Governments: CivIII is broken

[Ironikinit]

But income can replace shields. I have more money than I need by the modern era. The only hard part is remembering to go build in my corrupt areas.

Libertarian once suggested building stealth fighters and disbanding them in corrupt cities to give them shields. He might've been joking because he was a real smart alec, but it makes good sense once you've got your military where you want it and the city doing the building is maxed to your tech level. I don't know if it makes more sense than building wealth, but they can relocate anywhere.

[Zachriel]

Yes, money is the answer. So everyone is just quibbling over price.

[Zachriel]

Also, turning swords into plowshares is a time honored tradition. Once I am sure my borders are safe, I often disband my offensive units into the new cities to rush Cathedrals and what not.

[DrFell]

Yes, you can disband units, but it's a great loss of shields. Better to upgrade them if they become obsolete or save them for future conquests. Also, why bother building improvements in cities that are going to be unproductive whatever you do (although you can scrape some minimal production from tax collectors, or considerable production from despot rushing) as you'll just be wasting money.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrFell
Yes, you can disband units, but it's a great loss of shields. Better to upgrade them if they become obsolete or save them for future conquests. Also, why bother building improvements in cities that are going to be unproductive whatever you do (although you can scrape some minimal production from tax collectors, or considerable production from despot rushing) as you'll just be wasting money.

Units have a per turn cost. If you don't need them for a while, you should consider disbanding them. If you are disbanding them, then in new cities may be appropriate.

I often force-build Temples and other cultural improvements to help the people accept my rule, and maybe a Courthouse and Police Station for corruption.

Once these initial builds are in place, then over enough time, and with a little help from the central treasury, most towns become quite happy.

[Akka]

The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption.

1 - The USA is 9,3 millions km² large. It's the fourth biggest country in the world, and is roughly three times the size of Europe, which is considered to be a CONTINENT (the smallest, yes, but still big enough to hold many countries among the most powerful in the world).

2 - Take a huge map, Regent level, build all the cities to the propre places, with your capitol in Washington, see the actual REAL corruption. Then, if you consider it LOW...

The corruption is out of hands, why just can't you accept it ?
Sincerely, would ANY OF YOU have voiced "corruption is too low !" if the "ideal number of cities" was, let's say, five times what it's actually ?
Guess you wouldn't even noticed it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
1 - The USA is 9,3 millions km² large. It's the fourth biggest country in the world, and is roughly three times the size of Europe, which is considered to be a CONTINENT (the smallest, yes, but still big enough to hold many countries among the most powerful in the world).

2 - Take a huge map, Regent level, build all the cities to the propre places, with your capitol in Washington, see the actual REAL corruption. Then, if you consider it LOW...

The corruption is out of hands, why just can't you accept it ?
Sincerely, would ANY OF YOU have voiced "corruption is too low !" if the "ideal number of cities" was, let's say, five times what it's actually ?
Guess you wouldn't even noticed it.

1. Europe has an area of 9,938,037 sq mi., about the same size as the U.S., or 1/16th of the total land area of the earth. This is another good example, as no one has successfully united Europe. Indeed, Europeans are struggling to invent a new form of government to accomplish this very goal.

2. Game play is much more relevant, of course. Covering just 1/16 of the land area of the world should not cause undue corruption even on a huge map, especially if you have built the Forbidden Palace. However, if that isn't sufficient, then adjust the values in the editor or play a smaller map.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
1 - The USA is 9,3 millions km² large. It's the fourth biggest country in the world, and is roughly three times the size of Europe, which is considered to be a CONTINENT (the smallest, yes, but still big enough to hold many countries among the most powerful in the world).

Europe is 9.95m km², larger than the USA, although not by much. Its only a continent for political convenience since Eurasia is the true landmass. The North American continent makes up 16.2% of the worlds landmass. On a huge 16 player map this works out about right for the USA as a civ since the continent should be occupied by two large civs with Central America (Mexico) belonging to another.

2 - Take a huge map, Regent level, build all the cities to the propre places, with your capitol in Washington, see the actual REAL corruption. Then, if you consider it LOW...

