Cheese Panzer
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Cheese Panzer
-
-
That's nothing! Comrade Stalin could make entire countries dissappear with a stroke of his pen! A single city would be easy for him!
-
One thing to keep in mind about Strateic Bombing is that this was the first war where it was attempted. Thousand plane raids are certainly impressive but in many ways the Allied commands were making it up as they went along.
The very earliest raids by the UK were little more than retaliation for German bombing of UK cities after the Fall of France. The London Blitz and Coventry were revenged by the UK bombing of Berlin (which caused Goering's famous "Call me Meyer" statement). It wasn't until later, when more and better planes were available, that industrial bombing started. And it wasn't until 1944 that critical industries were finally identified and targetted. With mixed results, as evidenced by the debate here.
After WWII Strategic bombing has proved to be either a complete waste of resources (Korea, Vietnam) or brutally effective (Iraq - whose power system has never really recovered).
-
Any of the major biographies of Hitler (Shirer or Kennedy are both very good) plus the reports of many of his inner circle all say that Hitler harped constantly on the need to destroy Communism and occaisionally voiced his frustration that the Western Powers didn't see things his way. Just because it's crazy doesn't mean that he didn't believe it. "Liebensraum" was a politcal concept rather than a demographic necessity. Attempts at victorious forgein wars have been the fall-back of dictators from Ancient Egpyt through Saddam Hussien.Originally posted by Lars:You still haven't provided any backing for your statement.
Hitler could have easily fortified his border with Russia and Stalin could have done the same. The pact between them worked well to both their mutual advantage, so I could easily see a better scenario for them co-existing if Adolph had decided Poland and France were just as good for current lebensraum needs and stayed out of a two front war.
As for the Russians - it was a old joke when I was at college that, to the Soviet Union, border security in Europe meant the Rhine river! Was Stalin going to invade Germany in 1941? No, and for all the reasons you state. But Stalin had every intention of fighting the Germans at some point if for no other reason than to prevent another German invasion like the one that had toppled the Tzar. In fact, the day of the invasion when Stalin's staff came for orders he was expecting them to take him out and shoot him!
I can't quote you an exact timetable but I seem to recall that Soviet planning was headed towards a mid-1940's showdown with Germany. Presumably after the effects of the officer purge had been rectified and the situation with Japan had been settled.
-
However, if the RN had been wiped off the face of the ocean by the time the US entered, they surely would have chosen to use more modern ships in the Atlantic.Originally posted by LampCord:And they certainly had the ABILITY to build world class ships almost right away. In fact, the first two Iowa class ships had funds appropriated in 1940:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61.htmBuilt under Fiscal Year 1940 (BB 61 & 62) and 1941 (BB 63-66) appropriations, the Iowa class were much longer, more powerfully engined and considerably faster than the preceding North Carolina and South Dakota classes.
The whole upgrading thing has bothered me with ships. Its one thing to add some radar or sonar but you can't change a WWI era carier into the Enterprise in a week just by throwing some money at it.
Its certainly problematic trying to model naval activity at such a high level.
Still, I think the system works, I just think the US should start with better naval tech that's all.
-
True - but not in late 1941. Of the numbers of new ships coming into use everything larger than a light cruiser went to the Pacific, and even then only a handful of light cruisers of the modern Brooklyn class were allocated to the Atlantic. Huge numbers of escorts stayed in the Atlantic but that is an ASW issue. Since ships never come back into the pool after being sunk perhaps the Allies should have more CA's in their build limits - and certainly have to spend tech on ASW.Originally posted by LampCord:I'm not sure why the US doesn't start with more naval tech. Sure, their EXISTING ships were old school but anything the US was laying a keel for once the war started was pretty much state of the art.
I mean the Iowa is still the most advanced BB ever built and it was in the water in 1943. So surely the US must have had level 5 bb tech by 42! We were using radar for gun spotting before anyone.
Ditto CA's and CV's. And the US ships had FAR AND AWAY the best AA which is also not represented. Better fire control, better armor in most cases, were quicker to repair, etc.
BB tech only goes up to 2. The Battleships left in the Atlantic fleet were the oldest and least modernized of all American ships. All the new ships got sent to the Pacific. After late 1941 the Allies weren't expecting many fleet actions against Germany or Italy.
-
They're also really good with mustard. Oh, wait, that's pretzels.
Never mind.
-
You know, they can achieve quite remarkable results with hair coloring dyes these days . . .
