Exel

Egypt would have probably sought for independence immediatle after the UK had fallen under German occupation. Having your government where they don't want you at all is not such a smart idea. I vote for Canada and an "Egypt independent" script - much like in the Vichy France event for French colonies.

A simple % system would undoubtedly be the best solution. But Sombra's suggestion is imo still better than the default if the % system is not implementable.

Perhaps a good solution would be to limit neutral unit movement (action points) by half or even to 33% of normal. That way you could still do some relocating, but major unit movements would take longer or require MPP investments (operating). Considering how things were in Russia in 1941, I really doubt that Stalin would have allowed the Red Army to take positions far from the border.

Please... France had a large over-seas empire as well, yet they surrendered even before their home army was done with, their fleet and colonial forces mostly intact. Churchill did well in preaching about never surrendering as long as the mainland Britain remained untouched. Had England fallen to Axis occupation I have little trouble imagining the British Empire being more keen to make peace (maybe not unconditional surrender, but a losing peace nevertheless). Remember, the most fanatic "never surrender" folks in WW2, the Japs, gave up after two nukes. I doubt the Brits would have been more steadfast than them.

Simpler perhaps, but that's not the impression the manual gives. It clearly states that the chits will "cancel each other out" and the net effect will be in the favor of just one party. So it is not possible that one turn the Axis influence Spain by 10% and on the next the Allies influence it by 15% if the chit allocation remains the same. It might be better if percentage odds were applied always without exception, but if we must have the chit-vs-chit system then I favor Sombra's suggestion.

Well, maybe not quite. The winter in 1939 was very harsh even by our "standards" and it crippled some Soviet units not prepared for such conditions and expecting a 2 week war, but generally speaking the Russian winters are worse. Also during the 1941-44 war the winter didn't play such a large role on the Finnish front. The great battles of 1944 were fought mostly during summer. Btw, as a minor sidenote, there was no Mannerheim line after Winter War and the area where it is now located in the game was surrendered to the Soviets in the 1940 peace.

Sombra's suggestion might actually improve the gameplay and put more strategy into diplomacy instead of the "who invests more wins" diplo rushing. Realism is really a moot point in this regard since the diplo system isn't realistic to begin with. An example to clarify the differences: UK, Germany and Italy all attempt to influence Spain. Germany ivests 5 chits while UK and Italy both invest 3. Net results: Current system Spain influenced by 5 German chits. Italy and UK "lose" 3 chits. Sombra's system Spain influenced by 2 German chits. Italy, UK and Germany all "lose" 3 chits. With the latter the Axis has to play more of a gamble instead of raw maths in trying to make Spain join the war. I like it better because diplomacy should never be just statistics and math.

In order to not drift too far off-topic I would just like to remind that I really only want for the occupation of Norway (or lack of it) have an influence on other countries, namely Finland, Sweden and the UK.

Germany wanted to use Finnish territory to attack Murmansk railway and Leningrad. They were only happy to get Finland to do that for them (although in the end we did neither, despite Hitler's many requests). Still, German forces attacked towards Murmansk through Finnish Lapland, though with little success. In 1944 when Finland had made peace with the Soviets, the Soviets forced Finland to fight the Germans out of Lapland. And we did, for the Reds were waiting for the tiniest excuse to enter Lapland themselves. We were damn near about to become a battleground between the two and having to fight both at the same time as it was. I have little trouble imagining it going that way had we not picked a side at all. Let's also not forget that Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939. In 1941-44 Germany sent considerable amounts of men and material to Finland, stuff that they didn't give to any other of their allies. In 1944 both sides deployed huge military force to the region and Karelian Isthmus saw one of the biggest battles of the entire WW2. So no, I can't agree that "Finland was a bit off of the beaten path". Finland was pro-Britain before 1939. Winter War and the support given by the Allies only strenghtened that alignment. And Britain was the most desirable ally, not least importantly because both Finland and Britain were democratic unlike the other two remaining European powers. Alliance with Britain in terms of having security from the Soviets. Finland wanted to stay neutral but after Winter War it was obvious that foreign support was necessary for the eventuality of any future Soviet hostilities. Once UK was out of the question and Sweden was unwilling to help, the only remaining option was Germany. That meant taking sides, but it was deemed better than taking on the Soviets alone for a second time. Plus it removed the threat of a possible two-front war. Agreed, had it worked.

Realpolitik. Situation: Soviet Union with proven hostile intentions in the East, common border over 1000km. France occupied, UK out of reach, Sweden wont be helping. What do we have left? Germany. Ideologically not on the same planet, but at least in the same galaxy (as in versus Soviet Union). They are willing to help both economically and militarily. So we either ally with them and fight the Russians to reclaim our territory or we attempt to stay neutral and quite likely become a "neutral" battleground between the two giants. What would you choose? They did send a lot of economical aid, some military advisors and volunteers and sold military hardware on bargain. Same goes for the US. True, most of those shipments arrived too late for the war, but they were on our side nevertheless. While that is true, Finland would have more likely allied itself with the British had it been a practical possibility (ie. Norway granting passage or at least not occupied by Germany). Alliance with Britain would probably not have diminished any grudges against the Soviets, but Finland would have more probably stayed out of the war nevertheless.

