Baron

Stalin’s Organist - you are correct in that the Bombardments in Oct. got away scotch free (I confused the incident with the loss of the Hiei (air) and Kirishima (sea) in Nov battles) but the aircraft were replaced in a day during the Oct. bombardments(thus validating your statement that all squares are airfields). Interestingly enough both the BC bombardments were Kongo class BC but the bombardment groups consisted of at least 2 BC's or 2 CA's on each occasion so in SC terms they would be considered a CA. I'd also point out that Guadalcanal was unique in that Henderson field was in bombardment range - not so in the ETO. People can bombard with TF's all they want to but the effects of the AC we have now are laughable. You lose more AC than they inflict damage on a full strength TF. Thus there is no reason NOT to bombard with the ships at present. I'm not sure which is more frustrating to me personally - that the ships can do so with darn near immunity or that they can actually destroy (render combat ineffective if you will) entire armies, corps or air forces. I still believe knocking down the readiness and supply level thus softening these units up for ground forces is the way to go. From what I understand in WAW there is a new type of aircraft that actually can make it deadly for ships to come into range without air cover. I for one certainly hope so! As far as examples of aircraft sinking ships: the examples are too numerous to even go into – something this game cannot recreate at the moment. What we have now is units that are creating effects that they never were able to achieve or on the other hands units that cannot achieve the results they did in fact achieve. From Sea Monkey: SC is not about a literary definition of an actuality, it is about abstraction of an effect. I agree with the statement now how do you recreate the effect with the units we now have? I would say you can’t and thus my frustration.

I have no problem with 95% of the game Sea Monkey. As 95% of the game is defensible as it is. The areas I have issue with are primarily the naval and to a lesser extent the air. I don't think anybody can be found that likes Rockets in their present form. They always were a strategic weapon and did not have any successes on the battlefield like the way they can be used in SC2. I'd add them to the list of weapons that don't make a unit lose strength points. I can think abstractly as long as it defensible. I can follow that you can render a unit combat ineffective at this level. What never happened was naval task forces bombarding enemy air units to that point. Might as well atribute it to creatures from outer space. As long as the abstract is possible I don't have any issue with it. I'm knit picking now but if the all units are just rendered ineffective at this scale then all units should be able to be rebuilt around the cadres that survived - regardless of supply level. Especially if they were never actually destroyed in the first place correct I know I'm taking your statement out of context and I apologize - just couldn't resist No game is ever going to be to everyones satisfaction 100%. I do appreciate the game and all the work the playtesters have put into it. I will continue to voice my opinion on areas I feel need improvment and agree to disagree on areas where common ground can not be found. I'd also encourage the testing of these ideas or at least would like an answer like "the codeing is not possible".Until such a time as it is put the the test the argument will survive another 4 years.

I have seen the effects that bombardments have first hand (not to the extent of Normandy I'll admit) and I'll be the first to agree they do have an effect. I will also point out that at Iwo Jima for example( I use this as an example because the entire island was under bombardment for the entire battle). Not only did it not destroy the Japanese as effective fighters but in this battle the Japs inflicted more casualties than they took - the only battle after the Allies took the offensive that they managed to do so. Yes there was an effect but it did not destroy the enemy - you need ground troops to do this period. One of two things should happen and I've proposed this before. 1 - sea and airborne forces can never destroy the last factor of a ground unit - sea forces can never destroy the last factor of an air unit(carriers being the exception) 2 - sea bombardment could be done just like strategic bombers - they lower readiness morale ect of the defending unit. This would make it easy for a ground unit to mop up the unit. In my opinion it is probably the better of the two options. Also consider the scale of these boxes we are talking about. How many airfields were in range of naval bombardment in WW2? Even the coastal hexes are large enough for the airfields to be out of range of naval gunfire. I just consider it to be a very "gamey" tactic to use ships to destroy aircraft as this was just not possible at this scale. So I'll agree to disagree with you, ok? Again I hope this is addressed in WAW.

