santabear

In general, I like the idea of RARE random events. Some of the events you (Edwin) listed already seem to be covered by the "global partisan" appearances, so I might quibble with some of the specifics--but I do like the principle very much. These random events would make play against AI more entertaining, and would make the game even more challenging in respect to the George Marshall quote in the manual (about total war demanding great CHARACTER from the leaders involved)--do you (the player) have the guts to hang in there when things go (unfairly) against you? THAT is one of the most important qualities of a war leader, I think. I would also like to see potential areas for partisans that are not always in swamp or mountain hexes...

Jersey John: Thanks for your help. I was on my way out the door when the brain wave for this thread struck. Here, though, is what I was thinking of: Quoting Konstantin from the "Great War Leaders Thread"

*yawning as he awakes from hibernation* I'm glad to have started this thread...I have amassed some nice summer reading projects from everyone's suggestions. Here are a few thoughts on reading through (after being away on business for a week and a half...) Decline and Fall of the Third Republic: I love it--a classic. Churchill's history: A pleasure to read; but one has to have the BS detector on "high gain." There are many self-serving moments in the book that (I think) give a distorted picture of the "story" of WWII. But he is still my favorite character of the whole epic event. Some other suggestions and a request: 1. For Churchill fans: The Last Lion (Vol 2) by William Manchester. This is a biography of Churchill from approx. 1930-1940--it ends as Churchill becomes prime minister. Manchester is certainly a "Churchillite" and the book shamelessly glorifies Churchill, but it is just a joy to read. It is so brilliantly written that I can feel the emotion of the pivotal moments during that eventful time. It's probably the best book on the between-the-wars time in Britain there is. It's a shame that Manchester had a stroke and could not finish the third volume. 2. Judgement at Nuremberg by Robert Conot. This book covers the story of the Trial of Major War Ciminals after the war, but it has excellent analyses that compare the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial with current historical knowledge (as of 1980 or so). These analyses are the best concise history of WWII that I know of. The book also has details of the judges' deliberations that are very interesting. ======================== Request: Has anyone read a GOOD "revisionist" biography about Churchill? These were popular in the late 80's: Churchill was not so great after all, he made many errors, etc. I've not been able to finish one since they wind up seeming trivial after a bit. But I would love to get the "other side" of the Churchill story. [ May 12, 2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

How about those BEARS!

There is a (short) discussion about some history books buried in the bowels of the "Military Leaders" thread. It occured to me that many (all) of us in here have our "favorite" sources on many aspects of the war (diplomatic, economic, military), and that it would be good to have a thread in which we could all list things we've found useful whether in print or on the web--and in all languages. To keep this managable we could perhaps limit ourselves to two works each with the idea of citing "specialized" books rather than general histories that everyone probably knows about already. We might be able to build up quite a bibliography in here for our "summer reading" lists. A "golden oldie" (from the 80's I think) is titled "Why Nations Go to War" by John Stoessinger. It has quite a good analysis of several conflicts including the run-up to Barbarossa. Jersey John: Could you do your cool "link-thing" to Konstantin's books in the "military leaders" thread? I can't seem to get it to work for me :mad:

Sea-wolf: Not mad at all--I think you have good points. :eek: A lot of the stats ARE propaganda (he quotes the "official" sources a great deal). And he is (to me) extremely sympathetic toward Stalin as a person--though, again, I think many times he is quoting or paraphrasing what Russians "said that they said" at the time. I think the book is very valuable for 1. Giving some balance to the prevailing "Western" views of the war in Russia--which are no more objective than the Russian views., 2. For its extensive quotes from Russian sources--everything from Russian histories of the war to original documents to poems, newspaper articles and (as above) pieces of music, 3. For a very perceptive analysis of Russia's diplomatic situation 1938-42. It highlights what Stalin did right (the little things, mostly), but with some reading between the lines, it's easy to see where Stalin went terribly, disasterously wrong. These things are probably available in other works, I just happened to stumble across them in here. One should also keep in mind that like Shirer, Wirth is a journalist, not a historian--in both books you get good "reporting," not necessarily good history.

