Minty

Was thinking, so what? until I saw the date. Ha ha, that's funny! I know it's only the AI but good stuff

Not sure if it was maxed difficulty AI, got a very early 42 axis win. With a lot of luck ,no diplo, all money on german corp,perfect weather and some lucky tech. dow russia straight after poland ignore everything but killing Moscow and ignored Paris to Sealion into UK from Norway. AI is so dumb that the French just sit there and the US just build up a billion men who are caught in traffic at the new jersey turnpike.not much fun though though playing AI.

I think we have fallen into a trap here. we play this game and, to ever play Axis, distance ourselves from the Nazi element. look at HC's very diplomatic structure to the game. the only swastika is nearly blocked, Winston and Big Joe are there but no Hitler and only Rommel's smiling face.Ok so it's Ike not FDR but truman was there for the last bit and besides ike got to be Pres and oldmen in wheelchairs just don't look so militaristic. And rommel? He's the friendly german general right? Not a nazi? oh surely not.Just think james mason, even hollywood romanticism about him. There's no swastika in the game, no mention of Nazism and no Waffen SS totenkompf deathsquads. You get supply loss from partisan actitiviy but no morale loss from the 4th army having to shoot children in the back of the head every day in the Ukraine One of the tech options for germany is not "gas chambers level 2". sorry to be so blunt but we all try and put aside the brutal facts of the regime so that we can play the game. Fine, at least then we can treat it as a wargame only. The mistake is then to carry that onto the discussion over history -where you cannot ignore the evil. Resettlement of Jews by the nazis? Are you all mad? Hitler wanted them all Dead cos he was pure evil.It drove him completely and consumed him utterly, anything else is a smokescreen. even in total defeat he blamed jewish america, jewish bolshaviks in russia, jewish ideas. Jews were the scapegoat for WW1 defeat and economic collapse. jewish bankers in the wall street crash. jewish communists, everything, He would NEVER have packed them off on some cruise trip to happy zionist land. There are possible alternative histories and Fatherland by robert harris is a very plausible one. I love the idea of JFK Senior being the 60s president in a US that was now morally corrupt as a result of not winning the righteous second world war. Stop kidding yourself about anything other than Hitler wanting the final solution.

Looks like this wasn't off topic at all. I'm sick of the "we won simply because we had more oil" school of thought. Yes it was a vital factor but wihtout the resolve of so many men, plus some key strategic decisions and failures the war could have lasted for much longer,or been over sooner in a partial, if probably temporary Axis stalemate. Also simply the size of Russia's manpower means nothing. China had 20 times the population of Japan but no effective government or strategy. Had Moscow fallen then the soviets, whose one big advanatge was central control of all aspects of society,would have had a hell of time putting together the winter offensve of 42. That's why we play this game, to get some idea of the decisions and alternatives possible! Blashy, I have to disagree.Without the USA then Axis germany would have survived.They may not have conquered the USSR but they wouldn't have fallen back to Berlin either. The Russians were given 200,000 trucks alone from the US! every soviet soldier wore US boots, they rode US trains, ate US spam etc etc. Without The RAF and USAF taking on 2/3 of the Luftwaffe over germany then the red army would have felt a lot more pain from the skies! I'm no Rambo but without the US there would have been no happy ending for Europe, which I as a happy little brit now working in Germany am very grateful for. Likewise without the resolve of Churchill to hold out, the US could not have done it alone, and neither would have stood a chance wihtout Russia bleeding millions. It was an unlikely alliance that only held for one reason, the defeat of Hitler which is what it achieved. As for Japan, yeah they were stuffed from the start and Yamamoto knew it. Best they could have hoped for was a few years of naval superiority but after Midway it was all downhill, and with the A bomb round the corner ... ouch.

There's a new edition of a classic book called "why the allies won" by Richard Overy just out. It's published in the UK but is available on amazon. It covers everything and challenges some of the many assumptions we take for granted, especially regarding production and technology. Such as how incredibly fast american mobilization really was, That the german army wasn't modern at all, that german resources were actually very high but badly utilised and how stalin differed from Hitler by delegating. It uses a lot of new sources available since the fall of communism to show just how close the USSR came to collapse. It even finds time to praise Patton so Rambo will like it too! Vital reading for any SC2 allied player I think. Hope this isn't off topic too much but just thought people might like it. reading it made me realise how HC has got a lot of the aspects covered so well in the game.

Dear Herr Yoda, thanks very much, unfortunately I'll be playing Axis in version 1.02 and a lot of beer in riding on the outcome! My opponent will be reading this so I won't give too much away but some of the mistakes you mentioned are ones I have been able to capitalise on in the past and will try to avoid. By the way has anyone ever DOW russia straight after Poland and won? No Western war, just leave france and head east. Allies have to dow Benelux if they want to get in on the western front and can say goodbye to US support. Plus Russian troop numbers are low and will have no advanced weapons. It works against the AI but then so does pretty much everything! Not sure about a competent human!

