Straha

The outproducing in fighters did not matter at the envisioned time of September 40. This only proves that Sealion would not have been possible later, e.g.in May 41, which was diskussed in the OKW, too. Hitler correctly saw that this is out of the question, though he placed the emphasis more on the British rearming in artillery and armor. I'm sorry that I do not have the numbers right now, but before the fatal stratgical decisions of Goering, the scales in fact shifted heavily *against* the RAF which lost too much of its overworked pilots in an alarming rate, and began to loose the all important flight coordination centers. Btw while German torpedo planes were virtually non-existent, the effect of dive bombers and strafings on shipping should not be underestimated. More than enough vessels were sunk by the Luftwaffe. Straha

This is an issue where the opinions seem to have changed considerably over the years. After the war it was declared a bluff (especially as the German generals in the Nurenberg trial deliberately made it look that way). But later, the captured documents showed that there were very serious preparations for the operation which was ordered to start in September 40. For example, more than 800 vessels (transports, barges etc.) were already assembled. The operation was finally called off as the Luftwaffe failed to create an important precondition, namely to clear the skies of enemy fighers. The thing is that they almost succeeded, but then botched it largely because Goering neglected to bomb the radar stations the importance of which he didn't understand, and also (because of a negligible British raid on Berlin) it was suddenly decided to terror-bomb civilian targets in London, which gave the battered RAF the badly needed reprieve. Today, Sealion is generally regarded as a risky, but nevertheless serious option. The hard part is, of course, to get the troops over safely. But once ashore, general Kuechler's already prepared army would have easily defeated the British because of the ca. 25 British divisions less then half had *any* artillery or armour at that time. Due to incorrect intelligence they were also wrongly positioned at the British eastern coast, while the Germans would have attacked the southern coast. Btw what hampered Sealion most was the preceding "Weseruebung". For this operation did cost the Germans dearly with respect to their navy, and this made the protection of the troop transports much more difficult. Finally, I do not know at the moment how the factor of poison gas (which Churchill intended to use) would have to be assessed in the context of operation Sealion. Straha

I wonder what the others think about this, but I'd say that in Human vs Human games, either the more experienced player should take the Axis, or the Axis player should get some bonuses. Straha

Beginner +0 doesn't work when you play the Allies against the AI. You have to give the Axis +1. Scorched Earth has to be put off, too. Raising the difficulty level by 1 (giving them more MPPs in plundering) is also a good idea, and probably mandatory for the full game. I found that experience +2 is no fun because then you tend to loose most encounters regardless of the tactics you employ (which is just frustrating). USSR neutral is another thing to consider when you play the Allies (the ultimate challenge is USA neutral in addition). The downsides of these latter options is that they take away the nice suspense provided by the "randomness" of entry. USA neutral will also lead to a very ahistorical game. Removing the Free French and the partisans helps the Axis, too, but I don't like these options turned off because partisans are fun. The options menu definitely lacks options which help the Axis in the first place (like "Swedish ore", "Axis liberation politics" etc). Straha [ July 21, 2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Straha, That never happens in SC, no matter what settings you use. The combat calculations are always done according to the same formulae.</font>

Straha, That never happens in SC, no matter what settings you use. The combat calculations are always done according to the same formulae.</font>

Madmatt: does that W98 compatibility mode workaround for XP mean that the problem also does not arise with W98 SE? (Because it did with the old demo at least.) Straha

I'm still worried, though, about some things. For example, what I do not understand is what was the rationale behind the decision to make it especially tough for the human player to achieve what the Germans did in 1940 in France in the same *timeframe*? I can only see downsides to this. If it is tough for the human player, then it is impossible for the AI. This means that I will be still underchallenged when playing the Allies in 39 on the non-cheating settings. That's always been a pet peeve of mine. I refuse to play the settings where the AI has an advantage in dice rolls. It usually does not make for a more challenging, but only a more frustrating game. Well, thanks god that there is the option to give the Axis troops higher experience. I can live with that because I can rationalize it, and it's also not like the AI cheating on success probabilities. Still, even if the Axis takes France eventually in 41, it will be too late for them. Keeping a strict timetable is of utmost importance for them. Add to that the improved position of the Russians, and I fear that, playing the Allies, I will prematurely crush the Axis once Russia comes into play. Of course, I know that probably most people will play the Germans in the 39 scenario anyway. But I'm not one of them. I like playing the Allies much more. (The reason is not political or something. I simply like to start out on the defensive, in a desperate situation, and then slowly, slowly get the upper hand). I think that in the long run there should be some more options in the options menu like - "Germany gets iron ore from (neutral) Sweden" - "Vichy pays reparations" Both would be historical, would make things tougher when playing the Allies, and even when playing the Axis, those options would motivate more historical strategies. E.g. I think that making Sweden tough to take is curing the symptom, but not the disease: Germany should have a *benefit* related reason for leaving Sweden alone, despite their valuable resources. And that reason should be that they get part of those MPPs without having to divert troops. Straha Edit: rereading my post I found it somehow sounds more negative than I intended it to. But, of course, I love the game! It's all just my anxiousness to make a stand for the Human vs. Axis AI perspective on things ...

