Exel

Obviously, considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombings.

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was purely politics. Both sides knew an clash of arms would be eventual, but both also wanted to buy time. Red Army wasn't ready for war in 1941, let alone in 1939. Stalin and Hitler certainly didn't consider each other "brothers of ideology", rather arch enemies. That's why the world was so shocked about their alliance. It was only a matter of time before the two would turn on each other - and they raced to be prepared. The Germans got there first.

I think U.S. underproduction could simply the fixed by giving them a free HQ. That would be a significant boost on its own (consider 2 chits research on IT).

It wasn't an option. Had the Germans not invaded first, the Russians would have. USSR simply wasn't ready in 1941, but given time they would have come over the border.

In preparation of the D-Day yes, but before you get there they will do a valuable job reducing the German MPPs.

It can mean a lot in the Med theater. Germans get their forces into Africa 2 turns later, you have 2 more turns to prepare your defenses (reinforce, move in fleet, bomb Tobruk, etc.). If you don't take advantage of the 2 turns, then of course it will be only marginal.

Even with the 2 free bombers you get (UK and US) you can at least keep the two Axis mines at 0 and/or force them to keep air fleets in guard.

But a delay of 1 or 2 turns in the surrender of France may be vital for your later success. I agree though that sending BEF to France versus a human opponent is a bit of a gamble. But the cost of losing it wont be spectacular in any case.

Not to mention that Egypt is in the reach of Axis forces, while Canada in all practical terms is a safe haven.

It should relocate to Canada. Is there any historical evidence to back up the idea of them fleeing to Egypt?

B.E.F. can be a valuable asset in France if used correctly. You can evacuate it before or after France surrenders, or if you lose it, rebuild it relatively cheaply in time to defend the Homeland for any eventual Sea Lion attempt.

Considering that units on Vichy soil will the relocated when France surrenders I don't think it would be too hard to do the same for the rest of France. Though it might be a good idea to limit the withdrawal so that if the unit is cut off or out of supply by Axis units then it can't escape.

Yeah, Canada is a little underpowered considering the number of troops she historically committed to battle. But on the other hand her MPPs go directly to the UK stash. Concerning surrender scripts, I think UK government to relocate to Canada instead of Egypt if London falls.

I'm sure you'd be fine too if USA was given 20 free army groups, all at max tech, 350% morale and special x2 bonus to killing German units, no? Surely it wouldn't still be realistic, but at least a step into the right direction and acceptable because we couldn't make the US forces realistically strong for game balance.

That's rather complicated to be quickly patched in. Not saying that it would be a bad suggestion as such, but I don't see why the amphib tech - if implemented - should be any different from other techs (as in why purchased instead of researched?). I also don't see the cost of the amphibs as a major problem, and though I wouldn't mind a tech for them, I don't think it is urgently needed. Reducing the amphibian range will make Sea Lion et al that much more difficult to pull of even without increasing the risk MPP wise.

I'm sick and tired of these editor comments. It's turning out exactly as I feared it would, at least for the communitys part. Nowadays it is rather a rule than exception that all suggestions on how to improve the game are countered with "use the editor" comments. I hope at least Hubert will stay from stepping into that trap. No matter how great it is, the editor will only serve a fraction of the community. Sure, the actives may do their changes and experiment with changes suggested by others, but what about the rest? You can't apply an improvement universally with the editor, you can do that only with a patch. Not all suggestions are of course worthy of being officially patched, but that's up to the devs to decide. Meanwhile let's stop using the editor argument in our discussions. Ugh.

Finland received plenty of arms tech from all sides of the war. First in 1939-40 from France, England and the US (eg. Brewster and Morane-Saulnier fighters) and later in 1941-44 from Germany (eg. Messerschmitts, StuGs, Panzerschreks and -fausts). Canadian troops similarly received weapons from the UK and the US (eg. Shermans). I'd suggest that the tech level of the minors would be that of the majors -1 level. It wouldn't overpower the minors but would retain them useful even later in the war.

Eeh. This thread is getting side-tracked big time. Let's get back to amphibious invasions and leave the Stars & Stripes debates for another time and place. Rambo included, please. Let's not drown the on-topic suggestions with a flood of totally unrelated posts, okay? Blashy or anyone, could the beta team test reducing the amphib. range to 3-5 and see how it effects the game? (Yes, I know I can do it with the editor, and I will, but if you deem it a good solution then it can be included in a patch.)

Because it is the simplest, easiest and by far the most functional solution to the issue. Unless you can suggest something better. LampCord btw didn't argue against reducing the range, he only stated that a range of 5 would still be problematic considering bomber spotting range (though now that I think of it, isn't it 6 tiles and not 5?).

Yes, like reducing the amphib. range. That takes like 5 minutes and get back to work on other things. The question is only what range to give them. LampCord made a good point about a range of 5, but on the other hand, any less and you can't invade Normandy from London in one turn. If that's not a problem then 3 would be fine.

I think this sums it up pretty well. Though I liked the original HoI even so much as to get myself into the beta team, I like SC1 better for its more tactical approach. HoI concentrated more on simulating production and economics while its battles were really abstract.

Well this is strange indeed... perhaps you two, or three, or whoever, should consider using private messages instead of confusing us poor innocent souls.

Doesn't the supply always trace to the nearest supply location?

Heh. Well the same mag rated SC1 worth 80-sumthin out of 100. In fact it was what introduced me to SC and made me download the demo in the first place. So any complaints of me being here can be directed to the editors.

It's a matter of taste, but I dislike the enormous micro-management of HoI, especially when playing majors. I also don't like the province system, too restrictive and artificial.