Bromley

Spotting ranges are halved and, I think, rounded down. At least you can't see a prepared para who is adjacent to a city of yours if it's unoccupied.

Yeah, but that's the point. None of the V weapons were designed to damage units, so it really wouldn't matter if they were one tile away or five. None of the battlefield rockets had a range that would exceed one tile (hell, they reach <10% into a tile), so decreasing effectiveness with range doesn't apply here either. They're a fantasy unit, like so many were in RTW . Not that I hate them as I did the war dogs . . .

There's nothing to stop the Russians upgrading to V2 or better rockets. Of course, there's the issue as to whether the USSR should have rockets at all. It's one of SC2's logic faults that rockets behave like normal artilley but with rocket ranges. Realistically, the unit itself should be removed from the standard game line up. Just looked at the range issue again and, if we ignore their destructive power for the moment, rocket ranges aren't as far off as I used to think. 1 tile = 90km V2 range = 200 miles = 322 km Assume that minimum range between tiles is 0, so a unit can always hit the adjacent tile even if it's range is only 1 km. 322/90 = 3.6 Therefore, V2 range should be up to 5 tiles. Destructive power is out of whack. Rocket tech should allow unit combat power/morale effect upgrades and/or city upgrades, where the upgrade triggers a "Malta effect" on nearby enemy cities. A bit too involved though and removes some of the fun for rambo and others . [ June 14, 2007, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

[double post] [ June 13, 2007, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

What's that bug? A quick search didn't turn up anything.

I don't think I've ever deliberately taken Malta, so not much to offer. Some pros/cons purely from the Italian side though: Pros: * No Spotting of your fleet/garrisons (very important now bombers are fixed) * Slight MMP benefit in North Africa (Malta effect) * After inital losses, good training for your fleet Cons: * Cost of rebuilding fleet slows down building engineer/air * Your fleet is exposed to UK counter unless UK fleet already dead

The above is a 100% joining script (rather than a change to diplo status that may or may not tip the balance). With the Axis attack Spain strategy that's so popular, IIRC you will still need 1 diplo hit unless exceptionally lucky with your Fall of France, War on USSR etc. rolls. Just caught an opponent out on just that - not getting Romania costs 50 MMP per turn, which is more than he got from Spain .

; Romanian War Entry: ; Historical date of event was 1940/11/22 but we'll set a slightly earlier date { #NAME= Romania Joins Axis Alliance (Variable) #POPUP= Romania Joins The Axis Alliance #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 1 #AI= 0 #COUNTRY_ID= 36 ;Set Romania to have a random/variable war entry #TRIGGER= 40 #ALIGNMENT= 1 #DATE= 1940/10/22 ;Set variable conditions: ;1st Line - France politically aligned with Allies and surrendered AND ;2nd Line - Hungary politically aligned with Axis and not surrendered AND ;3rd Line - Spain politically aligned with Axis and not surrendered AND ;4th Line - Italy politically aligned with Axis and not surrendered #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 2 [2] [100] [1] #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 21 [1] [40] [0] #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 38 [1] [40] [0] #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 6 [1] [100] [0]

All you rocket fans. What's the lowest rocket level you'll accept for a 1941 Barby? If you're going the rocket route do build them all by Barby?

DD (or if he doesn't see this in time, anyone), can you explain to me how support for Israel helps America in oil terms? I'm not asking whether they should support Israel, or what their motives might be if not oil. I just can't see a (positive) connection between US support for Israel and ME oil. Thanks [/hijack]

Given the hours I've had out of the first one and the support, I'd happily pay pretty much whatever they want. The change-resistant part of me doesn't like the expansion of unit types at this scale unless they're stackable (and I'm not sure I'd like stackable units anyway). Some great changes in there though.

Player vs. player games have shown Axis has ~50% chance of victory. Player vs. AI games show (after a few games) 100% chance of victory (whichever side). Switching off the Siberian script in player vs. player games would give Axis ~100% victory.

1. Correct. 2. No. To prepare, paras need to be (a) not adjacent to an enemy unit and ( supply >=7. They also need to have not just jumped that go (i.e. no more jump, prepare, jump as in 1.04). Once prepared, I believe that the supply level of the paras is unimportant. EDIT: Just checked this and what TaoJah said about adjacent enemies. Neither rule is checked before a drop; only when the paras try to prepare. They can have moved/upgraded/reinforced and still prepare in that turn if those conditions are met. When paras drop, they get 1 MP. They can move and attack as normal. Note that they are likely to take extra damage if you drop on anything that isn't a clear square, so the only time you should be dropping on a city is if you know/suspect that the enemy has 2 or more units adjacent to it (as you've only got 1 MP). In your example you can prepare next turn (and then jump the following turn) as long as you're in supply 7+ and as long as you can move somewhere where there isn't an enemy adjacent to you. Unlikely to see that in a game though . [ May 11, 2007, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

Couldn't resist . AllPosters.com (Actually, for all I know they might have towed it there) [ May 09, 2007, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

But not at the expense of balance . This would be a perfect opportunity to argue for a balancing reduction in sub costs .

