Wachtmeister

Great information Terif - most of which I have learned the hard way. Now you tell us Info like this has allowed my rapid progression from cannon fodder thru cannon swabber to the exalted rank of cannon loader. BTW - What about our game in progress - it is nearly 2 weeks old, and I am in need of additional training.

Great information Terif - most of which I have learned the hard way. Now you tell us Info like this has allowed my rapid progression from cannon fodder thru cannon swabber to the exalted rank of cannon loader. BTW - What about our game in progress - it is nearly 2 weeks old, and I am in need of additional training.

Rambo (Allies +100) aka "The Legend" defeated Wachtmeister (Axis) Went to mid-'44. Took London, but could not quite stem the "Red Tide" featuring 9 or 10 fleets of level 4 jets. Good, hard fought, game - possibly closer than it looked. Congrats. to Rambo - rematch in progress.

In the interim, I've set up a scenerio with an approximation of the combination of IT levels and experience modifiers implied your 1st post. So far [summer '41) gainst the AI, the Germans have been running wild, however, with the USSR about 4 turns into the war, they have a ton of units, desite huge early losses. USSR also has level +1 jets plus around 800 MPP's "in the bank". I have invested 2 chits in German IT and they are currently at level 2. [would like to avoid house rules if possible] The next year of game turns should show the overall effect of these tweaks and indicate if the Axis require some "detuning", or the Allies some additional enhacement. Will report back when more data has been acquired.

Shaka: With regard to tweaking SC to provide a closer simulation of the historical WWII major power relative strenghts and weaknesses, I agree and have made some similiar posts along some of the same lines. The trick is to come up with changes that simulate WWII conditions without unduly upsetting play balance. Since the tech advance "catch up" change was included in the v.106 patch, the Russian cheaper unit cost, @ IT 5, accounting for their manpower advantage, will tend to be offset as the Axis also gain IT at an enhanced rate. Eventually, the Axis will have very tough units at a bargain price. Another option is to provide increased at start experience to simulate better quality units and superior military doctrine. It seems that some combination of tech levels and experience could result in a closer simulation of actual WWII, conditions, and still provide resonable play balance. I think the only way to test the effect of various combinations of tech level and experience tweaks is to play test them. Should you decide to set up a mod incorporating your ideas, I would be happy to volunteer as a play tester.

Wachtmeister (Axis) surrenders to "Terif the Unbeatable" (Allies + 125). Another lesson in ecomomy of force for Der Wachtmeister. Took France by 21 July '40 ended up with Malta, Alexandria, Suez etc., plus Vichy, Greece, Iraq, and Yugoslavia by Spring/ Summer '41. So the UK may be in some difficulty with regard to their MPP base - right? Wrong! 2 -level (3) jets, and 3 - level (1 or 2?) carriers deal out unsustainable damage to the Luftwaffe, and assorted city defending ground units each turn. Congrats to Terif. You play at a level to which we humble Sgts. of artillery can only aspire.

Wachtmeister (Axis) surrenders to Codename Condor - (Allies) do not remember the bid.

My goal was the opposite, of French withdrawal, in that I wished to hold France for as long as practical, thus upsetting the Axis timetable. It was working well too. I was sitting fat and happy[i thought]with a French Army built up to about 1.5 times its "at start" strength, with a solid, mostly double, line from the channel through Paris to the Swiss border. Also, the way from Italy into Southern France was blocked off with 3 units. When the Franch Army disapeared, German forces were sufficiently weakened, that British units evacuated France safely. Or, maybe the Wehrmacht just tripped over all those dropped French rifles. Henceforth, Paris will be defended with an all around "hedgehog" type defense, even at the cost of one or more outlying cities.

Wachtmeister Allies +175 surrenders to Iron Ranger, who played very well - congrats. Interesting, hard fought game, but Allies could not overcome losing the med. Warning to future defenders of France: Don't forget [like I did!] that France falls, no matter what,if Paris falls. The change in v.106, designed to combat excessive withdrawal of French units to the UK, also prevents any defense of France in depth. Lost 10 French ground units, & 1 air unit, plus all but one fleet, when the Germans got good die rolls with a two-hex - 4 hit attack on +1 experienced 8 factor army in Paris. At that time,(21 July 41) Allies held all French resources except the mine, also held the Low Countries.

If winter effects are added to the game with the effect of slowing down the Axis, but not the Russians, then the Russian DOW readiness, should be slowed way down, say by about 1 year. [unless Germany attackes the Baltic States or looses in France] If we want to add winter effects to match history, then it seems fair to recognize that the USSR would not have been likely to attack Germany before late '42 at the earliest. Slowing the USSR DOW "clock" would provide the Axis an option to delay attacking Russia, until Spring '42, to maximize "good weather" turns before the onset on winter.

Agree with Shaka. The Russian initial set-up is indeed unfavorable, but SC Allied players do not muddle about in confusion for weeks like the historical Russian High Command(STAVKA)did. Stalin himself went into shock and became non-functional for something like 10 days. In WWII, the Wehrmacht took Riga, Minsk, and Smolensk, threatened Leningrad, and surrounded Kiev + Odessa, all by mid-Aug '41. In SC this feat is difficult against the AI, and next to impossible against a human opponent.

