Maverik
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maverik
-
-
I played SC, SC2 and the bought all the expansions up to Patton, but Commander Europe at war then ruined SC for me. Why? Oil is the answer.
With oil as a major resource, Germany is no longer able to field massive panzer and motorized forces and likewise has to be careful with its air force, sub and surface fleets. While Commander Europe at war is not the best grand strategy game, the oil factor makes it the best European grand strategy game I’ve played. So my question to Carter is ‘will oil be included in this new game?”
-
Thank you very much
-
Some historians think that as Rommel was unsuited as a defensive General. Afterall he was used to leading from the front in mobile warfare. It's a pit the game doesn't have different rating from attacking and defending (for HQ's).
Some Generals were expert at deffending (Kesselring) while others were not. Otherwise I think Rommels rating is ok. I'd go as far a minus one point.
-
Why do Germans love David Hassellhoff so much?
Lets see:
1. Tall
2. Wears Black
3. Gets up in front of crowds and drones on for hours
I think I see a pattern.
-
Perhaps he was compensating for something? Come to think of it Stalin and Hitler were both a little on the short side.
It’s a pity expensive phallic sports cars weren’t available in those days, a lot less people might have died!
-
The European Commission has just announced an agreement where by English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.
As part of the negotiations, the British government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-english".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and key boards kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
-
-
Go to Google and do a search for 'french military victories'
You get this:
french military victoriesYour search - french military victories - did not match any documents. Suggestions:. - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords.
Or hit the 'I'm feeling lucky' button to get this:
Did you mean: french military defeats
-
Rolend,
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. More options! The British can always pull out, the Axis can all out or try to ignore.
Anything would be beter than what happens just now. I don't mind Poland, Denmark, Norway etc being set moves. Afterall it's the opening of the game. But Egypt is fast becoming a set move. It shouldn't be.
-
I think all the Germans where in the ETO and all the Japanese in the PTO!
Sorry, the door was wide open on that one!
-
The scale of the game effectively means that HQ are Army group HQ’s. On the East front, axis minors as army groups didn’t operate separately, they were attached to German Army Groups, and therefore it should be allowed to attach them. The same should go for allied minors (excluding Commonwealth who should be British units).
It happened in reality, why not in the game?
-
Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:
[QB] Bugger me though, you are not a professional when it comes to spelling. Or in putting forward a thesis. Just what are you trying to say?
At least he didn’t say he was an expert! It’s the worlds experts you have to watch out for. Nothing messes up the world more than people who think they are experts. Experts start wars, segregate peoples and generally decide what is best about people they know nothing about.
As for bashing JJR I think most of it is tongue in check, I know some of the comments I have made are. JJR has been a source of joy for me ever since I first discovered this web site. A patriot who loves his country no mater what ridiculous actions it takes,
Well at least he is a man of conviction. Long may he live, but just don’t let him run for president!
-
That’s why the allies withdrew and called in the air force when they came up against anything bigger than a Panzer IV. The Allies also had some heavier tanks like the M10 and M34 these were produced in similar numbers to the panthers/Tigers etc. Most armoured regiments of the time would consist of a mixture of light/medium and heavy tanks with battalions of really big ones being held back in reserve, normally at divisional level.
Tank against tank the Germans usually won. Trouble was it was very rare. It was normally tank (German) against tank + Anti Tank plus Artillery (air spotted) and Fighter Bombers.
Someone else might confirm this, but most armies of the time did not like armour against armour battles. If your tanks meet enemy tanks you would withdraw and bring up your anti tank guns.
-
Sombra,
I particularly like the following:
-Taking neutrals countries could increase the force pool of the invader.
Something like 300,000 foreign troops served in the Waffen SS. Although this was later in the war they could be included in the build pools immediately as it would take some time for Germany to use up it’s whole pool. For the allies it also makes sense as most countries would be liberated and therefore the population would want to fight. This would be a good incentive to take minors.
But I think the deterrent goes away once all the major players are in. In the case of Germany there is a double incentive in that captured countries reduce Russian Moral. This is something I’m not entirely happy with.
Perhaps removing the moral loss once all major players are in (unless a major is captured or a country liberated) might make taking minors less attractive.
-
They would have if the poles had taken their socks off!Originally posted by Rolend:Had the Germans fought the war like they did in that final battle of Saving Private Ryan they would of lost to the Poles in 39 LOL.
-
I had my 22nd Birthday in Bosnia. Guess what? I was one of the old men of the unit, only a few corporals, Sergeants (and above) and officers above 1st Lieutenant were older.
In saving Ryans Privates the average age of a captain was 45 and all Germans were in their late 30’s. Perhaps that explains the hearing problems and bad eye sight.
-
The tanks in Saving Ryans Privates were supported by Infantry that ran in lovely straight lines toward the American guns. Those who didn't were deaf and had no peripheral vision and so couldn’t see the 50 cal blasting away from the side.
But as Rambo would say the Germans couldn’t fight in cities, they were only good out in fields killing farmers.
