ev

Tech sharing sounds good, particularly if tied together with espionage. For example: Germany may share tank tech with Italy, but, then the risk of Allied espionage stealing this tech should increase.

Hexes allow three straight axis of movement versus two straight axis of movement allowed by squares (excepting diagonals). Hexes also allow three different axis along which you can run your front line. Squares only allow for two such axis (NS and EW). We are so used to thinking along North-South and East-West that we don't realize hexes provide three instead of only two axis. I have read comments in this site indicating that Hexes limit the size of the map. If we need hexes to have a larger map, then be it - it is probably worth the try. However, memory and computer power keeps going up every day... I wish we would be able to keep hexes in a larger map.

...or you can look at it the other way: with hexes you have straight lines around three axis. These axis are not perpendicular to each other. They are at 60 degrees from each other. Hexes in fact provide six full contact movement options, versus only for for squares. We get 8 movement points with squares only because we are allowing for this diagonal moves and combat. ...and, I also feel uncomfortable about diagonal combat.

...as the map becomes larger, I have the feeling we will need more HQ's. In SC1 I was never short of HQ's. Sometimes I was short of MPP's to buy HQ's - but that is a different story all together. But in a larger map, things may play differently...

We need some winter representation. First, we need the Russian Winter. Entire armies were decimated because of the Russian Winter. This is no minute tactical micromanagement issue. I would require any player operating within Russia, Finland, northern Sweeden and northern Norway to spend MPPs to prepare his or her units for winter, else suffer serious decimation. ...yes, even the Russians - remember what happened to the Russian army when they attacked Finland in the Winter without the adequate preparations. Second, I would not allow amphibous landings in the North Atlantic during the Winter. Finally, it would also be nice to include certain movement and combat pennalties for operations in Western Europe and in Russia during winter time.

I doubt Stalin was sitting in Moscow december 1941 thinking "Hm let's create a hq to defend our capitol, let luck decide who is gonna lead it." </font>

...I also have a Mac, and I would love to have a Mac version.

That political aspect for international marketing is exactly what keeps the game from offering Nazi flag icons and specialized Waffen-SS unit names and such. That's easy enough to understand. In fairness, players can edit the bitmap flags and give their units historical names if they want. The other issue is whether these "elite" units should be different than regulars. I've tried to point out that unit customization based on different tech levels will now be possible, since unit upgrades will now cost extra MPPs and will not be automatic. So yes, you can now create an elite pool of forces with better abilities than the rest of your force, but you'll pay extra for these. Also, elite reinforcements will be offered in SC2. These will be based on unit experience, where 1-5 points of experience will allow for 1-5 additional strength points. So if you take your most experienced units and give them the latest and greatest tech upgrades and elite reinforcements and rename them to be SS or Guards or whatever, you can have your elites. But they won't be special unit types with any special abilities beyond what is already offered. And the game defaults won't violate those political aspects. </font>

Thank you for the info. It is very interesting to note that the Italians did not have the necessary logistis. Perhaps it would be more realistic to lower the HQ's range so the HQ would suffer more as it moved farther away from the supply base. ...I suspect the Finns faced simmilar circumstances. I would allow finland to have a Finnish HQ with a good rating but with little supply range so it would not advance into Russia. This would allow Finns to better defend from Rusia while limmiting their effectiveness inside Russian Territory. ...I also wonder if France, Rumania, Hungary, and even some neutral countries (Spain, Greece, Turkey, and Sweeden) should have HQ's with limited supply ranges. In the case of France you could have more expensive Foreign Legion HQ's and cheaper Home Only HQ's.

...will tanks have special movement and combat qualities. I would like to see tanks advance or retreat after combat. ...and, maybe engage in multiple combats. Tanks should not be infantry on steroids. They should be different. Armored vehicles (not just tanks) made the battlefron more fluid, not just because they were stronger, but because they could keep moving. ...and, by the way, I also would like to see a Macintosh plataform.

I very much like you idea. Of course, the challenge is to implement this idea in a simple and elegant way ...just like so many other things in this game. It is important to keep it simple; first for the sake of the AI, and also so the player can remain focussed in the grand strategic focus of the game.