Item 4 in his list is irrelevant tho - Force Z was not attacking/bombarding aircraft - it was trying to intercept the Japanese troop convoys. I imagine that if a BB ever got within bombardment range of some airfields any a/c on them would be reduced to scrap in short order. It doesn't matter that Force K was not on a bombardment mission. The reason that no surface TF attempted to bomb airfields out of operation is that they were too vunerable and would be sunk. The only examples I know of where this was even attempted was at Guadalcanal and then only at night. Never did it achieve the desired results. On the night of 14 Oct 1942 two Japanese BC bombarded Henderson field with over 900 14" HE shells designed to destroy aircraft. On the night of 15 Oct 1942 CA's added another 1000 8" shells to the bombardment. The net result - only 48 of the 90 aircraft available to the Cactus airforce were destroyed. The airfield was back in service by the afternoon of the 14th and aircraft from Henderson field sank a BC and 2 DD's. In WW2 next to submarines the greatest sinker of surface ships was aircraft. Do you actually suggest that surface ship bombardments in SC2 is in any way historical or that the results are in any way factual given the historical record? The bombardment results in SC2 are ridiculous in the extreme. I'd suggest that the effects should be more along the lines of what a heavy bomber can do as opposed to outright destruction of factors, lower readiness sure - outright destruction - I don't think so. I certainly hope WAW addresses these issues. The naval war aspect of this game has always played second fiddle to the land campaign - rightfully so in my opinion. That is not an excuse however to leave such glaring errors as is in the premier strategic level WW2 game on the market.

All very good points and suggestions, 1 BB's should be able to defend against subs but not attack them - find one example of BB's in WW2 that sought out and attacked subs 2 Surface raiders in the game are nonexistent - they cannot attack convoy routes and thus are only good for fire support or getting transports or invasions from place to place - of course this is a pretty good definition of "sea control" 3 Naval forces should never be able to destroy a ground unit - I know this has been discussed before but in the scope of this game it is just not possible 4 Ships should not be able to bombard aircraft either - I'll site the example of Force Z as to what would have happened as a consequence. I hope the addition of tactical aircraft in the WAW expansion will fix this issue I'd suggest the same rule as proposed for the subs - they can defend against AC but not attack them. The obvious exception would be carrier task forces. 5 I like the idea of calling the ships Task Forces or Task Groups as opposed to the naming system we have now- it would clear up much confusion. You could still have BB TF's and Cruiser TF ECT. Destroyers might be ASW TF's

Targul, I for one appreciate your service and would never call you stupid for your beliefs or service. I apologize for my lack posting skills I've heard about the reception the Vietnam Vets received and it is so alien to everything I've experienced that I can't truely imagine what it must have been like. You are the kind of man that I'd want fighting by my side. Desert Dave, You are correct in the beginning there was a larger percentage of minorities in combat. As you pointed out this was dealt with and at the end of the day those exploited minorities did no more percentage wise than did anybody else did except - die.They were slightly below what should have been expected - who knows maybe it was because they were better fighters?. So it is a fallacy to say that they were exploited more than anybody else. As far as being a hypocrite I certainly should not be throwing any stones! And I apologize for using the word in this instance. You are also correct in that the congressional vote was a resolution authorizing the use of force. I don’t believe you can declare war on an idea – can you? If Congress did not want the US in Iraq they didn’t have to pass the resolution did it? So I’m certainly not giving up on the Constitution. I’d say it is working exactly the way it was designed to work. The point I was trying to make was the architects of the Constitution did not see a situation like this happening. Who are we going to sit down at a table with and sign a peace treaty, and idea? As far as the Officer Corps being 80% Republican there is a very simple explanation. Most of the Democratic Party has gone so far left that it has left behind those Officers that used to be Democrats. It’s like the choice we face for President, in my experience I end up voting for the candidate that I feel will do the least amount of harm since the candidate that I’d like to vote for doesn’t stand a chance of being elected. I used to call myself a Republican but the Republicans we have today hold very few of the core beliefs that I do judging by their actions. Rambo, I never said I was against the war. What I’m so pissed off about is the execution of the war. I agree with you fully that the war will follow us home here. H*ll It slapped us in the face on Sept. 11! Guess what? It is going to happen here again. I don’t care where we are fighting in the world. We have a government that won’t secure our own borders so using the argument that fighting there will keep them from here just does not hold water.

JJR You are the perfect example of the "Left Coast". When confronted with facts you respond with emotions. That is the same sort of reaction that led this country into Iraq. Ignore the facts and do what feels good. It is symptomatic of this country at large. Nobody is accountable for their actions anymore. Reminds me of the Kindergarden classes at school. Come to think of it our Congress acts in much the same way. If the facts are so skewed as you suggest then explain to me this - If these poor "Hood Rats" as you call them were serving in the combat arms in such great numbers why is their percentage of casulties so small? Hmmm makes a rational person wonder.Do the math college boy. Put that good college education to use and do some research. And yes my jelly donut hating friend obesity will keep you out of the service. Pyle would not even be shipped to boot in todays military.

