerable to Battleships and CRUISERS. If this can be implemented, I think naval battles will take on a much more interesting dynamic - right now, there is only a small advantage for being "first to engage". One other thought: Why not let carriers attack from a distance (and not show where they attack came from, if under FoW).

Historically, many more bombers aborted their missions than were shot down. Defensive air cover was therefore good to protect your own troops. Offensive air was much less effective, until you gained air superiority/dominance. In this game, defensive air cover does very little to help your ground troops - too little actually. From my limited experience with SC2, defensive air is useful only for attritioniong the other side in air exchanges, and that is only of marginal value if they are winning the exchanges. I don't mean to sound negative in all my suggestions - I love this game (and its entire genre). I just want this game to be better.

Would I would really like is a way to know whether a unit is eligible for reinforcement. If it is 11, only display an "E" if it can be taken to 12.

If I quit the game and reload, it speeds up to normal.

In the real war, carriers were devestating against capital ships as long as they had initiative. In SC2, carriers are ineffective in fleet combat (except against submarines). While fighters are much cheaper to replace than battleships, the cost of repairing each does not reflect this. Why not decrease the defense of battleships/carriers to air, and decrease carrier defense to battleships/carriers? This would make them much more interesting.

If an air fleet intercepts another air group, there is one combat before the attacking fleet does its mission. If the attacker loses 1-2 factors, it still does a majority of the damage it would normally do. Why don't interceptors also disrupt the attacking mission? Many bombers abort that weren't actually killed. A different way to handle it: For every 2 factors of interceptors, 1 factor aborts after combat. So if a 10-factor bomber attacked a target, was intercepted by a 10-factor air fleet, and the bombers lost 1 factor, only 4 of the surviving bomber factors would attack the target (with the other 5 aborting due to the interception). With the current system, there is little incentive to intercept - especially when the German air is so much more effective due to advanced aircraft and HQ.

If a unit is eligible for elite reinforcement, could some icon be put on the unit? Right now, you have to manually check each unit that might be eligible.

I play on a top-line PC. After about 90 minutes, the interface starts to slow down - perhaps a 1.5 second delay between when you right-click, and when a window opens up. When I first start playing, right-click instantly opens things up.

I have many fond memories of A3R as well. It was AMAZING how easily you could quickly lose a game. The research rules were a lot of fun also ("Nukes? How did you get nukes in 43?!?")

Rambo, I agree that the game favors the Axis, but if you have two "ace" playerts, Germany will lose 20% of its games. If you don't believe me, we'll play 25 games if you make the stakes worth my time.

Take a look at US War readiness immediately after UK declares war on Portugal. Plus, Germany doesn't have to reinforce the corps there. Sure, they get some experience, but not maxed.

Those of you who play the axis, and don't just build air fleets and corps... Will find that subs are devestating, if you are going after England first. If you get 3 subs near canada (after France falls), England is losing 40 per turn. With 4-5 subs, you can kill almost anything Britain sends out there (if she must watch her coast for an invasion). The kicker though, is once London falls and you are fighting to get to Manchester, the subs buy you a LONG time to finish your task, as the US can only reinforce air safely.

"From my experience, it only takes 3 air fleets to kill a corps"... One of the first things you learn as the Russian is to keep your troops entrenched. If you look 2 turns ahead, you can pretty well guess which points in the line you will be attacked. When a branch of your line is indefensible, you fall back, entrench again. Sogard... I have been mostly playing the Axis in PBEM/hotseat games, because of the consensus that the axis win 80% of the time. While it is certainly true that the axis are easier to play, it is not the "air fleet swamping" strategy that is decisive. Rather, it is the fluctuations in tech. I'm 6-0 so far as the allies (though I may soon lose a couple to Bob Weeks and Niklaus). But in all games, the deciding factor is not the air, but the tech advances. If Germany gets industrial tech fast, they win. If they do not get any, they lose. If they get 1-2 points by 1942, it is a good game. In my game with Niklaus, it is mid 1942. He has 18 air fleets with level 4 jets, and +3 long range. The difficulty is not the steady grind in Russia, but the allies' inability to do ANYTHING against those air fleets when trying to invade.

