Colin I

Seems to me the issue with global SC, highlighted by the carrier issue in nupremal's mod, is one of flexibility of command structure. SC lets you concentrate air and Naval force to an extent that was rarely done (but was possible, think of D-Day). This issue is more serious in global modifications. So one possibility is its OK. Perhaps limit the range of OP move (see below). Then perhaps the issue with US carriers is they are too powerful against land-based forces. Another is we divide the world into Theatre of Operations. You can only OP move between adjacent theatres. Additionally, we might want to simulate strategic limitations and force structures - perhaps some variant on garrison's? Actually I favour the unconstrained approach with historical penalties. You can do anything you want but if it was stupid in WWII it will be stupid in this game. If we ask can the US move their carriers to the ETO, think they can. I would make a script though - if too many US carriers appear then trigger increased Japanese readyness (and perhaps Italian or Spanish drift to Axis) or some other penalty that matches the real historical reason this was not a good idea.

Rambo, Think I would actually like to see fewer land unit types (lose the antitank, artillery and antiaircraft and maybe engineer and special forces) on the grounds of elegance and simplicity - and that you do not get strategic formations that specialized. Then allow units to have a special upgrade slots that lets them add back an ability. Units can have a special forces upgrade, or an AA or artillery or engineering capability added. More than 1 special upgrade slot should be very, very expensive or we create monstrous super units. We also need a few new technologies (low cost, maybe 50 MPP per level). Particularly Jungle Warfare and Winter Warfare and maybe mountain Warfare. This would allow an upgrade (maybe as part of the above system) for Finnish winter troops or Chindits - reduce move, supply and combat penalties in appropriate terrain or conditions. A winter warfare would let a German player choose to prepare better for the Russian winter (or the Russians who were vulnerable here too). We could also allow Amphibious assault as an upgrade to allow attacking an enemy held tile and reduce landing penalties. So I see a unit as being: Soviet Artillery Army: Army. Strength 10. Upgrade IW 1, AT 1, Motorization 1, Special Upgrade Slot Artillery 2. Or US Marine: Corps with Strength 11, IW 1, AT 1, Motorization 0, Special Upgrade: Amphibious Assault 3, Special forces (or Jungle warfare?) 1. Japanese Corps (Early War): IW 1, AT 0, Motorization 0, Special Upgrade: Jungle Warfare 1. You get the idea...... Taken to its ultimate you need 4 unit types - Land, Sea, Air and Logistics (think HQ should stay separate but maybe not). Do not think we need a specific system for elite troops - protect them, let them gain experience and pump resources/upgrades their way works.

Whilst we are at charging MPP: Paradrops should cost as least as much (in MPP) as Amphibious assault. This particularly prevents the abuse where you use paradrops into clear friendly terrain just to move faster/cheaper. Arnhem was a huge logistics operation but SC portrays it as cheaper than sea transport from the UK (if riskier). Abolish the engineer - the entire engineering capacity of the USSR would not be in one location. Instead pay to upgrade or fortify (or create other infrastructure). Make it a non-linear scale to avoid abuse - upgrade 2 locations at once, base cost (1 location for minor powers) but add penalties for working with more locations simultaneously. If upgrading locations become enemy held tile lose MPP and abort construction. I think if we did this and increase MPP for oil tiles more we do not need an oil system.

Agreed - I always thought mechanization should be cheaper but more vulnerable to poor supply so in bad terrain without good logistics its worse than foot. This adds a bit of subtlety and realism at no real cost in complexity. Actually, I suppose you should actually charge 1 or 2 mpp each turn a mech (or naval?) unit moves. This way only the Allies would mechanize everything whilst Axis would be more selective. Indirectly, this is an oil based rule.

I knew I hadn't taken the last objective but given the situation (only about 2 US units left) felt a stalemate wasn't an accurate result. Bill addressed the Q well too - thanks to you both.

Do not think you need special elite units. You choose which units to reinforce and upgrade so can give priority to your favourite. You can add elite levels. You can preserve important units (protect with cannon fodder). You can make sure they always have HQ support. In other words do all the things that really done to make the Pazer Lehr, Russian Guards, US Screaming Eagles or others powerful and special. Game actually covers this well - maybe with a little tweaking of the experience system.

Global games are tricky - SPI tried a few times with WWII and WWIII and they never seemed as good as the theatre specific games this publisher and others produced. You either have to abstract a lot or assume most of the map is of minor importance. SC/WaW/PTO do do strategic warfare well in the sense you can attack supply sources and ports and disrupt land transport. A gobal game would need changes in the diplomacy system and a more sophisticated political model. Operational movement would need a range limit.

Yes, great post. I worry that most of the plans other than stomp China and use your fleet to damage the West's retaliation are too ambitious for anyone other than a careless Allied player. Attacking Australia is quite hard and the relocation of India's capital is also downright tricky. In both cases supply lines are so long.

Spotting needs some work, its so crucial to Pacific theatre. I don't want too many minor units but do feel some air detachments are needed for spotting purposes by Japan. Not sure the kamikaze units are ideal here, guess if they report back there was a target they failed in their mission ;-) Really must play Nupremal mod - the change from antitank to garrison is excellent.

The strategy of Japan may well have been an error. The idea was to form a defensive region of island strongpoints to keep the US a long way from Japan. Its true they were not easy to take but they were fairly easy to isolate or bypass. Its quite possible the US assaulted more than it needed. Unless the island was a base for a significant naval or air presence it really wasn't much use strategically. If it was a significant threat US could concentrate sufficient forces to win. I wonder if Japan should get a few reduced bomber units that cannot be reinforced - these would have great spotting value from islands. As others point out, the three full bombers can do this butr its a waste when China or India is in dispute.

Thanks Bill. I shifted almost all my forces South - did not know whether there would be secondary invasions. So, reinforced my armour then basically drove the US into the sea with about 10 turns to go. Once this was done turned North by land and sea, took apart most of the Northern force but did not take the last objective. Would still score this as a Japanese victory but understand your point. Think it was a logical strategy. If I had defended all locations I would not have had the men to overwhelm the main US landing. Guess you cannot do it in SC but really those Japanese naval guns should not be able to fire inland. Thought it was a good move leaving Amphib capability in for Japan - on this scale small boats should suffice.

OK - sent the autosave file, Bill.

As a little light relief I played operation Stalemate as Japanese. Japanese wiped the floor with the US, destroying the main invasion force then launching a land and amphibious on the rest. Despite this, game was declared a stalemate. Is this a glitch? A joke given scenario name - but did seem a strange result, it was anything but.

I think Terif would say Mobility 2 is not cost effective anyhow. But this is level not appropriate for Japan, agreed. But the thing is that in the Pacific there is a lot of really horrible terrain and weather so mobility 1 is very useful. Otherwise you get the common frustration of getting stuck or be unable to close with the enemy. Actually, I would tailor it more. Mechanization really is not that useful here but ability to cross awful terrain, as the Japanese did at the start of the war and Allies learnt to later (e.g. Chindits) is important. I would have a tropical warfare technology giving better movement, supply and reduced combat penalties in specified terrain types. Then ditch the mobility technology (who cares if your tanks go faster when trying to get them through a mosquito infested swamp!?).

Bill, That is good news - a bit of tweaking for play balance is nice. I also vote for historical end date. I've suggested this before, but why not give Japan mobility 1 and upgrade one of the units in SE Asia. I think mobility is a key Japanese technology - in China its a great help in the mountains getting into tiles you cannot otherwise enter given supply and bad weather. These days I try and get mobility before infantry weapons 2. Its mobility not mechanization which is good, given the historical rapid Japanese advance through jungle in SE Asia I think its justified. To use more extensively you would have to spend on upgrades. It really could Japanese offence a kick. Colin

I keep trying multiple strategies with Japan but can only do really well with maximum concentration on China combined with well timed attacks on the Allied Navy. I HOPE there are other winning strategies, but has anyone found one yet?

ARADO: I'm far from convinced game in pro-Japan. Allies can make multiple mistakes but Japan cannot. Perhaps this is more for inexperienced players, with SC2 Axis were harder to play but in the hands of a good player became more dangerous. Still feel Japan needs Russia less aggressive and some minor tweaks for parity in terms of game balance. I would end game slightly earlier, give a chance for a decision event for peace in China and some minor stuff (one unit in SE Asia with mobility 1 to simulate rapid advance). With outer islands - Japan's strategy was to use them as a defensive shield - it doesn't work in game but it did not really work historically either, except where US chose to butt heads with entrenched troops. But here I would raise the build threshold so Japan can build more bombers because it lets them create a better early warning network/defensive shield. I'm in a game with Baron with me as Japan, and not to give too much away but the decision as to where to place them is proving crucial. The are useful in China, keeping MPP down and reducing entrenchment, but also vital to warn me of naval moves. But with only three in play its really not that hard to find a way round them.

I agree with SeaMonkey - Germany was unlikely to win or get a limited victory but do not think our view of history is so clear that some settlement is impossible. Diplomacy is critically important in alternative outcomes and you can imagine areas that could make a big difference (Spain, Ukraine or other USSR components that hated Stalin) plus a different bargaining position if Middle East fell etc. more than the warfare as creating other futures. Agreed it was unlikely but do not how we can say it was impossible - we really forget how bleak things looked in the first part of the war for the Allies.

Timskorn, You bother to repair your IJN a lot? I tend to reload carriers with planes during the expansion phase - they are too effective not to work hard - generally find it too expensive given limited MPP to do too much with the surface fleet. Even Naval warfare seems tricky, you can get the tech hits but I've done this several times and found I can't implement the full benefit. Prority for me is to get my airforce and army up to speed in that order. In the early game you have Naval superiority - in the late game you lose it. Repairs are very costly and only delay the inevitable unless your opponent is careless. But I'm interested in contrary opinions. Enjoying the AAR.

Posting for PBEM (Operation Z) opponent - did get a reply from Santini a while back (still interested?) and am playing Baron as Japan (and if the two people are the same then its not clear to me!?). Am playing unpatched right now, will load patch for future games. Play either side, reasonably experienced.

I like Nupremal's take on China here too.

I think as others have noted diplomacy and peacemaking is partly personality driven so there can be a lot of variation and surprise in it. In China it was such a mess of warlords and factions that I can see it as a possibility. Bear in mind Japan fought Russia too before WWII and made peace there. if anything, the total war of WWII is unusual - most of history war is a stop-start affair with countries being elevated or diminished but not always waging war to the point of complete victory or surrender.

I am wondering if there should be a decision event to end the Sino-Japanese war. The Chinese had their successes but also big failures. Perhaps after x casualties or lost territory there is a chance of peace as a decision event. The cost for Japan is no longer being able to take all of China with MPP gain. The gain is being able to immediately redeploy against other targets. I bring this up because if there is a cookie cutter plan for Japan its concentration on cChina. this would give an option to go other targets before US swings into the mess in great force. Not sure about historical basis but given factionalized China it might not be impossible - this is more of a thought towards more diverse/interesting game play.

There seems to be a need for a chance a unit will self-disband with no gain in MPP (ie surrender) when supply is 0 and morale is below a certain level. Early on in resisting a landing damaging units a bit at sea is quite logical - they may take more damage landing and low strength units getting in eachother's way seems quite legitimate given the chaos of a badly put together amphibious assault. but I agree it shouldn't last too many turns.....

Japan thought a perimeter of fortified islands would blunt the Allied counterattack. The problem was that the Allies could isolate such islands and only assault the ones it deemed necessary. Well, the US assaulted a few pointless ones too, but thats beside the point. The thing is, because the game localizes engineers into a few units, Japan cannot do what it did quite well - which was turn them into nightmares of defense - futile but unpleasant. The only fix I can think of with a degree of historical basis is that if a Japanese unit holds an island for X turns then a minor fortification is built where it is entrenched.