Iriemon

"I didnt like the big pieces and the big squares." I didn't like it at first either, it seemed the map area displayed was too small and the pieces too big. Changing the resolution the game as played at to a higher resolution has the effect of putting more visible map in the box and makes the pieces smaller, makes the game more playable. Using NATO symbols I found is easier to keep track of things than the 3D icons.

dupe post

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm See that and someone tell me how Germany had a chance to win? </font>

Apart from it not being a fact? Shermans were damned good tanks - they had better armour than most german tanks even in 1944 (Pz 3's and 4's), better mobility, with hte 76mm they had a better gun and with hte British 17 pdr Tigers and Panthers were about as vulnerable to them as they were tothe big cats. Russian tankers far preferred the Sherman to T34's - T34's were uncomfortable, unreliable and less well protected! In what way does that = sucked? </font>

I'm not sure why the US should be expected to have high tech tanks. The standard US battle tank, the Sherman, was qualitatively far inferior to Germnan later model panzers and tigers. Sherman guns were useless against them at range. Standard US tank tactics was the rush the German positions en masse, pray you weren't picked off in the charge, and then drive around behind the German tank and hit them point blank from the more vulnerable rear, about the only way a Sherman could take out a German tank.

Plus, paratroop units were lightly armed. While man for man they were elite troops, no doubt, because of their limited size and equipment it would be unrealistic to make them equivalent of a super army.

Thanks for the good laugh. "...in december 1941, when we were surprised by the russian winter..." Yeah, sure, all out of the sudden there was snow and bitter cold. Who really could have imagined that in russia. </font>

How could Germany have possibly won against the combined superiority of Poland, France, and the UK? It is speculation, but had the German's invaded Russia in early May as opposed to late June (giving them another couple months of good weather); and had the Japanese attacked the SU instead of the US, preventing transfer of the Siberian troop, it is quite possible the Germans would have taken Moscow and Leningrad, and additional strategic objectives in '41, and Russia might have capitulated. Or freedom from Stalin, more likely.

Germany was ultimately completely trounced, but I disagree with your assessment that "they really did not come close to winning." The war against the SU was a near thing. The German army was really only stopped in 1941 because of the unusually harsh Soviet winter. A couple of factors might have changed the outcome. Had the Germans not been diverted in the Balkans and invaded the SU in early May, as initially planned, and not late in June, the extra 6-7 weeks of good weather could very well have allowed them to take Moscow and Leningrad. Had the Japanese not attacked the US, and had attacked the SU instead, there would have been no transfer of Siberian troops, which also may have made a crucial difference. If the SU had been knocked out of the war, it would have been a different story altogether. I find that to be the usual result between competent players if the Germans fail to cripple the SU. The allies force strength relative to Germany's was nowhere near 10 to 1, except maybe at the very end of the war. I don't contend that the US was "ultimately useless" or that US forces did not make an important contribution to the war. But the fact is, the German army was beat by the Russians. By the time the allies invaded Normandy in June 44, the Whermacht was already beat, had been pushed out of Russia, and were realing backwards in the Balkans and on the Polish border.

ditto that.

Spain in 1939 had just recently come out of a bloody civil war that the fascists under Franco had won, with a lot of help from Germany and Italy. Spain thus had a natural disposition towards the axis. Franco was hesistant to commit Spain to another war after so recently having been thru one. It is not, however, impossible that Spain could have joined the axis. The allies exerted a significant amount of diplomatic pressure to keep Spain neutral. Amazing comment given what they achieved. And what they achieved was largely because of an experienced and superior general staff. Wermacht performance on both a strategic and tactical level belie your statement. The US in 1939 had crap. It had a miniscule army and airforce, that was woefully outdated in 1939. The US had no bomber force in 1939. The US navy was the largest worldwide, but don't forget it was divided between two oceans. The game does not represent US force levels unrealistically, IMO. WWII as so popular for gaming because the real war was relatively balanced, far-reaching, and dynamic. There is some merit to that. The RAF basically outfought the LW in the BOB. Maybe the UK should start with an extra air tech. Historically, experienced troops, even (or maybe especially) those who gained experience beating up losers, fought far more effectively than inexperienced troops.

The two games are not competitive, except in the broad sense. HOI focuses more on being a realistic simulation and SC2 focuses more on playability. They are both worthy of consideration, we are lucky to have the option of both games. Personally, I don't have the inclination or the time to get down to the level of detail HOI presents, and find the playability and scope of SC much more to my interest and time constraints. But if you are more interested in the best detailed simulation of WWII, HOI provides a much more comprehensive system. SC does a good job of simulating the strategic considerations of the war as well as tactical game play -- an excellent balance of realism and playability between a game like Axis and Allies that is highly abstract and HOI which is highly detailed. I agree with the comment on human competition as well, an area SC really outshines HOI. I would even like to see an "official" tournament scenario for those of us that don't have 14 hours to spend playing. Something like a mid '42- mid'44 campaign (a la 3rd reich) where the winner is determined by objectives that could be played in an evening would be a nice bonus and make tournament competition open to more people.

My old laptop (IBM T21 800 MHz) is limited to 1280x768; at that resolution France or Poland take up the entire screen, limiting its usefulness. Also it takes about a second to move one row of squares. It worked great for SC1; but I guess I'm going to have to upgrade; this $45 game is going to end up costing me several hundred, I suspect.

Concur. Artillery didn't have a 50 mile range. It is properly abstracted into Army unit capability.

fantomas - I liked your icon set. Maybe I can get a copy from you after you have finished them? The 3-d graphics are pretty to look at for 5 minutes and probably necessary to for sales, but after that it just makes things too cluttered for me. Like others, I prefer simple symbols with good contrast so you can easily distiguish the units and obtain the necessary data at a glance.