Blashy Posted August 16, 2005 Author Share Posted August 16, 2005 Yeah, you'll have plenty of MPPs. Even if I had gone all out with UK forces. You wish to see how much neutrals you can take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Well,I think we can stop now. The game will go like this now. France turn 6. Norway turn 8, Vichy turn 8-9 . KB Rusia right now I think 58% goes to =>69% , US 62%=>?% really don´t know, never spend attention. but rusia is what counts. me. Sweden will fall round 12 =>Rusia at 76%. Waiting waiting ..... Ru+Ungarn join in march+april 1941 Spain attacked => US Joins (or waiting until the US join percentage rises an then attack Spain) ....but the Important part is I will get Spain even before Barbarossa. Attack Rusia in August ..... Alexandria will be conquered in late 1940 .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 17, 2005 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 I'm playing a game with a friend at 65% USA/USSR. I'm not an experienced player but I think I do pretty well at cookie cutter. There is no way I can start Barbarosa effectively if I take Vichy and Sweeden. I had Poland, LC, France, Denmark, Normway and Greece with Russia at 88% and USA had joined about 5 turns ago. I had troops ready to take Vichy and Sweeden but I only had Italian Corps and Minor corps armies at the Russian border. I had 12 corps for the defense of France but as I said, USA was in 5+ turns ago. D-Day was iminent. 65% seems the more WW2 German "feeling" solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 why greece instead of vicky? vicky is a lot more cash (3 towns+2 ports), greece is 1 town and 1 port - for the same readiness increase for ussr. Only usa gets p!ssed off more than 5% when axis rape vicky. Just get greece the same turn when barby starts - you need less troops (3 armies+1 corps). Again, i am not very clear about it - do you play with zero bids for the allies? It appears so. We can try a game - me axis and you allies with usa and ussr at 65% from the very beggining. It is interesting but without at least a small bid for the reds, you'll probably lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockylock Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 I think this new system is a good idea... The huge bid-systems just seems ridiculous, and makes the game very static in the east. I have started a game where I play axis with russia+usa readiness at 60% and bid 120 at 1-5-10. We are both equal intermediate (I think) players... So far interesting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 18, 2005 Author Share Posted August 18, 2005 The goal is to restrain Germany for too easily accumulating MPPs vs. minors. So if Germany has a choice, take alot of minors but start barba short of troops or go for a few minors and start barba strong and push hard for the MPP resources. Basically as in WW2. I took greece because it took less troops and was trying to see if I could manage USA join %. But in the end, I would take Vichy over Greece as well. Hellraiser, if you wish to try a game, how about trying 65% USA and 70% USSR, no bid. If you want, play the turn and send it my way blashy@gmail.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Blashy I really see your point that the game is unhistorical. But there is a certain point where it is easier simply to start with the Barbarossa scenario. Regarding the game system I think SC is simply "flawed" because a god forgotten town in Afica is nearly as valuable as Berlin. Hellraiser/Blashy keep us up to date how it goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 bleah, PBEM suxorz what about a nice lil' tcp/ip ? in the w/e ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 SomeBra is right, its a joke how a worthless dustbowl is worth the same MMP's as one of the big Nazi production cities in the Fatherland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 19, 2005 Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 The difference between say 70-75% USA-USSR and actuall WW2 is timeframe. ( USA will join earlier. The rest I feel seems pretty "accurate". Germany @ 70-75% USSR can't take alot of miniors and ends up DoW on USSR in end of July 41 short on MPPs. The other consequence is now USA can't D-Day sooner than what happen in WW2. Personally I prefer to have the "feel" of the situation for all countries which in the general sense was the following: USA can now build up to be a big power as it did. Germany can have experienced troops for USSR but short on supply. USSR has MPPs but is low on troops initially and will most likely be stuck trying to hold from Leningrad down to Stalingrad and from there the possibility to start pushing forward as Axis troops are sent to the estern front to face the advancing US forces. That IMHO is much more like WW2 was then giving tons of MPPs to USSR which is most often simply cannon fodder for German troops which are now equal in MPPs to allies and won't feel much pressure from an underfunded USA who never had proper time to prepare. Hellraiser, I would not mind doing TCP/IP but I don't have much availability, certainly not until next Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts