Jump to content

1939 Historical Production Mod (Only 11 changes)


Recommended Posts

The mod can be found at www.cmmods.com

I've removed A TON of stuff from older versions, about 42, a good 25 of which have been taken care of in recent patches.

The reason I streamlined it was simply to make a mod that dealt with what I find is the biggest flaw in SC2 at this time... Allied production. The Allies were outproducing the Axis as early as 1941 and this is hardly simulated in SC2.

Also I wanted the Engineer, Rockets and Paratroopers to have a more cost worthy price so they can possibly make an appearance in more games, adding variety.

And I've changed sub cost, it makes the a naval conflict a continuous combat now, time to gear up with ASW Allies smile.gif .

The bonus to the changes I've made is they create games that last longer, I think many will go into late 44, even early 45.

So here are the changes.

IMHO the Axis MAJOR victory should be to still have both countries in the war by Aug 31st 1945 (the new end game I have set). At which time the Axis can achieve victory through a peace settlement or armistice (that being a MINOR victory). The date was chosen because any longer and the Axis would never win but if the Axis player does not make crucial errors (a la Hitler) then the possibility to achieve victory is possible.

So the changes are (comments in Italic)

Changes made to this mod:

1- Game now ends August 31, 1945.

Victory scripts changed due to change of end date.

; Axis Major Victory

{

#NAME= Axis Major Victory (Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Prague, Munich)

#POPUP= AXIS MAJOR VICTORY, Allies agree to peace treaty to end the bloodshed.

#FLAG= 1

#TYPE= 1

#TRIGGER= 100

#ALIGNMENT= 1

#DATE= 1945/08/31

; Axis control -> Berlin, Prague, Munich, Warsaw, Rome

#MAP_POSITION= 84,16

#MAP_POSITION= 86,18

#MAP_POSITION= 81,18

#MAP_POSITION= 95,15

#MAP_POSITION= 83,24

}

; Axis Minor Victory

{

#NAME= Axis Minor Victory (Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Munich)

#POPUP= AXIS MINOR VICTORY, Germany successfully achieves armistice with the Allies.

#FLAG= 1

#TYPE= 1

#TRIGGER= 100

#ALIGNMENT= 1

#DATE= 1945/08/31

; Axis control -> Berlin, Prague, Munich, Warsaw

#MAP_POSITION= 84,16

#MAP_POSITION= 86,18

#MAP_POSITION= 81,18

#MAP_POSITION= 95,15

}

; Allied Major Victory

{

#NAME= Allied Major Victory (Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Washington D.C.)

#POPUP= ALLIED MAJOR VICTORY, unconditional surrender from the Axis powers.

#FLAG= 1

#TYPE= 1

#TRIGGER= 100

#ALIGNMENT= 2

#DATE= 1939/09/03

; Allies control -> Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Washington D.C.

#MAP_POSITION= 84,16

#MAP_POSITION= 83,24

#MAP_POSITION= 95,15

#MAP_POSITION= 68,19

#MAP_POSITION= 61,13

#MAP_POSITION= 112,10

#MAP_POSITION= 2,23

}

; Allied Minor Victory

{

#NAME= Allied Minor Victory (Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Washington D.C.)

#POPUP= ALLIED Minor VICTORY

#FLAG= 1

#TYPE= 1

#TRIGGER= 100

#ALIGNMENT= 2

#DATE= 1945/08/31

; Allies control -> Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Washington D.C.

#MAP_POSITION= 83,24

#MAP_POSITION= 95,15

#MAP_POSITION= 68,19

#MAP_POSITION= 61,13

#MAP_POSITION= 112,10

#MAP_POSITION= 2,23

}

The current game has it that Germany can actually conquer Russia and beat the Allies, that is simply a historical impossibility, manpower issues would have prevented Germany from pushing past the Urals and so USSR would have remained either neutral or simply rebuilt far away. USSR and USA were heavily outproducing Germany, as well as UK itself in 1940. With the changes I've made Germany should have to go on the defensive eventually and so the victory conditions and time had to change to give the possibility at achieving victory for the Axis, in a different manner

2- Urals are rebuilt once any resource other than the first four Eastern most cities are taken (Riga, Minsk, Kiev, Odessa).

