Shaka of Carthage

German economy was never geared for a total war. That was one of the central features of a "blitzkrieg" war, the fact that it was suppossed to be short. So initially, it was make do with what you have, since the war would be over in a short time. Another reason, was the political structure of the Nazi government. It was run more like a feudal kingdom, than a modern government. You had Hitler at the top, and below him competing power brokers who ran various government departments. End result were projects that got funded not because they were the best, but they were championed by a political heavy, or they got lucky (right person at the right time). Lastly, add to it Hitlers "distrust" of the professional military (one reason the Waffen SS was created in the first place), you ended up with amatuers making decisions regarding procurement and development. Its one of the reasons, that any military professional who had Hitlers trust, was able to make so many "improvements" when placed in charge of certain projects. He could always play the "Hitler Card" and get what he needed.

Don't overlook boardgames. With Computer Player Aids (ie Cyberboard, ACTs, etc) you have the equivalent of a computerized PBeM system. And quite a few boardgames are being converted into TCP equivalents, which allows you to play on-line instead of face to face. If anyone is interested, I could post a summary of them.

IGOUGO is the "traditional" one side does its turn, then the other side does its turn. WEGO orginally was suppossed to be a "simultaenous" movement system... where both sides "plotted" thier moves, then when both sides where done, the moves where "executed" (ie actually done). But as with all things, the WEGO was bastardized by some who wanted to show how there IGOUGO system was superior to normal IGOUGO systems. So to some people, WEGO is really a IGOUGO system with alot of reactive responses.

Ahhh... for the good old days of mayhem, then relaxing with some alcohol and women. Todays young soldiers and Marines, are denyed that pleasure. No booze or women (its against regulations) in todays combat zones. They do get the "comforts" of e-mail and computer games. Guess its a good thing the chance of dying today is less than 5%, versus the past of 40% plus.

I basically agree with you, though I disagree about there being a Ground Combat defense, Ground Combat offense. I think I understand what you're after, which is a way to represent the doctrine advantage Germany had at the start of the war, and the Allies learned as the war progressed. But I'd accomplish that another way. Mr H has gotten the basic approach correct, in that he has SOFT and TANK combat factors. SOFT representing the artillery and TANK representing the armored fighting vehicles (be they little "tankettes" or evolved "medium battle tanks"). We need some sort of Tech Advance for SOFT combat factors, not so much to represent better artillery, but rather a representation of heavier and/or more artillery. Without something like this, there is no way to represent the huge firepower advantages that "generic" US units had over everyone else. Just as important, is another Tech category to represent Armored offensive power and its counter, anti-tank weapons. Again, Mr H has the basic concepts correct, but we get problems in the way its implemented. Fighter Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, ASW, Submarine Warfare... I'm right there with you.

Regarding Third Reich... There is a game called "Advanced Third Reich". Another game was developed that was called "Empire of the Rising Sun". One covered ETO/MTO, the other PTO. The above two games were combined into a "global" game called "A World at War". Here is the website for this. Official A World at War website. The above game, that Edwin refers to, is officially known as 'John Prados' Third Reich. John Prados' Third Reich, is the basic Third Reich game from 20 something years ago. I mean the very first Third Reich, not any of the subsequent "editions" that attempted to clean up and fix things. What you have is the basic 3R system (BRP, force pools, maps) and thats it. Everything else, is brand new. That would be the combat, strategic warfare, random events, HQs, supply, invasions, diplomacy, coups, exploitation, even the sequence of play, are ALL new. The idea was to simplfy it and put together a new system in about 20-30 pages of rules. For those of you who have been around a bit, its something like 3R meets Hitlers War. Price is about $50 or so. At the other extreme, you have A World at War. This is the A3R system that most people are familiar with, the latest edition (I think its the 5th now) in the 3R "line". The complexity is high (rule book alone is about 150 pages), probably the most complex game I've ever played. Price is about $150. One is a game, the other is a lifestyle choice.

Ditto what John C said.

Lock it up. Btw, I liked the comment about "generating lots of heat, but little light". That was good.

Blashy, your last post, and perhaps by implication your other posts, isn't about luck. Its about the effect Air units have, made worse by every Air Tech Advance.

Kozmeister, you're correct. But SC2 never claimed to represent WWII on a global scale. One of the ways of representing a global conflict, while concentrating on a specific theater, is to have the other theaters represented by "off-map" or abstract mechanics (ie "event" cards). The problem with a global map, is that the European/Med Theater at 50 miles/hex, doesn't mesh well with the Pacific Theater at 100-150 miles/hex. Not to mention that one is mainly a ground conflict, while the other is a air/naval conflict. Hence, its much easier to simply abstract it out. Especially when you consider the effect it had, is the time spent including these areas worth it? So while you could design in some of the concepts your mentioning, its just not worth the effort. Thats why you won't see the type of things you mentioned in a game that concentrates on the ETO.

I really don't understand the complaints about "luck". The idea behind the research techs and the probablities of when you achieve the advance, is how Mr H is giving you replayability. If you don't want to use it, because of some perceived notion that you as a player should be able to control everything, then in SC2, turn it off. Tech research, in addition to replayability, also give you the historical uncertainity that the leaders of the times faced. Fog of War, historical uncertainity, replayability, random weather, etc are all the things that make it a "wargame", as oppossed to a game.

While they may be "classics", compared to todays boardgames, they are no longer worth playing. So why bother?

Headquarters Random selection should be implemented, with no ability to disband a HQ. Maximium limit per nation. "Joint" HQ's should be the only HQ's that can command units from different nations. So Commonwealth units could not be commanded by US HQ's (or vice versa), unless it was a "Joint" command. Joint would simply be more expensive than your "normal" HQ. Free French would be considered US units.

Jersey John, You're correct. Vinegar Joe, in terms of Generals, should be included. But just like McArthur, only for the Pacific Theater.

Interesting point about Fascism. In todays world, the differences between Nazism and Fascism have blurred, and generally speaking, people consider them the same. Back in the 30's, they were distinctly different ideas. On-Topic... The random modifier is a good idea, since it would help bring historical uncertainty and tension into the process.