WW2-Global

Rocoteh:
I know it's probably a bit late for the special AI version for Germany, but if you get a positive response for it, and if you decide to make AI versions for other nations, why not combine the 1941 versions and the AI version.
For example Germany:
Starting in 1941, we get the opportunity to bring in the nation that was really responsible for Germany's defeat - Russia. I personally think the current 1939 scenario gives absolutely no importance to Russia's contribution in the war - arguably the most significant of the big three Allied countries. Without Russia, Germany would not have been beaten. Let's face it, Britain did not have the resources or the manpower to take on Germany alone, especially after France fell, and the US was too far and engrossed in its own struggle with Japan to offer any significant help until it would have been too late.
Moreover, starting in 1941 will cut your work down a bit because you wouldn't have to produce an AI version for France. You don't even need to produce one for Italy. And as discussed before it makes the game a hell lot faster right from the start, since we can remove many nations that did not exist by 1941.
Starting in 1941 also makes the idea of a Golden Age for Russia more significant, since Germany, being in a locked war with Russia, will not be able to avoid the brunt of the enhanced production capabilities of its enemies, as it can in the 1939 version.

Another thing that I wanted to add was about the armies. I think a three unit capacity just overwhelms the AI, especially since there's a bug in conquests regarding AI and armies. I think maybe we should bring the capacity down to two units. Also, I have seen this innumerable times, and I am sure everyone else has too, that the AI just kills of the leaders it gains in battle instead of converting them into armies. I have seen this happen once in this scenario with Italian AI. Why not change the battle-created unit from leader to army?
Atleast the AI will be able to put something in it, no matter how ridiculous the combination turns out to be.

eaglefox said:

Rocoteh:
...and the US was too far and engrossed in its own struggle with Japan to offer any significant help until it would have been too late. ...

Click to expand...

I read that the US only devoted approximately 10% of its resources to dealing with Japan.

However, I agree with your comments regarding Russia and their significants in the game and their importance in the outcome of the war. The '41 versions should correct this in the game. BUT in the long run Germany would have lost due to the sheer resources the US had. Not to mention the a-bomb.

Comments on Brtish units: Armor

These are not recommendations for any changes to the scenario. They are just my thoughts on whether I found a type of unit useful or not and how best to use it. So if I say a unit is weak on the defense, that is not a criticism, just a statement of how I see it in terms of usefulness in the scenario. If I say a unit is powerful , that should not be taken as an argument for nerfing it.

Overall, I think Rocoteh has done an superb job of balancing British unts both for historical accuracy and for scenario playability.

Armor.
Compared to German armor, British armor is decidedly inferior, especially in offensive power.

Cruisers: AF 15 DF 5. Possibly of some use against the Italians in North Africa and Ethiopia very early in the game. Build only if you absolutely have to.

Matildas. AF 15 DF 19. The first British tank worth building is the Matilda. It is very mediocre on the offense with a 15 Attack Factor (AF), but very good on the defense with a 19 Defense Factor (DF). Research the ability to build Matildas as soon as possible. Then build as many as you can. You will need their defensive power early in the game. You can also use them effectively against the weaker infantry untis. Matildas are useful all the way to the end of the game. Even when you have developed more powerful tanks, Matildas can always be used in rear area defense, to occupy recently captured cities, and can even finish off very badly damaged SS Panzer Divisions.

Valentines – AF 15 DF 14. You are better off building Matildas..

Crusaders: AF 21 DF 14 Improved offensive capability with an AF of 21, but still behind the Germans. They can attack twice in the same turn which is useful. Can be used effectively against infantry and weaker armor. You will need these to go on the offensive.

Cromwells: AF 22 DF 17 A slight improvement over Crusaders, but at a higher cost of 230 vs 160 shields for the Crusaders. Your choice – more Crusaders or fewer slightly tougher Cromwells. It is worth building them, but they won’t win the war for you.