I believe strategic bombers should have a longer range, while perhaps air fleets should start with a shorter range. The range gap between bombers and airfleets should be wider. Strategic bombers should start with a range of 7 or 8. Airfleets should start with a range of 4. :cool: A shorter range for Airfleets would make it harder for Airfleets to intercept bombers, since the airfleets would have to be closer to the target. Meanwhile a longer range for the bomber would give it more targets to chose from, hence, being able to avoid interceptors. A shorter range for the Airfleets would make Airfleets less viable as a substitute to bomb cities and resources. A shorter range for airfleets would make it a bit more difficult to concentrate such huge number of airfleets in a single target. This is a double edge sword since it may lead to stalemates, but, sometimes it seems odd how many airfleets you can bring from all over the place to attack a single land unit. A longer range bomber would add value to bombers for recon ...the more so if airfleets have a shorter range. A longer range bomber could be based a bit further back. Right now, any british bomber that wants to bomb a german city must be based within range of German Airfleets accross the channel. Likewise, German Bombers intended to bomb London must be based within range of Brit Airfleets accross the channel. At least, we should be able to base bombers beyond Airfleet range (LR Tech equal on both sides). Bombers should have sufficient range to reach enemy cities while based beyond enemy Airfleet range. :mad: When I play Axis I force the Allied AI to base Bombers so far back that they cannot attack anything, even if they wanted to. Even after the Allied reaches air superiority, the bombers remain sitting ducks. When an airfleet attacks a bomber, the MPP loss will be substantially worse for the bomber defender. Hence Brit bombers become worthless until Brits pretty much destroy all German Aifleets in northern France. This is excessive. A longer range would allow bombers to attack cities accross the channel from safe bases behind enemy airfleet range. I believe this proposal is historically accurate insofar as the preasure to develop Long Range aircraft was always on the escort side of the equation. ...right now that is not the case. In my games, Bombers are based one or two hexes behind Airfleets, in order to keep them away from the enemy Airfleets. Hence, in practice, Airfleets reach any city that can be reached by a Bomber. :confused: Finally, perhapps Airfleets should have an even shorter range when engaged in strategic bombing (of citires, ports and resources). This would make Airfleets very poor substitutes for bombers. And is probably realistic since a light tactical bomber would probably face tighter range limitations when ladden with very heavy bombs (though I admitt I am only guessing here ). ...in any event ...tweeking with the relative ranges of Bombers and Airfleets may help to balance the relative value between these units... :mad:

I agree Canada should be able to produce ...at least ground units. However, I am troubled by the idea of having a Candian research pool. How many research pools can you allow for the Allies? for the Axis? Suppose Canda shares on Brit tech ...can you use Canadian MPPs to buy Brit tech? ...Likewise, can you use Candian MPPs to buy expesnive Brit units (eg, Battleships or Cariers). And once you start allowing Brits and Canadians to share MPPs and research, ...well you might as well have them use the same pool altogether. Perhapps the solution is to allow Commonwealth units to be placed in Candian cities and under Canadian uniform. This units could survive a Brit surrender, but would have to be initially placed in Canada and transported or operated (at a the regular cost) to the European Front.

That's right. Germany Imported large amounts of Iron Ore from Sweeden (I think it was Iron, or maybe it was some other mineral). Sweedish ports froze in winter, and, during the winter the stuff was transported by train to Norwegian ports for export. By taking Norway, the Brits could denny winter ports for Sweedish Ore. Apparently the Brits were unable to convince the Sweeds to boycott Germany. The Sweeds had no other place to sell their ore since Germany controlled the Baltic Sea. Probably they were also afraid to provoke the Germans since there was little chance that the Allies could help them unless the Allies took Norway first. I vaguely remember that Norway dennied German Transports access to their winter ports. But, in any event, Germany needed air bases in Norway to protect its transports from the British Navy.

Perhaps we could allow two corps to join into an Army ...and, likewise to allow an Army to split into two corps.

Is the game really that tilted? I just finished a game playing Allied against the AI at the default Begginer +0. I finished the Axis off by the Spring of 1942. I have played the Axis several times, and never managed to defeat the Allied AI that quickly. Several of the points you mention are worthwhile looking at. But, some of them cut both ways (against or in favor of either side depending on yous strategy.) And, there are also other points that hurt the axis, like the way subs work out (see elsewhere on this site for more on this). I agree there is room for imporvements, but I don't see this game as being particularly unbalanced in favor of the Axis. ...then again, I may change my mind as I gain more experience and when I finally get to play real people.

