Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Balancing US research

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Balancing US research Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Balancing US research - 3/30/2017 4:27:14 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline 		I think that the most unbalancing factor in PBEM is the US research .
The US have nothing to do but researching during almost 2.5 years .
This has for effect that the US enters the war end 41 with an army which has the quality of the german army (or better) and a navy which is better or on par with the RN .

This is not only totally unrealistic (the US army end 41 was hardly on a par with the Japanese let alone German) but it unbalances the game seriously for the Axis player.
Qualitatively the US was not yet on a par with Germany in the air (Me 262) nor on ground (Panther, Tiger) in 1944 so that I would propose that research ability for the US be halved before their entrance in the war and that the game starts in 1939 with AT MAXIMUM 3 items being researched .
It might be : amphibious, Naval Warfare, Aerial Warfare .
Post #: 1
RE: Balancing US research - 4/1/2017 3:06:55 PM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 359
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

It might be : amphibious, Naval Warfare, Aerial Warfare .


It probably should be Industrial, Production and Logistics. After 1942 the capacity of research and unit production should be doubled.

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 2
RE: Balancing US research - 4/1/2017 4:39:16 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline 		Well US already starts with Logistics at 1 so giving it a free research to 2 already in september 39 would be overkill .
Even for industrial production it is too early - US didn't think about going to war at all at that moment .
So the few (I propose 3) research items should be business as usual .

(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 3
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 12:31:05 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		Can research money cap can be modified via event?

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 4
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 2:14:19 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		I agree this is a major issue. Is U.S. uber prewar research a balancing mechanism?

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 5
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 3:53:04 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline 		What I would imagine as balancing mechanism is twofold :

1) The US start in 39 with 3 researches : Amphibious, Naval Warfare, Aerial Warfare

2) The MPP in the first turn are 0 . After that they increase in a linear way to december 1942 where they reach their nominal maximum amount .
This represents the US industry reaching its maximum cruising speed end 1942 . It is still too early compared with history but it might be enough to balance the sides .
That means that if there are N turns between september 39 and december 42, the US MPP increase by "Maximum MPP/N" per turn .
Of course modifiers, events and eventually conquerred towns outside of US come on top of the Maximum inland US MPP .

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 6
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 4:38:49 PM   
Trump2016

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/24/2013
Status: offline 		I think you are confusing production with research, which was your initial concern, while the US was not producing units early on, it certainly was ahead of the game in terms of research. when they entered the war, they had developed and/or started production of CVs/BB, Str and fighters that were of equal and would soon be better than the axis.

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 7
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 5:52:08 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglesNest

I think you are confusing production with research, which was your initial concern, while the US was not producing units early on, it certainly was ahead of the game in terms of research. when they entered the war, they had developed and/or started production of CVs/BB, Str and fighters that were of equal and would soon be better than the axis.


No I am confusing nothing . I am talking about MPP which in the game provide both production and research . But I focus more on research which is imho a more unbalancing factor and much more ahistorical than the production .
In a parallel world the US were perhaps ahead in research in 1939 but in the real one they were far behind .
The best fighter in 44 was the Me262 and the US had nothing equivalent even in 44 .
As for the tanks, it was estimated that 5 to 7 Shermans will go lost against 1 Tiger or 1 Panther .
This was also in 44 and my grandfather who was fighting in a Sherman bataillon told me that the reality was generally worse than these odds so that they were always stopping and calling for air strikes when Tigers were reported .

The only thing where the US were clearly ahead was a mass production of average equipment but in quantities which finished by largely outnumbering the German Equipment .
But even this high level of mass production was only achieved mauch later because the US didn't want to go in war in 39 .
Yet in the game I have seen the US AI mass producing Advanced fighters 5 (equivalent of Me262) already in 1942 .
This is obviously not only historicall wrong but unbalancing .

(in reply to Trump2016)
Post #: 8
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 6:36:46 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		Up until 1942, I would give the U.S. no research capability, instead using their historical levels of production/research till that point in time. This is just like the original belligerents in the game who start with their own historical OOBs and research. I haven't studied any historical data on pre-war U.S. research, but there was no interest in war until Pearl Harbor, and then everything changed. (And even then, if Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., it's not clear what kind of effort would've been made in Europe as opposed to going full out against Japan.)

