Skanvak

I was reading the description of the game to see if I buy it or not and read that France is a minor power? no kidding? France is a major power of the time (they were very advance in weaponery including nuclear reasearch). The defeat was really not certain. Is there a way to turn France a Major power?

Ok, thanks for your information. For the patch, it seems that I did not installed it properly. It must go to the RUN directory. That is solved thanks to you (the tech suppport did not tell me that) For the text bug I got a reply from BF techsupport : it seems to be related to a bug with ATI graphic card. It is solve by... Alt-tab! Enjoy. Thank you again for your help it was useful.

I have just install the cdv version on my new computer running on XP (yes, I have a licence so not wanting to upgrade right now). But I get a bug right with the scenario selection : the description of the scenario name and later instruction does not appear. I get sometime a cannot open OpenPlay.dll that prevent launching of the game. I tried to install patch 1.03 but it does not seem capable of finding the installation disk. I pointed on the CM3AK folder and then it is still the same bug. It look like too that the version of the game does not appear on the first screen. CM2BB works fine CMSF works fine

Quote "WW1 would not have been won, indeed, it would have been lost had America not come in the side of the Allies. If you disagree, you haven't read enough about the war. If you think you have read enough, you haven't, so read more." That's Wrong, there are 2 reason two german defeat and US is not part of it. First there are the armored offensive of 1918 (french/english) and the Autro-hungarian surrendered (French). USA give fresh troop, fine but not decisive. Germany was closer to upheaval than France. (From what is written by Lidell Hart). For WW2, I would like to had that your discussion cannot through out Hilter evilness and goal, otherwise you should too through out Allied doctrinal mistake and Germany would have been defeated, no way germany could win the war if the anglo-french army have had the kind of Command structure and doctrine used in the 20's. ((Though WW2 is a US victory, no doubt)). PS : US did fail to save France in an european War. They were defeated and end up on the losing side. [ September 04, 2004, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

Strange, I don't use to be anti-american before reading this thread. I even used to support the war in Iraqi. Well, after reading the reaction of American to Sombra's post, I hope the US will be defeated. Sombra, I back you (ok, that don't help, but..). And not Paying the UN debt is really unacceptable. Look like Athene at it worst time.

I see that the question of winning the War is still on. I will add my little stone. I agree with most of what has been said on the topics. But I still think that Germany couldn't have won the War. The reason is two folds. First, it is a question of the definition of "winning the war". Hitler never defined what it will consider a victory except perhaps inconditionnal surrender of all allied country. Second, the objective of acheiving the inconditionnal surrender of all allied country seem today unreacheable. Not that defeating Germany was easy, but because the Allied country where strong too (especially the US) and defeating them all was unreachable (Still I agree that the war was hard, and that it could have gone worse (and it went quite bad) but not as worse as a German victory over the USA). Therefore I reckon that the greatest reason that Germany lose is its lack "end of War condition".

Where?

Aaargh smurf and papa smurf? that Awful. To be a Purist say : Schtroumpf & Grand Schtroumpf, and sometime a Vieux Vieux Schtroumpf (very Old) & a Grand Grand Schtroumpf (the Dictator). Of course their are too the Schtroumpf noir (a kind of Schtroumpf Trooper but that attack other schtroumpfs). And don't forget to use : Un Schtroumpf Schtroumpfé qui Schtroumpf du Schtroumpf avec un gros Schtroumpf et qui Schtroumpf sur les Schtroumpfs du Schtroumpf.

I totally support shaka post. Naval warfare as very few in common with land warfareand require a different system.

I don't think it is forbidden in France? All tabletop wargame I bought have the Swastika flag for nazi. I know the question about Germany. But why does it impact computer game and not tabletop wargame? Though I really think that not displaying the nazi flag is hypocrit. The games name all general of the german army which was as nazi as the rest. SC1 is somehow pro-nazi germany that is worst in my point of view that displaying the historically acurate nazi flag. I fill like we should change the french flag in all game as it has been used by Napoleon and Vichy government. Associating Nazi germany with another flag is perhaps a bit insulting to the other flag too. By the way, look at a modern day's japanese road map/tourist's map : they're full of swastika. so they could not be sold in Germany?? And last : I always thought historical wargame should present history as it was. Presenting it differently will gradually make young players think along false idea. If we cannot cope the fact of recreating nazi horrors, then we can play fantasy wargame with WWII technology. *sorry for the rant, i do believe a small mod to be the answer, or a switch/parental control thing*

To add to the goods arguments developped here for the quick kill explanation. One has to remind Hitler's experience of WWI. In the end of WWI the german population was very anti-war and they was some rebellion in geramn cities by socialists. Part of the army think that German population will not tolerate hard condition for a long time. So for domesctic reasons Hitler didn't not push Germany to war economy before after 1942 (I don't remind the exact point). Some historians have advocate that the dunkirk evacuation was made possible by Hitler's decision. It would have been a way to give the British a sign of good will, in a hope of a peace treaty.

Are we going to keep the old naval system that totally mimics the lands system (I hate that aspect in SC1) or are we going to have some real fleet action? Because seeing a "naval front" somewhat depress me. I hope that at least naval unit will be able to cross each other even if ennemy.

