murks

My two euro-cents: Could germany have won? No, simply because of the atomic bomb. Could germany have won, if we assume for a moment that never had been an american atomic bomb? Although I don't believe that germany ever could/would have conquered America, I don't see how we can be sure that the Soviet Union couldn't possibly have broken down under the german onslaught. Very few countries would have managed to fight on and ultimately strike back after the enormous losses of men, materials and economic resources the Russians suffered. Few countries would have managed to completely mobilize every man, woman and child for the war effort, as the USSR under Stalin did. Had the Soviet Union broken down, with germany then occupying the country up to the Astrachan/Archangelsk line as planned, I cannot imagine how the western allies could ever have lauched a sucessfull attack on the european mainland. About the controversy on generalship, I believe it is impoosible to rate anglo-saxian generals compared to german generals. Certainly, no western general ever achieved a victory against a superior german force, german generals did more than once. But then, after 1940, western generals never faced a superior force, so they simply couldn't prove themselves under comparable circumstances. The battle of the Bulge did prove that the army could put up a tremendous fight when locally outnumbered, but we must not forget that they had every reason to believe that they were on the winning side and had to hold out for a limited amount of time and victory would be assured. Also, the Bulge is more suited to make a point about the strength of the american infantry man than that of the american (or british) general. I don't know of any particularly inspired tactical decision by the generals in the bulge. It was the stubbornnes of the green infantry divisions that surprised the germans. Sorry for the length of the post

Yes, taking England is hard and so it should be. It is the supply rules that make it tough. In terms of supply, Dover is as far from Calais as the north pole. But then getting your troops to England is actually easier than it would have been in reality. It is realistic that you need air supremacy for an invasion to succeed, only that you need it for a slightly diferent reason in the game, i.e. not to take care of the royal navy, but to hit the cities a lot before attacking. My recommendation is to simply not invade Britain on the higher difficulty levels unless you are sure you destroyed much of the british forces in France.

Why is Narvik not on the map? Because Norway was simply not big enough to get three cities (and the associated resources) in this game. Hubert probably reasoned that it was a historical accident that the fighting took place at Narvik and that Oslo and Trondheim (or whatever the second city is) are more important cities. The general question in this thread seems to be: Should the axis be forced to follow a more historical path than they are right now? On the one hand, rewriting history is the very point of the game, as someone has already mentioned. On the other hand the necessity for germany to take care of it's supplies of important raw materials played a huge role in WW II, as in the case of Norway (Swedish steel) and Romania (oil). I agree that a the need to get hold of specific resources would add another interesting dimension to the game, while at the same time forcing a more historical path.

Thanks guys! I'll try not to despare as early again. Still got to get used to italian destroyers being as strong as british battleships though.

Hello fellow gamers! I started playing SC on the beginners level. After a few tries I managed to win as the axis quite easily. Now I changed settings to intermediate, +1 as many here have recommended, playing as the supposedly easier allied side. My problem is: I don't know how to do any damage to axis forces! When they come to France after POland they have at least two experience. They atack the Maginot from the river and knock about 4 off me while loosing 0 or 1 themselves. Any attack from my side would end in desaster. His three air fleets knocked out a full strength entrenched army without any ground support in one turn. I invested 2 in industrial tech and otherwise spent my money on replacing all damaged french units to the max immediately. I did not have enough points to buy a french HQ, unfortunately, having invested in research. While the germans gain even more experience with every turn, my losses are so high that after replacement my troops are back at zero experience. Damn, I wanted to attack his air fleet on it's airstrip off the coast with my battleship. Predicted result: Battleship looses 4, air fleet 1. To make it short. I took a completely defensive stand in France, holding up the Italians with the Canadians and replaced any losses taken. Result was: France falls in May 1940. I am really puzzled. Is there anything you can do to hold the german onslaught up a bit? Is any investment in the french defence wasted? How will I ever kill any of those super-experienced german units? How will my troops ever get any experience? What am I missing here? Or is the course of events described above what you all get? Thanks for any useful hints, more on tactics than on strategy. I