ArmenianBoy

With out going into exact #'s, the SS army formations played a very significant roles in the Wehrmacht. Mostly 43 and onwards, as they comprised about half a million strong. They tended to get the best equipment and in some cases the best men and training. I do understand the political aspect, however, from a purely militaristic standpoint they should receive 1-2 corps size units in any historical WWII strategic game.

Why does it say Won 1, Lost 3? I only had three games done since I a member. Should be Won 2, Lost 1. Easy to see since my join post is still on page 2.

Wonderful post...outstanding. This is excatly what I have been looking for as information. I was always curious if having more troop on east front actually was raising reading of Russia. The right amount of troop is important. The last game I played was a disaster, due to doing most of these things the wrong way. Thank you again!

Wonderful post...outstanding. This is excatly what I have been looking for as information. I was always curious if having more troop on east front actually was raising reading of Russia. The right amount of troop is important. The last game I played was a disaster, due to doing most of these things the wrong way. Thank you again!

Irish Guard defeats ArmenianBoy : bid 150 Uk loses FG early, Sea Lion came when Uk fleet out of postion in Med. Italians came in war ealry cause factors of troops moving, unknown to me at the time. Spain joins Axis while Uk sending troops home, another unknown factor at the time. Conclusion: Irish is more experience player, but having some of these factors for neutral war entries documented would be a big help to newer players. Otherwise, unless I test every scenario out, just hard to compete with people that have logged 50+ games already. Hard to plan a strategy with all these unknowns. * Irish played a solid game from start to finish. [ March 13, 2003, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: ArmenianBoy ]

player ArmenianBoy signs up to the SC ladder

After playing a recent game I feel the below items might make sense and be easy to code: - Ability to create partial units: this becomes more an issue later in the game when tech is researched, which can increase unit strengths also directly increasing the unit cost. Thus, it can get very expensive to buy a high tech unit. By letting the default create strength be set to the maximum and adding a drop list to adjust the unit's strength if a player wanted to. Of course, the cost of the unit would be calculated by the chosen strength. - Allow Germany to lend a certain amount(%?) of mpp to Italy per turn if the Axis player wants to, and maybe vice versa. Of course this then brings up the issue of allowing mmp grants from US to other allies or the other way around.

Nothing to do with childish, I meany exactly what I said. It would be easier for me to show you how ineffective subs really are compared with say a 'carrier' or 'battleship'. The Germans building either in mass makes little sense considering the land war that they will face with Russia.

Here is some more insantity from one call the Acient One: Try thinking outside of the box. Subs are currently the most cost efficient naval unit for the damage they can do to the enemy fleet. Any halfway competent Axis player can destroy the Allied fleet with subs. Ok, how about you just try thinking first before such a remark? Better yet lets play and you can show me how subs the most efficient naval unit. Email me please, I love to play an axis player who builds and researches subs. Because while your doing that, Russia will be handing you your ass on the east front. So maybe if you go all out on subs you can 'shut the US down' when they enter the war and have killed all the allied naval units. The problem will be that in 1942 Russian units will be occupying Berlin!

CPROFITT, Email me let's get a game going. We'll than talk after the game about how things went. Seriously, contact me so we can do a PBEM or TCP/Ip. Click the little mail icon above this.

I agree, would be cool to see SC2 go global. However, the air/naval combat engine would need an overhall as it would have many problems dealing with the type of combat that took place in the Pacific theater.

FYI Against human players my ratio of sub dives over being attacked is 0/8. Once again this seems insane as it was 1939 for all cases. It would be nice to see a 'Happy Time' against US shipping, if the Axis delcared war on the United States. The extra modifier of damage would be some formula of the current US tension %. Thus, the early Germany declares war on US the more damage their subs stationed around US coast do. Although, at this point no need to even think about this, as all but 1 German sub usually never last past 39 in most games.

Is this playing against the computer? Let me restate, that playing against a competent Human opponent, the following is normally the case in the 39 scenario: 1) Allied players are able to hunt and kill both Atlantic U-boats in a few turns with French and British ships. Whether the U-boats are used or not. 2) Building any more subs as the German player makes no sense (see 1). Anybody that thinks different, we can play a game and you'll be a believer after we finish.

Your changes will make for a much tuffer conquest of France and the HQ in NA is a big boost for Britain. I know the editor does not allow for you to place an Italian HQ in NA, but they really should have one there. That is why, I'd leave the Britain HQ out. Otherwise, some nice ideas.

Ok, that was odd.. anyways my thought on subs. - The % chance they should dive needs to be around 50-70% to start. - Allies should be forced to research sonar and long range aircraft which were both used historically to combat the situation. Each sonar breakthrough would reduce the dive chance by 20% and each LRA breakthrough by 10%. - Possibly reduce the damage a sub does, since they should now live longer. - Spotting ranges need to be reduced by 1 hex for all units. There may be a few other ways to more accurately portray subs, either way something is needed to be done.

Alright, how long can the game continue to make a joke of the German U-boat fleet and the actual effect it had on the war. In any Human vs Human game, a decent Allied player should be able to destroy 2/3 subs that Germany starts with before the end of 1939 (Fall 39 Scenario). Here is what I think might help:

I really feel partisans should be limited to movement only in their respective country. I'm in a game where a Yugo partisan came almost out of no where (FOW on) and took a German city. Granted a garrison there could have saved me a bunch. This seems a bit crazy from any perspective. Is there any plan to change this?

