Norse

VOTE THE LABOUR PARTY!!! ps SC rules

I agree. Like it is now, Italy joins the war when the allies choose to make their ampibous attack. Italy joins at the end of the axis turn, so the allies always get the first move Let Italy join at the start of the axis turn instead, that would help alot. Or choose historical ~Norse~

Ups, Im stirring up a hornets nest

Retreat, so you can build up your armies further behind. Place a unit (corp, army), in every strategic location (cities etc), and let them dig in to max entrenchment value there. That will slow the Germans down some, and buy you time to make your Sovjet military a force to be reckoned with. Make sure the Sovjet airunits don't go into combat, until you have some tech to back them up with. Until then, just send them back to Urals or something, you can rotate them back into combat when the battle becomes very important. Luck ~Norse~

NOT BAD for the nation USSR, considering that they managed to build almost equally as much as USA, when they had the Germans stomping all over the place, and bore the brunt of the axis juggernaught, on Sovjet soil. Alot of their factories were simply burned to the ground or bombed to pieces. Roosevelt on the other hand, prepared the American factories for war, ahead of time. The Americans never hadto struggle with moving their factories away from Chicago and Washington, because the cities were getting shelled to hell. Remember that. When you guys are saying they ran out of manpower because they used 16 year olds in their military.... duud, heh. Please read the story of Leningrad. There you see that the entire civilian population, was vital to the defence of the city. My grandfather showed me pictures of grandmothers wearing AK-47's, of children throwing molotov cocktails, and little girls digging trenches. Thoose of you here, who read some book, disregad some facts and emphazise some others....it does not appear that you know what kind of war was waged there. It was total war in every sence, and the USSR contribution to the war cannot be underestimated, even if USA produced 50.000 more planes or whatnot. You guys want to compare USA to USSR, to prove that the USA ment so much more towards the goal of victory, and USSR didn't mean that much. You say "compare crude steel production so we can find out who contributed the most, and hurt the enemy the most". And you ( I can't be bother to look for nicks )try to laugh away the human contribution. Compare this. When the Germans attacked the Caucasus mountainrange in the summer 1942, unarmed Sovjet factory workers, volentarily strapped mines on their backs, and jumped in front of the German tanks as they approached their homes. How the hell can you compare that to anything? The axis juggernaught were blown up by some untrained, unarmed factory workers. Civilians who resisted. How much "production power" did you need to get thoose guys to actually stop the German tanks, and blow up the German crew? How can you claim that "nah they didn't produce X number of planes, so that doesn't matter...." Here are some figures for the lend lease. --------------- Lend Lease Aid; major recipients 41-45 Brazil:---------------- 230.957.000$ China :------------- 1.729.333.000$ Free French :------ 2.039.472.000$ USSR : -------------5.516.412.000$ Commonwealth : 14.296.120.000$ Think about the figures for awhile. ~Norse~

Wow, you guys are really passionate about this! I don't recall witnessing any other thread growing this fast. Thank you Hubert for your words to keep this from going out of hand. It is good to be passionate about things, but like Hubert said, please keep civilized. The way I see it, everybody is alittle right. The second world war was of such grand scale, that you can look at it from many different point of views, and still be alittle right. There are no easy answers to very complex questions :"who defeated the Axis?", and "could the Axis have won?" I'll get back to this ~Norse~

I think what we are discussing here is what MPP's actually represent. Is MPP representing the raw production power that each nation posess? Or is MPP representing the actual military effort the nation contributes to the war? ~Norse~

Turkey is minor-axis. Good luck though ~Norse~ [ October 15, 2002, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

