Shaka of Carthage

It seems some of us have already forgotten what he intially said. Terif is correct. The game is balanced. Key word being the GAME. But the "feel" of the interaction between the various WWII units seems wrong to me. The Armor is broke, because it is not strong enough. And the Air is broke, because it is too strong.

There is "Spanglish" out here in LA, so I guess Reichs would be "Gerglish" ?

kenfedoroff Whats up dude! Character is the standard one you get from the UBB Code "list item". JerseyJohn I understand your point about the fight and retreat. But I believe at the scale we are dealing with, most of that fight and retreat is occuring by the divisions within the Corp/Army unit we have. But more importantly, adding the ability to retreat has created alot more software code especially when determing where to retreat and if you can retreat to that hex. And then there is the effect on readiness and action points. gorber Let me rephrase the question regarding the "the code is just lying there", since it appears you feel you are being attacked. I have HC. Played it. Wrote about it when I did an economic comparison betwen SC, COS, HC and 3R. Your statement intrigued me, since I thought you had some sort of knoweldge or access to the software code. I was aware of the intent to convert it to Windows and thought maybe you were one of those with the unfinished code. I agree with most of the points you made about HC. Iron Ranger Interesting point about not investing in LR. I think I will "borrow" this idea from you.

Hanging them so that the blood drains... thats still the way the do it. Nothing is wasted. Just that they are suppossed to be "stunned" before they are hung. Problem is, if they are "stunned", why do they look at you when you cut them? Ever see Grand Canyon? Remember when Steve Martin got shot? That was very realistic, since when you are shot or die, your bowels let loose. Battlefield smells... blood, excrement, dead flesh, body parts from inside and out. Very distinctive smell. Musn't forget the maggots, though they don't really smell. Pigs will eat anything. Need I say more? I couldn't eat pork for quite a while afterwards. But damn, time heals all and its smells soooo good. [ April 28, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

gorber What exactly do you mean by "the code is just lying there to be picked up"? I've mentioned a few things about how High Command got it right. But it also did quite a few things wrong. And lets not forget Clash of Steel if we are going throw various things into the mix. HC and COS both tried to hit the mark of being historical. What SC is not is a historical wargame. So comparing it to HC or COS is unfair in this respect. SC has hit the mark dead on of being a playable game with a WWII flavor. WWII "Lite" where the Greys get to beat up on the Blues before the Reds come pouring in, with everyone using WWII equipment. Just don't insult SC by calling it a "beer & pretzels" or "Axis & Allies clone". Doing so just shows a lack of understanding of the terms. When you look at the suggestions we make you can see we are really asking for three (3) different things. </font> changes to balance the current game.</font>changes to make it more realistic/historical.</font>changes to expand the theater of operations.</font> There are obviously subdivisions within those categories. The first category is pretty much covered, other than the Air. And not from the what it can or can't do, but rather because of the unbalancing effect it has on the game. The problem is that we get mixed up on our solutions, trying to use "historical" examples to justify whatever gaming fix we believe in. stacking and retreat after combat Short version here, since I rambled on way longer than I thought. There is no problem with stacking. One reason why the Dutch Gambit is successful. You line up coast to coast and you get trench warfare, be it in WWI or WWII. Just that in WWII it was called attrition warfare. If anything, this shows that the combat model between same units within SC works and is playable. In the game, the Greys can get enough units to do just that against the Reds. Historically, the Germans never had that option. There is no need for retreat after combat at the strategic scale in a turn based system. But it seems the simple solution to "fixing" the attrition combat problem. For the same reason people believe the Air is fine as it is. Or you hear "where is the artillery?". Armor broke the trench lines. Armor made the linear defense obsolete. But armor is "broke" in SC... when armor attacks, it should be using the Tank Attack factor against a Corp/Army unit. Not the Soft Attack factor. [ April 28, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

KVK Excellent post that all of us should remember once we start to attach simplistic labels to people. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all did what they had to do to gain power and keep it. That was the first priority and had precedence over anything else. True. But its not that simple. The "establishment" protects itself by secret police, security services, etc. But plots exist. Was the KGB/GRB/NKVD or whatever they were called then, that much more effective than the Gestabo/SS? Or was it the purge of military officers? Interesting point abou the west. Cause you're right. Our political purges and coups exist, except we call them "losing the election".

JerseyJohn That is the mark of a true professional. No emotion, its just a job. Every see the guys who butcher pigs for a living? Heck, ever been in the area they work in? I was hundreds of feet away from that area and the blood smells made me give up the client... I was having to many regressions.

