Col. Gen. Guderian

Yup, it's the experience loss percentage that one should be concerned about, not the medal.

I did it and plundered about 200 MPP I think it was, and it gives you an extra 10 MPP per turn. Only I threw everything I had at Dublin and forgot that there was no port, so i left 2 armies and a corps stranded. Whoops. It was only a muck about game though.

I rank Patton up there with Balck and Chuikov as being one of the greatest field commanders of the war. He was tireless and threw everything into making his men work harder.

But how come they came as default with the demo? I got the demo off PCZone magazine if that helps at all?

It was more luck than anything. I just used the right units against the right units by accident I suppose.

I obviously can't remember it exactly how it went, but here it goes... 1st Turn-I use the 1st and 2nd airfleets to attack Brussels which usually brings it's corps strength to about 6 or 7. I then attack it to the south east with the 6th army, and this usually brings it's strength to about 3 or 4. Then whilst I was experimenting, I came accross a complete fluke. If you swing the 16th Panzer around and below Brussels and attack it, it usually takes off about 4 or 5 of the defenders strength, in this case destroying the garrison altogether. I then occupied Brussels with the 12th army I think. From there on my memory gets a bit hazy. There are a few things I do remember doing though. I attacked the french army to the northwest of the Maginot line with the 4th airfleet, and then battered it again with one of the armies (by this stage I had decided to take the 2nd army from the east and redeploy it where there was room in the low countries.) Then i just battered the middle French army (which was south west of Brussels) and the BEF with the 15th and 19th Panzers. 2nd turn-I think it was the 15th Panzer that nearly got destroyed before this turn as it was facing the BEF and the most northerly French army, as well as being in the range of the British AF and strategic bombers. I had to take it out of the line to reinforce it but I had compelled all the frontier armies to retreat the turn before. So I basicly advanced and tore the battered and dispersed armies to shreds avoiding the maginot line completely. Rather than using my airfleets, i just moved them within range of Paris. 3rd turn-I bypassed 2 French armies which were by the coast and then encircled Paris. By this time, the French AF had left for Britain. With the three airfleets in range and ready, with complete air superiority, the city fell with a couple of armies having not used their turns. Is that accurate enough?

Why is it that in the demo I have of SC, the icons for armies, Tank groups, Af's etc etc, are different for each nation, when in all other screenshots I see the icons are the same? It's not just that either, some terrains look different. Does that patch make these changes?

Well, it's the fact that he's implementing as many suggestions that we make on this board as he can. So, people feel like the more they talk about it and contribute to it, the better the game it will be. They feel as if it's 'their' game. I think that's why there's so much hype. And of course there is always the fact that the majority of people here are highly competitive arseholes who can't wait to beat each other in another format. [ May 23, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Col. Gen. Guderian ]

I just defeated the Low countries at the first turn, and France in another 2 turns. Is that impressive? Or is it just talk from a naive 'n00b'?

You should be proud. However, if it wasn't for his skills in Generalship, he would probably be looked upon as a grumpy, bigoted old bastard.

Yeah, he has a great historical perspective of things. If everyone did, then wars would probably be averted.

Precisely. The first turn is arguably what makes or breaks your campaign.

He had already said, vast numerical superiority. Let me tell you what one German officer said during barbarossa. It went something like this: "Us attacking Russia is like an elephant attacking a host of ants. The elephant may kill thousands, perhaps millions of ants, but it will eventually be killed and eaten to the bone" I think it was quite applicable in that situation.

I've read some of his WWI diary entries and they are facinating.

Your main priority is to destroy the frontier armies and prevent them from retreating into the interior, just like the real main barbarossa objective. Then the reds will start purchasing corps to block your routes to the cities, these should be easily brushed aside with the armies gone. Once that is done the roads should be open to siege the cities. Just remember that destroying whole units is much more important than damaging lots of units.

Its a AAR of an ongoing PBEM game between aesopo123 and myself. Now shove off! </font>

What the hell is this? The world war 2 chronicle? Do you really have to talk crap about Doenitz heading a memorial? This is such balls.

I don't mean to condescend, but couldn't you just have encircled it? If you do that then it's only a short matter of time before it falls.

You honestly think I don't know all this? When exactly in the course of events did I defend Hitler? I just said that he wasn't a General, he never rose up the ranks and left the army straight after the great war. However, Hitler tends to get the brunt for every single German defeat when this wasn't so. Infact, the invasions of the Rhineland and Poland stand to his credit. With grand strategy he was clever, but when it came to grand tactics he was less sure. He ignored certain practicalities which meant he would never be a real General. His scope was good though. He wasn't as militarily inept as Stalin was. In 44/45 his military handling was disasterous certainly, but the war was already lost by then. I think people are very foolish to asume that Hitler made all the mistakes. It was often the case that he was fed exagerated intelligence accounts about enemies destroyed which led him to believe he enemy was 'finished'. This is exactly what happened at Stalingrad and Paulus was to blame. Paulus was also to blame for not destroying the 62nd and 64th armies whilst they were out on the open steppe, just as he was to blame for not focusing all his efforts on the volga crossings which kept the Russian armies supplied and thus sapped the strength of the 6th army. Guderian, Model and later Manstein all agreed with Hitler that Zitadelle would not work. He was only swayed by Kluge and Zietzler and indeed the rest of professional military opinion to carry it out. Sorry to go on, but my point is that I think people can be incredibly short sighted about Hitler's military abilities. He wasn't even close to Napoleon as he liked to compare himself to, but he was no imbecile.

Ouch!

This is heavy. I'll read it thoroughly once I get the game. I'm a budding General, if there is such a thing? :confused:

Everyone's gotten so bitchy about me saying a couple of words. It appears i've stirred up a hornets nest. "HE SAID A BAD WORD! BAN THAT NUMPTY!" Apparently swearing the odd time makes me really stupid. Oh well, life goes on! This board is like an alternate dimension from the music boards that I usually attend. P.S. Cheers for wishing me luck. :cool:

I haven't a big interest in getting thrashed online. I want to live out the campaigns before I do that. Is it decent defeating the Low countries on the first turn? Or is that just the norm? I do know a few things though, much better to completely destroy one army than merely damage several others. Better to have a few experienced units which you can supply, than tons of fresh units that you can't. *Awaits laughter*

Incase you hadn't noticed, I exagerate a lot to get my point across.

Have you read band of brothers? None of the men really liked General McAuliffe much. Apparently he was always cheery and optimistic, which I think is a big sign of a bad general.