Voice of reason, you have impressed the almighty one and been summoned to his royal court by the sound of it! Good job. This guide is excellent and really answers a few questions I had, especially regards unit readiness. Thanks very much.

So I've been SC2 a lot via PBEM since it came out. enjoyin it immensely but I have a question, how the hell can the Axis win against a good, patient Human allied player? Now I know this will cause howls of rage and lots of stories of axis total vistories in May1940 or somesuch but serously how is it done? I normally play allies and on version1.02 I know the ruskies have more of an advantage than on later versions. But still if the Allied player gets some decent IW for the red army and prodoces hordes of Corps and Armies then by 1942/43 the Axis just can't hack it. You can argue this is historically accurate as in reality there was no way the Axis could hope to win by that time but it really doesn't make for a fun game. What is a wannabe Third Reich leader to do? Delay Barborossa? Have an early barborassa? Steamroll in on all fronts or use fast corps to cut deep into the USSR and take the siberian backlash? Airfleets are great of course and give the germans a lot of control, but they are horribly expensive and a lot of fast moving corps and panzers is an alternative. any barborossa strategies and tactics are very welcome. Take riga before the baltics are annexed? DOW turkey? amphibous assaults from odessa to the casucaus? My friends are sick of me kicking their butts as allies and I'm going to try it as Germans again, in V1.02 too just to make it harder! Thanks

My understanding is that in Pre Jet days it was a lot easier. The royal navy had RAF units operating off them in Norway at short notice in 1940. There was a lot less specialised equipment on the carriers ( no steam catapults or catch wires in wide use). These only came in when Jets starting to try and land on Carriers in the 1950s. The speeds were much faster and the RN had a whole squadron killed in peactime over a year or so before it got perfected.

If you think about it that is what effectively did happen to Rommel. His HQ for the Afrika corps ( support troops, junior officers , NCO, Drivers, supply trucks etc) all got left behind in North Africa. In game terms his HQ was destroyed. However he and other senior officers were flown back to Germany and his HQ was reborn to then be placed in France. Similar story with other Generals from the east to western Front. With the exception of stalingrad almost no senior generals were ever captured or killed. And the only American general killed was a lowely Lt General who was blown up by Patton's advancing forces breaking out of Normandy.

I don't care how big your Panzer is, if someone manages to drop a two tonne torpedo on top it then you're not going home in piece. Odds of hitting it though...... How about making aircraft carriers just that? Carriers of your aircraft. Actual transports for airfleets. You load them up, fly them to sea and attack from where you want. The ship itself is useless without it's aircraft which it can load and unload where it sees fit at low cost. Give the UK two fleet airarms but at low initial strength ( say 3). UK can then spend money on bringing the air arm up to full strength or use the RAF units on the carriers. It won't effect the battle of britain as the UK won't be able to afford to bring the units to strength against LW fleets unless the player has sacrified something else very critical. If the carrier is sunk then it loses the aircraft on board but if they fly off first you can use them elsewhere. This is what happened in malta where it's only aircover for a while were some outdated Fleet airarm fighters that were supposed to be onboard HMS Glorious.

Actually the Royal Navy had 7 fleet carriers at the start of the war, 5 of which were just coming out of the docks. So in game terms would probably be in production queue for late 39/40. The RN also had 15 battleships (including the tragically miscategorised battlecruisers such as the HMS Hood) Problem was most of these were built in WWI. The game does well not to list all of them as Battleships as they would never had stood up to the Bismarck or Tirpitz.However 5 modern battleships were under construction and these feature in the game. Except HMS repulse which was sunk off singapore by land based japanese bombers. Back to the carriers though. The Royal navy had planes like this (see the link and try not to laugh - yes this is WWII - the same era as the Me262). The Fairey swordfish. Not just at the start of the war but well into it. Top speed 130mph. My car can do that.They were effective early on and especially against the Italians who did not have a Naval air wing and air cover was badly coordinated with the airforce. But they were slaughtered when the Luftwaffe could provide aircover. Swordfish data Meahwhile the US had divebombers ( more efficent than torpedo bombers) like the devastator and later seriously powerful Grumman avenger torpedo bombers. In Games terms these would be LV4 or LV5 compared to the Royal navies aircraft.

sorry just reread your post, you did mention Eypgt.

