Colin I

Russia still slow for Germany with rain. but he has lots of low-tech armour coming. British liberate Norway. East continues to turn Japanese with Allied air and naval fleeing. China is getting hammered - he now has a bomber there too and a Chinese HQ is killed. Dutch East Indies falls as do a few more Islands.

WEST: Barbarossa is go, although no cities fall and Germans face IW2 AT2 Soviets. German L3 subs sink a battleship off Oslo - weather too poor for Allies to strike back. However, British advance in Norway. EAST: Pear Harbour hit, Thailand and Hong Kong falls, Dutch East Indies hammered, various Islands assaulted as Japanese expand their Empire violently. Graaf Spree and Italian destroyers contacted off India. US gets various units to safety as best it can and British send arms to the colonies. Its a bit early to judge how this is going but at first sight East continues to be better for the Axis than the West.

SEPTEMBER 1941 Barbarossa clearly about to happen. Japan continues in China, again the Flying Tigers try and interdict the tanks. UK continues to be active in and around Norway. Sweden swings back towards the Axis but not enough to restart convoys.

LATE SPRING 1941 UK takes Bergen (Norway) with Special Forces after a massed carrier and air strike. British keep Oslo harbour reduced. Germans mass on Russian border. Rain in China.

LATE SPRING 1941 China is strange. Basically, its packed with Chinese troops that simply get munched by Japanese troops. They cannot effectively counterattack. The only ray of hope are the Flying Tigers - the only "Chinese" unit able to mount any counterplay. They go tank busting. I do notice China had some generals with excellent ratings - anyone know if this was historical? In the West the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine are strangely absent despite the Canadians bombing Oslo harbour and various other bombardments and air strikes against Norway.

May 1941 Its Yin and Yang this game. Bad East, Good West. In the East Japanese armour grinds through the Chinese like snails rasping their way through a leaf. There are three of the nasty level 3 menaces. In the West the British combine bombers and carriers to lay waste a German bomber standing guard in Norway and generally harass the coastline of fortress Europe with bombardment and blockades. Blockades are nice - combined with bombardment you can really shut down a coastline forcing your opponent to respond or live with it. Its also reasonable, puts a greater premium on sea control. Rest is quiet - Italians have yet to make their move and UK isn't pushing it in North Africa.

I think some players underestimate diplomacy. Axis have less scope but there are certain critical allies (Spain, sometimes Sweden or Turkey) that can be recruited. This can because of strategic location (to threaten Gibraltar) but also bulking out limited force pools with extra manpower. The Allies now have a lot of chits. Its a good way of threatening Axis interests when they do not want to be distracted. For example, if Allies invest in Spain then Axis is pretty much obliged to invade or invest chits. If this is happening during Barbarossa it can be a problem - a MPP/unit drain. Allies can convert a neutral as an easy entry into Europe - somewhere to build up. If Spain and Portugal are Neutral then getting Portugal as Allied gives a build up location. Unlike invading France it will take time for Axis ground units to engage. An Allied Sweden is very threatening if Allies start to locate bombers there to fly over the Baltic. There comes a point where US has so many MPP then throwing some diplomatic pressure into the misery for the Axis makes sense. Agree with others that want to see a more subtle system with more benefits for a country being biased to Axis or Allies but not a full participant. Stuff like the Sweden convoy is a nice reason to use diplomacy. I'd also like decision events to be triggered by diplomacy. I'd really like there to be a chance of peace in China (driven by diplomacy) to add variety in strategy to the Far East.

The confrontation over Norway is cancelled due to bad weather in both Axis and Allied turns. From a retreating German paratrooper and all that land-orientated TAC air it looked like he was planning to invade Sweden for not shipping any ore. Unfortunately the Japanese armour in not in the least prone to backing off and another Chinese army (lacking antitank guns) dies.