Thanks to Bill for the excellent original post. In a realistic game the Allies WILL will every time. A game that allows for other outcomes will be "realistic" to the extent that it fits with the preconceptions of the player(s)--each of us has our unique "reality." I for one prefer NOT to know all of the details behind the resolution of combat. When a commander orders an attack he should have a good idea of the outcome, but there is never a way to KNOW what will happen. One of the excellent things about SC is that the only way to learn some of the nuances about combat, supply and cetera is through hard-won experience. This approach is actually preferable to me than to introduce some kind of "dice roll" into the combat system. [ May 04, 2003, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

I like the ideas that are springing up in here. It seems to me that the 'problem' of transport movement is caused by the skewed map scale in the Atlantic ocean. If transport movment is limited to something more realistic for, say, the Baltic sea, the American army will take years to assemble in Britain (as Edwin pointed out). If the map scale remains unchanged, perhaps there could be the equivalent of 'terrain' in the ocean, with different ocean/sea hexes allowing faster or slower movement. That might address some of the naval issues and would allow more realistic transports.

And that is why your (Jersey John's] idea of a powerful scenario editor is so useful. With more flexibility in the scenario editor, plus the kind of options Bill Macon suggested, players who are looking for realism can more closely approximate what they perceive as real-life conditions. And those who like playing SC as a game can leave things at the highest possible levels of abstraction. [ May 02, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

JJ, KK, Sea Wolf, et. al., I have found another good book (in English) on the eastern front, titled "Russia at War." It's by Alexander Werth who grew up in Leningrad (till age 17). He then emigrated to Britain and became a journalist. When the war started (41) the Times sent him to Russia--he arrived in early July and stayed throughout the war. The book is similar to William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in that it combines historical research with personal observations and interviews "on the spot" with Soviet citizens, officers. enlisted men and government officials. It has several long translations of the "offical" Soviet history which are good to have in English as well.' And for Jersey John: Here are the words to the Prokoffiev Ode to Stalin ("Zdravitsa") for Chorus and Orchestra. The words are described as 'folk texts of Russian, Ukrainian, Kuridsh, Belorussian, Mariisk and Mordva origin.' Yeah, right: Never have our fertile fields such a harvest shown, Never have our villagers such contentment known, Never life has been so fair, spirits been so high, Never to the present day grew so green the rye, O'er the earth the risig sun sheds a warmer light, Since it looked on Stalin's face it has grown more bright, I am singing to my baby sleeping in my arm: "Grow like flowers in the meadow free from alarm, On your lips the name of Stalin will protect from all harm, You will learn the source of sunshine bathing all our land, You will copy Stalin's portrait with your tiny hand." The really beautiful thing is that Prokoffiev set these words to simplistic music--a C major scale going up and down repeatedly--so it sounds like a group of mentally defective people (instead of rapturous kolkhozniks) singing these praises. Of course the censors didn't catch that. ======================== I'll also add to the chorus of thanks to Shaka--you provided another of the many educational moments I have in this forum. Thanks! [ May 02, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

I haven't read this book, but most of what I've read recently also argues that Russia was not much help to Germany economically--the west was far more useful. ================================ I agree with JerseyJohn on the weather (now a separate thread), and the Mediterranian. It is possible to walk a corps all the way across Africa with no supply. And the supply rules occasionally seem to defy logic. ================================= Amphibious operations need to be more than right-clicking 'transport' and then landing anywhere on a coast. I am a firm believer that Allied air and naval power were decisive in WWII, but SC is rather extreme in it's embrace of this idea. Landing craft were a big limiting factor in Allied operations, whereas in SC they're more abundant than air units.

Count me in for the JJ/Minotaur ideas, too. I agree with JP Wagner: the turns in the game should be of a consistent duration and weather effects should be dealt with separately. While month-long turns approximate winter conditions (in some latitudes), it's certainly not true that war in winter is exactly like in summer except that it takes longer. The effects on amphibious operations and FLYING weather would help the game a lot from my perspective. I think there is also an excellent point in this thread about "SC Classic:" It will still be around for those who are looking for a less detailed, more 'playable' game. Many of the issues in this forum can only be effectively dealt with by adding some additional variables. And variables are good in a 'strategic' game, I think. Liam: I chuckled when I read your post You're absolutely right, but considering the awful weather they actually had it wasn't really worth the wait.