Edwin P Marine unit that you propose, should not be able to move and unload as well as attack from offshore. One or the other should be sufficient. I think your Para cost is too low. Transport aircraft and gliders are not cheap. And you are talking about four (4) divisions and non-divisional assets. What about limits on the number of Para, Marine and Engineer units that could be built by a nation? Or are you suggesting that they have no limits?

disorder American Civil War was fought because of states rights, not slavery as you pointed out. Maybe I have a different twist on it for various reasons, but I am of the belief that Lincoln could not openly support "freeing the slaves" because it was not a politically popular idea at the time. Once the opportunity presented itself, he jumped on it. For different political reasons (the poor voters), the South could not abolish slavery. Politics rule politicians, not beliefs. How else can you explain our inability, after 50 years, to reduce Pork Barrel (ie military-industrial) politics? Heck, it just happened a month ago! We pay for those mistakes in blood. And yes, I like Clinton. [ April 26, 2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

JerseyJohn Thanks for making the edit. I know plety've 4-Fs in Brooklyn who could still kick my ass in! LOL!!! Air Force... Something has got to be done. Things are getting too expensive. The "Red" menance is gone, but where are the defense cuts we should be benefitting from? Both you and I are thinking about military items that no longer exist, but the points are still valid today, just different hardware. No Time for Sergeants ... is that the one with the Hippy guy would holds the buckets of sands and eventually goes AWOL? SeaWolf_48 There is a old quote that goes something like... If the Americans were as good as they said they were, the British as bad as they said they were and the Germans as good as everyone thought they were, then the Battle for Normandy would not have been fought the way it was. You made some good points... though I disagree with one of them. Japan had the best pilots, not the British. Problem was, once they were lost, they couldn't replace them. Excellent point about the British Intelligence. I don't think in todays world enough of us give credit what British Intell meant to the Alliance. They were the pro's, everyone else was the amatuers who wanted to be just like the pro's. Even in today's world, there is no one better at the Intell game worldwide then the British. Amazing considering how small the Intell services are. Americans... Logisitics, high tech. Isn't it great what being the richest country in the world will do for you? Got a problem? Throw money at it. While the Germans were First with the Best! , the Americans countered by being Second with the Most!! Hmmmm.... from my experience, everyone is an asshole, who sometimes has an opnion. Edwin P I am not sure if willpower is the right word. Its hard to think of anyone in the Western world doing scorched earth on thier own ground. Thats a Mongol practice. Someone else's territory, different story. Look at the opinion of Sherman people in the South have about him. One of the most important concepts to the post war Soviet empire was to never allow fighting to be done on its own land again. No one wanted to suffer the losses they did. Brings me to another point. We as wargamers always have a hard time replicating the Battle for France '40. Even when we do the "blitz" and get in the rear of the French, those darn French units will still fight you. It gets back to the will of the French. They had sufferred enormously from WWI and in the following years there were not enough births to match the German population growth (someone should write a book about that). So here come the Germans once again, and in a few days are already in the rear area causing havoc. Is it any wonder the French gave up? But how do you adequately portray that in a wargame? Gonna make a tastless joke, so please forgive me One can only wonder how different things would have been, if the US soldiers in WWI France were ordered not to use condoms!

JerseyJohn I am going to have to correct one of your statements. Please go back and edit your post. There is no such thing as "ex-marines". You talking about some new member of the X-Men or something like that? If you mean members of the USMC who are no longer active, then you would be referring to former Marines or retired Marines. Please note the captial M. Then of course, you have the British Royal Marines, whom you can refer to as marines or former marines if you like. No capital M necessary for them. Wind and the Lion, Sean Connery was the Arab in that wasn't he? I loved that movie. Actually saw it again, about a month ago. Full Metal Jacket was a pretty good depiction of boot camp, except the last part where he had his rifle with ammo. Never would have happened like that. The rest of it, except for little bits and pieces, was nothing like my time, but I am not saying that it wasn't accurate. Just that my experiences were nothing like that. As a former SAC member, I have a question. You can responsd to my e-mail if you would like, since it is off-topic. Or if you want, I can make a topic over in the General Forum if you like. I am of the opinion that the Air Force should be merged back into the Army. However, I think certain parts of it, like the Space Command and SAC should form a seperate service, for lack of a better name, the Strategic Air Service or Space Command. They can be the ones in charge of the nuc's, strategic bombers, interceptor fighters, satellites, etc. But cost wise, tactical air needs to be back where it belongs, in support of the Army. Its a shame the ground pounders don't have a replacement for the A-10, and the Air Force doesn't want anything to do with it. Your opinion? Back on topic, I will do a piece on Mussolini. I apologize in advance cause I am sure I will butcher the Italian names of the people and units. I have some opinions, mainly cause I have spent quite some time trying to understand why the Italian army performed so poorly. I'll do it either later tonight or tommorrow. [ April 26, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Ok.. someone PLEASE tell me how to do this. From SC, I want to be able to capture a screen picture of the map and place it in my post, just like was done above. I apologize for this off-topic post, but I have wanted to do the above for so long, that now that I have seen it, I can't help but ask. Thanks.

