Liam

They're included, of course AT technology would be Artillery guns that kill Tanks. Tanks are mobile artillery of sorts. we have Rocket artillery, why? Cause it's neat. Artillery for the game, could turn out bad. A unit stack with Artillery might work for a bonus, but in a much more detailed game. I thought one of you guys said that 90% of casaulties of WW2 were Artillery? So hmmm, why not

Sarge The ideas are a hint for Hubert. I think that it's a valid point what you say. Add this or that, wonderful! Though it's not going to happen with the original title though someone brought up the point of what they'd like included in a future version by the title of this discussion. Airborne units make a bit more sense than Mountain troops IMO. You can just rename a simple corp a Mountain one as they do in Greece or here or there in Barbarossa Scenario and so what's the difference? Engineer Corps, Elite Units, Destroyers, real Fighters not Super FighterBombers<that's something you could change in the current engine for the better!>. Plus Carriers that carry Nukes UberRockets that're more like SmartBombs when historically did they ever kill a single Living Soldier? Maybe a couple AA batteries Some of the units you mentioned... had no real special operation on strategic level. Meanwhile Airborne troops do... They allow you to land behind the lines, yet again far too detailed for the current Game Engine, agreed. Remeber I live at the home of the 82nd Airborne so naturally I'll see the use in Paras. More than Corps level amount of Paras died in France and Crete UberDetail, nah don't want that. Though of course we dream, we hope for more... We want detail whatever comes is the programmers choice this is his brainchild. Of course I will honestly admit if Hubert doesn't design something interesting I may just take a few programming classes of my own if I could produce an SC2 like Game I would be 50G-100g richer I think. Is it worth it? Depends. Require a team

then all of you please post your ICQ Numbers in the the proper thread so I can contact you

Off the the original topic? SC isn't HOI... On the subject Paras though, it'd be kewl. We could use them to secure Strategic Hexes that other units can't get to. Probably take something like a half strength Corps and charge a Crapload for it cause Paras are the Cream of the Crop and then pay a Huge Operational Fee to drop it so many hexes that must be transported by a Bomber Unit. During a possible Sea Lion<Germans had a lot of gliders and Paras prepared to capture key points in England> or vis Versa Western Front Action D-Day Paras were very important to dropping behind the lines and securing strategic points. Even in Crete, which just for historys sake should have a port in SC not just but why would thousands of Germans and Brits die there for it if it wasn't useable?

AntiAir doesn't give units out in the open any bonus

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/albums/palbum/p01/a0081p2.html from the Simon Wiesenthal Files, back up what John said. The Hungarians were not any nicer than the Germans as far as I can tell

John: There is definitely guilt outside..Switzerland and Sweden helped the German War Effort some, more than Chamberlain or Stalin, I doubt.. Though I disagree with you. Those who signed the Pact gained something small. However, they signed it and willingly handed over their Minorities... Whether they were bullied or not there were nations who didn't bend over. The Czecks mobilized and prepared to fight. The Poles fought as well in the East. The Yugoslavs and Greeks did to a lesser degree and under different circumstances that may not count. The Fins had a bone to pick, and despite Mother Russia serving the Nazis was wrong. I blame them less than the Balkans who were infighting in many many Wars over their own Border, Ethnic disputes... As I remeber Romania, Bulgaria both got land for their part? Italy is odd, but lead by a bit of a enigmatic Leader doesn't shock me.

Hardships, I believe that is what we wish to establish here. I'm certian the Dutch endured many, relative for such a small Nation. I'm fortunate to be a Humanbeing due to the fact of a Brave Anti-Aircraft Gunner on a MineTrauler in the Pacific Or my GrandFather would've been sharkfood... that or the poor quality of German Rockets would've blown em up in his own house. Our valiant effort in making sure my half Home Nation was fed by American Loan ships...Worldwide Allegiance Against Nazism to feed England and my family there. Or my Uncles at Dunkqurkue who fought valiantly for the Allies, or my GrandMother who produced Boots for these guys and ran from V1-2 Rockets and Strafing Stukas, Heinkels and Messerschmitts. Of the tens of thousands of British Citizens who died and many more Soldiers I applaud them. Certianly if all of Europe were conspirators, the War would've been lost for the Allies. Tens of Millions of Russians, and Millions of Western/Eastern/Worldwide Allies died in the name of Freedom and more importantly Individuality. The Low Countries were not conspirators. They had their element of Nazi sympathizers, although one must remeber that Anne Frank was habored in the LC while in many other places<including the USA> the acceptance of Minorities wasn't allowed. The History there is Great and I think what's been in question as of late is the Loyalty of the Dutch, and Belgian People. I can honestly say that I personally believe a Majority of them 'fought' as well as they could. Had they a Army the size of France, Poland or any other Medium Power they'd of fought as hard as far as I suspect. They didn't give into bullying and could've easily signed a Pact to join the Axis... As far as Eastern Europe I can't be so sure! Finland should've stayed Neutral<they were being opportunists> Buglaria, Romania and Hungary were all IMO conspirators and got what they deserved, the Iron Curtain. Italy, well, LOL they likely aided the Allied War Effort, so I can't say much for them. [ February 14, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

