xwormwood

Bad translation of the third side of the review Decision events A further characteristic of the series shows a massive growth in Global Conflict: "yes-no" or "either-or" decisions, that are triggered at certain points (conquer a country, reaching a date), imitating historical decisions. SC grognards have long been familiar withthe question to the axis player after the capture of France: if he wants to install the Vichy government, or not (Vichy France collaborated with Nazi Germany, and remained for a long time without occupation troops and nominally independent). If yes, southern France will be closed for the German troops and the French colonies remain largely under the control of Vichy France and thus neutral. If no, you get southern France, ok, - but the Allied fleet has been increased considerably as well, and throughout the world you will suddenly find more hostile mini-nations: the french colonies. In addition to the decision events, there are also events without any real impact, the "historical flair" due. And "Vichy or not Vichy" is only a single event, there are dozens of them, for each of the major nations. But here too, Hubert Carter, together with his scenario designers, shot somewhat over the top, several events seem to wish to score with trivia WW" knowledge, while they haven't been that much relevant in World War II. Whether the German Reich (against MPP-payment) gets a submarine base in Southeast Asia by the Japanese, and with it a small U-boat fleet, or not, is more or less irrelevant to the course of events. But we're reaching fantasy (and this is not ment as a praise) when you, because of decision event, sent a german cruiser into the carabic sea to collect there an aircraft carrier in Port-au-France. And yet, we don't want to miss a lot of decision events because of the what-if concept: should the British move their convoy routes from the Mediterranean around Africa? Then they collect less MPP, but the convoy lines can't be disturbed by Italian U-boats any longer. As it is true for the strengthening gifts of the script system it is true for the decision events as well: you'll need one, two games to find your bearings. Many of them bring benefits, but cost some turns MPP, which you will lack bitterly elsewhere. It is the same as with the scripts: Fewer events would have been more. Addictive battle system Like nearly everything in Global Conflict, the battle system presents itself simple, sophisticated and effective. Always fight two "tokens" (Counter) against each other, sometimes even supported or protected by fighter plane, artillery, and anti-air. A counter has a strength level from 1 to 10, experienced units can be brought up to 15 by elite reinforcements. If this value decreases to value 0, the unit gets disbanded. However, if a land or air unit gets lost in a field that has a supply rate of at least 5, then you can purchase it back at half the price (compared to the price of a new unit). Before the attack, you see a reasonably accurate estimate of the fight result, which however, can change dramatically if, for example, an invisible -for you and the battle result calculation-, due to the fog of war) air force engages into the fight. And it is exactly the right amount of coincidence that can turn hopeless battles into a tight victory or a battle into defeat which was so seemingly secure. Fight results are calculated by the strenght values of the unite type, any upgrades by Research, the terrain, a possible river crossing, fortifications, the entrenchment level of the defender, supply and experience level, the morale and combat readiness of the participating organizations and the weather play a role. But all this is expressed in just two forecast values: your own losses and the losses of the enemy, in strength points. That is the simple beauty of the combat system! In naval battles you can lose in a single turn the collected MPP amount of a half year, sunken to the bottom of the sea. As you can restrength battered units faster (especially if you have the nescessary MPP in stock) ans cheaper than new units, which come at full price and their longer production time, the computer turn particulary features an up and down of emotions: "please-please-please, make only two points damage, then the unit remains alive, and I can bring them immediately back to 10". This works only if the tile in which the units is located has is also a good supply value. The overall supply is in the environment of cities (for which you struggles mainly) of course much larger than the middle of the jungle. HQs