GroupNorth

Dear Jim, Back in university, I came across several texts which documented high collaboration between racists in the USSR and the SS. Both in the Ukraine and especially the Baltic states, many gangs and mobs were more than happy to turn on the Jews before the van of the Wehrmacht showed up (behind whom were the SS Einsatzgruppen). Especially in the Baltic, documents reveal local racists attacking and killing many Jews. And Stalin was a similiar testament to evil. At first trying to ally with Jewish partisans fighting to defend Russia, he quickly turned on them. Antisemiticism has a long, cyclical tradition in Eastern Europe and Russia, going way back. Even the conquered Poles claim that, even if Hitler was a monster, he still did one good thing: empty the country of Jews.

You mean, BOTH Axis subs were sunk. Get out of town! I wonder if they'll be replaced. j/k. It's late and I'm feelin goofy.

Hubert recently said this: Don't rush or bother the man, but I do believe he is thinking about a patch. I believe he has all the input he needs for the 'next batch.' Very, very, very good.

Disbanding ships for MPPs? What the? Every belligerent was trying so hard to preserve their ships. The only major ship that was 'disbanded' (I think) was the Graf Spee, which was scuttled in an Argentinian port somewhat early in the war. It was scuttled only because the Germans felt it was going to be sunk or captured. There was definitely no material return.

SC:ET is the true heir to COS. After beating the AI a few times and beating my friend, I started afresh with a 1939 campaign, set at hard, and decided do some different stuff with the Axis. Attack Spain, leave the Italians to get Suez, invest in research. Only attack USSR when they prepare for war. Well, it was the best game ever because the AI did some decent logical moves. I almost had the Ruskies when this huge Operation Overlord force attacked Brest in late 1943. I was soundly defeated within 6 turns. The AI is just as good as any wargame out there. I hope Hubert pursues AI scripts, giving the computer various choices in where to press the attack.

Yep I'm all for this option. There are two ways to do this: easy or fancy. I've touched on both before. EASY: USA gets a moderate initial bump in MPPs. Then the USA gets an extra number of MPPs per turn. Example: Total Income for war entry turn is 200, then 225, then 250, 275, 300... etc.. to the point where the USA might be making 1400+. (Remember, in SC2, they must buy the costly units, carry the UK, and have the option to help the USSR) FANCY: Include the option for a player to mess with his nation's Domestic Economy. Before the USA jumped in the war, it was spending only a tiny fraction of its overall economic output on re-arming. Germany's economy too, despite the fact that its forces were highly aggressive, was still focusing the vast majority of its output on non-military production. Only the Soviet Union, playing catch-up, was dedicating large percentages of its economy to re-arming from the 1930s onward. Make sliders for each nation's war economy. The USA is the least militarized; USSR is the most. All belligerents nudge then up, turn by turn. Major events and political leadership affect how much they can be influenced each turn.

Making SC2 'global' would be a noble yet very difficult task. I believe some quality might be sacrificed by being over-ambitious. By the way, this is an absurd thread. I lika alot!

I am thumbs up for special Airborne and Mountain divisions. Why? Because I'd like to use German Airborne everywhere, especially Crete and the UK; and use Mountaineers in the Caucacus, Spain, and Yugoslavia. Another very important function is create a GARRISON unit. The Garrison would be considered a regiment or brigade whose prime function is to secure a city/port. - A Garrison is made by right click on a Corps or Army, and selecting the LEAVE GARRISON option. - A Corps is reduced by 3 or an Army by 2 when they leave a Garrison. Later, the Corps or Army can be reinforced. - A Garrison cannot move; it cannot be reinforced. - It's function is to hold out ideally until help arrives. - Garrisons would ideally exist in nearly every game city that is not occupied by a real unit.