If you don't like the level of corruption you get with that amount of space for your civ, tweak it. It is, after all, a game mechanic. One designed more to combat the problem of bigger is always better that realistically model efficiency levels around the world. That was of course one of the big flaws in Civ II many of us wanted them to fix. "We" just dont like their answer. In this case, building the Forbidden Palace and moving your other "palace" to efficient locations is part of that answer, even if your true national capital ought to be within sight of the east coast. With Enron in the news daily this isn't a good time for anyone to be touting corruption free democracies either.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


1. Europe has an area of 9,938,037 sq mi., about the same size as the U.S., or 1/16th of the total land area of the earth. This is another good example, as no one has successfully united Europe. Indeed, Europeans are struggling to invent a new form of government to accomplish this very goal.

2. Game play is much more relevant, of course. Covering just 1/16 of the land area of the world should not cause undue corruption even on a huge map, especially if you have built the Forbidden Palace. However, if that isn't sufficient, then adjust the values in the editor or play a smaller map.

May I ask what Map size you play your civ games? [All mine are Huge]

I am beginning to suspect you play most of your games on a smaller map.. ??

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
May I ask what Map size you play your civ games? [All mine are Huge] I am beginning to suspect you play most of your games on a smaller map.. ??

I've played all map types at various times, though I prefer standard as the best for playability. I have never finished a huge map due to time constraints, though I did control up to 1/3 of the map.

Nevertheless, if you insist on conquering the world with brute force, you cannot expect everyone to be cooperative. Most of your production will come from the core of your empire. For example, during WWII slave labor in France never really produced much of value. Much that was produced was inferior, or worse sabotaged, and that was right next door to Germany. If they had succeeded in holding onto Easter Europe, production would have been nil for at least a generation, maybe longer. Meanwhile, nearly all the military units had to be produced in the German industrial heartland.

The empires you are trying to build are bigger than anything ever built in history. Corruption and cultural flips are models used to represent the difficulty involved in controlling a large empire. The largest empire in recent history, the Soviet Union, just collapsed, in large part due to corruption and the surrounding cultural powerhouses. Civ3 is not meant to be an easy game.

I am not against changes to Civ3; I just think it is playable as it is, though you are free to edit many features of the game if you want.

On the other hand, anybody who can finish a game on huge is definitely a committed player and deserves to have their opinion heard.

[player1]

That should be nice explanation for introducing different corruption for foreign citizens.

But it won't explain why should your distant city have high corruption just because it's far away form capitol.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I've played all map types at various times, though I prefer standard as the best for playability. I have never finished a huge map due to time constraints, though I did control up to 1/3 of the map.

Nevertheless, if you insist on conquering the world with brute force, you cannot expect everyone to be cooperative. Most of your production will come from the core of your empire. For example, during WWII slave labor in France never really produced much of value. Much that was produced was inferior, or worse sabotaged, and that was right next door to Germany. If they had succeeded in holding onto Easter Europe, production would have been nil for at least a generation, maybe longer. Meanwhile, nearly all the military units had to be produced in the German industrial heartland.

The empires you are trying to build are bigger than anything ever built in history. Corruption and cultural flips are models used to represent the difficulty involved in controlling a large empire. The largest empire in recent history, the Soviet Union, just collapsed, in large part due to corruption and the surrounding cultural powerhouses. Civ3 is not meant to be an easy game.

I am not against changes to Civ3; I just think it is playable as it is, though you are free to edit many features of the game if you want.

On the other hand, anybody who can finish a game on huge is definitely a committed player and deserves to have their opinion heard.

Ko's reply:
Had Hitler stuck to the methodical phased plan described as described in Case Bleu for the Wehrmacht's 1942 summer campaign the Germans/Nazis could easily have won the second world war.

July 1942 is the turning point - if Germany can conquer the Caucasus it will deliver a fatal blow to the Soviet Union, without the 90 million tonnes of annual production of oil from Baku and the other oil fields Russia is finished.

Granted, the Germans could not have used the conquered oil wells straight away - more likely they would have to drill new ones. But simply their reduced losses in the East of manpower and material transform the war - Germany gets geometrically stronger as Russia collapses.

All Germanies War production programmes, especially the high tech ones like the V-1, V-2, Me-262, Type 23 U-boats would have been increased in size, and occur earlier in the war.

