ev

Thanks John, So, if I want to have Daily Alternate Turns without altering production levels, I would need 14 day long daily alternate turns, which would add up to 13 turns per year... right? This in turn would reduce by half the number of summer months... Which in turn would greatly favor the defender... right? So if you want to have daily turns, maybe you should have seven day turns, and reduce production by half for every country... right?

...sorry for the typo above, there are 52 weeks in a year, divided by 2 = 26 turns...

On default, 1939 Fall Weiss campaign plays on Seasonal Alternate Turns. How many turns does a player have in one year? There are 56 weeks in the year, but the calendar advances each time any of the two players has a turn. So you are down to 26 turns. Then Fall and Spring move twice as fast as summer, and, winter moves four times as fast. Does that mean you only have 13 turns per year? If so, action points represent average distance covered by a unit during a 4 week lunar month? And production points represent average lunar month production? ...and the same for research?

I agree... The Axis player wins by capturing London and Moscow. The clock is the Axis player's worse enemy. The Allies overproduce the Axis by a long shot. Since half the year is either Winter or Mud, the Axis has roughly 15 months of spring and summer time to take London, Moscow, Paris, and, Warsaw... If you are not there by winter 42-43, you can kiss good bye. The Axis player cannot afford to play around with secondary diversions. Even North Africa is a questionable enterprise for the Axis. As I see it, the axis strategy is FOCUS, SMASH, FOCUS, SMASH. And, the allied strategy is DELAY, DELAY, OUTPRODUCE, OVERWHELM.

I find air force is too effective against infantry. From my readings, I gather WWII air raids were very effective against armor, artillery (Rockets), and, supply (HQ's), but much less effective against infantry. ...My guess the main problem regards the way research increases affect infantry attack. Apparently as your planes get better, all attack strengths increase. This is not realistic. A better fighter was not necessarily a better tactical bomber. I guess the same is true of Hard (armor) attack. The deadliest tank killers were older planes like the Stuka fitted with automatic cannons. ...development in Anti Tank weaponry had more to do with Hard Attack for airplanes than anything else. Ground attack values for Tactical Air Units should respond to different tech areas than "Advanced Aircraft"...

Attacking Norway takes away at leaast two units from France and England. Is it worth the risk? When I play Axis I pass on Denmark and Norway and put all may resources against France... and inmediately turn on England (Sea Lion late summer '40). I sacrifice everything, even some reseach, to maximize my chances of a successful Sea Lion. And a successful Sea Lion is an early Sea Lion. As time goes on, it becomes more and more dificult. ...if the Allied player opens another front, I ignore it, or send Italians to delay and tie more more Allied resources. But I keep the German Army and Air Force focused on the primary goal: London's Big Ben. I am reading von Manstein's Memoirs: Lost Victories. It is a great book. I recommend it to any one interested on this subject.

Russia reached huge military production some time during 1942. However, its military output was more modest prior to the German invasion. I would suggest that Rusia gets an automatic (free) research chit in prodution and/or an automatic (free) reseach chit in industrial tech, after Germany captures any three Russian Cities. Also I would allow Russia to invest an additional research chit on Production and Industrait Tech after DOW... But I would reduce by one chit the amount Russia can invest on Production and Industrial Tech prior to DOW. The idea is that military production should be boosted after DOW, not before DOW.

In order to defend France you need to achieve two things: First and foremost, keep the cities and ports. Second, knock out any HQ landing in continental Europe... so that land units run out of supply. Guard each city with a good, upgraded unit supported by an HQ. It may be good idea to fortify the hex where you keep your HQ. Also, provide air cover for your garrisons. If the allied player is free to bomb your garrisons, they won't survive the invasion turn. After you do that... have some armor, air units and paratroopers ready to counterattack landing HQ's. You must be ready to counterattack immediately. If any one city falls, you will be in a terrible spot.

