Jump to content

4th Bn 66th Reg

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 4th Bn 66th Reg

  • Birthday 07/13/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

4th Bn 66th Reg's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. Just checking to see if there are any new developments coming in the future for this game? Scott
  2. Looking for someone else to play. Can usually play one turn a day. Can be reached at smckechnie@aol.com. cheers, scott
  3. It seems like the only way the allies can go in this game is a Europe first strategy. Has anyone had any luck with a Japan first strategy as the allies? If so, what was your general approach in the Pacific? Thanks, Scott
  4. I know that there is another thread about an update on this game, but I was wondering if there is anything in the works for this game in the near future? Thanks, Scott
  5. I would put the following in for additional changes to the game: 1. Ability to cancel convoys in the event that axis or allies lose control of a convoy route. Currently the convoys keep going even if a convoy route is controlled by an enemy. Totally unrealistic that either side would continue to send convoys through an area controlled by the enemy. Plus subs get too much experience attacking the convoys. 2. Game still needs to figure out a way to make the battle of the Atlantic more realistic. It is too easy for the allies to knock out axis subs. Most experienced allied players don't even put research toward anti sub efforts for the allies, as it isn't necessary. Maybe axis subs should get a higher percentage chance of evasion if under attack. Current percentage chance for axis sub evasion is too low. At least make the allies have to put some effort towards the Battle of the Atlantic. 3. Ports of Antwerp and Amsterdam should not be able to be captured by the allies and immediately be used to unload troops by transport. Ports should be reduced to 0 upon capture like the rest of the ports in France. It took the allies months to get those ports into the use after they were captured in WW2. No reason that should not be the case in this game. 4. Supply in Egypt should be greater than it is currently is for the allies. Too easy for the axis to take Egypt in this current version of the game. The British should not have lower supply in Egypt than the axis forces outside of El Alamein. That is ridiculous and slants the game more towards the axis. 5. Current version of the game makes the following technologies useless or never used. Anti-tank weapons, rockets, and artillery. Skilled allied players make anti-submarine tech almost useless. I think that some thought should be put in, to make these technologies more relevant in the game.
  6. Here are some other things that would be great fixes to an updated game: 1. Do something to make the use of anti-tank units more viable. In the current game version no one really uses anti tank units like they were used in the war. I think the attack and defense values of these units should be changed and actual anti tank unit icons changed in the game. 2. I am all for having good anti aircraft defenses, but the level three anti-air defense on tanks is a little ridiculous. Defense value should be lowered. 3. Engineer units were used not only for building fortifications, but were used widely in assaults on fortifications, river crossings, and beach invasions. I would like to see more engineer units that could be used for these things as well as for digging fortifications. 4. Parachute units are elite infantry units in every country and were used by both sides in World War 2 to defend or reinforce attacks as a strategic reserve. The attack and defend values of these units should be increased. They should also get some ability to lower the entrenchment of defending units. 5. The Mech infantry units in this game are in general easier to destroy than the army unit counters. This should not be the case. Just some thoughts
  7. One other thing to consider for the Pacific Islands. When the allies take Tinian, it will activate the atomic bomb option for the US to kick in against Japan in August of 1945. This can really help the allies out in regards to reducing Japanese national morale. In a game I am playing it reduced Japanese national morale from 112 to 87, plus it wiped out all MPPs going to Japan from convoys.
  8. I agree with Isnoguds overall assessment but would point out the following: 1. You pretty much have to defend Batavia in the Dutch East Indies (DEI) as that is a major amount do MPPs for Japan to lose. Also, even if the allies take Batavia, unlike when the Japs take Batavia, all of the islands still stay in control of Japan. I think that should be changed in the game, but that is the way it is now. 2. You should garrison Borneo only because if you do not, partisans will disrupt supply and the Japs will lose those MPPs. 3. I know lots of people do not garrison the islands, but I think you should garrison the fortress island Kwajalein in the middle of the Pacific. When the US takes those islands it gives them lots of ports to upgrade their fleets and because it is in the central Pacific, fleets stationed in that area can get to pretty much launch counter attacks or new attacks North, South, or West. This works both ways too, as the IJN based there can react to US fleet movements 4. If you are going to try to attack Australia, you pretty much should take and garrison New Guinea and the islands with MPPs in the South Pacific. Probably should take those islands even if you are not attacking Australia. 5. Lots of axis players like to take the island where the US tank shows up as there is really no way for the allies to defend that island before the US enters the war. 6. You should take and garrison the Solomon Islands. This might be a good spot to put an HQ's unit, as it will make it much harder for the allies to retake the islands. 7. Philippines, you pretty much have to garrison Manilla. 8. Saipan, Truk, Guam and Papua. You can pretty much load any one of these islands up with air, HQs, and ground units to disrupt US movement across the Pacific. I think Truk is a good place to heavily garrison if the IJN is attacking India. 9. You have to heavily garrison Japan itself. Some players like Isnogud will skip all the Pacific islands all together and unrealistically attack with landing craft from Hawaii or even the US mainland. 10. Most axis players actually make Japan a major land power, not a naval power like it actually was. The overall strategy is to defeat China first, then attack the USSR holdings in Siberia. Then the Japs go the land route to through Burma to take India. Aggressive axis players will maybe attack and take Hawaii or the US pacific fleet on the West Coast. 11. Ultimately the pacific is won or lost by the fleet battle, to this end the player who can position land based air to support fleets is in a much better position than the one who cannot. So if you are positioning your fleets to fight a naval engagement it is good to have land based air supporting their movement if possible.