-
According to my fleet guides the Franch had 81 (!) submarines available in 1939, plus another 6 or so that were being constructed when the war started but weren't finished in time to see action. The UK had roughly 50 subs at the start of the war and 9 or so under contruction. The USA had about 90, although almost 2/3rds were older WWI boats of limited value.Originally posted by Liam:Oddly enough the French followed after the Italians I was reading tonight, they had quite an extensive Submarine fleet and also torpedo boats. Much of the French Navy wasn't there for the War due to poor Work Yards the book stated bout there were around 60-70 French Subs. Isn't that on the level of Germany quite nearly, odd no French sub is in the game ALSO
The French fleet was near sunk in Algiers in fears it might convert to Axis not Allied. Would there be the possability that the Axis should be able to claim this valuable asset and the UK must do something about it historical like declare war on Vichy and Smoosh the French Fleet in Port? Or perhaps a French fleet should be off Algiers for the UK to crack with low morale, with a possability of either shifting toward the Axis or the Allies depending. Historically they'd of likely gone Allied or been seized and they were VERY significant for the Axis who were in short supply for Sea Lion. This would add to the value of Vichy which now is a very hallow target considering the cost... If that fleet went Allied it could be a HUGE dent Axis Armor and if Went Axis similarly. Making Diplos important for Vichy and Petain was quite Sympathetic to the Axis
regardless there should be 2 French Subs if my calculations are correct or at least 1, it should be researched
None of the Allies have submarine units at the start, I suspect because there isn't all that much for them to do except cut off Norway's convoy.
Germany might have siezed the Vichy Fleet - it was a major worry for the UK and led to the attack at Mers-El-Kebir (where the UK attacked the French Fleet in harbor, inflicting heavy losses and souring relations for years). Right now Germany gets the fleet if the Allies attack Vichy. A script that give a chance for Germany to capture the Vichy French fleet if they take Marsaille and Algiers might be intersting.
-
To give Canada the ability to have its' units get tech advances in SC2 it would need to be a major power. Which would mean it would be treated as part of the UK, which may not be what HC intended and perhaps causes some other programming issues. You could make Ottowa the third UK capitol after Alexandria which would make Canad part of the UK and allow you to upgrade Canadian units. I'm not sure if this would be possible.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:someone else said that Canada was a seperate country so it doesn't surender if the UK does - can't there be a script for it like that for the French overseas territories to make it independant and then give it an instant DoW on Germany?
-
LOL Yea good ole Uncle Joe had a few of thoseOriginally posted by Rolend:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:
Nah, a purge.
Correct me if I am wrong about the Siberian troops or large reserves in the east, but didn't Uncle Joe fear an attack from the Japanese and they were only used after Pearl Harbor and after he was sure the Japanese were 'preoccupied' with the Americans. </font>
-
Ah - yeah - those diagonals are a pain are they not!!Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:But basically if there's a diagonal then they are not cut off - it's pretty simple, and you've obviously spotted it, so what's the problem??
-
Wow! 2000? Really? Out of, what, a million and a half? Shocking! No wonder they lost.
-
Part of the Canadian question has to do with how Canada is handled by the SC2 game engine. Rather than being part of the UK (and thus available for upgrading) it's handled as an Allied Minor and thus no upgrades. I think this is so Canada doesn't surrender the instant the UK does, and maybe convoy routes have to be between independant countries, I don't know.Originally posted by Liam:P.S. 1 strong point, Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders, Australians, etc... All Fought harder than Axis Minors as far as I can tell and were all better trained.. Personally how could they come into the war without English Equipment, since England was the primary designer of their equipment correct? Everything would be UK Based, so they'd all be on par with the HomeBase
The South Africans, Australians, and New Zealanders are all treated as UK units by the game - the only thing that makes then different is their name. I'm not entirely sure but I think they come in with highest UK tech when they appear (much like the Siberians) and in any even can be upgraded as normal UK units. I do know that historically the SA/AU/NZ units were created in their home countries, sent piecemeal to Europe, and didn't receive their heavy equipment (artillery, tanks, anti-tank guns, etc.) until they arrived in Europe.
Stalin's Organist:
Not downgrading foreign sacrifices just trying to be Strategic.. Canada gets a bomber, cruiser, corp unit so far as I've seen? Not much.....but calculate what they the Brits in Resources over the length of a 5 year game, far outweighs a tech factor or HQ factor, fielding 5 Canadian units is unlikely when I haven't seen 5 Americans at the getgo a Major Player.
