SMG42 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Each minor country has his own pool of units, national flag and such, which is a very good thing that I really like (and give flavors to the game). A question though, they don't seems to benefits from the tech of their big brother, is it the truth? This is rather realistic for some minors (well most!) like Romanians and Bulgarian armies, but perhaps some exceptions can be made? Hungarians and Finnish received some equipments from Germany for example, and anyway you have to pay for upgrades, so its not like its really a free gift to the minor Just wanted your opinion on that, I can live without the option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I don't think any of the minors received German kit in significant amounts. At least, not enough to show up on the Army and Corps level. Germany had all it could do to supply it's own forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breezeri Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I disagree Lars. Finland actually got a lot of good (call it hightech if U wish) equipment from Germany. It is most certain the soviets would have overrun Finland without the weapons from germany. ie the panzerfausts proved very helpful (thus should be simulated in corps&army level as a improved anti-tank rating) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 depends on the definition of "tech". Plus you gotta be smart enough to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Originally posted by breezeri: I disagree Lars. Finland actually got a lot of good (call it hightech if U wish) equipment from Germany. It is most certain the soviets would have overrun Finland without the weapons from germany. ie the panzerfausts proved very helpful (thus should be simulated in corps&army level as a improved anti-tank rating) Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, this isn't squat. 11 Apr 1944 Finland receives first modern AT-weaponry from Germany, 1700 Panzerfausts and 300 Panzerschrecks.Especially when it's followed by this a week later. 18 Apr 1944 Hitler bans export of arms to Finland, because Finland had tried to negotiate peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Again, keep things in perspective. This is GRAND scale. Finland starts with 3 corps and 1 army + HQ. One army group in SC is tens of thousands of men, probably hundreds of thousands (I don't know the exact numbers). A few thousand weapons is not tech level 1 anti tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMG42 Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 ok, now a trickier one... How about sharing the technology between USA and UK. Don't tell me it would be unrealistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Good Point, Minors tech is a big issue but well, kind of small considering look at history. The Hungarians, Italians and Romanians did nothing but hurt Germany on the Eastern Front. They were not ready for a War nor were they advanced nations with highly motivated high morale troops. Perhaps reflective, the Axis Minors except Finland should all have 30% Effectiveness till wars end. Maybe give Italy 40-45% max. That's about what their equipment, morale and personal capability was. Meanwhile the Allies had similar issues with all the minors that ran with their tail between their legs. Nations like Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium basically just fell down like sticks. Even France can be piled up there. USA started pretty hardcore for war. Germany-USA-UK-Russia all had the Highest Morale, Highest Technology and Biggest Budgets for War. Their units should all start ahead of the opponents. The Italians and French and Axis Allied Minors were all fairly pathetic. Likely good for protecting from Partisans and garrisoning from rogue Governments that might switch sides Finland being one exception and I'll tell you why, they were fighting on their own turf, they didn't like the Russians and really, I'm not sure exactly why Free Italy, was much Higher Morale...when Fighting for the Allied side Irony aye, I suppose their people wanted Allied not Axis support and rightfully had they not supported the Allies they would've lost all their Colonies... as for Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, really they shouldn't count for much. Strength 5 units, with the lowest grade available. The Greeks fought pretty hard considering. As did the Yugoslav Partisans... Can't say too much bad English Colonial Troops from S.Africa/India/Canada/Australia/New Zealand either. I suppose they all saw the Light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 FYI, the default game has generic unit type combat target values. Majors can increase these with research tech, but their allied minors cannot, same as in SC1. However, individual country CTVs can be edited. So Finns and others could have slightly higher values. Also, minor country HQs can be added for enhanced performance. The Finns already have an HQ for this purpose. Romania could maybe use one also. Anyways, there are things that can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Does the game cover any of the lend-lease acts, such as the Murmansk convoys and the transfer of build points/tech to the Soviets or other US aid to Britain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Has the lend lease convoys, no tech transfer. However, I believe if somebody gets a tech advance, it becomes easier for everybody else to get it, so this may be a moot arguement already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Originally posted by Liam: Good Point, Minors tech is a big issue but well, kind of small considering look at history. The Hungarians, Italians and Romanians did nothing but hurt Germany on the Eastern Front. They were not ready for a War nor were they advanced nations with highly motivated high morale troops. Perhaps reflective, the Axis Minors except Finland should all have 30% Effectiveness till wars end. Maybe give Italy 40-45% max. That's about what their equipment, morale and personal capability was. Meanwhile the Allies had similar issues with all the minors that ran with their tail between their legs. Nations like Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium basically just fell down like sticks. Even France can be piled up there. USA started pretty hardcore for war. Germany-USA-UK-Russia all had the Highest Morale, Highest Technology and Biggest Budgets for War. Their units should all start ahead of the opponents. The Italians and French and Axis Allied Minors were all fairly pathetic. Likely good for protecting from Partisans and garrisoning from rogue Governments that might switch sides Finland being one exception