Liam

The fact that the French get to have so much FF if they retreat right away is a gamey player option and would that be historical? The French wouldn't abandon their homes, families, etc... for the sake of the War... There should be a cap and it is sorta buggy that if a unit is designated FF after the first fall of France that it should ever turn back over... When a countries surrenders if there are enemy units in that countries territory they may be treated friendly by the former ally or hostile...depending.. Should be a random factor on the surrender of all resources,ports,cities at that point... Especially in Anti-Axis Nations

Manpower isn't the only indicator! The French were notorious throughout history for raising large armies but they never got the English good did they? Fact ultimately they were defeated by the Prussian #s and the English leadership and superior training... I don't think you can give it all to one side but the figures speak for themselves, in loss of life!!! WHEN!!! England/US could've opened up a front in France earlier than '44 that Stalin was peed at the whole time over... Total Losses in Thousands Military Civilian Total % of population Ukraine 2,500 5,500 8,000 19.1 Germany 4,500 2,000 6,500 9.1 Russia (RSFSR) * 1,781 4,000 5,781 (?) 2.9 Poland 123 4,877 5,000 19.6 Japan 2,000 350 2,350 3.4 Yugoslavia 300 1,400 1,700 10.6 France 250 350 600 1.5 Italy 400 100 500 1.1 Romania 300 200 500 3.7 Greece 100 350 450 6.2 Hungary 136 294 430 4.6 Great Britain 290 60 350 0.7 Czechoslovakia 46 294 340 3.0 Austria 270 104 374 5.6 USA 300 - 300 0.2 Holland 12 198 210 2.4 Finland 84 16 100 2.7 Belgium 13 75 88 1.1 Canada 42 - 42 0.4 * This estimate of Russian losses does not include citizens of ByeloRussia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Source: Ukraine During World War II 1938-1945, by V. Kusyk, Kyiv-Paris-New York-Toronto, 1992, p. 702. B. Urlanis Guerres et populations, Moscou 1975, p. 319-323; Das Dritte Reich (Muenchen 1985) Band 2. S. 404.

One thing to give the British as well as full Service since '39 was their Empire... They paid in full for victory of Germany...Economically, and as a world power. what did stalin call them, in that A&E special, "Little Dog."

The Wermacht outclassed the Russian Military. Despite it's size and it's ability to reorganize so fast. Perhaps the Germans had so much success early on they became over confidant and didn't think Russia would be able to mount a counter in '41 Winter and Stalingrad throughout the next year. The Germans had pretty much run their fuel tanks dry like they had in France. You know how you get when you win soooooo much, you want to savour your victories awhile. Shouldn't have done that with Stalin...It was a bit of luck the Winter was harsh, a bit of luck that the German's turned south from Moscow which if nothing else was a center of leadership and transportation for USSR. I think with a fall of Moscow, a longterm Siege of Leningrad throughout '42 finally falling to overwhelming bombardment and #s... Leaving the South to a slow and steady forward assualt rather than a stabbing easily flanked one would be key. I say that the War had to be decided in Moscow in 1941 before the harsh winter months hit. A bit of a chance after in the Next Summer Offensive... The German's really couldn't afford to gamble anymore at this point. They'd make mistakes with preparation for Cold Weather and underestimating Russian resolve. They also gave the Russians with superior manpower the training they needed to launch such successful counteroffensives. Blitzkrieg was nolonger a new war in 1942-43... It was figured out by the Allies. I still say Russia paid in full The US contributed mainly because she kept the Japanese honest. The Brits contributed, by keeping Hitler out of their Industry...empire and ultimately by their own significant victories despite the loss of Tobruk. After BOP the Brits were pretty Saavy with their American friends they at least made the German's believe that strategic bombing was a real threat and and a 2nd front was also...

