Exel

The rope around Finland and Romania tightens, and though it is only a matter of time when they will drop dead, they are just as prepared to make a last, courageous and stubborn stand against their oppressors. The heroic defence of Königsberg by the Finnish volunteer corps was only foretaste of things to come. Germany's fate may be decided as well, but for now they show no sign of collapsing - Russia may outproduce us in time, but we will nevertheless make them fight like hell for their gains.

Vichy forces fight harder than expected, but they will fall soon nevertheless. Heroic resistance in Germany causes heavy losses to the Soviet once again, while own casualties remain minimal. If you hoped for a quick ending, you will be disappointed.

While the Germans build their (hopefully) impregnable defensive line in the east, Italy strives with great success to create a new Roman Empire in the south. Vichy is soon dealt with, and the defenders of Athens surrender before the overwhelming invasion force. Sir Arngrims human-wave tactics with the Soviets seems to work, causing him the loss of two armies.

I definitely support the idea of making units retreat. That'd add a lot to the realism of amphibious landings, as you could no longer prevent them simply by blocking the beaches with guard units. [ April 29, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

With the last-minute aid from Finland and Romania, Germany prepares to make the last stand around Berlin and Prague. Though with the entrance of Royal Navy into the Baltic Sea in force secured Sweden for good and foiled my plans of last reprisal attack, I will make Sir Arngrim fight for his victory.

Why do I always hit "quote" when I intend to hit "edit"...

Most minors have ahistorically small armies in SC1, and Jugoslavia's situation is even worse compared to Poland. That is due to game balance reasons, since those countries need to be fast run-overs. As long as country-specific units aren't included, the situation can't change. [ April 29, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

Don't generalize everything the Germans do to the whole Europe. Haven't seen the movie, but if it explicitly features Nazi swastikas then it has a good chance of being illegal in Germany. Don't know how the Germans have coped with some of the episodes in Band of Brothers.

No, not the way it is in Germany. There's no ban for using it in historical context, ie. in movies, games and so forth. Of course the use of any Nazi symbology in any incriminating or racist manner is forbidden, but swastikas themselves are not banned.

No, it is not. It is only illegal in Germany and some other countries (France?) that still find the subject too sensitive to be discussed about or presented in any way. Swastika has never been illegal in the Nordic countries for example. And let's not forget that the Nazi swastika isn't the only swastika in existence, yet the German law bans all of them (talk about overreaction?).

People please, stop comparing Civ3, Alpha Centauri or Combat Mission to SC. Just because they feature some other movement system than hexes doesn't make them comparable. They are totally different kind of games. You could just as well say that top-down view is better than everything else because Grand Prix Manager 2 had a top-down view. For the love of god... Ron, I get your point, but situations where such odds occured where exceptions rather than a common rule. And such odds hardly ever appeared on grand strategic corps, let alone army level, but instead in limited tactical concentrations. Plus, in the combat system of SC 10:1 odds would mean a certain defeat for the defender, which was not nearly always the case irl. As long as SC doesn't feature morale as a potentially beneficial combat modifier, I don't believe the system can ever model realistic combat outcomes where an otherwise inferior side holds against or beats an overwhelming opponent.

Didn't prepare an AAR, but some comments: I was afraid that he might launch attack on LC, but I decided to press for Poland with all I've got, finish it off fast and then turn west. However I wasn't fast enough and I couldn't counter the LC attack in time. I had immense trouble getting through his newly formed line in LC and every step forward was darkened by setbacks. With a stroke of luck Arngrim was able to destroy a few valuable units, and though costly his air campaign may have been, it kept Luftwaffe busy and drained my MPPs. I was hard pressed to keep the initiative on my side in the west, and my MPP production simply wasn't enough to cover all the expenses - depriving me of my LC plunder sure didn't help. My inability to take France in time shocked me, and soon I came to realize that even if I succeeded, I would no longer have time to recover and prepare for the onslaught in the east. Now France has finally fallen, but only a turn after Soviet DOW. I'm preparing for the last stand - this aint over yet. The success of Kriegsmarine has been almost the only dim light for me in this game. It's been a humbling experience.

No, but neither could he know the true potential and abilities of Zhukov at that point. The choice of putting someone new in charge is always a gamble, more or less. Many of the to-become great leaders were strongly criticized by their superiors and predecessors before (and even after) they had shown their talents. That list is long, but Guderian, Monty and - indeed - Zhukov should make adequate examples to prove my point.

Was he in charge for the whole duration of the Winter War 1939-1940, or did he just replace someone in 1940 and get things running? If the latter, then I may award some credit for him, but if he was indeed in charge from the beginning, then I'd really have to suggest making him one of the worst Soviet commanders in the pool. [ April 27, 2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

How about just buying a general HQ unit without being able to select which one? The rank and name of the unit would then be randomly selected from a list. If you were lucky, you could get Rommel, but you'd have no way of knowing it in advance.

Let's debate then... If he was the guy leading the army on the Finnish front, then I'd suggest seriously degrading his rating. How exactly was his performance any good? In the grand offensive of 1944 in the Continuation War the Soviets had overwhelming odds on every branch and they still didn't manage to break through at Tali-Ihantala. I wouldn't exactly congratulate the commander for good performance on that one...

I suggested it on the Tiles/Hexes thread. But it wasn't exactly the same, only very similar. We seem to think alike. And good that you brought it up on a separate thread.

I support this idea (hell, I suggested it in the first place), though I'd make a little alteration to it, so that you can stack units without any namely set limit, but the units in the stack wouldn't be allowed to be of the same type - you could stack an air fleet with corps, but you couldn't stack two ground units or two air fleets.

The only case where I would endorse stacking would be a mix of different unit types, ie. you could stack a ground unit with an air unit but not two ground units or two air units. That would solve issues like Malta and potential problems with Pacific theatre maps while still keeping the system simple. I still refuse to accept the arguments that moving to tiles was a necessity because on a straight front you could only attack with 2:1 odds. First of all, that is actually more realistic, and secondly, there are plenty of other ways of solving the hard-breakthrough-issue than moving to tiles. Increasing the effectiveness of tanks for one, as I've already mentioned several times in this thread.

Okay, I stand corrected, 5 attacks it is. Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds.

I agree with the principle but not with the examples. Canada was part of the Commonwealth and Hungary and Bulgaria were pretty much the bitches of Germany. In both cases the minors did what they were told to do. The MPP they produce should be usable for their own uses, but the major nation they are attached to should also be able to override this, using the MPP for its needs instead. Other countries like Spain, Turkey and Finland on the other hand should work the way you said, ie. the major power can't overtake the production. That's what I think anyway.

Ouch, that's two more sharp points than squares... </font>

The question was will they need HQ support?

I've been doing this all along, in this thread and others. It was while studying the effects of tiles when I concluded that hexes would be my choice for the game, but let's not return to that... Anyway, I'm going to keep digging and tossing in suggestions for how to overcome some of the problems that tiles may bring with them. After all, since tiles are the way Hubert has decided to take, it would be in all of our best interest to see the tile-system perfected as far as possible. Now, one major problem that should be addressed is, as already mentioned, the effect that comes up if a bulge or wedge of any size is formed to an otherwise straight front line; the lead unit will potentially get hammered by up to 6 enemy units. I'm not going to repeat my view of the realism of the situation, but this is a potential game-killer if it's not carefully investigated. Or does Hubert already have a solution for the issue?

This issue - it certainly is one - has been addressed numerous times in the tiles/hexes debate, but so far without any response from Battlefront officials nor HC.