Piumarcobaleno

Well, the Dutch gambit, along with the italian one, is a risky strategy: it just gives the allies a third option, besides all-out defence of france or long term defence of england.

If you like a China-USA setting, you can try People's General, a sequel of panzer general 2. I think it has been released as freeware, try a check at www.the-underdogs.org . OK it isn't a grand strategy, just a tactical strategy but maybe it's worth a look.

Eh eh, ok Shaka, you are discharged of spelling my name.. maybe italian words just don't fit you

Hank, the dutch gambit has 3 main purposes: first, it leaves the fatherland without the plunder from low countries; second, it may give the plunder to the allies (supposed it works); third, it would give the allies a wonderful defence line. I personally think that this gambit should be tried only against an AI axis, or a player that you believe not too strong; even with this boost, probably you'll have to commit british troops to the continent to let france defend properly, otherwise you deprived germany of some mpps at the cost of 10% intervention from US (let say US would enter 2 or 3 turns later, it makes 360 or 540 mpps, against the 200-300 you will gain from the gambit and the 16 of low countries' city and port (as long as you keep them). Doing so, you DECIDE that your stragegy will be france's survival, obviously you can switch strategy later, but i think that the loss of english troops (or mpps reinforcing raf and navy)would pave the way for the german sea lion. Too, the sea lion can be a boost to your game, if you can make it last 10 or so turns.. What's beautiful with this game is that the "early rush of RTS" you spoke before opens a big number of possible results, outcomes, counters and switches.. hope this helps.

Well, just like partisans can hinder axis supplies, maybe russian winter could make axis' readiness in russia drop: that way axis troops would not attack (low readiness, high losses), and russian troops could take the momentum, or even sit in and entrench. Maybe it could last 3 turns, during the first and the third it could strip say 30 readiness, and up to 50 in the second.. Or maybe divide russia in sectors, from west to east, and in these russian winter turns the most westward sector could have a -10 read. for axis'troops, and an increasing -10 par every sector going north-east.

Maybe someone has already done it, but i've created my '39 campaign, this time with Germany leaving Poland alone and trying an earlier push in France through Low Countries; every german unit(except a pair of corps on the eastern fronts) is on benelux border, ready to attack; i modified the initial techs levels, and the random entries of usa, urrs and italy to reflect the effect of the unexpected change of direction made by the german's general staff. Right now i'm thinking of an "unholy alliance" between urrs and germany (i know it's a gamey what if, but is this really bad?) early in the war.. By the way, to post here the file, i have to put it on my site and write here the link? Or what else have I to do? :confused: bye!

I don't want to disappoint you guys, but can't you catch the "propaganda" difference between saying "we won with the radar" and "we won sneaky hearing their orders" ? So please, just 'consider' the chance that allied have enjoyed better spying than the axis.. I'm not saying that radar was useless, just don't be so tied to "war winners report". I mean, if i win a war, i won't say "i killed war prisoners", instead i'll say "they killed war prisoners", not "we won with the luck of having discovered their secret comms code" but "we won because of our superior technology" and so on.. WWII is NOT the one we see on the tv (or we read in history books, maybe..). I try to take every info in account when speaking of history, just think of how a single man can "diverse" an happening with a personal point of view, and you'll see how WWII might have 'changed' with good post-war propaganda.. Just don't eat the "radar-concentration of force" pill and sit on their words...

Did anyone noticed that the war in the skies was won not with the radar, but with the decoding of the secret communication languages? UK and USA decripted both german and japanese secret comms system, thus obtaining the weapon needed to crush them (i speak of the battle for britain, and a couple of air blitz usa made against japan "secret" operations..).. War isn't only a matter of equipment, instead, a matter of infos...

Well, i begun playing SC just a few days ago, so i'll have to apply more to say something "good". Now, just reading your ideas (all very smart), i thought that maybe IT should not "discount" unit prices, but boost MPP production of sites (+10%max for every advance, maybe), so there will be the choice to bombard enemy resources, or leave them untouched, hoping to grasp them intact. And maybe there should be an option to build less technological units, obviously at a lower price.. Germany and Italy later in the war certainly didn't built their best infantry army, instead fielded low experienced and aged troops, and (mainly italy) the "tech level" of these troops was for sure inferior to the one they had in the beginning of the war (shortage of equipment.. some divisions in late '43 were equipped with paper shoes). Maybe, instead of increasing Tanks' attack vs. infantry, they should have a chance to greatly decrease their supply (this is the true Blitzkrieg idea, not to crush the enemy, but to rush to his supply routes faster than his retreat speed), and maybe a chance (10-20%) to capture any army or corp badly injured or with low supply\readiness.. anyway, this game is fun.. but i found that concentration of forces, if in Europe (not using Massive Air Fleets) is difficult, in Africa is impossible..