Sharkman

Another related Topic: Post US entry invasions of neutral countries. There would have certainly been some repercussions to the US involvement in invasions of neutral countries. Again invading a Country like Spain or Vichy France should be no real Problem, but I have played games where the US has invaded neutral south american countries, I don't know if the american public would have put up with that. Maybe there should be some Kind of financial and morale penalties. One Thing I think most Players (me included)do is as soon an th US in in, the brits invade Ireland, with no penalties. I actually do it to give the Yanks more room for deployment, I think that makes it morally acceptable.

In the game I'm playing the allies did not invade the Dutch East Indies, but all of the other pacific neutrals, as well as Turkey, Greece, most of the Vichy colonies and I believe Ireland as well. I think there should be a longer Lasting effect to such invasions, but with some historical reasoning. I think an Invasion of Norway or Sweden should be less damaging than an Invasion of Greece, or the Solomons. Norway and Sweden could certainly be accused of aiding the axis. I think an allied Invasion of a Country such as Greece, or the Solomons should have a very negative effect on the US war entry. And I think a Soviet Invasion of Japan should have severe penalties.

I'm playing a very unusual game, the allies have declaired war on quite a few neutrals, including several european countries and almost all of the pacific neutrals, with the exception of the Dutch East Indies, the Soviet Union even declaired war on Japan, all Prior to US entry, under These circumstances I can't imagine the United States ever entering the war unless an Axis power declairs war on them, But the US mobilization Level still goes up and much quicker than I expected. Now apparently US ground Forces have deployed to Hawaii, and ships have left the home Waters, and although it does have a negative effect, the mobilization Level still steadily increases every turn.

I don't condider it gamey at all, I have done it myself, and it doesn't allways work out well. I don't think Mussolini being stupid should be a part of the game though. Hitler was pretty stupid sometimes too, but the german Player does not get forced to fire his best leaders, hold the line at all costs, or turn his Jet fighter Units into tactical bomber units. I have allways thought it would be a really fun Option to Play a sort of Military leader forced to put up with a civilian political leader, lots of things like Mussolini declairing war at unopportune times could then happen. but as it is we are playing the Military leaders and political leaders rolled into one, that means we should get to decide when to declair war and when not to. By the way it would really be fun to Play a chaotic war with random uncontrollable political leaders forcing you to do things you don't really want to do, that might even make solo games interesting again. As far as gamey goes I don't really consider anything gamey, if it works and is allowed by the game engine, just do it, if the other Players don't like it, it will probably be patched out eventually anyway.

I've brought this up before, and it has not changed but what the heck, I'll bring it up again. Why is Italy forced to declair war on the allies? The USA is not forced to declair war on Germany or Japan, and the Soviet Union is not forced to declair war on Germany. I think the axis Player should be left to make that decision. It can be a very bad decision, under some circumstances. For instance there are French and british ships including carriers all around Italy waiting to ambush the entire italian fleet. Or there are amphibious landing craft waiting near several italian ports. If the allies want to attack the italian fleet or invade Itlay they should at least have to declair war. It's easy for the allies to get Ítaly in the war early and unprepaired, they just pull the garrisons around the med.

I knew this answer was comming, and you are right. Problems in Norway would probably ruin Play Balance. I would like to see more randomness in minor Country ops as a whole though, if you Play a few times, you know pretty much where the Units will be and how strong. It would be a nice Option to have the minors a bit more unpredictable. But at least the Germans should have to pay for the 2 garrisons in Norway. In the game I'm playing now the airborne unit failed to take Oslo on his own, so there is allready a Chance of failure if you use just the airborne unit.

This is somthing that has allways bothered me. Why is it so easy for the Germans to take Norway. I usually use 2 Corps to land at Oslo and have the airborne unit at Copenhagen just in case somthing goes wrong. This means that I have previously occupied Denmark. This is a no risk Operation. Norway would not have surrendered if the Germans just occupied Oslo. I think an occupation of Denmark would have resulted in some Kind of mobilization in Norway and possibly even diplomatic problems with the iron ore shipments. The Germans did succeed in Norway but lost about half of their operational surface fleet. There was a substantial occupation force nessecary in Norway (this is completly free in the game and are magicaly teleported to Bergen and Narvik). The allies also got one of the largest merchant marine fleets in the world from Norway, which is probably allready figured into the british economy in the game. One Change could be to place a Corps in Oslo if denmark is occupied by the Germans, and have it build up and dig in each turn afterward. Or maybe make it very unlikely that Norway will surrender on the same turn that the Germans occupy just Olso, giving the allies time to send troops to Norway. Or have a good Chance that the Norwegian garrisons of Bergen and Narvik become Partisans, and if Narvik is occupied by allied troops or norwegian Partisans, the decision to give the northern mines to Sweden should be delayed until the Germans take Narvik.

How about suggestion #2, I really think that would enhance the game, allowing a unit to move just part of its APs, then go back later and move the unit again, and so on until the action points are used up, and why should a unit not be able to use the rest of its action points after attacking, even if it has allready moved? Carriers and bombers could use their 2nd strikes later in the turn, an armored unit could possibly move, attack, move, attack. I have often wished I could continue moving a unit because of things that happened after I allready did a partial move, or go back and do that attack I choose not to do for whatever reason. It would give the player a lot more options. Not sure how it would work with naval units though, would it be good for naval units to move attack and then move again? Probably not, hard to say. carriers could move in launch air strikes, and move back out, sounds deadly.

Then swapped in units should allways be able to attack, but sometimes they can't.

Thanks crispy, funny how I can play a game so long and not know all of the options. I probably should read the manual some day. But then again who needs the manual when you've got the forum.

Back to question 2, I don't otherwise recall units being able to move into a tile, whatever the cost, and not being able to attack. Or does that sometimes happen?

I have only seen it in multiplayer games, and have not managed to do it myself, next time I see it I'll ask my opponent how he did it.

I have 2 questions on unit swapping 1. 4. I have often seen 3 units attacking from the same tile, I have not yet managed that, how is that possible? As far as I know units cannot move attack and then move again. 2. Why is it that sometimes units swap but the swapped in unit cannot attack, otherwise it is allways possible to attack after movement?

I would like to make a few suggestions on the movement options in this game. 1. Way points: I would like to see the option to set way points, this would enable units to avoid or outflank enemy units that have been spotted by intelligence or air recon, it would also allow a unit to leave a tile, occupy an adjacent tile and then move back to it's original tile, and it would be very usefull for naval units. Or is this allready possible and I just don't know what button to press? 2. Movement continuation, I think a unit should be able to use some of it's action points, wait for other units to move, then continue moving or attack, with the exception of supprise contact which should end a unit's move. It might also make it possible for some units to move attack and move, although I'm not sure if this is good or not. It would make coordinated simultaneous movement and attacks possible. this would also improve naval and especialy carrier operations, I beleive. 3. Partial movement, if a unit has 50% movement left and has not attacked I think it should be able to be reinforced or upgraded, this seems to allready be possible for units that have swapped positions, although I'm not sure exactly how that works.

That said, I have often thought there could be an option when playing against the AI to have some historical interference from the national leaders. For example: if Rommel takes heavy losses somewhere, Hitler fires him, or Mussolini declairs war against Greece (we did have that one in earlier versions), I'm sure there could be many more, they don't nessesarily have to be historical. Some players may even like to use this option to spice up the multiplayer games, adding a little chaos to the game. I personaly don't need it in the multiplayer games, I create enough chaos on my own.