ev

This may be gamey, but I think it would backfire on the Allies. I would guess the Germans get the Danish Corps (worth 125 MPP), right?. Plus they get a few extra turns of Danish production without having to delay the attack on France. Personally, I feel it is very important to attack France early. When playing Axis, I attack the Low Countries as early as possible after the fall of Poland. At Expert +0 this usually means the fourth or fifth turn of the game. I normally attack Denmark after I finish off France. If the allies does this move on me on the 3rd or 4th turn of the game, I benefit from many turns worth of Danish production, while still attacking Belgium and France early on in the game.

The Axis can take the Low Countries in one week, with minimal losses, and get a lot of plunder. From a purely tactical position, the Allies are in a much stronger possition if the take over Belgium. When playing Axis, I take Belgium before 1939 is over. ...sometimes as early as the 4th turn. When do you propose to take Belgium? Can you do it in the first 3 turns of the game?

A review on my prior strategy for attacking Belgium: A got much better result if attacking Belgium on Game Turn five (just wait one additional turn) and as follows: Ride you two Tank Groups back from Poland on turns three and four. (each of them must have at least 8 strength points). In turns 3-4 also Fly to the Belgian Frontier and Reinforce your Air Fleets. Buy Manstein (in the Belgian frontier) in turn 3 with the plunder from Poland. In turn five, attack Belgium with 2 tank groups and 2 corps. By pass the Dutch Corps and go straight for the capital. Attack with both Tank Groups through through the none river hexes. (One of the tank groups can squeeze into the hex south of the capital city. Finish off the city garisson with your airfleets. Its just amazing how much punch Manstein adds to the attack. I tried this 3 times and always cleared the city after the first or secon air attack. Finally take the city with one of your corps and move a second corps to the Ardeness Forest to cover your flank. Christmas in Belgium feels really nice. You get a nice plunder (which I use to buy Rommel). You get a city and a port (better than Denmark). And you get a great launching pad for your French Operation. By then your infantry corps from poland should be arriving to help you guard any open spot in the line. You don't need to operate anything, and you push your timetable forward quite a few weeks. There is a section here on the Dutch Gambit. That may be the best strategy to counter this move. See you all over there.

I find industrial tech to be key. With IT at L5, an L0 Army costs 125 and an L0 Tank Group costs 175. Which means you can build only Tank Groups and use them to cover your front line. Then you use your mobility to exploit gabs in the enemy line, instead of trying to break through. My second choice in tech is Jet Engines. Tanks and Long Range are sort of tied for 3rd place depending on my game strategy. Usually I research Anti Tank with only one of my mayor powers. If playing the allies, I may research anti tank for the US but not for the Brits or vice versa. Then use the larger infantry units to take cities or to fight in countries with a lot of mountains (like Greece). I avoid using infantry to hold positions out in the open. I will anchor my infantry lines in the marshes, woods, or cities, or behind rivers. Out in the open plains I will use tanks whenever possible. I want my Ind Tech to be a couple of points higher than Tank Tech so Tanks are cheap enough...

You don't need to operate everything. Just enough to take the Low Countries in one week while the rest of the soldiers march along. I am still play testing this, but I would operate: 2 Armies. HQ Rundstet. 1 Tank Group if both of them are still deep in Poland. Probably I also operate HQ Bock. Planes can fly on their own. But, you absolutely need all of them. If you take Poland in two weeks, and then operate these units in the third week, You have a very good chance of taking the low countries in the fourth week. This is how I do it: I bypass the corps in Holland and go straight for the Belgian Capital. Attack first with my best Infantry Army. Second attack with second Infantry army accross the river. Third thru Fifth attacks with Airfleets. All attacking units must start the turn next to my best HQ to insure maximum readiness (you have to plan this carefully in advance). Finally use the Tank Group to occupy the cleared capital city. You should move a corps to cover your left (southern) flank. There is a chance that Brussels won't fall. It is risky If Brussels falls in this turn, you are really cooking... And, any way, what is the risk? What allied units are there available to do anything December 1939? The French must guard the Maginot. Else you blow it. And the French must guard Paris, else they are history. The Brits don't have any land units. Bottom line, the field is all yours even if Brussels holds for an extra turn. ...now, let's say Brussels fell. Your second Tank Group should be arriving into the Ruhr area in this turn. The tough question here is what to operate and what to save to buy an additional HQ in your 5th turn with the plunder from the Low Countries. On the sixth turn, the door to France is wide open. Go for it. Last night I tried waiting just a bit more before attacking the Low Countries. Two more turns were enough to buy Manstein and to bring a couple of Infantry Armies. It worked like clock. France fell in May. If you don't want to take the Brussels gamble, this is the way to go. But, even in this waterdown version of my strategy I operate some I. Armies. They are just to slow. Try operating some units to push forward your timetable. ...and let me know. As far as the total investment made in operating the units forward. Think of how much you will save in Reinforcements. I like this strategy because you are fighting a much smaller French Army. Which means you end up taking much smaller losses. Plus you have a couple of extra turns worth of French production.

