Altaris

I find it to be compareable to War in the East in scope and playstyle. Personally, though, I much more enjoy this game to WitE. It's just cleaner interface-wise, and has a sensible air simulation and supply system. WitE looks nicer, but that's the only area I consider it superior to AoC.

This is true, and he is indeed playing smart by moving at a slower pace. But just having the threat there forces the Axis player to move slower, which is an advantage in its own way. I agree you shouldn't let yourself be flanked, but after August, it's pretty hard to flank the Russians anyway. I think you're in good shape, I was just saying I don't think it's ever a good idea to throw away LT's. Since they can't be rebuilt, you are ultimately just reducing the max size of forces you can field later.

I'd argue this is exactly what makes them NOT disposable. Anything which can be rebuilt is disposable for the Russians, as it can be rebuilt at a very reduced cost and in half the time. Divisions in particularly are very disposable, and infantry easily so as long as they serve a worthwhile delaying purpose. You can field more units on the map later in the war by keeping light tanks around, precisely because any lost infantry can be rebuilt but the LT's can't. As Steel32 very effectively taught me, light tanks are best used entrenched at key spots, waiting on panzers to end up adjacent to them. With their 2x attack, they can then usually inflict 2-5 points of damage to panzers (though taking fair damage in the process), then since they haven't moved yet, be pulled back well out of counter-attack range, refitted over the next few turns, and be useful for the same purpose further back on the line. If done properly, the Russians can salvage anywhere from 12-20 of their starting 25 light tanks by winter. When combined with the 5-6 heavy tanks which roll into the line throughout late 41/early 42, the Russians can have a very mobile, high damage dealing force in Spring 42. It's VERY effective to use infantry to pummel down the Germans throughout the winter and root them out of any good heavy entrenchments, then come March consolidate all the heavy and light tanks under several good commands and just hammer away at a front. Twice now I've effectively destroyed the Wehrmacht as an effective offensive force by summer 1942 this way. Big Al is right... the Germans just can't keep up with this sort of war of attrition.

IMO, light tanks are never useless, even later in the game. Simply having the x2 attack per turn is very helpful, if for no other reason than knocking entrenchment down 2 points and the ability to move farther than infantry. If you can get the Germans on the run in 1942, light tanks greatly help in following up on weak retreating Germans and really putting a hurting on the Axis powers. They also tend to work well against Romanians and Hungarians. He has some bad salients poking out all along the front for it being mid-November... if he doesn't pull back soon and consolidate a good defensive line, you could deliver a knock out punch in winter.

IMO, this problem would be handled best by lowering Western Allies' NM considerably, and the throw-away units would become a much bigger risk vs reward. This would mirror France's historical reality much closer too, as France was very politically divided and suffered from lack of unity. If their navy was used in a suicide attack, it would speed their surrender, simulating loss of confidence by the populace following a naval disaster. Later on, a disastrous invasion by UK or USA would be severe NM blow if it led to loads of units being destroyed. This again would be a good simulation. From a pure military standpoint, the USA could easily have invaded Germany in 1943, but wouldn't have risked doing so out of fear of taking unacceptably high casualties. It may not be the perfect solution, but seems like a sensible way of reflecting historical realities within the confines of the game engine.

Personally, I've found Assault on Communism to be the best of the SC2 games. Perfectly scaled map and unit sizes for an Eastern Front WWII game. WW1 is a close second, also a very good simulation of the time-frame. The only reason I put WW1 second is I find it to be too easy to pull unrealistic breakthroughs on the Western Front. Some of the other WW1 Breakthrough scenarios are quite interesting as well, Russian Civil War and Franco-Prussian War are well done. I don't really care for Assault on Democracy global game, as the map scale makes it very prone to gamey tactics with no historical basis, but it's a good Axis & Allies type of unrealistic, high-level WWII game.

