arby Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I promised (threatened?) to take a look at the other two major aspects of SC, diplomacy and technology, with a view to how they could or should be changed for SC2. This is the one on technology. Actually, this thread will be more to let other people bounce ideas around than to advance any of my own, because I think tech is one area that's been substantially improved by patches. I think we all remember the "King Tigers in '41" games we were playing last August and September. That doesn't happen anymore. Frankly, the only change I feel strongly about is the one I mentioned in the discussion on the economic model: changing Industrial Tech so that it affects different nations differently, with Germany and Italy getting a 5% boost from each advance, Britain and the Soviet Union a 10% boost, and the US either 20% or 25%. As I explained there, I think this would much more accurately model what really happened as far as the comparative economics of the major powers. Beyond that, I've got a couple of suggestions, I want to raise a possible approach to research in general, and then I'll turn the floor over. The suggestions are with regard to the research subjects: Anti-Tank: I'd change this so that it also increases tank attack as well as tank defense. Depending on what is done with Rockets (see below), I wouldn't increase maximum strength for this one. Anti-Aircraft Radar: Suggestions have been made that this increase the Air Defense of individual units, as well as resources. Not sold on that one, especially if the effectiveness of air fleets is reduced. Open for discussion. Rockets: My original thought was scrapping this, but some people do like it. One suggestion I raised in another thread is fold this into a "Rockets and Artillery" tech: each advance would affect rockets, but would also increase the soft attack and defense of tanks and armies, and allow armies to increase their maximum strength. Ground-laying Radar: Does anybody ever invest in this? Suggestion: replace it with an Intelligence Tech. Right now, you only know the strength of opposing units you're adjacent to. For each level increase in Intelligence, you get to see strengths one more hex out. That could come in real handy: it would be a lot easier to pick out your opponent's weak points. If you expand the Report Options, you could also do some stuff with that here. There also might be an Amphibious Tech. I'll head on over to the thread on that, because I really haven't given it that much thought. There's a couple of other possibilities with tech. One is to increase the chances of achieving a research advance with the length of time that you've had the chit invested: With the first advance and one chit, you'd have a 5% chance the first turn, 10% the second, 15% the third, etc. With the second advance, it would be 4%, 8%, etc, the third... well, you can figure it out. It may be that you need to lower the original percentages (advances might be too quick otherwise), but I think such a system would better reflect the advantage of sustained research; it's not terribly accurate for my opponent to have the same chance of an advance with a single chit on a particular turn, when I invested my chit ten turns ago and he invested his last turn. The second suggestion is to "cash in" chits when they achieve an advance. If you've got two chits in jets, for example, and you get an advance, you lose one chit; it's gone. This would go a little ways to solving the too-many-units problem -- it would require substantially greater research expenditures -- and it would also correctly reflect the reality of making a continuous effort in research. As it is, the German buys his ten research chits by the end of 1940, and doesn't worry about it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Related to intelligence tech, a minor modification I'd like to see is when you get an advance, your unit icons do not automatically change to the next higher advance. I.e., if your at level 0 tanks, and achieve level 1, the tank icons stay at level 0 until you increase the strength of a particular unit within spotting distance of the enemy. This would allow for disinformation, and lead to uncertainity, which would increase the variability of play. If your deploying new technology, the enemy (in a strategic sense) isn't going to know about it until he encounters it the first time on the battlefield. This already happens with most other advances: industrial tech; anti-tank; anti-aircraft radar; subs; rockets; gun-laying radar. I.e, with anti-tank, the enemy doesn't know you've achieved an advance until you increase unit strengths upward. With anti-aircraft radar, the enemy can only surmise about an advance after his air units take punishing damage from attacks on resource hexes. But two of the most important techs, air and tanks, the enemy knows the moment the advance is achieved. And you should also be allowed to keep cheaper, lower tech units. If you want to deploy level 0 infantry to the Med, because you only want garrison troops there, then they should cost that much to buy and reinforce. But if you need level 3 infantry to face the Russian bear, then those would cost more. Similarly, maybe a level 0 airfleet is good enough to keep an eye on things near Sicily, but you want your best air deployed in France or on the eastern front. Good threads Russ. I too believe that SC 2, with proper modifications, will let Fury Software retain title to