HankWWIIOnline

Think that already has been the case here for a long time.

Don't ever say "when" until it's ready. Valve did a wonderful job of that by waiting literally years before even mentioning they were working on Half-Life 2. Everyone assumed they were, but no news/screenshots/info was released so nobody thought about it. Suddenly, they announce it and doubled the surprise by saying it is coming out in 4 months. Hype can kill. I would rather Hubert take 2 years before mentioning anything about it, then one day say "SC2 is scheduled to release in 2 months" and then dump some screenshots on the web.

Unfortunately there just isn't enough variety to make playing a smaller country exclusively worth while. In HoI, that is a viable way to play the game. In SC, playing just Italy would get pretty boring. Watching Germany do all the fun stuff, and fight the big battles...nah.

I would recommend just buying SC. It is cheap, and in the history of games I have bought, has the biggest 'bang for the buck'. Playing PBEM games has kept me playing this game month after month, never tiring of it.

What about having a minimum strength reduction for planes? At L0, they can only bring units to strength 5. Anything more only effects readiness and entrenchment. With each Jet Level gained, the air unit can drop a target lower than 5. So a L4 Jet could drop a target unit down to 1 strength, L5 can destroy them.

Here is what I was thinking: 1941, Britain falls to the Axis. The next turn, Russia and the US join the Allies. Yes, Russia would certainly earn some early victories while the Axis player began sending troops back to the Eastern front. But it would be a challenge! At least have the 'option' to continue, as the Allied player. But that would require the US and Russia to immediately join. Also, the UK, even though surrendering to the Axis should allow any remaining units in the game to remain. In the PBEM game I played, he had sufficient naval forces to bring back to the Atlantic to cooperate with the US. As the Axis, I had only a half-strength sub and a full strength cruiser for the Germans and an only slightly bigger Italian navy. Consolidating remaining UK Naval forces with US forces would give the Axis navy a viable threat for some time. Would British troops elsewhere in the world have given up the fight against the Axis had Germany pulled off Sealion? I have pulled off Sealion agains the CP before in similar fashion, in a similar time frame. Russia and the US had joined the war, however, about 5 turns before I captured the UK. I held out as long as I could with my meager forces on the Eastern Front...but with little to no remaining opposition in the West I could send all my seasoned units to the Eastern Front AND buy a handful of new ones with the UK plunder. It didn't take me long to push the Russians back. Against a human player, beating back Russia may take more time. A two to three turn grace period after the fall of the UK may even it up a bit against Russia. The US could slowly build up, only having to really worry about the Axis navy. The US would have ample areas to invade, from the UK all the way down to Africa. An Axis player couldn't effectively defend such a wide area. I could just accept it and quit asking for more from Hubert. In all reality, most SC Sealions will rarely finish before BOTH the US and Russia join. So I suppose if you can pull it off then just accept the victory. My original thinking was, gameplay-wise the USSR and US were very close to joining the war anyway...but once the UK falls, they say "Nah, nevermind, we'll concede". [ February 19, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: HankWWIIOnline ]

I decided in my current PBEM game to go for Sealion against my opponent I regularly play against. By turn 47 I had won. He had sent almost all of his army/hq units to the Med and left the Free French and the Royal Navy to defend Britain. Needless to say, the invasion was quick. So quick that neither the US or the USSR had joined the war, and were around 60-75% readiness. Thus ending WWII in Europe. I would imagine the US would have immediately joined the war with the surrender of Britain. The USSR would inevitably join soon thereafter. My opponent had quite a large force in the Med still. At least two army divisions, a corp or two, two air units, a bomber unit and some a decent sized Navy both in the Med and still lurking in the Atlantic. Maybe more, but that is what I had caught a glimpse of. The Italians weren't doing so hot, bogged down in Greece and barely winning naval battles in the Med. I would have liked to have seen the game continue, as did my opponent just to see how this scenario would have played out. I think for gameplay purposes, both the USSR and the US should join immediately after the fall of Britain if they haven't already. I only had two army divisions and two corps on the Russian front. Call me optimistic, but I know if I was on the Allies in this scenario I would have liked to continue. Even though in SC there are many possibilities, is all lost if certain situations occur? Barring any foolish strategy's on my part after the fall of Britian, is it just totally impossible to come back as the Allies?

This should most definitely be an option, at most. HoI succeeds in this area because you can choose to stay historical, or go ahistorical. I think playing an ahistorical game of SC2 would be cool, but not all the time. One of the great things of SC is that the game does not have any event that seriously throws the game out of the lines of history. There are already options for countries to stay neutral, random or historical. Plus there is the awesome incentives of possibly getting Spain and/or Turkey to join on the Axis side. They are possible...but pretty difficult.

