Uhu wrote:Just reporting in:
Playing again...STOP...I'm anonymus BF addict...STOP...
Nice.

Maybe it is time to form the anonym BF addicts club. I can clearly see some nicely decorated Generalfeldmarschalls sitting in a circle, arguing on the best way to defeat the allies. Only to be interrupted by Bonaparte Napoleon and Julius Ceasar occasionally, who are just released from the nearby mental institute, and who are also making comments based on their historical experience, adding even more fuel to the already heated debate.
But seriously, I think it is a good idea to take a break sometimes and focus on something else. Just a friendly advice.
Afrika Korps were reinforced and defeated the attacking tommies, taking big number of captures. So everything goes as planned.
and then:
Except Tunis!

...no chance to defend Tunis...
Actually you could use those units at the Tobruk-El Alamein area to retreat to the east and defend Tunis instead of stopping the British at Alamein. That's what Rommel did and they could hold Tunis for months. Then you would need to send less reinforcements across the sea.
Maybe explain the rules of Realistic gameplay, what I already mentioned partly at the use of the Fallschirmjägers. It is just an optional, but it makes more immersion and more realism.
1., Fallshirmjägers:
Yeah, we already discussed it in PM, but for the others I would like to state that I could not change the air transports by limiting their fuel as it is seemingly hard coded.

They should not have unlimited fuel, but they have. I also cannot limit their usefulness in bad weather as it is also hard coded.

It would be nice if they would not drop paras in bad weather just as other air units cannot attack. So yes, I absolutly agree with this home rule for a more realistic gameplay.
2., Line of the front:
It does makes sense to create a continuous frontline because I added a number of units which would appear at relatively random places and attack towards relatively random areas. Their number is not to high really, but still there is a few. So some of these could pass the frontline at unexpected places and if there is no continous frontline they can pass unnoticed and make some trouble in the hinterland. So, yes it is indeed advisable to have a continuous frontline and not only to have a realistic gameplay, but also to stop these random intruders which may or may not appear in any replay.
3., I already sent McGuba a modified map, where the road from Tobruk to Alexandria is not accessible by ships and Mersha Matruh is not a port. That hinders any possible invasion from the sea and also makes escape through the sea impossible. That simulates more the situation, what Rommel faced at this region.
OK, thanks, I will check it. If it makes sense I will add it to the next release. Which will be a bit harder, like always.
JimmyC wrote:
1. *SPOILER* When i captured the oilfields around Baghdad, the Brits sent a force to try to recapture them. The first time I was aware of these forces was during the AI turn when they recaptured Nadjav and the oilfield east of Nadjav (they recaptured both on the same turn). I then sent my units south from Baghdad and after 2 or 3 turns destroyed all the British troops between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.
I then got a message saying that British forces are massing south of Baghdad for a counterattack. So I prepared my forces for the counterattack, but it never came. I then realized that the counterattack mentioned had already happened, but the warning was several turns too late.
Well, it looks like your intelligence service is a bit too slow. Too much be bureaucracy, I suppose.

Or maybe your intel officer got a touch of the sun in the Arabian desert and spent the last couple of days in bed before delivering the latest report.
But, yeah, I will look into it, probably some continuity problem. Actually I was also thinking to add some false intel info as historically the Germans were misled by the Allied agencies several times quite effectively. The most notable is the D-day landing when they were led to think that the allies would attack in the Calais area instead of Normandy. But I am a nice guy and have not done anything like that so far, or maybe only because I never really had the time to come up with believable deception. Which might change in the future.
2. I think it was mentioned before, but there is a Russian partisan unit in the UK. I can see him from my bases in France.
Yes, will be fixed in the next release.
3. I am now into late April of ’44 but have not yet been given any V2’s. I would have thought that I would get some by now? My first playthrough I did Sealion and never got the option, so I’m not sure when the V2’s should be appearing. But with Normandy imminent, I would have thought I would get them by now?
Be patient. the first first V-1 was launched at London on 13 June 1944.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
GeneralWerner wrote:If I remember it right the V1 is coming shortly after D-Day. if you fire them from their spawn points they can't reach London. You have to move them first via train near the coast and shoot from there. Difficult because the Allies already entered French soil and they have a strong bomber force. If they (strategic) bomb a V1 it will not be destroyed immediately but it is loosing fuel becoming useless. And worse you can't launch the V1 if an allied plane is in the same hex. Only very, very few of my V1 reached London. I used them most times to distract the allied fighters because they prefer to hunt the launched V1s and that is indeed a benefit.
I was thinking a lot on how to simulate the V1/V2 in the mod or wheter to add it at all for being more than just controversial. But the allied area bombing campaign also often targeted whole cities or at least districts and resulted in a lot more civilian casualties so I can see no big difference between the two. However, history is written by the victors so we are being told area bombing was a necessity and V1 and V2 were all evil. Even though after the war the allies were busy adding exact copies to their armies as fast as they could. So much about the moral side.
As for the technical side, luckily the AI proved to be unexpectedly cooperative when it comes to dealing with the V weapons. Historically the allies did exactly the same, they used a substantial part of their bomber force to destroy the launch sites and the trains and railroads used to move the V weapons to there from their factories. And those bombers could have been used against other targets as well. Many of the Allied fighter planes were dispatched to hunt down the flying bombs, too. Amazingly the AI is also quite aware of the V weapon threat and does everything to end it. It can be another mine-game to outsmart the AI and deliver the rockets to their launch area by providing them air and AA defense on the way. Resupplying them to have maximum fuel before launch for maximum range. Leaving an air unit above them so that they can be launched the next turn. And to try to hold on to the French coastal areas from where they can reach London as long as possible. But doing so also requires resources which could be used elsewhere. So does it worth it? It depends. Decisions, decisions, decisions...
And yes, historically only a few reached London: while 30,000 V1s were produced only 10,000 could be launched and only 25% percent of these reached the city. The V2 had even worse statistics.