First, I'd like to say I never intended to break any of the forum rules, and apologize to any who were offended. I intended to merely support the manpower argument with some background. Again, any offense was not in any way intended.
I think the game needs to address these following items (amongst others), at least in some way. If they have already been addressed, or considered and discarded, please ignore this post.
1. The critical nature of Swedish steel to the German war effort (Germany's overall natural resources and manpower shortage will never be addressed in the game in my opinion, because the nature of market for this title demands that Germany have ahistorical strength). Some 40% (if memory serves) of the iron ore used in Germany came from Sweden. This has all kinds of serious effects, such as driving much more attention to the Baltic shipping lanes during the warm months, and making Sweden a much more attractive country to woo (or conquer). It also, of course, drove the fighting over Norway and the German decision to invade in the first place (when the northern Baltic ices over, the ore had to be shipped out to Norway at Narvik. The North Sea, warmed by the Gulf Stream, does not freeze and in the winter months the ore was shipped down the Norwegian coast to Germany. As it is, many people, at least in my observation, just attack Norway because "it's supposed to happen." Making these supplies from Sweden (and Norway) of critical importance to Germany will change that equation and drive actions involving those countries for the some reasons such actions were taken in reality.
2. The critical shortage of manpower in Germany. I think it might be beneficial to tighten up Germany's manpower levels a little more realistically.
3. The offer the UK made to essentially unite the UK and France into a single political entity. I think the modelling of this as an event would add a huge dimension to the game. While the offer was made too close to the end of the Battle of France to reverse the French collapse (or even get realistic consideration by the French government) the fact that HM Government and Churchill were deadly serious with the offer is completely accurate. A sliding trigger could be set up allowing the offer to fire depending on certain circumstance (with some randomness thrown in). The worse off things are for the UK/France the higher the chance the offer will be made (I don't think having Churchill as PM is a threshold issue as HMG was prepared to consider such an offer even without his input, but having him in office would give an increased chance). Of course, there is no guarantee the French would accept, but if they did, the consequences would be interesting. Would Vichy have even been formed? The French fleet would have joined the Royal Navy; even if Paris fell, London would need to be conquered to complete the conquest of France.... These are only partial considerations and rough ideas, but adding this to the mix of the game would open some interesting what ifs to exploration.
4. Make more probable that nations won't just join a faction straight out. Finland and Bulgaria are two good examples from history; the Finns being at war with Russia, eventually Great Britain, and then turning on Germany and declaring war on them, while remaining at peace with the US through out the conflict (although relations were severed); Bulgaria famously declared war on the US and UK, but would not declare war on the Soviet Union (and of course, once over run, declared war on Germany). A more realistic and complicated diplomatic process would add a great deal of enjoyment to the game in my opinion. For example, in many games of HOI3, the US flips into the Comintern because the US and Japan finally go to war with each other before the US has joined the Allies (the US automatically joining the Comintern because it is already at war with the Axis). While there is some chance that could have happened, it would be much more realistic to see the US fight the Japanese alongside the Russians but without joining the Comintern, i.e. as co-belligerents.
5. I'm sure this has already been addressed, but fixing HQ speed, so these units do not charge ahead of their commanded elements and attack the enemy alone. Even just a check box or option to have the game automatically limit their movement to the speed of the subordinate units would be great. This effect adds little to the realism or enjoyment of the game in my opinion. Automate the trivial things like this, accentuate the meaningful decisions the player has to make.
Again, just my opinion,
Larry Reese
I think the game needs to address these following items (amongst others), at least in some way. If they have already been addressed, or considered and discarded, please ignore this post.
1. The critical nature of Swedish steel to the German war effort (Germany's overall natural resources and manpower shortage will never be addressed in the game in my opinion, because the nature of market for this title demands that Germany have ahistorical strength). Some 40% (if memory serves) of the iron ore used in Germany came from Sweden. This has all kinds of serious effects, such as driving much more attention to the Baltic shipping lanes during the warm months, and making Sweden a much more attractive country to woo (or conquer). It also, of course, drove the fighting over Norway and the German decision to invade in the first place (when the northern Baltic ices over, the ore had to be shipped out to Norway at Narvik. The North Sea, warmed by the Gulf Stream, does not freeze and in the winter months the ore was shipped down the Norwegian coast to Germany. As it is, many people, at least in my observation, just attack Norway because "it's supposed to happen." Making these supplies from Sweden (and Norway) of critical importance to Germany will change that equation and drive actions involving those countries for the some reasons such actions were taken in reality.
2. The critical shortage of manpower in Germany. I think it might be beneficial to tighten up Germany's manpower levels a little more realistically.
3. The offer the UK made to essentially unite the UK and France into a single political entity. I think the modelling of this as an event would add a huge dimension to the game. While the offer was made too close to the end of the Battle of France to reverse the French collapse (or even get realistic consideration by the French government) the fact that HM Government and Churchill were deadly serious with the offer is completely accurate. A sliding trigger could be set up allowing the offer to fire depending on certain circumstance (with some randomness thrown in). The worse off things are for the UK/France the higher the chance the offer will be made (I don't think having Churchill as PM is a threshold issue as HMG was prepared to consider such an offer even without his input, but having him in office would give an increased chance). Of course, there is no guarantee the French would accept, but if they did, the consequences would be interesting. Would Vichy have even been formed? The French fleet would have joined the Royal Navy; even if Paris fell, London would need to be conquered to complete the conquest of France.... These are only partial considerations and rough ideas, but adding this to the mix of the game would open some interesting what ifs to exploration.
4. Make more probable that nations won't just join a faction straight out. Finland and Bulgaria are two good examples from history; the Finns being at war with Russia, eventually Great Britain, and then turning on Germany and declaring war on them, while remaining at peace with the US through out the conflict (although relations were severed); Bulgaria famously declared war on the US and UK, but would not declare war on the Soviet Union (and of course, once over run, declared war on Germany). A more realistic and complicated diplomatic process would add a great deal of enjoyment to the game in my opinion. For example, in many games of HOI3, the US flips into the Comintern because the US and Japan finally go to war with each other before the US has joined the Allies (the US automatically joining the Comintern because it is already at war with the Axis). While there is some chance that could have happened, it would be much more realistic to see the US fight the Japanese alongside the Russians but without joining the Comintern, i.e. as co-belligerents.
5. I'm sure this has already been addressed, but fixing HQ speed, so these units do not charge ahead of their commanded elements and attack the enemy alone. Even just a check box or option to have the game automatically limit their movement to the speed of the subordinate units would be great. This effect adds little to the realism or enjoyment of the game in my opinion. Automate the trivial things like this, accentuate the meaningful decisions the player has to make.
Again, just my opinion,
Larry Reese