JJ: Hey, my wife is a Mexican-American from Texas--if I left out the Nation of Texas I'd be sleeping on the couch for a month! You wouldn't want that, would you? [ April 30, 2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Konstantin: Thanks for all of your excellent information about Russia and the USSR. I got carried away in my original post--when I used the word "idiot" I didn't mean it in the sense of lack of intelligence. Stalin was a very smart man. Many of the western leaders (Harry Hopkins, for example) who met him right after the war started were extremely impressed with his intelligence--in fact, one of the main reasons that Britain and the US decided to help Russia with "lend-lease" can be traced by to the Hopkins and Cripps's belief that Stalin could lead the USSR to victory. There was a significant contingent in both Britain and the US who believed that the USSR would be quickly defeated, and that the west should continue with their war plans without her. Stalin's ability to convince them of the USSR's staying power was a significant accomplishment. Unfortunately, it was only necessary because he That was a huge mistake. The national interest of the USSR was in no way congruent with that of Nazi Germany--the 1939 non-aggression pact was a phenominal diplomatic mistake that cost Russia dearly in WWII and afterward (Poland). No other leader (including Hitler) made the mistake of trying to form an alliance with a regime that had repeatedly sworn to exterminate them. I agree completely the Britain and France were responsible for driving Stalin to this desperate measure. But even a weak alliance with the west would have been infinitely better than what he got. At all costs, he should have been focused on preserving France (second front). Once Germany walloped France, it FINALLY dawned on Stalin what a horrible possition he had created for his country: Germany had a spectacular land army and no navy. Anyone on land near Nazi Germany was going to be in big trouble, especially when the Germans hit a coastline in their westward expansion. He was "clever" enough to reverse the British strategy. The Brits wanted to get Germany into a war with the USSR. Stalin thought he could get Germany into a war with France and Britain, then come in and pick up the pieces. The consequence of this miscalculation was that Russia (actually, the Russian part of the USSR) wound up having to bear the vast majority of WWII in Europe alone. That, I believe, was Stalin's worst mistake--he underestimated the Germans. I don't believe he ever thought they would defeat the French as easily as they did. And as you said in an earlier post, the Germans badly underestimated the USSR. A catastrophic irony. ==== Just read a few of the most recent posts and have to add: Regardless of feelings about Stalin, communism, whatever there can be little doubt that 1)the USSR paid an enormous human price during WWII, 2) that people paid that price becuase they believed in their country, and 3) it was a major contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. My problem with Stalin was that diplomatically he was the biggest reason that price had to be paid by his own people. [ April 30, 2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

I agree, but Texas actually WAS an independent country for a time. ======== Let me try one more time on the Civil War thing (I enjoy these discussions, I don't intend to be argumentative in a bad way...): Slavery was one of the issues, no question. It was part of the issue of two separate groups of states: 1. "North" - more urban living, manufacturing economies 2. "South" - rural economies, virtually un-mechanized. Slaves were CRUCIAL to the Southern economy. The only place the south could get all of the mechanical gizmos that made the slaves obsolete was from the north. And the northern businesses would do what they always do--try to get every last penny they can. The Yankees saw the war as the war to "keep the country together" (at least that's what I was taught in school in Michigan), and freeing the slaves was a nice bonus. Given the intolerance toward blacks in the north, it's pretty hard to imagine anyone actually wanting to die to free slaves in 1861. The Rebs saw the war as the only way to preserve their 'lifestyle'--and I don't mean owning slaves. The wealth to support the genteel Southern lifestlye that the upper classes had came from agriculture--and no slaves, no agriculture. Slavery wasn't something the south did because they were evil. It was simply the way the southern economy had always worked--from before any of the civil war generation were born. So when the big "moral" push to abolish slavery came along it was easy for the north to go along (after all it didn't cost them anything). And when Robt E Lee was kicking the Yankee army all over Virginia, Lincoln realized one important point: The south had a 'cause,' and therefore a morale advantage. His overt support for 'emacipation' was at least partly inspired by his search for a 'cause' for the north. And finally: Whatever one's allegiances (north or south) Robert E Lee has to be recognized as probably the best general the US has ever produced. He was also a man of great character, I believe. He did not break his oath to the US constitution in order to go to war for slavery; he became a confederate because he believed his duty to his state of Virginia superceded his oath to the US. Many people made personal decisions one way or the other; but Lee's carries special meaning because he was such a great American, I think. [ April 30, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Hmmm. I must have missed the US history class where they taught the war was about slavery. I always thought it was about individual states' rights vs. a unified national government. I think your assumption is off base, especially since the south declared their independence and "fired the first [symbolic] shot." If your scenario had played out, the war you speak of would likely have been fought by the NATION of Texas against Mexico. Possibly the US (North) and Conferate States would have allied themselves, perhaps not. The North American continent would be like Europe--several independent nation-states--none of whom would have been able to exert much influence in world (European) affairs in the late 19th and 20th century. 1917? The US army couldn't have gone to France--it would have left the US vulnerable in North America. And Germany tried to get Mexico to declare war on the US. What if they had convinced the CSA to do so? 1939? US isolationism almost cost the allies WWII as it was. What if the US couldn't have intervened after the fall of France?

