Feldtrompeter

CanuckGamer If you want to get Turkey before the war in the east starts that is only clever, if you are able to get those 100 MPPs in the South-Russian mountains on the first Barbarossa move and if you manage to land quite a few units into Russia via the black sea (to steal some additional MPPs), IMHO. Most of the time you are able to conquer Norway, Sweden and Vichy if you are interested in getting Turkey before Barbarossa. But then you will have an eastern front on June 22, 1941. Yet timing is crucial. Against a good player you just won't have the time you need to take Turkey before Barbarossa and simultaniously keep the British from harming you. As for your original question: NO, the invasion of Turkey does not automatically bring the USSR in. The jump in Russian war readiness varies a lot and must lie somewhere between 30 and 40%. You already had 68% for Russia, so it only took 32% to go up to 100%. You should only go for Turkey, if Russia has about 52% (no exact value, just a rough idea) and if you still have about 4 turns before June 22 (that would be 16. March 1941). When Russia is at about 50% you have a good chance that they won't jump to 90% if you invade Turkey. As long as Russia is under 90% they won't prepare for war. Feldtrompeter

Hi Archibald and JerseyJohn This is surely the best AAR I have ever read! You gave a gripping story and tons of the coolest pictures ever. (LOL) Can't wait for the next cup to come and for the next game between you two.

Perhaps I got you wrong, Kuniworth. The mirrored mode is no substitute for a league that you have in mind. But I think the "Meisterschaft" in the PL comes near to what you discribed. Unfortunately, during the cource of the season, some of the members resigned and the whole thing ended up as Zapp feared. [ May 06, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Feldtrompeter ]

Hi Kuni Up to this time that is one of the very principles of the PL. In the PL it is called "mirrored mode". When ever you play a match and bid for the axis, you will have to play once with the axis and once with the allies under the same conditions (bid) against the same opponent. On the base of the results of both games the outcome of the whole match is evaluated and you receive your points accordingly. Unfortunately (as I feel) there are members in the PL (Hey, lasst mich leben ) that try to question whether the mirrored mode is still fitting for SC and try to get done with it. Feldtrompeter PS: Kollegen, jedem seine Meinung KT, ich hoffe, das hat im PL-Forum keine Konsequezen für mich .

Hi All It all comes down to preferences. Do I want to know the current best player? Do I want to know the relative skill of every league member by taking a look at his rank? Do I want encourage players to play many games? Do I want to ... OK, and the answers to all those and other questions will tell us our target group of the league and its design. Good players lean more towards knowing who is currently the benchmark and competition. A ladder system is fine for them. Others may prefer different systems. The PL is one of them. And soon with an international section ... Feldtrompeter

Hi Zapp I agree with most of what you said. There is competition in the PL indeed. But as I said I see that more in the matches or tournaments and not so much in getting the desired rank. In a ladder like W-league the bait for good performance is, as you write, the rank. That is indisputable and a very well suiting motivation. The PL has a different motivation: The bait for good performance lays here in keeping your record (statistic) clean (if you care of cause). And think of this: even if Königstiger and Terif were playing game upon game to get the crown, would the league benefit from this race, yes or no? It sure would. Because the more games there are played, the more rivived a league gets and the healthier the league becomes. And even if Königstiger would finally succeed in collecting more points than Terif: that wont mean much to all of those who have taken a look into the statistics of those two and have found out for themselves about their direct competitions (for those who need it ). For top players who frequenly play SC, a ladder system is well suiting. But for the rest of the players (including PBEM players) a system like that which is used in the PL is more appropriate I think. There have been discussions (and still are) in the PL forum about adding a feature to the league that roughly reflects the skill level of the players. However, up to this time the PL has not decided to do so because it feels that the statistics of the players that can easily be seen in the league also fulfil that part adequately. Yours Feldtrompeter

