arado234

thetwo thats a very interesting read about Airpower.The only thing I never really noticed(maybe I missed it) was that it didnt mention the effect it had on morale of the average soldier. My dads good friend fought in Normandy and he said the Allied fighter bomber pilots favorite targets usually werent tanks but the supply trucks.They knew that a tank without gas is useless.They also tended to attack targets that stood out (like staff cars etc).He also said seeing all those aircraft upped Allied morale. You have to wonder though about airpower because Rommel believed that the Allies had to be stopped on the beaches because Allied airpower would have been to devestating .Germany launched Wacht en Rhine in bad weather because of Allied airpower.

Big Al as far as producing Arrty. goes Russia almost outproduced the rest of the world combined.They produced over 516,00 tubes(excluding mortars) of various calibres the rest of the world combined(Germany produced about 159,000) produced just over just over 580,000. By 1944 Russia had over 90 Artty.divisions and over 149 seperate Artty. brigades(Germanys total strength on the Eastern front in 1943 peaked at 185 understrength divisions) and if they chose to put all that Artty.into their divisions like the Germans did they would have grossly outgunned them.The typical Russian rifle division by 1943 had 1 Artty. regiment consisting of 24 76 mm guns and 12 122mm guns(excluding mortars which they had lots of (over 400,000).Germany produced about 73,000 mortars.I dont see how the Russians could have fired less rounds than Germany.The Russians fired over 500,000 rounds at Berlin alone.Other than Germanys 100mm sk 18 Russians Artty. outranged German Artty with similar calibres.The Russians also fired a slightly heavier shell. As far as losses go the Germans had over 7,850,000 casualties total.The rest of the major western Allies had just over 1,700,000.The Russians had over 11,000,000 killed or missing.These are combat losses only. All facts and figures taken from the book:WW2,The encyclopedia of facts and figures. As far as this game goes imho maybe Artty.should just be an upgrade for the ground units.Better defence and better attack. Big Al the Allies did make the biggest strategic blunder of all and that was not standing up to Hitler in the beginning

What will the Allies overall industrial might be set at?

I think these tiles equal 100 miles(correct me if im wrong)so it would be quite easy to fly past a bunch of A.A. guns and not have them shoot.Also the planes could be flying at 25,000 feet.Way out of range of all the smaller calibre A.A.guns. and the larger calibre guns would have to get so lucky hitting a fighter flying over 400mph or even the latter tac.bombers wich could fly over 300 mph.that they would have no effect on the overall strength of the airfleet.

SeaMonkey you sure do raise alot of points(thats good).I would think that Carrier task forces primary goal is to clear the way for an invasion force by first wiping out the other guys planes and ships(Carriers first of course then land based air). It sounds like everyone wants to get quite tech.and thats ok if the game will still be easily playable because if it isnt alot of people wont buy it. I think as far Carriers go the planes on board should have to be divided up in to fighters,divebombers and torpedo planes(you would choose how many of each type a Carrier has on board).Battleships and Crusiers have the ability to launch one or two spotter planes.As the war progresses then possible upgrades for Carriers would be those small escort Carriers and this could be simulated by an overall abundance of more planes available to the group in question.But since this is mostly a strategic game I dont know how technical it can be made without the game taking to long to play.

CSS the first Ami.carrier groups were only based on one Carrier like the Yorktown,etc.(neither side had any support carriers at Midway)They only equal about 90 aircraft.I guess you have to have upgrades for the carrier groups.To get this really accurate its going to take alot of work.

I thought earlier alot of people said Airfleets were to strong.If they get two attacks per turn(stukas etc.)they will be a REAL game breaker.Maybe against eachother or against attacking Strat.bombers but against ground targets,doesnt look to good for the Russians.

I tried attacking France first and against the A.I. I was able to take France Belgium,denmark,Poland and I told the russians to drop dead with the Nazi Soviet pact.I attacked russia in 1940 and I was also attacking in Africa.Its 1942 and it looks bleak for the Allies. One thing I couldnt figure out was that Canada never declared war on Germany.I checked the settings and it was on random which usually means a couple of turns at the most.I had to declare war on them in 1942 to get them into the game.Has anyone ever had that happen before.I know Mackenzie King was a doofus but that was the first ive ever had that happen.