Urals were rebuilt with materials used from the eastern industries. If the Axis do not take more than the first four cities, the Urals will not be rebuilt

3- Max chits per category has been reduced to 1 chit for L3 or less and 3 chits for L5 or less techs.

The curve on getting tech advancements is more progressive overall it also makes Intelligence tech more attractive

4- Railheads are on, you need to be next to or on a city to be able to operate units. With a supply of 5 or better.

A more tactical level to the overall game

5- Rockets are a nice unit but the problem is they are only usefull at level 2 or above. To make them more appealing I've made the starting combat data equal to tech level 2 for everyone. Maximum tech is now 3 with a cost of 125mpps. Russia and German initial chit in Rockets is now removed.

6- Paratroopers/Engineer/Rockets now have the same cost as armies.

Those units are now the same price as Armies but overall attack, defense or movement is lower than armies but this is compensated by each of their own special abilities. They do tend to make more of an appearance in the game

7- India, NZ, HQ and South African unit arrive at end of October 1941 unless triggered to arrive earlier, The 8th Army was formed around October (with India, NZ and SA) and saw action in Novermber 41 as a unit. The Australian unit is the same as the default campaign since they went back to Australian in December of 1941 to defend versus Japan.

8- Siberian transfer is now only 1 corps, 1 army, 1 tank, 1 rocket and 1 airfleet all of which are at strength of 1 and they arrive once any of the following cities are taken; Archangel,Vologda, Moscow, Leningrad, Smolensk, Karhkov or Rostov.

This is the more realistic approach, the transfer of troops was very minimum and was not what saved Russia (Zhukov's memoirs attest to that) Total troops in Siberia was very low, the biggest battle vs. Japan was with less than 60 000 troops and the Siberian Elites were transfered from withinthose troops. Battle:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halhin_Gol. Russia outproducing Germany is what saved them, due in part to lend lease providing them with 75% of all its logistical support equipement.

9- USA's industrial increments are now 80% instead of 20% BUT starting industry modifier is now 0% instead of 80%. This means until USA receives its first IT hit, it will make 0 mpps. At maximum USA will make 720mpps.

USA outproduced Germany/Italy by 50+% (even with taking into account production that went to the PTO. At maximum (L5 IT) USA will produce 720mpps. That is 50% more than what Germany produced if it only had the historical expansion, obviously in the game players do better with hindsight so it is not exactly 50%, closer to 25-30%.

10- Germany has FULL scorched earth and max occupational efficiency of 50%

Simply simulating the mass destruction of infrastructure by the Allies or by Germany itself.

11- Submarine cost has been reduced to 100mpp from 200.

It makes the naval conflict very active and very real

[ November 13, 2006, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

True Blashy !...but what's missing here is Superior Tactic's, Superior Weapon's and a Fanataticism that no-one else had at that time!.

Remember Napoleone?...'Morale is as to Number's as Three is to One'!.

So what you have now done with your MOD is make everyone with EQUAL CAPABILITY when in truth that situation did not exist!. You have just forced the German's to lose, and made any chance of any victory totally impossible!. That situation never existed in reality!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaka of Carthage tried making this scenario in the original SC1, but without a production schedule it proved impossible.

Interesting way of doing it, Blashy. I'm looking forward to looking at it in the editor to see how you've done it -- most of SC2 is still a mystery to me and I'll need to learn a lot in order to get my own scenario ideas off the ground..

I don't really agree with the historical concept because it seems to me that it has to lock the players into the historical framework, but it's still an interesting concept requiring a lot of skill and tremendous research. :cool: smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Started to play this mod against a friend and enjoyed it much more then the original scenario much to the expanded map i guess. However as the game progressed i have discovered that taking out russia simply wont happen and there the game looses alot of its appeal to me since i dont want to be sort of a bystander in a historical simulator or play every game untill end of time.

basically the eastern front has just drained a lot of recources without any gains as i neet to pull back and defend now and without any hope of nocking russia out you might aswell take good defence positions early and save a lot of cash and build exp. Going for a UK invasion seems to be the only way now to end the game early, not even a naval dominance would perhaps end it now as i see it.

In short good mod but with a more gamey approach it would imo be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Baggen that is why it is called "Historical Production" mod. smile.gif

You CAN NOT take out USSR, it never would have occured historically. USSR was outproducing Germany in 1941 and by 1942 had more manpower available than all of Germany.

