Liam

xwormwood: the irony is still beyond words... I can't say I blame the Czechs who'd been sold out. Nor blame the Isrealis for using their former Opressors Aircraft...it was available aye? and as far as most of the Nazi War Criminals, hell half of them likely gotta away in the crunch...especially the low profile ones, some I know were in Syria probably planning the demise of the remainder of the World's Jewish Population, sad stuff I am quite proud to say as a boy I was obsessed with the 109. It has some awesome features it is an outclassed fighter in the face of finer American/British Aircraft though not bad all in all. You see the spitfire to me as that of a Great White Shark of the Skies. A huge bite and a fast and maunevarable AC. Underestimated by all too... The P-51 the True Bald Eagle over the Skies of Europe, unparalleled bird of prey swooping down upon unsuspecting German's scrambling from their airfields uncertian as they were becoming more and more Green with time what was comming and how long they would live. I'm sure that to get a FW190 was a rarity in Germany, and that though the 109 would be better suited for a Green Pilot because it would definitely handle better than a clunkier heavy armed durable Fighter...that ultimately it could be an equal to the P-51 with Altitude. All the Sims I've done testflights on and the little reading material I've had the pleasure to get my hands on WW2 fighters and the documentaries show that the 109 never truly had a successor. It was what could you say a dead-end design. They keep going from E-F-G-K Models trying to push it to the very edge of what the airframe was capable of... As the spitfire became obsolete in the face of the Corsair-Mustangs so would the 109s no matter what. The turnfighter was on it's way out after the Battle of Britian. Although I will say the Soviets and Japanese created vast #s of these Paper Kites to fly and die for their country and achieve still marginal success Whatever people argue about Speed and the old day of dogfighting I still firmly believe don't get caught low-and slow in a clunky speed fighter like a FW190/P-51/Corsair. Any of the Axis turnfighters would eat them for breakfeast in that place... Reality of dogfighting is what I have heard and I paraphrazing, "In most cases it was who saw who first and that was it, it was over!" [ October 17, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

It's alright Trapp, 99.9% of everything everyone writes is plagiarism on some level. Even when one fancies up their writing with what they feel are their own word combinations<it's what they've learned in school/from books/and from other writers period> so there is no original works anymore or very little of it... The Original Works are long Dead and in Non-Fiction WW2 information, quoting or paraphrazing or whatever is a non-factor. Only Poets and some Fiction writers who're brilliant come close to Independant creativity of some form. BTW: I don't think the French put up that sort of Fighting!!! Viva La Poland [ October 14, 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

In 1.06 I played a few defensive games like this.. Made sense...hard to defeat if you can 'kill enough of the Allies' to begin with and get up enough Minors...though definitely isn't a winning strategy Another point why I think that Longe Range Fighter should be downgraded... First of all if the enemy has Air in the region your Air Recon may or may not bring back intel on the precise location of enemy HQs cause they'd get smooshed. Also HQs have no airdefense.. How many famous Generals were killed in WW2 due to bombing? At least allow a person to buy back an HQ at a reduced price

John, In most cases don't bother with the Med. It's a waste... Too far away from both Supply and direct reinforcements from US/UK... Scandanavia/France are much better targets

Mmmmm, Poor Poland. You're absolutely right John. She was stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place. Though she gets a little bit of what she deserves for going along with what happened to the Czechs, I'm sure though she didn't have much of a say-so in that matter???

Indeed, LC Gambit can make it really 'hard' for an Axis to win. The plunder and extra time and entrenchment give the Allies a chance to mount a good defensive. Against most top players I would suggest taking it out for Germany no matter what. Some sideline notes for newbies breaking through the French lines. After you operate over your main forces and have a good amount airfleets and even an extra HQ. say 6 airfleets and 3 HQs... Make certian if you can't afford your extra HQ that you're forces in LC are managed by a General cause that will give them a much better readiness and batting average, as well as your airfleets away in Germany! If you buy extra airfleets instead of a HQ, do away with the French Armies fast... Most of the time if you can use 2-3 units to crack Ardenne with 3-4 airfleets. even a 5th you will most definitely crack it..fill the hole in with a corp and proceed again to the next french protector. Some say don't overrun your supply into France and smash up the Allies as fast as possible at the possible cost of an airfleet or ground unit. Though I sometimes disagree.<if you capture France earlier and Italy comes in earlier the extra MPP will be earned in time> If it's taking too long, take as much of France as possible and focus on Paris. It's all you really need and it's all over and with the Italians comming in make sure to scan the med for open ports if they're not mounting some sort of Kill Italian Fleet Op that'll cut off the MPPs bigtime for the French [ October 13, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

