TFL

In my experience allies taking Norway is starting to be more the rule than an exception in H vs. H. Kriegsmarine trying to stop it would be suicide, 2 CCs + 2 subs cannot do anything against the combined british/french navy. Normally attack on Norway happends early while axis is busy fighting over Poland, LC and France so luftwaffe is not around either. If axis decides to take Norway back it will cost some mpps and risk of confrantation with the RN + there is always a risk of failing to do it. The cost of allies taking Norway is ambhib price required to move units there, normally one army and one corps to my experience. Even if axis takes Norway back, UK only loses price of a corps killed defending Oslo. Therefore Norway only has to be held for a few turns to make it worthwhile. In my opinion the biggest arguments for not taking Norway as allies is that you could spend the same resources elsewhere on the map, like taking algeria, defending UK/Egypt etc. but Norway seems like a pretty good return of investment to me.

You are absolutely right here about the economics. I think the finnish contribution to the German war machine consisted of ~37 boxes of matches plus three wollen blankets, which were given in return for the hundred ME109s and 1000 AT guns received from the Germans. Finland wasn't exactly an economical powerhouse on those days .

Being Finnish myself I will comment some on the Finnish part. Russians launched a major attack on Finland in the summer of 44. This attack was stopped, but Finland was weakened so badly it sought after a separate peace with the Russians. In the peace deal Finland lost some land to USSR and promised to kick the Germans out of northern Finland. Finns and Germans were old allies and hence no battles took place; the Germans walked north towards Norway and Finns followed a few days after to keep Stalin happy. After Stalin learned about this, few minor battles took place between Finns and Germans, but less then 5000 Germans were lost in these battles (number includes a 1000 killed, 2000 wounded and 1500 POWs). These loses are hardly meaningful in the scale of SC2. What would be meaningful is that the Russians were able to forget about Finnish front and concentrate on going to Berlin. Note that Finland stayed unoccupied, gave no resources to Russian war efforts and russians were not allowed to use Finnish soil for any military operations. Of course we Finns are eager to remind about this, being the only European country in the war besides UK and USSR to not have been occupied at any point during the war . I have no detailed knowledge about the events in Italy and Romania, but would imagine that their armies switching side was of little military importance as well. Maybe someone else has better/different knowledge about these?

@SM I would prefer to do this a bit differently, since sub spotting would make them extremely powerful. I think subs should be able to pass "surprise contact" without stopping. Say give sub a 50% chance of getting by an enemy fleet. So surrounding them would give a chance of killing the sub, but not a certainty. Also this would help subs returning for supply from the Atlantic.

Absolutely no. I understand the appeal to individuals in the game, or to have elite units that one could identify with, but that would be utterly unhistorical. Even Rambo could not really kill the whole vietnamese army just by himself even if he did so in the movie. Rambo from this forum might argue with this though . Even the Generals and Marshalls were only as good as their surrounding men, as the HQ concept in the game presents. For example Eisenhower was known to be not the best the tactical or strategical commander, or maybe not even a moderate one. However he was extremely good at handling people, and that rightfully earned him the reputation as the best western allied commander there was, he's HQ was working best together. In practise the big decisions and plans were not done by one man, but a whole group of HQ personnel.

I also vote "YES" for adding this option. If you want to keep things random you have it, but if you want to turn that option of you have a chance of doing so.

I had the same problem, here are few things that might help. 1. Use ICQ. It's next to impossible to setup online games without a chat program and this is the standard for SC2 players for some reason. You can find ICQ numbers from this forum or from panzerliga. 2. Check which players have been active lately and contact them. Panzerliga results are a good place to start. If someone hasn't finished a game in two months he probably isn't playing that much currently. 3. Some players might not be able to start a game straight away. In this case try to make appointments a day or two in advance. 4. To avoid connection problems, familiarize yourself with a software called Hamachi. It helps hosting with people who are behing routers. There must be dozen other things that I forgot or don't know about, but I hope this helps you getting started.

How about just increasing Italian readiness if the French fleet leaves Med? Makes it a choice for the player on how important he sees the ships are.

Hitler Hugend = Huge Hitler Jugend? I knew they did some crazy stuff with human genetics back then. Now that must be where Arnold Swartzenegger's gene pool is originating from... Sorry, I'm a bit too tired I quess.

