Liam

Well, I'm half, sorta like Sprite, at least I do not say Aye Aye Right Right, like Hubert and Blashy Liam's 6 and 0 all these were 1.2 matches mostly Allied side... Rambo is impressive himself but he will not stand a chance vs me, last match he surrendered to my Axis before Barbarossa even heated up... Good luck John J. You'll need every bit of it! Mirror PanzirLiga and MyLeague

Patton wasn't killed, let us rephraze it, "Live by the sword, die by the sword!" Translated: the man was a Warrior the only shame is he didn't die from a piece of shrapnel leading a armored Cavalry charge, I would think it more honorable if a Soviet agent or American Government Agent executed him. That means he fulfilled his Role in Life. I believe that Patton was likely descended from a Roman General that Razed Carthage (Or reincarnated) what was his name? P.S. the Soviets and Americans never did fight it out, so Patton was wrong. Politics, or rather Technology and Money outweighed Ideologies. The Cold War was lost for the Soviets. We Won

As far as I know it's hardwired that you cannot change it less than 0, so that means after you achieve a certian amount of diplomacy and the Allies or Axis overdo it, still you'll get Zero. I think that even if aligned -percentages should be allowed just never the orientation toward a different Alliance. The reason being, "The US is awfully close to Zero, means the UK can go on an early rampage and any diplo chits the Axis may have to prevent them are worth squash, plus the UK is not penalized enough from that the other side of the Ocean." They're aligned historically to Allied or Axis. Stop any possible gamey actions. Scripts allowing it is one thing I suppose if you wanted a Cold War Scenario, etc...

Bromley: You've done some good homework. Only about a Corps size force as I recall would've been directly under Rommel, not worth mentioned. How are you going to add in 2 armies, 2 corps, for near Half a Million men, how is Rommel HQ going to handle the logistics of that and the italians, he could've managed around 80 thousand perhaps and how many Machine Guns and lower calibre anti tank weapons could he hand down? Logistics here The Axis failed, the Minors were many unwilling partners. Balkan Nations in my views were Greedy with infighting.. Hungary in particular and all looking to gain from German Conquest. Her Failure in WW1 was Austro-Hungaria was a mess, she was more a German Pawn and Germany thought of taking the whole lot an incorporating her in the Reich. Turkey tied up many Allied troops, and she was in constant unrest..she would've never lasted but still cost the Western Allies a good year or two delay by adding another Front.. The failure was not a failure really in the eyes of the Germans, I feel they never intended to concede much to their Axis Minors, why they're Minors. She merely saw them as Pawns to march through and borrow resources from... And that is about the purpose they serve, actually they're much much more powerful in SC, their units are able and can deliver a punch in supply! Their Minors turned on her, unluckily Italy did it in a mess. She could've likely secured a lot more of her nation before throwing in her lot with the Allies if she had a decent High Commander

HR, I know Romania has been plagued by poor leadership, well, Evil Leaders as bad as any one else. The Communist Dictator of the 80s? Killed 1 million Romanians during his Reign.. The Romanian people deposed him? They were fighters, not saying they were not, and being a Balkan Nation, Hungary-Bulgaria-Romania-Serbia-all the Minors of Former Yugoslav Government-Greece-Turkey is one of the hottest spots of Conflict of the 20th century, I'm certian the rest of Europe had breathers though not these regions... to add: I'm aware that Hungary took portions of Romania, carpathia, in exchange Romania was supposed to get portions of Ukraine? Unluckily she a nation surrounded by Giants, with two choices Nazi or Communist.. She seems divided between the two during the War. A good thing she fought on the side of the Reds in the end. The nation has remained pretty much in tact despite all that has occurred, oddly enough... I'm not a pro on her Soldiers, she did have Aerial Aces. a few actually and she did sport some German equipment. Believe me the Romanian Army probably would've defeated the American Army in 1939 LOL we were pitiful