In my current game the Axis AI skipped the conquest of both Denmark and Norway entirely. Now I don't know if the AI is even programmed to do that, but nevertheless it made me think. Germany not occupying Denmark and Norway should have consequences to the game events. Most directly it should effect Finland; should Norway and Denmark remain neutral, Finland would be a lot less keen to join the war against Soviet Union. It might even align towards the Allies. Historically Finland only allied itself with Germany because after Denmark and Norway were occupied it could no longer expect any aid or support from Britain. After Winter War Finland was strongly pro-Allied, largely thanks to the military support given by them, but also for political reasons. In a similar fashion, if Germany does not occupy Denmark and Norway, Britain itself should be more aligned towards influencing Norway and Sweden to its cause. Before Germany invaded Norway, Churchill even considered the option of invading Norway and moving troops from there to Sweden to stop the Swedish deliveries to Germany. That of course should diplomatic efforts to the same end fail. The effects in the game need not necessarily be this complex. My point is simply that any action taken or untaken towards Denmark and Norway should not be as indefferent as they are now and that those actions should have consequences in the game world.

If only my monitor allowed me a higher resolution. Zoom-out would definitely be nice. It would be cool if you could at some point add support for wide-screen resolutions like 1440x900 as they are becoming more and more popular. Frankly I see little reason to buy standard 4:3 screens anymore, other than for game compatibility. But that's another issue.

And boy is war of attrition so much easier with rockets than without! :cool:

I've used rockets as all-around fire support. They are great when the air is contested but not controlled by the enemy. They are a good way to soften the enemy before sending in the more vulnerable fighters and ground forces.

Now there's a huge chance for derailing in this, but I can't refrain myself... When the transition to tiles was first announced, I preached about at least having diagonal moves cost 1,5x movement points. Apparently to no avail, but I would still very much be in favor of that feature. Not only would it give a more "neat" movement pattern (more round as opposed to square, this is especially disturbing with ships), but it would also be more logical. As it is, a diagonal zig-zag pattern will cost you just as many movement points as going in a straight line while allowing you to cover much more ground with your movement (especially impotant in naval scouting).

I second not allowing the player to move garrisons way from the neutral major capitols. It's the best suggestion given here. And I don't see a big problem with it being a "special rule" since it's just one (sensible) rule made to prevent a horrible exploit.

Hmm, is there a reason not to deactivate tranports for inactive countries? That would be an easy fix for the issue and would take care of it for good. I can't imagine any major drawbacks with it. Realistically speaking the countries would have little or no reason to mount up transports unless they were preparing for war. And once they do, they can send the transports out on the first turn of war - or perhaps activate the transports on "XX Prepares For War" event.

The amphibious boats also look like U.S. invasion boats with landing bridges, while the regular transports look like more generic barges. There's a clear difference methinks.

The amphib tech is the best suggestion to the issue so far methinks. It would allow the current amphib system itself to be left unchanged while restricting unrealistic mass invasions in the early war. If the number of available amphib transports and their cost would depend directly on the level of tech you have, Germany could no longer launch a major invasion in 1940. Not without considerable investments anyways. Historically the biggest obstacle for Sea Lion after RAF and RN was the lack of suitable technology. The Allies in turn spend enormous resources in research and development to allow Normandy to happen. Another simpler solution, or a place-holder until the above can be done, would be to simply up the cost of amphib transports. It would make invasions a huge gambit MPP wise (realistic) but would also mean that you'd have to prepare for it over a longer period of time as you couldn't buy too many transports on one turn (again realistic).

Just to make sure: 1. Does supply ever go where the units can't? (eg. diagonally between two enemy units) 2. Does supply every go through enemy controlled land? (even if there are no enemy units in the way) If the answer to both questions is NO, then I see no defunctionality in the supply system.

Amphibs should not be able to unload the same turn they load up. But they should be able to unload after moving.

Umm, can you no longer cut off a unit simply by capturing the land around it? Surrounding a unit out-of-supply didn't require blocking all six hexes around it in SC1 either. Supply should not go between two adjacent enemy units regardless of if there is a diagonal line or even a tile between them.

Not everyone has a 24" LCD, nor can everyone afford one. So a couple of alternate zoom levels would be nice for those of us stuck with 1024x768 or 1280x960.

Operating units long distances should definitely reduce readiness - for one or two turns. I don't know how the Readiness & Morale system works, so pardon me if I'm being ignorant - if they are inseparably connected then I can understand the effect on morale as well (as artificial as it may sound).

Holy crap Moon. That was some sales speech, and being a salesman myself and usually a reluctant customer, I must say I'm impressed. I have NEVER bought anything with pre-order. I certainly didn't plan on pre-ordering SC2. But after reading that message I'm definitely going to do so. And honestly I don't even know what did it - subliminal messaging?