Norse

I checked this out. I took France and the low countries, bought 3 rocket units and placed 5 tech chits on rocket research. I had no real luck with the rockets. I placed them in the low countries and kept hitting the London harbour, with the rockets having 3 hexes in range. They did abselutely minimal damage (of course, I might have been just unlucky). I reached level4, and by that time I had bought another rocket unit. The range increased from 3 to 4 hexes, so I hit the harbour again, and it went from 9 to 4. After that I hit the corps in London, with 4 rocket units on level 4, I reduced it from 10 to 9. It took 1 point in damage. Hmm, nah, I'll rather go with the u-boats. ~Norse~

Before ww2, the Germans began work on 70cm, 80cm, 85cm, and 100cm guns (measured in centimeters, not like the 88mm flak guns) as a countermeasure to the Maginot defences. In 1941, Schwerer Gustav fired a 7 ton shell 37 kilometers. Heavy Railway Artillery unit 672 saw action in the Sevastapol battle. The unit posessed a 80cm gun named Dora. Later in the war, the artillery unit got an overhaul, and in 1943 they had the capability to fire 47km. Later, a 52cm railroad artillery piece called Langer Gustav, could fire up to 160km by firing rocket-assisted shells. I don't know if this piece actually saw combat or if the war ended too soon. I know the Germans had some extremely huge railroad artillery pieces for Leningrad as well (possibly unit 672, too tired to look this up). IMHO the rocket unit fills the role of both extremely huge railroad guns and the V1 and V2 rockets, as I see the research put into this would come up with both things, just aimed at different targets. Wouldn't really make sence for SC to have 2 different units with the exact same capabilities. Portrayed in this game, I'd say the Germans built 2 rocket units, just my guess. First deployed against the Russians and then against England. They must have put atleast one research chit on this rocket tech and kept it there during the war. It has been discussed why artillery should be bought at all. It's advantage over airunits is that it doesn't take damage when it bombards the enemy, but it hasto be operated into the area where the enemy resistance is stiff. Not sure if it is worth it. Have anyone gotten a really high tech on rockets, and can tell what kind of damage they can do in this game? ~Norse~

Moon, just lock this up again. Commi's only agenda is to continue the ****-throwing and cause a polarization among people.

Putting the reinforce / transport / operate commands to the right menu will complicate things. You would then haveto click "reinforce" first, then select the unit and then do your work. Instead, as it is right now, you can click "reinforce" directly on the unit you want to be reinforced! It is a stroke of genius and cuts away slack-time for the player. If having more than 1 button on the mice gets too complicated... hm, well there is an OS out there that uses a 1 button mice. 'nuff said ~Norse~