Churchills: AF 23 DF 27. A big jump in defensive power. However, by the time you are able to build them, you may well be looking for something with more offensive punch. At a cost of 300, you can build two Matildas or two Crusaders for one Churchill. Definitely build a few for those times you will need a tough defense, but I doubt they will be a major unit for you.

Comets: AF 35 DF 26. This is what you have been waiting for. Although still inferior to German armor they can hang in there and provide you the offensive ground power you will need to take down Germany and Russia. 2 Comets can usually take down an SS Panzer Division - well, with a little luck. Build as many as you can.

Given the relative weakness of British armor, Britain needs other units to provide it with real offensive capability. Therefore you will need artillery and air forces.

Grizx

Comments on British units. Artillery

These are not recommendations for any changes to the scenario. They are just my thoughts on whether I found a type of unit useful or not and how best to use it. So if I say a unit is weak on the defense, that is not a criticism, just a statement of how I see it in terms of usefulness in the scenario. If I say a unit is powerful , that should not be taken as an argument for nerfing it.

Overall, I think Rocoteh has done an superb job of balancing British unts both for historical accuracy and for scenario playability.


Basic Artillery: Bombard 18. Better than nothing, but does not do lethal land bombardment. OK for very early in the game for offense and defense against Italy, minor countries, but I would not build many at all. You are better off with Blackburn Skua bombers in the early game.

Heavy Artillery: Bombard 30. They pack a good punch, but are not very mobile. Very good for static defensive positions or if you need to conduct a siege on a strongly held city.
They can also be very effective in helping to sink German ships and subs as they pass through the English Channel or bombard English ports. In past games I have not built enough of these and I will build more in the future, especially with Hindenburgs now bombarding English cities.
Can't remember for sure if they do lethal ground bombardment, but I'm pretty sure they do.

Mobile Artillery: Bombard 20. What these lack in bombard strength they make up in mobility and the ability to fire twice in one turn. They do lethal ground bombardment. You will want to build a lot of these. I would say a minimum of 50 to 60 divisions. They are absolutely necessary to attack strongly held cities or defensive positions if you wish to avoid horrendous casualties. If your air power is shut down by enemy fighters you will really need them for offense and defense. They are also excellent for hit and run attacks - move fire once and retreat (can’t move after firing twice) – if you have the road/rail network to support the movement.

Mobile artillery played a big role in stopping the big soviet attack in my last game (see screens hsots earlier) and in the the conquest of Germany I had 54 Mobile Artillery divisions in the fight and I could not have done it without them.

The AI does not do artillery well or even at all. So this is a big advantage you have over any AI opponent. As with any such advantage you can use it to a totally unrealistic extent so be somewhat realistic in how much artillery you build. Last game I ended up with 290+ armored divisions and 54 Mobile Artillery divisions which seems to me to be a somewhat reasonable ratio of almost 6 to 1. Approaching a two to one ratio in large numbers would probably be unrealistically exploiting the weaknees of the AI.

Grizx

Comments on British units. Air Force

Apologies if I get some of the stats wrong as the Civilopedia may not be caught up with the recent scenario updates.

These are not recommendations for any changes to the scenario. They are just my thoughts on whether I found a type of unit useful or not and how best to use it. So if I say a unit is weak on the defense, that is not a criticism, just a statement of how I see it in terms of usefulness in the scenario. If I say a unit is powerful , that should not be taken as an argument for nerfing it.

Overall, I think Rocoteh has done an superb job of balancing British unts both for historical accuracy and for scenario playability.

Bombers

Bombers provide the Britain with a significant and critical portion of its potential offensive power. They are also excellent for defense and rear area security They are flexible and can be moved and concentrated quickly. Britain has good aircraft and you should build plenty of them.

Blackburn Skua – Bombard 22, Range 5. Somewhat short range, they are roughly the equivalent of the JU-88 (Bomb 18 Range 7) but not as strong as the JU-87B (Bomb 28 Range 4). Blackburn Skua’s are invaluable to the British in the early game and remain useful throughout the game. They are realively cheap at 160 shields and can be moved quickly to different fronts. They fit on carriers and have lethal sea and ground bombardment. Build as many as you can.

