jackson8

Yikes, using the Partisan mechanism to build unit experience, this proves my point. Although its a great feature that enhances the historical accuracy and realism of the game the current Partisan system sometimes creates highly unrealistic situations and thus needs tweaking. Yes, Partisans tied down enormous numbers of German troops in Yugoslavia and wreaked havoc on the rear area supply and communications of entire army groups but they did not occupy major Russian urban centers in 1941 and resist repeated assaults from multiple Axis Corps, supported by HQ and from the air for 4-5 months as they've done in my games. When confronted by serious enemy reserves most Partisan units disappeared as rapidly as they appeared unless they were located in geographically isolated regions like Mts, forests or swamps. In my games, even when assaulted and completely surrounded the Partisans occupying urban centers just kept respawning to full strength turn after turn. And this continued even long after all the other surrounding Russian cities near the Partisan areas had been garrisoned.

Yes, Stukas were used to sink enemy merchant/naval shipping early in the war and later in Russia, but I think most of the serious Nazi raiding against the British Lend lease convoys to Russia was done by medium bombers like the He 111 and more often the Ju 88. Of course I'm only addressing the Germans here. I'm not as familiar with the Pacific and American Dauntless divebombing attacks on Japanese merchant ships, but I seem to recall the bulk of the Japanese merchant shipping being sunk by U.S. submarines and medium bombers like the B-25 and B-26. So I think Hubert's current decision to generally limit the aerial maritime raiding business to medium and heavy bombers seems historically accurate.

You and Hubert have already crafted the best strategic WW II game and offered more support than other larger companies offer their customers. So you could probably rest on your existing laurels with AOC and AOD as I trust your games will already be remembered and emulated. With that said, I just wanted to clarify a few things in the event you ever do another Barbarossa to Berlin patch, which again none of us really deserve, but forgive me if I dream. Yes, with the Finns, it just smacked me as odd that they had such difficulty moving through the territory they had only recently lost to Stalin and that their smaller, more efficient, winter-loving ski troops could only replace up to 70% of their strength unless they went home to Finland. You are the miracle worker with the code, so if anyone can fix this it would be you. I know historically the Finns were permanently halted North of Leningrad but could this be done with more fortifications, more expensive replacement costs, or by making the Finns an independent country when it comes to MPP's like Italy so that they could attack more vigorously but such attacks would be cost-prohibitive for Finland? Ship bombardment may be exaggerated in the game but my complaint is more with the Tirpitz decision event itself--if played it ought to be offset with some additional Lend Lease or Royal Navy/Air Force assistance in the Baltic or Murmansk/Archangel area because Churchill devoted so many air and naval assets to checking the Tirpitz--"no more Bismarcks" I understand the tank units are essentially the old Russian Campaign Panzer Korps, but then what exactly are the Mechanized Infantry? Panzer grenadier divisions? I don't recall myself, but did the Germans really field that many panzer grenadier Korps or were these typically just usually divisions? My recollection is that for the Nazis the term "PZ Grndr" was a new 1942 Hitler inspiration that used this nomenclature to identify both the traditional motorized infantry BNs of the pre-42 PZ Divisions AND the newly reorganized German motorized infantry divisions. If so, could 3-4 mechanized Infantry units be added to the Germans at start forces that represent the early PZ divisions motorized infantry battalions/regiments, with additional builds possible after '42 to represent the newly renamed Panzer Grenadier or motorized Infantry divisions? My motive for the change is that in the present game the German infantry formations are all moving too slowly and few if any infantry that even follow closely in the panzers' wake. I understand that in the war most of the German infantry wasn't motorized--but the game seems to lack even the motorized Infantry regiments/battalions the Germans actually had in their Panzergruppen. You can pay to motorize a few more Infantry units but this is cost prohibitive. Yes, 3-4 more mechanized units