Germany can abandon obsolete fighter production earlier, and standardise on the better FW-190 instead of a version of the BF-109. The Me-262 would have appeared in Thousands, then finally tens of thousands.

Instead of losing control of airspace over Germany and occupied France, the Luftwaffe can threaten UK airspace itself.

Forget D-day, Britain could well have been literally starved into submission by a near total U-Boat blockade. If Britain falls, its the US that will be fearing a German Nuclear attack by 1945.

If the US sues for Peace after a German conquest of the UK, then the nightmare of a 1000 year Third Reich would have become a reality.

Then you would have seen what a high tech country could do with the total suspension of moral restrictions on treatment of the conquered eastern areas.

I honestly think the Nazis would have nerve gassed any partisan resistance, maybe whole conquered russian cities [it chills the blood to ice just to contemplate it] - their expansion over the next 50 years would have been simply staggering. I think the US would have been facing a gigantic opponent by 2000 - maybe a German population of one billion plus.

One launguage, one culture (however evil), one Nation. Nationalism, THATS the glue that can hold an empire like that together, combined with modern technology.

Your comment that I am trying to construct an empire that is bigger than anything in human history is correct. But don't forget we are talking about a history in which the ruthless aggressor was twice defeated by the democratic governments of the world, in WWI and WWII.

In neither war was the eventual outcome a forgone conclusion.

If an empire is composed 100% of the same nationality, I will make the statement that it can grow to a country of virtually unlimited size - if there is no competition for space, and the empire has sufficient technology to solve the physical and infomation communication problems.

Its Europe's petty little Nations that will frustrate the ambitions of those who believe in a "Euroland."

If Civ III wants to slow expansion, it should ban advanced goverments from raising enemy cities in war. Bombardment yes, but wiping out to the last population point? no way!

If you then make multinational cities unproductive - realistic I think, there is always a lot of tension, then a Democracy cannot really expand by launching a war of conquest. Its a waste of time - which is why Democracies dont do it.

But war weariness in a democracy in a defensive war - that is totally wrong. Just put in the realistic moral limitations for a Democratic gov at war.

That way, there can be many early wars in Civ III, while primitive govs are still arround, but once players change to higher govs theire is much less point to starting wars, correct??

Nations may even choose to make peacefull trade for vital raw materials, rather than risk a revolution to a primitive gov. just to gain space and those resources, IF the corruption level for high govs was more realistic, because the remaining democracies would speed ahead in tech.

The only exception to this is if you allow facism (see gory details above) into the game, then massive and late wars could easily occur.

I think that is much more realistic than the position of your Capital/F.C., as a game mechanism, trying to stop expansion by insanely high corruption.

By the way good luck to you on your standard map games, bet thats going to be good practice for a MP version if it comes out :-)

[Zachriel]

I think you are right for the most part. Hitler would have had a huge slave population. Production outside of Germany would plummet as they killed all the brave, the wise, the intellectuals, the stubborn, the minorities, the "defectives," the Jews, the Gypsies, the Communists, and the labor organizers. So you have made an excellent case for the Civ3 corruption model.

However, these billion people would certainly not be Germans. Indeed, the Nazis were an exclusive club and had no desire to assimiliate inferior races. Restless ethnic populations would make the empire unstable. It would probably break apart once Hitler died.

Your idea to prevent the razing of cities by democracies deserves consideration, but democracies have committed genocide in the past, for instance against the Native populations in the Americas.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Grumbold
On a huge 16 player map this works out about right for the USA as a civ since the continent should be occupied by two large civs with Central America (Mexico) belonging to another.

Hey! Them's fightin words, eh.

The proper statement would be that there is a Mexican and a Canadian civ. Border is somewhere around Texas/Southern CA.

54:40. We fought. We're here.

As for Europe, Just the Romans should do. No need for all the pretenders.

Salve

[DrFell]

'Units have a per turn cost. If you don't need them for a while, you should consider disbanding them. If you are disbanding them, then in new cities may be appropriate.'

I'm usually fighting 80-90% of the game, so I don't need to worry about that.

