Yo, listen up: SC2 needs proper US representation!

[jon_j_rambo]

I've stated this before, I'm going to state it again. The United States needs to be properly historically represented in the game. The United States had the food, ammo, tanks, uniforms, rifles, radios, planes, bombs, mortars, ships, & the best fighting Spirit to win WW-2. This MMPs of 180 just doesn't cut the mustard. The US have the strongest fire power at Squad Level, battlion level, division level, name it.

Screw Manstein, Patton used these "Cans of Whip Ass".

The Germans had more armor on their tanks, but like the Middle Ages show, armor isn't everything. Speed, mobility, & gas is what drove Patton to wipe Germans out at a 3 to 1 kill ratio, the highest in modern warfare history!!! General Patton should also have the best ranking & abilities when it comes to the leaders in the game.

USA also needs the 82nd & 101st Airborne which was a throne in the of the Nazis. Bastogne, "NUTS"! Panzer tanks had the armor, but they couldn't take Bastogne! An aquiatance of mine fought at Bastogne...my natural reaction was silence. He showed me a chest of complete scars from combat wounds & showed his purple heart. Hed died of natural causes in Spring of 2000. I want our boys to get the proper supply to fight the Nazis. Supply needs to be fixed for beacheads, N.Africa, etc.

Lets get the bombers going too. USA can't even afford a bomber in SC. Please adjust so I can hit the Gerries.

Legend from Boise, Idaho, USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT

[Wehrmacht]

I agree with you Rambo that US should have more important role in SC2. And those suplies should be fixed on beacheads and N.Africa.

But I'm not quite sure if Patton had the highest kill ratio, Mannerheim had about 3.3 to 1 kill ratio. But of course I don't know the exact kill ratio of Patton. If you count total losses (wounded and dead) Mannerheim had 5.9 to 1 ratio.

I don't know what's that to do with anything, but I just wanted to say it.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Here we go again, but it is amusing reading the different opinions.

[Some_God]

I think Rambo needs to lay off the partiotism crack, but he does have a point. You have to up the MPP of the US because currently 180mpps does not properly represent the Industrial strength of the US during WWII.

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Rambo

You forget some things.

1) We do not replay WWII as it happend - who would like to play Germany then, when everything will be over in May 45? We just take what was in 1939 and then do it our way and not in Hitler's, Roosevelt's or Stalin's way.

2) I would like to see the western allies flying their bomber actions against Me262 instead of Me 109 in 1942/43 if Germany had recognized the value of Jets earlier. There would have been a lot of American steel shot down from the skies, IMHO and no bombing of German cities but clay-pigeon shooting over western Europe with American and British clay-pigeons ...

3) Then I would also see the mighty and fearless Americans with their Shermans fighting in Normandy under German air supremnacy against Tigers and Panthers. Would have been a great sight.

4) The US had much luck that Russia kept Germany busy in the east. In Sc I like to be able to not let Russia be the luck that the western allies needed to take France.

5) I don't like a game that is historical accurate in 44 but a game that gives me the facts of 1939 as good as that is possible and let's me mold the war in my way.

Feldtrompeter

[Edwin P.]

1. As Shaka and Others have pointed out part of the US production is devoted to lend lease.

2. In addition the game is designed to reflect the ebb and flow of the war on the Eastern front.

3. The US was fighting a two front war with production also going to fight the war in the pacific.

If you want to see a stronger US then support my earlier proposal where the US player can secretly select a Strategic Option to Fully Concentrate on the War in Europe at the expense of not countering the Japanese advance in the Pacific.

With This Option

- US Production Doubles (from 180 to 360 per turn)

- USSR does not receive Siberian Transfer

A most playable and balanced option that doubles US production.

Oh, yes and if the US selects this option add in some chrome news announcements:

- News Event 1: 15% per turn after US entry: Japanese forces take Midway Island.

- News Event 2: 1% per turn after 1942: Japanese forces invade Australia

- News Event 3: 15% per turn after event 2: 50% Australia surrenders to Japan / 50% Australian forces defeat Japanese invasion force.

- News Event 4: 3% per turn after US entry: Japanese forces conquer Burma.

- News Event 5: 3% per turn after Event 4 occurs: Japanese forces liberate India from British Colonial Rule.

If Event 5 occurs then have a Japanese Fleet appear in the Med (1 Japanese Carrier Fleet plus 2 Cruiser Fleets) if the Axis controls the Suez Canal. A most rare event but payback for the US ignoring Japanese advances in the Pacific.

If Event 5 Occurs (Japanese Liberate India) and the Axis controls the Suez then a 30% that Turkey joins the Axis if the Axis controls the Suez Canal.

[ April 04, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Brian (the semi-wise)]

First of all, I hate when someone says Yo. As if this is a word with some meaning attached to it.

