Genghis

JerseyJohn Perhaps a way to resolve the Free French unit situation is to have the program calculate the number of them that actually arrive in UK. Hence there would be no need to physically move them out of France and the Allied player can just defend France seriously. The gamey situation here then would be solved Same thing with UK units in France after it falls. So long as any ports remain open, Brits can automatically be safely evacuated to the UK that same turn France falls.

Hmmm I like CVM's suggestion in disbanding the French air fleet and building troops instead. I know it's gamey but how about disbanding the entire French navy and just build French troops to take them to England? Once France falls, disband all the Free French troops and use the points to buy UK troops. French naval units are more risky to keep once france falls since a few will go to Vichy even if in English ports. I haven't figured out the cost/buy ratio yet but in the longer run it's probably better. Without a Free French HQ, those troops are more of a hinderance as they don't acrrue technology advances along with the British. Too bad there is no LeClerc HQ avail for the Brits to buy once France falls. [ December 31, 2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

JerseyJohn Ah nice pics. What sources does he use? I'd love to find out. Does he get stuff straight from the Bundesarchiv? The German navy always fascinated me. I always wanted to write a book on the U-Boat operations in the Far East but needed better source material. Germany and Japan really never cooperated in WWII, but Germany did use Japanese bases in Dutch East Indies for their UBoat operations. I mainly use Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1945 as my resource for ships. Conway's comes in 4 volumes and well worth the price. It's published in the UK. I tried sending you the mod file a couple of times to your email address but it keeps getting bounced back as address invalid. The file size is only 233KB so that's not the issue. I'll try to send it again [ December 31, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

JerseyJohn - Ok will send you the file. I know the number of Uboats are excessive at start but the Allies should have no trouble hunting them down even with their starting forces..it just takes a little longer in game terms now but it feels more like a battle for the North Atlantic. Good call on the German Carriers. I was hedging myself. In the end I didn't include them just because Goering didn't want to give the Navy planes and pilots. So the Graf Zepplin just sat in dry dock with no planes. Say does anyone know if you can add forces to Russia and Italy to the 1939 scenario without activating them? I want to add an HQ to Soviet start pool and maybe another cruiser to Italy. In regards to Japan, they probably didn't keep a lot of records unlike the Germans who loved making copies. Thus making it harder to find those "smoking guns" Unfortunately, we'll never know just how many people died under Japanese occupation but it's for somewhere in the millions. It's sad that US policy after the war absolved Japan from paying any reparations to victims (a lot of whom are all slowly dieing off now).

Oh by the way, I tweaked dgaad's historicity 1939 campaign mod a bit mainly in the naval portions of his setup. I just wanted to add a little more intensity and uncertainty as reflected in the U-Boat campaigns. In the current campaign setting 2 Uboats in the North Atlantic never really last past turns 2 or 3 and the Uboat campaign seems to end there. Send me and email if you'd like a copy: leopardson@spininternet.com Here is what I added though I won't disclose where the Uboats are: Germany 1)Added BB Bismarck (Str 4) in Kiel. Bismark was already laid down and launched by 1939. It just had to wait until mid 1940 to be fully commissioned. I left it at str 4 so germany can upgrade it which should be around 1940. Tirpitz is considered part of this. 2)Added BB Graf Spee (Str 8) somewhere in the southern portion of the map. I originally made this ship a Cruiser (str 8) but changed it to BB for more staying power. Though the Graf Spee really should be classified as an fast armored cruiser. 3)Added 4 additional Uboats (str 12) somewhere at sea. I also moved the starting locations for the original 2 subs (str 12). 4)Added 1 Uboat (Str 7) in kiel as well. France 1)added CV Bearn (str 4). Historically this ship was operational by 1939 but never had a chance to participate in a lot of naval operations. I just threw it in for fun. I realize that historically, Germany never fielded this many subs in 1939 but in all the games against an Axis AI, the AI never builds any naval assets so this really helps. Anyways, I played the opening campaign 3 times now with this setup just to see how the new naval aspects worked. I'm certainly more pleased with it now than with the normal campaign setup. The Allies now have to seriouly guard their transports or risk losing them big time. The Allies should feel a little more the strain this time around. [ December 31, 2002, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

JerseyJohn - Oh yes Japanese atrocities in WWII...sigh..we could devote another forum topic on that Agreed....Japan pretty much off scott free. A lot of their dirty work got swept under the rug and forgotten by the Chinese Civil War, US containment of USSR, and macArthur's admin. My family lived in Shanghai(in the French section) during the 30's and my mother saw them marching into the city. Hmmm and the French there didn't resist much at all. Well at least in Shanghai, the Japanese behaved themselves. No need to talk about how the army was pretty brutal and sadistic elsewhere. A good friend of mine lost several relatives in those "civilian internment camps" in Dutch East Indies run by the Japanese. it's just unfortunate that that Japanese atrocities (which rivaled those of Germany) still haven't received more attention in Western media. The Chinese and other Asians just weren't lucky enough to have a Simon Wiesanthal type person to pursue Japanese war criminals. By the way, does anyone if it's true that the new Japanese history text books are indeed glossing over their country's involvement in WWII? I'd go ballistic if their text books are saying that they were the victims of WWII due to the A- bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [ December 31, 2002, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

