Slapaho

Only 2 countries fought a true 'world war', Britain and the USA. Britain could not have done this without the help of the Canadians, Indians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. All this required good leadership on the part of Churchill, but the commitment and sacrifice of those nations to fight in theatres 1000's of miles from their homes, just like the Americans. Just like the Americans they deserve respect for their sacrifice. Tweaking the game to represent the nuances of the then leadership (as you take the role of overall leader in the game) would be very difficult, imho. For example, the British/USA agreed a 'Germany first' approach, something which the american generals did not like as they saw Japan as (and rightly so) a more direct threat to the US homeland. To represent a possible US 'Japan first' strategy, you could halve the US MPP production, which would effectively garauntee the US ability to contribute to a European campaign would take at least a year or more from their entry into the war.

from a historical point of view, germany didn't start a total war production process until after the appointment of albert speer in february 1942. even then it was far from perfect, but a lot better than upto that point. maybe this would be a good trigger? to model countries economic and production capabilities i think is too complex, when you consider germany had not only racial and cultural constraints but also, due to the perception of the 1st world war being lost due to the collapse of the 'home front', hitler tried to create the perception in germany everything was great. this meant soldiers had more leave, rations were kept artificially high in germany, women were not co-opted into industry (the use of poor quality, badly fed and very ill treated slave labour used instead) and more importantly men themselves were used in industry as opposed to military service. on a similar theme, i believe a better way to model industrial factors is to limit the amount of 're-inforcements' that can be generated in a month, dependent upon the nation. for example, fighter production in the UK out-stripped the number of available pilots. america, in 1944 could replaced each tank lost in a month with 10, whereas germany could replace every 10 tanks lost with 1 (not accurate, just an illustration). similar restrictions could be used for creating military formations, as opposed to the 're-inforcing' of an existing unit, which is nicely modelled with the loss of experience. to generate even a corps in 1944 for germany was almost impossible, they did this by reducing divisional sizes down from 9-15 thousand men to around 1 thousand men and reducing the number of batallions from 6 to 4. this in effect on paper made them look strong, but in real terms they had very weak armies. i think the question is, is the game a model based upon the starting point of 1939, with a clean canvas in terms of ideology and political effects, other than the simple triggers like USA and USSR never allying with the germans, axis and allied minors, etc, or a game that historically models the 2nd world war to the point that it is impossible for germany to win. somewhere in the middle is nice

blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

I wonder if there will be a demo version released at / before / after the main SC2 is released ? the demo is a very good way of selling the full version (thats how i got it)

The problem in Japan was that the military were in control and did not want to end the war, even after the two bombs were dropped. The civilian members of the Japanese government had already tried (unsuccessfully) to broker peace through their Russian envoy, as the USA would only accept the complete surrender and abdication of the Japanese Emperor. The fact that the Russians witheld vital information from the USA about the Japanese peace approach did not help, the fact is (according to Roosevelts own diary, Japans refusal to concur with the Potsdam Declaration meant that they faced 'utter destruction'. Kyoto - the origonal target for the 1st bomb was rejected on grounds of preserving Japans 'spiritual heart' shows that even in the picking of targets for destruction, post war thoughts were in the mind of the USA. Hiroshima was primarily on the list due to the lack of PoW known to be present in the city. It is believed around 20 US prisoners were actually killed in Hiroshima. If you want books to read, then read Roosevelts memoirs, Churchills, Molotovs etc. Also, the national archives for most countries have the documents from that time open to public viewing. So where it can be argued that the civilian members of the Japanese council were suing for peace (and the emperor is also shown to want to end the war), the fact is the military ran the government and they most certainly did not want to end the war. If you read the Japanese government documents of the time, the generals were more concerned about the Russian agression than the nuclear bombs that were dropped.

jon_j_rambo Your opinions are not the same thing as facts or knowledge. You obviously didn't read my post (or comprehend it?) so please don't belittle something beyond your own limits by such crass statements as 'another stupid comment'. I dont mind you disagreeing with something, but at least have the decency, or even the ability, to be able to qualify your statements beyond what is your own actual opinion. Take your own advice "......you need to think before you type"