would mean the German Blitzkrieg would be more far-ranging and deadly but coupled with a new surrender mechanism and the more weather options this would work nicely. If this was done, the German player would face the same dilemma the Germans frequently experienced in the campaign---should his PZ and motorized units ignore their flanks and supply line and keep blitzing their way forward to the next set of objectives or continue occupying their current tiles cutting off the surrounded Russian pockets supply because after enough turns of being completely cut off, the Russian pockets would finally surrender and the panzers supply line would be safeguarded. The Russian player would also have an incentive to have his surrounded units form moving pockets and try to break out East towards the nearest supply sources--which is also historical. And even if this facilitated a faster German advance to Leningrad and Moscow, it would make the resulting Rasputitsa mud event throughout much of October (in this same region) November snow and early December blizzards and arctic blast all the more decisive/significant for the German player who would now be within reach of victory, but stymied by horrible weather conditions if he continued his advance, that would handicap his advance, rob him of his air power, and wreak havoc on his units' numbers and morale if they tried to bludgeon their way into Moscow and Leningrad's suburbs. Continued offensive movement in rasputitsa or winter storm conditions could both require more action points and subject moving units to a slight risk of suffering a strength point and small morale loss which would simulate the high rate of sickness, death of horses, breakdown of vehicles that occurred during the Rasputitsa and snow events. When the first significant winter frost came in November, movement would be once again enabled and the offensive could be continued except on the random winter storm turns when planes would be grounded and no operational movement could occur in weather regions effected by the heavy snows. On these turns and throughout most of December and January, the German player can still order his poor Landsers to continue advancing toward Moscow on non-winter storm days but during the storm turns they'd do so without air support and units more than 2 tiles away from cities and moving units would be subject to the risk of the 1 pt strength attrition and appropriate morale losses, and would gradually melt away as they historically did. This would far better simulate what actually occurred that first winter than the random damage/morale hit the current game system uses. I wish the simulation did have the surrender feature as these large scale surrenders did occasionally occur even on the strategic scale--eg Singapore, the huge German Colmar and Minsk/Kiev Russian pocket surrenders, ect. And all this could be done in a limited way--with some nations with low national morale more prone to such surrenders and particularly in desperate situations—like when surrounded in an open or isolated non-city/fort terrain tile by 4-5 strong enemy units and/or hopelessly outnumbered by a strength point ratio of 20 or 30-1. But perhaps this is technically too difficult to build into the current model? I'll never forget my first Gold game when one surrounded Italian Black shirt unit and one Italian HQ down in Absynnia successfully held off the bulk of the BR Army, Air Force and ANZACS in Africa for over a year. Ahistorical and extremely frustrating! I have no problem with the 6 pt, or continuously regenerating Partisans in the Pripyat Swamp, but when surrounded and attacked by powerful Axis forces and HQs in more civilized urban areas, they ought to melt away as quickly as they formed. I should add Leningrad was cut off but there was not a continuous German line when the Russian army skedaddled and the Cavalry army came galloping in to join the starving civilians but I'm surprised they were not stopped with a contact when they galloped past the 6 strength PZ Korps sentry. My chief problem was with the division that appeared inside the surrounded city when I did have the continuous line established, but maybe this was fixed by the latest patch. Now this couldn't happen because Leningrad does not have an industrial tile, right? The compliments have been earned by the dedicated work of some of the best designers in the business. Thanks for listening to my dreams gentlemen and for your magnificent recreation of the excitement/challenges of the Russian Campaign. As soon as I finish this game, I'll see if I can do any better as the Russians--at least the right side is winning!

