Wolfpack

Will that be an option for those of us who have already preordered?

Oh, so simulating the deaths of German boys, Russian boys, British boys, French boys, ect is A-OK, but when it's Arabs it somehow becomes a moral crime? Really, you should have stuck with your first argument, because this one is pretty pitiful. Why is this any different from nearly any other modern wargame for the past 10-15 years? They all find a potential hotspot and simulate warfare there. During the Cold War, they simulated wars in Europe, later we got Middle Eastern simulations, Korean simulations, Pakistan/India simulations. Should those all have been pulled just because there might have been fighting in those areas at the time? If you don't like it, vote with your pocketbook and don't buy it, but don't come onto the board and throw out insults and gross characterizations like you're some kind of morally perfect superbeing, especially you apparently had no qualms about enjoying a game based on the most destructive war in our history. Hypocrite.

You neet to install the .net acritecture in the start menu thing. I had the same problem until I saw that.

Sounds very interesting...you guys are really branching out and picking winners. I'll be watching this one.

My guess would be a hit on unit readiness for Axis units in Africa so long as Malta is occupied by air units. Wouldn't make much sense to have it be affected by a ground unit, but air units would be (and did) interdict a lot of Axis supplies moving that way. Something like that would make taking Malta a pretty important strategy, just as it was in the war.

I think you're thinking of the wrong series. I personally hated the one you're talking about, not my kind of story. The one I'm talking about is where the South won the Civil War. So WWI had the USA, Germany, and Austria-Hungary, vs. the CSA, France, England, and Japan to an extent. Should make for a pretty balanced game.

I'm going to give it a shot at two scenarios. One will be a WWI variant based on the Great War series by Harry Turtledove, and the second will be the WWII version of the same if he ever releases the next book in the series. I have a pretty good idea what the next war will look like, but I'd like to know for sure.

Before someone jumps in and says to search old posts, I'll give you the short replies to your problems and why things are like that. Generally, this one is because it's outside the scale of the game. Smallest units are corps and both of the mentioned units are smaller. There were big fights about this one when the game first came out though, so who knows, maybe we'll see them in SC2. The lend lease is already factored in, that's one reason allied production is low and Russian is high. It's considering the fact that there's already some MPPs being funnelled from the allies to Russia. Also, it takes into account the two front war for the US, so you're not seeing full US production, you're seeing what's left after lend lease and the Pacific theater are taken into account. These are both the same issue. This was a windows problem. When Hubert designed the game, there was a limit to how much he could put on the map caused by windows. What you see is the best compromise at the time. SC2 Should be much improved in this respect considering that problem should be gone, and this is the single biggest issue people have problems with. It is kind of possible to make your own. There are some good scenarios out there for the game. The editor isn't full featured, but it can be forced into a different shape if you want to take the time. Also, because the game is more military focused than political, 1936 wouldn't be a very good starting point because until '39, there was no real military action. If you want to make a scenario where the French and British (And possibly Italians) actually stand up to Germany over Austria or Czechoslovokia, that is quite possible. Enjoy the game, always good to see another customer for Hubert.

Gauis Marius....oh wait, you said WWII...I'll second the vote for Model. If you needed a gap filled or had to have an attack turned back, he's the one to turn to. He performed brilliantly on the biggest stage in the war.

Personally what I'd rather see is something more along the lines of supply depots or points that are purchasable by the major powers. Take the supply function away from the HQ units and make it a seperate unit. Then you could have minors purchase HQs to improve their fighting abilities, while not making it possible for the minors to become a-historically powerful. Hqs would have to drop in price since you'd be buying two units to do the function of the current one, but it would allow you a bit more flexability with deployments also.

1: Ability to split alliances up. EG - I can play just the germans and let the AI control Italy or play Russia and leave the other Allies to the computer. 2: More space period, especially in the Atlantic. Hopefully the game will go world wide, but even if it stays in the same area, the Atlantic needs more room. Addition of a few shipping lanes to the south, perhaps an off map area to send German ships into the Indian Ocean which could affect the Allied sea route around Africa. 3: Better AI. Naturally. I know most of the people who still post here are all of you ladder guys, but I rarely have time for a good game against someone else, so I need to have a challenging AI. The AI needs to plan and coordinate attacks better, be less distracted by ancillary units and events. One thing that needs work is the AI's counterattacks. Currently it rarely makes a concerted counterattack, but instead will throw units in here and there and gives me plenty of time to shuffle units back and forth. This isn't to say I just want it to be more agressive...without improving the decisionmaking process about when and where to attack, more agressiveness just means more chances for me to trap and kill units. The naval AI definitely needs work. 1: Doors - Still the best 2: Tool - Incredable concert, and the music is better. 3: Glen Miller - The master of the big bands.