defending from the Russian invasion? Raping pillaging, reaping the vengeance of the Angry Minors she stomped? I'm shocked that she lost that #, probably not accurate, probably mostly surrendered Romanians who were sent to Siberia. Not to say they were bad soldiers, bolt action rifles vs assualt rifles. cannon vs artillery. tanks vs horses. likely P.S. Romania lost 73,000 in combat. That is one figure I've seen on a site... though if you want to wet your appetite to who was the bigger bully in the East read this. Statements claiming 20% of the casualties of WW2 were Ukrainian.. http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-19.html Think we outta call it the Kievan Conflict and WW2? [ September 02, 2006, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Teehee, Chase Elite Silver Card just gave me a reason they will not give me 10g "You need to pay off more of your Credit Debt!" What a lame excuse I'm glad to this dude bought the game, now he just has to start reading! Studying! 30 games he'll get that green off him. "Left Right LEFT RIGHT!"

BioWizard, absolutely! Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria did not have their heart in the war. Bulgarians stayed garrisoned in the Balkans the entire War. I'm certian Romania was only interested sections of the Ukraine. Hungary I'm not certian, probably the deepest partner in blood, maybe her Government was truely Pro-Nazi and her ancestory in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Italy, was even a far cry from what we could call an advanced military. They were mechanized to a degree, for the 30s, probably on par with many other Majors though as the war progressed I'm pretty certian they were halfbutt. Britian, USA, USSR and Germany...France never making the cut, were the only true PowerPlayers in Tech. They lasted, the USA supported the UK's efforts and Empire meant she could likely draw more raw materials than Germany, though she also had to protect those regions from primarily Japan and some German North African Aggression. Had all the Foreign Troops supported the European effort, I'm likely to see 1 million Indians and couple hundred thousand Commonwealth troops. They wouldn't have recieved Mainline BEF or UK Military Equipment but regardless they would've had better than Italy/Axis Minors... That should be represented on the whole, even UK Minor troops were better outfitted. German Axis Minors, they may have had smallarms... Though Germany herself was not as short on Manpower as the UK in one respect, she annexed a lot territory with Waffen troops available and German Ancestory. That meant she could draw pool probably twice that of the UK, perhaps 3Xs... Not certian why the UK such shortages in Manpower... 40 million or 45 million souls. Germany around 60-90 Million, not sure of what were conscripting requirements... Germany probably couldn't afford to give away thousands of BF-109s, and probably couldn't afford to give away much Panzer Mark IIIs or above. Nor much of her Mechanized or air transport. Look at Stalingrad! Look at Russia, or North Africa. She had shortages and also in supply. Lost 20% of air by the time Sea Lion started, doubtful she was geared for War. Now had she been "fully geared in 1939," we may be talking a different story. Even 1/3rd of what the USA produced would've given a lot of Hungarians, Romanians, Italians the means to fight more effectively. I'll also wager she was not to certian trusting this Minors with her equipment in case she had to occuppy them, as in Italy's case!

$35.00 for CD & Comic Book for niece, along with Lattas Lordy... Our Economy sucks, Blashy Hubert move over us Americanos are crossing the Border! Banditos Me and Rambo gonna Homestead in Saskachwan<SP? "Halt! Ye Border Guard Sweareth no Americano Crosseth!" Strategic Command 2 Monopolizing!!! Bahahahahah Our Community is sveet (And pronounced just like that all mixed up with 10 nationalities)

P.S. Ratings are subjective even the Battlefront staff is quite off, their just balancing the game with their choices, Kuniworth has picked out many Soviet Generals not even represented, sadly they probably were very capable A Rating 10 was my concept to make reward the best of the WW2 Generals. In their own Right, in accomplishments. Rommel, Kesselring, Manstein, Montgomery, Patton and perhaps Not reflected due their levels Hugh Dowding or H.Guderian. (more than likely two of the more brilliant minded generals, many will say Hugh made zero errors and won vs Goering as an Air General that would be close to a 10) not even reflected on the German side to name a few: Milch, Paulus, Beck, Halder, Jodl, Keitel Many High Command many subordinates to others... many more out there on all sides, USA even