VonPaulus: Yes I'm aware of that. It stayed in service awhile.. I wonder if it was a good will gesture that the Germans shipped over some 109s to the Isrealis for war reparations. It'll never be enough, but whoever says the Jewish people couldn't protect themselves were definitely proven wrong in the MidEast ME109 was rugged enough. So so on the armament. Fast enough, but not it's greatest asset. It could climb well, that was it's finest asset and for scramble missions to face incoming Airfield Raids was a superb fighter. It remained in Service with other Airforces awhile... I'm certian a way for Germany to make any money after the War to rebuild, not because of the quality of the fighter.

What hurts even more is that their neighbors in Czechoslovakia were mobilized to fight the Germans before they were annexed. Which despite some German population in Sudeten had no love for Germans... I think that a big deal is that the Allies in France and England only said no once Poland was slated as next! Foolish move... Costly for both nations as Poles and Czechs may have not fought together but it would definitely given the Poles an idea of just how adept the Wermacht was! On top of that would've given the Germans less places to penetrate the Polish Lines [ October 12, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Not that much, 1600... it was the 1:8 system. He did however sack both Finland and Romania.. That was a huge boost for Russia

I know the series of Spitfires came in a variety from MKI on... don't think they evolved their fighter technology much beyond that. Whether it was Hubert's idea to include the whole shabang in Fighter Units I'm not sure. I figured as much. The Germans overall would then have 'very poor quality' fighter units naturally. By mid War when the Air War was at it's Zenith over the skies in Europe. The FW190 was the only german plane that wasn't obsolete. Like the Red Airforce<with its Yaks,Shturmoviks> they relied on the Staple 109s and Stukas to Wars end... The Stuka was a flying coffin at this point unless on the Eastern Front and the 109s were assigned anti-bomber missions whilst the fw190s engaged enemy fighters we're missing a key element IMHO I'd prefer that the price of the Fighter unit if it's divebomber/medium bomber/fighter all in one to be at least doubled! Why have Cruisers in a game when Cruisers are only support ships for BattleFleets and much larger ships like Carriers/Battleships, etc... Why bother with corps just have have strength armies [ October 12, 2003, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Woohoo. Talk about a slugfest... the bid hit 1:8.. I can tell I'm out of practice. Allies did a good job of holding onto France until the turn of Fall 40. Germany knew that the logical next move was UK. Though in this doctrine of thinking made a fatal error. They anticipated bringing the Italian Fleet up to invade England via Spain but it arrived late! Not only but pushed all Axis Minors out of the fold England was done away with like clockwork by a good 8-10 German Airfleets.. and Axis victory felt assured! Regardless of the huge blunder... We planned our frontlines in the end along the normal Barbarossa border... Finland was taken. Norway and Sweden soaked up by the Axis, along with Ireland and all other foreign Brit territories aside from Canada. Intelligently The Allies removed the Portuguese and invaded Romania. Since the Minors weren't joined we took out both Yugoslavia and Hungary and established a new line along the Ploesti fields and Sofia...in Bulgaria. We fought hard here neither gaining ground in the mountains. Retreating on and off... After Sea Lion the Axis land forces were a bit depleted and in dire need of reorganization though in this hectic time the Soviets had a chance to advance their jet tech which finally hit 4...and their tank tech that hit 2... We were very backwards in Germany, and only managed with 5 chits to hit jet tech1 still with the edge in the # of fighters.. In the MidEast Germany invaded and stold Iraq away from it's former opressors...and the Russians in turn invaded Turkey having access via the strategic port of Istanbul with Bulgaria Linked ;( We fought a bloodfest in Turkey. Lasted over 6 months. German forces managed to delay, only the inevitable. The Americans were soon arriving and the Western Guard was stripped trying to replenish our Eastern defensive/offensive force. Some huge blunders on both sides but ultimately Russian #s and technology was beyond us. I think that Spain was a deciding factor and the tenacity of the Russians not to concede Romania which would've most definitely cost them any offensive into the MidEast, the last virgin soil We never had a chance to really employ any high ranking Generals Either...Which hurt and became discouraged after losing a big airbattle over Syria...The Russians proved to gain experience and use their Fine Zhukov to not only defend by destroy the far more experienced German tanks that never upgraded GG Tough Woohoo.. I'm beat,bed [ October 12, 2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

to boot: In SC how many fighters in a fighter fleet are used to bomb the ground and how many are used to shoot down enemy aircraft while this occurring? How many multi-role aircraft can you afford? It's not realistic nor is it good for the game. It makes an uberunit that can like a Transformer, "More than meets the eye!" turn from a Truck into a Blasting MegaBot [ October 11, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

