Thx for all the feedback so far - great. They have all been noted though I cannot promise that all will be included. (we all have different views of what makes a fun game)
@Eivind:
* Montenegro and Rangoon noted. Concerning the spelling of city names I'll have to go through all of them. They should all be spelled the British way.
*Think that 'Japanese agression' is well suited. Besides the conquest of China (which is quite an atrocity) they also grapped several Islands in the Pacific. But I'm open for other suggestions.
* Narvik could be made more desirable - maybe also as an improved U-boat strongpoint.
* The US air base in Britain could be seen as a "Partnership for Peace" airfield. As you have it in your own scenario it gives the US the opportunity to land aircrafts later on in the game.
* Trade units could of cause make nice pray for U-boats, but they will not be included since IMO trade units tend to slow down the game, and I like action.
* Engineers high attack value is meant to represent their use in combat. Germany and the Allies both had engineer units during WWII that carried special equipment such as Flame Throwers, Satchel Charges, Mines etc. They were called upon the destruction of Strong Points - as they could be used in this scenario.
@All:
Engineers perform their task slowly for the reason that I didn't want to have games were each player used the first 20 turns in a game to build up infrastructure and thereafter pump units out for the rest of the game using railroads to smash through the enemy. This is the classic civ strategy for most people I guess. But IMO it's unrealistic and don't head the inertia and slowliness of military operations.
Even though WWII was the breakthrough of the Blitzkrieg tactic no one rolled through the other country just on railroads. And even though it proved effective in France and Russia, it required superior forces and combined arms to succed.
So, my best advice in the game would be to produce combined arms - this is one of my prime intensions for this scenario. Too often just producing 2 or 3 units in different scenarios could win the game - this IMO is not funny and not realistic. Vaging war is an enormous logistic undertaking and no wars are won in just 14 days (with exceptions )
Ships movement can be improved by 1 by researching "convoy warfare".
Generally I have tried to balance the game in that way that in the Pacific movements are higher because of more ocean to cover (both Japan and the US have ship wonders). In Europe this is not the case. My concern is that transports should be vulnerable and if they have so high movement that they almost never are on open ocean things would get dull. Ships are slow but powerfull - like in reality.
I think I have balanced the planes pretty well. In many games planes are too powerfull and I have tried to combat this by reducing their movement (I especially know that you Eivind should be quite an airforce expert )
@Boli: Notes taken on the barracks - I actually have though the same myself.
@Duke: Notes taken on the carrier.
@Eivind:
* Montenegro and Rangoon noted. Concerning the spelling of city names I'll have to go through all of them. They should all be spelled the British way.
*Think that 'Japanese agression' is well suited. Besides the conquest of China (which is quite an atrocity) they also grapped several Islands in the Pacific. But I'm open for other suggestions.
* Narvik could be made more desirable - maybe also as an improved U-boat strongpoint.
* The US air base in Britain could be seen as a "Partnership for Peace" airfield. As you have it in your own scenario it gives the US the opportunity to land aircrafts later on in the game.
* Trade units could of cause make nice pray for U-boats, but they will not be included since IMO trade units tend to slow down the game, and I like action.
* Engineers high attack value is meant to represent their use in combat. Germany and the Allies both had engineer units during WWII that carried special equipment such as Flame Throwers, Satchel Charges, Mines etc. They were called upon the destruction of Strong Points - as they could be used in this scenario.
@All:
Engineers perform their task slowly for the reason that I didn't want to have games were each player used the first 20 turns in a game to build up infrastructure and thereafter pump units out for the rest of the game using railroads to smash through the enemy. This is the classic civ strategy for most people I guess. But IMO it's unrealistic and don't head the inertia and slowliness of military operations.
Even though WWII was the breakthrough of the Blitzkrieg tactic no one rolled through the other country just on railroads. And even though it proved effective in France and Russia, it required superior forces and combined arms to succed.
So, my best advice in the game would be to produce combined arms - this is one of my prime intensions for this scenario. Too often just producing 2 or 3 units in different scenarios could win the game - this IMO is not funny and not realistic. Vaging war is an enormous logistic undertaking and no wars are won in just 14 days (with exceptions )
Ships movement can be improved by 1 by researching "convoy warfare".
Generally I have tried to balance the game in that way that in the Pacific movements are higher because of more ocean to cover (both Japan and the US have ship wonders). In Europe this is not the case. My concern is that transports should be vulnerable and if they have so high movement that they almost never are on open ocean things would get dull. Ships are slow but powerfull - like in reality.
I think I have balanced the planes pretty well. In many games planes are too powerfull and I have tried to combat this by reducing their movement (I especially know that you Eivind should be quite an airforce expert )
@Boli: Notes taken on the barracks - I actually have though the same myself.
@Duke: Notes taken on the carrier.