and I'll tell you why, they were fighting on their own turf, they didn't like the Russians and really, I'm not sure exactly why Free Italy, was much Higher Morale...when Fighting for the Allied side Irony aye, I suppose their people wanted Allied not Axis support and rightfully had they not supported the Allies they would've lost all their Colonies... as for Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, really they shouldn't count for much. Strength 5 units, with the lowest grade available. The Greeks fought pretty hard considering. As did the Yugoslav Partisans... Can't say too much bad English Colonial Troops from S.Africa/India/Canada/Australia/New Zealand either. I suppose they all saw the Light I really do not feel minors deserve any "demotion". They don't have HQs except for Finland, their morale and readiness is never good, they are basically only usefull for guard duty vs. partisans in Russia. They don't need changing, they already are pretty pathetic IMHO, even with an HQ, the HQ ratings are low and they don't have tech. Only the Australian, NZ, India and S.African units can be attached to a UK HQ, that works out quite well. Canada can build a small unit of its own but again no tech, good enough to be the back bone and hold allied positions or to finish off enemy troops after USA and UK have whacked them. All in all, that system has been bang on since I've been beta testing, it never became an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_TAR Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Thinking Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth countries should be able to upgrade as they shared all of the same equip as the Brits and in some cases the equip was made there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMG42 Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 Canada don't share UK/US tech? They should if not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gérard Le Poer Trench Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I wouldn't say the French were pathethic. They had the most advanced tanks in the beginning of the war. The only reason why France lost so quickly was that everybody was thinking 30 years back. They never beleived in a motorised war and wanted to build trenches along the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 1- Aussy, NZ, India, SA units are basically UK units so they share tech. 2- Canada does not need to share tech, their contribution in the scale that is SC2 is good enough. And I'm proud of my Canadian heritage in WW1/2. 3- IMHO, it all works out just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Originally posted by Gérard Le Poer Trench: They never beleived in a motorised war and wanted to build trenches along the border. Except the Belgium/Luxembourg border, which is what cost them to fall like a stack of cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 The French had poor morale, poor pay and poor Leadership. Read any WW1 history book about the Wars that were fought, there was a feeling of French Nationality and Pride. You felt that crushed quite quickly in '40. Perhaps the rapid advance of the Blitzkrieg and the many losses before the nation could rally an adaquete defense why, but there are more than one reasons. The Maginot was an expensive endeavor. All the British and French had to hold was a thin line in Belgium. Armored Warfare along with Innovations in Aircraft, Tanks, Mechanized Warfare, ParaMilitary Units changed things. Fast Fast Fast, while the French and Brits were slow slow slow..... I hear that as much as all the other problems combined the French High Commander was supposed to be dismissed by the newly appointed French President. He however held his position due the fact he had friends in high places. That he was ill equipped to lead a Defense of France. It is well all this is reflected in that the French have no real HQ, lacking readiness and preparedness for a War. The English on the other hand were a bit more crafty... Bit more time and foresight, I guess being an Island gives you some leeway to make errors and having at the time one of the largest Navies in the World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 At the beginning of WW-2, the French had averaged daily over 2,000 soldiers in "drunk tanks". When your army is drinking, that's bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Tell it to the Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 LOL you guys are funny. The French were not truly hardcore soldiers. The Wermacht was jumping in Mudd, jumping off two story buildings, eating Burlap and smoking Fescue meanwhile their counterparts were drinking Champagne, hitting up the local brothals and the English were just worried about how to get GIANT tea holders attached to their Tanks and Motorized vehicles! That is partly why it took the Tough Bread Eatin Ruskies to kick some rear... But new studies now find that Chronic Tea Drinking as a Stimulant makes you a better soldier. Although Battle of Britian Pilots regularly complained of PeePee smelling cockpits in their spitefires and hurricanes, it is proven they could stay awake at the stick, meanwhile their German counterparts were sleepy and lacking stockpiles of Tea! Americans on the Other hand, Pork and Ribs... It is a proven fact that Americans sat on their Axis Opponents and not only but had more meat on their bones so they could take more shrapnel and bullets before dying! How do you like them Apples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMG42 Posted April 14, 2006 Author Share Posted April 14, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: 1- Aussy, NZ, India, SA units are basically UK units so they share tech. 2- Canada does not need to share tech, their contribution in the scale that is SC2 is good enough. And I'm proud of my Canadian heritage in WW1/2. 3- IMHO, it all works out just fine. Blashy, not everything is fine and ok in the world you know? Ok my point... why would I build Canadian units with my UK MPP in SC2? I would not, as they don't have techs. Now if you look at the units that the Canadians send in WW2 (armored divisions for example), then I would say that, for now, SC2 is not totally modelling the reality. Despite being an excellent game that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Well, I agree with you SMG42, but what's the dif? The MPPs still come out of the UK pool either way. Rename your shiny new UK armored unit to 1st Armored Canucks and be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 SMG42, you'll buy Canadian units when you run out of UK manpower. Just like WW2, UK needed help. Use that manpower wisely and it will be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts