Shaka of Carthage

Excellent point was made about board game rules and tinkering. Alot of your OW's (Old school Wargamers or Original Wargamers, take your pick), spent time analyzing the CRT, relative strengths of the units, terrain, victory conditions, etc. As a result, many of us took the next step and wondered why things were the way they were. And if we didn't agree, we changed it. Alot harder, if not impossible to do these days. Wargamers were nerds or closet nerds, back before they were called nerds. How many of you admitted, even to yourselfs, that you enjoyed the library more than hanging out with your friends? Cats and dogs were much easier to handle than the girlfriends or wifes. Even though there were a few rare ones that didn't mind being locked up, but if you had one of those, what the heck were you doing pushing counters or lead?

I am fine with SC's 50mile hex scale and variable weekly turns. Going to a 20mile hex scale in my mind is more of a operational level system, where the units would be divisions, not corps and armies. There are not that many things that need to be changed to reflect what it is missing.

Regarding all the suggestions about lowering the strength damage that air can cause, etc... I don't see how that is superior to simply having the air only cause damage to the readiness factor of a unit. Then, it doesn't matter if you hit a unit with six (6) air or one (1) air, you won't be able to eliminate the units unless you use a ground unit. Regarding the logistical cost of the air unit: It is already reflected in SC, in the economic unit we use... which is MPP's. Inf Corp is 125, Army 250, Air is 400. Replacement costs are based on a percentage of the original costs (if I remember correctly), so the Air unit replacments are already costing us three (3) times as much as an Corp and one and a half (1.5) times as much as an Army. Relatively speaking, thats about right. Not unless we start to make the distinction in different economic units, can we account for the differences between trained manpower for the army, air force and naval as well as the other deciding factor, oil. Oil was the real reason that the Luftwaffe didn't grow any larger. Losing the pilot instructors on the Eastern Front didn't help either.

Tigleth Pilisar You can still "punch a hole" in the line, with a two hex attack, as long as your attackers have three (3) experience bars and are armies. It is possible with a two (2) experience bar unit, but you have to be extremly lucky on both attacks. This assumes the defender is at an entrenchment level of zero (0). And while the reduction of readiness would help such an attack, the air unit would be more valuable in the role of reducing any entrenchment value. So while your statements are correct regarding increasing the number of attacks, I don't agree that the Air unit attacks are necessary to be able to puncture a line. The reason I belive it makes a big difference in wheter the air does readiness or strength points, is that air units, by themselves, should not be able to eliminate ground units. Quite a few of you have made good points about the relative strengths of a carrier group not being the same as the relative strengths of a air unit. Even with multiple carriers in the unit and increased sortie rates, the combat power between the two different units is not equal. Does tend to suggest that the carrier unit should have a reduction in something to reflect this.

Les the Sarge We both agree that adding complexity into a game does not give you an automatic improvement. I'm not advocating that SC reach the complexity levels that ASL does. Nor should it turn into a "High Command" or "Hearts of Iron". However, the entertainment value would not be lost (and may even be increased) by adding some enhancements to accurately portray the period.

Les the Sarge 9-1b I agree with you that SC has to be careful about the suggestions regarding changes, and not lose focus of what it is. But there are quite a few things, even at the Grand Strategy level, that should be changed so that SC is not relegated to only being considered a "WWII Lite" or B&P game.

Shaka (Allies) concedes to Rambo (Axis). Don't remember the bid.

DalmatiaPartisan After re-reading my post, it does look like I was bitching. It was a generic bitch, not directed at you. I was irritated about real life stuff, so when I read these postings, I felt like bitching. So I apologize to you. I guess its true, wise men talk with thier ears (eyes) and fools talk with thier mouths (fingers).

While I can take or leave the Ladder concept, as Hueristic pointed out, it takes time for someone to use a "better" system. So enjoy what we have and be grateful someone takes the time to try and maintain it. Want something better? Then commit the time to do the work.

Genghis You do have a valid point. The French in '39 scenario, by May '40, have more than they did in real life. I believe that if the units for some nations were not created within one turn and the movement rates for Corps and Armies were changed (to reflect horse transport), you would achieve the effect of Allied unpreparedness.

Genghis Why should there be a game restriction not allowing DOW by Allies on Low Countries? It is a possible "what if" (if you stretch it a bit) and the Allies do take a hit on the readiness numbers for the US.

Shaka (Axis) concedes to Wachtmeister (Allies). Bid was 175. If you havn't, you ougth to read the post by Wachtmeister about what Terif did to him with the carriers. Its just amazing how people come up with new ways of defeating others. I tip my hat to the one who devised the carrier/ireland technique . Sure is alot of brain cells being burned on how to win in SC.

Suppossed to represent the fact that the closer France gets to "falling", the Italians will DOW so they won't lose out on the "spoils of war". Same logic that has Spain not joing Axis, until UK gets invaded. Reflection of what they did historically.

Shaka (Axis) concedes to Terif (Allies). Bid was 100. Maybe its time to start a new forum for ladder results?

The effects of aircraft should be changed. Against ground targets aircraft (and naval) should only be reducing the readiness level.

This is way off topic... but since you guys brought it up... about the UN. If it was being recreated... how would you go about it? What is a better solution? Nations that feel they are major powers, not to mention superpowers, are not going to stand for being ordered around by Third World nations. If we pull out of UN, are you advocating isolationism? Or are you advocating Pax Americana? The world run by the US? Or pluralism, where the major powers of a area have a sphere of influence, that the other majors don't interfere with?

KVK The Russian inf div you quoted is at the start of Barbarossa. That to&e was never attained again, due to the massive intial losses they suffered. The offical to&e reduced the size of the infantry bn's and stripped men from the combat support units. All the other numbers I gave agree to what you have stated, except for the German Panzer div, which is about 1,000 men off. I'm sure you'll agree that if you compare five different sources, you will get five different numbers on what the units looked like. None of the units in the field kept to the standard to&e's, but the above does illustrate that the Russian Inf div is much smaller than the German one. Your manpower numbers for the Russians are interesting. They show almost a 3:1 advantage to the Germans. Same with your battlefield losses, they show a much higher number of Russian losses that I show. Either way, relative to the Germans, the Russians had superior manpower resources.

Finally!!!! Someone who can appreciate my humor. Did you see the one about the AI not complaining?

nonsuch You're right, Hitler would not believe General Staff when they told him what they believed the Russians were capable of producing. He thought they were out of there minds. Problem is in the definition of the words. A Russian infantry division per to&e is only 9500 men. A German infantry division per to&e is 17,000 men. Without trying to figure out the equivlent combat power (something I am trying to do for the Manpower issue), when you read about a Russian Army, it is equivalent to a "western" Corp. Italians and Hungarians make it worse, because there infantry divisions (approx 12,000 men) only have six (6) inf battalions, but are still larger than the Russian infantry division. The Russian Tank "Corp", which never had more than 12,000 men, is more equivalent to a western armored division (10,000 to 15,000). Again, this does not try to equate the combat powers, or what are known as "division equivalents". Simply a rough comparison of manpower numbers. Since our "Germans" and "Russians" have identical weapons and organizations at the same tech levels, it is not incorrect for the Russians to be only building Corps. About the only time you should be building a Army is when you are creating a "Shock" Group. The part about them being able to produce units faster I would like to address below. The big problem, is that our "Germans" and "Russians" do not represent the Germans and Russians of WWII. Germans units, when they were created from scratch, took time. The Russians cranked them out much faster. Since our "Greys" and "Reds" are both producing the same identical units, there is no difference like there was historically. Then there is the manpower. The Germans could not afford the losses at the same level that the Russians could. Germany had a military manpower pool of about 10,000,000. Russian numbers are more difficult to get, but were suppossed to be around twice that of the Germans. So lets say 20,000,000. So for every 1,000,000 men the Germans loss, it would take time to replace them, six (6) to twelve (12) months, even if they were forming infantry corps or armies. So you either waited for them to arrive and fought with less troops, or you pulled units from other places (ie one of the reasons reserves were kept... which I don't believe anyone probably does in SC). If the Russians lost 1,000,000 men, they could replace them with new units within two (2) months or less. So as long as the Russians kept a loss ratio of 2:1, it was great for them, since the Germans at some point, need time to plug those holes, while the Russians have fresh units to pour into the holes. Instead, what we have are Grey and Red units that we either replace the losses by reinforcing, or we buy new units to replace those that fell. As long as the MPP's are relativly even, you now have WWI. Hence, it will eventually be from coast to coast, a long line of units facing each other. Luckily for us (excluding the manpower and how to handle that) getting the nationality traits and the other items that can realistically portray this won't be too difficult. [ February 13, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Thats true. Germany got a huge amount of raw materials and oil from Russia. Oil wise, it was two or three times what they imported from South America. Probably one of the reasons Stalin had a hard time believeing the Germans were preparing to attack Russia, since with the loss of the South American Imports, and the needs of the military, it would not be economically sound for Germany to cut off its oil and raw material sources from Russia.

