Bromley

Does this still happen in 1.04? I've just lost Egypt for the first time playing a 1.02 PBEM and I didn't expect all my southern Commonwealth troops to give up (especially as most of them were on transports for good old Blighty at the time).

Command rating affects Readiness only. Therefore, assuming one leader with 4 and one with 8, unit with Strength 10 & and Morale of 80 and no Combat Morale Bonus (HQ's experience bonus): ((Strength+Command Rating)/2+Morale+Combat Morale Bonus)/2 Italian HQ @ 4 ((10+4)/2+80+0)/2 I'll hold off on the rest until someone confirms that I've got the first part of the equation right. It just looks wrong as even with a 10 Command Rating the first part can only be 10, making it insignificant compared to morale. I'd guess that Strength and Command should each be multiplied by 10. Sound right? EDIT: At first glance, it seems that I was wrong. Check out Voice of Reason's thread. [ September 27, 2006, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

There's no real need to ferry planes - operational movement covers that. Whilst I'd like to see carriers get some development attention, I personally don't like the idea of stacking on them. I guess my ideal would be if carriers had two strength scores, 5 for hull and 5 for air. Even then, that might be complicating the situation too much.

Slight hijack, but do subs in SC2 have a reduced enemy-spotting range as they did in SC? I thought not, but I may be wrong. I don't like the spy idea personally. There's no stacking and the scale is therefore wrong. I'd prefer to see something via the Intel route.

There was a suggestion a couple of weeks ago to allow a country with a higher Intel to have a chance of seeing some otherwise hidden moves. Probably difficult to balance though (it'd need a lot of testing).

I suspect that the wealth profile of Saudi Arabia (etc.) is significantly more top heavy than Germany (or even the US). Much of that realised wealth would still be controlled by the same people were the [insert oppressed mass here] to rise up. I wonder if Al Gore would have been so anti-oil if he was in office. Either way, remove the dependence on oil and you cease to fund the religious loons (or at least the unfriendly ones).

I'd be very surprised if Saudi Arabia etc., whilst wasting a lot of money, didn't in fact invest a whole bunch in the world economy (AKA America, as Rambo keeps telling us). Whatever else you think of Moore, that "get out of US" card issued to prominent Saudis related to Bin Laden should be a hint.

One more thing. You can move the HQ and then attach units that are now within 5-6 tile range of its new position, which can be useful if you have pushed a corps in too far last turn and it has become unattached.

One more thing. You can move the HQ and then attach units that are now within 5-6 tile range of its new position, which can be useful if you have pushed a corps in too far last turn and it has become unattached.

It seems that people think that the US is too cheap, but do people feel that the UK diplo on the USSR is too cheap atm? I've been trying it on in my PBEM games and, with 2 chits, I've had only average success. In general, it feels like I'd probably have been better served investing 150 in Spain rather than 200 in the USSR.

Really? I've seen the standard hexes/tiles stuff, but I thought squares and 1.4 hadn't been covered. EDIT: Actually, I've just seen that John DiFool mentioned 1.4 back in June. Still, not much discussion about it and nothing about squares vs. diamonds. [ September 20, 2006, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

Much as I'm enjoying SC2, especially now I've started MP, the tiles still bother me. I know the game mechanics haven't really encouraged defence, but even if they did the tiles as they stand make defence hard. You either have a salient or an exploitable gap in your line, as much fighting seems to be directly on the east/west axis. I know some, perhaps the majority, would like to go back to hexes for SC3. That'd be fine by me, but what is preventing it using N-S oriented tiles (i.e. squares rather than diamonds)? This isn't a board game, so the game can calculate the movement costs in the diagonal directions as 1.4 (rounded up or down) when it displays the movement costs.

I have to admit that I don't understand the combat equations. That said, can't the CA/CD values be adjusted to allow carriers to win if they're attacking and lose if attacked? That's the biggest failing of carriers to me. Bugger the high reinforcement costs, I'm too busy losing too much of my UK carriers to the Italian navy in a first strike scenario. I suspect that there's another point about there being too many UK carriers, but that's something else.

It matters because, if I understand correctly, 1 UK chit cancels out 1 German/Italian chit. Therefore, as under 1.04 the Axis can invest only 8 chits in Spain to your 5, they only get a 9-15% chance (depending on how the game decides which chits are used to cancel out the UK ones).

There's always going to be something that through its uncertainty unbalances a game like this though. You made the choice to go flat out for Iraq (risk) rather than take the route of blocking Spain (safe, but more expensive). After all, you knew what he was doing and, unless he got two 30%s, had plenty of time to react.

At a guess: 1. Moving. You're not "moving", you're "rebasing". So that takes time to set up and transport. I'm not so sure that in game terms the whole concept of "moving" your air units might be wrong - it may be really more of an operate move. Still, I suppose the theory is that you send people ahead to prepare a basic runway and them fly your planes there. 2. Spotting. Spotting range could never be longer than attack range, as it involves an element of flying around to do the spotting, whereas attacking is flying to a known point.

Yep, but they're still pretty pants at range 2. You'd have a better incentive to not cash that chit and to invest in rocket units if there was a chance they'd be range 3 in the near future.

I'm not certain, but I think 1.04 limits the diplo chits of Italy (and France).

Would there be anything wrong with avoiding the whole artillery issue (technically included in armies and corps at this scale) and just increasing the starting range for rockets to 2? I've never used them, so maybe I've not thought of an obvious balance problem with that.

1.04 prevents the USSR becoming less than 0% Allied. I just had enough Axis hits to make it go at least 50% Axis, but it stayed at 0%.

Sure, if it totally removed FOW. But would it be worth investing 300 MMP just to occasionally see one BB moving around the Med? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Another good idea for making Intel tech useful (partial Fog-off in the replay). That and slowing the bloody replays down .

Has anybody tried the BEF in Gibralter? Any better, or just a dead army?

Thanks.

How long does the transfer around the Cape take? I've never had to use it before as I've always beaten the Italian AI fleet in the Med, but playing people is screwing with my supremacy there.