Economics in SC--Exactly right!

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by arby:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

There is this idea that beating Germany was simply a matter of killing X number of Axis soldiers, and without US help that just takes a little more time. That is simplistic and incorrect.

It certainly is, but you seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time refuting an argument that I didn't make. There's no question that the Allied efforts in the war contributed mightily to the ultimate outcome. Yes, victory definitely depends upon forcing the other side to spend more resources than you do.

But that's essentially the point. Germany devoted far more resources to the Eastern Front than it did to the Western Front. Yes, if you take the US out of the war, a Russian victory becomes problematic. But if you take Russia out of the war, an Allied victory becomes impossible.

I'm not arguing that the American contribution was inconsequential. But many people here are under the impression that, to be historically faithful, America should be getting about 500 MPP's by mid-'43 so they can crank out as many planes, tanks, ships, and troops as it takes to crush the Nazi menace. Well, that's not how it went.[/QB]</font>

[ArmenianBoy]

I can't believe some of the comments I have just read on this post. Sad, but I guess it proves most here are far from history scholars, nor have taken the time to read any well published books on the subject matters they wish to discuss.

First let me start of by saying, even though a bit cruel, EB you are truly a fool. Not only for your comments, but for the fact you obviously have never done any research into what you are speaking to. Your comments about the Russia (was not Soviet Union at that time) producing more than the U.S. is fictional to say the least. Did you ever hear of lend lease? Do you have any idea how many planes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, ships, etc. that the U.S. produced? Who do you think led in all these categories? Sure the Russian sacrifice of men was greater, but they also paid for their mistakes in tactics and have a dictator like Stalin. Now as for having it right in S.C. with production, that is another fantasy. S.C. does a sub-par job of trying to do justice with regards to major power production. The U.S. gets a static amount of MMPs throughout the game, unless they conquer something. This is ridicules in itself, the U.S. production might was far from static during the war. In fact, it increased at an exponential rate right up until 1945. Ironically, only slowed down, because they were producing too much stuff. Same can be said for Russian production, as it increase at a great rate as the moved factories began to come back online in 42-43. Yes, for those that had no idea, Russia move a great deal of the factories(works with the move) to the Urals and far away from possible German long range bombers(Germany never actually produced these w/mass thus never really a threat). Now, I can't really speak to play balancing, but something needs to be changed with respect to production. I believe the following can/should be incorporated and can be tweaked into the game and get a balanced game.

1) U.S. production should increase (double each year), this means they probably don't start right at 190, but lower to balance.

2) Russian production increases, each factories grows by 5 MMP each year.

3) Russia has the ability to move 2-3(?) factories that is 4-5 hexes(not sure of #) from an enemy unit per year(once at war). Moved factories don't produce until after a year of their moved date.

4) Add a research column to increase factory efficiency and therefore add 5 MMP to 1 factory per year.

I have other recommendations that are easy modifications, however, I liked to do some more play testing before commenting. A word of advise for those that want to post facts/figures on this forum, PLEASE do some research before you make a fool of yourself. I've spent over 20 years researching WWII from all aspects and with documentation from all the major players. Most of which just started to become public recently in Russia. Here is a little trivia question, how many men did the Russians lost(not including civilians) during the Battle of Stalingrad - 7/42 to 2/43. This is something that the Russian military has wanting to hide for a long time. When you find the answer, you'll know why. So if I was harsh on some, but my tolerance for ignorance for this type of ignorance is limited.

[James Ott]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

That would be true, if it was relevant.

But again, wars are not won by killing men alone. They are won by destroying resources, men are just ONE type of resource. The "impact" cannot simply be measured in men killed. War ahs not been that simple since, well, war has *never* been that simple, actually.

How many men are in a U-Boat? 70 or so? Does that mean that sinking a U-boat is only as significant as destroying 2 infantry platoons?

If I shoot down a FW-190, does that count as equally significant as a single soldier getting killed?

Of course not. The Eastern Front was the decisive front of WW2, no doubt. But the rest of the war, and the contributions made to defeating the Axis by the West, were both significant and necessary to the desired outcome. The Eastern Front was a fight of brutal attritionist warfare, measured in men and tanks destroyed. The Western Front was just as brutal, but fought in a different manner.