[Deathwalker]

I personally believe that war warriness is way to powerful in the game. In the real world republics and democracy's have been able to fight wars without the goverment totally collapsing. I think that this feature though an interesting one should not be in the game or have it's effects greatley reduced to the point of being more realastic
I mean even in a back example Vietnam, the US republic did not fall to a Monachy, and in every other war WWI, WWII, Gulf War and others the US was able to fight those wars.
War warriness is way to powerful in the game and should be lowerred to a more realistic level or taken out.

[Grumbold]

If war weariness was weaker then you'd have no need for any modern government other than Democracy since it would be more efficient to build units in the core, ship them to the frontiers and disband than opt for the level-waste Communism. Its not perfectly realistic but it gets the job done. If it had to be changed I'd rather see shields and income being lost directly to war weariness than have all the hassle of juggling heads to manage escalating unhappiness.

Notyoueither: Hehe, strictly by %landmass, North America would hold 2 Civs and South America would hold 2 Civs that extended up about as far as Mexico to make their sizes equal. Unless you're playing a mod with new civs, none of them can be the Canadians or Texans

Europe should certainly all belong to one Civ, but with random placement thats just as likely to be the Chinese as the Romans

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Deathwalker
I personally believe that war warriness is way to powerful in the game. In the real world republics and democracy's have been able to fight wars without the goverment totally collapsing. I think that this feature though an interesting one should not be in the game or have it's effects greatley reduced to the point of being more realastic
I mean even in a back example Vietnam, the US republic did not fall to a Monachy, and in every other war WWI, WWII, Gulf War and others the US was able to fight those wars.
War warriness is way to powerful in the game and should be lowerred to a more realistic level or taken out.

Who said you couldn't fight wars as a democracy? I fight wars as democracy all the time. If the war is very long, then the people tend to be unhappy, but they'll fight. The U.S. involvement in WWII was less than four years. The U.S. involvement in WWI even less.

War weariness is not "too powerful." There are plenty of ways in the game to combat the problem, including that cool slider bar used to adjust luxuries.

[Akka]

I for once agree with Zachriel : I fight all the time as democracy/republic, as I nearly only use these governments (I love too much this trade bonus).
Though the war weariness can be troublesome sometimes, I can usually fight all my wars with it. Not only I think this is a rather accurate concept, but I think too that it's the only thing that prevent democracy to be a uber-government, and that even with it, democracy is hugely efficient.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I for once agree with Zachriel :

Oh no! I must be losing my touch. Is it too late to change my mind?

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I think you are right for the most part. Hitler would have had a huge slave population. Production outside of Germany would plummet as they killed all the brave, the wise, the intellectuals, the stubborn, the minorities, the "defectives," the Jews, the Gypsies, the Communists, and the labor organizers. So you have made an excellent case for the Civ3 corruption model.

However, these billion people would certainly not be Germans. Indeed, the Nazis were an exclusive club and had no desire to assimiliate inferior races. Restless ethnic populations would make the empire unstable. It would probably break apart once Hitler died.

Your idea to prevent the razing of cities by democracies deserves consideration, but democracies have committed genocide in the past, for instance against the Native populations in the Americas.

Ko's reply:
Para one.
Indeed Hitler would have had a large population of salves in the east. For about 5 years, then he could easily have wiped out the remainder left out from your list above. The Nazis planned the eventual extermination of the entire slavic group of nations.

Russia would have ceased to exist by 1960. Wiped out by starvation, shooting and large quantities of non-persistant nerve agent. (The Nazis invented nerve gas)

With Nazi policies on child birth, I dont think a population growth rate of 5% would have been difficult to maintain for a totalitarian government of that determination to physically build their "Manifest Destiny" to dominate the entire continent of Europe.

Germany had a population of 80,000,000 in 1939. If the Nazis had won the war, and wiped out Russia, a 5% Growth rate gives them a population of over 1.17 Billion by 2000. If there is enough empty space, such growth could be maintained for 55 years (from 1945 to 2000).

As these Germans replaced the Slavonic peoples in the east, production in these places would start low for sure, but sky rocket eventually as the population grows. Nerve gas leaves buildings intact use, so some of the basic buildings could be re-used immediately.

There would be corruption higher than a democracy of course, but the idea that Hitlerburg (ex-Moscow) would be any slower in Tank production in 1970 than a city in the Ruhr due to 90% waste is just silly.