By the way exploiting the poor kids from the Ghetto is just propaganda: http://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races. 14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks. 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms. Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population. 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races. The one argument that DD puts forward that the cold statistics prove is that more of the less well off serve as opposed to the "rich" and privledged. Since the majority of the Country is not "rich" I hardly find it surprising that the "rich" serve is less numbers.

Desert Dave, We agree on most of the issues you have mentioned in your post. I want thank you for your family’s service, and for your service. It is my belief that it is because of men like you and our fathers that this country continues to thrive and prosper. Your disgust with the situation our country finds itself in is very apparent and I share it. You point out that 70% of all officers will admit they are Republican – and I ask so what? Isn’t that one of the liberties they are fighting for? I’d also point out that Congress did give approval for action in Iraq – that is a fact (Public Law 107–243 passed the Senate on 10-11-2002 by a vote of 77-23) that is often overlooked. The problem as I see it is that there is nothing in place for Congress to stop a war short of using the checkbook. IMHO none of those “rich” self serving individuals will ever do anything that will jeopardize their positions and risk losing the power that intoxicates them. So come next November I will not be voting for any incumbent. That is the biggest hypocrisy in our election process. We Americans rage and vent and send our representatives back election after election (our representatives are fine it is all the other states that have bad ones!) The people in Washington work for us and until we get enough people interested in what is going on in this country and they take the time out of their busy schedules to go vote, we will continue down the “easy” road. Want to see change? Get a law passed holding elections on the weekend – nah it would never happen. There would be too many people who work that would vote and the handouts might just stop. Rambo - @targul --- Are you that stupid? First the KMart scandal, the garbage at Matrix, and now this? Desert Dave has it right on. Far as the "Military Kids" joining. The majority barely graduated high school. In the old days, judges gave guilty defendants a choice many times, join the military or goto prison. Far as the pay, don't forget the 3 hots & a cot. The money ain't much, but if you got nowhere to sleep & nothing to eat, it beats the soup kitchen. As far as the standards for new recruits declining you are sadly misinformed maybe you should go talk to a recruiter . People are turned away for being overweight. I lost 45lbs at Paris Island and if I tried to enlist in any of the services today I’d be turned away for being fat. You need a waiver to get in with a tattoo! How does determine with how good a soldier will be? Today’s military is the best educated best trained in this country’s history that is also a fact. I like the idea of 2 years public service but I would not want to see them in the service. If they don’t want to be there they will just create problems and they will not be effective in anything they do. In Vietnam 2.6 million soldiers served in Country between 1965 and 1973. Of these only 656K were draftees out of 1.7 million that were drafted. So 25% of the forces in Vietnam were draftees and they accounted for a little over 30% of the combat deaths. Yeah I’d say sending people to war who are drafted is a recipe for casualties. Desert Dave - I still say your definition of a mercenary is a stretch, might as well call all wives whores using such a broad definition. I don’t believe anybody would agree with that statement but a lawyer could probably prove it correct in court. Now that I’ve ranted on for so long let me end by saying this - Thank you and welcome home brother. If you ever get to the Old Dominion I’ll have a steak and a cold frothy beverage waiting for you just give me a holler 

So that would mean about 4 million or so? That is taking into account that only about 2/3 of the 30 million would be of working age. I wonder what the figures are by year?

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the conscripts of 40 years ago paid also?

EV - it is a pleasure to read posts, always well thought out. I hate to point out the fly in the soup - but as far as the Germans go I'd ask this. How many millions of prisoners did they use in their economy? Thats why they could devote so much of their manpower to the tooth end of the equation.