This should most definitely be an option, at most. HoI succeeds in this area because you can choose to stay historical, or go ahistorical. I think playing an ahistorical game of SC2 would be cool, but not all the time. One of the great things of SC is that the game does not have any event that seriously throws the game out of the lines of history. There are already options for countries to stay neutral, random or historical. Plus there is the awesome incentives of possibly getting Spain and/or Turkey to join on the Axis side. They are possible...but pretty difficult.

I would like easier access to my unit information. Right now you have to go to the Purchase screen to see what your attack/defense ratings are for a unit type. This could simply be displayed at the bottom of the screen with other unit information (Supply, experience, etc). I think there should be an option to see attack chance percentages. I think this would be useful to see the differences between being in certain terrains, at what readiness/supply, with what experience, etc. It could be a simple, rounded perecentage. You click on your unit, then you hover the mouse over the unit you want to attack and it displays a percentage over that unit. This would be nice for new players as well as old players who want to learn more about the chances of success. Again, this would need to be an option you can turn on and off. Portraits for your HQ units would be a nice touch too...

Interesting. Do people actually use this tactic often, or try to? I honestly don't see the fun in trying to crush the Germans early on. And if you fail, then the Germans can take you down even quicker. Sounds like a short game either way. I guess I enjoy a longer, more drawn out game.

So what is the purpose of the Dutch Gambit? End a game early and say 'I win'? Sounds like an early rush strategy so common in RTS's. [ February 04, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: HankWWIIOnline ]

In my current multiplayer game, I pulled all my forces off the stagnant Russian front to combat the Allies who were about to attack my poorly defended defenses at the Rhine. It was the Battle of the Bulge, essentially, but in 1943. Anyway, I happened to make a break in the Southern part of France and reached their capital. France surrendered...again. Humiliating, yes...but at this point it was unrealistic. The Americans had units attacking the Rhine, with a couple French units behind them including an HQ. When I grabbed Paris and France surrendered, these units disappeared and I took over the country again. While the game is a moot point at this stage, I still think it's a bit silly for France to be able to surrender again and lose their remaining units. They've been Free French this whole time, the Allies are banging on Germany's door...and they surrender! They would have actually had to march THROUGH the American lines to get to my units. "Well then, Yanks...that's it for us then. Good luck in the war!"

I'm in the 105th turn of a PBEM game. I'm playing as Axis, and I'm on the end of my rope. I've stagnated in Russia. I'm about 1 tile away from grabbing Moscow, but the Russians have level 5 AT tech and probably good IT tech. The Allies have hit the Rhine, where I have a long defense waiting. The only problem is they are mostly corp divisions, with little experience. All my grizzled troops are in Russia simply trying to hold their ground. Italy is getting invaded from the North and South. However, my ace in the hole recently has been my 4 L4 jets in Russia with full experience (And L2 range tech). I destroyed 2 Russian HQ's, which effectively kept them from doing anything against me. Each turn I destroyed a L5 Army division with little loss on my part, through the air. What I'm thinking is, in my situation the only hope that I have is destroying any enemy HQ that gets in my sights. I just redeployed my jets to the Western front, since I have access to bombing his HQ units there (Although they have a couple L3 aircraft there as well). So what is the consenses? Is it totally impossible for the Axis player to turn things around by now? Has anyone used Axis airpower to simply target enemy HQ's and effectively ruin their capability for staging offenses? The only problem I see is that I need at least 3 more air units to make this feasible, and had them a bit sooner. As it is now, the Allies are slowly outpacing me in troop quantity and tech research. But...once a player runs out of HQ's, they are done. But is this even a feasable idea? Or is it that in SC, if the Axis don't have the upper hand by turn 100, it's essentially over for them?

Yeah...but we ALL know Germany will be attacking Russia, unlike their historical counterparts. I guess forcing the player to always stay historical works if you want the same outcome everytime.

I just started a new game to test out a Sealion invasion...in hopes I can pull it off in a multi game. By Aug of 1940 I had a strong foothold in England. I had 2 Hq's and about 7 units. Plus I had 5 air units on the shores of France pounding any UK ships that came into view. I hadn't spent any resources on research yet. I had an Italian HQ, 4 Italian corp/Armies and 4 German corps on the border with Russia. Spain joined for the first time ever in my SC experience, and I hadn't taken any English towns yet. After the UK Navy was crippled, I could then focus my air power on defending English troops and take their cities. They fell quickly, but Russia had already declared war and attacked through Romania and were hitting my Italian-German front without much success. By then I was able to transfer all my units to the Eastern Front and begin Russia's slow retreat. The US joined quite early as well, and they even landed in England during my invasion to help out...but they never got an HQ there and they were destroyed. By early 1941 though, the game was basically over.

