Colin I

Rambo - think you need to do a screen capture then post on a site like Photobucket but no expert here.

Screenshots maybe?

I like using the French navy this way - pissing off the Norwegians is not too serious, unless you really push it and the Germans will probably invade anyhow. There are also spots closer to Germany where you can do this. I really appreciate the surface raider changes (and the blockades) - Navy's have more impact. Its much harder for Germany to forget the Sea to concentrate on the Land for this and other reasons.

Kuni mentioned political diplomacy. indeed, we need a political model that underlies war entry and other major decisions. Right now there are crude triggers, if A happens then B has X% chance per turn, etc. One problem with these is sometimes they are not based on history. e.g. Fall of France triggers other events where it is really being used as an indicator that opening moves are complete, not that the Fall of France would have had that effect directly. Vichy is entirely reasonable, some other events are really using this trigger as a convenience. Secondly, they are too predictable leading to gamey strategies by those that read the scripts. Somehow the game must define each nation and what events threaten or placate it, what the consequences are. This could be more sophisticated conditional scripting but an underlying political model would be better. One thing is that currently nations lean to Axis or Allies, but you really want at least four indicators in Europe alone: Democracy, Fascist, Communist, Isolationist/Independent. So, early in the war US would have moderate D, low F and C and quite high I scores. I would decline and D grow in most cases. Germany obviously committed to F. A country like Finland has the drive to I but can switch between other alignments as it did. Finland with high F joins Axis BUT maintains quite high I which might allow it to switch sides later. When nations interact a high alignment in F, C or D promotes cooperation. If I is high then it might be trade or concessions. If I is low then entry into the war as an ally is possible. Diplomats can target one of F, C, D or I. You can choose the direction you want to influence it, make a target nation less or more isolationist, for example.

I'm wondering if we can do something about China in the 1939 game. Good players knock it over fast, less good ones find it frustrating. Because the game starts earlier than PTO you get longer to hammer it. Unless you overdo the resources committed, its a fairly obvious Axis strategy to kill China first. this leads to a fairly powerful Japan. Herein I think is a problem, there are few options to play China differently for either side. Its a bit of a grind - OK thats historical. But I'd still like to see some more strategies emerging. I suggested one was a DE letting a peace occur - maybe conditional, maybe at a cost. Perhaps there are other ideas, either tweaking the game or how to play things.

Guys keep it simple. The charm of SC is it does a lot with simple mechanics. You are freed from too much tactical play to concentrate on the strategy. GC is quite streamlined but still takes a while to play. So: 1) Units (air, sea, land) have 2 or 3 upgrade slots - you choose which with a few combinations being forbidden. If you choose armour and mobility you get a tank icon. You add long range air to a land unit and its paratroopers (obviously incompatible with quite a few other choices). Units can be capped in strength at different levels - 3 for garrisons or partisans, 8 corps and 12 armies. Elite reinforcements above this level. Similarly air units must choose between ground attack, long range, strategic bombing and air to air. 2) Please more intelligent scripts with contingencies - Rommel only gets sent to North Africa if it makes sense, otherwise he gets deployed to Russia. Decision events can be expanded here but maybe stick to major events. 3) Diplomacy chits have other uses - e.g. buying one off benefits or reducing partisans or increasing chance of surrender (can be played against hostile nations). 4) Altered operational move so it has a range limit. 5) A few more nation slots so Italy and France are independent again. 6) Deep sea hexes or tiles with different properties to coastal tiles (and it makes map look prettier). 7) I can handle tiles but hexes are better. 8) Program a move over several turns - especially useful for long range sea transport which gets a bit tedious after a while. If something unexpected happens script is aborted. 9) Some minor random element in spotting.

I'm afraid I love it. With the loss of AA (rightly so on this scale) it got very hard to defend against TAC or regular bombers. If your opponent had a bomber, fighter and TAC you needed up to four fighters. Plus carriers get 2 intercepts and they have less fighters. If your air is inferior it will take unsustainable losses doing 2 intercepts but otherwise its effective and appropriate.

Thanks Hubert.

Interesting. I was wondering about what happened here but Axis were overextended so I assumed I'd moved a unit away from Gibraltar, forgot to cover it and that it was captured with amphibious assaults. Yes, this needs fixing. When Italy surrendered to the Allies, German units swiftly took control of key points, mostly before the Allies could react. I'm wondering if its possible to script to deploy (create) a 3 strength (weak, not upgraded) German corps to replace such a surrendered minor unit in a foreign city but debit 50 MPP (or other amount). If there are no MPP or if an Allied land unit is within 2 tiles or the city is isolated you do not get the cover. This leaves the city vulnerable but not a complete walk over and simulates an emergency deployment to cover a crisis but at a cost.

Hubert - thanks - makes sense, this was prior to installing the patch.

Me too. And the Japanese cannot enter the defeated USSR. I think there should be a script or decision event where Germany cedes a few Eastern Soviet cities to Japan.