On the theory of "better late than never" here are the Bear's opinions: 1. There wouldn't BE a US without Lincoln. Certainly the Northern Territories or whatever couldn't have intervened decisively in the world wars. Japan might extend to the Mississippi River... 2. My vote for best wartime leader is a tie: Roosevelt and Churchill. Churchill knew how to FIGHT--he was tenacious and unfair if necessary, but he fought to win. And that was needed against Hitler & Co. To have had his army's ass kicked out of Europe and into the sea and then make a speech like "we will fight them on the beaches, etc." is one of the great acts of defiance in history. And it was one of the defining moments in the war--remember Russia was virtually allied with Germany at that time. The only problem with Winston was goofy decisions from time to time. Roosevelt, however, was spot on with diplomacy and grand strategy. Together, they were an amazing team. Hopefully we'll get leaders like them again (Tony Blair is showing some promise as a diplomatist...we'll see). 3. And (drum roll, please) the WORST war leader had to be Stalin. The only reason he didn't kill more Russians than Hitler is that the Germans were mass murderers. Even at that, he gave Hitler a run for his money. Besides which, he was warned of the German attack by EVERYONE--he even knew the exact time, the exact units, everything. And some troops didn't have ammunition. Huh? Even Jesse Ventura would know to give the soliders some bullets...but not "the great and wise Comrade Stalin." He also refused to believe the Germans were attacking for several hours; THEN ordered immediate counterattacks. (Excuse me please, Comrade Major, my I have some ammunition now?) It was also very clever of him to wipe out the entire professional officer corps shortly after Hitler (Mr. "Germany must look to the vast plains of Russia for her Lebensraum") came to power. Obviously Mein Kampf did not make the NKVD reading list. The battle for Kiev in 41 was also nice. Forbid retreat so several hundred thousand troops are killed or taken prisoner (including some of your top people), THEN blow up the city on top of the Russians still living there. Mmmm. Moral courage? I think not. He was an IDIOT. He was saved because his people understood that the Germans were worse. If Roosevelt, for example, had been in charge of Russia he would have won the war faster and with half the casualties, I believe. 4. Second worst war leader: Neville Chamberlain (I know he wasn't on the list, but come on, he was terrible). On top of everything else (one could write a book), his diplomacy in 1939 should condemn him forever. After 7 years of British foreign policy encouraging Hitler to make war on Russia in 2 weeks he guaranteed both Romania and Poland--the two countries Germany MUST pass through to get to Russia--and this less than a year after Munich. No wonder Hitler believed he wouldn't fight. Not to worry, he didn't. Let your 'ally' get wiped out, then get caught flat footed in Norway. Nothing like Germans a short boat ride away, is there? Fortunately, Germany didn't have her WWI navy. 4. I think Hitler gets an undersevedly bad rap for his decision making. He was truly evil, but dangerous because he was smart. His main problems in my estimation: 1. He was smart, but he wasn't as smart as he thought he was... 2. He was too much of a gambler. He was willing to gamble things he couldn't afford to lose. The best ones know when to take calculated risks and when to be conservative. He just went 'pedal to the metal' all the time. 5. Mussolini was bad, but just doesn't make the grade compared to Stalin and Chamberlain. [ April 28, 2003, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

When I first started playing the game, I assumed that "Green" or "Expert" settings changed the behavior of the AI, so I was very surprised to find out that it's the same in all versions, only the MPPs and other random events change. I agree that it would be excellent to have the AI get 'sneakier' as the player improves.

