Scook

Taking out Switzerland is ok. I don't think anyone would have attacked the world bank, and it is a nightmare to go into. Awesome job on this scenario. My friend and I started pvp today, and it feels like we are playing a whole new game. It will be interesting seeing how it plays out in '43 and '44. Cheers!

In game terms, been playing with rockets for quite a while. We never think of them as strategic bombing assets to blow up cities; we always use them in a capacity as artillery vs. units. In a close game, these can make an offensive move. Strange as this sounds, the last place we use them is attacking cities, the city sucks up the bombing leaving the troops intact. Why would you buy this over an aircraft? The biggest reason is the attacking is one way, you shoot, you gain xp, and you never take damage from attacking, unlike aircraft. With some care, you can have 4-5 bars of xp in no time, and these turn deadly in a hurry. At max range with 5 bars of xp, a tank group will take 4 damage from a 1 strength hit. You do need some tech improvements to make it work, Level 3 rockets are optimal (4 and 5 better, of course), and level 2 motorization is really a must with these. Now then, yes the scale is wrong to have artillery in the game. But, in game terms, this is what made America and Russia move against the Germans. Russia masses so much artillery for every offensive, and America had Corps assests that were flexible and deadly. I would think in game terms, US and USSR would have 3 artillery, and Britain 1 (they learned by 1944), and Germany would probably have 0, or 1, depending how you feel about it. Blashy, I like what you have done with your mod. The only change which I havent looked into yet, is American firepower. You are correct in saying this scale shouldnt have artillery. The US had so much of it, the overall firepower for US units should be higher. Is it possible to raise US units inf and tank attack and defensive values by 1 each? That would show the level of suuport American units had while keeping their force pool as it is.

Jon_j_ranmbo, Remember, like that time you were in Afganistan, and you jumped in that Soviet Tank, and had a jousting match with the Crazy Ivan in the helicopter? You da man.

Both are great! I have spent tons of time with SC1, and I am quite sure SC2 will occupy lots of my time. But then, I am easily entertained.

Oops, yes, you're right. It must be the feel they do more damage to ground units whenever I upgrade. I knew that, but didn't think it out.

I used to play many board games with dice rolling gods that affected the outcome of games (World in Flames really comes to mind). I like the variable weather, and its a rare game the a prolonged streak for one side and not the other will happen. Something happens a few times, welcome to the bell curve. When it's a trend, then let's discuss. Or, do like SC1, turn the weather off.

Agreed, if the Axis demand Spain join their cause, make them pay in other arenas of diplmacy. Getting USSR early is my favorite, followed by chits in Norway and Sweden ( to save me wasting my bomber on Kiel). As Axis, I rarely use the Spain gambit thing, only to provide variance to a game do I attempt it.

The flaws in SC2 seem very similar to SC1. SC1, build lots of infantry and air units for the win. Limited force pools solved part of the problem, along with tank upgrades applying to infantry attack go quite a ways, but tweeking around the air force problem without swaying too much balance is the rub. Maybe aircraft should have two different attack values, one for air to air combat (allies and Germans get the same value), and one for ground attacks (the Germans started it, the Allies mastered it), where the Germans have a maximum value of 3, and the Allies max out at a 5.

Germany is sneaking a transport up to Iceland and invading the same turn as DOW'ing Denmark. The scripts force the German back to Germany and hand Iceland over to the British. IMO the scripting is needed to make iceland go British (even though Iceland went under US influence in history, didn't it?), and all the OP has to do is hold the transport off the coast and then invade one turn after the script fires off.

Barring history (aka real world), maybe a one time hit for doing it to the US convoys, say in the 5%-10% range. Most games I have been playing vs real people have US entering June-August 1942. The sub hit should move the entry up to spring time. After the one time shock value occurs, the press buries the stories on page 11, and the Axis attack the convoys. Currently in game, remember you can adjust the sliders to how much a convoy will send. Drop the US down to 0, see if that Canadian route gets hit, and your cruisers should have a pretty small zone to patrol to find the pesky sub.

Since the airborne represent one division, and their strength is equivalent to an army, I think thats pretty bad-ass. The only change I think is USA should be able to buy 2 airborne.

ya know, I was just thinking about tech also..... since there are only 3 levels for Inf upgrades, and I imagine it goes 5%, 4%, 3%, it should really go 5%, 3%, 1%. That should make IW3 quite a bit harder to get. That should also let the Aliies catch up early to IW1, and IW3 overall will happen later (yes, luck exists, my friend as Russia had IW3 before I invaded in 1941. Not a game breaker, but made it a whole lot tougher).

ya know, I was just thinking about tech also..... since there are only 3 levels for Inf upgrades, and I imagine it goes 5%, 4%, 3%, it should really go 5%, 3%, 1%. That should make IW3 quite a bit harder to get. That should also let the Aliies catch up early to IW1, and IW3 overall will happen later (yes, luck exists, my friend as Russia had IW3 before I invaded in 1941. Not a game breaker, but made it a whole lot tougher).