I'm in a TCP/IP game where I was doign very well, but I think letting Russia delcare war on me is going to be a problem. I was almost ready to attack them, but the declared war a turn before I could. I would like to know if there is a differnce in starting MPP or units or ??? when you declare war on Russia or they delcare war on you. Does anybody now? Well besides the fact they can run back. I'm still learning. Thanks

I agree, the Italians should always enter at the end of an Allied turn (i.e. beginning of an Axis turn). This would help a bit on the Italian gambit sleeze.

Once again I'm deeply annoyed and disturbed by peoples ramblings about what they seem to know about WWII. This quote in particular by Henri: The Battle of Kursk, ill advised as it was to attack so late and with no chance of surprise, was still at the point, when it was called off by Hitler, where it could have gained momentum as Manstein had reserves moving up. The Herman Goering Division never took part in the battle of Kursk, I believe it had been in Tunisia in the beginning of 43. The main reason why Army Groups South's forces were told to halt the attack, was so that the II SSPzC could be sent to Italy due to the Allied landings on. Also, there were some concerns about the Russian attacks around Orel. However, only one division from this corps actually reached Italy due to other problems that threatened Karkov. Hitler was very worried about an Italian capitulation, rightfully so, that is why such a concern for reinforcing that region. The truth of the matter is that the Kursk battle was a battle of attrition where the Russians paid a much higher price in men and equipment. However this ratio was not at a level where the Germans could make good there loses while the Russians could. If you want a good book about the Battle of Kursk, I suggest you read 'The Battle for Kursk' by David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House.

I agree building rockets and/or researching is worthless from any perspect. They need to be tweaked or simply removed/ignored?

Also, I forgot to mention the other 'must' changes: - The Russian winter in grossly unrepresented, something needs to be done to reflect how ill prepared the Germans were for the winters of 41 and 42. German movement and supply need to be severely hampered. This might be an option to toggle on or off before a game starts. Either way it is really needed. - Operational movement needs to be limited to X? amount of moves per turn depending on the country. Getting down to moves per region would be better, but too much detail for this game. Rail capacity was a constant limiting factor for the German army, especially on the east front. The Russian rail system was on a different gauge, so each time they took territory they had to spend the time to convert the tracks. Needless to say that this combined with partisan actives, played a significant part in the overall outcome of the war on the east front. - The Italian navy is much to potent than it actually was. The experience of the British fleet needs to be increased in the Med, or just remove a ship or two from the Italian navy. I might be trying to help change this game more than designers want, it's a fun little game. But, my issues with people thinking it does WWII justice is my only concern. BTW: for those of you who have an issue with the Germans having trouble defeating Russia. I hate to burst your bubble, but militarily speaking, once the U.S. was in the war it was only a matter of time until Germany was defeated. The game should just give victory points for how long people survive after 4/45. Only if your opponent is a complete moron, should one be able to defeat Russia and survive from the western Allied assault. Germany without a quick defeat of Russia, just did not have the resources to fight a two front war.

I can't believe some of the comments I have just read on this post. Sad, but I guess it proves most here are far from history scholars, nor have taken the time to read any well published books on the subject matters they wish to discuss. First let me start of by saying, even though a bit cruel, EB you are truly a fool. Not only for your comments, but for the fact you obviously have never done any research into what you are speaking to. Your comments about the Russia (was not Soviet Union at that time) producing more than the U.S. is fictional to say the least. Did you ever hear of lend lease? Do you have any idea how many planes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, ships, etc. that the U.S. produced? Who do you think led in all these categories? Sure the Russian sacrifice of men was greater, but they also paid for their mistakes in tactics and have a dictator like Stalin. Now as for having it right in S.C. with production, that is another fantasy. S.C. does a sub-par job of trying to do justice with regards to major power production. The U.S. gets a static amount of MMPs throughout the game, unless they conquer something. This is ridicules in itself, the U.S. production might was far from static during the war. In fact, it increased at an exponential rate right up until 1945. Ironically, only slowed down, because they were producing too much stuff. Same can be said for Russian production, as it increase at a great rate as the moved factories began to come back online in 42-43. Yes, for those that had no idea, Russia move a great deal of the factories(works with the move) to the Urals and far away from possible German long range bombers(Germany never actually produced these w/mass thus never really a threat). Now, I can't really speak to play balancing, but something needs to be changed with respect to production. I believe the following can/should be incorporated and can be tweaked into the game and get a balanced game. 1) U.S. production should increase (double each year), this means they probably don't start right at 190, but lower to balance. 2) Russian production increases, each factories grows by 5 MMP each year. 3) Russia has the ability to move 2-3(?) factories that is 4-5 hexes(not sure of #) from an enemy unit per year(once at war). Moved factories don't produce until after a year of their moved date. 4) Add a research column to increase factory efficiency and therefore add 5 MMP to 1 factory per year. I have other recommendations that are easy modifications, however, I liked to do some more play testing before commenting. A word of advise for those that want to post facts/figures on this forum, PLEASE do some research before you make a fool of yourself. I've spent over 20 years researching WWII from all aspects and with documentation from all the major players. Most of which just started to become public recently in Russia. Here is a little trivia question, how many men did the Russians lost(not including civilians) during the Battle of Stalingrad - 7/42 to 2/43. This is something that the Russian military has wanting to hide for a long time. When you find the answer, you'll know why. So if I was harsh on some, but my tolerance for ignorance for this type of ignorance is limited.

The Hagen line was only overrun quickly as the Germans lost most of the troops in Kursk that were to man. A fortification doesn't do much good unless it is fully manned.

You right click on a unit next to a port and it will select 'transport'. You pay than to transport the unit.