Rolend

Yes that would be an advantage but it seems failry minor to me compared to what pure luck can do. I would much rather be beaten by the skill of the other player then by luck, thank you

I would think that is a good 'ball park' number but no I do not know for certain and it shifted a lot as the war went on so I would think you would need to ask that question with a time frame added.

No Lars I don't recall reading it, thanks for the heads up I will have to look at it. I prefer the written history to the movie/TV, History chanel views, I think you can get more indepth information reading. Even with a series like World at War, which was a very fine series there was just to much detail for them to do more then glance over most subjects. Oh and yea poke away I was way over board with the sucked comment The Sherman really was a fine weapon for the reasons I mentioned, and honestly I don't think US doctrin really thought the Sherman would have to be used in tank vs tank role much. They meant it to be more of direct Inf support and it was the perfect tank for that. Also the Sherman is always mentioned when talking about US vs German tanks as there were just so many of them but there were many other US and British tanks then just the Sherman.

LOL Janbo and right to the point. It is one thing to give them turns, if the second guy survies he has the chance to wound or kill the first guy, but it is only fair if both turns are under the same conditions. I truly HATE the current weather system, I am a very unlucky guy, infact I had one game where in the winter of 39/40 EVERY turn I had mud in Western Europe, not one clear or snow turn where as the other side had NO mud turns and it was either snow or clear. Sorry but I just don't see the fun in it.

I like the idea of giving the Brits a Sub in the Malta port at the start of the game and setting up a convoy route for the Axies in the med. It opens up an entirly new stratigy in the Med and in this case more is better

I think you would have to be a bit selective about it. I mean how much effect did Rommels HQ have on the units from Italy? How much impact did German HQ units have on Hungry and Romainian units on the Russian front? very little I would think. Personally I don't like seeing any playable differance between Common Wealth troops and English toops, I think their techs, HQ's etc should be treated as if they were all English, for the most part that is how it was.

SO I think I didn't state my views in a very clear manner. I agree that the stratgy to bomb German industry to destroy the German war making ability was a total failure. However it forced the Germans to spend a LOT of resources to defend the German homeland. It was this defense that destoryed the LW, in the air on the ground at their airfields certenly not the actul bombing. Also the number of 88's that had to be deployed around German cities were very large numbers and those 88's sure could of been used better against Stalins tanks. So I agree with you that boming German industry to destory that industry was a total failure, however by making the attempt it meant an Allie victory for control of German airspace.

So you are basing your opinion on one Russian tanker, you want me to drag out dozens of US tanker storyies and what they thought of the Sherman VS the German tanks, I will do it if you really want me to but we both know what they will say. Heck every interview I have ever seen involving US tankers in WWII basicly said the same thing. "We were told we had the best tank in the world, sadly we found out this was far from the turth, one hit from a German tank at long range and we were out, it took several hits form Shermans and had to be at close range before we could knock the German tank out." Not knocking Russians but personaly I would take the word of MANY US tankers over a lone Russian, besides even you stated that the Shermans that the Russians had were differant then the US Sherman. Plus the bigger gun and heavyer armor arrived on the Shermans in the late part of the war and US tankers were facing fewer and fewer German tanks. On the note made about me and five buddies facing the lone German tank, frankly if I was in one of the 3 or 4 tanks that got destoryed by that lone German before he was taken down I don't think I would of been so thrilled that 'we got that German' and you just proved my point, as that is what it took to knock out that lone tank.

Blashy yes I understand that the time frame is differant for each turn but I am sorry I HATE the fact that the weather for the Allie turn can be differant form the Axies trun. Simply put if one player or the other gets a bad run of luck in a turning point in the game it can win or lose that game. Random weather is a good thing but make it so both sides share the same weather and you have my support. As it stands now luck effeccts the following things in the game. 1) Combat You can't have a game with out it. 2) Research Techs are WAY to dependant on luck, some is ok but the current system is WAY to luck driven. 3) Diplo Don't mind the luck here as it can be countered by play from your oppent 4) Weather Yes weather is unpredictable but it HAS to be the same for both sides or it is unfair. IMO luck plays way too much a role in this game, instead of playing the enitre game out why not have the players just roll a dice and the highest roll wins, yea sounds like fun to me.

Rambo you know I give you a hard time in some of your posts about what I consider your extrem views but I want to say that your first post in this thread is RIGHT ON! Well said in a logical manner and not over the top.

Why is taking Middle East then up into Turkey form the Middle East into the Caucasus consider gamey? After all many people believe that is how Hitler should of done it. Now I can see leaving the Middle East alone and only going through Turkey from the west as gamey but I see a 'Middle East' gambit as fair.