serve as mobile supply bases, without them even invasions of smaller islands are often futile. Headquarters, not able to attack, the lift fighting ability of their assigned (automatically or manualy) military units substantialy. The HQs wear the name famous WW2 generals, a "Rommel" or a "von Manstein" has a higher efficiency level than a "von Leeb". The German side has the most effective headquarters, and can even manage more troops than Russian HQs. Strategic Command WW2 Global Conflict forces you to constantly to weigh: "Should I attack this unit, and if so, will it survive the counterattack?", "Is it worthwhile to sacrifice one of your U-boats to finish off an ailing Allied carrier?". As with Civilization, there is always something to do, in our experience it is impossible to end the game directly after the computer has ended its (usualy several minutes long) turn. If it all, it is only possible to end the game AFTER you have played your own turn, BEFORE you click the "end turn" button. Complex rules, simple appearance We can not praise Global Conflict enough for finding simple solutions for complex situations, simple solutions that still carry all the essence of the complex situation. Example naval warfare: you don't have to manually arround the merchant Marine convoys, which wouldn't be too exciting. But it is exciting to use U-boats against the convoys and hunting the enemy on the U-boats. Therefor convoys are shown as lines that lead from an exit port to a destination port. Blaue Routen kennzeichnen Achsenkonvois, rote die der Alliierten. Blue routes marked convoys are Axis ones, the red marked lines are Allied ones. To attack a convoy, you have to move an U-boat near or onto such a convoy route. Only: your opponent gets to that, and will now, if he has any, sent destroyers there. A constant cat-and-mouse game, especially as submarines can submerge from attacks, the calculation for this dive is based on chance and your subtech research level. With a strong U-boats yo can weaken your enemy, and particularly England, quite a bit. Example recruitment: it takes between 3 (Corps) and 18 (aircraft carrier) turns (representing 6 up to 36 weeks) after a purchase order for of new unit to actually entering the game board - if you play with the construction delay, which we strongly recommend. But any give purchase order has to be paid immediately, so you better plan well, what and when you purchase. Those who play with soft build limits, which we also advise, are not limited by the given" historical "availability of troops. However, these troops are becoming more expensive, the more they exceed a specified maximum. Example weather: climatic conditions and the current weather conditions have always been influenced battles, campaigns and wars. Global Conflict divides the world map just into about two dozen weather zones, and roll out within them a weather fitting to the current weather of the season. Of course it's not snowing in summer, and in the desert there are sandstorms instead of thunderstorms. The weather can have massive consequences in rough seas, as unlucky fleets might take damage, aircrafts can't attack from a rain-or snow-tile, and can't attack into such tiles. Especially the "no-fly" from rain and snow fields out strongly reminiscent of the current limitations from the volcanic ash cloud wich plagues the airports and may appear to be strict - sometimes, on some front lines it is impossible to start air strikes for several game turns in a row. But in its simplicity, the system simulates the enormous influence of weather on the war very well. --- --- --- --- First picture (Egypt), text in the black box: Battle of Alexandria: German and Italians have to pass the "bottleneck" north of Qattara Depression, while in the Southwest also a sand storm has broken out (see the three half-covered German units). --- --- --- --- Second picture (Yamamoto), text in the black box: In addition to the decision events, there are also events without any real impact, the "historical flair" due. --- --- --- --- Third picture (sea battle), text in the black box In naval battles you can lose in a single turn the collected MPP amount of a half year. --- --- --- --- Fourth picture (properties), text in the black box This detailed view of the combat units you'll probably never use; thanks to the few troop types and the battle prognosis all fights are largely self-explanatory. --- --- --- --- fifth picture (properties), text in the black box Exciting battles between our first Guard tank units and the "Brandenburger" of the Germans