Good discussion. WILDCARDS: of course, more variables and option make for more replayability for sure. NAVAL COMBAT: I assume we're talking SC and not SC2? For SC, I'd just recommend more restrictions on subspotting, more sub diving and retreating, etc... Using suspension of disbelief, I just assumed a Cruiser force was really accompanied by several escorts and such. Escort Destroyer flotillas and hunter/killer doctrines would be SC2 material. STRATEGIC WARFARE: Completely broken? No, that's not wholly true. Strat bombers already attack resources. But Fighters shouldn't be able to attack resources, but yes to cities and ports. However, Strat Bombers should not suffer such enormous losses. In the game, it's common to see a bomber squad suffer 60% to 100% losses in one turn. Get rid of Industrial Tech research? No way! That's a real-life form of research which the Soviets and Germans in particular pursued. Should the Germans naturally decline in industrial input in 1943? NO WAY. By the end of 1943, their armament spending went from $6 billion to $13+, even higher than the Soviets, and it was climbing for a bit even after! They went into Total War mode, gaining far more resources from switching from a consumer economy to a military one, as well as investing heavily in their war factories. So it's the job of the Anglo-Americans to bomb some of this extra production away.

Good suggestion, Zapp, especially with more USA cities. Just adding JFstup's popular suggestion to keep all patch ideas in this thread:

I'm all for adding two low-rank Soviet HQs. Contrary to popular belief, the Soviets were somewhat mobilized for Barbarossa (just not correctly), and they did have working HQs not that different than Leeb's or Bock's.

The Dutch Gambit is an interesting strategy, if you don't think this is a World War II game. But if you want at least some basic values from World War II, you'd remember the English jumped in because they guaranteed the territorial integrity of Poland & Belgium. An Allied attack on Spain is something else entirely. We could assume Franco the Fascist began making more and more public announcements about how great the Axis was. After all, he was tipping close to joining up. Of course, common sense luckily took over.

Another important historical detail would be the problems associated with Allied naval action in the Baltic. The Germans had subnets and mines everywhere. After some consideration, the Allies thought it too great a risk to screw around over there. I'm using those house-rules with my buddy now.

A destroyer flotilla would be great, though it's SC2 material.

John D, Yes, airplanes did begin to attack subs later in the war. Aside from radar, VLR aircraft were vital for spotting them too. So radar and longrange research should allow for some subhunting. I suppose my point is that I consider a UK airfleet to be composed of squadrons of spitfires, mustangs, lightnings, thunderbolts, rocket bombers, etc... These mass produced ones (the bulk of the RAF) weren't made for subhunting. Nor was the Luftwaffe particularly equipped or trained to sink UK capital ships.

Good points, Compassion. HQs. Monty? I mentioned him in my Custom scenario, because I don't want Wavell. I place Monty at very low strength in England besides Alexander. But Wavell should more likely be in England too. Why more HQs? Because, even outside of historicity, in terms of game balance, HQs are bloody costly. To get everyone's game going, we need more in the 1939 and 1940 scenarios, at least. I put in 2 French HQs, although 1 is sufficient. France is destined to fall, whether they are there or not. Since France can NEVER buy them in a serious game without wild luck, they should be in. Besides their ratings are low and I understrength them to 2. AMERICA: You are mostly right, but since the game does not have drastically increasing MPPs for America, I felt they need a boost. Please feel free to read my post on all the war production of all nations year by year. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001877 EXAMPLE: ARMAMENTS PRODUCTION (in 1944 US billions) ___________________1940____1941______1943 Britain------------$3.5----$6.5------$11.1 USSR---------------$5.0----$8.5------$13.5 USA----------------$1.5----$4.5------$37.5 Germany------------$6.0----$6.0------$13.8 Italy--------------$0.75---$1.0------ The USA did rearm quietly and slowly in 1937-1940, even though its defense budget is rather pacifistic (tiny fraction of a massive national income) and restricted by neutrality legislation. But by the end of 1941, they were catching up to Germany, and nearly tripling her by 1943. All American HQs were actually active by 1942, but I figure Patton sees action first so maybe he should lead the way. [ January 05, 2003, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: GroupNorth ]