Hi Rambo 1) The PL is a "non-competetive" league. It fits both the professional and the casual player. A ladder system like in W-league does NOT encourage people to play many matches - but that is what keeps a league alive. In the PL you do not play to prove how good you are compared to the other players of the league but to have fun and enjoy the game(s). Thus you slowly collect your points during your membership and automatically - after more or less games - reach the rank of a General. Who cares in the PL about who is first after a season? Nobody. That only gives you some insignificant extra points and a special medal. Wow, great! Why should only the best players get the price when others who play many more games are adding much more to the league's comunity and its existence? For those who like to compete and to demonstrate their relative skill compared to others the PL offers tournaments once in a while and whenever league members organize them. That in mind I don't see a problem about people in the PL who play weaker players just to collect points - the league is not competetive from the begionning, so why being worried about others who have a higher rank than yourself? Competition you'll find in the tournaments and in each and every one of your matches - but not when it comes to the rank in the league. 2) The PL had some difficulties with the reports recently (from 28.02 - April). You need to send your reports of that time again to the one who is now in charge of the reports. That one's name is: BoPeep. You can do that via mail or ICQ. Just give him the names of your opponents and the result of the matches and he will type it in - and correct errors, when the current problems are finally fixed ... Yours Feldtrompeter [ May 06, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Feldtrompeter ]

Hi Darrell I think you won't need to worry about a place to find scenarios. The PanzerLiga will most surely provide many of the available scenarios once they get released. And by Q4 the PanzerLiga will have also an international section - hopefully Feldtrompeter

Hi elliot PBEM is not cheat-prove in SC. There are even more ways to cheat than you mentioned. I really hope Hubert finds a way to better the situation for SC2. A waterprove PBEM you have in the CM series. Unfortunately you cannot copy that for SC. Feldtrompeter

Hi Cantum Could you provid the date when the AI sued for peace? Was the UDSSR set to "neutral", "random" or "historical"? Feldtrompeter

Hi Rambo You forget some things. 1) We do not replay WWII as it happend - who would like to play Germany then, when everything will be over in May 45? We just take what was in 1939 and then do it our way and not in Hitler's, Roosevelt's or Stalin's way. 2) I would like to see the western allies flying their bomber actions against Me262 instead of Me 109 in 1942/43 if Germany had recognized the value of Jets earlier. There would have been a lot of American steel shot down from the skies, IMHO and no bombing of German cities but clay-pigeon shooting over western Europe with American and British clay-pigeons ... 3) Then I would also see the mighty and fearless Americans with their Shermans fighting in Normandy under German air supremnacy against Tigers and Panthers. Would have been a great sight. 4) The US had much luck that Russia kept Germany busy in the east. In Sc I like to be able to not let Russia be the luck that the western allies needed to take France. 5) I don't like a game that is historical accurate in 44 but a game that gives me the facts of 1939 as good as that is possible and let's me mold the war in my way. Feldtrompeter

Hi Jersey I stepped across SC because I bought CMBB. The CM series was a phantastic experience. But I do not have the patience anymore to set my orders properly after I played SC for a while ... So currently I almost exclusivly play SC. Yet, CM is a must. Never regretted buying it. Gives you a lot of insight into the cource of the war plus a feel for the units and combat itself. Ok, back to the original topic. Just wanted to give you a short brake ...

Hi You don't need a history channel to see Über-tanks destroy light tanks in dozens. Buy CMBB/ CMAK and create your own scenario. And then lean back and watch ...