First off, great AAR, was a lot of fun following you guys! Secondly, I don't think it's ahistorical to leave Russia as an army in being, this is pretty much what happened. In 1915, the Centrals stomped Russia, dropped its morale, then just let it crumble from the inside while they refocused on the Western Front. Lastly, I really think the Centrals can easily win this game by simply not invading Belgium at all. Britain starts at 80% mobilization, and will need coaxing to come into the war (though don't send subs or other ships into the North Sea, or it will trigger them). Instead, focus on the Eastern Front from the onset. Russian troops suck vs German ones (they have 1 less attack and defense), so if you concentrate against them, you'll push them back whenever and wherever you want. Personally, I'd take out Serbia first, then focus on Russia proper, this protects a potential back-door attack from the Entente landing in Montenegro or Albania. Additionally, you're likely to get Bulgaria into the war early on this way too, which helps when you turn back against Russia. Another, kinda hidden, advantage of this strategy is making it far easier to cycle troops from the fronts to upgrade them, a very important consideration. I really don't like the infantry tech upgrades in this game, as infantry didn't suddenly vastly improve over the enemy like it does here, and leads to ahistorical breakthroughs, especially on the Western Front. But it is what it is, and historical strategy severely hurts the Germans as its very tough to cycle troops from their entrenchments on the West to upgrade without leaving severe holes in the line. A shorter front really helps a lot with this (and in the East it's not that big a deal as you'll have plenty of real estate to cycle and upgrade). This route does open a lot of possibilities for the Western Powers to launch offensives elsewhere, but it also vastly reduces the Western Front for the Germans, so it's a fair trade-off. With luck, you'll drive the Russians out of the war in 1916 and can focus on taking out the Western Powers before the USA can arrive in force.

Yes, this piece of code means the event will not fire until 10/10/1917. I agree it's odd, but since you're so close, you may want to stay on the defensive vs Romania until it fires.

Nickerson quit sending me turns at least 3 weeks ago, and the game was progressing at a snail's pace (1 turn a week or so) prior to that. I think it's safe to assume that game is dead. Steelman won his game vs me and the one vs T-man, I'm assuming T-Man had Nickerson disappear on his game as well. I've offered to Amadeus to forfeit my position and let Steelman/T-Man face off for our bracket, but I'm not sure where that offer stands.

I have been working on a mod to the WW1 Breakthrough SC2 game for a while now, and wanted to see if anyone would be interested in trying it out in PBEM. The mod is designed to create a more historical based scenario than vanilla. Primary changes include: 1) Infantry upgrades are completely removed. In vanilla, infantry tech has too much power, IMO. Whoever hits infantry techs first tends to mop the floor with their opponent, especially if it's Germany vs Russia. While Russia did perform poorly in the war, it did okay when not faced with overwhelming artillery. In this mod, Russia's weaknesses come from poor leaders and lack of artillery (and toughness keeping units at full strength due to MPP constraints), but they don't get shoved around with impunity when it's just infantry vs infantry. 2) Infantry stats are the same for all sides, 4/3 attack/defense values, except Germany which is 4/4 (to represent their slightly better defensive engineering and machine guns) and Ottomans are 3/3 to somewhat represent their troubles on offensives. 3) Between #1 and #2, artillery (and later bombers/tanks) becomes the key to breaking heavily entrenched positions. All sides should aim to build and research artillery to effectively wage offensives (and mass those trench busting equipment at key locations). 4) Lemberg is no longer a fortress for Austria, and the Russians can make a good offensive in 1914 into Galicia. Przemysl is still a fortress. Austria can really find itself on the ropes in 1914 if the Russian advances smartly (which in turn forces Germany to evaluate whether to rush to Austria's aid in late 1914/early 1915). 5) Winter months give extra MPP, scaled to the number of days per turn. Winter becomes important for rebuilding, teching, and building/planning for the next year's offensives, as opposed to vanilla where it's tough to regain footing in winter months due to MPP constraints. 6) From July 1916 onwards, the USA will become more and more aligned with the Entente (1-3% per turn). This goes up faster if the Germans are waging unrestricted warfare. From my playtests, I've found this to be a pretty close representation to WW1. No side blows huge gaping holes in the enemy's defenses after trenches set in, and it's a grueling, grinding war of attrition. Germany gets faced with a situation in late 1914/early 1915 of choosing between continuing its offensive in the West and risking Russians dominating the Austrians, or massing their artillery in the East and punishing the Russians in Poland while the Entente tries to build up artillery power of it's own to face off against the Germans. I could play roughly 1 turn a day in a PBEM, if anyone is interested in trying it out, let me know.