I've played quite a few PBEM games, and can truly say that airpower is not too strong. In games where Germany has 15 air fleets, it can kill 3 corp a turn, which Russia can easily replace. There are Axis strategies much more effective than using all after-research money on air fleets. My only frustration with airpower is that it operates more like artillery. It is offensive, but universally agreed to be a waste of time on defense.

I've played real opponents, and they're (usually) much better than the computer. What things do you all find that work better against humans? For me... As axis 1. Build 6 air fleets before attacking France 2. Ignore moscow. Hit hard and fast to the southern resources, which hurts Russia more, and won't give them Siberians (a painful lesson I am learning from Bob) 3. When attacking Russia, build lots of HQs, or your attack will fizzle out. You need to build them 2 turns before you need them. As Allies... 1. Play conservative with England! This means never letting your fleets get hit by German air, unless you are being invaded 2. Don't let your air fleest intercept. Even with an HQ and 100% supply, you'll lose 2-3 times as much as the German air, which is experienced with good HQ backup. 3. Don't buy more than one research point with England until you are SURE Germany has turned west. Also, don't rebuild damaged fleets/air, until England is safe. You need the money to build corps, if Germany invades 4. The english SAC bomber has visibility of 6, versus 5 for German fighters. If you move it slowly, you can watch the German ground forces, and give you a turn's warning for invasions (if you see a lot of ground units near ports) 5. If the Germans invade you, destroy HQ first. If no HQs land, Germany will take too long to conquer England. America and Russia will join the war, and it will be a short game. 6. As Russia, try to have a line of corps. You WILL have gaps against a good player, which is ok. Leave gaps in swamps/forests (which are harder to race through), or gaps furthest from a city. 7. As Russia, don't engage any air fights until your air fleets have "batting practice" against the Finns. Every 2 points of experience will reduce your casualties by 1 for EVERY ENGAGEMENT later against the Germans. 8. As Russia, look for a "concentration" of air/armor. Wherever Germany has its biggest units, try to build 1-2 corps "backfield". You need to build hole-stoppers a turn before you need them if you are not close to a city. 9. Ignore the med. It is useless. Don't move any forces though, until Italy declares war. This will keep Italy from entering the war until France is about to fall. What other things have you all learned from ugly wars?

Once you get the real version, you'll... Learn the computer's quirks. In 10 games, you should be able to win on normal settings as either axis or allies. And when you can do that, you are ready for the REAL game - PBEM/TCP-IP opponents. All the beautiful tricks you did against the computer somehow... fail. Or things you do not expect your opponent do backfire amazingly, giving you opportunities to try things you hadn't even thought of. Human opposition is where the beauty of this game truly lies. Once you have a good idea how the game works, play hot-seat with a friend, or PBEM with all default features, plus fog of war (you really should play a few campaigns to conclusion with FOW so you understand how it changes the game before committing the time to play an human). Despite the claims that "the game is unbalanced", it is a good match for 90% of the people if the allied player is conservative and patient.

I've noticed that most PBEM opponents focus their attacks against Russia's south. As long as they don't get close to Moscow, the Siberian reinforcements never come - even if Russia is getting slaughtered while Panzer units race to the Urals. Would play balance be better served, if the Siberians transfer one year after war starts? (unless called in earlier due to Moscow being threatened) It's no wonder that axis players avoid Moscow until the rest of Russia is conquered.

Fortifications were mostly useless in the mobile WWII. They are of minor benefit in the game, and are well balanced. How many fortifications were actually built in WWII? And in hindsight, would any have been built? Fortifications might be a cute feature, but not necessary for this game.

If you want more beta testers, I volunteer

Try Tropico. You're a dictator of a banana republic. It's by another small vendor (though not quite as small as Battlefront), but the game is a blast... You must manage the economy, politics to insure your reelection... It is twisted.

I know it may sound obvious, but allow players the option to chat while playing.