My take: timetable is the key. You must attack France before it is ready. You have to attack before they have enough front line units to make a full front. In my most recent games, when playing Axis I am moving from Poland straight to France. Forget about Denmark and Norway. I operate my Infantry Armies and Reinforce them while the tanks ride all the way to Belgium. I attack the low countries in December 1939, before the French have time to build up. Usually I take the low countries in one week. In the January turn I am already moving into northern France, which simply don't have enough units to cover the whole front. According to my time table, by the third turn of 1940 the Germans should reach the outskirts of Paris, triggering Italy into the war. A human player could prevent this by retreating the units from the Maginot to defend Paris. But the AI won't retreat fast enough. If I were delayed in Poland, I would operate all my units to the Belgian Frontier and attack without reinforcing my armies. The time table is just too important. If you attack early, you can outflank the French Army since they won't have enough units to cover the whole front. This is will save you time and unit losses. A quick victory in France is vital. In turn this will payback in time and money for research. There is nothing better than having a couple of tech levels in your belt when Russia enters the war.

Most often I attack Poland first. If you work on it you can beat Poland in 2 - 3 weeks and operate immediately to Belgium. Forget Denmark and Norway. I operate my Infantry Armies and Reinforce them while the tanks ride all the way to Belgium. I attack the low countries in December 1939, before the French have time to build up. Usually I take the low countries in one week. In the January turn I am already moving into northern France, which simply don't have enough units to cover the whole front. According to my time table, by the third turn of 1940 the Germans should reach the outskirts of Paris, triggering Italy into the war. A human player could prevent this by retreating the units from the Maginot to defend Paris. But the AI won't retreat fast enough. At this point, it takes only a couple more turns to first surround and then take over Paris. ...surround it first, since it hurts every other city and unit in the Map. I am sure that attacking France first will work. But I played the above at Expert +0. Tried it already a couple of times, always with the same success (against the AI).

I have only played against the AI so far, but in my experience the timetable is the most important thing for the Axis player. In my most recent games, when playing Axis I am moving from Poland straight to France. Forget about Denmark and Norway. I operate my Infantry Armies and Reinforce them while the tanks ride all the way to Belgium. I attack the low countries in December 1939, before the French have time to build up. Usually I take the low countries in one week. In the January turn I am already moving into northern France, which simply don't have enough units to cover the whole front. According to my time table, by the third turn of 1940 the Germans should reach the outskirts of Paris, triggering Italy into the war. A human player could prevent this by retreating the units from the Maginot to defend Paris. But the AI won't retreat fast enough. It takes one or two turns further to fully surround Paris. Meanwhile, I use my German Corps to pocket the unsupplied Maginot Armies, which I never attack. I take France with minimal losses. But the timetable is key. Must attack France on the December, or earlier. After taking France, I take Denmark, and Norway. I don't know whether it is worth it to attack Sweden, since it triggers Russia into war. I never attack Greece. It is not worth upsetting the Russians or the US over it. The resources that I would use in Sweeden or Greece are much better put to use in Egypt, where I don't provoke the Russians. In fact, sometimes I wonder if I should pass on Norway... to keep Russia in the safe side. But, it is so easy to take Noway in one turn (only need 3 airplanes in Denmark, 1 army, 1 corps) Don't know what I would do as an Allied player against such strategy. I may prepare a Campaign to try this out. Napoleon used to say that when facing two armies you must attack the strongest one first. The 1939 campaign is set up in such a way that it is most tempting to attack Poland first. After knocking the Poles, the strongest army left in the field is the French. It should be the top priority for the Germans. Deviating from this priority is very dangerous.