Playing the Germans is all about planning where the HQ's are going and where the tanks are relative to them, and keeping the tanks at full strength or very close to it. German panzers with full strength and readiness (particularly with experience steps) will stomp anything the Russians put in their path. As the Germans, when my tanks get a little too far ahead for my liking, I'll pull them to a stop for a turn or so, get HQ's in place to get them better supplied, and heal up any damage they've taken. If you position the tanks in a centralized spot for striking in multiple directions, you also put the Russian player off footing and stretch his defensive line. Moving forward quickly is of course a concern, but you're better off in 1941 making a steady pace and keeping supply logistics good rather than racing ahead at top speed (in the end, you'll get there just about as fast, since tanks at supply of <= 5 have less action points for movement anyway, and are in danger of taking counter-attack damage). If played right, I fully believe the Germans can put the Russians out of commission in 1941. The Russians aren't likely to be outright beaten in 1941, but if you take enough MPP's away from them, they'll be in steady decline through 1942 and 1943 while the Germans grow stronger. Then it's just a matter of attritioning the Russian to defeat in late 1942 to mid 1943.

Reached March 1942, and found some issues with this setup and the winter 1941 events. Russians were able to completely break open the German front in the center, mostly due to the heavy morale losses the Germans pick up via the winter events. Up to December 1941, the mod played very well along roughly historical lines. I really liked how Leningrad was playing out. The Germans took half the city, but couldn't root out the defenders in the northern part of the city. That was largely due to my decisions to take the tanks away from the fight after I took the southern half of the city, I think had I kept them there I could've cracked the rest of the city eventually. It also was likely to fall in 1942 if I concentrated artillery and tac's up that way, but Leningrad wasn't going to crack without concentrating a lot of firepower in the vicinity. Sevastopol in the south was a similar situation, though I think that one would be easier once the fortress was surrounded. End lines as of 1941 were practically identical to historical end lines. Never took Rostov, but then again, the Germans couldn't hold it in 1941 either. MPP's for each side were very close by end of 1941, about 420 a turn for Germany vs 380 for Russia, but Russian factories in the Urals were starting to equal out the difference. So going to restart with some additional changes to help balance out winter in this scenario. I've changed the winter events to only do strength damage, so that German morale doesn't get shredded. HQ's losing strength will reduce supply for the Germans anyway, and the strength losses will also take a bit of a toll on readiness and morale. This setup leaves the Germans with an interesting choice in early winter. If they pull back to city vicinities, they can greatly reduce their winter woes due to HQ hits affecting supply. But doing so can mean letting go of some prime defensive positions around the Moscow area. My end goal is to create a situation where Russians can launch an effective but limited offensive in winter by concentrating their new tanks and prime infantry. But I want to ensure they don't breach too far and take some damage in the process. I'm also slightly increasing research gain per turn for lvl 1->2 tech, moving it from 2% per chit per turn to 3%. As of March 1942, the Germans were still only around 60% the way to lvl 2 infantry and tanks, I want them to hit this by spring 1942 for launching a spring 1942 offensive with a slight advantage.

