Ive come around to your way of thinking about the allies shouldn't lose with evenly matched opponents in the 47 campaign.

I now believe that you were correct, that the 45 campaign is much better for MP matches.

Same guy. I have only played against this one guy for the last several years. We get along well and are both retired.

He is much more of an MP player than me. He has played in several SC tournaments and has done quite well.

This is the first time I've beaten him in SC WaW.

I finished my game with a major victory for the allies at the end of 1945.

Following Umeu strategy, I was able to survive as both Russia and China and then launch couter offensives that saw the Russians take Berlin and the Chinese clear their country of the Japanese. I defeated Japan first, using ...

The 1870 campaign was great.

Looking forward to the Crimean war.

Hopefully I'll be accepted into the Beta. I enjoyed beta testing the Civil War.

This probably has been brought up before, but I myself, think an updated version of the old, Strategic Command Assault on Communism, would be a great addition to the game series.

Its well known that the naval system in SC is somewhat lacking, and when I want to play a SC WW2 game, I find that ...

Agreed about Australia not being able to do much if they lose the south. That would be realistic. Though I doubt their Army units that were still in Australia and intact would just surrender. Perhaps Australian supply could be severely curtailed or the remaining army units get a large morale and ...

I see your point. As you say it's a separate issue from the DOW exploit. Its just that I don't see Australia surrendering under any circumstances barring being almost completely occupied.

If the allies don't defend Australia they deserve to lose it. But Australia surrendering because 2 city's are ...

However , I disagree that Australia would surrender if the UK surrendered. They would look to the USA for assistance if the UK surrenders. In real life, after the Singapore fiasco, the Australian prime minister John Curtain said in a rado broadcast, that Australia should look to the USA and not ...

Agreed, it needs to be fixed.

However , I disagree that Australia would surrender if the UK surrendered. They would look to the USA for assistance if the UK surrenders. In real life, after the Singapore fiasco, the Australian prime minister John Curtain said in a rado broadcast, that Australia ...

I believe those are the locations of your submarines.

Sounds interesting and fun.

To simulate strategic nuclear weapons, soak the map in lighter fluid and strike a match.



Isn't that about it! :shock:

I read the 2 books you mentioned....and there was another game based on Clancys book called Red Storm Rising.
https://boardgamegeek.com ...

Are you referring to the Missles in Erzurum during the Cuban missile crisis? Or the ones that Turkey have there today?

Thanks, I might just check that out.

However, I really yearn for an official SC game, with all the usually polish their games are known for.

Sounds interesting and fun.

I played something similar from SPI back in the 70s. It was called NATO.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7941/nato-operational-combat-in-europe-in-the-1970s

It also had tactical nukes. No escalation to strategic weapons in the game. The designer wrote something like ...

I was under the impression that WitP had features not found in the earlier game.

I guess I was mistaken, it's been ages since I've played WiE.

This has probably been brought up before. But I was wondering if anyone else would want the next SC title to be something like the Cold War goes hot.

Imagine a strategic version of the new game Broken Arrow. Can you say Tactical Nukes? Lol

The Main scenario could be a hot War in Europe circa mid ...

I myself think SC WitP captures the feel of the pacific war much better than SC WaW.

Also, while SC WaW is a great game overall, it can be a little overwhelming for me managing so many fronts.

My dream is to be able to play a updated SC WiE that has the same features as SC WitP.

Great tips, thanks again. I'm definitely going to try shock armies and AA to start, followed by Tanks after the 1st rush is stopped.

I'm bookmarking this thread for quick reference in the future. I have already bookmarked your AAR thread.

So you are saying that pre invasion, you build shock armies or armies to hold the line? Can you actually build enough of those pre invasion to hold the line?

As far as pre invasion builds go, I would think building tanks, as you say some players do, would cost to much and take to long. Tanks are ...

I totally forgot about this. I just saw your post today.

Thanks very much. I have an SC WW1 MP match coming up and this will be a great help.