A tip for us Tactically Challenged folks like me Or even those who think technical Reading Material is TP! HQs are just a Supply Booster for places where Units cannot get strength, i.e. 5 supply cities. HQs are also an attack/defense booster for any unit besides Naval ones. The higher rating, higher the Experience of the HQ the better for combat. Keep HQs in safe places like cities, Mountains at least forests... or beyond Air Power HQs make a usual unit that may only do a few points of damage do several. HQs allow for movement that a remote area could trap a unit and you would lose it. Do not have units on a Frontline without HQ on offensives. You don't need to be a scientist to place them, just use a good Eye. Use your own best Judgement. A big scare, beforwarned of putting HQs in range of UK Carriers and Mix of Air [ February 14, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

I noticed that even transports have a small defense value when suprise contact is made. weird I know, think the same applies for the Sub. that means just about every unit in the game accept for HQ have some sort of direct combat ability... Odd though, if you bump into a Transporting HQ then why the difference heh Also why do you allow HQs to take Hexes!

If the Germans move in for Norway <historical move> then tough... With the 200 bid at 1/5/20 that the Allies get they're a bunch of bedwhiners if they can't win

268794154

Nomada back in WW2 didn't hear much of Sub to Sub Warfare. Don't think the Torpedoes could be accurately fired on another submerged Sub and be harder to hit such a small target even on the surface. The only way for real combat would be the deck guns. Plus Allies shouldn't really buy subs unless to hunt Transports. Not a big issue really..

HOI doesn't distinguish between Asia and Europe. It's just a World Map with a Global conflict. WW2 was decided in ETO... Had Russia fallen, the war was over. Had Russia had it's full might to turn on Japan the War was over for Japan...

Ahhh, and Luxembourg What about them aye Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, Morocco

Agreed, ETO is King. Lets not spoil it

I betcha you'll see SC2 within the comming Christmas, if not the next.. Why not??? Good way to make money.. SC has a Cult like Following<look around> wouldn't make fiscal sense not to release a newer version. It'll depend on how much more advanced it is from the original SC with time frame. BEWARE, Hype is what makes the game turn out bad. Look at Masters of Orion 3, I waited for nearly 3 years plus and it is a total flop. It's collecting dust in my CD case. The game is so bloody advanced from the original it's a bloody boring prospect to play. Not practical at all for even the fastest Connections. The Programmer made a bunch of Promises and such an Anal Creation it is truly a waste of $50 bucks. Civ3 although was a fine release, is has come out with 2 very cheesy titles afterwards that are supposed to be Multi-Player support and Expansion pack. They're Crap, the players forum offers the same junk for free with more detail. Plus you cannot play the game on-line cause it's too detailed and requires UberComputers only... Few have that... Even one of my Favourite Programmers who does HOI, EU series, and Victoria flopped with Victoria and HOI..That's Johann. HOI is not practical...It is however workable, That's it! Then he went and released Victoria at best a Pre American Civil War to WW1 Simulator that will require 5-6 patches to come out healthy. However, don't get me wrong he will fix his mess. That I can rely on. Fact is you gotta be a wary buyer, I've been buying Computer Wargames since 1985ish<Simulator, Silent Service would be first, ingenius little game><not that Text Wargame stuff> Sorry I want a Map and would prefer a Boardgame SC isn't really advanced at all, it's about as complex as a decent early 90s-mid 90s wargame but it exploits a "FINE CONCEPT" and follows in the footstep and tradition of other wargames. If SC2 does the same with enhancements then we can only expect more playing hours of Joy! That's the important part of this Formula. Time you can spend experiencing new and enjoyable Scenarios and Strategies.. SC has beat out many Games 20 years ahead of it's Game Engine 10 Fold

Depends! If the guy retreats outta France in a Heartbeat and you honestly feel 4 airfleets can do the job as quickly there by all means Pound Away

Iraq before Russia for the Allies is a Gambit. If you capture France in Winter 40-41 with an able player the game for the Axis is out although against an inexperienced player you've got a chance depending<!> Check for Holes my Friend. If he's in the MidEast it's likely England is not defended well... Sneak a pretend SeaLion to force him to recolate his Air once you know it's in Egypt. Go for it if he is stubborn and wishes to devote huge portions of the RAF and RN to Egypt. The Thing about the MidEast is you've gotta hit it with #s if it's got MASSIVE English Defenses.. and get it and Minors too without a SeaLion. I'd send a Corps to cover every Hex you can from Syria to Alexandria forcing Brits to Move Defensive<you can afford to lose a couple to Allied Air, but keep Resupply of Corps and Keep the Italian Navy Handy against any RN in the region>. Move in Axis Air close through Egypt behind with a HQ, it can land in Libya in one turn with ac existing transport or ship in Italian Boot Southern Most habor. Put Manstien on the job<that rating will help HUGELY in a 5 supply enviroment> Keep pushing large portions of Mass Transports and Killing air movements sweeping through Alexandria, Suez Beruit and then smash Iraq ALTHOUGH at this point it's close to Barbarossa so you'll need to make up your mind. If he Runs like a Chicken kill him! Make sure to move Armor to Egypt...It's gotta move fast there... Armies are fine for Port cities but you need quick Blitzkrieg for inland. If it's early enough the Brits have just given you a 2 Star Manstien Do not STAY in Iraq unless you know how to invade Turkey.

