Juergen2SSDR

Great thanks, I was making a scenerio with the Black shirt personell and some Brits! Of course the Brits are going to kick ass. The Italian equipment really did suck. for the most part.

Say does anyone know off hand if CMAK has Black Shirt Companies, or Battalions in game, or are all their units regular, and Para? Thanks Juergen

To Jon_J_Rambo I have read alot of your posts, and you rarely have anything good to say....mostly sarcasim. Yes my Fiance plays Shock Force sometimes, she has a BA in History, ancient history, and was a prior US Marine..and hot. We post using the same account... if that confuses you... well then your simple. Juergen

Thats what im talking about, I think SC would be even sweeter with new Unit applications. I know the expansion will cover DD, maybe they could re-vamp the Large Battlefleets vs Subs and such. Also maybe include coastal batteries that you could buy, or make with engineer units. Buy Marine Units, and AA defense zones. Juergen

Yikes.. I got Iraq mixed up with Iran. thanks Stalin's Organist for the % figures. Would have been interesting if the Germans and Finns saw eye to eye, and actually took Leningrad, which then could have led to the taking of Murmansk, and the Japanese Vladivostock Ok the Japanese taking Vladivostock is really stretching it... :0

I remember reading that Russia recieved alot of resources through Iraq. Rail system. UK won the fight in Iraq and started to assist with the lend lease via rail through Iraq, not sure on quantity though.

I think Stalin's Organist does have a point, a BB (TF) might be able to spot a Sub (wolfpack) but not be able to attack it, defend against yes. So a BB icon representing a TF (Task Force) or BG (Battle Group) can locate a sub... by running into it literaly. As for spotting.. not nearly as good as Cruiser or DD units. The BB unit should not be able to attack the Sub unit as a BB TF or BG is not designed to hunt subs. However if attacked the BB unit should be able to give minimal defensive backlash with its escorting DD,or Lt Cruisers. (Historicaly the majority of Cruisers did not carry depth charges, and fleet destroyers could not be at sea for prolonged periods of time, because of damage or more maintenance due to heavy sea conditions). I believe this is the point some of us are trying to make. Juergen Semper Fi.

Nice, cant wait for the update on the release this week. Nice job with the 1.07 update. Juergen

True Hubert, I thought I might be able to turn the tide.. yeah right. Anyways just to much to try and defeat. I sort of like scenerios where you at least have a chance of success. Juergen Semper Fi

I agree with most everyone here, there is a point to just re-name the BB Icon to a TF-or TG. That would explain a sort of Heavy Task force. But again, a Heavy task force is usually designed for Shore Bombardement, Surface Attack. The Cruiser and soon to be DD Icon would be more suitable for ASW duties. So my suggestion to Battlefront developers would be to make the damage a BB icon does less powerful than it is, this would make sense. A heavy task force ie.. BB icon would most likely have BB, BC (Battle Cruisers.. like Hood, or Graf Spee) The Cruiser Icon, would defenitely have more "Depth Charge Capability" but again not as much as the new DD Icon soon to be released in the new add on. Juergen

maybe this will help out.. Veronica.. and Juergen... there. now you wont be confused

Well I played the Demo, and the US forces and Brits really smoke you at Normandy. Infantry, the US is better, I see some of the Units as better, those that fought in the earlier campaigns, but most US forces are heavy hitting and wipe out the Germnans in the bocage like they were out in an open field. Some German Units are decent, the two German Aircraft are useless and pointless. And why cant the Germans get more MPP. its not like Berlin is overun, and supplies cant get to the front. Heck the Brits, and US can get max reinforcements deep within new territory as if they had a supply depot right next to them. sort of mixed feelings about the playability of some scenerios. The Germs can put up a fight, but in the end they lose. like 8 out of 10 times playing the scenario. As for me playing the allies... I win 10 out of 10 games. Juergen.

My girlfriend and I share the same account. And I do not know of any BB that had Depth Charges, and no Navy in there right mind would send a BB Task force to hunt subs. Maybe a Cruiser or Destroyer Squadron, but no Nation would risk a Capital Ship for a sub. ie.. BB or CV unit, they are way to costly. And fuel, I could understand if the Gents at Battlefront inteded a BB to be a Division of ships, but then why have a Cruiser Icon, and the new Destroyers. It should be a Surface Icon Division, perhaps a Carrier Icon, to indicate a Carrier's presence, and then a Destroyer icon to symbolize a Destroyer task force, usually for screening convoy routes. It is strange, that there are some Tactical examples, but yet the game is mostly Strategic.... I like the game, but no Admiral would task a BB fleet or a "Heavy" task force to hunt subs. A Cruiser and Destroyer task force yes. Im my opinion the Sub should always be able to dive away from the BB icon, thus proving that a Sub icon or "Wolfpack" could see such a large task force bearing on its position. Also this would allow the Subs to be more lethal in confronting such Capital ships if there are not sufficient covering force... ie... Destroyer icon, and Cruisers. and Most Heavy Cruisers did not have adequate Depth charges, if any to linger to long in hunt for subs. That was a specificaly designed operataion for Destroyers.