Desert Dave - I enlisted because I felt I had an obligation to my country- to the men who fought for my freedoms and rights, and so my children could enjoy the this country like I have. I reenlisted for totally other reasons my obligation to my friends, no my brothers whom I have fought with and who know they can trust me when the sh*t hits the fan. I’m 40 years old and the closest friends I have are all men I’ve served with in Iraq. I’m a “weekend warrior” with 18 months of combat under my belt in two deployments – a father of three, an employee of the local school system, and an SOB when I upset the wife – what I am not is a mercenary . You should choose your words more wisely our resident poet

Arado234 - you have a point. I think that the game can be more historicaly accurate and still maintain balance. A good example is the lack of Axis surface ships being able to do anything while in the convoy lanes. They did not do as much damage as the subs or aircraft did but step back and imagine what would happen if the Italian Navy got loose in the Atlantic due to the fall of Gibralter? As it stands right now - big deal, so what - unless the UK is getting ready to be invaded or N. America is getting ready to be invaded what do they accomplish? They make it more difficult to invade Europe is about all they can do. The reality is that the UK would probably have been starved to death and forced to surrender. No way to replicate that in the current system - maybe balance is why it is not included, who knows. But like it or not there is no doubt that the US contribution is way under represented in this game. I for one like Blashys solution of having the victory conditions date based but as he pointed out it is not a popular opinion. That doesn't mean that the opinions expressed here are wrong though it is just that the decision has been made to keep things more balanced as opposed to historicaly accurate and it does seem to be working All in all I love this game! Sure there can be tweeks here and there and not everybody is ever going to be 100% satisfied but there is nothing else even close on the market.

Since it has already been pointed out that the Americans didn't even use Armor in Corps sized units why not just eliminate American tank units totally? What the heck we only produced 80K + tanks anyways right? Then you could have a balanced game since most of the players seem to want balance as opposed to anything that really happened IMO. Seriously though there is a way to simulate all those American tanks and still have balance. Just have all American units start with an AT value of at least 2 or alternately increase the AT value of the Corps and Armies. The real ruler of the battlefields when we fought the Germans was artillery anyways. German vets from the Russian front could not believe the effectiveness with which Americans used their artillery. When the allies landed in Europe the Germans still had most of the armor on the Russian front. They did have an imposing concentration fighting in Normandy but these were worn down in under 6 weeks by continuous action against the Allied armies and airpower. So I believe that by increasing the AT values of American units it would simulate the numbers of American tanks on the battlefield. This would result in the Axis committing more Infantry units against the Allies as opposed to armor which is also historical. Axis infantry attacking American Infantry would not suffer any ill effects of increased AT values. Just thinking out loud……

Targul, I always wondered how the FO vehicles would survive long enough to accomplish their mission, especially the M113 variation. I presume the armor was to offer some protection from the rolling artillery barrages that were typical of a motor rifle regiment in attack. From everything I've seen though they would be to slow to escape once sighted and they are too big to hide. Infantry would be better at the job but in a fluid battlefield they would be cannon fodder. Am I way off base here? Just wondering is all. I did get to fire an AT4 in OIF, 300 meters right through a door PMI at Paris Island rocks, different weapon but the basics of good marksmanship are the same no matter what you are shooting. You live on the East or West coast? If you ever get in my neck of the woods I'll have a cold one waiting for you I’d really like to talk shop!

Sign me up!! When can we prepurchase the game??

Are aircraft and naval units still able to destroy ground units? I've said it before and I still believe that air or naval units should never be able to destroy the last factor of a ground unit. Could air or naval forces take out a company or shred a battalion or maybe even a regiment? Sure they could and did but never ever ever is there an example of either destroying a 30k + Corps much less a 100K + Army. How many times have German Armies been savaged in France from the sea and air? Sure let them knock the units down to 1 factor but it should be a requirement that ground units need to be destroyed by other ground units. It makes it much harder to deploy and break out of a bridgehead. Also it is historically accurate at least to the scale of this game. I am looking forward to the new naval units. I trust that convoy lanes can now be hit by surface raiders? One last question, is the expansion going to be using the icons by Normal Dude? I've been anticipating them every since he gave the forum the sneak peak.