Bromley, already don't units within a Friendly HQ recieve supply from it? I've noticed this anyways, I could be off. I recall always being able to reinforce my Italians to full strength, getting some supply enhancement from a Friendly HQ, double check it though. I think all Friendly Units should at least get a supply bonus, whether or not to have units underneath a Subordinate, depends, as does Tech. You cannot go giving Italians and Romanians SMGs, LMGs, Panzer 3s. I do not feel the Germans had enough.. Even if the Germans have an update themselves. I think you must keep them seperate, historically anyways, if you follow those guidelines, the Romanians didn't possess what the Germans had in quantity obviously. Nor did much of their Minors, Finland maybe the largest benefactor. I would allow say Canada, Finland, with a timestamp, to gain say maximum of IW1. Motorization1. AntiTank1... That is it... Romanians, Bulgarians historically should be on partisan duty and if on the frontlines should crack and allow breakthoughs as it did happen. Spain did recieve lots of Italian and German equipment and that might be interesting to reflect. Perhaps allow them Heavy Tanks1, and Infantry Weapons1... They did take back their fighters, and Transport Aircraft, after the War. Most of their help I am probably certian was small arms... If you can get historical data, exact data maybe HC would consider it.. Otherwise it's not a big Factor. Canada, Finland and Spain having these advancements will not change the game. Meanwhile in North Africa, very ahistorical the Italians can research Gun Radar 2, Inf Weapons 3, etc... The Italians realistically wouldn't have accomplished this as quickly as other powers. Their units are already demoted in value and hitting power by their HQs.. I think their advancements should be capped at 50% the tech of a normal Western Nation.

The two good reasons to buy Strategic Command 2 are these: 1st: the game basically is one of the best WW2 Strategy Games available. That is not an opinion. It is not much of a tactical Game, HOI, Panzer General, several other titles out there can compete and will compete in that genre... World At War, along those lines is Grand Strategy or Axis & Allies (Though a bit archaic) almost risklike... SC2 mixes some tactical warfare along the lines of Clash of Steele, I love the mixture of the SSI feel to it... makes it feel like you're a General and a Dictator 2nd: The Creator Supports his game. Now it isn't fully IP as there still a lack of a community for it, but if you find a 'couple of guys' you can usually play some time in Direct IP Play. Just a little rare The Creator will fix the bugs, he will support the game. Hubert has shown that he leaves very few stones unturned, there is no wargame out there right now that can boast the same.. In this Genre, even HOI II and HOI III haven't been supported by larger software developer as much as Strategic Command a potentially higher selling program.. it is worth it to pay for the support that you recieve.. Relatively cheaper strategic command 1 still has a following and is still a very very good IP game. One can finish in a night or two.

This sounds much like the Poles, who actually were able to fight fairly well, when well organized. Their equipment however was a war or two behind that of the Western Allies. They were still stuck in WWI, The French Comanders were in HQ units far removed from the front lines, they did NOT have radio or even telegraph connections to the front line units, they used messagers to move information to and from HQ/front line troops. It could be a good day before they knew what was happening then another to decide what to do then another to send out a response. In WWII mobil warfare they were doomed from the start. It was the French leadership, from the very top of goverment to the French generals and their comand and control structure that caused the French failure, certinaly not their troops or equipment. </font>

