<t>In the '43 scenario I've noticed that when I check the Southern Front (Italy) appears a message that says about<br/>
"Allied and naval strength makes position untenable"<br/>
and in effect whatever units I put in it, it shatter soon.<br/>
After a shatter or two the message disappear and it seems ...

Sorry, it was a test I made just for fun some months ago just for curiosity, because I and my friends have agreed that sending the Finnish Army ravaging in all Russia is not fair play anyway.
Maybe it was only a lucky (or unlucky) circumstance, I've made only one test.

<t>I'm not totally sure at this, but in a test I've made in blizzard '41 a german panzer korps with 3 pz div and other units (CV about 80 at the time), entrenched, has shattered 3 times under the same attack, repeated from a saved game, at odds about 50:1. <br/>
The 4° time in the german turn I've ...

<t>For my experience, special supply must be used only in attack (or in defence if you don't think to be attacked next turn).<br/>
For reasons I don't understand, I've often seen units well entrenched and powerful shatter under attack if I used special supply on them, when repeating the turn with ...

<t>I think to have the same problem, I've tried to download from Matrix Site but received the message:<br/>
<br/>
"User anonymous cannot log in."<br/>
<br/>
I'm a registered member and I've never received this message before. <br/>
I can download the same files from the other sources, but for the ...

No, not so strange, in Spring '42 the Soviets had less than half tanks than in '41.
The problem is that if you play from '41, or you don't lose so much tanks, or the game replace the losses too speedy (probably both).

<t>Hi Paul<br/>
I've appreciated very much your last upgrade (5.2), I think that now the proper use of support weapons for infantry assaults/defence is much better portrayed. If you want send me the 5.3 patch I'll be happy, but I can wait for the official release, no problem here.<br/>
I've never ...

<t>Great job with the German OOB, really!<br/>
In particular I've appreciated the idea of the infantry platoon HQ in a separate slot, it makes much more realistic the deployment of the platoon: It would be nice extend this modify to all infantry platoons in the game.<br/>
Only an observation: I use ...

<t>In my games as a russian, I empty the RVGK of new units as soon as possible because I think that otherwise next turn I receive less reinforcements due to the limit of the HQ capacity (25 units I think). For the same cause, I don't assign any lower HQ to RVGK.<br/>
I keep its replacement level to ...

I think that in game terms the PzIIIj with the 50/42 is considered equivalent to the PzIIIh.
In effect, while the difference in armor is small, the power of the gun is increased significantly.

<t>I put the fighters on Escort in my turn if the bombers must accomplish a mission where there are enemy fighters, and put them in CAP just before the phase of combat (so they are not halved in defensive battles).<br/>
If I'm sure that no enemy air opposition is around (german '41...) I prefer put ...

<t>Hi Mist<br/>
<br/>
I have collected the information on italian aircraft production:<br/>
1940: 3250<br/>
1941: 3500<br/>
1942: 2800<br/>
1943: 1000+(?)<br/>
These numbers are comprehensive of all types, included those never used in battle because too obsolete/unreliable, such as a fighter totally ...

<t>Yes, this is the same conclusion I had reached.<br/>
My idea of reducing (for game purposes) initial production works only for the first year, in '42 the factories have growth already too much.<br/>
The simplest solution that I can think is: instead of reducing the output of the factories at ...

<t>Yes, it has been a very good idea.<br/>
But I intended to apply it to the random plot, to simulate the ability of the attacker in coordinate his units and the use of small reserves by the defender for disrupt the enemy advance, to compensate for the absence of countermanouver by the defender ...

<t>Hey, this is a great idea! (randomize plotting I say).<br/>
On the realism side, all the wargames suffer from too much control by the player. Even at operational level, the real problem for the generals was not to lay the plan, but make it work. Any sort of thing happened to delay or even cancel ...

I forget to say a thing:
I agree with you that initial production is probably OK, my suggestion of reducing it was only for compensate for the too rapid growth, as you guessed. Even for the Germans, the production rate began to grow rapidly only with Speer.

<t>Sorry but my only real, compact source of italian tank production is the manual of Advanced Squad Leader (if you don't know it it's a tactical wargame of the Avalon Hill).<br/>
I have read hard data on production in many books written by Italian writers, which substantially confirm that in ASL ...

<t>I did not want to criticize you. Your ideas for Smolensk and Minsk are correct. I wanted to say that some ahistorical results in a point are balanced in game terms (not historical terms) by ahistorical result in other places.<br/>
I agree that very often the game ends in a draw with the Germans ...

<t>It's true that in the long run a war of attrition dooms the Axis, and that if you don't win decisively in '42 is very very difficult to win at all.<br/>
But the problem for me is that also for the Allies reach Berlin in Summer '45 is very hard. Of course this is only a gamey problem, because if ...

<t>To Mist:<br/>
BTW, your production numbers are correct if you don't take in consideration the growth of the factories until december, otherwise the total is much greater than 4,500.<br/>
I think the values of the factories at start should be much smaller for compensate the rapid growth (in the ...