Why build tactical bombers? An in-depth discussion of the problem from all angles.

[PanzerKampfwagen]

Well, I guess that's the best we can hope for at the time being, but thanks for replying anyway. [:)]

[mikwarleo]

I did not say that tactical bomber land attack should be increased to 8. I said that the world average for tactical bomber land attack should be increased to 8.

ah my mistake [:-]

[:)]

[mikwarleo]

and: the seperate sea transport is a great idea I think

[PanzerKampfwagen]

For anyone interested in the airlifting problem, Joel Billings said:

1.202 puts back the rules the way they were with regards to airborne (and I think other units moved by heavy bombers). This is not something that could be adjusted in a modded scenario. The 1.202 version should be posted this week.

So, the problem will hopefully be corrected when the next patch comes out. [:D]

Many thanks, Joel [;)]

[TRL]

What I would like for Christmas:

A scenario that starts out pre-invasion of poland. The current scenarios mean you have bascally have to invade France right away.

[TRL]

What else I would like for christmas:

1) Separation of the United States and Great Britain. The United States did not declare war on Germany after Peal Harbor. Hitler stupidly, though loyally, declared war on America. One of the fun aspects of a game such as WAW is supposed to be the "what if" possibilities. What if you don't make the same mistakes as the actual leaders? What if Germany does not stupidly declare war on America and thus leaves Roosevelt unable to convince the American people to go to war with Germany when they already have an actual enemy in the Pacific? What if Japan invaded the East Indies instead of attacking Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines and thus made it hard for Roosevelt to convince the American people to go to war over a bunch of dutch islands in the Pacific when we did not care that the Nazi's ground their actual country underfoot. In this situation, why would America have cared about India or Australia for that matter? We stood by while Germany tried to annihilate England and the Japanese occupied French Indochina. If your concerned about balanced play that's fair enough, but just because the Japanese would be free to move unmolested into the Dutch East Indies does not mean the United States could not too. Remember Iceland? A danish possession I do believe, and yet I think the first German aircraft shot down by U.S. forces after Germany Declared war was a condor shot down by a P-38 out of Iceland. I don't believe we actually got the Danes permission to occupy Iceland. In reality, if the Japanese had not attacked America, Roosevelt would have probably tried to provoke them or make an incident by putting U.S. forces into harm's way so that shots would be fired and an act of war committed by the Japanese against America. Pearl Harbor sufficed in real life after Roosevelt ordered the Pacific fleet there from California. This would also give the Western Allies player a vested interest in the Southwest Pacific as well as forcing him to put his military out there where it would be more vulnerable and likely to end up in combat as he tried both to occupy islands before the Japanese did, and corner the Japanese into attacking and giving the U.S. a reason to go to war. Unfreezing the U.S. forces would also allow pre-combat reinforcement of the Phillipines which would cause a Japanese player who steadfastly refused to attack the U.S. forces to become increasing uncomfortable while a major enemy fleet accumulated in the middle of his supply line.

2) Do away with the arbitrary time requirements. Neither Roosevelt or Stalin awoke one morning at said "January 1st, 1942 (or 3), time to declare war on the axis! Hitler had the soviet non-agression pact in his pocket and Stalin was in no rush to break it (not to mention was very surprised when Hitler broke it). What if Hitler had not been stupid and decided to keep attacking England instead of attempting to conquer the Soviet Union too? We cannot find out because the arbritary time lines force an attack on the Soviet Union whether you want to or not, just as the Japanese could never truly try a "China first" campaign because the U.S. will inevitably decide one day to no longer be isolationist and join the war, even if not provoked.

3) Unfreeze the U.S. forces in the Atlantic. Limit them to the western half of the Atlantic, sure, but what about the undeclared war the U.S. Navy fought against the U-boats pre-Pearl Harbor? Let the german player make U-boat attacks off the coast of America but have it result in America entering the war against Germany (yeah,thats right, WITHOUT declaring war on Japan)[8D] Make the middle of the Atlantic a free fire zone where combat could take place without incurring a declaration of war. The U.S. and german players could both go there but they might or might not be attacked. (I am a dreamer, not a programmer).

4) Allow allies to occupy each others territories. Sometimes the best defense is an isolated enemy territory that prevents the allies of that enemy from getting at you. It makes no sense.

5) Allow transports and ships of allies to occupy the same areas. Why couldn't german and japanese transports or shipping occupy, or at least pass through the same area?

6) Real lend-lease. You can give supplies to your allies, why not tanks and planes? I seem to remember the U.S. sent one or two to the Soviets. This would also create a motivation for the allied player to try to establish and maintain convoy routes to the Soviet Union and thus put some emphasis back on the U boats and ASW.

7) Add more territories to Siberia. Does anyone really believe the Japanese could have made it all the way to the Urals, much less maintained any realistic combat capability there? Certainly not anywhere near as easily as it can be done in the game (I have not played Franco's alliance yet)

8) Do away with autovictory. The U.S. would not have surrendered until they were marching down main street and the axis had to unconditionally surrender (all right, keep it for those who need that sort of thing.)

9) In line with number 8, have a pre-Sudetenland scenario. That way, with no autovictory, you could conceivably start out with biplanes and machine gun armed tanks and end up with tigers and B-36 intercontinental bombers.

10) Jeep carriers, small, cheap, fast to build. Tac air was good against submarines, when they could reach them.

11) A pony

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: TRL

What I would like for Christmas:

A scenario that starts out pre-invasion of poland. The current scenarios mean you have bascally have to invade France right away.

It would be nice to see something like this. Someone once did a 1939 scenario - I think about a year ago - but I never tried it.

As to many of your other suggestions, however, I disagree. A lot of what you cite as problems - AV, the combination of US and GB for most purposes, limits on direct support between the west and the SU, are some of the things I really like about the current game. IMO they are part of what makes the game much better than Axis and Allies, for example. To each his own! [;)]

[Forwarn45]

It's been a while since the thread below was active, but I thought there were some interesting comments and suggestions from Sgt Rice and others about game mechanics and potential improvement! [:D]

tm.asp?m=1064400

EDIT: I should also say that you and others do have a very good point about the timeline for countries entering the war. I also hope for something more flexible in a future game.

[PanzerKampfwagen]

In reply to TRL, I'll say that I both agree and disagree with your statements. I'll talk about the ones that I do agree with here. As for the others, I don't necessarily concur with you on those. You have a number of interesting points, though, and I'll elaborate some on the ones I think are important. Some of these have already come up in previous threads, however, so I'll try to provide links to those threads if I can find them. [;)]

What if Japan invaded the East Indies instead of attacking Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and thus made it hard for Roosevelt to convince the American people to go to war over a bunch of Dutch islands in the Pacific

I don't agree about the Philippines, but I have myself created a thread on the Dutch East Indies subject that you might want to read: Click here to view it

In reality, if the Japanese had not attacked America, Roosevelt would have probably tried to provoke them or make an incident by putting U.S. forces into harm's way so that shots would be fired and an act of war committed by the Japanese against America. Pearl Harbor sufficed in real life after Roosevelt ordered the Pacific fleet there from California. This would also give the Western Allies player a vested interest in the Southwest Pacific as well as forcing him to put his military out there where it would be more vulnerable and likely to end up in combat as he tried both to occupy islands before the Japanese did, and corner the Japanese into attacking and giving the U.S. a reason to go to war.

When two major powers are trying to juggle for the Pacific and see who is the first to attack the other, that's basically de facto war. However, if you want a realistic Pacific campaign, play Franco's Alliance. I simulates the actual reality of the Pacific situation quite well.

Do away with the arbitrary time requirements. Neither Roosevelt or Stalin awoke one morning at said "January 1st, 1942 (or 3), time to declare war on the Axis!

I had a hard time keeping myself from breaking up laughing when I read that. Great idea. However, it has already come up in a previous thread, where I have posted some of my thoughts on the subject in the past: Click here to view it

Add more territories to Siberia. Does anyone really believe the Japanese could have made it all the way to the Urals, much less maintained any realistic combat capability there? Certainly not anywhere near as easily as it can be done in the game.

Very true, but Franco's Alliance is all we've got for now ( Actually it's far better than the stock game ) since the stock game hasn't been altered to reflect this important idea.

4) Allow allies to occupy each others territories. Sometimes the best defense is an isolated enemy territory that prevents the allies of that enemy from getting at you. It makes no sense.

Never a truer word said, and I think that this is one of the most ridiculous things about WaW. This is most certainly a bug and should be changed in a way that allows allies to occupy each other's territories without being able to actually fight each other.

5) Allow transports and ships of allies to occupy the same areas. Why couldn't German and Japanese transports or shipping occupy, or at least pass through the same area?

Another great idea, and this should also be corrected.

10) Jeep carriers, small, cheap, fast to build. Tac air was good against submarines, when they could reach them.

This may or may not be true . Try reading some of my posts as well as Christian Brown's posts near the top of this thread, and see what you think.

And thanks for writing in!

[henri511]

ORIGINAL: TRL

What else I would like for christmas:

1) Separation of the United States and Great Britain. The United States did not declare war on Germany after Peal Harbor. Hitler stupidly, though loyally, declared war on America. One of the fun aspects of a game such as WAW is supposed to be the "what if" possibilities. What if you don't make the same mistakes as the actual leaders? What if Germany does not stupidly declare war on America and thus leaves Roosevelt unable to convince the American people to go to war with Germany when they already have an actual enemy in the Pacific? What if Japan invaded the East Indies instead of attacking Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines and thus made it hard for Roosevelt to convince the American people to go to war over a bunch of dutch islands in the Pacific when we did not care that the Nazi's ground their actual country underfoot.

Interesting what-ifs - but Japan attacked Pearl harbor following an ultimatum from the US that made it clear that if japan did not gitdahelloutta the South Pacific, they were gonna be at war with the US - with no chance of winning. So they figured that their only chance was to wipe out the US Pacific fleet in a surprise attack to gain a couple of years for creating a fait accompli in the South Pacific.

And Since the US did not attack German forces to speak of before 1943, it would have made no difference if Germany had not declared war on the US: the US would have continued shipping Lend-lease in ever-increasing amounts to Britain as they did - war or no war. In sum, it would make little difference before 1943 whether or not the US was at war or not with Germany, except that Hitler would still have had to attempt to snuff out the convoys, thus creating a de facto war with the US.

Henri