I'm glad it's not a US game

[unmerged(9145)]

Originally posted by King


Point 1: The game can start in 1936
Point 2: A better deployment by the French might of helped. For example having some reserves
Point 3: Where do you get your information on the fighting quaities of the Beligium Arrmy? I have never seen anything about that
Point 4: If you have read Panzer Leader then you will know it was Guderian's selective disobedence that saved the German plan. On 2 occasions it was nearly halted before cutting of the Allied armies
Point 5: The Germans got the arse kicked in the winter of 1941 and lost an entier army in the winter of 1942. In fact for all of those out there who admirer the German military machine it wasn't very good at winning wars. Having not won one against a real opponent since 1871.

1. And this is part of the fantasy scenario since we, the players, can alter pre-war history to make the French and English ground forces suck less than they did.

2. The French were still doomed. Trying to make an argument in favor of a French victory, given their utter defeat and the fact that they so readily surrendered, is also purest fantasy.

3. From a book on the effectiveness of soldiers throughout history. Have to dig around the attic to see if I can find it. It's been awhile, and that's about the only fact that stuck in my head.

4 and 5. As Napoleon said, the winner is the guy who makes the least number of mistakes. Until 1943 the Germans made fewer mistakes than any of their opponents, so much so that they managed to conquer just about all of Europe. I'd say that despite the relatively huge errors they made that's enough to qualify their efforts as 'genius'. Unless conquering Europe isn't good enough for you?

The Germans conquered the Poles and the French, both 'real' opponents and both thoroughly beaten in record time. Unless you're going to argue that France and Poland were part of the Allied team and so were never really conquered? Uh huh, tell me another.

Your assertion about not winning a war against a major opponent since 1871, then, is false.

Max

 

[King]

Originally posted by maxpublic


1. And this is part of the fantasy scenario since we, the players, can alter pre-war history to make the French and English ground forces suck less than they did.

No its the campiagn game not a fantsy scenario.

Originally posted by maxpublic

2. The French were still doomed. Trying to make an argument in favor of a French victory, given their utter defeat and the fact that they so readily surrendered, is also purest fantasy.

Let's go back to World War I shall we. The French leadership sucked we know this because there was a large scale cull out of offciers in the winter of '14. Yet the French were stll able to create themircle of the Marne. The secrete was reserves. With reserves anything is possible, because the Germans were not invicible.

Originally posted by maxpublic

3. From a book on the effectiveness of soldiers throughout history. Have to dig around the attic to see if I can find it. It's been awhile, and that's about the only fact that stuck in my head.

I have to sya I find it hard to believe. Considering that Beligium'sarmy was less well equiped that either the Britsh or the French and wasn't even mechinised unlike the British. So if the Belgium army performed as you say then so too could of the French and the British.

Originally posted by maxpublic

4 and 5. As Napoleon said, the winner is the guy who makes the least number of mistakes. Until 1943 the Germans made fewer mistakes than any of their opponents, so much so that they managed to conquer just about all of Europe. I'd say that despite the relatively huge errors they made that's enough to qualify their efforts as 'genius'. Unless conquering Europe isn't good enough for you?

However Germany made mistakes. The drive to Mosocw in the winter of '41. The failure to destory the Anglo-French Army at Dunkirk. The failure to implement Blue as it was orignally intended. These three were all critical and would go some way to costing Germany the war. All of these were prior to '43.

Originally posted by maxpublic

The Germans conquered the Poles and the French, both 'real' opponents and both thoroughly beaten in record time. Unless you're going to argue that France and Poland were part of the Allied team and so were never really conquered? Uh huh, tell me another.

Your assertion about not winning a war against a major opponent since 1871, then, is false.

Max

Germany went to war in 1939 with France, Poland and Britain. It knocked both Poland and France out of the war but failed to knock Britian out of the war. It lost the war it started in 1939. It's not Rocket Science.

 

[Juba]

Originally posted by maxpublic
The French army was a lost cause in 1939. Not because of training or equipment, but because the officer corps was utterly incompetent, the military doctrine of the French armed forces was based on WW1, and the French simply had no will to put up a determined fight. Even the Poles, whose armed forces were arguably even worse than the French, put up a much tougher fight, losing three times the number of soldiers the French did (and comparably a much larger portion of their armed forces) before folding.