I'm still worried, though, about some things. For example, what I do not understand is what was the rationale behind the decision to make it especially tough for the human player to achieve what the Germans did in 1940 in France in the same *timeframe*? I can only see downsides to this. If it is tough for the human player, then it is impossible for the AI. This means that I will be still underchallenged when playing the Allies in 39 on the non-cheating settings. That's always been a pet peeve of mine. I refuse to play the settings where the AI has an advantage in dice rolls. It usually does not make for a more challenging, but only a more frustrating game. Well, thanks god that there is the option to give the Axis troops higher experience. I can live with that because I can rationalize it, and it's also not like the AI cheating on success probabilities. Still, even if the Axis takes France eventually in 41, it will be too late for them. Keeping a strict timetable is of utmost importance for them. Add to that the improved position of the Russians, and I fear that, playing the Allies, I will prematurely crush the Axis once Russia comes into play. Of course, I know that probably most people will play the Germans in the 39 scenario anyway. But I'm not one of them. I like playing the Allies much more. (The reason is not political or something. I simply like to start out on the defensive, in a desperate situation, and then slowly, slowly get the upper hand). I think that in the long run there should be some more options in the options menu like - "Germany gets iron ore from (neutral) Sweden" - "Vichy pays reparations" Both would be historical, would make things tougher when playing the Allies, and even when playing the Axis, those options would motivate more historical strategies. E.g. I think that making Sweden tough to take is curing the symptom, but not the disease: Germany should have a *benefit* related reason for leaving Sweden alone, despite their valuable resources. And that reason should be that they get part of those MPPs without having to divert troops. Straha Edit: rereading my post I found it somehow sounds more negative than I intended it to. But, of course, I love the game! It's all just my anxiousness to make a stand for the Human vs. Axis AI perspective on things ...

It's a good idea to have the save option removed for the demo. Straha

Uhh ... seems like an issue for the first patch then. Straha [ July 20, 2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Good to hear that. I realize that it is more difficult to program the Axis, but I'd hate to have to play the Germans all the time to get a challenging game without reverting to those difficulty settings where the AI cheats. Straha

Good to hear that. I realize that it is more difficult to program the Axis, but I'd hate to have to play the Germans all the time to get a challenging game without reverting to those difficulty settings where the AI cheats. Straha

I honestly can't but agree. Straha [ July 20, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Did you guys notice whether playing the Allies is more challenging, too? Or is it even easier than before instead? Straha

Did you guys notice whether playing the Allies is more challenging, too? Or is it even easier than before instead? Straha

In the meantime I could look up the figures for the Westwall in 39 (just before the start of the war). There were at least 23 divisons in the West, not just 7, which then probably is a figure relating to 38. (Btw some sources say 26, I couldn't go to the lengths of verifying that.) I think I now can also tell more what the confusion in this thread was about. Indeed, though Poland was not mopped up until the end of September, it became clear that victory was achieved already on September 7. So, Hitler *again* decided to attack in the West already in the Fall, i.e. in November. The general staff's opinon was that they were not ready for *that* because after they had *just fought* a war they needed time not only to transfer the troops, but also for resupply etc. (This is important because the suggestion for an alternate scenario was precisely to skip war with Poland). There was a brief period where the collaborators of 38 again planned to overthrow Hitler in case he nevertheless issues the final order to attack. But Hitler himself seems have to realized that things took more time, and in the following, Fall Gelb was routinely delayed from fourthnight to fourthnight until the historical date. Btw it is astounding to see how many chances for peace there were until then! If it wasn't for Hitler, who *insisted* on eventually slugging it out with France once and for all, peace could have been restored on more than acceptable terms. Straha

Hmm, I thought Hubert had promised to solve that problem for the retail version ... I really hope so as most people now work with resolutions higher than 1024*768 as default settings. And it is a real drag to clean up the desktop after every game. Straha

August 5 plus maybe 2 weeks? That is too insecure with respect to my scheduled leaving for Europe at the end of August. So I'll have to wait with the ordering. Darn, darn, darn! O well, at least I will then probably get a patched version later. Straha

devildog: The plans for Fall Weiss are at least as old as 1938. I, too, remember that Hitler in the very early stages of examination had considered whether Poland could be beaten so fast as to attack France in late Fall, but he then de facto adopted the opinion of his general staff that this is not possible. That's part of the reason why the completion of the Westwall was hurried. When the actual preparations for Fall Weiss began in April 39, it is *certain* that Hitler had no plans whatsoever of attacking France in Fall 39, anymore. Instead, what he wanted was to beat Poland quickly so that the Allies would decide that it makes no sense to go to war over it. In case France attacked nevertheless, the Westwall with its divisions was to stall them. So the situation in August 39 is: the bulk of the German army (more than one and a half million men!) is positioned to attack Poland. The Westwall is comparatively lightly manned and preparations are purely defensive. So maybe here's a misunderstanding: in *this setting*, Hitler could, of course, not take on France in Fall 39 as the forces were positioned wrongly for that. Noone would dispute that. But that's not what me and others meant when saying Germany would have been ready to take on France in 39. She would, if she would have positioned army groups North and South in the West, and that would make for an alternate scenario. (Few people know that the relations between Poland and Germany were extremely friendly until 39 when Hitler decided to press the issue of Danzig and the Korridor. So the alternate "France first" scenario could pretend something along the line that Germany did not change her politics against Poland, but instead pressed France for Alsace, but then, at the last moment, Poland decided to switch over to the Allies etcetc ... ) Now about the French being in Berlin before the Germans can react: Let me tell you that on August 23, 1939, the French general staff under Gamelin in a meeting with Daladier and Bonnet came to the following conclusion about what would happen if Germany would attack Poland soon: - France would not be able to do anything in the "early stages of the war" (which would be, according to Gamelin until next spring!) - Poland would last at least until spring. - France would successfully defend her borders against a German offensive. In the spring, help from UK and Britain would make a German victory impossible in the long run. - But France would not be ready to go on the offensive until 1941/42! Note that they had full intelligence about what the Germans had in the West at that time. Today, it is customary to chide the French general staff for being "timid" ("... if they would have attacked they would have overrun the Germans while they were occupied in Poland"). But this is simply not true. Gamelin was no idiot. He was right that his troops were not ready for an offensive war in Fall 39. To attack Germany the moment Germany attacks Poland, France would have had to begin with preparations for this at least in spring 39, probably even earlier. But they did not even mobilize until the war had begun! Straha [ July 19, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Thanks, Camicie. This mod is getting better and better. :cool: Straha

I'll try the Allies in 39 first. Normal difficulty level as I do not want the AI to cheat. Scorched Earth off etc, however, to give the Germans a better chance. Hmm, I don't think I will give them an experience advantage this time around because I want to see what the final AI is capable of. And maybe Russia->neutral, let's see ... Straha

Another positive review. It's also one of those which are not very correct. For example, if I wouldn't know the game already, I would now think that I can actually play the minor powers separately ("though ultimately you will choose the major powers as it makes the game the most fun"). Straha [ July 18, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Devildog: what you describe is in fact more or less the situation when Hitler planned to take on Czechoslovakia in 38 with only 12 divisions. The general staff was even seriously preparing for a putsch then. But in September 39, the situation differed considerably. For starters, the Westwall was completed. Those seven divisions manning the defensive line were considered enough to halt any French offensive as long as the *bulk* of the forces (Army group North and South) was occupied in Poland. The tank army (which were in miserable shape in 38) was now fully operational. But, of course, in case of a France first scenario, these forces would all be in the West. I do not have the exact numbers available right now, but in September 39, Hitler had already more than enough fully equipped divisions to take on France. Of course, France first would have been a mistake nevertheless as it would not even leave a minimum chance for averting a world war altogether. (Though probable, it was not *really* clear whether Britain and France would actually go to fight over Poland, especially in case Poland was defeated quickly.) Straha

Cool bananas, SuperTed-San. Straha