For what it's worth, here's my experience so far. Personal Disclaimer: I am a teacher/WW II buff that plays these games as immersion vehicles to try and gather new historical insights about the historical campaigns and battles. Good: The game effectively expands upon the best qualities of the original series, with an excellent engine, nice-looking units and map, and preview-based combat system incorporating terrain & supply effects, etc. I also liked the judicious inclusion of a few new unit that seemed particularly well-suited for a Barbarossa game such as the medium bombers and garrisons/security units for warding off Partisan threats. Only unit I questioned for the Germans was the artillery, which is initially limited to just a couple units?? I'm not sure what these represent--corps or army group assets? Artillery did figure prominently in the Red Army so maybe its more appropriate for their side. The armored train also seems a bit exotic, so I'd love to hear the rationale for it. The early game really captures the historical feel of the initial Nazi attack-- Hitler's best blitzkrieg yet--with the Germans advancing irresistibly forward and the German tank units breaking through and ranging far forward to capture the next distant cities and sever the Russian supply lines. Like Hitler and Halder, I was always confronted with the dilemma posed by the panzers' losses, my slow moving infantry and what to do about the cut-off Russian armies threatening my rear areas----halt the panzers to refit them, have them fall back to assist with mopping up the pockets, or order their depleted formations forward into risky supply situations that might leave them stranded and vulnerable to enemy counterattack. All this, coupled with the knowledge that time was running out, with the dreadful Russian Rasputitsa and winter right around the corner-- makes the campaign tense and exciting. Another realistic feature is the AI which is superb (Thanks Big Al and Co.), the Russians hordes seem endless and generally seem to resist valiantly until prudence dictates a retreat to the next river line. I'm a newbie to the system but I found it challenging even at the basic level. Bad: NOTE: this game was played with the first patch not the latest 1.02 patch which might correct some of the identified issues. Weak Finns--the Finnish Corps/divisions I commanded seemed to have difficulty advancing in their own former territory near Leningrad. I know the terrain in this part of Russia is extremely harsh but the Finns seemed to have a harder time moving through this area and supplying their troops than the Russians. The supply line from Finland to Leningrad also seemed to handicap my Finnish forces and prevent them from fully reinforcing their troops without evacuating them back to Finland. The Finns also suffered heavy losses with the onset of the winter of 41--which seems strange given the history. I enjoyed using the Tirpitz to blast away at the Russian river lines on the way to Leningrad and the port itself, but this decision event seems historically questionable, and if included, should be balanced by the Russians gaining some new naval assets in the region as this deployment would have freed up enormous Royal Navy and Air Force assets. Where is Panzergruppe Guderian? Is it only the tank corps? Where are all the motorized infantry in the halftracks? I REALLY like the inclusion of the new mechanized units but was left wondering why I had to wait until late November/December to receive them? If included, all or some of them should be included with the Germans' initial starting forces--maybe 2-3 for Army Group Center, and 1 or 2 for North and none for South? This would have helped me wage an even more effective/devastating initial Blitzkrieg from late June to September, and then maybe you could have these and the tank and motorized units get a severe movement penalty beginning with the Russian Rasputitsa (mud) in October) and then the snow season in mid to late November. In my current game, my fast-driving tankers did isolate Leningrad and attack its outer environs but they never flanked Moscow or reached Kalinin and Tula. They were stopped in late December/early January at Mozhaysk and Kaluga. So, with the additional weather tweaks recommended below, I don't think 3-4 mechanized units would necessarily destroy the game's balance. Ugly: Supermen Slavs I love the pockets that get formed from the German tank advance/annihilation battles and the fierce resistance/dilemma these cut off pockets present to the German side. But, once driven from any cities/HQs or potential supply centers, and assaulted for a turn or two by significant infantry forces, these should surrender at some point as they did historically. Why not have units that are cut off, and not occupying a city, fort or port, surrender when they reach a certain morale point--and vary this threshold by nation and time period? This was what happened historically in the campaign, and having to chase down every individual retreating enemy unit and continuously attack it until destroyed is annoying and conflicts with the otherwise excellent historical feel of the campaign. Partisan Supermen I have read many German accounts of the fierce and extraordinary feats of the massive Russian Partisan armies throughout the campaign. From my limited experience with the first year of the campaign, I think the game already captures the significant impact the partisans had in both disrupting German supply lines and tying down large numbers of security troops. With that said however, I'm not sure the designers intended the following to occur. In my game, I had partisans capture two minor cities (Vinnitsa and Uman) near the Ukraine some distance from the Pripyat Swamp, with German security garrisons stationed in the cities closest to the Swamp. Two 6 strength Partisan armies emerged in these cities in late August, early September, so I dispatched two Rumanian Corps, 2 security garrisons and two Rumanian HQ units to take