Bad translation of the second side of the review Global decisions Strategic Command 2 WW2 Global Conflict deals with World War II very abstract and purely on a military level, although the game offers here and there some historical pop-ups to ensure a certain historic "flair." It therefore excludes the war crimes of Nazi Germany, the Japanese empire and those of the other war participants, as well as the suffering of the civilian population - due to World War II more civilians than soldiers were killed. One may find this restriction on playing down the war as a "clean" strategy level, good or wrong, to abstract or simply just right. At least, the military starting position in Global Conflict in the 1939 scenario (which we regarded as the "true" one and therefor tested mainly) is tremendously exciting: At the start of the game the Axis powers are in the offensive, are equipped with more war material than the Allies, but even after many conquests they have still less economic power than the Allies. Their attack is therefore a war against time: Will they manage to defeat one or two of the principal Allied nations, before the U.S. can significantly interfere into the war? In order to prevail as the Allies, one needs a certain willingness to suffer and the patient confidence that everything will get better, someday. In the first two or three game years one allied nation after the other falls before the Axis onslaught, and the great saviors, the Soviet Union and the U.S., have not yet sufficiently high "readiness for war values" to intervene into the events (although the Allied player controls both of them). Even worse: both appear poor, as their the MPP-income is linked with their war-readiness level. But don't worry, everything will eventually work out. In some games Russia is nearly worn down when the allied landings in France finaly bring the long hoped-for relief. There were games in which the German troops had taken Moscow and Stalingrad, only to find themself in a position where they weren't able to make home in time for the defence of the Fatherland: it is only a stone throw from the Channel coast to Berlin, from the Ural back to the Rhine it is not. And while most of the combatants are able to move their capital, if necessary several times, Germany falls after the capture of Berlin. The earliest scenario starts in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Germany must win this campaign quickly, since France and Britain have acknowledged their alliance with Poland and mobilized against the Third Reich. As Germany, you have not much choices in the first hours of the game: Poland and France must be defeated quickly, and only after you have finished these campaigns more options for further actions will arise. After all, during the French campaign you can (or should) capture Norway, Denmark and Holland as well. If you were able to defeat France, the great challenge for the Axis Powers arises: to plan the invasion of England - a task at which even the Spaniards in the days of Elizabeth, the French under Napoleon, and in WW2 the German armed forces have failed. Or should you replay Hitler's african adventure, just like in history? Forcing the U-boat warfare against tha allied convoy-lines? Invading Russia as quickly as possible? Or try something crazy and take the oil fields of Persia & Iraq? Fetch -through a costly diplomatic initiative- either Turkey or Spain into the camp of the Axis powers? He who tries more than one or two of these options at the same time will sooner than later stand before the question: "what will run out first: the time or my MPP?" So far we have considered only the European perspective, as they existed in the previous games (except for Pacific Theater). But the most important new feature of Global Conflict is indeed to be able to replay the whole war - and meens that you also have to have Africa, India, the Pacific and China in sight. Which leeds us to your second great power, Japan, which, at the beginning of the game, has already started its (historically extremely brutal) war of aggression against the Chinese, gearing up simultaneously for the conquest of the Pacific Islands, and considers whether it would be better to conduct a preemptive strike against the United States or to wait until the US enter the war on their own. Ambitious axis players may even get the idea to venture with Japanese troops into the crown of the British empire: India! The secret: scripting But how processes Global Conflict all these opportunities and variables, the strategies and the effect relationships? Did Hubert Cater, who for many years, almost single-handedly designed and programmed the series, created a god-like AI? No, even though the AI is very sophisticated for a game AI. His real secret, however, are hundreds of scripts that, in conjunction with closely related rules, allow something like a meta-level simulation of the Second World War. For example, if the allies drags their single corps out of Syria, to help the hard-pressed Egypt front, sometimes the message "Turkey is watching with interest the weakness of Syria" will appear. Those who ignore these warnings should not be surprised if Turkey, a few months later, will lays claim to Syria. Other scripts determine the retreat in certain situations, others the behavior of AI if it advances into a specific country, others determine if a nation enters the war. Others amphibous landings. Other the expansion of fortifications through engineers. Diplomacy can bring countries to your side, but greater impact have your actions and scripts. Many scripts are associated with percentage probabilities, so that you can never be sure what the AI will really do. Even the entry of the parties (the United States and the Soviet Union remain neutral in the first years of the war) depends on scripts (and of course the behavior of the player). If the Germans behave largely after their victory over France occupying the border to the Soviet Union moderatly, the war entry of the state with the largest earth surface will be delayed. Time that the Axis can use in the West to advance in research, to recruit new combat units, to upgrade existing troops. But in general, the axis has nothing to gain by inaction, and the conquest of countries brings looting-MPP and a higher income, so it is usually fully occupied with smaller wars and many times even "forgets" the invasion of the Soviet Union. Bottom line: much of the charm of the SC game system results still from the firmly programmed pattern of behavior and its impacts. For most of the major powers exists a priority list for the transfer of the seat of government, should the capital fall, convoys will be redirected accordingly. The British government may well be found in Alexandria if Germany successfully launched "Operation Sea Lion" (which historically has failed because the Royal Air Force defeated the German air force over England). But the system of interlocked rules and many, many scripts (which, in particular for multiplayer tournaments, may be switched off separately) has also its weaknesses. The problem: supply scripts Throughout the series, the scripts have always been further improved, with Global Conflict we may have reached a point where it might get tough: Through scripts masses of units are put into play, which parties never, never could have build only with their ressources. The reason for this is clear: in particular, ships are so expensive and have such a long construction periods, that a massive fleet expansion couldn't be pressed into the game concept, which still has to cover the comparatively cheap and fast patterning of infantry or anti-aircraft as well. Build as Germany an aircraft carrier? Possibly, but time-consuming and expensive. Perhaps a decision event might help? So the parties are not forced to a historical behavior by means of replenishment scripts, but they get seduced quite strongly: Even without ever given the order to build a single U-boat fleet, the German side will own at least around the year 1941 a veritable submarine force, but the English will have been have given also every few rounds destroyer, the antithesis of the U-boats It looks like very similar in the Pacific: when you play your first game as the Japanese, you wonder how in anything in the world, due to your commitment in China, Thailand and Burma, you will ever be able to attack the Philippines and other historical goals of the empire. You'll receive the answer a few month before the historical date of those attacks in the form of numerous free (and scripted) armies and corps. The Japanese fleet will increase gradually in this way, and the Americans will receive free battleships, aircraft carriers and cruisers in such frequency and numbers at the West Coast ports, as if there were somewhere in the world just a naval sell-out. The beauty of these reinforcements is that it is possible to combine the charm of a "ressource shortage manage game" with the attrition warfare and mass battles of the Second World War. But the downside can't be denied: though these scripted, free units you are loosing the feeling that you are the one and only true ruler of your destiny. You'll be surprised from the first batch of these gifts, especially if you never looked into the thick PDF manual, where all of them are meticulously listed. The battle for Norway is another example of "Heavy scripting": If you do not know what will happen, the Germand side will think hard and very, very long about an invasion. For the shipping of troops is expensive (because you have to buy the landing boats extra ), the loss of time not to be ignored, and who knows what may be waiting over there in Norway? In fact, the "Operation Weseruebung" is not worth a weary smile: A landing unit, a paratrooper-corps and enough air support will finish off the understrengthed corps in Oslo, will be enough to take over Norway, and on top, as a reward, you will even get in each of the three other Norwegian cities a defense corps for free. The African campaign, if you want to fight it with German troops, depends in large parts on the knowledge of the relevant scripts, too. --- --- --- --- First picture (UK), text in the black box: "Alternatively, NATO symbols can be used for the gaming pieces. England is full of (mainly U.S.) troops which are preparing for the invasion. Western Europe seems only weakly defended - but that is probably because of the Fog of War. --- --- --- --- Second picture (3 world maps), text in the black box: "The map shows, from top to bottom: The units (without Fog of War), the convoy lines along with U-boats and, finally, the readiness for war. Nice to see: in the lower picture, those nation already at war with germany (tank icon) have a war readines of 100 against Japan, but Japan is still only at war with China (tank icon)." --- --- --- --- third picture (diplo screen), text in the black box: "Diplomacy can bring countries to your side, but your actions and scripts have a greater impact" --- --- --- --- fourth picture (purchase screen) text in the black box: "As Germany, should you build an aircraft carrier? It is possible, but time-consuming and expensive. Perhaps an event will help.?" --- --- --- --- fifth picture (on the bottom) text in the black box: Germany in trouble: While the Allies invaded in the west, and end of '43 is already running, and with still many landing troops at seas, the russians have stopped our advance long time ago (picture is glued together, best click in the middle)

