patrat618

the thing is that the germans send the subs with the fleet. together they make a very powerful combo, in the game they are much more powerful working together than they were when they tried working together in real life. its hard to counter subs with your destroyers, when then are getting flattened by battleships. of course its true the allied player could do the same thing, build alot of subs, but then your getting a very unrealistic type of naval war going on. its just way to easy in the game to cordinate fleets with subs. irl they just didnt work that effectivly together.

+1 i agree that they are to effective against warships.

in my experiance, with just a little prodding, they enter shortly after belegrade falls.

the usa also sent them a few million radio tubes.

if you think you might have picked up something thats lowering your performence i would recommend you get Malwarebytes, its free and i highly recommend it. here a link to download it. http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.html?part=dl-10804572&subj=dl&tag=button

the effects of trenches were limited in ww2 compared to ww1. mainly because in ww2 you had tactical radios that advancing troops could use to call for arty support to deal with entrenched strongpoints.

hmm, that machine has a better cpu and gpu than mine, plus you have more ram. it should preform better than mine. i'd check your video and sound drivers. their might be more up to date drivers than the ones your using. also have you tried gamebooster. its a free program that you use to shutdown unecessary services and stuff running in the background. its what i use. heres a link to their webpage. http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html

Im currently playing on a old AMD 3200+ computer with 1gb of ram and a nividia 8400gs. the AI runs through its turn alot faster than 20 mins. also im running it with the regular AI routine, not the quick AI settings. imo somethings wrong, unless of course your computer is even crappier than this one. what are your system specs and do you have alot of stuff running in the background? p.s. my regular gaming machine back home is a I5 2500k with 8gbs ram and a nividia gtx 570. i cant wait to see how this game looks and runs on that puppy, especially with a 27inch monitor.

thanks Hyazinth.

i dunno. im far from and expert in this game, but i find it pretty easy to wipe the floor with the AI even with it set to the hardest level. especially when i play allied. i have to bump up the AI expericence to make it any kind of a challenge. i still haven't figured out how to work unit swap. maybe someone could enlighten me to how exactly it works?

as far as naval ranges go. im sure you already thought about this, but how about leaving them as they are, for as you said, tactical reasons and instead just make the trans atlantic loop 2 turns. this would allow both more realistic trans atlantic travel times and still allow cat and mouse play.

my 2 cents. it would be nice if the use of either of these routes not be tied to owning suez or barsa. one good reason, is that if the allies can still use these routes even after the loss of the ports, it leaves them the option of using an amphipous landing to recapture those areas.

im against simplifying the game, but i think a save feature would be great.

you can try GameBooster. It shuts off unecessary backgroud programs. im aware you can do that yourself, but i just find using GameBooster to be so much easier.

+1 i really don't want a simplified game either. i loved numps map SCGC. hopefully sc3 will have somthing similiar. however,imo nicer graphics wouldnt hurt.

it wasn't really new. in 1870 the prussians had trouble with Francs-tireurs. which is what the partisans who fought them were called. before that napoleon had trouble in spain with the guerillas. which is where and when that term orginated.

found this on the web. "The alternative to the Schlieffen Plan would most likely be Moltke the Elder’s and Waldersee’s Plans. They had anticipated a two-front war and had both concluded that success against France was not possible given France’s modern defences along their common border. They therefore planned that the German Army should fight defensively in the west, using the Rhine as a barrier against a French offensive, and deploy the bulk of the German army against Russia. The plan was to gain a defensible line inside the Russian frontier. Moltke’s plan did not envisage a march on Moscow or Saint Petersburg." who knows how workable this would of been. but it seems it was at least comtemplated at one point.

iirc england was not obliged to defend belgium. the treaty was a pledge by france, germany and england not to invade belgium. england would of entered the war if france was in danger. england was not going to allow germany to crush france as that would place england in danger. frankly that was the real reason for their entering the war. belgium was just a convient excuse. england didnt really need an excuse anyway. they had been going to war to preserve the balance of power in europe for the last couple of hundred years. 1914 wasn't any differant. that being said, i would like to have the option of using the molkte eastern plan and go for russia 1st. belgium would intially be uninvaded and englands entry could be triggered by the level of cp success. in other words, if the cp does to good against the entante, then england intervenes to preserve the balance of power.

well i was just discussing real life losses, not ingame ones. i haven't played the ww2 scenerio yet, but in GC SC i dont remember taking large aircraft losses from subs. if you are in this game, then maybe something is wrong and needs to be looked at.

ive finally decided to risk my ego in a multi player game of WW1 Great War. i'd prefer the call to arms campaign game with me as the entante, but im willing to play the cp too. i think i have the game system down well enough to not totally humilate myself. im on vacation right now, so i can do several turns a day if you wish. you can email me at patrat@mchsi.com

from the same uboat site. "One source says that RAF Coastal Command (U-boat hunters) lost 700 aircraft (badly damaged, shot down and paid off - not all to U-boats of course) and sank 220 U-boats during the war. I've been unable to verify the RAF losses but the U-boat figure is about right it seems. These figures show the immense effort put out by the British to hunt down the U-boats and almost all the aircraft successes took place in 1942 and later." if those figures are accurate, they are not exactly miniscule. as i posted earlier, 118 of those were directly shot down by the uboats, not a miniscule number either. most of the rest of the losses are probaly from accidents.

actually u boats did shoot down a fair number of planes according to this site. http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm "Summary 118 aircraft shot down by 97 individual U-boats for the loss of 31 U-boats either sunk during the attack or due to being located by other forces shortly afterwards and sunk."

did a quick search and evidently nearly all uboats in ww2 were equipt with aa guns. im not saying they were very effective, because they weren't. but they did have the capability.

iirc at least some german subs had AA guns and they did shoot down planes.

maybe because if poland was a minor of the western allies it wouldnt be isolated from economic help like it was in real life. just a guess on my part. but i never like the idea of the allies being able to pour resources into poland, like in SC GC, whereas in real life they had no way for those resources to get there.