Jump to content

willebra

Members
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willebra

  1. Thanx again Terif. Still, when defending in Russia (and at a disadvantage), you will need to form defensive lines behind rivers etc. Not too many hq's. Not too much possibilities to move the troops due to hq-assignment: so you'll be moving only the hq. Sometimes it's hard to determine the outcome.
  2. Thanks Terif for the reply! The exception regarding new units really explains things. Regarging HQ-assignment: Is there any way to determine how are the HQ's assigned to units when there are over 5 units within range. Ok, they are assigned by range, but let's say there are three units within two hexes and seven within three hexes. Which units of the last four units (at a range of three hexes) receive the assignment? (This becomes more complicated if several HQ's are within range, but has anybody figured out a rule for how this works for one HQ? E.g. hexes are scanned in number order, or something.) [ September 15, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: willebra ]
  3. (This might be a newbie question, but I've been following the forum for quite a while and this hasn't come up yet. Search didn't help much.) How often is the supply value/readiness updated in SC1? Is it updated in the beginning of each player's turn for all units (both the player and the opponent)? Or, is it updated in the beginning of the active player's turn for his units only? Same question goes to HQ-assignment? Does it change during your opponents turn based on the movement of the HQ or does it remain the same until it's your turn again? Example: you buy a corps, it has a supply value of 0. You place it within one hex from a 10-supply city within HQ-range. When your opponent attacks on his turn, is the corps supply still 0 (and thereby lower readiness) and is the corps without a HQ-bonus? (In the beginning of your next turn, these values have been updated, of course.) Thankful for replies.
  4. I think its ok that if you don't spot the carrier, you'll get surprised when you run to it, even if you remember the last hex. (You don't now its exact location, course and speed any more, even if you remember the general 50 mile area: it's a viable fix for the problems resulting from that players do their turns one at a time.) Of course having an additional toggle with a movement cost sounds good. (Although I'm not sure when we should put an end to adding new bells and whistles: they all add to the micro-management. On the other hand this particular one feels very nice and adds to the realism...)
  5. I think a part of the problem is that the play balance really depends on the level of play between players. Terif wrote in his hints for newbies/ intermediates: "The size of the bid highly depends on the experience of both players since axis only has an advantage when the axis player knows how to play his side and the advantage increases with the experience. Here some average values (March 2004): -new vs new: no bid necessary (Allies even can be in the advantage here) -intermediate vs intermediate: bid 200 system 1:8 or 1:10 (or ~100 in 1:5:20) -veteran vs veteran: bid 200 system 1:5:20" The whole thread can be found at: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=002198
  6. Questions 1-3: wow, I sure hope that there won't. What you are describing would correspond more to a game like Panzer General or even more, Steel Panthers. SC1 is a grand strategy game (high abstraction level) and all the different types of equipment are built-in in the existing units. In SC1, a tank group could consist of ~500 (or even more) battle tanks and a lot of armored vehicles. So, there would be an assortisment of the tanks you describe, depending on the nation, combat doctrine and achieved tech level. What, I've understood, SC2 will maintain the same principle: high abstraction, every single rifle or gun is not detailed. This is the strenth of SC, at least to me. The player can concentrate to strategy and not micro-management. If I want to play a tactical game, I play Steel Pathers. (I think SC2 will have some less abstracted units as engineer corps or marines.) Questions 4-5: There will probably not be that many different units so that you could make that many different graphics for them. Question 6: I think there will be a standard scenario with some limits, but the players may choose to change them or not to apply them at all.
  7. Also, if the German's are already at the outskirts of Paris (and Italy will be joining due to that) then it will probably be too late to perform the Italian gambit anyway. This is because at this time the French typically aren't much of a force anymore and its no trouble for the Germans to shift some air and ground units to the Med.
  8. Well, one variation of the Italian gambit is just to take Bari and to cripple the Italian navy (and perhaps to divert some German forces from the attack of France and/or make some MPP loss for the Axis: Italy is actually gaining 30 MPPs/turn less, as Sicily becomes disconnected). Crippling the Italian navy will make Axis operations around the Med more difficult/time consuming. The minimum amount of forces would be two corps (the other perhaps from Algiers) and the existing fleet in the Med. Having an army and a corps makes the initial attack stronger and will help some in defending Bari afterwards. With these you should be able to take Bari + port and destroy the battleship at the port of Bari and a submarine or cruiser outside the port on the first turn of the attack. You should probably stay with at least some of your fleet in Bari, so that you can finish of the cruiser/sub, but remember that this exposes the remaining ships to the Luftwaffe. Anyway, if the defence of France is not going well and the Germans are able to divert airforce to the Med, then you should perhaps not attack at all, as they can retake Bari easily and your fleet becomes exposed. [ August 14, 2004, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: willebra ]
  9. Kuni, You are showing some extra info to Terif with those screenshots: i.e. you show unit strengths of all your units, whereas you do not show (as you might not know for sure) the same for Terif. (In the screenshot earlier there were even a unit which Terif would not have spotted with his aircrafts, but i suppose you posted that one after the battle was over.)
