TaoJah
-
Posts
658 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TaoJah
-
-
No, I didn't take any naval losses at all.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:Presumably you'd take at least some losses from the Axis navies in subduing the Brits, but if you didn't then it'd be a bit of a massacre....but then perhaps they'd wait until 44??!!
I never fought the British Navy.
I just took the mainalnd and then Caïro and they all surrendered !
-
That's true.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:Surface ships can knock a city down to 0 so it can't be reinforced just like bombers do.
But I'd love to see the US ships attacking the cities in 1943 if they don't have any port and I got both the Germans and the Italian Navy defending the Atlantic at that point...
-
Hmmm ? The UK didn't interfer anymore in Colonial Europe after they send their troops to defeat Napoleon.Originally posted by Lars:Strange, UK policy for about 300-400 years was to prevent any one power from dominating the continent. So where do you get this?
The only exception was the BEF in WWI and even that they did very, very, VERY reluctant : they favored a pure naval war against Germany. But they signed a treaty with... Belgium. In 1839 Belgium had to give away a part of it's territory to the Netherlands and a part of Luxembourgh became independant. In return the UK signed a treaty to come and defend them whenever they got attacked by whoever. After 75 years that treaty was called upon to demand troops from the UK to come and defend Belgium. They only sent one small army : the BEF.
And the UK won't have forgotten that France send a bunch of troops and money to the US to fight the UK for it's independance from the UK. The huge French aid was recognized by all parties : the prelimeary peace-treaties and the official end of the US independance war were both signed in Paris as a thanks to the French.
No, I disagree : IMHO the UK didn't do alot in the European mainland.
But of course, all what-if scenarios are always purely theoretical discussions !
-
I think that against a human, I'd do my Sealion variant : Only take Poland, Benelux, Denmark & France and then Sealion with every German troop I got. Plus the Italians attacking in N Africa, just to keep those troops busy.
You can do a Sealion with almost your entire fleet intact, which makes D-Day next to impossible for the Allied : they need to take a city in the first few turns after landing but that's impossible without bombing it first and if I got the UK mainland, they don't have a place to bomb it from...
IMHO the only thing a player can do after a Sealion is to buy a country like Spain or Norway and invade from there.
-
He lost the war when he got greedy : the US and UK would never had attacked him if he just held Poland, Low Countires and France. Let's face it : there was no political motivation from the UK and the US to help France, Benelux and Poland out, they just watched the Germans invade country after country.
The US and UK now say that they fought the nazies out of principle and that the world should be grateful and all that, but they didn't do anything until they were attacked first.
Even saying that they would have started fighting against Germany when it became known what happended in the concentration camps is speculation : it's the same reason why no one atacks the US today, even when they torture and murder Iraqies. Most people just don't care enough to fight over it and the propaganda does the rest.
And, no, I don't say that the US-invasion and tortures in Iraq now is even close to the genocide of Jews but it's the same principle : people look the other way as long as no one does anything to them.
It's like that quote...
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
Pastor Marton Niemoller
Most people life their lives that way : turn your head and pretend nothing is happening, even when there are full-page pictures on the front of your magazine about what is happening.
-
France is indeed very easy to take, especially if you start attacking it as early as 1939, but that's historically correct, I guess.Originally posted by Exel:I concur. French units at full strenght should be tested for balance, but it sounds about right. It would make the French conquest harder as it is a walkover at present.
-
In my current game, I took out the UK.
Let's see how he D-Days now !!!
-
Because by the time I take Egypt, the Russians are active and I need those troops to reinforce my front full of corpses. They can hold on some time, but not forever...Originally posted by Rolend:TaoJah once you take N Africa why not Syria, Iraq and Iran as well and invade Russia with some of your troops through Iran to take away the Russian oil fields?
And besides : invading Russia from the south will be very hard, supply-wise, no ? How do you keep your units in supply over all those mountains ?