JerseyJohn Yep, I am a former jarhead. Responded here, since over in the General Forum, things are a little hectic. Didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you. Interesting topic you got here. Stalin The thing that has always amazed me about him is his ruthlessness. I look at the events over in Iraq during the early weeks and I have a better appreciation for the Russian people. Maybe they were against Stalin, but you kept your mouth shut because you didn't want the NKVD, KGB, or whomever to come knocking at night to take you away. Just like the Iraq people were worried about the Fedayeem. Once the Coalition units physically occuppied an area, than it was a different matter. Just like what I imagined happened when the Germans first arrived in Russia... and were greeted as liberators. Of course, once the Gestapo, SS arrived, it was "oh ****!" No wonder there was little lack of willing partisan recruits. Stalin was worried about the military plotting against him (just like Hitler), so guess what... off you go to Siberia. Or the wall and a bullet. As a military leader, he was clueless. Line them up, go forward, send the trouble makers into the Penal Battalions... all resulting in the "it takes a brave man to be a coward in the Russian Army". What amazed me is that the military leaders he took out of Siberia actually fought the Germans. I would think they were more interested in shooting Stalin. But that is when his Commissars, NKVD, KGB, etc would have come into play I guess. Its amazing the Russian Army became what it was. Stalin contributed nothing to that. Its just too bad that the US Army (as well as the rest of the world) was enarmored with the German successes and looked to them for role models. With one exception though, Israel. It used the German and Soviet models ... but thats another story.

KVK We are saying the same thing, just differently. If AG South had been able to advance on its own, then the PZ Group would not have been diverted. Because the Russians were able to delay AG South (regardless of why), to continue the advance it required more German forces. Either way, the Russian forces in opposition to AG South had to be eliminated.

Edwin P As for the production costs, I was just wondering whether the game accurately portrayed the relative costs of fielding an air fleet vs fielding an Armored Division (?) plus supporting troops That statement is something people have been trying to answer in real life for the last fifty (50) plus years. And that is just within the US military! It's almost impossible to answer when you start comparing other people's military. There have been books written about this. So how can you expect a wargame to answer it? What usually happens, is that the wargame designer puts costs out there, playtests it (with or without beta testers) and keeps fiddling with it until it "feels" right. Just like they do with the combat power of the various units. But if you are interested, start a new topic... this is the kind of stuff I get perverse pleasure from. If you want to try a "quick" comparison method, look at games on a simliar scale to SC, then compare the relative costs against each other. Again, I would help, since I eat/breate this kind of stuff. Everyone It has been said before, but bears repeating. If Mr H produced an Editor for SC, that allowed us to modify the unit factors as well as possibly create new units, I would buy it. Hubert Carter Give some thought to "outsourcing" the work (for a Editor, see above) to someone here who would do it for peanuts... or even free.

