Jump to content

Maverik

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Maverik

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 02/20/1974

Converted

  • Location
    Dubai
  • Interests
    Wargames
  • Occupation
    Manager
  1. I think the point of my original post has been lost. Germany did not have the fuel resources available to build a highly motorized/mechanized army, hence most of the German army was horse drawn. This also affected strategic planning (not just tactical) as fuel supplies played a critical part in offensive operations. In the game, as oil is not included, Germany is able to have massed motorized formations that fly through the Russian countryside. In truth the vast bulk of the infantry was never able to keep up with the Panzer divisions. Also bringing fuel to the front required use of motorized transport that in itself used fuel, not a problem if you have oodles of the stuff. I read somewhere that in North Africa the amount of fuel delivered to Rommel’s troops was equal to amount needed to move it. This also brings us to the point raised by PowerGmbH that oil wasn’t really all that important as the axis had enough?!? Germany never had enough and was living off its pre-war reserves right up to 1943 when for the first time its domestic production exceeded that of its consumption. Prior to that oil received from the soviets and captured in France was what kept it mobile. After 1943 the allies started to bomb fuel facilities heavily and hence the fuel shortage. In short, if you are using 125% of what you produce then at some point you will have curtail operations and offensives, and even reduce commitments on fronts to favor others, strategic concerns, not tactical ones. I found this an interesting read: http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-role-of-synthetic-fuel-in-world-war-ii-germany-implications-for-today/ Now I know that for these games to be fun you need to have the ability to make choices that the real combatants didn’t, for example, spend massive amounts on equipping you divisions with trucks. But in truth the only totally mechanized army in the world in 1939 was the British and later the Americans, even the Russians never fully equipped their regiments with motor transport. I also agree with Nupremal that the manpower modelling in CEAW is one of the best I’ve seen.
  2. I played SC, SC2 and the bought all the expansions up to Patton, but Commander Europe at war then ruined SC for me. Why? Oil is the answer. With oil as a major resource, Germany is no longer able to field massive panzer and motorized forces and likewise has to be careful with its air force, sub and surface fleets. While Commander Europe at war is not the best grand strategy game, the oil factor makes it the best European grand strategy game I’ve played. So my question to Carter is ‘will oil be included in this new game?”
  3. Some historians think that as Rommel was unsuited as a defensive General. Afterall he was used to leading from the front in mobile warfare. It's a pit the game doesn't have different rating from attacking and defending (for HQ's). Some Generals were expert at deffending (Kesselring) while others were not. Otherwise I think Rommels rating is ok. I'd go as far a minus one point.
  4. Why do Germans love David Hassellhoff so much? Lets see: 1. Tall 2. Wears Black 3. Gets up in front of crowds and drones on for hours I think I see a pattern.
  5. Perhaps he was compensating for something? Come to think of it Stalin and Hitler were both a little on the short side. It’s a pity expensive phallic sports cars weren’t available in those days, a lot less people might have died!
  6. The European Commission has just announced an agreement where by English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, the British government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-english". In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and key boards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
  7. Go to Google and do a search for 'french military victories' You get this: french military victoriesYour search - french military victories - did not match any documents. Suggestions:. - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. Or hit the 'I'm feeling lucky' button to get this: Did you mean: french military defeats
  8. Rolend, That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. More options! The British can always pull out, the Axis can all out or try to ignore. Anything would be beter than what happens just now. I don't mind Poland, Denmark, Norway etc being set moves. Afterall it's the opening of the game. But Egypt is fast becoming a set move. It shouldn't be.
  9. I think all the Germans where in the ETO and all the Japanese in the PTO! Sorry, the door was wide open on that one!
  10. The scale of the game effectively means that HQ are Army group HQ’s. On the East front, axis minors as army groups didn’t operate separately, they were attached to German Army Groups, and therefore it should be allowed to attach them. The same should go for allied minors (excluding Commonwealth who should be British units). It happened in reality, why not in the game?
  11. That’s why the allies withdrew and called in the air force when they came up against anything bigger than a Panzer IV. The Allies also had some heavier tanks like the M10 and M34 these were produced in similar numbers to the panthers/Tigers etc. Most armoured regiments of the time would consist of a mixture of light/medium and heavy tanks with battalions of really big ones being held back in reserve, normally at divisional level. Tank against tank the Germans usually won. Trouble was it was very rare. It was normally tank (German) against tank + Anti Tank plus Artillery (air spotted) and Fighter Bombers. Someone else might confirm this, but most armies of the time did not like armour against armour battles. If your tanks meet enemy tanks you would withdraw and bring up your anti tank guns.
  12. Sombra, I particularly like the following: -Taking neutrals countries could increase the force pool of the invader. Something like 300,000 foreign troops served in the Waffen SS. Although this was later in the war they could be included in the build pools immediately as it would take some time for Germany to use up it’s whole pool. For the allies it also makes sense as most countries would be liberated and therefore the population would want to fight. This would be a good incentive to take minors. But I think the deterrent goes away once all the major players are in. In the case of Germany there is a double incentive in that captured countries reduce Russian Moral. This is something I’m not entirely happy with. Perhaps removing the moral loss once all major players are in (unless a major is captured or a country liberated) might make taking minors less attractive.
×
×
  • Create New...