The Abrams was hit Twice. So basicaly the battle lasted breifly.. about 35 seconds. The Abrams aquired the T-62's, fired, destroying 2. There were 3 obvious misses by the enemy tanks. The Abrams was hit, returned fire, at the same time the Abrams on the Right side of the lead tank Aquired the T-72's fired destroying one, the Lead Abrams fired destroying the remaining T-62. Somewhere during the last sequence the Lead Abrams took a hit, (I think from a T-72) no issues, the Flanking Abrams destroyed another T-72, and then the Lead Abrams took a hit in the front and Flames shot up. Of course the next phase of battle the remaining 4 Abrams destroyed another 8 Tanks, 1 Abrams was immobilized by sand-rock. So ok the Abrams clearly domintated with the loss of 1 Abrams, and 1 Immobile (which in RL would have been fixed) to the loss of 15 enemy tanks. The sad part is that 1 Abrams SEP probably costs about = to at least 10 of their tanks. ")

Ok if that is the case, is there any differance between UK, USA, ITA, FRA, and German BB's. and other naval units, or is just a roll of the dice with modifiers. It just seems that it has been one sided as of sorts.

I think there may still be some "Bugs" HoIron was really good at reinforcements, and supply. if you were surrounded, you were screwed. That is why "Enveloping" Pincers are nice, once you surround an enemy, they recieve no supply. Then you cut them up and destroy them. That is the purpose of surrounding units, is to make the enemy units weaker, and easier to destroy. If we cant do that in SC2 and with the add ons, it will be a pain, or take longer to destroy enemy units, and a real pain, to resupply units in the Med.

I have played every Strategic Command that has come out, and am now waiting for my SC2 to arrive, and will of course buy the new expansion. I just have one issue for the those that designed the naval battles portion. Battleships should not be able to attack Subs. When the sub gets attacked (In my eyes it should be by Cruisers, Destroyers(New) and by other Subs. A sub should be able to "Evade" Battleships and Carriers. Unless you mod the game with an Escort Carrier with ASW planes a normal Carrier would not realisticaly have the capability of searching for subs. I played the Demo and was disapointed that every bloody BB searched out and destroyed my subs. I hope in the new versions that this can be corrected, it just seems very unrealistic. I consider BB as one ship, not a division of ships, as well as cruisers, as they are capital ships. Destroyers on the other hand are not capital ships so I could realisticaly assume that seeing the Destroyer icon, would in acutaly be a divison of Destroyers. Anyone else think the same, or is that too nit picky. Juergen

I have played every Strategic Command that has come out, and am now waiting for my SC2 to arrive, and will of course buy the new expansion. I just have one issue for the those that designed the naval battles portion. Battleships should not be able to attack Subs. When the sub gets attacked (In my eyes it should be by Cruisers, Destroyers(New) and by other Subs. A sub should be able to "Evade" Battleships and Carriers. Unless you mod the game with an Escort Carrier with ASW planes a normal Carrier would not realisticaly have the capability of searching for subs. I played the Demo and was disapointed that every bloody BB searched out and destroyed my subs. I hope in the new versions that this can be corrected, it just seems very unrealistic. I consider BB as one ship, not a division of ships, as well as cruisers, as they are capital ships. Destroyers on the other hand are not capital ships so I could realisticaly assume that seeing the Destroyer icon, would in acutaly be a divison of Destroyers. Anyone else think the same, or is that too nit picky. Juergen

Yes the original post was about frontal hits on the M1A2. I had 5 M1A2SEP Abrams in a Wedge formation. The Lead tank had just come into view of 3 T-62 and around 3 T-72 tanks. Rounds went down range and all 3 T-62's were destroyed, my M1A2 to the right of the lead tank, destroyed 2 T-72's sometime during the melee the lead Abrams which was "Facing" the enemy with no shot to its rear or flank possible was hit and brewed up immediately. The range of the T-62's was 1150 meters and the T-72 was about 1150+ to about 1250 meteres.

Absolutely not.

I pretty much agree with most persons here, the French were a formidable opponent, except leadership was something to be desired. Morale was extremely low, as most spent time building the maginot line. They bankrupted themselves by building such a fortification, that was historically bypassed by the Germans. Their tanks albit were modern, they were slow, and used poorly. Their aircraft were just coming into fruitation, however most of their frontline aircraft were destroyed in pre-bombardment fashion. Historically the Germans cut the armies of the allies virtually in two segments, and were defeated by modern German tactics.

ahh thats cool, I just thought it would be cool to design nifty Icons.

This is probably just a small request... and maybe a little retarded, but with the expansion will we be able to purchase (Guard) divisions or Armies for the Soviets, and (Waffen SS) divisions and Armies for the Germans? Just a small fluff thing, I know they put in special forces, for the Brits and Americans, have not seen the Unit icons. Im sure the Rangers look like normal US Infantry, but I hope they put the British Royal Marines or Commandoes in Denison Smocks. Or German elite units in Dot pattern or other smocks. Just more detail stuff to enhance an already Great game. Thanks to all the developers. Juergen.

Good to know. I myself was 0321(USMC) and my beloved was 0151(USMC) thats administrative for those not in the Corps. Anyways not much of a tanker, but the reason why the thread was started was I thought it "almost" impossbile for an Abrams to catch fire from a frontal penetrating hit from a Syrian T-62 at a range of 1150meteres. After playing some more, I find it difficult to always keep the flanks safe on a MBT, especially in a Urban environment. I find myself shooting at just about every building, to see if anyone runs for cover. Not sure how the "Thermal" works for a game, but it would deffinetly help the M1 in an Urban enviornment for those sneaking about, unless they are unconventional forces, which have a great "hide" while in moderate "pedestrian" enviornment settings. Thanks for the posts. Juergen and Veronica.

Thank you very much.