the best computer strategic wargame on the market. SC one has already achieved this status IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Intelligence could be used to (randomly) spot enemy units which would normally be hidden in the FoW, which is as close an analogue to what really happened than anything else I can think of [a piece of code is intercepted, decrypted, and the sortieing of an army unit onto a transport, headed to say North Africa, is detected and displayed]. John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Arby Very good series of Forums helping our Eternal Quest substantially. Regarding the industrial tech advances. German use of manpower and production was medeival till Albert Speer began running things in 1943. After that, when it was probably too late, it's manufacturing ability skyrocketed. This is not reliably reflected in production figures but can be demonstrated through the following. At they time Speer became Armaments Minister Germany was already being heavily bombed. His first task was to decentralize industry, causing not only lost production time, but also a shift to what he realized was a less efficient system of scattered, much smaller plants. Yet, from that time till the end of the war Germany's actual production either increased or kept it's former totals! This despite the already considerable manpower drain being replaced by slave laborers without incentive to produce either prodigious totals nor reliable items. Many of the V-2s, for example, were deliberately sabotaged on the assembly line. In order to relect this, the curve I'd use with Germany is: [+....% is increase over previous level] Germany L-1=+10%, Early inefficiency L-2=+10%, Use of Slave Laborers L-3=+50%, Albert Speer becomes Armaments Minister L-4=+15%, Total War Industrial Committment L-5=+10% Late Manufacturing Developments Italy L-1= +10%, L-2=+10%, L-3=+10%, L-4=+10%, L-5=+10% [ March 09, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Here how I see technology in SC and possibly in SC2 (although more can be done for SC2)... 1) Anti-Tank Weapons - Change name for 'Advanced Infantry' or 'Mechanized Technology'... - Increase Soft/Tank/Air Defense... - Increase Maximum Strength... 2) Heavy Tanks - Increase Soft/Tank Attack & Defense... - Increase Maximum Strength... 3) Anti-Aircraft Radar - Increase Air Defense for all Strategic Ressources (City, Ports, Mines & Oil Fields)... - Increase Air Defense for Corps, Army, Tank & Rockets... 4) Long Range Aircraft Scrap this... Merged in Jet Aircraft & Heavy Bombers... 5) Jet Aircraft - Change name for 'Advanced Fighters'... - Increase Air Defense & Air Attack of Air Fleet & Carrier... - Increase Spotting & Strike Range of Air Fleet & Carrier... - Increase Maximum Strength of Air Fleet & Carrier... 6) Heavy Bombers - Increase Air Defense & Air Attack of Strategic Bombers... - Increase Spotting & Strike Range of Strategic Bombers... - Increase Maximum Strength of Strategic Bombers... - Increase Strategic Attack of Strategic Bombers... 7) Sonar Scrap this... put in Gun Laying Radar... 8) Advanced Subs - Increase Spotting of Subs... - Increase Action Points of Subs (snorkels)... - Increase Naval Attack of Subs... - Increase Maximum Strength of Subs... 9) Gun Laying Radar - Change name for 'Advanced Warships'... - Increase Naval Attack & Naval Defence of Battleships & Cruisers... - Increase Maximum Strength of Battleships & Cruisers... - Increase Air Attack & Air Defense of Battleships & Cruisers... 10) Rockets - Increase Strike Range of Rocket Detachment... - Increase Soft, Tank, Air, Naval & Strategic Attack of Rocket Detachment... - Increase Maximum Strength of Rocket Detachment... 11) Industrial Technology - Decrease cost by 5% for Germany, Italy & France... - Decrease cost by 10% for USSR & UK... - Decrease cost by 20% for USA... (as suggested by Arby...) New technology to replace those scrapped: 1) Workforce Planning - Increase Country MMP Total by 2%... 2) Spying & Sabotage - Decrease Enemy (all Major Countries) MMP Total by 2%... 3) Defensive Urban Tactics - Entranchment Level +1 for all Cities/Ressources Hexes... 4) Research Protocols - Research Point cost -10 MPPs per level... OR - Total Maximum Research Funding +250 MMP per level... New technology possible for SC2: - Weather Preparation... - Amphibious assault... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Ok, time for me to sound like an a**hole again. Before we get carried away, lets not forget what these Tech Advances are effecting. Units. With the exception of Indus Tech, the advances are making our units more effective in one of the attributes it has. But is everything fine with the units we have? No. There needs to be a distinction between an Army/Corp unit that is motorized and one that is not. The Action Points of the latter should be less than what they are now (which represent motorized movement). The distinction between mechanized and motorized is already abstracted into the Armor unit. Jet Aircraft We have a Air unit. Thats fine. But we need a Jet unit. Each air unit is suppossed to represent a mix between fighters, fighter bombers and bombers, with roughly 1,000 aircraft being there. Once I get that Jet ability, I still need to make those Jet fighters, Jet fighter bombers and Jet bombers. And the differences are big enough that I should be paying for a new unit. Hence, we should have a Propellor Aircraft and a Jet Aircraft tech advance. There is a topic on the back pages explaining