USA IS ALLOWED TO BUY ONLY 4 ARMIES????

[Blashy]

The Axis conquer the middle east because of simple hindsight, instead of sending 1 tank and 1 army with 1 HQ, players are sending 6 Axis units with HQ.

If you want a historical simulation buy a DVD on the history of WW2 and watch that.

Don't expect the same results in a game where the player playing Axis is trying to win and knows which errors to not try and repeat.

As for US's army, what is so lame? They have 6 armies, 2 tanks, paratrooper, 3 bombers, AFs... the ability to have the best tech in the game in all areas.

BTW, Poland's forces were not so weak, Germany lost about 30% of its armored units in the campaign, you don't get to do that with puny numbers. They were a pretty big fighting force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_army_order_of_battle_in_1939

[Retributar]

POLAND:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pzcz.htm

Panzerkampfwagen 38(t)

Sd.Kfz.140

The 1938/39, German take-over of the Czechoslovak state resulted that in March of 1939, 150 of LT-38s in production were confiscated and CKD/Praga was ordered to complete them all. All of them were incorporated into the German Army as PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf A - Sd.Kfz.140. After the German take-over of the Czechoslovakia, the LT-38 became one of the most important tanks used by the Panzertruppe and was retained in production as a tank until June of 1942. During the war, PzKpfw 38(t) were exported and saw service with German Allies including: Romania (50), Slovakia (90), Bulgaria (10) and Hungary (102).

PzKpfw 38(t)s were built under German supervision and they saw extensive service in Poland (3rd Leichte Division), Norway (XXXI Armee Korps), France (6th, 7th and 8th Panzer Division), Balkans (8th Panzer Division) and Russia (6th, 7th, 8th, 12th, 19th and 20th Panzer Division). During the fighting in Russia, the need for heavier armour and armament made PzKpfw 38(t) inadequate and in 1942, it was relegated to other duties (e.g. reconnaissance and service in armored trains).

Soooo...why-not have this grab-bag of captured Czech Tank's made into a free tank army for the German's???.

[ June 17, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[dicedtomato]

"If I want an historical simulation"? So you're admitting, Blashy, that SC2 is not an historical simulation?

Have you ever read a serious book on World War II? Or does all your knowledge come from Wiki and the History Channel?

Did it ever occur to you - or Hubert - that there was a reason why the Axis didn't capture the Middle East? Do you know how many trucks that would have required, or how inadequate the Italian merchant marine was, or whether some flea-bitten North African port like Tobruk could have sustained six German armies?

You're living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

DT

Originally posted by Blashy:

The Axis conquer the middle east because of simple hindsight, instead of sending 1 tank and 1 army with 1 HQ, players are sending 6 Axis units with HQ.

If you want a historical simulation buy a DVD on the history of WW2 and watch that.

Don't expect the same results in a game where the player playing Axis is trying to win and knows which errors to not try and repeat.

As for US's army, what is so lame? They have 6 armies, 2 tanks, paratrooper, 3 bombers, AFs... the ability to have the best tech in the game in all areas.

BTW, Poland's forces were not so weak, Germany lost about 30% of its armored units in the campaign, you don't get to do that with puny numbers. They were a pretty big fighting force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_army_order_of_battle_in_1939

[Blashy]

First of all you don't know me so you have no clue about my interests and how much I read on history.

So your attacks are pathetic, especially on the web.

Second, you have no clue if I've discussed improving Egypts situation with Hubert and I certainly won't bring our discussions over here. He has enough on his hands just from us few testers.

Third, not ONE game is a historical simulation because we always try to win with the side that lost historically by NOT repeating their errors.

Anyways, I'm tired of wasting my time on this forum.

I'll stick with helping people about game mechanics and that is all my post will be on this forum.

I'll keep my thoughts on improving the game where it belongs.

[jon_j_rambo]

"So you're going out with a whimper? I started to believe in you preacher." ---Ernest Borgnine to Gene Hackman in the original Poseidon Adventure.

Is this the end for JarJar?

[rclawson007]

@Honch - I like everything, but not the expanded map so much. Its just sorta of too much desert. I have made similar changes in the national forces, but without the increased production tracks and with the same map. Russia clearly has a largest armed force in your mod, but with less punch per unit. Also I notice you reduced the maximum size of the German force pool. This alone will limit German expansion in regions like the Middle East as there are not enough troops to cover fronts, regardless of MPP. Overall, closer to historical reflection. My only question is can duplicate the mod with the same map so the AI scripts written by ND and company will work correctly?

[jon_j_rambo]

@JarJar-TBlashy --- Dude, you got a historical correct DVD series you might recommend?

[Sombra]

Rambo your personal name calling is beginning to lower my opinium of considerably.

Regarding the game itself. Ithink sC2 works quite well repeaing history. If you break the germans back in Rusia in 1942-1943 the game will be a race between the US and Rusia who is first in Berlin. As it happened historically inferior german troops will be simply swepted aside by technically superior forces. Right now I think the Us is even to strong. You can start considerable US action in the west much before the US was ready to this in reality.

[ June 18, 2006, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Franky-Boy]

When reading this thread about the so-called underpowered USA in SC2 and other topics in this forum concerning the role of the USA in the world, it seems to me that some of you have a quite bad attitude:

The typical American nationalist (white, religious, intolerant) thinks that the USA is always superior to other nations, just because that they are Americans and "god's own country".

This ignorant and protofascist national-pride attitude of some Americans is the reason why a lot of Europeans/Africans/Asiatics/South Americans dislike the current regime in the USA, which supports these Chauvinists.

To get back to the topic: if you dislike the role of the US in SC2, take the editor and give them 5.000 armies. This should reflect your world view.

Ciao Frank

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Sombra:

Right now I think the Us is even to strong. You can start considerable US action in the west much before the US was ready to this in reality.

Well Sombra, USA took Casablanca and Algeria's Capital in November of 1942, something that was not possible before the latest patch. But it is now.

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

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Franky-Boy:

When reading this thread about the so-called underpowered USA in SC2 and other topics in this forum concerning the role of the USA in the world, it seems to me that some of you have a quite bad attitude:

The typical American nationalist (white, religious, intolerant) thinks that the USA is always superior to other nations, just because that they are Americans and "god's own country".

This ignorant and protofascist national-pride attitude of some Americans is the reason why a lot of Europeans/Africans/Asiatics/South Americans dislike the current regime in the USA, which supports these Chauvinists.

To get back to the topic: if you dislike the role of the US in SC2, take the editor and give them 5.000 armies. This should reflect your world view.

Ciao Frank

Franky,

Read my post in this thread. If you want to jerk yourself off, do it in the politics forum. I'd tell Rambo the same, but we all know he won't listen.

I can't believe a bunch of so-called intelligent people are seriously responding to this guy (and why he hasnt been booted off yet too).

[dispalor]

You speak about a game... A game has to be balanced...

Of course, the Germans are superhumans. If not, how could they stand a chance to win this game? Remember, Germany has lost and for good reasons. UdSSR had sooo much more manpower, the US too and even more, they had so damn many ressources and yes, the British controlled a large part of the world. How could the Germans have won with such a big part of the mightiest powers in the world on the other side?

I often read in this forum, that HC said he did give a **** about history and if that's true, he is right. A game has to be belanced. That is the one and only thing about games. What do you want with a totally historic game, Germany would have a chance to win this war till mid 1941 and after that there is only hope to take as much enemies with you into the grave as you can?

I don't believe that the Germans could have beaten the Russians, even without a second front. In this game the Germans CAN win, only the fear for an invasion keeps enough germans in the west to prevent the Russians to be crushed with the blink of an eye. But if the US can trasfer soo many units, what would Germany possibly do? Abandon the Eastern Front? Not even DoW on Russia? Where would be the fun in the game?

The US and GB have sufficent ressources and sufficent men to have a *chance* to open a second front and to defeat together with the russians the german armies. The Germans have a *chance* to defeat the Russians and to throw out the western Alliance out of Britain or France. And that is exactly what you want and this exactly what you need. Nothing more.

You speak about some kind of complicated chess. Of course the Knight has a big armour and a big sword, but the Queen is stronger... game balance.

And if you are not pleased, give the americans some more units. A couple of corpses less, a couple of armies more. What's the big deal? You have an editor!

...

Besides of that I read some very nasty things about the Europeans and their view of the States. But we both may never forget, that there are different people with different opinions in the States and in Europe. And even if a large part of Europeans critizize american foreign policy, I HIGHLY DOUBT! that there is someone who want to keep the US-Armies low in a game like SC because they "hate" the Americans. That is a foolish thought and I only want to call it "americtrash" (I refer to a post in this thread).

I think most people, whether they critizize the US or not, do definitly know what the US engagement in ww2 meant: freedom from Hitler. And you don't have to think, that we forgot. But you also don't have to think, that we have so simple minds, that we don't see a difference between ww2 and today.