Colin I you might be able to pull off some neat moves with the Allies(HvH) if the Axis arent expecting it. I tried the samething you did with regards to attacking Russia early and got prettywell the same results. Have you tried ignoring Poland and going after France right away?

Colin I any human player just has to move his Italian ships to port.Its alot harder to sink them.He can also abandon Africa and move those extra troops back. I played as the Allies against the A.I. and I was suprised that when I abandoned Africa with my Frenchies it moved in with Italians and took all of French N.Africa.France finally fell in late Aug.What I couldnt understand is why it accepted Frances Surrender.It had all of French N.africa except Syria and it took Vichy.It would have been better for it to say no and have conquered all that extra territory.I only had 1 Frenchie left at that point. What is fun as the Germans is to go against what the Germans really did.The Russians get really pissed when you tell them your not going to accept the non aggression pact.

Big Al its definetly worth it.If you play against the A.I.with the 1939 Munich crisis just do the opposite of what really happened.It really livens things up.Russia hates it when you dont agree to the Nazi Soviet pact.Its fun.Just be a true Hitler and backstab whenever you can.

Wait untill Americas full industrial might kicks in and then see how many units you can build.You will be able to just overwhelm them.If you have just started there area few suprises I wont tell you about.

thetwo from what I read and saw on T.V.(I know how inaccurate it can be)one of the Japanese nuclear scientists claimed they set one off on Korea just days before the war ended.One of the reasons why(besides the fact that they were nuts)the Japanese fought on ws because of this hope of building one.Some scientists didnt think it was possible for Japan to accomplish this but there are some claim they did.Im just telling you what I saw.

Id love to add my two cents worth J.J.R. but I grew up playing mostly European WW2 games,but from what ive read you seem to know alot about the Pacific.I think you are right in that the game should have Kamakazis and Nukes.If no Nukes then America should get something else because they spent enormous amounts on the whole Manhattan project. I sure am going to buy the game and learn .Ill let you Pacific experts wipe me out untill I get the hang of it.I guess it depends on how the game is designed if the Japanese have any chance of winning.In reality they had almost no hope. One interesting think I saw and read about nukes is that the Japanese exploded a nuclear device just before the war ended.Perhaps this could also be added into the game.From what I learned is that they were going to bury it where they figured the Amis. were going to land and set if off.Glad we beat them to it.

Just.as far as Western Russia allied to Germany(which is what would happened if Hitler wasnt Hitler)It wasnt Stalin joining him it was the Ukraine and the rest just wanting to get rid of Stalin.They were going to fight for Germany untill your friendly Einzatsgruppen and the rest of the blockheads started deporting all the Russians back for slave labor and the Germans started stealing all their food and leaving them to starve.This drove them back to the Russians.Alot of the Ukrainian people formed partisan groups who fought both the Russians and the Germans. If Hitler had played his cards right he could have easily created at minimum another revolt in Russia(like in WW1)and let the Russians fight it out. The Germans would have sent troops and equipment to help fight against Stalin loyalists.Since Germany wouldnt have suffered the huge losses in Russia, this would have freed up huge Military resources to use against the Brits in Africa.It opens up the very real possibilty of Germany "suggesting" to Turkey that it would be in their best interest to allow free passage of German troops to attack the Mideast.Turkey wouldnt have much of a choice.No need to worry about Malta or the British navy.

Just.you did make a good point in that a "victory"for the Axis would be to hold out longer than reality.That in itself is fun to play.I guess if you were to make a WW2 strategic game that way you have to include overall Allied ind.strengtht,plus the Abomb.This would prettywell seal the Axis fate.But if the Axis could hold out alot longer than reality then they would"win". The game would have to include imho a way that the Brits.dont know when or if the Amis.and Russians will join her side.In other words there would have to be various political possibilties(Western Russia joining Germany)Japan convinced to attack Russia first.These would then GREATLY effect the outcome of the game as they would have in reality.It would be real fun to have this included in a grand strategy game.Just imagine all this with multiple players.Lots of possibilties.