I think there are research fields where you easily can spy out your opponent and there are other fields where you cannot spy that much. Take i.e. rocket research done by the Germans or jets or subs. These are research areas where you hardly can take a look on what the enemy does and then go ahead and copy it easily. In other research branches like anti-tank or heavy tank research it is easier to send some of the enemy's stuff you captured back to your scientists and develop something similar in quite a short time. (The Germans thought on copying the T-34 when it was first seen on the eastern front) So the current system gives reasonable results for the tech that can be copied easily and for the other tech fields it doesn't. Feldtrompeter

Hi Terif and pzgndr As far as I have understood you you both are saying the same thing just with a different formular. pzgndr uses the formular for tech advances: Lv0 - Lv1: 5% Lv1 - Lv2: 4% Lv2 - Lv3: 3% Lv3 - Lv4: 2% Lv4 - Lv5: 1% On top of this 5-4-3-2-1 rule pzgndr adds a "normalization" which is the highest tech level of the enemy for the tech field concerned. This is the VERY SAME formular that Terif uses only written in a different form: 5% base chance - own Lv + highest enemy Lv. If you calculate the first two addends of the formular you have pzgndr's 5-4-3-2-1 rule and the last addend is his "normalization". So both ways lead to the same value for the research chance. In his example some post above pzgndr made the mistake to use his 5-4-3-2-1 rule and then to add the difference (highest enemy Lv - own Lv) to that value instead of only adding the "highest enemy Lv" as Terif's formular would have told him to do. Feldtrompeter

Hi pzgndr I think your example is not correct. If you have 1 chit in a research category and you have Lv1 and your opponent Lv3 in the same category, your chance of advancing to the second Lv is: 5% - 1% + 3% = 7% You do not get a systematic decrease in research like you stated. It all depends on the opponent's Lv and your own Lv. This is acording to the German manual. Feldtrompeter

Hi Russian The word Gambit originates from the chess game. In particular, the word gambit means "making a sacrifice during the opening moves (of a chess) game to gain a strategic advantage". You see that explained in the Low County (LC-)Gambit: The allied attacker declares war on LC to gain a strategic advantage (Rhein river protection for France) but the sacrifice is a delay in US war readiness. But in SC the word Gambit is mostly used in a more general way and means a certain move of a player connected with a Declaration Of War [DOW] that greatly affects the cource of a game. I.e. when the Allied attack Spain before the balkan countries join the axis. Feldtrompeter

Concering the soft attack value of armies or tanks. I think it would be more fitting if some attack and defence values won't better with each tech improvement but rather with each second or third improvement. For it does make a difference whether you attack infantery with IS2 or SU152 or Brumbärs which are tanks that have had very effective anti-infantry main guns compared to the early war tanks (PKW III or T-34). Of cause the better anti-infantry use of advanced tanks in WW2 won't justify improved soft attack values for tanks with each tech improvement. I think the following system would be worth considderation: tanks and armies: Lv0 - Lv2: soft attack value of 4 Lv3 - Lv4: soft attack value of 5 Lv5: soft attack value of 6 or: Lv0 - Lv1: soft attack value of 4 Lv2 - Lv3: soft attack value of 5 Lv4 - Lv5: soft attack value of 6

Hi Curry What happened to Vichy in your game? I bet, Germany got it and thus a direct hex connection from Rom to the French ports was never established. To built units in cities or ports the respective country needs a direct hex connection from that particular hex to its own capital. Yet it occurred once in a game I played that Russia was able to build a unit in Hamburg although a direct hex connection to Moskau did not exist. SC can be strange sometimes ... Feldtrompeter

Hi All Panzer General is also played at www.panzerliga.de It's a German site but it will get an international (English) section soon (hopefully). Panzer General Western Assault and Scortched Earth are not Win 2000 and XP compatible (German version for sure but likely also the English). You will have to do some research in forums to find a setting that will alow the game to run under XP. I use XP Professional and it is only now that I have installed an old driver for my graphic card that both games works under XP. (I use the 28.32 diver for my GeForce). Feldtrompeter

Denmark a non-factor? You guys must be kidding. In 1992 Denmark beat Germany in the European Soccer Championship final 2:0 and got the trophy. That doesn't sound like a non-factor to me. The US Soccer team was not even qualified. So who is factor and who is not! Feldtrompeter PS: Just adapting the level of argumentation that this threat has gotten to ... [ January 23, 2004, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Feldtrompeter ]