Armstrong-Whitworth: Bomb 18, Range 10. Longer range than Blackburns but pack less punch, I prefer the Blackburns. Not sure that the extra range gets you that much in the early game.

Blenheim: Bomb 16, Range 10, Transport 1. Not worth it unless you need the transport. If you want the reange early build the Armstrongs.

Recon: Wait for the Bristol Beaufighter if you can and save the shields for other things. The Bristol can bomb, do air defense, and recon. Until you get the Bristol use Spitfires for short range recon.

Paratrooper Plane: Wait for the Halifax if you can. Or use the Blenheim. At least it can bomb as well as transport.

Halifax: Bomb 38, Range 15, ROF 3, DF 4, Transport 1. Excellent bomber. As powerful as the Lancaster , longer range, but lower rate of fire and lower defense. Cannot do lethal sea bombardment. Build a good number for the transport capability, and for when you need that little extra range, but otherwise build Lancasters for the better ROF and defense.

Lancaster: Bomb 38, Range 14, ROF 4, DF 5: Excellent long range bomber. Does not have lethal sea bombardment. You will need these and Halifaxes to damage Hindenberg BB’s and Yamato’s so your KGV BB’s can sink them without taking too much damage. 150 Lancasters by late 1942 is a good number to shoot for.

Fighter and Fighter Bombers.

Spitfire. AF 12 DF 10 Range 4, Bomb 8, ROF 2. Your premier air defense weapon. You cannot build enough of these, especially once Germany gets the ME 262 and is building any significant number of fighters itself. If Germany is building fighters, 350 Spitfires is not too many, although in future games I will build somewhat fewer Spitfires and more Typhoons unless Rocoteh happens to make changes to Spitfires.. Main drawback is their short range. Does not have lethal ground bombardment.

Hurricane: AF 9, DF 8, Range 4 Bomb 8, ROF 1. I prefer the Spitfire.

Mosquito: AF 4, DF 6, Range 10, Bomb 18, ROF 2, Transport 1, A jack-of-all trades aircraft. Useful to have some, but I would not build an air force around it.

Typhoon: AF 10, DF 11, Range 6, Bomb 18, ROF 3. An excellent fighter bomber. It is worth building a lot of these. Perhaps better than the Spitfire for offensive air ops given its better range and defense factor. Costs less than Spitfire - 190 vs 210 shields. Has lethal sea and land bombardment. Fits on carriers.

Firefly: AF 7, DF 10, Range 8, Bomb 10, ROF 2. In spite of the added range I prefer the Typhoon at the same cost, although for offensive air ops the added range can sometimes help. Doesn’t hurt to build some, but not as a pillar of the air force.

Seafire: AF 10, DF 7, Range 4, Bomb 14, ROF 2. Have not used these. By the time they are available, their short range, relatively low bombard, and cost of 210 shields turns me off.

Overall best choices: Spitfire, Skua Blackburn, Lancaster, Typhoon, and some Halifaxes. Add others for flavor.

Again, these are just my thoughts. Others may have other preferences.

Grizx

Comments on British units. Brtish Infantry, Marines, Paratroops, ANZAC

These are not recommendations for any changes to the scenario. They are just my thoughts on whether I found a type of unit useful or not and how best to use it. So if I say a unit is weak on the defense, that is not a criticism, just a statement of how I see it in terms of usefulness in the scenario. If I say a unit is powerful , that should not be taken as an argument for nerfing it.

Overall, I think Rocoteh has done an superb job of balancing British unts both for historical accuracy and for scenario playability.