Now you are telling only half the truth! Nasty nasty so now it is my duty to tell all the truth First of all, the Germans at the Stalingrad-pocket surrendered at 31st january and 2nd february 1943, while the battles in Africa lasted for several years (during which, axis soldiers continously surrendered, as is the course of war). You cannot seriously compare several battles, to one "half" of a single battle, to prove that the Sovjet's didn't do ALL that much? I belive you are only counting the Germans that surrendered on the 2nd February, this is wrong, count them all!! To compare, I think it is much fairer to compare one battle to another. Let us take the battle in N.Africa that ended axis presence there, where the axis troops surrender in Tunis. Ok, so for the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans alone lost over one and a half million men. 91.000 of these Germans surrendered in the "pocket" in january and february, and about 4000 returned home alive. IN ADDITION, the battle of Stalingrad also destroyed the 3rd and 4th Rumanian and the 8th Italian armies, each between 100.000 to 200.000 men in size. In Tunis, the Axis forces stood with their backs against the sea, and when the allies broke thru their lines then they had nowhere to go to regroup. Men and mice surrendered, and the allies took over 200.000 prisoners. This ended all axis presence in Africa, while the Germans still had millions upon millions more fighting in Sovjet. How much did US send? They send the 2nd corp, that's right, a corp. Of course it was backed by the Pattom HQ and some sweet fleet The Brits sent a corp of their own with Alexander HQ to assist Pattons invasion of Morocco, and they also had Montegomerys' 8th commonwealth army there, fighting Rommel. So we got, 2 corp, an airfleet in Gibraltar, navy in escort, an army, and three HQ's (and I'd say a tank army too, but that's just me). It was these allied forces that managed to defeat the axis army and africa corp defending Tunis, which had airsupport operating from Sicily. I don't quite understand how you are comparing this to millions upon millions who fought, surrendered and died at Stalingrad, not to mention that both sides still had millions of millions more fighting on in the area (I am not excaggerating, open a book and you'll see). I think the biggest impact the US had in the war, from the European Theathre point of view, was the mere presence. With the US in the war, Germany hadto start thinking about "Fortress Europe" as early as in 1942 as they now opposed a powerful enemy that held the initiative. This detracted a concentrated German effort on the eastern-front. When the US attacked Italy, their main goal was disallow the Germans from continously building up their military defences in western-europe. Invading Italy forced Germany to send a couple units that way, units that otherwise would have digged in somewhere useful. Or to put it in another way, without US at all in the war, the units would go east instead. The US presence made them go west and dig in, and wait for years, instead of doing active combatduty on the east-front. Let me remind you, that by D-Day, the outcome of the war had already been decided. Germany now fought for it's excistance, not for victory. Best they could hope for was a stalemate. ~Norse~ [ October 15, 2002, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

The SC manual says 1 corp = 50.000 fighting men, and 1 army = 100.000 fighting men. Reality is that it is twice as much. Germany etc., used 1 corp = 50.000 fighting men, by the book. But in this game, things are bigger than that. Compare say, the Axis defence in France in the Overlord campaign, against the Axis defence in-real-life '44. Then you notice that both side's should have had twice as many units *if* 1 army = 100.000 men. So, there you go. 1 army = 200.000 fighting men. ~Norse~

A fortification would be excellent. It would keep the Finns from being such an easy "walkover" as they are now, without overpowering the Finns into an offensive juggernaught on it's own. Excellent suggestion, and as we know, the Finns worked pretty hard at the outbreake (and prior to) of the war to make this defensification. ~Norse~ [ October 03, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

Remember to look at each unit's : *supply status *readiness factor *experience factor and so on. Good luck ~Norse~

Better to have them built in Alexandria. ~Norse~

Welcome to the show

WOW! :eek:

oh my goodness, this last post cracked me up, LOL Man you guys know this art inside out! Keep it up!

I would imagine that we don't see this kind of micromanagement in this game, because the naval sub-unit represents the military value in that area, and not a fixed number of submarines. It is possible to destroy 40ish British MPP's per turn by using submarines alone (see if you can breake this record, I wonder what the limit is). About the convoy system, other's have pointed out the same thing. Search back and see if you can find this discussion somewhere. ~Norse~

Interesting, though perhaps that would add to the complication of things. How much MPP would Canada get anyhow? IMO "Free Commonwealth" would do the trick. Then you can always ship whatever you still got over to Canada. ~Norse~ [ September 30, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

Remember the scale of things, it's not 1 submarine that was caught by suprise against 1 battleship. We are talking a wolfpack of 30ish submarines or so, and a big fleet of different vessels (destroyers, battleships etc).

It makes even more sence when we call it the "Free Commonwealth" instead of the "Free British". Imagine all the Indian, Australian, South-African, and so forth, military personell that is fighting all over in Europe. If Britain surrenders, then it is definately a chance that these Commonwealth units will keep fighting (imagine a corp in Egypt still hanging in there, etc). Hubert, "Free Commonwealth" units Go go go, add it to the game. Do not ask questions just do as your told!! ~Norse~

Everybody does that. ~Norse~ [ September 29, 2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[ September 29, 2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

In my latest PBEM, I defeated Britain. I noticed that all the allied Free French units disbanded when the British gave up That was too bad, because the guy did a stroke of genius. He sent 1 Free French (FF) corp into Gibraltar, so Italy had some work to do there. I actually looked foreward to that battle. But then, UK surrenders and bom, all FF units gone. The path was open all the way to Baltimore. I suggest the following: When Britain is defeated, then the British units become "Free British" the same way France get's "Free French". The "Free" units never surrenders, and keep fighting till they are either dead, or the war is lost. This would be a big boost for the allied cause. Think about it, if Britain is defeated now, then the allied navy can still consist of all the American vessels + Free French battleships + Free British carriers. This could give USA the last minute boost that it needs to get "Fortress America", so Germany will have big troubles to invade USA. The way it is now, when Britain surrenders, then it is a open way all the way to Baltimore... What do you guys think of this? ~Norse~

Rouge, 1 naval counter is not 1 ship. It is a whole fleet of ships. The difference between the cruiser unit and the battleship unit is mainly tonnage that goes into the fleet, and of course some fleet specifications. So 3 ships isn't 3 units, maybe it's 1 unit. ~Norse~