Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Fartknock3r:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Well there's the challenge then!

Why not make it challenging for the allied player as well. </font>
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yea what is the point of making a change to make US contrubutions more historical if you are then going to make the German side less historical? This is a very dicy thing game balance. Personally I think if you could make a game that matched history perfectly then Germany would NEVER have a chance and the game, even with differant victory conditions would not be a lot of fun to play.

The more I study and understand what the Germans were up against in WWII the more amazed I become at what they did manage to acomplish. Don't get me wrong I am NOT glorifing them, I mean what 60 million total dead beacuse of that crazed whaco, but you can call him a dumbass all you want he came very very close to pulling it off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im agree with you on your assessment Rolend !.

Also with your conclusion about making the US contribution's 'More Historical', thus skewing playbalance to be less historical for the Axis!,...a problem indeed...to be avoided!.

If the Axis or in particular, the German's have no-chance-to-win,...then what point would there be to playing the game?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Retributar:

Im agree with you on your assessment Rolend !.

Also with your conclusion about making the US contribution's 'More Historical', thus skewing playbalance to be less historical for the Axis!,...a problem indeed...to be avoided!.

If the Axis or in particular, the German's have no-chance-to-win,...then what point would there be to playing the game?.

Then why play a historical game if we want an ending that was NEVER going to happen?

I think the goal of Axis could be a stalemate and that would be considered a victory for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what needs to be done to make US more of a threat is to add like a DDAY invasion force to the production Que. Keep the same pool limit but add a sizable force to production que to arrive winter 43/spring 44. This force should be sizable because realisticly by 1944 the US forces were massive. Im not sure how many would be appropiate but the addition of some extra bombers, AF, and tanks should be looked into. When the allies fought in France 1944 they outnumbered the German tanks 5-1. The current pool limit doesnt allow this. Very unfair since most the German tanks in the game will be very powerful and experienced against 2 allowed in US pool limits

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans didn't defeat any "real opponents". Attacking sleeping farmers with tanks in Poland doesn't count. France was half bunta themselves. Germans lost to the UK. They lost the battle over the Channel. Germans lost in N.Africa. Germans lost in Russia. Germans lost to the USA. Germans lost.

Remember glorifiers, follow the wrong shepherd will lead you to death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rambo brings up a good point about the false myth of German superiority. When they faced an equal opponent they got they arses kicked. The blitzkrieg victory early on were against weak nations. Of course Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Poland, Netherlands are going to fall to a much larger country. Not to mention these nations had weapons that were very obsolete. When they finally got to a formidable opponent like UK/USSR/USA they got their arse kicked.

It would be like a country like Mexico invading all the tiny little Central AMerican countries and saying they were all powerful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fartknock3r:

Well if senior dumbass (got this from you blashy ) hadn't attacked the USSR, and focused on the U-boat war, Britian would have worked on a piece agreement, but thank god they didn't.

That whole "We will fight them on the beaches..." thing was a ruse then, eh?
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are falling into the Rambo trap. God love him, but Rambo is our Knight in shining armor, long on brevity, but short on brains.

Actually this is probably a ruse, he just wants us to think that.

Still he serves a very valuable purpose, he's the diversion while the more cunning amongst us move around the flank and attack from the rear. :eek:

This model is fine, the Germans were very adapt warriors. The French were no pushover, plenty of other examples. Simply, the Germans were the innovators, they arrived on the scene with some novel strategies and tactics.

Until the other powers adapted and were able to implement some effective countermeasures the Germans were at the advantage.

Then it became their turn to adapt, which they didn't, efficiently enough, ie. the historical conclusion to WW2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to model the USA, it's very simple, for D-Day she just needs a Million men, 3 or 4 Armies, 1 tank, 2 or 3 corps. 2 HQs Bradley and Patton... maybe Eike in the Isles with 2 airfleets 1 Bomber that's about accurate

More importantly would be about 50-75 MPPs to Britian per turn in supplies

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by stoat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fartknock3r:

Well if senior dumbass (got this from you blashy ) hadn't attacked the USSR, and focused on the U-boat war, Britian would have worked on a piece agreement, but thank god they didn't.

That whole "We will fight them on the beaches..." thing was a ruse then, eh? </font>
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

This model is fine, the Germans were very adapt warriors. The French were no pushover, plenty of other examples. Simply, the Germans were the innovators, they arrived on the scene with some novel strategies and tactics.

I presume you mean "adept" - and the French WERE a pushover - although no-one expected them to be.

