Shaka of Carthage

Actually, its the soft factors that should be modified to reflect the American artillery advantage. The problem is, what effect do you give it? Especially since this is a strategical level game and we have generic units. Under the existing system, about the only thing you can do is reduce the number of combat divisions required to produce a US Corps or Army unit. If we had a different system, then it would be better to have a unique US unit with soft factors stronger than the other nations.

Congratulations on the enlistment choice you made. Current and former Marines understand well the emotions you are feeling right now and look forward to your graduation when we can welcome you to the family. I started off as an 0311 myself, though in San Diego, not Parris Island. In the General Discussion area, there are a few older topics dealing with how to get prepared for boot camp. You have almost a year, put the time to good use so some parts of boot are a cakewalk. If you'd like, e-mail me and I can give you an old salts viewpoint. Again, congrats on your choice. [ September 09, 2003, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Edwin P The problem with the current amphib invasions is that it goes way beyond any "realism vs playability" debate. We're in fantasy land now. You've seen the numerous complaints so there is no point in repeating them. The reality is that there are only a few places for amphib invasions. The ability to defend all of the spots, as well as your belief that it limits strategic surprise are reflections of other problems with SC. Gavrok That would be correct. If the UK fell, the US would lose its ability to invade Europe. I don't see the problem with that. Sealion is not easy to pull off. Its much easier if the UK doesn't have a Navy or no ground units inside the UK. The answer to the part about "too easy to defend then" is to look at real life. What was the reason that Germany wasn't able to prevent the invasion of continental Europe? Its also a good time to ask why the western Allies didn't do a D-Day until 1944. Thats roughly a three (3) year buildup for the US. If you think about it, the issue shouldn't be that restricting the hex range won't work, rather it should be could you amphib land a HQ.

The range has to be more like four (4) hexes, and only applies to Corps. I don't understand why the US is exempt. Care to explain?

norvandave I don't think anyone will disagree that a Allied DoW on Ireland is "gamey". Same point has been argued over to a lesser extent about the Dutch Gambit. And as you correctly stated, the readiness penalty on the US doesn't really reflect the problems such a DoW would have had. But as we have no other choice, the only way to deal with it is thru a House Rule. Or accept the gameyness.

Bill101 Agree about the logistics. Espeically since many wargames don't properly represent it or abstract it at best. Its one of the many strengths of SC, that are not properly appreciated. But assuming Rommel got two (2) extra divisions, then you could also bet that the plans to invade Malta would have been taken more seriously, and would have had some effects on a later invasion of Crete (assuming one still was needed). Then, one of the biggest problems with the German logistical system would be highlighted. With Malta in Axis hands, Axis merchant shipping could supply the forces in North Africa. But now you have a problem in that you can't get the supplies from the port to the field units. Axis never had enough supply trucks. Given time, I imagine they could have built a railroad or the Italians could have developed some sort of amphib resupply system.

Divisions June '41 Russia ... 134 (32 motorized) Africa ... 2 (2 motorized) Would two (2) more motorized divisions have made a difference in Russia? Not a bit. But doubling Rommel's forces would have had a major impact on the course of the war.

In the interest of staying on the original topic, and since no one else has posted it, here is the German military 1941. I won't list the individual divisions for reasons I'll explain later. 6/22/41 OOB Norway ... XXXVI Corp, Norway Corp (Gebirgskorps Norwegen) North, Leeb ... XXIII Corps, 18th Army (I & XXVI Corps), 4th Panzers (XXXVIII, XXXXI, LVI), 16th Army (II, X, XXVIII) Center, Bock ... LIII Corps, 9th Army (VIII, XX, XXXXII Corps), 3rd Panzers (V, VI, XXXIX, LVII), 4th Army (VII, IX, XIII, XXXXIII), 2nd Panzers (XII, XXIV, XXXXVI, XXXXVII). South, Rundstedt ... 17th Army (IV, XXXXIX, LII), 6th Army (LV, XVII, XXXXIV), Panzer I (XIV, III, XXIX, XXXVIII), 11th Army (XI, XXX, LIV). There was also the 1st Army Hungary, 3rd and 4th Army Romanians. Within AG North, Center and South there are Flak units, Engineer units and Security divisions. Some even have infantry divisions and a/t units. There is also a "Leichte" division, anyone know what that is? I actually went thru the '39 and '40 OOBs and tracked the divisions, Corps and Armies. But there is a easier way for this discussion. Divisions June '41 Russia ... 134 France/LC ... 38 Norway/Finland ... 13 Denmark ... 1 Balkans ... 7 Africa ... 2 Thats 195 divisions total, of which 34 were "motorized". 32 motorized in Russia, 2 in Afrika. Since SC uses a "generic" unit, with the Corp being half that of a Army, I concluded that a German Army was eight (8) divisions. Panzer Group is four (4) divisions. Now its a little easier to take the total divisions, put them into Armies to get your hypothetical German OOB for a two prong attack.