much better than me, why it should be split. The short version is that the beginning level of Jets is not superior to the high end version of propellor aircraft. Anti-Aircraft Radar I see this as an increase in the effectiveness of the "phantom" AA (ie Flak) units we don't see. These are the guys with the searchlights, 88mm and up AA guns, as well as the smaller weapons. I also feel this should represent the "counter" to air, in that as your enemy gains air superiority, you would naturally counter by attaching more AA units to your Corps, Armies and Tank Groups. So those units should also be getting a increase in the ability to defend against air attacks. Anti-Tank This appears to be the representation of the evolution of anti-tank guns bigger (37mm to 57mm to 76mm) as well as introduction of bazokkas (and the German copies). There should not be a increase in the strength of a unit. Current method of strength points reminds me too much of the role playing concept of hit points. As you grow in a level, your HP's increase. But here is where it falls apart... what about those Assault Guns, Tank Destroyers? For that matter, what about the increased anti-tank defense as well as offensive ability that you get once you start attaching Tank Bn's to units? Soft factor is for the Artillery, since that is the major combat power of a Infantry unit. But if a Corp gets an armored division, or has an armored division as part of the organic units of that Corp, where does this increase in combat power come in? That Corp should not be using the Tank attack or defense. Thats only for the Armor units. This deserves another topic, but you can either make a new unit (nope, too detail oriented) or based on an advance in the Heavy Tank tech, the soft attack and defense factors of a Corp or Army (not Armor unit) should be given a slight increase. Rockets First, they are not artillery. They are a poor mans strategic bomber. They don't have the same level of manpower costs that fielding strategic bombers entails. The problem in SC is that the strategic weapons don't have a unique attack ability that other units do not have. Fix that, and German players will invest in Rockets if they were considering investing in Strategic Bombers, since they already have a head start in this tech. As far as using this to increase the soft factors of a unit, that is a no no. Artillery started off as 76mm and 105mm pieces. Eventually settled into 105mm and 155mm pieces (for those that could afford it), with the 76mm artillery pieces becoming obsolete due to the cost effectivness of using an 81mm mortar in its place (same bang, less bucks). Russians, who couldn't afford the artillery, used the 120mm mortars in place of the 105mm artillery. So... I really only have a one step increase in combat power increase due to the weapons. There is the fire direction control, that also increased the effectiveness, but only the Americans had that advantage. Any increase in soft factors to reflect these items should not be handled by an R&D tech item. Ground Laying Radar This one I am not that familar with. Maybe this could be folded in with artillery fire direction control (giving you a increase in soft factor as well). Bet people would invest in it then. I believe this suffers from the fact that the Naval aspect of SC is weak. Once that is addressed, the importance of this may increase. Others Amphib R&D ... while the British did spend time doing R&D along these lines, it was more for river crossings. Make transports go from port to port and limit the amphib assault ability. Special Units R&D ... back door attempt to get Paratroopers and/or Marines or a unit that does both. Giving us a Para unit will shut down this argument, and would be fine within limits. So would giving us a "amphib" unit. But then, some purists would have a fit if that happened. Industrial Tech ... I like the way it works now, especially with the "catch up" feature. Its a very indirect approach to increasing your MPPs. Just like the variable turn rate is a indirect approach to movement effects of weather. Cashing in Chits on Advance ... I like this. Makes perfect sense. Get an advance, and you lose a chit. It would also tend to even out the standard deviations since you may not have the MPPs available at that moment to replace that chit. Intelligence R&D ... This is a strategical game, so give me strategical information. Like what techs he has research chits in. Or the MPP per turn income he has. Things I am not normally privy to. As far as knowing what the units have, that should stay as is. Thats what those military intelligence types at the lower levels are for... to determine what the enemy has (ie you looking at the unit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Anti-Aircraft Radar It seems that people don't realize that this already increases the air defense for units. The only restriction is that the unit must be on a Strategic resource or city. My suggested change would be to increase the area of effect of this. Instead of just the resource or city, also include the hexes around that resource or city. Thus the center hex plus the 6 around it gain the defense bonus, as well as units that are on those hexes. Cashing in Chits on Advance Definetely like this idea. One advance leads to reduction of a chit for that research. I'd also like to see all researchs available start with one chit, thus you may try a different strategy if you get lucky in one of them. Would only do this when combined