thanks for the replies chaps !, i can stop trying to make it work now.

Shame cos I was hoping to take over the entire world, I started in 43 and I needed just a few more years. Maybe till 1950 !. Thanks to all the people who worked on GS, it's a truly great game.

I am running GS 2.0

It is Jan 1946, and my game is crashing after it comes back from working out it's end of turn stuff. Specifically the resources total box appears and the map appears. It looks ok, but there is no way to go back to the main menu, the mouse doesn't scroll the map, and I can't ...

Hi Clark, you're doing an amazing job, I'm playing allied against the AI now, and I won't get to Berlin by Jan 1942. It's these sort of unusual games that make these AAR's such fun to read.

Hi , thanks for posting this AAR, but there's something that I don't understand. Isn't the game over when you take Berlin ?, you have massive forces on the south of your front, why not send them into Germany to take Berlin ?

I think it would be nice if each unit was given a unique name, e.g 57th Corp, and then the game could maintain a record of battle honours for each unit. For example France 1940, Russia 1941 ect.

A battle record which included the names of Cities would be nice, (e.g Moscow Dec 1941) but I guess ...

The AI is useless at Axis. Even at Max difficulty levels, it's not a useful game, but it can be fun to play against the Allied AI. Like you I havn't got onto PBEM yet, since there are still some things that I'd like to try out against the AI. However drop me a line when you're ready, and we can have ...

Thanks for doing the AAR Joerock, This AAR just reinforces my belief that in GS, there is no point in the Axis trying anything in North Africa. The only possible gain that justifies the cost of such a campaign is the Iraqi oil, and the Russkies can block that easily. As far as I can see , if ...

agree totally with BuddyGrant, playing against an Axis AI is a waste of time, unless you want to practice a particular event (like Barbarossa). I've had some great games though playing as Axis with Max advantage to the Allies, you can try out different strategies, before you risk them against a ...

I think you should go for it, I think the Russians made a big mistake by overloading in Iraq, and it would be a shame if you couldn't take advantage of that mistake. You might have a short window of opportunity where you'll have local superiority.

So instead of going for Moscow, or any particular ...

I played a game against an Axis AI, with max advantage to the AI, and found that the AI did well attacking into Russia. It's a good way to practice you're defence against Barbarossa.

In my game, the Axis rolled the Russians all the way to Omsk. But the AI virtually ignored the defence of the west ...

Hi , are you plaing Grand Strategy or Vanilla ?, so you're playing as Allies against an AI Axis ?. The forces that you describe do sound a bit excessive, unless you've changed the difficullty settings and given the advantage to the Axis. In that case the Axis (AI) would have extra production.

From ...

congratulations on your game, it's been a great read. But how come you don't snap up some easy PP's from Denmark, Yugoslavia & Greece , even Norway ? In your place I would also be tempted to attack Turkey, you could attack from Syria, and take it in, four or five turns. You've already got the forces ...

I don't agree that CV's in port and Aircraft in a city, should get a defensive bonus or other sort of assistance. Whether based in a city or clear , the aircraft will still be based on a airfield. They will be attacked either on the airfield or in the air, so there's no reason why they would benefit ...

I don't think that Sub spotting ranges should be changed. I can see the reasons for changing the other spotting ranges, and there is a point to it, but I don't think there's a problem with the current settings.

I don't think that this change is needed.

I think that it would be a good idea for the Russians to suffer an extra effectiveness loss when Moscow falls. (the same for the UK when London falls).

It seems realistic that this should happen, after all I think that the capture of Moscow (especially in such a centralised state) would have ...

Hi Stephen, this is a good point. I've been reading some AAR's , and when the Allied players are shipping troops to the mideast, they often go via the South Atlantic. I think that shipping thru the Horn is too much of an easy option, and currently the Allies don't have a reason to contest the ...

One way to judge your own abilities ( and a prospective opponents), could be to play at different levels against the AI. For example, I think that most new players would be able to do ok against the AI with the advantage set to 'even'.

Winning against the AI at the top two difficulty levels would ...

Brilliant !, thanks, since my wife is Turkish (and I've been unlucky enough to go to Ankara!) , I do like bombing the place to ruins, now I have even more reasons.

I can see the advantage of escaping the Russian winter, if you havn't really started Barbarossa when the winter begins, but surely delaying the Invasion just to use that strategy, is not a good idea. After all you waste the effectiveness hit on the Russians if you don't keep chasing them, and you ...