What it boils down to is that in 1939 the French didn't have a prayer of taking on the Germans and winning. They were, indeed, bitch-slapped, and there was little chance of anything else happening.

But remember - the English were also whipped and ran like dogs with their tails between their legs. The English performance in France was almost as embarrassing as the French performance in France. Hell, the little guys - e.g., Belgium - were far more effective per soldier than any of the Great Powers in 1939. It's been estimated that if the Belgium army had been as large as the French army they would've roundly defeated the Germans and crushed the initial invasion attempt.

With the exception of Germany, which boostrapped itself up from the Treaty of Versailles and accomplished incredible feats of military genius right up until 1943, none of the European Great Powers has anything to brag about.

Reforming the French army might be included as part of a fantasy scenario, but not as part of a historical scenario. Improving national morale so that the French army just doesn't up and surrender en masse is also pure fantasy. As I said before, this is *not* the France that Napoleon knew, the France that conquered nearly all of Europe. *That* France was long gone in 1939, just as while Italy may survive today it sure as hell isn't the Rome of the past.

In any event, the French did do one thing better than any other nation during the war: they surrendered with such lightning speed, and in numbers never before seen by a modern army - a feat that has yet to be equalled!

Max

The French army was based on WW1 just like every other army in the world. The French did have a will to fight but it was ruined by high expectations and the unexpected success of the German army. The Poles faced a green German army of 1939. The French faced a veteran German army of 1940 with an added 6 months of production and refinement so comparing these two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges it can't and shouldn't be done.

Yes there was a very great chance of great delay and of a possible stalemate or even victory. Just look at the other posts on this thread and you'll see why.

Yes and if the Belgian army had been bigger it would have fought for a longer time reducing this ratio. That's saying that a an army that fights one delaing battle is better than one that fights a whole campaign because the army that fought the delaying battles inflicted more casualties per soldier is the better army.

More like Allied mishaps than outstanding German military genius.

Correction surrender after their lines had been broken and all the talk of a great victory had been shattered.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by maxpublic


1. And this is part of the fantasy scenario since we, the players, can alter pre-war history to make the French and English ground forces suck less than they did.

2. The French were still doomed. Trying to make an argument in favor of a French victory, given their utter defeat and the fact that they so readily surrendered, is also purest fantasy.

3. From a book on the effectiveness of soldiers throughout history. Have to dig around the attic to see if I can find it. It's been awhile, and that's about the only fact that stuck in my head.

4 and 5. As Napoleon said, the winner is the guy who makes the least number of mistakes. Until 1943 the Germans made fewer mistakes than any of their opponents, so much so that they managed to conquer just about all of Europe. I'd say that despite the relatively huge errors they made that's enough to qualify their efforts as 'genius'. Unless conquering Europe isn't good enough for you?

The Germans conquered the Poles and the French, both 'real' opponents and both thoroughly beaten in record time. Unless you're going to argue that France and Poland were part of the Allied team and so were never really conquered? Uh huh, tell me another.

Your assertion about not winning a war against a major opponent since 1871, then, is false.

Max

Ok....the Germans beat the Poles and French but they didn't win the war. Those were battles....the Germans won many battles but lost both wars due to diplomatic incompetence IMO. Diplomatic incompetence is even more dangerous then military incompetence...and thus I have a hard time calling the Germans in WWII geniuses. They made serious mistakes like not equiping their army for winter while invading Russia and declaring war on the US in 1941 to force Japan to attack the USSR when there was no evidence the Japanese would do so.

Sure I will tell you a few....Germany and the Central Powers defeated Serbia, Romania and Russia in WWI....but they still lost. Nobody in Vienna or Berlin in 1919 was singing victory songs. In the 30 years war the Hapsburgs defeated many enemies...but they still lost....etc. Who were winners in the Napoleonic Wars? Austria and Prussia or France? How many times did the Austrians and Prussians surrender to the French? Did it matter in the end?

I do not believe in inevitability in history nor do I observe the French forces readily surrendering you have to concede that things were pretty bad by the middle of June 1940, European France was definitly lost. No country in the history of the world has had their entire country conquered and fought on anyway that I can think of, though Belgium in WWI comes close (I consider the Serbians comparable to the Free Poles/French in WWII). Seems odd to chastise the French for not doing something unprecedented.