Guys I feel your pain. After two deployments my 40 year old body just isn't what it used to be. While serving in Iraq the only treatment a soldier got was a bottle of Motrin unless he had the misfortune of getting hit by the enemy. I came home and was told to go see the VA for the medical treatment I should have had in Iraq. To make a long story short in the last 3 years I've had 5 outpatient operations on my back. I filed for disability in August of 06 and just received a rating effective June 07. Here is the fun part: the VA did not count any of my family members when figuring my payments (although I have to give them this information every year for their means test). I filed the necessary paperwork last month and called today to find out the status. You are going to love this: they are so back logged by the same Charlie Foxtrot mistake that they are just now working on the paperwork from Nov 06 - so in another 8 months they will get to it. More fun - has anybody ever had money taken from them by the Government for debts owed when they filed taxes? Well Uncle gave me the stiff one this year. Apparently a person only gets 2 years of treatment for line of duty injuries unless they have a disability rating. Well since my claim had been on file for over a year with no action taken on their part they billed me for all the operations I have had on my back. In fact they over billed me. I forget what the balance was but by the time they took the money and gave it to the VA I received a letter from them saying I now had a credit with them!!!!!! So now I have to take the disability rating to the billing dept and wait lord knows how long to get the money back that they never should have taken in the first place!! If I’m lucky I might get a check for my credit balance also….I won't even get into the appeal process (documented hearing loss after both war tours that isn't considered by them to be a disability). As of right now I'm still in the service waiting for a medical review board from the Army to review my medical records. Why did it take so long to see a board you ask? Well apparently the VA system that the Army sent me to is not considered a military treatment facility. So they sent me a civilian Dr. since I'm over 200 miles from the nearest active duty base. He then took my VA records and wrote the Army that yes the records were indeed accurate (I don't know how much that trip cost the Army). You just have to love military efficiency! In the mean time I became very ill this last spring and ended up in the emergency room after a $600 dollar ambulance ride. Why was I sick? Because, the medicine the VA was prescribing me almost killed me that's why. None of the documents that come with the medicine or the Dr. who prescribed it mentioned the known side effects of this medicine (better yet they didn’t test to see how much of an effect the medicine was having on me in spite of all the operations). The ER Dr. knew what the problem was as soon as he found out what medication I was on he tested me and got the result in less than 10 minutes. Yes sir nothing but the best for the serviceman in this country!! I’ll say a prayer for all of you silicon warrior brothers and I hope things improve for all of us.

Thanks for the input. In the screen shot the Allies had 6 bombers so they were in effect killing 6 cities a turn. Hard to overcome those kind of losses.

After reading the AAR I have some questions. How do the bombers manage to damage the cities so badly? I've had 3 or 4 level 3 bombers hit a city (lets say Paris) and all of them have taken 3 or 4 hits doing so. Is there a way to determine the amount of damage being done to the city attacked? Do the attackers have to be HB as opposed to fighters? Looking at the screen shots it appears that the fighters were also hitting the cities. I thought they didn't affect city reseource levels? Another thing do you need to hit a city with more than 1 bomber a turn?

Just wanted to tip my hat to DAK_21PzDivison (Jesus).After the Axis launching of Operation Can Opener there were several fierce battles around Stalingrad. After taking tremendous punishment, the Soviets were forced to retreat from the city. Meanwhile in the West the huge Allied forces were stymied at every landing attempt due to entrenched Axis forces around every port in striking range. The ports that were not entrenched were protected by the Axis fleets that had been kept intact. In short I had no way of getting ashore in Western Europe to help relieve presure on the Soviets. Realizing the futilty of my position I offered my sword to my worthy opponent. My hats off to him, he was one move ahead of me the entire game!

Is it possible to update a unit adjacent to an enemy unit? Is supply a factor? :confused:

I maybe wrong but don't paratroops have to be non-adjacent to enemy units if they want to drop. What I'm attempting to say is they can't prepare while adjacent to enemy units correct? Also can they drop next to an enemy unit on 1 turn engage in combat and then drop away the next turn? Thanks

DAK_21PzDivision has had the game all his way to this point. He overran Western Europe with the greatest of ease - not a problem at any time during his over running of the Low Countries and France. Did I mention the fact that Spain joined the Axis in spite of the 3 diplo chits played by the Allies (It went up 60% in under 4 turns)?He has made a bold gamble and has launched his invasion of Mother Russia in June of 1941. His forces again seem to be unstoppable. He set up a great naval ambush in the Baltic that caused the loss of the entire Soviet Baltic fleet and encouraged the Finns to enter early. Then he laid low Leningrad in just 2 turns. I have counted 5 Axis AF in Mother Russia so far so he also has complete control of the air. In September his forces tried to cut off Moscow from the rest of the country. This triggered the early release of the Siberian troops and as I write they are engaging the Germans all around Moscow. The Germans are being hit in the front and the flank, suffering their first loss of the war when an armor unit was destroyed. His supplies are low and mud is already in the South so time will tell if he can replace his losses and keep the pressure on the Soviets. In the Med all has been quiet, as well as in Scandinavia. The Kriegsmarine has not made an appearance nor has the Spanish\Italian Navy. He must be hording them for an invasion of the British Isles after he polishes off the Soviets........