Having worked both in the usage end initially (in the army) and in the manufacturing / maintainance / de-commissioning end more recently, I would like to add that imho I dont believe the introduction of the option of creating nuclear weapons will in any way enhance either SC or the holy grail known as SC II. It is a simple fact from all the available evidence that Germany would never have been able to construct a viable nuclear weapon. Delivery of such a system would also be open to discussion as Germany posessed neither a suitable aircraft nor rocket capable of delivering the weapon, based upon the dimensions of the US weapon. With respect to research, Germany had limited research resources and thankfully they already wasted a lot of them in elaborate weapons systems which proved to be absolutely useless and a waste of precious resources for areas they could have been MUCH greater used in. For every success they achieved (the Jet fighter, V1, V2, MP44, etc) there were 1000's of failures. America on the other hand had not only the resources and capacity in abundance without adversely affecting other key research areas, they had the largest collection of physicists in the world, boosted in no small way by all the european scientists who fled the axis tyranny (pity Fuchs was a spy for the Russian though). The effects of a nuclear attack are also greatly exagerrated. Japan was already suing for peace prior to the use of the nuclear weapons. As has been pointed out, by 1945, with unrestricted bombing, long range fighter escort and lack of a cohesive air defence policy, 'conventional' bombers could achieve the same results as that of a VERY expensive and difficult to handle nuclear weapon. Finally, about nuclear weapons in general Nuclear weapons are a terror weapon of 'mass' destruction with an overly exagerrated destructive capability. The majority of Cold War weapons were not aimed at enemy cities but at enemy silo's and command and control centres. There was also a huge arsenal of 'tactical' warheads (usually launched from a trailer on a rocket with a maximum range of 50km). Far from a last resort weapon, in the event of Russian aggression across the German border, a lot of battlefield weapons would have been employed against the Russian invaders to check their advance. In other words, they were 1st option weapons. Anyway, the long and short of it is the majority of people understand nuclear weapons and their uses and capabilities from 'information' from the government, mainly generated during the cold war. A final point - there was never EVER enough weapons to destroy the world or humanity. There was always more than enough to destroy mans current level of existence. Japanese houses were match sticks in comparison to concrete and steel structures generally found in the West. Without going into detail, the destructive force of a nuclear weapon is dependent not only on target type, but also terrain (as proven in Nagasaki). Todays weapons are 1000's of times more potentially destructive, yet, due to the laws of physics most weapons are limited due to the inverse cube law - or as the manufacturer like to say 'a good bang for the bucks' - which means creating huge weapons is not worth it for the money as the exponential cost does not produce an increased yield worth it. This is from somewhere on the web I cut and pasted a year or so ago for a lecture I gave on nuclear power and weapons in the 21st century, as it summed up very nicely what I wanted to say. I am sorry that I cant credit the words to whoever initially wrote them. "Blast effect is a volume effect. The blast wave deposits energy in the material it passes through, including air. When the blast wave passes through solid material, the energy left behind causes damage. The more matter the energy travels through, the smaller the effect. The amount of matter increases with the volume of the imaginary sphere centered on the explosion. Blast effects thus scale with the inverse cube law which relates radius to volume." sleep easy

i believe that is correct - although you may also have to disable your/their firewall

First I will start by saying I enjoy SC very much and am looking forward to SC2. I am still learning the nuances of SC but have, after playing several people and the AI, got some points. Also having read many of the discussions around the game/historical relevance of certain parts of the game I thought I would add some more ideas. The information I used comes from the following references for those who like reading this stuff; Achtung – Panzer : Major-General Heinz Guderian (English version translated by Christopher Duffy) Truppen auf Kraftwagen und Fliegerabwehr : Major-General Heinz Guderian SIEGFRIED – The Nazis’ Last Stand : Charles Whiting The British Army 1939 : http://home.adelphia.net/~dryan67/orders/ukhome.html British Official History : The Ministry of Defence (British National Library) Nice site: http://www.shef.ac.uk/mr-home/hobbies/ger2.html SC is a very simplified (but not simple) representation of many key attributes of world war 2 and therefore I accept that this leads to an amount of ‘unrealistic’ occurrences within the game. With the playability being balanced with the realism (and nicely done) in SC, I am just hoping that a larger degree of realism in SC2 is introduced, without sacrificing playability. Without churning over ground that has been discussed at length by much more qualified people than myself, I have just some questions and observations. Firstly I think the MPP production for 1939 onwards is disproportionate to the actual ability of the major aggressors of the war to achieve, based upon the current game mechanics and in particular to Germany pre-Barbarossa. Also, the actual sizes of the formations changed through the war due to limitations of weapons and/or greater command and control efficiency and also the role of a formation, especially after Kursk where the German army had to take a defensive posture and the tactics/formations/weaponry matched this. The only way I can see of simulating this is by assigning MPPs to specific manufacturing, with sub sets: (these figures are examples) ARMOUR.....COST (MPP) per 100 LIGHT.........10 MEDIUM........20 HEAVY.........30 SP Guns.......20 AIRFORCE.....COST (MPP) per 100 FIGHTER...........10 GROUND ATTACK.....15 LIGHT BOMBER......20 MEDIUM BOMBER.....30 HEAVY BOMBER......40 TRAINING.....COST (MPP) SUPPORT.......1 per 1000 INFANTRY......2 per 1000 TANK MEN......3 per 1000 PILOTS.......10 per 100 Based on SC figures; Army = approx. 80,000 men Corps = approx. 40,000 men Tank Group = A mechanised Corps with extra armoured divisions. Thus, manufacturing choices can be made with a requirement that, for example a panzer formation can only be created once the required amount of armour has been produced AND there are enough trained men (tank men and infantry). Also, when sending out bombing missions, specific targets can be aimed for (for example an aircraft factory) which will mean an introduction of a more realistic strategic bombing campaign. The weighting for certain nations in certain areas (for example Britains increased manufacture of spitfires and training of pilots) could be offset by their relatively low armour production. It will also prevent an ‘over-balance’ of the more complex units, require a long term strategic thinking and simulate the resource situation more adequately. The following table represents a post war analysis of the strategic bombing results, carried out by the British in an attempt to justify the levelling of German cities in 1944 and 1945. The figures clearly show that production and techniques of production in Germany was able to withstand and actually increase even though the amount of bombing increased exponentially. The only area truly affected was Germanys synthetic oil production, BUT this was absolutely critical and of a greater impact on Germany than the slower production of, for example, tanks. Three things are required for a nation to be able to sustain a war, advanced weapon systems (tanks, planes, artillery, etc), trained men and fuel. Remove one and the other two become useless. German troops in late 1944 through to 1945 became largely impotent due to a lack of not weapons or men, but fuel. Essentially the army ground to a halt which allowed mobile allied forces to carve them up at will. The allies themselves suffered in critical battles due to lack of fuel where it mattered and thus the war took longer than maybe it would of to finish due to the extended supply lines. DATE.....1....2......3.....4 1940...(10)..(10)...(2)..(4.4) 1941...(20)..(10)...(4)..(5.8) 1942...(40)..(12)...(6)..(6.1) 1943..(220)..(23)..(12)..(7.6) 1944..(900)..(39)..(19)..(5.2) Column 1 = Approximate Bombs Dropped by allied bombers over Germany (x 1000 tons) 2 = German Aircraft production (x 1000) 3 = German Tank Production (x 1000) 4 = Oil Production (x million metric tons) In terms of unit representation, although relatively accurate, the figures do not add up in terms of combat troops when considering 2 million Germans and 1 million axis allies lined up for Barbarossa and the only thing that I can see explaining the difference (from Barbarossa mission) is that of combat troops shown with support troops (the Wehrmacht had approximately a 1:5 ratio) being assumed and not shown. The size of the forces involved on the current map size should allow for ‘stacking’ units. Also retreat should be implemented as, even with orders to stand and die, whole corps would flee in the face of overwhelming forces (example being the Americans during the Ardennes offensive). Also, the intent of fighting an offensive battle was to take the terrain occupied by the defending forces, thus if the defender is destroyed or forced to retreat then the attacker 'should' occupy the vacated area. Units surrounded and cut off from supply/command that are forced to retreat should 'surrender'. The arrangement of the Divisions within a Corps could be of a framework type, ie to create an Infantry Corps, the required number of men and equipment is fixed and on having suitable numbers of these, a Corps can be raised. It would be possible to create weakened Corps, Panzer Corps (or Tank Groups) and armies. Also, by using SP Guns as opposed to Medium and Heavy tanks, a more defensive unit would be formed, but with a much reduced offensive capability. To reduce complexity, this would have to be chosen with the assumption that support and specialist troops (engineers, anti aircraft battalions, etc) were included automatically. Going back to MPP production, I feel that the current SC model used breaks down due to the unrealistic amount the Axis forces can attain pre-Barbarossa. There has been many solutions offered in these forums, from diplomatic type (penalising Germany/Allies for invading certain countries) to MPP penalties (the Axis/Allies gain no plunder or MPP for taking certain countries). IMHO the answer is to address both. For example, the French factories used to further the Axis war machine were often a target of sabotage by the French resistance (mostly passive in that they directed critical parts to the wrong end of France and back). The addition of Norway, Poland, Hungary, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Ukraine, (and Spain) etc., had little real input on the ability of German war output to the point that is currently shown in SC. A truer representation is to simply have a fixed MPP production rate per country that increases per turn at a static rate, with a small % growth for conquered nations (with different rates for different countries, depending on their size). Also, where countries like Britain and Russia went very quickly to a ‘Total War’ footing, Germany was much slower, which can be reflected in the beginning of the game by starting the UK at a lower MPP and having it rise more quickly and it also makes an early Barbarossa more beneficial for the Germans, with a much tougher job if Axis don’t invade prior Autumn 1941. The same penalty would be evident if Germany didn’t invade France in time as France would also have a ‘rising’ MPP that reflected its mobilisation and national war footing. Sorry for the long rambling post, if you read it all thanks. As a footnote, I served in the British army from 1987 and served in the Royal Artillery (40th Field Regiment, 7th RHA Parachute Regiment and 50th Missile). Although obviously modernernised, a lot of the command and control, structure and tactics remain relatively unchanged in the modern army that were formulated and honed in World War 2, for what we term a conventional war.