War for the Motherland? Never heard of it. Is it a computer or a board game?

Bullwinkle There was a topic awhile back about the drive on Moscow and the campaign against Russia in general. The issue about taking Moscow, comes down to a couple of weeks, when elements from Army Group Center were sent south to help Army Group South. You could also point out that the campaign in Greece delayed Barbarossa a couple of weeks as well, in combination having the weather catch the Germans before they took Moscow. The thing I like to point out, is that despite everything Moscow was to Russia, I don't think the capture of Moscow would have ended the war or caused Russia to collapse earlier. I believe that the key to the collapse of Russia was Stalin. If Stalin was captured, then yes, Russia has problems. But even if Moscow falls, when Stalin still free, Russia wouldn't have fallen. The "Marcks" plan, which took into consideration the number of troops Germany had, tried to accomplish the defeat of Russia with a two prong approach. But as you pointed out, the General Staff was very fearful of the exposed flanks that left to Army Group North and South. No one expected the Russians to be as bad as they were. And you are correct as well, in that the whole fasicination with the Eastern Front, is that Germany was able to accomplish so much with so little, for so long. Very few wargames are able to recapture that.

Hobbes du Canada Good. Then we can move right on to the next point. There were no "special" units at the scale we are talking about. If you do a little bit of bending and twisting, you could "justify" a Paratrooper Corps to give SC some "chrome". The amphib assault ability in SC is all wrong, way beyond ahistorical ability, more in the realm of fantasy. Construction engineers (not combat engineers) are already part of SC, they are just not in a unit you can see. Who do you think repairs the damage to bombed ports or is building those rail lines so you have supply access to your captured cities in Russia? Germany experimented with Artillery divisions for the East Front, but abandoned the idea because they didn't have enough artillery pieces to supply both the Corps/Armies and create seperate units. More importantly, the doctrine to support them being used as a independent unit didn't exist. Russia, on the other hand, formed seperate artillery divisions for that very reason, but those divisions were part of the Russian Armies (ie our SC Corps). So at our scale, its a level we don't have to deal with.

I'll agree with Rambo's point that its about marketing the product. I don't think its as simple as getting a retail outlet to place a purchase order. JerseyJohn made the point in another topic, that unless you are a computer user, you probably will have never heard about SC. Even with a retail product, being great just isn't good enough sometimes. There was a computer game called Empire of the Fading Sun that I picked up on a whim at Frey's for $5 (clearance rack). The game itself blew me away. It had everything, including the ability to modify. And with five (5) humans playing different sides, I was in heaven. But it never caught on and basically just faded away. The role playing side of it though, was able to make money, so is still around. Making money, selling computer wargames, is not an easy thing to do. If I was in a Battlefront marketing meeting, I would push the suggestion that we ignore the traditional sales approaches and look at the more unconventional methods. Kinda like what boardgaming does. Get a booth at the conventions (doesn't have to be big or fancy), promote the demo and offer the ability to purchase the CD. Offer some sort of deal with the Hobby shops, where they spend a couple of hundred dollars and they have copies on hand for people who don't want to purchase over the Internet. The key thing being that those outlets are not there to sell the product, they are there to promote it... in other words, word of mouth. You could even get real fancy and set up a small LAN and let people play TCP against each other. Maybe even a small "tournament", where the winner gets a free copy or $100 or something. The retail days of wargames are over. You've got to try other approaches.