Currently, I am playing with the following changes. Nothing too drastic, and seems to be working well thus far: 1) City and capitals now have a +8 tank defense bonus. Tanks won't do much damage to cities unless the defenders are already in bad shape. But they can still use their double-strike to reduce trenches by 2 on the city, which is sometimes worth it. 2) Swamps now have a +6 tank defense bonus. In my mind, tanks should be next to useless in swampy terrain, this seems to do the trick. 3) Divisions can no longer de-entrench (but corps can). This is to avoid semi-gamey tactics of using divisions to lower trench levels for a really cheap cost. 4) Medium bombers no longer lower trenches until Ground Air Attack is teched up to level 2. They are still pretty handy for lowering readiness and morale, but they need to be massed to really be effective. 5) Tech levels increase faster at lower levels. Level 0 -> Level 1 progresses at 5% per chit per turn, 1->2 and 2->3 at 2% per turn, and 3->4 and 4->5 at 1% per turn. So Russians get lvl 1 infantry and tanks a bit earlier (usually sometime around October 1941), then Germans will get lvl 2 tanks and infantry around springtime 1942, which I'm thinking will work well for a 1942 resurgence. That's it. They aren't drastic changes, and the Germans still are quite potent. But the Russians aren't as toothless as I've found them to be in vanilla once they get past those initial 3-4 rough months. I really want to see a campaign that plays like the Eastern Front really did, a bloody slug-fest from mid-1942 onwards. For that to occur, defensive positions have to be at least somewhat adequate to allow for both sides to have counter-attacking potentials.

I agree that for a game on the scale of, say, Assault on Democracy different rules should apply. But AoC is very much built around tactics, and for the most part it does this well. To clarify, I'm not advocating making cities impregnable fortresses. What I'm finding with my mod is that cities fall pretty quickly once flanked and surrounded, especially when subjected to heavy artillery and air bombardment. But they typically won't crack under direct frontal assaults, which they shouldn't when the defender is well dug in and prepared. I just reached October 17, 1941 in my hotseat test of my mod. Germans are reaching very close to historical lines, and I've been impressed with the closeness to dates I'm getting. For example, I'm just about to surround Kharkov, which historically fell on Oct. 23, probably right in line with what I'm going to see. Kursk should fall too, but I think that's as far east as the Germans are getting in 1941. Leningrad played out well, I thought. Germans reached it by early September, and I put 2 Tac's, 4 Medium Bombers, and 1 artillery in the vicinity to try and crack the city. It took a few turns (about 10 days of game time), but I finally managed to get 3 adjacent squares to Leningrad under control and isolate the city from the mainland. The next two turns, I was able to whittle the Russians down and take the southern part of the city. As of mid-October, the Russians still hold the northern part of the city, and poor weather is hampering my efforts. I think winter could be interesting, as the Russians might have good reason to try and relieve the city (though their tanks will also suffer from trying to crack through swampy terrain - it is a dual-edged defensive sword). My end analysis is that even with tac's and artillery, entrenchment levels can be brought down quite well, and the medium bombers then serve an important role of demoralizing and de-readying the defender. But it was a big commitment, and probably kept me from getting further in the Ukraine or near Moscow (I still came very close to historical lines though). That's what I'm advocating, and liking about the setup so far. It makes for hard choices on the German part, not just randomly steering an endless wave of destruction on three broad fronts forever. MPP-wise, things look well, very close to even right now. The Russians will build up some more as Ural factories relocate. Russians also have hit lvl 1 infantry tech, and I'm upgrading them as quickly as I can along the front. The tech bump seemed to come at a good time, right about October 10th 1941. That's usually when things start to be rather desperate for the Russian anyway.

