Sharkman

I have actualy done this several times against real people, the problem is that most people don't seem to expect a landing there, yes it costs a lot of money and there could be a unit there, I allways garrison that town, in my current game I wasted a corps there for a very long time, moved him to Palestine and BOOM my opponent landed there, very frustrating. You mentioned Artillery, rail guns and bombers, when the Turks enter the war none of these are available to them and as long as Serbia has not surrendered no forces from other countries will be arriving. Without help the Turks are very hard pressed to take that unit out, I assume I will get him pretty quick, my Ottomans have 2 artillery units. My main point is this: in at least 2 games my opponents have surrounded that unit, attacking from at least 4 sides (no artillery or bombers) reducing the unit to 3 or 4 factors, next turn I could reinforce it up to 6 or 8 factors, where are those reinforcements comming from? I have done similar landings in other citys in southern Turkey and various citys in the mid-east, the Ottomans can't possibly garrison all coastal towns and still fight a war elswhere, I have also landed Russians in northern Turkey, like I said the Ottomans can't be everywhere. It is expensive, but it costs much much more to take them out. Like I said how can these forces get reinforcements with no port, it would take another expensive amphibious landing to get more troops in there, but reinforcing these units costs nothing but the regular reinforcement costs. One soultion which I have brought up is allowing the construction of more detachments in exchange for less corps, with a few more detachments the Turks could at least garrison the really important coastal towns, annother possibility would be making garrisons available in this scenario. Above all somthing should be done to prevent reinforcing a completly cut off unit, even if it is in a town, or at least to make that kind of reinforcement very expensive, is this case it would require an amphibious landing, so reinforcement should include the amphibious transportation costs. Of course there should be a diffrence between being cut off in a freindly city and cut off in an enemy city.

[quote=Rabelesius; Other than that, I only believe that both sides need to suffer from attrition much more if cut-off and cut-off surrounded units should not be allowed to be rebuilt. This is somthing that needs some looking at, I have often landed a British unit in Karaman (Southern Turkey) on the same turn the Ottomans enter the war, then entrench on the next turn. This unit cuts the rail link between Turkey and all of their posessions in the mid-east. The Turks are very hard pressed to take it out, I was often able to reinforce the unit to 8 factors, there is no port there and no way to get a realistic amount of suppiles to it. There must truly be somthing wrong with the supply system, in one game he held out till 1918! The worst thing about it is that it has now happened to me! :eek: Now somthing needs to be done about this!

I think the Entent have a very slight advantage, and it's ok that way, but making it easier for A-H to conquer the Balkans quickly and then throw their forces into a less defensible Italy would I think tilt the advantage tawards the CP. Additionaly the Turks could invade Russia, algthough it is my experience that the Ottomans allready have enough to do fighting the British. It is true that the Entente will gain as well though, it would become easier for the Italians to attack A-H and of course the Russians could invade Turkey. But I think most of the advantages would go to the CP early in the game, when the Entente is weak and unable to take much advantage of it.

Lowering the defensive bonus of the mountains will mainly benefit the CP, especialy early in the game, the Call to Arms scenario is balanced on a razors edge allready, a tiny push in CP direction early in the game and the play balance is gone.

I would like to have the option to build more smaller cheaper units in exchange for less larger units, especialy the Ottomans could use more smaller units. I usualy use up the Turkish detachments very early but never build all their corps. Possibly combining the build limits for all infantry units: 2 detachments = 1 corps, air units could be done the same way, then you could choose not to build zeppelins at all but more fighters or bombers.

I don't want to hide the air units, there should obviously be some kind of simbol to show that there are air units present in the tile. I don't think they should interfere with ground movement and combat though, not on this scale, if ground units enter a tile with enemy air units, they should be damaged and displaced to the next freindly air base. It's rarely in the intrest of the owning player for the aircraft to stay and fight, and anyone who tries to hold somthing with an air unit is being desperate and unrealistic, the AI used to do this a lot but that has changed with the patches. I really see no need for more units on this scale, and as I understand there will be additional units, Garrisons and rail guns.

That's ok for everyone but England, I would like to get Americans into the British reserves area in order to reduce the clutter in England, Americans in their build Q doesn't help much, I have tried leaving British units in the build box, but with all the air units and the Americans in England it still gets all jammed up. Of course removing the air units from the main map as I have suggested would do the trick as well but I doubt that is possible with the present game engine.

How about a reserves box in England, units in England can enter and exit the reserves box free of cost, this would enable the Allies to have more units in England than is now possible. It could even be taken a step farther and every major country having a reserves box, Probably not nessecary for the large countries, but Japan could definately benifit from it.

Carverrt, Interesting idea with the HQs, reducing their number but increasing the number of units supported, anything that gives the other ground units more room is good with me. Although your air unit idea is probably easier to employ than mine, I would still prefer to completly remove the air units from the main map.