I’m posting this because there haven’t been many AAR in GC yet and because there seems to be quite some debate as to whether TAC air is unstoppable in Russia and whether UK can halt the U-boats. Hopefully my opponent will contribute. Opening Moves (over a year) West: On the land the Axis systematically flatten Poland, Benelux, Denmark, Norway and France as expected. Germany shows IW2. The only upset is the loss of an armoured unit to the French. Diplomatically the UK score a coup in persuading the Swedes to stop shipping ore. The French raid the Norway convoy (a nice new tactic) and this duty is taken over by Bomber Command the RN which also blockades French ports against SeaLion. British carriers sink the Strasbourg as soon as its brought into service. Vichy France is generally recognized. An interesting situation is developing off Norway. The British carrier group raid Narvik to stop the Norwegian convoys and nail a U-boat as a bonus. British are showing long range air from their carriers – this is VERY useful. So far Germany has not raided much at sea. The RN also moves towards Oslo and encounters quite some German TAC bombers though thankfully these look specialized for land warfare (suggesting he has AT2). RN bombards these. It will be interesting to see what he does next turn. Italy and some Axis minors (despite UK diplomacy vs Spain) are in the war but North Africa and East Africa are rather quiet. The Italians have a bomber watching the Med. East: Japanese have built quite some armour and got it to L3 already. Thankfully, the single strike and bad terrain limit it in China but these are getting effective. Looks like Guderian has been advising the Emperor on the new method of warfare. The combination of Japanese armour and carrier support plus IW2 for Japan is worrying. India has declared for the UK. So, too early to tell much. Axis has got good fighting technologies (at least two of armour, IW, AT) on both fronts. I’m very happy with the UK so far, its got good diplomacy hits and is looking a significant power quite fast though I expect some defeats soon.

Subs can hit that Norwegian convoy too. Also - though this is totally gamey and needs to be eliminated - subs are very useful for finding other subs and blocking them in hunt mode - given their mutual immunity. As others have noted, subs should always be silent vs other subs.

From Seamonkey: "But just for contemplating, imagine...that with the Italians' access to the Atlantic, Spain-Gibraltar Axis, at the beginning of 1942, the Axis navy can be composed of 6 BBs, 6 CAs, and 12 subs." OK - so Axis have got Spain one way or another and built U-boats. Presume Middle East is Axis or at least contained. UK has similar numbers of Battleships in Europe, some cruisers, around 6+ destroyers (I think accepting Lend Lease is compulsory) and FOUR carriers. These are full double strike enabled with upgrades in LR air and Naval warfare if UK has any sense. I think Axis still win but at a big cost. But its a huge effort and I think Barbarossa suffers. Meanwhile the US has seen all this and can plan its move and technology. Furthermore this assumes UK is not proactive earlier. I'm in a game where the Strasborg was nailed the turn it was placed and one sub is down. UK can try for a showdown before the Axis are ready and the British will see this strategy coming. I might AAR a game in progress with Santini - frankly I'm not sure it will prove me right but its an example of an aggressive UK trying not to allow your Axis scenario to happen. I'm not saying you are wrong but we have not mined counter strategies enough to know and without Terif and Rambo are going to have to work this out for ourselves ;-)

Back to debate (see conversation with Snowstorm and Seamonkey a few posts back). If Axis does not bring its subs out until 42 then UK has accumulated a lot of MPP. Also by 42 US Navy will be able to assist soon. In the games I'm playing I find UK has more resources thanks its colonies and this is translating into useful gear and tech. I'm not saying you are wrong that delaying to 1942 with L3 subs is a good Axis strategy but that is a lot of MPP for Germany too that could be spent in Russia. I do think ASW for UK is more critical than it used to be. Think its just a bit early to claim there is a cookie cutter strategy given there are more options in GC but we do need those Rambo and other experienced players to destruct test play balance.

Not convinced Axis have it all their own way against an equal opponent. I agree Axis air is deadly in Russia (we need double strike fighters) but its up to the Allies to provide counter pressure elsewhere and thats easier in GC. In the games I'm playing the UK gets very powerful thanks to colonial MPP and extra scripted units with the ability to concentrate a lot of carriers unless Axis really triumphs in the Atlantic. Given carriers with at least 1 level of long range air and acceptance of lend lease destroyers thats not so easy. The larger number of diplomacy chits in GC let the West bring in allies and mess with Axis convoys and potential allies so I think as Axis there will be more pressure and this will be applied faster to occupied Europe. Of course if Rambo was around the place this proposition could be tested ;-) A good Axis player can only countered by a good Allied player but thats always been the case.

Oh - bombers can raid convoys and if you bomb the port a convoy operates out of this screws up the route. Bombers are REALLY useful!