Compassion - Aye I was just really trying to say that SS units overall were a mixed bag of troops ranging from elite to downright unreliable. I agree with you that several SS formations which fought in Russia were no doubt hardend troops and that in general all the German NCO's were quite an experienced lot. Course on the Russian front, the Waffen SS couldn't expect any quarter given by the Russians (and vice versa) so it's not surprising they fought to the last man in most cases which invariably contributed to their individual toughness. [ December 30, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

JerseyJohn - Oh I totally agree. There is a good book called "The last Great Victory" written by Stanley Weintraub and he goes over the last months of the war beginning in May/June 1945 or so. There is no doubt the US wanted USSR out of the Pacific but in 1941-42 I think the US probably wanted Soviet assistance in the Far East especially when Doolittle ran his raid over Japan. I'm not sure the Allies knew just how of a pain Stalin was to deal with in the early war years but when the Red Army began sweeping Eastern Europe, Stalin was insisting on more and more spoils including access rights into the Med from Turkey. Yes Operation Olympic would have been a bloodbath if it had gone through. The fighting in Saipain, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa proved that. Also not many people know too that Japan was in the process of working on an A-bomb themselves (with help from German technicians). When Germany surrendered, the Allies managed to find some heavy metals and components being shipped to Japan in Uboats. Also I don't doubt that Japan would have used A-bombs themselves if they had them against the US if invasion of the Home Islands were imminent. Konstantin - Aye, I remember also reading somewhere too about debunking the myth of Waffen SS units eliteness in battle. Waffen SS units were actually counterproductive as military units. They always got the best equipment and their TO&E (Tables of Organization & Equipment) usually had extra companies or battalions assigned to them than regular Heer formations. It was certainly a drain on the regular Wermacht formations. Also just because a unit happened to be Waffen SS it didn't necessarily mean it was good. There were a ton of worthless SS units being created towards the end of the war. I could also go on talking about those silly Luftwaffe field divisions (Goering's darling idea) but don't want to digress any further [ December 30, 2002, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

JerseyJohn - Sure thing I hope people still find it useful. Aye dgaad really did post a lot of great insights. I hope he is still posts regularly. I went back to the very first beginnings of this SC forum and started sifting through hundreds of posts. And yes I saw his debates with EB...makes for intersting reading. I don't want to rehash what was said but I agree with dgaad. Western Allies did contribute significantly to help Soviet Union win the war. One of the most overlooked contributions made though was the Allied Strategic Bombing offensive. It forced Germany to divert significant air assets from Russia to defend Germany. Thus giving Russia tactical air superiority from like 1943 onwards. This is a big oversight that the Russians tend to ignore when complaining about Western inaction. Of course the Russians also overlooked the Pacific Theater where the US/UK were fighting alone there til mid-late 1945 when USSR jumped in to grab their share of the spoils. [ December 30, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

Moving this again to the front page since dgaad's modifications adds a lot of flavor and it's still available from his website Don't get me wrong I still enjoy v1.06 though as it's a great patch Here is his website again for the zip file: http://legionhq.net/GameStuff/ Anyone tried this mod yet with v 1.06? Hmmm I guess I should just write to him hehe. [ December 30, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

Actually I should clarify myself on the tobruk reference earlier hehe. obviously Tobruk was a fortress and that held out for a very long time historically. My complaint was the fact that the AI Italian army in SC was able to reinforce the garrison even though the port capacity was reduced 0 supply and my ships physically blockaded it so no Italian ships could go past. I was just amazed that without supply, that Italian army had held out for over 1 year and the combat boiled down to WWI trench warfare. In my next SC game against the AI, I bypassed the North Africa and Med theater and just landed all my armies in France and got excellent results instead

JerseyJohn - ok I'll head over to the other forum then also And yes I hope SC2 does reflect more of what went on in the Pacific Theatre as well. Again I just don't feel that the Royal Navy currently isn't suffering the incredible strains that actually happened to them during the early days in the war 1939-1941. Forcing the removal of a 10 factor carrier and 10 Battleship fleet helps strengthen that point. John DiFool - Aye I also agree that there isn't a simple solution to the naval aspect. Actually naval units in SC can easily stay out at sea anyways for 2 months+ with ships at 10 supply so having area boxes shouldn't be any different than if you moved ships individually from hex to hex. I've even had ships out in the oceans longer than 2 months just running around with 0 supply. I just feel that it's too easy for ships to be spotted and sunk currently in SC. A possible solution might be to introduce weather elements (i.e rain, rough seas etc), at the time of battle that way there might be a chance for enemy surface fleets to elude contact and/or combat. Actually we can also expand the area box concept by using the point to point movement system (ie. a series of boxes with movement costs between each box). That way at least you won't suffer from just putting ships into big areas and hope for the best. Point to point system for sea movement in a grand strategic game like this might actually work really well GroupNorth - Pls let me know what you have already discussed so far with others. Yes I also agree that a deeper tech tree would be great for the naval aspect. when playing the Allies, I just ignore the naval tech tree since the Axis AI never seems to develop nor build naval assets to challenge Allies. [ December 30, 2002, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

