Ron

Oh get off it you guys. How many times has BFC said that CMAK 1.03 was it and all work was being focused on CMx2? How long did it take before anyone even noticed this bug with the aircraft bombloads? What happens if in another year someone 'discovers' something else wrong, should BFC stop the presses and fix it ASAP? Comparing a miniscule feature of a ground tactical game to a vital component of any vehicle in the Northern Hemisphere is beyond asinine. Take a reality check or better yet ask yourselves why the vindictiveness and insistence that BFC be held hostage for a product that has been repeatedly proclaimed "finished". If BFC comes out and says hey guys we patched up a few other things in CMAK and hell even found some time to tidy up a few things with CMBB, then great!.... but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Ron

The Germans deployed 10 Panzers Divisions to Normandy, the bulk in the British sector, and they all fought continously there to the battle of Falaise. Zetterling has a good site:German OOB Normandy The Panzer Regiment was an integral part of the Division and usually contained a Battalion of Panthers and a Battalion of Pz IVs. There were 3 independent Heavy Tank Bns, consisting of Tigers and TigerIIs, deployed as well. While the total number of German Tanks paled in comparison to what the Allies could field, they obviously made their presence felt. Ron [ November 16, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

First off alcohol is good for the thought process and overall well being. I have to look no further than myself for proof and I'm sure those around me(wife included) will concur or they will once I have convinced them. An unwelcome side-effect however, if "too much"* is imbued, is it can make one surly and at times downright nasty. Again, I know those around me will concur on this. As with everything moderation is key. As for the rest who knows? After a glass or two there is no probem, never has been. Everything is right and proper as it should be. *Too Much - Authority would have you believe it is one or two glasses or .08% blood-alcohol level, depending on one's body weight. However I have it under good authority(mine) that it is directly related to how often and for how long a period one has emptied the glass. The more the better er merrier... remember moderation is the key and try not to think so hard. Ron

Yes and a self-defeating one in the end. Who would want to play or converse with some of these icons, legends, made-men or mvps? Ignorance is bliss, but from your born-again ravings one could hardly expect less. Ron

*bump again*

Ok thanks for the clarification re the pictures, would seem odd otherwise. Yes Harv, my thoughts exactly! On another note, are the pilots you build up specific to a nation or are they interchangeable between nations? I am unfamiliar with the boardgame and it seemed unclear. Ron

Wow, excellent AAR! I found myself cheering on Harv lol Really looking forward to the next installment. I never really paid much attention to this title, but have to admit now it has whet my appetite for more. One quick question though, how come the the pictures of the pilots are the same for both the Leader and Wingman? Ron

Yes I agree, been playing KP lately and really like the way PBEM is integrated with Outlook. Hopefully something similar will be implemented in SC2, along with Security also! Ron

Thanks for your time and help. Never even thought to use a Search. Ron

Drew a blank? Yeah I know the feeling Ron

What is the key combination to make CM minimize when I press "Esc"? Been digging through the support pages because I recall vaguely it was mentioned at one time but couldn't find anything. Thanks in advance. Ron

And which part of "which stops below my knees" was so hard to understand? </font>

Fair enough, but simply looking at one failed operation and penalizing that then every General that commanded troops should be condemned, whether Rommel, Patton or Montgomery. There's plenty of evidence to show Rommel's failure in Africa, Patton's failure in Lorraine, or Montgomery's failure in Normandy for example. Loss of life isn't an indicator either IMO, especially considering the differing mentality between East/West. Getting back to your proposed ratings, tough call!, the only quibles I had with the original SC was I thought a few were overrated ie, Eisenhower should be a '6', Rommel a '7' and Montgomery a '7'. Totally subjective of course! Ron