Go away troll

Here's to Hubert! HUZZAH HUZZAH HUZZAH Deal 78262

On what ground can you say the Germans wouldn't have enough crew to man captured ships? That is crap, no offense, but it is. The Germans put 40.000 men to man the uboats alone. Now that France fell in 1940, very early in the war, the Germans had tons of future crew to draw upon. Your argument of "not having manpower" simply doesn't hold ground. You're trying to say 1667 panzers were all the Germans had? Perhaps in 1939 that was it, but they produced over 5000 tanks in 1941, and their total number is tenfolds what you suggested. They could also get resources from other civilian production lines if needed (cars, etc) They needed more tanks to go against USSR than to go against UK. If UK was primary target, then they could use more steel on ships and aircrafts easily. Why not? You think they need 4~5 million men just idling around, in outstanding tanks, with no purpose, when what is really needed is another ship? Germany built a carrier (in fact they made 2), it's name was Graf Zeppelin. It's construction was was halted among other reasons, because Goering and his Luftwaffe did not want to divert aircrafts for this ship. It's guns were taken off and sent to Norway, but they kept the hull. They continued work on it, and it was near completion in 1942, while the Germans had set a timeframe on it to be completed in 1945. The allies didn't like this much, so they kept sending RAF on it during the 1942's and beyond, so work on it was halted as they hadto move it from shipyard to shipyard in order to evade the British intelligence and RAF. USSR captured it after the war. They also built the hull for another German carrier called Peter Strasser, but because of the internal fuss about the Graf Zeppelin, the hull was put back into the burner and they discontinued the work on it. They could do theese things and yet they had enough steel and resources to continue the "real" war on all fronts. In 1944 they produced 40.000 planes, near 30.000 tanks, over 360.000 artillery pieces, and so many tons of munitons that I cant even say it out loud. Much more were in the production line, but were hampered by strategic bombing etc. Where do you think all this steel was coming from? Of course Germany had access to steel, if they wanted a carrier, all they hadto do was to build it (I think they proved that......) If they needed more resources than they had themselves, then they could get it from some other European nations (including Sovjet, who traded, ie gave them, resources such as this with Germany prior to Barbarossa). As I already pointed out, a battle in the English Channel would not have given the RAF any advantage in terms of shorter flight times. More aircrafts? If we count what they had, then they began on even terms. And as I already stated, putting Sovjet on infinite hold would have given the Germans more resources to get even more planes going. Add the help of the Italians and UK don't have any advantage with more planes, forget it. Radar yes, but not the other. Later in Sea Lion, when the Germans are marching north, then as you pointed out yourself, RAF was ready to hide pretty far north. Now that would make some long travel lines for their planes. Of course. Being part of the Third Reich is a great honor!! You just made an argument, that UK did not have enough resources to even form the bulk of their own army. They were so short on supplies, that they hadto ask the other Commonwealth nations to send them help. This is how it was with all other resources, they depended on outside help in order to stand up to Germany (and Germany wasn't alone, UK was cut off). Regardless, the land based power that UK had was it's disadvantage when compared against Germany, as Germany's landpower were possibly the best in the world right there and then. Not saying the Brits were bad, just saying they didn't have the same kind of mapower or sheer brute force on land. Take Italy 1943 and 44, Germany just sent a couple armies and tank units from the Eastern-front in order to stall the British advance there, and they still had beyond 200 divisions fighting on the eastern front in 44. Who has the real massive manpower here? Not Britain, or Commonwealth for that sake. Anyway, you are arguing that UK would be able to defeat the Axis in a deathmatch 1 on 1, in 1940 or 41 (depending on when Sea Lion is launched). This is a very bold assumtion. Though it is not impossible that the Brits would have won (nothing is impossible of course), but the Germans had more raw power and industrial might backing them up than the Brits had at the time. Sovjet would have continued dealing with the Axis, as they historically did. If you want, we can play this out on SC sometime ~Norse~

Hmm, is going to take some time to find exactely what I want on Barbarossa. What I am looking for though, and which is my point, is the German resources spent on creating tanks, artillery etc. The steel and factory bandwith used to make this could have been, atleast to a certain degree, been used to produce more aircrafts and naval forces for Sea Lion. Perhaps someone else can make this job easier for me. Ugh, here is another point that comes to mind. Most of the French battleships etc that were captured by the Germans, were chopped up. I used to live in Tønsberg in Norway, and as kids we used to hang out in bunkers from ww2. The bunkers were armed with huge cannons that the Germans had taken off the French battleships, and they were now seeing coastal guard service. If the Germans main objective was Sea Lion, then IMO I don't think they would chop this up. Do you? ~Norse~ [ July 22, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

Bleh, I knew the list in my book wasn't adequate. The number 88 is certain though, I was just waiting on you or someone to comment on what ships weren't in use, so I can get out that red pencil and write the actual dates behind them Let me dig up some information on Barbarossa for you, gimme a few. BTW, the German fleet would take heavy casaulties (I already said that), but it is ok, as long as the Royal Navy suffers too. UK is having a harder time building new carriers and battleships, than Germany has in building more uboats (they chunked out quite a few ya know). The size difference between the Royal navy and the German navy is reduced by the fact that the Stukas and the rest of Luftwaffe (that was pulled back from the historical BoB etc), would be put into combat to hit the Royal Navy getting itself into the English channel. ~Norse~ [ July 22, 2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