Para 2.
Oh and ALL of this 1.17 Bilion would be 100% German. All the restless ethnics would be dead. Simple and brutal.

Even with a lower science coefficient than the US, on a per-city basis, the greater population and unlimited access to resources would eventually put that Democracy in the shade.

Para 3:
While its true that the US did persue a policy on its western frontier that amounted to, to put it crudely, Genocide, I dont think the Native Americans (on the Northern continent above the Rio Grande anyway) ever really got as far as building a city as such. Hunter-gathering peoples are rairly in one spot long enough to build permanent settlements.

Yes an American republic savaged the Indians, but to be cruel the Indians were like so much vacuum in comparison to the European Americans, at least in number, technology, city building and military power.

In Civ III terms they would just be bands of roaming Barbarians.

So I stick to the Idea of a Democracy being banned from raising cities after occupation of an enemy city by ground troups.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Canada is a good example, because as you know, it is having troubles just staying in one piece due to the Quebec separatist movement.

This is a very poor example because separatists in Qubec are very close to the capital but loyalists in B.C. and Alberta are very far from the capital. So it seems like the problem is not distance from the capital but the presence of another cultural group in some Canadian cities.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
Ko's reply:
With Nazi policies on child birth, I dont think a population growth rate of 5% would have been difficult to maintain for a totalitarian government of that determination to physically build their "Manifest Destiny" to dominate the entire continent of Europe.

Sounds like a lot of "what ifs."

Though it is interesting to ponder, the principle of warfare still indicates that defense is easier than offense, and that armies will overextend themselves at some point. Supply lines for the Germans in WWII were already to the breaking point from the moment they entered Russia.

Generally, gunpowder and explosive weapons gives the ability of civilian populations to make attackers pay for every inch of ground they take. A small country like Germany can only control so much territory, and only for so long. Don't believe me. Ask them.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Sounds like a lot of "what ifs."

Though it is interesting to ponder, the principle of warfare still indicates that defense is easier than offense, and that armies will overextend themselves at some point. Supply lines for the Germans in WWII were already to the breaking point from the moment they entered Russia.

Generally, gunpowder and explosive weapons gives the ability of civilian populations to make attackers pay for every inch of ground they take. A small country like Germany can only control so much territory, and only for so long. Don't believe me. Ask them.

Ko's reply:-
line one: Of course, but the issue is are they consistant, logical and well argued based on good knowledge of Military history, Nazi policies, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Wehrmact/Waffen SS v Red Army.

I let others judge based on other posts in the thread.

As for paragraph two, first line. Militia and Civilians armed in a rush can only survive against a well organised army for a limited period of time in areas like large Cities (Steel reinforced concrete helps reduce the effect of medium artillery and channel the attacker)

A Molotov cocktail can be effective in street fighting (if used to ambush a channeled attacking AFV from above or behind) but try using it in open country like the featureless Steppe common in the Ukraine and other parts of southern Russia. Your head will get blown off by MG34 quicker than you can raise an arm.

The central reason for the German defeat in WWII is Germanies low tank production versus the Soviet Union. This only truly began to tell after the German defeat at Stalingrad and the Cacausus in Winter 1942/43.

If germany had stuck to "Bleu" they would have taken Stalingrad in a pincer movement between army group 'A' (Sixth Army) and 'B' 4th and 1st Panzerarmee. Then the way to Astrakhan and the Volga delta (severs all soviet land communication with Baku and isolates all the soviet troops in the Caucasus) is open.

This leaves something like 500,000 soviet troops isolated in a large pocket. Army group 'B' can wipe it out at its leisure.

With that victory, Baku and the oil wells are doomed to fall into Hitlers lap.

Once that 90 million tonnes of oil production is lost to russia, she is finished. T-34's and Migs cannot run without the fuel refined from Caucasus oil.

Russian final defeat follows with Germany's summer offensive in 1943, since the red Armie remaining mobile forces are immobilised without fuel after the limited reserves are gone.

And as for line two in that paragraph, well of course they say that now, because we are talking about a future in which Germany through away a winning position in July 1942.