There are some limitations on operational movement for the Axis. at first sight these seem reasonable - you can't operate German air to Japan for example. Indeed I wish Allies had some more limitations here. But it can get strange late in the game. I've just knocked Russia out of the war and its not easy moving German units East West by rail even though the Axis controls the country including the rail net. I do think this should be possible but also its a bit fast to do this in one turn. One fix might be to count rail junctions for land units - each one counts as a step. You can operate up to any X rail junctions that you control (X steps) in a turn that are linked with good supply. This means really long ranged troop transfer cost more (say Madrid to Vladivostok) and takes longer and than Berlin to Paris. Air units I propose operate up to X times their tactical rebasing range for air transfer or can use regular sea transport rules. This allows both intermediate range air transfers and transatlantic shipping of air units in transports. It also removes the really irritating tactic (particularly by Allies who do not mind MPP losses late in the game) of moving air to block land units. its true land units do air a lot of damage (a good thing) but pushes by Japan in India (for example) should not be blockable by sacrificial air transfers direct from UK or US to Delhi. Think this has got some merit with fine tuning. Further, I propose that for each level of infrastructure there is a chance damaged resources (cities, ports, mines, oil) recover by 2 steps instead of one (say 20% chance per level) or there is some other relationship where there is some randomness in rebuilding but its helped by good infrastructure. The net effect should be as playable as before and far more realistic. And you can lose all the more arbitrary rules about what can operate where and make infrastructure technology more useful.

Thanks - look forwards to the changes.

Game ends as Tokyo falls to Russian armour. Thanks to Dave who played a great game. Germany suffered a few strategic set backs early on with the British entry into Scandanavia and subsequent dominance of the Baltic. Some of this was bad luck - the UK got long range air early and concentrated its carriers around Norway. The consequence of this was his subs being bottled up in the Baltic and not many conquests of minors. Despite this he built a great German air force and army that stood the Soviets off for an extraordinary length of time. I took too long to break them and made some mistakes (e.g. bringing in Vichy at the wrong moment). Japan concentrated on China with armour and came very close to finishing the job. Perhaps bombers would have been better. He might also not realize how close he was to breaking the British in SE Asia. Often Dave retreated when the fighting intensified to preserve his experienced troops - in a couple of cases (Sweden, SE Asia) it might have been better to press ahead. The Soviets really did the hard work both east and West. the Allies kept up lend lease throughout the war as the easiest method of delivering combat power against the Axis on both fronts. With the new combat model its possible to keep elite troops longer which I think is a good thing for realism when the tide turns against the Axis. They keep more of that combat edge as losses accumulate slower. TAC bombers are powerful but I like them this way but please give Soviets more fighters and double intercepts generally.

Thanks Bill. Dave has really protected his units and built experience and technology very well. It has come at a price though - tending to retreat in battles that have gone either way. At one point there were 6 L5 Japanese fighters on the mainland. But Russia had Zukhov at 5 bars experience which compensated a lot and meant the Zero pilots were not invulnerable.

Russians continue to take mainland Japan despite adverse weather. Russians have two armour ashore plus an army and HQ to the South - and an isolated US tank unit. Japanese lose 2 infantry units, a fighter and an HQ this turn. Russians have an army plus a fighter unit in the North. UK carrier group attacks Dutch East Indies. Turkey drifts to the Allies. Bill - thanks - have emailed 2 Jpegs.

Russians continue to get ashore - now with a presence on the North island of Japan. US joins with an armoured unit. Japanese loss rate is accelerating - this should end by summer 1946 or so.

Japanse armour on the mainland is killed by a huge concentration of US carriers, US TAC air, direct amphibious assault and Russian air. Russians get first HQ and armour landed. I have a JPEG screenshot if anyone cares to post it. The Amphibious assault should be land or die. Its a great improvement you can attack occupied tiles but it needs fine tuning. At least increase attacker and defender casualties. In this game most direct assaults against a winter coastline result in 1 or 0 defender strength point losses and NONE for attackers. in reality a failed assault (= did not get ashore) would have been a disaster. In part the lack of Amphibious losses are because IJN is sunk and Japanese have no TAC left but still Russians can float in their barges for a month and try again.

Lots of bad weather but the North Japanese Island is clear. So russians kill an HQ from the air and carriers hit a fighter. Carriers seem much deadlier vs fightyer bases than fighters do. iraq joins Allies. US moves TAC bombers within range of Southern japan.

The Divine Wind and other bad weather limits the Allies swarming around Japan. Russians get a second wave ashore after killing an HQ with help from US carriers. US sets up TAC bombers on a nearby island and mainland China is largely Allied.

Russians kill a TAC bomber and US destroys last IJN carrier and advances a little more. Russians now have a few units on Japan but these are just cannon fodder. Fighters attacking TAC air bases even with defensive interception are lethal. Fighters attacking other fighters does very little. Something to fix I think.

Russian air force mostly halted by rain but enough gets into the air to kill a Japanese bomber in Japan with help from an Amphibious assault from the sea. I assault then kill the bomber with a TAC fighter only to find amphibious unit cannot land in vacant tile - not sure why - perhaps lack of high level Amphibious technology? Russian paratroopers land instead - they won't survive but Russia gets 800 MPP a turn so is past caring. First foreign troops on Japan. Lots of bombardment of Japan. Elsewhere its just mopping up. New Amphibious rules are a huge improvement but I notice attacking an occupied tile with a combat unit does not lead to a high casualty rate for the attacker. In the past you take losses whilst landing. Direct assault from Sea should be risky - maybe increase casualties here rather than later?

EAST: Air war over Japan. Japanese have six or so impressive L5 fighters (at least one at 5 bars experience) plus TAC, a carrier and bombers. But Russia is also maxed out on air technology and Zukhov is at 5 bars experience too. After a lot of dogfighting Japanese lose 2 TAC air. Hong Kong and Philippines are liberated. Russians and Chinese roll forwards on the mainland.

EAST: Russian jets attack Japan killing a TAC. Russian air gathers near Vladivostok. USN denies mainland supplies. Cities liberated in China by a mix of UK and Russian forces.

EAST: Apart from a few raiders IJN is all sunk. Russians continue to pour into Manchuria. MIDDLE EAST: Iraq drifts towards Allies.