ev

I very much like your second recommendation: An air unit may be able to detect a land unit in the vicinity of Kiev. It may spot a few infantry or even guns or tanks, but most likely it cannot tell the exact size and strength of the unit from the air. Furthermore, if a unit is entrenched (hence did not move in the last turn) the unit should be much harder to spot from the air. I would propose the following model: If a unit is unentrenched, the air unit can tell whether it is a tank or infantry, but not the exact strength. If a unit is entrenched level 1 or 2, we assume the land unit did not move last turn. Hence we assume it had some time to camouflage, etc. The air unit can detect the unit but cannot detect whether it is a tank or air unit. If a unit has a higher entrenchement level, the air unit will not detect anything. Now, with regards to range or area to re reconned... An air unit represents a fleet with hundreds of planes. If every plane in the fleet is set to recon a different area, they can probably recon a very large area. The 360 radius used in SC1 is not entirely unrealistic. However, an air unit should not be able to do both recon and combat in the same turn. Recon should be a mission to be performed instead of other missions such as escort, bombing, interdiction, or attacking other units. Furthermore, Recon should be subject to interdiction by enemy air fighters, much the same way that bombing is subject to interdiction.

Thanks for the info on the Swiss Army. Apparently you posted your last entry while I was drafting my last, and did not notice 'till now. On your second point, This is a good idea. Engineers could build a super heavy gun emplacement two tiles away from the enemy fort. Once built, the gun emplacement would have a range of two tiles. They could bomb anything within two hexes reducing fortifications, entrenchment, and readiness as per Wolfe's recommendation above. And, if we follow your idea, we could leave Rockets as a solely strategic item, which sounds good to me.

O.K. I knew #4 and #8 (Heavy Guns and Tank Destroyers) would be very controversial and they are not my main concern. I will comment on them later. My main concern regards the strength of Tank Groups. Prior to Barbarosa, the largest tank formation were the German Panzer Corps. In Poland, France 1940, Africa, and Yugoslavia Panzer Divisions were put together in groups of three or four divisions to form Panzer Corps. Panzer Groups made of two or three Panzer Corps were first used in Russia. So much for historical background. If the game was to have only Infantry Corps, then I would certainly go for having only Tank Corps. But in SC1 we were pitching Tank Corps against Infantry Armies. If we are going to have Infantry Corps and Infantry Armies we need a tank formation which corresponds to the larger of the two infantry formations. Else, as soon as the defender can make a line of Infantry Armies, we'll be stuck in a stalemate. My ideal game would have a somewhat smaller scale (thirty miles per tile) and would only have corps (no infantry armies). I realize that is not an option. There are very good reasons for the 50 mile tile, and, this is Hubert's game, not mine. I also realize that the 50 mile scale calls for larger units. Fine, but let's have larger infantry and larger tanks, not just one without the other. On the Heavy Gun issue, I like Wolfe's recommendation: The yeast of my concerns regarding rockets and heavy guns goes as follows: On the one hand, neither rockets or supper heavy guns were effective against mobile units. At best they were only effective against static targets such as factories or bunkers. On the other hand, since SC2 will allow for the construction of fortifications we will need some weapon to balance the effect of fortifications in the game. Wolfe's recommendation addresses both of my concerns. Tank Destroyers ...fine, I knew this would be very controversial. And the game has an editor for those willing to try out strange ideas like mine. Fighter Only Units ... Shaka posted: Perfect. In terms of design, reduce the air attack capability of some air fleets to 0 or 1 so these fleets become your tactical bombers. Meanwhie reduce the tactical bombing strength of other fleets to 0 or 1 and these become your fighters. Finally, make each air unit a bit cheaper to produce. ...and, you are all set, except for the A.I. Splitting tactical and fither require changes to the AI. The building blocks are probably there. Tactical Bombers would draw from the A.I. routines of both Strategic Bombers and existing mixed Air Fleets. Figthers would have to escort both Tactical and Strategic Bombers. Finally, fighters would have to know they should not attack land units. But the AI routines for escorting are also there. I hope Hubert has enough time to work this out.

