Shaka of Carthage

France I think you can figure out the relative percentages as compared to SC. France economically, is almost identical to Italy. Except that it has material resources coming from Algeria and it has access to Middle Eastern oil. Hence the general economy of France is stronger than Italy. The MPP number France is assigned, really doesn't matter, since it won't survive. Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't matter. Key though is that Germany does not get direct access to the French oil. Vichy France on the other hand is a different matter. It still has access to oil and material from North Africa. Problem is that its economic infrastructre is wrecked. So as a neutral, it needs to trade its oil to survive, and hope it is left alone to rebuild itself. Is the SC MPP realistic? No. But if Italy gets bumped, then so should France. Which points out that those two numbers are probably more a reflection of playability than reality.

Italy Lets talk about its relative strength to Germany. 3R has it as 50%, COS at 36% and HC at 80%. About the only consensus is that Italy should be weaker than Germany. So what historically was Italy's weakness? Lack of oil. Without it, its economy (from a war materials viewpoint) cannot function. Once it entered the war, it lost its access to the Middle East oil it was dependent on. So its economy would generate war materials based on the amount of oil that Germany provided her. I tend to believe the the differences between the different game systems, is in how they interpet the weakness of Italy without its oil. As a cross check, I found the actual Steel production for each of these nations, 1939. I also obtained the Merchant shipping tonnage for 1939. Becomes worse for Italy, since it's steel production is only 11 or 12% of the German production. Merchant shipping she is much better off... 3 million tons, compared to Germany, which has almost 4 million tons. Only Norway (4 million), Japan (5 million), USA (9 million) and UK (18 million) have more. Is the SC MPP number realistic? No. 60 MPP number would be better. Could give it 80 only if the game system dealt with the criticalness of oil. Germany needs to "lend-lease" support to Italy for it to play as a Major.

Ok, I have converted everything to a MPP equivalent. Couple of ways to view this, so let me post the numbers for all the nations, then do a nation by nation analysis. Germany was used as the standard, so conversion factor was based on the two game systems ratio of German production. Remember, everything is in MPP numbers, 1939. ................3R..........COS........HC......SC Italy...........60...........43........80......115 Germany....120.........120.......120......120 France.........68...........77........97.....100 UK............100.........257.......178.....178 USA..........216..........129.......476.....180 Soviets.......72..........343.......111.....480 Now for the comments on the nations.

CalifVol I agree with you that from a realism viewpoint, the "pool" concept would have worked better for the naval in SC. And while I like the bomber units for the Strategic Bombing, I think both of us would agree that the problem with the strategic bombing, is that we cannot hit a strategic resource, whose loss would have a large ripple effect through the economy. If the naval was done correctly, it could be realistic and playable, allowing us to have a Battle of the Atlantic. But as you rightly point out, you have to have a proper representation of the economic effects of the merchant supply (with a "pool" method probably being best for this, since subs would destroy and MPP's would build merchant ships). Btw, the method you described for pools would work very nicely for partisans, as long as the MPP's you have in the "security units" pool that are fighting partisans would suffer losses (since some of them would be casualties against the partisans). The ability to withdraw MPP's from the "security unit" pool to form a more conventional unit is realistic and easy to use. We would just have to make sure that conventional units would be allowed to add a percentage of thier MPP to this "security unit" pool. Canada and US connected? Yes. But no way should any "invasion" be allowed. I tend to suspect that the size of Canada and US were based on the number of starting units each nation was given, since you need one hex per unit. Thanks, Barry

The key to the defense of Russia, is in the establishment of a second defensive line. The best you can hope for the first line (one on the border), it to save some of them. But don't sweat it if you don't. However, do not waste your Guard Tank armies. You need to conserve them for later use. Same with your air... don't lose it (even if it means you don't use them). Your second line is built with newly purchased Corps. You need to take advantage of the terrain, because you won't have enough Corps to make a continuous north south line. But that should be your goal... this line is based at Kiev. Good Axis player will punch thru, you need forces behind the lines to plug that gap and reestablish the line. Since the battle with Russia is the critical point, everything before then is based on this. From the Allied viewpoint, you need to keep Axis units away from Russia. So you need to kill them or pin them on the Western Front. The only Russian units you would be purchasing are the Corps. No Armies, no Air, no Armor, no HQ. Your HQ are your cities. However, assuming you can, it is critical to have a Army garrison in Lenigrad and Moscow. The sooner the better (since you want them entrenched as much as possible). Attrition warfare. Slug it out, WWI style. The Germans can outmanuever you, so don't let them do it. When you are ready for a counter offensive, then, and only then should you think about purchasing Armies (maybe even Armor, if you have done really well). Thanks, Barry