I know during the end Days, P-47s were used a lot to strafe trains. Though they weren't used to strafe factories unless they got don't to the wire for a kill. I'll probably put my reputation on the fact most Heavy Targest required aircraft too cumbersome to be fighters. Jeeps, Trains, Pillboxes, tanks, APCs, Artillery, Infantry, etc...just about anything on that size is vulnerable to MG or lightly armed aircraft. Though something with cement walls 4-6 ft thick is unlikely to recieve much damage from a few 250 lbs bombs that wouldn't be able to be fixed overnight... Not only that but those lightly armed creatures, were meant for shorter distances anyways for most of the war. Usually the operational range wasn't anywhere near Germany until the Americans came in with their P-38s/P-47s/P-51s... The Germans, British, and Russians as far as I know never possessed long range fighters. The Germans themselves lacked a bomber capable of doing much after the HE-111. It great early on, but outdated fast and wasn't a Heavy bomber...The fact is in SC, Fighters are both..and there is no inbetween. Whatever term you'd like to use, bombers are obsolete. Who uses them in SC terms? I don't unless you virtually give them away for free. Yes they do 'some' damage but the payload is way underrated in comparison with what Jets do with experience. More Experience Fighter Aircraft would do jack to ground units<they'd be finer at aerial combat not bombing<you can't fix more bombs onto a more experienced aircraft he can only be more precise with it?>... Also Jets are not any greater range than regular fighters and too cumbersome to be good fighter-bombers anways in WW2 era... Yes, you're right that certian models of light aircraft, fighter style. Strategic level remeber here... Were ideal for hitting Military Targets. Bombers were ideal for hitting city targets. I don't know of many cases of Fighters being used to reduce the industrial capacity of a city. To reduce a resource wealth? Do you? In fact even in WW1, they didn't use fighters against industrial targets of any kind as far as I know only as escorts for the heavier bombloads of the bigger aircraft. That were not maybe as precise but in general when your target is two or three football fields why do you need to hit a precise target? [ October 11, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Often discussed but never in great detail. What's the average bombload of a Fighter aircraft in the WW2 era? I know the earlier versions of the Stuka carried a 250 pounders and 4 50 lbers.<not true fighter either, a multi-role dive-bomber> Modified versions of most staple WW2 fighters wouldn't come near exceeding that. MG does not penetrate armor and in a fighter unit it's primarily made up of Air to Air combat fighters that don't carry that sort of heavy ordinance. You had specialized fighters or fighter-bombers to take out tanks, fortifications, or vehicles, trains, etc... A few of the heavy fighters of the day had Cannons that could do damage to any of these targets but not many and rarely achieve 'kills'... As far as I know, American fighters weren't big on cannons either...only excessive MG loads. In SC, as discussed before Strategic Bombers the Backbone of destroying ground targets if any was used would have a hellish bombload. I am uncertian of the precise bombload of the B-17. The versions I'm familiar with carried 12 500 lbers<though that figure would have to be backed up with a better resource>. With lowflying and in a formation they would have massive carpet bombing capability. Accuracy so so... Though Fighters, and fighter-bombers would be incapable of sustaining themselves at all at this level of destruction upon ground targets. Unless you had 20,000 of them. Considering that, fighters in SC need to be modified as carriers were! They're not Fighters, they're medium or heavy bombers... Also the fact that a Bomber Unit in SC has a double effect??? That's not accurate... Bombers would carry up to 20 times the destructive force of a Fighter. So that must be altered.. Perhaps we should focus on making Bombers in a patch what they really were and Fighters less capable of destroying ground units so that the diversification is more expensive but yet still achievable...not doing away with AirPower altogether but making both much more realistic. You could lower the price of Fighters as they're only Machine Gun Turrets in the Sky not Raining Hails of Bombs Both forces working together, and the development of tech together evening out the cost and replacing the Queen as the Fighter Unit and making the Bomber the Queen as it should be..and useful rather than a usually unexploited unit type

