arado234

The only game ive played where there is mass surrender when surrounded is Third Reich.Each turn is one month.I gues you could,have it like liam said:You loose so much per turn then after a month you are gone.

Im just getting the hang of the german rockets.They sure are nasty.My last game i used them i had three at strength of 15 range of 4 one at 13,all fully mobilised. Utterly Devastating.I found out why rambo likes them.

ev one of the big reasons russia was so short of manpower is they kept doing stupid things with them(getting them wiped out in pointless attacks and defences).If they had been lead better(stalin listened to zhukov)and didnt try to hold places where they had no hope they wouldnt have been so short of men.Remember most of germanys motorised equipment wasnt designed to handle the harsh russian terrian.Russias shortage wasnt manpower it was lack of leadership. What you say about soft build limits makes total sense(maybe there could be some sort of "punishment"for having to replace so many losses) but if you go historically accurate the germans are doomed.IMO i think the game is this way for play balance only.You could also argue that if you want a historically accurate manpower pool then you should also want a historically accurate raw material pool etc ,etc.(goodbye germany)

This is one of the funnest games ive played.User friendly(not to complicated).Easy to P.B.E.M.Very enjoyable!!!!

S.O.if im reading correct you say that since this is a strategic game that manpower, ind.tech.raw materials represent the inner workings of the game and should be more accurate?If you were to set them historically accurate then wouldnt germany be dead prettywell every time?

S.O.how historically accurate do you want to get? Do you also want to include ultra,possible alliances,real allied output?They had to draw the line somewhere.If you keep going then the game becomes very complicated and maybe not as appealing to some people. If you want to get real accurate germany shouldnt be able to replace all her losses after about 1942.After the failed attempt to take russia germany could never make good all her losses.The fact that germany can make good most of her losses right up to 1947 is grossly inaccurate but its in the game for play balance.In the game third reich there is an addition that makes it so germany cant totaly(its based on actual german manpower available) replace her losses and germany has no hope.

ev and Moonslayer imo you both are right.There are basic "rules"of war that should never be broken(mass murder of people in occupied countries etc etc).I do think that you fight to win though(within reason).

Rambo all is fair in war.Us bombing civilians could be argued was legitimate because better to kill the guy making the weapon than have to face it on the battlefield. You are right because if the allies could've,should've,would've the Buntas would never have been able to get it started.

S.O. i was reading about british shortages during the "dark years"and them brits are very lucky the germans didnt go flatout in uboat production,tech.and proper cooperation with the luftwaffe.

The only(board) game ive ever played that gets so tech.as to get down to the actual loss of weapons(individual tanks, machine guns etc), commanders,indvidual men is squad leader.There is noway you could mimic this in any strategic game. The fact that all new units and those that are brought back up to strength start at very low or no experience does represnt the fact that most of the unit that was attacked was destroyed.Ex:a unit with say 4 experience bars gets knocked down to a strength of one,when its brought up to full strength it looses prettywell all of its experience.This alone makes the unit much less efective and most units that were brought back to strengh or any new ones formed did have a core of experienced men.Some more than others.Even the german units that managed to escape the massacre at falaise werenot completely destroyed down to absolutely zero and yet you could argue that thier combat effectiveness was zero.Sc2 represents this very well without making the game to complicated.

This may go down to the end.Good battle.Id say you two are evenly matched.

Thats one of the many good thing about this game S.O.is that you can choose to invest in overall production and if you choose to protect it properly alot of the allied efforts to destroy it will be greatly reduced.In reality its questionable if germany could have done that.

Another big help for minor countries would be to let the country representing the minor about to be attacked setup their forces and put them in a position that would make more sense instead of the computer setting them up.I know this would take a little more time but it could make a difference.

Also germany was able to greatly increase their ind. output as soon as they went to total war production even though they were being hammered from all sides. I think lars is right about german ind.tech having a bigger effect.

Rambo your making some great comments. Yes when someone puts a gun to your head i bet you dont even ask for double time.

Out of those 19.9% "happy"forced workers, how many actually did the job correctly?What part did they play in helping saboteurs?

Again ev you are historicaly correct(ive read mansteins book its very good)but if you add this in(which will be much more favorable to the allies because of their huge manpower atvanatge)what would you suggest to balance it for germany?

The best exploitation phase i ever saw in any game is third reich.In one move you can wipe out all of russia if the russian player isnt paying attention.Not possible in sc2 though.Although with the W.a.W.it sounds like armour will be able to act more like armour?

Yes baron you are correct.There is no way to please us all.The game is fun the way it is.Cant wait for WaW.

It sounds like some people want the game to be much more historical.That would mean somehow adding in ultra and adding in the very good chance of russia joining germany or at minimum becoming neutral untill attacked.The game would then have no point to it.Just like adding in all 80,000 ami.tanks etc,etc.Evertime the game was played and russia joined germany the other side would just giveup.Remember the brits(allies)have one HUGE atvantage over germany you can never take away.They know before the game even starts that russia and america will join their side and can plan their overall strategy accordingly.In reality they had no such knowledge at first.By reducing overall alied strength you in a crude way are factoring that atvantage in.I know germany has some atvantages but nothing like the allied one.

Does the winner fight the master?I sure hope so.

Targul i got the same messages when i tried downloading some of the mods(the third reich one for eg.).

Targul if you put the game at full historical numbers,goodbye germany.The allies just ovewhelm them like they did.

SeaMonkey,no need to apologise.I liked being poked at. I agree with you on allied A.F.V.numbers but i thought the game testers set the game up for balance?

ev i agree with you about russia having all these troops real fast but i think with all the other historical events and possible events that arenot included in this game is because of play balance.If you start adding in more historical realities then the game becomes impossible for germany to "win". Your idea about changing the victory conditions to reflect this(russia getting all those extra men)is agood idea.Perhaps it could be an optional setting?