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 9
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 8:43:00 PM   
Trump2016

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/24/2013
Status: offline 		I did not mention tanks, i concur with that assessment, but stand by everything else including fighters. While in theory the ME262 was groundbreaking, it had limitations including limited ability to use its jet engines. Allied fighters learned to just wait for it returning to base and shoot them up. i think the P51 series was the best overall fighter in WW2, perhaps if the ME262 had been developed earlier it would have, but it didn't.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 10
RE: Balancing US research - 4/3/2017 8:46:24 PM   
Trump2016

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/24/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Up until 1942, I would give the U.S. no research capability, instead using their historical levels of production/research till that point in time. This is just like the original belligerents in the game who start with their own historical OOBs and research. I haven't studied any historical data on pre-war U.S. research, but there was no interest in war until Pearl Harbor, and then everything changed. (And even then, if Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., it's not clear what kind of effort would've been made in Europe as opposed to going full out against Japan.)


The US knew it would eventually have to fight by Pearl Harbour, just not the exact date.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 11
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 12:24:08 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglesNest

I did not mention tanks, i concur with that assessment, but stand by everything else including fighters. While in theory the ME262 was groundbreaking, it had limitations including limited ability to use its jet engines. Allied fighters learned to just wait for it returning to base and shoot them up. i think the P51 series was the best overall fighter in WW2, perhaps if the ME262 had been developed earlier it would have, but it didn't.


We were talking research here . The german fighter and rocket research was years ahead of US even in 44 . This is just a fact . P51 was perhaps a match for the FW 190 D but not for the Me 262 .

You should not confuse quality and quantity .
Germany had a much longer and bigger war experience than the US so that their research was providing best quality learning from battle experience .
US on the other hand was producing massive quantities of average material following what already Stalin said, "Quantity is a quality of its own ."

Btw when the german pilots were interviewed after the war about the late war period (44+) they were all saying that P47 or P51 were not a problem one on one but the problem was that it was never one on one .
Besides they always had orders to focus on the bombers and there were not enough German fighters to engage and kill the escorts simultaneously .

What stays is that regardless of the ahistoricality of the US research in SC, it unbalances the game and that is bad .

(in reply to Trump2016)
Post #: 12
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 3:54:32 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		I think the best treatment for the US would be to make them neutral and have them enter the war when Japan attacks or political pressure brings them in. Hard part would be lend lease, is it possible for them to be neutral and have the lend lease convoy still work?

Or perhaps have them frozen/fixed and allow them to collect MPP so lend lease still works, but don't allow them to build or research stuff yet. When they enter the war they'll have a huge pile of saved up MPP to spend but they won't be way ahead on research yet.

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 13
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 4:01:38 PM   
Leadwieght

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/23/2017
Status: offline 		In the beta version when you could put 2 chits into aircraft research, the US's ability to research while "sitting out" the conflict seemed more of a problem to me. Now, not so much. True, the US will probably enter the war with some tech, but their troops are green. Playing both sides, I have seen the folly of committing them too quickly, even with some tech advances. Much like the real war

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 14
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 7:56:46 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		The us was rearming during this period. The list below is a quick check on some items but definitely shows that the US was not sitting around on its hands waiting to be attacked. There was resistance from the america First and other groups, but the military was expanding at the end of the 30s and into 40 and 41. Industry was producing for Britain, France and later the Soviet Union. Our biggest problem was training, organizing and climbing the learning curve of being an active belligerent.

Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934
The Naval Act of 1938
The Two Ocean act of 1940

P-47 & 51 Development started in 1940
B-17 Developed in late 30s
B-24 in 1939
M-4 Sherman developed in 40, 41, deployed in 42
Draft started in 1940 renewed by one vote in 41

(in reply to Leadwieght)
Post #: 15
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 9:44:55 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		The US had limitations and also it has priorities. It built the best Navy in the world and the best Carrier Fighters in the World after just a few months after Pearl Harbor destroyed a good deal of the Japanese Carrier Fleet. Tanks weren't hugely vital but were being delivered to the British the Grants I believe then Sherman which were on par with the Armor that the Germans had the Panzer 4. The Germans were inspired by the KV/T series Russian Armor to build Panthers and Tigers which though were much better than the Americans they were not very many.(I think US doctrine here remained Numerical Superiority similar to the Russian Doctrine) The US did not have such research inspiration to OutTank the Germans cause they didn't face them till Kaserine Pass where they found out 88s and Panzer 4s with better guns can decimate you. As as well as the tactics. By 1944 this lesson was still not remedied and I'm uncertain why not but vs the Japanese we definitely learned that we needed better Carrier Fighters, which we had by '43.

There are all types of reasons and Men in charge that lead Research to a crawl but we have to kind of look at the bigger picture. Why should Romanian and Italian Troops benefit from high quality infantry weapons when they couldn't have supplied them to themselves? Really the German MPPS should pay for this cause these nations lacked the internal research capability to provide for themselves in enough quantity to be similar to the game. Why Operation Uranus chewed the Axis Minors to shreds.

So say Italians with Inf Weapons 2 and Doctrine 1, does this make up for the difference? Or Romanian/Hungarian?



ME262 was not in large quantity ever. The Luftwaffe got stuck on the ole upgraded 109 for the workhorse of it's Air power. A great fighter but by 1944-1945 was far outdated. There were FW190s but not the backbone of the Luftwaffe. Also I don't recall the British going very far head either cause probably they didn't need to. Focus changes, issues change, what we think we will need will change. We needed Fighter Bombers to kill those Tigers and Panthers not Jets. P51s could almost about deal with the few Jets that flew and just about anything else that flew.

Now should 10 level5 Fighters pop up in the British Isles in 1942? I think if the Axis let this happen without answering it, it's their fault. By this point they need to be way ahead in a research area like level3 subs(buff them up a little) to intercept and crush any Naval Crossing of US Troops that is attempted. Cause the US had to focus on the War in the Atlantic before it could go to war on the Continent. On and on, balance/counter balance.

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/4/2017 9:48:18 PM >

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 16
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 11:45:40 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

The US had limitations and also it has priorities. It built the best Navy in the world and the best Carrier Fighters in the World after just a few months after Pearl Harbor destroyed a good deal of the Japanese Carrier Fleet. Tanks weren't hugely vital but were being delivered to the British the Grants I believe then Sherman which were on par with the Armor that the Germans had the Panzer 4. The Germans were inspired by the KV/T series Russian Armor to build Panthers and Tigers which though were much better than the Americans they were not very many.(I think US doctrine here remained Numerical Superiority similar to the Russian Doctrine) The US did not have such research inspiration to OutTank the Germans cause they didn't face them till Kaserine Pass where they found out 88s and Panzer 4s with better guns can decimate you. As as well as the tactics. By 1944 this lesson was still not remedied and I'm uncertain why not but vs the Japanese we definitely learned that we needed better Carrier Fighters, which we had by '43.

There are all types of reasons and Men in charge that lead Research to a crawl but we have to kind of look at the bigger picture. Why should Romanian and Italian Troops benefit from high quality infantry weapons when they couldn't have supplied them to themselves? Really the German MPPS should pay for this cause these nations lacked the internal research capability to provide for themselves in enough quantity to be similar to the game. Why Operation Uranus chewed the Axis Minors to shreds.

So say Italians with Inf Weapons 2 and Doctrine 1, does this make up for the difference? Or Romanian/Hungarian?



ME262 was not in large quantity ever. The Luftwaffe got stuck on the ole upgraded 109 for the workhorse of it's Air power. A great fighter but by 1944-1945 was far outdated. There were FW190s but not the backbone of the Luftwaffe. Also I don't recall the British going very far head either cause probably they didn't need to. Focus changes, issues change, what we think we will need will change. We needed Fighter Bombers to kill those Tigers and Panthers not Jets. P51s could almost about deal with the few Jets that flew and just about anything else that flew.

Now should 10 level5 Fighters pop up in the British Isles in 1942? I think if the Axis let this happen without answering it, it's their fault. By this point they need to be way ahead in a research area like level3 subs(buff them up a little) to intercept and crush any Naval Crossing of US Troops that is attempted. Cause the US had to focus on the War in the Atlantic before it could go to war on the Continent. On and on, balance/counter balance.

Well, the fact is that the U.S. was where it was in research at the point they entered WWII in, effectively, 1942. There's no call for them to have a boost or alternate focus prior to them actually entering the war. If they enter well before 1942, they surely wouldn't have the progress they did historically. When I played the last time the U.S. entered as soon as London fell in late '40 and were already equal to or ahead of Germany in Air research.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 17
RE: Balancing US research - 4/4/2017 11:59:13 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Capitaine, you forget the fighters that France used the P-36, seized by the Germans and sent to Finland too. Comparable to the 109,Hurricane,Spitfire, on so on. Where the Americans likely lack research is battlefield experience to gain the doctrines.(so I would rather see her doctrines halted altogether till later but what would happen with game balance, lets see from PBEM first?) In the Pacific the US got her nose bloodied a lot in many sea battles early in 42 and then she struck out and showed she could learn in 7 months how to defeat the Japanese Imperial Navy.

The Grant/Sherman is roughly equal to the Panzer III and Panzer IV short barrel. So tanks well.. A good deal of German Tanks were Czeck Tanks showing any nation can build a decent tank not every nation can use one though. The Matildas and the Char1Bis of the British/French armies were roughly on par with the Germans who had a lot of Panzer IIs and Is at the beginning of the Battle of France. Even at the start of Barbarossa the Russians lacked the the heavier later T-series, over the lighter weaker ones..like the T-26

I'm not so much concerned with American quality of equipment, sure she could have churned out a replica Panther tank of her own if she wanted. Though in shorter numbers and she was likely stressed by Canada/UK and other nations for tons and tons of Shermans. Why she kept up on that outdated model. Watch famous tank battles though it's a great series. Poor Canadian/UK/American troops! It's sad we couldn't give them a true Beast. Though once the skies opened up well Tactical Bombers do the trick.

I think it's the number of Units people are worried about? Less the kind and how to use them. American Strategic Bombing took ages to perfect and she took awhile on the ground to learn to fight. Though she learned in 6 months or 1 year. Same with the Russians and British. Doctrines should mean more than equipment... perhaps harder to obtain and perhaps given a little bit of war entry %^ emphasis?


< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/5/2017 12:00:38 AM >

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 18
RE: Balancing US research - 4/5/2017 12:18:42 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		My problem is that there's no gearing up for war, once declared, that seemed to happen historically. It's like they're preparing to jump in in 1939 and when they actually do enter, it's like a dam burst. It should start off limited, and then ratchet up as the war industry takes hold once they enter.

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 19
RE: Balancing US research - 4/5/2017 6:39:35 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		There is an indication that it does start off limited, and increases once the US in in:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 4/5/2017 6:45:20 AM >

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 20
RE: Balancing US research - 4/5/2017 6:45:04 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Why should Romanian and Italian Troops benefit from high quality infantry weapons when they couldn't have supplied them to themselves?

The Research Level attainable can be limited for Italy [but not for the Minors] but I don't feel like that is a good remedy. What if the Minors and Italy started with reduced Combat Data, similar to Russia ? Then when they are upgraded to levels the same as others, they will still be less effective ?

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 21
RE: Balancing US research - 4/5/2017 12:29:17 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		I'm speaking mainly of research. But my play experience isn't particularly extensive either so I'll let the rest of you decide if U.S. entry is properly measured. My play caused me to raise an eyebrow. That is all.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 22
RE: Balancing US research - 4/5/2017 1:17:27 PM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I'm speaking mainly of research. But my play experience isn't particularly extensive either so I'll let the rest of you decide if U.S. entry is properly measured.
My play caused me to raise an eyebrow. That is all.


I agree with you and this was the purpose of my thread . As far as I am concerned, I have an extensive experience and it made me raise an eyebrow too .
When I play Allied and I have US researching about everything that is available already in 1940, it simply looks stupid because I will enter the war in 41 with research in every compartment on a par or better than Germany .
The game is finished, before it even began . If somebody thinks he can beat the Allied with Germany, I'll accept a PBEM as Allied.
For those who want to discuss the US historical mass production of average equipment, open your own thread and don't pollute this one .

