Straha

Wow, the DirectX update really made my day. Thank you SO MUCH for that, Hubert! :cool: Straha

Lol. But, seriously, I think NOW is the best time for bringing the AAR to its glorious end: the game has gone gold, so betatesting should be a bit less frenetic by now. On the other hand, once SC has shipped and people have it in their hand, they rather will be occupied playing instead of reading an AAR. So what do you think, SuperTed? Straha

Lol. But, seriously, I think NOW is the best time for bringing the AAR to its glorious end: the game has gone gold, so betatesting should be a bit less frenetic by now. On the other hand, once SC has shipped and people have it in their hand, they rather will be occupied playing instead of reading an AAR. So what do you think, SuperTed? Straha

SuperTed, wouldn't now be a good time for a continuation of your AAR? Straha

SuperTed, wouldn't now be a good time for a continuation of your AAR? Straha

I think the quality of the classes varies much more with the capabilities of the individual teachers than with the educational systems themselves. The kids often come to think a particular subject is boring while it is in fact just the teacher who is incapable. There are teachers who can make analytical geometry exciting, and then there are others who manage to render history dull, dull, dull ... Straha

With respect to gamebalance, I think that once SC is out, experience with PBEM games will help decide whether Russia and the Allies are too strong early on. Maybe we should have a thread where people can report their results on a regular basis. Straha

About the V3: http://www.geocities.com/herrvermylen3/V-3.html Straha

But this should by all means be an additional option, and not *replace* how it is handled now. Straha

Hmm, this amounts to the option of setting FOW on/off seperately for both sides so that we have four settings. Would be nice, indeed! Choosing an asymmetrical setting could be interesting in case of an experienced player vs. beginner. Straha

And let me add that this is how it *should* be. Straha

I actually wonder whether it wouldn't be a good idea to allow buying rockets only after a certain techlevel (e.g. 3) is already realized. In compensation, they could be made a bit stronger. It's somehow strange to see them arrive so early in the game. Straha

Surprise, surprise: I mostly agree with Marc. I only don't think that additional Sweden-ore mpps have to be made dependent on Norway (because the Norway campaign was not to get the ore in the first place, but to secure the shipping lines for it). That's why I also would like to have the mpp benefit dependend on whether there are allied ships in the baltic sea. But I would be happy about *any* change in this regard. I'm not convinced that implementing some moderate additional MPP ore-convoy benefit tied to the existence of a neutral Sweden would unbalance the game, even if the Axis mpps are not cut down elsewhere. Anyway, even if there will be no change made at all with respect to the issue of certain neutrals contributing to the Axis war efforts by mpps, the "military might" of Sweden should *really* be reduced again. Btw this just makes me wonder: has anyone tried to declare war on Turkey? Are they, too, on steroids now? Straha PS: There is another issue from the review I have to agree with, and it is that the reduced turn-length does not make up for the missing effects of seasons. But I know that changing this is a major issue, and I do not expect this to be adressed before SC2 ... [ July 24, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

That's one thing we shouldn't forget, indeed. SC is not a game where you are just a general fighting given campaigns, and even not just a theater commander. You are also in charge of the whole national industry and research from 1939 onwards. This gives you the opportunity to try very different overall grand strategical approaches. So just because some things were not possible given the *historical situation* in say 1942, does not mean that it should not be possible for you if you began the game appropriately earlier and went down alternative roads in production and research preferences etc. In fact, trying out the possibilities is exactly what makes the game so much fun. (If I just wanted to play given campaigns with given material, I would play an operational game.) Of course, these "what-if" aspects should still be based on sensible formulas, but that's another issue. Straha

We must keep in mind that there was not *the* war, but rather very different constellations. The Germans could have "won" in terms of having a favorable peace if they would have pressed for serious negotiations after Poland, and after France. As the Nazis they were it just didn't enter their mind that even after the victory in France, they would nevertheless have to give back everything except Austria, Sudeten, and some territory along the line of the 1914 borders in the East to get a peace treaty. Once we come to Barbarossa, the Germans could have won if they would have beaten the USSR in 1941 *without* declaring war against the US. If they would have managed to keep the US out of the war, they still would have had a last chance in spring/summer 1942. But once the US enters the game while Russia is still alive and kicking, I think the "outproducing" theory is true, even if I would not add the "no finesse" part simply because it has a ring to it which tends to make people somewhat recalcitrant to accept the facts. There were no "brilliant" campaigns on the side of the Allies, but that doesn't mean their generals were morons either. Straha

I agree with respect to the historical side. Still, I can't see of any alternative in game terms. Ideally, we should be able to cut off the bulk of French, Belgish and British units in Belgium, and then they surrender ... but that simply can't be simulated on that scale. So I think taking Paris is still the best candidate for a condition of surrender. Straha

Camicie did not intend to offend or stereotype the French with these two tiles. In fact he already announced some time ago that there will be a version of the mod where the white flags are removed. They were only meant to fit the "Sitzkrieg", but of course seem queer in any other contexts. Straha

