<t> One thing that would help is remove the fact that the pocket units' CV are immediately and drastically reduced. The basic idea is fine but the malus is imposed before the player can react due to the IGOUGO system, essentially pocketed units CV goes down WHILE the pocket is being formed not after ...

<t> I still think the GC victory conditions need improvement to place some importance to holding key locations during the campaign and not just at the end, like with the smaller scenarios. Keep the present conditions as the "official" victory conditions and add a per turn victory point accumulation ...

<t> As an Axis player, I feel that the Lvov pocket is unrealistic historically but feel without it the game would be seriously unbalanced in the Soviet's favor. Even with it the Soviets still typically have a stronger Red Army going into the winter and the Axis advance is limited by logistics ...

Easy big fella, that was not my intention. "Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion..." was meant to state that the opinions were formed pre-1.05 considering that the newest changes have not been out long enough to make any broad conclusions.

<t> Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion but even with the Lvov Gambit and the removal of these good Soviet units the Axis still does not do well into '42 in most AARs I have seen. These saved units would not be wasted but used effectively by a competent Soviet player to further slow the ...

<t> Forgive me if some of these suggestions have been made inprevious pages but I chose not to read all 14 pages to see. As an inveterate Axis player I see the basic conundrum being the fact that giving the player freedom to move his armies without political considerations and with perfect C&C ...

<t> I have not played the game in probably 5 months but lurk on the forums almost daily. One thing on the 2:1 discussion I have not seen discussed is the magnitude of the increased Soviet casaulties due to their doctrine that is the justification for the 2:1 rule. Would not another way of dealing ...

<t> I think just adding a bonus to attacks from several hexes will not have an appreciable effect on the checkerboard defense because currently the only way to attack from several hexes is to do deliberate attacks, which would be a huge waste of MPs against relatively weak opponents. Perhaps a malus ...

<t> One way to add some incentive to the Soviet player to fight hard for territory the first few months would to modify the victory conditions to add some of the smaller scenario conditions. Currently, the cities you presently control are all that goes into the computation. Why not add per turn VPs ...

<t> Perhaps changing the blizzard mechanics to lower Axis losses if the Soviets do not press them. Units not moving would suffer low attrition/morale losses, those next enemy units more, those that move even more, attacked but successfully held more still, and forced to retreat the worst. That way ...

<t> I think a granular weather system and one with some sort of pattern sound like excellent improvements but also sound like a fairly large changes that will not be quick to implement.<br/>
<br/>
One thing that I think would help the current arrangement is a forecast system for each zone's next ...

That would work because the construction units will then only go out 5 hexes (corps command distance) but, as the Axis, I have no corps to spare for this.

<t> I had been thinking about trying to attach construction battalions to the RHG Army Groups, that are useless for the most part. I could park them where I want the repairs and far from any of their security units (no possiblility of the battalions being diverted to fort construction) and hopefully ...

<t> I usually do hasty attacks on level 1 forts also. <br/>
<br/>
The other thing I do a lot is do multi-division hasty attacks versus single division deliberate attacks. Hasty attacks are half the CV of a deliberate but 2 divisions on a hasty attack are the same as 1 on deliberate and it saves ...

Almost all the losses are disabled. At the start of Turn 1 the Soviets take automatic damage, see Manual 23.3.3.3, which is probably the reason for these numbers. The actual killed and captured are far smaller and are probably due to normal attrition.

<t> I have been playing a new 1941 GC Normal game as the Axis and in the middle of Turn 3 I have noticed I have significantly less vehicles in my motor pool than previous games, to include a Challenging game. If this trend continues I'll start worrying about a bigger vehicle shortage during the ...

<r> I posted a problem with a possible factory evacuation bug before but I found one of a slightly different sort. Playing with 1.03 Beat 2. On Turn 1 as the Axis versus the AI, I thought I had trapped the 4 Heavy Industry and Armaments factories in Minsk. 3 of 4 rail lines were cut with pending ...

<t> I understand what is happening, I just question why. If no enemy unit had been there I would have taken control of every adjacent hex as soon as I moved there but after I defeat him and his patrols beat feet I do not get those same hexes, which now have no competing enemy ZOCs. Are my patrols ...

<t> My concern is after a battle where I win there are hexes adjacent to my unit that did not change to pending friendly because before the battle the ZOC was disputed by the now defeated unit. They remain enemy hexes but I assumed that during the next player's logistics phase the ZOC's would be re ...

<t> As I said the AI does not move the Mech Corps around Rovno and I am sure a human player would move them out of harms way. However, even against a human the Mech Corps next to the border cannot escape. Not pocketed on Turn 1 but only 2-hex wide mouth that they cannot clear (ZOC-ZOC move eats up ...