Moscow is everything that everyone has claimed. But it still doesn't matter, Stalin was the key. Misuse of the German allies is OKH's mistake, not Hitlers. Manpower misuse? Mistake of OKH, with just as much blame going to OKM, OKL, OKW and Hitler. Hitler's method of conducting war was only suited to short, intense bursts Kinda true, but it was really the German/Nazi method. Reason? Logistical constraints. Which is not modelled very well in some wargames, including SC. And the political constraints, which is why the economy as well as the militaries logistical limitations where what they are. Something else NO wargame I am aware of has modelled. Diversion of the Panzers to the south was not to destroy the enemy. It was because AG South could not advance. And yes, you may have to kill the enemy, but you do it the smart way (encirclement), not the dumb way (frontal). This should be a different topic, so if anyone is interested, create it and we can debate it there. But going off on a tangent for a minute, all those US Military Analysis (alot coming from the former German officers) led to wrong conclusions. How do I know this? Because when we tested them out in Korea and 'Nam, we found out then they were wrong. And isn't it interesting how some of the "discussions" we are having are almost identical to the one's that occurred and are occuring regarding Saddam and Iraq? They guarded the flanks during the Stalingrad operation because germany needed man power, and it was generally believed that the Red Army had been so crippled that it could not mount a major offensived Exactly. And your other comments are dead on as well. Failure of the German Intelligence arm. Hmmm... wonder what the US/UK would have done if Germany had not declared war on the US and not attacked Russia, but Russia did invade Germany in '42 or later. Lastly, lets not forget Japan. Another problem with Russia from Hitlers viewpoint, is that he expected the Japanese to attack Russia while the Germans where doing likewise. Hiter had no idea though, that Japan had given up any offensive notions against Russia since they had been beaten by them. Figured why bother with Russia, China is big enough, and we can actually beat them! Lend-lease was important, not so much the military stuff though. As was pointed out, some of what was sent, the Russians had better stuff. But the food and the trucks were critical. Especially the food, as Stalin didn't have to starve as many people to feed his military and paramilitary forces. Operation Blue in itself, was not a bad plan. The fact that Hitler was the head of OKH was the problem, because now, he was suppossed to be in charge of figuring out how to achieve the objectives. And that was something he screwed up quite badly.

KDG Who said France can't be taken with "just" 3 air units? I understand your point, but it comes down to the fact you think its ok for Germany to have more than four (4) air units, and I don't. John DiFool Agree, thats why I think anything beyond a cost change or max unit limit should be more involved. But either of those options (cost or max unit) would not unbalance the game. Edwin P The Grey's having way so many units is not a problem, since the other colors can also. Its when you want them to be Germans that the lack of unit limits and other issues causes problems. To answer your question about the relative production cost, you first have to establish what is in each unit you are referring too. That is a whole nother subject itself. I tried to establish some numbers for manpower purposes. If you are interested, I can re-post the relevant information. Also, I don't consider myself any sort of WWII expert by answering your question.

In defense of the Italians and Romanians. You can blame Rommel for the Italians. His reports about thier fighting abilities helped convince Hitler to use them. I don't remember which General praised the Romanians, but there were praised. 1942 the German manpower reserves were gone. There is not enough trained manpower to replace the losses, let alone form new units. Drastic times, drastic measures... hmmmm.... didn't someone tell me about how good our Axis friends are? What do you mean the Japanese can't get here for another 12 months! Send in the minor leaguers while we wait for those younger kids to grow some face hair.

JerseyJohn and KVK Hitler never intended to take Moscow. His first priority was Leningrad and an area beyond Kiev (roughly Ural Mtns to Volga River). He felt that by taking the birthplace of communism and cutting Russia off from its breadbasket/resources, that the government would fall. OKH looked at it from a purely military viewpoint. They wanted Moscow first, believing that its capture would cause Russia to fall. OKH, the traditional and aristocratic officers, had oppossed almost every plan Hitler had made up to this point. In thier mind, they were the professionals and he was some enlisted man who had made good as a politician but didn't know smack about running a war. Hence, Army Group North, Central and South. OKH loaded the majority of the Panzer Groups in Army Group Central (edited, since typo had South). Hitler objected, but compromised with the condition that after capturing Smolensk, one or both of the Panzer Groups in Army Group Center would swing North to assist in the capture of Leningrad. Invasion started, everyone made good progress, except that Army Group South was slower than the others. OKH ordered AG Center to hold, since any further advancement would leave AG Centers flank further exposed. PZ Group 2 (and 2nd Army) went south to help AG South. By the time they had returned to AG Center, 8 weeks had passed. Those 8 weeks and the diversion of the forces from AG Center are why OKH blamed Hitler. If you read the US Army Historical documents that were written by the former German military officers (as well as the books published about them), they, almost to a man, blame Hitler for not going with "Moscow first". Were they right? No, and for many reasons. But the main one is the belief that by taking Moscow Russia would fall. For Russia to fall, it would require Stalin going, not Moscow. Thats also why Hitlers plan would not have worked either. Moscow doesn't fall, here comes Winter '41 - '42, and no winter supplies. O crap. German army (OKH) panics. Why no winter supplies? Because the OKH logistical tail had snapped. Not enough motor vehicles, huge requirements for ammunition and fuel/fodder (not to mention food), mud roads in AG North and South, not enough clear roads AG Center. Guys on the ground start requesting orders to withdraw (supplies won't come to me, I will go to you). Orders from the Fuhrer. STAND YOUR GROUND. Was he right? Maybe, maybe not. If the Russians had pursued retreating German forces, it could have turned into a rout. That is what Hitler was afraid of. Don't forget, both OKH and Hitler had little respect for the Russian soldier. Thats where the "the Russian soldier can survive in inhuman conditions (... because he is not human ...)" belief came from. Hitler, who had tried to deal with OKH by forming OKW in 1938 got so frustrated, that when the OKH head had a heart attack, Hitler took his job. Think about that. Hitler as Fuhrer gave orders to OKW. OKW then would give the orders to OKH (which was Hitler now). By Spring of '42 the front was "stabilized". Out comes Operation Blue. Or should we call it "Operation Barbarossa, the way I wanted it the FIRST TIME, by A. Hitler". Same strategic goals, which I won't bother to outline. This is the way the German High Command saw it. Notice I made no mention about the Russians. Its one of the problems with German Intelligence. "Russians have tanks better than us?". Tone it down, no one is gonna believe you. "No forces between us and Moscow!" Are you an idiot? Even the Russians couldn't be that stupid. "Pripet Marsh study is done, shows we can't manuever there". Send this idiot to the sub forces, we are Germans and we can go any damn where we want. That is also why whenever someone had enough balls, he would bypass his bosses and go straight to Hitler. Of course, your career was over and if you were wrong, probably your life. Thats why there was so much duplication of effort and waste. But if you want to hear about a real cluster ***k, let me tell you a little story about the Allied High Command........ [ April 24, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

