Tancred

I take the point of armies being better offensive units, but what I object to is the inconsistency of land units more than anything else. The best solution would be to have the game with divisional units only, but sadly the small map does not allow this. If stacking was allowed, then you could have several corps in a concentrated area, thus replicating the effect of having an army or two. Maybe Hubert should have considered this.

Not much fighting to do in Iraq, though, just police work. The Italian foreign policy has always been one of trying to gain the most reward for the least effort. They even gave this a name: "Sacro egoismo", which, predictably, means 'sacred egoism'. Unfortunately this approach doesn't make you win many friends and admirers!

I also recall that the author of that WW2 history stated that the Italian Navy had plentiful fuel and ammo stocks, unlike what they told Mussolini, and also the firepower to hit the allied invasion fleets badly in July 1943. The Italian navy still had strong capital ships in service and several subs; had these been used to maximum effect, the allies would have suffered grievous losses and maybe even scuppered the invasion of Sicily. The navy's idleness was proof that they wanted peace with the allies.

This is one of the weak points of the game: that you can have both. It's definitely confusing as it is, and an undesirable, inherited feature from 'Clash of Steel'. I would do away with armies completely (except in the case of the USSR, which considered corps as armies) and stick to corps. Hubert please note.

Hi guys, I don't exactly remember where I read this, but it was in a history of WW2 by a very reputable historian. I wish I could find it again! Apparently, soon after Italy's surrender, the British were amazed to find an enormous underground storage depot, full of newly manufactured fighters. It stated that they were all brand new, the latest models, and well armed. Around 3,000-3,300 in total. A lot of ammo and countless barrels of fuel oil were also discovered. The writer was making the point that the Italian high command was traitorously hiding the truth from Mussolini, especially regarding oil, and deliberately painting a gloomy picture in order to get Italy out of the war as soon as possible and save weaponry for the future.

Interesting. I haven't played as the Allies yet, I've only started my first game in the North African campaign, playing as Axis and doing pretty well so far. The British AI is playing strangely, making attacks with one or two units without any support and being annhilated as a result. The most annoying thing is the slowness with which the PC does its 'thinking'!

Italy, though a reluctant belligerent, actually did not automatically surrender after the allied conquest of Sicily. It was Mussolini's dismissal that triggered off the Italian government's negotiation with the allies and Italy's subsequent exit from the Axis camp. Had Mussolini stayed as leader, it is quite likely that Italy would have carried on fighting for at least another year, as the Italian armed forces were still considerable in mid 1943. After Italy's surrender the allies were surprised to find ample stocks of oil, ammunition and over 3,000 brand new, factory fresh unused modern fighter planes.

I don't know what use SC2 would be at West Point. SC2 is about grand strategy, which applies on a world war scenario, but in the future any wars are likely to be small scale firefights and 'police' actions in unstable areas (e.g Iraq). The age of 5 star Generals/Field Marshals commanding army groups of millions of soldiers has gone forever. A future world war, if it ever happens, will be fought by computers, with generals only needing to click on a few buttons.

It has been 'close' for the last two years! At this rate, the game will become another 'World in Flames' vaporware.

VERY disappointing news Hubert. I remember that originally, the game was meant to be out in December 2004! What happened? Working feverishly?? Surely would it not have been more sensible to have finished SC2 instead of introducing other, irrelevant games? I'm sorry about my tone, but I'm not happy at all.

WHY ARE WE WAITING? WHY ARE WE BL**DY WAITING? WHY ARE WE WAITING FOR THE RELEASE DATE? LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA...........

You have completely misunderstood me. I'm NOT trying to justify nazi atrocities - do you understand? I'm trying to concentrate minds on the fact that as well as Nazi atrocities, MANY others were committed by the allied side. And I reject your assertion that the mass rapes by Soviet soldiers can be justified as an act of revenge. If you use this argument, then the world would still be at war, as every nation has cause for avenging some atrocity or another. In 1939 Germany invaded Poland. For some unknown reason, Britain and France decided to declare war on Germany, despite the fact that Poland could not be defended by allied troops. The Soviet invasion of Poland, again for some strange reason, did not elicit a similar response from Britain and France. So much for the principles for which the allies fought! Yes, I accept that the Germans committed monstrous atrocities against Jews, Poles and Russians, and I would not even dare to try to justify these actions, but I still maintain that to look at only one side of the coin is profoundly wrong, both historically and morally. Numbers are not the issue here, this isn't a sports game! It doesn't matter if the Nazis killed 26 million or the Soviets 13 million - THE FACT IS THAT ATROCITIES WERE COMMITTED BY BOTH SIDES!! It may be argued that the Nazis were more nihilistic than the Soviets, but that doesn't make the latter free of responsibility. And I haven't even mentioned the allied bombing campaign, POW camps, etc. Although the Germans started the war, it can be argued that they had legitimate grievances arising from the Treaty of Versailles; had these been properly addressed there would, most probably, have been no Hitler government and no war! So let's not simplify this to a basic 'right and wrong' - history is NOT black and white. And I find your accusations against me to be as loathsome as your arguments are emotional and infantile. It's people like you who wish to gag those who disagree with the modern 'establishment' viewpoint, because it makes you feel cosy and comfortable to believe that you are in the right. Well, if you believe this, then you are a true first class idiot. Go back to your cosy, politically correct life and live in your make believe world. Those who know and see the truth don't need to be lectured by the brainwashed. Then you clearly failed to read my profile. It seems that an inability to read clear text is one of your weaknesses. So the Nazis weren't pure dagnasty evil? They were brave, Teutonic heroes acting gloriously? Gosh, and none of my books ever made that clear. Perhaps I should go back and read Goebbels' Propaganda - I did it my way. I suppose that invading Poland with Russia was some German humour that the rest of Europe failed to laugh at? It's all so clear now! Suddenly I understand that the Nazis weren't perpetrating a vicious war of conquest, but were actually peaceful and loving! How could I have missed that? So you've read Beevor's "Stalingrad" and "Berlin - the Downfall 1945"? Beevor specifically references the rape of German civilians by the Red Army during its approach to Berlin and analyses the reasons behind it. But I suppose that, being a 'conventional' historian, his opinion is invalid. Maybe I should be reading stuff about how "OMG Teh Grem4ns wer Teh Oprressedd!!!!!"? In all your racist rant, you have at no point acknowledged the slaughter of the Poles by the Germans. But I suppose that, being untermensch, they wouldn't matter to you. The Russians were bastards. We know. Trying to justify the German bastardness by saying 'The Russians were also bastards' is crud. And you're still a filthy neo-nazi racist. And I still want you to get out of my country. </font>

