Night

I used to buy French HQs and evac them with all of the french army - a couple to slow down the germans. Then use them just like another force. I don't remember if it worked though.... i'm gonna go try it out

There are a lot of problem's with the A.I. in this Campaign. After the fall of france, I launched a Sealion expecting to take massive losses and having to degrade the large Royal Navy. To my surprise, the Royal navy just sat around northern England, and barley dared to engage my very few cruisers and battleships, some of which start well below full strength! I landed all of souther England and even north of London and quickly captured the city, then simply drove on to Manchester. France was a harder fight and I didn't even have to cross the water! England fell and the game went on, soon the U.S. joined after Readiness shot up post-sealion. Spain joined me, and I figured I would eventually have to defend England and France while defeating Russia... Again I was surprised. Right now in my game, i'm about 2-3 turns from capturing Moscow, and any Russin resistence at this time is just futile, only a matter of time before all the cities are captured. With Italy, I was able to run rampid all over the med taking Iraq, Invading Turkey, Greece, Etc. But the real kicker is that I'm only fighting one major allied power... while there are two left. the U.S. is just sitting in it's country, with just over 3000 MPPs. I sent a sub from my sub screen orginaly set up to stop American Transports to see just what the hell was going on, I got close enough to be attacked by 2 American level 4 jets, then turned around, But from what I can gather, the American's have a very good number of techs in many different fields, 3000 MPPs, a country filled with troops, yet they are just sitting there gaining money!!! The game is so easy that it was barley fun after a while. The A.I simply could not grasp both defending England with the fleet, and Liberating England with the Americans.

The first and main problem with Using the U.S and Canada as MPP backup's for the lack of area in North Africa and other parts of the map is this: North America is much farther away and thus take's a longer time get to esp. from Italy, meaning that if you wish to conquer Carthage, you would not only have to invade Africa, you would have to invade North America, ethier that or forget about the extra and most important MPPs in America and not knock the country out of the game. You would need two divided forces in two different area's of the world, and that make's it non-historicaly hard for the aggresser, I.E. Rome, and easy for the defender. But one way I can see to solve this is possibly to say those extra MPPs in America were lost to the rampade looting and burning that ancient armies were acustom to in ancient warfare. I feel like I sound like i'm favoring not making these games. Do it, I would love to play, but i'm just argueing to possibly point out some fixable holes

A problem I think that is going to be hard to overcome is the map itself. There is far to much of Russia and far to little of North Africa. Charthage is done Zero Justice if it is made to be the force it really was when it fought the Romans. Also, I think any country that at the time was not so well orginized as Rome. (I.E Germany) Should have it's cities/mines/etc. reduced in MPP value to reflect the obvious difference in the world's most powerful country's economy and social system, and the disorginized, tribal warfare Germanic nation. I have many more thing's and idea's, but I have to go, i'll be back later, discuss

I could never get them to work on my window's XP

Making a scenario for periods past WWII, like the cold war, is very possible, but making one in ancient times is way more tricky... and I still think it would be quirky... but I would love to try it out. When you finish any of yours, please host them somewhere One big problem I see with a Roman version is this, the Roman's had a far more effective war machine in terms of tactic's used by thier Legion's and training etc. etc. While the Germanic hordes and such were not so well orginized, although they may have won in the end, it was a number of factors. The problem is how to represent this difference in NEW unit's purchased by Rome. While unit's the game starts with can have added experience to show this, new ones are just as good as an nmes. The only solution I could think of, is using research to boost thier effectivness, but there are many problems with this as well.

Most fan-made scenerio's I know of, including 1962, one of my favs, can be found here. Otto's SC Page

Guys guys! It seems every other day there is a new post about this type of topic! Why don't you just accept the fact that the SC editor/engine is just to static to change time periods and countries. While I would DIE to play any of the proposed wars/campains/etc. that you have thought up and I have thought of, It can't be done effectivly with this version of the game. You can't even change sides for the main countries in the game! Anything that comes close would still be quirky and be almost impossible to play with A.I. that's for sure. Keep in mind things in other wars did not follow the pattern of events SC has... for example, some minor countries in the game might have delcared war on other countries in that time period, but it won't happen in the game so it woun't make any sense.

Bombers def. are not up to par with what they were in real life WWII. The battle of britian is a prefect example, London was bombed to all hell and huge aerial battles took place, but in SC, you can only reduce the entrenchment of the UK corps on London at the cost of some bombers around the same historical time. There should be a way to bomb the cities no matter what is going on.

I like both ideas.

