Rolend

Yes Blashy war is an awful thing and should be avoided at all cost. Of course the winners will always promote who the good guys and bad guys were, but keep in mind had the 'other side' won that war we wouldn't be hearing a thing about their war crimes, any talk like that would of just added you to the victims list. However there is a distinct difference between a cold and callous war decision and that of murder and torture by indivuals.

As my mom used to say two wrongs don't make a right. However it is so easy with the passage of time, while being removed from the horrors of war, with new information at your finger tips to judge the people who made on the spot war time decisions and to lump them in with the true evil war criminals. It is one thing to make a war time decision to bomb Dresden or to use THE bomb to perhaps end the war sooner, thus end the suffering and deaths of not only your side but the other. It is another to personally take part in the torture and deaths millions. Read the following stories then tell me the people who decided to bomb Dresden and use THE bomb should be lumped into the same sentence as possible war criminals as DD did. http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/data.show.php?di=record&da=survivors&ke=5 http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/data.show.php?di=record&da=survivors&ke=7 http://www.kimsoft.com/kr-japan.htm Just a few of the MILLIONS of true life NON war related crimes that the VAST majority of war criminals were tried for. To lump people who wrongly or rightly made decisions on military objectives in the same sentence with those is a crime in itself and lessens the evil involved in the pain, suffering and deaths of the victims.

@Stalin yes and that brings us back to subs and Liam's sugestion to lower the U-boats attack and up its dive ability, thus making U-boats less effecitve against surface fleets and more effecitive against convoys as they were in real life, unless of course you belive like Lars who thinks a hand full of U-boats could of sunk the entire RN

Yea and the 2 rockets have been replaced by a tank.

@An Old Man yep that is how I would handle it, the map is just 'eye candy' that allows you to see what the game really uses in the square grid. The the game should not opperate on the map only the suqare grid which is 'overlayed' by the map so the human can see it.

Lars giving me facts about the Pacific does not sway me at all. First the Japanese were VERY inflexable when it came to war doctrin and did VERY little in the way of ASW until it was WAY to late. I am convinced that no matter how the Germans had used their U-boats after ealry 43 it would not of made a differance beacuse by that time the the US and England had made great progress in ASW and even though the total number of U-boats had jumped a LOT, total tonage sunk by U-Boats began to drop. Now could they had made a larger inpact ealryer in the war if they had much larger numbers? You bet but they only had 25 U-boats working West of England at the start of the war and they were very effective. However had they been used against surface fleets instead of unarmed and for the most part unescorted merchant convoys those 25 U-boats would not of lasted long attacking fully armed surface fleets. No matter how effective they would of been against surface fleets their numbers were WAY to small to make a differance in the RN and would of reduced the U-boat fleet to nothing in NO time thus leaving them with NO options at all. There only real impact in such small numbers could only be against merchants and thus imho were used correctly.

Does DD ever say anything in plain English?

The strange part is you don't even need to surround it. One game I brought up a lone Finn unit and moved it next to the port. The Russian then operated a unit in but the port was still closed. Not sure how one lone unit could close the entire port. Also I am still unhappy with the Operate rule, I just don't think it should be allowed in or out if an enemy unit is next to the square you are moving into or out of, just like you can't update a unit when in contact.

The number one thing that still confuses me about this game is the supply rules. I did notice in one post about supply questions that they were going to tweak the discription about supply rules and even give examples, hopefully by the next patch. It can be a real pain when you think you are really rolling along only to be stopped in your tracks by supply problems, but heck it was a real life issue so I gues I can live with if Patton could LOL.

I have used the arrows to move ships from the Med to the Atlantic in many games and I have never had a problem with them getting 'stuck' However I have never tried moving troops that way and it very well maybe a bug. If you have a saved game I am sure they will want to see it, this game is VERY well supported and they will look at your save game if you have it and if you start a new post with bug in the title I am sure you will get a response from.

Ok what you up to now Rambo? You are being awfully quiet

Hummm strange, there are a couple times a game where I will notice a slow down in the AI turn, sometimes it can take as long as 30 seconds to 'think' but this is rare and normally happens towards the end of my games when there are max units and nations involved. Anyway your system specs don't look bad, it should run the game fine. Can you Alt Tab out and look at CPU time and see what is taking up all the CPU time, you could have somthing else mesing with the game like a virus program or spam blocker. Have you tried totally de-installing the game and re-installing? Oh one other quetion do you have any Mods installed? If Mods installed try taking them out and see if that helps.

Well this is interesting so far A slightly differnerent aproach then the norm, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. One thing about Norway I still question trying to take it, even had you done well from the start you will have to garison it and that waste units, and for what a few crummy MPP? I could be all wet about Norway but seems like a waste for such a small gain. [ May 22, 2006, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

To be honest I think that number shows a complete failure of the U-boats to effect surface fleets, after all the German war fleet was taken out of the war very early and they didn't have any long range bomers effective enough, so that only left U-boats and yet they only acounted for 1 out of 3, very sad stat if you ask me. There is no amount of stats that you can toss out there that will convince me that had the Germans focused in on war fleets instead of merchants that it would of changed much. Sure they would of sunk a few more capital ships (and lost even more U-boats faster) but not near enough to change a thing and MUCH more supplies would of made it to England and Russia. Focusing in on the RN instead of merchant shipping would just meant an earlyer death for the U-boats. Now tell me that had they poured all the resoucres pre war into U-boats instead of their surface fleet and had 300+ U-boats at the start of the war, thus being able to shut down ALL merchants coming in as well as allowing them to keep the RN at bay then you won't get an argument out of me.

