xwormwood

First i would like to point at the headline of this Forum, which somehow neglects the 2nd expansion, PATTON DRIVES EAST: "Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare Discussion Forum for this award winning grand strategy game and the 1st expansion, Weapons and Warfare." The other thing is a map-bug right below stockholm, which i saw while playing different Patton drives east scenarios. Well, nothing big else to report. Over & out.

To regain game speed (when playing with monster maps) i would like to suggest, that in a further release it may become possible to "cut" the world in two halves. While player 1 makes his turn in the west, player two should do so in the east. When both are ready, the players changes the side, watch the turn of the other player, and start again. This way it should be possible to reduce the time you are waiting for your human and / or (most important) your AI opponent. This could safe significant amounts of time.

If have no problems with losses due to air-attacks. The simple answer: Many other games (or should i say: nearly all of them) come with the same solution. Be it a board game or a computer game. So SC is only doing what everywhere else is comon sense. THis may be right or wrong, but matter in fact: as i know it not any other way, it does not bother me very much.

Exactly, i came to the very same conclusion.

Hi CDGfan. Download one of the SC demos, than you will get an image about what you can do. Until now you were always controling all the units of one alliance (all the Axis units or all the Allied units). This is nice, but it would be nice as well if the AI would be able to play some of "your" minors or your major country as well (while YOU only play one of the minors). It is not very difficult to handle the logisitics. But again, try a demo of SC2. I would be very surprised if you wouldn't like what you will see. I, for my part, don't regret that i have bought and played all of the SC-games. I still play them, right now: "Patton drive east" with its beautiful "what if"s scenarios.

Even though you kill the unit in one attack, this attack symbolizes only many attacks over several days. And even if in SC a unit gets bombed away, the very same unit can be purchased for a cheap prize again, which represents the fact that parts of the unit are still there, but ceased to exit as a complete and operational unit. This bombed away unit was not just bombed away, the remains were pulled out of active duty, to be reformed, rebuild and re-equipped. We play this game as if there was an 1:1 relation between the unit on the map and the exisitence of the soldiers of the unit. But the unit on the map is only a symbol. It is not true that you can't explain what happens in the game, even though that you are right about the first impressions. But if you think about it and care to look for reason why this or that happens, you will alway find a good reason why it happens. If you stay open for all thoughts about what might just had happened right in front of you on the screen.

Well, first i was sceptical too, but you need to take a look at his ears and his chin, and than you will realise that it is probably Dietl.

I suggested here once to introduce these garrisons a upgrade for cities or ressources or tiles, just the way you can upgrade AA-Strength. This way you wouldn't need new units and it would be much easier for the AI to use its units for attacks instead of garrison duties.

I don't know why you took such an aggressive way to answer my question. I truly only wanted to understand what for you use a zoom feature. I played CIV4 and several other games which offer zoom features, but i don't use them (i never said anything else like you suggested with your rather unfriendly "well now thats you not all of us" comment). Honestly, why is it so hard to answer in a friendly way? Well, no hard feelings: I'm gladly zooming out of this discussion.

Just one more thought about the map: i think it is a mistake that the railway tracks between Germany/Poland and the USSR and France & Spain are not interrupted. I work in the rail industry, and i can assure you: changing track width is not an easy task, usualy you need new & different trains and waggons, as nearly no bogie and abolutly no wheelset can be used on two different track widths. Historical the Germans had massive problems to change the russian tracks to western european standards.

Hubert, is there any chance that the other releases get an upgrade to the latest game improvements? I would even pay a certain amount of money to get all those older releases into Global Campaign or at a developement level equal to the Global Campaign state of the art level. Maybe you could offer this some time after the Global Campaign release as Download content? It is a bit sad that those old gems can't be played with the best possible / avaiable game engine of SC.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90550

What do you want with a zoom? I never missed such a feature, and where available, i usualy don't use it very much.

Fantastic idea! Very good, Sir Jersey! That is exactly how Hitler could have done it, a demilitarized zone in France. Thats what i call brilliant! I could even imagine a whole german nation smirking when reading about this in the news. This rubbing is truly historical, as Hitler forced the poor French to sign the armitice in the very same rail waggon where once the imperial german forces in 1918 had to do their signings.

Yes, this helped! Thank you!

Could be getting tricky to divide the income (if you play a minor you don't have no income on your own).

