lhughes41

River bug?

What I would like to see out of the patch is that "go after china" is a viable strategy operationally but a tradeoff strategically. That is, if Japan puts a lot of resources and effort into china she should be able to beat up China fairly well.. on the other hand she will have drained resources that might have been used vs the yanks...on the other hand later in the game the lack of china attack and extra resources might balance... In short, 'go after china' remains an interesting but not no brainer option (either no brainer not to do or no brainer to do :-) ).

Thanks for the heads. Chinese were overall looking like one of the more elite forces of WWII ;-)

Thanks guys.

Hi, I played Patton version of SC quite a bit back in the day (PBEM). Just getting back into SC Global Gold after praise it has received at www.wargamer.com. I have a pretty good handle on europe given prior play but pacific, and in particular China, is all new to me. I reviewed the official AAR and also played around with various attacks in first turn or two against China. China seems much tougher then in the non gold version based on the AAR and comparing what the manual says one can do versus say the 5th chinese army near Wuhan and what can be done in gold. The readiness of chinese units like the 5th has gone to 90%! I find I can't damage it by and large and therefore can't reduce it's entrenchments. It's just too tough a nut. This kind of readiness, doesn't seem very historical, but leaving that aside, it sure strikes me that China is too tough now for a main thrust by the Japanese. My question than to those who have played Gold is do you concur? Or do you think a focus on China is viable? I sure hope so because if not it seems like it gets rid of an interesting historical option (focus on china more than historically). I was particularly disconcerted by the AAR description that show a very experienced played doing "well" operationally in china (killing an army a turn) and yet not really doing well strategically. I don't need to be told a strategy to win in china in Gold.. I just want to know if it is possible! Also I'm curious if folks think the current settings (reaadiness, general ratings,mmps) are very historical for china? Otherwise game seems great BTW and very glad I purchased it. p.s. i am playing on expert... just struck me maybe that is my mistake? perhaps that pumps up readiness etc? I was thinking playing at expert would prepare me well for playing against humans but maybe I shouldn't???

Another vote for manpower and oil.

Yes thanks!

Excellent analysis and fascinating Soviet study. I think your last point about infrastructure gating resouces usage is spot on. The recent book "Wages of Destruction" gives much evidence on how the Germans couldn't use all the resources they captured. In theory they captured an economy bigger than the u.s.a but came up far far short of realizing that in practice. Wikipedia has a summary of the book

Very good analysis. I think of Stalingrad where in fact entrenchments were improved by bombardment :-) Dug in troops are very hard to effect. Looking at the shocking lack of impact naval bombardments in the Pacific had on even small atolls if the defenders were dug in. My experience with the game in earlier versions was it was always about TAC. The only way to survive as soviets was to master AA and then then Air Force. The only way to survive as UK was to build AA early. So a second here for something along these lines.

I thought there was some no pact penalty like great Soviet mobilization... There should also be a reduction in resources for the Axis as the Soviets were shipping them quite a bit as part of the deal..

That's the one. :-) Thanks

Was it the one with the game where you attack USSR in 1940 and also deal with the West front at the same time? Got that issue as it happened :-) I'm doing a boardgame on WW2 for Victory Point Games so pretty interested in allowing various options. If i was a different article/issue please let me know.

Is it possible in this game to try an invasion of the USSR in 1939/1940 .. while seeking to hold the west via fortifications? As can be experimented with in some board games. Probably I should say "is it at all realistic". I'm sure it's "possible" :-) Luke p.s. if not it would be nice if this could be made tenable if difficult. The Soviets were going through purges and had had no Finnish combat experience. Plus their industrialization and uralization might be reduced.. so one could imagine it maybe being a bit possible. Also no modern reorganization had started.

Second the Panzer General like tactics suggestion. Would also like to see Totaler Krieg like interests "roll up a different WWII" implemented via a lot of 1930s or even 1920s events. HOI also allows a lot of variation. Need to keep game experience fresh rather the endless Poland->west->east drill

Ok if AA and airpower is that disperate I now predict the Axis wins Principled flip-flop

My experience in WAW was that the Soviets had no chance without high AA as well as good ftr tech. They just had to suppress the German air power or at least reduce it. So if the Soviets here have no AA advances then I am more hesitant in predicting allied victory. I thought they did have AA advances.

Handling tech advances. HOI has an interesting and I think realistic model on this front. They break tech advances into both Research Breakthroughs (ah I know how to do jet engines) and Production Breakthroughs.. ah I know how to produce reliable units fro the field. Historically man research breakthroughs were stalled by lack of production breakthroughs. Requiring two kinds of breakthrough per an advance (or allow very expensive prototype units till breakthrough) means that statistically the chance of getting "unfair" breakthroughs decreases because you bascially have to succeed twice in a row. This would tend to flatten advances rather then have odd "runs of luck". Just a thought. The other way to do it might be to have the breakthrough simply have a "delay" during which you have acheived breakthrough "3" but cannot produce for a year. This time would allow opponents to have improved chances of getting the research too while not giving you an edge quite so quickly. Just throwing thoughts out there.

I'm also a prior player of the earlier WW2 versions. I encourage you to read the AAR at top for the WW2 scenario. It looks like might be the best yet for WW2 modeling.

Not seen him as passive. What I see is that he was fairly aggressive in the 1941 assault but stuck his chin to far out and got punched. That is, he put his panzers too far out with low supply. So now he is being more cautious about exposing himself to that again, given the weather is limiting things. He will go all out I predict now with this assault. I still predict an Allied victory though, but let's see I am concerned at how much the Axis has captured oil, that is significant.

Very nice. Very like what the allies did viz a vis normandy.

Can't wait!

Long range. interesting. Howzabout mechanization. That more valuable in this game? I.e. moving quicker.. or still beaten out by the other tech? in terms of priority.

Very interesting. How good is your anti-aircraft capacity (unless this is secret :-) ) and how effective are you finding it in reducing Stuka super weapons? In WAW games the stukas would be doing 5 to 7 damage... I understand things are revised.. just trying to get a more specific sense of impact...

Thanks for the extra info. I do hope that historical tactics of armor and air driving deep will in fact be rewarded. Just to argue it a bit for fun.. it seems like the soviet campaign showed the opposite... driving the armor forward exposed it and got it destroyed. But maybe that is fair against a strengthened and heavily armored opponent. In other words, deep armored thrusts are an early war tactic.

Dedicated playtesters would have canceled their vacations to amuse us.. sigh.. . will be hard waiting to see what happens! Great game guys.