Well, I have often brought it up in other forums with WW2 talk. The Russians were the brawn and that's a fact. Though Definitely without Britian holding it's shores in 1940 and allowing for a dagger in the Theird Reich's back it wouldn't have been possible for Russia to have such an easy victory after Stalingrad. Russians lost 15-35 million? We lost what not more than a few hundred thousand with all of our Allies? The Western Allies may have pushed a Million plus casaulties, MAYBE including the Pacific...Doubtful in Europe though... Also Russian frontier was aflame and the war really hit home for them. It shocks me a people under such a Evil Regime as Stalin fought so hard, I suppos Hitler was that much more evil in comparison

Interesting Shaka, I had what was the equivelant of a 286 High Quality VGA and at least basic stereo sound. It was all point and click interface and was indepth... The calculations,ease of play and detail outmatched SC and COS. SAE was very interesting for it's time I had to wait till COS to see something similar nearly 4 years later! It wasn't much more detailed or intense then SAE... I was rather dissappointed in that all the new technology couldn't breed a better Platform period... Though the Amiga was a gamers machine and the IBM sucked terribly back then I had Wargames for that old 1986 designed puppy that outclassed today latest wargames in graphics, <even on sound> and almost on design of course you had meg or 2 Ram disability. Though the base still hasn't changed...

I have read quite a bit, usually Non-Fiction only. Not opinion, or theory... It's quite obvious if you look at history to draw your own conclusions that the Germans were very Nationalistic and after they'd made a Country in the 1800s, established colonies, they wanted to be a World Power... Say since 1500, Turkey-Spain-England-France-Germany<shortlived>-Russia/USA

Couple possibilities, occuppy Mountain hexes and cut supply best you can and as you say retreat as far as possible...I'm not absolutely sure of it but I think that if you operate the Polish Airforce out of Poland if it remains at strength 5 may delay the fall a turn or two...depending As I've seen people do it...I really think it's best to sap<cut off Danzig, cut off any German troops and assualt those expensive tank/army/HQs as much as possible, rarely can you delay fall of Poland with an experienced Axis player.

Another game I never hear much about is Storm Across Europe<released by SSI 1989<?>> It was and my first crack at WW2 simulator on a strategic level similar to High Command and SC. It was released for the Amiga back then so who knows, the graphics are better than both SC/Third Reich/& High Command. I was unlucky for I didn't have any real live oponents and at the time Command HQs was the only one you could get other's to play localy, shortly after the more tactical games SSI released in PBEM form... Eastern Front notably AI gets boring, it does the same thing every time. It's good to have the diversity of living human oponents. Don't get me wrong invading Sweden or Spain may have been a much better decision for Germany than the ones she did make or launching Barbarossa instead of clearing Yugoslavia up for Italy... There should be an extra random factor involved for such events though.. If you're to sway from history you should allow for the probability of history having not turned out the way it did. We do know that Sweden/Spain/Switzerland/Turkey were highly prized for their neutrality. Any invasion of these nations would've set off people like Stalin<and the Russian Leadership> Similarly the American Leadership! So would other actions taken by the Axis-Allies forces in Europe or otherwise. The game should adapt accordingly though still keep true to the fact it is a game and a delight... Just like I'm not going to make London worth twice what Berlin is to balance out a weakness for MPPs. Rather just place a city that isn't already on the map there and you really haven't done much to alter things...or edit in an easier way...

Shaka, this would be a good idea for the game. Considering the Power of upgrades. Put it this way, an advanced sub sitting 2000 miles away in near Canada gets an auto-upgrade from something that happens in the Fatherland. It just doesn't float... It doesn't happen that way... Strategic Command isn't anal tactical, but it is supposed to have some of those aspects in it. Considering the Power of Jets vs Straight Fighters it would be a 'must' for upgrades for them. At least giving the oponent a moment to rethink his strategy. At least allow that person to know it even happened considering what a powerful unit jets are... It's possible with no HQs, no Armies Tanks...Just Corps and Fighters to completely win the war... That's not Ahistorical that's idiotic...

Another point about Jets. When you achieve ME262s for germany how does it happen that all your aircraft automatically turn into fully upgraded jets? Perhaps after 6 mos-1 year it would have been possible to phaze out most of the 109s and 190s but as quickly as SC allows... It's particularly important in Jet Technology as it has such a huge impact on the War right then and there, making 2 or 3 thousand Jets was a task..

I have to agree, you have rockets but no artillery/anti-aircraft/Coastal Guns??? If you can fire 50 miles inland why not 50 miles out? You won't see many cases of WW2 ships getting in range of Coastal Batteries without a suicide wish or other support...

On the whole a good idea. I prefer a more realistic WW2 1.07C Where Tanks and airplanes together bust lines. Not just superjets. Where Jets are more difficult to obtain then just luck and 2 chits. Where you can't always have the perfect Summer offensive weather, giving both sides a chance to lick their wounds if it was a bad campaign and retreat and regroup in Winter as was historical and would make the game a bit more playable Germany VS Russia. Allies VS Germany on D-Day.