Is it really? As of 1944 many Panzer Divisions had lost most of their tanks and they they considered themself lucky if they had any Panzer Jaggers (tank destroyers). As a matter of fact, half way through the war some "Light Panzer Divisions" only had tank destroyers, regardless of what was suppossed to be their configuration on paper. Remember, in WWii they did not have Bradleys with guided ATGMs on top. Short of a tank, the only mobile anti tank plataform was a tank destroyer. But there was an even bigger problem, any gun below 50mm was not strong enough to damage a T-34. But any larger gun could be spotted from far away and blasted by supporting artillery. Yes, the 88mm was great, but it was alway kept far in the rear not because it belonged to the Luftwaffe, but because it would be blasted away by artillery if brought closer to the front. See "Standing Fast: German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front Duting WWII" by Major Timothy A. Wray. The problem described above left many German officers to conclude that the only good anti tank weapon was the tank itself (or its lesser sibbling, the PanzerJagger). Only a Tank or Tank Destroyer could come close enough to the frontline to hold off a tank attack. And, tanks were simply too expensive. There are several reasons for which tank destroyers were a lot cheaper than the tank: First, the mobile turret was in and of itself expesive. Second, the mobile turret meant you needed a very large chasis to carry a big gun. A Panzer III chasis (cheap) could not carry a big gun in a rotating turret. But that cheap chasis could carry a big gun if static. Third, eliminating the turret allowed the vehicle to be lower, harder to detect and hit, so you did not need to make armor so heavy. Fourth, these smaller vehicles burned less gas. Finally, remember I am not talking of making an army of solely tank destroyers. Tank Group in SC1 represents a mixture of weapons that includes tanks. Likewise a Tank Destroyer would represent a mixture of motorized infantry, artillery, combat engineers, recon, and ...tank destroyers.

Exactly my point. In SC1, I used tank much like a mobile infantry army. I used them, specially since I could not motorize my infantry armies. But there was nothing special about them. My tank groups were not the "mailed fist" that spearheaded my attacks. When Germany started the war it only had a half dozen Panzer Divisions. I am afraid, Hubert & Co. felt they could not give two Panzer Armies to Germany at the start of the game to keep the historical flavor. So they opted to make Panzer Groups more like Panzer Corps than Panzer Armies. I appreciate this historical concern. There are however other options. First, Germany could start with two understrength Panzer Armies. Alternatively, Germany could start with only one Panzer Army. The invasion of Poland would proceed along different lines... but, I think that would be interesting too. I have the feeling any modern player faced with an operational game of Poland 1939 would concentrate his armor in one decisive point. I also hear your concern regarding items #4 and #8. They deviate further from the traditional line of thought. But they were historical options available to the leaders of the time. They chose not to pursue them. They also chose not to research jet engines earlier, and, to postpone development of heavier tanks. We all embrace including those other options (jet engines and heavy tanks) in the game because of our post WWII experience. Other options seem odd, but they were actually much more readily available at the time than the ones we now take for granted sixty years past. Let me elaborate further on each of #4 and #8. #4 Supper Heavy Rail Guns. The technology existed at the time to make supper heavy guns. In fact battleships carried much heavier guns than any land combat unit. The problem with supper heavy guns, was first and foremost transportion. The other problem was that set up was so slow that it was only worth using them against static possitions. After the fall of the Maginot Line there were no large fortifications left in Europe, except for Sevastopol, and lose strongholds in the Atlantic Wall. The Atlantic Wall strongholds were all within reach of the Allied Battleship Guns and there was no way the allies could bring to shore anything bigger. But in Sevastopol, the Germans used with moderate success some pretty impressive supper guns - much bigger than anything a battleship could carry, they could blast a whole bunker off the ground. #8 Tank Destroyer Armies sounds weird. I know. But consider the predicament of the German High Command. Heavy Tanks are very expensive. You have some very succesfull medium tank chassis (Panzer III and Panzer IV). They cannot handle turrets with the heavier guns, but, you can refit them as tank destroyers with 75mm fixed on top of them. So you keep only a couple of real tank units and you support the flanks of those top notch units with PanzerJaggers. You realize the limitations on the PanzerJaggers. But you also realize the vastness of Russia, the huge scale of the Barbarossa campagin, and the fact that most of the Russian army will be low grade infantry corps. A mobile PanzerJagger would be able to punch through low grade infantry corps, and hold its ground against counter attacks by Russian tanks. You have the technology, you have the need, this could be a solution, you do it or you pass, your choice.

