Shaka of Carthage

I don't think the "heavy" tanks are part of the Armor Tech advances. Especially not the Maus. Heavy tanks are more of a infantry support weapon since the lack of mobility would cause them to be used more like an assault gun/anti-tank gun. I think the tech level 5's are more like Panthers (or possibly Tigers) that have upgraded engines and armor.

Hmmmm.... I am not sure how I made the list. I didn't forget to post the lost did I?

Thru SC, no.

Random deployments for the neutrals would add a different twist to the replay. In the meantime, try playing the Axis without any amphib assaults other than SeaLion. Neutral deployments make alot more sense then.

While this isn't really what you were asking for, you can get some variety in the AI by changing the starting forces for the French. Give them the units you were talking about for "option 2", and while the AI won't do exactly as you ask, it will act differently than the normal AI. But to really get that challenge, you need a human opponent.

Shaka (Allies) concedes to Gorskii (Axis). Version 1.07. Nice that some of the bugs have been fixed.

It's alot cheaper to produce a Tank Destroyer than it is a Tank. Towed anti-tank weapon is even cheaper. You went for a gun big enough to hurt a tank, but usually put it on whatever chassis you had the most of. Most of the tank destroyers were the chassis of obsolete tanks with turrets removed. Except for the US, which produced a dedicated tank destroyer from the ground up.

SeaMonkey Summary US/UK method could bring more artillery to bear when on the move than anyone else. There should be something to reflect that advantage. I think it should be in the US/UK Corp/Army being the only one with the ability to move and fight. Detail Doctrine differences are very little when it comes to a prepared offense or prepared defense. Division, Corp and Army level artillery units had enough time to pre-plot artillery missions. Effect was no different then what occurred in WWI. On-Call Artillery Once the situation became mobile, now have big differences in doctrine. Artillery was either in direct support of a unit or in general support (had to ask permission for its use, which added 3 minutes for each higher formation). Typically took about 10 to 12 minutes for first round to arrive, with 3 to 5 minutes between each spotting round. Massed fire (ie artillery units within range) was possible but difficult since everyones maps were not calibrated. Intially everyone used artillery to destroy point targets. Would correct there rounds before firing for effect. British changed doctrine in '42. Adopted gridded map system which allowed first round to arrive in 2 to 3 minutes, but it wasn't as accurate. So they didn't bother with correcting rounds and instead went for suppression, not destruction. When artillery landed, it all landed at one time. Wasted more rounds than the above, so the British relied on thier FO's to select priority targets. Could mass fire from different artillery units easily since everyone had the same map. US took the British system one step further. Kept the speed of the British, while restoring the accuracy. Artillery could now either destroy or suppress a target. Could also perform mass fire and have all the rounds land at the same time (called Time on Target). And any platoon sized unit could call in artillery support, without having a Forward Observer. Russia, after the losses in '41, took anyone who was smart enough to act as a FO and put them in Artillery Divisions (or sent them to build airplanes). Used mortars and assault guns in place of artillery in the infantry divisions. You in effect had short range, inaccurate "artillery" support. Within the scale of SC though, we can't represent this.

SeaMonkey The only thing our hindsight does is prevent us from making the same mistakes. Realism does not mean that we have to repeat the same steps. But it does mean that the conditions that caused those original decisions should be the same.

Anti-Tank development. Tank destroyer is nothing more than a Self-Propelled Anti-Tank gun.

HOI Hearts of Iron

Thanks Mr. H.

SeaWolf_48 Don't mean to belabor the point, but there are a couple of misconceptions you mentioned that I would like to clear up. Germans, Italians and Russians are the only one's who understood combined arms. US and British could never get the proper coordination or the correct doctrine. Number of tanks is not important. Ever wonder why Rommel with so few tanks could achieve breakthroughs? US Armored divisions had too many tanks in them, but to the US, tanks were metal horses (ie cavalry). US never got it right in WWII. Didn't learn until after Israel taught them. Tankers were correct about being in a safe place. Most tank losses were not because the tank was destroyed, rather it was disabled. Crew was still alive. Thats why so much confusion when people talk about how air "kills" a tank. Usually it has done nothing more than disable a track. Tank will be back in action the next day.

This is my response to the realism, accuracy question. That answer depends on why you are playing a wargame. In my case, I play wargames because I want to experience history. And just as important, I want to experience the "what if" possibilities. Kinda like an interactive book with multiple endings. The essence of a historical wargame is to provide that historical event within pre-defined limits. A great historical wargame will offer different variety in how the event is presented. Stay within the limits of the historical event and you've got realism. Properly represent the forces, terrain and situations and you've got accuracy. And there lies the reason for so much debate. The interpetation of the events and facts. Combat specifically and war in general has a huge number of variables. This gives us variety in the number of games covering the same subject. But it also leads to the trap of believing that complexity equals accuracy.

