Peter Palchinsky
-
Posts
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Peter Palchinsky
-
-
Proof? How about the facts that after a year of war France was defeated and then Germany nearly won the air campaign over Britain and where were the Americans? There were too many distasteful memories of WWI's outcome that kept US politics in gridlock over support to GB and France when there was a good chance of stopping Germany after the fall of Poland. If one can imagine a successful Sealion with the resulting defeat of the Brits without triggering US intervention, then one is compelled to ask for proof that US involvement would ever take place. The fact remains that GB was not defeated and Germany nearly overran the Soviet army in the summer of 1941, yet no US intervention took place until an unrelated attack by Japan removed the political deadlock. HvS is correct to assume the US would have stood by and watched Germany occupy Soviet Europe. I might add that given a Brit defeat, the US would have likely occupied Brit possessions near America in the name of their safety from u-boat havens, and then upon defeat of the USSR, i'd further suppose the US gov't would seek an accommodation on spheres of influence In the Atlantic and Africa to avoid war with Germany while concentrating on starting a war with Japan to settle old scores in the Pacific. In short, a German victory in Europe BEFORE Pearl Harbor would likely have been more acceptable to the US Gov't in the shortterm rather than a Japanese victory over China BEFORE Pearl Harbor. I apologize for getting too deep into ahistorical discussion, but I find the topic very interesting.
-
Thx, Hubert, I'll try it out. I also assume I can just as easily switch on the entrenchment research option for any country I want, but was wondering if this was ever tested and proved too much fortifying for WWII standards. Regardless, I'll play around with it too.
-
Excellent thought PR, one that has been expressed before but no less relevant. Hopefully Hubert, Bill & Co. will see the light and code us this ability for a parent or any nation so connected by the LoC to distribute MPPs at the players' discretion.
As long as player controlled economic exchanges are limited to a certain %. Also, maybe some economic/military DEs could be triggered when an ally is on the verge of collapse ($ and/or equivalent units could be sent). Also, in the case of Italy when Rome falls, a DE should allow Germany to form the Italian Socialist Republic as minor ally.
-
I understand, but when you're on the receiving end and the AI axis infantry is overrunning Soviet armies and corps like they were nothing, it just gets a bit frustrating not getting more bang for the buck. However, what if engineers could work faster if next to a city tile...say, half the time?
-
Bill, how about allowing soviet units to research entrenchments (level 1 only)? I think a case could be made for this unique soviet ability in addition to the regular terrain benefits. If the Germans fail to commit mech/armor forces in a certain sector, then their infantry or allied forces should find it tough going against soviet infantry. This might reflect the historically high demand for mobile forces throughout the eastern front. Anyway, unlike engineer fortifications, the entrenchment graphic would only last only if a unit occupied it just like in TGW.
-
Hubert, Bill, were trenches ever tested for the 1939 scenario? Historically they made a difference on Eastern Front for both sides, so seems like they'd be worth experimenting with. Thanks for 1.03!
-
von Strachwitz,
What recommendations do you have for bombers and airships? Also, how low does the NM for Germany get to during your games? Is it ever less than 50?
Thx, PP
-
Sent file to you, Bill. Thanks.
PP
-
I'm playing latest patch, and the US entered the war in November 1917. I've cleared all of Poland and advanced to Vinitsa in the south, but meeting very heavy resistance in Lithuania area and haven't made much progress there. Russia is at 27% and I'm at 10% now. I'm so desperate to break this steady decline that I'm in the middle of crossing the North Sea to invade East Anglia and attempt a stab at London before all is lost. I'm hoping that if Russia goes Bolshevik then my NM will rise enough to allow me to take London, but racing against time.
I'm just stunned at the reasoning you give behind US entry given the ahistorical decisions I made to counter historical reasons for their entry. Not sure why CP should not be rewarded for following a truely defensive strategy and avoiding expansion of the war to America. Curious about the causes for American aggression.
Also, I did lose Holland's sympathy in 1915, but regained it by end of 1916. Brits appear to have only 2 BBs, 8 cruisers, and many DDs. I have 3 BBs, 2 crusiers, and 8 subs.
-
One related issue and two new issues.
First, why doesn't the game reflect how the British blockade nearly kept the US neutral the entire war? Something should be said about the reverse effect that the British blockade had historically on the US attitude. Britain spent a ton of money on gaining influence and circulating propaganda in the US in order to combat the negative effect its blockade had on US economic interests and politics. Only Germany's openly declared unconditional submarine warfare in late 1916 had the effect on US opinion that Britain strived for for over 2 years.
Seems like the US attitude should stay close to neutral or even slightly sympathetic to Central Powers if the blockade has been enforced since the start of the war, but I have not noticed this at all in my latest game with the AI in which I've done everything I can think of as the CP player not to aggravate the US, yet by end of 1917 the US is at 67% although it was at 0% through 1916. I didn't invade Belgium and used my submarines for surface attacks on enemy warships only, no merchants. I remain in a static defense on the French frontier while trying to knock Russia out of the war, so not sure the reason for the US wanting to enter the war to save the evil Tsarist empire.
Of course, the AI player always starts at elevated NM points so it takes forever to reduce Russian NM to zero even when it's my main effort. All the while, my morale hovers around 20% in late 1917 because of the blockade, although I've successfully sunk 12 British BBs and Brit NM is around 115%! Max Hoffman wrote that had Hindenburg and Ludendorf delivered on the their promise to make the Eastern front the main effort after they took over control of Germany in end of 1916, then Russia could have easily been forced to sue for peace by the summer of 1917, so why Russia can last so long when it is the main effort is beyond me.