I just looked through the beautiful manual of Global Conflict and tried to imagine who big the world map is. Question: how big is the map? and additional question: how much bigger could the map become? The map looks very good, and big enough for a Global Game. But as a longtime SC player you can't avoid to notice that the maps in former releases (PDE & PT) were bigger (as they showed only a part of the whole world). Will the current game engine be able to use a world wide map of the same size (something like PDE & PT glued together with a lump of map for the miissing parts of the world), or is the Global Conflict world map right now as big as the game engine allows? :confused:

Hey guys, come on, take it easy. We have a good thing going here, let us not start a fight brother against brother, about nearly nothing. Each one of you has a point, why not let us remember that we all have out flaws, and learn to ingore the one or the other sentence, after all we know each other pretty good. JJR knows that Sir Jersey doesn't adore AH, and Sir Jersey knows about JJR integrity and love for the competitive game, the USA and his Lord. It would be a shame if this quarrel would go on, truly a shame. And it hurts somewhat to read it, as well, because it is such an unbelievable waste of a long lasting friendship. "Peace for our time", pleeeease!

This plane wasn't ment to be flown by members of the Hitler youth. The Horten brothers, while still members of the Hitler youth, build and flown their first protoype(s), which was then still a glider. The Hitler youth encouraged young boys to fly gliders, as they would be this way later better material for the Luftwaffe cockpits. The glue with coal dust was only used as spackling compound, at least thats what Karl Nickel said, who was responsible for the aerodynamic calculations for the HO229. Reimar Horten claimed in the 1980s that it was used together with paint for stealth reasons. The plane which got after the war into the USA wasn't painted, but thats the one which got tested, so this is at least a very controversial claim. The HE162 was first ment to be flown by the Hitler youth because of the lack of trained pilots in early 1945. This plane got rushed into production, therefor its problems. quote wiki: "...The difficulties experienced by the He 162 were caused mainly by its rush into production, not by any inherent design flaws.One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft." This opinion was mirrored by Eric "Winkle" Brown of the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), who flew it not only during post-war evaluations, but went on to fly it for fun after testing had completed. He considered it delightful to fly, although the very light controls made it suitable only for experienced pilots. He wrote about his 162 flights in Wings of the Luftwaffe, a description that has been reprinted in many media over the years.Brown had been warned to treat the rudder with suspicion due to a number of in-flight failures, but this warning was apparently not given to another RAF pilot, and one of the tailfins broke off during the Farnborough Air Show, killing him. ..."