Yet there were Frenchmen who wanted to fight on....and not an insignificant number who did even under the circumstances. Things COULD have been different. The French officers were proffessionals with years of service...they were not incompetent across the board. Gamelin was competent....just lacked vision and what was needed was aggressive leadership in the face of the German threat. He was an old man who thought he had seen it all, a rather dangerous condition for your senior general to be in.

The French were utterly defeated....but not because of some genetic surrender strand in the French DNA but because of HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES....I aim to create circumstances my French army can be successful at. You talk as if I line 5 divisions of French soldiers up against a German platoon I am doomed so why even bother. Is that pure fantasy? That 5 divisions of Frenchmen could defeat a platoon of Germans? But wait! Even considering circumstances that the French could win in is pure fantasy because they lost the battle of France ! I think that there are circumstance...such as the one listed above...that the French could have been successful at.

As the French player I will stake my career and my countries future on forcing a two front war with Germany with my "little-entente" allies of Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia (even at the risk of losing Britain as an ally) and work for a Republican victory in Spain, and an understanding with Italy to protect my flanks. Maybe an alliance with the USSR may be possible as well though the political implications from such a decision could be very serious. I will beat Germany diplomatically, hem them in, and defeat them in the field. I think it is possible...If I isolate Germany and go to war with them on two fronts with numerical superiority I think I have a chance. Is it pure fantasy to think that I could do anything but repeat history?

Incidently Belgium surrendered before France when they could have transfered their army to their colony and fought on with English support but they chose to surrender right in the middle of the battle with their allies still in the field. Granted they may have fought hard but they were not beaten quite yet when they gave up....seems weird to congratulate them when you so revile the French for giving up in similar circumstances.

I dont really consider post WWI France and Britian to be Great Power calibre countries anymore. They were finished just nobody knew it at the time. They couldn't even keep peace in their own backyard, their impotence is evident everywhere from the League of Nations to Munich. There is only one reason why they remained the countries in charge....and that is because nobody else was willing or able to fill the power vacuum. The fact that I dont really regard either of those countries as Great Powers does color my perspective of their performances in WWII a bit. They were moderately powerful countries trying disastrously to carry out Great Power responsibilities that they didn't have the resources or muscle to carry out. Arrogance had alot to do with it but also simply because they had been Great Powers so long alot of inertia and force of habit went into play to.

 

[unmerged(9145)]

Originally posted by King
Germany went to war in 1939 with France, Poland and Britain. It knocked both Poland and France out of the war but failed to knock Britian out of the war. It lost the war it started in 1939. It's not Rocket Science.

Oh please. Stop being obtuse. The Germans beat the French and the Poles utterly and conquered them. That's a fact. They won. Mincing words doesn't change the accomplishment.

The Brits lost horribly in the land war and were confined to sitting on their island until the Americans arrived to give 'em a hand. And without the Americans, there they would've remained.

You can delude yourself into thinking that every German gain was due to Allied errors. Go right ahead. But despite the mistakes the Germans made *they still conquered Europe*.

That too is a fact. One you may not like, one you may try to 'explain away' as Allied stupidity (of which there was plenty of, but not enough to lose *a whole continent*).

You're right - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the German military was a hell of alot better than anyone they had to fight against.

Otherwise *they wouldn't have conquered Europe*. Think on it for, oh, 30 seconds Beavis. Loser armies don't make these kinds of gains.

But then, perhaps you'll also argue that the only reason Napoleon did the same from 1805-1812 was because all of *his* opponents were lackwits as well? Or is it just the Germans you dislike?

Max

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by maxpublic


Oh please. Stop being obtuse. The Germans beat the French and the Poles utterly and conquered them. That's a fact. They won. Mincing words doesn't change the accomplishment.

The Brits lost horribly in the land war and were confined to sitting on their island until the Americans arrived to give 'em a hand. And without the Americans, there they would've remained.

You can delude yourself into thinking that every German gain was due to Allied errors. Go right ahead. But despite the mistakes the Germans made *they still conquered Europe*.

That too is a fact. One you may not like, one you may try to 'explain away' as Allied stupidity (of which there was plenty of, but not enough to lose *a whole continent*).