Double post... please delete. [ January 31, 2003, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

High Command (cont) Fooled you... didn't I? If I could have only seen the looks on your faces. Ok... how to take the multiple economic units and make them one unit? First lets see what these units are. Industrial production and Shipbuilding production can loosely translate into Steel production. The type of steel production that produces heavy equipment, like artillery, tanks and ships... or consumer goods like tractors or automobiles. While we lose the distinction between ground and sea, we just have to assume these factories are competent enough to switch production as needed. Economic values... This is the general economy. If Steel production is the "heavy" industry, then this is the "light" industry. And while not entirely correct, this is the economy that produces your aircraft. So we will take 1/2 of that number, and add it to the Steel production. You didn't forget that 1/2 of this is needed for investment to keep the economy stable did you? Btw, one day I WILL use the spell checker. Now the raw materials. Assuming mines are reflective of iron ore, alloying ores, and aluminum ores. Oil... we know what that is, but don't forget that until it is processed it is worthless to us. Thats when I get my gasoline and aviation fuel. Vasoline? In the 60's (Mrs. Robinson!) plastic, and other wonderful stuff. One of the things the Russians got from lend-lease was high octane fuel, which though they had the oil, they did not have the ability to process... and we are talking 89 octane? fuel if I remember right. But I digress. Ok... raw materials. I think I will leave them out of the calculation. If the Industrial production was not in place to process them, they in and by themselves were worthless. But since SC does show mine and oil sites, lets file this away for later inclusion. So, what number do we have now? Let us call this the HCP. ............HCP..........MPP US........ 1090..........180 UK..........408..........115 Fr..........223..........100 Germany.....275..........120 Italy.......183..........115 USSR........255..........480 I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Now that we have our single economic unit, we can do some comparisons, but before that, we have one more thing to do. We have to convert the numbers into thier equivalents. You know, so instead of apples and oranges and pears... we are comparing apples to apples to apples. I will do that next, but I need to hit the rack first. Until tommorrow. Thanks, Barry

High Command Here we have another game, like Clash of Steel, that was designed from the beginning for use on a computer. What was its problem? The AI. It was retarded... sorry, I just insulted all of the mentally challenged people out there. Really, the AI was worse than that. We now move away from the realms of the single economic unit (like BRP or MPP). We have now entered into the realm of five (5) different measures of a nations economic strength. And this doesn't take into consideration the manpower. Since all of these numbers are broken down by city (a huge number of cities), I made have made a typo somewhere and included their totals in the wrong Major power. I'll comment on that if appropriate. Here are the economic values for High Command. .....Indus Prod...Ship Prod...Oil...Mines...Econ US.......480...........360.....1600...1600.....500 UK.......100...........220........5....105.....175 France....40...........120........5.....90.....125 Germ....160.............15.......50....220.....200 Italy......30...........115........5.....95......75 USSR.....140...........40......565....110.....150 These numbers are not in the above. UK Imports............... 70 oil and 55 Mine. German Imports (S.Amer).. 20 oil Yugo...................... 5 mine... 20 econ Rumania...................105 oil... 20 econ Iraq/Iran.................275 oil... 20 econ Hungary....................15 oil... 20 econ Egypt......................25 oil... 10 econ Denmark....................40 ship.. 10 econ Benelux....................25 mine.. 10 econ Algeria....................15 mine.. 5 econ Albania.....................5 oil....10 econ You use some or all of the above to produce units, improve production facilities, develop resources, perform R&D and invest in the general economy. Strategic Bombing can attack any of the above except for the general economy (ie economic number). The general economy is used to invest in R&D, Rocket development, and Atomic bomb. Half of your economic value had to be invested back into the economy, otherwise any number below that caused a recession (economy shrank), while any number above that caused the economic growth. R&D investment also had a chance of increasing economic growth. What is wonderful about this, is that you can see the economic necessisty for some of the reasons why certain actions were taken. Germany The iron ore coming from Sweden was critical to its economy (I think I have those numbers already included in the German totals). So as long as the ore flowed, Sweden was fine. Threaten it, even indirectly, as Germany would act (ie Norway). While the synthetic oil refineries in Germany produced half of its oil, it still needed the oil it got from Russia thru trade. Also imported from South America, but the Allies cut that source off. So once it loses the oil from Russia, it needs the Rumanian oil even worse. Where else could it get oil? From middle east thru Vichy France. So if it invaded Vichy, the extra production did not make up for the loss of oil. Or it could try to increase its synthetic oil production. If any of those oil sources could be reduced or eliminated, the German economy came to a standstill. Italy Big fleet, and had the ability to match France in terms of building ships (be it merchants or warships). Got its oil from the Middle East. Once war started, the Allies cut them off. Now they are desperate, since they have to beg for oil from Germany... otherwise, the Navy no moves. If only they had known about the Libyan oil. US Sitting pretty. All of its needs can be met from within. Once war with Japan started, it was concerned cause of the threat it posed to some of the specific resources it needed. So its only European concern was to provide what its allies needed. Understand now why the US pulled the 100 or something aircraft it had from the Atlantic to Pacific during a time when they were the only aircraft that could cover "the black hole"? You gotta look out for number one before you look out for others. UK Big problems. We need Merchant ships, to keep our raw materials (oil and minerals) flowing, not to mention the TEA... my goodness, did someone forget to stockpile the TEA? But if we build merchants, we can't build warships. U-boats are sinking our merchants left and right. And some chap named Montgomery wants us to build a bigger Army? Tell him to come back in a year or two. USSR Looking good... looking good. What do you mean we don't know how to build anything? Who said that!? Shoot him! Resources, but no infrastructure or economy to support it. So what we have here, is an attempt to create a realistic economic model. They also attempted this with the Diplomatic model. Now the problem... how do we convert this into any meaniful comparision with 3R and SC? We don't. Thanks, Barry [ January 30, 2003, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Bill Macon I for one, would like to thank you for the time and effort you have put into these mod's. Almost all of use think we can do it better, but almost none of us will spend the time to try it.

Konstatin Isn't that Luxembourgh that the Axis step on during the march to France?

Night What other neutrals did you attack?

HankWWIIOnline I think you and I both agree on the same thing, the difference is in the definition. Beer and pretzles = easy to learn and play. Axis and Allies. Once it becomes difficult to master, it is no longer a B&P game. HoI and SC will never replace each other. We are both in totally agreement with that. But we both think so for different reasons. Tech being simple because you buy a point and drop it in that category and wait for the result. At the scale we are in SC, that is all we should be doing, besides making the decision on which of the tech choices we have, do we drop that point. From some of your latter comments, I gather that you would want to be to do more, but at the scale we are, it would not be appropriate. Unless you want to be able to shoot the head of the research team because his progress is too slow . The type of combat you like ... terrain, supply, morale, weather, day/night, type of general, type of equipment, organization level, national dissent, etc. If SC made a distinction between the nationalities and to&e's of units, effect of weather on combat then those items you listed would now be part of SC. If we accept that our generic units are equipped and perform the same, I get the same effect. At the level we are (ie supreme commanders), we should only be concerned about the leadership abilities of our subordinate Army HQ's... which SC does by the leadership rating (which can be further modified by the experience rating). The things that make up that leadership rating (morale, training, experience, intelligence, etc) we should not be concerned with, just the end result. Heck... I would have liked the leadership rating to have been random, determined after we bought the HQ (or even after the first combat it was controlling)... then we could have named it what we wanted. Again, you and I don't disagree, it would just appear that you like more of the operational level stuff. Which brings me to the wargame definition. We just have a different version of that definition. In my mind, any combat oriented game that handles logistics, is a wargame. The scale of the detail, should be determined by the scale of the wargame. Grand Strategy = Armies, Corps. Operational = Corps, Divisions. Grand Tactical = Divisions, Brigades. Tactical = Brigades, Battalions. As someone else mentioned here... Global Conflict wargame and a WWII Global is not the same thing. And until we are given the opportunity to contribute, either thru a request or some statement about what SC II should be... then we are just typing to be seen when it comes to SCII. Hueristic You could not have made a more true statement. Complexity is not the same as unwieldy. Some of the easiest things can be made so difficult, while some of the most complex items can be presented in a easy to understand and use format. 3R was monster for the novice player. Remember some of those old monster games... where you took two or three different maps and pieced them together? Unless you pasted them on the wall (with metal backing), and put magnets on your counters, you could never hope to play it. And you had to tote all those rules around. And then remember (or by hand) update all of those addedums, errata, etc. And you know what is worse? Even with computers, the people who produce games today don't understand that games are more than eye-candy and click fests. If I want that, I will go to my local gentlemans club... (hmmm not sure if the click fest is a good analogy for a gentlemans club) :eek: Thanks, Barry