There is a long list of thins I want. But Hubert & Co. are giving the last touches to the game engine and game editor... and, I guess it is time to start focusing on the default scenarios. So here is some food for thought: 1. Tank Groups should be both stronger and more expensive. They should represent a Tank Army of some 8 divisions. 2. Infantry should be much better at defense, not so good at offense. It should be suicidal to assault an infantry possition with another infantry unit of the same size unless you manage to degrade the defender first (by cutting supply, etc.) 3. Rocket Launchers, if used at all, should be good only for strategic bombing, i.e. have a very strong strategic bombing capability but minimal tactical attack strength. 4. Consider allowance of Heavy Rail Artillery. The Germans used super heavy rail artillery to breach the Sevastopol fortifications. If we are going to allow engineers go construct fortifications (which I like), we should allow for the development of super heavy rail artillery to shell those forts. Heavy Rail Artillery should only be effective against static defenses (fortifications and perhapps reducing entrenchment level). Heavy Rail Artillery should not be effective against un-entrenched units. 5. Give us Air Superiority Fleets. Having only fighters (no tactical dive bombers), these units could be somewhat cheaper than regular fleets, and could be used solely for escorting bomber and defending your air space. 6. I do not see why Infantry Corps should move any faster than Infantry Army. We need the Corps to fill the gaps in the long lines of the Russian Front. But a corps is nothing but a mini army... 7. Allow for Garrison Units with minimal movement and attack capability, whose only purpose is to hold cities, ports, and fortifications. One way to do this is to grant fotifications a standing defense strength even when they are not occupied by a friendly unit. So when you fortify Amsterdam, you are also placing a garrison in that city. 8. This one will be more controversial, but, here it goes: consider Tank Destroyer Armies. Guderian flatly oppossed this idea, but other German commanders argued for the formation of large scale "PanzerJagger" units. These tank destroyer armies would be cheaper than tanks. And, they would have minimal tank attack capability. But, their other attributes (soft attack, soft defense, and tank defense) would be just a notch below Tank Armies. No one ever made Tank Destroyer Armies, but it was within the realm of possibilities, and, definitely an idea worth trying in a game of this scale. Just to find out what could have happened.

I see your point. And the historical record of German Units wearing out is very important. I would note however that the wear and tear was not just mechanical due to the many miles traversed by the armored vehicles. Even more important important, losses accumulated, men got killed and wounded, ammo and gas was spent. Reinforcements and supply could not keep up, partly because not enough replacements had been trained, and partly because the spearhead units run so far ahead of their supply bases that the logistics could not keep up with the advance. Some historical accounts suggest that the degradation of the German Units could have been "recovered" with a couple of weeks to rest. That is not quite the case. They needed a couple of weeks to bring their supply bases further to the front, to bring replacements to fill the ranks, etc. Rest was important, but the other factors were even greater. Take for example Army Group Center: while Hitler sent Guderian south towards Kiev to envelop 650,000 Russian units, Army Group center suffered heavy losses due to Russian counterattacks. During that period some of the German divisions attached to army group center suffered over 20% losses. Army Group center also spent most of their available ammo fending those counterattacks. Meanwhile supply lines were stretch to the limmit and could not deliver supplies at a fast enough clip to prepare for the soon to come attack on Moscow. When I played as Axis in SC1, I often found many of my units below strength after a few turns into the invasion of Russia. However, I couls not afford to waste a whole turn to replace losses. On the one hand, I never had enough MPPs, and on the other hand, each turn I spent refitting, the Russians would put out a whole bunch of new units. So I often kept on pushing with my worn out units. As a genaral rule, I kept my units on the move until they reached 40% losses. I think the SC1 engine did a fair job at reflecting the long term wear and tear of a large campaign like Barbarosa. It also did a good job at representing the dangers of running your armored units to far ahead of your supply HQ's. If you did not allow time for the HQ's to catch up, your readiness levels dropped markedly. Again, a very good call by Hubert & Co. Where I find room for improvement is in a different area. A unit that starts a turn at the "jump off" possition for an attack has an advantage to a unit that had to cross 150 miles of enemy territory and then immediately (same turn) assault a possition by storm. Of course, there is a lot to be said in favor of accumulating plain weariness from one tun to another. A game I once played allowed you to double march foot infantry at the expense of reduced weariness in the next turn. Another game I played, weariness accumulated into the next turn if the unit used more than 2/3's of its full movement allowance. In this second game, weariness from combat also accumulated into the next turn. But, in both games, weariness did not accumulate when a unit moved a limited amount distance. More important, both games had a much shorter time scale. The movement capabilities in SC1 were not so steep as to represent a forced march. At an average cruise speed of 20 miles per hour, an armored unit could cover 250 miles in 50 hours. Yet, that is the full movement allowance of an armored unit for full turn representing a full week. That is reasonable, but it is not a forced march. Unless, you want to cover that distance in 3 days and leave the reamaining four days of that week to wage a combat assault all within the same turn. Then you are pushing it. And then we need some mechanism like the one suggested by Sea Monkey.