Well, first off...there have already been 3 patches released for HoI that have fixed an insane amount of issues. Hearts of Iron isn't for everyone. I personally love having control of every aspect of my country. For pure combat, SC takes the cake, no doubt. My heart lies in global conflict, though. I would rather it be done at 75% effectiveness than not done at all. I'm sure the majority of those here want more of the same. I say take the bull by the horns and go for the gusto. At least for something AFTER SC2. Like I said...HoI is proof positive their is a huge market for a global WWII strategy game. While HoI is on one side of the spectrum (Extremely complex), the future of SC could take it to the other side of the spectrum.

Well, I definitely don't think SC is a full-on wargame. Supply and logistics are there, but simplified. When I think of wargame, I think of the old V for Victory series. SC is very much a beer and pretzels style game. Very easy to pick up and play, but not easy to 'master'. I don't want to turn this into an HoI thread, so don't think I'm simply 'yaying' HoI over SC. I absolutely love SC and get a ton of enjoyment out of it. It doesn't replace HoI, just supplements my love of WWII strategy games. The tech in SC is simple because you buy a point and drop it into a research category and hope you get results. The latest patch greatly enhanced the tech system and made it hard to research in tons of different areas. But it is still 'click and hope' when researching. It is still random, as in A&A, but with a lot more variables. I agree the main problem that I have with HoI is the real-time combat. They take into account a multitude of statistics when units battle it out (ala V for Victory). Terrain, supply, morale, weather, day/night, type of General, type of equipment, organization level, national dissent, etc are all calculated into a units fighting ability. Not simply whether they have an HQ attached and a clear line to a friendly city. When directing offenses and defenses, I usually always have to bring the game speed to slow or below normal speed in order to assess everything. It can get tedious at times, but luckily the end product is rewarding once you know what you're doing. HoI's combat model is much closer to a wargame, in my opinion, than SC. SC has simplified a lot of things, which is not a bad thing but what I'm trying to say is SC2 could benefit by keeping a level of simplicity while adding some more layers to the game. SC2, if done strictly in the European theater, would benefit from having a much bigger map with more room to maneuver. Hubert could then add some more variety to units. Add Mechanized/Motorized Infantry Divisions, regular infantry divisions(And corps) and plain armor divisions. Three to four different unit types isn't getting THAT complex, and would lend itself to new strategies over a wider playing field. Anyway...everyone has their own idea of what SC2 should be like, so I won't go on with all my ideas. Already a long post as it is.

Hubert has a real opportunity to make a fun, global WWII strategy game. Despite the naysayers about HoI, I enjoy a ton of aspects about it despite its flaws. However, as popular as the game is it just isn't accessable to the average wargamer. If SC2 is just SC with upgrades, it should be big enough to warrant calling it a new game. The tech system, in my opinion, needs a overhaul. The random-chance research system is too simplified and smacks of A&A. The HoI system, as much as I enjoy the detail, is TOO detailed for a game like SC. A good medium could be found though. If Hubert, at the least, could pull off a Pacific Theater game that was as fun and addicting as SC I think we'd all be thrilled. Going global is the money shot though. HoI is proof there is a large market for people wanting a global WWII strategy game. Command HQ is still my all time favorite because of its global scope and simplicity.

Ah, well...he's just living it up while he can. He'll lose eventually, no doubt...but might as well ride his steed through a volley of gunfire while he can.

The problem I have is getting a foothold in England quick enough before the Russians join the party. You're best bet against Allied seapower around England is your Luftwaffe. Get range upgrades, and jet upgrades preferrably. You may lose some transports (Keep Corp units on the flanks of your landing assault) but they should take heavy losses from your Luftwaffe.

Hmm...playing 1.06 as Axis a few times, I have yet to notice a sharp increase in Soviet readiness until you have kept a pretty large force there for awhile. In my current PBEM game I had about 5 tanks, 4 armies, a couple HQ's, a couple Corps and a few planes and Russian readiness stayed at about 42% for a few turns before it started jumping 10% a turn around mid-1940. Conversely, against the computer, I've usually left a few Corps near the border and I never saw any increase in Russian readiness for quite a few turns.

I've invaded Yugoslavia twice with the new patch. What happens? A 20% increase in Soviet readiness. Just don't do it. The Yugo's will revolt eventually anyway, so take them out then.

HoI seems a bit complex for my taste. I've been playing Medieval: Total War, and it's a perfect blend (Even though the micromanagement gets a little too much as your empire expands). I love complexity, but I want to PLAY the game more than work with it. That, to me, is the beauty of SC. It gives you the 'grand scale' feel, and just enough complexity to make it different each time you play. If someone were to create a new WW2 grand strategy game, I'd much rather them take from SC, Command HQ, etc than from Hearts of Iron.

I don't know, I had a line of L4 infantry defending against the Red Horde, and his L4 Jets could barely do any damage to them. In fact, half the time THEY would take damage rather than my own Army unit. I don't think we need AA bonuses for infantry, it seems to come with the added strength of infantry units.