This dismissal of the efforts of the West is both offensive and unfair to them men who gave their lives trying to halt the tyranny of Hitler and Mussolini.

And, of course, all this ignores that minor little spat that the US fought, basically alone, with Japan, where the Soviets didn't bother to even DoW, much less actually fight, until they snatched up some territory for themselves after the US had crushed the Japanese.

Jeff

You seem to have some sort of axe to grind. The discussion isn't about "credit" nor the fact that the Russians didn't participate in the war in the Pacific, its about the relative impact of each country's war effort in WW2. Despite the massive production capability of the west, they were still only able to inflict one-eigth the number of casualties as the Russians. That is a pretty big disparity that can't be explained away by the value of sinking a sub compared to killing an equivalent number of ground troops.

And it is about killing men. If Hitler had been able to line-up another 1 million men along the Atlantic Wall do you think we would have had much success in Overlord? Do you realize that the Russians were well into Poland when the Allies invaded France? Sure, the western Allies played an important role, but the war would have had pretty much the same outcome (delayed) if the Allies hadn't invaded France. The US' effort was important, but it was not the overwhelming dominant influence on the war that many portray it to be.

My opinion is that the MPP balance in the game is pretty close to dead-on.

[ October 15, 2002, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: James Ott ]

[ArmenianBoy]

Also, I forgot to mention the other 'must' changes:

- The Russian winter in grossly unrepresented, something needs to be done to reflect how ill prepared the Germans were for the winters of 41 and 42. German movement and supply need to be severely hampered. This might be an option to toggle on or off before a game starts. Either way it is really needed.

- Operational movement needs to be limited to X? amount of moves per turn depending on the country. Getting down to moves per region would be better, but too much detail for this game. Rail capacity was a constant limiting factor for the German army, especially on the east front. The Russian rail system was on a different gauge, so each time they took territory they had to spend the time to convert the tracks. Needless to say that this combined with partisan actives, played a significant part in the overall outcome of the war on the east front.

- The Italian navy is much to potent than it actually was. The experience of the British fleet needs to be increased in the Med, or just remove a ship or two from the Italian navy.

I might be trying to help change this game more than designers want, it's a fun little game. But, my issues with people thinking it does WWII justice is my only concern.

BTW: for those of you who have an issue with the Germans having trouble defeating Russia. I hate to burst your bubble, but militarily speaking, once the U.S. was in the war it was only a matter of time until Germany was defeated. The game should just give victory points for how long people survive after 4/45. Only if your opponent is a complete moron, should one be able to defeat Russia and survive from the western Allied assault. Germany without a quick defeat of Russia, just did not have the resources to fight a two front war.

[James Ott]

Also, I don't understand the issue associated with Lend Lease. Apparently some are not comfortable with the fact that lend lease numbers are "baked into" Russian production. This game isn't about giving "credit" to the US.

The Russians received around 20,000 AFVs (compared to around 40,000 T-34s manufactured), over 300,000 trucks and nearly 80,000 jeeps from the western allies. These are the numbers factored into the Russian MPPs that originate from Western production.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by James Ott:

You seem to have some sort of axe to grind. The discussion isn't about "credit" nor the fact that the Russians didn't participate in the war in the Pacific, its about the relative impact of each country's war effort in WW2. Despite the massive production capability of the west, they were still only able to inflict one-eigth the number of casualties as the Russians. That is a pretty big disparity that can't be explained away by the value of sinking a sub compared to killing an equivalent number of ground troops.

Actually, I think it can be explained away quite easily exactly as that. If you claim that the SOviet effort was greater, tehn prove it. Define some criteria for evaluating ALL resources expended, not just dead bodies, and then show that the Western contribution was significantly less.

*I* am not the one claiming that one side was sitting on their hands or not kicking in as much as the other, hence the burden is not on me. I think that the West contributed as best they could, just as the USSR contributed as best they could. The USSR was the ultimate target of Germany, and the war was largely fought on their territory, hence they had the opportunity to inflict the greatest damage, and the misfortune of bearing the brunt of the killing.

The only axe I ahve to grind is refuting the Soviet era propgaganda that claims that WW2 was basically a Soviet-German war with some trivial help thrown in by the West, that didn't amount to much. Read EBs posts, this is a growing perception.