My purpose is mainly balance because I find it boring when I know that I have won already in 1940 and that the German player hasn't got a chance regardless of what he will do .
That's why I propose only 3 research items for the US from 1939 to the entrance in the war and an linearily increasing MPP amount which starts at 0 in 1939 .
And even then I am not sure that it would be enough for an even approximate balance (by balance I understand 60/40 odds in favour of the allied because the history compells to give Allied somewhat better odds)

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 23
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 2:48:18 AM   
Mike Dubost

 

Posts: 273
Joined: 8/24/2008
From: Sacramento, CA
Status: offline 		It is my thought that we should not be overly focused on actual history. For example, on the issue of US tanks, the Sherman's relatively poor performance against German tanks one-on-one was not really a failure of design, but of doctrine.
Under US doctrine before Pearl Harbor, the primary self-propelled anti-tank weapon was the tank destroyer, not the tank. The Sherman was designed for supporting infantry during the breakthrough and then exploiting the breakthrough. The emphasis was on standardization of parts, reliability of machinery, and cross-country mobility/speed (though wider treads would have been useful in mud).
I would say that an investment in research could be viewed as a significant change in doctrine and the expense of developing new prototypes.

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 24
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 3:08:20 AM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		You really think that USA is that much of a deal breaker, you may be highly mistaken.(I've only lost once with Germany and that was cause I was exploring unique ideas, I think the Axis are favored more like 70/30 or 60/40 Again this is about timing and situations. I will take your challenge and you will be sadly mistaken what can be done with Germany. You want an AAR?

Let me show you what Forces in place, that Axis have, in the time that's available ... can do alone without being the Tech Monster(tanks and bombers alone are big, let alone the amount of HQs through 41-42)

P.S. I even switched sides and gave a guy my Axis and he beat me with them cause they were that OP.

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 4/6/2017 3:19:39 AM >

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 25
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 8:13:17 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
(though wider treads would have been useful in mud).


Pretty sure the max width of the tank was also limited by allotted space on ships. The bean counters and logistics guys wanted x number of tanks to fit in a ships cargo hull so designs had max size limits as to their overall area footprint. Though I could be miss-remembering something I read long ago in a forgotten book about cargo vessels and shipping manifests.

Cargo vessels had a sort of scaffolding system that allowed the interior space setup to be adjusted for different load types. The tanks had to fit within the predetermined box sizes of the grids these scaffolds could create.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Dubost)
Post #: 26
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 9:07:46 AM   
vonik

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/8/2011
Status: offline 		OK battlevonwar, make a game take Axis and send me a PM .
I base my experience on the fact that I have never lost with Allied so we shall see who is sadly mistaken . Perhaps all my opponents missed something important .

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 27
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 4:45:59 PM   
IrishGuards


Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Maybe sew, well 1 thing is 4 sure.
You will eh'

Maybe I should set up a few games eh'

IG

(in reply to vonik)
Post #: 28
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 5:27:13 PM   
Trump2016

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 8/24/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

It is my thought that we should not be overly focused on actual history. For example, on the issue of US tanks, the Sherman's relatively poor performance against German tanks one-on-one was not really a failure of design, but of doctrine.
Under US doctrine before Pearl Harbor, the primary self-propelled anti-tank weapon was the tank destroyer, not the tank. The Sherman was designed for supporting infantry during the breakthrough and then exploiting the breakthrough. The emphasis was on standardization of parts, reliability of machinery, and cross-country mobility/speed (though wider treads would have been useful in mud).
I would say that an investment in research could be viewed as a significant change in doctrine and the expense of developing new prototypes.


yes, in fact the prototype for the M26 Pershing heavy tank (T20) was actually in place in 1942! if a change in attitude/doctrine had happened sooner, the Pershing could have been fielded in 1944 instead of 1945.

(in reply to Mike Dubost)
Post #: 29
RE: Balancing US research - 4/6/2017 9:51:24 PM   
battlevonwar


Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Great titanic struggle has begun.

The British were still fighting with outdated tank tactics as late as 1942. Allies took awhile to be taught how to use their weapons.

(in reply to Trump2016)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Balancing US research Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.422