Technology in Production?

[Wilhammer]

One of the thing I liked about a little board game called "Hitler's War" was the ability to spend effort and oppurtunity costs in conventional technology in attempts to get newer technologies sooner.

Will SC have something like this?

[Duh, read the NEWS closely dumba**]

To partly make up for it, will MP mean we can have more than two players? I remember fondly those 3R games with German, Italian, Western Allied and Russian Allied players, all with different and conflicting objectives.

=====================

I spent untold hours as a youth playing Third Reich, A3R, World At War, and I am so looking forward to a good WW2 strategic game on the PC.

[ April 18, 2002, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Wilhammer ]

[Hubert Cater]

Game play is for only 2 players, an Axis and an Allied or a single player against the AI. Multiplayer is supported as well with options for Hotseat and PBEM. LAN play will be included as a free patch in the near future.

Hubert

[Specterx]

So one player controls all the countries of a given side?

[Hubert Cater]

Correct

[Jorgen_Cab]

Are there any restriction of allied forces presence in Russia?

I can't picture amerikan soldiers fighting alongside Russian troops. Or are there some form of Leand Lease or other functions for this?

[ April 19, 2002, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Jorgen_Cab ]

[Wilhammer]

AMOF, inter-Allied co-operation was a real problem across the board.

Germany and Italy should of had divergent goals, but in fact Mussolini just gave it up.

The French did not get along with anyone else.

The Americans and British had the closest co-operation, and might not need seperate rules, except that the strategic goals were different.

And No ALLIES in Russia.

[ April 19, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Wilhammer ]

[Hubert Cater]

One of the main goals was to make the game play as flexible as possible so that if you wanted to try a unique strategy you will be more than able to do so, the main argument for this is that you would otherwise be stuck playing the traditional strategies and no "what-if" type of game play would be easily entertained

So this could include Allied units fighting in Russia if that be an option someone would like to pursue, but as you can imagine it would not be easy to do so. If you really want your British and American forces fighting there, you would have to transport them by sea and run several gauntlets through either the Baltic or through the Med to the Russian southern front as would be very risky either way.

There are inherent cooperation and restriction rules though you've all guessed, operational movements for land and air units are somewhat coordinated for the standard partnerships like GB and the US and Germany and Italy, (so you won't be able to operationally move an Air Fleet to Russia, you would have to fly there which might be hard to reach depending on the territories you control and vice versa), and restrictions include how HQ's influence units in the field. So if you happen to move Monty's 8th army into Russia, don't expect Zhukov to have any influence over this unit's readiness

Hubert

[Narayan Sengupta]

"One of the main goals was to make the game play as flexible as possible so that if you wanted to try a unique strategy you will be more than able to do so..."

Hubert,

I completely agree. In any case, there is always going to be an opportunity (or other) cost to, say, deploying all U.S. units to Russia. This should keep some balance in the game.

Narayan

[FuChu]

Hubert,

I agree with you on the "what-if" type of strategies. As I enjoy trying lots different approaches no matter how doomed they might be percieved ahead of time, due to our ability to judge history by having lived it or studied it.

Is there any chance that an option will be included to allow the allies to tackle Russia?

This option would open lots of "what-if" action. I am not complaining but am hoping to whine enough that this option might be included. Thank you

[Camicie Nere]

I agree completely - as I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, in the little-appreciated WWII simulation "High Command" (circa 1994) I managed to pull off a coalition of the US, Great Britain, France, and a post-Nazi German regime all fighting against the Soviets.

It started with an Allied DOW on Russia and really did add significantly to the "what if"/coolness factor.

And in fact, the scenario of the Allies at war with Russia came closer to fruition than many people realize. During Stalin's war with Finland, the British and French general staffs initiated operations planning for sending an expeditionary force to Finland to fight the Soviets. This was rendered moot by the Soviet victory, but as late as the eve of the German assault on Scandanavia the foolish Allies were seriously developing plans to bomb the Russian oilfields in the Caucasus. Imagine if THAT had happened?

Anyhow, allow me to add my "whine" to the calls for the option of an Axis Soviet Union. And after all, if one were looking for a real challenge as the Allied player I could think of nothing better.

[Wolfpack]

Hehe...with the Soviets neutral, the game will go from easy to harder. With the Soviets on the Axis side, things just went from harder to well nigh impossible. That said, I'd also like to see a "3rd party" Soviet Union. Would make things more interesting for both sides not knowing which way they'd swing or when they'd do what they decide.

As for playing with more than one player, you should be able to play with however many you want. I'm sure Hubert will correct me if I'm wrong, but you should be able to play Germany for example, save and e-mail to the Italian player and let them do their moves, end the turn and repeat with the Allied players. Since all of the countries have their economies and armies seperate, that should work. Might make for some interesting battles too when you have allies competing for MPP locations and country ownership.

[ June 10, 2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]