You're right - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the German military was a hell of alot better than anyone they had to fight against.

Otherwise *they wouldn't have conquered Europe*. Think on it for, oh, 30 seconds Beavis. Loser armies don't make these kinds of gains.

But then, perhaps you'll also argue that the only reason Napoleon did the same from 1805-1812 was because all of *his* opponents were lackwits as well? Or is it just the Germans you dislike?

Max

No question Napoleon made many critical errors and no question the Germans had some of the most brilliant military minds in the business on their side. No question their officers and soldiers were excellently trained (at least in the beginning) and much of their equiptment second to none. But their conquest of Europe was skin deep and they lost....as did Napoleon. The Germans lost the war and that is a fact. They lost as completely as any country can lose. They lost because of their diplomatic incompetence and their incomparable ability to inspire hatred in other people.

Nobody doubts the German's military powers...it was those other necessary parts of statecraft that did them in.

 

[Hartmann]

Originally posted by AmericanScipio
Anyone remember Clash of Steel? This was a hell of a game. Made by the dean of American wargamers, Gary Grigsby. One of the neat aspects was that on any of the difficulty levels, it was quite possible to prevent French defeat using a superior knowledge of WWII history. But of course in 1939 you started in the appropriate defensive positions, so it was a race to catch the Nazi army groups before they got to Paris (when they get Paris, the French get divvied up into Vichy and Free- a tough break).

The coolest thing was if you could get Poland to survive into late 1940. It was tough even on the easiest level of difficulty, but it dramatically changed the game dynamic (and also guaranteed Russia carving a bigger chunk out of Poland).

Gary is one of the best, but that game was actually made by Martin Scholz.

Gary Grigsby made War in Russia, though, another great classic.

Hartmann

 

[Juba]

Originally posted by maxpublic


Oh please. Stop being obtuse. The Germans beat the French and the Poles utterly and conquered them. That's a fact. They won. Mincing words doesn't change the accomplishment.

The Brits lost horribly in the land war and were confined to sitting on their island until the Americans arrived to give 'em a hand. And without the Americans, there they would've remained.

You can delude yourself into thinking that every German gain was due to Allied errors. Go right ahead. But despite the mistakes the Germans made *they still conquered Europe*.

That too is a fact. One you may not like, one you may try to 'explain away' as Allied stupidity (of which there was plenty of, but not enough to lose *a whole continent*).

You're right - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the German military was a hell of alot better than anyone they had to fight against.

Otherwise *they wouldn't have conquered Europe*. Think on it for, oh, 30 seconds Beavis. Loser armies don't make these kinds of gains.

But then, perhaps you'll also argue that the only reason Napoleon did the same from 1805-1812 was because all of *his* opponents were lackwits as well? Or is it just the Germans you dislike?

Max

Utterly conquered them? The last time I checked up on my WW2 history there were things like the Free French, the Polish divisions in France and the UK, Soviet Poland, and Vichy France.

You must be forgetting that big old continent south of Europe and that even bigger continent to the east of Europe. Are you saying that the Brits did nothing there?

No they didn't conquer Europe they controlled large parts of it temporarily.

Poland might have been due to German skill as my knowledge of that conflict isn't that great but the fall of France certainly was as was the USSR performance during Barbarossa were due to Allied incompetence rather than German superiority.

Yes it was better but being better doesn't always secure victory and if the Allies had corrected some of the easily corrected ones like deployment the German army wouldn't have stormed through France.

You're not being serious so I won't answer.

I'm not upto date on my Napolean wars.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

LOOK IT (THE ATTACK ON THE WEST) CAN BE VERY VERY DIFFERENT. THE GAME SHOULD ALLOW FOR THIS.

Wow,
Its good to read some of the thoughts here.

Neat stuff. I did a paper on the attack on the west in college and continued to do reading on the subject after I graduated.

The fact is that Yes the French Lost..ok ok

BUT…..It could have been bloodier and longer, and who knows.
AND THE GAME SHOULD ALLOW FOR THIS.

Like I said in My previous post, what if the French 7th, 1st and 9th Armies, and BEF which had all struck into Belgium, had instead, stayed behind the Somme?
ANSWER:
-It would have made a huge difference.
History would have been altered.