And it is about killing men. If Hitler had been able to line-up another 1 million men along the Atlantic Wall do you think we would have had much success in Overlord?

Absolutly, if they didn't have the guns, tanks, artillery, planes, etc., etc., to fight with. Modern war is not fought and won by lining up men to get mown down by artillery and machine guns.

I am not making any claim that the West could have invaded France without the Eastern Front; nor have I amde any such claim. I am not even claiming that the Western Fron was decisive, that is not the case.

ALl I *AM* claiming is that the contribution of the Western Powers to the defeat of Germany was within the same order of magnitude as that contributed by the USSR, when measured in what counts in modern warfare, which is more than just dead men.

Do you realize that the Russians were well into Poland when the Allies invaded France?

Yes. Do you realize that one of the reasons they were well into Poland was the vast resources that Germany committed to fighting the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the North Atlantic, Africa, Italy, Sicily, the skys over France and Germany, etc., etc.? Or the vast quantities of materials that the US and the UK shipped to the USSR to help them fight their war?

Sure, the western Allies played an important role, but the war would have had pretty much the same outcome (maybe delayed by a few months) if the Allies hadn't invaded France.

There was a lot more to the contribution of the West than the invasion of France.

And without the invasion of France, the war takes a lot longer than "a few more months". Western Europe saw a very disproportianate amount of German resources.

The US' effort was important, but it was not the overwhelming dominant influence on the war that many portray it to be.

ANd the USSRs role was critical, but not the end all and be all of WW2 that many portray it to be.

My opinion is that the MPP balance in the game is pretty close to dead-on.

Depends on how you look at it. If you are talking about actual combat power projected into the land war, ignoring every other aspect of the war (which SC does a very poor job of refelcting) than you are correct.

If SC could accurately replicate the sub war, the strategic bombing campaign, North Africa, and all the other theaters in the West, then it is pretty astoundingly bad.

In raw numbers, the US VASTLY outproduced the USSR in war materials. I don't think that SC is trying to reproduce that, however.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

The issue as it realtes to SC is irrelevant. SC MPP numbers are based on a very abstract system that clearly has no real relation to real life, so claiming ANYTHING about what really happened based on them is ridiculous.

Jeff

[EB.]

Arby is correct; Heidman or Heidberg is not. This is not a question of believing baseless propaganda but of real history and the real statistics.

Heidmann pretends to know something special about the war but his flimsy, tired, old repititions of American propaganda simply do not work. I have read many books published in New York which take his line, but they are all still lies.

Bottom line is that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The Allies did minimal fighting against an already beaten enemy, and their participation was insignificant. Without the Allies, the Soviets would have still won the war, though perhaps three months or so later and with all French territory too. You tell me to "polish my pioneer badge" and then flippantly dismiss the efforts of our heroic people. Well, you are the one in the wrong, so dire shame on you. I should say to you to polish your badge, just tell us which Western organization you represent--CIA, FBI, Freemason, Skull and Bones want-to-be? I am still unimpressed.

The original post is still correct: SC is a masterful game precisely because it accurately represents the actual balance in economic production. Specifically, it admits that the Soviet production was the highest, and in general, gameplay turns upon the Soviet effort in the East against the Germans.

Arby makes a good point that still there are too many times in the game when the Allies are able to make an historically unrealistic contribution with their meager resources--for example, an effective early invasion of France. Well, still the game here teaches us what they Allies COULD have done if they had not been so afraid to suffer casualties. Perhaps for more realism, the AI or rules should be tweaked so that the Allies do not do anything which may incur too many losses--that is, they can only attack when the enemy is weak or victory is almost totally assured. Still, in the end, the game SC is a great masterpiece, and we should praise it for refusing to submit to pro-American political correctness which places baseless American pride above historical truth.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Sorry i cought this thread a bit late but here's my 2 cents:

Bottom line--US really did NOT do very much in the war, and the game reflects this perfectly. Thank God for that.

What the HELL :eek: is that? I apologize in advance for my harshness and vulgarity but what kind of BS Bolshevik Propaganda have you been reading?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The point was made by Immer that we captured more troops in N. Africa than the Sovjets(thats for you Norse ) captured at stalingrad. This is a very true statement but it only touches the surface.

