Colin I

Games on...! Turn and email is coming. Colin

Hellraiser - if you are interested in a PBEM game, great.....

Gronq: On sharing technology: Really you need to first overhaul diplomacy system so you can influence a non-cooperating ally to be cooperative and from that to a very close alliance where you share tech. This would be quite hard to doing programming/game terms I think, but an excellent step. So US could influence Soviets to cooperate more etc. On air warfare: Paratroopers should be able to be intercepted and shot down. YES....! You should not be able to do a paradrop in the face of enemy air. Paradrops should be intercepted and escorted like a bomber would be.

Minty. Indeed - just a Cheryl Cole to their Simon Cowell....... Yes, we should have a game when you are ready.......

Any "old timers" fancy a slowburn PBEM game (?) I'll bite. Currently also fighting JG on a weekend PBEM game. Hardly a legend (Rambo beat me once and we drew the second time) but can give experience players a run these days and figure Global is the best yet as a game.

Bill, Can you briefly discuss strategies for the Central Powers to reduce the decline in national Morale of Germany? I realize breaking the embargo is one such. I normally do well militarily with Germany but even with capture of key objectives, sinking the Russian fleet it seems hard to keep NM above the French as you are fighting on so many fronts and it will take some years to KO France or Russia. When the Ottoman joins, that produces a NM boost? I think there should be a few more events or objectives that boost your own NM - e.g. fall of Paris or minor Allies joining. The overall picture should be a decline but the odd temporary reversal would boost player morale too......! cheers Colin

As each unit is more than one ship, you could consider "repair" as assigning ships not yet part of a fleet to reinforce the unit, as well as repairing damaged ships. So its fine right now. That's true of land units too, you add new men and vehicles, not just repair old ones.

Really you need strategic areas where you place subs and destroyers (with some influence for air). The balance (numbers and technology) determines MPP losses from convoys and attrition - rare but nasty losses to capital ships - plus lower level more consistent attrition to subs.

Bill, Thanks - percentages make sense here. cheers Colin

This scenario presents (accurately) the difficult task of Germany taking one or both of France or Germany out of the war. The problem is National Morales are set to 100. Why? This hardly portrays war weary nations, makes it harder to KO France or Russia, and its not possible to arrive at this position from the 1914 campaign. Would suggest France NM 51, Germany NM 60 and Russia 35 (sliding into disaster). Anyone played this one yet?

Agree: fighter intercept (and escorting) should apply to paradrops and it should cost MPP to prepare to jump. If transporting parasby ship costs MPP then by air also. Maybe make the unit a bit cheaper to compensate or better against fortresses.

Nice AAR - good to see your strategic thoughts. I went the other way - threw everything at France and killed it but at the cost of losing Austro-Hungary (though it is now back in the war as Russia DOWed it again). The real success was the Turks who are not the strongest nation but who have less problems and enemies than AH. They took North Africa very nicely. This can work too - UK aid is a real problem, Italian to some extent but US find it hard to have a major impact. The game looks beautiful with an elegant interface though many of the prettiest elements (aircraft, tanks) actually have limited strategic impact. Strategic bombing with Zepellins is nice and quite effective at high technology levels, though. Suspect the replay value not as high as WWII due to slow pace. The naval game really needs to get sharper - sea battles go on for many weeks right now. I believe Churchill said that Admiral Jellicoe was the only person who could lose the war in a day.....! Not currently, the battle of Jutland takes a very long time......

Agree - Oz is not worth going after right now compared to other targets. Its hard to take (big country, barren interior) and vulnerable to counter assaults by US. Compared to India which is harder for Allies to retake and gets you close to Middle East and is a logical extension of taking China or SE Asia. Also, maybe peace option with China (decision events or diplomacy option) so costs MPP and you do not get big bonus for taking it but frees up units early. A good player will take China but if you make this harder you cripple Japan, bogging it down in an endless land war.

I'm not so sure. It really is a big sacrifice to achieve this, its very risky and usually leaves the Allies very vulnerable in other ways (SeaLion, other counters). I know some people believe its gamey but I think its legitimate.

I like 2D old style wargame counters. I think they can look very good with the right colour scheme and can be easier to understand.

Just sent a relevant turn, Hubert. Thanks Colin

There are also serious issues over supply in Russia after it surrenders. I took Russia with Germans (70% of country) but Japan took final capital. German supply fell to near zero so it took years to walk units out. Realistically we need a partition script so Germans keep some of their gains and get some supply. Otherwise supply is far worse from an uncooperative ally than when fighting an actual enemy. Then Rambo destroyed Japan (they surrendered). But Germans still do not have supply in Russia. Even stranger, some areas of Russia (where there have never been Japanese units) is shown as Japanese territory. Here Germans do have some supply. These factors affect late game balance a great deal.

Dear Hubert - you are right - its surprise contacts. But my point is that if the two groups of subs do not interact very much then this shouldn't happen. You just need a rule like paratroopers - as far a subs go they move from point A to point B without the intervening path mattering UNLESS a unit that can stop them is able to intercept. If a sub tries to occupy an sea tile enemy sub it is displaced one area. Surprise contacts really shouldn't happen enough on a strategic scale between submarines to matter, IMHO.

Dear Hubert, Thanks. I think they genuinely block but will test this ASAP. BTW I am arguing they should not block other subs in hunt mode as well as silent.

SeaMonkey - mostly agree with you,except still feel sub vs sub conflict was rare enough not to be required in SC Global. Subs primarily interact with surface vessels. I would agree for a modern version where hunter-killer subs and better homing weapons are common place.

Hubert, Thanks but I'm really arguing for a rules change so that interaction between enemy subs is minimal - less than now. Currently they collide and do no damage (fine) but should not block - not even in hunting mode. In some games both US and Japan use them a lot and it can lead to blocking and search methods that were not very historical.

Enjoying GC game vs Rambo but noticing two problems: 1. Germany and Japan carved up USSR. Japan took the final USSR city so gets the MPP. Germany control most of the country but are all very low supply. When they were fighting the Soviets it was higher....! We need a partition script or change supply rules between Axis - its fair Japan does not cooperate fully but no cooperation (no supply from each others resources) is also wrong. Might have to change operational move rules too (a distance limit rather than between any friendly connected resource) as I suspect this is linked to supply ownership. 2. An old problem - subs bump into each other. Sub vs sub action was rare - would suggest all subs are silent vs all other subs. Sure they can't damage each other but they shouldn't block either. This problem is worse now as we have significant subs on both sides - in old days only Axis used subs a lot so it didn't show up as much.

Yes, but its functionally equivalent to hexes - no gain from staggered squares and they look worse.

Isolated forts really need a minimal level of supply (its reasonable to assume massive stockpiles of food and munitions) but as others note, not be able to reinforce. I do note Maginot line probably could reinforce via tunnels but thats exceptional. Yes, there are game mechanics limitations here. The self reinforcing ability of isolated HQs is also rather odd and a similar problem. Air supply - hmm. Actually would like to see this added. There are some cases where it did let units hang on for a few months longer. Perhaps this is a mode for bombers - raid or supply. If supply mode chosen, then provides a minimal (say L1 to L5 depending on technology and bomber supply) to one unit within range. Uses something like the attachment mechanic to do this.

Interesting point about supply lines crossing with tiles.