CalifVol Partisans should have been handled in an abstract manner if it was being done over. But as I pointed out someplace else, the Partisan method was the best one to utilize without having to rewrite code or add new units. As John DiFool mentioned, abstracting the naval side of it would probably not be a good idea. However, as many others have mentioned, that if we are going to have the ability to move naval units, then give us that ability in the Atlantic with the right number of hexes. Back to that playability vs realism issue. Adding a airborne unit would satisfy the glamor issue and WWII feel. Maybe we can get something added to SC. Don't forget that SC was created basically by one person... who unless he's still spending all his money partying, is probably now working on his next project. So any big changes to SC may or may not occur. WWI --- SC sure would do it, with a few minor changes. Matter of fact, as someone else mentioned, Hubert should probably make those changes and sell "SC WWI" for around $10. Need those cash cows to be able to fund the raising stars! Single airborne unit per side. Single unit for of the five major nations, and maybe the fifth (Italy). But that is asking for a new unit to be added to SC... which per above, may not be a consideration. And if it was done, with a limit being placed of one (1) unit, then I would probably be one of the first screaming that at the same time, the "manpower" issue should be fixed. SeaWolf_48 Am I correct in assuming that you mostly play against the AI? As another thread mention, it is entirely possible for blitzkreig to work (as in taking out Russia in one turn). Playing against the AI, mainly because of the extra experience, is a totally different game. The key to SC is defeating the Russians, as early and quickly as possible. Everything else should be subordinate to that. The key to the "Panzerblitz" factor in SC is the supply. Think about what it takes to eliminate the supply factor, and you have the answer to taking control of the hex that those "newly created" units pop up in (ie most other wargames allow you to posses the hex you won). Possession in SC is not always physical. Think indirect approach. Night, SeaWolf_48, JersyJohn You guys all have the answer to the Panzerblitz already. You mention it in your posts. Look at the thread regarding Russia falling in one turn. How is that possible? SC scale is 50 miles a hex, so 200 miles is four (4) hexes. Turn scale is variable (because of the weather), but is either one, two or four weeks. The historical blitz against France was based on the French troops being on the Benelux border, breakthrough the Ardness forest, then taking a right and going to the coast. The 3R beachead unit was intended for crossing rivers, not as a prerequiste for a blitz. Nothing in SC needs to be changed to allow a blitz. Just remember that all units are equal. Armor is armor. Infantry (Corp) is motorized, not foot infantry with horse drawn transport. Army is motorized, but because of its size, is slightly slower than a Corp.

Night Sarcasm from me? Naww... I wanted to clarify something regarding the air superiority issue. Regarding the Para Corp, when it was "airdroped" into the hex, would be like a air unit attacking a hex. If enemy aircraft were available, then could intercept the Para Corp. Then whatever the combat routine used between air units in the same situation would be the same used for this Para unit. Difference being the Para would not attack (its air assets are transports and gliders, not fighters), and could only suffer losses. If the enemy air was strong enough, it could totally eliminate the Para unit. So... just like we do now, we would have Air unit(s) attack a hex to draw out the enemy air. Once an air unit attacked, with no enemy air response, you have now just attained air superiority.

HankWWIIOnline Curious why you believe the SC tech system is too simple and needs an overhaul. The current system allows the results to be unpredictable, allowing for replayability. Adding more tech options would increase the variety, or forcing the units to have to "upgrade" maybe more realism, but neither would require the system itself to change. I don't own HoI, so my comments are only reflective of what I have read and seen (why don't they offer a demo?). Civilization = EUII = global conquest. HoI = global conquest = WWII setting. HoI is not a wargame. Global WWII wargame, having the European (ETO) and Pacific theaters (PTO) together is a nightmare for a wargame, since by definition, the wargame needs a sophisticated representation of supply. Interdiction of the supply was done using different methods in each theater. And thats assuming you solve the huge range of the different unit types. Add to this the problem with real time in a wargame and it just gets worse. So now you have wargamers looking for one thing and Civ players looking for another. You can't make them both happy so you end up with a compromise. You know, like the committee that designed a horse (ie a camel)? Btw, representation of logistics, is why SC is not A&A or a "beer and pretzels" game. Thanks, Barry