Interesting, sidenote on the French Generals... From what I understand, Maurice Gamelin was well respected by the Germans and a competent WW1 General. Took a gamble by committing his forces to "Dyle Plan," didn't work out in his favor however, the Germans didn't go through Belgium. Seems the whole of the French Government was in upheaval. Hard to say what would've happened to those Armored columns had the Grunt of French and BEF Forces met them headon. Instead of an encircling motion and HeadOn Collision. Not to say that superior Airpower wouldn't have won the day for the Germans but probably would've caused a lot bloodier conflict without the risk of losing your entire Nation in one Grand Miscalculation... I wonder where Recon and such were, and why the French and Brits were so slowwww to respond, a High Command error I assume? I also assume incompetence by the Generals beneath.. The British were not in Charge in France so you cannot really blame them. In North Africa, The hard part of Judging Montgomery is he had his opponent outnumbered and outsupplied, his men performed excellently. If I had to compare myself to one man, I much like Monty... I fight like him in Strategic Command and I've proven to be an able Commander, however never a brilliant one... Revolutionaries like Rambo, HellRaiser, etc... If you were to rate our ArmChair Generals... It would be something like this: Terif: 9 Superb tactical and strategic Overview Dragon: ??? 7-8 when he plays very very competent HellRaiser: 8 Extremely quick to adapt, fast learner Rambo: 8.5 Gets tired but he is highly offensive and potentially unstoppable, just a little bit shakey Iron Ranger: 7.5 Competent, and adaptability Scook: 6 Excellent NewCommer, learning fast Liam: 7 so so, weak defensive play, with advantage unstoppable Odd, match up to Historical Generals, how ones pros and cons, in whatever the situation might be comes out. Perhaps a man like Rambo or Rommel would be ideally suited to one another. Monty and Myself suited. Manstein and Terif... Qualities shared and in the right situation they shine.. Some Generals may be judged to harshly like Gamelin in history or Clark as you mention, we've a clinic named after him here.. It's hard to judge absolute, unless you're there beneath him seeing him make the wrong 'move' I think it was Guderian who wrote later about how the German columns stretched back all the way to Germany along a single narrow road that cut through the forest. Whoever wrote about this -- and I'm almost certain it was Guderian -- marvelled in dismay that there was no German air cover at all for that part of the operation, it had all been allotted to Belgium and Holland. He wrote that a single well placed bomb at the head of the column would have blocked their way for hours, if not a full day, and anything even remotely resembling a determined air to ground strike would have resulted in the utter slaughter of German troops. In other words, it would have been the Highway of Death from the First Gulf War. That situation would have been as much the fault of the Luftwaffe as Manstein's -- though he drew up the plan, he wasn't empowered to assign air cover, or even to direct it once it had been turned over to the general staff. Somewhere else it was written that, had the French held Sedan, the Germans would have been backed up and unable to deploy along a wide front; it would have been similar to Xerxes at Thermopolai. And the French did assign a lot of extra artillery to the city's defenders, but at this point the Luftwaffe struck in force, destroying most of the big guns before they could cause much damage to the attackers. -- Regarding the rest of Kuni's original post, I definitely agree with him, there was never, in all of history, any general who should be considered a perfect ten. They all had their flas, including Caesar, Hannibal, Scipio-Africanus, Alexander, Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, Grant, Zhukov, Manstein, Monty, Patton et al. 8 & 9, in my opinion, should be a very scarcely assigned designation with 10 available for use in scenarios. But, naturally, a lot of this is so subjective that I see little point in adding my own evaluations, especially since they don't differ much from those already given. -- However, among the few most mentioned: 9 -- Zhukov and Manstein; in both instances they were excellent strategists as well as tacticians with a very good grasp of logistics. Both men were able to effectively direct very large forces. Also, I think they were strongest and weakest in different areas from one another, with the overall nod going to Zhukov, despite Manstein's possibly better grasp of offensive tactics. 8 -- Montgomery, Rommel and Patton. For varying reasons. Montgomery was methodical and, though his ability to gain quick victory is dubious, his ability to gain victory in the long run, while avoiding tactical defeat, was a very valuable attribute, and well documented. Rommel was a great tactician, but the German soldiers themselves did not feel he was particularly exceptional among their own generals. I tend to agree. He paid little attention to logistics and too often plowed ahead with blind, understrength attacks that were doomed before they began. His best results were achieved against British Commanders in North Africa who had been thrown into the middle of a disasster by Churchill (often a disasster he himself created with his meddling) and Rommel, striking immediately, caught them before they had a good grasp of either the situation, or of desert warfare itself. Such tactics were useless against someone like Montgomery, who looked to solid defense first, and gaining the initiative second. Patton, to me, is similar to Rommel. He's difficult to judge for the same reason as Montgomery, he never had to face the Germans when they were at their strongest. But he was good at getting the job done and never looked back once he started moving forward. In all three campaigns he took part in (Tunisia, Sicily and France/Germany) he was the right man in the right place and at the right time. Despite the fact that his adversaries never had a fair chance of counterattacking, it can also be said that Patton never failed very badly in pressing the attack and defeating forces that were often very formidable in defense. 7 -- Wavel, Auchinleck (needlessly maligned in the SC ratings, in my opinion), Rundstedt, Alexander, Bock, Bradley, Leeb, Kluge and Modell. Very good commanders but neither flashy nor capable of working miracles. 6 -- Clark -- Good generals who were not among the best. In the case of Mark Clark, he was an exceptionally good generals with character flaws that knocked him down a notch in actual combat, I'm thinking specifically of his going for Rome in June 1944, instead of cutting off the huge number of German troops practically routed between defenseive lines. That was one of the worst errors of WWII. But it may also have been a error on the part of his superiors in not making his offensive goals less ambiguous. Also, I think Clark would have been much better if his command had been in the comparatively open terrain of France, instead of the hills and mountains of Italy. Still, the plain fact is he went for glory and headlines instead of winning a decisive victory. I've left out many deserving Soviet commanders because Kuni and others have already covered them much more knowledgably than I'd have been able to. -- other U. S., Canadian/Commonwealth, UK, German -Italian/Axis and French generals would be mainly guesswork on my part, and in many instances they've already been well covered by others. </font>