Second of all, I really hate it when it's followed by Listen Up. It's like I can't hear without this preface.

Combined, I am automatically irritated.

That said, in SC everything is relatively static, as far as MMP's are concerned. And that is good. But in SC2, I do believe that the war output should be more accurately reflected.

(Again, and I've said this before, it's a computer, so we don't have to go with 5% increments.)

England began slow and picked up speed towards 1943, but after that, Britain actually declined. They were exhausted and that should be reflected.

Russia was exhausting itself by 1945.

Italy was getting tired by '41.

And yes, the USA was getting totally ramped up all through 1946. It should be reflected. (that's why we had a recession in 1948 and it was deep and bad).

The MMPs don't need to be static. They can fluctuate based on many inputs, activities and the passage of time.

Just my thoughts that I'm sharing...since I'm listening up. Yo.

[Some_God]

Yo is slang word that ALL Americans use. Not just kids in the ghetto, but old timers from Idaho. It translates into "hey" ... FYI.

[JerseyJohn]

As usual I've got to agree with Shaka,"Here we go again!"

I think this thread, under slightly different names, has come and gone about fifteen times already -- always created by, hmmm, I forget what part of Boise, Idaho he's from!

Which means I've done my speil on building all those Liberty Ships and the quick creation of the world's largest Navy, the Two Ocean War as well as the Manhattan Project (an incredible drain of resources) and supplying the USSR and UK and it's Commonwealth members along with China all at the same time and what a further logistical drain it was supplying large forces of land, sea and Air unites thousands of miles across two oceans from their industrial base and how Hubert's U. S. A. MPP total really represents what was left over after all those other things were taken care of.

No, I won't mention any of that this time.

[ April 04, 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I am not in favour of outright upping the US funds, becase while they might have reluctantly went with a Europe first policy at a grand strategy level, it is perhaps the wrong route to assume they can only be simulated by an expanded cash base.

Bombers for instance. In 42 the US war machine was only just being built. And it had to be shipped to England before it was able to ammount to much. And then it had to be subjected to continuous build up before it was truely impressive.

Rather than hand the US a larger cash base, why not hand them some proto units instead.

A strength 2 or 3 bomber would more accurately simulate a not fully developed bomber force.

And yes it will still cost you to ship it across the Atlantic, but it would not make you buy a complete bomber unit this way.

This could be applied to an armour unit as well.

In 42 the US were just entering the war as full participants. But they had ther priorities as well. So having access to their entire war machine economy, would only be required if the game was the entire globe as well.

[jon_j_rambo]

Full "Medal" Jacket

General Patton, I'll never forget the great leadership & command you supplied the United States during WW-2. Whether it be North Africa, Siciliy, France, or driving into the Rhineline, you are a Legend.

Ready to kick some ass George?

You might have been President, if there wasn't that fishy car accident. I've seen Brass Target & people want to deny that theory as truth.

[JerseyJohn]

Great Tribute -- Excellent.

I don't know about the president part but in full agreement about the accident and also the "worst aid" he recieved afterwards. This includes the transAtlantic flight they knew would kill him. So, by who-ever's order, I have to say the man was gotten out of the way.

As he put it, the best way for a real soldier to die is by the last bullet of the last battle. He got his wish, except it was fired by friend instead of foe.

[Ron]

I'm curious jon_j_rambo what history you are refering to regards Patton? Patton had his opportunities in the Lorraine and not only fumbled but fell down, and it had nothing to do with supplies. I think Maj General Wood would be a much better US candidate for being one of the *few* who knew what to do with armour.

If your post was satire then ignore mine

Ron

[JerseyJohn]

Ron,

That's just his opinion -- Patton has never been my candidate for best general of WWII but at least he had a good idea of what he was doing. Yeah, he did slip up unaccountably entering Germany but part of that was due to the politics going on behind the scenes -- too many mixed signals.

Instead of posting something with a kick in the pants, why not post a Thread on General Wood and explain some of your reasons.

Best General Threads always tend to be interesting till emotions take over.

For America my choice for best general, armored or otherwise, would be Joe Stillwell; he was wasted in his China Theater but he was the most qualified for the post so that's where he was assigned.

Again, that's only my opinion. If someone is a Mark Clark fan (who I don't regard very highly) I'd enjoy reading the reasons.

[Night]

The U.S. can't have it's full power in-game because then it would be to unbalanced. Although the real war was far from balanced, let's remember this is a game, and it's no fun if you KNOW that you are going to lose no matter what pretty much.

I think they def. should get a smaller sized MPP boost. 180 is really really bad considering the cost of replacments when heavily engaged and the cost of bombers and ships.