And else where Wolfe posted: On the mechanics of readiness calculation by the game engine I would suggest a much simpler engine: At the begining of each turn, the game engine would calcualte an initial readiness level for each unit based on supply, weather, HQ support, and, perhaps experience level. As the turn progresses readiness would decrease each time a unit spends AP's (as per Sea Monkey's suggestion. Enterring enemy territory would affect readiness only indirectly, enterring enemy territory would cost additiona AP's wich in turn would further decrease readiness as per Sea Monkey's suggestion. As per this suggestion, each turn would be a blank check on readiness. Perhapps this is not the most realistic thing, but, it is close enough for me. If Hubert wants to take this any further, and, require resting periods to recover full readiness fine. One easy way of coding is that at the begining of a game turn, units are brought up to 90% of their full readiness potential (given supply, weather etc.). At the end of the game turn, units that did not move could have their readiness level go up to 100% of the readiness level that would normally correspond to their current supply and weather conditions. At the begining of the next turn, units which had a readiness level which corresponds 100% to their supply and weather status would not be downgraded to 90%. But if their supply and weather conditions have deteriorated, so that their readiness level now exceeds that allowed by supply and weather, then readiness must be reduced accordingly. I would not affect readiness or recovery of readiness by proximity to HQ. Proximity to HQ already affects supply which in turns affects readiness. Proximity to HQ also providess a basic readiness supplement. I don't see the point of adding one more readiness attribute to the HQ. Difference in terrain and weather probably affect the movement cost of entering a given hex. As per Sea Monkeys suggestion, any additional expense in AP's would result in readiness reduction. Sea Monkey's suggestion is very simple and elegant, it goes to the root of the problem, and therfore takes into account all those fine point brought forward in the second half of Wolfe's prior remarks quoted above. ...just hope we are not too late, and Huber can incorporate some of these thoughts into SC2.

I really don't think these ideas will make the game any harder to play or learn. Sea Monkey's idea that a unit losses readiness as it spends AP's is very simple and straight forward. The farther you move the more readiness you lose. The computer takes care of all the calculations. The player only need to keep in mind that if you stretch your neck to far out, it may get chopped. My idea that entering enemy territory should have an extra AP cost is also straight forward. In SC1 enemy territory was color shaded. The player would know from just looking at the screen that those pink tiles are more expensive to move in. And therefore you will incur in a loss of AP's, and consequently a loss of readiness, as you enter those hexes. I agree with Sea Monkey that wargaming is not about calculating all those odds to the infinitesimal. You just know these are factors and you approximate in your mind the cost of these factors. The game engine takes care of the exact calculations when it resolves the battle. The players need not do so. ...and it is not worth it to do so, since the game engine applies a randomizing algorithm to the resolution of each battle. Hence, there is no way of perfectly predicting any individual outcome. You are only playing a game of probabilities. Which is the way it should be, war gaming and strategy is about playing with the unknow and the upredictable and balancing risks with expected results.

