The Great Santini

Hello, I'm looking for opponents for AOD 1939 scenario in version 1.02. You can contact me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks for replys. Dave

Hello, I'm looking for opponents for PBEM games of AOD 1939 scenario in version 1.02. I can be reached at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thank you.

Hi. I'm looking for an opponent for PBEM game of SCGC. You can contact me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks.

Hello. I'm searching for opponents in the 1939 scenario version 1.04. PBEM single or mirrored game. Contact me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thank you.

I am looking for opponents for GC 1939 scenario v. 1.04 in PBEM. Either single or mirrored game. Contact me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks, Dave.

I am looking for opponents for the World at War 1939 scenario vwersion 1.03 in PBEM format. Contact me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks. Dave

I am looking for PBEM opponents for the 1939 World at War version 1.02 scenario. Single or mirrored games. You can reach me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks. Dave

Hello. I am seeking PBEM opponents for the 1939 scenario in version 1.02. I will play single or mirrored games. Contact Dave at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks.

Hello, Colin. I will give you a good game. Dave Dailey

I am interested in conclusions people who play Operation Z have about the scenario. 1) Do they feel it is a balanced scenario? 2) If not, which side has a more difficult time winning the scenario?. 3) What are the challenges the weaker side has in winning the scenario?. 4) From what I observed the newest patch seems to have strengthened the Japanese side. Was this a good idea? If so, why and if not why not? Thank you.

I'm looking for opponents for Pacific Theater Operation Z or other interseting scenarios, either single game or mirror game. Also Fall Weiss from World at War. Contact me at jdailey@stx.rr.com. Thanks.

Since the U.S. is Japans' biggest problem doesn't she buy more time by invading as many Pacific islands as possible,even if she can't garrison them? Or is the cost in amphibious transport points worth it? With her big fleet advantage at the beginning of the war she can provide cover for the vulnerable transports. And the U.S. will still have to invade even an undefended island to use it as a staging area later.

It isn't a question of "cutting down strategic possibilities" because there is only one path to victory, namely grab every minor country you can, with no consequences. Terif invented the "Terif cookie cutter". This so wrecked SC1 that it was necessary to add MPPs to the allied majors to rebalance the game. Right now the U.S. always enters no latter than summer 1942 no matter what the Axis does, so why not grab every minor for plunder you can. And with only five chits for diplomacy each side usually tries to cancel out the other when they see a move being made to influence a country. And once the U.S. enters diplomacy is out the window, assuming there are any unconquered minors left. And when we see things like England attacking Ireland or Saudia Arabia or Germany attacking Switzerland with NO consequences it isn't a game with "strategic possibilities" it's a Harry Turtledove novel.

Why are the diplomatic consequences for invading defenseless countries so trivial and ultimately nonexistent once the U.S. enters? It is outrageously ahistorical. The game deteriorates into nothing more than a massive land grab for MPPs. The minor countries become nothing more than piggybanks. If Germany wants to invade Switzerland, fine, but let the consequences be something like an increase in U.S. industrial capacity. And why just five chits for diplomacy? Is there a shortage of money for striped pants statesman?

Artillery and anti-aircraft units are ranged pieces, so I can deliver fire on units without them avoiding it. But how do you do it with anti-tank pieces. Enemy tanks won't fight them and they are vulnerable to other units. I can't deliver a shot to a tank that I am not next to and enemy tanks won't get next to them. What am I missing?

I'm referring to the popup that appears in the first winter after a German invasion; "Soviet Winter Strikes". When the Axis player looks at his units all units in Russia have suffered one, two or more losses in unit strength. I'm trying to figure a way to get around that.

Is there a way the Axis can get around the catastrophic losses their units take when the Russian winter hits? I'm thinking of a declaration of war against Russia in the winter of 1940 as an idea. If need be the Germans could operate units to protect Romania and their border against a Russian attack, which would probably be ill advised anyway. What would be the diplomatic ramifications of this strategy? Would Finland and Sweden be imperiled? Is there someplace in Russia German units can be garrisoned to mitigate this nasty attack of frostbite?

With a new map featuring new infrastructure, the many new ports, changes in weather, and the new units are the old grand strategies(like say gobbling up the minor countries by Axis), or minor gambits (early Allied attack on Norway) now in peril? In other words is everything thrown out the window or is SC2 still essentially the same game?

Is there an Axis counter to the frightening new bomber strategy employed by the Allies? The AA research option seems to be of limited usefulness. The only other asset I can see to stop bombers is airfleets. If a large number of highly researched and strongly commanded airfleets are placed in Germany on Intercept mode can they avoid Allied fighter escorts or direct Allied fighter attacks and inflict prohibitive damage on the bombers? Is there a way to at least preserve the German cities from being flattened?

Is it possible with a little luck and some sneakiness to frustrate your opponents research advances? Some hypotheticals in the form of questions:(1)Say Germany and Italy score four advances each in intelligence. Would each Allied country have an 8% less chance of getting a reseach hit or 4% less chance? (2) Do intelligence advances apply against the U.S.S.R. and U.S. when they are still neutrals or only when they have entered the war? (3) Say the Axis gets good research hits in intelligence, doesn't invest in IW at all and the Allies put the typical 3 chits in researching this popular category? Could the Allies end up scratching their heads thinking they were unlucky when in fact their chances of getting a hit were significantly diminished?

I wonder. If you can surprise an opponent with a disparity in research levels you can really hurt him. The strategy:Germany and Italy beef up their ships to level 2 GLR and maybe higher subs. They sail through the Gibraltor and Copenhagen choke points and hit the allied fleets. With the difference in research levels you can often destroy enemy units and suffer acceptable losses. The upshot: Allied lost ships can't be bought at half price and take forever to build. Britain and America are isolated on their "islands" and the axis can devote the mid to late game to a one front war with the Reds. A viable strategy?

What with Germany converting the map from Narvik in the north to Cairo in the south into an Axis money factory their attack into Russia in late l941 is often an ahistorical and tepid effort. Surely, with two years of preparation behind them the Russians can do more than just waiting around Moscow to be overwhelmed. Maybe something like 5 level 3 tank armies under Zhukov poised to go into Romania. I dunno, isn't there something more aggressive they can do?

Is it set in stone that the Allies have to return to Europe through France, more specifically at Brest? I presume the specific reason is the airpower support in Englnd. But don't German fortifications and German air fleets neutralize that? And since the Germans are expecting them there isn't a defeated D-Day a potential gamebreaker? Why not go ashore in the Baltic or recapture Africa and hit the Axis somewhere in the Meditteranean? It seems a lot less risky.

If the Germans are willing to forgo an early attack into France might it not be possible to stop the annoying British land grab in Norway?With the Luftwaffe stationed in Jutland even a single moderate hit on a British transport makes a successful Norweigian invasion highly problematical. Is a combined aerial attack and parachute invasion then possible in the spring? After all, even moderate losses keeping the Brits out of Norway seems cheaper than the major effort required to stop an attack into Sweden once they are established in Norway.

It seems a shame that Britain has to stand idly by while Germany smashes Spain, often in the summer of 1940, and then roars down to take Gibraltar and seal off the Mediterranean from the Allies. With its' excellent defensive terrain and large body of commanded troops isn't there some way to make the Germans bleed for grabbing this country? Perhaps a British amphibious landing at Bilbao to reinforce the Spanish and MPPs sent to strengthen and concentrate Spainish units. What can be done?