Winston Churchill said it himself that without America That Britain would lose the war and that all of europe would plunge into a new dark age. I dont have the speech right here, but ill try to remember it off the top of my head:

"....and if, which i do not for one moment believe this island, or a large part of it, were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and gaurded by the British fleet, Would carry on the struggle. Until, in God's good time, THE NEW WORLD with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." . Again i think i got it all right. But my point is (now please my british friends, dont take this the wrong way, you saved us in the summer of 1940.) The U.S. was THE deciding factor in WW2 in Europe. Without the American 8th airforce, German industry wouldnt have been brought down. Without Our ships the UBoats wouldve brought england to its knees. Without the American Expeditionary force, the invasion of Europe wouldnt have been possible. In the Pacific: Without our defense of Bataan and Corregidor, the Japs wouldve been in India by May 1942, knocking on the doorstep of English Persia, and the Caucases.

America, despite all of her flaws, both in the past, and now, is the last bit of hope, the first and last line of defense against tyranny, oppresion, and persecution, that this pathetic world we live in posesses.

Whew, i feel better

CvM

~edit, this is my 599 post. I should have done something different before this one. This was a good one to hit 600 with.

[ October 15, 2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

[arby]

Originally posted by sogard:

However arby, the USA ought to be producing MORE than a constant 180 MPPs throughout the game and that is the point.

The game can be made more Allied friendly, once you understand how it works, by invading Portugual early, invading Ireland when convenient, invading Norway when the Germans focus their intentions in the east, then occupying Sweden -- gets the Brits up into a more respectable range which gets even better when Iraq gets invaded by the Axis or the Allied take it out.

But, does much of this make sense within a World War II framework?

It may be fun; but, where is the WW II connection?

I think it is fair to comment when the game rewards play that is very counter intuitive (and we have not taken up the idea of disbanding wholesale units to remake the Armed Forces of a given nation as the gamer likes). It is the sort of thing that makes computer geeks feel good; but, drives a gamer who has a historical viewpoint batty.

I've won numerous games as the Allies without doing any of those things. I don't think they're necessary. Yes, American MPP's should probably increase, but so should everybody's, to represent the mobilization that occurs during wartime.

The major -- and in my opinion, only -- economic imbalance in the game comes from the Americans having to devote a lot of its MPP's in the early stages to tech. If this is fixed -- and I'm coming round to the idea that the best way of doing it is to give America a few extra advances, rather than research chits -- then that imbalance disappears. What kind of game are you going have if by 1943 the Americans are getting 350 MPP's a turn?

It's a slightly different story if you change the sub warfare rules. If the Americans have to devote substantial resources to that -- which they did in real life -- then it might make sense for them to get a production boost. But otherwise, no.

And especially no if you fix the problem on the Eastern Front, which I think is of greater concern. There were three main theatres in the War -- Eastern, Western, and Med. The Western one is about the only one that SC gets right, and even there it's too easy for the Allies to make an invasion of Europe in late 1942 or early 1943. There's nothing in the Med, and the Eastern Front does not play out anything close to how it did in real life.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by EB.:

Arby is correct; Heidman or Heidberg is not. This is not a question of believing baseless propaganda but of real history and the real statistics.

Heidmann pretends to know something special about the war but his flimsy, tired, old repititions of American propaganda simply do not work. I have read many books published in New York which take his line, but they are all still lies.

Bottom line is that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The Allies did minimal fighting against an already beaten enemy, and their participation was insignificant. Without the Allies, the Soviets would have still won the war, though perhaps three months or so later and with all French territory too. You tell me to "polish my pioneer badge" and then flippantly dismiss the efforts of our heroic people. Well, you are the one in the wrong, so dire shame on you. I should say to you to polish your badge, just tell us which Western organization you represent--CIA, FBI, Freemason, Skull and Bones want-to-be? I am still unimpressed.

The original post is still correct: SC is a masterful game precisely because it accurately represents the actual balance in economic production. Specifically, it admits that the Soviet production was the highest, and in general, gameplay turns upon the Soviet effort in the East against the Germans.

