EB.

Problem with this forum is that if you post the same old tired American views then nobody complains. If you attack the USSR and our Russian people, then that is ok--nobody minds at all. But if you dare to defend the Soviets (who did win the war, after all) against these slanders, then all of the flea-infested jackals come out. Well, I will not play that game. I will defend our people and our victories. If you don't want to hear any "new" views, then you are the one with a problem. Don't worry--I have heard the American line a million times. You are the ones with the "closed minds". It is just wrong. Somebody dares to argue with this established American line and you all just go crazy. Such vile and shameful slanders against our people--but to you it seems a little cute joke. We will not forget this. You want to talk about it with us in Russia? Come and visit and we will have a talk in person. I shall not post in this forum again. My opinions are well-researched and supported by countless hours of real work. You all, in contrast, merely repeat the tired old lies from cheap Western paperbacks. The satanic Masons and CIA establish your Party line, and you all just mindlessly repeat this nonsense. Now my people is directly and rudely attacked by your "administrator" Madmatt in a shameful manner. This is unacceptable. My friends are correct in mocking me for bothering to post messages in this forum. Our truth is for us, and it is ever more abundantly clear to us that the West hates the Russian people. You slander us and then dare to try to steal credit for our victories. By your words and actions, you make yourselves our eternal enemy. This is very clear.

Jersey John: thanks for the response. You are very correct that the Japanese were very afraid of having to fight the Soviets on the Manchurian border. In fighting there in 1938-39, the Japanese forces were heavily crushed by the Soviet units. They were so bloodied that within the Japanese military there was a firm determination to avoid fighting the Soviets at all costs. This was the dramatic shift from the "Strike North" to the "Strike South" school of thought. I read a great biography of Yamamoto which explained this perfectly. Anyway, from that point on, the US and Allies looked like far easier targets for japanese forces than the USSR. Also, have you ever played Operational Art of War? I played a scenario by some very smart guy in that game which depicted a japanese attack on Soviet borders in summer of 1941--the actual units that would have been involved and so forth. Basically, from playing the scenario, you can see very clearly that it would have been overwhelmingly difficult for the poor Japanese to advance very far into Soviet territory. I was only playing against the computer, but I played first one side and then the other just to be sure. Anyway, good comments overall.

I agree that subs should be made more powerful in the game to improve realism. The combat power of subs is ok--do not change. The amount of damage that subs do to production is ok--do not change. The dive chance of subs is ok--do not change. However, the key thing in my opinion is that subs should be harder to detect in the first place. I am not a submarine warfare expert, but from what I do know, this would seem to fix things a bit in the game. Also, I wonder why no British or Soviet sub units are shown. There were many British and Soviet subs in the real war--in fact, many more than the Germans had. I guess the problem is that these subs had almost no impact upon the course of the war because Germany (quite unlike Britain) was not an island nation with a worldwide maritime commercial network. Maybe this is why they are not in the game. If you want to see how really to conduct submarine strategic warfare, you should see not the German effort against Britain (which ultimately failed) but its far more successful counterpart in the Pacific--the American subs just absolutely butchered the Japanese merchant lifelines. It is not the Germans but actually the Americans who were the true sub experts of the World War Two. Strange to me that this is not much publicized in the US, by the way. I mean, almost nobody I talked to there knew anything about this, though they know all about D-Day and the A-Bomb. If our Soviet subs had even 10% of the success that the American subs had, well, our propaganda would never cease glorifying it. But in America there is total silence. Maybe it is because subs have been treated in Western propaganda as a kind of cowardly method of warfare. The US sure blamed the Germans for "cowardly U-boats". Maybe they said this anti-sub propaganda so much that the US was unable to claim its proper credit later on with respect to its own sub warfare victories. Very strange and ironic, I must say. When we study how to do successful submarine strategic warfare, we study not the Germans in the Atlantic but the Americans in the Pacific.