Oh I forgot to mention that if UK was the main target, then Italy could send some aircrafts to help (atleast 1 airfleet in the size of SC). If any of you belive the Italian fleet could somehow manage to move thru the Gibraltar strait and join the combat, then the Italians had 240 major warships in 1939 (I already said Germany had 88 in 1939). I don't think they would be able to send their fleet, but they would most likely send aircrafts. ~Norse~

Germany produced exactely 10257 aircrafts in 1940, and 11776 in 1941 (this number only increased, till a whopping 80000 in the production line in 1944, under half made it to the skies due to lack of petrolium, allied strategic bombing etc) Germany started the war with 8295 aircrafts, and Great Britain had 7940. For the Battle of Britain, UK produced about 400 aircrafts each month in the last half of 1940, while Germany added on average 200 more aircrafts each month for the Battle of Britain. In September 1939, Germany had: * 49 operational U-boats (began the war with 57, and had more than 200 operational U-boats in January 1943) * the battleships Tirpitz and Bismarck * the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau * the pocket battleships Deutschland, Graf Spee, and Scheer * the heavy cruisers Hipper, Prinz Eugen, and Blücher * the raiders Atlantis, Orion, Widder, Thor, Pinguin, Komet, Kormoran, Michel, Stier, and Coronel * if you add the ships in the production-line, to the ships in operational use, then the total number of German major warships is 88 in 1939, a number that kept increasing steadily till 1943/44. Well, it is certainly possible that you are right. Maybe the Germans would have been massacred, anyway that is not my point. Hitler ordered the German generals to make invasion plans against the USSR very early. They fought the Battle of Britain against a scheduale. This is one of the reasons why the Germans began to bomb the English cities (which is argued by historicans as the reason why the Germans lost BoB), because their aim was to breake the English fighting spirit and have them sue for peace, however the British spirit remained intact and they kept on fighting. That was the German idea with the u-boat warfare as well. They figured if they could maintain 350 operational u-boats in the atlantic over time, then they would sink enough supplies heading to UK, that the Brits would ask for a cease-fire. So now we know that Germanys main goal was to get UK to ask for peace, so they could focus on USSR. We know for fact that the Germans had serious plans to invade Sovjet, and were building up forces to go against Sovjet even while the Battle for Britain was raging at its worst. So here is the real question to ask, could Germany have invaded UK if they had focused as much as possible against UK, and put Sovjet on an infinite hold? We do know that Germany did NOT focus all their forces against UK, and one of the reasons the Brits won BoB was because the Germans took too much casaulties - and they needed their Luftwaffe intact for the assault on Sovjet, so they withdrew from BoB. (I have the casaulties list somewhere, roughly speaking the Germans lost alittle more than 2 aircrafts per aircraft the Brits lost) One of the reasons the Germans only recived about 200 new aircrafts for the Battle of Britain per month, was because they used alot of their resources to prepare against Sovjet at the very same time. If the Germans had made UK their one primary goal and put everything else on a hold, then they did have the strenght to launch operation Sea Lion. Yes, it would have been bloody. But Germany were prepared to take heavy losses as long as they would win the war. Likewise, at the time, Germany had access to most of Europe's resources while UK were cut off and depended on merchant ships coming with supplies of all kinds. Now imagine the Germans launch Operation Sea Lion. The Germans would make a long list of casaulties in the beginning, but the result of the major fighting around and on the British Isles hurts all merchant supply ships heading for UK, and UK is getting much less supply in than what they did historically. The fact that the actual battling would be on English soil would also hurt the British infrastructure alot. Germany is having access to most of Europe's resources and is not having any problems with chunking out more and more uboats and aircrafts to join the Battle of Britain. Likewise, the fact that the Brits would haveto throw everything they had against the English Channel means that the Germans would be able to fight them on much more equal terms than what they did historically. What I mean with that the short range on their aircrafts and all that would be insignificant, as the actual fighting would be as close to their airbases as possible. All their Stukas etc would join the battle as well, historically thoose were withdrawn early in BoB. So both sides are taking heavy losses. But, if the Germans are able to proceed with the invasion of Britain, then they will get the upper hand more and more (because of everything I stated above and more resources to throw into the combat). Also consider that the Germans would have more forces to throw against UK, than what they had historically, because their resources would go to the Sea Lion, instead of against USSR. I belive Germany would be able to bring their superior resources to bear against UK and win the conflict. But, the Brits definately had a shot at winning to. The Brits would haveto win a decisive victory so the Germans would be unable to continue the invasion. Anything but a decisive British victory would lead to ultimate disaster. Question now is what would USA do, and to say USSR would attack Germany is mere speculation. Stalin might have wanted England to be completely devestated (wasn't like he cared about the other European nations), though I doubt USA would want that. ~Norse~