Operations Mars: 1,890,000 Troops (31% personnel of Red Army) 24,682 Guns & Mortars (32% artillery of Red Army) 3,375 Tanks (45% of Red Army) 1,170 Aircraft (39% of Red Army) Operation Uranus: 1,103,000 Troops (18% personnel of Red Army) 15,501 Guns & Mortars ( 20% artillery of Red Army) 1,463 Tanks (20% of Red Army) 928 Aircraft (30% of Red Army) Like Uranus/Saturn, Operation Mars was to be followed by Operation Jupiter to exploit the planned success. It was aborted. One thing to keep in mind, unlike at Stalingrad where very few German reserves existed, to counter Mars the Germans were able to commit immediately powerful forces consisting of 1st and 9th Panzer Divsions, Grossdeutschland and 14th PzGren Divisions, later sending the 12th, 19th and 20th Panzer Divisions to seal off the Russian penetration. Not an insignificant force in light of the total German Mobile strength on the entire Eastern Front! The fact Mars began after Uranus doesn't imply it was less important, in fact it states the opposite as any crafty strategy gamer would know Ron

I don't understand why you would think it would suffer? Yes Mars was supposed to be the 'devastating blow' and Uranus a diversion because Stavka believed the area in front of Moscow to be the decisive theatre, however Stavka displayed incredible strategic flexibility and skill in diverting the emphasis to the South and rewarding success when the reality on the ground became apparent. It was a level of 'strategic skill and thinking' no other Army ever really displayed; you can look at the German plan at Kursk the following year or Eisenhower's 'broad front' strategy in western Eurpoe for comparison. Yes tactically the German officers excelled until the very end of the war and the Russian officers were never their equal in that regard. The Russian skill and excellence lay in the strategic field, they may lose battles, lost of them, but they win wars. Obviously that's what counts in the end. Ron

Just a few points here: Lend-lease did play a vital role in the Russian war effort, not in supplying weapons or tanks or fighters, but in the mundane area of logistics, ie radio wire, trucks, boots etc. The Japanese Army, while having a high fighting spirit, was woefully outmoded in equipment and doctrine. Their two clashes with Russia, more specifically at Khalkhin-Gol in Aug 1939, to 'test' the waters were total disasters. At the latter the Japanese suffered over 61,000 K/W/M while the Russians under Zhukov lost 23,000 K/W/M. Japan immediately signed an agreement with Moscow, securing Russia's backdoor, and 'looked' elsewhere. Japan's Army would have needed a serious overall to realistically contend with a Continental Army, something I'm not so sure she was capable of in the short-term. During the inter-war period all the major powers struggled with new military theory because of modernization, including Russia. Because of the restrictions on Germany's military, the Germans couldn't 'openly' test new theories so they collaborated with the Russians extensively. The Russian Generals developed a 'modern' doctrine in 1936, however because of Stalin's fear of the Army and the subsequent purges(estimated 30,000 out of 75,000 officers), most of her 'brilliant' thinkers were either eliminated or ignored at the outbreak of the war. Some food for thought. Ron

Did you deliberatlety lower red army commanders towards for instance german´generals? Yes. German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war. The victories late in the war were to a high degree a result of weak german opposition more than a trained red army. I think what Sgt. Emren and Shosties4th (and others more familiar with the Eastern Front) are calling into question is your very first, basic assumption. If you have read Glantz/House and more specifically "When Titans Clashed", then you should know better. There are detailed tables in the book outlining German/Russian Troop strength and War Production throughout the struggle. The Russians never had 10-1 overall, it wasn't until late 44 that they achieved 3-1 Troop superiority, ie after Bagration. They achieved a local superiority at times of up to 10-1 because of their mastery at Deception and deep understanding of the 'Operational Art', in conjunction with, to put it mildly, German incompetence at higher levels. The Russians went to a Total War Economy from the very beginning, something the Germans didn't do until 42/43 and thus were never able to 'catch up' production wise. What the Germans excelled at over their Russian (and Western) counterparts, because of their storied Military Tradition, was 'Mission Based Orders' (I forget now the German term) or in other words subordinate initiative at all levels. Their thinking and force structure was based around this flexibility and ability to adapt to changing battlefield conditions. As history has shown this didn't extend to the Strategic realm. German Strategic thinking never developed beyond the 'decisive battle' concept, which proved winning in Poland and France, but was incorrect in Russia and throughout the remainder of WWII. Trying to compare the two opposing Armies and Generals, and arrive at some concrete 'rating' to reflect the different strengths and weaknesses(which lay in different areas) is difficult to say the least! My opinion is that the Russians should not be penalized at all, because history proved they were better than the Germans especially in the last half of the war. As a suggestion to reflect the Russian Army coming into its own as the war progressed is to have the better Russian Generals not become available until late 42/43. For what it's worth, Ron [ May 23, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not against complexity! as long as it serves its purpose, however the biggest charm of SC was its inherent simplicity combined with its challenging gameplay. I guess what I was going on about was there is room for all sorts of games but there have been precious few with the qualities of SC. I am not really afraid that SC2 will contain a myriad of details bogging down gameplay like HOI for example. Everything you and others have reported has all sounded very positive and will only add to the gameplay I'm sure. Ron

