ev

BBWWAHAHAHAHA..............check your history ev.........who declared and invaded who and seems we still Canada!! Not sure what counts as a victory but that ain't it.

I made a mistake when I copy pasted one of the paragraphs above. Th text should read as follows:

Winning a war is not about defeating the enemy's army. At Borodino, Napoleon defeated the Russian Army, but lost the war, lost the war. In 1941, Hitler defeated the Russian Army, but eventually lost the war. Even the war against Japan was won without ever engaging the bulk of the Japanese Army... though the Navy was defeated, and, difficult battles were fought in different islands around the Pacific... and in Burma, the bulk of the Japanese Army remained largely unengaged by the US. In Vietnam, the US Army won every major engagement, but eventually lost the war. In Iraq, the US Army won every major engagement, but right now even Bush accepts victory is not quite around the corner. However, the US won the cold war without ever defeating the Russian Army. The US also won the war of 1812 before winning any engagement in the war (the only victory came after the treaty had been agreed to and was totally irrelevant). War is a complicated social process. It has to do with armies, but also with the poltics, economics, and the culture of each country, and with the politics, economics, and cultures of every other country affected by the conflict. Quite frankly, it is hard to say what if anything was won in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, or whatever other war of the 20-21st century you may chose. During WWII the U.S. gained enormous prestige, but on every other count it was a net loser: it lost lives and huge capital resources, it also lost important trading partners which were obliterated by the war. I will readily grant the U.S. had a moral imperative to jion the Allies in WWII, but, the term "winning" does not match reality very well. As far as Iran is concern, I don't see anything to be gainned or "won" by defeating the Iranian army, except more and more problems further down the line... ..., and, I hope enough people at the White House, in Congress and in the military realize this by now.

Yes, but there is a bit more... Armies for all countries look smaller in SC2 than they were in real life. Take Russia. Russia lost in the order of million men in the first few months of the war. Assuming 40,000 men per corps that would amount to 25 corps lost in a few turns. There are just not quite that many Russian units to go around in SC2. And even if there were that many russian units in SC2, the Germans don't have enough units to cause inflict that kind of damage. A more accurate description of infantry units in SC2 would be Army Detachments (+/- 100,000 men) and Large Armies (+/- 200,000 men). And, armored units should be called Mechanized Armies. This would give you a better correlation of what you are seeing in the map with historical OOB's (order of battle).

The US was fighting two wars: one in the Pacific and one in Europe. It had troops from Alaska, through the West Coast, Panama, dozens of islands in the Pacific, Australia, India, Burma, and, even China. I believe it also deployed troops in Greenland and Iceland, the Eastern Sea Board, Puerto Rico, and other islands in the Caribbean... and I understand it had airforce bases in Brazil and West Africa (bombers flew from Brazil to West Africa to North Africa... Also, from my readings, it seems all the countries in questions had more troops in real life than actually represented in SC2. I read somewhere that by December 1939 Germany had mobilized something like 90 infantry divisions. If this info is accurate, it would amount to anywhere between 20-30 infantry corps in SC2. Clearly we are not seeing that kind of troop deployment in SC2.

Sorry I did not check it previous to my post. My (home) computer died on me. I am posting from another computer but I don't have SC2 in this computer. Any way, this is truly sad... And, should be easy for Hubert to change in a future patch. Hubert's limit may come out of the 5-4-3-2-1% decline in research progress rate. My guess is that we could leave at 1% research prorgress rate after tech level 5.

An old favorite of mine was War in Europe (the board game). This is a massive game. The map was so big I could not fit it on our ping pong table. It included all of Europe and North Africa in a 50 mile per hex scale. Counters represented divisions. Unfortunately, it was so big, the rule book so extensive, and, so time consuming to set up and play, that I was only able to play solo. It did have some great features: Great representation of transfer of industries from Western Russia to the Urals. Very good combat formulas... could have been improved by having separate hard/soft target resolution. Very good representation of industrial and resource centers. Very representation of "Overruns". Massive Combat Odds plus sufficient Movement Points allowed overruns where the advancing units just ran over the defending units. Because closed terrain (e.g. mountains and forest) provided better defense and imposed high movement costs, it was all but impossible to overrun a unit in closed terrain. Good representation of armored movement: armored units could move before and after attack. Infantry units could move only before attack. Artillery units could move only after attack. Good representation of air interdiction of supplies. The game was published by SPI which closed shop some time ago. Decision Games is working on a "re-publish"... and a computer version. The computer version will be available for Windows later this year. See www.decisiongames.com. I would really like Hubert and Perman to look a this game.