I would like to join but I allready have too many games running, mabe next time. Call to Arms is by far the most interesting SC scenario at this time, should be interesting to see how it goes.

I know that is is probably not possible to make such a big change to the game prior to it's release but I thought I would throw it out there anyway. My biggest problem with Global Conflict is that the air units get in the way of the ground units, they simply take up too much space. Would it not be possible to remove the air units completly from the main map, possibly giving each tile a separate airfield function accessible with the right mouse button, each tile being able to base 1 air unit, citys 2 or 3 and possibly allowing airfield construction which would raise the number of air units that can be based in a given tile, some tiles could even be given a starting airbase value of 0, like parts of the Soviet Union. A ground unit entering a tile containing enemy air units would damage and displace them to the nearest freindly airbase.

Yes, the Austrians are the on cutting edge of technology in our game, way ahead of the Germans.

I was very supprised, 1st turn of investment and I get a breakthrough, maybe it's a lucky streak, where's the nearest casino?

I just started a new pbem game playing CP, on turn 2 the Austrians invested 200 MMPs in trench warfare and got a breakthrough on the same turn, I thought they needed 25% before a breakthrough is possible. That was their 1st turn of investment, and I don't believe they start with anything there. Am I mistaken about the 25% or are there exceptions?

Sounds like a good deal to me. Sounds like a good christmas present for me, somehow I'll have to give my wife and kids a hint to buy it for me. Of course that means it has to be done by christmas.

Right, but 1.03.1 games don't work in 1.03, and not everyone needs 1.03.1, I didn't need it myself but upgraded because one of my opponents upgraded between games. My suggestion is that everyone upgrade to 1.03.1 if you need it or not, then there won't be any problems.

My pre-hotfix and post-hotfix games are not compatible, therefore I have 2 versions because I'm playing a couple pbem games with 1.03 and a couple with 1.03.1, but they are definately not compatible, at least not on my computer.

The Great War is definately the way to go, research has been completly changed, it's now very easy to calculate how long it will take to get to the next level. I would prefer a bit more chaos in the research system but it's a lot better than the research in Global Conflict where you never know how long it will take or if you will ever get to the next level at all.

Could be interesting for 1 or 2 games, but I think the only longterm interesting scenarios are those that start in 1939 and 1914. I could of course be mistaken. A possible exception being if it were possible to play multiplayer games with more than 2 people, if you have 5 or 6 people running individual nations with separate objectives, that could make a "diplomacy" type of game interesting.

Right, but France and Britan will have to be restricted from intervening in the early German expansion. If anything goes wrong for Germany prior to the invasion of Poland they will be in big trouble, imagine what would have happened if Czechoslovakia had fought, if France had gone to war over the remilitarization of the Rhineland, or the Soviet Union had refused to sign the non-aggression pact. Variations prior to 1939 can only be bad for Germany, because historicaly they got some very good diplomacy die rolls, the first bad one came when France and England declaired war over Poland. That's why I really don't see a scenario that starts that early being very interesting, you could even have a scenario that starts in 1914 and runs up to 1950, diffrent outcomes in WW1 will create very diffrent starting situations for WW2 but it is all too far fetched, the only really long term interesting scenarios are those based on the historical situations that existed at the outbreak of war. That doesn't mean I wouldn't try one out, just for fun.

A scenario that starts in 1920's might be interesting but the main game will allways be the one that starts in 1939, or possibly 1938, the problem with starting too much earlier is that if the Allies have a truly free hand they can squash Germany before they get to be a real threat, like they should have.

In my game a whole bunch of German units landed on some Island in the Baltic and some others in Sweden, they all had to be naval transported back to Germany, one of my opponents told me that a bunch of his Austrians landed in Turkey, Romania was still neutral and Serbia Entente so they were kind of trapped. These things only happen when odd things have occured though, like Sweden joining the CP or the Austrians pushing so far into Russia that Turkey becomes closer than Austria. I think these units should stay where they are and have to be phisicaly moved out, but I don't know if that's possible, having units inside neutral countries. I'm sure it is possible to make the units move to their home country instead of the nearest freindly territory though.

The only applicable events were the Polish surrender and the turn when there was apparently no Allied unit in Cairo, I was supprised when Italy suddenly joined the Axis, I did know their mobilization value was quite high but I never expected them to join prior to some kind of success in France.

I'm playing the Allies against Glabro, the Italians came in very early even though I had not even started moving into France, in fact the French had taken some German territory, I did get the "Mussolini pleased with Allied weakness in the med" message one time though. Did I get lucky or does the garrison of citys in med have that much effect? I think it only lasted 1 turn.

I think the map should be a bit larger, right now England and France are too small, the battles there are somtimes very strange because of the lack of space. And I hope someone on the team is a fan of strategic warfare especialy strategic bombing, I would like to see an improvment in that area.