I tried, with the help of google and another translation site, a translation on my own. if you want to read it, than i think it is somewhat better than the google text, but be advised that my english is far away from good or perfect, so, please, don't hit me for posting my miserable try: Bad translation of the first side of the review Graphics, which can cause eye cancer. AI-turns, in which you could easily play through a complete small causal game. And yet, those who open themselfes for the game, will fall under its spell, its fascination, feel how highly addictive the gameplay is, due to the long-term strategic decisions and your hard work to live through the constant shortages you will have to master on your way to victory. Top: part of the world map (end 1942), very strong downscaled.We created the original file out of 60 individual screenshots (without fog of war & weather), you can take a look hiere: 39 MB big, about 1600x4000). It is very hard to describe the fascination of the Strategic Command series, in which 2 player (or the AI) can play the Axis and the Allies in the second world war. But we will try it anyway: It is unlike the major competitors Hearts of Iron, which works with a myriad of provinces, where armies and fleets are only moved through arrows and are only more or less bare numbers, summarized as icons. SC give you tokens in the hand, just like the good old board games. Every gaming piece represents an army, a corps, a cruiser, a bomber fleet or another of the 20 types of troops (guerrillas and headquarters included). Each gaming piece has a strength of 1 to 15, and several more, but always still manageable skills. The rather crude map of the world is divided into tiles. But you can place only one unit on on a tile. Not even air and ground units fit into the same tile, an option, which already was possible in the old Panzer General. The general effect: your units are "touchable" for you, the overal situation on the battlefield is always clear - apart from the fog of war. Secondly, the gameplay requires a long-term planning: Even the mighty U.S. has too few resources, countries like England and China have to survive the war with an income which "feels" ridiculous low. In gameterms this revenue is the result of ressources and industry, called MPP ("military production points"), And Germany, even at the hight of its (brutaly stolen) power has only enough income per round to either buy a bomber, modernize its sub fleet, or to restrength its weakend units - but it will never be able to do all of it at once./ in one turn. Third, Strategic Command is strong in its concentration on the "what if" situations, but we will look into this later on. Strategic Command WW2 Global Conflict adds now a fourth, major innovation into the gameplay: you play truly on the whole world, which is divided in the Axisand Allied powers and neutrals, where many of the latter are forced in the course of the game on one of the two sides through diplomacy or conquest of the capital. Only six nations are included as major powers, each of them with their own research centers, all others, even the larger nations, are assigned to the above mentioned six fractions. So even while there are italian units and a mighty italian fleet, which enter the war historical correct somewhat later into the war, Italy, unlike in previous series parts, has no more own revenue, but belongs in every respect fully to the German Reich. Similarly, France has been awarded to England, although the Grande Nation, of course, is defended by French troops, which are temporarily eliminated from the game when Paris falls. Such details show that this game is about "the big picture", and not a meticulous simulation. The interesting thing: According to the tester's opinion Global Conflict, with all its abstractions and simplifications, simulates strategic thinking and interaction between the World War Nations better than its competitor Hearts of Iron, which too wants to simulate a variety of historical details, but looses itself to often in trivialities and micro-management. What if? What would happen in World War II if Japan hadn't attacked the U.S., but had intensified its effords to subjugate China instead? And what if Japan, after its fictitious victory over the Chinese, would have attacked the Soviet Union, forcing the russian to remove their full force from the German aggressors? The strength of the game principle is to allow such scenarios, and to let the player feel the historically probable consequences also. In the above described case the U.S. would enter the war even without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - but perhaps half or a full year later. Time enough for Nippons great power plans? But conquering China is difficult, the People's Army is entrenched and the map of china (at least the simplisticated game map) is often mountainous or desolate. Because of the games supply rules even strong forces with air support get stalled, and sometimes you struggled for years to conquer a single tile. And then the Soviet Union: Between Manchuria and Moscow are many mountains and inhospitable forests, and thousands of miles width. It is quite possible that an attack by the Japanese, who hardly ever will have advanced tanks, won't ever become a real threat to the Soviet Union, simply because of the endless distances in Russia. But above all, the U.S. will attack, so it wouldn' t be a bright idea to ignore the imperial fleet, or to use the tactical bomber and fighter squadrons far away from home. You can't change the steady escalation of the Second World War and the approximate historic fronts in Strategic Command, but you can change the timing, the who-when-where. If the Axis powers try sufficiently to influence Spain, or if the Allies provoke Spain too much with naval movements (or even with an attack on Portugal), it may very well happen that Spain decides to be a part of the Axis in the war, changing the situation significantly, at least on the European theater. However, diplomacy, just like research, is often moving very slow and randomly. And it would consume MPP, which you, as the german wannabe warmonger, desperatly need to produce a few more armies and tank units. Or to equip the coastal cities and ports in Northern and Western Europe with antiair, as the Allied bombing raids will come one near day in the future. Turkey is another neutral country which, when it goes in for one of the two camps, can change the overall situation massively as well. But Turkey watches the ongoing war with eagle eyes, like what is happening in Greece and the Middle East. Players declarations of war in the region are leading to a cool down in the relationship with the "Turks". --- --- --- --- --- In the grey box: for SC experts: the major innovations Anyone who already knows one of the predecessors, particularly Weapons & Warfare or Patton Drives East (both addons to Strategic Command 2), are immediately familiar in Global Conflict The most important from our perspective changes, compared to SC2: 1. Italy and France do have a capital and its own troops, but no own income anymore, they are assigned to Germany and England 2. China is major power on the Allied side. 3. The map scale has been enlarged, but especially in Europe there are significantly less tiles than before, which leeds sometimes to grotesque distortions of reality (Taiwan is way too large compared to China). 4. ships can raid coastal zones (without the need to attack the port by sea bombardement). 5. battleships attack automatically passing landing ships 6. aircraft carriers, just like in Pacific Theater, have separate strength values, one for the ship and one the aircrafts. 7. Amphibious transport may fire on coastal defenders before the landing 8. The troop type "Special Forces" has at last a right to exist: for island hopping in the Pacific. 9. New statistical functions à la MPP consumption. 10. Map (for war declarations) in 2 sizes. 11. Separate war readiness levels of the Allies against Japan and Germany (and vice versa). 12. More decision events, but also more script reinforcements, more than ever before. --- --- --- --- First picture (pacific below japan), text in the black box: "Things are going well: our US Pacific fleet has almost fought through its way to Japan, the Japanese are running out of naval forces. --- --- --- --- Second Picture (east front), text in the black box: "While we delay the germans though our defence of some front cities, we hae long before prepared a huge defense position before Moscow, the defense line includes also rivers. Additionaly rain and mud hinders the Axis troops. You can also see the units which are controlled and improved through our HQ "Zukov"."