-
Thank god the Americans only had one pair of socks each otherwise they would have taken over the whole world!
-
Sombra,
Malta in the game isn’t an annoyance, in the game it’s nothing. In reality, Malta was a serious problem to Axis supply.
Yes you can station a bomber there and hit the ports but that won’t reduce Axis supplies to the point were it has an effect before the bomber is reduced to nothing. Any German air craft will also make short work of it. But as pointed out, the real Malta contribution came from Submarines and to a lesser degree ships and torpedo bombers stationed there (i.e. the Malta effect).
You would not be reducing the supply by default. It would require a significant investment of a bomber (very vulnerable to a couple of air fleets) a fighter (again vulnerable) and perhaps a battleship (the Italians could take it out).
It would add another counter play, another option for players. Remember we are talking about removing any effect from just having the corps stationed there.
-
Lars,
That’s the benefit of hind sight. Every time the Axis thought Malta was neutralized it got back on its feet and was a right royal pain. If the axis had taken it, then Rommels fuel would have gotten through.
My complaint is that just now there is no need for the Axis to bother with Malta. It just doesn’t matter as the effect is to small. On a 10% chance the Axis can operate a massive amount of forces to N.A. and storm into Egypt before any Malta affect is felt. But if in reality the Axis had done the same then the Allies would have had more forces operating out of there and the effect would have devastating. That’s an option the allies should have in the game. As it stands at present it’s the only hope the allies have of defending the med. The current set up is not what if, more like a certainty.
Why not petition Hubert for a change.
No free Malta effect.
Bomber or Fighter in Malta = 40% & 30% respectfully.
Cruiser or Battleship in Malta port = 40%
I think that would make things more interesting and result in a neutralising of Malta prior to Rommel landing and storming Egypt.
I know we can do this in the editor but like most people I would like a really good stock game to play against people.
-
That's right hellraiser. As the wise Rambo has pointed out all americans are 10 feet tall and spit 88mm shells. No way could a little german in his little tank kill any.
-
Lars,
Malta was never neutralized. Axis attacks reduced the aircraft operating there to small numbers (at times zero operational aircraft).
The axis lost some 400 plus aircraft to ani air gunners. The RAF lost over 170 pilots.
Between 1941 and 1942 the 10th submarine Flotila operated some 20 submarines out of and through Malta.
Between 1st January 1941 and 1st May 1942, the fifteen Malta Force Submarines had sunk 75 vessels with a total tonnage of nearly 400,000 tons. Ten submarines had been lost. There can be no doubt that the efforts of these submarines, along with the support afforded by serviceman and civilian alike on the island of Malta, and of the re-supplying convoys and submarines, had slowed down the German advance in Africa, giving the British 8th Army some time to build...There are many 'what-if' questions that can be applied to the Second World War - there is surely no doubt about the answer to this one - If the Malta submarines hadn't slowed down Axis re-supply to Tripoli and Benghazi, there could have been no desert victory. Without that, there would have been no invasion of Southern Europe. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/chalcraft/sm/malta.html
How you can regard this as neutralized is beond me. Granted the scale is much smaller than the Atlantic but the effects were just as great.
-
I've just been checking the scipts and it appears that the Malta affect can only take place after August 1940. Good news for the Axis if they take Malta before then.
-
No it doesn't! In the Manual (v1.0) it's listed that way, but the patch has changed things. Now it doen't mater what unit is in there you only get 10% chance.
oil
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
I think the point of my original post has been lost. Germany did not have the fuel resources available to build a highly motorized/mechanized army, hence most of the German army was horse drawn. This also affected strategic planning (not just tactical) as fuel supplies played a critical part in offensive operations. In the game, as oil is not included, Germany is able to have massed motorized formations that fly through the Russian countryside. In truth the vast bulk of the infantry was never able to keep up with the Panzer divisions. Also bringing fuel to the front required use of motorized transport that in itself used fuel, not a problem if you have oodles of the stuff. I read somewhere that in North Africa the amount of fuel delivered to Rommel’s troops was equal to amount needed to move it.
This also brings us to the point raised by PowerGmbH that oil wasn’t really all that important as the axis had enough?!? Germany never had enough and was living off its pre-war reserves right up to 1943 when for the first time its domestic production exceeded that of its consumption. Prior to that oil received from the soviets and captured in France was what kept it mobile. After 1943 the allies started to bomb fuel facilities heavily and hence the fuel shortage. In short, if you are using 125% of what you produce then at some point you will have curtail operations and offensives, and even reduce commitments on fronts to favor others, strategic concerns, not tactical ones.
I found this an interesting read: http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-role-of-synthetic-fuel-in-world-war-ii-germany-implications-for-today/
Now I know that for these games to be fun you need to have the ability to make choices that the real combatants didn’t, for example, spend massive amounts on equipping you divisions with trucks. But in truth the only totally mechanized army in the world in 1939 was the British and later the Americans, even the Russians never fully equipped their regiments with motor transport.
I also agree with Nupremal that the manpower modelling in CEAW is one of the best I’ve seen.