Well, not to run off into aerial warefare in a transport subject. Though it was the job of the luftwaffe to supress the British Coastal defences to make crossing the ocean possible. They never achieved this objective so the whole plan was scrapped. Second Failure by the Luftwaffe, which couldn't afford it...They could afford Dunkirk but since the Germans put most of their research and cash into Planes and Tanks it wasn't going to be worth much if the Planes couldn't open up a sea route between France and Britian. While the United Kingdom we know had the Mighty Navy of all European Powers and a fair airforce. You have to defeat one or both to make Sea Lion. They were one of the Most Premier nations of the early 1900s aside from Germany. I'd say more powerful the USA worldwide until 30-40s conversion. They put their cash in Boats... BTW: I never knew the Germans had such an extensive plan in the works. Suppose why Churchill praises the RAF so much...<that wasn't lacking # of planes but pilots and workable airfields when the Battle reached it's climax> The transport system is just simplified math. We all know that deployment of a force overseas at any time is not a easy job. It is a bit fast that the US Armies get deployed within 2 game turns into France and fighting. Regardless of technology amphibious warefare was in it's infancy back in the 40s and lots of men died attempting it. Remeber that we didn't attempt to landin Normandy until there was virtually nothing left of the Western Luftwaffe. Open Skies to spend time pouring a million men across the Channel.

Though creating a seperate system of research would be good, and giving the historical levels to begin with on unit transport and amphibious landings, make sure to look at the other points. There were cases were those battleship guns could reach coastal defences, that's about all they were good for after the sinking of the Bismark. Conversion for anti-sub roles and floating gun platforms for coastal defence destruction was what they were in Europe... Even in the Pacific good anti-aircraft platforms! I have to agree about some of these nations having the ability to transport. It was something many nations weren't capable of in 1941. It had to be researched or an Allies resources had to be utilized. Especially with all those Balkan and Russian 1920 style equipment. They might transport to a safe port but they couldn't amphibiously assualt a Carribean Island on vacation Subs were floating Wolf Packs, hunting at night for anti-shipping. With a few of those and gunboats and perhaps even a few pocket battleships/destroyers it would be feesible to have a percentage failure for Amphibious assualts on enemy coastlines. That and an Atlantic Wall that the Allies feared!? Why did the Allies go to such extents to leave D-Day off till Summer 1944, they knew it would be costly with a still active Luftwaffe. Why does a fighter have to interdict<why can't it be forced into another role?> i.e. focus on destruction of transports or defence of a particular hex... Most Western Allied tanks until Torch and Break out and France were tracked Artillery. The Russians didn't fully utilize them either till Kursk. One thing, I think it's a laugh to destroy a corp on a city with just coastal bombardment. That actually makes it worse for an enemy unit to assualt a city. Rubble makes better hiding places

Definitely, take away the powerful bombardment capability of battleships and cruisers<what 50 mile accurate guns???>, make certian that all Italian/German/Russian transports are increased in price!<in makes too much imbalance to allow these nations to make superFlotillas> In fact, a research chit for it would be nice as well because if Germany had great limitations on tranports in a major Ocean it doesn't possess many ports it would be forced to wait on Sea Lion or truly dominate the seas before it could perform it or, the move would be too costly. This has been mentioned before? Also add Coastal batteries and fortifications in certian hexes...i.e. Atlantic Wall, UK PillBox buildup in East Anglia, Italian Mountain Gustav Line...etc... Perhaps the ability to add these defense grids by purchasing them or forcing a corps to become forever entrenched...giving it a bonus not as high as Maginot/Gibraltar/Sevastapol..although better than it is currently... Also an added Port defense bonus against enemy aircraft if you should bury your own fighters in the soil around a port...especially on any unit struck on the Port Hex itself...On and on and on Keep these ideas rolling folks