Canada has more units than they get for free in the game - if you check under their build options I'm pretty sure there is a HQ, two Armies, a Tank Group, an Air Fleet, and Cruiser - a force roughly the size of Spain or Sweden.
-
gliders. </font>Originally posted by Kuniworth:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam:
you're right it was a Belgian Fort,
this was some time ago they showed the bombed out fort and now I recall it was in Belgium not France but the Germans didn't seem to have much of a problem with it, some sort of sneak operation I thought by Paras
-
dammit man, get your icq up or an e-mail running old man! Time to discuss not only this but Fartknocker-gate! </font>Originally posted by Kuniworth:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cheese Panzer:
Do you mean the strategic map? It's very hard on old eyes since it's so small. If there is something used in the grid I haven't seen it because I always play with the grid turned off.
-
I should have been more specific - they're fine for national control but every once in a while you think you've got something surrounded and then you find out that one of those tiny diagonal connections wasn't cut off and the pocket is still in supply. So it's more a tactical problem.
-
Do you mean the strategic map? It's very hard on old eyes since it's so small. If there is something used in the grid I haven't seen it because I always play with the grid turned off.
-
The Germans did attack a small part of the Line to get some propaganda footage. You may have seen the film clip - a round French pop-up gun turret is being shelled very heavily and is eventually knocked out. I believe I saw the footage in the old "World at War" series back in the 70's but I'm sure it's around somewhere else.
-
The manual also says that two of the Russian Siberian reinforcements are Rockets, but I've never seen any appear. Is this a variable condition based on the difficulty level, perhaps?
-
The manual says Russian HQ's command four units, the games shows that they can command five. Is this a change coming up in the patch?
-
Always has in my games. Keep hunting.Originally posted by Lars:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cheese Panzer:
Right now, the AI doesn't do any Lend Lease or Russian convoys - or at least my Uboats never found any.
</font>
-
1) Yes, better at defending cities and there wasn't the huge pile-up around Riga that currently happens. I finished conquering Russia in late 1944 but partly because all the German Armor headed into the Mideast after Rostov was taken.Originally posted by Timskorn:I'm currently working on the next version so any more detailed feedback on people's experiences is much appreciated.
Thanks to those who have already!Specifically, these are some of the more important things I'm looking at:
1. Russia: Was she tougher? What year did you have both Moscow and Stalingrad?
2. D-Day: When did it occur? Were US troops involved or just British? Did it happen at a critical time for you, or did you have enough units to defeat D-Day?
3. North Africa: Did you ever take Alexandria, or did the British ever take Tobruk or Iraq? Did the US ever successfully take Algiers?
4. General: What difficulty did you play it on and with how many experience bars for the AI?
I'm currently working on the Brit AI in Egypt, the code for D-Day and further refining the Russian defensive AI (Including a Ural Mountains defense should both Moscow and Stalingrad fall).
2) D-Day occured twice, both times in 1944. The first wave was all British (no HQ), and about 5 turns later the other wave was all American (no HQ either). Easily defeated.
3) Yes, took Alexandria. UK never moved out of Egypt until Iraq/Iran were invaded. US got to Algeriers (2 armies, 2 corps) but with no HQ they couldn't do much.
4) 100%, +1.5 exp.
Overall it was an improvement, I enjoyed the challenge.
-
That may be a bit extreme, but I wouldn't mind a dot or something similar to show current control.
-
You really do get all your information from movies, don't you?Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:Wolfgang was rather tricky in the movie, The Eagle Has Landed.
Incredible.
Here's a flash for you, JJR - movies are FAKE. Rambo is a FICTION. The USA LOST Vietnam.
</font>
Couple of questions / remarks
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Sitting ducks maybe, but with a lot of protection. In WWII there was really only one unqualified success when surface ships attacked a port - the UK vs. the French at Mers-el-Kebir. And much of that was because the UK was allowed to get within gun range during the negociations. A similar attack on Dakar by a UK/Free French vs. Vichy was a failure.
Air attacks were extremely variable - Taranto and Pearl Harbor were devasting victories for the attacker. Attacks on the Tirpitz at Trondhiem, the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow, or the Scharnhort/Geniesenau at Brest were far less effective, leading to severe aircraft losses for little or no effect. Any port operating warships was extremely well protected. The eggs may have only been in a few baskets, but those baskets were well protected.
Something that would appear on the SC2 scale but isn't in the game are special forces attacks. There were several during war, some of which worked (Italian frogmen in Alexandria, British X-craft against the Tirpitz) and some of which failed (Italian frogmen at Malta, Japanese mini-subs at Pearl Harbor).