I/O Error
-
Posts
428 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by I/O Error
-
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the term Wehrmacht encompass all land based forces, while the real term for "regular german army" was Heer? (Wouldn't surprise me if I'm mistaken, but live and learn)
But anyway. There are no such distinctions drawn in Strategic Command, that at least is clear.
-
That attack with the French army did claim a panzer division, but sadly it left them JUST too weak for an effective defense. Sigh...Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:No im just good (or am i?)
But Error (
) has done very well. He made the mistake of attacking with 1 weak army in france that caused a breakthough that doomed france. His attacks on the baltic are textbook. I just wonder how he'll use russia....Oh, and as of last turn the "his attacks on the baltic are textbook" phrase no longer means "worthy of emulation", it means "NEVER EVER DO THIS if you value the lives of your sailors and the precarious strategic position of your nation."
-
C'mon ya big baggy girl's blouse!
Carl's fun to play against and we're all a twitche to see some screenies! -
Now in a more serious vein, I think Carl is doing very well. I abandoned Malta at the beginning to use the fighter in France, and I still wonder if that was smart or foolish.
My navy has suffered pretty extensive losses (I think each ship has gone to the repair docks TWICE so far) and my last ditch effort to ferry troops from France to the UK failed, so they were all surrendered except a few skeletal remains. (No port in Northern France, argh!
)The med is entirely Axis controlled, no question about that. (In my opinion, no real loss at least as SC models it) It's just past June 1941. And what's with this "BB's" plural business, you only got one!
I wonder, do I just suck or is Carl just good?
Edit: Gawd, there were just MASSES of those Nazi rats, waiting to POUNCE on poor Yugoslavia, lol! And might I add that Herr Feldmarshal Manstein's effort in Sweden leave much to be desired...?
[ October 27, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]
-
Oi! I claim that was totally legimate!Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:He did the gamey tactic of attacking Italy at its fleets spawn points. I will be hard pressed to keep any navy...
(besides, I got mauled, LOL) It was pathetic, I ended up having to sneak the Ark Royal out of the Med, which didn't work. (I got close!)
Ha! The Swedes have been turning your boys into DOG MEAT, son!Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Ok, in january 41 i hit sweden, its april and the attack had bogged down. Thanks in large part to the british fleet. But malta, and egypt have been taken.
However russia is becoming more active.....
Although they will lose, I am exceptionally pleased with their performance. Hell, I sank your last cruiser and destroyed an army, as well as tying up another army, an air fleet and a crack panzer division, whee!. Amazing what a blockade of 3 battleships and 2 carriers can do.
-
The irony of Sweden bites deep. Manstein is now holding my LEFT NUT and parading in Berlin.
[ October 27, 2002, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]
-
*cough*Originally posted by Edwin:Perhaps we should have the ability to name newly created units
You can, just right-click on the unit and select "rename".
-
Sweden continues to hold out, tying up experienced units and slowly bleeding them. Manstein was a fool, reassign him to Metz as a Panzer maintenance instructor!
The Great Comrade Stalin was firmly cloated upside the head when he gave his not one step back order, and so the Glorious Red Army, made up of good Russian workers and peasants, advanced to the rear and made a solid wall. One panzer division has been destroyed with no loss already.
(Hey, I take my "glories" where I can get them. I know in about 5 turns I'll be sobbing to Carl to please let me at least hold on the Urals.)
-
Originally posted by Immer Etwas:
And Russia's, too! Yeah, sub warfare is critically flawed in this game, and that's a real shame. I figure (like you said) the ocean size must be increased. Also, does it make sense that a sub should not be visible when it attacks? If they were seen on the attack, it would be trivial to find them. If they stay hidden, at least the other player has to work a LITTLE bit to find the sub in the hexes adjacent to the target that went down. I don't even know if that would work, just throwing out an idea. -
-
Well said dgaad, well said. Here's hoping that EB takes it to heart. Truly, anybody who ignores or in any way denegrates the heroic actions taken by any of the Allies (or Axis, for that matter), whether they be America or the Soviet Union or the smallest members of the Commonwealth, is merely displaying their ignorance. There is, after all, a reason it was termed a World War.
