Jump to content

Bluestew

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bluestew

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 08/25/1963

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.gridcogames.com

Converted

  • Location
    Columbus, OH
  • Interests
    Strategy gaming & flying fixed wing aircraft.
  • Occupation
    Government
  1. Rambo has been banned and can't read this. Could a mod lock or delete this thread?
  2. Hubert, I assumed as much. Figured it was a balancing design decision. Not having anywhere near the experience with the game as others, I'm unable to offer other ideas at this time. I still find paddling the AV canoes irritating.
  3. I got the impression that Hubert wasn't changing the research lottery until he made a new engine. Am I wrong? I hope that I am. I just finished a game where it was 1946 before the USSR got a single advance in AT despite having a minimum of 1 research chit in that since the 3rd or 4th turn of the game. That type of thing just frosts my tookus.
  4. Here here! I was trying to relate actual military experience, training and study to Hubert when I told him that tactical airpower was far too powerful in this game. I also don't like how air units clog the lines for the ground pounders. The betas and really experienced players fall back on the idea that this is just a game, not a simulation and that is ok and true. However, I STILL feel air power is waaaaaay too powerful in this particular game. When I PBEM, I will try some of the house rules suggested. One other thing, does the nerfed speed of AV units bug anyone else? While they did have speacialized ships, they didn't really sail landing craft across the Pacific. They loaded off of shipping assets. Granted some of the specialized ships didn't have battle fleet speed but it wouldn't take them 4 months to sail from India to Australia. I'll have to check to see if I can mod the AV speed. I find it very annoying as is. Still learning all the nuances and work-a-rounds. Still enjoying myself so I don't want any SC groupies to think I'm pooh-poohing the game as a whole.
  5. I can assure you that my London port issue did not meet those specs. I had all adjaent tiles for at least a couple turns before the port switched. I remember it so well because my supply situation was troubling until it switched for no reason. I wasn't advancing, just holding in place. I'll see I still have a save, however if not, I'll attempt to duplicate the situation for you wth a fresh game. BTW, this was in AOE not the standard scenario.
  6. True but operate is greyed out if you don't have sufficient MPPs
  7. Ludi, I'm right there with you being confused about port control results sometimes. In a recent SeaLion assault, I owned London and all adjacent land tiles but the port remained allied. Two turns later the port just switched to axis control for no apparent reason. Also as you explained, I've noticed other occassional port control issues but don't remember them in detail enough to post.
  8. Yup, I noticed the same thing when I did the tutorial. I'm pleased the manual is being corrected for future newbies.
  9. Aww darn, you're fixing all our exploits. Juuust kidding.
  10. I'll host any "legal" SC-GC files on my servers until the repository is back up. Anyone needing a mod hosted until that time should contact me and I'll provide you instructions.
  11. I've launched Sea Lion twice. First time was a miserable failure and caused the USA and the USSR to DOW me. I had to give up te attack on the UK to bolster the eastern front. Thankfully the Russians weren't really geared up for war and I was able to slam the door on them. I never progressed far into the USSR but was able to keep them weak via attrition to their battle strength. The second time is still in progress and I've taken London. I have total domination of sea and air so it is just a matter of time to mop up the island.
  12. Way too much whining in the above reply. If you can't tolerate reading feedback, stay out of the thread. Hubert encourages feedback, just the way it is. Customer input has always been part of business.
  13. There is already a thread for this. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91734
  14. My issue with the convoy system is that it is partially abstracted and partially physical. No physical convoys yet the units attacking the invisible convoys are actually on the map. There is no way to protect the invisible convoys but to cover the huge convoy lanes with battle assets. It should be all or nothing in either direction. I would accept either design decision as long as it was uniform.
  15. Exactly what I've been saying. And XWorm, on that level 0 Soviet DD, I don't know what it's supply was but both my level 3 subs were at 9 supply and they still lost the battle. I replayed it and it turned into a 9-8 exchange with the Soviet DD still winning. When I was UK, my L0 destroyers were repeatedly slaughtered by L2 subs. Scook, if you look back, you'll see that I suggested a "no suprise" option for destroyers moving and encountering subs. I also suggested that when the subs are doing the attacking, that there would be no change. In addition, I suggested that the chance for the subs to dive away be increased if the "no surpise" option was implemented. I believe it would be a more entertaining and realistic "sub hunt" aspect for the game. Also Hubert, after finishing another game I have to say that the research lottery is creeping up from #3 on my irritant list. It is at least #2 and possibly #1 now. I was the Axis and it was mid 1943 before I got my first advance in tanks and it was ugly in the east.
×
×
  • Create New...