Jay the German: sorry for blaming you for killing the Indians. I admit now that this was not your fault. Next, on the hatred of NY bankers for Russia / USSR. Yes, they hate Russia. They loaned lots of money to the corrupt tsarist regime which of course the Soviet government would not want to repay. Same with today--Western banks loan lots of money to the anti-Russian regime in Moscow, to the hands of the Mafia. You can bet that this is not going to be repaid by them or by our new patriotic government in the future. You loan to the Mafia, then you will not get repaid. Don't get upset about that. Also, I do not complain about wanting Western investment in Russia--no way. I say to all Western companies and investors to get the hell out as soon as possible. For your good and especially for ours. We hate Western capitalism and want it out of here. The bombing of the Moscow McDonald's is very symbolic here--Russia is not safe for Western business even in simple terms of investment and return. The West only comes here to steal from us and exploit our people. Better for us to get rid of these international vampires as soon as possible. I think that the hatred of New York bankers for Russia has a long history continuing to the present day. Don't forget that these same New York bankers instigated the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05 and completely funded the Japanese effort in that war--anything to hurt Russia. The fundamental key to this whole thing is that the New York bankers are themselves the descendants of "Russian" immigrants who absolutely hate everything Russian. These bankers had ancestors who were driven out of Russia by bloody, relentless pogroms. If you don't believe me, just ask them. To repay Russia for these endless pogroms, these bankers still have an eternal hatred of Russia--an unsurpassed hatred. So I think that I should stick by my earlier post on this topic.

Also, I think that the French Communists / Resistance should get one partisan unit (maybe) and the Greek EAM-ELAS should get one as well. These partisan forces actually did a bit of fighting. Not as much as Yugoslavs or Soviets, but still enough to get a unit every once in a while.

I strongly agree. The way that I would implement this is that if a partisan unit leaves its home country then it is immediately disbanded and the production points restored to the player. Maybe with a warning first like, "Player: are you sure that you want to do this?" Very good comment from you. You show intelligence and good observation skills. I played as Germans several times and had to fight off a few Titoist partisans coming from the south--definitely not historically accurate here.

Bill Macon: thank you for your support! Your comment that the basic balance of SC is correct makes me very happy. To where shall we send your medal? All the Best, EB.

Please tell us what is meant by "SC2". Does this mean that there is going to be a Strategic Command 2? If so, then let's throw a victory parade! I will definitely buy it.

Thank you for your very informative response. I see now very clearly that you have a workable method in place which allows the computer to decide the Siberian reinforcements. I am fully satisfied on this point now.

On "bloodthirsty Russians". Many in the West complain about our seizure of the eastern half of "Poland" in the latter part of September 1939. It must be realized some points: 1. These territories were historically part of the Russian Empire of the Tsarism 2. These territories were seized by invading Polish forces during course of Russian Civil War in which our new Soviet government was relatively weak and fighting at the same time a great number of internal enemies and external invaders--the forces of Poland were organized, supplied, trained, funded, encouraged, protected, and in many cases directly led by the Western Allies, specifically Britain and France as well as New York bankers eager to hurt Russia in any way possible 3. These territories had an ethnic population which was overwhelmingly non-Polish. Specifically, most of the people in these areas were of Byelorussian or Ukrainian ethnic origin. Plus some Lithuanians in their provinces too. These peoples who were oppressed, humiliated, and subjugated by the Poles, welcomed the Red Army troops as heroic liberators. Many of those who called themselves "Poles" were in fact of Jewish origin. The Byelorussians and Ukrainians hated the Poles, the Jews, and the Jews who called themselves Poles. And vice versa, I might add. Initially, many of the Jews had strongly supported Poland to fend off the Nazis and Soviets, but when it became clear that Poland would fall, some Jews turned to the Soviets as protectors and some to the Germans. In both cases, they were heavily disappointed. In fact, even today, the territories remain part of the Byelorussian and Ukrainian republics. In ultimate "compensation" to Poland (and punishment to Germany), Poland was shifted much to the westward and today occupies the traditional eastern half of Germany. My friends there in Byelorussian and Ukrainian republics like to say, "We are Soviet citizens forever!" So, before you attack us as "bloodthirsty Russians", you should consider the historical context first. Look at how you killed off your poor Indians--complete Genocide if ever there was it! Do you call yourself or your country guilty of Genocide? probably not. Of course, I am objective enough to realize that America could have never turned into a major power without killing off your native peoples and taking their land. But please be realistic and objective to our people as well.