I don't say that an invasion was impossible, but i doubt that a succesful invasion would have been possible in 1940. Operation Sea Lion at wikipedia puts it well together: "...Operation Sea Lion (German: Unternehmen Seelöwe) was Nazi Germany's plan to invade Englang during WW2, beginning in 1940. To have had any chance of success, however, the operation would have required air supremacy over the English Channel. With the German defeat in the Battle fo Britain, Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and never carried out. By early November 1939, Adolf Hitler had decided on forcing a decision in the West by invading Belgium, Holland and France. With the prospect of the Channel ports falling under Kriegsmarine (German Navy) control and attempting to anticipate the obvious next step that might entail, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder (head of the Kriegsmarine) instructed his Operations officer, Kapitän Hans Jürgen Reinicke, to draw up a document examining "the possibility of troop landings in England should the future progress of the war make the problem arise." Reinicke spent five days on this study and set forth the following prerequisites for Invasion England: Elimination or sealing off of Royal Navy forces from the landing and approach areas. Elimination of the Royal Air Force (RAF). Destruction of all Royal Navy units in the coastal zone. Prevention of British submarin action against the landing fleet.In December 1939, the German Army issued its own study paper (designated Nordwest) and solicited opinions and input from both the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe (German Air Force). The paper outlined an assault on England's eastern coast between the Wash and Thames rivers by troops crossing the North Sea from Low Country ports. Reichsmarschall Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, responded with a single-page letter in which he stated: "...a combined operation having the objective of landing in England must be rejected. It could only be the final act of an already victorious war against England as otherwise the preconditions for success of a combined operation would not be met." The Kriegsmarine response was rather more restrained but equally focused on pointing out the many difficulties to be surmounted if invading England was to be a viable option. On 16 July 1940, following Germany's swift and successful occupation of France and the Low Countries and growing impatient with England's indifference towards his recent peace overtures, Hitler issued Directive No. 16, setting in motion preparations for a landing in England. He prefaced the order by stating: "As England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, still shows no signs of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her. The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English Motherland as a base from which the war against Germany can be continued, and, if necessary, to occupy the country completely." Hitler's directive set four pre-conditions for the invasion to occur: The RAF was to be "beaten down in its morale and in fact, that it can no longer display any appreciable aggressive force in opposition to the German crossing". The English Channel was to be swept of British mines at the crossing points, and the Straits of Dover must be blocked at both ends by German mines. The coastal zone between occupied France and England must be dominated by heavy artillery. The Royal Navy must be sufficiently engaged in the North Sea and the Mediterranean so that it could not intervene in the crossing. British home squadrons must be damaged or destroyed by air and torpedo attacks.This ultimately placed responsibility for Sealion's success squarely on the shoulders of Raeder and Göring, neither of whom had the slightest enthusiasm for the venture and, in fact, did little to hide their opposition to it. Nor did Directive 16 provide for a combined operational headquarters under which all three service branches (Army, Navy, Air Force) could work together under a single umbrella organization to plan, coordinate and execute such a complex undertaking (similar to the Allies' creation of SHAEF for the later Normandy landings). Upon hearing of Hitler's intentions, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, through his Foreign Minister Count Ciano, quickly offered up to ten divisions and thirty squadrons of Italian aircraft for the proposed invasion.Hitler initially declined any such aid but eventually allowed a small contingent of Italian fighters and bombers, the Italian Air Corps (CAI), to assist in the Luftwaffe's aerial campaign over Britain in October/November 1940. Beginning in August 1940, the German Luftwaffe began a series of concentrated aerial attacks (designated Unternehmen Adlerangriff or Operation Eagle Attack) on targets throughout the British Isles in an attempt to destroy the RAF (Royal Air Force) and establish air supperiority over Great Britain. The campaign later became known as the Battle of Britain. However, the change in emphasis of the bombing from RAF bases to bombing London turned Adler into a strategic bombing operation. This switch afforded the RAF, reeling from Luftwaffe attacks on its bases, time to pull back and regroup. The most daunting problem for Germany in protecting an invasion fleet was the small size of its navy. The Kriegsmarine, already numerically far inferior to Britain's Royal Navy, had lost a sizable portion of its large modern surface units in April 1940 during the Norwegian Campaign, either as complete losses or due to battle damage. In particular, the loss of two light cruisers and ten destroyers was crippling as these were the very boats most suited to operating in the Channel Narrows where the invasion would likely take place. The U-boats, the most powerful arm of the Kriegsmarine, were simply not suitable for operations in the relatively shallow and restricted waters of the English Channel. Although the Royal Navy could not bring to bear the whole of its naval superiority (most of the fleet was engaged in the Atlantic and Mediterranean), the British Home Fleet still had a very large advantage in numbers. British ships were still vulnerable to enemy air attack, as demonstrated during the Dunkirk evacuation and by the later Japanese sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse. However, the 22 miles (35 km) width of the English Channel and the overall disparity between the opposing naval forces made the amphibious invasion plan risky, regardless of the outcome in the air. In addition, the Kriegsmarine had allocated its few remaining larger and modern ships to diversionary operations in the North Sea. The French fleet, one of the most powerful and modern in the world, might have tipped the balance against Britain. However, the preemptive destruction of the French fleet by the British by an attack on Mers-el-Kébirscuttling of the French fleet in Toulon two years later ensured that this could not happen. Even if the Royal Navy had been neutralised, the chances of a successful amphibious invasion across the channel were remote. The Germans had no specialised landing craft, and had to rely primarily on river barges. This would have limited the quantity of artillery and tanks that could be transported and restricted operations to times of good weather. The barges were not designed for use in open sea and even in almost perfect conditions, they would have been slow and vulnerable to attack. There were also not enough barges to transport the first invasion wave nor the following waves with their equipment. The Germans would have needed to immediately capture a port, an unlikely circumstance considering the strength of the British coastal defences around the south-eastern harbours at that time. The British also had several contingency plans, including the use of poison gas. One of the more glaring deficiencies in the German Navy for mounting large-scale amphibious assaults was an almost complete lack of purpose-built landing craft. The Navy had already taken some small steps in remedying this situation with construction of the and the Pionierlandungsboot 39(MFP) but these too were unavailable in time for a landing on English soil in 1940, the first of them not being commissioned until April 1941. So how would the Navy assemble a large sea-going invasion fleet in the short time allotted? The