Posts made by Candyman67

I sometimes play alone, with the door shut, all quiet, and sometimes with the light off…

I would agree, the all black SS uniforms are the coolest. Low and behold, my quote is by an SS man…

Nice idea. Sounds much more interesting.

The Maus, a creation from Hitler’s disillusioned mind. It was an obvious waste of time and resources. However, I couldn’t agree more, though it never had any combat experience. The Maus was very powerful. It’s second armament was as big as some tank’s main armament!

So true. The French had some great tanks but they were spread throughout the different inf. divisions. The Germans concentrated their tanks in powerful Panzer divisions. While German tanks were inferior, their tank doctrine was superior and the equalizer. Plus, it didn’t hurt having Stukas flying in to clear the way.

The Komet was rocket-propelled not jet but yes it had a short endurance in the air. Its rocket engines were fueled by hydrogen-peroxide and water. It gave high performance but the fuel was highly unstable, which caused the plane to blow up on many occasions.

The problem with Germany was there whole their logistic situation. In 1944, they had the Tiger, King Tiger, Pz IV, and the Panther, plus all the different types of assault guns. It was hell trying to maintain such a complex logistics situation. By 1944, I would have been producing nothing but panthers and jagd panthers. It would have made Germany’s life much easier to just produce one type of tank chassis. Not only would you have a great tank, but you would also have the best tank destroyer fielding the 88mm.

Me-262 or Dornier 335.

‘If’ is the middle word of life.

Anyway, it would have been too costly to put a siege on Moscow.

Siege warfare is an obsolete tactic against a modern city. Look at Leningrad for example; it was under siege for a little less than 900 days and never fell.

seems

Mr. Ghoul, I like how you are backing me up with this one and you are talking from experience.

Yes, I do see the flexibility for the Allies in such a strategy.

If the player is continually building up its navy, then something has to give on his/her other fronts (i.e. Eastern Front).

But when you have next to nothing to build infantry and tanks with, it is hard to win the war on the land. If I may use an analogy to WWII, the Western Allies success was a large part due to their air supremacy.

Regarding your comparison to strategic bombing during WWII, you are comparing apples to oranges. Strategic bombing in A&A is completely different from it in WWII. Also, Germany was fully mobilized for war economically at that point and were waging total war.

As for Red, it’s total war! Hah.

Though I here what you are saying, the key I think is to take as many IPC’s away from Germany as fast/much as possible. Do I think industrial bombing will completely turn the tide? No, not really unless one gains heavy bombers. But I do think industrial bombing over time will lead to a stalemate on the Eastern Front.

Let’s figure: Germany has less IPC’s meaning less forces to buy, plus Germ. needs to send forces to defend Western Europe from an invasion. Russia builds its forces places them in Karelia. Plus, Britain is sending in a few transports of infantry each turn plus a fighter now and then. That is a recipe for stalemate and that is the best thing that could happen to the Allies.

Thanks Ozone27. I was playing this strategy out on the CD version of A&A and I attacked with two British bombers. Both were shot down by AA fire on the first attack. This shows the risk of such a tactic and shows how the AA guns are all messed up in the game. But this isolated incident should not hurt its tactical luster and possibility.

It worked marginally in WWII, may I add. Why not emulate history by having the British build a large bomber force and blow up the joint?

I agree Red. I guess I should address you as Mr. Red sir. Hah.