The victory conditions are different and Germany can achieve victory by hanging on until 1945.

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

True Blashy !...but what's missing here is Superior Tactic's, Superior Weapon's and a Fanataticism that no-one else had at that time!.

Remember Napoleone?...'Morale is as to Number's as Three is to One'!.

So what you have now done with your MOD is make everyone with EQUAL CAPABILITY when in truth that situation did not exist!. You have just forced the German's to lose, and made any chance of any victory totally impossible!. That situation never existed in reality!.

The victory conditions are changed so Germany can still win the game but in a realistic manner, by forcing the allies to an armistice.

The idea of Germany DEFEATING the allies was a historical impossibility. USA alone (even with 40% going to the pacific) and USSR alone were outproducing Germany, even UK was outproducing Germany all of them by 1941.

The challenge is seeing if you can do better than having the Axis being trashed and hold on for armistice, which is Axis victory in game turns.

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

I don't really agree with the historical concept because it seems to me that it has to lock the players into the historical framework, but it's still an interesting concept requiring a lot of skill and tremendous research. :cool: smile.gif

And somehow Germany had a chance to defeat USSR when USSR had a higher GDP and was outproducing Germany in weapons in 1940 and in 1942 had more manpower?

Of course you'll be lock in a historical framework in ANY historical warggame. You need a basis to try and do better. But you can't change ALL the rules on certain areas, if you do that then you are just playing a game, not a re-enactment of battle or war.

You can't say "what if Hitler was not in charge" if that is the case then you have to go back much further and then take into account "what if they had listened to Churchill in the early 30s" and then it never stops. That's a what if never ending game, not a historical one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fine its historical but i think it will encourage a ahistorical approach, i for once wont be wondering deep into russia makes no sense to even bother. So if you want to win in the "old" manner just defend from start in the east and go for the uk.

So how about making a fun gamey "ahistorical" mod with production and unit count changes and such with the same foundation? To much work i guess?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, I just don't care for a "ahistorical" mod.

I play historical wargames to re-enact those eras and see if I can't do any better within the historical restrictions of that time.

It is worth pushing forward but at least now you can play it smart (not like Hitler) and know when enough ground as been achieved and it is time to defend and hold on to force peace on the allies.

As for going for UK, that's an option of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blashy,

You present the same view as though it were gospel, that what happened had to be what happened. And that isn't the case.

Regarding the USSR, for example, the Nazis were correct in that the many different ethnic groups of the USSR had been driven to the edge by Stalin. If he'd come in as a true liberator they'd have fought for him against the Soviets. In which case there would not have been a huge a material and manpower difference -- it would have gone exactly the way China went in 1947, where Mao, starting with a fraction of what the Nationalists had, won within two years by the simple process of all his enemy's people and resouces coming to him -- willingly! That's the part Hitler didn't understand. He threw it away with all his untermensch garbage. His goons looting the Ukraine and rounding millions up for death camps are really what lost the war for Germany, not material and manpower imbalances.

And no, you don't have to be locked in the same production as what happened historically or throw all the historocity out the window. Suppose a player chooses to fortify eastern Europe instead of invading the USSR, putting the bulk of his production into U-boats and air units to defeat the UK? That's an entirely different approach and one that Hitler didn't even consider.

Different approaches to all of this. Yours happens to be that you follow the historical path as though you were the historical figures involved and see if you can do things differently from within that framework. I'm not opposed to that, but I'd also like to explore other possibilities and, yes, some of those involve a Germany that is not ruled by a tragic, menatlly ill megalomaniac! :D

I agree that Germany's best chance lay in seeking an armistace. As I've said elsewhere the earlier the better. It could doubtlessly have gotten Britain to agree to something in 1940 after the Fall of France, except Hitler had already fixed his course on the insane quest against Russia.

-- A key reason the Axis lost, in my opinion, is that basically it didn't have an ultimate, realistic, plan. From the things you've written I believe you'd agree.

This is proven in Germany's invasion of the USSR. By French standards it had defeated Russia two or three times over by the time the weather changed, and yet it had taken neither Leningrad nor Moscow and the generals still had no idea of what their ultimate strategic goal was. They were like burglars running free in Fort Knox caught the next morning because they didn't have an exit plan.

-- -- None of this is to take anything away from your mod. There definitely should be a game that faithfully reflects the war as it proceeded historically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I agree it is important to reproduce historical factors (but I remain a fanatic of IA performance for a game to be really enjoyable). I have a tec. pb however after uncompressing the file in the campaign directory, the scenario remains unvisible in the list. Blashy, you used SC2 V1.05, I have patch 1.04 loaded. can you help me ?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think UK could have been defeated. I don't think so. It never could have been invaded successfully, even a moron like Hitler knew that, UK had more planes (not reflected in SC2) by 1940, not too mention the huge navy. Could he have had a peace treaty with them by a massive uboat campaign? Maybe, but anyone would have known it would only have given UK a chance to rebuild even faster and then strike. Hitler was never going to be left alone to rule conquered countries, it never happened in the past (except for Rome) and it never would have then. And USA and Canada might have simply increased their shippings.

The thing is, you never would have had WW2 were it not for Hitler. He alone brought Germany to war. It is the fanaticism of the NAZY party that made Germany go to war.

With that said, even if Germany's war had been conducted by their best and brightest, I still can't see them defeating Russia. Russia's production was moved way back with alot of its people and they produced for Stalin, not those that were initially liberated and then oppressed by the NAZIs.

My "gospel" as you put it is that Production and Manpower were not just slightly in favor of the Allies but OVERWHELMINGLY so and Germany even if it had succeeded in causing a dent in BOTH it still would not have been enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong about Hitler. The Versalles treaty left Germany with massive resentment and discontent. He wasn't the reason for WWII, he was only the instrument. Hitler wasn't even the first member of the nazi party, he was sent to report on it by the German Army.

Hitler's success, politically, was due to an ability to make others believe he wanted exactly what they wanted. At first this even included socialists!

The German officer corps wanted reamament and the reestablishment of Germany as Europe's prime military power, both army and navy, and Hitler played them along with the industrialists.

All of Germany wanted its territory returned, especially the Polish Corridor and Danzig. in addition to it's Versailles stupidity, Britain and France pressured the fedgling Weimar Republic, already doomed by it's war fines, to conced half of Silesia to Poland in 1920.

Hitler filled a vacuum for strong, aggressive leadership. If it hadn't been him it would have been one of the militarists.

Anyway, you insist on lumping Britain, France, the UK and the USSR into a single entity and they weren't. If Germany had played it's diplomatic cards right during the 1930s it might even have driven a wedge between Anglo-French relations, but it misplayed things. Certainly having Ribbentrop give King George the nazi salute didn't help. BTW, when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland in 1935, the then King Edward who later abdicated, sent a telegram to Hitler saying he welcomed a resurgent Germany. The irony is Hitler thought it would be a British demand that he pull his small army out of the demilitarized area.

Winston Chuchill would most certainly have disagreed with you, he was very afraid of a massive U-boat campaign. With all the damage done by Germany's subs, they weren't even fully committed to the convoy war. If Hitler had freed up all the subs stuck guarding Norway and in the Baltic, doing nothing at all, Britain might well have been brought to catastrophe -- and Churchill admitted that in his memoirs on the war! But you say this wasn't the case so we'll need to take your word on it.

And continueing with the above, that's not counting all the U-boats Germany could have built and operated out of the French coast, but didn't because Hitler chose Barbarossa instead.

Britain striking back after agreeing to peace? How? Last time I checked they had the same limitations as the United States, that there had to be some voting involved. So, with Germany controlling all of Europe, the PM goes before Parliament and says, "We're better prepared now so we're going to launch a pre-emptive war against Germany. All in favor?"

Blashy, honestly, I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what you say, but some of your views are really stuck in a rut. Too much inevitablity. You only take a handful of factors and ignore everything else.

None of these things were inevitable. Not even Hitler as the head of Germany when it began, very likely but also not inevitable, reclaiming territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know about the officiers feeling betrayed about WW1 and I agree they wanted to take back some of THEIR land, even the German people wanted that.

But I don't think we would have had WW2 per say. I think they might have taken those lands and not start invading other countries, well maybe France for revenge, hehe.

But the rest I don't see anyone else outside Hitler wanting to conquer all.

the uboats I agree could have pushed UK out of the fight BUT what no one ever mentions is IF that would have been close to the case. USA and Canada might have upped their shipping so supplies get through and USA might have been involved sooner in terms of escort duty and just waiting for a ship to get hit to have an excuse to join.

This is what I mean by what if, if we start to play the game with what if, it is a never ending story of possibilities.

The game STARTS in 1939 with all of the past being dealt AS IS. So UK DoW on Germany because they attack Poland. USSR WILL attack Germany if Germany does not attack, they were on a collision course.

The stuff that can change are, some extra minors being conquered or joining via diplomacy.

The Axis player going heavy in Africa and taking it as well as the middle east.

The Allies not doing an african campaign and instead an early DDay.

Germany doing a heavy subwar and prepare to defend against Russia instead of pusing hard and deep.

You have alot of options still, but with the game starting with the GEO political theatre of 1939 certain things are a sure thing, Germany will not have the abilitie to DEFEAT one of the 3 major allies. But, a player has a chance to WIN peace or armistice against the Allies, something that was not done by Germany (in great part because of the big man himself).

So, I'm not stuck in a rut, I'm just starting the game based on the realities of 1939 and where everyone was standing at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, Blashy.

Ok, we pretty much agree on all the major points.

The things we see differently on are only interpretations.

Regarding a German military leader who might also have started a war to get back what was taken from Germany in 1919 -- that would include Poland! Even if not all of Poland -- which was part of Imperial Germany for several years -- then at the very least the Danzig/Polish Corridor, and southern Silisia. Which pretty much puts us back to the 1939 situation because Germany, under anyone, invading Poland would doubtlessly have expanded things into a larger war.

But without the nazi genocide agenda an earlier settlement would undoubtedly have been possible.

Regarding the united States entry. Germany sank two destroyers and it did not sway public opinion at all to get involved. The only issue wasn't their sinking, but outrage that they had been involved in covoy escort. Same in the Pacific, two US gunboats were sunk by the Japanese in China and the outcry was for the U. S. to not have it's own troops and sailors in a war zone.

In terms of Hitler, in the final analysis, I also agree much of what he did would have happened the same way if the clock were reset. But for game purposes I think it's a mistake to lock our views, the main point of the game is to see how things might have been done differently. Unless, as I believe is the case in this scenario, it's to see if the historical course might have come out differently if some of the major mistakes were avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree on how things might have been done differently.

But I don't see any of the powers producing LESS weapons or manpower.

That's just something Germany had to deal with in 1939.

And good point on Poland, that would have brought UK into it, but with sensible leadership Germany could have done a HUGE media compaign saying we are stopping now smile.gif , and maybe UK and France would have gone for it, had the media "blitz" won the hearts of their people.

Then Germany vs. Russia would have been one hell of a fight with Germany a chance of winning a peace with Russia and keeping some of their land, like in WW1.

You're last line is correct, the goal of the mod is to see what might occur with the 1939 starting point and if Germany made no major errors, could it win the peace? Or armistice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to say yes.

-- Assuming, of course, it doesn't DOW the United States.

If the U. S. is DOW'd then the only chance is a separate peace with the USSR. If not, the Axis loses by attrition.

Stalin, up to the Summer of 1943, sent feelers out via Sweden, letting it be known that he'd have been willing to sign a peace treaty. It was Hitler who stupidly refused to consider it. After Kursk, Stalin's position became total victory.

-- If the USSR is knocked out of the war, or accept terms (presumably with Germany controling about a third to half of European Russia) then the Axis would need to win in the Mediteranean and be in a strong enough position in France that the U. K. and Britain wouldn't attempt a landing.

-- -- Negotiated peace under the above circumstances:

I think the U. S. and Britain would have made the restoration of France (including Vichy), Holland and Belgium the main condition. If the strategic bombing war were severe enough Germany would probably have agreed.

-- Assuming an Axis victory in North Africa after forces became available from the eastern front, I think French colonies lost during the war would have remained lost.

Some things to consider that are probably beyond the scope of a wargame. --

Does the United States consider a negotiated peace with Japan after Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines? I don't thing so. Does Hitler sign a separate peace?

Another is the Third Reich's genocides. If they've become known to the western nations do they still sign a negotiated peace with Germany?

-- If not to either question, how does the war finally end? If it's deadlocked in Europe and Africa, does it spill over to South America? Assuming the United States develops the A-bomb, does it finally drop one or more on Germany?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of that.

But the game is not built on those what if scenario as you point out.

And so USA will join, Germany is out for total war at least until the very very end when Hitler thought he could win some treaty on German terms if he won the Battle of the Bulge.

So this is why I have the possibility of Germany winning by holding on.

I think my scenario falls within the most historical path and trying to see if you can do better.

I agree there is no what if possibilities and I do not want that because it just becomes a snowball effect that never stops of what if here and there.

Small what if within the restrictions of the major historical events is more controllable and realistic (Spain joining, sending more forces to Africa, early DoW Benelux, not taking Norway, no subwar, conquering tons of minors, Russia taking out Finland, USA or USSR joining early, having Turkey join one side, attacking Turkey, etc...).

The ending will always be close because the Allies were simply outproducing the Axis much too heavily and all 3 major Allies will join and are out for total victory.

How the 1939 campaign is setup I find that my scenario is historical and realistic. I can't change the what ifs, but I can give the respective allies their proper due in production.

Overall that is my major change, simply giving each Allied their due, you have to agree that in this regard I am right, they are severly underrepresented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed this discussion. I can attest that Blashy makes a really competitive mod and I like his perspective, historically accurate.

That is the difference here, perspective. Blashy's is a more limited scope with an operational feel, strategically oriented.

On the other hand is JJ's grand strategic vision, more biased to the diplomatic mode and the cultural differences of the players.

Isn't it great that SC2 can accomplish both.

Looking forward to further offerings from these two gifted individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall that is my major change, simply giving each Allied their due, you have to agree that in this regard I am right, they are severly underrepresented
Production is always an interesting discussion and I guess often it is up to interpretation. The original intention of the IT research area is to give the Allies their expected boosts in production but I guess the questions are:

1) if even at max IT does it comes close to a historical feeling (remember I've always considered SC2 US numbers to be about 1/2 of total output, give or take, due to the war with Japan)

2) if it is acceptable from game to game that the US and/or the USSR do not max out if they do not get their complete return via IT

Essentially the attempt was to have settings, not just with IT but with all other tech areas, as close as possible to how things were in 1939 and then via research you try and achieve what was achieved historically or even surpass the historical numbers to the best of your ability.

In turn, each game may come out a bit differently but variability can often make the game quite frustrating/addicting as a result

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well me and you both agree that we disagree, hehehe.

You aim for a 50-50 game, which I must say you have either achieved or are very close to achieving.

But the IT tech is irrelevent, because if Germany invests, then USA and Russian investment is somewhat nullified.

I totally agree with you that IT tech is the key to have a progressive production so USA is not HUGE in 1939 but IMHO the bonus needs to be much higher for USA and probably Russia, alhtough not as high as USA.

The IT still creates the chance of some games it could be slower, faster or equal to historical but it will always be close to accurate production.

[ October 24, 2006, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

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

Really enjoyed this discussion. I can attest that Blashy makes a really competitive mod and I like his perspective, historically accurate.

That is the difference here, perspective. Blashy's is a more limited scope with an operational feel, strategically oriented.

On the other hand is JJ's grand strategic vision, more biased to the diplomatic mode and the cultural differences of the players.

Isn't it great that SC2 can accomplish both.

Looking forward to further offerings from these two gifted individuals.

I'll be clear that I agree with JJ... IF the campaign started at an earlier date with more diplomatic "what ifs". As he said, what if Germany does not DOW on USA, how long before USA can join?

What if it does not attack USSR, would USSR have joined only in summer of 42? That was a plan Stalin had.

But the campaign does start with a few things set in stone. USA and USSR will BOTH join even without DoW.

Their production levels have to be as accurate as possible in that context. That's all I'm doing.

Even the UK is seriously under represented in the current format. I read once that 80% of UKs production came from ITSELF, the rest was from convoy. At 80% they would still manage to build more tanks AND AFs than Germany in the context of the current campaign start. Not enough manpower of course, so an invasion of France would not have been possible without USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...