question from new gamer

[Dariuz Kowolski]

Will oceans have different depths so subs cant dive so deep everywhere? That would make them more vunerable to asw. If not sc2 will be unrealistic. Patroling salty water should make subs more rusty and more prone to damage.

[zappsweden]

Why not also have different mountain heights too and let the units climb up to the top by using Action Points?

Hey, they can introduce a new footwear system. I heard ppl talking about Pattons shoesize in these forums, so why not?

Who would not want to research super climbing shoes (for mountains) or finish skiis for extra movment on snow?

Muahahah!

[Fubarno]

I heard the WW2 Wermacht, far from being highly mechanized, relied on vast numbers of horses to move their artillery and supplies about. Boarding and hoarding should be a new tech. At advanced levels special horse shoes could be developed for advanced mud and snow traverse and newer horse blankets could be developed to withstand the Russian winters.

Furthermore, shouldn't the Germans recieve a combat penalty and morale boost during fall turns when Oktoberfest takes place?

[Dariuz Kowolski]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

Why not also have different mountain heights too and let the units climb up to the top by using Action Points?

Hey, they can introduce a new footwear system. I heard ppl talking about Pattons shoesize in these forums, so why not?

Who would not want to research super climbing shoes (for mountains) or finish skiis for extra movment on snow?

Muahahah!

Ation points for mountains is a bad idea. But maybe mountains should provide entrenchment?

[SeaMonkey]

They do...level 4, you just have to campout awhile. By the way...welcome to the forum.

Ohhh! One other thought, subs will have the ability to "run silent" rendering them undetectable. I believe that was what you were after?

[Kuniworth]

Already in sc 1 mountains got entrenchment of 4. I dont get it, whats your point??

[Dariuz Kowolski]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Ohhh! One other thought, subs will have the ability to "run silent" rendering them undetectable. I believe that was what you were after?

No I meant subs metal gets rusty and not so solid over time.

[Kuniworth]

say again please?

[jon_j_rambo]

How about finally giving the United States the proper forces! SC craps on the USA. We had more planes than pilots, one-million troops involved in The Bulge alone, & where's the US Navy? What a joke.

[SeaMonkey]

Damn Dariuz, I was mistaken...thought you had more depth of character. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[jon_j_rambo]

So subs don't rust?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

How about finally giving the United States the proper forces! SC craps on the USA. We had more planes than pilots, one-million troops involved in The Bulge alone, & where's the US Navy? What a joke.

The US had 500,000 troops involved in The Bulge. I won't dignify the rest of your cretinous post with an answer.

[Dariuz Kowolski]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

So subs don't rust?

They do. I said they do, stupid american!!!!!!!!

[jon_j_rambo]

@Soddball --- 1,000,000 involved in the Bulge, call the History Channel, that is my source.

[John C]

Originally posted by Dariuz Kowolski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

So subs don't rust?

They do. I said they do, stupid american!!!!!!!! </font>

[John C]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@Soddball --- 1,000,000 involved in the Bulge, call the History Channel, that is my source.

Funny, because the United States Government only knows about 600,000 of its soldiers being involved.

WHITE HOUSE PROCLAMATION

I think what you are likely remembering is that 1,000,000 soldiers were involved in total. Sample Link

[JerseyJohn]

John C,

Obviously the other 400,000 became American citizens after the war.

-- I think the United States had about 90 functional divisions when it reached the Rhine and most of them were very understrenth in trained combat infantry. American divisions were heavy on support troops.

Over the years I talked to a lot of guys who were cooks or mechanics or other behind-the-lines soldiers who were handed a rifle and sent to the frontline when the Germans broke through.

[John C]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

-- I think the United States had about 90 functional divisions when it reached the Rhine and most of them were very understrenth in trained combat infantry. American divisions were heavy on support troops.

Over the years I talked to a lot of guys who were cooks or mechanics or other behind-the-lines soldiers who were handed a rifle and sent to the frontline when the Germans broke through.

According to the Unites States Army Center of Miltary History, most of the American units that particpated in the battle were at or near full strength. They might not all have been experienced troops, but they certainly weren't skeleton units. While many rear duty soliders did fight, it was generally due more to disruptions than to depleted units.

From pages 650 - 651 of the US Army CMH Archive THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGE

By 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge. During these eighteen days the Americans had employed 8 armored, 16 infantry, and 2 airborne division in the line. [2] This tabulation of the opposing divisions, however, does not give a true measure of the relative combat strength deployed in what may be called the German phase of the winter battle in the Ardennes.

