lhughes41

Just wanted to put out another compliment on this scenario. I really don't like alternative history games much but nontheless decided to give this a go with a friend. It really is very well done and it is an interesting feeling to have historical post WWII events happen in the game because I can remember many of them :-) THe author draws from all history since WWII to construct what might have happened. I won't spoil the scenario by saying what but there are lots of twists and turns.. many quite unexpected but reasonable. If the author mails me I will tell him/her an interesting story of what is happening in our game :-)

Didn't realize there was a 2015. I meant the 1948. Actually Rambo we can go back to the earlier world wars between France and Britain in the 18th century to get started ;-)

This scenario was part of the Global Conflict gold. Don't know if you can play it in non gold nor if it would work well. If you have gold you don't need to download it. Sorry I was not clear about being tied to Gold.

I'm a big fan of playing historical scenario (i.e. the WWII). But nonetheless decided to try out the WWIII scenario with a friend. I must say it is quite a fun change of venue. Neither of us know what events are coming next nor the other's forces (we agreed not to look). Making the game more "realistic" in a fog of war sense. My compliments to the designer so far. It seems well designed and most interesting from a history standpoint (i.e. I lived through cold war and recognize many of the issues, events etc). One caution. In this scenario fighters versus TBs are not distinguished. They are one and the same. Took me awhile to understand why Soviet fighters were so devestating versus the NATO fleet. They are TBs as well as fighters!

Take a look at Gary Grigsby's Civil War game. There's a gentleman on the forum there called Treefrog who will give you a good game. Strategic and detailed. I liked it. Very focused on leadership and supply.

Thanks for that correction! Did not know. Ouch.

I don't believe that adding more troops increases soviet mobilization.

Strategiclayabout, are you saying that AA research can be applied to bombers? What do you mean by "buffed up AD"? Just higher level bombers?

Ok not only wiser... but smarter too. That's just too cruel. Please pick one or the other. Interesting about bombers. I'd noticed the high level ones were fairly ftr resistance but hadn't thought to use them to attack fighters! Bombers I just don't think of as especially good anti-unit units as opposed to bombing for strategic resource impact.

Thanks Seamonkey! No offense intended with "wise" :-) (I was trying to be jovial not sarcastic.. but text is tough some times on intonation). Luke

Umm... carrier raids... paratroopers... Attacks with TBs or Bombers with trigger one's own fighters. What am I missing o wise one.

Africa can still be taken by the Germans without Malta. But the advise on taking Malta is good.

Tease. ! !

I'm curious as to people's thoughts on the following. I am a great fan of SC and have been for years but I think the air war could use some improvement. In particular the establishing of air superiority. Historically, the Allies were able to establish total air supremacy in the European and Pacific theaters. By that I mean at the fighter cover and net competing air forces level. Eventually, the Luftwaffe and Japanese air force were essentially wiped out. So far, in SC, I don't see how this happens except when the Axis economies are completely bankrupt. My experience instead is that the U.S., Soviet, and German fighters swipe at each other while the tactical air units make their regular runs. In short even if the U.S.. has say 7 fighters in the theater and the Germans 2 or 3 the Germans can keep up an "air front." What I would suggest should happen is that when disparities as large as that appear, the minority air force should start to attrit heavily. How might this be mechanized in the game? I think simply, in principle. First fighter units should be able to attack enemy fighter units effectively (right now I find direct fighter attacks on fighters do little). Think of this not as attacking them on the ground but rather forcing them to come up and duel. Alternatively make the fighter vs fighter combat as it currently occurs in say escort duty more bloody. There might be better ways of course. Then, for say Germany, the choices become "compete in the East in the air or compete in the west in the air... " but not "put up a reasonable fight on both fronts." One last way to put this issue. Right now to me fighters seem necessary but vital. They are required to allow tactical air attacks (via escorting) but otherwise play a fairly minor role in the air competition. Given that intercepts occur at 2x escorts ... the defender can keep up. Which suggests one last way to address the issue. Remove the 2x intercept. Then the allies could overwhelm on one front because not enough fighters are available to the axis to intercept everything. I would like to hear if others agree that air superiority as seen historically is not captured well enough yet in SC. Also suggestions for fixes if so. Strategic Command Fanboy :-) Luke p.s. as a secondary but related issue allowing air superiority would also address in my mind the still over effectiveness of Tactical Air. It is late war 1944 for me and I can maintain an effective TA force despite allies having more fighters. Maybe the fighters should be allowed to "break through" more to the TA.

So have you tried that?

David raises a good point about whether really there is any viable alternative strategy to going after China as Japan. Anyone willing to defend a winning strategy for Japan based on just 'holding' in china and spending $$ elsewhere? Anyone succeeded with that?

I noticed in GC Gold that German rockets can only be built in 1944. So does anyone actually bother doing so by then? Seems like their use would be very limited at that point because either you've won or you're in Festung Europa mode in which case they probably aren't going to train up fast enough to make a difference. Plus I would think allied air would take them out via direct attacks. But that's just an uninformed opinion :-) Anyone found them useful that late? If not maybe they should be loosened up a bit (I know that they can be built early if there are no build restrictions. I am talking about when there are). While on the topic I'm wondering if much investment is made by anyone in infrastructure tech. Seems good but not nearly as good as the other techs. In which case maybe it is another candidate for either "upping" or removing. Thoughts?

My experience so far supports Catacol's though my experience is more limited. That is I think China is doing pretty right right now. She can put up a very good fight but she is doomed if Japan throws everything at her (mostly). But it still takes a long time to drag her down against a good opponent and that means a strategic cost.

SeaMonkey makes a good point here. It always seems the easy choice to focus on Germany. While we want to keep historical motivations in place maybe the game as a game could help here. For example maybe the conquering date for pacific victory locations could be earlier. Thus if the allies ignore the pacific they reduce their victories levels and maybe even tie or lose the game... while winning the war. That is because they ignored Japan they can't conquer her objectives in time (for the game). In short have the game motivate attention of sufficient historical strength to the pacific but let the natural focus of more force on Germany continue.

You could try playing with some of your directx settings perhaps.. make sure you have latest graphics driver for your card too. i.e. update both. No doubt you've already done that though. I don't see what you're describing. Good luck.

Do you have the latest update that was supposed to address this? Also turning off National Morale in the advanced settings helped. Though again latest patch may have removed that issue. I don't see what you're describing anymore.

I would like to eventually but have two mirrored games right now so am saturated. But I would enjoy learning from being walked over eventually.. O Great Dragon Warrior :-) Regards, Luke

Aren't you the terror who won the non gold tournament?.. I would say you are a bit experienced

Ah ha! Inactive. That explains it. Thanks as always for your prompt replies. Very glad to see it variable. The next game/manual it would be great if for at least core campaigns more of these events had documentation just like decision events. They are so key and for players to become competitive it is asking them a bit to go in a read the script files :-) But I know it is probably not top of the queue... Go SC3! Great game.

Thank you. Last related question, when does "Preparing for War" typically trigger.. at 90%? That's my impression from reading around the txt files. True? Thank you