Someone pinch me please! Do I really read what I'm just reading? :eek: Straha

That's only because strength was dissipated in the Battle of Britain and Atlantic. Germany wasted resources fighting a useless sea and air war, which ultimately led to her defeat.</font>

I used Shirer's and Churchill's works. Both not the newest sources, but the only ones I could get my hands on quickly in blitz-visiting the nearest library. (I also thought they would be ok because they surely would not be biased in favor of the German side.) I simply could not find numbers for German pilots killed/wounded in the time from 8/24 - 9/6. I wish I had more time on my hands! Straha

Ah, good! Straha

I agree with most of the review, even in its criticism, though I nevertheless would have given a much higher score. (Maybe he did forget to factor in the sheer fun SC provides?) - I agree with the North Africa issue. - Contrary to IE, I also agree with the Blitzkrieg issue in France/Benelux (though I concede that I know of no game on that scale which really did succeed in modelling that campaign). - I agree with the criticism with respect to diplomacy, but in a different way. In fact, Hubert convinced me long ago that it was the right thing not to implement diplomatical points which can be used to pressure countries because the temptation to cheat is too strong ("What? I expended all of my points on Spain and they didn't join? That's not fair! Let's reload and try again!"). BUT there was one more thing to the diplomatic feature in e.g. COS, which is sorely missing now. In COS, countries which were leaning to you by more than 50%, lend part of their resource to your cause without going to war openly on your side. In SC, neutral countries are perfectly neutral. But in reality, there were many "neutrals" supporting one side or the other. E.g. Sweden fully supported the Axis with resources. They even produced parts for the V2. I have to say that the reason for the invasion of Norway was NOT to get hold of the Norwegian resources, but to secure the shipping for the *Swedish* ore (in the seasons where the sea was frozen, they had to ship further West, which endangered the convoys). Vichy was only nominally a neutral. They had secret treaties with the Axis which make that perfectly clear. They only did not openly join the war on the Axis side to not give the Allies an excuse for attacking their colonies away. Because of the strict neutrality of the neutrals in SC, we get some strange results. E.g. Sweden does not support the Axis with MPPs. Instead the Axis player has to conquer them to get the ore! And, of course, he will then try to do that. Making Sweden militarily strong does not remedy the situation. There should be *benefits* for the Axis which motivate them to leave Sweden alone, not fear of a strong Sweden. MY SUGGESTION: What I would like to see are some special rules covering the most important "neutral" axis supporters. E.g. we could have a rule giving Germany half the Sweedish MPPs when Sweden is alive, neutral AND there are no allied ships in the baltic. When allied ships enter the baltic seas, the shipping route is severed, and no MPPs from Sweden go to Germany this turn. If Germany declares war to Sweden, no MPPs go to Germany from Sweden, as long as Sweden is alive. If Sweden surrenders to Germany, the Axis gets all MPPs as usual. (Of course, it goes without saying that if Sweden should be attacked and conquered by Russia, the "convoy" MPPs for Germany have to be lost, too.) Similarily, we could have a 'reparation' rule for Vichy. Straha [ July 23, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Well, guys, I did a little bit of looking things up yesterday, too. I had not much time, but still I could retrieve some pertinent figures. First of all, I'm always surprised what errors one does make when recounting things from memory alone. - I do not know how I came up with general Kuechler. The chief in command for Sealion would have been Rundstedt, and then for the three major armies Busch, Strauss and Reichenau. 41 divisions were scheduled to participate. Two of these would have been airborne, and a whooping 6 armored. - I also do not know what is it with the number 800 I recalled for the vessels which were assembled. Captured confidential navy papers of 21.9.1940, taking stock of the situation in the aftermath, speak of losses of 21 transports and 214 barges to British airattacks which, according to the source, would amount to 12% of the assembled ships. So there must have been more than 800 vessels (and maybe this was the number of vessels which would haveto be towed?) - The critical period for the RAF (according to both Shirer and Churchill!) was between 24.8. and 6.9.1940 just before the Luftwaffe switched to bombing the cities. During this time, 6 of the 7 vital key command sectors were destroyed (plus one radar station). 466 British fighters were lost, while only 214 fighters by the Germans (they also lost 138 bombers). But the most important factor was pilots: the British lost 103 dead plus 128 seriously wounded, which amounts to 1/4 of all available fighter pilots at that time. (If you compare this with the production: it is always interesting to see that all nations produce much much more stuff than they can man.) Churchill himself writes that the scales were tipping in favor of the Germans during that forthnight. Straha

Whether it was possible or not, it's surely a good thing that they didn't pull it off! Himmler at least, had already detailed plans for everything. They included transplanting the whole male population between the age of 17 and 45 to the continent to avoid uprisings! Straha

Sorry Mike, I didn't see this post before already typing the next one. I take your arguments very seriously, but I would have to look up the numbers in my sources again to assess them. Since the end of the war, the numbers btw had to be corrected all the time btw because *both sides* gave wrong figures. I'm really convinced though, that there *was* a period during the airwar where things got critical for the RAF. Hmm, I remember having recently seen some relatively new book solely about Sealion - I'll try to find that ... Straha