I have also read Panzer Leader, and I do remember HG’s concern over how exposed they were, and how very dangerous the situation had become.

Again, If you guys want, Check out “Blitzkrieg” by Len Deighton. Great reading of the fall of France. Deighton is one of the formost respected authors on the subject.

“The German Generals Talk,” by B.H. Liddel Hart, is also very insightful on this. Its one of the best insights on some of the very real weakness the German Army faced in the West.
--BH Liddel Hart, is known as one of the fathers of modern Warfare, and Actung Panzer is known to take a lot from him. After the War, Liddel Hart became very close to a lot of the German General Staff that was at the heart of the OKW plans. Hence the book. As they say, its right from the horse's mouth!!

The above two books are some of the best on this matter, and make it clear that IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFERENT IN THE WEST.

Also there is another book, I forget the author, called 1940 the West (I think).

Last, check out “Battles lost and Won,” by Baldwin, its about the Attack on Poland, but it gives a great example the Blitz tactics and one can see the differences between the Polish and French, and the possibilities..


POINT IS SIMPLY: THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD BATTLE FOR THE GERMANS. Not saying that they would not have won, but it could have been bloody and who knows what would ahve happened. THE GAME SHOULD ALLOW FOR THIS.

 

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Jason R
--BH Liddel Hart, is known as one of the fathers of modern Warfare, and Actung Panzer is known to take a lot from him.

This is something of a post-war myth that L-H helped to create. There is little real evidence that Guderian was influenced by L-H's writings before 1939. However, after 1945 L-H helped to rehabilitate Guderian - who was, let's not forget, a high-ranking Nazi general - back into 'respectable' society, and as a result, apparently out of gratitude, Guderian inserted a mention of L-H's pre-war work into the English language version of Panzer General. It's interesting that no such mention exists in the original German version.

 

[Ktarn]

Originally posted by Keplerus

This is something of a post-war myth that L-H helped to create. There is little real evidence that Guderian was influenced by L-H's writings before 1939. However, after 1945 L-H helped to rehabilitate Guderian - who was, let's not forget, a high-ranking Nazi general - back into 'respectable' society, and as a result, apparently out of gratitude, Guderian inserted a mention of L-H's pre-war work into the English language version of Panzer General. It's interesting that no such mention exists in the original German version.

Is "Panzer General" the english name for "Achtung Panzer", or another book that Guderian wrote?

 

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Ktarn
Is "Panzer General" the english name for "Achtung Panzer", or another book that Guderian wrote?

Different works. Achtung! Panzer is Guderian's pre-war book of theory. Panzer Leader (sorry, not General) is his post-war memoir.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Interesting remarks concerning BH and Actung Panzer. Where did you hear this story? what is your source?

I am not questioning the truth of the matter, I would just like to read it. I guess its the lawyer in me and I think it would be fun to read up on it.

Thanks,


And I still do stand by my remarks concerning France!!!!

-Jason

 

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Jason R
Interesting remarks concerning BH and Actung Panzer. Where did you hear this story? what is your source?

_Liddell Hart and the Weight of History_ by John J. Mearsheimer (1988). To quote from one of Mearsheimer's reviewers at the time:

"In the early 1920s Liddell Hart was certainly amongst tank enthusiasts, like Fuller and Martel, believing in the offensive use of armoured forces by the time he had become the military correspondent of The Daily Telegraph and then The Times in the 1930s, he had revised his views, concluding that tanks and mechanization of armies would make offensive operations impracticable.

This belief, and his lack of confidence in British generals, led to his theories of 'the indirect approach', formulated to obviated another blood-bath on the Continent. In the run-up to the Second World War, he opposed the renewal of Britain's Continental commitment, advocating appeasement of Hitler, and leaving the French army, which he believed was far superior to the newly formed Wehrmacht, to deter German aggression on land. Britain would threaten to cripple the Third Reich with naval blockade and air bombardment. As late as May 19 1940, after the German Panzer divisions had broken through the Ardennes, his articles in The Times still showed an unshaken confidence in the superiority of defence, but the outcome on the battlefield left his reputation in tatters.

Liddell Hart's claim that he was an outsider, and that his advice was ignored by Whitehall, was simply not true. As a respected Fleet Street journalist, he had access to the most important policy-makers - military and civilian - and he was the confidant of Chamberlain and Hore-Belisha.