Actually, after reviewing the last PBEM turn, I was wrong about what was adjacent to Stalingrad. There actually were 2 tanks and 1 mech already adjacent... not that it mattered one iota, as after the bomber attacks, the mech alone destroyed the city army garrison, the tanks then could carry on the endless wave of destruction. Just out of curiosity, what exactly is a feasible defense for the Russians in vanilla? Even level 6 entrenchments are completely pointless when they can be taken out by 4 medium bombers and 2 tacs in one turn (and even less if artillery is present). Not to mention readiness and morale are ruined after such an attack. I think putting a tank corps there has some merit, but even that is only going to be slightly effective for a turn or two extra. This is where I find the inability of the Russians to mount any kind of counter-attack on equal terms particularly frustrating. If I'm reduced to trying to defend only as best I can, but that's not a viable option either, then there's little that can be done except wait for the inevitable. I would point out my opponent is a very capable veteran of SC2, which makes a big difference. He keeps his units up to full strength, under good leaders, so they have excellent readiness. Thing is, I understand those mechanics as well. The only thing I could've done better (and this is hindsight learning the scenario) is to delay further back to the west. But I still don't see this being a long-term solution, it would've just been 1943 when I was faced with destruction after being grinded down for two years. If he had stuck his tanks out ahead more, I probably could've attritioned him down, but he's too smart to do that. He'll send in his infantry to the front lines, let them grind down my defenses entrenchments and such, then move the tanks in the next round when I am no longer able to mount any kind of counter. Then it's a rinse/repeat all the way to Moscow, evidently.

Just entering August 1941 in my test of this mod, I'm finding it works very well. It's not drastically different than vanilla, but the city defensive bonus vs tanks means Smolensk area held out for about 2 turns longer than normal (rather than tanks being able to smash it to bits with hasty attacks, it had to be surrounded first, then the infantry took it out the next turn). Smolensk fell on the first turn of August, almost dead on with where it fell historically. Perhaps more significantly, AGC's tanks were needed to secure the city, and took 1 or 2 step losses helping to break down the city entrenchments after it was surrounded. Also, crossing the Dnepr is a bit tougher without medium bombers being able to shred entrenchments. This made for a historical decision after Smolensk to swing the AGC tanks down south to put pressure on the Russians to either evacuate Kiev area or face encirclement. I chose to evacuate them, but I do think there's some viability to letting them get encircled to tie down the Germans a few turns til reinforcements roll off the production line. Up north, AGN reached the outskirts of Leningrad, but the tanks can't just blast holes through the Russian lines once they reach the swamps. This makes for a far more historical approach to Leningrad, IMO. I can move my Tac Bombers and artillery up that way and force a siege of the city, and I might be able to take in 1941 too, but it's a major commitment to do so, not a whim choice to simply send in tanks on hasty attacks. Research wise, the Russians are still lvl 0 infantry tech, but they will probably reach lvl 1 around mid October (currently at 65ish%). This will allow for a stiffening of resistance as late October, early November sets in. Germans will hit lvl 2 infantry and tank tech sometime in the winter or early Spring 1942, giving them a 30-40 turn or so range in 1942 where they can once more have an advantage similar to that in the 1942 drive. Haven't watched my last PBEM turn in vanilla, but evidently my opponent took Stalingrad in 1 turn, where I had an infantry unit at full strength, upgraded, good readiness/morale, and full entrenchment. Faced off against him was one mechanized infantry that could do a ready attack, at lvl 8 strength. So I'm assuming it got hasty attacked by tanks again after artillery bombardments and massive air bombardment. Sorry, but the idea of a big city like Stalingrad falling in 3 days while heavily defended is just off. If it can be flanked and surrounded, I could see that being the case, but it wasn't here. I would never advocate cities being invincible, but good grief, they should be capable of holding out for at least a few turns under reasonable circumstances! I'm waiting to see how the mod works as the game progresses, but I think these are very reasonable and solid changes from what I'm seeing so far. Yes, it will probably make it very difficult for the Germans to take Moscow, Stalingrad, etc, but that should be the case, IMO. Also, these are benefits the Germans can take advantage of too on the defensive. So when the Russians begin driving back westward, the Germans can make good use of these benefits at historical key areas. Overall, vanilla is a very good scenario, but the city situation in particular just feels way off from historical plausibility. Watching very potent defensive positions like Leningrad, Sevastapol, and Stalingrad fall while heavily defended, without even putting a dent in the German war machine, has just left me a little annoyed, I guess.

