Jump to content

Bill101

Members
  • Content Count

    2,932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bill101

  1. I've signed up, and am ready to take on any opponents. Send me an email if you're up for it. Bill
  2. Dragonheart and others, I agree about how the Operational Art of War easily got tiresome. Ease of play is the key, and SC and PG both have it, which is why I hope SC2 won't be too much different. I like a fun game that is simple to play when one gets home tired from work. Bill
  3. When I first discovered SC it was like "Wow, this is the one scenario I always wished PG had - managing the whole of the european war". Another game SC reminded me of was the Operational Art of War, which had a similar air combat method to the one SC has, rather than the unrealistic PG method. Actually some of those missions in PG were very hard against the AI - such as Anvil (as Axis), and Kharkov (as Russian), through the sheer weight of the AI's force, and as a result they were my favourite scenarios. I look forward to SC2 encompassing the whole of world war II. Hint, hint! Bill
  4. This raises the interesting question of railways. Does anyone know if there were any in Italian North Africa, whether before or after the war? The British built a railway to supply their campaign against the Mahdists in the Sudan in the 1890s, so 40-50 years later it shouldn't have been beyond the Italians to have built one. Or was it? Could a railway have made all the difference in the African campaign? Bill
  5. Giving Rommel two more divisions would only have been useful if the extra logistical support could also have been provided. Otherwise it would have been a waste. Another good book I'd recommend is Martin Van Creveld's Supplying War, which discusses the effect logistics has had on strategy (focussing on the period from the Thirty Years War until 1945). Logistics is a neglected subject, and Creveld's book is a useful reminder of it's importance (it's also a more interesting book than one might have expected). Bill
  6. Ritter Von Leeb wrote a good book on Defense which is based on First World War experiences, and is available in volume 3 of the Roots of Strategy series. Basically he believed in an active and flexible defense while the army prepared its own offensive. Sensible ideas really. One of his colleagues, Marshal List, once commented that if he smiled it would have cracked his face. Judging by the picture, List seems to have been correct! Bill
  7. On second thoughts I also think anti-aircraft corps would be a mistake, as the scale is wrong. To defend an adjacent hex the AA guns would need an enormous range, thus this is a little too unrealistic. However, I have been thinking that perhaps instead of anti-tank research, the corps and armies could benefit from Heavy Weapons research. This would boost up not only their anti-tank capabilities but also their anti-aircraft factors too. Possibly others aswell?
  8. I agree with some of this, but 9 options seems a bit too much. Core units could be: 1) engineers (also able to make fortifications, slowly and expensively). 2) paratroops (potentially suffering heavy losses on landing - the kind of unit that needs to be relieved in the same turn, otherwise the enemy will destroy it). 3) anti-aircraft. Perhaps only available once Anti-aircraft radar level 3 is reached. But the problem is - would the raider be fired at by this unit, or intercepted by fighters, or both? I'm not so keen on: 1) Marines. I already use Corps for this role, and am always pleased when I can capture something and still escape afterwards. 2) Supply. If we created a supply corps then HQs would be devalued. 3) Motorised Corps. Corps are already more mobile than armies, and an armoured group would in reality contain panzer grenadiers/motorised infantry etc., so I don't think a separate unit would be necessary. 4) As to mobile artillery - it would be great if we could have rockets with extra mobility! For me, rockets are SC's heavy artillery - at least once they're developed to have more than a few hexes range. There's no reason why rockets couldn't have a little extra mobility once they've been researched to say, level 3. Bill
  9. Just a few of my thoughts... My preferences for research at the beginning are: anti-tank anti-aircraft jets I believe that the anti-aircraft research is unconventional, but I like it because it leads to higher Luftwaffe casualties when they are attacking your cities, thus making things slightly easier for your own air force. It is also an improvement that doesn't make things more expensive. As to strategy, sacrifice Corps defending cities to gain time for your better units to gather strength further back. Only defend western Russia strongly if the Axis player is very weak in the east. Be prepared to give up ground, and don't think that the loss of Moscow and Leningrad is necessarily decisive - it isn't. Never give up hope. Launch counter-attacks with care, as unless they are carried out in very favourable circumstances and are also limited in scope then they can easily go wrong. Until you have HQs you are generally at a disadvantage in mobile warfare. Above all - have fun! I love the eastern front in this game. Bill
  10. Kuniworth is right. Such an action would probably make the minor axis powers more likely to side with Germany. However, perhaps it could be set according to the speed with which the allies conquer Spain. For example: Allies conquer Spain in 3 or less moves - Romania and Hungary don't join the Axis as they are overawed by the allied victory. However, should Spain still be fighting on the 4th turn, then the minor axis powers should automatically join the Axis alliance. How's that for a compromise solution? Or do you think Terif that the rule has been made for the sake of balance? In which case maybe it is correct? Bill
  11. Bill101

    PBEM List

    Here's mine: Bill.run@ntlworld.com
  12. I like playing PBEM - both SC and Combat Mission, and can handle a few games at a time. I also guarantee that I won't disappear if I'm losing. Bill
  13. Hello Having experienced people conceding on me a number of times, I'd like to say that while I wouldn't necessarily deny people the right to do so, what has been frustrating about it is spelt out in rule II. In addition, I couldn't always see that my opponent was losing. It all boils down to the player's morale, and conceding is fine when you're really about to lose, but when the enemy are still hundreds of miles from your capital then it is bad form. To have an opponent concede simply because they FEEL that they are losing, robs the game of it's pleasure. I've suffered probably the worst, most humiliating defeat ever as Axis, failing to even conquer France, but I had great fun trying to defend Germany from the Allied counter-attack in 1941. As Axis, I'd say that it's fine to concede once Germany has surrendered and only minor allies are left. As Allies, once the UK and Russia have fallen. But if you're losing, perhaps you should ask your opponent's opinion before conceding. Generally I think that we learn best when we are in a tough situation, outnumbered and with the enemy banging on our door. If you don't want to do so badly next time, then I'd recommend fighting on to the bitter end. Bill
  14. I've tried to too against the AI, and it does work. However, I'm not convinced that it would work against a moderately experienced human player, because the simple solution is for the Italians to put a holding force in the west, and send everything else available into Germany. The problem with the strategy is that the Allies are likely to invest too much in the invasion, and if it fails badly then Sealion will be viable. Still worth a try though, but it is a gamble. If anyone wants to play it as PBEM with me, fire away an email to Bill.run@ntlworld.com. Bill
  15. I'm currently playing a game where my Italian fleet has built up good experience attacking a Free French Corps that was placed in Malta. I think that the Allied player should keep their Air Fleet in Malta for a few turns, gaining experience by attacking Italian strategic targets, and then just operate it out as soon as they get the feeling that the might of the Luftwaffe is about to be turned on Malta. Losing Malta without a fight isn't as bad as losing a decent air unit with it, or letting the Italian navy gain huge experience battering their heads against it. Besides, as long as Malta is allied, the 5 MPPs can be lost by Italian submarine attacks, so overall it's no more expensive to give the place up when the time comes. Bill
  16. Hello I think the lack of a port in Ireland, while a pain, is also realistic in a certain way. Considering Irish history, no one could conquer it and then leave it ungarrisoned (though this really should apply to most countries). Ireland is still worth taking - but only land one corps to take the place. Have fun. Bill
  17. I'm trying to work out how to send my naval units via south africa to Suez. I've stuck about 5 naval units in various places both on and underneath the little red arrows to the west of africa, and at least 15 turns later they are still there, and when I click on them no option comes up to move them to Suez. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a correct place to put them? or should I reinstall Version 1.06. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...