gunnergoz
-
Posts
2,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gunnergoz
-
-
oops
[ August 05, 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]
-
Just some respectful suggestions, I don't know what is your level of experience playing this game.
Are you using HQ units to best effect and are you checking for command links with combat units? Make sure that your attacking units are at 90 per cent or better readiness before attacking. Also, are you reinforcing your units to their full rated capacity? Hint: before you attack, check the entrenchment level of the defenders. You need to bring it down to zero before you have any real success, especially when they are in a city. Hope this helps.
[ August 05, 2002, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]
-
My experience is that air fleets will only provide cover or attack for (1) ground forces from their own nation, and (2) for cities and resources in their home country. This is surely a lapse in AI design that hopefully can be remedied with a patch that will instruct air fleets to defend allied resources/units (after their own nation's needs are first met).
Speaking of AI behavior, I am playing Allies on Level 2 (+1) for the Axis AI. Last night, the Axis invaded France,then followed up with invasions of Spain and Portugal!
I managed to pull some Brits out of France before it fell and now they and the Yanks are in the process of liberating the Iberian Peninsula.
This game rocks, especially on the higher AI bonus levels!
-
Just a small correction, Norse...there is no appreciable oil in the Phillipines.Originally posted by Norse:Andrew Hedges,
(snip...)
Secondly, Japan didn't attack USA for fun. They hadto get the oil on the Phillipines, otherwise the war would be basically over for them. If you wonder why they attacked in 1941 and not in 1938 or so, then it is because USA traded oil to Japan until 1941. War was inevitable after this trade was put off.
(snip...)
~Norse~
The oil you refer to was in the Dutch East Indies. The Phillipines were an obstacle in the way of Japanese intentions to seize the DEI and was part of their strategy to set up their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
The Japanese basically intended the enslavement of the local indiginous peoples and the confiscation of all material wealth and infrastructure to Japanese gain.
The US denial of oil only speeded up their plans of conquest and enslavement. The Japanese did not for a minute intend to let Western powers continue the process of colonial rule in the areas that the Japanese felt they had a right to rule over. Think of it as Japanese Lebenstraum and racial cleansing. Remember "Asia for the Asians" was a popular Japanese propaganda message in those days.
-
In my 2 games to date as the Allies, the Siberians were released once in Dec '41 and the next time in Feb '42 (in the nick o' time I might add...) Not sure what triggers it tho proximity to Moscow might be a factor as was posited earlier.
-
Yes i've always wondered about this, why I drop by what seems to be 2 points nearly every time i send my bomber off to attack a Corps in Sweden after i've taken out their air</font>Originally posted by BiggN:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"2. It seems that shore bombardment is more costly to the ships than the damage that they do.
So for this also seems to be the same with strategic bombing...but maybe the experience is too limited."
-
This goes to confirm what I've seen so far...the beginner level is just that.
Also, the 180 points given the USA must take into account a dual-front war being waged, with enormous resources being devoted in MPP equivalents towards the construction of the Pacific fleet and the B-29's. Surely the US total production must be closer to 360 points/month?
Which brings up the second point...if the USA historically had seen Nazi forces off its shore following the defeat of both UK and USSR, then surely more of those "360 MPP" would have been devoted to the Atlantic war. The game does not give the Americans the option of switching production priorities in a two-front war.
Admittedly, the US did historically place priority upon defeating the Nazis, but it still devoted 40-50 per cent of production capacity and total forces fielded, to the war against Japan.
What skews the picture is the fact that only about 1/3 of US Army divisions served in the Pacific. However, 2/3 of the US Navy served in the Pacific. The manpower went to Europe, but the production largely went to the Pacific.
The game must also be factoring in the resources that the US bled off for the Manhattan Project. Surely that was the equivalent of another 40 MPP per turn.
The race for the Bomb is one thing that is curiously left out of the game. It would have been another area to devote production resources for.
