Exel

Oh my god. I think my brain just melted reading your post Desert Dave. :eek: Mass referendums have two huge problems, one practical and one political. First, organizing referendums in large countries is expensive as hell. Plus, involving the mass populace in constant referendums would probably sink the electoral activity even further as people would tire in constant voting (look at the US for example). Second, how to translate difficult political questions into simple YES/NO polls to be called on by the public in referendums? He who formulates the question has tremendous power.

Mandatory voting is in most cases unnecessary and as such should be avoided. Not voting is a statement of opinion as well as voting, and should be permitted in a democracy.

I've seen the Allies invade the northern Norwegian town (and port) after it was left empty by the Axis. But no other moves on Norway, even though the western port town was left empty as well.

At least they are manipulated by more special interests and more equally than in any other form of government. That, and those subject to the manipulation (legislators and executives) can be changed periodically by the public. As Churchill said; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".

SC2 definitely has the right bang for the buck.

Oh, oh yeah. I'd LOVE to have an option to pick a side and continue the war now between Allies and the USSR from where the game was left when the Axis surrendered. :cool:

Pardon me but how is any of that going to "destroy the United States"? Is the author a religious fundamentalist? I though religious fundamentalism was the enemy of USA, not its cornerstone.

Sounds interesting. Will be waiting for the full AAR. :cool: Edit: Come to think of it, wouldn't it be cool to have a replay feature in SC2? Something á la the Civilization games where you can take a quick recap of everything that has happened from start to end - nothing too detailed, maybe like the whole map shrunk to fit the screen, showing the frontlines and the areas controlled and then auto fast forwarding the turns in a couple of minutes.

For the coalition warfare part that's probably true, Bromley, since Hitler did indeed favor bilateral agreements with each of the allies separately. Finland for example was very little if at all engaged with the other Axis partners except for Germany. But coordinating war efforts is different from sharing technology and equipment. The part about Luftwaffe not sharing aircraft or aircraft engines is outright plain wrong. Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland all operated significant numbers of German aircraft, in many cases the newest models available. Germany also contributed its allies with direct aid in supplies, equipment and even troops. It certainly intervened for Italy's poor success several times (Balkans, Africa). In 1944 when Finland faced the Soviet grand offensive, Hitler sent an air force detachment to help the Finns, along with the German troops already present in the country since 1941, as well as the weapons shipments I mentioned earlier. If you'll take a look at www.wwiivehicles.com listings of armored vehicles in all of the Axis countries, you'll note that Germany supplied all of its allies with hundreds of tanks and assault guns of various types, not to mention other equipment. Germany may not have coordinated its efforts well with its allies, but it certainly did help them with equipment and troops.

That one I'd like to see. Would make a heck of a lot more sense than a mere corps there causing all that trouble. It would also give the Allied player the concrete option of playing it safe with reduced effect (land unit) or increasing the effect but at the cost of making the island itself more vulnerable (bomber).

The metric system is oh-so superior. Come to Europe and you'll learn it too - and will never look back again!

You only think of beaches, don't you?

[insert something corny about European women here]

How is San Fransisco "world travel"? Come to Europe.

I don't know where such ideas come from, really. Both Germany and Italy actively supported their minor allies with equipment. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria all operated PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw 35(t)/38(t) and StuGs in significant numbers. Finland too operated StuGs. Hungary even received some Tigers and Panthers. All of the above countries flew Messerschmitt Bf109s in their air forces, and most of them had other German (and Italian) aircraft in their ranks as well. Romania also had strong domestic aircraft production, notably with its indigenous I.A.R. 80 fighter and 81 dive-bomber. Germany wasn't picky about sharing small-arms either. Finland received large shipments of pzfausts and pzschreks at a time when Germany was in grave need of them itself (1944). So as far as history is concerned, it's not even a debate. The question now is only of game design and whether or not Hubert chooses to implement it.

That's some pretty impressive detail in the animations!

Like Bromley said, it already would cost them more as they lag behind in production tech also.

The question is, why would anyone want to change alliances in SC2? If you are playing Germany and would be allied with USSR at the start, why would you want to break it? If, on the other hand, you were playing the Allies, controlling USSR, why would you want to help Germany grab Poland any faster? The game mechanics would have to be completely different (something akin to HoI) for that to be feasible.

Been a while since I've checked these forums, and it seems another patch is on the way. Relating to that, I'd like to know if there are any plans to make minor nations benefit from tech advances of the majors? I'd still propose that the minors would get techs one level below their "host nation". So that if Germany develops IW level 2, it's minor allies will get IW level 1. This would make the minor nations' units far more useful even late in the game and it also has historical backing. On the Axis side Finland and Romania make great examples of tech transfers from Germany to its allies while the Commonwealth in general make for an equal case on the Allied side.

I'll repeat my point: The only thing wrong with the current tech system is that the tech levels leap too much in performance. If the bonus from going to Lvl1 something to Lvl2 something was less dramatic the problem would be solved. No more game killer lucky strikes with one side getting IW3 while the other is stuck with IW0 and then dominating the whole game.

I assume that was your way of saying "signed". Hubert decides. But Hubert also listens.

You do realize that the big releases of big companies are not big hits because of having great AIs? They make big because they have big money behind them - or for the same reason fail big. I can point out a great many hugely successful RTS games that have flat out awful AIs. Making a good AI is difficult and as a result expensive. A game with millions poured in can't be delayed a couple of months just for a competitive AI - no one buys a game for a good AI. It is far cheaper to just make the AI cheat, which is what 99% of games do. SC2 AI does not cheat unless you make it (exp bonus).

We have effectiveness and morale as separate factors. No need to model those in tech. That would just be double standards. The fact of the matter is that Romania had good equipment, and they also fought with it well. That they had poor morale by Stalingrad is something quite different and should be modeled by, well, morale.

We have effectiveness and morale as separate factors. No need to model those in tech. That would just be double standards. The fact of the matter is that Romania had good equipment, and they also fought with it well. That they had poor morale by Stalingrad is something quite different and should be modeled by, well, morale.

I still don't see a problem in allowing them to be one level behind. Think about it. If Germany gets IW3, the minors can only ever be at max IW2. And Germany still has to pay for every one of those upgrades. They wont be any magical free bonuses. Besides any advantage Germany would get is countered by the Allied minors getting the same benefits too. What it would do is only to make the minor units effective and usable. At the moment they are of little use aside from garrison duty and cannon fodder. Level 0 infantry or fighters are simply no match against level 2 of the same. It's all in historical context as well. When Germany had FockeWulfs Finland and Romania had Messerschmitts.