We've had quite a few discussions about minor HQ units, and I remain unconvinced that they're needed for the simple reason that giving them a HQ allows them to be far more ambitious and effective than they were in real life. The minors are just about right as they are now, and anything to strengthen them wouldn't work with the current system. If this changes for SC 2, then perhaps, but not in this version. The biggest change I'd like to see for HQs are an option for hidden, and random ratings. For those of you who played No Greater Glory, that feature added a ton of replayability to that game. It would be nice to have to figure out the capabilities of leaders based on their performance rather than have it set in stone. [ May 12, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

Been a while since I've played SC (So nany games to play, so little time) but I'm planning to start a few. I'd like to try it if you can send it my way.

And if you want your troops to just hunker down and hold out until you can end their encirclement? [ January 31, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

If you want a fun game as the Axis, play the scenarios from 42 on, otherwise it's just too easy. As the Allies, some of the user made scenarios provide your best challenge. As for experience, it's tough. I generally try not to reinforce unless I have to, and I can usually build up a good bit of xp for them, but that's probably just my imagination. PS - And as for why it's not available in stores, go to the battlefront.com page and read their manifesto. That explains why they don't sell in stores better than I can. [ December 24, 2002, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

Actually, the view still makes sense today. The F-16 isn't the fastest plane we have, but it's still the best dogfighter in the world. If you're building an interceptor, speed is the key. For a dogfighter it's maneuverability. Now, if you can have both in one plane that's great, but the design limitations are something that's difficult to overcome. We're just now beginning to see planes that combine both, but it took thrust vectoring, fly by wire, and very advanced aerodynamic technology to get to this point. The Me-262 wasn't a very good dogfighter, if it got drawn into a dogfight against a P-51 or P-38, it was toast. The thing it could do was make a couple of really high speed passes at a bomber formation, knock a few out, then head home and hope there weren't enemy planes hanging out around it's field, because it wouldn't be able to fight them off if there were. Another reason that jets weren't viewed as a priority for Germany and Italy was resources. When you consider that early jet engines life spans were so short, and advanced and limited materials were an integral part of their construction, the reluctance to move to jet power is more understandable. They simply didn't have the resources to field a large force of jet planes and keep them in the air. To this you'd have to add their horrible fuel efficiency, and we've all heard about Germany's problems getting fuel.

The early flying wing wasn't the be-all-end-all of bombers. The American version did have significant problems. The range, speed, and payload were fine, but the pilots did have significant problems with bomb accuracy. The Crash certainly didn't help the cause either. All in all, it was a design well ahead of it's time.

Actually, I would say the biggest drawbacks to a jet bomber is the limited payload along with range. The early jet bombers weren't exactly heavyweights. To simulate this, you could make the low levels both short ranged and give them a relatively low attack value. Both would increase with increased levels of tech. That would do something to slow down the progression of tech, but allow a quick fix if someone was pretty desperate.

Well, they had quite a few in development (and since the game is what-if and can last longer they would appear) the most comprehensive list I've found is here That site has both fighters and bombers. For more in depth studies, there are a few books I've read on the late war studies by the Germans, unfortunately, it's been a while since I read them in college. I might be able to find one or two around here if you're interested though.

Why no jet bombers? Given enough time, the Germans could have produced them, they did build a few tactical jet bombers. There are a lot of things that would have to go into this suggestion. Are you still going to seperate tactical bombers from fighters? (A good plan in my opinion) What I'd like to see is a bit of a branching research tree. Similar to HOI, but much more simplistic. Research jets to a certain level, then you split that off into jet bombers and fighters (and tactical bombers if you have the three seperated). I'd like more detail in the units in general, but I don't want it to get to HOI levels. I like this game for two reasons. It's easy to pick up and play, and in general, it works, unlike HOI.

Good lord, someone actually resurrected this post? The extent of the fight in the north could be shown ingame as one corps on each side both highly entrenched. And of course, you wouldn't be able to reinforce because the territory really can't support much more in the way of troops. Strategic options? Win in the south and force the other side to pull out, otherwise you aren't going anywhere. Actually, this is the only legitamate reason for extending the map north. There was a lot of naval action up in this area, and the limits of the map make it hard for the Axis to move units out into the Atlantic...not impossible, just harder than it should be. Unfortunately, any changes of this type will have to wait for SC2, so it's all academic anyhow.

Biggest improvement I noticed was the UK desert force. While it may not be perfectly historical, it does change things up a lot. Usually once Italy enters I embark my african troops to take out Greece, and when I did it this time, I looked back a few turns later to see that the Brits had romped across North Africa and taken my cities. Makes it a bit harder to go off on wild adventures with the Italians.