Excellent idea Sam.Imho the more historical relevent politics involved the better.It would make the game much more interesting.I guess from a programers point of view(which I am clueless)it would be alot of work since each political decision could have major impacts on other possibilties.

I would also like to see Diplomacy changed.Right now if Germany has Diplo.chits in Spain and lets say the Allies have landed in France,Italy is kaput and the Russians are steamrolling west through Poland,there is no way Spain would even think of joining the Axis.There should be a tipping point where Dilpo chits from either side have no effect or they are dramatically reduced as the strategic fortunes of the war change.I do realise this would be a tough one to setup.

Justanotherwargamer1 I have played Third Reich MANY times and I do agree with you in that strategic warfare is in someways better that the SC series only because if you force the British below 75 brps(mpps) at the Year Start they can be forced to sue for peace.Maybe there is someway to add that element to this game.Im not to sure how hard it would be to program. As for tactical games,the most realistic(board game)I ever played was Squad Leader and its additions.It got so indepth that it actually included bullet ricochets and a host of other VERY tedious rules.It was quite hard to learn but fun once you got the hang of it. As far as the strategic level counters go,because you cant make a strategic war game as indepth as Squad Leader there is no way to avoid having counters being able to do things they normally couldnt do.I dont think the games(s)would be any fun to play or even function that well if you couldnt.

justanotherwargamer1 it sounds like what you are trying to say is that there is no real point to any strategic war game.If you do make it to realistic then the Allies should win everytime as long as they dont make any of the historical blunders .They grossly outproduce the Axis.They have the atom bomb.Cant loose. I think this series of games is setup in such a way to be playable(without taking forever to play one turn nevermind a whole game)and still have some sort of realism.Plus the Axis still have a good chance to win,otherwise why play if you already know the outcome. I beleive Blashy has a mod that sets the Allies Ind. might at realistic values and America right from the Start is prettywell out producing all the Axis powers combined.Since the Brits. already know before the game even starts that America and Russia will be joining her side(in reality the British had no idea that both countries Russia in particular would join her)and can plan accordingly.Right away one of the most important historical events of WW2 cant be simulated in ANY WW2 game(who is going to help the British and when).So looking at it from this point of view some things have to be omitted and somethings added to make the game(s)playable. I think that the SC series of games have done the very best in creating WW2 games that are VERY fun to play(which is what its all about)without going to much off the deep end with to many "extras and whatifs".

If this multiplayer ever becomes reality can you imagine the arguments(especially over strategy).It would be alot of fun. Rambo remember in Third Reich the mighty Italians always had that massive attrition attack(lol).

PowerGmbH you are right in that politics are a really hard option to add to a game. What about the chance of Russia joining Germany(or atleast western Russia)when Germany attacked?Alot of the Russians felt the Germans(what a mistake)were liberators.I think some of the politcal options that could have happened for real are to big of a game breaker to add .The one I just mentioned is one of them. Just imagine if the Brits.and the Amis did help Finland.Would that have driven the Russians more to the German camp?Maybe the Russians get real pissed and attack Iran and go seize the MidEast oil fields.Who Knows.So many options.

SeaMonkey is that the case with Norway?I thought those mpps went to the country that conquers it.

I think overall the naval combat is set the way it is for simplicity and to give it some importance.I think if you start to try and make it to complicated and more realistic you then would have to start making ground combat more realistic which would then make the game unplayable.Imho the overall play balance is good. Yes you are right Stuuk in that naval combat and the game as a whole is somewhat Ahistorical but so are prettywell all war games.Imho Hubert and everyone else have made this the best fairly easy WW2 war game system there is to learn and play.Its alot of fun and against another human its even more fun. The only WW2 game ive ever played(board game)that imho was VERY historically accurate was Squad Leader.For those of you who have played it know ther is absolutly no way you could make any strategic WW2 game totally historically that accurtate and have any hope of ever finishing one turn,never mind a whole game. As far as your number four comment goes,yes in the beginning the Allies didnt have the ships to go hunting subs but as the war progressed they formed sub hunting groups and thats all they did.If you or the A.I. choose to go off chasing subs then you are leaving England open to invasion.

I guess if the tile in question is empty I dont see anything wrong with it.