Hi Andreas You are correct that only one of the Maus perhaps saw combat but I don't think that this detail will either prove or disprove what I say: the prototype of the Maus may have seen combat. The side you mentioned says that one was in so much ready that it could have participate in combat. Quote from Panzerlexikon: "Bis zum Kriegsende wurden 11 Prototypen gebaut. Einer befand sich sogar in einsatzfähigem Zustand. Gerüchten zufolge, soll 1945 gegen die Sowjets gekämpft haben. Dies ist aber eher unwahrscheinlich. Die Prototypen wurden gesprengt als sowjetische Truppen das Versuchsgelände erreichten. Nach Versuchsprotokollen schlug sich der Maus bei Versuchsfahrten überraschend gut. Die sowjetischen Streitkräfte fanden schließlich auch die beiden funktionierenden Prototypen - zerstört von den eigenen Besatzungen." While this source says that the Maus did most likely never see combat there are other sources that leave it more open: Quote from Achtung Panzer: "The popular version states that V2 prototype was blown up by the personnel at proving grounds in Kummersdorf, while some sources state that actually V2 saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf." Quote from www.panzer-archiv.de: "Die beiden fertigen Panzer wurden nie offiziell in das Kriegsgeschehen beordert, obwohl es interessant gewesen wäre zu sehen, wie der Koloss sich bewährt hätte. Beide Panzer wurden auf dem Testgelände zerstört, bevor sie den voranstürmenden Rotarmisten in die Hände fallen konnten. Allerdings ist nicht sicher ob sie zerstört wurden oder erst noch gegen den Gegner kämpften." I think you miss my point. I never said that BF SHOULD have included the Maus, I said they COULD have done so. And that I would have apreciated it (for the same reasons Hawtin mentioned). Nothing more and nothing less. I also claim that it would not have been too difficult to gather the facts neccessary to feed the CM engine with accurate values for ground pressure, penetration stats, etc. Because I don't go for the "serial produced" Maus but for the prototype. The prototype is known and that I would have liked (Not demanded!) to see. I don't see how that sharing of opinion and wish could have caused the commotion it turned into. Feldtrompeter

Hi Soddball You sure - in contrast to me - are not capable of the German language. Otherwise you would not have stated most of your superfluous comments after I gave the link. Or you refused to give the link a try ... The Maus is a WELL recorded vehicle due to the dimension of the project and the curiousity that sparkles anyone when in deeper study about German tanks in WW II. The gun was the same that was mounted on the Jagdtiger and thus penetration values won't be that hard to gather ... The groundpressure is known also the amount of amo. For further questions we could even make a trip to Moskau and make the ultimate test. Sure, CMBB can't handle multiple guns. And that may be the only reason I see so far to exclude the Maus - but since BF did plan to include the Maus first, maybe we would have seen multiple guns in CMBB already had some forum user not persuaded them to drop the tank. As for your advise to not comment any further on this topic - that reveals more your character and attitude than my contributions to the topic discussed. Feldtrompeter

Hi Stikkypixie Yes, I can. There where two prototyps made and tested during Fall 1944. The Wehrmacht got one of them already in Juni 1944. They tried the tank in open country. It worked better than they had expected. However, the tank was more a rolling bunker than a tank ... Other prototypes where in the process of construction when the war endet. There are sayings that the two Maus that where fully build saw combat when defending the test territorium whereon they where stationed before they where destroyed by the crew. The Russians took the hull of one Maus placed the turret of the other on top and send the full tank to a Museum in Moskau. Feldtrompeter

Hi Little Pete Since the Maus is one of the Panzer that caught the interest of many involved in German tank development there are many who already found the answeres to the questions arising when thinking of including that tank in CM. On http://www.panzer-archiv.de/prototypen/deutschland/maus/maus.htm for instance there is a detailed technical description of the tank. I agree to your statement that the basical research on the Maus would have been not too much of a task compared to other WW II vehicles. Feldtrompeter