I agree with both of you, dougmangin and urgrue. Sharing cannot be made too easy, nor too certain. Your suggestions seem to me like a very good way of handling this problem.

There is an entry in Rommels Diary (or what was saved of it) dating back to the days in North Africa; it went something like "we are fighting two wars, a war of men and a war of machines, and whomever wins the war of machines will win the whole of it." Well, the words may be off. But by 1944 Germany had lost the war of machines. It no longer had the planes, tanks, and even the trucks to win the war. Germany had superb soldiers. Most of them realized by 1944 that the war was lost.

When is the earliest you would attack Rusia?

Perhaps you could limit tech sharing to one level below current tech. Say Brits have Jet 5, they may share Jet 4 with U.S., but not their latest discovery. And perhaps, they could share Jet 3 with the Russians. If we are going to allow tech sharing, I don't see why we cannot allow some limited tech sharing between Axis. It did not happen historically. Does that mean it could not have happened? The Axis never attacked Sweeden, or Spain. The Allies never attacked Portugal. And there were very important political reasons for that. Same with tech sharing. But the purpose of games is to play with the "what ifs". I would be all for sharing tech below your most advance tech levels, sort off like giving (or selling) your old tanks and planes to an ally, but keeping the best ones for your own men.

The best improvment for SC2 I think !!</font>

Playing either Axis or Allies I find myself concentratig all tech in two areas: IT and Jets. Because I concentrate all my IT in two areas I advance very quickly in those two areas. If I were to spread my chips evenly amongst all 10 areas, I would probably feel tech advances are too slow. I don't think the problem is in the speed at which tech advances. The question we should ask is why are we so tempted to concentrate all our research in only one or two areas. Many areas of research just don't pay off. Is this the way we want the game to work? Or is this something we want to change? If it paid off to invest in all ten areas, and we were spreading our tech chips all around, many of us would be looking at 1945 with only tech levels 3 and 4 and wondering when are we getting that level 5.

Wow. This is thinking outside the box in a big way. I really like your idea. The Polish fronier was very long and difficult to protect. Germany would have needed many troops to guard this frontier. It would have been political suicide to attack France while living only a couple of units to protect two or three big cities in east Germany and Prussia. Relations with Poland were already very tense, and the Poles were much more mobilized than the French. If you are going to model this scenario, you should leave 4-5 corps and 2-3 armies to guard the Polish Frontier. Are there enough units left to do the job in France? I don't know. I am tempted to try it.

You bring many interesting and valid points above, but I would like to expand on this one point I highlited. When playing the Germans, the risk of Russia attacking me in 1940-42 is a mayor element in my mind. Set up Russia to Neutral, and, the Germans will wipe out all of Western Europe at Expert +2 no problem. Still, you bring a valid point. I just wish to propose a different solution. Many years ago I played a board game (telling you many years ago) published by SSP (not SSI) called War in Europe. In that game, Russian Production could not be boosted to full capacity until Germany occuppied at least 3 Russian Cities. Perhapps we could borrow something from that game. All Russian cities could produce at half strength (5 MPPs) until one, two or three cities are occupied by the German Player. From there on, Russian would produce at full capacity until the Germans are defeated. How does this sound to you?

I could not agree more with this statement. I think we should try to improve the research engine. Hardwiring is almost the same as eliminating it as a factor in the game. Or at least as a factor you can "play" with, which is the purpose of any game. I would suggest that research should be subject to a rule of diminishing returns. Something like this: The first research chip will increase the chance of discovery by 10% (as it stands now). But the second research chip will increase the chance of discovery by only 8%. And, the second research chip will only increase the chance of discovery by 6%. And so forth. A Player investing 5 chips in 5 different areas will have a 50% chance of getting some advanced in some area per turn. But a player that concentrates all 5 chips in one area, will only have a 10+8+6+4+2 = 30% chance of getting some tech improvement. This will greatly induce players to spread their research chips around different areas of research instead of concentrating all of them in IT. Some tweaking may be appropriate regarding the effects of higher tech levels. I agree with the comments above that better tanks should be more effective against infantry. Perhapps better infantry should be able to defend better from air attacks. And, the range of rockets could increase even further so they can be more usefull. And so forth. My guess is that the areas that need the most tweaking are the areas no one is ever researching. And those are the areas we are most likely to forget. Does anyone out there research AA Radar? Bombers? Rockets? Sonar? Gun Laying? I have the feeling most people concentrate their research in IT and Jet Engines, followed by Range, Tanks and Infantry. Everything else is researched only after you reach levels 4 and 5 in the priority list. From a game perspective we are left with three choices: Choice A: make it less rewarding to concentrate all research chips in one area. Choice B: make the "unwanted" research areas more appealing. Choice C: a combination of a and b.