I'm assuming he was referring to playing allies as he didn't mention Eygpt. But you can do it as Axis with the right airpower, some good subs and if you use the Bismarck and Tirpitz together. Plus if the RN is split and comes a cropper in the Med (likely if Spain is on board) then they should be neautralised. Best timed just before the US comes in as they tend to get annoyed at invading Ireland and once they are in then the exra navy makes it damn near impossible. Of course if you've had a succesful sealion then it's just a short jump out of an easyjet junkers from Manchester. I agree that it is gamey to an extent BUT if it didn't have those moral boosts then frankly you'd probably never bother to invade / liberate those places. Even places like Benelux might get ignored.If the Axis have a big entrached experienced army in Amsterdam why bother taking it? Too much work.just go straight to the kill in Germany and mess up his MPP in the Ruhr valley. But with the morale boosts you bother to liberate the poor dutch. The game would become very one dimensional without it. Historically (with the exception of Iran and the Irish republic - Belfast was bombed) fighting took place in all the places that Mr Taojah mentioned. In real life there was a political aspect to the war that meant the Allies could not ignore those countries. Without the morale boost it would be less of a world war and players would simply get into a big slugging match in Russia and D-Day. It gives the player a reason to divert resources (as both sides did) to maintaining control of far flung territories. I think it really is one of those features that makes this such an enjoyable and well thought out game.

Carriers in the European theatre were of limited use. They were not as devastating against capital ships as Mr daringly suggests. Yes they were in the pacific where both the US and Japanese had them in larger numbers and with more modern planes that the RN. The first real Carrier vs Capitol ship encounter resulted in the sinking of the carrier HMS Glorious by the ugly sisters of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. In game terms the carrier would have had no experience (new captain in real life) and be low on supply ( it was ferrying RAF planes in and out of Norway and did not have it's full compliment). Compared with a Pacific fleet Carrier ( US or Japanese ) she barely is worth the name carrier. The US carriers have would have had advanced aircraft at LV1 or LV2 by comparision. Where carriers were used succesfully in Europe was in spotting and recon. For sub hunting and for Bismarck hunting. HMS Ark Royals swordfish spotted and damaged the bismarck but it took the weight of several capital ships to finish her off. Again this is realistic in the game, a carrier can find an enemy , soften them up a bit but then you need to get some heavy metal in to finish up. Lastly they were used at Taranto in surely the most cost effective military encounter in history. 3 outdated biplanes in return for the sinking of 3 battleships/ heavy cruisers. The inspiration for Pearl Harbour isn't reflected well in the game and I would like to see the Carriers more effective against ships in Port to reflect this. Carriers in europe (and it was only really the Royal Navy who had them) were much smaller than their Pacific equivalents. Many were converted Cruisers or used hulls that had been laid down for Battlecruisers. This was to circumnavigate the Washington Treaty restrictions on tonnage as Carriers did not count and Britain did not want to scrap perfectly good ship hulls. As the US and Japanese were younger navies with lower weight caps ,they had no choice but to build new ones. One benefit was felt though and that is that British carriers were much more heavily armoured and had armoured metal flight decks ( US ones mostly being wooden). This meant that in 44 / 45 when operating in the Pacific they took little damage from Kamikazes.

Hi, long time reader, first time poster. Regarding the long running debate on Morale effects after minor countries are liberated / conquered I think they are good as they are. Whilst I agree it can lead to some hard to reason with outcomes ( would the average Ivan defending Stalingrad really feel a lot better knowing that Portugal has been conquered by the canadians?) my vote would be to keep the present situation. With regards to the North african countries, it would boost morale of hard pressed allies to know that after years on the defensive they can take land now that they have more support. Also knowing that your borders are in jeopardy (even thousands of miles away) is going to make advancing units (or at least their senior officers) that much more nervous. The Axis propoganda machine was relentless in it's praise of the Wehrmacht as it marched through the low countries , France and eastern europe. Surely knowing that the once all powerful 3rd reich was not having things it's own way, and could no longer project it's power across europe, would spread seeds of doubt even on the Eastern front. Even in a PBEM game against a human opponent it is demoralising to know that you don't have the resources to protect your once mighty reich and the enemy is getting closer. From the allied perspective the moral effect is spot on. My granfather was in the BEF and part of the rearguard at Dunkirk (so rear in fact he and his comrades had to find their own boat off the beaches and were picked up at sea by the RN a day later). He told me how it was utter confusion and when word of the German advance was heard it was assumed the fighting would not reach them for some time. It did of course and the speed with which the Dutch and Belgians crumbled was truly scary. The British knew at all levels that to stand and fight meant utter annihilation. Similarly he also found himself in North Afica and finally Italy at Monte Casino. Even though he always told me that Monte Casino was a living hell and that the things he saw there were worse than anyhing previously, by that time they knew that victory was possible. They had beaten the Italians and Germans in the "minor countries" of North africa and their moral and sense of purpose was much higher. The German paras fighting so bravely in the mountains were no longer invincible titans but men who had now ben shown to be beatable. Rambo posted that moral doesn't stop a bullet but in this case I think it helps the troops fight that much harder knowing that they can win.