British Infantry: AF 9 DF 12. Early in the game British infantry is pretty good on defense. You will need plenty of them early on. As the game progresses, British infantry starts to lose its value. Matildas are better at defense and offense as are Crusaders. The infantry tend to become glorified garrison troops. Having some for mountain terrain operations is essential, however. 1939 Infantry can be upgraded to 1943 infantry (AF 10 DF 13 Move 2) for 80 gold, but the improvement is not great.
Apart from garrison duty they are useful to occupy recently captured cities to quell resistors and free more valuable units for combat.
In spite of all that they are cheap (90 shields) and a ton of them can put up a strong defense. So don’t sell them too short.

British Militia: Build British Infantry.

ANZAC:: AF 11 DF 12 Blitz. Auto-produced in Australia. Otherwise very expensive to produce at 850 shields. By the time you can afford them, they are of questionable value. Use the auto-produced ones and use your shields for other units. Good for rear area security and duty in the pacific.

Marines and Paratroops: I think Rocoteh has made some changes for Version 1.8 to prevent overproduction of these. Both are very useful and powerful units and it is worth building a good number. Expensive, but worth it for their capabilities. But building too many is unrealistic and can unbalance the scenario so some self-restraint is in order.

Flamethrower: AF 12 DF 2. I usually don’t build these. At a cost of 160 versus 90 for British Infantry I am not convinced they are worth it. Graphics are cool, so use them for flavor if you want. Maybe I am missing something.

This is the end of British unit commentary, for what it is worth.

Grizx

Great Britain ver 1.8 Emperor
1940 Report

First an item from 1939 - US Navy recognizes that there is no Northwest Passage so Atlantic fleet is operational very early. On the other hand US infantry seem to need to continually explore the ice - rule of unforseen consequences.

1940 was fairly good for the empire.

The Japanese were never really a threat thanks to the stalwart Chinese who even as the year ends hold Nanning and Kumming in addition to the mountain cities. Our air support was helpful in disrupting Japanese supply lines. Eventually the French took the offensive and now hold Hong Kong and Canton. Japanese did send a few marines against our stronghold at Meshed but tired quickly of getting hammered by our Skuas.

On the other hand the Japanese took all of the Phillipines and Palembang, Padang, Medan and Borneo in addition to their 1939 conguests. We have reversed the tide in the latter half of the year pushing them back from Port Moresby we have taken Sarmi and Fakfak. Also our Asian troops have taken Medan and Padang and march on Palembang against fierce air attacks.

US Forces have not been seen in the Pacific since early 1939. We presume their are naval battles ongoing in the Pacific but closes US city remains Marcus Islands.

We finished off the Italians in Africa with the French taking four of the cities.

In the second quarter of 1940 we took Turkey but left them with Istanbul in order to block the Germans (this also allow their fortification near the Russian border to stand). While this has a marginal negative impact on the Empire we consider it an insurance policy.

In the last quarter of the year we began the Italian offensive picking off Cyprus and Sicily and eventually landing near Naples. Italian airforce did significant damage to our bombers but eventually our Matildas did prevaill and we now hold all of Italy. The Italians have retired to Tirana and still hold Gibraltar (this allows their fortress troops in the North to remain as blockers against the Germans). Germans have only one way to attack Milan and Venice and our Matildas hold them off with Mobile Artillery in support. While acitve this front appears secure as the year ends.

We had taken Reykiavik after the Russians took Norway. We established a blocking line of submarines. As the year ended Russia landed six armor units near Edinborough and declared war. We destroyed the invaders and now are repulsing scattered Russian attacks. While we believe we could take Norway we want to focus on the Germans so will try for peace in a little while. Meanwhile we have beaten back all attacks to date.

Our target is Bordeaus as we want an Atlantic city for faster landing of troops from Canada and the UK. We hope to build a line that will eventually swing north and west to inevitably meet the Russians. Meanwhile the French are doing well against the Japanese with our support.

OBSERVATIONS ON 1.8

Heroic Epic is back? Was this intentioinal?

Japanese are not doing well on the mainland - any explanation Rocoteh? Were Chinese given any new units?

Most historic neutrals actually stay that way in this 1.8 game - significant reduction in declared wars.