This would be handled a bit differently than other weapons used in the game. First of all, the odds of developing the weapon in any given turn would be very low. Second, many reasearch points (probably 5) would have to be devoted to have any realistic hope of achieving production. Third, the product would be a single-use weapon, limiting the player production capability to one or two at most during the entire war.
Finally, the dropping of such weapons on an enemy state would trigger a "surrender threashhold" that would ramp up quickly after one bomb has been dropped on an enemy city. No one likes to be nuked!
Perhaps this has been covered before, but I've not spend much time in this forum before aquiring the actual game.
The resulting weapon would presumably consist of a super-expensive "bomb" icon that could be transported by air to a target, then totoally destroying everything in the hex, with no possibility of later "resucitation" of production points from that hex.
-
This may have been discussed before, but here goes with my 2 bits worth...
A more accurate view of rockets would be the transition from mass katyusha/nebelwerfer type battlefield rockets to the V-1 and then V-2 strategic rockets.
Similarly, the jet aircraft transition would more accurately be described as "improved prop planes, advanced prop planes, high-performance prop planes, early jets, advanced jets".
Here I was thinking of a continuum of development along the lines of: FW-190, P-51, TA-52, Meteor, ME-262 (or their equivalents).
In a way its unfortunate that the game could not provide verbal descriptions for each advancement level, instead of using prosaic numbers like "jets level 2" if you get my drift.
Just a niggling thing, sort of icing on the cake. I think Hubert did a great job with this game as it is.
-
I've played out one and a half games as the Allies and have had no difficulty beating the Germans by late 44, without any need to invade France. I think it's time to jack up the AI advantages and play on a higher level.
This is a great game. And I'd love to see Hubert try his hand at the Pacific variant some day or better yet, the global war! Imagine being the US player trying to balance out the ETO vs PTO!
-
Hi guys,
Love the game but almost didn't get to play it. My package came with the plastic CD box cracked to pieces. Fortunately, the CD did not bed or scratch, but it could easily have been damaged as there was no protection in the flimsy shipping envelope provided. There needs to be some bubble padding or similar protection.
BTS Fix or Do Somefink!
-
I've got my hands full with this game as it is, I like the scale and level of management. Any more detailed and it would be a spreadsheet and not a game. As grand allied commander, you are all over the place once the war is fully invested. I think it's a wonderful game and keeps you thinking about issues of real grand strategy.
-
Thank gosh they are not related. High Command was my all time worst experience after Patriot, another 360 boondoggle if I remember correctly.
-
My guess is, they are trying to avoid being hit by any propellant bag fragments or residue as the round leaves the bore. Any mortarmen have additional comments?
-
I guess they'd handle it the same way they'd handle drunken German SS and E-Truppen torching villages full of human beings in Russia and Ukraine in the preceeding 4 years.Originally posted by Nidan1:I guess along with modeling adverse effects of extreme weather on troops, how would CMBB handle entire battalions of drunken Russian soldiers raping and pillaging in East Prussia and Berlin in 1945? A player on the Russian side would unexpectedly lose control of his units while they wandered aimlessly in circles in German towns for a few turns? The possibilities are endless.
-
Ollie-
Soft point targets (like field pieces, AT guns, MG nests and light bunkers/buildings engaged with a 40-mm sized HE round are going to feel it. The coax MG is good at spraying targets with small caliber rounds, but cannot substitute for the HE main gun round for point targets. The 2 pdr was known to be a pretty accurate weapon. If tanks armed with this piece had an equivalent HE round early in the war, they could have had considerable greater effect on the targets mentioned.
The effectiveness of the Bofors round is testified to by its continued use and production (in the L/70 variant) to this day.
And no, I'm not talking about comparing the 2 pdr HE to any close support weapon like a 75-105 mm HE round, that's an entirely different subject.
-
Those that can...program
Those that can't...write witty columns full of bon mots and Gen-X innoui.
Givemeafirkinbreak...
-
It's amazing to me that the 2-pdr, essentially a 40mm round, has no useful HE for most of the war, when Bofors has such an effective HE round available from day one!