  10. Simply move a LF to Beirut. THe itlian war readiness only rises if a town is not occupied </font>
  11. Still, using the corps nearby causes Italy to enter sooner (which means extra MPPs for axis). So it would be really effective only in a strategy which includes declaring war against Italy anyway.
  12. Wow, is the turn 2 attack on Iraq really realistic? How?
  13. If France falls early, then it would become very risky to attack Italians and thus delay in the Med. But if France falls after the RN has kicked some Italian butt, the delay in the Med would still seem to yield some benefit. Axis operations around the Med would be difficult wihtout shifting AFs to the theater. The cost on operating units plus that these can't be used elsewhere certainly benefits the Allied. Also, if the Italians do not have air support, the RN alone (even if the French BBs are disbanded) can give some punishment for the Italians on the first turn after their entry. Sometimes I've also placed a corpse-transport as a bait west of Bari to wait for the Italian entry.
  14. If France falls early, then it would become very risky to attack Italians and thus delay in the Med. But if France falls after the RN has kicked some Italian butt, the delay in the Med would still seem to yield some benefit. Axis operations around the Med would be difficult wihtout shifting AFs to the theater. The cost on operating units plus that these can't be used elsewhere certainly benefits the Allied. Also, if the Italians do not have air support, the RN alone (even if the French BBs are disbanded) can give some punishment for the Italians on the first turn after their entry. Sometimes I've also placed a corpse-transport as a bait west of Bari to wait for the Italian entry.
  15. Do you feel like a newbie because you make mistakes or because Terif's strategy and ideas (+ implementations), or their combinations/timings are better /more original than others'? When people say: "I made that and that mistake against Terif and that's why I lost", it makes one think, that the game is a series of almost pre-determinable moves that can be done better or worse (depending on memory+amount of practise). "Today I had a good touch in my mouse hand." I sure hope that it's Terif's strategy that is superior and not his memory + time of practice.
  16. It sounds to me that SC1 is becoming used up for you guys. In chess the amount of possible moves is limited in comparison to SC1. Still, chess can be played (both in terms of strategy and tactics) in infinite ways. SC1 should have a lot more options. I hope somebody finds out an innovative way to play SC1. Perhaps people are playing too much by the "book" (book meaning the strategies discussed on this forum).
  17. I have often been pulling my med-fleet (plus Valiant at Gibraltar) around the port of Marseilles to gain a high level of supply. From there the fleet can either retreat from the Med or be moved around Malta depending on how the game develops. If the fleets arrival to Malta is timed to conincide with the Italian entry, the med-fleet is in a position to cripple the Italian fleet (the cruiser could be placed east of Malta to observe possible 1st turn movements of the Italians). Is it worth it? Don't know, but if the Italian fleet is seriously crippled, the RN will control the med at least for some time. Axis operations against Spain and southern Vichy, Greece, Eqypt, possibly Iraq will become more difficult and time consuming. If RN-withdrawal can be postponed and the Allies succeed in taking Iraq (+ Russia enters), the Axis would need considerable effort to retake the Med (and this is always away from somewhere else). I'll be glad to hear the counter-move...
  18. I have often been pulling my med-fleet (plus Valiant at Gibraltar) around the port of Marseilles to gain a high level of supply. From there the fleet can either retreat from the Med or be moved around Malta depending on how the game develops. If the fleets arrival to Malta is timed to conincide with the Italian entry, the med-fleet is in a position to cripple the Italian fleet (the cruiser could be placed east of Malta to observe possible 1st turn movements of the Italians). Is it worth it? Don't know, but if the Italian fleet is seriously crippled, the RN will control the med at least for some time. Axis operations against Spain and southern Vichy, Greece, Eqypt, possibly Iraq will become more difficult and time consuming. If RN-withdrawal can be postponed and the Allies succeed in taking Iraq (+ Russia enters), the Axis would need considerable effort to retake the Med (and this is always away from somewhere else). I'll be glad to hear the counter-move...
