husky65

Getting to a major city and taking that city are two very different things, see Stalingrad and Leningrad for two examples...

Very much so, if you stage an ivasion of Japan from the USA/Hawaii you need to have every piece of kit that was available for Normandy (more was planned IRL) - all available on ships, that means a vast mass of amphib/merchant vessels wasted as floating warehouses. Drive the Merchant to a convenient island, offload and return for more kit - sort and load that kit as required onto amphibs for the short trip to the beach head is a far more efficient way of doing it.

Basically - supply, air cover and training. The first real amphib invasion the US conducted in the pac area (WW2) was a fiasco, the later landings allowed them to get their doctrine in order, build and equip specialist forces, specify improvements and at the same time build supply centers, workshops and very importantly airbases. The question to really ask is - why did they run 2 seperate wars (army v navy/marines) in the Pacific? the answer is 'the leaders were too dumb to insist that one branch of the service should subordinate itself to the other in the national interest'.

Surface area rather than landmass, and the battles tended to be bloody but a hell of a lot smaller than the European battles. From a game perspective, SC does not handle naval warfare terribly well - not a big deal for a european conflict, but critical for the Pac. The game mechanism has no way to simulate the Japanese shortage of Oil, nor their inability to move troops, nor their inability to move critical resources, nor the political divides that crippled the Japanese military, the battles will be farcical - a one hex island group is surrounded by naval forces, the army on it is battered to non existance, then the corp storms ashore capturing a useless bastion that has no impact on supply and that you probably can't get the unit back off of. The scale is wrong for a Pac game and you can't stack. The question to ask is 'why bother', just build a force and head straight for Japan. The SC system neither supports the reasons for the Japanese need to attack south, nor their inability to do so in the long term, balancing that it also does not support the effectiveness of submarine warfare against the Japanese, nor the effectiveness of CV airpower. SC is the wrong game system to do the Pac with. Given the amount of research done for SC1 and the amount of feedback given, SC2 should simply build on SC1 and be in europe.

No one who has any conception of the realities of the Pac theater wants it done with this system. SC is a great beer and pretzels European Theater game, as a system it is totally unsuited to handling the Pac war. SC2 (if it bears any similarity to SC1) should stick to Europe and build upon SC1s success.

If you play the Axis, you are taking Hitlers role - it is silly to suggest that you should be required to take his personal paranoias as well. The whole point of games like this is to give you choices, introducing specific rules to then remove those choices is counterproductive.

Leave it be on both counts.

Certainly, but if the Allies had persisted with the older doctrine, the extra amount of escorts would not have helped. For quite some time there was an insane insistence on hunting U-boats in the open ocean (searching for needles without a haystack to narrow it down), at great cost in resources, when the only place that really matters with a U-boat is near the convoy - if they are not there, they don't matter. [ August 25, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

Actually it wasn't technological advances that did in the U-Boats, it was convoying and finally killing the idea that the way to hunt subs was to search the open ocean (rather than concentrating your assets at choke points and near the convoys) and the release of sufficient numbers of heavy bombers for maritime patrol. The tech advances certainly helped, the doctrinal changes were most important.

In the vast majority of cases, yes they are. The majority of the things people want to add to SC just add complexity.

The Germans actually developed containers to tow a V-2 rocket (behind a Submarine) out to where it could reach the USA.

On this game scale the Norwegian resistance was simply undetectable. If France and the Low Countries don't get partisans in the game, there is no way Norway should get any.

If you are running a refresh rate fix program (such as refreshlock), disable it whilst you run SC - that worked for me in WinXP.

I understand what you mean now, I just totally disagree with it. The point of games like this is to rewrite history, once you introduce changes you cannot expect everything else to go exactly as it did historically. This is a mistake many people make, suggesting that if Hitler had made more subs rather than surface vessels he'd have defeated the Brits (as one example) - it ignores the fact that the Brits would have made some very different decisions in light of what they saw was going on around them.

This gives me an idea, why not upgrade units every second advance. Get Tank tech 1 and my units do not improve, when I get Tank tech 2 my units upgrade and can go up to strength point 11, Tank tech 3 nothing, Tank tech 4 they can go up to 12 strength points. In this example you could look at Tech 1 (all odd numbers) as being the theoretical/design work and Tech 2 (all even numbers) as being the implementation, production and getting the kit into the troops hands. If there is a fundemental programming reason why the research is hard to change from being a 5 step research ladder, then it should be just a matter of changing the 'payoff' of research into a 0.5 increment rather than a 1.0. Opinions?

I lean the other way, have all research points be in a field be 'expended' when a level is gained, ie if I commit 1 point to researching tanks and I get an advance, I lose the point - if I commit 5 points to researching tanks and I get an advance, I lose all 5 of the points, it makes loading up a tech for fast research EXPENSIVE.