About game balance for the Thrawn Mod: I have only played through early '41. I am playing as begginer, against the AI (it is the first time I play this scenario). I did not invade Denmark and Norway. Took over the low countries, Frnace, and invaded England as soon as possible. Taking over England was too easy, because the Allied AI is shipping all its units to North Africa. One of my subs actually sunk an army transport comming out of London for Africa on the turn before I attacked London. Meanwhile there was no army to defend Liverpool. One way to balance things out would be to stop Allied AI from attacking (DOW) Italy in '39. The resources England uses in North Africa would be better used in Engand and France. Furthermore, this allows the Italian Air Force to bomb French HQ's other units. Can we induce the Allied AI to defend key strategic locations: each city and port in England, Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria... The Allied AI should not go around attacking other places (e.g. Tobruk) until these critical locations are defended. On the other hand, I believe the "El Alamein" fortifications are excessive. They should not be full fledge fortresses like Tobruk and Maginot. As a matter of fact, I would consider instead of starting the game with pre-built fortresses at El Alamain, giving the allied player a Construction Unit to fortify El Alamain sometime after Italy joins the Axis. I would also eliminate the automatic appearance of the Africa Corps. If the German player wants to have an Africa Corps, they should buy it and ship it all the way to Africa. Another way to balance things out would be to reduce the starting strength of the units along the Rhine. Yet another way to balance things out would be to require the Axis player to invest in diplomacy to bring Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria on board. Finally, Russia DOWed on me after I attacked London. Russia was not ready to fight me at all. DOWing me did nothing to help England. The Russian lost several units. I gained experience and took three Russian cities before end of '40... And, as an added bonus, Spain joined the Axis, which allowed me to take an undefended Gibraltar. Can you script minimum buildups before a declartion of war?

...mhm, let me answer my own question. I took over England, ports are at level 4 and I cannot ship any unit out of England. Is there anything I can do to bring my ports to level 5? Why are these ports stuck at level 4?

I have played this mod through summer 1940. I really like it, though it makes me wish I had a better computer. At first I was concerned about high unit cost, but I have come to see the wisdom of it. I also like the fact that so many units start at reduced strength. I wonder if it would be possible to have all units built at reduced strength ...and have the player chose between taking time to beef them up, or throwing into combat at reduced strength. On the negative side, I think the Allied AI is too quick to DOW Italy. It works to Axis advantage. I am also concerned about how long it takes for an engineer unit to fortify a tile. If tiles are smaller, it should take less time to fortify. I am trying to make a fortified line from Konigsberg to Warsaw and down to the frontier with Hungary. It seems it will take forever. (I want to fortify Poland to cover my back while I SeaLion England.) Regarding the Italian Navy, I do not agree with the decission to reduce its attack strength. The Italian high command was afraid of losing their fleet... for good reasons: they had a huge coast to guard, and they did not have the industrial capacity to replace any loss. Those issues are adequately represented in the game already. During 1939-40 all my italian production is sucked up by my Tobruk units (1HQ, 2 air, 1 armor, 1 army, 3 corps). I still need another HQ and my second armored unit if I ever want to go in the offense. I have not been able to spend any money on research. I know I could not possibly recover from any losses in my fleet, so clearly I have to play it carefully.... Finally, I read elsewhere in this site that English ports will never reach level 5 if captured by Axis units. Is that so?

...interesting. I just conquered France and was studying how to invade England. It is good to know Sea Lion will work. How did you do it?

Leave London undefendend and you may find German Paratroopers sightseeing the Big Ben.

Historically, encircled units kept on fighting for long periods of time during WWII... We hear of the big encirclements and the huge numbers of prisoners taken by the German forces in 1941, but we forget it reducing these pockets took a lot of manpower, effort, and, often hard fighting. ...look at Stalingrad, Bastogne, etc. I have issues though with "operating units" adjacent to enemy units. Units should not be allowed to operate out of combat. A unit adjacent to an enemy unit should not be allowed to "operate". Likewise units should not be allowed to operate into areas in enemy ZOC. Same should apply to reinforcements... Reinforcements should not be allowed into tiles adjacent to enemy units. And, cut off cities should not be allowed to receive reinforcements... much like overseas cities. I also believe that motorized and armored units should be made faster viz a viz foot soldiers. Level 1 Armored and Level 2 motorized infantry should treble the speed of foot (non motorized) infantry. Of course, this can be achieved by a combination of slowing infantry and speeding up armored and motorized units. Increasing the speed diferential between motorized viz a viz foot units would make it much easier for mechanized units to pocket foot infantry formations.