Good points guys, thanks for the feedback. I agree after playing that this is set up for a more balanced war than historical, I think you are right on the money with what the historical reality was, Big Al. This takes some adjustments to strategy, but probably does make for a more competitive PBEM match. I still like the idea of some slight alterations for a more historical scenario, I think I'll continue working on it, but this sheds some light on effective strategies for the Soviets in 1941/1942. I think with the vanilla setup, an effective strategy would be to use tanks to protect cities. Battlefield's comments got me thinking about this. Infantry armies just don't have enough protection from tanks to adequately hold cities against concentrated attacks. Tanks on the other hand, might very well, and would be situated in a nice centralized spot for possible counterattacks.

So does the Soviet Union get a bunch of extra MPP as the game progresses? That lowers my concerns, as I thought by April 1942 I was getting close to maxxing out and I'm currently running at about 60% the MPP production of Germany. If the Soviet Union gets ramped up heavily in MPP's, then I can understand the limit on army units better. At the very least, I think cities need to be much safer from tanks. I see Battlefield's point about tanks, but then again, it's perhaps a waste of a tank's other benefits to sit them in a city if the city is just as adequately protecting infantry from tank attacks. This isn't really a major change, in reality it means Leningrad and Sevastapol can hang in there longer (they could still be broken, just not in 2 turns of tank hasty attacks preceded by bombardments). So far in my head-to-head test (just entering August 1941) it seems pretty historical. Germans still busted through to Smolensk, but at least the Russians can slow them down a few turns, especially at Smolensk itself. I totally agree tanks need to be able to de-entrench. I used tanks for this purpose against Smolensk, they didn't do much damage, but they helped break the trenches very well, then the infantry surrounded the city and took it down. The city defense won't make a huge impact if the enemy can surround the city, but it makes a huge difference in situations like Leningrad where it's much harder to hit multiple flanks. I think that's a good change. Within these constraints, it would still be possible to take Leningrad with a concentrated assault, but it would be costly and take a few weeks of turns, I believe. That's a more historical result, Germany bypassed it not because it was impossible to take, just too costly (which in hindsight was probably a poor decision). I'm not advocating making it invincible, but it shouldn't be wrecked by two tank hasty attacks with a fully entrenched army in place and a decent leader in charge. Same goes for Sevastapol. Air power in the mod seems appropriate now too. Tac bombers are still very effective and good for breaking trenches, but limited range keeps them from being uber. Medium bombers are somewhat effective, but only for softening the enemy - their major advantage is the wide range. But they are no longer trench busters, which IMO they shouldn't be.

