Hyazinth von Strachwitz

@ Arado: A Battleship unit in SC isn`t simply one big ship, there is a group of support vessels included as well... this is why BB`s can attack U-Boats in this game. Apart from that your argumentation is right... BB`s don`t attack U-Boats in real warfare.

I think there should be a morale drop when a major nation looses its Capital... as well a morale gain for the conquering side.. not as much percentage as in case of surrender, but a part of it. In that particular case: - Moscow was close to be abandoned in late 41.. the industrial capacity would have been almost unhurt, but there would be a severe moral blow.. what helped the Russain indeed was the fact that they noticed the german war machine wasn`t unstoppable. In fact they started a major counteroffensive in the south as well which was stopped by Manstein in Spring 42.. this lead to the famous "Fall Blau". - Germany`s morale took a severe blow in Winter 41/42.. they noticed that the blitzkrieg had failed and they will face a war of attrition. On german Wikipedia I read that after the lost Battle of Moscow even Hitler mentioned to his High Command that the war is almost impossible to win.. this is why he fired von Brauchitsch. Basically I don`t want to say that Germany would have won the war by taking Moscow, but the whole picture would have been completely different.. by taking Moscow and destroying the defending forces, Germany would have had more forces to conduct "Fall Blau" in early Summer 42... or more tanks to support the Afrika Korps.. think for yourself what the consequence could have been.

As I said... when you play that strategy against Hellraiser or Terif, you won`t be too successful. I wonder how some of the better players would solve that problem. When you play that strategy against the AI, the russians bleed themselves white on the east german border... but of course a human player (even a mediocre one) isn´t so stupid [ October 30, 2006, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Hyazinth von Strachwitz ]

I`m not quite sure wether this works vs Human, but vs. highest level AI this works out quite well: - take the whole Med including Spain, Gibraltar and Portugal.. as well as Mid East - Fortify Casablanca, Alexandria, France and the east german Border (down to the hills in northern Romania) - get Sweden and Norway as well.. than you get Finnland for free usually I think it won`t work out against an experienced human player, but who knows..

I`m pretty sure both of you guys are very good players, but with USA at 300 and USSR at 400 MPP(sidelined by the UK), they have almost twice as much as the Axis does have.. as far as I understand it, the Allies control almost all of the Med, so Germany has just central Europe.. I estimate around 400 MPP... so the outcome is quite clear, esp. with the situation in Russia... The situation is almost the same the real german situation after Kursk... no way to win. I might be wrong, coz you will have a better insight of your game, but I dare to predict an Allied victory...

If nothing unusual happens, the Allies will win most likely..

Right.. I never use soft build limits, that`s why I forgot this..

Interesting.... I thought Axis Minors cannot purchase HQs at all.. as far as I know only Germany and Italy can purchase HQs..

@ Hubert: Good to hear! TVM!

What I would wish for 1.05 is that the AI stops building numerous Headquarters as Axis.. Once upon a time I had a situation where 5 Axis Headquarters stood in one line in front of Sverdlovsk (I still held Sverdlovsk)... and one field unit per HQ.. doesn`t make too much sense. Esp. if the tides turn positive for the Allies, the AI gets totally lost.. transfer a Corps out of a town and another one in in the same turn. Once I trapped 2 german and one Italian HQs south of Kiev... without any other units attached to it..

@ Hubert: I didn`t have "Soft Build Limits" turned on...

@ Hubert: I just finished a game vs the Axis AI on maxed out settings... in the end the AI had above 5000 MPP left.. By using these points, it would have been a really hard match.. will this be improved?

Setting a more accurate trigger would help...

Keep the old discussion in mind that basically Carriers should be treated as two different units.. the ship and the aeroplanes.. unless this problem isn`t solved, the Sea Combat model doesn`t fit anyway...

okay, let`s see... (1) Depends on your strategy and what side you are playing; i.e. you need Industrial Tech as Russia. I would say in a long lasting game Research is vital. (2) Infantry Weapons (3) Not necessarily... Russia needs Infantry and the US need Air Power.... every country has its needs, but that depends on your strategy.. (4) Concentrate on the ones you need for your strategy; usually you need a few ones which are vital; with the Research Cap you won`t get all anyway. (5) As well a matter of strategy.. but usually it`s wise to have Infantry weapons, Motorization, Heavy Tanks and Anti Tanks Weapons more or less advanced before entering Russia... and vice versa. (6) It could be a war winner if you invest in it and score hits very early (once I had IW 3 in march 40... that blew the froggies into pieces), but usually it`s just a minor addition. Research isn`t easy to plan, coz is dependent on your luck. I saw games were I had HT 5 in 41.. and sometimes I ended up with HT 3 in 45...

