Melchett

Might want to re-phrase this a bit -- the hypothesis doesn't state "if you purge, you will lose". This is like hypothesizing "chopping off a healthy limb is not a good idea", and subsequently concluding "I chopped off my arm and I'm still alive, so the hypothesis is false". If you're going to invoke the Scientific Method, it's vital to play by the rules. In this case, the critical step that was skipped is the one after you've got the hypothesis (purge weakens army) and you've come up with an experiment (fight a war). The next step is to ask yourself "does the experiment truly test the hypothesis?". In this case, no. The western powers fell into this same trap after World War One. Because they had won the war, they told themselves "because we won, our hypotheses about the supremacy of fixed defenses are thus proven correct." The Germans, of course, had a different opinion... [ October 18, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Melchett ]

The effect is even better if you play Spike Jone's "Der Fuehrer's Face" while you look :eek: The fact that there are two of him can only lead to a bitter debate about the Nazi cloning program. Looks like he was the prototype for Dr. Schabb's mutants in "Castle Wolfenstein" [ October 18, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Melchett ]

Actually, Battlefront plans to publish all of these threads in the manual for Strategic Command 2. They will appear as an appendix to the Designer Notes

Trying to remember a line from the movie version of "The Cheap Detective". The mistress of a fanatical Nazi agent is speaking: "Last night he made me play a game called Stuka. I had to be Poland. All night long I kept waking up to the sound of bombers overhead."

Why did Stalin attack Finland? Some say it was to regain Russian territory lost when Finland became independent in 1917. Some say it was to gain a protective zone around Leningrad and a stronger naval position in the Gulf of Finland. In fact, it was to silence that gosh-darned dog in Petsamo who kept barking all night.

For a nice OOB layout of the DAK on 23-October-1942 (Alamein), check out: http://freeport-tech.com/wwii/011_germany/42-oob/42-10-23/corps_dak.html Clicking on any of the divisional units leads to higher levels of unit detail. Note that this display shows only the DAK component of the combined German-Italian army. To explore the OOBs of all armies at Alamein, start here and click to your heart's content: http://freeport-tech.com/wwii/500_eto/42-10-43_north-africa.html [ October 17, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Melchett ]

Or, in the unpretentious form... "He that washes an ass's head loses both his lye and his labour." Jeff has been proven wrong by the power of the obscure Italian proverb :eek:

Just my two cents: Ancient Truism: If I use a "helpful suggestion" as a container for a snide inflammatory remark, I shouldn't play the wounded innocent when I get nailed. Example of helpful: "Let my troops go first Francois, they're fully rested." Example of prepare to get nailed: "Let my troops go first Francois. They're fully rested and besides it's a genetic fact that you Frenchmen are spineless cowards." That said, I agree with EB that it would great (albeit programmatically difficult) to split commands among individual nations. Inter-team friction and tangled command structures add realistic zest and shouting to any simulation.

Bazookas? Mines? Bah! Anyone who's ever read "Sgt. Rock" comics knows how to knock out a Tiger tank. You stand proud and upright with cigar-butt clenched in your teeth, glaring steely-eyed at the monster as it thunders towards you. When it is 50 feet away, you raise your pistol, shout "this one's for Freddy and Charley and Lil' Angelo!", and fire a single shot directly into the driver's periscope. The shot miraculously ricochets into the ammo rack and the Tiger goes up in a big "Foof!". Simple and foolproof... repeat on the next Tiger until the Germans surrender.

The hindrance I've found in re-creating the historical timeline is that the computer AI doesn't always behave like its real-life historical counterparts, e.g., France doesn't always sit passively behind the Maginot line waiting for Germany to strike. However, this has the advantage of making the "what if?" scenarios more realistic. A lot of "what ifs", especially those dealing with the eastern front, are based on the unrealistic assumption that one side must repeat all of its historical blunders while the other side makes no mistakes whatsoever.