I think the fleets shouldn't see more than one square at least historically for the reason Blashy mentioned; earth is round. Historically Air Craft carriers could have longer spotting range, say 2 in bad weather and 3 or 4 in good at sea, and maybe range 2 for land?

Yep, I believe in real world most of the colonies would have claimed independence, as the french colonies do in the game. But for game balance purposes I like it the way it is now.

Interesting analysis, thanks. I would like to add to this that the axis had one big advantage compared to the allies, even if they had been outproduced (as I'm sure somebody will point out referring to another source/arguing the numbers and facts in this post ). By '41 the germans had a large experienced army ready at hand. At the same time US and USSR had armies with practically no experience at all and largely with outdated weapons. Germans were already mobilized and ready to fight. The US and USSR were just starting to make new guns for their troops, had poor military doctrines etc. Hence I think that even early in '42 axis had a fighting chance as the wast russian and US resources were just starting to pour in. Of course after that it was all hopeless, as USSR didn't go down in flames. I think in this SC2 reflects the reality well, as in '42 the Germans normally still have the upper hand, even if they are being outproduced.

I totally agree with Blashy. In real world too few me262's were made and production was only started in 44 (or late 43, but the same thing), allthough they could have started it in 42/early 43. Why should you be forced to make the same mistake with hitler and use me262 as a bomber instead of as fighter and hence delay its operational usage? And if the Germans in your game are doing better than historically (more MMPs, better production tech etc.), they probably can also produce more of the advanced fighting tools, right?

In my opinion the game is fine as it is. I know that sealion in the autumn was not historical, but the possibility should be there for game purposes. Historically the germans were still planning sealion (for summer), and had things gone differently with the air war, who knows they may have given it a try. To my understanding one requirement for sealion was absolute air superiority, but the germans never managed to achieve it. This alone set back their plans, even if they had other problems as well. But the chance was there and because of that the British were preparing for it, instead off going on against Norway or attacking in the Med as they might have done otherwise. If the chance for sealion is removed from SC2, the game has one less viable option. Additionally the British would be able to do anything they want, since they know that home isles are safe. This would be both gamey and unhistorical.

In my experience attacker has the harder part in v1.04 if he makes sealion. - USA and Soviets are not at all happy. Since their readiness goes up also their production increases giving them more and better forces. - Mancester can be defended for quite a while usually. After that he will have to kill every last one british troop on the island to be able to whitdraw from there. - Even if you lose the island, your opponent will have to go Egypt next (assuming you have managed to hold on to it so far). You can buy all the lost troops at discount for defence of egypt. Europe is quite vulnerable from the south so this position might even be better for you then good old england. All in all, I think that even a succesfull sealion doesn't benefit the germans that much in v1.04. Germans only get some 30 MMPs more. At the same time the african resources for the UK go to 8. Since US and USSR will enter the war sooner, I think the Germans would have benefited more by spending the same troops and MMPs elsewhere. So take your time, do as much damage to your opponent while his taking the island and continue the battle from Egypt. The game is not over even if you lost the U.K, quite the opposite.

ICQ: 441795439, prefer TCP.

@Blashy You are right that the allies were out producing the axis hugely at later stages of the war. If the Germans were to win they would have done so in 41 or latest 42, and at the time they were not outproduced _that_ badly. Also at the time allied had no experienced troops or commanders to speak of. My point is that I agree with hellraiser that if germans had had a bit more success early, they could have forced soviets and/or UK to peace even before the US entry to the war. Since they didn't, all was lost and they could just as well have surrendered before '43 and saved a few million lives. In SC2 also the game is most of the time over if allies start gaining momentum.

If your still in for another game, I send you an opening turn as well. Or if you wish to play axis in this one it is also fine, let me know.

Better close this thread soon before more postings, John has been to the diesel oil again...

There is one thing that nobody has brought up yet; the cost of tech chits. In my opinion the chits are dirt cheap. For the price of one army you can buy ~2 chits. Mmmm, should I buy two armies or invest 4 chits to IW? When the 2 armies are ready, my 4 IW chits would have brought me 1-2 levels of IW almost doubling the effectiveness of my 10 existing units... For this reason we need the tech caps, otherwise everyone spends all MPPs to tech. If chits were more expensive, it would remove the problem, as at some point it is more effective to buy troops instead of tech. I don't have SC1 installed anymore, but if my mind serves me right, the chits were much more expensive back then. Of course the other way around is to have more tech levels you need to research to get the same effect.