Arby makes a good point that still there are too many times in the game when the Allies are able to make an historically unrealistic contribution with their meager resources--for example, an effective early invasion of France. Well, still the game here teaches us what they Allies COULD have done if they had not been so afraid to suffer casualties. Perhaps for more realism, the AI or rules should be tweaked so that the Allies do not do anything which may incur too many losses--that is, they can only attack when the enemy is weak or victory is almost totally assured. Still, in the end, the game SC is a great masterpiece, and we should praise it for refusing to submit to pro-American political correctness which places baseless American pride above historical truth.

You are a riot.

Jeff "Heidberg"

[dgaad]

A few points :

1. The Impact of Lend Lease is usually easily overlooked by amateurs. Its true that the Allies sent enormous amounts of weaponry, such as the tanks and planes mentioned by Jeff. Its equally true that many of these were a poor fit into Soviet operational doctrine, and a substantial portion remained unused.

The main effects of Lend Lease to the Soviets boil down to three main advantages :

a) The number of trucks and jeeps sent, together with massive numbers of tires (Soviet built tires were notoriously poorly constructed and had a tendency to blowout after a few hundred miles) gave the entire Soviet war machine a mobility which in very short order exceeded the mobility of the Wehrmacht. The Soviets used the Allied vehicles in their best units, and in their forward logistical systems; the effect of this added mobility is easy to see by looking at the amount of territory Soviet advances gained and sustained (in space and time).

Food - Food required an enormous number of people to produce in the Soviet Union, particularly after the Germans overran the Black Earth portions of the Ukraine. Allied food shipments literally kept the Russian population from starving, and reduced the manpower they had to divert to food production, thus freeing up even more manpower for the Rodina.

c) Focus - The bulk of Allied shipments to Russia were not weaponry, but the various and sundry supplies needed to sustain a war effort. Because of this, a signficant amount of Soviet manpower was freed up from industrial labor to work in direct war industries producing planes and tanks, and other industries producing other items were significantly reduced or shut down entirely.

If Lend Lease, according to some, was so insignificant, why did Stalin himself say otherwise?

2. Combat Losses and Import of Fronts

Its very true that about 80% of German *GROUND* combat power was tied up on the Eastern Front. However, this is not the end of the story. The vast bulk of the Luftwaffe was, by 1943, tied up in Germany defending against the Strategic Bombing Campaign. Moreover, the persistent threat of Allied invasion required German divisions to guard against. Had the Western Front been non existent and Germany been able to fully concentrate all her industrial and military resources into defeat of the Soviet Union, it is in my opinion unlikely the Soviet Union would have survived in form, and this was the key fact and indeed the point of the war from the perspective of the Germans, the Soviets (of course) and to some extent the British and US(see below).

3. The Point of the War

Hitler and Germany's strategy, from the time the Nazis came to power, was to divide all potential enemies from each other diplomatically, economically, and militarily. In the first 2 years of the war, this strategy is very obvious. At each turn in the road, first against Poland, then against Scandanavia, then against France, and finally against the Soviet Union, Germany brought overwhelming combat power to bear against a single bloc of enemies, while the other blocs were essentially powerless or prevented by "agreements" from assisting or interfering.

These German successes came to a halt, never to be repeated, once the Soviets successfully defeated the Germans in their counter-offensive of 1941 (edit : which offensive, I might add, only AFTER the Soviets were able to pull the Siberian divisions to the European theater, something which was only possible because Japan attacked guess who?). In strategic terms, the Soviets remained in the war and were likely to remain belligerent for at least the next 6 months, and by this time now the US had joined the other, isolated, bloc.

It was evident to everyone in early 1942 that the key point of the war was now the fate of the Soviet Union. The Allies realized that it was in the first place possible for the Germans to knock the Soviets out of the war in 1942, and they also realized if this happened there would be serious consequences to the Western powers. It could mean a German dominated Europe for at least the next few generations, or at worst it could mean in the long run a buildup of German power to the extent that direct threats to Britain, and even the United States, would also be possible.

The Success of the Allies, and of the Soviet Union, was remaining allied to each other, staying committed to the defeat of Germany, and doing their absolute best to insure they helped each other to the extent of their military and economic capability to defeat Germany. All strategic level planning in the Allied camp revolved around the key question of keeping the Grand Alliance together, and the execution of those plans succeeded. All Revisionism aside, lets take comfort in that : it was indeed a joint effort, and our world is what it is today because of that vision and the efforts of millions of people in both the West and the East to defeat the Nazis.