Suggest that the infinite and cheap sea lift capacity permitted in SC is a major reason that Sea Lion is easy in SC relative to actual WWII conditions. A few weeks after the fall of France, the Germans had about 2000 vessels in various French ports. However many of these were "converted" river barges unsuited for any but the calmest of sea states. Some insight into the thinking of Hitler, and various members of the High command, based upon post war interviews of senior Wehrmacht commanders, may be found here: Operation Sea Lion It is interesting to note that the actual perceived risks mentioned within the source noted above, such as need for absolute air superiority, supply shortages, problems landing subsequent waves of troops, etc. seem to be fairly well simulated in SC.

Turkey may, but is not sure to, join Axis, under the following circumstances: 1. Greece conquered by Italy as soon as possible after France falls. 2. Early Sea Lion, and conquest of London, so that Spain Joins Axis. 3. Good Axis relations with the Balkan States - no Axis attacks on the Balkans, inculding Yugoslavia. If Turkey does join Axis, The USSR prepares for war almost immediately. An example of the outcome of Turkey joining Axis is outlined below from a previous post. posted November 24, 2002 12:45 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran the "formula" one more time and both Spain AND Turkey joined the Axis when London fell. The entry of Turkey was indeed decisive as expected, especially with the Spanish Army also on board. At expert level w/ experience bonus +1, the entry of Tukey was "lights out" for the USSR by mid '43. Game ended [uSA taken] by late '44, even though I never got any [German]jets. This outcome was against the AI. I have never seen Turkey join the Axis in a multi-player game.

Wachtmeister (Allies+200) concedes to Zappsweden (Axis).

Wachtmeister (Axis) concedes to Terif (Allies +200)right behind CvM. err... Blown off the map of Europe would be more descriptive.

Lets' just play the way we do now. Play anyone who is willing to play. Getting waxed builds character, and also may help us "paperweights" to become "featherweights". The fewer rules the better.

Iron Ranger (Axis) defeated Wachtmeister (Allies +120). Adios in '44 Learned to have more respect for the Med. Ranger's moves there, put me in a bind from which I could never fully recover, even after a 1st rate defence of france. Great job Ranger.

Kenfedoroff (Axis) vs Wachtmeister (Allied +175) have played to May '47 to a draw - we think. Game ended on Axis turn. Only message was that Axis had entered into Peace Negiotations. Neither of us has ever seen this ending screen before. The "stalemate victory conditions", do not seem to apply to either side, since France is liberated, but Axis hold Moscow and Leningrad, but not Stalingrad. No major country on either side has surrendered. If this is a draw please update the ladder accordingly. If not, please advise the proper result, and update accordingly. Thanks

JJ: No problem mate. Occasionally, some clearing of the air is part of the dialogue process. Immer Etwas: ["always something" well named alright.] Thanks for taking the time to respond to my two questions. In following the original post, I just did not get those parts. For my part, though trained in a scientific dicipline, I am not one who denies rightful place of the spiritual, mystic, philosophic, etc aspects in the modern world, or any other world. Wholeheartedly agree that a human being is far more that complex collection of protein molecules to be arranged at will. I believe that the spirit, or "spark", as you phrased it, is the true essence. Certainly, many current physical science theories will be changed in the light of further knowledge. This is the strength of the scientific method, in that it constantly reviews its assumptions and changes them as new discoveries are made. Unfortunately, new discoveries can often be used for good or ill. The scientific method does not, however, provide the ideal framework for deciding which it will be.

JJ: Loring, ME... Minot ND with trees. Extinct cold war line? - guess we all better hope its extinct. Nope. - not guilty. Did not assume you were trashing Lemay. Intent was merely to put some additional facts out about Gen. LeMay. Also wanted to provide a little real world insight to balance out the parody. I don't believe such balancing attempts should be out of bounds, but will bow to the forum icons on that issue and continue from here accordingly. Personnally, I was not at all turned on By Dr. Strangelove, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. If my post spun you up I apologize, I thought I pretty much stuck to the facts. I tend to be what many might characterize as "right-wing" and "conservative". For these viewpoints I make no apology. Neither would I ever expect such from those who may be considered [or consider themselves] "left-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or whatever the label of the month might be. Open airing of differing view points is, I believe, enlightening, and neither viewpoint should be suppressed. Then, we have a shot at understanding - not to be confused with agreement.