As for General Patton, I think he was a great general, and if someone had him killed or indirectly killed It's one of the greatest unjustices ever.

We must also remember as it has been pointed out that the U.S. was fighting Japan also at the same time, and not only that but were pulling the vast majority of the load agaisnt Japan once they entered the war.

[jon_j_rambo]

General George S. Patton, Jr. was commander of the American Third Army in Europe during WWII. According to the German High Command, General Patton was the Allies’ "most modern general" and the "best commander of armored and infantry troops." Field Marshal Von Rundstedt simply called him our "best."

General Patton's army liberated France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Bavaria, Austria and Czechoslavakia. It was George S. Patton’s Third Army which traveled faster than the German blitzkrieg, captured or killed 1,000 Germans every day in combat, trapped 11 German divisions at Falaise, rescued the stranded Allies in Bastogne, finished off the Battle of the Bulge, surrounded and cut off 10 German divisions in the Hansbruck Mountains, crossed the Rhine with only 28 casualties, liberated the first concentration camp, and discovered the German gold reserve. Lets not forget his achivements in N.Africa & Sicily. Patton also was responsibility for training & the great strategies successfully used in WW-2 (Blitzkrieg Calvary Tactics).

Yet, incredibly, General Patton himself was removed from the command of Third Army in disgrace.

Patton was going to get into politics. Many a US General had/have been President. One rumor, after his removal from the Third Army, he would get an tank assignment from Gen. MacArthur in mainland Asia to clean out the Japanese in 1945. MacArthur & Patton were considering a run for the Presidency, either seperate or together. So what? So what, many believe Patton was killed by "an inner circle" within the US Government to prevent his further rise. His dismissal from the 3rd Army was a sham & the only way to stop Patton's climb to fame in both military/political interests. "I Like Ike" took Dwight to the Oval Office. Next consipiracy theory involves JFK.

[jon_j_rambo]

Movie shows the hit on Patton over gold

George Patton's officers plan to do away with him and make off with a vast stash of Nazi gold in this imaginary scenario of the General's death.

[jon_j_rambo]

Complete story of the Lorraine Campaign, good read.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/gabel3/gabel3.asp

[JerseyJohn]

I think Patton's death may have been ordered within the Army because they were apprehensive about him causing an incident with the Soviets, I doubt Harry Truman had anything to do with it.

After the Pacific War ended Eisenhower went to Japan on an official tour. Both he and his longtime boss, MacArthur, were five star generals and Eisenhower was planning on retirement from the Army.

MacArthur said, "I'm sure you realize, Dwight, the next president is certain to be a popular war figure -- probably one of us, in fact."

Eisenhower sipped his coffee, "Well, I'm not in politics so it sure won't be me."

MacArthur started laughing, "That's very good, keep saying things like that and you'll get it for sure!"

At that time Truman wanted to prepare Eisenhower as his Democratic successor, Eisenhower passed and later came back as a Republican. Originally he probably really was non-political.

Regarding Patton: Yes, he scored the biggest results against the Germans in France and earlier he was much more effective than the other American generals in the Mediteranean. From the Germans viewpoint he was a holy terror and I'm not surprised von Rundstedt -- no slouch himself -- considered Patton to be our best.

He may have been, as I said earlier, Stillwell, a forgotten four star general in a forgotten sideshow will probably always be my favorite. In 1942 Marshal wanted him to head up Torch but Stillwell was the only ranking American general familiar with China and able to speak fluent Chinese! In his own part of the war he organized the Chindits, Merill's Marauders and kept the Chinese from collapsing. A pretty good job.

During the retreat from Burma he was already pretty near fifty and kept going all along the line keep the stragglers moving. Many exhausted privates said he helped them up and said things like, "Come on son, you don't want to hang around and let the Japs get you." He did more walking and endured more exhaustion during that ignominous withdrawal (which he hadn't been responsible for causing) than any of the much younger troops in his command.

Later he went to Merill's camp and asked a sergeant where the commander's tent was. He wore no insignia of rank and a faded field uniform. The sergeant pointed the way and as Stillwell, a three star general, turned, he told another sergeant, "Imagine those sons of bitches drafting a poor old guy like that!"

[ April 05, 2004, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

US Industrial production should definitely be increased.

After US enters the war, US MPPs might be increased by 5 MPPs per turn:

150, 155, 160, etc. . .

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Next consipiracy theory involves JFK.

As well it should, since there WAS... and, IS an ongoing, never EVER ending case to be made. :eek:

For ANY facet of the story.

Those who say:

"There aren't any conspiracies! "

Usually mean to say, keep yer intrusive Self the hell! out of Big-Time Business. MY lucrative and power enhancing business!

I prefer that you NOT discover TRUTH, rather, believe all of what I say (... akin to Goebbels' BIG LIE manipulations).

