Suggestion - remove Sov & UK surrenders, change vic conditions

[Blashy]

The Polish army was huge, just unequipped. 1 Million strong is not small. Horses don't hold much against tanks and airplanes. Hehe.

The US army was big, but split on 2 fronts.

[ June 21, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Blashy]

And DT, I don't "defend" the game. I happen to agree with alot of how it stands. Do I feel it needs improving? Absolutely and Hubert probably wants to get away from me more than anything once he goes on vacation :eek: .

On the other hand you have made nothing but negative comments about the game, your posts give the impression that you disagree pretty much with the whole concept of the game. That's ok, plenty of historical games out there and each one has something in it that is different from the other.

[ June 21, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Guest Mike]

.....as long as there's fuel of course!

[Blashy]

Good stuff on Wiki about USAs size. BIG!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_divisions_during_World_War_II

At the bottom you have a link for Germany.

I wonder how you would interpret this in SC2 terms? Considering the scale of the map. Does anyone have and idea? Maybe DT would like to give his thoughts on this?

[Retributar]

It look's like around 20% of these unit's served in the Pacific!,...i personally thought that it would have been closer to 40-50%!.

[Rolend]

Cool list Blashy. More then the number I think the real strength (or weakness depending on how you look at it) in US divisions was how they kept them fully manned due to the system of the replacemnet pool. If you look at some of the US divisions they had well over %100 losses for the war yet were still fully functional with a LOT of time in the line, that could only be done with a very good replacement system.

Hey maybe HC should think about a tactical turn based grand WWII game next instead of SC 3. Make it similar to Panzer General and units at Divisional level. Now that would be fun

Retributar not me if anything I am suprised it was so high, the vast majority of Army Divisions were in Europe. Except for the Navy the Pacific got the short end of the stick when it came to men and equipment. I think the Marines did so much with so little, IMO they were and still are the best fighting men in the US military, baring Special Forces of course. This opinion coming from an Ex Army grunt

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Lars here's some other info from that article:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The assault on Moscow in 1942 failed primarily because the Germans were not able to extend their standard gauge line east of Smolensk fast enough. While ample quantities of supplies were available for the first two phases of the German attack against Moscow, the German rail transportation system was not able to sustain the shipment of needed military supplies for the third and final assault phase.

All the examples you give are in the north of Russia, where Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian railway workers enthusastically aided the advancing Germans. These areas also had a lot of standard guage tracks that did not need conversion!!

Tthey are the BEST the Germans did, and I suspect are not typical of the rest of the country. </font>

[Rolend]

Or better yet infurstructer, I would even base the amount of Operates allowed per turn on infurstructer.

[dicedtomato]

Blashy, you're not just mixing apples and oranges. You've concocted a fruit salad of facts!

A list of divisions doesn't tell us much. China had lots of "divisions" that were nothing more than the local warlord, his mistress and a few bandits-in-uniform. Russians divisions were small; the counterpart of a panzer division isn't a Soviet tank division, but a tank corps.

As for army size, the U.S. had four times the population of Poland and twice that of Germany. Yet the American army is only slightly larger than Poland's, and half the size of Germany's? I think what happened is that SC2 uses the maximum size of the German army, which drafted everybody it could. But the U.S. is limited to four armies. With a population of 132,000,000, don't you think America could have mobilized more than four armies if it wanted to?

By 1945, the U.S. still had plenty of reserve manpower that it could have tapped in an emergency. Germany and Russia were sending old men and children to the front.

Diced Tomato

[Blashy]

I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying, what numbers would fit into SC2?

[dicedtomato]

See my post on increasing the number of U.S. air and tank units, Blashy. Given the limitations of the SC2 system, adding more infantry armies to the U.S. pool isn't the answer. Better to give them lots of aircraft and tanks to build. Expensive, high-firepower units to soak up all those U.S. MPPs.

Diced Tomato

[Blashy]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

See my post on increasing the number of U.S. air and tank units, Blashy. Given the limitations of the SC2 system, adding more infantry armies to the U.S. pool isn't the answer. Better to give them lots of aircraft and tanks to build. Expensive, high-firepower units to soak up all those U.S. MPPs.

Diced Tomato

That's a good idea, considering if you look at this page they doubled and tripled Germany.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

[Fartknock3r]

How bout reducing 2 corps and adding 2 armies? thats 8 armies, good enough for me. Kno1 uses corps for USA neway.

[Rolend]

Fartknock3r good point, I have never built a single corp as the US, I mean why bother when for 1/2 to 3/4 of the war you arn't even at war, why whould you build a corps?

This entire debate about adding more US forces or upping its idustrial might, and not only in this thread but many others, is a very sticky problem. Frankly if you make it historical it will throw the game balance way out of whack making it very hard if not impossible for the Germans to win. I don't think that would be a fun game to play, however being a proud American Vet I do see Rambos (shudders) and others point.

For me the only REAL way to do it is to add the Pacific into the mix, thus the US would have to split those resources on two fronts. This would allow you to represent the US in a more historical manner while not unbalancing the game. YES I know very hard to do at this point. But maybe you could abstract the Pacific some how.

[Fartknock3r]

Can two people combine there maps together? If it's possible 1 person can make the pacific theater map and the other can do the European theater map. That way it doesn't take too much time.