  9. If your carriers are in a storm at sea they will not be able to attack. If you are not at war with a country you have to declare war first to attack. You have to be in range of the target that point at to attack. You can toggle back from attack to reconnaissance with the shift key. Usually you would move the carrier to a location and then you should be able to use your mouse to target where you want to attack. You would want to select the naval action that you want for the carrier before you move. Either fighter, mix, or naval attack. Not sure what else might hold up attacking.
  10. I would like to put some votes in for the following changes for the next version of the game. 1. Widen the English Channel some so the axis or allies can't put an artillery unit on the coast and shoot artillery rounds across the channel. That is doable in artillery units today, RAP rounds, but not at that time. In my current game, my allied artillery will be at 5 experience before I conduct D-day. I can also pretty much level Caen in the current game with artillery before I attack. 2. Make Kumning a supply center in China. 3. I would like an option for Italy not to be forced into the war from the allies withdrawing units from the current garrison cities. Most of the time this is used by the allies as a way to attack and sink as much of the Italian Navy as possible. To make matters worse the axis have to suffer increased US mobilization as a result of this. I think the timing of when Italy declares war should be left up to the Axis player. So maybe mobilization goes to 90-95%, the axis player could then decide when to declare war. Of course, if the allies want to, they can declare war on Italy. I think this was meant to be positive for the axis, but in fact, this script is now a liability for the axis. 4. Please redo the game manual with the up to date decision options and scripts. I still don't really know what the allied option to employ the SOE really does for them? Plus I think it has taken me five games to figure out what really happens with that French Fort decision. 5. I think that the game should add a decision by the axis to seize Vichy France in November of 1942. At that time there could be some random chance that the Germans could have seized some French ships. Keep in mind that the French scuttled over 77 ships including 3 battleships and 7 cruisers at Toulon. It was entirely possible that some of those ships could have been captured by the Germans. 6. Fix the weather bug that makes Southern Russia the French Riviera for dive bombing axis planes. 7. Put a US garrison unit in Alaska at the beginning of the war. The US was well aware of the Japanese threat to Alaska and had positioned over 35000 naval, air, and army units there before the war started. Also note that the Alaskan highway was completed by the end of 1942, so I am not sure that having no strategic redeployment to Alaska is that accurate. 8. There is a game option where Stilwell is sent to China to command Chinese forces. If the allies say no he is suppose to show up in the US. This doesn't seem to be happening. 9. Something probably should be done about axis diplomacy strategy against the US. At the very least, US mobilization should be advanced monthly after the summer of 1941. I will have to think of some other things to change and will put them in later. Cheers, Scott
  11. So is that a Chinese unit with transport next to Norway? I guess that would give China some MPP's for taking Norway.
  12. I am not sure that I would agree with the assessment that Japan could have overrun all of China in 1939. It seems to me that they were in a catch 22 no win scenario. 1. They invade indochina to stop supplies from reaching China. That railway deal! The Allies then hammer them with oil sanctions. 2. You cannot overrun China without the oil and other strategic materials logistically needed to equip and launch major operations in China. 3. The Chinese Nationalist army numbered 4.7 million men, that isn't counting the communist Chinese army and guerilla's. Numbers aren't that important sometimes but the shear numbers on this make conquering the country very unlikely. 4. After the rape of Nanking, the Japanese basically assured themselves of heavy resistance wherever they went. 5. Just to hold onto the areas that Japan did conquer they had to coax around 900,000 Chinese collaborators to help with security. Even if they overran the country, it would have been impossible to maintain security. Just look at the security messes in Iraq an Afghanistan. Over a billion people in China in 1939. 6. Despite having superior mobility and technology, the Japanese had terrible tanks and light infantry weapons. Even these were not available in the numbers necessary to take over the whole of China. 7. Basically by 1939 the Japanese and Chinese were at a stalemate. Neither side could muster the combat power or logistics necessary to advance. 8. Strategically the Japanese always had protecting the homeland as a number one priority. That made them be focused more on naval power before the army. It was only after the US entered the war that the Japanese army expanded rapidly. The problem with the game though is that if that Japanese just conquer the port cities and just move inland some, China ends up being a super power by 1942-43. This is and was less likely than Japan taking over the whole of the country! The Chinese spent a fair amount of time fighting each other and lacked the logistical capability to launch significant offensive actions throughout the entire war. So what to do? Japanese have decision point at the beginning of the game. Go big Army or go big Navy. If they go big Navy. 1. I think there should be some type of stalemate line that the Japanese could push the Chinese back to from which neither side could advance over. Essentially what really happened. The Japanese and US navy force pools could be adjusted based on this decision. (Jap navy had 22 carriers, 12 battleships, and 44 cruisers). Probably too many for force pool. 2. Japanese focus on the Pacific, India, and Australia. Maybe adjust some MPPs for conquered areas like India and Singapore. Maybe increase some of the allied defenses in the pacific due to Japanese focus there. If done right maybe there is a chance for Japan to invade the US. Go big Army. 1. Pretty much like the game is now. Japan is going to focus on China first, do the minimal expansion in the pacific and then attack the USSR. There Probably needs to be something placed into the game that increases US mobilization to counteract the US diplomacy strategy of the axis. 2. I think making Kunming a supply center is a must in this scenario. 3. Allied defenses in the pacific stay like they are. Any way, maybe too long and radical of a post, but playing games where the Japanese army is larger than the Russian, US, and German armies strikes me as something that really would have never happened in world war 2.
  13. AL, My score is right on the board, but shows two -2 losses on your chart. That should be 1, although unless I counterattack Dalibor soon it will be 2. On another note, I think we need to relook the 1 point allies victory conditions. There needs to be some other type of middle ground for the allies to be able to fight to achieve if the axis get off to a strong start.
  14. I was wanting to know how Ihughes41 game has gone versus the US diplomacy strategy?
  • Create New...