Schnell

Hello also. First of all Im not about to burn you at the stake. Contrary to some here I think everyone is entitled to speak theyre thoutghs. Lets face it the way strategic command is now is a fun and let me emphasize, fun WW2 strategy game. Im not taking anything away from it. I will be playing it alone and also by email for a long time to come baring any new games in this style. The game still involves many strategic options even though some of those aspects could be develloped further. As for a more complex or realistic version of a WW2 grand strategy game I for one would be among the first to pre-order such a game. There is so much room in this day and age with the technology we have to make sound and more realistic strategic simulations. The one thing that Winston Churchill feared the most was the U-boat menace wich would be fantastic to see implemented well in a game either abstractly a la Third Reich or on a more hands on method. Also the massive bombing campaign by the allies wich seems lacking that would be great to play with either abstractly or hands on. These are of course only a few of the subjects wich should be implemented in a grand strategy game of WW2. There are many more. For now let us be thankfull for this game and enjoy it as is untill such a time as we have another to take the torch.

Again as always people underestimate the Red Army. Lets break it down like this. Total war production from 39 to 45. Aircraft: USA-324 840, Germany-117 881, Russia-158 218. Tanks- USA-88 479, Germany-61 700, Russian-105 232 (the figures for tanks include self propelled guns for both Germany and Russia) Artillery pieces- USA-224 874, Germany-94 000, Russia-485 648. These figures are just pure production and do not take into consideration the lend lease. The US production in the game should be tweaked but to what degree I do not know. The Russian production on the other hand should in no way be reduced. American advisors visiting Russia during the war saw a Russian city built around a tank factory, they were quite impressed by the Russian mass production of tanks, this from the people who had the biggest room in the world at Willow run were Ford was building B-24 bombers like cars. Lets not forget that the Germans suffered a total of 80 percent of theyre combat losses on the Russian front during the war. The average was one German tank taking out five Russian tanks. On the western front the ratio was one german tank for every seven allied, not to mention that most of the tank losses on the western front were inflicted by airpower. Russia was by far the biggest player in the European war, and oh yes the twenty million soldiers of course...

You have got to be joking!! I am lucky enough to be able to play combat mission at work on a friends laptop. He is all for eye candy and first person shooters but does like combat mission even though he doesnt have a clue as to the use of combined arms in mechanized warfare. As for me I consider myself a strategist and tactician. Guess what he has yet to beat me fair and square in a single engagement of combat mission, but cant say he is not trying after a few hundred battles or so. I also love strategic command, wich is of course strategy and not tactics.So the people who frequent this site wether they be tacticians or strategists are probably not too inclined to be the type who dwelve deeply in games like deer hunter and grand theft auto. But this is more than likely an average and not an absolute. :cool:

I do agree that the oil especialy should be set apart from the rest of the resources if possible. Historicaly the german army had less than a year of supplies left when they invaded france wich is one of the reasons that Hitler was pressed to want to finish it quick. Also both the Luftwaffe and armor units suffered greatly at the end of the war due to extreme shortages caused by allied raids on synthetic plants and refineries. It would be quite interesting and would add another level of strategy if it could be incorporated in the game. Overall great game by the way [ August 20, 2002, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Schnell ]