The French had superior armor to the Germans though they didn't have them as the Germans had them. I suppose the 1 tank represented in the game mirrors the sad arrangement of their tank units. Infantry support weapons.

One thing I must not agree with, though many of your points are valid a little bit indifferent about ports however. Reason being is this, yes it's obviously a flaw in the map, though obviously I do not care, learn the map and it's operations and that certian flaws are more idiosyncrocies, and not a big deal. What stands out more are much greater neccessities than these things... Cities much regain supply, forces the attacker to encircle, that way encirclement requires a force rather than a silly corps running around it... The Baltics and Ukrainians did offer much to the Axis cause..Whether or not a Corps appears in the Baltics is irrelevent, noone will invade it unless they're foolish. However should it host partisans, some would argue that the dead Russian armies are the leftovers of partisans (those who escaped capture or escaped from POW Camps) , so I'm not sure.

In the light that Canada becomes the center of UK defense, her supply would go up instantly, she is impossible to conquor, perhaps HC is avoiding this.. I mean it's possible to conquor her if the US wouldn't mobilize due to Canada being invaded the limitation on ampibs should lessen the danger that and the mobilization of the US defense forces, an attack on Canada would be a threat to the US mainland Bombers are easy targets, generally out of range of fighters, they should have some fighters attached that scramble, along with AA defense I've visited an original B-17 Base in East Anglia used to Bomb the Reich, I saw the hangars still used some till this day, 1 500 lbs bomb would've destroyed several bombers quite easily, they were made of glass and barely armored, not flammable looking but vulnerable

Iran and Iraq are sort of boring topics. Going nowhere, doubtful Americans will be able to afford to finish their job there, Doubtful that Iran will be stopped in building a Holy Weapon. LOL Even Christians do not have the audacity to call it a Holy Weapon LOL In the end the only thing that'll come from all this is Arabs spending their cash on weapons and junk, and their infrastructure going to crap meanwhile we'll get richer, we should have 5,000 commandos over there instead of 100,000 American targets

If this is the case you should allow for the huge limitations of operations to the European Theatre. Only a few long range weapons made there way to England, only a percentage of America's Production "personally." Wasn't till '44 the true grit of American production made it way to Europe for a real War.. took her 2 or 3 years and with the Pacific sideshow to truly mobilize

Totally agreed, greed, was Hitler's downfaul chances are he may have gotten away with victory at Paris, chances.. not 100% I wouldn't state it in such absolute terms, but I indeed wonder what would have happened if the Germans would have stopped after the low countries, France and some of Eastern Europe. I am not so sure that the UK and the US would have attacked Germany. The BEF was indeed sned to France, but even that took ALOT of debate in the UK at the time. They had a treaty to defend the Low Countries, but they never did. There is indeed a big chance that neither the UK, US or USSR would have attacked Germany. But the question is this : how long would Hitler be satisfied with "just" Benelux, France and parts of Eastern Europe ? Did he need an expansive conquest to ensure support from the German population ? I don't know. I think sooner or later he would have attacked the UK or the USSR and that would have been the end of it. </font>