And small countries can grow into superpowers, ask someone from the USA ;-)

The 13 colonies were a weak little country to begin with in 1776, but MY how you've grown :-)

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
line one: Of course, but the issue is are they consistant, logical and well argued based on good knowledge of Military history, Nazi policies, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Wehrmact/Waffen SS v Red Army.

Is there a publication where can we find this hypothetical sequence of events discussed in detail and backed up by careful historical analysis?

[Zachriel]

If you say so, but real life tends to be a lot more complicated than that. Germany was probably doomed the minute they attacked Russia, probably sooner. Once America entered the war, the Germans could never produce enough fast enough to compete.

And best of all, megalomanics make lots of mistakes.

[JohnE]

Originally posted by Zachriel

The empires you are trying to build are bigger than anything ever built in history. Corruption and cultural flips are models used to represent the difficulty involved in controlling a large empire. The largest empire in recent history, the Soviet Union, just collapsed, in large part due to corruption and the surrounding cultural powerhouses. Civ3 is not meant to be an easy game.

I am not against changes to Civ3; I just think it is playable as it is, though you are free to edit many features of the game if you want.

On the other hand, anybody who can finish a game on huge is definitely a committed player and deserves to have their opinion heard.

I just had a thought.

I get the impression that many of the people complaining about corruption tend to play on larger maps. For the optimal city limits to make sense, they need to be higher for larger maps, and they should probably be in direct proportion to the increased land area. I don't think they are in such proportion, but I will check at home later.

[copcartman]

I think most problems with the civ-games originates from the board-game foundation they build upon. Rules have incrementally been added to the simple core game (whatever game inspired civ 1) to give more and more complexity to it. It would probably be a more realistic/correct game if the ones who made the game had started with the real world and then simplified.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel
If you say so, but real life tends to be a lot more complicated than that. Germany was probably doomed the minute they attacked Russia, probably sooner. Once America entered the war, the Germans could never produce enough fast enough to compete.

And best of all, megalomanics make lots of mistakes.

Ko's reply:
What you are overlooking is that the Nazis had a large initial base of War Material/mobilised trained troops in comparison to the US.

It took considerable time for th US to Harness that Idustrial potential. The balencing point of the war occurs in July 42- well before the US is truely producing enough to tip the balence.

You are also forgeting casualties - if the Germans can knock out russia by summer 43, all the casualties/destroyed resources saved each month count as a + to Germanies war output for future months.

If Germany wins in the east, all the air power in from the Eastern front moves to the western front. That airpower potects Germanies U-boat fleet - the result: the Western allies loose the battle of the Atlantic.

When the Western allies try the Mustang P-51, the Germans are ready with the Me-262.

So much for US production, by the time its ready so is Admiral Doenitz.
Game over.

No: it takes all three Allied powers to defeat the Nazis, if one of the Allies gets K.O.'ed early the outcome of the war will be very different.

And the point about Megalomania: Indeed, but the O.K.W. Plan called "case Bleu" actually existed, if he had chosen to execute it methodically after July 1942 then a new dark age would have come to pass. Made longer by the dark power of perverted science.

As for argueing that the Germans were doomed on June 23rd 1941, the day after they attacked the Soviet Union? All I can say is study the Military history carefully - you will think differently.

The US entry into the war puts a time limit on Germany to knock out the Russians, yes, but by itself it does NOT decide the war.

Stalingrad and the previous six months on the eastern front, in combination with the previous US entry do decide the war.

Dont belive the simplified waffle of Journalists and Hollywood; always look at the history yourself.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Is there a publication where can we find this hypothetical sequence of events discussed in detail and backed up by careful historical analysis?

No- you have to do it on your own by reading lots of WWII Military history, and look at the tank production figures for Germany v the soviet Union. This proves Germany is on a time limit.

Albert Speer's book on his experiences as Hiter's armaments minister is a must read.

But here is a clue: compare the number of divisions in Army group south in July 1942, and compare it with Nov.19th 1942. Look closely at what happened to the deployment of armoured and motorised divisions, the fate of Von Mansteins11th Army, and lastly the deployment of Germanies reserve of super-heavy Artillery.

Then you can see it: The Germans have a winning position in Early July 1942, if "Bleu" is followed through. Of course this can only be IMHO, but it still gives you a shock to see it.