Marc

Well, first became aware of the darn things around 66 or 67, think I saw a copy of the old AH Battle of the Bulge in a store. Got serious the year I entered college, 68. First games were the classic AH ones, Bulge, D-Day, Waterloo, Afrika Korps and a few others. Now it is a sickness I am afraid. My collection is now over 1,000 (yes that is a 1 followed by 3 zeroes) wargames! Marc

I kept track and indeed there are only 13 turns for a player in a year. I also thought it was more, just goes to show you! Still, plenty of fun, especially for the money! Marc

I combined Holzems excellent interface and maps with Jmbunnelle new counters. Must say, VERY IMPRESSIVE! Maybe Jmbunnelle can "borrow" Holzem's HQ to continue to picture theme on the counters? WELL DONE to both of you! Marc

You raise some very valid points, ones that are still debated today. A few points however. While the majority of the manpower employed, of the two million, would not be prime candidates for combat units, they could well have been used for other logistic purposes, such as rail repair. Further, since the Germans refused to use women in any great degree in the production area (no Helga the Rivetter here!), they turned to the very uneconomical and counterproductive use of impressed and slave labor. These self same young boys and older men would have been available to bolster production. By freeing up some of the rear area types the German army would have gained further manpower resources for combat units (though I am NOT arguing 2 million men worth!). The problem with increased use of fighter, fighter-bomber and tac bombers was that, until such a time as the allies secured a fair amount of area on the continent, most targets the luftwaffe felt they needed to defend were beyond the range of all but the heavy bomber. An interesting side note, the allies did toy with the idea of using the P-38 as a bomber. It had the range and was a half way decent bomber, though at range payload tended to drop off. However, it couldnt defend itself when loaded with bombs, would have to jettison the bombs at first sign of fighters (rather counter-productive) and would still have to be escorted. Another point to remember is that the North African Campaign was seen as a side show. For morale purposes on the home front the western alliance had to be seen striking back at the German's directly. Dont underestimate the psychological impact on the home front of the bomber offensive. It was also a mean to demonstrate our committment to the Russians, lacking a true "second front". Though, to Stalin, anything short of a full scale invasion of France would never be credited. Further, the bomber offensive drained two-thirds of the fighter assets from the Eastern Front as well as diverting much needed resources. The gradual switch to air superiority by the Soviets was greatly enhanced by this. Imagine, if you will, three times the amount of first line fighters on the Eastern Front in 43 and 44. The allies also gained valuable experience for running a Strategic campaign including seasoned aircrews and leaders. There is NO arguement that much too much effort was expended on political targets with little effect. The one thing that bothers me when we "count the cost" is a sheer running of a balance sheet of so many aircraft and allied aircrew lost for such and such an effect on industry. What is usually left out of the equation is the fact that several thousand German aircrew also lost their lives, that valuable fighters, using scarce resources, were destroyed in the thousands and that we saw a marked shift in the Luftwaffe from an offensive to a defensive force. Did the Strategic Bomber offensive accomplish what its prewar proponents stated it would? Obviously not. However I must agree with Overy, among others, that Strategic Bombing was one of the major contributing factors to the allies victory in Europe. Now, what this has to do with our beloved game............. Marc

While Oil turned out to be the "achilles heel" for the German war effort, it wasnt the only target that mattered. Nor were allied efforts prior to concentrating on oil targets wasted. Other key targets were the logistic/tranportation infrastructure in anticipation of the Invasion, and a target not pursued, but outlined by Speer in his book, the Electrical grid system. Many ineffective targets, such as submarine pens, were struck for a combination of Politcal and Morale reasons which really dispersed the effort. Overy, in his book "Why the Allies Won" makes the following case for reasons other then just damage to economic infrastructure for the effectiveness of Allied bombing: "The bombing offensive caused German military leaders to drain much need air strength away from main fighting fronts to protect the Reich...By the end of 1943 there were 55,000 anti-aircraft guns to combat the air offensive--including 75 percent of the famous 88-millimetre gun...By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 percent of all ammuntion produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks. The bombing also ate into Germany's scarce manpower: by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defense, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction...The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied the German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944." In addition, the Bombing offensive resulted in air superiority over Germany by the allies. Over two-thirds of the fighter forces on the Eastern front were transferred to the West resulting in the gradual gain of air superiority in the East by the Soviets (Von Hardesty in "Red Phoenix" has some interesting insights into the rise of Soviet Air Power during the war). Were there problems? Of course. Ineffective targetting and the horendous loss of Allied aircrew were but two. However, it was the only effective way the Western Allies had to take the war to the Germans until an Invasion of France could be mounted. Marc

So far I have played the 39 and 40 Scenarios as the allies. In the 40 Scenario America entered right on time. In the 39 Scenario America didnt enter until midway through 42. So, would seem America doesnt always enter early. Marc

I'll give it a go! Marc

Quick question. Once Russia surrenders are partisans still an issue? I kept the area thoroughly garrisoned (cities, forests and swamps) just in case. Marc