World War Two was not about "who" would rule the world, but HOW it was to be ruled.

4. A Challenge to the Naysayers

I would like you to research and quote the following :

a ) The total amount of US tank, plane and divisional formation production during the war.

b ) The total amount of supplies, by major type and including non-military supplies such as food, sent to the Soviet Union by the Allies during the war.

c ) The number of German divisions committed to the various fronts by year as follows :

1941 : Eastern Front, France and the West, the Mediterranean.

1942 : Eastern Front, France and the West (including garrisons in Benelux and Norway), the Mediterranean.

1943 : Eastern Front, France and the West (including garrisons in Benelux and Norway), the Mediterranean.

1944 : Eastern Front, France and the West (including garrison in Norway), the Mediterranean.

1945 : Eastern Front, France and the West (including garrison in Norway), the Mediterranean.

d ) The total number of strategic bombers produced and used for Strategic bombing by the Allied powers, as compared to the total number of similar bombers produced by the Soviet Union and used similarly.

e ) the total number of men in US and British military forces in each of 1943, 1944, and 1945, as compared to the total number of men in Soviet forces in each of those years.

f ) the total number of casualties inflicted on Germany, and prisoners collected, by the Allied Powers in each of 1943, 44 and 45 as compared to Soviet numbers in the same categories.

Until you do this, persistence in denigrating the total Allied effort in Europe will fall on deaf ears.

[ October 15, 2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EB.:

Arby is correct; Heidman or Heidberg is not. This is not a question of believing baseless propaganda but of real history and the real statistics.

. . .

I have read many books published in New York which take his line, but they are all still lies.

Bottom line is that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The Allies did minimal fighting against an already beaten enemy, and their participation was insignificant. . .

Well, you are the one in the wrong, so dire shame on you. I should say to you to polish your badge, just tell us which Western organization you represent--CIA, FBI, Freemason, Skull and Bones want-to-be? I am still unimpressed.

. . . Specifically, it admits that the Soviet production was the highest, and in general, gameplay turns upon the Soviet effort in the East against the Germans.

. . . Well, still the game here teaches us what they Allies COULD have done if they had not been so afraid to suffer casualties. . . . and we should praise it for refusing to submit to pro-American political correctness which places baseless American pride above historical truth.

You are a riot.

Jeff "Heidberg"</font>

[dgaad]

Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:

I can't believe some of the comments I have just read on this post. Sad, but I guess it proves most here are far from history scholars, nor have taken the time to read any well published books on the subject matters they wish to discuss.

First let me start of by saying, even though a bit cruel, EB you are truly a fool. Not only for your comments, but for the fact you obviously have never done any research into what you are speaking to.

I award THIS post the "MOST ACCURATE POST IN THIS THREAD" prize.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Am i close a second?

[ October 15, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

Sorry i cought this thread a bit late but here's my 2 cents:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bottom line--US really did NOT do very much in the war, and the game reflects this perfectly. Thank God for that.

What the HELL :eek: is that? I apologize in advance for my harshness and vulgarity but what kind of BS Bolshevik Propaganda have you been reading?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

. . . Without the American 8th airforce, German industry wouldnt have been brought down. Without Our ships the UBoats wouldve brought england to its knees. Without the American Expeditionary force, the invasion of Europe wouldnt have been possible. In the Pacific: Without our defense of Bataan and Corregidor, the Japs wouldve been in India by May 1942, knocking on the doorstep of English Persia, and the Caucases.

America, despite all of her flaws, both in the past, and now, is the last bit of hope, the first and last line of defense against tyranny, oppresion, and persecution, that this pathetic world we live in posesses.

</font>

[Panzer Cmdr]

Somebody tell EB it is time for him to take his medication. :eek: If he is so anti-american and anti-english why help support capitalism by purchasing the game.

If Russia was so powerful and unstopable why did they even do lend-lease with the allies? Why did Stalin scream and shout for a new front if the glorious red armies had no fear of defeat.

EB must really be trying to make people angry on this furom as many of us (American/English) had relatives in the service during WW2.

EB go back to political propaganda class, the internet was created by a bunch of capitalist - you're neighbors will report you to the Kremlin...

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

hehe, cool..........