And if you don't mind, I'd like to quote a part of your post to use in a totally unrelated topic I'm making in the General Discussion forum, about what sort of tactical (or strategic) situations people prefer in war games. I would be quoting this:
Originally posted by dgaad:My favorite type of wargames to play are in fact sims of the Barbarossa campaign in its entirety. I always play the Russians. I always like to win. I always know its possible to do this with the Russians because of the enormous sacrifices of the Russian and Soviet peoples, who were willing to bear any burden to achieve victory.
-
That's because China isn't communist anymore in any real sense.
But yes, in all seriousness I do understand what you're saying. I happen to believe that some light political debate can enhance our game discussions. (It's also impossible to stop them completely, considering the subject material.) I am however sorry that EB felt this way and decided to leave.
-
Bye bye!
As one note that I just can't pass up... Saying that Stalin butchered tens of millions of innocent civilians for no gain is "vile and shameful slanders"? All right then! Believe what you wish!
Edit: And you know what? Nobody here has attacked the Russian people, they've only attacked the USSR and the Marxist-Leninist theories the Union was based on. There is a huge difference, so sorry if your biased mind can't see that!
Frankly there's no country I want to see working more closely with us than Russia.Note: Okay, that's like 4 edits in 5 minutes. I think that's quite enough.
[ October 25, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]
-
Okay, let me ask you this. Has your method EVER worked against a competent human player? We're not just talking about the AI here, that's easy.Originally posted by Ancient One:Looks like you guys have thought this through...NOT. Try thinking outside of the box. Subs are currently the most cost efficient naval unit for the damage they can do to the enemy fleet. Any halfway competent Axis player can destroy the Allied fleet with subs. Do we really need another change to make battleships and cruisers even more useless?
Edit: And who the hell would use subs and leave them open to counterattack when you can basically rule the waves without a single ship, just with airpower? I mean once you get a few LR tech advances, it's all over for the RN! (At least, with the AI. Humans either retreat the ships or disband them)
[ October 25, 2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]
-
Absolutely, absolutely. I agree completely, subs are far too easily detected. SC robs subs of their most fundamental defensive and offensive advantage.Originally posted by EB.:However, the key thing in my opinion is that subs should be harder to detect in the first place.
I am not a submarine warfare expert, but from what I do know, this would seem to fix things a bit in the game.
What I'd really like is a system where you could not see a sub unless you entered the hex it currently occupied. Wouldn't that be a lot better? Certainly the range should be reduced, I could also support a "can only spot from adjacent hex" system. Unfortunately, it wouldn't shock me to find out that a change like that would be very difficult to work into SC.
Edit: I think that would be quite interesting; players would have to, like the Allies, devote valuable naval resources to "scour" the oceans every turn. Niiiiice.
(Of course the subs would be visible when they attacked, but I'm carefully sidestepping that problem for now)
There is precious little point in asking a question if you are only going to answer it yourself.Also, I wonder why no British or Soviet sub units are shown. There were many British and Soviet subs in the real war--in fact, many more than the Germans had. I guess the problem is that these subs had almost no impact upon the course of the war because Germany (quite unlike Britain) was not an island nation with a worldwide maritime commercial network. Maybe this is why they are not in the game.And as a slight dig, I would like to point out that the Soviet sub service was without question the most incompetent and poorly supplied submarine navy in the history of modern warfare. The stories cross the line from being merely "unfortunately tragic" to being "god damn hysterically funny".
To be honest, a large part of that success was also because the Japanese could never get an effective convoy system working. They also had no real concept similiar to the German "wolfpack". The Wolfpack alone acted as a force multiplier for the Germans, the Japanese just couldn't match that.If you want to see how really to conduct submarine strategic warfare, you should see not the German effort against Britain (which ultimately failed) but its far more successful counterpart in the Pacific--the American subs just absolutely butchered the Japanese merchant lifelines. It is not the Germans but actually the Americans who were the true sub experts of the World War Two. Strange to me that this is not much publicized in the US, by the way.
