SeaMonkey

I'm prouder of myself! First, Bank of America loaned me the money to buy this game. Then Discover said, "That's no fair SeaMonkey you have to buy the game with our card too". So in the interest of being "economically" correct I purchased another game with a loan from Discover, but I told BF all I needed was one game, so just keep the other copy. Now I have two loans at 18, 19, what the heck, maybe 25 percent interest, just paying the minimum balance and never on time, so I incur late fees. I'm so happy and ....smart, I got the game without paying...well right away anyway. Just waiting on a hurricane to wipe all my debts off while I surf....Life is good in the USA. Anyone want to start a PBEM...I'll be Monaco.

Well JJR, you won't be alone.

Well I noticed NE that no one mentioned the editor in this game. That feature alone is worth the admission price as there will be many variables created in the coming years. Have you ever seen the number of mods for TOAW, PzG, etc. To bad you won't be along for the fun. Maybe in a couple of years you can pick it up for 10....20 bucks. Ha! Who cares...not my loss.

I don't know about you SD, but my premise has always been that a Tank Group in SC was an armored corps, representing maybe 3 divisions, perhaps more, like 3 to 5 depending on the task and the stage of development. Think about a level 5 HT teched TG with additional motorization and elite reinforcements to a strength of 13 or 14. That is a mighty powerful force and if that represents the epitome, then the initial TGs are kind of small in combat power or TO&Es. If you want to compare the beginning multi-national tank forces to one another, I think that you would want to ponder the doctrinal attributes which those types of forces operated under. When you enter that into the equation, then it becomes fairly obvious, at least to me, that in comparison to the German's use of armored forces(at least initially), the other belligerents were in the rudimentary stages, thus they don't rate a SC TG, irregardless of the numbers.

Hey Blashy, what's your Mod's status?

Welcome SD, you have observed what we have over the years. HC is indeed one talented, as well as a receptive designer, definitely occupying the pinnacle of that class. Your attentativeness to SC2 can only improve its mechanics, and we look forward to your contributions.

Sorry Capt. I haven't really got into the scripting yet. My mods will come along in a year or two after the platform has stabilized. Having to much fun playing and not enough time for mods, although I have fooled around a little with the map maker.

Look you guys are stealing my thread, this MidEast thing is really nothing. Their irrational actions will continue until they finally do it. (I do hope not)...but Then we'll get irrational....and you know what that result will be. Well... it'll look pretty from outerspace, Middle Eastern colored glass.

Have to agree with Liam.....again, those bombers won't last long if caught by AFs. I've eradicated them before after I've got some LR and they made a run at one of my resources, one intercept, two airstrikes......adios vatos.

Good point Rolend, about the Finnish fiasco. That would have to fly in the face of a decision to enter another conflict, especially against a so seemingly formidable foe as Germany.

Uhh, OK Retri. Hmmmm, I guess I did ask for it! Well,... copy this for posterities sake and we shall see. Retri, perhaps you have the vision of great leader and I do agree with some of your conclusions, but this was not exactly my point, but thanks for the post.

Now you are getting it, thanks Liam. In actuality during the French campaign and the subsequent Battle of Britain the Germans only had 28 divisions deployed in western Poland. Do you think Sealion would be so easy with the possibility of the Russian entry? How about North Africa? The implications spread far and wide, kind of like it may really have been. Talked to anyone that knows, either yeh or ney, from that period? Isn't that what the players actually felt, no hindsight, just the unknown, weighted estimates, guesses, reasonable deductions, all with the limited intelligence of that era. So .....anyone here that can foresee the outcome in the Middle East.......well???? I thought so!

I like the idea of the subs, Liam, but what do you get, 1 each for UK and USA with the hard build limits. UK should get at least two and the USA, well come on, you are going to limit the USA manufacturing capabilities of WW2. Give me a break! USA should be able to build whatever they want in the quantities they deem necessary for the missions ahead. The only limiting factor is the available MPPs. I advocate no build limits for the Americans, MPP restriction only.

TJ you have a skewed sense of history. Too nice? Isn't very realistic? Have you not listened to Prime Minister Churchill's declaration that "We Shall Never Surrender"? That if they lost the Island, the British would continue to fight from the far reaches of the Empire. You doubt their resolve? The Nazis made the same mistake...you do know what happened to them?

Well said x, and I concur. JJ is no doubt our greatest catalyst of what ifs. I have come to a decision about this hypothesis JJ and I can agree with all the presumptions you put forth but one, the UK cessation of hostilities. Even with the BEF loss, there was something deeper, and I hope it still resides in the men that make the great decisions of this day. There was an ideal, and a man that had a mandate to act on that ideal, that man was Winston Churchill. Stepping into his shoes I can see that the premise of democracy and the conviction that all men should be free to determine their destiny resided in his soul. Luckily he was not alone. These men knew that to accept compromise was to renunciate those ideals and eventually this darkness that settled on the continent would have to be exterminated. Listen to Churchill's speeches, heed his words, you know I'm right. If it was not Churchill then it would have been Eden, or Lord Beaverbrook or any number of other steadfast men who recognized what this aggression was really about. You see the media and propaganda of that day was not the hyper-crap it is today and many men could see clearly and were not swayed as easily, they were men of conviction, vision. Thank God they were. So in conclusion JJ, the proud, the people of principles, the UK of then, would not have negotiated. There was but one path, triumph.

Thanks Curry. I see your point Blashy, but your applying the media of today, the propaganda, with the efficient worldwide communications, to a time that was completely different. Forget about the hyper-crap from today and step into the world of communications that was the 1940s. Many of these decisions hung in the balance and could very well have gone the other way given the whimsical nature of the personalities and a slightly different set of realities or misinformation that was prevalent in that time. In my mind, it is not so hard to imagine. I know we tend to address the larger decisions, the ones with the greatest impact, but there are many little decisions that can accumulate to parallel the same consequences that the larger ones do. I know that's your perspective Blashy and I can agree with it, but I can't turn a blind eye to the larger ones either. SC2 wields the capability,...what?.... I'm suppose to ignore it?

Sorry Blashy, disagree. The SC2 platform is for the big, as well as the little, "what ifs". Do you think that I would have pushed, as well as others, for an Editor the scope of which resides in SC2 if it weren't meant for bigger things. The proof in the designer's wishes and the substantiation that HC created such an editor is all I need. Now back to the idea that the General Staff was not complicit with the early attack. On the contrary it is exactly that staff that postulated such an idea. And the idea had commenced planning as far back as the autumn of 1939 by the Soviet General Staff with Stalin's approval. The author being Major General A.M. Vassilevsky who was acting under.......yes.....that's it....Zhukov's orders. Look I'm not going to defend this premise, the recent release of USSR archives, declassified in 1991, speak for themselves. It was not me who arrived at this conclusion, but the many Russian scholars that examined the documents. All I'm saying is as a skeptic to almost everything, I have seen the possibility as very real.

Sure Blashy, your right, in the end picture, USA and USSR would have eventually overcome Festung Europe. But what a battle! And your also right, with Hitler at the controls, Germany was doomed, no argument here. But.......isn't there always a "but(t)", with an application of traditional Prussian principles of conquest, using armed conflict and a proper sprinkling of diplomacy, it could have survived........ie the EU. Is there really any doubt......what if?

Wow! A good one JJ. Really this needs some thought. Preliminarily I would venture that USA and USSR wouldn't object. USA was interested in the dismantling of the Colonial European powers. I believe Holland would be retained as a German annex as you initially state without objection from the French, at least. This may be the sticking point, this whole negotiated process, between the two Allies. I'm seeing UK going it on its own, despite the BEF loss. The Japanese would be very interested in acquiring some colonial stature in the East Asia sphere. Maybe the Brits would offer a temporary cessation of hostilities with further negotiations in light of a prisoner exchange. Of course since they had no prisoners there would have to be something else. Perhaps something in the Med?

I wouldn't be so sure of that Blashy, like I once was also. The Red Airforce lost 4600 aircraft by the end of June 1941, sound like a minimal threat? Remember Hitler's words after the initial invasion's uncovering of the vast extent of the Soviets' deployments, "If I had known about the amount of tanks they had, I would never have invaded". Take a look at Heydorn's "Soviet Deployments in the Bialystok Salient", an enlightening read. And lastly, the forces available to the USSR in the initial stages of SC2 don't allow for offensive operations?

War! War! War!....Fight! Fight! Fight! Whatever happened to diplomacy? Now we all surely love a good wargame, but let us not remember that the winner usually knows when to fight and when not to. So if we prosecute SC2 to its fullest "what if" extent, shouldn't diplomacy be just as good as combat at getting what you want? To be the winner.

Through my journeys into the historical realm of WW2 I have recently been exposed to data from a number of sources that the USSR had viable plans for an attack on Germany. I won't go into the particularities of the reference materials, each of you can conduct your own investigation. I will however cite some of the references if you wish some direction in your quest. It seems the first occasion for the planned Red Army attack was Sept. 18, 1940, with 168 divisions and 6422 aircraft. The second opportunity was to occur sometime in May of 1941 with 258 divisions and 6600 aircraft. Whether all this was possible is obviously subject to much debate and I'm sure we could have it right here, right now. But that is not the intent of this post. No... it is to examine the possible impact of the "what if" to SC2. Isn't that what SC2 is, a game to explore "what ifs" in the context of WW2? Here is the loosely proposed scenario: Through the use of scripts, two possible events have a certain percentage to allow the USSR to DoW the Axis prior to the start of Barbarossa. Effect: The USSR player would now have an incentive to forward deploy and arrange his builds and tech research to take advantage of the % possibility, but he does not have to. Needless to say the USSR player does not know the exact date that these DoW opportunities will occur, only that they have a window of time and a percentage that it may happen. 2nd Chance: After the initial attack opportunity has occurred(in 1940)or not, the window closes, a one turn shot. Later there exists the second possibility that the DoW of Axis nations can happen per the second script in a manner of the first. This window would be in 1941. Again the Soviet player does not have to initiate the planned attack, it is always optional. Consequences: Pretty apparent, Sealion repercussions, North African deployments, a protective screen in the East has to be maintained, etc, etc. Sound like a different game? Historically viable? Pure nonsense?

Well Jg one thing I hope that is modified, as one of my playing partners put it, is "The Hapless Fool's position that UK represents".

"strongly repels most of the community" What.....you got a bunch of mice in your pocket?

Still all of this is a mute point, inconsequential to the Allied effort if they should lose Great Britain. Without some residue from the RN after a successful Sealion there is little opportunity for the Canadians and Americans to get back on the Continent. Competing with the combined Axis navy, even after Medikaze, is pretty useless with the US navy alone. With only the Russians for an advisary it is "Game over" in 1.02. Which dictates the UK to a full commitment in one of two places with any chance at survival, given a knowledgeable Axis opponent. Choreographed Allies! Enter....Blashy's mod and 1.03.