Kuniworth

Defender of the crown, Europa Universalis, Hidden Agenda, Imperialism, colonialism, Civilisation, Svea Rike 1-3

As I said before the problem is´nt Finland at all but the problem for the axis to put pressure on Russia. A fortification would be non-historical. It was the tenacity of the finish troops that prevailed not their fortifications. There are tons of options out there and I think we should discuss them as priority 1. For example; -retreat rules? -limiting units for sides? - Moving Minsk and Smolensk west. Historically these to cities were captured on the 28th of june and 16th of july 1941 which unfortunately dont can be repetead in the game. If that could be simulated the russians just can stack at Moscow and that would force them to defend the city at all cost.

Your poems suck I dont give a ****

Your poems suck I dont give a ****

As I see it the best WW2 game would be to make a global variant of Gary Grigsbys "war in russia". That would be totally awesome, moving those divisions over the board. I do´nt agree that mechanized infantry should be present. I see them as a mainstand in the unit called "tankgroup". At the eastern front a panzer-army/group consisted of 2-4 panzerdivisions and at least same or more mechanized infantry divisions. I strongly argue that the unit-system in SC should be kept.

Yes you know the deal, the rocky hills of the italian mainland makes the allied attack impossible to conduct. So the game ends when germany falls to the russian onslaught. As I see this our only option is to make the UK available to build troops in Alexandria as suggested a lot of times before. Otherwise Africa will continue to be as silent as ever and UK never can muster force to challenge the Italians.

Look this is a grand-strategic game....enjoy it or go play something else

Use the campaign-editor to make every country active in the conflict from september 1. Axis; Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Iraq, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, Spain. Allied; Russia, Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Portugal, Low countries, France, Us, Canada, Britain, Ireland. Enjoy... :cool:

The whole problem with the sub war is that no one gains from fighting it. The germans have not the resource to produce subs to destroy around 10-15 MMP:s per turn, instead they destroy valuable corps at the cost of 100 on the russian front. The british on the other hand make a bad affair if they produce or lose battleship-step at the value of 20 or more for sinking some lonely subs.

Well I´m for one still standing. :cool:

Darlingly; I´ve noticed that activity in the mediteranean, for example moving the fleet at Alexandria into striking position triggers the Italians to join the war much earlier.

Sorry if my english is not the best and I misunderstood you. However, I don´t believe the topic to be finished discussing, on the contrary we nedd this option bad. My apology.

Tell me Sarge, when did you become such an asshole?

I could also agree on an option that limits the number of total units you have on the map at the same time. As in clash of Steel if anyone remembers. This way things could be rebuildable but it would be impossible to mass 15 airfleets at once. Example; Lets say for Germany this could mean that maximum they can have on the map at the same time; 5 airfleets 6 panzer corps 15 Armies 25 Corps or something like that.

In 1941 Germany mustered 3 airfleets for the Barbarossa Campaign. In strategic command you should be happy if the wehrmacht attacks with less than 6 airfleets. Thats not fun. Instead please consider Sogards option again. We don´t even have to chose one or another, this can be put into the game as an alternative option.

Hey guys! Please read the topic by Sogard on unit limitations. I think his proposal would make the game more flexible and historical. And without altering the game to much also.

Sogard! I will look into it also. An interesting perspective is that this may trigger retreat rules in the game too. Because limitations on for example armies may cause the players to retreat rather than loosing a damaged unit in battle thus creating a more flexble front line. I think we should press this issue hard. It wouldnt be to difficult to implement either.

The diffrence is that new units will alter the game to be very unrealistic. For example; 1 army strenght 10 can do 1 attack per turn. 5 army strenght 5 can do 5 attack per turn. 10 new airfleets create unrealistic havoc instead of you beeing careful with the 2 you have. So you are right in the perspective that when it comes to reinforcements in reality it´s not so big diffrence. But in the game it works not properly, it´s not realistic that the germans easy can get 5-10 airfleets when they in reallife had 3 for the whole Barbarossa campaign.

I like to point out that if you play and control the grand strategy the game should be simple. No need to know how many P-IV in a division, just wanna now the total strenght in that front-area. And SC simulates that. What I was hoping for though is better diplomacy, retreat rules, map-editor and realistic production model. That would be beautiful.

I think that would be historically wrong.

Sogard once again; You are absolutely right. Let this be an option and let us together work out the historical accurate limitations

I think we all should be prohibited to buy air fleets with bombs that can strike out platoons.

I would like this question to be connected with Sogards proposal of unit limitation.

Its necessary to understand that MMP don´t give a good grip on industrial capability. For example you cant just stop producing manpower and instead focusing on tanks. It´s two diffrent things. But as it is now the game don´t simulate this. Therefore I think Sogard got a point. That mean that Russia shouldnt be able to just buy tanks when their gratest asset is manpower. It´s a big diffrence between producing tanks and rifles. So lets compromise. Can´t we have this as an option in the game?

The big problem here is that the game functions not work historically. I remember this discussion from the Matrix-war in russia forum as well. And when you start alter such things like unit limitations you end up with yet another problem, and another and another... BUT, unit limitations is not really a problem here. If Germany would take Russia this would not mean larger manpower just that more tanks and planes would be put in to the wehrmacht divisions. This would most easy be simulated by the plunder from USSR could be used to reinforce the panzerdivisions. Remember that new divisions also need personel to function and that would be german soldiers. For the barbarossa-campaign wehrmacht doubled it´s panzer-divisions compared to the available ones in france simply by reducing their strenght to half and creating new ones. When it comes to fielded division you also end up wrong. True Germany produced a lot of panzer division but many consisted(especially late in the war) of wagons(stug and so on) inferior to real tanks. So you must look at manpower reserves. So for example; Germanys population is the following_____. Of them x is available for military-service. That would mean looking at losses in ww2 maximum of x armies and corps. And so on...