Old Patch

Same here - v.1.02 PBEM, German tank army landed in England was iconed as an HQ. Boy, was I pissed when it moved inland and destroyed a corps!

Hubert; Looks like you hit a home run with SC, and I hope you have been satisfied with the reception (and sales). Since you now have a pretty stable SC, I was wondering what your long term plans were? Are you going to keep polishing SC and rest your laurels? Do you have plans fo a new game? Could you give us all a hint of what you might like to put on the computer next? Old Patch

I find the MacDonald's/EU post very interesting. MacDonald's, when it start's off in a new country, makes sure that it's restaurants can get their raw materials locally. That's why they had to spend $400 million to get the first restaurant open in Moscow - they practically built the infrastructure on their own. Compare that to, oh, a new Fiat dealership in Namibia, where the cars are imported just a handful of local mechanics are employed. Who's the the eviler capitalist? Here's a odd little note - many Economists use "the Big Mac" standard to judge currency values. Since a Big Mac is a standard item, made the same way in all countries from local materials by local labor, it's price (again in the local currency) makes a good bench mark.

I hear that Hearts of Iron is real time. So how long will it take to play a 7 year war if you only have nights and weekends to game?

I'd also add the Allies eventually swamped the Atlantic with escorts - just the British alone built over 90 DE's (+50 old US DD's), over 200 Frigates, and way more than 200 corvettes by 1944. By 1943 escort groups were larger, better coordinated, and with radar the favored tactic of surfaced night attack by U-boats became too dangerous. Forced underwater, even a slow convoy could outrun a submarine.

Hubert; Looks like you hit a home run with SC, and I hope you have been satisfied with the reception (and sales). Since you now have a pretty stable SC, I was wondering what your long term plans were? Are you going to keep polishing SC and rest your laurels? Do you have plans fo a new game? Could you give us all a hint of what you might like to put on the computer next? Old Patch

Zing!

JD makes some excellent points. Most specifically, very few battleships were started and finished during the war. All five of Britain's new battleships were laid down in 1937. The Bismark and Tirpitz were laid down in 1936. The French Richelieu was laid down on 1935. Italy's Roma was laid down in 1938. Aircraft carriers were much easier to build (no armor plate, small guns) but, as many nations found out, developing a naval air arm was not simply a matter of putting a tail hook on a plane! For the allies, the vast navies were built to stop the U-boat menace and defeat Japan. Since it is very difficult for the Germans to conduct an effetive U-boat war, the Allies have little need but buy huge fleets - Europe was primarily a land war in any event.

HQ always get a minimum of 5 supply, and units tracing supply soley from an HQ get a supply level based upon how far away they are from the closest HQ - so that an adjacent unit would be a 4 supply, one hex away 3 supply, etc. It doesn't appear that HQ's are cumulative (ie. if you are adjacent two you aren't 8 supply), you just get the best one. No idea about the convoy lanes. I do know that the west coast of Ireland is a barren area, though. Great place to hide from the AI.

And now to the point I was trying to make in this thread...think about this and give me one or two good reasons the coup in Iraq does not fit into SC. Or did you ever think about why it might not work instead of how cool it would be? (Mind you, I like the idea, not that the Germans need it any easier than they have it now) ================================================== 1) Coup in Iraq does not fit - despite being a pro-axis coup, Germany never recieved a drop of oil or a pfennig from Iraq. In SC they would receive all of Iraq's MPP's despite having no land or water connection. The British always had troops stationed in Iraq, and after a short seige of their airbase the British conquered Iraq with less than 5,000 troops in about three weeks (May, 1941 - before Barbarossa). 2) The actual interactions with Iraq (bases, aircraft shuttles, troop depots in a "neutral" country) are too complicated to represent at this scale. A pro-Allied Iraq doesn't feel right, and pro-Axis Iraq give far too many MPP's to Germany before it is conquered. Leaving it Neutral appears to be the best compromise at SC scale. 2)

*snicker* (I've got a picture of Pancho Villa/von Mannheim drinking a chocolate latte' in one of these.)

There also has to be a clear Sea hex adjacent to the port marker - if you have a lot of ships you may not be able to place the transported unit - this happens a lot at Taranto. Also, check your MPP's, if you don't have enough left to transport the option will be disabled untill you get more MPP's.

Sing it, brother!