  19. Some complain that the board is getting empty. Others whine about too much newbies/newbie talk... hmmm...
  20. I performed some testing regarding the gambit. I performed the gambit ten times against the AI. There was one intercepting AF. I attacked in the following order (for the purpose of the testing): - 3 armies - battleship - french af - british af - british bomber - two carriers - french corps (was needed only once) 6 times out of 10, Brussels falled prior the use of the carriers. 3 times out of 10, the carriers were required to kill of the corps (and they succeeded). 1 time out of 10, a french corps was sent to attack the garrison from the river east of Brussels (and it succeeded...). In this case, the British corps was transported to occupy the city. Note, that AFs were placed in cities so that their supplies were 10 (is there some other benefit?). French armies were stationed as close to Paris as possible, so that their supplies were as high as possible. One carrier attacked from London-port (after being moved there), the battleship was moved to position for attack from London-port (thus 100% readiness).
  21. If the allies execute an LC gambit on turn two, they are likely to need three French armies, both the british and the french airfleet and a battleship (two carriers can be needed also, same goes with the british bomber if it hasn't been disbanded). The question is how do you man all hexes on the border of the Rhine in a second turn LC gambit? France can purchase one corps on the first turn, if it disbands a battleship. British ground troops cannot make it to the Rhine-border on the second turn. One hex remains unmanned. An option would be to either disband the french airfleet and buy an additional corps or to simply put the airfleet in the last hex which cannot be covered (usually eastern Ardennes). As the french airfleet would fall out of the battle in both cases, the chances of a succesful gambit decreases. Of course, if the allied player is overly lucky, he won't need the last french army, which would then be available to cover the last hex on the border (or occupy the city). Another option would be to not attack with a battleship and transport the british corps outside of Brussels on the first turn (to be used for occupying the city on the second). British troops can use the port on turn two, only if the French send a corps next to the port after the city garrison has fallen (so this won't increase the amount of troops available to man the border). Thoughts?
  22. Edwin P. remember that a turn lasts always for several days and even several weeks (in SC1 the minimum is one/two weeks). In a tactical game, you could be prevented for hours and even for days to perform some operations due to wheather conditions etc. In SC, (which is a high abstraction strategy game) I wouldn't like rules that belong to tactical games: there would very seldom be such weather that it would prevent all operations for one month or even for one week. Also the geographical scale affects this, e.g. the size of the sea between Britain and Norway: even if the northern parts of the sea are really stormy the whather in the southern parts could allow operations. Really long and continuous bad wheather could have some impact on e.g. "landing casualties", as the case is in SC1.
  23. Guys, I'm thinking this subject an another way around. SC is a high abstraction strategy game. If the game was a tactical level game (e.g. steel panthers), one should spot only the units that are within the visible range. But in SC, an army level unit should have (an apparently also has) built in recon forces that function autmatically. Historians may tell more accurately, but let's say an army level unit has 2-5% of its troops committed to recon: this means at least 1000 men. Its no surprise that they are aware of enemy troop concentrations (of corp-size, i.e. 20.000 upwards) within 50-100 miles. The same should apply to air fleets: always some troops are committed to recon. The entire air flee t does not fly over 200 miles to look what's down there: rather they have squadrons patrolling all the time. These patrols naturally occur during the best possible wheather (remember that turns always last longer than one week and during that time there will be better and worse wheather conditions). As the turns are longer during winter, there similarly is more possibility for really good whether conditions. The reports sure are too accurate.
  24. I have liked to think that SC1 is a grand strategy (high level of abstraction) game to the extent that real-world units like artillery, supply troops, antitank-troops, other engineers, some level of partisan/guerilla forces and even partroops are modelled into the existing army/corps/tank group units. A separate artillery unit would be unrealistic, as artillery clearly is modelled in the existing units. I wonder if some of the new features in SC2 are getting too detailed to be in a high level strategy game? Aren't separate engineer and paratroop units on a lower level of abstraction. An idea of an SC1 army size unit without built-in engineers is unrealistic. What then is the new engineer-unit (a lot of 30.000 to 60.000 engineers? not really). Is it rather an army with more engineers than a usual army? Have such units existed historically on an army level? I could even imagine that paratroops are modelled in the existing SC1-armies (e.g. in amphibious landings the supply-value of the attacker is at maximum: this could reflect reduced supply/readiness of defenders due to use of paratroops etc.) Also, one paratroop-force of size of over 10.000 (up to even 60.000) seems way unrealisistic. Do paratroops really need to be a separate unit? (If the modelling of paratroops is incorrect in current amphibious landings, I would rather change the effects of amphibious landings than create a new unit.) Tell me I'm wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...