witht he reduction idea. I agree some research should be replaced by others(sonar, why chose this when you can get gun laying), and I do like the intellegence angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by John DiFool: Intelligence could be used to (randomly) spot enemy units which would normally be hidden in the FoW, which is as close an analogue to what really happened than anything else I can think of [a piece of code is intercepted, decrypted, and the sortieing of an army unit onto a transport, headed to say North Africa, is detected and displayed].I think it was more extensive than that. While the big stuff, such as intercepting codes, gets most of the ink, intelligence really depends a lot more on scut work: sifting through photo recon data, tips from spies, interrogation of deserters or prisoners, analysis of past enemy trends. All of that improved as the war went on, and intelligence people became better at putting that all together. The intelligence tech would reflect that. You might also make it so that advances "countered" each other; i.e., if the Germans were at tech 3 and the Soviets were at tech 2, the Germans would only be able to see out an additional hex. Not sure of that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by KDG: Anti-Aircraft Radar My suggested change would be to increase the area of effect of this. Instead of just the resource or city, also include the hexes around that resource or city. Thus the center hex plus the 6 around it gain the defense bonus, as well as units that are on those hexes. That's not a bad idea. One of the things to keep in mind, though, is that I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that air power has to be toned down in the next game. Inflicting additional damage on air units while at the same time reducing their effectiveness might be too much of a double whammy. On the other hand, you may have hit on a way to tone down air power without really doing much of anything to the formulas or effects. If air units suffer a good bit more damage than they do now, that's a very effective way of toning down their effects, and of dissuading people from the "umpteen air fleets" strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Regarding rapid (more rapid than it seems right) technological advances: Does anyone else think that it's strange to have both Allies and Axis with fleets of jet aircraft opposing each other by 42-43? It seems a little odd to me to have WWII tank and infantry units operating in an environment with Korean War era aircraft. Even with some anti-aircraft points, anything on the ground or water is toast with level 5 jets prowling around (as has been pointed out several times). Perhaps the solution lies in de-emphasizing the role of aircraft in general--but air power is what decided the war militarily, isn't it? I think the solution may be found by making jet aircraft harder to attain rather than by de-emphasizing air power in general. The normal air units that begin the game seem relatively well balanced with the other game units. Jets skew things rapidly, though. And historically, they were not only hard to do technologically, but there were problems (albeit mostly in Hitler's mind) about deciding whether they could be useful as fighters, whether they would place too great a strain on the pilots, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 santabear Combat on the Eastern Front decided the war. Aircraft aided the Germans as part of a combined arms assault in the early years of the war. Later years of the war, the Allies, even with complete air superiority, still had to engage in ground combat. But here is where some will argue its because of the weather. Strategic air war, was not decisive by itself. But it did act as a drain on Germany and her resources. And yes, I do think that Jet Aircraft as Level 5 advances is wrong. Jet Aircraft and Propellor Aircraft should be two different units, with a Level 0 Jet Aircraft unit not allowed until you have reached Propellor Aircraft Level 4. Jet Air unit Level 0 should start off with a range of 2, be superior to Prop aircraft in the Interceptor role, but weaker than Prop aircraft in the ground assault role. The German Jets were almost exclusivly developed to counter the Allied Strategic Bombers. [ March 09, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: There needs to be a distinction between an Army/Corp unit that is motorized and one that is not. The Action Points of the latter should be less than what they are now (which represent motorized movement). Germany did not have the capability of motorizing more than a fraction of its units. German motorization would be reflected by the armored unit. US and British units were heavily motorized. (I read somewhere that a US division had 10,000 trucks.) I'd suggested earlier that this be reflected by having US and UK armies and tank groups have one extra movement point. (Not an original idea; 3R did this.) Wouldn't apply to corps. Jet Aircraft We have a Air unit. Thats fine. But we need a Jet unit. Each air unit is suppossed to represent a mix between fighters, fighter bombers and bombers, with roughly 1,000 aircraft being there. Once I get that Jet ability, I still need to make those Jet fighters, Jet fighter bombers and Jet bombers. And the differences are big enough that I should be paying for a new unit. Hence, we should have a Propellor Aircraft and a Jet Aircraft tech advance. The short version is that the beginning