heh just bringing this topic to the front page again. :cool: Well I know this has been talked about ad nausem already but here are some thoughts of mine: 1)I always liked naval boxes on map to represent huge stretches of ocean. World in Flames did a pretty good job especially when using them with Uboat/commerce raiding. Even if the Allies cover those boxes, there is still a chance for Uboats to sink commercial shipping. this would really stretch UK fleets. Also naval rules in SC make it too easy to find and destroy enemy fleets which kind of makes putting points into sonar and gun laying radar a waste. Especially if the Axis AI doesn't bother building naval assets. So basically perhaps instead of hexes for ocean spaces...just use boxes with printed movement point costs or something to reflect distances. 2) Also the UK should remove both a carrier and battleship 10 factor fleets in 1941 to reflect Japan's entry into the war as well as to protect India/Ceylon pipeline. 3) Allow greater US production. I'd say increase US to 250 at least. By mid 1944, the US was far outproducing material to defeat both Japan and Germany. 4)Or implement factory production multipliers like in WIF (World In flames) where prewar production for US, USSR etc is only 1/2 capacity at first and as time passes during wartime, they increase factory production to multiples of 1, 2, or 3 etc. Put caps on certain countries so this multiplier doesn't get out of hand. (e.g. a single 10 factory can produce 30 MMP by 1944 if it's in the US etc) I thought industrial technology research was something like that at first. I didn't realize it just lowered unit costs. anyways, my 2 cents worth PS - I also had a big beef on current supply rules and the ability for either side to reinforce units to the max even if the unit was totally isolated.

Is there a way to move this forum to the very top and make it permanent? There are some great ideas here for SC2.

Ah ok I'll check out those forums. Nice to hear though about version 2 of the game. Will previous owners be able to receive an upgrade discount by chance?

Great suggestions and yes I'm thankful for the patches as they helped resolve a number of difficulties....but here are a few suggestions that could really improve the game. Sorry if some duplicates are listed General comments: 1)Expand the game map a little to include Borders of South America and more of Africa (especially north africa) and increase size of Russia. There isn't a whole lot of room to manuever in Russia or in North Africa. 2)Decrease costs of buying HQ and unit reinforcements. HQ costs are way too high I think. 3)I didn't see any different nationality modifiers for combat, naval and air. (Italian armies should be rated differently than German or American armies) 4)restrictions on where minor allied countries can deploy troops (i.e. I saw Axis Bulgarian armies garrisoning Paris by the AI for example.) I don't think Axis Bulgarian armies ever left Bulgaria except maybe to garrison conquered Greece. 5)Create Airborne units for certain countries. Airborne units can land within a certain range and be supplied for one turn until relieved. 6)Create air transport units to allow resupply of cut off armies. Germany 1939 Campaign 1)Add Cruiser (Graf Spee which was really a fast armored cruiser) type in the South Atlantic 2)Add 1 or 2 more subs USA 1)Add carrier group to North Atlantic when US enters war. The US had a Carrier group in 1941 (USS Ranger and another I believe etc) 2)Add an HQ to the initial US pool. 3)Increase money pool or at least lower costs of building units drastically. 180 MMP is way to low for the US. That's only like 60 more than what Italy gets. Britain 1)Add more ports in UK. I think UK suffers a lack of ports (I don't remember seeing Liverpool or that major port on the western tip of Wales). 2)UK MMP collection should reduced due to Uboat commerce effects. Money should be deducted every turn due to Uboat raids on convoys unless UK develops better sonar and/or ASW tactics. USSR 1)Add one or two HQ's to starting force pool Anyway, just my 2 cents worth [ December 29, 2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

I agree as well that the supply rules seriously need to be revamped for isolated units. Units being surrounded shouldn't be allowed to be reinforced unless the side has airlift/airborne capabilities and diverts air assets to it. I couldn't capture Tobruk from the Italians for over a year despite having complete naval and air superiority and 2:1 supremacy in armies from Egypt. The game situation here was a bit absurd. I can understand the designer's intent to simulate fortress garrisons that held out for periods of time such as those Coastal fortresses along France in 1944 that held out until the end of the war....but this isn't a good solution. I feel that on a strategic level game such as this, if a unit is out of supply, it should remain immobile at least along with it's inability to be reinforced. it can still attack or defend adjacent units but at least the unit can be bypassed by the opposing player without having to worry about it. [ December 29, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]