The german online game magazine "Gamers Global" has released a test of Strategic Command WWII Global Conflict. The game got 7,5 out of 10 possible points, which is an excellent result, even more if you have to remind yourself that the game has to compete there with games like "Lost Planet 2" (7,0) "Monster Hunter Tri" (8,0) "Nier" (8,5) "Command and Conquer 4" (7,5) "Final Fantasy 13" (7,5) or "Hears of Iron 3" (6,0) I hope you all have polished your german language skills, so that you can enjoy 4 pages full of test informations. Here's the link: http://www.gamersglobal.de/test/strategic-command-ww2-global-conflict and here you can find a 39 MB picture of the Global Conflict world map: http://www.gamersglobal.de/sites/gamersglobal.de/files/redaktion/Test/strategiccommand_globalconflict/sc2_worldmap.png edit: it is a very positive test, and truly a very good result, and all this from one one the most prominent and experienced german game tester (who, btw., founded the german "Gamestar" magazine some years ago)

Has your opponent installed the 1.01 patch as well? 1.00 and 1.01 are not compatible.

Aahhh, only one day later, and Hubert was already there: he came, he saw, he rescued. Excellent!

Do doubt about it, rogo727, thats for sure. I bet that tomorrow we will have an answer and a solution from Hubert for this problem.

In my case the system needed some seconds, but then i got asked to choose the resolution i want to use (in a small window). When i had chosen, the editor loaded. :confused::confused: I tried again (seconds ago), and now the editor waited about 3 or 5 seconds, but then it started without any further quesitons, problems or delay.

I run WinXP, and i have no problems to start the Game-Editor. Gentlemen, i would like to suggest that you offer some more data to your recent and unfortunate problem. I'm sure that Hubert will look into it pretty soon.

Great news! Thank you, Hubert!

Not to forget the VERY limited size of the phsyical manual.

"What to offer" is a very good question. I could imagine - the use of ports or islands (like Brest after Vichy) - free units with volunteers (like the spanish blue unit) - diplo hits in countries which are friendly towards the decision event country - better tech / more units if the country would ever enter war - better HQ if the country would ever enter war - in case of spain: sneak an axis ship through Gibraltar - a convoy line - a non visible war (spain taking over Marocco or Algier while staying "neutral") - a slightly better chance for research success (when the neutral helps because of a science treaty), maybe for a limited time Well, i could go on for hours. Not to forget that all these things above could always backfire as well (like "spend x mpps for a 25% chance, xx mps for a 45% chance and xxx for 90% chance. If you fail, there is a xx% chance that this bad thing will happen"). Best would always be that a country, courted from both alliances with diplo chits, would be much better prepared for war than a neutral that was attacked without having ever received any help from anyone. Well, see, now i'm dreaming again.