Someday, someone will take advantage of the internet, and allow five (5) different players thru the internet, to play the five (5) major nations of say a SC III. After everyone entered their orders, then simultaneous movement would occur, that everyone could see (maybe as a replay feature). Then the instant messaging or e-mails or even group chats so the "diplomacy" could occur before players started to enter the next turn orders for there nation. [ January 29, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Spain joins if England is invaded (ie London captured?). I don't know what the conditions are for Turkey, never had them join the Axis yet. Sweden, from the economy research I am doing, seems to have been a close economic partner to Germany. Giving the Germans the Swedish mines (as one of the custom mods do), seems to be the best way of reflecting this, since as you are unable to enter Sweden, the only way to protect them is by taking Norway. As someone will point out, even with the reduced mine potential, it would be better to invade Sweden to get thier MPP's along with the plunder.

I agree with Sea_Wolf48. No SC Global. Pacific Theater is better represented (not to mention more playable) as a operational level game. Once you've finalized the Pacific Theater version, then integrate the two (2)... maybe even along the lines of using the internet, where a player could be given command of a major nation in one of the specific theaters.

Steve C "that in a war for the long haul, the Axis was at a disadvantage from the standpoint of manpower and industrial capacity". Correct. That is why the conquest of Russia, no later than 1942, is critical. If that historically had happened, the war would have been over. Now this is where the "what if" potential of a future SC (ie SCII) would shine. 1942 US, facing Japan and Germany. Germany, cannot project its strength, so does it build a blue water navy or does it just support Japan? Does the US try and liberate Russia, the "finlandized" UK? How does it placate its own population, mostly old world immigrants who don't want their sons dying "over there". Sea_Wolf48 Interesting point, about having to "research" amphib as a tech. There was no amphib ability in 1939. Excellent point you made. Gives me an excuse to research (and buy some more source material) how amphib ships (and there ability) could be broken down into five levels. If you could, would you shoot me a copy of what your source material is for the industrial numbers? I've got a few books and some internet sources, so am always looking for new info. I would also like to use your numbers (depending on the source) for comparison purposes in the Economic Analysis I am doing. I know that the US produced 50% of the world GNP, by the end of the war. Thanks, Barry

Night You are correct that they should be created with one or two experience bars. Regarding making up the strength by adding more troopers; if you mean within the division, no. Thats why a generic para division would be around 10,000 men, while a infantry division would be around 15,000. Within the Corp, again no, since I am using the SC "model" that has a Corp with three (3) divisions. And since our SC generic infantry corp is motorized, this Infantry Corp should have one less AP (making it a 3, right?). 400 MPP cost, agree. Special "shock" attack, no agree, for reasons stated in an earlier post. And regarding your use of them against minor nations, congratulations. That is the esscence of WWII airborne doctrine, the guys at Fort Benning will be mailing you your wings shortly. Lets hash out a few of the other objections being made, arrive at a consensus, then we can make a suggestion to Hubert. SeaWolf_48 If the Para unit is correctly designed and implemented, then use don't have to artifically create the situation to use them, since you would only use the unit as was historically appropriate. Of course, you could also recreate the same mistakes by using them the wrong way... just like in real life. JerseyJohn How could I pass up the opportunity to pontificate? I'll give you my take Diem Bien Phu soon. I guess it should be posted in the General interest section, since I don't see how I could tie it into SC. Airborne as a Corp unit ok. As an Army, no way. Ability to invade USA, Canada is a big no no. A true Axis Total Victory would be defeat of UK and Russia. Hmmm... just had a deja vu. Did I or someone else make this exact statement already? 250% cost would make it around 312 MPP's (assume Corp = 125). So how about 350 MPP cost? Wouldn't be unfair, since the major cost would be the transport planes (and gliders) organic to the unit. Reduction of the anti-tank factor would be true, but I don't remember the structure of the SC unit right now. I think the concept of being able to move the unit reflects there use better, since if there were not properly supported, they are easy prey to the enemy. And since they are now behind the enemy, you don't have to change anything to artifically represent the enemy supply being cut, being attacked with no river bonus or fortification bonus (if I remember right, if you attack the Maginot line from the Fr side, it gets no bonus). Attacking Malta, that fortification in the south of Russia, etc, would require you to eliminate the defender but still allows you a method of capture without fighting your way thru all the troops inbetween you and the land fortifications (obviously not true on Malta). Strategic use not being cost effective ... I meant that at a strategic level (ie SC), the use of Paratroopers would be limited to a very few special circumstances. They would be employed more at the operational level (Bn, Brigade sized drops). And tell me, how many of us would resist the temptation to use them as infantry, when we need "just one more unit"? The same dilema faced by the Russian staff when the Germans punched thru their lines. About the Italians... Italy does not have alot of MPP's. So lets say it did scrap together enough to raise a Para Corp. Now they have to scrap together enough MPP's to raise a Air unit... you know what... lets "request" some Air support from our friends the Germans. Let the German Air deal with those pesky Greeks, and after they are totally shattered as a combat unit (ie eliminated in SC), we can airdrop our Para's to seize control of the government. If Para's are allowed, all five of the Majors should be allowed to build them. Regarding marines... I made a new topic regarding how the amphib operations could be handled in SC, without making alot of changes. I welcome any criticims. SeaWolf_48 Number of Para's is dependent on the year you are referring to. I believe you are implying that the majors should only have so many (if not, my mistake). Unit limitations is a big design issue, which currently SC does not address. Of course, I have an opinion on how SC could address it, but lets save that for later. Btw, if you really want to see me ramble, ask me my opinion regarding the US military, post WWII. Thanks, Barry