That clears up a lot of confusion, math obviously isn't my strongpoint, when it comes to Strategic Command I rarely want to crunch #s I try to avoid it altogether.. I will be much more cautious.. BTW: Hubert is it true that placing a unit on a city increases it's Morale much faster regardless of other factrs? It seems to I'll run a hotseat to test

Elite Reinforcements come only with 1 Solid Bar of Experience Per... with the Siberian Transfers and with no other units I'm aware of to start the game off has experience already, save Partisans... I do not recall reinforcing a partisan to 1 elite the Reinforcement is handy for many reasons, I think the Morale Readiness and ability to kill and not be killed so easily makes them quite handy. However reinforcing them from strength 10 to 11, and so forth takes them out of action, so it something to do in the Winter or Muddy months.. When they're not being used.. I rarely see experience 12 being exceeded in the current platform.. I suppose Navy's COULD really benefit great but land units lose too much strength to gain much from elites

I have a UK fighter 4 tiles away from London, at Strength 4 in a game. Morale is 20%, not certian what the supply is can't be all bad. Probably 6-7 I have a German corps on the border with USSR, strength 4, morale was down to about 15% I think or close to it. Was odd to see it fall so so low some oddities.. I find it's to be cautious with strength for too many turns. Regardless of Supply My Units in Egypt I notice suffer vastly in morale readiness they're worth a bucket of spit unless they can sit out of War for enough turns to build up. Comming in at lower strength than 10, and without HQ, and with just a few points of low supply really means the pits. 30-35% till many turns of building up That's indeed odd. But to have this happen, the unit has got to be at a strength lower then 3/4th the moral. That's kinda hard to do in the game since moral falls if STR lowers. Besides, the effects aren't that big as these numbers show... (old morale always 80) STR 5, SPL 10 gives 52 new morale STR 5, SPL 9 gives 52.8 new morale STR 5, SPL 8 gives 53.6 new morale STR 5, SPL 7 gives 54.4 new morale STR 4, SPL 10 gives 44 new morale STR 4, SPL 9 gives 45.6 new morale STR 4, SPL 8 gives 47.2 new morale STR 4, SPL 7 gives 48.8 new morale Weird, indeed, but not game-breaking IMHO. </font>

Seems the Russians had a vast amount of units and equipment an attack during France would've been a great opportunity. I think Stalin was curious to see how that was going, if it would've gone on 6 months and gone badly, I would not underestimate the entry of Stalin against Germany if he knew for certian he would be fighting a few german units is all.

Interesting in that it's precisely what Germany should have done in order to Survive and become a World Power. Holding the Low Countries cost more men then they were worth. Considering Diplomatically and Militarily Germany would have been the only Major LandPower left in Europe aside from the USSR. Britian and France would've taken a backseat, as you say the public would've sued for Peace with the loss of hundreds of thousands of British. The Loss the BEF would've been like two 6th armies to the small Island Nation, and there wouldn't be many other armies in 1940 to replace it.. Empire would've come before European sovereignty that or total Collaspe of just that. Spain may have been more interested in a limited war for personal gains.. Hitler was overly ambitious, to the point of death. He was over worried about public opinion and worried about the support of his General Staff, which he wasn't assured until the Fall of France. So he was much too arrogant a man to see the fact that when Paris fell, at that point he'd already won. The Russians alone...they would've had to have fight perhaps twice the War then they did. Every German Panzer in North Africa. Every German Plane lost, pilot lost Over England.. Or protecting the Reich, every German Sentry that could be freed up would be pointing a Giant Sword in the Belly of the Red's...it would've been a very very dangerous time for Stalin Hitler gained no More ManPower from his conquests, he diminished it. He gained very little resources he diminished those.. His Puppets were his downfall they were not to his advantage, ultimately Japan and Germany may have desired tracts of USSR. Perhaps Stalin alone, isolated would've sought a deal himself.. No Sacking of Moscow neccessary