In my opinion, based on what we've seen in the demo, I think going very heavily on the subs is the way to go. Buy some sub packs and drop a chit on "submarine tech" by the time France falls. Now after France falls, you can begin to force the UK player into a battle of the Atlantic. You will constantly deprive UK of some much needed MPP's. Let's face it, UK's 130's isn't alot if Germany puts heavy weight on UK. Germany should be well over 200 by now, maybe more, plus Italy is in the war. Bulgaria and the others will join shortly as well, UK will be hard pressed. The thing that comes to my mind, is that going heavy on the atlantic as the axis will force UK to counter attack in the atlantic, which is good! Maybe UK buys some sonar tech and all that. And even better if you manage to get the Royal Navy to battle you outside Canada, because then you have the perfect opertunity to launch operation Sea Lion!! Just let the army in France stand by and wait for the opertunity. UK have by then spent so much MPP's to keep the upper hand in the battle of the Atlantic, that the british isles is ready to become Axis soil. Just a simple kick in the front door and the job is done Even if Operation Sea Lion can't be launched and the axis must go after Russia instead, then it is a very good axis investment to have a presence in the atlantic. As already mentioned, this will force the allies to spend more MPP's there, MPP's that can't be used to roll over France as liberation armies. I definately think this is the way to go, nice to see that others like this approach too. Britain first, definately. Just one more thing, if UK falls, then Gibraltar opens up, and the Italian navy can sail out into the Atlantic, possibly turning the tide against the US fleets. That helps the forces fighting in Russia alot. If you don't invest in the atlantic, but decide to go after Russia all the way, then you will quickly find yourself in a position where you must operate many units away from Russia in order to make defences against the allies in the west. Now imagine the situation if you owned the atlantic... ~Norse~

Where can you buy a MS cert? Sucks if that is possible, then I wasted all that time lol [ July 21, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

If you launch operation Sea Lion, then Spain will join you in a few (unless you're not doing too good that is). Then you have open access to Gibraltar and can hit it, or better yet, conquer UK, and Gibralar and Malta is yours (not an easy task against a good human player) Gibraltar is of a huge strategical value indeed.

The OS was Windows2000, Celeron1200Mhz, 256MB, 2 harddisks striped together as C: where the game was located, and about 15gb on E: where the system files are located (not striped, u know it cannot be), nvidia2 gts (the european version). Do you need a full report of my system? I can get one of thoose utils to make a complete system report if you need that. Hm, I was using Refreshlock to keep the hertz setting at 100Hertz, at 1024*798 resolution, 19" monitor. Don't know if that can have anything to do with it. ? Hm, Im also using NVtweak program to get the nvidia card to behave as I want it to. I didn't overclock it though. Dunno, tell me what you need to know, anything I can do just tell me. I'll try to redo the game and save at every turn now. ~Norse~