Playing through my first PBEM campaign at the moment, I am Soviets and got my behind handed to me pretty good in 1941. By December 1941 lines were pretty close to what they historically reached in 1942, except Leningrad and Sevastapol had also fallen. For the most part I'm loving this game. It's a very close simulation to the Eastern Front, but I do have a few things I've been disappointed with. 1) Tanks (along with bomber de-entrenchment capabilities) are WAAAY too effective vs cities. Historically the Soviets held up pretty good around the areas represented by cities in this game, Smolensk, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. In my game, I had Leningrad fall to two turns of hasty attacks by tanks (preceded by bombardments) with an army in good condition and full entrechment! So much for a siege that historically lasted 2+ years! 2) The way research works, the Russians will always be at a disadvantage, assuming both sides invest in tech. Each of the 5 levels of research progress at 2% per chit, and the Russians start 1 tech level below in both infantry and tanks, the most important. On top of that, the Russians cap at lvl 4 in these, whereas the Germans cap at lvl 5. This means German corps will always be on par with Russian armies, and German tanks will always surpass Russian ones. Makes going on the counter-offensive even late in the war a pretty tall order for the Russians, who historically began grinding the Germans down by mid-1943. Seems off to me. 3) In conjunction with #2, Russians can only field 62 armies vs Germans fielding 50 corps, and Russians 12 tank groups vs German 10 tank groups. So Russians only can muster a slight advantage, but the tech/leadership disadvantage makes it roughly equal. Again, seems off to me. This got me looking at possible mod solutions to make things a bit more historical. So far, this is what I'm looking at: 1) Adjusted research so that lower levels are easier to reach, and higher ones tougher. Progression goes 5% per chit at lvl 1, 2% per chit at lvls 2 and 3, and 1% per chit at 4 and 5. Russians start at lvl 0, but will catch up over time, in particular getting lvl 1 infantry and lvl 1 tanks by roughly early winter 1941. So early game plays out much the same, but Germans can't just push the Russians around at whim after the first 3 months or so. 2) Cities and forts have tank defense ramped way up to 8, and bumped tank defense up slightly for marshes and forests. Cities now really require flanking from multiple directions and gradual siege mechanics. They can still be taken, just not on a rush/whim as happens in vanilla. Tanks can still be utilized, and have some advantage at breaking entrenchments since they can double-strike, but they'll get beat up a little doing this, which is a cost in of itself. They are better served flanking cities and aiding with a siege that way. 3) Medium bombers no longer have de-entrenchment capabilities until lvl 2 bombers are reached. Tactical bombers still can de-entrench, and are better for actually dealing damage to units. Medium bombers serve more a role of bombing supply, scouting ahead, and demoralizing enemies (with better range) but they won't directly destroy entrenchments. 4) Number of Russian armies increased from 62 to 80, and divisions from 50 to 60. They still take a time and money to field, but gradually the Russians can build the historical Soviet juggernaut. Germans can still make the Russians have a rough go of it with a tactical defense withdrawal, but from 1943 onwards, the Russians should have the ability to grind the Germans down. I'm playing a test of this in hotseat right now. I'm not saying this is the perfect setup, but I wanted to get an idea of how it would play out. Would be interested in hearing feedback from other PBEM'ers to see if these seem like good changes or too much.

Congrats to Steel on his win, it was well earned and he gave me a proper thrashing as 1943 got underway!

I think Axis wins are very possible, but they have to be done right. Germany can't afford to take heavy losses prior to Barbarossa, particularly on tanks, otherwise they spend too much rebuilding/reinforcing tanks to get enough units out to take on the USSR. The Allies have a tactic Steel used against me effectively, and I used against nickerson effectively, of using British Aircraft Carriers to launch strikes against German tanks invading France. It does cost the AC a lot of planes, but it slows the Germans down terribly, and if the Allies are lucky, they can destroy a tank division or two (this is what really killed me in my game vs Steel). In hindsight, I should've just invaded France in October or November of 1939. There's no reason not to, and in fact it's somewhat better to do this since the weather prevents Britain from deploying their AC in this fashion. This would also give the Germans a chance to wrap up France in time to launch an early Barbarossa, which may be key. I also have a theory (untested) that the Axis could better their odds by simply keeping Polish territory and going immediately on the offensive against Soviet Union in 1939 in conjunction with Japan. That's probably risky, but with a pretty good technological advantage in 1939, I think it might work.

Steel and I are wrapping up 1942 now. I know I've already lost, so I'm ready to concede whenever he wants to, but we've decided to keep going for the time being. If you think 1942 is too slow, then maybe I shouldn't even tell you what turn my game vs llhnickerson is on! We're still in October 1940 in that one!

I'm interested in playing Barbarossa to Berlin in PBEM as the Soviet side. If anyone is interested, PM or email me at benmcjunkin@yahoo.com

I would be interested in participating, if spots are still available.

Turns 32-34 posted. August 1915 comes to an end. Serbs almost crushed, down to two towns in the far south. Greece has entered war on side of Entente. Russians on the run now in Poland, though they are putting up delay defenses at Warsaw and Brest-Litovsk. Hindenburg moving in on Vilna. On the Western Front, Entente has won it's first major battle against the Germans at Arras, though at heavy cost.