And to those Americans who filled this thread with nothing but hate, I want to say the following thing:

Before the Iraq DoW, there was the question if we send help to defend the Turkey against Iraq. There was a hard discussion about this in Germany and we decided not to do this at this time. To do it, would have meant a large step in direction of war, what we didn't wanted. There were NEVER the option to leave turkey alone, if the Iraqis would have done something stupid we would have helped what we could, but we tried everything to prevent this war. But in american newspapers I read a totally different story about it. Regarding theses stories we would have simply finished with the turkey. "Let the Iraqis attack Turkey, is that our problem?" I only read simple lies in those stories and I was shocked, because I admire american newpaper culture before 9/11 and I'm glad that they seem to get awake after a long slumber...

My recommendation to those Americans and to those european America-Haters would be to try to *understand* what we believe, what we think and WHY we do so. Finally we may have different opinions about some things, but correct me if I'm wrong, at last we are kind of friends, aren't we? And isn't it the minimum level of friendship to try to *understand*?

This Europebashing is nothing more than Americabashing. Simply foolish and it gets us nowwhere. We all have to fight for our points of view, but we may never forget, that on the other side are real people, not that much different than we are. It's everytime a good think to learn how and why people believe in something.

[dispalor]

by the way... thanks to bloodstar for the link to military production. If I see those numbers, I can only guess why the war took so long

I once heard in a documentary Hitler speaking (it was recorded by the finnish secret service). He said: "Okay, if would have known that a the Russians could build sooo many tanks... <pause>... then I would have been even more sure to attack them."

A little lesson about how Hitler's brain worked.

One thing about about that link:

Aircraft Carriers:

4. Germany = 2

I was wondering if we had carriers at that time, I believed we had'nt and I found:

http://www.geschichtsthemen.de/dtkriegsmarine03-WKII.htm

Ebenfalls in Gotenhafen lag der einzige deutsche Flugzeugträger, die "Graf Zeppelin". Halbfertig, ohne Flugdeck und Geschütze wurde der Bau nach dem Untergang der "Bismarck" eingestellt.

Translated: Also in Gotenhafen were the one and only german Aircraft Carrier, "Graf Zeppelin". Half finished and without flight deck and guns, they stopped the prodution after the loss of the "Bismarck".

The story behind this is the so called "Z-Plan" by Erich Raeder. I read:

Im Frühjahr 1939 setzte Raeder ein klotziges Bauprogramm bei Hitler durch, den sogenannten Z-Plan, der vor allem gegen Großbritannien gerichtet war. Für seine Verwirklichung waren fünf bis sechs Jahre vorgesehen. Es sollte eine Flotte von 10 Großkampfschiffen, 15 Panzerschiffen, 4 Flugzeugträgern, 49 Kreuzern, 158 Zerstörern und Torpedobooten, 75 Schnellbooten, 227 Minensuch- und Räumbooten sowie 249 U-Booten gebaut werden. Die Kriegserklärung Großbritanniens machte diesen weitgespannten Plan zunichte.

translated: Early 1939 Raeder (german leader of the Kriegsmarine) convinced Hitler to a big production plan, the so called Z-Plan, that was mainly directed agains Great Britain. For becoming real 5 to 6 years were planned. Finally, he wanted to produce: ... (read it for yourself, I'm sure you know the german terms for those shiptypes more than I do ). The War with Britain destroyed this plan.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

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

Right now I think the Us is even to strong. You can start considerable US action in the west much before the US was ready to this in reality.

Well Sombra, USA took Casablanca and Algeria's Capital in November of 1942, something that was not possible before the latest patch. But it is now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch </font>

[Blashy]

[ June 18, 2006, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Soooo...why-not have this grab-bag of captured Czech Tank's made into a free tank army for the German's???.

Because it happened B4 WW2 and it's in the German army already?

And because the graphis for a Tech lvl 1 tank army is a 38(t), since htye replaced Pz 1's & 2's in service....??

Jeezzz......

[Panzeh]

I think the big 'german-lobby' has so much of a grip on ww2 wargaming that they don't even make France a challenge for the Germans. They let the Germans change their history, but not the Western Allies. Who's to say the French can't change their deployment or respond rationally to a German advance?

You'll be like 'but it won't be ww2 without france falling'. I say it won't be ww2 with the Axis winning, either.

[Iron Ranger]

Thread is running away from the title.

I'd post a few thoughts but I STILL am waiting for my CD to show up (I'll give BF till monday).

Nice post Dis, some good insight and yes... this is NOT (nor was S1) a historical simulation but a ETO balanced stratic level game that 'based' on WW2.

Back to Rambo's post... perhaps the ability to put all your chits (5) on one Minor is too exteam (much like S1 tech.. all in Jets/LR anyone?). Back it down to something reasonable (2?); in effect this would slow the incress in activation % and force Major powers to 'spread the wealth' opening more styles of play.