DeGaule Agree that within the scale of SC, large numbers of Paratroopers would not be appropriate. But let us not forget that the generic Corp in SC has three (3) divisions. That is only about 30,000 Para's. If I was able to build a Paratrooper Corp, cost of 400 MPP's, with a max strength of 3 (ok, I'll go to 5, but only cause we have the Partisan unit at 5), able to "airdrop" four (?) hexes away, I would be all for it. Paratroopers ... including more Glider troops, yes, you are correct. True for the US, British and Germans. Not sure about the Soviets, not that it mattered, since they didn't have the aircraft or gliders. "to say only Germany knew how to employ them is a stretch". Ahhh.... I am actually hearing a debate? Ok, tell me whom you believe where the best operators of the airborne doctrine. Employment of German para's in Crete was a failure to properly employ airborne doctrine. The quality of the opposing forces while it may effect the outcome of the battle, wasn't the problem in Crete. And btw, they should have did Malta, not Crete. Russian use of Para's on the Eastern Front was successful, but they used them on a much smaller scale. I tried to limit my comments to the usage that would be relevant to SC. Btw, do you still believe the stories about Russian Para's airdropping into the snow with no parachute? If you say yes, e-mail me, I have something to sell you. Market Garden fiasco ... curious that you think the idea itself is not a bad idea. Any strategical use of Para's is not cost effective. Dien Bin Phu ... my my my. We are starting to get into some areas where I am close to personal experience. Regarding the plan, how it was executed, etc... I will keep my mouth closed on this one. Don't forget there were German veterans there also... Waffen SS men if I remember correctly. Immer Etwas I'm assuming since you say to keep the strength at 10, that you are saying to reduce the readiness level? Remember, I am trying to propose a unit that would force you to properly employ it. So reducing the readiness level, as SC exists now, would require special programming. Not necessary. Combat power of the unit is reduced, not its personnels ability to engage in combat. Shock value... don't need an artificial bonus. The fact that it is sitting on the enemy supply line, or behind the river, or behind the fortification is the shock value. Elite... again, most people misunderstand what this means. So if I am using a unit that does not have the combat power it normally would, how do I make it up? I make sure I have people who are competently led and can make the most of what they have ... in SC terms ... experience. So... now my Para Corp, with full experience (4 bars), with a strength of 3, but at 100% readiness... guess what... if you are the right target, I am going hurt you, even if you are a 10 strength unit. Then I will sit tight, while I wait for my follow units to "resupply" me (ie rescue my butt, though I would never admit it to the straight legs). Ok.. gotta run (though I am sure some of you are saying when will he shut up! ) Thanks, Barry