Escape .

It'd take a while to build all 6 bombers, so it presumably becomes apparent what's going to happen in time for the Axis to operate in before the cities are all hit to <5. Of course they take the risk that it's just a diversion, but even if it was originally intended as such, failure by the Axis to operate in in time would likely change that.

In my last game my opponent totally surprised me by initiating the first attack on Sweden I've seen in a game. It was the mid 1942 and the UK invaded with ~7 land units and all the US/UK air. He made a mistake in not cutting the capital off, so I operated in veterans who wiped the Brits off the map. Still, slightly more careful placement of his first turn invaders and I'd have been limited to transporting by sea a very small relief force without HQ support. What's your experieance been? Has it been possible fo the Axis to hold Sweden in the face of a determined, experienced player?

I'm going to go the other way from Edwin based on what I think Terif said earlier: So that 6% includes the catch up. Then, You multiply the 6% by the number of chits you have in whatever tech it is (i.e. 2 here). Then, So each level of positive difference increases the catch up, which as we've seen above is summed with the base before multiplying by the number of chits invested. So I'd say you get the 30% [ 3 * (5+1+4) ].

Assuming it's unchanged since 1.05a. Unless the Allies get seriously lucky with Romania (twice!), you'll always get Bulgaria. Hungary will join just after you declare war on the USSR at the latest. Romania will not join unless you put one chit in. The problem is that the Allies know all this. If you go into Spain, they know that you'll have to diplo Romania. They also know that you might not do Hungary, relying on it to join eventually. So, it depends what they do of course . And that depends on what they expect you to do. You'll be very safe with 2 on Hungary & 3 on Romania, but then that's costly. A minimum in most games would be 1:2, although you might choose to risk 0:1. If you're worried about overspending, consider this. Each turn that you have a connected Romania (i.e. Romania and Hungary), you get 70 MMP. That pays you back almost a chit a turn. Of course, it's a risk . ROMANIA Start: 75% France falls: 3-5% USSR war entry: 7-10% Min/Max: 85%/90% 22/10/1940 trigger nation: Spain @40% HUNGARY Start 80% France falls: 3-5% USSR war entry: 7-10% Min/Max: 90%/95% 22/10/1940 trigger nation: Spain @40% BULGARIA Start70% France falls: 3-5% USSR war entry: 7-10% Min/Max: 80%/85% 22/10/1940 trigger nation: Romania @40%

Mud and snow reduce the damage dealt out by air by 50%. That doesn't affect the 30% morale drop though. What do you think? Should it, using the same logic that reduces the attack value of air? I'd guess that the same logic applies to bombardments when stormy or frozen. Not a big one, but just something that I thought about.

On the tech front, there's a possibility that German units going into Spain will deliberately not be upgraded to avoid signalling what the emphasis will be in Russia. I'd agree that you're normally going to need an HQ and that the most likely source is O'Connor, so you can only mount a defence by signalling that you've evacuated Egypt. Therefore any gain in terms of slowing down the Axis in Spain will likely be partially offset by a speedier fall of the Middle East than if you had not signalled. There does remain a chance though to significantly delay Barbarossa and all of your units should have died in >5 supply, so you'll get your rebuilds. In a mirror game my opponent landed the BEF in Bilbao unsupported, so it died the next turn as I could hit it with 4 air units. I then went on to break my advice to him that it was a bad move and ship a couple of units in myself in the mirror, but the difference was that he'd spread his air out over three theatres. So if the Germans go in soft, it might be worth taking the risk with 1-2 corps/armies as long as they stay in cities for the guaranteed rebuild. Anything that delays Barby is good for you. If you're worried about the UK being exposed, you probably have enough time to build more corps and probably already have enough in place to defend against a small raid (as you know most of his units are tied up in Spain). I haven't checked the scripts, but IIRC a Sealion after Spain and Vichy have been attacked will likely bring the US into the war. Very bad news for the Axis if the Sealion isn't immediately successful (and possibly even if it is). For the Spanish, pulling back to screen Madrid whilst the tank is rebuilt and fortified in the city seems the most sensible thing to do. Is it worth reinforcing Franco though? [ April 26, 2007, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

The real kick in the nads is that Intel doesn't help if your allies are ahead of you. Not that it necessarily logically should, but there's no other game mechanism to simulate an allied tech trickle-down effect. I know there's the argument that Germany didn't really share, but it seems unlikely to me that Il Duce would be getting more help from US & Russian scientists than from German ones.

Does "losing it forever" reduce the number of that unit type that you can have on the map? foko. If bombing the Brest area, only the town needs to be bombed as the port will already be at 5 and will be 1 tile away from the corps.

DD reminded me of something I've been meaning to check. When bombarding units (rather than resources and possibly units on resources), do naval units use their soft/tank/air/bomber values rather than their strategic? i.e. is a CA just as good as a BB for shore bombardment of units?