Marines and paras are rarely seen. Mix of units is improved - more tanks and planes.

Germans actually took Corsica - never saw that before!

Spain remains intact - no war!

One disturbing item - After Italians took Gibralta the French blockaded the Med. Americans could no longer enter. American Navy not seen much in last half of 1940. Perhaps the Japanese are focusing on them. Imperial Navy has one Yamato and 7 remaining battleships which is a little high compared to other games.

eaglefox said:

I must say I totally agree with Grizx with this point.

We have been making numerous changes to unit stats and have been changing the topography just to give AI that little production and economy advantage with the hope that the AI will become a better adversary.
For the most part our dissatisfactions and frustrations about AI performance have remained unchanged. Perhaps it is time to make the real change and that is increase the difficulty level of our games.
Rocoteh, I think its time we moved to a higher level. We have been playing at Emporer ever since the first version. I think most people are now ready to go up a notch or two. What do you think?

Click to expand...

eaglefox,

I can start to make saved games at SID-level and there will be
special AI-versions. The basic version will remain though.

One should also remember that a majority of those who play a
scenario never post and thus we know nothing about which level
they prefer to play at.

Rocoteh

oljb007 said:

I read that the US only devoted approximately 10% of its resources to dealing with Japan.

However, I agree with your comments regarding Russia and their significants in the game and their importance in the outcome of the war. The '41 versions should correct this in the game. BUT in the long run Germany would have lost due to the sheer resources the US had. Not to mention the a-bomb.

Click to expand...

oljb007:
I am not sure how many resources the US spent on the Japanese war, but they definitely were not the primary force responsible for Germany's defeat. Let's not forget that Patton arrived in North Africa in March 1943, right after the disastrous American defeat at Kasserine Pass. This i think is four months after Germany's defeat at Stalingrad. Had Germany not invaded Russia, they would have invaded Britain, Africa, and Middle East. Then America would never have attempted to fight Germany just because the only reason they came to Europe was to help their allies and not to take on Germany themselves.
More over, I recently read in BBC website, that Hitler's scientist had managed to make a very small version of a NUKE in 1944 itself. They couldn't mass produce it because of lack of resources at that time. Had they been winning the war at that time, they could easily have acquired these resources and then 'GOD HELP THE WORLD'.

Bob1475 said:

Great Britain ver 1.8 Emperor

Japanese are not doing well on the mainland - any explanation Rocoteh? Were Chinese given any new units?

Click to expand...

This is probably because the marines are now autoproduced. Japan therefore has only its infantry to attack with and no other offensive unit. In the earlier versions they and many other countries used to mass produce marines and paratroopers which is why it was changed.

i wonder how LBPB's US invasion is going......

I still think the fighter versions should be enhanced: Rocoteh, you should split up the fighters: Me 109 E, F were at least equal to the Spitfire I, but Me 109 G inferior to Spitfire IX. FW 190 A better than Spitfire IX, equal to P 51. FW 190 D best piston engined fighter of the war.
British tanks seem to have a too high defense, as well as the French tanks.

Adler

Adler17 said:

I still think the fighter versions should be enhanced: Rocoteh, you should split up the fighters: Me 109 E, F were at least equal to the Spitfire I, but Me 109 G inferior to Spitfire IX. FW 190 A better than Spitfire IX, equal to P 51. FW 190 D best piston engined fighter of the war.
British tanks seem to have a too high defense, as well as the French tanks.

Adler

Click to expand...

Adler,

I plan to split Me-109 and Spitfire into different versions in 1.9.

On British and French tanks: I am counting the total value
of the formation.

Rocoteh

Grizx,

Thank you for a very interesting analyse of the scenario and
the British unit types.

I agree with what you say concerning air-units and their role in the
scenario. No large offensive launched during WW2 ended in victory
for the attacker given the defender had air-superioty. Thus I do not think
its wrong that air-units are very important in the scenario.