There's so many cries for a new patch (of course, because the game is so good). Instead of 50 different threads, how about a master thread with a sticky putting it at the top? How about we make a list of BASIC issues, easily fixable, that might catch Hubert's eye if most people agree? Keep it to 10 issues or less. My BASICS: 1. HQs, especially during the 1939 and 1940 setups. There should be more of them, with a strength of 2, reflecting that they are still organizing and arming. In my 1940 custom, I put in an extra Monty, Gamelin, Billote, Leeb, and Garibaldi, all with strength 2. They are somewhat removed from the action. Or HQs should cost slightly less. 2. IRAQ, while a semi-independent state, is for all intents and purposes a garrisoned oil depot for England. Iraq becomes part of Commonwealth. This is historic and balances out the cash starved UK. 3. Stop the DUTCH GAMBIT. It's just a cheap, ahistorical trick. Or at least limit the plunder it provides the allies. There's no way the UK is going to kill the ones it has sworn to protect. 4. AMERICA. It's starting MPP income should be 400. This amount rises each turn. Example 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, etc... Okay, if they don't have a rising industry, just give em a better base to start with! America starts with extra Bomber, Patton HQ, and 1 tank. 5. USSR. When attacked, it should have more troops in the heartland. Add 1 corps, 1 army, 1 airfleet, and ideally 1 HQ (at strength 2). Position these away from the frontline. 6. SUBS need to dive more. A lot more, as in most of the time until more research is available! They also need to inflict more MPP damage. Ideally, airfleets should not be able to attack subs. We need a Battle of the Atlantic. 7. RESEARCH. Simply too costly. Reduce price by at least 50 MPPs. 8. SHIPS. They need to automatically regenerate 1 stength point per turn while at port, for both historical and gaming cost-effective reasons. Ideally, there needs to more ships around too. I gave a whopping 5 more Cruisers and 1 sub to UK. 1 sub to Italy. And 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, and 1 sub to Germany. 9. AIRPOWER. Airfleets and Bombers need to do less damage to each other. It is not uncommon to see an entire air unit die in one mission (with escorts and interceptors). Tone down mutual damage or slightly reduce cost of air units. These are my Top 9 issues that would finalize SC.

It would be interesting to include the 4-5 super hexes (or just one big zone) at the western edge of the Atlantic map. These could represent the dead zone where U-boats would become entirely strategic and more effective. While in European waters, Uboats could act as both strategic raiders and tactical units. And they'd certainly be more vulnerable. Extra rules for subs: #1 They inflict and receive less damage to other naval units. #2 They dive more often, and may, if the randomizer allows, retreat 1-2 hexes after diving. Since they do less tactical damage, not a big deal. #3 In their strategic hex(es), the big mid-Atlantic, every turn, there is a chance that they get struck by ABSTRACT convoy escorts and hunter/killers. Damage is 1-3, if spotted, per turn. [strategic MPP loss would equal 1 unit per sub strength. This of course would mean the Anglo-Americans should get more base MPPs to begin with, with America's always on the rise] #4 Every research breakthrough in ASW and/or Longrange Aircraft will make for MORE chances for subspotting and higher Damage, 2-4, 3-5, etc... #5 Subs should be immune to landbased Air Fleets, although with proper Longdistance Aircraft research, they should be able to be spotted via normal VLR recon. #6 With these rules in place, Britain should then get more ships to realistically portray her huge fleet, which even in abstract would be nearly double of what SC portrays. #7 It would also be possible to give Germany an extra uboat and cruiser or two. Plus the Germans could attempt a breakout into the deep Atlantic to raid. Uk ships could pursue and fight a tactical battle there. This would make for a real Battle of the Atlantic, with uboats trying to limp back to Brest to France and Kiel to gain reinforcements.

In Canada, we wiped out a lot of beavers so people could wear them on their heads back in Europe. The Indians were already warring amongst themselves. They wanted Euro arms, then invited the whites to pick sides and join them. It was difficult to stay out of the arms trade because if the French or British weren't trading, the Dutch certainly were, or vice versa. Thus it began and the arms trade opened up. But the most damage done was often via disease, often through contact with missionaries and traders. As terrible as the destruction of the Native nations was, remember, they were not exactly pacifists. Just normal human beings, meeting other humans with different aims and technology. One of the first things Champlain was asked upon arriving in what would be called New France: "Whiteman, do you wish to go out on a war party with us against our enemies? If so, please bring your firesticks." At first Champlain said no. But when the local population told him the French would get little trade as a result, he changed his mind.