Downloaded this MOD and played a couple of turns. It looks great. Love the map. Love the scale. I have a couple of questions. First, the German Rocket Launcher in Poland 1939. I have read extensively about WWII and don't recall rocket launchers being used in either Poland '39 or France '40. Probably they existed, probably they were tried, but in such large numbers as to justify a division size unit of rocket launchers? Second, I wish artillery/rocket research would lead to increased combat strength in division/corps/army size units. That seems to me a more realistic way of representing what actually happenned in WWII. Only the Russians operated division size artillery units. I understand the lartest artillery units in the Western European armies were battaliion size,and, by and far they were integrated into corps and divisions represented by the game units. ...could we have an artillery modifier for infantry and tank units (along with anti tank, infantry weapons, heavy tanks, and, motorization)? A third note... I remain a bit concern about unit costs. But I have not played enough...

In order to have real hit and run tactics you need the sub to move away after they hit their target. Subs could be made weaker, but, given the ability to retreat in a random direction after surviving and engagement (whether hitting a convoy, or, attacking or defending an enemy unit. ...just a random retreat after each combat or convoy raid so as to make it harder to find.

...awesome. Just downloaded patch 1.05a. Looking forward to it.

Playing the Axis, I found the AI does not adequately protect the cost of England. I have tried this strategy a couple of times: I send my U boats to attack the British convoy routes in the Atlantic. England send its fleets to seek my U-Boats and leaves its coast unguarded. As soon as Poland is toast, I immediately ship one or two corps to do amph landings in east England. I usually manage to take at least one, maybe both of the northern British cities. These two corps just hang in there while I take Denmark, Norway, Benelux, and France. After the fall of France the invasion of England is a peace of cake... since I already have a bridgehead. Now, this seems like bad AI to me. Allied AI should give top priority to setting up a naval screen of the British coast... particularly the Eastern Coast. Allied AI should sacrifice the Canadian and African convoy routes, giving top priority to the homeland. Of course, the other side of the coin is that my U-Boats fair misserably in their convoy raids because they have the entire Royal Navy behind them... This should not happen. The bulk of the British Navy should be patroling the British coast.

It would be nice is wood tiles and cities made it harder to spot enemy troops located inside the wood tile or enemy city. Perhaps it could make it more difficult to know the exact strength of the unit located inside the wood tile or the city tile... Any thoughts.

...oops, I meant to say "any thoughts on making Russia a third (independent) player from the Allies".

Any thoughts on making Russia a third (independent) player from the Axis. Russia and the Western Allies had a common enemy, but, things could have played differently... Russia and Germany would always have a hot frontier, any unbalance in the garrison of the frontier could trigger a war. But, perhapps Germany could have focused more on its war against England, while Russia took on the rest of Finland, Iraq, Iran, Turkey... I think a three way game (Axis, Western Allies, Russia) or even a four way game (Axis, Western Allies, Russia, Turkey) would be much more interesting...

Ah, yes. And also Production Technology is "all inclusive" instead of industry specific... ...which makes me wonder. Maybe Production Technology should be specific of a type of weapon. Say we have three or four production technologies: * One production tech for ships; * One production tech for airplanes; * One production tech for land units; And, maybe, just maybe, * One production tech for "operational movement". If we have several such techs, then each tech could reduce costs and increase production speed for units within their section of the economy. ...but the effects of higher tech levels could be different in each area. A higher sea production tech may have a larger effect on construction speed while a lesser effect on cost. On the other hand, air and land production techs could could affect mostly the cost of purchasing units.

I do not like the frozen units idea either. Once I played a game in which they implemented the following rule for Russia: Russia had to certain garrisons near each city and near the border. If the garrison requirement was not met, a random throw of the dice would be used to determine which units were rellocated to meet the garrison requirements. In the above game, the garrison locations were not hex or tile specific. For example, a garrison requirement could be to require that each tile along the border with the Axis nations is covered by Russian Zones of Control. The Russian player would be free to try different ways of meeting this requirement. But Russia must effectively patrol the border.

Should we allow Russian units to entrench while Russia is still neutral? The armies of neutral countries don't normally dig extensive trenchlines, destroying the farms of their local population, and putting their soldiers to sleep in mudfilled ratholes.