I am more concerned over the fact that AI use its naval forces with
such incompetence.

Its my intention to make special AI-versions of this scenario,
but I think some players will find that only human versus human play
will result in a real challenge.

I read your analyse of the British unit-types with great interest.
Its my impression that I have achieved most of my goals when it comes
to Britain.

I have read all your playtest-reports and this playtest was one of the
most interesting.

Really hope there will be more reports from you in the future.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh

I have been trying to set up a hotseat game of this scenario and want it to be at Sid level ... the only problem is that it always is at Regent level

I have tryed setting the default AI within the scenario to Sid but this still didn't make any difference.

Anyone know how to start hotseat at Sid level ???

eaglefox said:

Rocoteh:
I know it's probably a bit late for the special AI version for Germany, but if you get a positive response for it, and if you decide to make AI versions for other nations, why not combine the 1941 versions and the AI version.
For example Germany:
Starting in 1941, we get the opportunity to bring in the nation that was really responsible for Germany's defeat - Russia. I personally think the current 1939 scenario gives absolutely no importance to Russia's contribution in the war - arguably the most significant of the big three Allied countries. Without Russia, Germany would not have been beaten. Let's face it, Britain did not have the resources or the manpower to take on Germany alone, especially after France fell, and the US was too far and engrossed in its own struggle with Japan to offer any significant help until it would have been too late.
Moreover, starting in 1941 will cut your work down a bit because you wouldn't have to produce an AI version for France. You don't even need to produce one for Italy. And as discussed before it makes the game a hell lot faster right from the start, since we can remove many nations that did not exist by 1941.
Starting in 1941 also makes the idea of a Golden Age for Russia more significant, since Germany, being in a locked war with Russia, will not be able to avoid the brunt of the enhanced production capabilities of its enemies, as it can in the 1939 version.

Another thing that I wanted to add was about the armies. I think a three unit capacity just overwhelms the AI, especially since there's a bug in conquests regarding AI and armies. I think maybe we should bring the capacity down to two units. Also, I have seen this innumerable times, and I am sure everyone else has too, that the AI just kills of the leaders it gains in battle instead of converting them into armies. I have seen this happen once in this scenario with Italian AI. Why not change the battle-created unit from leader to army?
Atleast the AI will be able to put something in it, no matter how ridiculous the combination turns out to be.

Click to expand...

eaglefox,

The 1941 version = redesign of the scenario.
That will take much more time than AI-versions.

I want to point out the 1939 Order of Battle for Soviet is accurate.
Between September 1939-June 1941 there was a rapid expansion
of the Red Army. 100 new infantry divisions was created during this time.

Stalin was aware of the fact that one of Hitlers major goals
was the total destruction of the Soviet state.

There had been those in SA that wanted cooperation with Soviet,
however they were all killed during "the night of the long knifes".
Its said that even Goebbels wanted cooperation with Soviet,
but changed his mind when Hitler won the power-struggle with SA.

On armies: Maybe they should be removed. I welcome comments
and feedback on that.

Rocoteh

Bob1475,

"First an item from 1939 - US Navy recognizes that there is no Northwest Passage so Atlantic fleet is operational very early. On the other hand US infantry seem to need to continually explore the ice - rule of unforseen consequences." Bob1475

That is interesting.

"Heroic Epic is back? Was this intentioinal?" Bob1475

It was present in 1.7 also. Now removed in version 1.9.

"Japanese are not doing well on the mainland - any explanation Rocoteh? Were Chinese given any new units?" Bob1475

No new units for China. Japan can still produce the SNLF unit.
Thus its hard to see the reason.

"Most historic neutrals actually stay that way in this 1.8 game - significant reduction in declared wars." Bob1475

That is very good!

"Marines and paras are rarely seen. Mix of units is improved - more tanks and planes." Bob1475

That is also good.

"Spain remains intact - no war!" Bob1475

Again - Very positive.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh

Germany, Emporer Level, Week 52 1942.

