It's hard to disagree with that In addition, an appropriate balance between units, because in the last scenarios of US Pacific vanilla game I used all slots for land and air units, but I had 19 free CPs for naval units The US campaign needs way more Japanese air units at Leyte, Okinawa and Tokyo. T...

The Japanese minisub in in the US Pearl Harbor scenario seems to sit in the channel rather than entering the harbor and will try to ambush the last battleship when it tries to leave the map. The Pacific campaigns need an overhaul. Not only are they far too condensed (they span 4 years in only 12 sce...

I'm fairly new to OOB having come over from playing Panzer Corps. Why is it so hard to kill the units in this game? I read about how the aircraft work and get it, but I've noticed I can beat a lowly towed AT gun down 1 or 2 in strength, and then when attacked again it will just shoot away at light ...

I had a game on Merrils Marauders map, where my opponent hid an almost-destroyed unit in the jungle for 15 rounds, waiting for my forces to pass through before emerging from the jungle and cutting my supply line. Cut off most of my army, which then withered and died. That map is huge, there is not ...

Yeah but they didn't capture any territory: they resisted inside favorable terrain and/or a defensive perimeter. Once completely out of supplies (that is more or less represented by the ingame red dot, I suppose) they certainly couldn't wander for miles cutting off enemy supplies and capturing town...

In WW2, all units that were cut off and ended out of supply became operationally useless. Be it individual US divisions in Battle of the Bulge, or Army groups like the 6th army at Stalingrad. In all those cases, such would stay put and wither on the vine until they surrendered There are many instan...

I often have fun using historical rather than 'optimal' orders of battle. For instance, I'm currently playing Red Star using a historical 1941-pattern Mechanized Corps of two Tank (2x Tank, 1x Heavy Infantry, 1x Artillery) and one Mechanized (1x Tank, 2x Heavy Infantry, 1x Artillery) divisions. Reso...

Perhaps I should restate/reiterate: They should be easier to locate and destroy. What you describe is easier said than done. For one thing, are you sure that a ring of destroyers can contain an enemy sub or does the sub move "underneath" it anyway? Second, you need seven destroyers to surround one ...

You know now that you mention it, why isn't there napalm in the game already? Would have figured that would be a specialization for the US campaign or something. The Mustang, incidentally, wasn't very good for ground attack as it was extremely vulnerable to ground fire. They were used because they h...

Destroying subs is honestly really easy. If you set up a destroyer cordon around whatever a sub would want to go after, it's impossible for them to get past the destroyers without being spotted on sonar. Then the destroyers can just dogpile it into oblivion. They definitely need to be more powerful ...

I've never found a situation where Paratroopers wouldn't be a better choice than Commandos.

What really need changing are commandos. They're simply too fragile - sure, you CAN use them, but it's more efficient to just replace them with another infantry unit which can handle frontline combat. For commandos to be useful they need one or more of the following changes: -being able to move afte...

We could use a similar argument for the KMT forces in the Second Sino Japanese War. They had basically been fighting since their conception, sometimes with massive military campaigns (reconquering the North). They SHOULD have experience, but much of that experience is concentrated in a handful of d...

I like to keep the number of Chinese units as this depicts the kind of battles in Korea quite well. I usually give the Communits factions zero RP income and xero unit-experience to help simulate their human-wave tactics using masses of low-quality units. This is a bit of a mischaracterization of Co...

I'm not trying to start a fight I'm just clarifying the timeline. The Battle of the Cheongcheon River happened at the same time as the Battle of Changjin Reservoir, but that wasn't China's first engagement in Korea. Their First Phase Offensive happened a month earlier. I'm not an expert but I have l...

This is 100% historically accurate, particularly for the Chosin Few. The Chosin Reservoir campaign was the first engagement of the Communist Chinese military. The UN forces at the Chosin were few, while the Chinese were completely overwhelming. It is an absolute MIRACLE anyone survived that campaig...

You can't really do them in order since most of them run concurrently to each other. The German and Japanese campaigns both run simultaneously in a wacko what-if-the Axis-magically-won-because-Player1-is-such-an-operational-genius-that-economic-constraints-are totally-irrelevant alt-history, for ins...

The carrier you bought during the previous mission wouldn't be listed under deployed forces since it's part of your core forces; only units pre-placed into the scenario will already be deployed. You're looking at the wrong tab. Also, taking any damage to any carrier in the Raid causes the Lexington ...

I love the various possibilities and really look forward to them. I have skepticism though for Chinese take on the OOB though, not sure if this game is available in China but potentially it could cause a political / commercial backlash given the sensitivities. Anything that perceive the ruling part...

Something like the Falklands, even if it was just one or two missions long, would suit OOB very well given the combined air-land-sea nature of it.