Mr H has responded numerous times about the status of SC2. What is the point in asking the same qustion over and over?

For those of you who have been here some time, you've read my statement(s) that stacking isn't required in SC. I've been meaning to explain why I believe its not necessary, and this is my attempt. The Past In wargames, we all know what stacking means. Rules allowed you to put more than one unit in the same hex, which increases your offensive or defensive power. But what is it in real life that the rule is trying to represent? The Reality Stacking is an attempt to represent the battlefied front being condensed. WWII division would defend a five (5) to eight (8) mile front and attack in roughly half of that frontage. The fifty (50) mile hex works quite well with the SC Army representing roughly eight (8) divisions. Bear in mind, that in real life, a combat unit is almost always given more area to cover than they have manpower for. Thats where the ability to take advantage of the terrain and creative use of mines and barbed wire come into play. On the attack, since you are willing to accept more losses to achieve the objective, you advance across a narrower front. So in theory, you could add more units in the same amount of space. But you run into two problems here. One being that the logisitical support you receive is limited by the road network (think morning traffic jam). Second being that as you concentrate your units, you suffer a higher casualty rate. The Future Ideally, you would simply limit the amount of units that could attack or defend a hex, but not restrict the number of units that could be in a hex at one time. With movement penalties in place to represent the traffic congestion, you have a representation of what happens in real life. Now, the player would make sure his units are dispersed, since why have multiple units in a hex take damage, when only a portion of them can fight back? Now that we have computers, one day someone will do it like this. Until then, our legacy has given us units and stacking limits. The Present The SC Army is a proper representation for WWII divisions on the defense. But what about when it attacks? I should be getting twice as much combat power in the same area. You are. SC does it by two different values for the Soft Attack (4) and Soft Defend (2) factors. Corps, representing half an Army, occupy the same amount of hex area. You would think they could stack since they wouldn't overburden the logisitcal road network. Thats where you run into a different set of problems, known as Command & Control. Two Corps operating together are not as efficient as one Army that consists of two Corps, since they don't have that higher level HQ coordinating them. This is one of the reasons that the Russian "armies" after Barbarossa, are properly reflected by a Corps unit, not an Army. The Conclusion Stacking isn't required for Armies or Corps in SC, but we should be able to pay a MPP cost to "merge" two (2) Corps into one (1) Army.

I was afraid of that. In effect, the "Siberians already transferred", is a way of overriding whatever option you take for the Siberian Transfer. Thats too bad. If it would transfer the Siberians up front, Iron Ranger would have his solution.

Comments That says it all, being the death blow for the Axis. Ever since the wimpy Barbarossa of '42, the one thing Germany couldn't have was a multi-front war. There just were not enough units to conduct both. So the plan(s) have always been to keep the Allied off-balance and finish off one front while the others are on the defensive. The American invasion into the Low Countries was a good example of that. There was never any attempt to conquer Turkey. Think of it as a big "feint". Granted, it extended the front by 700 miles, but the most important thing was the units Russia put into Turkey to protect it from falling. Those 12 or so units were units that couldn't be used elsewhere. But then the Allies finally attacked in the Middle East, Eastern Front and Western Front. The "thin grey line", that stretched from Prussia to Romania, had been stripped of supporting units, HQs and experienced units to provide the nuclues of other fronts. With three (3) different fronts, it was one (1) front too many. In a normal game, you would cash in your R&D chits and buy more units. I didn't have that option. In effect, I would have only needed to cash in R&D chits per turn when I ran out of MPPs for replacements. With six (6) or so US Armies in France, and Axis only having two (2) Armies to defend with, it wouldn't have taken long for France to fall. With France fallen, the Allies now have more manpower to use, the Axis less MPPs. You can see the trend. The game was very enjoyable, especially the strategical moves and counter-moves. Other than the you know what (ie carriers), it was very much strategical, not gameyness that decided the outcome. [ August 28, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

November 26, 1944 Brest falls to the Allies. Army Group West reports that three (3) US Armies and one (1) UK Corps are ashore. Two (2) additional US Armies are afloat off of the coast, possibly more. Russian Army offshore of Bulgaria, as well as one offshore of Romania. One is attacked by Rockets. Army Group Asia's 40th Army (Ge) engages IV Corps (Turkey) outside Istanbul.