Production: Around 1.5 to 2 years to make your investment back in the context of a 5 to 6 year game seems about right. It lets Russia or USA set up mass production. Bombers: You might underestimate how useful these are, not just reducing MPP but spotting, disabling ports and operational movement. Agreed they should be further disabled in jungle. Armour: Basically they decline in usefulness as the war goes on (as AT technology improves) but remain potent. That's realistic. AA - agreed, this needs to do more.

Good Enhanced diplomacy (more chits, more nations, belligerence). Simplicity – I like lower resolution map and fewer unit types – lets you concentrate on strategy over operational details. Enhanced strategic options with coordination of Axis powers and Allies. Enhanced battle of Atlantic. Direct amphibious assaults on occupied tiles. Blockades. Bad Scripted reinforcements and take-over of some countries (Singapore, Norway) feels arbitrary and wrong – you can’t stop this with realistic strategies and have to memorize scripts to see these coming. With reinforcements would far prefer these to be in production. We need more or cheaper or double strike fighters for air defense. Operational movement needs to be limited or cost more over very long distances – especially for air. Balance Still hard to say. Russia feels more vulnerable to combined assault and TAC air but US has huge flexibility and resources. Also its not trivial limiting UK Empire whilst keeping focus in Europe. Still trying to decide.

Are you sure Axis is unbeatable - think its hard for Axis to interfere with the colonies and maintain focus, the ability of US to decide where to commit vast resources is a plus and the greater number of diplomatic chits favours the Allies? Agree shift to airpower though - especially with wold-wide operational movement. Don't find time per turn too bad though. Compared to Nupremal's excellent efforts find gameplay quite easy and simplicity of the map frees your mind to think strategically.

Looking for a game or mirror games. Would like experienced SC2 opponent, ideally like me who has hardly played Global yet - those early games before you have memorized the scripts are always the best. PBEM - not a fast play rate likely.

Possibly ENGINEERS and special forces. But really, any serious combat is destructive to infrastructure. An army can do a lot of damage if it chooses. I reckon the reduction in fortification by 2 steps is sufficient by special forces (maybe add engineers) is enough. Paras can't carry enough munitions to really damage infrastructure (OK they blew up bridges but thats below the resolution of SC - though I would like to see that in the future. IE where rail or road crosses rivers there is a point of attack for bombers that cuts road movement or operational movement). What would be interesting would be to allow Engineers to attack their own infrastructure - ie mining ports, blowing up bridges etc. when in retreat. But maybe better is just to let a player voluntarily reduce a resource or port by a few levels per turn. Really, the way SC localizes all engineering capacity in 1 or 2 units is a bit strange. If you did this you would no longer need special rules for scorched earth.

Is it really impossible to reset the flag for at war from 1 to 0 (or whatever) and reset % mobilization in current game engine?

I would like there to be an option to make peace with China. Given the fragmentation of the warlords you could see the coalition falling apart - maybe enhanced by diplomacy. It would really open up the strategic options for Japan.

We need more AA protection but there really shouldn't be separate AA units at this scale. Better to double intercept from fighters. Second to make slightly cheaper and/or numerous. In the long term I second SeaMonkey - AA upgrade on units.

I think we have to conclude you are Terif - only he could build morale like that!

I quite like some variation in surrender - it stops you calculating rather more precisely than a real commander would be able to. If you take a capital city but ignore a strong force of enemy armour you can't be sure it won't counterattack rather than surrender. With Italy and France - both countries are fairly easy to take out - given the number of ground units remaining after the fall of Paris or Rome is usually quite small the chance of them fighting on is not that large. And if you take Rome with a single unit raid without landing any other troops then I'm not sure even the Italians would throw in the towel.

Love Nupremal's maps and design (e.g. strategic loops) but I agree with Hubert's scale and Seamonkey's comments - the aim here is to finish a few games and too much detail really slows this down and also obscures the strategic aspects. The thing is, SC does not do operational aspects so well (see upcoming Gary Grigsby's Russian Front game for how to do this) but does strategy very well indeed. So, really your decisions about where to strike and how hard are just as valid on the current map as on a more detailed one. Who cares if you invade Sweden with 4 units on the current scale or 8 on a finer scale - the point is did you go in hard enough and does your opponent have counter play. This pressure from wargamers is a bit like the SPI monster games trend. SPI produced great wargames, and under fan pressure started to produce monster games. I wonder if any were ever finished or play tested properly and I doubt they made money. SPI went under, and I think the games we remember from them fondly were not the monsters. So, please consider playability.