Hamstersss

Reread my post, Mike, I wasn't advocating Russian subs, I was merely pointing out quantity. As I recall, Italian submarine forces didn't have any significant effect upon the war, either, but they're included for accuracy and they total the amount of Russian submarines. Now, if the Russian submarine fleet is of inferior quality to the Italian submarine fleet, then they shouldn't be included, but if they were just misused, then that shouldn't limit their consideration. After all, if misuse is the determining factor in not representing a unit, than the whole French Army should be out of the game. As to the inclusion of Sweeds and Turks, take a look at the makeup of the Black Sea fleet, it's not exactly a line of destroyers.

Hubert, what's your take on the Russian submarines? Italy entered the war with about a hundred, and that's represented, and Russia has about a hundred if you total the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. I'm not too sure of their quality but the Italians weren't known for the quality of their boats, either. How do you plan to represent the Black Sea Fleet?

For you Europeans, this means he can point out the state of Wisconsin in three tries.

I know I'm being contentious and I know it's not too big a deal, but isn't that more an issue of a lack of naval supply rules than a real game issue? Shouldn't the Russian player have the option to deploy the fleet, even if it's not any good? To me, games like this are a question of what-if, and I think a more historic set of forces (Within the confines of the game) allows for a more realistic appraisal of any what-if scenario. Case in point, the conquest of Turkey or Turkish collusion allows for Italian and German forces to pour through an unprotected Black Sea. In reality, they would have had to put up with some kind of fight, which sort of shoots any Turkish what-if in the foot. There's no sea supply rules, granted, and that makes ships a little more robust than they should be, but let's not throw the admittedly puny Russian fleets out the window just because of that.

Then you've activated Russia, which is a bit disconcerting to Germany in 1939...

I think that settles it.* *They really didn't say that, you idjits.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought after the grease gun (Cheapie Tommie Gun knockoff that it was), the US didn't look into further smgs. Why go with the M2? What was it's effectiveness? How many were M2s and how many were just M1 carbines? 6.5 million???

Aneurism meter at 7...

I was under the impression the two cruisers next to Leningrad represented the Baltic Fleet. Is this incorrect? For Reference Black Sea Fleet: 1 battleship 6 cruisers 18 destroyers 44 submarines Baltic Fleet: 2 battleships 4 cruisers 30 destroyers & torpedo-boats 69 submarines

I never thought of the M2, was it deployed in large numbers? This would make more sense to me, as the MP44/SG44, from what I know, wasn't nearly as reliable or as durable as the AK47 (Well, nothing was that durable*). If anyone's heard of an earlier Soviet assault rifle, I'd like to hear about it. * I once saw an AK47 dropped out of the space shuttle, re-enter the atmosphere, land in the Congo and be subsequently fossilized, whereupon it was eaten by an elephent and, when retrieved after the digestive process, still fired accurately using the original clip with no cleaning.** ** Not quite true, but indicative of those hundreds of stories that we've all heard...

Can a Battleship or cruiser be added near Sevastopol in the next patch, to represent this missing fleet?

To clarify, by SAW I am talking about light machineguns a la the Bren, Bar and MG34 in its LMG role. I never thought of semi-automatic rifles as being attempts to mix SMG and bolt-action rifle, though I do agree that the Sturmgwehr-44 (sp?) drew more from smgs than from rifles, especially with the lower calibre ammunition. Did the Russians have any preliminary designs or did they just start right out with the AK? If so, it's a hell of a good first effort.

'Course you weren't. You were an überSatellite.

The 30mm on the A-10 does use the Gatling action and I think they developed a 20mm that also used that action for the AH-56 Cheyenne. However, I only mentioned the Gatling as a starting point, I wonder what models represented the various points in evolution of the mg. [ August 13, 2002, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Elijah Meeks ]

Go to the source, that's what they say: I know the gatling gun never gained prominence, I assume because it just wasn't ammo or manpower efficient, is this true? What I'm wondering is where does it go after that? Maxim showed up and his initial model was accepted, but how does that lead to the water-cooled and the air-cooled. Most importantly, when does the concept of a squad assault weapon come into play?

What shocks me isn't the Waffen-SS George Washington Brigade but rather the proclivity of Nazi cats to smoke. Haven't they seen any of those Phillip-Morris commercials with the ambiguous kids?

Now guys, this is a serious issue that BTS refuses to even address. Keep in mind, Janster that German optics are meticulously modeled and their production cost versus shoddy American Cola models was practically equal. To ask that a Hetzer, with it's integrated, double-parabola rangefinder be made more expensive than a Challenger, which used a cardboard cutout that came with only two pencils (The golf course type, mind you-- no erasers) is both gamey and unrealistic. BTS, please fix or do somefink.

YOU WERE SUBERSAPRE1? WOW, DOOD, U WERE SUPER-L33T!!!

The problem with World in Flames is that it isn't fun. It's more work than game. The beta of the computer game is a faithful reproduction but I shudder to think of someone who doesn't know the rules inside and out trying to play it. And it's ugly. Strategic Command, on the other hand, is perfectly comprehensible, straightforward and it should include paratroopers so that players can say, "What if there was a major change in military thinking to implement airborne infantry at the army level", whoa, oops, kind of got a little off topic. And add Japan (It could be called, Strategic Command, The Northern Hemispherical War). Oh, there I go again.

Keep in mind the accelerated timetable due to the demo's time limit. Also, maybe my game's are the exception, but France doesn't last more than a turn after Italy's declaration of war and it's fleet doesn't have enough time for more than a volley. Assuming the full game is no different, there are three issues to keep in mind for this strategy: 1) Not in such a hurry - Find the money elsewhere, maybe transport an Italian corps to Sweeden, maybe just let the money pile up. 2) The Caucasus are far more strategically important than North Africa - Who cares if the allies take Tripoli? Any invasion of Italy can be slowed by operationally moved German and Italian troops and, because it would be too early for US intervention, would leave Britain open to invasion. 3) The Italian Fleet is useless - If it takes the destruction of the fleet to a) render the British Med Fleet non-operational or b)keep the British Med Fleet busy while the transports rush across, who cares? The issue of gaminess boils down to two points: The Black Sea Fleet: Should the Russians have a Cruiser or even a Battleship in the Black Sea? According to the information I posted above, this fleet is larger than any other Russian fleet in WWII. Should Control of the territory around Istanbul be so easy to wrest from Turkish forces? If you move the Turkish army one hex to the left(west), this can be avoided.

Why not?

Even though the British Navy didn't attack during my game (Perhaps they should be made more aggressive, that navy just sits around in most games), even if they did, under the control of a human player, the speed of the transports and the sizez of the Italian navy (Which has nothing to do except fight the Brits) precludes any real disruption of the Italian troop movements until it's too late. And really, who's worried if Russia gets into the war early if they're down to double digits in less than a year? And according to: http://www.skalman.nu/soviet/ww2-navy-fleet-blacksea.htm This was the composition of the Black Sea Fleet during WWII: 1 battleship 6 cruisers 18 destroyers 44 submarines 84 motor torpedo-boats 18 minesweepers 56 escort, patrol & river craft Though it gives no word as to the quality of the ships, maybe they were Sweedish loaners. [ July 31, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Elijah Meeks ]

There's nothing but the fortress at Sevastopol. Geez, there's more attention being given to a 19th century era Swedish battlefleet.

Bump as a more feasible enabling of Italy than giving them France.

Just beginner level, France falls on 3-4. Even so, the tactic can be adjusted, it just means drawing out the war in France a turn or two to take the Baltic States quickly. The important thing is the 300MPP from conquering them, which lets you buy the HQ that makes the armies effective.