*** ARGH DUPLICATE POST--PLS DELETE *** Edwin: Have you found that the Italians can handle the Brits/Americans? It seems they will have to station themselves near Ireland/entrance to the English channel. Is that correct? Otherwise, they'll have transports slipping around them. I've always been afraid that they'd be swimming after a turn or two. If you don't move the two German subs, the Brits never hunt them. Do you leave them in place until the Italians show up? I'll have to try this. I'm assuming, then, that after France, you do Vichy then Spain/Gibraltar--is that correct? And I'll have to try the "Swiss special." I've never even thought of it, since there's no city. It's always interesting to hear your ideas. It is GREAT for the Axis to get Turkey if they can pull it off before or during the Russian campaign. The Russians will operate units down to Ankara (drawing them away from the main battle), and once you've won, you just keep going through the mountains into the oilfields. I've not been able to get enough oomph in the expert level games to "get to" Turkey. Do you use op-ed over air once the Italians close the Atlantic? [ April 28, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Edwin: Have you found that the Italians can handle the Brits/Americans? It seems they will have to station themselves near Ireland/entrance to the English channel. Is that correct? Otherwise, they'll have transports slipping around them. I've always been afraid that they'd be swimming after a turn or two. If you don't move the two German subs, the Brits never hunt them. Do you leave them in place until the Italians show up? I'll have to try this. I'm assuming, then, that after France, you do Vichy then Spain/Gibraltar--is that correct? And I'll have to try the "Swiss special." I've never even thought of it, since there's no city. It's always interesting to hear your ideas. It is GREAT for the Axis to get Turkey if they can pull it off before or during the Russian campaign. The Russians will operate units down to Ankara (drawing them away from the main battle), and once you've won, you just keep going through the mountains into the oilfields. I've not been able to get enough oomph in the expert level games to "get to" Turkey. Do you use op-ed over air once the Italians close the Atlantic?

RE Norway: Yep. The Brits will float a corps up there. It retreats if you operate in a corps to cover the port. Otherwise it will try an invasion. Better to let them have Norway, especially if you can kill a ship or two. Once you gain air superiority you should be able to bang on the Russians fairly well. The Siberian Army OB varies quite a bit, especially depending on which setting (Green-Expert). Sometimes it's an HQ with a few units. I've also seen several HQ, air fleets, tanks and a "bonus" rocket unit. Against Russian AI: The Ivans will be feisty as long as they have some heavy firepower (tanks, rockets). As soon as those are killed, they go back into "retreat mode," so it's worth taking some (reasonable) losses to get rid of those units. You just have to judge how many units you can afford to lose. Right after you've beat off an invasion attempt is a good time to get somewhat aggressive in the East. The Brits will need several turns to patch the holes in their fleet, so you have some time to grow new armies if you need to.