I have to agree with Wolff on this one - little 4 & 5 point fleets aren't going to add that much to the game. The current version of the game doesn't support placing units below 10 strength for countries entering after the scenario starts. Right now I think the Swedish Air Fleet is a good compromise for the unescorted transport problem. ------------------------------------------------- "Right, I was not clear enough. I was thinking of 4-6 point strengths of existing cruiser counters or even better a destroyer + small ship(like patrol boats) counter. They are a very little threat to warships but they make unescorted transports risky. That would enhance the realism." -------------------------------------------------- So if we give the Swedes a "light ship counter" then we either have to give them to everyone, or they are going to require so many ships that, once again, most minor powers won't rate having a counter. -------------------------------------------------- "Then it comes to Swedish subs they played a far greater roll then history tells. My information comes from the commander of the Swe subs under WWII directly and is unofficial of many reasons. /Erik" -------------------------------------------------- So you have a secret source that proves that the Swedes sunk more ships during WWII with their submarines than anyone will ever know about (despite not being at war and never leaving the Baltic), but you won't tell us what, when, or where because it's secret? Erik, I'm sorry, but you have to quote sources that other people can verify. Otherwise you can state any bizarre thing you like as fact. For example, I could say that the Soviets actaully conquered Finland during the Winter War and then ceded it to Mexico in return for the assassination of Trotsky back in the 1920's, and Mannerheim never existed but was actually Pancho Villa with a smaller moustache hiding from Huista gunmen. I heard all this from a ex-Mexican President's cleaning lady but I'm sworn to silence.

This subject has been addressed before, but I'll recap here - Cruisier units in SC represent about 100,000 tons of warships, and Battleship units represent about 150,000 tons and at least two battleships. Subs I haven't a clue - they seem to represent more capability than actual numbers. That said, Sweden only has about 45,000 tons of warships, and 8 modern (post 1930) and 13 small WWI era subs. Sorry, not enough to qualify for a counter. Turkey only has 28,000 tons of warships, 35,000 if you count a pair of 36 year old training cruisers. Barely 1/3 of a counter, so no fleet for Turkey either. The same goes for Finland, Norway, Spain and Romania. [ August 22, 2002, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Old Patch ]

Agreed - by 1945 Tito had turned his partizans in 5 corps of regular troops which were systematically retaking Yugoslavia (and in the process keeping the Soviets out).

This story may not be true - I read somewhere that Norwegian partisans were asked to hlep cripple the Tripitz after the British had failed some of the early attempts to knock it out. The Norwegians came up with unique idea of rolling depth charges down the side of the Fjiord and setting them to detonate under the Tirpitz. The attack failed.

I covered the Sweedish navy inb detail in a previous post (can't remeber the name right now). IF Canick_para would like more info please start a new thread and I will bore your ears off with details.

Hey, CvM! Why don't you two get married? You have a lot in common.

You DO control all the MPP's of a minor ally. Unless you consider Italy and France minor countries. I'll take allies any day of the week.

I believe Kuniworth means that in the game those troops are released when Moscow is threatened. I'm not sure what your question is here - the timing of the release of the troops or the composition of the troops released. [ August 19, 2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Old Patch ]

My experience with Italy is that you need to get at least one unit adjacent to Paris and take at least one French mainland resource (usually the mine hex behind the Maginot line). Italy then hops right in. Italy will come in sooner if the troops in Algeria and Syria are removed but since the AI doesn't do this I'm sure how much.

Glad to help.

The lock-up problem on initial opening of the program is a sound issue. Open up the SC.ini file and change the "sound interrupt = 0" line from 0 to 1. Worked for me. Twice.

I think if you feel the USA is getting shorted, perhaps they should get more "free" research points - currently they get 1 (and Russia 2) so what about 3 or 4 instead? American production increases are sort of figured into the game in a backhand way. America is going to take minors and cities as they arrive in Europe. Ireland and Portugal are always good choices, and Norway and Sweden make an excellent base of operations as well as providing lots of MPP's. Historically I can't think of any instance of the USA using the resources and production of the areas it conquered - no Sherman Tank plants in Rome, no escort carriers being built in Brest, no P-51's built in Tunis - that kind of thing. Much like Italy, it takes awhile to get the USA rolling. Lend-Lease aid to Russia sort works the same way. It's not overt, but once the Allies take Iraq units in North Africa can Operate into Russia (and incidentally the values of North African cities rise as well, although this benefits the Commonwealth more than the Russians). So although the Russians get no immediate benefit, a British Army group of an HQ, and several armies, corps, and/or tanks moved to the Rostov area helps just as much as a complicated set of Lend Lease rules would.