i am a newbie so this may already be known and i would not call it a bug, it just seemed strange to me when axis attacking in russia, surround Moscow but do not take it, Russians then cannot 1. relocate its capitol 2. buy new units the russians can still re-inforce damaged units, but the fact they cannot buy new units means they are at a massive disadvantage and the axis can simply roll up any russian forces at their own pace.

I too live in the UK and I send 1 turn per day to most people I play. Sometimes if I am up at 3am I may reply to an American opponents turn The games I have played via email have tended to enter a pattern (until the last round of virus crippled my email server!), depending on where the person I am playing lives and how many turns they will do. Most seem to be 1 a day - except weekends where some ont play at all and others are a lot more active. If you want to play me (peterbeach@hotmail.com) just drop me a line with your (axis) move, or a message to say you want me to be axis. If you want a tcp/ip game (a good way of speeding up PBEM games in 1 hour bursts of total warfare) then add me to your msn. I am not in the league btw and I am definitely not very good

the siegfried line isn't even represented - and it was very significant in prolonging the actual war. where are my engineers when i need them??

i wrote asking about this in another thread - grat minds think alike or idiots flock together? "at the moment SC is played on a turn based basis, like chess, which is fine for board games but on a computer it should be a little bit more advanced, ie, players issue their orders and the moves for a turn are carried out simaltaneously for that 'turn'. for the sake of argument i am thinking 1 turn would represent 1 week real time, weather would have effects (4 climate zones based on the current map) and units are of the same type as they currently exist in SC. this would mean players issue their orders and once both (or more if the multiplayer option allows) have completed the turn unfolds. certain modes could be introduced to the units to allow for more 'realism' (my favourite word)" sorry about reposting it - i don't know how to do a link (doh!)