One last issue is the querk where the AI squanders its units. In the current game as CP where I didn't invade Belgium, I decided to turn fog of war off at the beginning of 1917 to see what the AI was up to and to my astonishment about 70 Brit/French units are sitting in France about 8 lines thick from the German frontier holding ground. Something similar was happpening on the Eastern front where about 15 corps sit motionless around Lithuania unengaged with my forces in the East Prussian AO. I'm using 100% AI effectiveness, so I expected to see an amphib landing or two, not to mention a Brit/French attack into Austria through Italy, but nothing that challenging has occurred the entire game. The only thing killing me is the Brit Blockade and upon turning off fog or war, only about 7 ships were being emplyed, yet I have lost 1-2% every turn...amazing. After seeing all that, my interest in playing the AI is not as great as it once was, yet I don't have time to play humans very often...bummer.
-
42 next week, and started at 16 with AH's Luftwaffe before moving to Third Reich at 18. Anyone who's ever dabbled with GRD's Europa series would appreciate SC for getting us closer to the long in waiting "Grand Europa" monster. Thank God for computer games!
-
Bill,
Hope you don't jump to any rash decisions based on this AAR alone. This single game hasn't been completed yet, and both sides have access to the Industrial Tech. This could be simply a case of gamesmanship vs. a perceived flaw. As you yourself know, only thorough testing will determine the correct action to take. So, if you have AAR from the Beta Testing you could share to back up what Lettow perceives as a flaw, then that would be very reassuring to those gamers following this thread so they are not disappointed by any hasty changes in the next patch. Thanks.
PP
-
I've been playing CP and I didn't choose unrestricted submarine warfare in order to keep the US neutral as long as possible. However, in late 1916 the US went to 84% when Paris fell and then declared war the next turn. The US never declared war when Paris fell in 1940, so it seems very unlikely the US would have gotten so upset with the fall of Paris during WWI to declare war.
Also, I was a bit disappointed with lack of Russian aggressiveness in East Prussia. Yes, they did go after the A-H objectives and took one for one turn, but they left East Prussia unthreatened except for Memel. Does East Prussia need more objectives?
Serbia is damned hard to overcome in 1915, even with the 2nd Army, and I was very pleased with how the AI behaved there.
-
Done. Thanks!
-
Bill,
One suggestion - replace the industrial modifiers shown on the main screen with the cumulative losses suffered instead. Seeing each nation's losses at a glance seems rather more interesting and useful bit of info for the main screen.
-
Got my manual and loved it too except for a misprint. I'm missing pages 31-38 and instead there is a reprint of 23-30. Of course, I can get what I need from the in-game pdf file, but not sure if this happened to anyone else's manual.
-
The simple answer is that at the moment, scouting, much like the trenches, are a WWI feature only and not part of the WWII engine.
We might look into including it but the way it is now for example, since Carriers in WWI and WWII behave completely differently, their functions are not really compatible as they are using two different coding structures and not easily mixed together.
Put another way we coded some things specifically for WWI for this release but kept the older code (behind the scenes) so that it would be easy enough to mod WWII by turning on the 'switch' in the Editor.
Hubert,
If you end up including some of the WWI features, then I believe a case should be made for the trench function in any WWII engine. They were used extensively wherever mechanized warfare receded or failed to deliver (Stalingrad, Caucasus, Kursk, Normandy stalemate, Italy, etc.). In fact, Soviet trench systems from WWII have served as a model for combat operations to this day in many parts of the world. Bottom line, mechanized units would still trump entrenched non-mech units, but non-mech vs. non-mech encounters seem to take up just as many of my SC engagements and would add more value to mech units in long run and increase their role as an Ace on the battlefield.
-
Screenshots and map look awesome. However, the blockade screenshot begs me to wonder what the negative ramifications might be like for the blockade. If an Allied player chooses to blockade will it affect the attitudes of neutral countries? Also, how does the Central Powers player choose unrestricted submarine warfare, and can it be turned off/on as was done historically so as not to upset neutrals like America?
-
Beta testers: WWI is a very interesting topic to me, so I'm jealous of you; and hats off to a wonderful series I've been playing since SC1. Anyway, since battles/wars are typically reported by historians in terms of casualties suffered, would it be possible to add a feature under the Report tracker that keeps tally of the total strength points suffered by each nation according to unit type (this would be in addition to the report on total units destroyed), and perhaps chart it too (as is done for convoys)? I believe this would add a flavor deserving of this titanic struggle. Just my two cents.
The German Navy of 1939
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
Other operational level games, such as GRD's Second Front, used fleets to represent many types of ships in order to avoid the bean counting. Isn't this a possible solution for a "strategic" game? Couldn't the aircraft carrier icon be manipulated so that as a fleet it had both surface and air strengths for nations with CVs, and a battleship icon for nations without CVs? The remaining major issue, of course, is strategic submarine warfare and ASW, but I'd look to how AH's Third Reich handled that and come up with something more abstract, but still requires money/units to win. A solution in this regards would likely also lead to an improvement with how strategic bombing is handled in SC. I believe SC is not as strategic in play as it once was in SC1, and maybe a swing back wouldn't hurt from time to time.