Since so may replies jump all over the place, I apologize for not specifing whom made the comment that I am respond to. "limited access to finite quantites of specilized craft" Very true statement, though I don't think that having a unit represent this is the solution. You still would run into the problem that if you had the MPP's, you could purchase it. "tanks could not be landed unless they were amphib adapted, which few were during the war". That is not quite correct. While there were specific exceptions (mainly for experimental use), tanks needed special equipment to allow them to cross rivers. Standard tanks could be and where unloaded using Landing Ship Tanks (LST's) on beaches. Combat Engineers usually had to build a road to get them from the beach to tank friendly terrain. As was pointed out, you need to make a distinction between the two naval transport ships, those used for transports between ports (merchant ships, luxury liners, etc) and though designed specifically for amphib invasions. SC method of paying for transports is more of you "renting" the transports, not building them. Without forcing players to have to invest in Merchant Marine, you could in SC limit the amount of units that had the ability to transport at any one time. That way the US and UK could have more units able to transport than Germany could. "troops that landed and establish the beachead were marines" Not true. Conventional infantry, as long as they were amphib trained (US Army) OR were spearheaded by marines (most European nations) established the beachead. Even today, most of the troops that are called "marine", are really no more than naval infantry and are incapable of conducting amphib operations. Thats why making a "Marine Transport Fleet" is not necessary. I don't understand the request for having a "gun fleet" unit. Is this a ground or a naval unit? Destroyers request, just points out that the SC naval is weak from a realism standpoint, though it is playable. Maybe it would be just easier for everyone if the "Cruiser" unit was called "ASW ships" and the "Battleship" unit was called "Surface Warships". The units in SC are an abstraction, not an actual representation of what they are named. Air Fleets as an abstraction also has to be taken with a grain of salt. The Air units do damage out of proportion to there actual functions. Matter of fact, it would be nice if someone just made a topic to address a specific item. Request to include new weapons... I would like to see a topic made about this, because I am curious what weapons people feel are lacking at the level that SC is. Why should we have HQ's and not some other quality units? Now that is a statement I don't understand. Increasing the transport costs doesn't solve the problem that someone mentioned earlier, that Germany relative to US and UK did not have the same transport ability. Increased costs, especially when tied to different sea zones, complicates without solving the base problem. The key to a good design is to include the feature, but have it limited for the same reasons that it was historically, not by having speciality rules. "But if the game designers had gone overboard with it (... ...) we could have a game with the Allied victory as a forgone conclusion". Maybe I am missing something or I misread this. The beauty of SC and WWII is that the outcome was not a forgone conclusion. Thats why the what if's are important. It makes it replayable. Since there are no distinctions between nationality types, German infantry being slower than Britsh or US infantry doesn't matter. The difference between a mechanized unit and non-mechanized unit is important. Otherwise there is no concept of blitzkrieg. Game has a requirement for the Axis to invade the US to win. Don't think so. The game can still be playable, without sacrificing realism. You just have to make sure that in the effort for realism you don't make it complicated. Thanks, Barry [ January 27, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

SeaWolf_48 Third Reich had a beachead counter. Mulberries were designed as one solution. The US took a different approach, deciding that amphibious shipping was better for them. While mulberries acted as artifical ports, and amphib ships eliminated the need for a port, both provided the means to keep supplies flowing to support infantry units, not armored units. Problem in SC with using HQ as an artificial port, is that you cannot pick it back up. A better fix would be to allow the HQ to be offshore, in a sea hex, but next to a land hex. Then it would perform the purpose of the mulberry and amphib shipping. And while that would require some programming changes (ability for the HQ to unload in a "coastal" hex), everything else would be in place (line of supply to a "port"). Spookster While I agree that COS was the best computerized grand strategy WWII, even if was able to run under Windows, it would not eliminate SC. The AI in COS cannot compare to the AI in SC. Even the earlier version in COS before it was "future" fixed. And COS still has some major problems that need to be fixed. Kurt88 As someone mentioned, if the game system is properly designed, then the need for the "gimmick" units is unnecessary. A comphrensive diplomatic model would have to be SCII. Simple model could exist in SC if you allowed MPP's to be spent to change the readiness of a minor neutral in declaring for the Allies or Axis. You would have to add some sort of modifier to reduce or enhance to natural tendency of the minor. Example, Iraq (Persia?) would lean towards the Axis, not because they were pro-Axis, more because they were anti-British (wanted thier independence). Sarge Commandos and Rangers would be nice, but you are right, at this scale, cannot represent with units. In an abstract way, along with Partisans, would work. As long as the target nation would have to spend MPP's on "security forces" (not represented as a unit), to negate the effect. For someone to represent the island hopping in the Pacific Theater, you would have to have a operational level game system. Thats a totally different beast than SC. JerseyJohn While correct in that fortifications channled an attack, they did so at an operational or lower level. Immer Etwas There were no amphibious operations of the size you are suggesting (ie attacks from multiple hexes) at the scale SC is. And based on the current combat system that SC uses (no retreat after combat), offshore attacks by "marine" units does not address the fundamental problem. Within the context of SC, clearing the beach is a function of air and sea units, establishing the beachead and capturing the port is the function of the amphib unit. Thanks, Barry