I understand what you are saying Retributar, but I can't help thinking you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. SC, obviously, is a 'beer&pretzel' type of wargame, pardon the over-used cliche, not a true wargame. SC takes certain liberties, which while making it very entertaining to play, don't exactly it make it representative of history. If Hubert was to seriously try to make SC 'more' of a wargame, he would have to revamp the whole system to make it coherent and then it really wouldn't be SC anymore. Take your example of whole 'Armies' just being 'wiped - out', well in SC we can just rebuild them and then more if necessary, no problem, depending on MPPs and other concerns/priorities of course. It works overall for the game of SC. Also in history, relatively few Armies were totally destroyed granted yet the same 'MPP' concerns were still there. The Germany Army on the eve of invading Russia stood at 3,000,000+ troops, it wiped out more Russian troops than it lost, yet Germany still fell. Once at war, Germany's troop strength steadily eroded and they never did reach their initial starting level again, even after 4 years and total mobilization! On the other hand the Russian Army made good its losses and continued to grow steadily. Now if you look at this in perspective, you see the overriding theme is attrition. Not whether whole Armies were wiped out or not as being realistic, but if you have the resources to make good your losses and then some. That is what WWII was about and what SC captures to some extent. Every game designer starts out with a 'design concept' which envisions the 'type' of game he wants to create. Details are good to add flavour and challenge and yes to capture some historical 'feel', yet not at the expense of the overall design. SC is fun, simple yet challenging, has a historical flavour and plays quickly IMO. Yes, there aren't retreats in SC, but does that one aspect, taken at face value very unrealistic, detract from the overall game that SC is? I don't think so because SC does very well at what it is, a simple and fun yet challenging game. If I want more nitty-gritty detail that tries to capture a more realistic feel then I play a different game. For example for the Eastern Front, there is 'Russo-German War', a huge wargame covering the whole war. It has details upon details and tries to be very realistic, which it captures, especially the time to play - with one turn taking up to 2-3 hours to make!! An extreme yes and no doubt there are shades(and games) inbetween, but get the point. That said if Hubert implements retreat rules in SC2, while still maintaining the virtues of SC1, then I am all for it. Same with tiles or hexes, it really isn't important apart from it complementing the gameplay itself. Time will tell... Ron

Retributar, Correct me if I'm wrong but last I saw SC has Armies, Corps and Tank Groups, nary a Division to be found. Ron

Only for moronic halfwits who believe, have faith and are unable to see the world except through their distorted lens. Any other half intelligent person realizes its only value is historical and nothing more. Ron

Yep, more tasties to whet the appetite! Especially the AI and scripting, glad to see effort being put into making the AI stronger, SC being one of the few games where I enjoyed playing the AI. Ron

Don't know if this has been posted before, but here it is: Interview Ron

There is that but also how experienced the units are in 'reading' the terrain. I am currently reading "An Army at Dawn" and it mentions the difficulty the US forces had in Tunisia in using the terrain, even defending, whereas the Germans had no such problem, even though they had just captured it or moved into the area. Something to consider. Ron

I won't belabour the point, but you are mistaken when you say such odds were the exception and only occured at the tactical level. I would suggest looking at the Eastern Front from late '43 onwards and studying some of the operations the Red Army conducted. It was certain defeat for the defender and the limiting factor in most cases in the continuing offensives was supply and not heroic defense of an inferior opponent. Ron