I disagree! That's not true today among civilians, especially after all the media hoopla during the Gulf War and before about "SEAL team infiltrations" and "Tomahawk missile launches". Most Americans seem to think of the modern sub fleet as, quote, "Pretty cool".I mean, almost nobody I talked to there knew anything about this, though they know all about D-Day and the A-Bomb. If our Soviet subs had even 10% of the success that the American subs had, well, our propaganda would never cease glorifying it. But in America there is total silence. Maybe it is because subs have been treated in Western propaganda as a kind of cowardly method of warfare.And the military has since WWII groomed the submarine force as standing among the elite of the Navy, second only to Naval Aviation. All volunteer, highly trained, exacting standards, yada yada yada.
Really only during the war, and even in WWII the tone seemed to be less obvious than during WWI. (at least, I don't recall propaganda campaigns similiar to the ones that followed the sinking of the Lusitania.The US sure blamed the Germans for "cowardly U-boats".I think it really all depends on which histories you look at, EB. US school textbooks give the subject only a passing reference, but in fact that's actually true of the entire Pacific campaign. My suspicion is because it's easier to teach the European front to kids, which is chock-full of memorable dates and obvious watershed marks. In the Pacific it seems like most books just go, "Pearl Harbor... *pause* Midway... *pause* Atom Bombs, war over, we won!"
(That's almost not an exaggeration.)[ October 25, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]
-
Interestingly enough, the advantage of German infantry was MUCH more apparent in 1940 than it was in 1939. The officer corps was really quite displeased with their experiences in Poland, and so the line infantry got a SERIOUS kick in the ass after that campaign. (Of course there's no way to model that exactly, so the added experience for German infantry makes complete sense)
-
Just to reply to this part of your message (since I agree with the rest) why do you say they would be more effective? Just one more level of bureaucracy, but no real effect. Russian factories were never really reworked for the Germany war machine. Just too much damage and a population too unwilling to join.Originally posted by JayJay_H:Okay, i would imagine that mines etc would work more effective when they belong to new german eastern provinces!?
-
That was a good read RickKhan, but I assume it was from a non-English site? (Merely curious, there are lots of punctuation errors) Anyway, thanks for sharing that.
-
Heh heh, that's pretty funny.
I get the feeling that both EB and JayJay have some serious egg on their faces right now. (Or if there is any justice, they should. )JayJay: Why recommend this? Any change in SC should be something that will change game play in some way, not be just merely cosmetic. There is no point in adding borders.
-
I agree completely, partisan marching hundreds of miles to INVADE somewhere is just insane. However, I don't think this could be changed.
Let's look at the game balance, if partisans were disbanded or barred from invasions: unless they fundamentally change the way partisans operate, all they would be turned into is little corps sized units wandering around in their countries, having no effect whatsoever.
For those partisans to do anything, you would have to make them similar to Surface Raiders; every turn there is a loss of MPP until they are killed. Perhaps even a chance of an overthrow? THAT would be cool, and that kind of change could make the game a lot more fun.
I mean, does it seem odd that you can have thousands of enemy troops free inside your borders, and you don't feel any ill effects? Those Yugoslav partisans were HELL on supply lines, they should be likewise in SC.
-
Excuse my ignorance here: I know what happened to the Aquila, but what DID happen to the Graf Zeppelin? Just bombed into submission, never quite completed, captured by ground forces in the docks, or what?
-
Taking Turkey isn't a hugely bad idea if you're very fast and you grab the oil wells in Iraq. And if you can manage it being able to grab half of the production in the USSR in 2-3 turns can be a real plus. (very difficult though, human opponents as USSR love the second poorly defended front to counter-attack.)
-
Oh, that IS a nice idea. It's workable and it solves the problem without unduly hampering anything else.
-
Quite frankly, some of us play to WIN, not to plod through history and put historical blinders over our eyes.Originally posted by norvandave:I agree with Jeff. The idea of disbanding fleets and attacking Italy in that way is gamey. You are manipulating the game rather than dealing with what could actually have been done historically.
) has done very well. He made the mistake of attacking with 1 weak army in france that caused a breakthough that doomed france. His attacks on the baltic are textbook. I just wonder how he'll use russia....
Frankly there's no country I want to see working more closely with us than Russia.
POLL: Most popular campaign.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Panzer Lehr, you MIGHT want to find a better class of opponent.