xwormwood

I don't call it greed, it was GREED. And it was one of the german death-sins that costed them dearly, as they lost the war, and with it all those vast eastern provinces in the east as well. If Germany would have treated the Russians better (with a more friendly and humble peace treaty) it could have brough back hundred of thousends soldiers more into the west. The "super offensives" in 1918 did happen. With one million men more fighting in the west instead of securing large russian territories they might have won in the west too. And let us not forget: even with all those germans garrisson the east they nearly won in 1918, after 4 years of war and hunger blockade of the oceans. They broke through the entente front lines, but they had no plan what to do next, so they wasted their success.

Well, there was no real "need" to occupy russia. The germans did it, and they maybe lost the entire war because of their greed. I agree that the endgame is not as strong as the earlier parts of the game. But please, don't force me to make the same mistakes as my historical counterparts. After all every player wants to change history. My point of view: offer the player sweet but poisenous seductions to make the same mistakes as their historical counterparts. Like sending the Zimmermann telegram. Or to say it with C.S. Lewis: "Make your choice, adventurous Stranger; Strike the bell (= say yes to the decision event) and bide the danger, Or wonder, till it drives you mad, What would have followed if you had." I disagree. I think a better solution would be to give the russian Kerensky player certain goals to GAIN National morale. Like "hold the line between town x and city y for z turns" or "garisson x cities for y turns to regain z National Morale. In general i don't like scripted magic events. The troops in the field and the homefront should get something out of the Kerensky government to regain trust (=National Morale). Just because the historical Kerensky government kept up for 6 month should never be a reason that it HAS TO in the game as well. This should be more like an option, let me the player earn National Morale. Maybe i'm able to avoid the Russian Revolution at all if i do it right?! I want to play and rewrite history. At least i want a chance to do so. I don't want a scripted way like i'm the AI. For the AI this might be very much ok, but not for a human player. Ok for the AI, but NEVER for a multiplayer game. Here the players can decide on their own if and how much reinforcements they want to send. Sorry, once more i disagree. As you already said on your own: the Austrians are to strong. Thats the key. Not the Rumanians. I would like to suggest that the Austro-Hungarians get two different force pools. One for Austrians (and maybe Hungarians), and one for those people, which hoped to get free of Austro-Hungarian government (like czechs). Austrians and Hungarians should be fight better and should be more expensive (with limited units), and the minor quality troops should be less expensive and less effective. Anyway: good discussion!

I had game were the early research of an infantry tech caused in the long turn the defeat of my side. I tell you why: when you equip all your units with the new tech, you won't be able to purchase lost units or to research. Upgrading is expensive. I don't say that infantry tech is bad, no, it is brilliant. But if you spend too much money into unit upgrades you won't have enough money for all other purposes. And once your opponent has more units on the front line, more artillery and a higher gas/shell tech, than all your well equipped units won't help you to hold a line. The artillery, queen of the battlefield, will hammer your expensive units out of the game. So you will sooner or later have to rebuy them without your precious infantry tech, just to close the lines once more. You might end like me with a tech you can't afford to equip because your opponent used his money for better and for more artillery, units and other nice things. Again, infantry tech is very nice to have. But think good and long when and how many units you will upgrade with the new tech.

Thanks Bill, and of course, Trench Warfare is very important, totally forgot about it.

Hi A7V21! Heavy Artillery is a good idea, just like Gas/Shell production. I buy units whenever i can afford them (spending money on repairs, research and re-education of neutral nations...) You move UK units first next to a port. The next turn you right-click the unit and choose "transport" from the right-click menu. This will cost you some money. If you agree to pay, the unit will move into a troop transport ship. This ship can now travel on the ocean. To unload your troops, move the ship onto a (french) port symbol. Than right-click again and choose "unload".

Me too.

When you are in the research menu, move your mouse cursor on top of the research topic. Than a pop-up will inform you about your progress.

Good idea, i like it.

Nah, this air supremacy was for the Kriegsmarine always only a excuse to hide behind. They knew they wouldn't be able to conduct and protect a successful SeaLion. So they stated that if at all first they needed air supremacy. But even with air supremacy SeaLion would have probably ended in a bloody desaster. The Kriegsmarine would still haven't been able to protect the invasion fleet or the landing beaches against the Royal Navy, and the Luftwaffe would still have had a very limited attack range, the landed soldiers would have had very bad supply. Even the combined allied fleets of 1944 had massive problems with getting enough supplies to France, and they had Mulberry harbors, thousends of ships and total and complete air supremacy. The germans wouldn't have had Mulberries, no harbors, and a very limited and only local air supremacy.

