A small but potentially significant thing: IMO troop transports are too resistant vs. air attacks. I saw two different cases of this over the last months:

1) mid to late game, my Axis was defending against repeated Allied amphibious moves vs. Sicily/Italy. In multiple actions, it was a very common ...

Any chance of adding the server based PBEM? Although I presume it's more up to Slitherine...

It's a small point, but here's something I haven't seen anybody do yet:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8523/odessasetup.jpg

Notice in the first shot of this AAR Morris has overrun Odessa and is at the gates of Kherson on the first turn. But this can be delayed by placing the 3 GARS in ...

we have too keep in mind always balance. if in the game Barbarossa starts in June 1941 germans barely get close to Moscow. IMO if barbarossa starts in May Germans should have high chances to get either Moscow or Stalingrad, since in RL a barbarossa started in May would have had germans taking ...

Forgot this one earlier. Anyone else have a problem with the huge deployment to Romania for Barbarossa? In one game I managed to reach Stalingrad without a specific Romanian deployment (only 2 corps). Seems to me it speeds up the railway build up as the Black Sea coast hexes of Romania are further ...

I agree with the Eastern Front being too easy for Axis now.

Get rid of the 3 turn SW chance. Stauffenbergs 5 +/- 1 proposal seems good to me.

Remove the April fair chance, >8 turns of quaranteed fair is too much. Wasn't that the high season for spring rasputitsa anyway?

Regarding units' values ...

IMO a mistake for the Soviets to concentrate all on this Uralsk blob and not even trying to take back the Grozny oilfield? Should be both strategically more important and easier against defending tanks.

Southern parts are less affected by the severe winter so the Axis units there aren't as ...

Defensive Barbarossa probably works TOO well, but I'm talking about the typical, offensive one.

I agree, D works too well indeed, but I don't think an offensive Barbarossa in '42 will always fail. IMO it should be much worse option than '41. Sovs are locked with bad deployments, lousy ...

1942 Barbarossa is almost always a failure due to the way how the game handles it (early mobilisation of the Soviets for no reason in 1941) and both Sea Lion and NA campaign can be very costly, so 1941 Barbarossa becomes undesirable.


I really don't see this. If anything, '42 Barbarossa seems ...

Probably a good idea but could it be done so that when Leningrad is encircled it wouldn't count?

Since manpower is tied to rail cap it would make sense too.

I'd go with 1.c. Perhaps one point from Stalingrad.

So, what exactly happened in Norway:

I think a leader to boost your air units' effectiveness would be a good idea if you're going to stay in those positions.

60% in Winter and halved in Severe Winter (and mud).

I like this change very much. It makes more realistic for Strategic Redeployment and make strategic reserves very crucial as you are not able to just rail corpses into the breakthrough that easily now.

For Middle East - was there really rail network between e.g. Cairo and Baghdad? It is still ...

As I pointed out in the AAR, German presense in Estonia was one factor when Finland was seeking a separate peace with the Soviets. As long as the Germans were seen to be in a position to easily retaliate against Southern Finland there were reservations against the Armistice within the Finnish ...

If it is "and " , Why only Jonesuu fall ,Finland was out ?

Soviets still had Tallinn right? That makes the 2 required cities then.

Is Tallinn count as Finland city ? It is the capital of Estonia !

Yep, in '41 it doesn't make much sense but the Armistice rule is meant to be a late-game event ...

Morris wrote:If it is "and " , Why only Jonesuu fall ,Finland was out ?

Soviets still had Tallinn right? That makes the 2 required cities then.

Strange - in my other game as Soviets I had captured 2 Finland cities: Joensuu and Vaasa + I keep Tallin (Germans never took it) and Finns do not surrender. There are no German units in the country. What is the surrendeer condition then???

It's 2 cities and <6 Axis units in Finland.

Actually ...

Even mechanized units need trucks and jeeps to get anywhere, its not like the whole units are just tanks or apcs. But I admit, that's nitpicking.

Anyway, here's a map of Bagration: http://ww2db.com/images/battle_bagration3.jpg

I count six Tank Armies (3 Guards 3 regular) can't say how many would ...

Kragdob wrote:For Finland to sign armistice it should be

PionUrpo wrote:It's 2 cities and <6 Axis units in Finland.

In my game Axis DOWed Soviets in 1942. Couple of turns after that I have 2 cities and 0 Axis units in Finland.... + Tallin.

Finland still is fighting.Is it a bug?

Finnish units are Axis too