The Prussians outmatched the Austrians with there improved bolt action rifles. Fired much faster! I believe that is why they beat them, at all. With France, it's merely the fact that the German's were determined. They lost many men in the Franco-Prussian War and were bombarding Paris I believe in the 1800s??? Interesting anyone who thinks that they were any less harsh than the French in WW1??? An eye for an eye Prussians are most famous<Otto who got the States together finally since Charlemagne> but for their showing at Waterloo and Franco-Prussian 2nd Reich I assume... Bismark is afterall the name of the great Super Ship of WW2. Shame that all that German Pride and honour went down the toilet with Fascism

terif<allies beats liam<axis bid 0

terif<allies beats liam<axis bid 0

1> One test with Yugoslavia had her come in the game same as usual. Strange as I haven't heard it from others. Using 1.07b 2>interesting suggestion, anyway to stop people from using transport resupply??? When a unit is cut off, people transport amphibious assault getting the readiness bonus

Lordy, losing Zapp??? In his honor I'm not invading Sweden in my next MP game I purpose a simple solution to the problem now of Ladder retirement... Each player contributes instead of just Zapp. 1 week for every player a member of the ladder... I'm not volunteering for the first week LOL

The current setup, not awful! I've played Computer wargames since 12 and SC has star quality! The idea purposed I have before, I hope that in a newer version one like it can be implemented and the ideas get thrown around that we've put up here to make the gameplay enhanced. I am a bit leary about not changing things though. I really think that evolution of strategy is ultra important. Right now everyone has one and mine is flawed after 50 training hours with you I'd be probably 2nd best here that'd rock! More units, more hexes, more possiblities, more realism. Thrown in the Salt, Pepper and spices for me So long as it has the nice ez flowing move and click interface<hell with the graphics and sound>

It's not that I'm a historical nut or anything but it's just like Axis & Allies. SC shouldn't remotely resemble that game. It becomes trendy to use gamey strategies rather than the hardcore factors. I prefer to feel that old fashioned feeling of making things as close to the real thing as possible. Dunkirk is the first sign of Aircraft's failure to destroy ground units and D-Day is probably the last in WW2. We still had to defeat them on the ground, although the air superiority was a big factor. A greater dice factor to this game and lower damage rate upon land units would make the fighter less the "ringer" weapon that it is and more an added element. If you want a trench breaker, use what history used, good tanks...mixed with dive-fighter bombers... As Fighters alone never achieved this in history until modern computers, smart bombs, and huge bomb arsenals. 60%? of all military deaths were due to artillery in WW2??? in SC 60% is due to AirPower. In real WW2 Europe???

Given you have found a balance to the game with the current formula, though doesn't mean tweaking it a little the other way wouldn't make it just as great a game? Hey, where is the anti-aircraft guns for these poor HQs??? Fighters are not meant to destroy ground units. A spitfire/ME109/P-any model that flew low enough to divebomb if it could divebomb would be very vulnerable to antiaircraft...and at least take damage for smooshing HQs like country squash...That's left to carpet bombing Bombers. If we put bombers back in the game and made them the the better unit killers it would balance things cause they're expensive and require fighters as escorts...maybe cheapen them a bit to reinforce!

I have found that Bullying Air killing HQs has given me a game or two. I played a game against CvM I got 6-7 German Jets on the Russian Front and every turn I killed an HQ. <it was almost 1944 and I had only taken 1 or 2 Russian cities but he didn't have the air so I had the game> It was indeed his fault for leaving them in my range but it really does make it a pain in the butt in certian terran Terif! France is much too small than historical France. Only the US ever produced truely longe range aircraft that I know that was for escort and ground attack. You know these longe range fighters from WW2 weren't Jets, the evolution of droptanks for them probably wouldn't be around for quite some time. Thus making Jets shorter range! Therefore Jets-Improved Prop<ground destruction aircraft> Should be altered to 'historical accuracy', in that Jets in this game are not at all from 1940s or even the 1950s, maybe the Gulf War<sorry but I play WW2 game I want to feel like I'm there not in the 90s>...also since the range of fighters are what? Not nearly as good as the starting range in the game. Perhaps lowering the beginning levels would be better, forcing players to invest more into it. Giving the US the edge<not the UK> and making the accuracy even. When the War started, various nations were already pioneering in certian fields and it's not not accurate how it reflects on technical research. Whether it effects gameplay or not. It's a bit disheartening to see even MPP earning and Russians Migs in 1943 when the possability of this was probably 1-a trillion in real life Just cut down the ability of the air some. Make them more expensive and give the Allies more Pros with Air. Better Recon with all the real craft that did Recond<longe distance regutted bombers> Also Carriers??? In the N.Sea are like Midway It doesn't fit... It's so weird you've no idea