True indeed... but after the war ended Petain was brought back and put into prison.

Thx Edwin... what you say makes sense.... implementing your ideas (a) and ( would be a step ahead in the right direction. I would assume the percentage for idea (a) quite low and quite high for (. Moving the french capital to Algiers is an interesting gameplay alternative, but it would mean changing history without a direct need. I know SC2 isn`t a simulation, but I prefer to stick relatively close to history.. as far as possible. For that reason I would vote for another alternative: when North Africa is occupied either by Allied or Axis forces, Vichy France simply surrenders if Marseille is taken by Axis troops. And I would prefer to see one reunited France.. as it was is history. Even if there were a few people who feared punishment for their collaboration, in reality nothing prevented the reunification.

It is also a common idea to fortify the east german border with engineers and attack North Africa with full force... then take Syria, Turkey and finish of Russia by taking the vital Caucasus...

Sorry if this has been adressed in the past, but I wonder why France isn`t "merged" with Vichy France when Paris is liberated.. and I think it should be. I played a game these days as Axis where i lost Paris to the Allied forces because I didn`t defend it in a proper way... I wanted to finish off Russia first. After taking Sverdlovsk I put my troops to the Westwall to regain France.. and the AI declared war on Vichy France (not occupied) so they were my "Allies" and fought their evil northern brothers hand in hand with me... doesn`t make much sense. Apart from that I would vote for an "easy" option to occupy vichy france, i.e. pay 100MPP and occupy Vichy France as soon as Northern Africa is in Allied hands.... and get a low tech corps for free to occupy Marseilles... just as it happened in history. Is there any solution cooking? Any ideas or comments?

One question to the more sophisticated players in this forum... I have no opinion, because I tried it in various games and I`m still not quite sure on how to handle it. Given the following situation: - Timeframe around 41 or 42 - Axis is engaged in Russia and is advancing towards Leningrad - Finnland is in the war - Leningrad can be either taken quickly or a direct contact to Finnland can be established east of the Ladoga sea, so that ressources in Finnland go up 100% efficiency Does it make sense to take Sweden via Diplomacy, i.e. invest all 5 Chits there unless you don`t need them elsewere? Usually I got them in sooner or later, sometimes needed to invest another 1-2 chits. You get 4 land units you can use to garrsion cities in Russia, or even take Norway and garrison it. Apart from that you get a cruiser and an Air fleet.. and it just costs you around 300 MPP for the Diplo... unless your opponent doesn`t counter. Given the fact that you can get Sweden with this strategy: would you guys do that?

@ Colin: I like this solution as well... would solve many problems... and makes it more realistic.

Thx for your feedback... Honestly I find it rather difficult to imagine that fighting AND fortifying should take place simultaneosly.. "Hey Franz, you shoot Ivan and I operate the concrete mixer, is that okay to you?"... Fortifying means hard engineer work... not just digging trenches. Digging trenches is included in the normal entrechment levels a unit can reach standing by simply standing on the open plains; so the work the current Engineer units do is somewhat different. As I said above: these units should be non-fighting units... another idea to solve that problem can be that the engineer unit gets transported to the next friendly city automatically as soon as an enemy unit steps close to them... just an idea.

There is one thing to keep in mind: there is a huge difference between Pioneers and the people who build fortifications.. Pioneers as a fighting unit do not build concrete fortifications, and the russian citizens who build the defensive lines do not fight at all. Pioneers as a fighting unit should get bonuses when attacking fortified cities or across rivers (as in PanzerGeneral), but there was no corps or army sized pure Pioneer fighting unit in WW2. For that reason I would dump the current system; for instance Baugruppe Todt didn`t fight at all... they just built fortifications. I would suggest that the pioneer units must not fight at all, but take less damage from air attacks and shore bombardments.. even the RAF won`t send many bombers on an old man with a wheelbarrow. With this measure I want to make sure that they don`t get killed by aerial attacks or shore bombardment; this didn`t happen in the war. Next to this they should not have ANY combat values; if they get attacked from another ground unit, they simply retreat 2 hexes in the other direction (if encircled, they get killed)... unlike our HQs which can stand 3-4 attacks sometimes in a turn. Another idea can be that attacks simply lowers the efficiency of the unit and doesn`t kill it... Makes it way more realistic in my eyes.

By that time I thought it is some strange rule I simply didn`t understand.. and did not create a savegame..

I had that problem with my 5th panzer unit in Russia as well...