Those who say:

"There are conspiracies EVERYWHERE!"

Usually mean to say, I am trying to perceive, amidst ALL of the competing Gestalt, data, media-flow, research materiel, and available anecdotes, some small and simple... TRUTH.

For me.

What else is there? You should live yer short and hopefully happy life based on... SOMEBODY ELSE's opinions?

IF you ignore... or, worse... PRETEND that the World is merely "black & white," then you shall suck yer last ragged breath as... an ignorant man, and perhaps, that is indeed... a kind of bountiful bliss.

IF you ACTIVELY seek and search and turn the rocks and flowers and concrete foundations over and upside down in your avid and determined effort to discover some very TINY truth, little "t"... THEN you are... on the side of the omnipresent but posited by logico-rational sorts as impossible! because THEY themselves have never SEEN it... Angels.

World War 2 was so very IMMENSE and complicated and seen from so very many different kaleidoscope angles and directions, that there... IS NO Gospel TRUTH.

Folks will quote so & so, supposedly a trusted and exactly academic fellow, in jolly good standing with some arbitrary validation group.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Well, and there are those who SWEAR! by the truth as exposed by such (... trusted, faithful, objective LOL!) writers as... Ernie Pyle or Bill Mauldin or Ernest Hemingway and etc, etc, etc.

WAS!

Patton a GREAT General?

Maybe, and probably, at several times.

Other times he was likely a VERY vain former

Polo player from Southern California

Who UNECESSARILY risked the lives

Of the men under his command.

So to enhance HIS OWN standing among

Possible potential election voters

And/or Historians, who would easily

See him as... Roman God-like,

The master of all he surveys.

WAS!

There some certain and nefarious "conspiracy" to oust him from a position of potential political power.

Probably.

But, as with ALL else having to do with... ANYTHING... we will NEVER fully know for surely sure.

This is called... really lived Life.

Now, about JFK.

There WAS all that first-hand, eye-witness testimony that was TOTALLY IGNORED by the Warren Commission Report.

And on and on... whee! we go! :cool:

[ April 05, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Cheesehead]

The best thing to happen to George S. Patton was George C. Scott! Yes, I saw the movie and it was pretty good. My own opinion of Patton, based on the books I've read, is that he was a competent general...not much better or worse than his contemporaries. Much of his success with the Third Army was against an undersupplied enemy with poor morale and a strong desire to surrender so they could go pick potatoes in Montana. Was he killed? I don't know, but maybe his death wasn't such a bad thing in light of how history played out. The only good that would have come from a third world war fought in the late 1940's are some pretty cool wargames. Rambo, if you are a true Patton scholar I apologize for implying you got your ideas from Hollywood like a lot of wannabe amateur historians.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Patton simply speaking was cool.

That says enough.

What I find interesting, is that I am related to him through my dad.

And the Pattons were related to British Royalty.

But it hasn't made me any richer lately hehe.

[Avatar]

It was a good article Rambo.

It's a good thing Patton never made it as far as President. With MacArthur as his running mate, those two would have invaded China during the Korean war, a scant 5 years after WW2, just in time for Patton to rise to Presidency. MacArthur, as is history, was in favour of pushing past the North Korean border into China. Since China was heavily supplying arms and men, why should they stop at destroying North Korea, but the entire Communist system in China as well? Thank god this didn't happen, as it could easily have led to a WW3. It didn't happen because Truman didn't let him decide things. I'm sure Patton would not have had the foresight.

[JerseyJohn]

Avatar

MacArthur, though he wanted to be president as far back as the thirties, never offered any reason as to why he should be voted for. He had no platform, no program, nothing, he just wanted to be president -- and at that he did nothing to initiate it. In other words he wanted it handed to him without having to make any plans for it.

-- The flip side, he was a damn good administrator for post war Japan, so he might not have made a bad president! It isn't as simple a call as basing it on his Korean War stance. If he'd have been president before the war started there might not even have been a Korean War.

-- -- Once the war started and he was in command of the UN Army there he wanted more than to invade China, he wanted to have Atomic Bombs dropped on Chinese strong points. This was before the development of the hydrogen bomb and using nuclear weapons was still considered a viable alternative. Naturally that ended a short while later with the hydrogen bomb.

Patton -- This thread is the only time I've ever heard him mentioned as a possible president and I doubt, very strongly, that it would have gotten anywhere.

Post WWII I think there were only two generals with serious chances for the presidency. George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower. Marshall became the secretary of state and doesn't seem to have wanted the presidency. Eisenhower warmed up to the idea over the course of time. While a general he leaned toward the Democrats but was not a member of either party. He joined the Republicans later, possibly because he came to dislike Truman and his administration.