Skanvak

This point is mostly wrong. 1st the war crime (and no crime against humanity) of japan are on a very small scales (less than half a million if you includes nankings at chinese recknonings). 2nd the US started the war technically as they bring. In the 20's the US which opposed the expeansion of the japanese colonial empire after their victory in WWi, compel them to de-colonized. During the economics crisis of the 30's they closed there economic ties with japan compelling the small country to attack china to survive. In the eve of WWII the US begin to implement gradually an economic embargo (especially on Oil) that will bring Japan on a situation of strategic defeat agianst China unless they attack the US. So the US were very active oppossing Japan and bringing enough tension to bring Japan to actually attack an ennemy they knew they would not defeat. (According to the Japanese strategists, the fleet ratio was not enough). ((This are not opinion but factsz from my studies on Japan - I made a published paper on Japan defence policies)) On the A-Bomb - the 1 hex effect is effectly the only option historical. - the A-bomb should be unit build at a cost each time. - Edwin and Kelly's idea for Heavy bomber range is very good. - And by the way, in 1939 the nation most advanced in nuclear research was France, they had the only stock of heavy water (which pass to the US I beleive but still have to check that fact). - On chemical : the british used chemical weapons in Birmany against the Japanese. The Japanese never refrained from using chemical weapons. It is the weather setting that make most chemical weapons useless in Birmany (chemicals are very hard to used effectively, with a high randomness in their effect).

I have to disagree with the last part of your post Edwin. What is not realistic is two fold. That you cannot stack all your fleet on one hex. Fleet rarely have stacking prb. So putting a dreadnought and a CV next to a cruiser, mean that you are moving in close formation, likely with the CV in the middle. It is unrealistic to be forced to left boat (especially CV) unescorted in essence due to game mechanics. second, the aircrafts of the CV could react very fast and join easily the battle even at the game scale.

I second totally and strongly Kelly's statements. Though it is not that easy.

The whole naval system is not realistic. The navy work like ground unit. I don't know either i this is realistic that a cruiser counter (several ships actually) could block the a whole naval hex (like the one taht block the channel of the adriatics). Another prb is the fact that a cruiser can be hammered to death by an ennemy fleet even with 2 dreadnought and a CV just adjacent. I agree that the whole no retreat system is strange at this scale wheter for infantry or naval unit.

I bring back this post because I too think that French partisan effect should be depicted in the game. First reasons, the Russian partisan are as much a myth as the French one if not more. Read the Mytrokyn Archive (the group in Kiev for example simply kill each other without affecting the Germans). Most of the so called partisans were special forces or NKVD soldiers not liked by the populations. True the French resistance was quite small and get bigger only with time. That is dur to a strategic choice of most "maquis" units : they reckoned (and were told so) that the allied will made a landing so they were wanting for that moment to enter action. I agree too that the number of resistants increased after the collapsed of Vichy. That led to the problem of displaying partisan as military units. The activity of the French partisan where Intelligence (mostly) and sabotage (few until the the week before the D-Day). What one as to understand is that the D-Day was made easier to the allied because of the Intel and sabotage operation of the resistance just before it. That lead me to think that partisan activity should be seen as Partisan point pool to act action in the partisan's country. For example 1pt could be used to spot some hex in the country, while five point could be used to by the actual partisan unit. 2pt to change owner ship of a hex. The pool could be either spend or it could replenish each turn, but each turn the garnison could have a chance to damaged the pool.

Combat mission is really better than Squad Leader. And on the same scale. You can even play by e-mail.

I agree of course. 2 simple ideas : _ extend the Russia system to all conquered city except major power capital and ressources. _ Port on the Atlantic should porvide no income bonus to the Axis. And if Axis lose Africa, Port in in the mediteranean should lose their value too. (The value of a port come from the trade shipping that go throw, if there are no shipping to do then the port should lose their value. ((Shaka, do you have a look at Heart of Iron and The WiF computer game? I think that SC can have a place between this two computer wargames especially if with a far more powerfull editor))

One of the trouble with air unit is that they can actually destroy unit. In a lot of WWII wargame only a huge fleet of Heavy bomber can acheive that. Even in Iraq the US had to send ground troops to destroy the badly air bombed iraqi unit. I dare say that the fire power display was far more than most bombing in WWII. A real improvement would be to have Airfleet (not heavy bomber) unable to actually destroy a unit. May be the last point or two should be undestructible by airfleet attack. Another approcach would be to have airfleet attack the readiness level of a unit and not its strength point.

Quick thoughts on the subject. _ The economics system is surely a flaw of the game. I gobally agree with all that is said about economy. _ I don't want to say obvious things, but does the people posting here have played WiF? Because some of the idea came close to the economic system of Wif. (The use of ressource to fuel economy). _ So to stat the obvious thing (apologize), in Wif the neutrals do send some ressources to the major power. Sweden to germany (all the ore) Rumania to Germany, part of the oil Russia to Germany (but this is both way oil to germany and city production to russia) Iraq to the UK. That is all. The US work on a lend lease basis that improve with it entry likelyness. _ Surely a better convoy system could help too. Norway was attacked to secure the supply from sweden. Actually, if sweden is Allied controlled, the sweden ressources should be lost to Germany in Winter. Holding Murmansk was very important for russia to receive len lease too. Those consideration will add strategic option to the game IMHO. The surface boat should be able to attack the convoy route, after all, they can sink a boat as well as a sub (if not better). _ The US and UK economy are reduced by the fact that the Asian Empires are not display for UK, and by makingthe commitement to the pacific war too important for US. One point is obviuos to me : research should be at half cost for US as research for the pacific theater will benefit the European theater too. Uk should have a boost of MPP until Japan enter the War. There ressources from India and the Netherland East indies (UK minor) should range in the 4 oil, 4 ressources, 3-4 harbor, 3-4 cities. And I forget the 2 ressources , 1 city, 1 harbor in south africa.... _ I would still advocate for a simple economic system, that keep the MPP concept. Part of the interest of this game is that it is different from Wif, I don't think it will be interesting to make it too clone like as a Wif computer game should be produced. Still looking for what have been doen can be interesting for inspiration. Thank for reading. [ March 15, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

Yes, nice reply, Wolfack. A disclaimer first, the game arrived recently in my country that's why I can't look at a full year of posts. I have look at the FAQ but there was no part on it. May be a sum up of those question could be interesting or give me link to the topics they are adressed. Comment on lend lease : though what you said is true, I think that it should be at the option of the ally to give ressource or not to the USSR. I think I have more to say, but I need to pratice a bit more the game.

I have just finished invaded the USA with the Axis. I should say that I like the game, being a long time wargamer, and it remind me of "Future". Globally better, I should say that I have some critics. _ no ingeneer or parachutist. _ no lend lease (the USSR production is too high and the allied too low). Shipping to the USSR was an important part of the war in Russia. _ the area of the map. I think that a somewaht bigger area would have been more fun : including the whole scandinavia and a bit more of the egyptian desert. No Iceland. _ On the map, letting the posssibility to invade the USA is fun, but then why made the USA and Canada an off map looking areaabsolutely not the standard of the rest of the map. I really think that making a a realistic map of US and canada to the same scale as the main map should made the invasion of America a great experience and not an exercice at massing counter in a small area. _ There are no 1936 scenario. As a day dreaming question, do you think that battle front will make a pacific extension? _________________________________________________ New reaction after some game. _ having the possibility to have a separate russian player. And why not make a competitive play between the USSR and Allies (which could evolve to total war if it goes bad for the German) _ the editor should offer more possibility, especially making France, UK, Germany neutral in order to be able to try real what if. _ I read somewhere that the game designer where wanting to allow a lot of what if. Then I think (convince in fact) that the germano-soviet pact (especially in three player) and the creation of Vichy France should be left to the option of the player, not be automatic. [ March 14, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

I have just finished invaded the USA with the Axis.