[Iron Ranger]

double post

[SeaMonkey]

dispalor, I've read your posts, most refreshing.

There is much wisdom in your words.

[rclawson007]

Blashy - please stick around dude. This forum needs a rational center focus. Folks...US entry can be delayed in this game until Dec 1943. I've done it. Germany could easily have swept aside the Brits from N. Afrika "if they wanted to do it". They did not. But you as the player can do so if you choose. But if you do, US and Russian activation increase, and additional forces are added to make the inevitable showdown that much harded. The German HC focused on the impending invasion of Russia. If you want to invade Russia on the historical date, with historical force...then you too can not make a major Afrika Korps commitment in SC2. That's the whole freakin point of the game...to allow you try different Gambits. And most of those Gambits belong to the Germans because they were the intitial Aggressors. Its the fundamental hinge pin for the entire game design. I don't want a game that forces me to send 1 TK to afrika and forces me to DoW Russia in Summer '41. If I choose to do so, the results of SC2 WILL BE HISTORICAL CONTEXT. There are other grand strategic games that force me to make the same mistakes as ole Adolph...and I do not, at present, play any of them. I have in the past and find them uninteresting, although educational to those learning WW2 basics. Keeping allied activation low is a significant aspect of SC2 and the current US force pool, properly upgraded, will allow them to surpass anything they achieved historically.

[rclawson007]

Blashy - please stick around dude. This forum needs a rational center focus. Folks...US entry can be delayed in this game until Dec 1943. I've done it. Germany could easily have swept aside the Brits from N. Afrika "if they wanted to do it". They did not. But you as the player can do so if you choose. But if you do, US and Russian activation increase, and additional forces are added to make the inevitable showdown that much harded. The German HC focused on the impending invasion of Russia. If you want to invade Russia on the historical date, with historical force...then you too can not make a major Afrika Korps commitment in SC2. That's the whole freakin point of the game...to allow you try different Gambits. And most of those Gambits belong to the Germans because they were the intitial Aggressors. Its the fundamental hinge pin for the entire game design. I don't want a game that forces me to send 1 TK to afrika and forces me to DoW Russia in Summer '41. If I choose to do so, the results of SC2 WILL BE HISTORICAL CONTEXT. There are other grand strategic games that force me to make the same mistakes as ole Adolph...and I do not, at present, play any of them. I have in the past and find them uninteresting, although educational to those learning WW2 basics. Keeping allied activation low is a significant aspect of SC2 and the current US force pool, properly upgraded, will allow them to surpass anything they achieved historically.

[Panzeh]

Are there any grand strategy games that let you correct France's mistakes in its defense? Are there any grand strategy games that let you not make the mistakes Roosevelt and Marshall made?

[rclawson007]

The mistakes we are talking about are not military organization structure and doctrine, which was France's failure. But where the forces are applied. Try taking out France 3 months after the fall of Benelux and it is not quite so eay. An extra corps or two and negation of the morale penalty requires several turns to take. As far as Roosevelt, yes do not have to make the same mistakes as him in SC2. The only one you do not have direct control over is US entry date. But, if you recall, he did not have direct control over that either. In terms of game play, the UK and/or US made far fewer Strategic mistakes than their German counterparts (well except for Market - Garden maybe). But then again, they KNEW they had time on their side, PLUS they had to keep the voting population happy...something you don't have to worry about in SC2. Nor did Hitler - or Stalin. Maybe a script that says if US looses 2 Armies, they are forced to withdrawl from the theatre? Not for SC2 one hopes. Still, if you think the gains worth the investment, the UK/US can gain a successful foothold in France in '42 in most any SC2 game. Allied diplo is much stronger than Axis in mid - late stages of war. I see no one talking about how powerful an Allied Spain in '43 / '44 can be. Or an Allied Turkey with Russian troops executing a flanking maneuver. The US / UK could diplo and/or invade Norway/Sweden for MPP and northern invasion of Germany.

[Stavka_CCCP]

Panzeh - That wouldnt be acceptable to a large portion of the wargame community who romanticize the myth of German superiorty. Many hold the belief that if the Germans had done this or that they would have won WW2 without realizing that every action creates a reactions. You are %100 correct in asking why isnt France allowed the same hindsight of changing its decisions like the Germans are. Germany can devote more to taking unrealistic targets like UK or Middle East but the same concept isnt given to the Allies. Why isnt Russia allowed to declare war on Turkey prior to joining the allies? Or France allowed to have the option of Extending Maginot Line?