4 answers: a) the US cash and carry policy = the USA did help during 1940 after the depression the US needed orders badly and would have sold to everyone who was willing to pay AND to fight the germans (the classical win-win situation). c) The USA needed time to build up armed forces and to equip them, needed time to produce weapons and supplies, while the French army was considered the biggest and best of the world before the 1940 France campaign. On the other Hand the germans gambled with their attack through the Ardennes. Could have easily ended very differently. Maybe Hitler wouldn't even have survived a failed or prolonged war with France. d) as long as the Royal Navy was arround, the UK was never in a real danger of a successful SeaLion

The old battleships were pre-dreadnought battleships, which means that they were already obsolete in WW1. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were lacking the (already ordered) 38 cm guns, which were ment to be installed later. But after the loss of the Bismarck this never happened: these guns were used to secure german occoupied coasts against an allied invasion. Technically Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were BBs, but they were equipped with CA guns (28 cm). The result was that they were not allowed to engage allied battleships, which is understandable when you can't fight on even terms. Nice link about the Hochseeflotte (WW1) and Kriegsmarine (WW2).

Do you have any proof for your assumption? Personally i can't imagine a situation where the USA would have let Nazi Germany rise and grow strong enough to rule Europe, Afrika and Asia. My guess is that the USA would have helped the Russians to fight the germans, UK or not.

As far i know only very few german soldiers were responsible for those thousands of dead allied soldiers. They were lucky enough that the bombardements before the invasion missed their positions. But feel free to correct me if i remember incorrctly.

the italian navy was quite modern, but lacking radar and air protection: click me

Hi ev. Take here a look. I know that wikipedia is not the best source, but it might still answer some of your questions.

Even more important: 5. The national morale values of the opposite alliance (in WW1 this is a crucial information) shouldn't be visible. If at all, only with a "traffic light" (green, yellow, red). Intelligence could provide every now and then a single information, just the way how unit sightings happen 6. False sightings (like Pattons D-Day "invasion" army) 7. units in forrest tiles should be nearly invisible, at least to air recon flights

Well, maybe the high fleet got all or most of the avaiable ressources, so not much else remained for other branches of their armed forces? Even germany wasn't able to build up a large fleet AND a large submarine fleet (just as an example). The other problems were probably missing raw materials like ore, oil and rubber etc. During peace times Italy was part of the winners of WW1, and had probably free access to all raw material markets. Once they sided with hitler these sources were gone, and germany hadn't enough to spare much for their italian ally / problem (you chose) in the south.

The UK didn't cared that much about Belgium, they cared much more about Germany getting too dangerous. Britain would have always entered the war against Germany. Belgium or not. The German attack on neutral Belgium was more or less a welcome justification for their war entry. But they couldn't have allowed that Germany, already the strongest european country, would end up winning this war against France and Russia. This might have been different if Germany wouldn't have build up a navy nearly strong enough to defeat the Royal Navy. But victorious Germany (against France and Russia) would have eaten the UK for breakfast, so their decision to enter the War on the side of the Entente might have been even the same in case that Germany didn't have had such a strong navy.

Don't model that just because it happened. Why where the Uboats useless? Because bad decisions were made. Better german sub designs weren't build. German naval code was broken. It could have been completly different if the Nazis would have made different decisions. In SC the players make the decisions. Or better: should make the decisions. Certain things are still scripted, like russian winter strike, low French morale etc. etc. But these scripted things get fewer and fewer with every release, and for that i'm thankful. If i research the best possible sub tech and my opponent ignores to improve his destroyers, if i buy tons of subs and my opponent neglects to purchase destroyer, why should my subs suddenly become useless in 1943? I know that this is not what you ment, and i only brought this example to remind all those in favor of changes that these changes have to be sound and fair for every side. When it comes to GlobalConflict we shouldn't forget that this game has an older game engine. If the current sub model of SC The Great War would be used in GlobalConflict to, than this game would play a bit different. Maybe Hubert can put this into his next GlobalConflict patch? Personaly i would be more in favour of a new GlobalConflict release. Call it GlobalConflict Gold (with all the latest game engine improvements included) or GlobalConflict Deluxe (same as Gold, but with a 20% bigger map), or MotherofAllGlobalConflict (same as Deluxe, but with the Patton drives East campaigns included). I would happily pay for each of these. HAP-PI-LY. Well, ok, sorry for wandering off, but if nothing else i can dream, can't i?