[dgaad]

I also make a special award of the "DEFENDER OF LOGIC AGAINST HOPELESS ODDS" prize to . . . . [drumroll] Jeff Heidman.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

hehe, cool..........

Where is the rest of your AAR CvM, which you promised LAST WEEK.

[arby]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Disproportionate to what? At the time of the of D-Day, there were 3 times as many German divisions deployed on the Eastern Front as in the West.

I'm not sure of that. America produced around 43,000 Shermans of all types; Russia produced over 51,000 T-34's, a far superior tank. The Russians had more aircraft on the Eastern front in 1944 than the Americans had on the Western front.

Understand, I'm not joining in EB's argument, which, as I understand it, is that the Western Allied contribution was inconsequential. I think if Hitler could have devoted all of his efforts against the Soviet Union, he would have prevailed. Many, if not most, of the Soviet casualties were due to the gross inferiority of their training and doctrine; man for man, the German Army was far superior to the Russian one. But to give the devil his due, yes, the Russian contribution to the war in Europe was substantially greater than the American one. (Keeping in mind that it was America alone which brought down Japan, at the same time.)

[Hubert Cater]

OK guys, interesting points all around. What has been learned here is that with the MPP system as well as with other aspects of the game, some like the current system and some do not. This is nothing new it seems with comments and criticisms of SC and if it appears that this thread cannot maintain any decent amount of civility I'm going to lock it up.

On a personal note, regardless of point of view I do believe that opinions/criticisms with respect to this game SHOULD and WILL be expressed and that no matter how strongly either side may or may not agree with each other, intelligent debate is always possible without resorting to mudslinging. Perhaps if you have a strong point of view or counter argument and so on backing it with sources may help etc. Since I have seen little of that here I will lock this and other such threads up in the future. To be honest, I have seen this forum start out as a great community and I am kind of dissapointed to see it degenerate with threads such as these. Basically what I am saying is cool off guys, take it outside (General Discussion Forums/E-mail or whatever) and let's just get back to having some fun sprinkled with some intelligent debate.

Thanks,

Hubert

Edit: OK originally locked but I'll keep this thread open for now and see how it goes for now.

[ October 15, 2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[dgaad]

Hubert has spoken.

Let me recommend that for civility's sake, as well as for accuracy, that we would all do best to remember that defeat of Nazi Germany was an effort that involved Russia and the Allies both, and that we owe the protection of our way of life to millions of people in Russia AND millions of people in the Western countries. We should even to this day remember that the collaboration of West and East was a mark of hope for all humanity, not division and oppression.

[Jollyguy]

Alright, my two cents:

1) Jeff Heidman, great, great posts. Very articulate and well said.

2) Thank God for the Russians in WW II. They shed rivers of blood against history's most evil, murderous empire. I prefer speaking English to German or Japaneese, and the Russians helped ensure that.

3) This guy EB is yanking a lot of peoples chains. His arguments are as transparent as a pane of glass. Neither Russia, nor the Western Powers, could have won the war without the participation and sacrifices of the other. The Nazis caught the Allies (including Russia) in a long nap of denial, and came within a whisker of prevailing.

4) As to game play. I agree with Russ that not much more tweaking is necessary. Although I believe the American industrial contribution to the war is GROSSLY underrepresented in SC, from a game play perspective another capital in Russia, plus possibly winter effects, plus higher American advances and more research chits, plus some tweaks in research timeliness overall, just might do it.

I've enjoyed reading these posts. Yea, some people got a little spirited, but great stuff! !

Bob

[Melchett]

Originally posted by EB.:

In France, the US basically fought old men, little boys, and Eastern European political refugees (Osttruppen) who cared only to surrender as fast as possible.

Offhand, If I recall the divisional numbers correctly, I believe that in the roughly eight weeks between D-day and the Cobra breakout, the toothless old men faced by the Allied Expeditionary Force included the doddering octagenarians of:

Five SS Panzer divisions (1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th)

Three Wehrmacht Panzer divisons (2nd, 21st, and the elite Panzer Lehr)

One SS Panzergrenadier division (17th)

Two elite parachute divisons (3rd, 5th)

Four front-line infantry divisions (91st, 352nd, 353rd, 77th)

All of whom surrendered without firing a shot when the Allies offered them free dentures and afternoon naps.