obvious solution was to convert inland river barges to the task. Towards that end, the Kriegsmarine collected approximately 2,400 barges from throughout Europe (860 from Germany, 1,200 from the Netherlands and Belgium and 350 from France). Of these, only about 800 were powered (some insufficiently). The rest required towing by tugs. As part of a Navy competition, prototypes for a prefabricated "heavy landing bridge" or jetty (similar in function to later Allied Mulberry Harbours) were designed and built by Krupp Stahlbau and Dortmunder Union and successfully overwintered in the North Sea in 1941/42. Krupp's design won out as it only required one day to install as opposed to twenty-eight days for the Dortmunder Union bridge. The Krupp bridge consisted of a series of 32m-long connecting platforms, each supported on the seabed by four steel columns. The platforms could be raised or lowered by heavy-duty winches in order to accommodate the tide. The German Navy initially ordered eight complete Krupp units composed of six platforms each. This was reduced to six units by the fall of 1941 and eventually cancelled altogether when it became apparent (Engineer Landing Boat 39), a self-propelled shallow-draft vessel which could carry 45 infantrymen, two light vehicles or 20 tons of cargo and land on an open beach (unloading via a pair of clamshell doors at the bow). But by late September 1940, only two prototypes had been delivered. Recognizing the need for an even larger craft capable of landing both tanks and infantry onto a hostile shore, the Navy began development of the 220-ton Marinefährprahm Sealion would never take place. In mid-1942, both the Krupp and Dortmunder prototypes were shipped to the Channel Islands and installed together off Alderney where they were used for unloading materials needed to fortify the island. Referred to as the "German jetty" by local inhabitants, it remained standing for the next thirty-six years until demolition crews finally removed it in 1978/79, a testament to its durability. The German Army developed a portable landing bridge of its own nicknamed Seeschlange (Sea Snake). This "floating roadway" was formed from a series of joined modules that could be towed into place to act as a temporary jetty. Moored ships could then unload their cargo either directly onto the roadbed or lower it down onto waiting vehicles via their heavy-duty booms. The Seeschlange was successfully tested by the Army Training Unit at Le Havre in the fall of 1941 and later slated for use in Operation Herkules, the proposed Italo-German invasion of Malta. It was easily transportable by rail. Specialized vehicles slated for Sealion included the Landwasserschlepper (LWS). Under development since 1935, this amphibious tractor was originally intended for use by Army engineers to assist with river crossings. Three of them were assigned to Tank Detachment 100 as part of the invasion and it was intended to use them for pulling ashore unpowered assault barges and towing vehicles across the beaches. They would also have been used to carry supplies directly ashore during the six hours of falling tide when the barges were grounded. This involved towing a Kässbohrer amphibious trailer (capable of transporting 10-20 tons of freight) behind the LWS.The LWS was demonstrated to General Franz Halder on 2 August 1940 by the Reinhardt Trials Staff on the island of Sylt and, though he was critical of its high silhouette on land, he recognized the overall usefulness of the design. It was proposed to build enough tractors that each invasion barge could be assigned one or two of them but the late date and difficulties in mass-producing the vehicle prevented implementation of that plan. The German Army High Command (OKH) originally planned an invasion on a vast scale, extending from Dorset to Kent. This was far in excess of what their navy could supply, and final plans were more modest, calling for nine divisions to make an amphibious landing with around 67,000 men in the first echelon and an airborne division to support them.The chosen invasion sites ran from Rottingdean in the west to Hythe in the east. The battle plan called for German forces to be launched from Cherbourg to Lyme Regis, Le Havre to Ventnor and Brighton, Boulogne and Eastbourne, Calais to Folkestone, and Dunkirk and Ostend to Ramsgate. German paratroopers would land near Brighton and Dover. Once the coast was secured, they would push north, taking Gloucester and encircling London. There is reason to believe that the Germans would not attempt to assault the city but besiege and bombard it.German forces would secure England up to the 52nd parallel (approximately as far north as Northampton), anticipating that the rest of the United Kingdom would then surrender. On 17 September 1940, Hitler held a meeting with Reichsmarschall Göring and Field Marshal von Rundstedt. Hitler became convinced that the operation was not viable. Control of the skies was lacking, and coordination among three branches of the armed forces was out of the question. Later that day, Hitler ordered the postponement of the operation. The postponement coincided with a rumour that there had been an attempt to land on British shores at Shingle Street, but it had been repulsed with large German casualties. This was reported in the American press, and in William L. Shirer's Berlin Diary but was officially denied. British papers, declassified in 1993, have suggested this was a successful example of British black propaganda to bolster morale in Britain, America and occupied Europe. After the London Blitz, Hitler turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and Seelöwe lapsed, never to be resumed. However, not until 13 February 1942, after the invasion of Russia, were forces earmarked for the operation released to other duties. Military historians are divided on whether Operation Sealion could have succeeded; some such as Michael Burleigh, and Andrew Mollo believe it was possible. Kenneth Macksey asserts it would have only been possible if the Royal Navy had refrained from large scale intervention and the Germans had assaulted in July 1940 (they were unprepared at that time), while others such as Peter Fleming, Derek Robinson and Stephen Bungay believe the operation would have most likely resulted in a disaster for the Germans. Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off. During the period 19-26 September 1940, sea and wind conditions on and over the Channel where the invasion was set to take place were good overall and a crossing (even using converted river barges) was feasible provided the sea state remained at less than 4 (which, for the most part, it did). Beginning the night of 27 September, strong northerly winds prevailed, making passage more hazardous, but calm conditions returned on 11-12 October and again on 16-20 October. After 20 October, light easterly winds prevailed which would have actually assisted any invasion craft traveling from the Continent towards the invasion beaches. But by the end of October, according to British Air Ministry records, very strong SW winds (force 8) would have prohibited any seagoing craft from risking a Channel crossing. There were a number of errors in German intelligence, and whilst some of these might not have caused problems, there were others (such as the inclusion of bridges that no longer existedor mis-understanding the usefulness of minor British roads) that would have been detrimental to German operations, and would have only added to the confusion caused by the layout of Britain's cities and the removal of road signs. In wargames conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1974, which assumed the Luftwaffe had not yet won air supremacy, the Germans were able to establish a beachhead in England by using a minefield screen in the English Channel to protect the initial assault. However, the German ground forces were delayed at the "Stop Lines" (e.g. the GHQ Line, a layered series of defensive positions that had been built, each a combination of Home Guard troops and physical barriers. At the same time, the regular troops of the British Army were forming up. After only a few days, the Royal Navy was able to reach the Channel from Scapa Flow, cutting off supplies and blocking further reinforcement. Isolated and facing regular troops with armour and artillery, the invasion force was forced to surrender. ..."

