Baron

Some fortifications might have survived but they would be facing the wrong way to defend against an enemy attacking from their former rear. I'll scan some pictures of the Forts at Verdun (before and after) and post next week when I get back to work. None of this addresses why cities and ports go to zero and forts don't however. As wlape3 pointed out it would make more sense for a city that has been leveled to have some defensive value but not fortifications that have been devastated by combat and are facing the WRONG way to help the new occupier. Once you see the aerial photographs of Verdun before and after I think you'll get a better idea of what I'm trying to say.

Bill you replied while I was typing. In a recent game the French lost Verdun on the CP turn and on my next turn the Germans were already at entrenchment level 4. I've seen it on the Austrian front also. Maybe it is just a glitch? Thanks for the quick replies

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. Fortresses are more than trenches. They are connected fortifications designed to control with interlocking fields of fire a certain piece of real estate. If a side lost control of a fortress in WW1 or WW2 it was generally because said fortress was destroyed (the only exception to this that comes to mind is Ft. Eban Emanuel in Belgium in 1940) or bypassed. On the other hand look at pictures (before and after) of Verdun, Stalingrad,Berlin, Sevastopol, Manila after they had been declared "fortresses" and then lost in combat. I can see no rational reason that a city and port would fall to a zero level and a fortress doesn't, instead it gives the new occupier immediate benefits even if it had just fallen. That kind of makes the back and forth taking of entrenchments darn near impossible in game terms. I can see where being in a trench would give you benefits as you are below ground level but these fortresses and cites were for all intents and purposes leveled. No more registered arty, no more interlocking fields of fire, no more communications between strong points, no more ready stocks of ammo and supplies. It is these functions that I just mentioned that make a fortress a fortress not just a series of trenches. A new occupier of a destroyed fortress would have none of those benefits. If a fortress had just been taken by destroying an enemy unit then I see no reason why the new occupier would get the benefits of the destroyed fortifications and infrastructure. Now if a fortress is occupied without a fight I would not have an issue with the occupier getting the benefits but not after it has just been leveled and a Corps size unit defending it annihilated.

Does anyone else have an issue with the way fortresses are handled? The enemy captures your fortress and they immediately get the benefit of the fortresses defenses! I may be wrong but it seems to me that the defenses of the fortress would have been destroyed for it to have been captured in the first place. This happens to cities and ports why doesn't it happen to the fortresses?

Hubert, It worked like a charm thanks for the help!

I'm using 1.03+ and I still can't get the aircraft carriers to spot. I'm in calm seas and I've tried recon and recon\attack mode. Is this something you can only do at the beginning of your turn maybe?

Start moving US units to Europe in 1939. They may get there in time for a 1944 invasion. It took all summer for an invasion fleet from the East coast of the US to reach Europe. Oh yeah, it spent so much time at sea it was spotted by the Axis. Other than the fact that the US can't affect the outcome of the war in Europe (too little points and too long to get to Europe) it is a great scenario I really loved the map!

I don't disagree with you. Advancing towards the enemy is not a retreat, that is unless you are an 0311. I think there should be more retreats, I like to concept but it doesn't seem to happen often enough. A unit shouldn't stand in place and be destroyed unless there is not a retreat route. I don't understand how the system determines when a unit will retreat so I'm not sure what to suggest to fix it. The only time I can see a unit "having" to stand in place (when a retreat route is available) would be if the attacking unit has greater mobility. This I think would represent the futility of trying run away from wheeled or mechanized units on foot or horseback.

I don't where else it could go. At least there is only one enemy unit next to it. The other retreat option has two enemy units next to it.

Just throwing this out there because I think research is a tad too fast also. My idea is this: why don't you wipe out all the research chits when a tech level is achieved in that particular tech. For example if you invest 5 chits in a certain tech and you get a hit on that tech then you lose all the chits. That way you really would have to pay to get those advances more quickly. I also like the idea of limiting how many chits can be placed on a tech at any given time - probably and easier solution.