Was reading a bit on Polish Armor. Not too bad! Just not enough French armor. Also seems the Poles just weren't all ready. Could be an interesting scenario to see the Poles fully mobilized and their equipment a bit more updated with Czeckoslovakia fighting side by side and perhaps even an extra Balkan or two.. Since a very large portion of the German tank attack was Light Armor, I don't believe it mattered much what type of ATGs the Poles possessed, just quantity.

John: I agree the American Army was more pathetic than the Polish in 1939. All those Nasty Cutbacks from the Depression... Cavalry is extremely effective if you do not have Fuel. Many Nations used them, and they were the staple diet to get somewhere fast. Remeber the Germans used Bicycles too! Poles needed an offensive by the Brits and French within a week! Where the Hell were they? They had their fingers up their butt I tell you!

the german mainline atg was same gun on all there p3 tanks up until the H model. not bad, but still required accuracy to kill french or british armor. 88 killed anything and everything. better than a bofors what about the Czecks? the poles would've been better off with suicide Cav, with TNT Satchels and ran in, placed em all over the turret of the German tanks and ran out.. still behind those panzers were Wermacht Infantry. Highly mobile, Mobile forces are dangerous. speed, situational awareness and being able to setup in a whole new location on the drop of a dime is what makes an Army versatile. The Blitzkrieg and German Army Period of that time was a class above Poland. Poland would've been better moving the battle to the Cities like Russia did.. Fighting house to house instead of going frontal with a Steel Leopard clawing it's guts out.. think Germany could deploy, Kill, Move, Deploy, Kill. Poles could deploy, hide, die... French same thing, but they have no excuse they had the money and equipment just no Famous Military Thinkers [ February 04, 2004, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Bill and John: Well, a Bofors is a fine weapon and could probably take out most medium tanks at close range. When I speak about a few thousand AFVs too I don't mean cumbersome Tigers who're deadly Dreadnaughts but hardly manueverable cruisers of Land. Tanks are still always in close terrain overexposed to small arms and explosives. As mentioned the crew alone at night has to come out eventually. I remeber watching a a movie about the Soviet Afgan Conflict, was about a Tank that a bunch of Afgan's were tracking to kill. They had a hell of a time on both ends. Lovely how much Power and Protection a Tank can offer and likewise how vulnerable you can feel in one. However, if you set 2,000 Medium Tanks loose regardless of being smooshed they could wreak some havoc even with a Small Army. Even if they lost... You'd naturally have to favor the terrain and the offensive. You'd had to go for the 'kill' so to speak and make people frightened. I think the prospect of a Mini Nation having so many armored pieces alone is frightening. Even if they only ran for a week or two in the right hands and with some limited MG support can you imagine? I'm certian both Kuwait<could've definitely afforded them> and Netherlands spent as much money on ships to buy probably what 500? The Dutch Navy didn't save them... or even dent a German Panzer I Tanks are wonderful Machines in experienced hands. Think of a Mobile MG nest. Think of the ability to also hide in terrain and ambush and kill just about anything, but another tank. The only thing in your way are ATGs/Specialized Infantry and other Tanks. Watching Heavy Metal Last Night John. For every 1 tank Germany produced the US Produced 4. I suppose the thinking was flank and kill, flank and kill. Though I'm sorry, personally, I wouldn't want to be the guy in the Sherman. <all the German Guys they interviewed had their faces in tact, whilst the Brits all had pieces missing, if that's any sign> I think the Sherman is a nice Machine. Fortunately Production, terrain and finally<poor leadership decisions by the Germans> made the Tiger not the deciding factor. That and our Hellish Airforce... You can produce a crap load more of Equipment for what it costs to buy a tank. Same with Battleships, but both have and still hold great use.. Tank warfare is definitely fascinating though, and the Role it took in WW2

On Fall of France and the Allied weakness defending LC: Found some articles on the web quoted from a book on Fall of France and Wermacht vs Allied Performance..that German troops took Massive casualties and kept going. Some places as much as 75%, when around 25% is norm for an army unit to break. Guess you can come to one conclusion, the Germans were determined perhaps beyond the expectations and Determination of the Allies! I always thought if I was a Mini-Nation like the Netherlands or say modern day Kuwait during a time of trouble I'd buy 2,000 or 3,000 tanks and some air and use them instead of trying to raise a large army.

I'm sure Prinz Eugen would turn over in his grave if he knew the Third Reich would've named a ship after him He was the Allied General<Monty> so to speak of the time