arado234

It may have been better for you to focus all your airfleets on Spain and take it quick.Once you seize Gibralter then Malta is that much easier to take and the Brits.start to have an overall supply problem.You could also just take Spain and forget about Malta.Attack Russia in 41 and during that first winter turn operate the necessary forces to wipe out Malta.By this time your airfleets will have gained some experience and will be that much deadlier when they attack Malta.

I guess it depends on your overall strategy.Taking Spain doesnt guarantee an Axis victory.If you do take Spain then for sure take Gibralter.Just remember with an attack on Spain the Amis.get more ships and a big boost in their readiness.

Srategic bombers do reduce entrenchment,but they are better at lowering morale.I believe you actually have to hit the unit in question in order to reduce its entrenchment level thats why your Malta attack(using tac.bomber)reduced its entrenchment level.Heavy bombers arent that good at hitting actual units unless they have some upgrades.

Imho you should still be able to escort tac.bombers but the surviving interceptors get to attack the bombers(this would atleast prevent the attacker from using a very low strength fighter using up a full strength defending fighter completely).If the fighters choose to ignore the escorts they should suffer some penalty(perhaps their advanced fighter level drops 1 or to 2 levels to mimic the greater destruction they would recieve by ignoring escorts like it really happened) and they dont get to shoot back at the defending fighters.Im sure this would be hard to program though. Land based tactical Artty. shouldnt be able to shoot at battleships or crusiers.

Thetwo I see what you mean about trying to get this right.It doesnt look to easy

The numbers are refering to upgrades for the unit. -Inf have three total:Motorization.inf weapons anti tank.Paras.have longrange air instead of motorization -Tanks have motorization and heavy tank -Fighters have longrange air and advanced fighters -Tac.bombers have anti tank,anti ship,longrange air -Same applys for all the rest of the units. -With commanders you can upgrade to a better one.They cant have anyother upgrades added. If you have the SC2 manual look on page 19.It will explain it all.Hope this helps.

thetwo thats true about the cost per round but the Amis.had so much they didnt care.Imho tac.bombers have to much punch against inf.but against objects(tanks,Artty,rockets,etc)I like the ideathey can wipe them out.A.A.guns are quite cheap and effective at reducing the effectiveness of tac. bombers.Heavy bombers are good just the way they are. The one thing that maybe should be changed also is that tac.air can interdict? SeaMonkey you always have that one interesting comment(lol).I like it.

The last thing you say Big Al I also agree with.Especially against infantry. The real big atvanyage of airpower is that it can strike anywhere. The B24d,7500 pound payload B24j,11,000 pound the B17g 20,000 pounds .If they were dropping 500 pound bombs(which weighed alot more than any Artty round except from ships)thats way more than 2000 bombs.The problem like you say was accuracy.Its also got to be demoralizing though to watch the other side bring wave after wave of planes and you can do nothing about it except hope they arent coming for you.

Thats true Big Al but it goes to show that airpower could and in some cases was quite effective at wiping out the effectivness of an armored unit. I also read the report about the Allies way overestimating the german tanks they destroyed during the Mortain attack.But the fact that Germany had so few tanks shows the overall effectiveness of the Allied air campaign through interdiction and the attack on the support units in a tank formation. My dads friend who fought in Normandy told me that one thing the Germans feared alot was moving during daylight out in the open.P.O.Ws told him that being bombed constantly is not a pleasant feeling and it had a big effect on the overall morale of the troops.Not knowing if that next bomb that falls is going to blow you to bits(yes they werent all that accurate) ill bet is very unpleasant.

I was doing a little research on this and came across a comment made by Fritz Bayerlein about what Allied jabos did to the Panzer Lehr on June 7 1944.The formation lost in one day -40 tanker trucks -90 other vehicles(only 5 were tanks and the rest were trucks halftracks and S.P.guns). Looks like airpower could be very effective.Not to well against tanks but if the tanks cant be fueled or moved by primemovers to be brought back for repair it takes away alot of their overall effectiveness.

thetwo I never was intending to sound nit picky.Sorry if I come across that way.I do agree with you in that this game is getting maxed out with all the different types of units.My only real question was if the Russians arenot allowed seperate Artty.units then do you think they should recieve something in return considering what they spent on them?

thetwo imho they did make a difference especially when the Germans were surrounded or not mobile enough and werenot able to pull back.Then they were just pounded into submission.Also since we are in command shouldnt we have the choice on how we move our Russian troops(not moving out of range of the Artty units). Thetwo, Russia spent huge amounts of resources to build all their Artty.How would you suggest they be compensated by not being able to be allowed to build the Artty.formations? Mansteins strategy would only work for so long in reality because of the Allies vastly superior numbers and all the fronts Germany was fighting on.The Russians were also getting better at handling their armored units and could field way more tanks then Germany could ever hope to stop.Plus once there is no room to pull back then Russian Artty.becomes that much more effective.In this game the Allies dont vastly outnumber the Axis,so to compensate maybe the Russians should be the only ones allowed to build Artty.

gravyfaceone one of the reasoms I like P.D.E.is because you can ignore traditional pacts(Nazi,Soviet)and change the course of the game right away.It makes things a little more interesting.

True about the A.A.Bill but(I know this will stir the pot)the calibre of A.A.guns defending the Ruhr industry werenot very effective against tac. bombers or fighters because of their size(88mm and up)and low rate of fire.They couldnt track fast enough to hit something going over 300 and in the case of fighters over 400 mph(they did get lucky and hit the odd one but not enough to effect the actual striking power of the air unit) .The A.A.units we build can fire at both fighters and tac. bombers because they were usually around 20mm and could track very quickly quickly to fire and also had a high rate of fire.However they didnt have alot of hitting power against strategic bombers flying 5 miles above them. This I know is being kind of picky but perhaps the A.A.units could be designed somehow to reflect this?Just a thought.

I like the idea of just the Russians having the actual Artty. counters considering the amount they built.As far as their effectiveness goes, reducing entrenchment and lowering morale plus a slight chance of doing some actual damage would be good. As far as A.A. and anti tank goes imho just have them as upgrades.

-Imho if Germany can take England and clear Africa then Germany should recieve some sort of instant mpp bonus and it should give them a permanent small morale boost.This would have been a disaster for the Allies in reality -English capital moves to Ottawa. -America and Russia get an Immediate Ind.and Prod.boost and they both recieve 3 free research points in both Ind.and Prod.tech -All minor countries than could be "influnced"(close proximity) by Germany see an instant increase in their diplomacy to Germany(dont know by how much).You can bet that every country in question would now be in great fear of being occupied and would probably be "encouraged''that it would be in their best interest to be friendly towards Germany England being removed from Europe and Africa should have a major effect on this game as it would have in reality. As far as their being some penalty for the Allies(imho there shouldnt be) occupying the Mideast,thats what they did in reality and their was no big issue from Turkey or anyone else.Russia and England "'persuaded"Iran to allow LendLease.Iran wanted no part of it but had no choice.The reason I know this is because two of my co workers are Iranian and they both told me there was ALOT of resentment about this for along time after the war ended.They feared that if Germany was successful in taking Africa they would be blamed for trying to help the Allies and feared reprisals from Germany. -I agree with the toning down of Tac.bombers,especially against Inf. -I also find it kind of strange that Artty.can fire at and cause damage to a battleship(shouldnt be allowed).Most Artty.was either three inch and up to about 5.5 inch guns and had nowhere near the range or destructive power of a battleships 14 to 16 inch guns.

-How expensive will it be to research and build the A bomb? -Will the country(s)in question have to have access to all the proper resources(heavy water, etc, etc)? -How will it be used(by bomber,v rocket)? -Will it have an effect on objective squares(Wipe out Berlin and Munich does Germany surrender)? -Will it have an effect on overall morale of the bombed nation(Can it cause a country to surrender like Japan did)?