JJ: I've always agreed with your stacking idea, and after perusing the link you supplied, I'm really convinced. I had never thought about 'forced retreat,' but it's obvious. There isn't any way to disperse a unit in SC...it has to be killed; and certainly most WWII soldiers weren't going to 'stand and die' in every combat (and if there were, they only fought once...sort of a brutal 'natural selection'). This also goes back to some of the previous discussions of maneuver warfare, the goal of which is to force withdrawals. The 'retreat' idea would restore some of the maneuver to the game. Some would be enforced by combat, other would be voluntary (player driven) as supply lines were threatened (except for the budding Hitlers who don't mind encirclements...). Though it's unlikely I could contribute much, I look forward to READING what would emerge in the promised ground combat thread. I also have some rocket thoughts that I'll save for a dedicated topic. ============================= Back into the Wild Blue Yonder (3 thoughts): 1. Assuming the ground combat changes were made, there would also be a need to decide on what "level 5" aircraft were--presumably some actual post-WWII aircraft--and to model that performance in the game. Since 1939 aircraft performance is also known, the various levels could be figured out between those endpoints. It would also be interesting to model each step in aircraft performance on actual aircraft. For example the Brits might go from Hurricanes to Spitfires then through the various mods; Americans from Airacobras to Thunderbolts to Mustangs, etc. This would mean that one level increase for the various countries would yield different actual increases in combat ability. Any interest in this? What would this do for game balance? No doubt it would be more complex to program, but it wouldn't add any more complexity from the players' point of view. ====================== 2. Your stacking idea takes me back to my youth. My favorite games growing up were PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader, and one called "The Next War." In The Next War, air combat took place in three phases: 1. Air superiority 2. Air to surface (naval) 3. Air to ground If you wanted to make a ground attack, you had to first fight an 'air superiority' battle to gain (temporary, local) control of the airspace for the attack; THEN new units could launch a ground attack. This was in an exceedingly detailed game (with separate types of fighters, tank busters, etc.), and that principle is only partially taken up by SC. One way in which realism is lost and the role of airpower is skewed is that only one air unit can intercept--as though aircraft flying from Smolensk to Rostov wouldn't be attacked by every air unit they passed. Many of the air attacks we make in SC cover such ground that they could potentially be intercepted by 2 or 3 airfleets; or we attack targets defended by 2 or 3 airfleets within range, but only 1 unit intercepts. If defending air units could 'gang up' on attackers, the attrition rate of air combat would increase and the role of the air would also be reduced--until one side established air superiority. That should be the goal of air combat--control the air and you control the battlefield--not aircraft used primarily to zap infantry units. =================== 3. The destruction of units in SC (to me) doesn't represent their physical anihilation (i.e. every soldier is killed); it represents a unit that has been dispersed and that has had its supply destroyed. Air units can't 'destroy' an army, but they can destroy its fuel and supply depots, disperse its troops, destroy its communications and disrupt its command. That army ceases to exist as a fighting force. When it 'disappears' from the SC map, it allows an enemy unit to occupy that hex--in real life they would be driving (assuming tanks are next) past (or over) defenseless enemy soldiers. But there would be no significant resistance to the Panzergruppe in any case. Does this make sense? (OK. Sorry for the long post; as Churchill would say "I'm feeling fertile this morning.") [ April 28, 2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Many good thoughts here; I have an observation/quesion: Perhaps my understanding of history is skewed (it may well be, since I haven't read a lot of "military" history), but weren't the German reinforcements headed to repel Overlord virtually destroyed by Allied air? (I have an uncle who served in the paratroops who walked past the carnage about 2 days later--said it was indescribable) And wasn't the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) offensive successful for Germany until the weather cleared up and the Allied air could fly again? If I'm on track here, these facts would seem to argue for strong air fleets. Someone please correct me if I'm off the beam though, please. In any case, Andrew's point about ground combat being static in SC w/o air is very well taken. Once the front is "stabilized" in Russia, the only way to restore room for maneuver is with air. If air is downgraded, this bear would certainly favor a corresponding "artillery" unit/research category. Art'y always was the main 'bloodletter,' and it's role in SC seems to be minimalized. RE Jersey's last post: I would welcome more complexity/"realism." Not only would it feed the history buff in me, but it would introduce more strategic decision making, which to me is the real fun of the game. [ April 28, 2003, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

I posted the "if everything goes right scenario in your thread." When everything doesn't go right, that's exactly what happens to me. Actually, it turns out just like WWII is "supposed" to: Superior Allied production and manpower eventually wears down and overwhelms Germany. It's a good sign about the game, I think. The trick (as I said in detail in your thread) is for the Axis to get a big lead early on--then the Allies can't catch up. And playing at the expert level makes it extremely difficult to get that lead. SC models WWII extremely accurately on one level, I think: The war is decided by 1941. IF the Axis can get a lead, especially in the air; and IF they can dominate the air over Britain they're in good shape heading into Barbarossa. Otherwise the "two front war" gets em every time. ==there's also a thread going on the 1944 scenario. This is another manifestation of the same problem--once the Axis gets behind then can NEVER catch up (barring Allied mistakes, a fortunate roll in technology, etc.). So they have to stay ahead. If you do get behind as Axis, I think all you can do is fight delaying actions, hope for some luck and try for the stalemate.

I posted the "if everything goes right scenario in your thread." When everything doesn't go right, that's exactly what happens to me. Actually, it turns out just like WWII is "supposed" to: Superior Allied production and manpower eventually wears down and overwhelms Germany. It's a good sign about the game, I think. The trick (as I said in detail in your thread) is for the Axis to get a big lead early on--then the Allies can't catch up. And playing at the expert level makes it extremely difficult to get that lead. SC models WWII extremely accurately on one level, I think: The war is decided by 1941. IF the Axis can get a lead, especially in the air; and IF they can dominate the air over Britain they're in good shape heading into Barbarossa. Otherwise the "two front war" gets em every time. ==there's also a thread going on the 1944 scenario. This is another manifestation of the same problem--once the Axis gets behind then can NEVER catch up (barring Allied mistakes, a fortunate roll in technology, etc.). So they have to stay ahead. If you do get behind as Axis, I think all you can do is fight delaying actions, hope for some luck and try for the stalemate.