His belief that leading German exponents of the Blitzkrieg were his disciples was equally fallacious. Generals, who were creating the Wehrmacht for aggressive purposes, were hardly likely to pay much attention to a denigrator of offensive action.

The most damning part of Mearsheimer's study is his analysis of how Liddell Hart resurrected his lost reputation as a prescient military thinker. He was allowe d to interview the defeated German generals, and to produce his best-seller, The Other Side of the Hill. This was a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours ' type of exercise. It was not difficult for him to put words into the Germans' mouths, suggesting that the origins of the Blitzkrieg could be traced back to himself, in return for favourable accounts of their own actions for posterity.

Mearsheimer provides hard evidence of Liddell Hart's implantation of laudatory references to his own works in the English editons of Guderian's Panzer Leader and The Rommel Papers, both of which he edited. In Mearsheimer's view, Liddell Hart's own Memoirs are 'a blatant distortion of the historical record'."

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Keplerus,

Thanks for posting the comments regarding BH. That is fascinating to read regarding Liddell Hart’s sway towards self-aggrandizement. To be honest, I was under the impression that Liddell Hart was just one of the components of mechanized warfare that Guderian had studied, not the sole source that brought it all together.

I read Panzer Leader, and I was always under the impression that Guderian was more of a chef, who brought knowledge from many fields and military theorist, Liddell Hart being only one of the many that contributed to the main theory in Actung Panzer.

In fact one thing that struck me in Panzer Leader was Guderian’s modesty and straight forward talk. I especially was impressed by his comment that he was not an expert in communications, supply, tank tactics, etc….BUT he had a working general knowledge of these things and was able to bring the whole together. In effect, quarterbacking the operation. It is the same theory that “no amount of genius can overcome the harmful effects of a preoccupation with detail.” But that a general knowledge and understanding as well as an ability to bring it all together is key.

Anyway, I am sure I over-stated my impression of him in my comment. My point in bringing him up was to just FYI on the author of “The German Generals Speak.” Is that book the same as “The other side of the Hill?”

Interesting discussion.

-Jason

 

[unmerged(7916)]

Historical France

The World in Flames series of games handled this type of situation quite well. The the pre-WWII part of the game (1936-39), the French could opt to re-arm faster, but at a payoff of turning some of their allies into the Axis camp and encouraging a faster German re-armamament; they could extend the Magiont line all the way to the coast, but this throws the Belgians into the open arms of the Germans and also is very expensive... and there are several events like this...

Granted, the French could have been much better prepared for the Germans, but at what political and economic cost?

BTW, WiF is an Austrailian made game and is by far the best war game Ive ever played (board game). If you play the straight WWI scenario in 1939, the French are definately not weak, but they are no match for a skilled German player who utilizes his air and armor assets properly and makes best use of the blitzkrieg/suprise rules. Though its tough to conquer them by June 40... the almost always fall in the summer unless you role consistent "1's" in your German attacks.

I didnt read this entire thread so I dont know if any references are made to WiF, but its definately worth a look at for "alternate history" type events.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Homer,

I am aware of WIF. I actually bought the 3rd eddition when I was in college for like $60.

I never did play it, but I have heard mixed things about it.

So you think it is better than Advanced 3r?

-Jason

 

[unmerged(7916)]

WiF vs 3R

While 3r is a very enjoyable game, WiF is lightyears ahead of realism, options, variable strategies, variations, and almost everything else..

3R is a bit easier, alot less to mange, smaller, and more abstract.

The original WiF is good.. but when you add on all the expansions to include the Days of Decison (my favorite).. it is incredible! Just wish the mapboard didnt take up half my house for 1 year to finish a game

 

[unmerged(8839)]

Yes, that's why I stopped playing it (WiF), you know, with wife, kids and so on. They are releasing on PC soon...but I played with the beta a bit and it's following the game very precisely, which is good and bad at the same time. You really have to go deep into the rules to be able even to play the computer version which kind of kills the purpose to have it on computer.

 

[unmerged(1700)]

This thread turned into a mini flame war and I'm closing it.

Edit: Sorry guys, I see that the problem with maxpublic was resolved and that you're having a nice discussion so I'm re-opening the thread.