October 29, 1944 Army Group Afrika reports that three (3) Russian Fighter units and two (2) Bomber units have shattered the 30th Army (Ge). Army Group Asia sends rocket attacks against a Russian Army, while Turkish units move into the outskirts of Istanbul, probably in preparation for an attack.

October 1, 1944 Army Group Afrika reports that II Corps (Turkey) engaged XIV and SS Panzers in what appears to be a reconnaisance probe. The Turkish Corps are now POWs. The US and UK Corps in Denmark have been removed thru a combination of ground and aerial assaults. German rockets are hurled at a Russian Army moving towards Istanbul. Allied transports appear up and down the coast of Europe. [ August 27, 2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Plunder. Portugal is easy plunder.

September 3, 1944 Army Group Asia reports that Littorio Armor (Itl) attacks III Corps (Turkey). Army Group North reports that Ariete Armor (Itl) is under bombarded by three (3) Russian Rocket detachments in Kongisberg. XXX Volkgrndr Corps (Ge) engages 4th Corps (US).

I'm going have to disagree here, about how to handle the North Atlantic in a future SC. If you are going to have 50 mile hexes, then you need an massively expanded map to represent the North Atlantic. If, for whatever reasons, that cannot happen, then go to sea zones. The memory requirements to track the sea zones is already in SC partially (the Suez loop) and while a higher requirement than currently, alot less than the above. It makes no sense to add a few hexes here or a few hexes there, and keep the existing naval concept. Even with "silent running" subs or "additional AP cost" hexes. You're still gonna have the same problems with scale, just like you do today. As it is now, with the right location and/or some Long Range tech, Air units can cover the "North" Atlantic for either side. That makes no sense. The only place that needs a "few more hexes", is North Africa. I'd rather have a larger land area with sea zones, than a expanded North Atlantic, even if the North Atlantic is twice as large as what we currently have. And strategic level games don't require destroyers, because having them as a seperate "unit", doesn't reflect how they are used.

Good info Mr T. Now test the effect of invading UK on Russian readiness and answer that question under the Am I Senile? topic.

Within the current game, there are really only two things you can do. Change the research levels and/or give them an initial MPP bonus. What I find very interesting, is the paradox between the people who point out that the US MPP production is too low and the bid system. Any bid system should be giving that MPP bonus to the US, not Russia. One of the reasons I don't like the idea of a campaign editor that allows hex manipulation, is that you would get people changing the MPP values. For the same reasons, I don't like the idea of "off map" MPP values. While many people may not appreciate it or even agree, SC does have a MPP balance between the Axis and Allies. As quite a few of us have found out, changing the neutrals from the standard campaign does have a noticable effect on the MPP balance. Thats the kind of change that destroys the existing balance. Having said all of that though, there are some map changes that need to be addressed in SC. The ability to make those changes would be nice. And for the future (ie SC2), variation in the MPP values assigned per cities, mines, ports and oil wells would be nice, as some areas produced more MPPs than others. [ August 27, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Industrial Tech already performs the cost reduction role, so having a specialized tech that does an additional cost reduction I believe is unnecessary. In some ways, you can achieve the effect you want by simply reducing the initial cost of submarines. Even with the above, I don't think you will find any renewed interest in the battles of the North Atlantic, until other things are fixed. The most notable being the amount of hexes. The North Atlantic itself is as large as the existing map, at a 50 mile per hex scale. This one change, would make it extremely difficult for submarines to be found. Now you'd have more strategical interest in the North Atlantic (and calls for more Allied ships upon setup).