me again (noob on the block) this is based upon the turn based movement currently used is SC and an idea that may (or probably not) improve on the game playing expeience. forgive me if it has already been suggested. at the moment SC is played on a turn based basis, like chess, which is fine for board games but on a computer it should be a little bit more advanced, ie, players issue their orders and the moves for a turn are carried out simaltaneously for that 'turn'. for the sake of argument i am thinking 1 turn would represent 1 week real time, weather would have effects (4 climate zones based on the current map) and units are of the same type as they currently exist in SC. this would mean players issue their orders and once both (or more if the multiplayer option allows) have completed the turn unfolds. certain modes could be introduced to the units to allow for more 'realism' (my favourite word). here is an example: patrol - set a patrol area for ships/subs/AF defend - dig in and defend the area assault - assault an area move - move to an area support - AF support an attack/defence of an area retreat - like move, but backwards exploit - like move, but forwards counter - a defending unit will attack back resupply - resupply operate - like move but a lot faster PATROL subs - set two points and the units move backwards and forwards between them, until ordered otherwise. ships - same as subs AF - a default setting, the AF intercept any enemy AF attacking within range of the AF. DEFEND last man last bullet type thing. if the unit comes under attack it will not move for any reason other than been totally destroyed. the unit will gain an increased defence bonus. ASSAULT an offensive posture which will attack anything within its path from its start point to the objective set for it. Using this mode would give a movement penalty, but increased attack bonus. MOVE a unit moves from point A to B. Using this mode would give a defence penalty. SUPPORT attach an AF to a specific unit for an increased attack/defence bonus. RETREAT when attacking/defending, a level of unit strength can be set to trigger the unit to move back from the disputed hex. EXPLOIT the ability to attach an 'exploit' unit to an assaulting unit. this ensures that if a defending hex is assaulted and vacated by a defender, a follow up attacking unit may move in. the exploit unit will have the DEFENCE bonus, but the movement of an ASSAULT unit. COUNTER receiving no defence or assault bonus, but on being attacked the unit shall attack back in the same turn, if not destroyed or retreating. RESUPPLY a unit stops for a refit and supply. units have to be 'stopped to be supplied. this means they can not be assaulting, exploting, moving or transporting in the turn of resupply. units under assault can only achieve 75% of resupply. OPERATE like the current operate but with a penalty of the turn after the operae the unit can not moveor take any offensive actions. they literally sit in defensive posture for the turn. OPERATE shall also have a distance limitation (3 times that of move?) anyway, as i am sure SC2 is almost complete i guess this is just a wish list of my own tastes