It's really tough if you lose France that early. You have to conclude that Axis Tech is going to go insane. That they have time to capture every Minor on the Map accept Canada, Switzerland and Turkey. Not only that but with so many losses Britian is a non-option for a long long time.. By the time Rambo hits Russia, if he decides to go that way. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Axis with 8 airfleets tech2-3 and another 2-3 in France if neccessary protected by Italian Navy and German Subs prepping to take out or invade England... with LR developing...that and 5-6 armor tech1-2... Fact is in Russia if you can strike 4-5 airfleets per city you can knock each one as you go per turn. and not only that but as the front shrinks so does the MPPs increase for the Axis.. It's a downhill game not an uphill one Really now it's just a matter of time as the Axis can prevent a D-Day from ever happening in time to Save the Russians... [ October 11, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

When I was a kid I was a bit more brutal in my initial wargames. It was March of the Red Ants vs the Black Ants. It was amazing all the different species, often fight naturally though you could egg them on to hurry it up by introducing them all to a small bowl with sand in the bottom. Ironically some of the workers were sooooo dedicated they'd dig regardless of all out war. As well a bigger ant didn't always! At times the more relentless killers were the tiny ones! I suppose when you're a half pint with Super Jaws, you can sneak in the nooks and cracks to attack from and kill your enemy. Even if your foe is 20 Xs your size! Was it Socrates who alikened Civilization to Ants By the age of 12 I had exceeded my GradeSchool teachers in knowledge of Geography and History<at least by several degrees if you were to test us> and began rewriting the script in my head. Drawing hundreds if not thousands of imaginery War-Economic-Political games in my head... My own imagination my potential allies and enemies. When I found Computerized Matches, I gloated!!! Spent a thousand bucks and I was in love!!! [ October 11, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Kurt: Events Rule! They make the game and distinguish each Nation. In all the HOI Engine, they work around a criteria of achievement with a mixture of chance...as with all Paradox Games and indeed HOI is a fine detailed WW2 game I'm certian Patches will improve. Although SC is more realistic Simulator of WW2 than HOI is the irony is detail doesn't make one more realistic than the other. Despite House Rules on either side. The tech system for HOI needs to be cut down and simplified. Countries need to represent more realistic levels of achievement. Material Resources and Unit capabilities need to fit... You play at a very snails pace and it's a huge political game and preparation game for War that a lot of people would love. I personally think EU2 is a level up in playability, despite they may seem a lot alike.. [ October 09, 2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

I'm a huge fan of some of Paradox Games. HOI is not to be underrated... If you were to let yourself get into a game on that 'level' you could love it. The first title I bought of theirs, EU1 was absolutely boring. I couldn't figure out how to demand anything after I had succesfully completed a DOW. I bought EU2 hoping it would be an improvement and I was sorta dissappointed but after a lot of tweaking she's a classic in her own right.. I play 3 or 4 games regularly weekly and you may have up to 10-24 multiplayer games. Not a very reliable on-line game but for the dedicated Wargamer/Economist/Expanionist/fan of Colonization and empire building she fits up there. She is a joy... SC is on the lines of COS and High Command. I thoroughly enjoyed both the other titles and I drank them to the last drop. SC held my commitment of time much longer due to the fact it's Multiplayer. It's also EXTREMELY reliable Multiplayer...!!!huge difference, even for those guys who have 8086s of modern times HOI is something that has detail down to individual planes, vehicle uprgrades. Individual Convoy ships, precision Supply system. Which can at times be a headache. Anyone who enjoys WW2 woule likely enjoy it given the time to get over the learning curb and being able to play against real live oponents. it's a little tedious... Something is missing and overly resembles EU1-2, comming Victoria and other Paradox releases... Strategic Command definitely is better than anything out right now. I own HOI but I regret purchasing it... I haven't put the game to use and it's collecting dust... and SC is a much better steal! I think for Beer and Pretzel Wargames she's top notched right now. quite frankly, can anyone name a single WW2 Strategic Sim out right now? I consider HOI semi-strategic and very geo-political, blah blah blah... Axis & Allies is fun just because.. just the chance aspect and it more resembles Risk type BoardGame Genre