I know a napoleonic game that use Octogone. Though I will have to try the CivIII WWII scenario now. To see the differences (there are no supply that Civ III downfallon the matter).

IMO, the tiles set is simply making the game look like Civ III. I am disappointed by this choice.

Though the hotseat replay could be useful. I am for.

Tank were taken to the front line unit. but hose unit had to stop most of their operational action. Then the upgrade should work like reinforcing.

Well, yes, weather should be depicted and have consequences on invasion. Troops transported in rough condition are not in a combat condition for an invasion landing, As in fact troops that move for more than one turn. Unloaded troop in a port is very different than landing on a beach with machinegun firing. In the first place you can be sick of tired without any consequences... The effect of weather if very poor. I really prefer the one of Clash of Steel. (side comment I wish to make from long time : why turn are longer in winter? ok movement is slowest, but the workers in factories stop working too? I have not heard that production drop by 2/3 in winter month)

Yes, we need an HQ for Finland (and roumania) and Canada (or make them English). I think, along with some people here, that the heavy tank could not be display at the level of the game. Though it is correct to say that heavytank have never replaced the medium tnak in WWII, one have to look at what was an heavy tank and what the tank become after WWII. Today a MBT is bigger than a Tiger though still as mobile as the Panther (more in fact). The fact is that the Panther is a MBT. The Tiger is not really a MBT, it is closer to a wonderful Tankhunter. The main advantage a tank, as shown in the battle of france is not their ability to inflict damage but to move fast in ennemy territory. The Heavy tank of Tiger or Mouse class cannot. Even the funneling tactics (interesting bit) could be successfully acheive using tank hunter or 88 AA gun. When I played Steel Panther, well I felt the Panther so much superior to the Tiger, only because of mobility. After reading that, that is perhaps an agument for small asset to unit in SC. So we could have a small asset unit called Heavy-Tank thank put AT def/att +1, action point -1 (after all the speed of a unit is the speed of the slowest unit) at some cost. (My first thought was that the increase in AT def of unit was a enough.) I like very much the idea of Sea monkey, to chose which unit to attach to an HQ. That could do the trick at this level of simulation.

JJ, I agree, the battle of the atlantics is not well depicted. That could be improved.

Among the trash said by Rambo, one point is interesting : Swiss and Sweden were not attack because they actually provided support to the Axis that made their invasion not really worthwhile. Example, if Sweden as a better set-up (and may be a bit stronger) and give germany their iron ressources then German might not be interested to lose the income. The real issue is the plunder. It is realistic that there is a plunder when a major country surrender (some 60 or so brand-new tank-hunter were taken from france), but the minor plunder is perhaps too important. For Spain, I think their was a great chance that they will have active partisan : they just finish a civil war, that mean that a lot of people oppose the nazi their, and they would have been joined by the nationalist in case of invasion. The terrain and tradition, as Edwin said, in Spain give a strong chance of partisan action. They were ready, and will robably prepare a guerilla warfare from start. The French were shock by the defeat, they didn't expect to fight a guerilla warfare.

I don't understand why the UK income should be diminish. Anyway, the UK income is too weak. UK's world wide empire is not well represented, and from invasion of LC, it get acces to the NEI ressources that are huge at this time. Until Japan actually attackk all UK ressources where used against germany. Which mean that in the early stage of Barbarossa it was the UK that help the Russian. So in a LL option UK income should be increased no decreased IMO. Rambo, That will require 3 (or more) players. But why not, that would be interesting.

Well, the Axis, did attack nearly every country except Trukey. I think Axis could have attack Spain if they wished. Some of the down fall of SC is the weakness of the neutral : you cannot re-build neutrals units (re-building neutrals will reinforece the the neutrals and spaon could hold a longer this way). Generally supply is bad in minor (even Canada has only City at 5 that will not work well for US or UK units). The HQ of a major does not support minor (that would make UK or US intervention more efficient). On consequences of attacking Spaain, I think the consequences should fall on traditional Axis Allies and not on Turkey. Attacking Spain should deter Finland, Hungary, Bulgary, and Rumania of Joining the Axis. It could even trigger them joining the allies. I strongly beleives (imo) that Turkey would have stayed neutral whatever happened. One point that does not happen, but it is strongly possible that there would have been partisan activity in Spain should Germany invaded it.

Why not just have the possibility to set the level of Lend Lease?

This time I agree with JJ and shaka. Let's locked it.

I like the research formula of SC because it is less costly to get a technology for nation less advance (represent imitation and spying) and more costly (though not really enough) for nation most advanced. Though I really feel that research is a mix of, luck (or good scientists), continuous effort and investment. But if you put 2 pt in research and another nation only 1 pt then you should not really be able to have more than one level of thech advantage in this field. Ie if you want 2 you will have to put 3 pt if it stay at 1. I would advocate too for a turn base cost (continuous effort). Actually all field were research in WWII, there was only a few field that was not. But the investment level was different. For the cash prb. As already said elsewhere, the USA is under-rated. Beside US have the same technology whatever is entry date is (same for the USSR). It all appear that both the USA and the USSR were not doing any research before the entry in the war.