Blashy
-
Posts
3,061 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blashy
-
-
Good points EV. Takes were not proficient in what they carried to destroy fortifications or well entrenched forces.
-
Hi Dave! I've informed Hubert that I will gladly beta test if he ever goes iOS. It would be my sole reason for buying an iPad!
I very confident there is a lucrative market for a simplified version of SC. As simple as SC1 in play.
-- See in you in there
-
An iOS simplified back to basics version just using units from the original SC, keeping the game purely on a strategic level.
-
i hope that there will be an option to turn off that you can see these graphs from your contrahent.
they are giving away far too much information for my taste.
perhaps investing in intelligence could give you some insight of this kind...
Agreed, I really don't like that this is giving out so much information, that's what "intelligence" investing should be for...
WAAAAYYYY too much information and not required for this type of game IMO (Strategic).
-
Hi The K Man
Anti-tank upgrades are now incorporated into the upgrade for Infantry Weapons, so it no longer has its own unique slot.
This has freed up a slot which is now used by Anti-Aircraft, so that many units, both land and naval, can now be upgraded with AA. This serves as a potential counter to the power of the Tac Bombers that you mentioned above.
Bill
I see my long ago nag finally made it in, I never liked the addition of AA guns, AA upgrade of units seemed more sensible and made for less clutter on the board.
Same goes for anti-tank unit and TAC bomber (should be an aircraft upgrade instead).
Blashy the minimalist
-
I agree that the whole operating concept of air power needs work, it has been so since SC1.
We just need to find a very very simple way of doing this.
-
Green = Fighter Mode
Yellow = Mixed Mode
Red = Tactical Mode
I suggested a single letter: F, M, T but it was faster for Hubert to simply make it a single ball with those 3 color modes. Works just as well IMO.
-
Yep, modding an earlier start date requires some work to have some historical sense. It is not that easy. Hehe.
BTW, you can easily take Hawaii with the current default start date.
-
Bill101,
Out of curiosity when Pearl Harbor fell to the Japanese in your games did Midway also get invaded and conquered?
Yes in my case, both were taken by my opponent or by me.
-
So...SC needs the flexibility if we're to stray from the Blashy Syndrome of only historically defined transgressions. Its necessary to examine the full extent of "what ifs" and guarantees longevity for SC.
Actually SeaMonkey you have been around long enough to know I am a big proponent of various possibilities, the big push for increased flexibility with diplomacy probably came from me, at least I remember in SC2:Blitzkrieg beta testing continually being the biggest poster (Hubert might say "spammer", hehe) in the beta forums for more options with diplomacy and possibilities ON the board when you do DoW.
I just want it to make historical sense and not totally go into the virtually impossible and my opinion is that peace with Germany was not possible unless it was late 1945 and Germany still held on in some way and asked for an armistice.
To be precise, my opinion of holding on means the following in SC2 terms:
Major Axis Victory for Germany = the following parts still in German hands by December 1945:
Germany is secure (includes Poland), Italy has Rome plus 2 other cities.
Minor Axis Victory: Germany is still alive (includes Poland).
Or the idea that Germany could obtain a nuclear bomb... simply not possible, remember that to this day it is still the most expensive scientific project ever undertaken. Germany was nowhere near having the resources to do what USA did. Ok so not impossible but if the Axis invested in nuclear tech (if it existed) then it would pretty much sink its economy in it and put all its eggs in one basket "hoping" it would be enough to stop the Allies and negotiate peace.
The project also displays USA's economic might, they were severely outproducing the Axis (combined!) by 1941 and they were putting billions in that project. The idea that the Axis could somehow DEFEAT the Allies when they are being outproduced in all areas by everyone as early as 1941 is simply not looking at it from a sheer numbers perspective and I do not believe that having the better commanders (still debatable) would have made a difference because the Allies would have needed to be total idiots to screw up their humongous advantage.
-
Wow,
Also does any one do multiplayer AAR's or is there a forum for that?
I love reading those,I find it gives alot of good insight into games.
You will fin AAR right here! Already a few have been posted, simply look at the forum post history.
And if you ever want to play someone you can post here:
-
IF I had to choose just one... Pacific Theater by a longshot!
-
Blashy, don't so blatantly show your misinformed side, the USA was not at all comfortable with the existance of the British Empire. Greed.....??? American greed?
I think your getting a bit mixed up with current events.Read official government doctrine books pre WW2, even during WW1 and USA had goals on dominating the world in influence. This does not mean comparing them to Nazy Germany in any way.
But yes it does put them in the greedy category just as much as ALL great powers in history have done, USA was already trying to do so in the early 1900s, the wars, especially WW2 gave them the ultimate push in doing so.
