docd

I would have paid 50$ for SC. It is simply the best strategic game ever, with best playability, without boring micromanagement, nice graphics (add also the mods), highest fun-level, depth and everything!!! It is for the stratetic gamers, what was Doom once for the 3D-shooters! A milestone in gaming history. Buy not one, buy TWO to benefit the ingenius programer HUBERT!

THANK YOU for the TCP/IP patch, Hubert, it makes so much fun. I can´t explain in words what the game means to me!!! Thank you also for improving your game and thinking about SC2. Go for it, docd

In my opinion, it should not be possible to finally destroy a unit using airfleets. That would reduce power of airfleets. In real war, I think the more bombs were dropped, the more the units hid from them. Inital bombardments of airfleets seem also more realistic, in my view.

so what combination of force do you usually use to attack russia???

Thank you all very much!

FOW uses each units spotting range, which can be seen in the purchase section. Upgrading units may increase spotting range.

Thank you very much terppan, but one question remains: Do I have to attack Russia as first, to have the advantage on my side? Or is it also possible to win if attacked by Russia first? So I understood that I use my Italian airfleets to rush Russia also?

Thank you for your opinions, but could you specify a bit more the axis strategy to win. Which countries must fall in which sequence? Like I said, I took nearly the whole planet, lost only 18 units vs 182 on enemy side. Attacked USSR from turkey and west after taking whole balkan in one turn!!! But I still have insufficient force to fight west and east! It is the number of the enemy flood that gives me no chance to advance! Sure, I know my strategy must lack, but please tell me a better one.

HI, if you have some hours left, spend your time with me in TCP/IP game. Mail me anytime to join or to open one. 1eiche@gmx.de I have played 3 PBEM´s and still gaining experience! Thanks.

One question guys: As axis I invaded Poland, France, , Swiss, complete Balkan, Spain, Portugal, complete Northafrica, Iraq, Turkey and invaded USSR with a massive combined force of about 10 aircrafts and 6 tanks. But I couldn´t punch a way through, because my enemy held a double line. Because I threw everything vs Russia with slow advance, I left France open, which is now invaded like Spain also. So please give me someone a clue for better axis play; I did not have enough MPP´s to attack USSR or to defend westcoast with a corps line. My advance was despite of 10 airfleet and 6 tanks to slow, moreover the scorched earth left me with nothing in my hand when I took a town. Everybody says axis is so strong, but please offer the strategy!!!

Damn, copying a PBEM into the save folder doesn´t work, but the result is interesting: starry night! If I was a Hubert, I could fix it quickly.

Hi forum, one question bothers me: who is stronger: axis or allies??? I took everything except Norway, sweden, finland, US, UK, ireland as axis. Also parts of USSR: Southeast. I destroyed 182 enemy units, but lost only 18. But I am still loosing! How can that be? The enemy throws wave after wave into my throat, but I have to retreat. I won every game as allies but never as axis. What did you find out? docd

Firstly, thank you for considering my ideas! Secondly: Your comment above is ok, but there is also the possibility to see the opponents units by moving own units deeply in enemy territory (in a test move). There could be an option included, which allows players to use the PBEM´s as what-if scenarios or not. I really think this would be a very interesting thing for all players, increasing the knowledge and experience of us all! And I think it can not be so complicated for you, cause everything is already there. You only need to allow the AI to start with a given situation, that is like loading a save game. I will try to copy the PBEM into saved game folder. Let´s see. Thank´s again, docd

another idea: a mini SC on a very small map with equal forces and terrain, towns etc. each game should be playable within 20 minutes. full multiplayer. Hubert, please make me happy and tell me you read my comments :eek:

First of all: Thanks again for the game, you know it makes so much fun!!! I would have paid also 50 $! 1. Is it possible to include an option for PBEM game that allows you to: a) take a look after your last turn, after it has been sent to the opponent to develop strategy. I mean only looking at the situation not moving. play on with current situation with computer AI, to test some possibilities. 2. I found out that reloading can create completely different coming outs of battles. There seems to be so much random in the battles?! 3. What do you think about including paratroopers? I think if subs, ships, carriers and rockets are in the game then there could be also para´s (regarding unit size). 4. What do you think about letting a unit retreat if attacked, as it is used in operational art of war? 5. What are your plans for the future development of SC? 6. Could you make the info-signs appear a bit shorter? I think they need to much time. Thank you Hubert, and let us know your bank account to support you a bit

Bringing maximum attack power to a narrow front line in a defensiv hold the line position, rockets can be useful, because they do not suffer like airfleets. That keeps them cheap. In higher levels they rock like hell. They must remain in the game under all circumstances!!!

Hubert, do you have a date in mind when you will launch the new patch 1.05? Thanks for your time

I hate the way to scroll the map in Operation Art of War. Is there another way? I only played the demo, do you think it is worth to buy full version of TOAW I, until Hubert designs SC2??? And does it work under XP???? Isn´t it to complicated??

1. Interesting book, but the point is, that not Kesselring was the Master German Strategist, but v. Manstein was it (like it is written history). Kesselring played a role defending North Italy, but not much more. So this first line of your book shows everything about the rest!!! Really amusing! </font>

To be more professionell than you, dgaad, I will give sources to my statements: strengthes of 10. Mai 1940, Frieser page 42 and following: german Luftwaffe: 2598 french Luftwaffe: 5026 (but only 879 combat ready) Royal airforce: 384 belgian: 118 dutch: 72

1. Interesting book, but the point is, that not Kesselring was the Master German Strategist, but v. Manstein was it (like it is written history). Kesselring played a role defending North Italy, but not much more. So this first line of your book shows everything about the rest!!! Really amusing! 2. Next thing, dgaad: I refer also to a participant of the war, Marcel Stein, who was german but fought for french. In his book "Generalfeldmarschall Erich v. Manstein - Kritische Betrachtung des Soldaten und Menschen" is he trying to show the real man Manstein. Stein follows the (CONTESTED of french side) opinion of a superiority of the french in quantity and quality! (page 117). (As a participant of the french side, and as someone who wants to destroy the image of Manstein as superior german strategist, I think he invested a lot of time in his studies, but he must give in to the facts!!!) He refers to Frieser (page 301), who says that french Prioux had a tactical victory, but german Hoepners tanks and german Luftwaffe decimated Prioux Corps.

