TaoJah
-
Posts
658 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TaoJah
-
-
Yeah, I got to admit that sometimes it's tempting, ESPECIALLY when searching those blasted submarines.Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:If you have undo moves enabled, this greatly aids a player in hunting down hidden units (specifically submarines). Try a move; if you find nothing, undo the move and search somewhere else until you find whatever it is you're looking for.
Fortunately you can disable undo, but I just wanted to point this out...
Luckily the Axis AI lways sends the submarines to the nord sea, so I just wait for them there.
That's all the RN is good for anyway : the carriers are terrible against land units, the Battleships gets fired on and the Cruisers don't even disentrench their targets.
The ships need an upgrade in one of the patches, because now they're only good to attack the other fleet. Both sides may as well have no ships, it wouldn't influence the game whatsoever.
-
I don't think you should reduce the cost of armies to 185. Their cost is already ALOT lower then two corpses, because you also have to take the extra costs of HQs into account.
5 corpses + 1 HQ = 5*100 + 350 = 850.
5 armies + 1 HQ = 5*200 + 350 = 1350.
So 5 armies only cost 158% of 5 corpses, not 200%.
-
I changed the 1939 scenario a bit and added a bit of river at the eastern part of the line. I don't know if that's the reason, but he didn't take the Maginot line this time : he had to wade through all my UK and French troops south of the Benelux.
Can someone confirm that in the original map, the eastern hex of the line can be attacked wy a unit east of it, without a penalty for the river ?
-
This is a very good idea : something that shows how much supply every hex gets.Originally posted by Ottosmops:As an alternative, a hotkey would be nice, with which one can toggle on and off the supply status of the whole map.
One would get the most information most easily, if this where color coded and with supply numbers on each tile.
It would save ALOT of time !
-
Can someone close this thread please ?
All that matters is said in the first post, IMHO.
-
I make that mistake often too : thinking "oh, no, he can't move that so far" and then before you know it, he does it.Originally posted by CharonJr:But I have to admit that he was only able to do this due to me miscalculating movement costs
Movement is sometimes tricky. Especially if the mud goes away, all of a sudden the reach is ALOT higher !
-
That's what the "pffffft, let them take a few cities" was forOriginally posted by Yogi:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TaoJah:
Ok, but what about before they surrender? </font>
Really, I did both several times : put garrisons in cities or don't. It's just cheaper not to bother with them.
As German, I only play with the troops I get at the start, I only buy three HQs (I am not even sure that's needed, but they got good CR).
I spend all my money on research and just buy a unit when one of the core ones is killed, which happens rarely.
No need to bother with extra corpses for garrisons, in my AI-experience.
But try it both ways, perhaps you feel differently about it !
-
That's odd indeed.
I checked the script and it should have a 40% chance from 1942/6/1 on.
I know that in SC1 it depended on you coming close to Moscow, but I don't see that condition anywhere here.
; USSR Transfers Siberian Troops
{
#NAME= USSR Siberian Reserves
#POPUP= USSR Transfers Siberian Troops
#FLAG= 1
#TYPE= 1
#COUNTRY_ID= 4
#TRIGGER= 40
#DATE=1942/06/01
#DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 135,5
#CONDITION_POSITION= 111,1 [2,3] [1,2] [1]
#CONDITION_POSITION= 114,6 [2,3] [1,2] [1]
#CONDITION_POSITION= 112,10 [2,4] [3,5] [1]
#CONDITION_POSITION= 119,13 [2,3] [1,2] [1]
#CONDITION_POSITION= 127,16 [3,5] [2,4] [1]
#CONDITION_POSITION= 135,5 [3,5] [1,2] [1]
#CONDITION_POSITION= 136,2 [3,5] [1,2] [1]
#UNIT= 0 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 0 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 7 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 1 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 1 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 1 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 2 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 2 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 6 [10] [1] []
#UNIT= 6 [10] [1] []
}
-
Has that worked for you TaoJah? I figured the Russian and/or Yugoslav partisans would move into the cities if left undefended.</font>Originally posted by Yogi:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I personally never garrison anything, but I only play against the AI.
-
The idea of tuning the AI as agressive or historical is a good one, but with three playable sides it will perhaps take too long to play a turn.
-
There are no fortifications with "no sides" as such. Well, perhaps it indicates "0 sides" on the screen, but the lowest form of fortification has one "side" : the tiny litte corner. So it only defends from attacks made from the hex opposite to it.
It's not very clear, but I don't think alot of people use the fortifications anyway, they take waaaay too long to build. And you can't build them in cities :-(
The only fortifications that I ever build is with the USSR, because I get a free engineer anyway.
-
AFTERWARDS everyone can take everything ! I am sure that the Allied said afterwards they could have done D-Day with less casualties.Originally posted by CharonJr:IIRC the German's (afterwards) thought they could have taken it out with artillery.
In the game, it falls too easy, but I am not sure that we can do something about it :-(
-
The Dyle, really ? I didn't know that. And I'm from Belgium myself.Originally posted by Panzerkiel:Once Germany attacked, the Allies raced forward in an attempt to form a line along the Dyle.
I once kissed a girl on a bridge over the Dyle, after asking her "have you ever been kissed standing over the Maas ?".
I felt soooooo stupid when she said something like "this is the Dyle, you dork".
She did kiss, though !