Here are my ideas - forgive me if they are not so good but I haven't played the game for long. History: WW1 became a static war of attrition due to the inability of either side to capitilise on a break in to the enemy lines by making a break out into the enemy rear - therefore no break throughs. This was due in the main to the relative slow pace and exhaustion of attacking infantry, the total lack of firepower of cavalry and the limiting factor of artillery range. As fast as troops took laand the enemy dug in in new lines, waited for the attack to lose momentum then counter attacked with fresher troops and resupplied artillery. WW2 saw the advent of the 'attck in depth' concept of warfare, which meant a concentration of overwhelming firpower at the point of contact as well as air disruption of rear echelons of the enemy. The key (and initial success) of 'Blitzkreig' was due to the breakout after overcoming the frontline. Speed was key as it prevented reinforcements plugging gaps, disarray of rear echelon support and command and control breakdown. The 3 key elements of Blitzkreig (or modern warfare) are 1.Air superiority - this is vital and without it any attack will be doomed to failure. Air superiority allows freedom of ground support attacks, strategic bombing of rear supply and command points and freedom of movement for your own troops. Also vital is the ability of your airforce to spot any threats or reinforcements in the way of your advance and relay this to your command and control. 2. Speed - a local breakthrough has to be quickly developed into a theater threatening advance. The Germans (and Russians) realised the key to this was a mixture of units, from slow heavy tanks that were used to kill enemy armour, to medium and light breakthrough armour to exploit speed with their protection to advance quickly. Infantry and artillery was still ponderous and slow. 3. Tactics - superior training, command and control leads to a more coherent and potent force capable to act and react to all potential and real situations. The current gmae I think reflects the true nature of the strengths and weaknesses of the nations in 1939, but after about turn 10 the realism effects go out the window and the game becomes just that - a game - which is fine for people who like games, but for others who look for a little more it is frustrating when all the gamey elements kick in. So - after preaching to the choir here is my 2 cents - based around what has already been discussed; LAND; *Units without HQ support can not attack. Units without HQ support have half movement. Units without HQ support have a defence 75% of normal. Units without HQ support can not use the OPERATE function, outside their own national borders. *Units in an enemy Air Superiority Zone can not attack, have half the movement and 75% defence and resupply. (see AIR) *this applies to units within their own national borders. AIR; An AF can be used to establish 'Air Superiority'. This is an air exclusion zone to enemy AF with a radius of 3 hexes of the AF. Any freindly troops within this radius get a 50% bonus on assaulting enemy troops. Air superiority requires an AF to have EITHER a HQ OR be within its own national borders. If an enemy air superiority zone overlaps then each turn the AF automatically dispute the zone (with no bonuses or loss of bonuses for those hexes in dispute for ground forces in them). This 'uses' the AF operations for that turn. Any operations flew by an AF outside its 4 hex range is done so at 50% its normal attack strength. This does not apply to Heavy Bombers, but nor can Heavy Bombers operate an air superiority zone. The air superiority zone is increased in line with advancements in Long Range technology. An enemy Heavy Bomber unit attacking within an enemy air superiority zone has 0 defence. AF can not use the OPERATE function, without HQ support, outside their own national borders. Aircraft Carriers can NOT establish air superiority zones. SEA; Due to the strange nature of sea units I don't have any ideas CHANGES; Axis Invasion of Sweden is an automatic Russian DOW Axis invasion of Spain is automatic USA DOW. USA starts with a HQ Russia starts with 2 HQ ================== Anyway, as you can see (I hope), my idea is to shorten the effective range of AF but increase their combined role to a greater degree with attack and defence. Also, the requirements to have a HQ for both attack and defence is increased. While these changes will slightly alter the beginning (Poland will have a harder time than it already has) it will make the game, in the long run a lot tougher - i think.

my wife bought me this game for christmas..... maybe this says something of my wife not wanting to have to talk to me

i have no icq but can be contacted on hotmail or msn peterbeach@hotmail.com

now i see what you mean i agree i have not played against another human, only against AI and therefore can not comment on the tactics used. against the AI i play 'like history' (from reading the forums this is a sure way to lose against a human) and bought upto 6 armored formations for invading russia (with usually 4 german AF and 4 italian AF). maybe linking the requirement of having a HQ present per AF for ground-attack (air intercept no requirement) would balance things. afterall, germans main strength was organisation and communication. it would initially limit the allied sides to air intercept only (which is basically all they could do) and allow 2 ground attacks for the germans with 1 spare for interceptions or reserve. this would greatly increase the power of the tanks for exploiting break throughs? on a side note I find the strength of aircraft carriers to be annoying.

the strength for tanks in the game are its ability to travel far and it has punch (more than a corps). the tank was invented to overcome the lack of penetration infantry could achieve and the lack of firepower and total vulnerability of cavalry to modern weapons (mg). why do you think the game represents the armor poorly?

yay you have mail. hopefully i did it right.

thanks i read the strats and have played the AI thru the levels of difficulty. i was hoping for tcp/ip games but it seems tricky to find someone online when i am nice forums btw - very nice.

i got it for christmas i am looking to learn (read: get thrashed many times) how to play online. i have tried the lobby but it seems to be dominated by other games. if you want to teach a noob then please email me.