level of Jets is not superior to the high end version of propellor aircraft. I question whether that's true, and besides, this game ends in 1946. What would be the difference between a level 0 jet and a level 5 jet, in that time frame? I'd leave this as is. But if a Corp gets an armored division, or has an armored division as part of the organic units of that Corp, where does this increase in combat power come in? That Corp should not be using the Tank attack or defense. Thats only for the Armor units. Slightly off the subject, but this brings up a point: corps benefit to the same extent as armies from advances. Three advances in anti-tank raises an army's TD rating from 2 to 5; it raises a corps rating from 1 to 4. In other words, a corps starts out with 1/2 the TD strength, and winds up with 4/5ths the strength. Should this happen? Not having corps benefit from advances might help with the "too many units" problems. Any increase in soft factors to reflect these items should not be handled by an R&D tech item. Why not? Keep in mind that research advances should not only reflect technological changes but benefits gained from experience and doctrinal changes as well. As you point out, guns became bigger during the course of the war, and they were utilized better as the war progressed. Artillery was responsible for over 60% of the ground unit casualties in the war. Making ground combat more deadly would also tend to reduce the number of units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 arby -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: There needs to be a distinction between an Army/Corp unit that is motorized and one that is not. The Action Points of the latter should be less than what they are now (which represent motorized movement). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Germany did not have the capability of motorizing more than a fraction of its units. German motorization would be reflected by the armored unit. US and British units were heavily motorized. (I read somewhere that a US division had 10,000 trucks.) I'd suggested earlier that this be reflected by having US and UK armies and tank groups have one extra movement point. (Not an original idea; 3R did this.) Wouldn't apply to corps. If we were to use your method to fix it, then all of the units would be moving too fast. I propose: Tank Group ... action points 5 Army (Motorized) ... action points 3 Army (horse drawn) ... action points 2 Corp (Motorized) ... action points 4 Corp (horse drawn) ... action points 3 German Armies and Corps are horse drawn. The 20 to 25% of the German military that were motorized are all in the Tank Groups. Italians, French, and early Russians are horse drawn. Later Russians for selected units are motorized (representing Shock, Guard units). British and US are motorized. While some British units were not completedly motorized, other than the Malta and Gibralter garrisons, they are not represented. The existing Pz Group has an action point of five (5). Thats fine. For all nations, this would represent armored divisions, mechanized and/or motorized infantry divisions. Current Army unit has an Action Point of three (3). Weekly movement rate of 150 miles a week. Thats too fast for men who are walking and horse drawn artillery. Its more like half of that (75 miles which equals 1.5 action points). But since I assume we can't have fractions in our action points, I rounded that to 2 Action Points. If you go with 1 action point, it presents problems with the current terrain costs. Corp, with horse drawn transport, starts off with 2 action points. Basic concept in SC is that a Corp, because there are less units, can move faster than a Army. So it would have to become a 3 action point unit. Replace the horse drawn transports with trucks and either thru the organic trucks in the units or available from higher level HQ will give you a motorized version of an Army or Corp. Increase the action points by 1. Increase of 2 would be too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 arby Slightly off the subject, but this brings up a point: corps benefit to the same extent as armies from advances. Three advances in anti-tank raises an army's TD rating from 2 to 5; it raises a corps rating from 1 to 4. In other words, a corps starts out with 1/2 the TD strength, and winds up with 4/5ths the strength. Should this happen? Not having corps benefit from advances might help with the "too many units" problems. Unless the increases were 1pt for an Army and 1/2pt for a Corp, with the system rounding to a whole number, not much else can be done. But any change to this should not be because there are too many units. Any increase in soft factors to reflect these items should not be handled by an R&D tech item. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not? Keep in mind that research advances should not only reflect technological changes but benefits gained from experience and doctrinal changes as well. As you point out, guns became bigger during the course of the war, and they were utilized better as the war progressed. Artillery was responsible for over 60% of the ground unit casualties in the war. Making ground combat more deadly would also tend to reduce the number of units. I had the same though myself at first. I keep going back and forth on this one. Maybe this one deserves its own topic. Hint, Hint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Shaka: Thanks for the response, and within the limited scope of SC it IS combat on the Eastern Front that is decisive. But I believe that WWII was an air/naval war; the war in which air power came to the fore as the decisive arm (aircraft carriers vs. battleships, etc.). Germany ran wild in Europe with her land army; but her air force was only a tactical adjunct to the army and her navy wasn't able to overcome the British/American control of the Atlantic...and you can't make a successful amphibious landing from U-boats. She was unable to knock Britain out of the war, and so was forced to open a two-front war by attacking the USSR. I believe that without air and naval power the Allies would have lost the war, regardless of how well the Russian armies ultimately did. Stalin was crying for a second front from the moment of the German invasion, and he and the Russian generals consistently maintained that without British/American help it was impossible to achieve ultimate victory over Germany (this was their line WITHIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY after Stalingrad; even the post-Kruschiev "official" Russian history of the war makes this point). Allied control of the air stopped the Germans from invading Britain in '40 (Thye MIGHT have been able to pull it off but their losses would have been horrific), and made Overlord possible. American air power killed the German reinforcements as they tried to counterattack. And remember that the Battle of the Bulge only worked for the Germans until the weather cleared up. SC does a good job of giving some feel of the naval/air aspects of strategic warfare while remaining playable. It's far from perfect at this (as was pointed out in the "SC Pacific?" thread). The real issue is tactical air in this game, I think. And here we're in agreement: The level 5 jets are like the Martians in War of the Worlds, zapping anything they see out of existance. The fact that weather has little (no?) effect on any combat, and particularly on air/ground combat also causes realism problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 santabear Let me extend your argument for a moment... so even if Russia fell to Germany, WWII would not have been over. That one I have a hard time with. If Russia had fallen before the western invasion of Europe, Germany would have had time to pull units from the East Front to guard against any western invasion. At that point, I believe that UK and US would have tried to negotiate a settlement. If Hitler had acted within reason (a big if), the war would have been over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Not to clutter up this thread too much, but this is a fascinating arguement. Shaka: If Germany had defeated Russia, Britain and the US would have starved all of Europe to death if necessary to beat Germany. The economic/food blockade of Europe still would have been effective. Germany actually had to export coal to the Ukraine because of Russian passive resistance and their stupid occupation policies. If the Germans had waged war rationally in the East, they could have (likely) won. But the way they fought ensured that Russia was a net loss economically to them. There's also that "atomic bomb thing"...with Allied control of the air over Europe and B17's with atom bombs flying over Germany, Hitler could have put his armies wherever he wanted and still lost. Without a German surface fleet and control of the air, the German army was never going to make it to the one place it had to be to win the war: London. Britain fought alone when Russia had the non-agression pact with Germany as was nearly their ally. The British and Americans as allies would never have given up against Hitler as long as Churchill and Roosevelt were in charge. If Britain had fallen, though, the US probably would have made peace with Germany, regardless of whether or not Russia was still in the war. I believe that the US and British regarded Russia as a 'dispensable' ally until after Stalingrad. There weren't many tears shed in either government when the Russians were getting there heads knocked in. And the poor Russians couldn't have made a separate peace because the Germans would have killed them all. It was a very, very strange alliance. But thank God it worked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 And now something a bit more 'on target' for this thread: It just occured to me as I was responding to Shaka that SC Technology allows the creation of absurdly (by WWII standards) powerful jet fighters, but has no nuclear weapons research possiblity. It doesn't feel right to me that the game lets us explore such a theoretical "what if" in regard to aircraft without acknowledging an undeniable hisorical component. If the game goes past August, 1945 the US gets the atom bomb. (This is another solution to the 'unlimited manpower' issue, I guess) Obviously an atom bomb or two could really foul up the game as a game, but it's worth considering how far nuclear weapons had been developed by the time jet aircraft reached the stage implied by level 5 jets. Also rockets turned into "missles" fairly rapidly after the war, I think. (But I'm on pretty shaky ground here...someone correct me if this is wrong). But I'm sure about the atom bomb For those involved in the MPP debate: Consider how many MPPs were represented by the Manhattan Project (unbelievable...); this is probably another reason the US only gets 180 MPPs. But there is no payoff: The US never gets atomic weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts