You May Be A WWII Junkie

Well as I said before, Italy shot Germany in the foot that lead to Axis defeats years later and Hitler already knew this, that is why he began to reject Italian help whenever it was sent.

Look at it like this, Italy invaded Greece because Muso wanted to restore the Roman Empire hence his attack on Greece plus he just defeated two nations prior without help so in his mind, he thought Greece would be cake. Attacking Greece and being counter attacked by Greek/UK forces lead to the Wehrmacht being sent in to help the Italians which leads to Greek defeat. That lead to the pyrrhic victory that became Crete. Axis looked at paratroopers as being cancer and that lead to the Allies learning why paratroopers are useful which that bit the Axis in the A$$ in the end.

Of course as for Africa, I am sure Germany didn’t mind helping Italy because I figured Germany taking Egypt would cut of the UK navy from India as well as link Axis forces in the Middle East gaining oil reserves and possibly a secondary front against USSR. I don’t know if Germany would have the balls to attack India in this situation.

Obviously Germany had virtually no respect for the Italians. I think Rommel was the only one who spoke favorably about the Italian soldiers, hated their officers. After Italy surrendered and about half of the Italian military joined the Allies, Germany had no problem going from defending their allies to suddenly occupying a nation as well as engaging their former allies.

@Narvik:

That myth could have fooled me. I always believed that Hitler attacked Russia because he had promised to do so in his book Mein Kampf, written in 1920, long before Stalin was even remotely able to make plans about invading Germany

You will recall that Hitler was a soldier, who later became a politician. Like other democratically elected politicians, Hitler promised good things to his constituents. As a general rule, democratically elected politicians make many promises, but seldom deliver on those promises. (At least that’s been the pattern in my country, the United States.)

The Soviet Union was the most evil major regime in human history. Hitler’s pledge to bring that criminal regime to justice was a very lofty promise. Ridding the world of Soviet evil would have helped the world more than a cure for cancer. Unless you or someone you know was the victim of Soviet crimes against humanity, it’s hard to fully appreciate the full magnitude of the promise to rid the world of Soviet evil.

However, when a politician pledges to make the world a better place in some way, there is a good chance he’s being insincere. Was Hitler’s promise to make the world better (by destroying the evil of communism) just another hollow campaign promise from another democratically-elected politician? My sense is that Hitler’s promise to destroy communism was made sincerely, and that he really did intend to follow through on the commitment he’d made.

In 1940, Hitler thought he had the luxury of putting off that invasion until a later time. Sure, he would have invaded eventually. But in the meantime, his trade agreement with the Soviet Union was helping Germany wage war against Britain. So why not clean up the mess in the west now (for example by conquering Britain itself, or at least a good share of the British Empire), while putting off the invasion of the U.S.S.R. until some other time?

But the Soviet Union undertook a number of measures which, collectively, convinced Hitler he no longer had the time he’d once thought. A few months after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed, the U.S.S.R. invaded Finland. Finland’s Mannerheim Line was probably the best-defended terrain on the surface of the Earth. While the Germans found a way to go around the Maginot Line, the terrain left the Soviet invasion force with no choice but to plow straight through the Mannerheim Line. Such a feat was widely considered impossible, but the Soviets achieved it in only a few months’ time. After having conquered Finland’s defenses, Stalin allowed Finland to retain the bulk of its land. The Soviet government announced the Red Army had fought poorly in that war, and Hitler naively believed those propaganda claims. (Hitler was not normally one to gullibly accept communist lies. In this case, however, Soviet propaganda dovetailed with poor Russian performance in WWI, and with Hitler’s racial beliefs about Slavic inferiority.)

Shortly after his success against Finland, Stalin demanded a slice of Romania. The Romanians had no choice but to acquiesce to that demand, because their nation was far less well-defended than Finland had been. Germany was utterly dependent on Swedish iron ore, and on Romanian oil. With the Mannerheim Line conquered, Stalin was excellently positioned to take the rest of Finland, and to cut Germany off from its Swedish iron ore. With the Soviets having helped themselves to a large slice of Romanian land, and with them strongly hinting at a desire for another slice, the Romanian oilfields were also in jeopardy. During 1940 it had become increasingly clear that the primary focus of Soviet expansionism was westward, and not (as Stalin had claimed) southward.

Hitler began his preparations to invade the Soviet Union several months after the U.S.S.R. had begun gearing up to invade Germany. However, Germany proved quicker on its feet than the U.S.S.R. Partly that was because Germany had a better road and rail network than the Soviets. That was also partly because the Germans had fewer men and machines to ship; and needed to ship them over a much shorter distance than was the case for Soviet men and machines. Finally, Germany had the best-run military of any major participant in WWII. The competence gap between the Germans and Soviets was much larger than Soviet prewar planning had suggested. Germany invaded on June 22nd; whereas the Soviet troop movement to the front had been scheduled for completion on July 10th, 1941.

I don’t think so much was a French duping as it was the unrestricted sub warfare in the Atlantic shipping lanes, involving a lot of US ships.  But hey, wars have been fought over less, and I would not be in the least bit surprised by propaganda usage.

My answer is NO!
It was not neccessary, but the people want it!
All the problems could have been solved, but the people stirred it up so that another war was uninevitable.
The Germans never had a need for more Lebensraum, that was A.H’s dream.
The russians never had a need of spreading communism, but Stalin felt the need for it.
The americans never wanted a war but Rosewelt thought it would be better for America to expand the outerim territorys.
Everybody else was just soaked in in this filthy war and joined a side as nation they thought would win.
Are you really hot for war?
Do you think a war today like ww2 would solve all the issues?
Is a war neccessary?

No…

@Gargantua:

I would take chesty 1 on 1.

So long as I get a bayonet on my flamethrower!

Garg,

––While I’m usually on your side,…I don’t think you’d stand a chance against “Chesty” Puller even if you had a
16" naval gun strapped to you back!  :-o

“Tall Paul”

@Epiphany:

That all sounds blood awesome!  You clearly spent a lot of time working out the details and they sound really cool.

At the end of your post you were mentioning that British ships can get higher anti-aircraft tech than Soviet or Axis ships.  Does each nation have specific tech limits for all technologies available?  And are there land-based anti-aircraft technologies? If so, how does Germany stack up?  You mentioned in previous posts about the “big deal” that aircraft represent in the game, so having or not having technology related to shooting stuff down seems important.

How do aircraft carriers work?  Do they come with their own assigned aircraft, or can you field upgraded naval air units?  Or would that merely upgrade the aircraft carrier itself?  So many games, the aircraft carrier, and all ships in general, are just simple units with simple stats.  Are there light carriers, escort carriers and fleet carriers with varying stats for each country?  Can any country build them?  Could Germany for instance, field a massive carrier fleet?

You said China produces no EU’s for the first 5 turns.  Does this mean China only has what it starts the game with for five turns?  Or does it still have PU’s to build units with?  Also, do you have to spend everything every round or can you accumulate EU’s or PU’s and spend them when you want to?

I’m glad you like what you’ve heard! :)

In answer to your question, there’s a general tech tree, and there are nation-specific techs. Each nation has a list of the techs from the general tech tree it’s allowed to research. For example, Germany can research higher up the infantry part of the tech tree than anyone else; Britain and the U.S. can research higher up the artillery part of the tech tree, and so on.

In answer to your question about China: its lack of EUs means it cannot research or industrialize early in the game. But it starts with an income of 12 PUs and 10 MPs. Its light infantry cost 1 MP each, so it can buy 10 light infantry a turn, plus 12 PUs a turn of artillery or fighters. In answer to your other question: you don’t have to spend everything every round. Unspent resources get carried over to the next round.

The primary way to defend against enemy aircraft is with fighter aircraft of your own. Fighters are specialized for one role, and one role only: shooting down enemy planes. Their anti-naval and anti-ground combat values are very limited. If you were engaged in a carrier war, for example, some of the planes on your carriers would probably be fighters (to shoot down enemy aircraft), and some would be torpedo bombers (decent at shooting down enemy aircraft, great at sinking enemy ships). You’d use your fighters to destroy enemy torpedo bombers before they could take out your ships! Or you could use your fighters against the enemy’s fighters, in an effort to protect your own torpedo bomber force.

You build aircraft separately from aircraft carriers. You can land up to two planes on a normal aircraft carrier, and up to four planes on a fleet carrier. Upgrading your carrier fleet from regular carriers to fleet carriers is relatively straightforward from a technological perspective. However, fleet carriers cost 28 PUs, compared to just 18 for regular carriers. Fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers can land on regular carriers. Fleet carriers can handle these planes as well. In addition, jet fighters and jet fighter-bombers can land on fleet carriers. Strategic bombers and jet flying wings cannot land on any kind of carrier.

The rules set does not currently contain AA guns as separate playing pieces; though I’m half tempted to add them in. Currently, advances in artillery technology improve the land combat value of your artillery, and give your artillery anti-air combat value as well. If I were to include AA guns, they would be like regular artillery, except with a weaker anti-land combat value, and a better AA value. Unlike Britain and the U.S., Germany cannot research advanced proximity fuse. This means its artillery will not have the same anti-ground or anti-air values that American and British artillery have. But even though Germany’s artillery ceiling is third-best, that ceiling is still good and high.

Speaking of Germany, below is more of the list I’d promised.

Germany

Blood and Iron. German infantry have three hitpoints. (As opposed to two hitpoints for most other nations’ infantry.)

Blitzkrieg. If Germany is engaged in a land battle, and if its opponent decides to withdraw its land force from that land battle, Germany gets to multiply the land combat value of its tanks and planes by a factor of two when firing on that land force.

Crush communism. During the collect income phase of each turn, Germany receives a free manpower point for each formerly Soviet territory it controls. (Limit 4 MPs per turn.)

Fortress Europe. Blockhouses have 4 hitpoints, receive +1 to their land combat value, and cost 3 PUs each.

Bismarck. Your battleships receive +7 to hitpoints and +2 to their naval combat value.

Heavy artillery. Your artillery receive +1 to their land combat value.

Speer’s industrialization. During the industrialize phase, Germany may upgrade seven of its cities for free. In addition, Germany receives one free advancement in Industrial Technology each turn. Speer’s industrialization ceases to provide additional benefits to Germany after the first five turns of the game.

Goettingen laboratory. Germany has a research center in Hanover. This research center provides 10 EUs a turn, has 40 hitpoints, and may not be targeted unless Hanover has been destroyed.

Custom technology available for research

Panther tank (may not be researched before round 2). Researching this tech causes the following to happen. 1) You automatically receive the techs battle tanks level 1 - level 5, even if you do not have the prerequisites for that tech. 2) your battle tanks receive +1 to hitpoints. 3) Each additional battle tank tech costs one less EU to research. Cost: 7 EUs.

King tiger. (You must have previously researched battle tanks level 7.) Researching this technology causes you to receive the techs heavy tanks level 1 - level 3, even if you do not have the prerequisites. Cost: 4 EUs.

E-series tanks (may not be researched before round 8.) Medium tanks (E-25s) now cost 4 PUs, battle tanks (E-50s) cost 7 PUs to build, and heavy tanks (E-75s) cost 11 PUs to build. Heavy tanks receive +2 to hitpoints and +1 to land combat value. Cost: 7 EUs.

Me 262. (May not be researched before round 3.) Researching this technology causes you to receive jet engines levels 1 - 4, jet fighters levels 1 - 7, and jet fighter-bombers levels 1 - 2, even if you lack the prerequisites for these technologies. Cost: 9 EUs.

Underground factories: it takes 50 hits to reduce one of your cities by one size. Cost: 3 EUs.

Improved optics (may not be researched before round 7.) Adds +0.5 to the land combat value of German infantry, +1 to the land combat value of German artillery and medium tanks, +2 to the land combat value of German battle tanks, and +4 to the land combat value of German heavy tanks. Cost: 5 EUs.

Infrared illumination and targeting. (May not be researched before round 8.) Adds +0.5 to the land combat value of German infantry, +1 to the land combat value of German artillery and medium tanks, +2 to the land combat value of German battle tanks, and +4 to the land combat value of German heavy tanks. Cost: 7 EUs.

I found a hypothetical scenario that pitted the Richelieu & Jean Bart against the 11" KM battlecruisers…suprisingly it was ugly for the French.  The scenario claimed to be using the Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns, but looking “under the hood” they were actually using the Jean Bart/Richelieu and their 15" guns.  Since the editor doesn’t work for me I did text edits to put in the actual French BC’s with their appropriate arms, ammunition quantities, and hull/flotation hit points.

The French get mauled!  It isn’t even close after playing it from both sides several times.  (No wonder the designer fudged in French BB’s with BC names…it was an attempt to balance the scenario.)  The heavier armour belt/turrets of the German boats seem to handle the 13" French guns, while the fast firing 11" German guns soon take out the turrets and/or magazine of the French ships.  In about 1/4 of the engagements one of my French boats pulled a “Hood” early in the exchange from about 13,000 yards (where the Kriegsmarine ships couldn’t even identify her yet but were reliably hitting.)  Boom! went the entire magazine.

I don’t know if there is some sort of artificial difference in the 3D model, if it is a reflection of the gunnery bonus for the Germans in the game, a particular range band, or even the 5.9" secondary guns of the KM scoring (vs. 5.1" for the French), but those quad turrets and thinner belt are proving a very brittle instrument of war.

And after you knock out the French guns, the stern chase is a breeze for the Germans!

Rommel praised the fighting ability Australian troops in North Africa, he considered 9th Australian the best division in Africa.