1. I think you are absolutely wrong with the number of the enemy at Fall Gelb!!! According to my history books the enemy had double size of german force. The fact, that you didn´t want to see that I talked about force size and the fact that you tried to relate my statement to Kesselring shows me, that you don´t want to see facts, instead only what you want to see. "I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered bias and completely wrong understandings of events" Yes, I agree, you showed once more, that you didn´t get the point!!! You say: "You need to expand your sources and base your opinions on objective assessment of those sources. " I think this is what you should do, because you seem to deny the studies of Frieser, which are very well known and very carefully researched. It is also known, that the french army had no interest in fighting and a very low readiness. Their partly better, partly equal equipment could not win, because of their bad command HQ (Gamelin) and their bad morale and readiness. So keep on as a fanatic "historian", it is amusing me.

you said: 1. Contrary to other's opinions, I do NOT think that US economic capacity is under-estimated by the game. Look at the number of actualy combatants employed by the various countries (as well as casulaties sustained) and, IMO it will roughly match the importance of the US in the game. I say: Until 42 german subs ruled the atlantic and destroyed thousands of tons (convoys) produced by US. you said: 2. The impact of the Russian winter is under-represented in the game. The Russians are never given an opportunity to pause and re-group early on. Furthermore, historical counterattacks by the Russians would be nearly impossible to simulate in the game because of the difficulty in halting the Germans long enough to prepare for a counteroffensive (again, early in the game--winter 41/42 and 42/43). IMO the Russians should get a winter entrenchement bonus and the Germans should receive a supply penalty during winter months. (Perhaps "Winter Rules" could be a game option). Also it seems to me that an HQ should be able to supply and command twice as many Corps as Armies. Since corps buidling is the preferred Russian strategy, this would also help play balance. I agree!

Absolutely wrong, according to my history books, dgaad. I refer to a book that criticizes the german "Master of strategy" von Manstein, written by a soldier of the french army. He compared many sources and refers to the very carefully studies of Frieser, who says that french, dutch etc. forces were twice as big as german forces (air and army). Anyway, I don´t damn you about your opinion, dgaad, but one thing is true: One historian says this one that. As we were not involved and didn´t count, we can only rely on the on source or the other. Personally, I believe to my book, because it is a from a former french soldier (who fought then), who wants to find the truth (and take away the "glory" of the german fieldmarshal v. Manstein). If you like, I find the passages and post the names and numbers...

I want to point out that it is the "easy" playability without micromanagement, that fascinates me the most. As Hubert concentrated his game on the essence, everyone in this forum should do the same and keep it short and crystalclear. Some thoughts about the game: 1. research section in PBEM is unbalanced, development should be guaranteed there 2. subs should be able to hide more until sonar is developped. Transports that transport MPP´s should be included, as the US helped UK and USSR from the early days on with thousands of tons. 3. player should be able to assign units to HQ´s 4. according to my data (Friesers studies), french had overall double size of units as germany, but a gamelin HQ with sub-zero rating. For example -10 would decrease the morale and readiness of french units to 5% (like it is written history). In the beginning of Fall french, only gamelin HQ should be available, but the army and french airfleet should have double size than germanys. 5% readiness should do the rest to let germany break through. 5. In the beginning of barbarossa, germany had the most modern army. Germany took hunderthousands of prisoners and slaughtered the enemy by millions (11-13 millions russians killed, but only about 3 million germans). Maybe Hubert can simulate that reality someday also, making it easy for germany to advance to moscow, but then the tide turns, because of winter, mud and mines etc. At Stalingrad, german army was oldest. Russia had built up with transports from US and had well dressed (winter combat clothes) and well fed and fresh soldiers. German soldiers were hungry, thin men with horses instead of trucks (speaking in general). Russia then had also antitank weapons, that german tanks couldn´t compete with. German supplies were plundered then by russian partisans. So Winters should reduce german strenghts 2 or 3 points. Russia should maybe start with armies at 7,8 or 9 and develop to 12 or so, until moscow or stalingrad is reached by germany. The campaign should develop those levels (as option) by itself, according to real history. British and US bombers should develop the same without influence, like it is written history. The same with subs, sonars, radars etc. 6. Destroyers and battleships should protect personal and MPP convoys from being attacked by subs then, like airfleet protect citys etc. now do. Transports should be able to move much less hex´s than now. 7. larger maps (world maps) would be great. 8. Maybe the number of purchaseble units should be limited for each country according to historian facts. When you bought all germans for your armies (3-4 millions), then germany is empty. But russia has much more manpower to reinforce units. Maybe also airfleets should be limited to purchase. 9. In a PBEM the enemy should see how many times the opponent has reloaded. I think reloading increases a lot the efficiency of s.o.`s turn. Last but not least, I love a research section (but it needs to be balanced in the way, that luck is not needed here), HQ´s influence (which is perfect in my opinion), experience (perfect), entrenchment (but entrenchment level should be viewable BEFORE stepping on it!) So please read my notes, Hubert, and be inspired by it. You know I love the game very much and am very happy that someone like you took the time to make it.