One way to approach the concens above is by giving the Axis a premium for quickly taking over a country. ...say the Axis can blitzkrieg Poland in two weeks or France by April 1940 ... I would propose this quick victory lowers Russian and US readiness. Alternatively, or in addition to, a quick victory could allow for a somewhat higher plunder - someone suggested this elsewhere.

I agree time should be a production factor. But I think time has more to do with trainniing soldiers... and, not so much with manufacturing weapons.

Perhaps Industrial Tech is not the most appropriate name... I imagine U.S. Industry was much more advanced than Soviet Industry. Most Soviet Tanks did not have radios because the Soviets, which built so many tanks, could not make enough radios for those tanks. Having said that, probably the Soviets went a lot further at putting all their industrial capability behind the war effort. A late as 1944 Americans could still buy in their stores such ammenities as cigarettes and stockings. British people had a much harder time getting those items, and, my humble guess is that from cooking pans, to dresses, all consmer goods most have been extremely scarce in during the war in Russia. I have no idea what Hubert and Co. were thinking when they devised the I.T. research cathegory. Personally, I think about it as how much of an effort you put to mobilize your industry for war.

I feel much the same way you feel. I addition to all you said, the AI is available whenever you want. ...got home from the gym, feel like playing five or six extra turns -who is there? just the AI. I always end up playing the AI and one of the things I like most about this game is that it has a good AI.

I agree with everything you just said. I normally finish Poland off in two turns. And attack Belgium in turn 4 or 5. I used to operate my units from Poland on turn 4. But playing at Expert level I do not have enough money to buy HQ Manstein and operate my units, all in turn 3. So I buy Manstein in turn 3, and have my tanks arriving at the Belgian frontier by turn 4. I attack Belgium in turn 5 and finish it off in only one turn. If I have the money to buy HQ Manstein and operate enough units, I will attack Belgium in turn 4, ...no doubt. As I have said elsewhere, timetable is key. You must attack the French before they build a large enough army to hold you.

I strongly agree AA should help units defend from air raids. Having said that, I am concern about making defense lines impregnable. I would have AA improing units defense from air, but I would also make heavier tanks more lethal against infantry. And, I think the above is realistic. Improved high velocity guns such as the German 88mm were used efectively against tanks and airplanes. But, likewise, improved tanks were the nemesis of the older antitank guns (33mm, 50mm, and even 75mm with older ammo) since their rounds would bounce off the heavier tanks.

It seems ZOC has some effect on movement since sometimes it keeps me from entering hexes I am not that far away from. ...but, let's have a word from the designers here.

Absolutely. The Dutch Gambit is worth it if it saves France. If you you can save France this way, try it. But it does not pay off just to extend France's agony for a couple more weeks. If I go for the French Gambit, I would probably have France occupy the capital city, so I can build a French HQ, and put a strong defense up front anchored at the Belgian capital in the North, and the Maginot in the South. Cities give you good defense. And woods are good too. So you are left with only one week spot along the line. Build a French Tank Group as soon as possible to defend this spot. Also, be ready to spend a lot of money reinforcing your French Airfleet. The Luftwaffe will make your days miserable. As an Axis player I would bomb the hell out of your French HQ. Give experience to my Air Fleets, with little loss in exchange,and cause some pretty expensive damage to the French. The British should try bombing something, whatever, to inflict casualties in the Luftwaffe, and take some preasure of the French airforce.

Yes, absolutely right. But, what if you take France before the Soviets take the Baltic states. Against AI at Expert +0 I consistenty take France before Soviets take the Baltic States. I have heard other people in this site do this at more difficult levels. At this point, would you consider taking the Baltic States? Note this means immediate war with Russia since Russia is already around 70% ready to go to war... So you plunder the Baltic states and keep going for Leningrad. You could even have German subs and fleet ready to attack the Russian Navy or an Army ready to land near Lenningrad when Russia enters the war. Add good air support and plenty of luck and you could make a quick go for Leningrad that could be very interesting.