I'm trying to suppress the "significant figure twitch" that I get when I see industrial production figures like "one hundred five thousand... two hundred fifty... and ONE" or "two million... three hundred eighty two thousand... three hundred TEN... and ONE"

My first "not so abstract as Risk or Ploy" boardgame was TacticsII in the mid 70's, followed by Panzerblitz (my first "based on a true story" game). Over time, I ended up buying almost every boardgame in Avalon Hill's catalog and became expert at the art of picking up a single counter from a board without knocking over all of the 6-high stacks surrounding it. At one point in 1983 I had 2 months of free time and I actually played Avalon Hill's "The Longest Day" SOLITAIRE for 50 turns (this was the one with a board nearly 5x5 feet and thousands of counters, designed to be played "optimally" by 5 to 9 players). Nowadays they have medication to control these sorts of things.

Offhand, If I recall the divisional numbers correctly, I believe that in the roughly eight weeks between D-day and the Cobra breakout, the toothless old men faced by the Allied Expeditionary Force included the doddering octagenarians of: Five SS Panzer divisions (1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th) Three Wehrmacht Panzer divisons (2nd, 21st, and the elite Panzer Lehr) One SS Panzergrenadier division (17th) Two elite parachute divisons (3rd, 5th) Four front-line infantry divisions (91st, 352nd, 353rd, 77th) All of whom surrendered without firing a shot when the Allies offered them free dentures and afternoon naps.

*Shields his eyes and fumbles for the sunglasses to cut the blinding white glare of the Sun shining forth from Battlefront's ass* And yah, I agree, but there's no way Hubert's gonna have my firstborn, even if his real name is Rumplestiltskin

OK, I won't tell. :eek:

Just curious, did everyone discover the "materiel laundering" bug in High Command whereby a player who controls two or more factory-shipyard sites can create UNLIMITED oil, mineral, production and economic points out of thin air? England can do it immediately, inasmuch as she starts the game with factory-shipyards in London and Liverpool. I don't want to post a long-winded explanation of how the trick works if it's already common knowledge

I realize that this is pulling the thread off-track (off-track? *snort, snort* what a bad pun! ) but I can't resist tossing out a couple of excerpts from Clark's book regarding the widely accepted "surefire victory but for Hitler's meddling" view of the "single thrust to Moscow" idea. Discussing the spectacular lunge of Army Group Center to Smolensk, and Guderian's subsequent demands to unleash the "center thrust", Clark notes: "...knowing what we do now of the strength of the Russian armies, even at that time, and of the plans they themselves had prepared for a riposte, it is by no means certain that such a thrust would have succeeded. It would have been a gigantic gamble, about which the only certain thing that can be said is that it would have ended the war -- one way or another." (pp 81) A few pages later, he begins an analysis of the events in and around the Smolensk salient with this summary: "Since 1945, the protagonists of the single narrow thrust to Moscow have enjoyed a free run for their views. It is always easier to extol the virtues of a hypothetical alternative than to justify a cautious and disappointing reality. It is also the case that those who were against the center thrust are all dead. (...) A dispassionate survey of the facts will show how perilous the Germans' position was. They had no more than ten divisions across the Dnieper, and these had penetrated a further 120 miles beyond the river. The main crossings at Orsha and Mogilev were still in Russian hands, and occupied by garrisons themselves larger than the whole German spearhead; while to the north and south of the salient four Russian armies had the force, if not the ability, to converge and crush its roots. Moreover, all the equipment was in need of repair. Every tank had travelled on its own tracks from the Polish boundary, and the wheeled transport on which the divisions depended (...) was being knocked to pieces in the rough going. (...) In truth, Kluge's "silken thread" was stretched to breaking, but a more apposite analogy would have been that of a cyclist on a high wire. The Second Panzer Army had to keep up its momentum -- and its balance -- or fall over. And now Timoshenko, with his twenty-one fresh divisions, was making ready to throw a log in its path." (pp 88-89)

I'd vote more for Kiev as the delaying factor in the 1941 drive on Moscow Another top-notch history of the Russian Campaign is Alan Clarks "Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945". You can read a bit of the intro chapter at amazon.com -- it's a detailed yet highly readable analysis of the entire campaign: military, industrial, and especially the personalities, conniving and backstabbing within the German forces. It has the advantage of NOT being written by a surviving German General (i.e., Mr. Clark has no personal reason to push the "Hitler was always stupid and wrong, the Generals were always wise and correct" agenda).

Does the game behave oddly when you play it without the CD in the drive? My copy acts kinda funny when I do that.

It would be easiest to just re-install the game from the CD. A re-install won't erase any saved games you might have.