Thanks KDG for responding. I agree with the rest of you, there should be a random factor. We, as strategic commanders, should be making decisions based on the general capabilites of our units, not perfect knowledge.

Examples of Inf Div stopping Armor Div? Specific examples will have to wait, since I don't have access to my sources at work. WWII Won't find much before '41, since the Inf Div's really didn't have enough anti-tank weapons. France '40 there was a French Inf Div that stopped a German Panzer Div. North Africa... Axis stopped the British Armored attacks couple of times. Believe it was done with the Italian infantry supported by German anti-tank units (88's). German armor units being reserved for the counter-attack. Again in North Africa, when US invaded, US Inf units stopped German Armored units with towed and self-propelled anti-tank weapons, including the tank destroyers. Hmmmm.... maybe we have a disconnect on what is considered a anti-tank weapon? Lots of examples with German Inf divisions stopping Russian armored attacks. I'll have to find the specific examples. Then you come to the '44 timeframe. US Inf Divisions stopped German armor divisions quite a few times. Post WWII Egyptian Inf (with Saggers) stopping Israeli armored attacks. Think that was the 70's.

Jeff Sutro KDG was the one who replied that he had the formulas in an excel spreadsheet. Either arby or KDG would be better at answering your question than myself. Bill Macon Not having to read the manual was one of the beauties of SC. And since I played the demo first, by the time the game arrived, I didn't bother with it. Glad to hear you are still plodding away. Sure quite a few of us are looking forward to your results.

SeaMonkey By rate of fire, I assume you mean the number of rounds that could be fired within a certain time frame. That was more of a logistical constraint than anything else. In-battery deployment... You had horse drawn, towed and self-propelled. Rate of movement for each is different, but the biggest effect was the different types of terrain they could operate on. British and the US could setup quickly, since all they had to do was setup equipment, connect communication links and lay up some ammo. Even if they were SP, still took min of 30 minutes, since most of the time was spent triangulating your position. Germans and Soviets took more time, around an hour, not so much because of the transport method, but because they had to lay down telephone wires (just like WWI) and more importantly perform survey's (guy holding a pole and another guy looking at him thru that thing on the tripod) to establish firing points (the method they used since the maps were not gridded like the US/British). Here is a link that has a brief overview of Artillery, with a brief touch upon national doctrine. Well worth the read (about 15 minutes). WWII Artillery Overview Your comment about the doctrine and setup time got me to thinking about the ability to perform on-call fire and how it would relate to moving and attacking. In a few days, I'll have something to say about that. [ April 09, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

SeaMonkey The use of precision weapons that started in '91 is in effect a new RMA. Just like the German Blitz was in '40. It will be interesting to see what "tech" people research to counter it.

JerseyJohn Either change the title or add a new sticky. My only concern was that a newbie would see posts with numerous threads inside of them and figure that this was way too much to be bothered with. As it is, that newbie really only has to read the thread by Terif and he has enough knowledge to play a competent TCP/IP game.

SeaWolf_48 Infantry can stop Tanks, if they have adequate anti-tank weapons. True in WWII, just like it is true today. What Infantry alone cannot stop is a properly conducted combined arms attack. While it's true that armor in 'Nam was very effective, the terrain precluded it being widely used. VC and NVA were formidable fighters and deserve a better term than the one you used for them.

I'll accept that challenge. It may take me a few weeks to give you that answer, since there are a few other things I still need to work out. If I win, what sort of "boobee" prize do I get? Bear in mind though, that the SC "simulation", is not an effort to replicate War in Russia, War in Europe (board and computer) and others like them. They are operational level. You can count the WWII strategical games without taking your shoes off.

Just about any computer game that covers the strategic aspect of WWII has been influenced by Third Reich. Wasn't A&A developed because the designer felt that Third Reich was too complicated?

Thanks Mr H. and Battlefront for the sticky. General question for anyone, but shouldn't this sticky be dedicated to newbee advice only? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to place references to enhancements or changes in a different sticky topic.

scrapking I understand what you are saying, and yes, SC is a game. Not sure if I would go as far as the "glorified game of checkers" comment though. In my case, I feel that having an understanding of the details that make up what SC is trying to represent, is necessary to achieve the proper effect, especially when you start making suggestions on how to "improve" or "fix" the game. Yes, its a fun, basically balanced game with its generic units and MPPs. But once you enter into a wargame genre, you are going to get some of us on the fringes who want realism as well. [ April 09, 2003, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]