(For those new to SC jargon AP stands for Action Points (sort of like movement points). I agree very much with Sea Monkey's idea. Spending a higher percentage of AP should cause a higher decrease of readiness. And there is something very elegant about your idea when you combine it with some the ideas presented in our prior entry: Say there is some movement cost for entering enemy territory. This higher movement cost means a higher percentage of AP was spent, and hence a higher loss of combat readiness. Very good. I very much like this idea and hope Hubert does too. An interesting note, your idea adds a whole lot more value to motorizing infantry. (In SC2 there will be a research area and consequent unit upgrades to motorize your infantry.) Foot infantry has so few AP's that it would run out of steam quickly. Your idea would limit the ability of foot infantry to move and attack in the same turn since moving as little as two hexes would result in a 66% use of AP's, and consequently a greater reduction of combat readiness. (In SC1 infantry armies had 3 AP's). On the other hand, specially if your idea is implemented I would argue for increase AP for tank units. I always thought they were too low in SC1.

Elsewhere in this site I argued that enterring enemy territory should cause some additional movement cost. Some of you presented the very sound argument that an additional movement cost should result from entering enemy zones of control (ZOC). I have since given a bit of thought to the effect ZOC's should have on a game like SC. This is what I have come up with: First and foremost, entering and exciting ZOC's should reduce the readiness level of a unit. Contact with the enemy causes disruption. No plan survives the first contact with the enemy. Repeatedly entering and leaving ZOC's should disrupt a unit, decrease readiness levels, and hence reduce the unit's combat potential for that unit. The disruption from entering and leaving ZOC's should be cummulative through the turn. Each time a unit enters or leaves an enemy ZOC, it should suffer further disruption. A unit that just dissengaged from a sector (left an enemy ZOC) and moved to attack at a new sector should do so at a lesser readiness level than a fresh reserve moving straight into battle. And, a fresh reserve unit moving from from the rear, should have some lesser readiness level than a unit that was already at the jump-out possition at the begining of the turn. However, ZOC's should be cleared by the first unit moving into or leaving that hex. The unit first entering or leaving a hex assinged a small portion of men to patrol the area. This reduces the readiness level of the first unit entering or leaving that hex. But subsequent units moving through that hex "benefit" from the first units efforts... Once a prior unit had cleared enemy ZOC's at a tile (either because it moved through it, or because it started the turn at that location) new units could be brought from the rear into that tile without any disruption pennalty. Aside from affecting readiness, ZOC's should also affect movement albeit indirectly. Friendly ZOC's should convert enemy territory into friendly territory. Whether a tile is friendly or foe should in turn affect movement of the first unit entering that tile. But once the tile is cleared by a friendly unit, the tile should remain friendly for the remaining of that turn. A unit moving through a tile which is in enemy ZOC will eliminate that ZOC for the remaining of the turn. When the tile was cleared into friendly territory, the ZOC was cleared as well - for the remaining of the turn. As I said earlier, enemy territory can be cleared by friendly unit entering that tile. Aside from that, there are several ways in which ZOC's may affect whether a tile is friendly or foe: (1) At the end of the turn, enemy teritory should become friendly if it is within a friendly ZOC but not within an enemy ZOC. But this calculation should take place only at the end of the turn. (2) At the end of the turn, where several friendlies and foes extend their ZOC over an enemy territory, the enemy territory will be converted to friendly if the combat power of friendlies doubles the combat power of enemies. (3) Friendly cities should convert into friendly the surrounding territory provided there are no enemy ZOC's affecting that tile. Finally, armored units should be better at crossing enemy territory than soft units. Armored units (tanks) should suffer less disruption from enetering or leaving enemy territory. Furthermore, armored units (tanks) should pay a lesser movement pennalty for entering enemy territory. (...and I mean tanks, not motorized infantry).

Yes, Edwin P., you get the yeast of it. I am no fan of facism, but I think history often underestimates Hitler's cunning. The guy was not stupid. On the contrary he was a very calculating person. And, very good at politics... that's why he was able to get in a possition from which he could cause so much harm to other people. Back to my point, I believe Hitler decided not to mobilized Germany for war before 1942 because he thought the political and diplomatic cost of doing so outweighted the military benefits that would result from doing so. After the invassion of Russia, after the US entered the war, after Barbarosa failed, after losses in the eastern front started to mount, after allied bombing campaign stepped up, and so forth, the equation changed... In hindsight, Hitler should have started mobilization earlier. But the decission of mobilizing the economy for total war was not about investing some MPP's away from panzer units and into new factories. Rather it was about stepping up the propaganda campaign and the preasure at home, at the expense of some real political and diplomatic costs.

