Rolend

They were still stuck in WWI, The French Comanders were in HQ units far removed from the front lines, they did NOT have radio or even telegraph connections to the front line units, they used messagers to move information to and from HQ/front line troops. It could be a good day before they knew what was happening then another to decide what to do then another to send out a response. In WWII mobil warfare they were doomed from the start. It was the French leadership, from the very top of goverment to the French generals and their comand and control structure that caused the French failure, certinaly not their troops or equipment.

Retributsr you are spot on with some of your thinking. Why do you think Bush Sr. let Iraq stay in power after the first Gulf war? Yep he knew they kept Iran in check and that Iran was the real threat to peace in the Middle East. However the Russians don't need any oil, they are cleaning up with the huge oil reserves they have, their involvement in the Middle East is strictly over money, arms sells etc. Funny how the Anti-capitalist Soviet Union is now driven by money As for Turkey getting on board with Iran, I doubt it, yea they are both Muslim but Turkey sees itself at the head of a greater Muslim world. Yea China needs the oil but at the risk of losing the US market place? I don't think so but they do LOVE the political game and love to keep the US on the ropes. With all that said, it wouldn’t matter who is on Iran’s side if they get Nukes, they won't care they WILL use them if they get them PERIOD. Why more nations are not alarmed about this possibility is beyond me. Back on subject, I am sorry but after the Russian’s TOTAL screw up in Finland there was NO way Stalin was going to allow an invasion into Germany in 40, now you may want to play Stalin and trust your military more then he did but I think that in a real life setting you would be making a mistake to even think about invading Germany in 40, the Russian army at that time would of self destructed.

Yep France would of went for it for sure, I mean "I surrender France" never found a war they didn't like to surrender in England is another story altogether, there was more at stake then just France, there entire Empire was on the verge of collapse and kissing German butt would certainly not helped with that. The British fight on no matter what France does or if they had lost the B.E.F. For a change in the outcome of the war in the 'west' Hitler would have had to push back Russia a year (and that is something he just would not do) and put the full German military into taking all of N. Africa and forcing the British out of the war. Or pre Poland, if he could of made some kind of deal with France and England instead of Russia but I don't think that was possible either. Poland was the point of no return for the British IMO.

Monty pffffftttttt In N Africa he nearly lost to Rommel when the Germans were down to about 10 tanks, no ammo and no fuel, he was the MOST over rated general in the history of warfare. Even when he had 10 to 1 advantage he would cry he did not have enough forces and delay and delay, he couldn't shine Patton’s boots. Don't get me started on Ike, yes a very good political general but very poor military general, much like Monty couldn't make a decision to save his life and way to conservative. Patton yep without a doubt the best the US had, give him all the supplies he needed and he would of been in Berlin in 44. Bradley was also very good, sure more conservative then Patton but knew how and when to push and when to back off, MUCH MUCH better then that loser Monty. For the most part the British had excellent leadership and some very fine tank and infantry generals, the only reason Monty got the hype was because he was in the right place at the right time in N. Africa with an over whelming force facing a very beat up and non supplied enemy.

Well Simov it has been suggested already that all Common Wealth minors should have same level tech as the English. Also Axies minnors should share German techs to a lesser degree. I have never heard HC comment on this but I get the feeling it is not something we will see.

LOL very funny Scook. I think if London falls the capital should be moved to Canada then those silly answers won't apply

John keep in mind what a corps and tank unit is in this game. It is not just a division of Inf 'running' along side tanks, it is all their support and equipment that is moving as well and even in modern times keeping the support and equipment moved along with the troops can be a pain, tank units require a lot more support/equipment then Inf units do.

Ok HC thanks for the reply, I thought it might be more then a tweak and I agree that bug fixing and AI are way more important. For me this is more of a 'nice to have' item.

Cary you are right it will effect game play, however I think in most cases the effects will be minnor at most, it is not something that will drasticly alter game stratgy and it allows for ease of I/F 100% of the time. The only valid reason I can see for not adding this in the the game would be if it would take a major rework of the engine, only HC can tell us that and I hope for a reply from him one way or the other so we can let this drop

I agree with Yogi on this, I prefer hexes to squares but I don't think with this game that it makes much of a diffrance. If it were a tatical level game with smaller scale and smaller time frame then yea that is when it makes an impact but not at this scale, IMO. I enjoy playing this game and look forward to the next patch, sure it is not the best war game I hae ever played, not even in the top five, but it is not a bad game and has given me many hours of fun. I think that HC is a little involved in SC 2 balancing/bug fixing right now to be thinking about SC 3. Give it a good 6 months then ask that question.

Rambo, nothing wrong with movies as entertainment but yes as a source for facts most arn't even close. I know there are a couple exceptions to the rule, "like A Bridge too Far" or "The Battle of Britan" but even the one move you mentioned "The River Kwai" is so such a Hollywood stretch of the turth.

Blashy I was under the impression that even surface fleets were an abstract. Yes they have names like Bismark, but they represent support vessels as well. Please don't tell me that Germany only had 3 subs at the start of the war or that England only had a few DD's.

Besides this is a corps/army level game and one single unit, aircraft, tank, or ship could not be represented. EDIT ADDED: Although I am sure you would get Rambos support for adding Rambo to the game

Rambo I respect your views on many issue here on the forums but to base actual facts on the movies you have watched, as you tend to do, just lessens there impact and importance. To think that the war was like what you see in one movie or one movie scene is just wrong and can lead to many wrong conclusions.

I don't see it as that big a game balance issue, I mean I would not move every unit I have one square at a time just to take advantage of some knowalge of where things are, I would think that would be insane and lengthen games 10 fold. However I am constently mis-clicking and losing movement and attacks do to how the game works now. I find the I/f very easy to use but this part just feels SO clunky and frankly no other turn based game I have played uses this type of system. If you think it is gamey or gives an unfair advantage to the human player vs AI fine then make it an option but please don't rule it out of hand. It sure would be nice to hear from HC on this issue, I mean it may not be a simple thing to do, if it took a major re-write of the engine to implement then I can understand that, but just to keep it out of the game for balance issues seem folly to me.