Were British weapons designers closet Nazis? The whole world wonders...
-
Michael,Originally posted by Michael emrys:Take this with a grain or two of salt--I am offering an opinion without a whole lot of factual material to back it up--but ISTR that the grain silo was on commanding ground, somewhat of a hill that overlooked the German supply routes, their entire immediate rear area in fact. So, it wasn't something that the Germans could simply overlook for very long. I think it was one of those things they botched by not taking early in the battle when they could have simply walked in before the Reds occupied it.
All this is dependent of course on whether or not I remember it as it was.
Michael
Maybe you are thinking of the Cossack Kurgan, the burial hill that dominates part of Stalingrad? IIRC there were fierce battles over it because of it's commanding view of the city. I think the grain silo was at a different location, though it too figured prominently in its own way in the battle.
Anybody?
-
Anybody consider the fact that thousands of paras need hundreds of transport aircraft and the air superiority fighters to go with them? Doesn't this need to be factored in as a loss of resources? And won't this impact how many aircraft (esp. medium bombers) one can go about fielding?
I personally don't see much value in having para units in the game unless these issues can be factored in...
-
Italy has no recent tradition of successsful military leadership...at least since the Renaissance. This makes it difficult to breed a warrior class and ethic like the Germans seem to produce with such natural ease.
The Italian people like to think back to the time of the Roman Empire and identify with its glory, but not with the price to attain it. They do not have the stomach, on the whole, for war. I consider that a positive character trait.
Many Italians got caught up in the Fascist fervor of the 20's but this was more out of hope for an organized way out of economic anemia than any particular desire to take over the world. By and large, Italians are more comfortable identifying with their town or region than with any national identity per se.
Mussolini did a few good things for Italy, and a whole lot more that were bad, as we all know. He dressed up a nation for war as if they were going to a masked ball, then took them into the real thing. After a while, he paid the price for his arrogance.
BTW I appreciate the balanced replies I've seen here on the topic, it's really refreshing.
-
Seanachai I thank you for your comments. Next time, if you want to get me really wound up, try insulting Italians...then you'll get to see some REAL invective!
Unfortunately, none of the people I'd like to see snuffed are part of this forum...I won't bring them up lest I let the real world intrude upon our little fraternity of gamers (sorry, Kitty, you're included you know.)
-
Seanachai, I just can't warm up to this type of topic or tone. I enjoy kidding around as much as the next guy, but this is just off base to me. Call me overly-sensitive, whatever, and maybe I'm showing my age here. You're entitled to free speech and all that, but I'd rather see posts that elevate the tone of discourse rather than reduce it to a trashing session aimed at specific individuals. I think that belittling one another only serves to demean all of us.
-
My vote is for the originator of this most distateful and unnecessary thread. Grow up.
-
There was an entire army (the 8th I think) in Russia IIRC, fielding perhaps 6-7 divisions including at least one armored one. They were in no way equipped for the theater adequately, but at times did fight gallantly according to accounts I've read. The Russians knew their enemies well and focused upon the Axis allies to strike at during the battle for Stalingrad. The Germans were spread so thin that they had to use their flimsy allied armies as if they were equivalent to German ones in the field, someting we now know to have been a big boo-boo.
Still, the Italians could ill afford the expense of supporting their armies, wherever they happened to be fighting. The economy was pretty frail and lacked depth. In most respects, it would have been better for the Italians if they'd left that army somewhere in the Mediterranean area to deal with higher priority objectives (i.e. those more closely linked with Italian national interests.) I think Mussolini got buffalo'ed by Hitler into sending that army to Russia as a sign of Axis solidarity or somesuch.
What's different about a blitz attack?
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
I have noticed a difference if the unit attacks from a different direction, however. Anyone else notice this? This seems to vary with the distance to the target. Realistically, combat power should drop off as distance to target increases, to represent friction and extended logistics bleeding away combat power.