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.

The vast majority of US POW's were airmen and thus could not be used to 'reinforce' ground units. By the time the US POW camps were being liberated the war was all but over and as has been stated, most were returned home, I doubt many even did light duty. I think their impact on the war, would be to small to really include in this game.

Still no response from HC, I wonder if he is considering it or if he thinks it is a bad idea.

LOL at that last photo, you ever see such a group of dire, mean, grumpy looking men before EDIT ADDED: David there are some cases in the game where if you have troops in an area that becomes nuetral, I think Vichy France is an example your troops will never be heard from again. The SS sees to it

I am with Rambo on this I am out but I will take a parting shot. The UN???? Pffftttt Like I give a hoot what a totally corrupt, anti-American orgnazation says or does and yes the UN could go away tomorrow and frankly the world would be better off for it!!! LOL.

Ahhh Cary so we see more eye to eye on this then it sounds from the posts. That was really the point I was trying to make, I think That being, that war is unacceptable in any form, the world is becoming way to crowded, the world is becoming smaller and smaller and our technology is making war more and more dangours. So who do we blame for this? The Hitlers and the Stalins of the world? Sorry I just don't buy into that. By the way this is the first I have heard of "Carthaginian peace" I will have to look into it a bit more, sounds interesting.

Nope but who is the most responsible for a child, yep father and mother, who is responable for Hitler being in power, yep father and mother. Look I believe that any death hurts us all but it is WAY to easy to look at one event and ignore the context of the bigger picture, that is why it is easy for us to blame good old Hitler for the entire mess, when in fact all of humanity had a part in it.

Cary I never said Dresden was a good thing, I agree I think it was a mistake and did little to advance the war effort, it was more for revenge then anythig elese but it sure is easy in hind sight to know that is it not? What I get upset is the use of the words 'innocent people' Sorry but they put Hitler in power he could NOT of been in the position he was without them period. War IS hell and should never happen, but once it does you need to commit to it fully or not start it in the first place. If you can't take the heat stay out of the Kitchen.

Hey Rambo not often I agree with some of your views but I agree 100% with you on this. Every time I hear a PC liberal tell me how sad it was that all those poor 'innocent' people died at Dresden it makes me cringe. After all Hitler was brought to power by the German people, sure once he got to the top he made sure he stayed there but for me bottom line you just can't make AH the scrape goat for everything that happened. AH didn't personally kill 6 million Jews, I would be surprised if he personally killed any of them. He didn’t personally invade France, Poland, Norway etc etc. He didn’t personally bomb London or Warsaw … well you get the idea. It is so much easier to blame one person, or even one nation for the crimes on humanity but ultimately we are all responsible. It makes me sad how easy people are to blame a single person, well maybe it is so that we can live with ourselves and suppress our own guilt. … gets off soap box and goes back to more fun topics …..

Yep Stalin was not locked into some point of political or racist view, all he cared about was retaining his personal power, the man could and did learn from his mistakes and adjusted his actions if it was a personal benefit to himself. Where as Hitler was so locked into his political and racist views he was willing to sacrifice his power to achieve it, he never seemed to learn from his mistakes. For Hitler power was not the goal but the tool to achieve his political beliefs and for Stalin the goal was power and politics the tool. No matter how you slice it, as far as the human race is concerned the result was the same, both men brought nothing but death and destruction.

I tend to agree with Andreas, in today’s PC world the contributions to the war effort by the Allies seem to be down played. I wonder how much tougher a time Russia would of had, had they not received all the equipment and supplies from America? If they would of had to face all the men, air power and resources that had been tied up in Germany defending the constant air attacks from England and US Air Forces? If they had to face all the troops, equipment and supplies tied up in N. Africa, Italy, Greece and Norway? Please don't misunderstand me, I think that the Russians did take a HUGE hit in the war and sacrificed far more then the rest of the Allies but that in no way should lessen the efforts the English and Americans put into the war in Europe. Could the Russians have beat off the Germans alone? Maybe but there is NO doubt that without the help of the Allies those numbers being talked about here would of been a fraction of the loses they would of suffered going it alone.