I can live with British minors (Canada, Australia, New Zeland, and India only) getting tech upgrades and leaving the rest well enough alone. Axis minor should be the whipping boys on the Eastern Front, even if it is only a play balance step.

I can live with British minors (Canada, Australia, New Zeland, and India only) getting tech upgrades and leaving the rest well enough alone. Axis minor should be the whipping boys on the Eastern Front, even if it is only a play balance step.

The things that make this game play well are the same that make chess or Texas Hold 'Em poker so popular. The rules are easy to grasp, and there is depth, especially against other people. I spend my time playing against my opponent, not worrying about minutae.

If you are on the loser's side, your units surrender. If you are on the winner's side, your units get displaced to somewhere in your territory in supply.

I have mapped it out through 1943. 1939 have 11 turns, 6 Axis, 5 Allied. 1940-1943 have 29 turns each year, 15 Allied and 14 Axis in 1940, and flip-flopping the amount in the next years. Some people don't like the shortened winters, but I think its a different and fun game mechanic. I think its better to spend money on troopers in Fall and Early winter, and more on building up troopers and research in spring and summer because of the way turns go (if you can have the luxury of time to do this).

I like your guide. It has a lot of very good information for someone even playing against the computer. There are some points I would disagree with, but that comes from some certain advanced strategies that would apply only once someone really gets into the game. Very nice work.

Actually, this is exactly what Eisenhower wanted to do. He wanted to bypass Paris for a long as possible, realizing it would slow the adavence against the Germans, and diverting supplies to the people of France. I feel just like Ike when invading France currently. For game purposes, yes, the scripting won't work quite right. My major beef for Germany and Italy early is getting kicked out of territory I have taken because a script kicks in to satisfy a surrender (eg: Iceland and the African territories). If Vichy territory can revert back to France without kicking the Axis out of what they control, then by all means, go for it. In the current form, its not too bad of a situation, and wont affect late game playability too much.

Why not hardcode a maximum value for amphips into the game for each country? Germany would have a value of say, 3. Corps count as 1, Armies and HQ as 2, and Tank Groups as 3. So the most you can have hit anywhere is 3 corps (don't know is thats still too excessive for the Brits to handle, but hope not). The amphib can apply to all countries, my friend just dropped a USA invasion in France from amphibs and put down 4 armies, 5 corps, 2 HQ, and 2 Tank Groups. That seems a bit excessive in one turn with only amphibs. This would also make grouping invasions into area more realistic, and compensate for many squares that geograpgically could not be invaded.

Male, 39, Las Vegas Nevada Enjoys invading foreign beaches, throwing grenades at neighbor's lawn If you actually get female gamers, you have to make sure they have to reach a long way over the table to move those pieces.

This is good stuff.Take your doses of SC2 in large quantities.

You are correct, I just put down Wilson as he was the biggest detractor of the Versaille Treaty. I just didnt have time to put it all in a reply. And to Jon J. no Sherman's march is a different ideology. Research that a bit further and you will see very clear differences. On a grander scale however, Sherman has a strategic goal compared to the tactics involved in creating mobile warfare.

Actually, the plan to invade France was implemented in October 1939. V. Manstein made enough noise to garner a meeting with AH and impressed him so much they implemented that plan. Up to that point, the German Army was going to just repeat the Von Schliefen plan from WWI. As far as being outnumbered, most of the time Germany went places with inferior numbers but superior and never seen before doctrine. Owe the concepts of Blitzkreig and air power to the likes of Guderian (his book on the subject is an interesting read). Once the Allies got a handle on the tactics the Germans started, and then refined them, it was all over except for the crying. As for America, in November, 1944, we were outnumbered close to 2:1 on the Rhine River. Faulty intelligence didnt make that clear until 1945. We did have some very superior troops at this time in Europe, namely the airborne. Germany would never have taken Bastogn from the 101st, and the 82nd held back repeated assualts from 5 panzer divisions all by their lonesomes (and artillery and air support) and were counter attacking. Late 1944, we had probably the most elite soldiers on the planet in the form of the airborne and Marines. As far as 1933 being the time Germany lost, keep going back. WW II is a natural extension from WW I. The Treaty of Versaille is probably the most important single piece of paper in the 20th century. It set in motion all the events between 1918 and 1939, making it possible for a man like Hitler to lead a country. The only person that had the foresite to see the problems was Woodrow Wilson. Essentially, we created our own monster.