Despite what Hollywood movie script writers would have the world believe, General Curtis E. LeMay was, on balance, an excellent military leader, who served his country with honor and distinction. Like all leaders he made some decisions that seem wrong or even "absurd" in the clear, semi-mystical, 20-20 hindsight given to those of us who were not there 58 years ago. The Dr. Stangelove association was basically political mud slinging used to good [political] effect during Lemay's, possibly ill-advised, run for Vice President on the George Wallace ticket. Somewhat in common with other WWII leaders such as Halsey, or Patton, Lemay was a blunt, outspoken warrior type - the antithesis of the "political animal". His actual record clearly shows that he was not anything at all like the mad bomber depicted in Dr. Strangelove. Having served in General Lemay's ceation, the Strategic Air Command (SAC), I can verify that no one more dreaded the idea of launching those missiles and bombers in an all out nuclear war than SAC personnel from the lowest ranking floor sweeper to the SAC Commander. We were saddled with a detailed, vivid picture of the likely result of such a conflict. The SAC concept was to deter such war. At least in terms of avoiding an all out war with The Soviet Union, it served its intended purpose, at least until China get's geared up. Immer: Some clarification please on two points: 1. I happen to have a degree in chemistry, which apparently makes me an empirical sceintist. Does this, in turn, automatically invoke "paucity of spirit"? 2. What exactly is it that empirical sceientists should be ashamed of? Seeking out the secrets of the universe by the scientific rather than mystical means? Discovering scientific facts that lead to weapons of mass destruction? Other?

Antoher factor to consider regarding unit experience is what I call the "snowball effect". This effect works mainy in the Axis favor, especially for the 1939 Fall Weiss Campaign. In Fall Weiss, the Axis, AI or human, quickly blows Poland, France and Denmark away, ending up with a hard core armed force, where virtually every unit has L1 - L3 experience. Further conquests of some combination of Greece, Yugoslavia, Norway, Vichy France, Spain, and/or Sweden provide additional "hard core" units. When these experienced units attack, for example, Russia, they usually inflict two or even three times more damage than they receive, so that the Axis attackers lose less exprience per reinforcement, than the defenders. They are also much more likely to eliminate dedenders, and receive the 1/2 point experience bonus. Thus, the "snowball" - experienced units, properly used, tend to increase experience level. Relatively inexperienced defending units tend to lose experience. An added advantage is the fact that defensive success only adds 1/2 the experience compared to offensive success. Throw in some advanced technology, and the Axis can become nearly (but not completely) unstoppable, at least on a unit for unit basis. This experience momentum in each direction, is the main reason Russia needs every MPP it gets to build those swarms of corps for the defence of the "Motherland". The entry of the Siberian army is key, since those units all show up with L1 experience. It is also why it is necessary for UK and USA units to hit any available axis city, port, or other relatively "easy" target, in order to gain as much experience as possible before opening the 2nd front. Any time the opportunity arises to severely reduce or eliminate an experienced enemy unit, it should be taken, if at all practical. Even if the short term cost is high, the long term pay-off is usually worthwhile.

What some Japanese officers may have said to the contrary, I do not see how the Russian entry into the war could have had a bigger effect on the Japanese surrender decision than dropping the two A-bombs. Two major cities vanishing, each from a single nuclear yield, a few days apart, seems to be far more incentive for Hirohito to throw in the towel, than loss of gound in Manchuria to the Russians. I doubt the Russians had the amphibious warfare capability to sieze any further Japanese home Island territory beyond the few northernmost minor islands they took in the last days of the war, and still hold. Atomic bombs do terrible damage especially with regard to the long term radiation related effects on the survivors. However, conventional bombs, especially massive fire bomb raids that create firestorms, do as much total damage, although without the latent after effects. Within the framework of total war, expending the lives of up to a million, mostly US, soldiers or dropping A-bombs on enemy cities, was probably not too tough a decision. This is especially true since the patently horrible after effects from radiation exposure and fallout were either unknown or poorly understood at that time. Further, the Japanese had mobilized the entire population to resist the invasion, including women and children. Therefore, assuming Olympic had actually proceeded, invading soldiers would supposedly have been faced with shooting swarms of ill-armed, but fanatical civilains. Had the Japanese population resisted as planned, it is resonable to assume that far more casualities would have occurred on BOTH sides, had the A-bombs not been dropped. Regarding the so called "morality" the US decision to deploy the A-bomb in WWII, I would appreciate some education in regard to why it is somehow less "moral" to cause death and destruction by means of these two A-bombs, than by conventional explosives, fire bombing, bullet, bayonet, etc.

An area for consideration is the relief of surrounded or otherwise out-of-supply units. Currently, such units cannot be resupplied or at least reinforced until the next turn. Given the time scale of each turn - 1 week to 1 month, depending upon the season, it seems logical that relieved units should be reinforcable immediately after a supply route is opened - subject to their supply level after relief. When "pocketed" units are relieved, a week, much less 2 weeks or a full month seems like plenty of time to rush in reinforcements. Allowing immediate reinforcement would also aid invasions where units must be wedged into any available vacant coastal hexes, and fight to open a supply corridor to an HQ or port.

The answer appears to be no. I loaded a couple of old saves, and declared war on the Baltic states. In no case did USSR DOW readiness change. Also ran a quick Fall Weiss campaign against the Axis AI, declared war on the Baltic States on turn 1, and let the game run through the surrender of Poland, and concurrent USSR annexation of eastern Poland. Again, no change in Russian readiness.