KVK I made another post that responded to your response, after the one that you wrote. I was trying to make the point that the Russians were no better than anyone else when it came to combat in winter. They were equipped to handle it, but the Germans, after the initial winter, did adapt and equip themselves. And with or without the proper equipement, winter losses are higher than more "normal" weather. I also prefer general rules that cover the circumstances, as oppossed to special rules that address the occurance. Hence, regarding combat effects of winter, I would like to see something like this: * Winter turns, supply is reduced by 50%. * The first time a nation conducts combat during the winter turns, their supply levels are reduced an additional 50%. Norway, Finland and Sweden are exempt from this. Obviously, certain areas would not have "winter" turns (like North Africa, Southern Italy, etc). And if you wanted to address "mud", just change the percentage for that season (ie 25%?). This would recreate the effects of the winter for the German / Russian conflict; would give Russia an additional reason to invade Finland; and make us plan based on the seasons if we were to conduct operations in the northern extremes (Sweden, Norway and Finland).

KVK Maybe you didn't get to read the rest of my post? "Germans suffered because of the lack of proper equipment for winter." All I am saying is that if we want to include the combat effects of winter in SC, we need to handle two issues. The effects of winter on both sides (ie cuts supply by half). How to recreate that one time effect that the Germans sufferred. Your example, that if the Russians conduct the winter war against Finland, then they get a combat bonus against the Russians does have merit. But what happens if the Germans invade Finland? It is possible for this to happen in SC, and then Russia would lose its "one time" combat bonus.

I am so glad that someone else finally brought this up again. It was mentioned before in the older posts, but it should be stated again. The air and naval units in SC should not be causing strength point losses to ground units. Rather, they should only be causing a readiness loss. [ February 13, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

KVK Actually, the examples you gave kinda prove my point. Russian soldier was not any better at fighting in winter than the German soldier. Germans sufferred because of the lack of proper equipment for winter. Yes. But they did try to fix the mistake. We can't penalize the Germans every winter assuming they never got the proper winter equipment. So, what combat effect do the Russians receive because of winter? Remember, whatever advantage they receive will occur every winter. I think that if during winter, your supply levels dropped by half, that would be sufficient for both sides. And then how do we recreate the advantage the Russians had because of that first winter? This is the hard one, since its almost impossible to reflect this without getting specific ... something like ... "first winter the Germans fight the Russians they will ..." . Then one day, some player will wonder why the Germans, who have invaded Finland (or Sweden) in 6/41, don't suffer the same effects of the "first winter" that they do when the fight the Russians.

Liam So in SC terms what I am hearing? Do you belive that the UK Air units should start off with a higher tech and/or experience level than the Luftwaffe? I was suggesting that the Luftwaffe (actually all German units) start with two (2) experience bars to represent the better training and leadership. My viewpoint is more ground oriented. So do you feel that the Britsh Air unit(s) should start off with three (3) experience bars? (ie superior to Luftwaffe).