After more than a year of build-up, my forces have finally set sail for the US. Not much action took place on the home front in the past year except for that Denmark was destroyed. Here is a comparison of my Invasion force vs the US force:

Invasion Force

Land Forces:
2 Armies (Panther tanks), 6 Panzergrenadiers, 12 Stug IIIG, 8 SS Infantry, 97 SS Panzer 1943, 55 Panthers, 48 Panzer IVh.

Navy:
6 Bismarcks, 12 Hindenburgs, 2 Gneisenau 2 Class, 1 Gneisenau, 2 Deutschland, 3 Battleships C2, 5 AA Cruisers, 5 Heavy Cruisers, 1 1939 Des. Fl., 1 1941 Des. Fl., 10 Type IX U-boats.

Air Force (1 Carrier, 3 Carrier C2, 2 Escort Carriers, 13 Carrier C3):
13 Me-262, 11 He-219, 12 FW190, 30 Hs-129, 19 Ju-87B.


US Forces:
Land Forces:
40 Workers, 1 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 23 US Infantry ?, 2 M-26 Pershings,
41 M-10 Wolverines, 21 M-4 Sherman, 1 M-3 Lee Grant, 6 M-36 Jackson,
12 US Paratroopers, 14 US Marines ?, 20 M1919 A2 Mach. Gun,
8 M1917 A1 Mach. Gun, 98 US Infantry ?, 2 Heavy Artillery,
9 US Heavy Artillery, 1 Special Force, 8 Garrison.

Navy:
1 1939 Destroyer, 2 Carrier C3, 4 WWI Destroyers, 13 1941 Des. Fl.

Air Force:
5 Fighters, 71 F4F Wildcats, 2 Paratrooper Planes, 3 B-17G, 1 F2A Buffalo, 1 B-29.

My plan is to first take Panama city, the AI will most probably send all its offensive forces through Mexico to try and take the city back. This will automatically give my air superiority and I'll try to bomb the living hell out of it with my aircrafts and then destroy it with my armies and Tigers. Then I can either send my forces through Mexico, or take Havana and then go up through Miami. Let's see what happens. My forces have just set sail and it'll take them 13 turns to get to Panama now. Obviously the Americans will build more of their M-26s and M-36s but i doubt that'll be too much to handle. We'll see. I am going to keep 11 of my 13 armies at home just in case I have to fight Russia again. I am now producing another invasion force of probably 100 land units and 50 aircrafts to invade Australia. I am going to strip Britain of all its colonies and resources and then sit their laughing at them

Rocoteh: What do you think of the US forces? Does their production match your expectations?

Comparison with Russian Forces:
Land Forces:
31 workers, 5 marines, 12 paratroopers, 2 artillery, 3 mobile artillery,
98 Russian infantry, 68 T 34/76, 9 Mot. Rifle Div 1941, 22 KV-1, 12 Heavy Artillery, 18 Flak, 3 T-26, 39 Mot Rifle Div 1939, 54 Soviet HMG.

Navy:
21 subs

Air:
2 Paratrooper Planes, 28 I-16, 18 Yak-1, 10 pe-8, 1 SB-2, 4 Recon.

eaglefox,

Thank you for the report.
It will be very interesting to follow how the invasion evolves.

"Rocoteh: What do you think of the US forces? Does their production match your expectations?" eaglefox

Since its week 52 1942: Yes.

Welcome back.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, I actually had a question about the Italian and Russian AI. For the past 10 turns or so the Russians have been using their paratrooper planes to drop a paratrooper near one of my cities repeatedly on the same square. Every time I end my turn, the paratrooper dissapears (don't know where since I have set the 'Show Friend Moves' option to off), and the Russians drop another one. What are they doing - training exercise
The Italians were also dropping their paratroopers on one particular square in Africa again and again back in 1941 but at least then we were still fighting the allies in Africa. So I think maybe the Italians wanted to get as close as possible. The Russian one seems to make no sense.