A few more thoughts on Total War: SC1 modeled Economic Mobilization through the tech research engine. In SC1 the player invested MPP's now for greater production later in the game. The SC1 model was elegant and straight forward. And given that there was only one coin in SC1, it was pretty good. SC2 will have Diplomatic Chips. I do not know how sophisticated this Diplomacy Engine will be, but this opens the door for new possibilities. Mobilizing the economy for war was a political and diplomatic endeavor. It was not really about research and development but about politics. And it definitely had diplomatic consequences. For example: Roosvelt could not mobilize the economy for war until Japan attacked the U.S. If Hitler had started full mobilization of the economy in 1937, making speeches to the German people about the comming war with Russia, Stalin may very well have attacked Germany instead of purging his officer corps. Likewise, Stalin could not start full mobilization of the economy while neutral, and even if he had, that would have sounded all sorts of alerts through Germany. Again, I am not sure how the "Diplomacy Engine" will work in SC2, but perhaps it would be best to model the mobilization of the economy as part of the "Diplomacy Engine" rather than as part of the research engine. - Just some room for though for Hubert & Co.

Not sure what was the efective range of the Me 109. Keep in mind that the Me 109 was an older plane than those used by most US and British pilots. In terms of SC, the Me 109 corresponds to a Long Range Tech Level 0, while the Mustang probably corresponds a Long Rage Tech Level 3 or 4. Of course, the Mustangs become available a few years later. SC represents this by the time spent waiting for the new tech to become available. SC1 had one big flaw. In SC1, all Me 109 automatically and at no cost became longer range planes as soon as Germany discovered higher Long Range Tech Level. From what I have read elsewhere in this site, SC2 will correct that. When Germany discovers a new tech, the good old Me 109 will continue to be good old Me 109, unless the player buys new planes for that particular unit.

This are some things I would like the editor to do: 1. Allow us to tweak with the internal characteristics of a type of unit. For example, could I increase the soft attack stregth of a Tank Group? Could I reduce the AP's of an Infantry Corps? 2. Allow us to tweak with the basic cost of a unit type. Say I want to make tank's more expensive... but I just want to make tanks more expensive while leaving infantry as is. (If I want to make everything more expensive I might as well reduce the production capacity of a country. What I am asking for is to alter the relative cost of unit types viz a viz each other). 3. Create two types of tank units: corps vs. army following the infantry corps vs. army distinction. Could I do that? 4. Have a type of "unconnected terrain" to represent terrain with no infrastructure. Supply into or through unconnected terrain should be more difficult. 5. Allow more types of air units, and allow us to tweak with their relative combat aspects so some of them specialize in air superiority, others in naval combat, others in strategic bomber (already exists), and still others in tactical land support. I know these are meant to be huge fleets... do as you wish in the main scenarios, but, it would be niece if the editor allowed for this kind of specialized units.

Perhaps it would be easier for Hubert if we look at this from the other side of the coin. I mean, most of Western Europe had good infrastructure. That is most terrain was well connected to the road and rail network... However, there were huge areas of land in Russia (and North Africa, northernmost Scandinavia, Turkey, etc.) which did not have this kind of infrastucture. We can think of this tiles as "unconnected" from the infrastructure grid... Units should not be allowed to operate in or out of "unconnected" tiles. Supply through "unconnected" tiles should be more difficult, i.e. cost more movement points, hence reducing the effective supply range of units located in or on the other side of unconnected territory. Finally, we could allow players to use engineers to connect an unconnected hex to the infrastructure grid - at some cost. Conceivably, this could become important for the Germans as they try to advance ever deeper into Russia.

This is a very interesting article on the Home Front: http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm

This article might be interesting to some of you http://www.onwar.com/articles/f9811.htm One important point made by the author is that blitzkrieg was not jost about tanks, but about combining tanks (and other combat vehicles) with the German Stormtroop tactics. This in turn, meant new ways of communicating and coordinating the spearhead units with the supporting artillery, engineers, air support, etc. Although the allies had the tank since WWI, they did not have the other half of the equation when the WWII started. That is one important reason for the German's beating French armor in France 1940, British Armor in North Africa 1941, and, superior Russian armor in 1941 (T 34's were already in the field in 1941). ...this is why I think it is so important to include a C3 Tech or alike.