The USA already did supply the UK with weapons, planes and ships long before her own war entry. The deliverird wouldn't have been landed as an invasion, but as mere convoys, so this wouldn't have been such an impossible problem. France and the BEF, well, yes, of course. On the other hand the attack through the Ardennes was a risky gamble which could easily had backfired against Germany. One or two recon planes sighting the long line of tanks and supply vehicles and all could have been over. A quick withrawal of the forces from Belgium, and Hitler would have face a closed line full of Char Bs, Mathildas and "not shocked and retreating" allied forces. Some well placed attack on the narrow ardennes roads and the streets would have been blocked, stopping the german advance,

Germany might have brought down the RAF in southern England, but it still would have had to cross the channel, for every grenade, barrel of oil etc. And the Royal Navy was far away from beeing in danger of the Luftwaffe, as the struggle with the RAF has taken its toll on the Luftwaffe. A german invasion would never have been a D-Day like operation, it would have been more a gesture. The german Navy asked that before an invasion first the RAF had to be put aside, because the Admirals new that this alone would stall the whole operation so long that they never would have to do the invasion. They knew they wouldn't be able to protect the invasion fleet. In my opinion the Germans would have been maybe able to large a little invasion, maybe getting some coastal towns, than they would have stalled for a longer period just to stock the supplies they would have needed to go on. This would have given the Brtions time enough to build up some kind of defence line, and i'm pretty sure that FDR would have given Churchill ALL of his tank reserves, plane and ammo, just to give him a chance to hold long enough until the USA would have been convinced to enter the war.

Difficult to answer. Hitler would have probably made some fatal mistakes after a succesful first landing attempt. On the other hand the british would have had one big advantage: german supply would have been always low because of the channel and the Royal Navy. And i believe the Britons would have charged the intruders, even with spoons and forks, if nescessary. And let us not forget: Hitler wanted peace with the English, because he hated the Jews and the Bolsheviks, so he would have never fought to the death on the English Isle, as he had other plans more important.

Yes, this has already been announced. This was always possible, why do you think that i would be missing in the latest release? The better question is what Germany or Italy should DO with such a waste of money, as they need every buck for airforce, armies and maybe subs Light cruisers? What for? But the political correct answer would be probably: use the upcoming editor. Probably both neutrals, but this question should be better answered by a playtester.

Ahhh, the Force is strong in this Jersey! Great fun to read, Maestro!