Have same problem. Says Direct X 7.0 not found. Doesnt seem to be effecting game play. Running 98 SE. Marc

Actually it is out in computer form as well, called Computer War in Europe which makes it very playable, though there is NO AI with it. We even have a group to discuss it. Marc

Bill; Happened to me once in the older Beta version as well. The AI seemed to spend a fair amount on Research with the Italians getting jet level 1 before the Beta ended! Marc

David; I do think you are right. Though must say need the full game rather then where the Gold Beta cuts off to see what effect the expenditure in UBoats will have vis-a-vis the Eastern Front. Cheers Marc

Ask the Israelis

Folks, If you cant recognize this by now, shame on you. Already shame on me. None of us has made the statement that US, or Western Allies relied solely on finesse, nor that brute strength wasnt used, and used effectively at times. Husky will simply discount any examples you use, carry your examples to ludicrous ends and generally discount any and all sources which dont support his arguement. I would be more then willing to compare professional credentials. Husky has read many books, and that is admirable. I am not trying to be glib, I do admire the fact you bother to research instead of relying on one book or one source. However, some of us have been cited in books, have National planning experience and have actually come under fire. The one thing I wont accept, no matter how impassioned your arguement is this casting of the Western Alliance as ignorant brutes while showing the German soldier as some sort of shining Knight on a noble cause and the epitome of tactical finesse. Almost seems some think the wrong side won the war? V/R Marc

David; Indeed well said! I agree on Overy's book being an excellent source as well. One other worth a read, and relates to our game: "Why the Germans Lose at War: The Myth of German Military Superiority" Kenneth Macksey, Greenhill Books, London & Stackpole Books Pennsylvania, 1996. And with that, should we return to arguing about best strategy and tactics in the game in quesiton? Marc

I will try once again. Since Husky hasnt read the book in question, how can he make blanket statements? Did the US make use of its industrial might and production? OF COURSE. You play to your strengths and minimize the enemies weaknesses. Blunt force, properly applied, is very effective. The US had an excellent system for called fire. So the US didnt use outstanding small unit tactics to try and maneuver German units out of a particular position. Rather they could call on overwhelming firepower to flatten a position and then occupy it. As to finesse, I am sure Huskey will tell you about Sgt Poole, and AMERICAN tank ace. Ah, wont you? Using the mobility of the Sherman he was well known in the western theater for knocking out numerous German tanks and assault guns, vehicles which had better armor, a better gun, and the advantage of being on the defensive. We hear of Whitman, why not Poole? For those who wish to read a well done, well researched and documented book I once again recommend the Doubler book. I will repeat, to continue the myth that the only reason the Western allies won the war is they threw massive amounts of equipment and manpower at the enemy simply isnt true. As someone else pointed out, there were numerous reasons, working in conjunction, which led to victory. I served this country proudly for 25 years, my father, who passed away last year, landed at Omaha beach ON D-Day. To make blanket claims which paint the American military as hulking Neanderthal's who use mass and human life in place of tactics, strategy, and finesse is simply a canard. And, as to "running away" I could see where this was going, since some are convinced they have the only "truth". Marc

I wish to apologize for wasting everyone's time. It is very evident Husky doesnt wish to discuss facts. I sited but one of many sources. Another is Weinberg's A World at Arms. I will know better in the future then to try to discuss with Husky or be baited by his posts. Once again my apologies to the rest of the list Cheers Marc

Its not a myth, its fact, we swamped them, in the air, on land and at sea - the bomber offensive was just attritional warfare (BC aircrew had less chance of surviving the war than WW1 Tommies did), the 8th AF was used as clay pigeons to draw the luftwaffe up to be attrited by 'escorting' fighters (whose orders were to hunt the Luftwaffe, not protect the bombers). On land almost every opportunity to exploit was lost by the western allies whilst they waited for massive stocks of supplies to arrive, the Soviets were no better and simply bled the Germans white through attrition. I didnt say production played no part. But the myth that it was just sheer numbers which prevailed is not only false but an insult to the western allies who fought in Europe. Once again, I humbly suggest the book by Doubler that I listed for insight into just how much finesse the US could manage. Marc

One thing that has always bothered me is that one of the great "myths" seems to be accepted as fact, and that is that the allies, especially the US won by out producing the Axis and had little, if any "finess". For those who still subscribe to this "myth" I highly suggest "Closing with the Enemy: How GIs fought the war in Europe, 1944-1945", Michael D. Doubler, University Press of Kansas, 1994. Cheers Marc

