With Clusters

Yeah, that's what I thought. I would be very suprised to learn that the Germans aided the Finns in the Winter War, seeing as how the Germans and Russians were happily splitting Poland between them at that time. I also recall that some in the UK were actually debating aiding the Finns against the Russians (who, in their opinion, were no better than German allies, what with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and the affore mentioned gobbling up of Poland). How about that for a 'what if'? The UK gets itself involved in a war against Germany and Russia at the same time (that potential scenario is exactly why the Brits decided to let it go, I believe)! But let's save that for a nother thread, perhaps, eh?

I've got the same problem, Tarkus. It just seems that the 'seek hull down' order is somehow too vague, or too precice maybe, depending on how you look at it? Even as some omniscient commander with 'Borg' view, or whatever its being called here (why is that, by the way? Something to do with Trek, I assume?), its damn hard to know every dip and curve in the ground where an armored unit is operating. But this might be something a tank commander on the spot would have an eye for? So instead of giving an order for a unit to move off on a linear trajectory ("hmm, there's a good spot of to my right a bit, but I'm just gonna keep driving straight ahead...") where they may or may not find good position (and if they don't, boy, they are just screwed!), it would be nice if there was some kind of general 'seek an optimal fighting position in this given area in regards to known or potential enemy forces in that given area' or some such, and let the tank commander AI work out the details (or do nothing and complain that your orders are full of s**t if there is no such postion available!). Ah, to dream...

So having a squadron of motorcycles leaping over enemy trenches while the drivers fire their SMGs one handed wouldn't be considered "historical"? Damn, there goes that Mad Max scenario I was hoping someone would make...

So now we have a couple bits of annecdotal evidence that MG units retain their weapon after surrendering, and can fire it again if they 'un-surrender'. Is this really the case? What about other kinds of units?

So now we have a couple bits of annecdotal evidence that MG units retain their weapon after surrendering, and can fire it again if they 'un-surrender'. Is this really the case? What about other kinds of units?

If I recall, A3R allowed Russia to declare war on Finnland in 39 and Rommania too, but generally just to occuppy the disputed border area (Bessarabia - sp? - in the case of Rommania). The slices of territory available for conquest had some slight monetary value to encourage the Russians to follow through with history. The Axis player could choose not to resist, and forfiet the border territory w/o a fight (at least in game terms of deploying 'army' counters, etc.), and generally did so, as units lost before the Axis minors joined with Germany were permanently lost to the minor allied country's force pool. I think most players wanted to save them for later. My memory is really foggy on this point, but I also think if the Axis player chose to have the minor fully resist the Russians, the Russian player could try to occuppy the whole country? That might be a false memory. I also remember that how the Russians dealt with Finnland, Bessarabia, the Baltic States, etc., had some effect on German/Soviet relations, and when the Russians could enter the war on their own, but have forgotton the details. Could anyone with a fuller memory of A3R suggest how these sorts of actions could be incorporated into SC2?

I've 're-patriated' a couple of my own surrendered units before, and they showed up as "unarmed". I'm not sure if they were MG units, so I don't know if that's a factor? What can be done with your own units that 'un-surrender', besides saving points at the end? No way to re-arm them, I suppose? And I don't think there are fake FOW surrenders, as you should be able to give surrendered enemy units movement orders, so its certainly verifiable.

I've 're-patriated' a couple of my own surrendered units before, and they showed up as "unarmed". I'm not sure if they were MG units, so I don't know if that's a factor? What can be done with your own units that 'un-surrender', besides saving points at the end? No way to re-arm them, I suppose? And I don't think there are fake FOW surrenders, as you should be able to give surrendered enemy units movement orders, so its certainly verifiable.

Can an armor expert tell us who's tanks forlornly (sp again?) line the road in the 44 pic?

I see they've moved the power lines... All joking aside, those pics are damn cool!!! Thanks!

Hmm, another wacky thought, related to the 'Intell' tech (there's going to be such a thing, right?) as it relates to air unit spotting: Part of this (tech research) might be extrapollated (yep, I sure can't spell, can't I?) into improvements in cameras and photography analysis, as opposed to just more money spent on spies and code breakers. Any ideas on how to relate this kind of intel tech directly to how well air units can spot?