I am troubled by the lack of control we have over which units are asigned to each HQ. Sometimes it gets pretty messy. Specially if you have multiple HQs near each other. You never know which units will be assigned to which HQ next turn. (...which will make a difference if the ratings of each HQ are very different.) I wish we could give HQ's at least some priorities regarding which units within its range will be commanded by that HQ. Also, I don't understand why do we need to limmit to 5 units the number of units controlled by an HQ. Since an HQ has an effective radius of 5 hexes, It seems at first glance, that we should allow a single HQ to control a larger number of units ...large enough to effectively defend the radius of 5 hexes in each direction supported by that HQ.

I think superior HQ's are better for representing superior tactics. (Perhaps add an additional high quality German HQ? Someone suggested that elsewhere, but you would need to balance this out with something on the French side.) On the other hand, I would conceed that German infantry was far better equipped than French or Russian Infantry from the start of the game. French anti tank weapons were not only poor, they were not operational due to lack of adequate maintance of both guns and ammo. Perhapps French Infantry should start the game at strength 8 to represent the poor status of their equipment. But, then you would have to figure out how to balance the cards... I guess we could reduce the strength of the French Armies to 8, add a French HQ and half a French Tank Group, and. for the Germans add Von Kluge. Does that make sense to you? If we do that,I have the feeling the Germans must attack France in December 1939. If they wait until 1940 the French will have enough troops to prevent any maneuvering. And it would become a very painfull campaign of attrition, which the Axis cannot afford. Any way, I will try it and let you know.

...some more ideas on "evading attack" and on Rouge's comment on SS. I was thinking about my prior idea on partisans evading attack. A large partisan army should be harder to hide than a smaller unit. Hence, I would make it easier for the partisan unit to evade as it losses strength in combat. Perhapps something like this: At strength 5: 0% chance of evading attack At strength 4: 10% chance of evading attack At strength 3: 20% chance of evading attack At strength 2: 30% chance of evading attack At strength 1: 40% chance of evading attack. Also, I would probably make it harder to evade attack if there are other attacker units adjacent to hex. So a strength 2 partisan surrounded by 3 enemy units would not have a chance to evade, but a strength 1 partisan surrounded by 3 enemy units would still have a 10% chance of evading attack. As per this and prior comments, I believe partisans should be a special kind of unit, not just an understrength corps. Likewise, it would make sense to allow the Axis to build specialized security units (as per Rouge's suggestion) However, in terms of actual game strategy, I think many players would prefere to use Italian, Hungarian, Rumanian, or Bulgarian troops for security, and keep German MPPs for the front line troops where they can put to good use the superior HQ's and Tech Levels.

You bring some interesting points here. Partisans should be able to avoid a fight. ...sort of like a submarine diving from attack. Perhaps there should be a random chance of a partisan hiding from attack. This would make partisans harder to eliminate. Another way of making partisans more effective is to make them harder to find. I believe someone else made that point here. The game could perhaps mimic the submarine scheme, where units must come much closer to see them (ground units 1 hex, air units 3 hexes, ...or something like that). Another idea: Partisans should be able to see 3 hexes away. Partisans were often good at gathering information ...passing as local civilians or gathering rumors from the local population. Seeing farther away would simulate their information gathering capabilities and would make it easier for them to avoid enemy units.

You are right. I just did not think about this before, but you are quite right. Still, I think something should be done to make radar more useful. As you said before, right now it is just not worth it to invest in it. What about my idea of radar helping Sea Units? Is it realistic for WWII era? How would you implement it?

Buy it. It is one of my favorite games ever.

I would really like a larger map. I have given many suggestions elsewhere. But the one thing I would like most is a Gobal Map. Failing that, at least I would like the following modifications to the map: 1. Sweeden and Norway to link so you could move land units from one country to the other. 2. A larger deeper Russia. 3. The Canary Islands (Spain) or the Azores (Portugal) as ports to supply an Axis Fleet in the Atlantic. 4. A larger U.S. and a larger Canada. ...thanks for the great game you already gave us ...look forward to any future development.