Hubert; I agree Sweden needs to be handled differently and in an historical context, but without all the problems of such things as fleets and all. First a complaint. The additional forces in Sweden to disuade the German player are all out of wack with historical reality. A 10 point air unit means the Swedish AF has one third the number of first line combat aircraft Germany had at the beginning of the French campaign? (albeit no HQ to increase effectiveness). My "simple" proposal. When the Germans take Norway they get an additional 10 (or 5 points if you are that worried about production being upset that much) points not tied to Norweigan resources. This represents the production of iron ore from Sweden. IF Sweden is invaded, or IF Norway taken by allies, this ceases. Obviously if allies invade a neutral Sweden (highly unlikely) Germany would get the production for as long as Sweden held out. Should Germany invade it is self evident. Up the points toward intervention by USSR/USA if Germany invades. Get rid of the air unit in Sweden, possibly the extra ground unit, leave on in capitol and one other where it is now. Obviously the points toward intervention are meaningless once USSR and/or USA in the war, but at that point Germany should be busy with more than a worry about sacking Sweden! You now have the historical reason for invading Norway (to forestall interdiction of Swedish ore) and a more natural reason for Germany NOT to invade Sweden. If you like, you could end this extra point total in 44 or tied to allied landing in Europe, or some such thing. Just some thoughts Marc

I really dont see a problem. I believe Battlefront's policy is clear. They tend to deal in absolutes. My guess is, in the long run, it gives the various folks who would look to exploit a more liberal policy very little wiggle room. The beta gives you ample chance to see if you like the game. Obviously you didnt. Some of us did enjoy it. As was pointed out, $25 is very cheap. If we want to see more pure strategy games, as opposed to first person shooters, or real-time type games, then we need to support these type games when they do come out. I wouldnt presume to speak for Battlefront, but would imagine that, should one get a defective disk, they would replace it (though not refund the purchase). If you dont agree with a companies policy, by all means, feel free not to buy their products, but dont slam the product itself. Marc

The current Computer Gaming World has a two page spread on "Get DOS Games to Work on Windows XP". Cheers Marc

First, the invasion doesnt have to be a total suprise to have success. Norway was caught in the midst of trying to mobilize when hit with an amphibious and airborne attack. In this game, since we dont have either paratroops to seize key features or air-landing during an invasion, perhaps sea invasions were tweaked to make up for it. It also gives a realistic reason to do such things as garrison coastal areas. The problem with Sweden is there is no incentive NOT to invade. The economic model is simplified. As already pointed out most of the iron ore production was, and for the majority of the war, shipped to Germany. Protection of that route was one rationale for the invasion of Norway. If this game gave the Germans a set amount of points a turn from Sweden, then it might still be tempting to invade, but would give good reason why it shouldnt. The problem with the amphib is the instanteous nature. Even the allies had to postpone what was originally envisioned as simultaneous invasions at Normandy and southern France due to a lack of lift capability. This is a game, not a hard simulation. When you can decide, as long as you have the points, to instantly build a carrier, for example, this doesnt model the economics nor the planning inherent in the real War. As a game based on WWII I have enjoyed the beta and look forward to the finished product. But I dont kid myself that this is anything more than a terrific and fun game. Marc

I can take Sweden in one turn in the Beta, though believe, from comments, this might change in the Gold edition. Here is how you do it: Build/line up 3 airfleets on Norway's border with Sweden. Move a cruiser where it will be able to bombard the Swedish unit in the Capitol. Embark two Armies and one Corp. On the turn you declare war: 1 The cruiser bombards the unit in the Capitol, sometimes reduces unit, but effects are cumulative 2 All three air units attack the Capitol 3 Land one Army north of capitol, move it one space to free up the beach, and attack 4 Land one Army south of capitol and attack 5 The Corps is insurance. Many times you will be able to walk into the Capitol with the second Army, but at times it is the second Army which finishes the unit off in the Capitol. If not it lands just north of Capitol and moves in. The units are not wasted, the air units will fly back to northern Germany eventually providing three airfleets before Barbarossa. The land units can embark and be used in landings on Russian/Baltic states coast. Of course this is all subject to change in Gold edition with, among other things, Riga being occupied. In this case the ground units can just transport back to northern Germany for Barbarossa Marc

Hubert; I am a long time lurker here, but this has caused me to register if, for no other reason, to register my indignation and offer support. I believe most of us here know that the pure strategy game, as opposed to real-time, or first person shooters, are rarer and rarer. You are to be commended for an excellent job. Not only in coding this game, but in willing to post a Beta, sure to draw flack from every side, just so gamers both had a say in the final product and a chance to really test drive this thing. I do have some quibbles, but am sure either a scenario editor included or one on a site dedicated to this game would solve that. But there is a world of difference between tinkering with setups and values once one buys the game and stealing all this hard work! Does this person even realize how much of a bargain this game is at a mere 25 dollars? Even if you were to sell 1,000 copies immediately, your return works out to pennies per hour of time you have invested in it. He claims the game "roxs" and will be the first to say things "sux" when they arent available anymore. Of course the reason they arent available are people like him! It is one thing for him to hack and extend play. But to come here and brag on it simply shows what a loser he is and will always be. It is one thing for the registered Beta testers to come here and tell us about the later years and whet our appetite and another to learn someone has taken advantage of an honest attempt to inform gamers and get their inputs. I can understand the pain you must feel. But understand that for the vast majority of us, the true magnitude of what you have accomplished shines through. Dont let one jerk ruin what should be a great feeling for you. Marc