FANATACISM

[Retributar]

It just occurred to me that perhap's one important military attribute is missing!.

We already have 'MORALE', which i think mean's a level of well-being and willingnes/ability to carry on!, but what is missing is 'FANATICISM', which i interpret as an 'Extreme Zealous Component' which drove/incited the German's & Japanese to propel them forward beyond what is usually normal, in their conquest's!.

If all we do is pro-rate all combatant's on what they produced or what their output was. Then the Japanese would have clearly won hand's down in the Pacific, and also it would have been no contest between the Axis and the Allies in Europe!. In Europe the Allies would have won without there being any doubt about the outcome in this European conflict!.

[Liam]

Definitely something I have mentioned previously. Special attributes of Certian Nations:

Supply for Russians is higher in lower supply area due to their diehard attitude, their rebuilds should be cheaper for corps and armies due to their large manpower. They should suffer less from losses and morale hits due to their willingness to fight to the death.

Germans should get a bonus for their willingness to put it all the line pretty much like the Russians. They suffered the most casualties aside from the Russians in the European Theatre. They also were willing to take much higher losses than the Western Allies and keep fighting, unlike the Western Allies, say for instance France...who surrendered before they should've!!! Likely the same for the UK and what can we say of America if she had lost 5 million? Where would popular support have been then? Morale definitely should be on the side of the Axis and Russians in tough situations...

the Americans and British, along with their French Allies would have a feeling of Superiority... They won the first War, they have the strongest Trade Empires in the World. They should have greater resources though their troops should be slightly less Battle Hardened, lesser experience. Harder to gain experience. They should have overall lower morale until Great Victories are achieved over their opponents. Let us remeber, men like Churchill and FDR were unwilling to commit to a 2nd front that was realistic until after the Major losses on the Eastern Front in 1943.. They thought pretty much the Germans were battered bad enough thety wouldn't fight quite as tenaciously as they did...

[Retributar]

That's the insight i was hoping to strike in someone like you Liam !,...these aspect's are somehow missing and not available in the game, leading to unrealistic MOD's that have no bearing on the REAL-HISTORICAL-SITUATION!.

[Colin I]

I like national characteristics but the game simulates quite a bit of this already and I suggest much of what you talk about is due to situation and training which is already simulated.

German command control was better - that is in the quality of HQs, the number (though I would still like German's to start with three - lets fix game balance another way) and that they can support more units.

UK and US had less chance to gain experience before D-day. They didn't learn slower, perhaps the opposite, but neither country had as much experience in ground warfare come D-Day as Germans or Russians; OK there was Italy and North Africa but thats nothing compared to Germany in Russia. UK experience was sometimes inappropriate - tank commanders fought from open topped tanks in North Africa for better visibility which was OK there but in bocage in Normandy they lost commanders to snipers. The game already simulates this, the US generally hits D-day with well motivated and equipped, high tech but inexperienced troops which was true. Germany operates troops from Russia to meet this - usually less numerous but more experienced.

Russia already has formidable rebuild capability.

I think re morale: the UK and US troops did not have their backs to the wall in '44 in the way the Germans did. Its situation, not national characteristic. In Sealion, if it had happened, I think you would have seen fanatical British behavior.

There vis a case for global moral modifier; suspect a positive one for Germans, negative for Russia in 39 and positive later, and a negative one for France or Italy. Certainly hard to dent for for Japan.

[Retributar]

Colin I , i can't argue with you too much on what you have said.

What i am trying to determine or what im driving at, is why for example, do the Japanese & German's have such an overwhelming strong commitment to carry out major conquest on a 'Grande' scale?.

What drove them or motivated them to 'Roar like Lions?',...i figured that it was more than just... number's,...or morale, but instead an imbued driven sense of spirit!.

In other-word's...a 'Driving Fanatical Spirit', like 'Muslims' on a 'Jihad'!. Inturn, that Driving Fanatical Spirit i thought, could be translated into some kind of 'Combat-Bonus-Factor', above and beyond...say...'Morale!'.

[Baron]

Liam

Harder to gain experience

????? I agree with almost every point except the one above.

When you are getting shot at you gain experience very fast if you live through it, I don't care what nationality you are. What I would agree with is that the Germans had an experience edge in the beginning of hostilities (Poland) due to the higher training standards they had. I would however, contend that the soldiers of the Western allies that survived their first few battles were every bit as experienced as their German counterparts.

Were the soldiers of the 1st ID or the 101st inferior to anything the Germans could throw at them? I’d say not. What the Americans, in particular, lacked in experience they more than made up for in initiative. The Germans that fought in Normandy were amazed at the effectiveness of American artillery they encountered yet most of the American units in Normandy were “green”. Have you every seen American troops in action? It is organized mayhem but man can they fight! I think it comes from the very ideals Americans hold dear like individual freedom. We hate to be told what to do! So we are very unpredictable when confronted with a problem. I believe it was Patton (here’s to you Rambo) who said to tell the troops what to do but not how to do it. Their ingenuity will amaze you!

Man what a lot of hot air to just disagree on 1 point 

[TaoJah]

The combat system is already complicated enough to understand, adding this to it will make it totally uncomprehensable.

I gave up on understanding the current system because it's impossible to exactly calculate things like supply in Russia, not to mention the flaws in the system (like the Germans not having any supply in the UK when they don't take London).

I try to go with my gut feeling now and I am a math geek, lol.

[BioWizard]

Calculating supply in Russia or anywhere is the same and is easy, let me explain. Supply for your units is provided by cities you control or friendly HQs (major or minor). Cities provides supply value equal to their efficiency and this supplying capacity decreases away from this city with distance proportional to the movement cost of the tiles. A captured city (unwillingly) has a maximum efficiency of 8 if land-connected to your capital or 5 otherwise. For Russian cities captured by axis (very unfriendly toward Axis), their maximum efficiency is 5 if connected to Berlin or 3 if cut-off.

For Supply provided by HQs, it's different. A HQ can either povide a supply of 10, 8 or 5, no other possibility. Supply 10, if it is within the supplying range of a city/mine/oilfied/port (mine, oilfied or ports don't provide support to land units but can increase the supplies of HQs) at efficiency greater or equal to 6, supply 8 if in range of a 1 to 5 efficiency ressource or supply of 5 if out of range of any friendly ressources.

So, in résumé, your German HQs deep in Russia can never have a Supply value of 10, only 8 (if you play well) or 5 (if you miscalculated the supplying range of the captured Russian cities).

p.s. Of course a German Corps has no Supply when it lands alone in England. It is all alone, not in range of any friendly supply, hence the supply=0. If you also send an HQ there, it will provide a Supply of 5. If you also have London, this HQ could rely on this city to better Supply your troops.

p.p.s. Of course, you can know all this by reading the manual.

p.p.p.s TaoJah, do you want to have a match against me? I would like too. I think you would be quite surprised by the HI (human intelligence). I played the AI like crazy with SC1, but since i tried HvsH with SC2, i'm addicted!

[TaoJah]

I know the THEORY of supply in Russia.

But then there is the Russian winter popping up, Partisans all over the place (even on hexes next to you), certain terrain cutting of the supply line between your HQ and the city, units cutting off the line between your cities and the HQ, dropping them all to 3...

It's too much, IMHO.

And my hours are too unpredictable to play humans, sometimes I can play for hours, sometimes I can only play half an hour a day :-(

[SeaMonkey]

1/2 an hour is plenty of time for a PBEM turn.