Col. Gen. Guderian

I've been meaning to get Hearts of Iron but I haven't seen it in any shops. I read a review in PCZone and although they thought it was great, they complained about there being too much micro management and not enough automation. This put me off it a good bit, i'll have to give it a go sometime though.

What if the Americans did cross the Elbe in 1945? That's the hypothesis from which this idea for a mod is based on. If there was an armistice on the western front and an agreement between the allies and Germany to fight together against Russia and push them out of europe. With Hitler disposed, the German generals throw what they have left into stemming the red tide alongside their new found allies. Will this all be easily possible in SC2?

I don't know whether this has already been discussed or not, but couldn't you choose commanders for armies and tank groups instead of just HQ's? There were a few flaws as well with the ratings of Field Marshalls and their historical accuracy in SC1. Whilst Manstein got a deserved 9, Bock only got a 6 which is completely unfair as he was an excellent soldier. Same goes for Auchinleck who only got a mere 5 rating.Also, although Rommel and Manstein did eventually become Field Marshals, they only did so in '42 and '43, yet they're available right the way through the game. Couldn't different commanders become available as the game progresses? I think there should be more emphasis placed on the officer corps. It would be good to put a higher price tag on the better generals. I think this would be a good addition and would make you feel more like a real commander handling his subordinates. Also, with this feature you would get to include dozens of Generals who were left out of the last one e.g. Guderian, Hoth, Hoepner, Manteuffel, O'Connor, Chuikov and many others. Any thoughts?

They should make it a possibility that an army will surrender if surrounded. Say, you could make it less likely for them to surrender if they have more experience but perhaps a fresh italian corps would surrender straight away. You could also make it so that the further you go into the enemy's territory, the less likely they are to surrender. I think this would put more emphasis on keeping armies intact and trying to avoid great Kessels.

Another huge mistake that may very well lose you the war. Yes, it would be one hell of a fight, but chances are, you will soon run into mpp problems with keeping you AFs reinforces and thats where he'll get you. Comrade Trapp </font>

As I only have the demo i've only played the fall Gelb campaign, but what are the others like in comparison? I imagine that the Barbarossa one is pretty brilliant. Fall Zitidelle sounds really interesting though because I think it was both the biggest and most important battle of the war, and yet it is almost overlooked. 5 main battles of world war 2 seem to stick in peoples minds: The Battle of Britain El Alamein Stalingrad D-Day The Battle of the Bulge The Battle of Kursk was effectively Hitlers last chance at winning the war, at least on the eastern front. The German army , contrary to popular belief, was not finished after Stalingrad as Tebourba, the Kasserine pass and the miracle of the donetz prove. After Kursk however, the German army never recovered like they did after Moscow, or Stalingrad. They never achieved more than small tactical successes but they couldn't hold any ground. What is this campaign like in the game? In the real thing there were 3000 tanks on the move at once within a salient of less than 100 miles in diameter. It was the real battle of the bulge.

I hope you are kidding in that this man was your hero. If not you are one sick puppy. </font>

Yeah, sorry I was going to mention that i'm aware that all of these things have probably been discussed a million times before, but I forgot to warn. I still think it is accurate for the most part, at least when it comes to dispositions, names of armies, that sort of **** that gives the game an extra gloss over.

Heinrich, my hero!

I've only played the demo of this game which is the Fall Gelb campaign, but i'm already hooked and have decided that i'm definitely buying this game despite being in the middle of exams (this could be the end of me). I love the game for 2 main reasons: 1.I am a world war 2 fanatic in that I read many books about it and watch many programs about it. What I am most interested in it for however, is the complex strategies and great Generals of the war. So this game seemed too good to be true. 2. Despite enjoying strategy games (whether they are turn based or RTS, i'll give them a go), i've never enjoyed micro-management. To be completely honest, I couldn't give a **** about the muzzle velocity of a German MG-42 or how thick the armoured plating is on a T-34 tank. The game seems to strike the perfect balance between taking realistic and neccessary logistics into account, and overall grand strategy. I expected it to be a banal experience when I saw the graphics, but now I see them as adding character to the game. They may be outdated, but world war 2 only ended in 1945 you know? But onto my real point, despite the obvious brilliance and maximum fun factor of the game, there are a few nagging issues which are pretty big. I don't like to whine incessantly, but here's a few: 1-This is the biggy, map size. Why is America so small? I know it's a European theatre, but the country's economic resources end up being dictated by the size of the map. By default America gets about 180 MMP's per turn when in reality it should be more like 500-600. The same principle goes for North Africa. Any ideas of reliving the desert rats vs afrika korps battles, may go straight out the window. In this way, it reminds me of the Civ 2 world war 2 scenario when the game should be so much more ambitious than that. 2-Historical accuracy- For the most part the game is remarkably accurate but some key things are missing. Seemingly, a fresh German army is no better than a fresh Italian army. In reality, your grandmother could have defeated the entire Italian army with a dildo. There should be more emphasis put on the character of each country. e.g. Russian soldiers should be more resilient than normal but the quality of Russian equiptment should initially be at a disadvantage. The German Luftwaffe should be capable of completely annihilating the Russian aircraft initially. My point is that the game seems to substitute this historical accuracy with simply making the Russian army big, but not as big as the German army. In reality, the Russians would have a far greater army, but end up getting torn to shreds by a faster more agile German army. This is just a minor point, but why can't individual units surrender? I mean, although they may not be able to recieve any reinforcements if they are surrounded, why must you always completely and utterly wipe them out? It makes the loss of an army a more trivial affair. Why is it that when the 6th army was destroyed at Stalingrad, it was the most pivotal point of the war, and yet in the game the loss of an army may prove a common occurrance and a problem which is easily overcome? There, I don't want to make this any more intolerably longer than it already is.

I've only played the demo but he's right, both historically and in the game. Especially when invading Russia, you should aim to destoy 3-4 armies at the first turn. If you don't, they'll withdraw them to the interior and replenish them with their endless resources. I only really attack a unit when I know it won't be destroyed IF it threatens to destroy one of my other units. If you do that, the comp will probably withdraw them and give you some breathing space. Know what I mean? [ May 18, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Col. Gen. Guderian ]