-
I have found a better way to make sure that they don't do anything funny in Africa : Sealion & capture of Caïro, hehe.Originally posted by hellraiser:Hitting Belgium and France in 39 is too weather dependable. If you like to gamble, go for it. I would rather wait till spring 40 - all stuff upgraded and diplo chits invested to force the allies to counter - it is a collossal cash drain for the UK to counter diplomatic efforts in Spain (75/chit) - this way you make sure they don't have the cash available to do something funny in Africa
While I was doing Africa, my cheap corpse-line held nicely against the russians, helped with some fortifications from a nice Italian engineer korps !
Once my troops have tranported from Africa I expect to have ALOT of fun in Russia with them !
-
I see that I forgot to mention : both difficulty settings are on max. I never play with lower settings then that, you pick up bad habits if you do.
The trick is to invade France already in 1939. the French are ALOT easier then : their tank and two of their armies are at 5, no extra corpses there, Paris defended by the HQ. Plus the morale boost of first Denmark and Benelux and then two turns later from Poland are nice.
An intresting plus of taking Spain is that Hongary and Roumenia don't join you. That is not nesecesaarily a bad thing, that way you got to defend ALOT less front against the initial Russian attack wave
The rest of the game went something like this
- late 1940 : surrender of Spain, Portugal and Algiers => moved the units to attack Egypt).
- early 1941 : surrender of Sweden = moved the units to central Europe.
But then I made the BIG BIG BIG mistake : apperently DOW on Youguslavia makes the USSR IMMEDIATLY attack me, with my eastern border totally open. I tried to defend by recalling the troops back from Youguslavia and Egypt, but that's no use.
It was ugly, lol.
And since I never save my games, I got to restart from scratch :-(
This time, I'll do Sealion right after France. I know everyone advices against it, but I don't see how the USA can ever do D-Day without the UK, so...
-
For what it's worth, I don't see alot of chances for my beloved Axis war path.
Basically, I still do the same as before.
- Turn 1 : I still sell my rocket research,, move my planes to Denmark and operate 3 armies out of Poland to the Benelux border. A small difference is that now I also operate a HQ.
- On turn 2, I take Denmark and the Benelux.
- Turn 3 or 4, I take Poland. I move the HQ, one tank and one army to the Konisngsberg port.
- April 1940 : France, Norway and Island (yes, I take Island) surrenders.
- June 1940 : Vichy France and Tunisia surrender.
- July 1940 : Sweden surrenders.
- August 1940 : Fighting in Spain.
I have Advanced Infantry level 3 by now, heavy tank 1 and Intelligence 2. USSR is at 50%, USA at 80% or so.
My plan is to take Spain and Portugal with my France-HQ and group and at the same time take Hungary, Roumania and Yougoslavia with my Norway HQ and group.
In other words : so far I don't see alot of chances with pre-patch except that I got more units then before : the VERY LOW research limit for Germany gives me money to buy ALOT of troops !
-
See title, I couldn't find any info in the notes about it.
-
As I said before, Intel is too important at the moment, it's a MUST HAVE.
Three cases to illustrated the HUGE effect of having Intel.
His level of Advanced Airplane = 0
My level of Advanced Airplane = 0
His level of Intel = 0
My level of Intel = 5
And I buy 5 chits in Advanced Airplane.
Then my base chance is 25% as normal.
Plus... (highest enemy level - current level +/- intelligence modifiers) * applicable points in category = (0 - 0 + 5) * 5 = 25.
So now I got a 50% chance of researching Advanced Infantry : Intel doubled my chances for research.
--------
His level of Advanced Airplane = 4
My level of Advanced Airplane = 4
His level of Intel = 0
My level of Intel = 5
And I buy 5 chits in Advanced Airplane.
Then my base chance is 5% as normal.
Plus... (highest enemy level - current level +/- intelligence modifiers) * applicable points in category = (4 - 4 + 5) * 5 = 25.
So my total chance is 30%, SIX TIMES AS MUCH as I would have without any Intel.
--------
His level of Advanced Airplane = 5
My level of Advanced Airplane = 0
His level of Intel = 0
My level of Intel = 5
And I buy 5 chits in Advanced Airplane.