Big Al what do you think about somehow adding Ultra?Maybe to big of a game breaker? If you have ever played Third Reich you know that all major powers get a chance to counterattack to recapture their capital.I would think that would be a great addition to a possible SC3.

Big Al I dont see how thats possible in relation to the Amis or the Russians.The Amis.grossly outproduced Germany in almost every raw material before the war started in 1937 (in the case of oil by more than 10x).If you have Ellisis book you must also see the HUGE differences in overall Allied industrial might BEFORE the Axis started really loosing.There is noway this game is set to actual Allied industrial potential,Germany in this game with the soft build limits turned off can put more tanks and aircraft on the board than America or Russia seperatly when the oppossite is true.As far as Artty. goes Russia had more than the rest of the world combined let alone Germany(who is allowed to build more in this game).The fact that the atom bomb isnt in this game doesnt reflect in the huge amount of raw materials and tech. and manpower used to build it that could have been used elsewhere.The Allies get no benifet from this in this game. Taking overall pop.of the 5 major Belligerents the Axis(Germany and Japan) had about 150,000.000 people the Allies(Amis. Russians,Brits.) had about 380,000,000.The Axis had about 27,000,000 serving in their armed forces the Allies had about 57,000,000.Thats just over two to one.In this game the Allies cannot out build or out man Germany by two to one especially when you consider Russia(30,000,000) could concentrate all her forces on one front. When you look at all the data its so one sided that its amazing that the Axis held on as long as they did.Most high ranking Germans(including Hitler) knew they had to win a fast war because they had no hope of winning a long war BECAUSE of Allied industrial might. One more thing this game or anyother ive ever played doesnt include is Ultra.Im not sure how or if its even possible to include it. Big Al I am in noway knocking you or impliing you dont know what your talking about because you are very in knowledgeable but im just taking facts and figures from a book you recommend. Blashy has a mod.(I wonder if he is reading this)that sets the the game at actual industrial output and (correct me if im wrong Blashy)the Amis.alone at the start of the game have way more mpps and recieve alot more everyturn.

Big Al I got my Figures form John Ellisis book. Imho we won because of the Axis strategic and political blunders and once the shooting match got started our WAY superior production numbers was the deciding issue,plus the Atomic bomb.In the case of the Abomb accuracy wasnt a big issue. Allied Industrial might must be the deciding factor because why is this game and most others not set at actuall historical industrial output for all countries,because there would be no point in playing them.

thetwo your comment about Russia not surviving without lendlease/murmansk is very interesting.It got me researching and from what I found it would have been very close for the Russians in 1941/1942 without our help.In 1943 its amazing how much "stuff"they started to make. SeaMonkey makes a great point in that right from the start of the war Germany was either just barley able to keep up with fuel demands and by 1941 they started to run a deficit from which they couldnt recover. I read one other interesting thing which was one of the reasons Germany tried to build higher quality motorised weapons was because they knew they could only supply limited fuel to their armed forces and they felt it would be better to have much better equipment and less of it to have to keep fueled up.Still when you look at overall production figures it was so pitifully hopless for the Axis. See what you have done to me thetwo.Now you have got me back rereading all my books(ive got hundreds of them)on WW2.My wife just laughs at me and says:there goes mister world war two again.When we first got married one of her friends made the comment when she visited our house was that it was like being in a world war 2 library.

WOW thetwo thats amazing.How long did it take you to type all of that?

I have no idea how that smiley face got in there.

thetwo thats true about the 5,000 aircraft we had and yes you would think they would have had a bigger effect. Your comment about the M-4 im not to sure I agree with it.My dads friend and everyone else called them ronson lighters(one strike and they were alight).The Germans called them Tommy cookers.I have a good book on this very subject called:Death Traps.Its about the survival of a typical Ami.armored division.The author was a head mechanic and believe me he didnt think to highly of the M-4.

Good question.Maybe its supposed to represent the effect of the Allied bomber offensive?If thats why imho it makes sense.