I was playing the demo, and the game stopped. I am sorry but I didn't save, I should have done that so I could send you the save-game. I'll try to tell as much as I can as to what led up to the game-stop. The game settings were on the easiest, no ai experience bonus (I know, Im cheap ). I conquered the Low Countries on the first turn, and took France a couple turns after that, Italy joined on the last turn France lived. I had by then bought 2 german Headquarters, and I operated as much as possible to the USSR border. The MPP's I spent on a three more tank groups (I think, 3 it was), and the rest went to reinforce my units. I declared war on USSR in october 1940, and moved in with all the german units that I had. I left *no* units in France, all out against USSR. With Italy I sent two armies and a corps towards the Yoguslavian border, bought a HQ, and bought another army and waited on Yogu to join the war (it never did). With the fleet I hunted down the UK fleet in the med, the sub kept disturbing the UK convoy in the med. In Norway, I sent the corps in Bergen towards Oslo. Then UK transported an army and took Bergen, and placed it's carrier in the Bergen port. Finland and Buglaria joined the game. I was fighting it out in USSR and it was January 1941, USSR did it's thing and bought two or three corps. Then it said "purchasing...", and the mouse pointer remained as a timeglass, nothing more happened. Since USSR already bought it's things, then I think it was UK who had troubles (USA stance was neutral). I could be wrong on this though. The front in USSR had completely broken down for both of us, I sent in tanks and corps everywhere to threaten ussr to capture cities and other resources from ussr, so ussr hadto divert forces to try to make pockets everywhere, and he had cut off some of my units that probed in really deep on his soil. I tried to take a screenshot of what I saw, but it wouldn't let me paste it into Paint shop pro, and when I tried to go back to the game to take another screenshot, then it wouldn't let me as the game wasn't responding. I noticed the game had 2 processes going. One was called SC or Strategic Command, the other was called "Question box". I can try to make this happen again by doing the same moves as I did in this game, and keep saving and hope that it encounters the same problem again so you can have a better look at it. You know much better than me what can have happened here, but my guess is that the computer went into an infinite loop, where it couldn't decide on what to buy and what to do next. Windows never made a message about the game not responding, until after I hit ctrl+alt+del and choose to kill it that is. Anyway, your game is OUTSTANDING!! Keep up the good work Hubert ~Norse~

Priest, don't get me wrong, I thought the "solution" of uninstalling the operative system was really funny nothing else. I agree though, Win2000 is good, but IMO WinXP is good as well. Let's lean back and enjoy another round of this demo while we're waiting on the cd's to get shipped ~Norse~ ps Linux Über Alles!! :mad: *tramp-tramp*

Hear hear Husky, but I don't think the staff is the only ones. LOL (snipped the rest, I think what you say just simply speaks for itself) Priest, let's move on from this issue (and don't call yourself expert again ) and start planning a match. Now, when I beat you, I can laugh on hysterically picturizing you smashing the monitor and yelling "GODDAMN ITS A BUG IN THE COMPUTER!!! LET ME TRY MAC OS!" :eek: mwhahahaha ...and then when I loose on purpose, your expert opinion will go: "I never win SC when Im playing on a Windows computer. But I always win when Im playing on a Mac computer, so take my expert opinion, uninstall Windows and install Mac OS on it. Trust me, I am a computer expert, I have a building full of people saying it is impossible to win SC on a Windows machine!! " LOL ~Norse~ [ July 21, 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

*Bonk!* If you really were a Windows expert, then you would have a better solution to the current problem than: "Uninstall the operating system, since it has some flaw, am I right? Does WindowsXP have a flaw? Im an expert in Windows" lol

Hear, hear! I have noticed improvements in the AI as well. As Italy, I used to send out the army in Libya into Egypt. Then I just placed my entire fleet near the Libyan/Greek coast. The UK would send the carrier and sometimes a battleship to hit the Italian army without paying attention to my fleet. Then I sent my fleet in and killed their naval units one by one. This doesn't happen anymore, UK forces you to go in head on. Very nice Hubert! ~Norse~

Hear, hear! I have noticed improvements in the AI as well. As Italy, I used to send out the army in Libya into Egypt. Then I just placed my entire fleet near the Libyan/Greek coast. The UK would send the carrier and sometimes a battleship to hit the Italian army without paying attention to my fleet. Then I sent my fleet in and killed their naval units one by one. This doesn't happen anymore, UK forces you to go in head on. Very nice Hubert! ~Norse~

<snipp> [ July 20, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

You are a troll! I DARE you to prove us that you are able to do this... ~Norse~

Due to moral objections, I cannot be the allied player. This time the world!!! [ July 19, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

Yup, that is the only reason we play computer games.. ~Norse~ [ July 18, 2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]