Thanks ev, glad you liked the idea. You're 'furthermores' sound good! But I still have a problem with the 360 radius spotting, even if we make 'recon' a dedicated order. An air unit might represend hundreds of airplanes, but I think only a handfull were dedicated reconisseance (sp? - now I know why its shortened to 'recon' ) aircraft, meaning, fitted out with cameras, and tasked with that specific role. Could that many/few craft search so much territory completely, even in a one month turn? In any event, I do understand that is is a 'strategic' game, and too much micromaneagement should be avoided, so maybe its a moot point anyhow. So some tweeking to FOW, something in line with your suggestions, might be the most helpfull...

"Those damn, dirty Doys!" I guess that might work...

The same reason the Japanese were called 'Japs'? At least that's my guess. I figure if you call Germans 'Deutcsh' or some such, there's no need for a 'short version'...

This thread seems has some bearing on Liam's "Little Qualities in Tech" thread, regarding airplane ranges and spotting. I suppose having an extra 'recon' command for air units (even if it could be done in the same turn as a 'combat' mission?) might add to the micromanagement. But a bomber unit having complete spotting knowledge in a 360 radius out to its maximum range still seems a bit much. That's a hell of a lot of ground to cover, even in one month turns, I would think, at least with precision. A couple options (which probably have been mentioned before, sorry): 1. Make the spotting distance different from combat mission range. Simple perhaps, but not quite accurate, as an anticipated target would certainly be more thorougly investigated (compared to a 'typical' ongoig 360 radius scan), even out to the bomber's maximum radius. 2. FOW gets even foggier the further away enemy units are from the spotting air unit. Perhaps after a certain distance, all the information you'd know would be "ground unit" or "naval unit" (except in the case of subs?). Just off the top of my head, so perhaps not the best ideas, but I do think the spotting as it is in SC1 can certainly be improved upon...

Um, this is gonna be a bit off topic, but didn't the Swiss field a complete 'tank destroyer' force in the late Cold War? I remember watching a show (a long time ago, to be sure) about how the Swiss had gone entirely with a turretless 'tank' (if there is such a creature) as their primary armor weapon, which seemed suitable with their rugged terrain and purely defensive philosophy. I have no opinion regarding 'tank destroyer' units in SC2 (WWII is a completely different time frame from the 80s), I'm just wondering if anyone can corroborate my memory? To get semi-back on topic, regarding the whole 'rail gun'/fortification thing - how about allowing engineer units to destroy fortifications as well as build them? You could immagine part of their offensive function would be to build big old guns and such to take down enemy strong points. The only problem I see is with the stacking restriction - how do you get them next to the enemy fortification w/o risking expensive damage in a counter attack, or block the way for regular combat units? Any thoughts on that?

Aha. Thanks for that very usefull information!

What planes were used for long range intelligence gathering then? Obviously bombers weren't going in blind to their target - something with equal range had already flown in and taken pictures of landmarks for navigation and of potential targets and such. Perhaps air units should not have an 'automatic' spotting radius. Instead, maybe a player would actually have to assign an air unit to recon a specific, finite area? Perhaps, considering the size of the air units in the game, and their presumed multi-tasking ability, this could be done in addition to a 'combat' action in the same turn? Just an idea...

Since we're on the topic, how does differing level of moral affect (effect?) regrouping? I played a game once where some of my half squads became 'rattled', and would not rejoin their non-rattled squad mates, even when in close proximity for several turns. So how exactly does moral work in this situation?

Is that what that is? I just took a look at a Tiger in the game, and yep, saw the same thing. Guess I never really noticed it before (not that I really looked closely until I saw the a pic of the real thing, perhaps). Yep, clueless... :confused:

What's that black, grindy, mouth looking thing on the front hull? Looks like a wood chipper... Yep, I'm clueless

Hey, in the film Kelly's Heroe's, Oddball traded his Sherman for Tiger tank. That's based on a true story, right?

I'm still curious as to how this will be utilized. I know, for 'educational' purposes, which is cool. But educating who, exactly? Will every soldier get the disc the first day of boot camp? "Your from Perth, eh mate? I didn't know they stacked s**t that high in Perth! Drop and give me 20... hours of CMAK that is". And in what setting? Regular classroom? Will there be tests? It's all just so very unusual (or not, how should I know?)...

They already got that in TacOps if they want it. I'm more interested in what they want in a purely 'historical' simulation/game.