I always wondered why you couldn't fly a unit farther than its range if not engaging in comabt. If you were changing bases wouldn't you have twice the distance you could fly since you are not having to worry about running out of fuel on the way home? Being in transportation for 19 years I know a little about what is involved in moving units by land,air, and sea and to move a unit as large as a Corp or Army involves tremendous planning. It is not something done on a whim. Hitler moved the 2nd SS Panzer Corp (at least half of it) away from Kursk at the pivotal moment to intervene in Italy and then back again. The net effect was it didn't accomplish much anywhere. I like the idea of Operational moves being tied to the infrastructure level of a country. Isn't that what the infrastructure tech represents? The more accomplished (tech level plus physical improvements) the logisticians the easier it would be to move more units rapidly. In adhering to the KISS principle why don't we limit the number of units that can operate to 1 plus the infrastructure level? All cost would still apply as it does cost to move the men and equipment. Back to air units. Given the length of the turns why not limit an air units operational range to 4 times its normal range (twice its range if just changing bases as I propose) I'd also like to be able to move an air unit twice its normal range if I'm just moving it to a different location. As far as moving air units across Oceans they would have to stage (just like they did) at various places along the route to their destination. This would prevent the warping of aircraft all over the world at a moments notice. It would also make those islands on the way to Australia more important as well as W.Africa - I know I'm getting confused with Global. As far as Strategic movement I wouldn't be opposed to ships being given twice their range also if they are not engaging in combat. If they do stumble upon the enemy they should suffer a "surprise" penalty.

Hubert, Please don't fix this very soon - I believe it might be my game against Ludi1867. I can use all the help I can get - I'm like 0-100-2 against him lifetime

As I play the games (which I love) two things have always stuck out to me: 1) Naval ships offshore don't get to fire counter battery fire like land based arty does 2) Anti - tank units are as useful as farting in a windstorm What if antitank weapons got to fire at adjacent armor units that are attacking other units? It wouldn't be any different than defending arty and could actually represent the pak fronts that were the real killers of tanks in WW2. It would make these units useful instead of being cannon fodder. Any other thoughts on this?

In situations like N. Africa or getting ashore in Europe a port with a supply level of 5 or greater could be used as a substitute to another city. This would make taking Malta a must and having control of the seas a priority before an invasion. It also makes landings in areas without multiple ports more dangerous.

It was not my experience that this was the case. My point is that even if an HQ is sitting on a 5 city that is cut off from its home country the HQ should not get the HQ benefit taking to a supply level of 8 as in your example. Due to the topography it was difficult to reinforce my Austrian forces yet the cut off Russians could reinforce to full strength. If they have a supply line "home" then I think that is fine but certainly not when they are cut off from their home country. Breaking through into Germany from France the same thing is possible. Even though the Germans cut the French advance off the French could fully reinforce even though they didn't have a direct line of supply home. A simple solution perhaps would be that is a unit including HQ's can not trace a line of supply to a city in their home country they can never have a supply level greater than 5. Just a suggestion and I don't know if it is possible but it would certainly be more inline historically and would prevent some "gamey" situations.

That must be what is happening. It is gauling to say the least though to see a Russian Army(HQ and 2 or 3 Corps) in Austria, cut off from its own country, having better supply than the Austrians in their own country. I could see this is they had a connection from the enemy city they occupied to one of their own cities but not if they were cut off from home. It reminds me of several old board games where supply could be traced to a city that had a connection to a major city in a units home country. I'm just showing my age is all I'm not sure something like that is even possible in this system. Thanks for your quick reply as usual Hubert

Is it me or are the supply rules different in this game? In one game the Russian sent an HQ and 4 or 5 Corps into Austria where they were promptly cut off from Russia. Because they hold an Austrian city they seem to be able to resupply and reinforce just as if they were back in Russia. In another game I see the same thing happening with French forces advancing into Germany. If the supply rules changed then I believe it to be a mistake. When a countries morale drops eliminating these pockets becomes darn near impossible. The fact that the troops in the pocket reinforce better than the Austrian and German troops is what bothers me the most.

In playing the new WW2 scenario I have had the Deutschland (sp?) CA sitting on the mining square of Halifax for 2 turns with no results. On the second turn I changed the status to raider and still didn't get any results. By the way I'm loving this game!! Thanks to all involved in making it

Great pictures thanks for sharing them!

When you say interface is pokey do you when while you are playing or during the replay?

With the maps being larger has the range of aircraft been increased?

Guns of August was a classic and I played War and Peace - a lot. I loved Russian Campaign but I actually preferred Russian Front that AH released later. It had step losses and the counters were inverted so the other side never really knew what was in a hex before attacking. I loved the strategic level games and the operational level games. On the tactical level I like PL and PB. Squad Leader was huge but I never really got into it. I didn't like how crowed the board became with counters ( Guns of Augusts biggest fault also ).

I loved VG Civil War - I always wanted to see a computer version (that worked). I'm still hoping that someone will do a CW version of SC.

So is this the WW2 mod that was advertised? Is it just a map? Thanks!

How many escort missions can 1 CV do in a turn when its fellow carriers are attacking? I may have miscounted but I believe I saw one of my carriers conduct 3 if not 4 escort missions in 1 turn.