The allies didn't change tactics all that much - once they had enough tanks and AT and decent inter-arms co-operation then Blitzkreig didn't work any more.

Blitzkrieg could only work when the enemy was inept - lacking in AT, lacking in confidence and lacking in co-operation.

And then it was a matter of numbers, because there was no "Plan B" if the blitz didn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Liam:

If you want to model the USA, it's very simple, for D-Day she just needs a Million men, 3 or 4 Armies, 1 tank, 2 or 3 corps. 2 HQs Bradley and Patton... maybe Eike in the Isles with 2 airfleets 1 Bomber that's about accurate

More importantly would be about 50-75 MPPs to Britian per turn in supplies

;) Well these troops you have easily in 1942. question is what do you do the rest of the war tongue.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sombra:

I support your suggestion to give the US more "high" tech troops to buy aka. tanks + paratroopers ;)

I'm not sure why the US should be expected to have high tech tanks. The standard US battle tank, the Sherman, was qualitatively far inferior to Germnan later model panzers and tigers. Sherman guns were useless against them at range. Standard US tank tactics was the rush the German positions en masse, pray you weren't picked off in the charge, and then drive around behind the German tank and hit them point blank from the more vulnerable rear, about the only way a Sherman could take out a German tank.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes US and English tanks sucked compared to German and Russian tanks, there just is NO disputing this fact. What the US lacked in quality of tanks they made up in numbers. They had at least 5 to 1 over German numbers, also the Sherman was VERY easy to maintian and keep in the field. Heck there were lots of Shermans that had entire crews killed that were repaired and put back in service, but to even compare a Sherman to say a Panther, even an early model Panther, in fire power and armor is like comparying a VW bug to a top of the line BMW smile.gif

[ June 26, 2006, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already the US can build a total of 14 ground units (4 Corp., 6 Army, 1 Engineer, 1 Para, and 2 Tanks). You start with 2 Army and 1 Corp. as part of that total. Then you can build 5 fighters and 4 bombers, on top of all the tech that you can research. I don't understand how a US player can "run out" of things to spend money on. Get those troops into the war! If they die, rebuild 'em. The US lost and replaced a lot of men in WW2. Send 'em to Africa, invade Spain or Norway or Sweden, get them fighting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rolend:

Yes US and English tanks sucked compared to German and Russian tanks, there just is NO disputing this fact.

Apart from it not being a fact?

Shermans were damned good tanks - they had better armour than most german tanks even in 1944 (Pz 3's and 4's), better mobility, with hte 76mm they had a better gun and with hte British 17 pdr Tigers and Panthers were about as vulnerable to them as they were tothe big cats.

Russian tankers far preferred the Sherman to T34's - T34's were uncomfortable, unreliable and less well protected!

In what way does that = sucked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rolend:

Yes US and English tanks sucked compared to German and Russian tanks, there just is NO disputing this fact.

Apart from it not being a fact?

Shermans were damned good tanks - they had better armour than most german tanks even in 1944 (Pz 3's and 4's), better mobility, with hte 76mm they had a better gun and with hte British 17 pdr Tigers and Panthers were about as vulnerable to them as they were tothe big cats.

Russian tankers far preferred the Sherman to T34's - T34's were uncomfortable, unreliable and less well protected!

In what way does that = sucked? </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think America is a little underpowered. Please note I said a little, I don’t subscribe to J.J.R.s theory of legions of supermen that America could produce. But in saying that, I thought the Force pool limits were to reflect a nations ability to produce in accordance with it’s manpower? I think that if America wanted to, it could have produced, maintained and supplied far more tank corps than Germany could have dreamed about. I think the figures for America were over 100,000 tank chassis produced (over half were Medium types), Germany produced less than half this much and many were StuG types (about 20%?) which were not fitted with slew rings. Likewise America produced nearly 300,000 aircraft of all types, German figures were less than 120,000. Granted, a considerable amount of this equipment was sent to allies who provided the crews, but couldn’t America have kept and used this if they wanted to?

To solve the American lack of troops/production problem why don’t they transfer assets after the fall of Japan? I don’t know what the ratio would be but I imagine that America could transfer a considerable number of troops, ships and planes to the European theatre after the fall of Japan.

On top of that, those units would have experience which would make them quite formidable.

I like the inclusion of transferring assets if Spain joins the Axis. But what about a script where Japan does not attack America? This could result in a much later American involvement in Europe, but with far greater industrial power and more units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...