There maybe a round about way to reduce research hits as follows... for some types of units... particularly for armor. Level 0 combat values for an armored unit are 4-5-4-5 (SA HA SD HD). Say you make the Level 0 combat values for armored units 3-5-3-5 (SA HA SD HD) but make the starting research value level 2 (All units start at Level 2. Finally, lets say that the top research level is made to b level 7.... If you run through this, your starting armored units at Level 2 have a +2 tech level increase in combat values ... so their upgraded combat values are 4-5-4-5. But research from level 2 to level 3 is a lot slower... and voila, you have a slower research pace. ...one more thing, make sure to adjust production costs accordingly, else your armored divisions will become too expensive. This kind of adjustment has a couple of advantages: First it allows for a mechanism to represent the huge difference in fighting capabilites between the extremely poor Italian formations and the much better German, British and Russian counterparts (Thrawn comfronted this problem in a different manner...). Second, it allows for "very cheap" "lightly armored" units... this gives the player more options to experiment with.

This is great. I downloaded your Fortress America... My home computer died on me a couple of days ago, so I won't be able to try it for some time... But I will be looking forward to it. Thx.

...mhm, weapons increase also has the effect of increasing combat value, so it also increases lethality. If this is correct a combat between two equally matched level 2 infantry units will be a lot more deadly than a combat between two equally matched level 0 infantry units. Ibid tanks, and, aircraft. Is this correct? Is this desirable?

One of the big problems faced by the Wermacht was the lack of paved roads in Russia. It would be nice if we could have a terrain "Clear with No Roads". Movement allong this terrain would be slower, and supply would not go very far, but otherwise it would be clear. Some tiles of Russia would be "Clear with Roads" or regular "clear" for example the "road from Warsaw to Minsk to Smolensk to Moscow; but most of Russia would be "Clear with no Roads". I would have as "Clear with Roads" only the tiles along which the main railroad lines ran during WWII. I believe this would allow for a much more realistic representation of the War in Russia.

Somewhere in this site I remember reading a comment that experience was too important in one of the MODs... and a request was made to limit experience. I was having a close look at the editor a couple of days ago and I believe there is a way to reduce the effect of experience through MODs by editing the Combat Values. When you increment the Attack and Defense Values of a unit, this has the effect of reducing the effect of experience. Say you double the attack and defense strengths of all infantry and tank units... this will half the effect of experience. It will also half the effect of Terrain Defense Bonus... but you can edit those as well.

You are right, Moonslayer. However, there are some really awkward issues to handle when you flatten the globe. Given the size of the maps we are using, the flattening of the globe causes distortions, as you stretch the edges of the map. The kind of distortions, depend on the technique you use to flatten the globe. This distortions are inevitable. But, the challenge is to find a projection of the globe that will reduce the distortion in the most critical areas... See www.progonos.com. Most popular maps use cylindrical projections centered around the equator. These projections have huge east-west distortions in the northern latitudes. I am working on a map... I am using spherical projections instead of cylindrical projections. I am not using the equator as my point of reference. I made two separate projections, one for the Atlantic and one for Europe and North Africa. The Europe Projection will be centered in southwest Poland (20E, 50N). The North Atlantic projection is centered at (45W, 50N). I hope this will reduce distortions in France, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Belorusia... which I believe are the most important for the game. On the down side, there will be some huge distortions where the two projections meet. The largest distortions will be somewhere (1) around Iceland, England, and the Artic, (2) in the Central Atlantic off the African Coast. My (home) computer just died on me, so it will take some time before I can do real progress on this...

Thanks Thrawn. Was that kilometers? 250 tiles * 80 kilometers?

It varies from scenario to scneario. There is a rail-head option which you can edit when you design a new scenario. With rail-head options off, only supply matters. With rail-head options on, you must be near (adjacent?) to a friendly city (level 5?).

Can someone tell me what is the scale used in Thrawn's map?

...you should try Thrawn's Mod. You will probably like it.

I play Sea Lion somewhat like JJ, with these twists: 1) Time is of the esence. At the latest I will land in England by August '40. After that it becomes increasingly harder and harder. I start preparing for Egypt as soon as France falls... but I could conceivably invade England before the fall of France. 2) No particular techs are necessary, but the most usefull are Advanced Air and Long Range. I try hard to blind the Allied player. ...i.e. knock out their bombers and airfleets, or, at the very least, force them as far north as possible (the artic is cool enough). Once the allied player is blind, you are go. 3) You don't need London on the firt turn. If London is very heavily defendend with multiple land units around it, chances are there is an empty port somewhere else... If you find it, great. Othewise, go for London. A port is most usefull, you have to take London sooner or later, and all your airfleet, paratroopers and amph units can hit it. The Big Ben is waiting for you. 4) I don't find the Kriegsmarine usefull at all. ...I much rather invest money in an extra paratrooper to hit London, or an extra Airfleet to get rid of those pesty allied airbombers and airfleets. Or a long range heavy bomber to recon the seas and to spot undefended city/ports... 5) ...exactly what I meant when I said Advanced Air and Long Range were most usefull. If the Brit bomber detects your landing, your are in for a lot of trouble. The very day you invade Poland you have to start working on the means to get rid of that bomber - research, additional air units, an additional paratrooper to attack that bomber the turn before the invasion bomber, whatever you chose... Just make sure that bomber is visiting the Artic Circle or dining in Hades by August 40. Also, during your invasion of France, try hard to destroy that BEF. You want England to be defenseless. The whole purpose of this strategy is to invade England before they recover from their losses in France. ...of course, in order to achive this you have to make sacrifices in research and diplomacy during 1939 and early '40. Make sure you research advanced air and long range... at the expense of everything else. A bomber or a second paratrooper would be great, but they may not be ready in time. Always keep an eye on the calendar.

...but what happens when the HQ is unentrenched in open terrain? I think JJ refered to such cases: I had one similar experience to JJ and it did not take quite as much effort to eliminate all allied HQ's landing in Germany. But unlike JJ, I do not think this is a bad thing. You should not be able to conduct a successfull amph invasion without adequate air support. If JJ's advesary tried a seaborne invasion of France without adequate air support, he deserves what he got. I have my reservations about airfleet effectiveness against non-HQ units (particularly infantry). But, HQ's are supply units (...as well as command units). And airfleets were very effecttive against supply lines during WWII.

Is Perman's mod different from Thrawn's? When I connected to cmmods the description for Perman's mod said Thrawn's... Please explain.

My research strategy for Germany during 1939 depends on whether I plan to Sea Lion England. Before I start a game I decide whether I will try to Sea Lion England or not. If I decide to Sea Lion England, it will take first priority on all resources. I will sacrifice anything and everything to make sure I can Sea Lion as soon as possible. ...could be as early as spring '40. Sea Lion has to take place before the British builds up enough ground and air forcess to defend England. I will sacrifice research to make sure I produce the troops I need and to make sure I have the money it takes to pay for transports and amphs. If I go for the Sea Lion option, my research will emphasize air superiority. Air superiority is important not only to support the landing, but to blind the Allied player by removing his airforce. I will also give top priority to reinforcing airfleets, and to producing additional air units... which are very expensive. So I don't have enough MPP's left for doing all the research I would like to do. Sea Lion is my favorite. If I chose not to Sea Lion, my second choice is to put Barbarosa on steroids. Again, if this is my call for the game, I must give top priority to those things I will need to take Moscow and Stalingrad ASAP. Forget about subs, forget about advanced planes. What do you need to knock out Russia? That is your priority. But again, I decide which way I will go (Sea Lion or Barbarossa on steroids) before I start the game, and develop my research and production strategies accordingly. Either way, the German strategy is to focus on a single enemy and crush him, then focus on the next and crush him. Forget about half measures. Go for broke. ...by the way, this idea I borrowed from E. v. Manstein's memoirs. He pointedly critisized OKH for failing to do just this.

...it might be easier just to increase the combat values of German Armored Formations. Or to increase their initial experience level, or their initial tech level. But, on the other hand, German HQ's already have higher ratings than their opponents. Does not this take care of your concern?

Thanks for all the info JJ. In a recent game, a few airfleet blasted out of the map an infantry corps in London, and a Paratroop unit walked into London unoppossed. I have had other similar events. After the information you gave us here, and other readings in this site, maybe experience is playing to big of a factor. Otherwise, I really don't understand why my airfleets are so effective... but they are, to an extent that seems disproportionate.

Russia had a lot of poorly trainned, poorly equiped infantry. Many infantry men were not given rifles, but were expected to pick up the rifles of their fallen comrades. That's quite grim. And basic trainning was truly minimal. Finally, they lacked radios, artillery spotters, and, many other support troops and equipment taken for granted in western armies. I guess you could reduce the cost of the infantry corps, but also reduce its combat values. If you choose this approach, I would consider reducing attack and hard defense values, but, perhaps live as is the soft defense value. I would also reduce the trainning time for these infantry corps to only 4 weeks. Another way to achieve this is to push the infantry and anti tank tech for all countries 2 additional points so the starting, standard tech level is 2. You would also need to increase the maximum research level by 2. So French, Italians, Finish, Hungarians and every body and their neighbor have Infantry level 2. But the Allied/Russian Player (and every body else) can build Russian level 0 units if they want to have cheaper/weaker infantry units. Yet another way to go about this... would the editor allow you to reduce the trainning time and cost of the Russian Infantry Corps but have it appear at half strength?

...mhm. OK, let's see if we can somehow get around this problem. If we have 7 day turns, we have the same number of summer days we currently have, but we have twice as many fall and spring turns and four times as many winter turns. This favors a player attacking through the fall, winter, and spring... because it has more turns to take more cities. (It does not affect summer because in the standard seasonal scenario summer turns were already 7 day turns.) So the problem is mud and winter... What if we increase the winter and mud penalties? Would that do the trick?