Can we have a "clear terrain with no infrasturcture"? For short, let's call it "unconnected". These would represent areas of the map where there are no roads or railroads, no infrastructure. You could not operate in or out of this terrain. But most important, supply into or through this kind of terrain would be more difficult. My suggestion is that the "movement cost' for calculating supply would be doubled when supplying into or through unconnected terrain.

My guess is that the player is the top dog for each of the warring parties. So if you are the Allied Player then you are Roosvelt, Churchill and Stalin all put together. And, your skills together with the difficulty setting you select are your top dog bonus. Now, of course, this might be some sort of a hidden bonus for the Axis. Most human players would hope to avoid the very big mistakes made by Hitler and Mussolini. Most of us would agree the war could have followed a different course but for the big mistakes Hitler and Mussolini made. We would agree that the US and Britain had good leaders. The whole point of the game is to see what would have happened if you replace the leadership at the top, and, put in their place people like you and me, or Hubert's AI.

Ah! that's it. Since I read through out the site Mech Tech and Mechanization, I thought we were talking of mechanized infantry. So I wondered... what was the point of splitting mechanized infantry appart from tank groups in SC? Now I see we are not refering to Mechanized Infantry at all. Thank you.

First, AP are action points which roughly represents the movement capacity of land units in the game. ...my fault for using an acronym that is not common to us all. I absolutely agree with your comments. But, as far as SC is concerned, remember that Tank Groups represent a mix of 6-10 armored divisions (including a mix of both mechanized infantry and heavy tank divisios) and carrying all the supporting artillery, infantry, recon, combat engineers and so forth. My point regards specifically to the game. Does it make sense to create Mechanized Infantry Armies? ...the short answer is yes, if any player wants to try, go right ahead. But, then, how is this mech army unit going to differ from the infantry and the tank units in the game? I agree that a mech army unit (in the game) should have combat capabilities that are somewhat different from a tank group. But how do we translate this into the game?

A couple of days ago I openned a topic on a C3 research area: Command, Control, and Communications. This is would be a "research area" that would increase the effectiveness of HQ's My idea is to simulate through the research engine the investment on better officer staff. As per my suggestion, when an HQ is upgraded to a higher C3 Tech Level it generates a higher readiness level on the troops under its command. I elaborated quite a bit on this point on that topic. I would really appreciate if you look at my suggestions over there and let me know how you feel about it.

The German Metal Stocks, particularly with regards to Iron and Coal (needed to make Steel) were more than adequate. Germany has huge deposits of both. And German Steel was of extremely good quality, making posible their excellent tanks and guns. Germany's failuer lied elswhere: Halfway through the war Germany started prototyping a whole range of new combat vehicles: heavy tanks, medium tanks, small tanks, heavy tank destroyers, medium tank destroyers, light tank destroyers, diferent types of armored personal carriers. different types of recon vehicles, you name it. The Panzer units wanted their own vehicles; the infantry wanted their own vehicles, and the artillery wanted their own vehicles. It was a real mess. Some of these vehicles developed in 42-43 were succesfull after more or less prolonged period of times to iron out all sorts of problems (e.g. Panzer V). Others were a fiasco (like the Ferdinand). In any event, there were so many, and some of them were so expensive (like the Tiger), that they were never able to ramp up production to the point where they could take advantage of economies of scale. Later in the war Guderian was put in charge of inspecting development and production of combat vehicles. But it was too late. Oil was an issue, but mainly due to allied bombing disrupting distribution and refining. Only when Rumania fell to the Russians, and the Germans lost the Ploest fields did the Germans become short of oil. Rubber was an issue. All the warring parties (including the U.S.) experienced some sort of rubber shortages. This limited the production of trucks, which in turn were essential to supply armored formations. Horse drawn carts may have been enough to supply foot infantry, but not for armored formations. ...any way, back to may questions above, since armored formations included not only tanks, but also artillery, infantry, recon, etc. perhaps Mech Tech should have some possitive impact on Tank Groups. ...say 1/2 AP increase for each tech level increase. Is that in the works?