Exel

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.

About tech being broken... In my most humble opinion I don't think the problem is with too fast advancement, too much luck dependancy, tech limits, costs, or anything. The core problem I believe is the leaping tech advantages. The gains from tech level should not be as dramatic as they are now. IW3 should be superior to IW0 and clearly so, but it should not be whoop-ass dominant. Similarly in air craft tech leading your opponent with 1 level should give an advantage, but not a decisive one. So please, reduce the tech bonuses to unit attributes, and if necessary increase the number of tech levels. Instead of gaining IW3 performance at level 3, you'd instead get it only at IW5 - thus each level would be more incremental as opposed to a gigantic leap.

Hear hear. Let's make it a petition, as there really is no debate about this. So... Signed.

German arms exports to its peers was considerable. It may have not been a huge portion of its production, but it sure was significant considering the size of the receiving forces. The number of minor units isn't so big that it would tip the balance off to any direction, and the funds for the upgrades would still have to come from German MPPs. I just don't see why the minor units should be inherently weaker than those of the majors. It is written history that German anti-tank weapons in Finnish hands horrified the Soviet tankers in 1944 much like Molotov cocktails had in 1939. Bf109s formed the bulk of Finnish Air Force in 1941-45 and the same was true with PzKpfw III and IV for the Rumanian armor. Romania built indigenous fighters, the IAR-80, which equalled early Bf109s. Then of course we can remember that neither Romania or Finland has tank groups and only Romania has an air fleet. It would not be disproportionate to allow Finns and Rumanians to benefit from -1 Axis techs.

German arms exports to its peers was considerable. It may have not been a huge portion of its production, but it sure was significant considering the size of the receiving forces. The number of minor units isn't so big that it would tip the balance off to any direction, and the funds for the upgrades would still have to come from German MPPs. I just don't see why the minor units should be inherently weaker than those of the majors. It is written history that German anti-tank weapons in Finnish hands horrified the Soviet tankers in 1944 much like Molotov cocktails had in 1939. Bf109s formed the bulk of Finnish Air Force in 1941-45 and the same was true with PzKpfw III and IV for the Rumanian armor. Romania built indigenous fighters, the IAR-80, which equalled early Bf109s. Then of course we can remember that neither Romania or Finland has tank groups and only Romania has an air fleet. It would not be disproportionate to allow Finns and Rumanians to benefit from -1 Axis techs.

Micromanagement does not equal depth. HoI has plenty, and I still consider SC2 to have more tactical depth in it. Too much detail is often used to cover up an otherwise hollow game, whereas on the other hand a successful game design does not need all those pesky distractions. Oh and rambo had it coming.

All minors should benefit from the tech gains of the majors. Imho the best solution would be to give a minor a tech level one lower than that of its parent major. So if Germany achieves Advanced Fighers Lvl3, Finland would be granted Advanced Fighters Lvl2. History backs it up. Your example of the Commonwealth goes for the Allies, but similarly for the Axis Finland and Romania were major importers of German (and partly Italian) weapons. Finland operated StuGs, Messerschmitts, Panzerfausts and -schreks among others. Similarly Romania operated StuGs and Panzer III and IV.

All minors should benefit from the tech gains of the majors. Imho the best solution would be to give a minor a tech level one lower than that of its parent major. So if Germany achieves Advanced Fighers Lvl3, Finland would be granted Advanced Fighters Lvl2. History backs it up. Your example of the Commonwealth goes for the Allies, but similarly for the Axis Finland and Romania were major importers of German (and partly Italian) weapons. Finland operated StuGs, Messerschmitts, Panzerfausts and -schreks among others. Similarly Romania operated StuGs and Panzer III and IV.

This proves that the amphibious system is still inadequate. Nerf the range further to 3 or 4 tiles for the level 0 boats or implement Rolend's suggestion. What did you expect after taking UK? It should be a lot harder for Germany to take UK in the first place, but if they succeed, it should be a pretty guaranteed win on the Western front - US would have a real hard time invading Europe alone.

Oh my gods! :eek: How can YOU of all people drive Bunta and Jap cars?

Bombers don't reduce entrenchment afaik. And no of course France should be no cake walk, I'm merely arguing that invasion supply would allow landings on non-city areas of the map, with the goal of perhaps taking an inland city (Paris) instead of an obvious port city target.

Even with a HQ the units can not, after one turn, take any city within their reach. Taking on Benelux is hard even on turn 1. Taking Paris on turn 2 is damn near impossible.

All I'm saying is that currently you can't invade in places like Normandy. And that's where it historically happened, in case you forgot. The Allies did not invade in Brest or Calais. If any invading unit would have inherent supply for at least the one turn after the invasion, it would open much more realistic opportunities. Taking a city and a port on turn 1 would not be as mandatory as it is now.

All that is true, and by no means should the Allies have an easy supply right after invasion. But as it is currently, they have NO supply. A historical landing in Normandy is impossible (or pure suicide) since you can't take Paris on the first turn and there is no harbor available. Hence you will have to invade in Brest or Benelux to secure the port on turn 1. Amphibious invasions having an inherent supply for the units for a limited period of time (33% chance to lose it every turn wont guarantee it for long) would allow some historical operations that aren't currently possible - most notably Overlord.

Which is another point that still need to be addressed with amphibious tech. Some of us suggested prior to the patch that amphibious invasions should bring with them inherent supply for the units with for example a 33% chance each turn of losing it (alternatively a set turn limit). Now that we have the tech, and if we apply Rolend's system, we could have that feature at Level 2 (or whatever is the highest).

Okay, all the über-Americanism aside, now you've gone too far. You are honestly trying to argue that Blitzkrieg was an American invention?

21, male, the resident Finn of these forums. I'd be surprised if any women turned themselves in.

No one is downplaying the importance of the U.S. involvement. We are only arguing that the Americans didn't single-handedly own the Germans like rambo is claiming. They had to fight and they had their drawbacks too. The result of the war was obvious to anyone in 1943 at the latest. Defeat of the Axis was only a question of how and when. The Germans put up a stiff resistance and delayed the inevitable for years, first in Italy and then in France and Benelux. The Allies didn't simply walk over them.

Yes, damage to ships from bombing coastal tiles should definitely go. It's enough that carriers take damage from attacking (actually, too much).

I'm all in favor of Roland's suggestion if it only is applicable. If not, just go with range reduction.

Bunta is rambo slang. Never ever use it outside of these forums. In fact I'd appreciate if you left it out of any discussion that didn't include rambo (in those it is permitted because he is inevitably going to use it anyways, regardless of the topic).

Of course he screwed up. I merely pointed out that prior to Dunkirk and Battle of Britain his record was nearly flawless. What happened after that is another matter. By the outbreak of the war Poland had mobilized about 1,000,000 men - that's one million men for you. Poland also had tanks, among them some of the best in the world at that time, the French R-35 and their own 7TP. In contrast the Germans attacked with 1,500,000 men. German tanks at the time were mostly clearly inferior PzKpfw I and II models. The only clear superiority the Germans had in initial OOBs was their air force, and it proved decisive (together with tactical genious). Still the Poles put up a good fight: the Germans lost 30% of their armored vehicles and even suffered losses against the outnumbered, outgunned but extremely valiant Polish air force. Atlantic? So good that the UK was almost exhausted to defeat by the sub blockade. And it would have if it weren't for the Americans helping out in convoy escorts and ship tonnage. Stalingrad? If you look at the map you can observe that it certainly is no easy thing to attack as far as Stalingrad. It was Hitler's blunders that doomed the southern German army to defeat (not denying any credit from the Red Army). N.Africa? The British were having their arses handed over to them before El Alamein. Despite being clearly superior numerically. Afrika Korps were stopped by supply problems and the inability to replace losses. Bulge? Somehow I remember reading from history books and seeing from American documentaries that the Allied forces actually routed at Bulge. The attack also came as a total surprise to the Allied command. Overall the campaign was no success for the Germans, rather the opposite, but the initial attack was a blow for the Allies. France was by no means a cakewalk. Are you saying that the thousands of American soldiers who lost their lives in the ETO just didn't fancy to go rambo and own every Bunta anymore and instead chose to let themselves be killed? I'm sure American WWII veterans would appreciate your comments.

Actually prior to BoB Göring was all but phenomenal. It is easy to say with hindsight that his plan for Britain was not very smart, but before that he was next to flawless, so we can't really blame the German command for trusting him.

Harbors on the other hand shouldn't give as much protection from attacks as they do now. Not from aerial attacks anyway. Pearl Harbor anyone?