You actually like the thought that a country that held out for...what? 4 hours? can even think about going head to head with Germany?

Anyone else find this to be a really disturbing thought? I mean, I've seen some wargamers...we're not usually the most fit of individuals and the thought of them with teddy bears and thongs... Urg. Excuse me while I go vomit. [ December 05, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

Well, I bought it as soon as it hit the stores, and after playing for a week or so, I'm still undecided. My impressions of the game are all going to be made when and if Paradox gets all the bugs worked out and makes it a game instead of a "What's the smallest country I can conquer the world with" game. On the plus side - Diplomatic model works relatively well. I like not being padlocked into set sides. Research is great. It allows for much more customization of your forces based on who you're controlling and your situation. Three distinct alliances. Seperating the Soviets and their allies into a COMINTERN group is the way to go. Despite what others say, I prefer the province map, although it could be better designed to make military decisions more important. Large scale encirclements and such should be possible at this scale, but with the present province layout, it's a bit too tricky. Ability to play smaller nations. As it is now, this feature is really low on the list. If Paradox improves the AI though it will be much more fun. I'd like to take Poland or another small country and try to improve on their performance, not conquer Germany with them. Convoy interdiction is done better than any other game I've seen. It's a good system and I wouldn't mind seeing SC move in that type of direction. On the downside - AI AI AI AI...did I mention AI? Perhaps the worst AI I've seen in a wargame since a certain American Civil War game that shall remain unnamed. To make my point. It is possible (Dare I say easy) to conquer Europe, including Russia, With the units Germany has starting in 1939. The AI cannot understand the concept of a defensive line, it does not build troops, it doesn't invest in tech or if it does, it does it in a very poor manner, it cannopt perform a decent amphibious assault (We all remember this one, thank you for improving that Hubert) In short, it turns the game into a laugh of a wargame. Economic modelling is, again, simply awful. Strategic resources are completely worthless in the game because, unless you're playing Cuba or some such nation, you will be able to max out your stock in something, then you just have to put it on the world market and get what you need. Even if you're at war with everyone else. It completely takes out the motivation to go after oilfields or other resources. A bit heavy on the absolute micromanagent. By this I mean that you have no option to delegate anything. I want all this in there, convoys, research, economics, building, ect. But I would like the option to delegate some of it to computer control. I think they should be able to set it up so I don't have to work out the convoy system if I choose not to, or be able to set research goals to work toward. Poor OOB. Easiest one to fix, and one that the players are working on now. Leader system is too narrow, especially for naval units. High ranking naval leaders should be able to command more than 12 ships, and generals should be able to command more than 12 divisions. I'd like to see one further "height" to the command structure, like Front Commanders and Grand Admirals. Bugs and missing features are everywhere. Half of what little there is in the manual isn't even in the game yet. And I get CTDs at least once a game. I haven't had a game do that to me in years. Absolutely the single worst piece of documentation I have ever seen. Not even taking into account the things it says should be in the game and aren't, there are a ton of things that are in the game that aren't explained at all. If I didn't read the message boards I'd still be lost. Roughly 35 pages are devoted to WWII history. Neat, but the time could have been better spent elsewhere. Going right along with this is the pretty pitiful tutorial. Needs some type of "Zones of Interest" Lets face it, Romania has no business romping through the Urals. Italy has no need to be doing the same in Finland (Saw that one in my last game). This leads to some really silly games. Considering how each power had a relatively well defined ZOI in WWII (Except maybe the US), this could be fixed. Nukes and advanced nuclear techs are too quick to get. Even working full out, it should take longer to get nukes. They need to add a really long and expensive ramp up program for these. This is the one area of research that's beginning from a completely fresh start. And ICBMs? They don't even belong in a game that ends in '48. Strategy First. Do you need more than that? How about a new motto. "Strategy First...We guarantee we'll get it out first so you can pay to beta test for us and if enough of you do, maybe next time you'll get a game that's complete." I'm completely ambivilant on the Turn-based/realtime wars. I see both sides, and they both make sense. Realtime is nice because you can have things like night and day, and better coordinate your efforts. Turnbased is much easier to play, and less stressful on the player. Either way you go, if you make a good WWII strategy game, I'll buy it. There you go. The main thing that irritates me is rushing a game out before it's close to done. The best thing about Battlefront is that they (and their partners) avoid this pitfall. Nothing will erode your customer base quicker than to make them pay for an unfinished product. Patches should be to improve a game, not to make it playable and fun. And despite all the negative things I've said, I'm going to be patient on this game, because the premise is solid, and the game has potential, but they're really going to have to put in some extra hours to redeem what is at the moment a huge disappointment.