Well, Wargaming is definitely it's own Genre John, I think that's well established. That Chess and SC are far from being the same. Some of the basic principles of strategy and calculations can be applied. Even from Pool or Chess, and even Poker <we get to talk in SC, not supposed to in proffessional chess> <I grew bored of chess after 6 months for life but on a desert Island I'm certian me and you would treasure our set John for 20 or more years> Though I find all those games half as interesting... Still somewhat interesting... It's a given though that people with a 'good' understanding of Math will do better in SC if they can apply it. Though doesn't mean that you'll win every time. I like an understanding of History, of concepts of Warfare on a Strategic level something say the High Commands of the various Nations had to figure...included in game play that's what makes it a joy. Don't want to play God, just want to play Dictator/President/Prime Minister/or Premier. These Nations had to figure in Diplomacy, Economics and Warfare on a Grand Scale. It's what we want. SC is short on a few things there as you because of the limitations it has a as game. It's not big enough even for a Strategic Game. Some of the most 'pronounced' bugs haven't been dealt with. Which leaves the general player locked into a setup of sorts that seems chesslike and humdrum... Of course she's some of a historical reannactment, SC but with a bigger map, weather, broader units and trading systems...More accurate Politics she has the capability of being one of the best Strategic Sims of WW2 of all time. Even without all the fancy-ancy graphics, that is completely unneccessary. We don't need killer complexity. Though that's not what we're asking for either, that's a misconception of some players here. We're merely asking for the detail to exceed ones expections to the point where the possibilities become more endless, yet believable. Probably a pipe dream, as you're talking about a massive undertanking for a 'game'. People simply want their Risk can get it...I don't think that SC resembles that at all and is not moving in that direction. It may never achieve my above desired goals, but an attempt to become a more indepth Strategic Simulation is an underline Desire... To fit on my top shelf eternally [ October 09, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Another Huge advantage of Planning around Weather for the Allies anyways, is the timeline mattered by the time '41 hit, you're in a race to readiness to smash the Soviets. I would always love to launch my attack early and tack my goals before Winter was in Full Boom, or right as... COS, been a long long time since I've played it, as I remeber. hours of endless fun even if SP

Even technology is a strategy. Are there moves of Chance in Chess, not for a computer? Or, are there just more complex forms of the same old Engine... Ponders, Since WW1 our chessgame of War has diversified with tanks, airplanes and new doctrines of how to conduct warfare. Though most 3rd world nations still conduct War the same way that we have for hundreds of years. i.e. Iraq-Iran War. So are we merely playing Chess 2.0???

oopsies, Bathory was a Catholic, no?

Rommel was forced to commit suicide in '44... due to the link with the assassination. Should Strategic Command reflect this??? Who was Germany's best Generals... They had a good amount of them... Perhaps the fact they also had a chance to distinguish themselves with experience and many battles is what brought them out. That or the historical German Military Doctrine? Some people say that Russia was a much weaker nation before the industrialization. At great cost of human life, Stalin turned the nation into a Modern Power. I'm not sure the full implications of the 5 year plans but I'm sure it helped the 'gross production' of Fighters, artillery and Armor the Russians were capable of by the time war hit Europe in '39 onward. There is no question in my mind that Stalin was a very 'cruel' Leader. Perhaps one of the worst up there with Vlad the Impaler<Wallachian Blood Drinker hehehe?>, Countess Bathory, Ivan the Terrible... For the Orthodox side of the World... but that kind of goes with Russian History, ironically enough. I've never heard of Stalin's ethnic stance really, to be honest. So I can't judge him for being a Genocidal Fanatic, like Hitler. Seems he was more accepting of the Population on the Whole, just don't whistle the Words Rebel, Civil, Freedom...or you might spend the rest of your life in the Goulag. I think that at least he put his opressed to work for something, Whilst the Germans senselessly killed them off.. Regardless by the early 50s, Stalin had become obsolete and was replaced with a more able Leader, who did the right thing the Old Fashioned Way of removing your Opponent. Poison Regardless of their early defeats,Russia, fielded Massive Armies. Their achievements are unparralleled amongst Western Powers. They did take the brunt of the Greatest Army in the World as of 1941<the Wermacht> on full force and defeated it singlehandely. IMHO The Germans weren't near as Powerful until we let them get there. As I said before We gave the the fiesty Czechs and the lovely T38 tanks. With a few modifications it's considered to be on par with the early Panzer III models. The Italians it seems weren't prepared for War, and SC grossly misrespresents their actual fighting abilities IMHO... they should be more like Rumania and Bulgaria combined... With a navy and airforce The Italians didn't have "a great Reason for War," the Germans had a score to settle...I think that all in all that effected Morale. Also the fact their equipment wasn't up to date, their leadership wasn't in the field<represented by no HQs at time of their DOW, Fall of France in SC> and not a single plane? What a minute, not one airplane? hehe I'm sure they had an equal airforce to the PAF, FAF, or SAF

As far as resources, that's 3 conflicting reports I've heard so far. Precise losses may never be obtained... We really could use a WW2 Fall Weiss Fanatic I wouldn't put it past the Germans losses being higher than a few hundred. A lot of casualties may have been ditched, damaged or none combatant aircraft...

Oopsies Meant Denmark link to Sweden..