Soddball, You're an idiot - pure and simple. And a hysterical one at that. I assume you're about 14 or 15....grow up. Of course I'm not a neo-Nazi - not at all! My aim is to blow away a few myths and bring a balance to the usual turgid statements about wicked Nazis, 'Antichrist' Hitler and such nonsense. Revisionism is needed, it is controversial but it is needed. The aim of revisionism is NOT to make heroes out of the Nazis - it NEVER was the aim, you fools! The aim is to balance the arguments by looking at the facts that the evils in WW2 were not only committed by the Germans. The Russians and even the Western allies did some pretty ****ty things. These facts have to be faced and it is the duty of historians to make the public aware of them. The truth is out of there if you are willing to read widely, but if you shut your eyes you will continue to see only what you have been brainwashed by the establishment to see. Historical revisionism is becoming more widely accepted. Let's ignore David Irving because he is just a fool; he has brought trouble on himself when there was no need. He just loves the publicity. But there are other, respected historians, who advocate one form or another of revisionism - unlike Irving they are not accused of being pro-Nazi. A lot of books written by conventional historians do not venture away from the official versions of history (as written by the victors) because doing so would harm their careers. But I've read hundreds of these books and they repeat the same old stuff 'ad infinitum' like a mantra. A new approach is needed.

Kuniworth, Again, I suggest you read more widely. This little primer is suggested as an introduction to the Socialist paradise that the UK and USA were allied to in WW2: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674076087/102-7014301-3923307?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance Although the book covers Communism in all its nefarious global manifestations, there are large sections in this book devoted to blowing the myth that the Communist Russians were heroic liberators in WW2 etc. The sooner this garbage is buried, the better. "....The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the century..." Uncle Joe Stalin was responsible for over half of these, by the way. I also suggest you read the books by Nikolai Tolstoy - difficult to find nowadays. Tolstoy is a direct descendant of the Russian writer and one of the first writers to tell the truth about the way in which anti-Communist Soviet citizens were betrayed by the allies and turned over to the Soviets and certain death. There is a good account of the Vlasov army here: http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html By October 1944 900,000 Soviet citizens were fighting FOR the Germans WITHIN the German armed forces! This despite the harsh and brutal nature of the German occupation. Even Himmler and Hitler were powerless to stop this mass recruitment of former Soviet servicemen by the Wehrmacht. Finally, let me leave you with this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM An excellent, academically researched listing of Soviet murders from 1917 to 1987. A total of 61.9 million victims, including 13 million during 1941-45, the period during which the USSR fought Germany. This section deals with Poland's ethnic cleanisng of Germans after WW2: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.HTM Basically, all these hideous brutalities need to be placed in perpspective. Though Hitler was an amoral nihilist, he was also a muddle headed and emotional dreamer. Stalin, by contrast, was very much a realist and a very capable administrator, as well as being utterly cold hearted and ruthless to the maximum degree. Originally posted by Kuniworth: WHO has estimated that half the deaths were due to reprisals?

Kuniworth, Again, I suggest you read more widely. This little primer is suggested as an introduction to the Socialist paradise that the UK and USA were allied to in WW2: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674076087/102-7014301-3923307?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance Although the book covers Communism in all its nefarious global manifestations, there are large sections in this book devoted to blowing the myth that the Communist Russians were heroic liberators in WW2 etc. The sooner this garbage is buried, the better. "....The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the century..." Uncle Joe Stalin was responsible for over half of these, by the way. I also suggest you read the books by Nikolai Tolstoy - difficult to find nowadays. Tolstoy is a direct descendant of the Russian writer and one of the first writers to tell the truth about the way in which anti-Communist Soviet citizens were betrayed by the allies and turned over to the Soviets and certain death. There is a good account of the Vlasov army here: http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html By October 1944 900,000 Soviet citizens were fighting FOR the Germans WITHIN the German armed forces! This despite the harsh and brutal nature of the German occupation. Even Himmler and Hitler were powerless to stop this mass recruitment of former Soviet servicemen by the Wehrmacht. Finally, let me leave you with this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM An excellent, academically researched listing of Soviet murders from 1917 to 1987. A total of 61.9 million victims, including 13 million during 1941-45, the period during which the USSR fought Germany. By comparison with Stalin, Hitler was an amateur. WHO has estimated that half the deaths were due to reprisals? </font>