Legun

Ohhh...Why not map? I've tried to modify COS map and units. It was possible,inside borders, of course. COS's rivers are strongly questionable, f.e. What about Kerch Pennisula and Crimea? What about Crete? OOB could be changable, too. Some example of private modification ("chrome"): I've changed nationality of Polish Air Force to British, so it could be reconstruct after collapse of Warsaw. The same with weak Polish mobile unit "Maczek" (strength 2/MP=5). I've add Czechoslovakian Corps to Soviet OOB, as well as Polish People's Army. I've added British and Italian airborne units to allow airborne operations against Malta and airborne preparing of amphibious operations. BTW - there was basic problem in COS, I hope resolved in CS. There was no possibility to transfer UK/USA air units to Balkans, without earlier conquer of Italy or Turkey. Churchill's strategy was just impossible.

Not exactly. I've played many times COS with Western Allies supporting Russia after occupation of Iraq. Montgomery defending Stalingrad etc. Any connection with reality. Spheres of influance is Anglo-Saxon conception. Stalin's sphere of influance was the Europe as a whole. Do you imagine that Soviets just leaves "liberated" Denmark the same way like Americans left Czechoslovakia? What means "should"? Do you want to say that "Stalin should be carefully democratic leader" or "Soviets should support Warsaw uprising even it causes lost of chance for communist Poland?" . The same way you could tell that "Hitler shouldn't start WW2 but create United Nations". Positive solution: There are 3 different allied victories: - Soviet victory - SU capture whole Germany - Western victory - Western Allies capture whole Germany - Coalition victory - each of final objectives is captured by one side. What about? Try to look at WW2 from other point of view than Roosvelt. Try Churchill at least. [ May 08, 2002, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Legun ]

I like Clash of Steel, but there is basic assumption, which is neglected by documents available from Soviet archives. WW2 wasn't two-sides game. Soviet Union should be independent power, with own victory conditions. Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and Barbarossa couldn't be simulated correctly, if sophisticated game of Stalin is ignored. I understand, that there is no rational base for simulation of eventually SU-West conflict. But full identity of Great Coalition existed only in Roosvelt's imaginations.