Someone should do a book about WWII German commanders to investigate their redeeming dissent to Hitler. They were not innocent, yet hardly villains either. Runstedt, Rommel, Manstein, Guderian and many others, while part of the horrid Nazi machine, were also serious critics of Hitler and eventually wanted him dead. These men were often arrogant and highly efficient in offensive war, just like their Anglo-American counterparts, mind you. But they were Army, not like the cruel SS fanatics like Meyer who turned children into POW-killers. It shows that some commanders were respected because British officers paid the legal fees of some in 1945. Runstedt (or was it Manstein?) was redeemed later when he helped to redesign the West German army.

And it's probably not a good idea to make a German Aircract carrier. In fact, I only win as the Axis by getting Germany to avoid the water entirely. Want boats? The Italians can make them. If you want to take Egypt you have to hurt the English fleet and often strike with a land force and an amphibious force. I have yet to make Sea Lion work since the USSR always rushes in as soon as it starts. Playing the Axis is a challenge because I use a custom scenario that gives the Allies more toys.

I'm glad this thread has built interest because I feel it's a fundamental part of any WWII wargame. Have you ever played EU2? In that game, 'reforms' are made by leaders to adjust thinking and funding and the general direction of a nation. A leader, as a steersman, can PUSH his nation a little bit every few years in a certain direction. i.e.. to land war, naval investment, free subjects, plutocracy, etc... In game terms, this means the player can alter the 'notch' on the slider by one degree. So in a hypothetical SC2, if 90% of Germany's production is allocated to the Domestic Economy in 1939 (just a ball park figure), a player can make a finite 'reform' by adjusting the slider down one notch. Hence Germany suddenly has 80% of its economy dedicated to the Domestic Economy (non-military production). This of course would free up and give the player more war production. Every 6 turns or so, a player could make such a reform. America would have the highest amount going to Domestic Economy (they were relatively nonmilitarized in 1939), while the Soviets would have the lowest (relatively very militarized). The Sliders could be from 1 to 10, respectively meaning extremely militarized to extremely commercial. Un-researched examples for 1939: USA 10 (mellow, but lookout in 1941-45!) Germany 8 (only just starting really) UK 6 (hasty funds to AA, RAF, and RN) Italy 7 (weak, but warring since 1935) USSR 4 (Stalin made big military investments) All these numbers would eventually fall, freeing up more industry for war production. The titan would end up being the USA, although a percentage would be unseen as it was delegated to the Pacific theatre.

I'm very big on economics and logistics, because of course that's 'mostly' why the Allies won (luck, courage and smarts helped). The mid-sized economies of the Axis (and Japan) took on the large economies of the Allies. The smaller boys accomplished stunning tactical/operational feats. Yet in strategic terms, they were screwed. I'd like the Axis gamer to muscle the shortterm thinkers out (Hitler and Mussolini) and think longterm to beat the giants. Ever play Hearts of Iron? It's a terribly flawed game at the moment (getting better with patches), but the SCOPE is absolutely amazing and somewhat realistic.

Hmm, that's unfortunate, I guess. I hope SC2 won't be simply a patch to this current game. I find it odd that the current production model is so well accepted. The current model is good in abstract and it makes for a fun game. But the yucky truth is it might not be very accurate at all. PS... I do not claim to have accuracy either, or programming skills. I'm just trying to stimulate the creator toward new ideas. Worth it because SC turned out fairly well.

The present system kinda handles this. But I suppose the Industrial output (MPPs) are a bit off. According to the Armaments expenditures, the game nations should have MPPs somewhat like this in 1941 (with the cost of units a bit higher too): Britain 650 MPPs USSR 850 MPPs USA 450 MPPs (roughly 2000 MPPs by war's end) Germany 600 MPPs Italy 100 MPPs Of course, a large amount of Anglo-American money would be going to making costly ships, merchant and amphibious transports, fighters, airborne, bombers, huge stockpiles, and mucho research. While German money would be going toward less costly items such as infantry, motorized infantry, uboats, realtively cheap fighters, and armour. While the Navy's Z-Plan drained a certain amount of resources, it was eventually abandoned. And yes, the scheduling for various units should be longer than 1 turn. Yes, indeed. PS... the American MPPs should always be on the rise, in a compound fashion. The USSR, not so much, but they should gain extra MPPs every turn due to its near complete militarization.