Since i have no idea how to work that pesky offical quote thing, I'll just use the good old fashion way... "For those historically inclined I would also make the audio events accessible through the main menu. So you could listen to any Radio News broadcast at your leisure without having to play the game."- Edwin THIS I like. You get my approval for sound, As i was reading the list above this paragraph, I was wondering where I could hear these things since they sound interesting. Then I read that. LoL good idea, reminds me of Civil War General's 2 with it's civil war Encyclo. etc.

It's not that it's a bad idea, but it's an uneeded one if you ask me. Some the thing's sound nice like the pictures of tanks and battleships, but music etc. i dont know about

Sounds absolutley amazing, reminds me of a game called Imperial Conquest II which was based in the exact same time period and area of the world as you discribed, with the same countries. The only downfall was the cut-short time limit, which made games where you were just about to win a war or make some big move and then get cut off really suck.

Agreed with Panzer

You should check out the-underdogs.org and look at the war games and strat. section. Some very good old war games that have different aspects of what you are talking about. This site has 1000s of free games to download, mostly older ones, but since many old games were simpler in the graphics department but had great gameplay, it is a lot like SC.

This is basicly the diplomatic opitions I proposed with some new entry's and basic system for implementing them. Good post, let's hope it comes to pass.

This is basicly the diplomatic opitions I proposed with some new entry's and basic system for implementing them. Good post, let's hope it comes to pass.

I like Edwins system up there

A very interesting idea, it was somewhat implamented in P.T.O II I believe, but in that game you had to compete with other officals for making policies. It may become to complicated for a basic game like SC. When you start talking about government selection and things like this, you start getting into more and more deep strategy's. Maybe not a bad thing, but could take the simple, fast, easyly playable factor away from SC. The beauty of the game is that there is a massive amount of strat., but it isn't to in-deepth that you have to spend hours thinking about choices and plan ahead for a long time to reach a small goal.

Sure that could work, and it's a great idea, but it only addressed the problems of the Allies attacking the Spanish etc. Does anyone really think it would have gone well in the democratic nations of the western allies if they declared war on Switz. and plundered it like you can do in the game? There has to be limit's and bennifits for countries depending on thier historical Government and political background. It's unfair to the axis in-game that the allies can just basically romp around the map and invade/plunder/expliot any country they please using their vastly stronger naval power at the start of the game to get them anywhere. By the end of the game, the western allies, and possibly some of Russia, could control every neutral country on the map and be simply unstopable, with Germany and Italy able to do very little besides attack neutrals on the mainland. It would be a different story historicaly of course if the allies had done such things, but it's crazy to even consider.

This has been a problem that LOONNGGG bothered me but it was simply so messed up I never bothered to say anything. This is one time where I honestly have no idea what Hubert was thinking, but how can a carrier attack a battleship from 100+ miles away, and sink? Even if every single plane was shot down, how could it sink. It makes not one bit of sense. There should be maybe a limit to the amount of damage they can receive back, for example if the carrier drops to below 5, they cannot attack anything, and have to port/repair for new aircraft. Or as you suggested add navel air to them like in Pacific General if anyone has ever played it, the carriers had hanger decks with squadrens completely seperate from the actual carrier other then if the carrier sinks, the hangers are gone.

Also, you could turn Allied Plunder on and off before the game, Like war in siberia or partisans. There are plenty of way's to solve this, or even leave it alone, you just have to think ;0) I personally don't like the idea of the Allies plundering without some kind of negitive effect, but the diplomacy in SC is to primative to do much. That is why I suggested the more advanaced diplomatic engine in my other thread, it opens the doors to a whole world of possiblities.

I played a game of it, pretty interesting at first but it seems very uneeded if you will. Since Italy is at war in the beginning it's not really Pre-War mobilization, and it looks more like Italy (and some others) just got trounced in a major war or something.

How about we just put in the options for both the Allies AND the Axis where after they conquer a country, they can choose to plunder it or not, Plunder obviously gives you the cash, where as not plundering saves some war readiness. Makes sense to me, If the U.S. heard stories of the German Army pillaging and destroying France, don't you think they would be more willing to go to war then if they heard the French were being treated well and life was continuing as normal? The problem with the war readiness option, and this happens in the current version of SC as well, is that after all the major powers enter, there is no penelty for invading anybody you want.

Ya know I used rockets in the last game I played... I had great success shooting them across the English Channel and taking out Chatham below London. I also used it to soften up a British HQ across the Channel and finish it off with my Air Fleets. Of course though, you do need atleast equal air power to your enemy, because the British Strat. Bombers tried many times to bomb my rockets, and ran into interseptors, usally leaving my rockets with 1 point damage, and taking some of thier own.