Clash of Steel At one time, this was considered the best grand strategy WWII game there was. If you amended this to say the best "computerized" grand strategy WWII game, I would agree with you. Third Reich was designed as a paper board game, with the limitations that implied. Clash of Steel on the other hand, was designed from the beginning to use a computer. In some respects, it is what Computerized Third Reich should have been. Economic unit was the Production Point (PP). Kinda like a BRP or MPP. The main difference was that in addition to cities and industrial zones giving you PP's, convoy's also supplied you various number of PP's. This was an important concept, since for example, the British PP total was 15, but only 3 of them came from the British Isles. So if you were British, the control of the sea meant everything to you. The other important concept was the Industrial Modifier. This reflected the efficency and/or growth of the economy as well as the conversion from a consumer to a wartime footing. COS also tried to make a distinction between what the PP represented, without splitting the PP into different type of economic units (High Command, as you will see, took a totally different approach). Hence, during Strategic Bombing, you could target industrial, oil or the harbors. Industrial damage made the units cost more; oil damage reduced the movement points of the units; and harbor damage reduced the supply available to the naval units (actually caused naval units to potentially suffer some damage). Nation........'39.....SC.......'42.......'44 Italy............5....115.........5.........5 Germany.....16....120.......34........68 France..........9....100.......nada British.........15....115........36........48 USA............15....180........21........60 USSR..........40....480.......64........72 German base number was 12, with 2 added for the Swedish "convoy" and 2 for Romania. Poland was worth 3, but is not included in the 1939 number. In 1942, the German economy expanded thru conquest by the addition of the Poland, France/Benelux, giving a new base of 28. Industrial Modifier for '42 was 20% increase. German modifier in '44 was 100% increase. France base number included the Low Countries (ie Benelux). British base of 15 was modified down to 8 (to reflect UK economy not at full wartime potential). They received 15 from Lend Lease later on. There Industrial Modifier in 1942 was 20%. In 1944 modifer was 60%. US base number of 15 was once the US entered the war. The Industrial Modifier in 1939 for the US was 0 (no wartime footing). In 1942, modifier was 50% increase. Don't forget that at the same time it was sending 15 to British and 8 to Russia thru Lend Lease (1/2 of what it was producing for European Theater). By 1944, the modifier was 400% increase. Yep, not a typho, not 40%, 400%. . Russian base number of 40, was modified down to 10. Not until Russia was put on a war footing, was the full 40 available. Lend Lease value of 8 is included as part of that 40. Industrial Modifier in 1942 was 60%, in 1944 80%. Please remember that the '42 and '44 numbers are potential numbers, assuming the base economy was still intact. Does not reflect any losses or gains thru conquest or diplomacy. Regarding Lend Lease... British (actually UK) received $31.3 billion dollars. The Soviets got $11.3 billion. These are 1940 dollars. Reflected above by the British getting 15, while the USSR got 8 PP's from the US (total of 23). This represented 1/2 in '42 and 1/3 in '44 of what the US produced for the European Theater. It makes you wonder what the heck the Japanese were thinking when they decided to go to war with US. Poor, poor Italy. 3R has them at 1/2 of German economy, while COS has them at 1/3rd. And while 3R allowed the Italians the ability to increase their economic base by 20%, COS gave them nothing. Is SC too generous to Italy? Especially since they do have the potential to expand thru conquest and plunder? At one time, the British considered the Americans there "Italians", because of there poor showing during the fighting in North Africa. Wonder if the source documents were written to show the Italians in a poor light. I'm going to post what I have now, and leave my comparison comments to later (it is late, I am somewhat "alchol impaired" and I need to hit the rack). I will be doing High Command next, but it may have to wait until a few days, since there are quite a few numbers to deal with and multiple economic units. [ January 27, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Steve C I'm familiar with what HoI is, but I have not purchased it. Call me biased, but from what I have seen and read, it would appear that HoI is really nothing more than Civilization style game set in a WWII era, that does Real Time. Of course, if you have the game, you could gather the relevant information on what the relative economic ratings of the different nations are. [ January 27, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]