Wrong on all counts. As stated before, the Purge of Tukhachevsky and the other anti-Soviet, Trotskyite forces within the Red Army was necessary and in fact strengthened the Army by removing disloyalty. Without this purge, the Soviet forces would have surrendered easily just like the un-purged French army did in 1940. If Russia / USSR had a democratic leader like FDR or Churchill (or let's make it clear: like Yeltsin or Putin), then the country would have gotten its ass kicked very easily by the Germans. To have such a mighty victory as our people had over the Germans, we needed the massive heavy industrial base to create our many fine weapons and equipment (credit to Stalin's economic policy of rapid industrialization in the 1930's) as well as ruthless, uncompromising, stern, farsighted leadership during the war itself (also credit to Stalin as war leader on this). Look at the original documents or ask our living veterans, and it is very clear that they proudly fought Za Rodinu, Za Stalina! (For the Motherland, For Stalin!) Do you seriously think that our soldiers would have fought to the death or would have shot the soldiers beside them for retreating if they had anything less than a strong dictator behind them? People will not fight to the death for a vacillating, corrupt, democratic leader. Imagine the slogan Ni Shagu Nazad! (Not one Step Back! (No retreat allowed!)) being spoken by that flabby bastard Yeltsin or that gutless traitor Putin. Nobody would even listen. But when Stalin gave such an order, the troops took notice and followed proudly. For yourself, you may be more convinced not by our pro-Russian view (which only convinces our people anyway) but by the words of your Western leaders themselves. Take Churchill, for example, who stated on several occasions that the Soviets would have been beaten under any other leader than Stalin. Churchill knew that industrialization was the key to victory, that the Purge was necessary and useful, and that Stalin was a wise leader. Actually, Churchill was a great leader himself, a real genius--his greatest handicap was that his government was not allowed to have many casualties. The people and parliament were too afraid based upon the heavy casualties which the British had in WW1. Poor Churchill, who often had his plans cancelled or perverted into impotence by generals afraid to lose any troops. He said to them, "well, what do you expect--this is war after all!" I may be wrong to criticize Churchill. More specifically, I think that Churchill was a wise leader who if he had been given real dictatorial powers would have retained Britain as a great power. The problem with a "democratic leader like Churchill" is specifically the democratic system in which he had to work. Same actually with FDR. An okay guy as a leader, but when forced to operate within a democratic system, he was essentially toothless and impotent. So, to make it very clear: I attack not the leaders themselves but their inefficient, ineffective, cowardly democratic systems.

Rokossovsky--a great military leader. In the period of de-Stalinization, Khrushchev asked Rokossovsky to join in the anti-Stalin crusade and gave him a list of things to make public statements about--all of which concerned Stalin's so-called "mistakes" in the war. Rokossovsky took a long look at the list and told Khrushchev, "I cannot do this, because these are all lies. Why would you want to say such lies about Stalin?" Khrushchev told him that it was necessary to consolidate the new regime and that it would be very beneficial for Rokossovsky in terms of money and position to join along with Khrushchev's anti-Stalin campaign. However, Rokossovsky strongly refused and told Khrushchev "Poshol na khuy! Tovarishch Stalin--sankt!" (literally: "F### off! Comrade Stalin is a saint to me!") For sticking to his principles, Rokossovsky was punished by Khrushchev. Similar story applies to Zhukov. However, Zhukov at first took Khrushchev's offer and joined in the attack upon Stalin, spouting off what he knew himself to be lies against Stalin. After a while (specifically after Khrushchev betrayed and demoted Zhukov), Zhukov changed his line and began yet again to defend Stalin's role as war leader, saying that nobody else could have done so well as Stalin. Khrushchev after his ouster was very strongly against Zhukov for turning back to Stalin. Anyway, Rokossovsky is a saint to me.

Trolls as a Soviet unit. Hmmm. The innate regenerative capacity could do wonders for logistics. British elves seem quite appropriate, by the way. "Why make a Second Front when instead we can sing and dance in the summer moonlight?"

arby: You make a very good point here, I must admit. There are too many SC games which are decided by the Allies landing early in Western Europe. What I would say is that the balance of relative power between the countries is still pretty accurate though. You are correct that the computer AI plays the Allies with a lot more bravery than was historically the case. Very true. If in real history the Allies had not been so afraid of actual casualties, they would have landed much earlier in France rather than in inconsequential safe places like North Africa and Sicily. If they had, then they could have made a REAL contribution to the war effort before the Germans were almost totally beaten. The Allies were a lot weaker than the Germans and Soviets, but they COULD have done more than they did historically--they COULD have made more of a difference. So the game might not be realistic in terms of the Allies being brave and aggressive. You are very right on this point. I would only say that at least the overall power balance is still correct and realistic. On this point and this argument, you win and I lose. I now change my opinion to match yours on this point. Thank you for your constructive comments.

Fully agreed--spelling should be corrected. I am disgusted by the all-too-common mistakes in spelling in wargames, especially concerning Soviet officers and cities. What really kills me is when they use German spellings for Russian names. What a shame. You would think that they would check their work or have somebody with language skills check it for them.