santabear I've played it quite a few times with different people and it works well. It is still frustrating when Allied player lines up the US and UK air units and proceeds to blow away units in Fortress Europe, but c'est le vie. KDG If Mr H was to go that route, I think the increase should be much larger than 20%. More like 50% or larger. Edwin P While I agree with your 1st point, it still doesn't address the ability of the air unit to kill a unit, which it should not be able to do. That along with having to make the changes you suggest in your other points comes back to the same problem. If the software has to be changed, then do it right. 2nd point does address the importance of oil. And the fact that Germany had synthetic oil. But, just like above, if the software is going be changed, then do it right. Air restriction because of oil should also apply to Armor (and motorized) units. 3rd point ... yep, there is no Anti-Air tech counter. Radar, proximity fuses, even additional Anti-Air units would apply here. But once again, now talking software changes. xwormwood Thanks. [ April 24, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Don't be so critical of Hitler's military decisions. He should get alot more credit than he does for the good one's, and alot of the bad ones are post war attempts by the former professional General Staff officers to blame him for mistakes that were equally there's.

Mr. H, once again you prove you are a class act.

$175? JFC!!! Is it me, or does that seem a little steep? The production costs for producing a boardgame are a lot less than a computer game. Is this pure greed? Ok... finished with my ranting. Mr B, do you have ADC? If so, once A World at War ships and is out there, would you be interested in a game?

Gavrok The problem with the Armor unit is in the factors it is using for the attack. When a Armor unit attacks a Corp/Army unit, the attacking factor should be Tank Attack, not Soft Attack. That one change would solve the problem. Ditto to Mr. H regarding the game. While I agree about the Airborne units, it is a "glamor" unit and Mr. H would probably sell a few more games if it was in SC. Economic weight of US/Soviets. SC has it right, it is just that SC takes an approach different from what wargamers are used to. Lend-Lease support to the Soviets and UK are already in the totals they get, removing the step of having to transfer MPPs to them. Trying to show the relative economic "growths" of the different economies is beyond the current SC economic system. Limiting the transport range has problems, since how is the US suppossed to get its units to the UK? I like your concept of limiting the transport range... it works extremly well when applied to a amphib option for a unit. That, along with restricting the transport to only being able to unload in a port seems a viable solution. Let me thank you in advance for the concept, since by the time I get around to putting these things together, I forget where I get the ideas from.

Liam As a house rule, just agree to limit the number of Air units each nation can have. Thats about the only way to handle this until there is some sort of correction. I'll offer the numbers I use as a discussion point. US 3 Soviets 3 (Siberian Air, if any, is a freebie) Germany 4 Italy 2 UK 2 France 2 (Poles and Sweden get 1 each) PS This isn't the best place, but I don't know where else to put it. I have a topic in the General Forum regarding the UN Security Council. I'd like you guys' opinion, since alot of the General Forum posters are ... how shall I say this ... on the fringe of reality. [ April 24, 2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]