Personally I think the biggest impact the US had in the war in Europe was our ability to supply the Allies with vast amounts of war matrial and it's air power, both of which are under represented in this game. But I do come back to the problem of game balance and I am not sure I would muck with it much.

Ok maybe the word 'sucked' was too strong and missleading. The Sherman was a fine tank for what it was meant for, Inf support. It was fast, the turret turned quickly and it was easy to produce and repeair. However tank vs tank, I am sorry there is NO way that you can convince me that it was near as good as a T-34, Panther or Tiger in a head to head fight. It used gasoline instead of diesel so it burned like crazy. Its armor was thin all the way around and its main gun could not penatrate a Tigers front armor even if in close range. Personally if I was a tanker and I had a choice between riding in a confortable tank that burned at a drop of a hat, had poor armor protection with a short ranged and under powered gun to one that was misrable to ride in but had good armor protection and a gun with good range and power, I think I would take the sore butt and the better chance to live

DD Yes nice post and by the way it is very nice having you and your ideas back, good to see you.

Hummm very interesting thread. It makes perfect since not to invade Denmark until after the US and Russia enter the war. Once Russia and the US are in the war then take Denmark, you get the MPP and the moral loss for the Russians. I know this is gamey but it sure makes since. I agree something needs to be done to encourage the Axies to at least look at Denmark and Norway but I would not want to see it become a must do thing. So how to give Germany incentive without making it must do, very fine balancing act there.

Had the Germans fought the war like they did in that final battle of Saving Private Ryan they would of lost to the Poles in 39 LOL.

Besides even in games where I could move one tile/hex at a time I never did, heck to move every unit you have that way would take you forever to play a game that way and boring too boot. I just think this option is really needed, way to many AP's wasted by mistaken clicks or just wanting to do something else first. So the game has problems on defence? Ok I won't argue with that but why take ease of use of the I/F away instead of fixing the Defence problem?

Yes fuel shortages hurt the Germans in the last year of the war but I contend that the LW was destoryed by the constant stratigic attacks made by both the Americans and Brits on not only industry but LW bases. The LW just could no longer field enough planes and crew in 44 to make a differance, fuel or no fuel. [ June 27, 2006, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

Actully taking out unsuported tanks in a town/city with Inf. was not that hard, socks or no socks Hummm I wonder how cold the American feet got that winter without thier socks LOL.

And right there is why I consider the bombing campign worth doing. It was the indirect effects that was the killer to Germany the biggest IMO was the destruction of the LW, but not by destroying airplane factories, history shows that just did not happen, but by detroying it the battle over the skys of Germany.

Sounds good, I wonder what the chance is to get HC to add it in a patch.

Yes weather did effect the outcome of many battles, however both sides had to cope with the S A M E weather, who ever did that the best tended to win. I don't mind random weather, in fact I love it. What I hate is differant weather for both sides in the same turn, plain and simple it is bogus and just adds another layer of luck to a game that I belive is already to driven by luck. Random weather is GREAT and should be in the game but NOT random in the same turn.

Yes US and English tanks sucked compared to German and Russian tanks, there just is NO disputing this fact. What the US lacked in quality of tanks they made up in numbers. They had at least 5 to 1 over German numbers, also the Sherman was VERY easy to maintian and keep in the field. Heck there were lots of Shermans that had entire crews killed that were repaired and put back in service, but to even compare a Sherman to say a Panther, even an early model Panther, in fire power and armor is like comparying a VW bug to a top of the line BMW [ June 26, 2006, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

Yea if you keep the mines bombed and that one port that contorls German convoys you can really lower their MPP. I don't have a problem with how bombers work was just kind of responding to some of the coments about bombing. Now without a doubt Aitfleets and how they work against ground units IMO need some serious work.

Fartknock3r good point, I have never built a single corp as the US, I mean why bother when for 1/2 to 3/4 of the war you arn't even at war, why whould you build a corps? This entire debate about adding more US forces or upping its idustrial might, and not only in this thread but many others, is a very sticky problem. Frankly if you make it historical it will throw the game balance way out of whack making it very hard if not impossible for the Germans to win. I don't think that would be a fun game to play, however being a proud American Vet I do see Rambos (shudders) and others point. For me the only REAL way to do it is to add the Pacific into the mix, thus the US would have to split those resources on two fronts. This would allow you to represent the US in a more historical manner while not unbalancing the game. YES I know very hard to do at this point. But maybe you could abstract the Pacific some how.