UK saw their loss of power throughout the world and they were not about to give Europe to Germany. There was WAY too much at stake for any of them to want peace, the long term consequences of giving in were just to clear... another war and Germany continuing to act like barbarians for certain types of citizens.
The Allies were the good guys in that they liberated countries and let them be. But they used their influence post war in MANY intolerable ways.
I am all for concrete historical possibilities... what if type possibilities, no.
-
Was peace EVERY possible? We can forget UK and Germany agreeing to peace, UK knew full well that not getting it done now only meant loss of influence and more trouble later on.
USA and UK were just as a greedy in keeping their world influence as Germany was in making their own.
-
One gamey aspect I did take advantage of was when faced with Allied landings I usually degraded their strength down to 4 or less and leave them in place. Without supply or support they were no real threat and they kept other stronger, new amphibs from landing. I was thinking the smart thing would have been to disband them and then land the new amphibs, but the AI didn't follow through.
Not sure if this can be addressed but I thought I would reveal such blatant abuse of the system I embarked upon.
Yes that is surely something Hubert is working on. With that said I think in any computer game vs. the AI you will have to keep away from gamey tactics to keep the game challenging.
The day I will not have to do so I will actually be very worried and think ''Terminator / The Matrix", LOL!
-
I prefer to let Hubert answer this. I know he can do a better job than I.
-
Did you consider how much 2-3 amphibious units represent in terms of actual troops in game terms?
Did Japan send THAT many troops fighting in Singapore? If not and if it had then Singapore would have probably fallen much faster.
I always take out Singapore and DEI in one turn, I use a massive armada the likes of which Japan never did, but if it had... many of these countries would have fallen much faster.
Remember Japan did a very poor job pretty much everywhere since they spread out so much, while players will tend to do focused attacks. Any decent player should always succeed in taking out China, but Japan did not historically, is that unhistorical?
Remember that people will probably play Japan MUCH better than how they historically conducted their war in WW2 which IMO was terrible.
-
Welcome aboard!
-
We cannot make them attractive if they tactically had no purpose historically... which they did not.
For both Japan and USA it was political.
We play this game and try to be much smarter about not making the same tactical mistakes the people of the time made. If a player wishes to make them again and take all those worthless islands then let him do so.
But I can not agree that they NEED to be made attractive because historically they were in play by both sides. For Japan it was a pure dumb move by the politicians for no gain whatsoever and for USA it was politicians who were in a hurry for victories in the Pacific at the cost of lives just to look good for the public. All they had to do was keep preparing for an extra 6-12 months and invade islands of value like the Philippines, DEI or Borneo but we know politicians...
The outer islands simply had no military value.
-
I still can not get more than a marginal victory vs. the AI at the hardest setting.
-
Of course you can win as Japan with it on. I am not SC2 elite type player and I can win as Japan vs. the AI at the hardest settings, although I only manage a minor victory every time.
Keep playing with it on, the challenge is greater but you will have more fun as it might take you longer to get to the highest setting vs. the AI.
-
I always play with them ON, but honestly I think I prefer to have it OFF. I find OFF still works because once you go over the limit you start to pay a heavy price for those units which in turn limits your MPPs and thus prevents you from buying other units, so I feel there is a still a force pool because of this BUT if Japan went nuts on tanks then that possibility is there, although they will be weak in other areas.
The same for USA, if it built 12 TAC bombers it would be limited in other areas because those TAC bombers would cost a fortune.
But most players do not see it the way I see it so they prefer having it disabled.
-
If you have 4 subs raiding and Japan is using air power to try and sink them then they are doing a GREAT job. Imagine if that air power was in China or elswhere.
Plus the damage they cause to enemy ships hurts Japan since they have to continually repair.
So in the end the subs are doing their job, costing Japan money in various ways.
-
Originally Posted by bowenw
To make the islands more important one major change could be made by the programmers and that is to use the same system used in prior SC games in the naval conflict, when ships were at sea in the other SC series their supply went down every turn, why not do the same here, this would make the capture of outer islands important for resupply of the US navy warships. Willy
Not a good idea IMO. The islands were not used to resupply ships, they had supply ships doing that.
As I said before, the islands had no military value it was a mistake for Japan to go there and USA simply did it for political reasons.
We have all the history in our hands and so we do not repeat those waste of resources.
Nothing needs changing in the official game.
If someone wants to go into ahistorical territory simply make a mod for it.
I think your getting a bit mixed up with current events.
The only reason I miss Windows at home
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
This game.
iOS would be such a wonderful platform for a basic SC.
Although it seems Hubert is doing pretty well as is.
Really sad they killed playing via virtual console
.