Notice my post about the cruiser sunk by the Brit nuc. sub using conventional torpeados. Seems they fired at least 3(most likly 4) 2 hit the Cruiser and exploded one hit another ship and damaged it but it did not explode. Here I thought they fixed that problem LOL. I still contend that many of the carriers sunk by U-boats were on convoy duty and thus as likly to be hit as a merchant. As ASW got better it got harder and harder for the U-boats to even sink merchants. At the start of the war the Germans had maybe 30 U-boats in the convoy lanes and were sinky ships like crazy. It is funny how by the time they had 300 of them that total tunage dropped drasticaly, this was beacuse the allies became MUCH better at ASW. Also I contend that convoys were lucky to make 15 knots, where as a war fleet could sustain 20 to 25 knots. That does not sound like much but it made a huge differance in the time a U-boat had to setup an attack. Also U-Boats were best when they could attack on the surface then dive to get away. Lets see those U-baots try making regular surface attacks against a war fleet where every ship could shoot back. I am sorry but I am just not convinced, I believe had the Germans made a concerted effort to attack war fleets instead of merchants in a very short time they would not of had any U-boats left to attack anything.

Ok here is an quote from a good site I found about the lose of the cruiser. Not used during "Operation Rosario", the "General Belgrano" put to sea from Ushuaia on Monday 26th April escorted by two Exocet-armed destroyers, and three days later was ordered to patrol south of the shallow Burdwood Bank. On Friday, nuclear submarine "Conqueror" made first contact at long range, and on Saturday closed in to shadow. Although just outside the TEZ, "GENERAL BELGRANO", as the southern arm of TF.79 was a potential threat to the carriers and her destruction was ordered. Attacked and hit at 4.00 pm on Sunday 2nd May by two conventional Mark 8 torpedoes she was soon abandoned, and went down with heavy casualties and her helicopter [a10]. A third torpedo hit "Hipolito Bouchard" without exploding but possibly caused some damage, and "Conqueror" was therefore presumably counter-attacked by "Piedra Bueno", which later returned with other Argentine ships to search for the cruiser's survivors. Shortly after the sinking, the main units of the Argentine Navy returned to port or stayed in coastal waters for the rest of the war. If any are interested here is the site. http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1982FALKLANDS.htm

Stoat LMAO yep you are correct once again, I just remembered the curiser and the 'out cry' from the anti west crowd at the time, some 800 sailors were lost if I remember right and it was the Falklands that much I do remember. I will have to go lookit up so I don't look like the fool once again

Stoat yes I agree about Battlewagons being something of the past but it certnely was not the sub that did them in, just trying to make a point. Also you mentioned Lebanon not having subs well if my memory serves me right both N Korea and N Viet Nam had subs and they never could do anything against the battlewagons or any of the US fleets for that matter beacuse as you stated by that time the US had very good ASW. Now to correct myself wasn't the Brizelian heavy cruiser sunk by a Brit sub in the battle of the Falklands?

Hummm I managed to get it down to 3 or 4 once only to see him reinforce it to like 8 again on his turn. It is a pain for sure but the Germans thought so to [ May 19, 2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

I think the only way to take Malta is to destroy the unit with air an navy then move in your own troops. I have yet to play a game where I took Malta even when I tried, I learned it is not worth the effort and just ignore it, it goes away when Englnad bites the dust

Lars sorry but I think you give way too much credit to the effectivness of subs and even more so WWII subs. 1st the only thing that keeps a fleet from remaining at sea all the time is the need for re-supply and the fact the humans need to see their wifes and lovers from time to time 2nd Scott was 100% wrong about subs driving Battleships from the sea, it was the aircraft carrier and the cost that did that, not to mention the fact that the US drags out its old battlewagons everytime they are needed and not one has been lost to a Sub since WWII, so they arn't truly gone, just for the nations that can't afford them. EDIT ADDED: By the way my Grandfather served on US Subs in WWI, even lost a toe when a torpedo they were loading sliped and landed on it Anyway he used to laugh about how they were NEVER worried about enemy action against them, the only thing they really worried about was actully being able to surface after each dive. [ May 19, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

As for invading England in the early game being so easy check out the thread a few pages back called "Amphibious assault – MAJOR ISSUE" It is like 10+ pages long with some very good insights and there really is no need to rehash it at this time.

Well if you won't Lars I will LOL A plane is on its way to Houston when a blonde in economy class gets up and moves to the first class section and sits down. The flight attendant watches her do this and asks to see her ticket. She then tells the blonde that she paid for economy class and that she will have to sit in the back. The blonde replies, "I’m blond, I’m beautiful, I’m going to Houston and I’m staying right here." The flight attendant goes into the cockpit and tells the pilot and the co-pilot that there is a blonde sitting in first class that belongs in economy and won't move back to her seat. The co-pilot goes back to the blonde and tries to explain that because she only paid for economy she will have to leave and return to her seat. The blonde replies, "I’m blonde I’m beautiful, I’m going to Houston and I’m staying right here." The co-pilot tells the pilot that he probably should have the police waiting when they land to arrest this blonde woman who won't listen to reason. The pilot says, "You say she is a blonde? I’ll handle this. I’m married to a blonde. i speak blonde. "He goes back to the blonde and whispers in her ear, and she says, "oh, I’m sorry." and she gets up and goes back to her seat in economy. The flight attendant and co-pilot were amazed and asked him what he said to make her move without any fuss. "I told her, first class isn't going to Houston."

Nothing a drive by won't fix LOL

Well Sombra you must be one lucky person, I can't get that kind of tech level with the Americas and build the kind of forces you have by late 42, very impressive. I do think that it is VERY hard for the US to have the kind of resourses to pull off N Africa, Italy ,D-Day, invasion of S. France and own the skys over Europe with the current setup. However I think in some ways that is a good thing, give them those kind of resources and it would become an awfully one sided game.