-
Provinces as the lowest geograpical unit to conquer is a big turn-off for me.
It was 15 years ago with "Rome" and it still is today !
-
The problem with garrison everything, is that if you occupy alot of countries, you don't have enough units to garrison everything :mad:
I personally never garrison anything, but I only play against the AI.
Against a human, I guess you have to garrison all coastal cities of the Atlantic, including the three in Norway.
-
IMHO the fact that it's not entrenched at the start only slows his pentration : even if the three units starts entranched at level 8, after 4 turns of attacking it with three units, the 8 points are gone.
I don't know where he penetrates the Maginont line with you people, but with me he always breaches it first in the eastern unit.
Perhaps that is because he can attack that unit from the hex east of it, where I think he doesn't get a) the penalty for attacking across the river and
the penalty for attacking a fortress, because the fortress doesn't seem to defend that angle.Is there a way to verify that ? That the river and fortress defence don't apply from that angle ? Visually it's hard to say :-(
-
Well, to answer my own question (which is the first sign of insanity, probably triggered by playing this game too much)...
It's nearly impossible to take the Benelux with the Allies. It took me SEVERAl tries to do it (on the hardest difficulty setting).
But even then...
Once you have the Benelux, you need to take two hexes in Germany before you can defend from behind the river against the rest of their troops. Those two hexes are part of the Siegfried line. Enough said, I think : those hexes are impossible to take.
Oh, well, it was fun to try and retry and retry !
-
I don't know the first answer.
But the second : a Fortification only gives the bonus for attacks coming from the direction it points to. For instance, if you attack a Fortress from the South, while the Fortress is only build with a wall to the North, then the unit in the Fortress does not get the bonus.
-
Well, in SC1 it was beneficial, because you could actually defend the Low Countries very, very well by forming a line across the river Maas. That could stall the German attack on France several turns.
In SC2, I am not sure it's worth the trouble anymore. Which is why I am asking.
And yes, that was it : the Dutch Gambit ! How could I forget a silly name like that !?!
-
In SC1 it was a very viable strategy to tahe the Low Countries as the Allied, because it was easier to defend it then defend the north of France.
However, in SC2, I find this no longer the case : I tried it a few times, but taking the Benelux doesn't seem to work as well as in SC1.
What do you people do ?
And what was the name again of taking the Low Countries as Allied. I know it has a specific name other then "taking the Low Countries with the Allied", but I forgot !
-
Thanks for the apology.
It takes some courage to do that and I appreciate it.
-
Yes, that is indeed an AI problem in every scenario : he treats HQ and AF as front line units :-(Originally posted by LampCord:The one thing I noticed about the AI was a tendancy to leave air and HQ's in vulnerable positions.
It's being fixed for a patch, I'm told.
-
That was sooooo not what I said. If you knew the history of my own family, you'd be very ashamed to put those words in my mouth. The Germans had their supporters, but saying that Europe was anti-Jewish is simply not true.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:@ToJo --- Yep, I've been preaching that for years. Europe was a bunch of Nazis. Germany was overrated, they had friends everywhere! No surprise Europe's position regarding Israel today, nothing has changed. They aren't sorry, just sorry they lost.
And with regard to Israel : most Europeans were in favor of a Jewish state. And they still are.
But when that state starts to invade it's neighbours (and till today occupies those territories) people in Eruope get a liiiiiittle bit uncomfortable.
The US has never been occupied, so Americans tend to look at occupations a bit differently, but in Europe (the never-occupied UK as exception), in Europe we know a thing or two about occupations.
First thing we know : they suck.
Second thing : they suck.
So when a country invades other countries and keeps it territory occupied, we know what that means for the people involved...
That has nothing to do with anti-Jewish.
When the USSR occupied eastern Europe, we were against.
When Iraq occupied Kuwait, we were against.
When the US occupies Iraq, we are against.
And yes, when Israel occupies Palestine, we are against that too.
Saying that being against Israel occuping other countries proves that "we're sorry we lost the second world war" is TOTALLY out of line.
-
Now that is a fine example of rewriting history, lol.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:The reasoning was to have the entire European Jewish population in one place to make it's extermination all the easier.
There were plans to make a Jewish state for centuries. Saying that supporting this was so they could be easier exterminated is so far from the truth that it's not even funny.
It were the Jews THEMSELVES that wanted a state...
Surely you don't want to suggest that they wanted this so they could easier exterminate themselves, do you ?
the penalty for attacking a fortress, because the fortress doesn't seem to defend that angle.
Maginot Line
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Compare it with the US being invaded in -say- 1960, after 400.000 of their soldiers being killed in WWII and only a very low number of 20-year old to join the army.
I know that bashing the French is a pretty popular sport among certain Americans, with their "freedom-fries" in their hands, but perhaps you should go visit the Statue of Liberty and see who build it. Or read a bit about who helped the US get indenpendacy from the UK, long before their other colonies got their independancy.
Not to mention that France put alot of effort in their border with Germany, as they were required to do so under the Versailles treatement. On top of that : the Low Countries were supposed to be totally neutral, as neutral as Switserland, so there were very good reasons to presume that that part of the border was safe, until it was too late to do anything about it.
All this to say : history would have played out ALOT different when the Maginot Line would not have been build, perhaps the Low Countries would even have stayed neutral.