But where will you start and where will you end? Isn't the SC Series all about to offer you the chance to rewrite history? Personally i don't care if something didn't happened in WW1 or WW2 if it is still thinkable. I like the idea to decide on my own what to do (and to do better or different). Again: where will you start and where will you end? This is not ment as a personal attack, just as a honest question. If you take it very exactly, you have to abandon the whole combat system, even the whole game system of all computer or board games. Nothing like this was ever possible. One leader, able to decide everything. Units fighting in turns. Etc. Are subs to strong? Difficult to tell, if you don't know how a person plays his fleet. Is further improvement possible? Of course, it always is. Personaly, i like what it is right now in the game. I know that i have it in my hands to decide, to plan, and to react on my opponents moves. There are so many possibilities. In my games (1.02) i never had the impression that subs are to strong or the royal navy to weak. I learned that all depends on how i play, if i use my forces wisely, etc. Subs are and were a thread to any naval unit. I guess we would have a different discussion today if the german Kriegsmarine would have had working torpedos in 1939-1940. But most fired torpedos during this time were duds. http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wooden-torpedoes.shtml http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/10518/3627/1/Wright_David_H_201005_MA.pdf And than the german high command wanted the subs to hunt enemy convoys. On the other side the japanese did use their subs to attack enemy war ships and neglected convoys. That might have been not the best descision. But still, they had a different philosophy. When i play, i like the idea that i can decide what to do with my subs. If my opponent don't sent them to attack my convoy lines, than i react and prepare my fleet. Good thing is, that my convoys get through unmolested. On the other side: if my enemy sends most of his subs against my convoy lines, i know that his fleet won't be able to kill my fleet if i keep my fleet together.

I'm most surely no expert, but i presume that your antivirus program still has a file in quarantine, so that SC can't start as the quarantined file can't be accessed.

Excellent! Just made a quick check about anglo-american destroyer losses in WW2: 15 to 20 % of the destroyer losses were caused from sub attacks quote wikipedia: "During the war, 153 British, Canadian and Australian destroyers were lost. Losses by submarine: 33" The USA lost 89 DD and DE. Losses by submarine: 13 Just writing this to prove that subs actually did attack destroyers.

Agreed. But if subs commanders might have the feeling that they were able to destroy a destroyer group, my guess is that they would attack. In WW2 the germans installed anti-aircraft guns on their subs and were ordered to fight of attacking planes. Some actually did (and paid probably the ultimate price for this tactic or order). And there are other examples. Bottom line: subs already don't get very favourable results from attacking destroyers. So if you have two or three destroyers at sea and in range to support each other, you might have a very good chance to sink the sub if it decides to attack you.

But the germans didn't break into the Atlantic nor did they end the sea blockade. Reminds me of the naval battle of Jutland. On you picture you can see that the germans will very likely lose the war, they have already a worse national morale than the UK, France and Russia. The losses the german side received in you naval battle might make the difference between winning or losing the war once Russia has surrendered (if they ever will, from looking at the NM values they are in a pretty good shape). I know it hurts at the start to see such battle results, but from my personal experience i learned that this battle was a) still a loss for the german player and might have been ended pretty differently if you have had the biggest part of your fleet prepared for this engagement. One part scouting, one part fighting, one part blocking the escape routes of the Hochseeflotte. But when it comes to fighting subs, my counsel (sorry for handing it out without beeing asked to) would be to invest one ore two chits into anti-sub warfare. You need this tech if you want to rule the seas. And don't forget that supply, morale and readiness influence combat results as well. When it comes to your idea about the ambush mode, i like the current version of the game better. I wouldn't want to work through all of my subs just to place them into ambush mode or not. If i want "ambush" results, i hide my sub where i hope to get prey and don't move before the attack, just to get the best possible results. Thats easier and reflects the same idea). But i like how your fight for your idea, for what you think and feel might be better than the current combat system. Thats the spirit!

Again, i guess we are talking about different campaigns. In WW1 it would be nice to get the Hochseeflotte at sea, as the german player can't afford much losses while the UK can.