Then my base chance is 25% as normal.
Plus... (highest enemy level - current level +/- intelligence modifiers) * applicable points in category = (5 - 0 + 5) * 5 = 50.
Total chance is 75%, three times as much as I would have without any Intel.
--------
It's way too overpowered, it is a tech that you ALWAYS have to max out.
-
Yes, the wear is indeed way too important now, never played a game where it was so determinal of the outcome.
I hope the patch solves it !
-
IMHO they should have released a patch three weeks ago with only the D-Day corrected.
It is simply terrible that a WWII game ships without D-Day and taking a month to patch it isn't exactly good PR either.
-
Yeah, the American government is REALLY well informed lately, lol.Originally posted by Blashy:I can sometimes agree with a Govt doing what is best for the people even if the people don`t agree, most likely due to being poorly informed which is a major problem nowadays, as it was back then.
The problem with that whole "we-are-better-informed-then-the-people-so-we'll-make-the-decisions-without-listening-to-them" is that it sends you straight back to the 18th century where countries were ruled by so-called "enlightened" monarchs that ruled the country with exactly that we-know-better attitude you mention.
Anyway, I think one of the posters said it perfectly : the US didn't do anything after the Germans invaded half a dozen of countries. Saying that it all of a sudden would have helped if Germany took Gibraltar is kinda weak.
-
The problem is that if you make the game too much like real history, you might as well make a movie for us to watch.
If Germany can only do what they did in WWII, then why play the game at all ?
-
First of all : a corps moves faster then an army, so that is an advantage.
Also, when you do the math for attacking, the cost of armies is NOT double as the cost for corps, because you got to pay for a headquarter.
The cost for 5 corps attacking with 1 headquarter is 900 (5 * 100 + 1 * 400). The cost for 5 corps attacking with 1 headquarter is 1400 (5 * 200 + 1 * 400).
So the difference in cost is only 55%, not 100%.
Seems more or less fair to me.
-
Oh, where did you get the answer to this question ?
-
It's not that the Royal Navy is weak, you can destroy the German navy with it.
The problem is that the Roayl Navy is totally useless : it doesn't stop Sealion from happening and it can only hit enemy units occasionally, so what's the use of it anyway ?
-
Or the US tortures in Iraq. Or the British colonialism. No, we haven't learned our lessons : that's the way things always go : the losers always are condemned by history.Originally posted by aesopo:Yet we choose to ignore the millions that Stalin put to death because he was on the side of the winning team? Or the UN to be very slowwwww to react to the genocide in Rwanda and other parts of Africa? We have not learnt our lessons yet.
The only exception is Napoleon : he is still seen as a good ruler for some reason. And how the heck he could lose Waterloo is a mystery to me.
-
That or an ETA for the patchOriginally posted by pzgndr:The patch might not be released until you kids start playing nice. Do we need a time out here?
-
What do you mean ? Does taking these countries demoralizes the USSR ? Or does it give a morale boost to the Axis troops, like any other conquered country ?Originally posted by dicedtomato:Can someone please explain why the Axis takeover of a minor French colony demoralizes the Red Army 500 miles away
-
I don't care if I am weak in other fields : when I own the infantry part of the game, I own the game.Originally posted by Blashy:That is not luck, that is something else entirely.
Being able to invest too much money in research.
If you were limited, you would have to make choices.
You might be high in one area, but weak in another.
There should be some changes in the research, now you can win the game by it.
Either take away the randomness or make a rule like "maximum one advancement in a field every year".
Operation Sealion Variant
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
And there is no way you can take a city in France against a human player : just put corpses in the cities and next to them and D-Day won't have a chance.
Against the AI, D-Day never happens of course : you do Sealion, man the three cities in the UK and voile ! Your entire Atlantic war is over.
He'll try to land some pathetic US troops in the UK in '44, but they can never take an entrenched 4 city, so...
The hardest chance in the patch for me is the fact that you got to take Stalingrad too for an early victory !