The American rifle division in 1944 was organized at a strength of 14,032 men, and most of the divisions engaged in this operation entered the fray at full complement. The personnel strength of the German infantry divisions varied, at the time of their commitment, between 8,000 and 17,000, the lower figure representing those divisions which had been refitted at 80 percent of the 1944 Volks Grenadier division table of organization and equipment and the upper figure, which can be applied to only three or four divisions, representing those, like the 26th Volks Grenadier Division, which retained the older, regular infantry division composition. The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men. The normal German rifle regiment numbered 1,868 as contrasted with the American infantry regiment of 3,207 officers and men.

The majority of the German panzer divisions had the same manpower configuration as the two U.S. square armored divisions (the 2d and 3d), that is, a little more than 14,000. The six remaining U.S. armored divisions had the new triangular organization with a roster reduced to 10,666 officers and men. The armored weight of the opposing divisions, however, strongly favored the Americans, for the German panzer division brought an average of 90 to 100 medium tanks into the field whereas the American triangular division was equipped with 186 and the two square divisions had 232 medium tanks in their organization tables. Hitler personally attempted to compensate for this disparity by ordering the attachment of separate Army tank battalions of 40 to 50 Panther or Tigers to the regular panzer divisions.

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by John C:

Maybe you should have to go to each vessel in your navy and assign the individuals in the dry dock facility who will scrub down the hulls each turn in order to prevent rusting. In fact, let's name every single person in each country and let players assign a task to each of them - you know who gets drafted as a private, who goes to an academy and eventually becomes an officer, which officers go on to pilot school and which go to tank school, who gets a job in the factories (and which factories!), who gets promoted to foreman and to manager. We can even keep track of each person's motivation level, how much they drink, and whether they have any health conditions that might impact their performance. That will give players total control over the economy. Weeeeeee! Isn't micromanagement fun? Sure it will take longer to play each turn than the whole war lasted in real life, but won't that be fun??? Won't it? Just don't assign that dullard billy to scraping down your uboat or it might rust!

Sounds like Hearts of Iron.

(jk, actually I like that game )

[waltero]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@Soddball --- 1,000,000 involved in the Bulge, call the History Channel, that is my source.

Don't you know that the History channel has it all wrong!

You cant learn anything about WWII on the history channel!

the People on this forum are edjecated on the History of WWII. The people on TV get paid to say things to mess with your mind in actuality they know nothing!

same with all the WWII games out there.

It is all inane unsubstantiated malarkey!

[waltero]

At least that is what sodball and his fellow scholars tell me.

[Soddball]

Well, the History Channel disagrees with the official sources - so stop watching the History Channel because it's bloody wrong, you ignoramus. When the White House source says one thing, and the History Channel another, it says alot for your atrophied brain that you believe the TV.

[JerseyJohn]

John C.,

Interesting article.

I didn't say they were understrenth when the Germans launched the attack, I said the 90 or so United States divisions in France were mainly understrength as they reached the Rhine, which was a few months earlier.

During October, Novemeber and early December replacements were sent to the units apparently bringing them numerically up to where they were supposed to be. A completely new division was put into line. It turned out to be directly in the path of the German offensive and was destroyed in detail.

The German offensive caused a near panic in some units and even Eisenhower was so shook up about English speaking Germans in American uniforms looking to kill him that he barely left his HQ.

Over the course of the battle American casualties among riflemen was very high. Most of them were lost after the German offensive was stopped and Eisenhower, instead of cutting the salient off, decided to push it back through a broad frontal assault. American doctors patched up wounded soldiers and sent them back into the line. Even those with shell shock were walked around a bit, gotten to a point where they seemed coherant and sent back to their units. It was more than a little pathetic.

The Germans were no better off and most of their units were even more understrength and fighting out of desperation.

By the end of the battle the United States was doing things like converting AA battalions into infantry battalions to fill the ranks.

I have no idea what the official Army version says about this; no doubt something that makes all the generals look like geniuses.

[Fubarno]

@ Soddball - I definetly make no claims to defend Rambo's so-called "atropied" brain, but I must say that if you condemn the facts coming from the History Channel over the "facts", so frequently decietfull, coming out of the White House, then I must seriously question your faculties.

What I think you meant was the National Archives and not the White House.

[JerseyJohn]

The History Channel is neither right or wrong, some of it's documentaries are outstanding and some are terrible. I doubt it has anything to do with their production, it just airs ducumentaries. Whether they happen to be accurate or not has to be seen on an individual basis.

There's always The Cartoon Channel.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of errors in history books so I don't get the point. In many cases the errors are because the books were written before the true facts of an incident came to light. With the kind of ducumentaries shown on TV, the problem is more often misleading generalizations than actual falacious information.