Sometimes you get results like +38% as well. Diplomacy would be even more attractive to use if you could collect income from all countries who favour your alliance. Imagine that you would receive money from all +25% neutrals, and even more at +50% or +75%. Or, imagine your would instead randomly receive DECISION EVENTS from neutrals favouring you side. Or, why not imagine that neutrals would spend the diplo money into units (weapons) or tech. And now the real good thing about all this: Hubert always listens, and always improves Strategic Command. Who knows, what he might invents in his next game or expansion. Ahh, the possibilities! Nice that we always can discuss and dream here. Even nicer that Hubert often has surprised us with much more than everybody expected.

If i had a game against an Axis player who never used his subs, than i would build 2-3 subs on my own. a) i would have the money, thanked through unmolested convoys i would fear Operation Sealion (Seelöwe) and i would do everything to strengthen my navy, air tech / range And with the upcoming patch i'll have just another BIG help as well, if i choose so.

This meens that the file has been packed. To unpack an *.rar-file you can use programs like 7-zip: http://www.7-zip.org/

I'm not so sure about this. Don't forget that the tank units are not only tanks, but combined forces. Why should a panzergrenadier fight worse (with the help of the attached tank formations) than a infantry men without the help of tanks?

Hi Mantis(s). Welcome to the BF Forum! I have made the same experience, but i never thought too much about it. To get your air units to China / Japan you can op move them first to the Philippines, and from there you can rebase them to China or a Japanese Island. This way you don't get the feeling as if they have to stay idle in the USA. I try to conquer communist China with the USA, this way the USA get a minor in China. I had no problem with this as i found it much more historical correct to have some slight problems sending air planes around the world as compared to simply rebase them withing 14 days. The rules, well, i hope that some other jolly fellows will explain them to you, as i never looked too much unter the hood of the SC machine.

The download service works fantastic! I downloaded over the years several SC2 games, and always no problems.

I would like to argue that the rail tracks of the western european and the russian railway systems differ, they have a different gauge width, so that -example- a german train or wagon can't roll on russian tracks (and vice versa). Think about it for a time. Germans had huge problems to rebuild the russian tracks in WW2, and even today you can't rent german wagons to a russian railway (for the use on russian tracks). To use the same wagon you have to change the bogies of the waggon. Knowing this, it seems perfectly realistic that you can't travel by rail from Paris to Wladiwostok without changing trains. So what you discovered is more or less a nice feature, may it be intended or not. On this wikipedia-picture you can see the worldwide differences:

Looks like a largerer version of Axis & Allies.

I searched simply for "port", even though this brought as well "exciting" findings like "report", "support" and "transport" to my attention. But if you search simple and with easy words, you won't miss the more complex words just because you spelled something wrong or in the wrong sequence.

A bit far stretched, as HQ are the supply source of their attached units as well. Think about supply stocks full of fuel, ammo, equipment, food, trucks etc. Not to forget the reserves of the attached units. If you follow this thought you can come to the conclusion that HQs most of all should be vulnerable to air attacks and complete destruction.

quote :eek: manual :eek: , page 32: "...Friendly towns, cities, capitals, fortresses and ports (i.e., "resources") and HQs are valid supply sources. The supply value of resources is equal to their current strength, up to a maximum value of 10. Land and air units can trace supply to any supply source, whereas naval units can only receive supply from a friendly port. All units can have a maximum supply value of 10 and a minimum value of 0. Detailed supply values can be determined by referring to the unit Supply Values Table...." quote manual, page 34: "...Naval supply is handled differently than normal supply for land and air units. In general, naval units within range of a port receive maximum supply - minus their distance from port, regardless of port strength. However, once naval units are out of port range they will not have their supply values reduced unless they have engaged in combat, i.e. attack or defense; have raided a convoy line; or, they are an Amphibious Transport...." quote manual, page 35: "... To reinforce a naval unit's strength, the unit must be in supply and in a friendly port in order to be eligible for refitting or repair. The attainable strength for naval reinforcements is based on the port strength value rather than the unit's supply value shown in the table above. For example, a Cruiser in a damaged port of strength 4 can only be reinforced up to strength 7...."

I still haven't used the arrows in Global Conquest , so i never noticed this. But OP movement from east to west / west to east wouldn't work for land units without using the red arrows. Davids info didn't mention the arrows, so i figured that he wasn't aware what they're for.

It is not a bug. You need to place your units on the red arrows.