out the Partisans. I subsequently reinforced with a depleted but veteran German infantry (strength 5). Needless to say, despite repeatedly reducing these Partisans to 4 or 5 points with the help of medium bombers--they are still alive and well in January and always reinforced to full strength (6). Even given all the Russian partisans amazing feats, this does not smack me as being very historical and especially not in 1941. What's happening in Leningrad? After finally cutting the city off along the shores of Lake Ladoga in November, some strange events disrupted my siege. First, as I was cutting off the city, a full strength Russian infantry corps just up and abandoned the fight retreating to a new position near Volkhov (cowards, where's the commissars when you need them?) Then, after finally eliminating one of the Russian engineer units, a Russian cavalry unit galloping through the ring (past a German tank Corps) to take up position on the outskirts of the city, and worse, a new Russian division suddenly magically appeared in the recently vacated hex. Needless to say, even with the gift of the Tirpitz, this sort of creative generalship makes Leningrad a particularly tough nut to crack. Strange Weather The historical campaign's October Rasputitsa (mud season), late November snow, and December 4-5 Arctic freeze--mine didn't occur until late December and January---doesn't seem very well modeled in the game. I understand this is not meant to strictly be a historical simulation where the outcome is inevitable, but at some point there should be a more significant mud event that bogs down all the Germans' movement, and especially the motorized units, several winter snow events that makes operational movement impossible, and the deep freeze should come a bit earlier. I had at least two turns in December where there was no snow/adverse flying weather in the Moscow theater which seems really strange. I think these weather tweaks would make the inclusion of the mechanized units with the Germans' at start forces less problematic in terms of play balance and mother nature would humble both players a bit as these effects could be applied to both sides' units' offensive and movement capabilities, and less adversely impact their defensive capabilities. Maybe this is already being done using the current supply system and just needs to be further tweaked? Summary So there it is, I thoroughly enjoyed the many hours I invested in the game so far. Hopefully, the latest patch addresses some of the problems I noted (I think it might fix the problem reg. Leningrad's magic reinforcement and immunized the Finns from the first winter penalty). I think this is a great game---the best I've ever played on the Russian campaign and I have played nearly all the old board game classics on this subject. But I also believe fixing these minor problems would certainly improve its historical accuracy, and make a great game even better.

That's awesome news, I was really hoping you'd do this but felt guilty asking given all your other ongoing projects. I think this and the recent decision to fix the new unit placement to tiles connected to capitals by rail really enhance the re-playability value and historical realism of the Assault on Democracy game and further whets our appetites for SC3. Congrats to you and the rest of the staff for showing the rest of the industry how to take care of your customers. It may be too late to ask about this, but while I still find the naval side of the game pretty weak in every version, I preferred the original Gold game's use of single capital ship names (even if they sometimes represented the ship and some smaller escorts or a pair of such ships) to what I think I recall were the more broadly defined ship groups (task forces?) in BF. The use of the illustrious named single ships (Bismarck, Tirpitz, Graf Spee) added a bit more excitement to the current system for those of us who still remember the rich history associated with some of those names. I even modified the game I set up for my students to enhance the combat power of the Bismarck and Tirpitz and some of the British carriers (which had armored decks) for the ETO. Except for the ship names and funky looking map, I found BF to be a much improved version in every way.

I'm a huge fan of this Sim and I really appreciate all the talent, wisdom & dedicated service associated with your product--a rare thing in today's world---so kudos to everyone involved. Perhaps this has been addressed elsewhere, but will there ever be any 1942 or 1943 global scenarios added on patches for the new, super-sized AOD game? I know how hard you all have worked on the existing games so maybe this is just something we'll have to do on our own via the editor but any assistance you might provide regarding this would be much appreciated. Also, I am trying to utilize the sim in a history classroom with severe time constraints and I was thinking it would be great if down the line for SC3, you could introduce sudden death Axis/Allied victory criteria for each year of the war, so that every December the AI could assign a tentative winner or current leader and level of victory (e.g. tactical, strategic, decisive) based on everyone's progress to date--maybe based on NM cities/resource occupied, capitals seized, low loss ratio, etc. This wouldn't have to necessarily end the game, players could be given the option to continue or end the war, but it would make it possible to finish the game earlier when necessary, and would also be a helpful benchmark to assess how well you're doing in the game so far. While I'm dreaming, it would also be great to choose and play just one of the Allied or Axis nations and let the AI control some/all the other countries on your side and/or the other, so you can just focus on decisively leading one (or maybe two?) of the Allied or Axis powers. Regardless of whether all this is feasible, I again commend you for creating one of the best strategic WWII sims on the market today.