TaoJah

I noticed that my HQ in western Algiers had supply 10. Where does this come from ? Valencia ? Gibraltar ? And the same for the Germans in Sweden : the HQ there also gets 10 supply even when all cities are in Allied hands. [ March 05, 2007, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: TaoJah ]

I post what you call "anti-USA" things too... But not anti-Swedish, I LOVE Swedish knackebrode !

Without defending people that call other names, I find it kinda... euh... silly to use the "there are children on this forum" argument. Don't anyone of you watch television ? Surf internet ? Listen to conversations in a typical high school ? Gee !

Well, France fell but the British managed to, euh... pacify the Middle East and are now contemplating their next move : stay in Egypt to defend it or pack up and go someplace else. The Russians are building up their troops but are staying far, far away from the war and the US are still doing nothing, except releasing press notes. Just the standard start of the game, so far.

There is nothing that motivates me more then someone saying I'm gonne loose, hehe.

That's odd... I'd keep on fighting as Axis, I think.... IT's not because Poland falls very late that the Axis loose. Poland and Konigsgurg only give 20 MPP. Even if you loose them for -say- 5 turns, that's only 100 MPP. Not enough to say that you'll loose the game, I think.

So, you defend in Rostov and not in Kharkov ? I like Kharkov because it's only 4-5 hexes wide and has good protected flanks. Plus, often you can keep the mines too for a while, at 20 MPP per turn each, they're worth gold. But I am starting to see that defending further west is better IMHO. Next games, I think I'll fortify Rostov instead of Kharkov too.

Yes, I am trying to learn that too in my current games : how to save MPPs. The key is -like he said- not to operate or transport things. And use your airfleets and ships wisely. The only time the Germans have to transport/operate is after France, to Africa. And perhaps the HQ from Spain/Portugal to Russia (I only operate my HQ, the rest can walk or is used as garrison). Also, make sure that everything is always in supply 5 or more, so that you can build it back at half the cost. And don't buy all tech for all units. Will those garrison corps in weastern Europe really need movement tech ? Tank tech ? Do all corps in Russia need extra movement ? The only thing that I do not save MPPs on is research : I get the UK, Russian and US research up to 750 and keep it there : everytime I get a breakthorough, I buy another chit.

I wonder if it's worth it to let Hubert Cater make time to make two mods for SCII himself : a great Waterloo scenario (perhaps working together with the one that was posted last week here) and a great US Civil War scenario. Perhaps that would give the game publicity and extra sales, no ? That plus a few extras (swapping sides with AI, units swapping places, putting units "asleep", better D-Day AI) would make it even better !

Do you defend the southern mines too in situations like that ? Or is it really ONLY the Ural mines ?

<reads and learns> I thought that once the Allied got as far as Stalingrad, Russian would be knocked out. How do you defend the mines south after Stalingrad falls ? And the loss in MPP when those mines are cut off from the captal must hurt badly, ouch. Supply is of course a big, big problem for the Allied in Russia. And they got to garrison ALOT of places. But still, I thought it would be over for Russia.

Even though I am one of those old-fashioned people that think that a game where you get points for riding over an old lady should not be sold, I don't think that this game "glorifies war". You don't see pictures of Generals with a bio explaining how good they were in sending killing people, you don't see Hitler giving speeches, you don't see Hitler giving medals to children for manning the AA-guns... It would be kinda stupid to make this game "18+" in a time where people read in detail what soldiers do to Iraqees 14-year-old girls and their family, wouldn't it ?

Yes, 100% compatibel. I played several PBEM games while I tested the 1.06 patch against people that had the 1.05 and it gave no problem whatsoever.

Yes, 100% compatibel. I played several PBEM games while I tested the 1.06 patch against people that had the 1.05 and it gave no problem whatsoever.

Yes, if you calculate the MPP cost and the damage they do, they're of course worse then ground troops. But you can concentrate for much better with them : you can't attack a fort with 9 ground troops, but you can attack it with 6 plus 3 airplanes. And they scout alot better. And you can relocate them easily. But the thing that overpowers them is the experience. By the time the Germans get to Kharkov, they can have 3 planes with 3-4 stars. That's alot of punch, they can basically rip through any spot they want. IMHO the experience is too big of a factor with the planes or too little for ground troops.

That's the only way to take Russia against a good player, I think : buy all airfleets you can, put all grounds troops together, smash hard at Krakhov and keep hitting all the way to Leningrad. There is absolutely nothing the Allied can do against those airplanes, so you can pick your targets and kill the key-point Russian troops where you want : airplanes are overpowered. Perhaps the Allied should be able to place UK fighters in Russia, that should make a difference. But even that is probably not enough : you can buy a whole lot of airplanes with the Axis.

Yes, sorry, I meant 5 plus the cities not covered by those. In my current HvH Axis game, I am gonne try the whole let-the-partisans-pop-up-and-bomb-them-and-let-the-hexes-stay-red, we'll see how that goes.

Euh, no... Chernobil wasn't a nuclear detonation : it was a steam explosion that started other non-nuclear explosions and theyblew up the mantle of the reactor, releasing radioactivity.

In Greece you only need 2 units : on 98, 28 and 96, 26. In Russia you need 5, but I am thinking about a strategy where I would just let Russian partisans pop up, destroy them with my airplanes and then not occupy the hexes again. That should stop them from repopping up. [ February 20, 2007, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: TaoJah ]

Even when facing the wrong way in-game a fortification is quite strong : entrenchement 4 at the start of every turn is quite strong. You could say that you should get MPPs for taking a fort, but you could also argue that they should get MPPs if they destroy a fort, taking equipement with them. Except when it's all surrounded. Or that building a fortification with engineers should cost MPPs. If you want to make it too historically correct, it would get complicated very fast IMHO.

Yes, the AI is not up to the task yet in Russia. It has a problem with prioritising, taking advantage of weaknesses and where to defend. The only fun games at the moment against the AI is to see how soon you can get a victory. It's too bad you don't get a score anymore

Yup, Iran. Read the next mail and you'll see why... People are openly talking about using nuclear weapons against Iran. That's why I stick to my point : a world where every mayor nation has the same weapons is a safer place then a world where only a few nations have them. The full story is known : the US killed 100,000 civilians with nuclear weapons of mass destruction and yes, they saved x lives with that. No one knows what x is. But everyone knows what 100,000 is : that's 33 9/11s. What exactly is the rest of the full story ? [ February 20, 2007, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: TaoJah ]

Naaaah, way too doomy for me. I don't think the US leaders are the smartest ones in the world, but even they won't nuke anyone ! They got away with nuking 100.000 innocent japanese civilians in WWII, but even that is seen as one of the great stains on US history. And the Japanese attacked them first, so they had an excuse (even when it was a lousy one). Can you imagine the outrage around the world and inside the US when the US would first-strike nuclear against Russia, like the article suggests ??? Not a chance. There are too many countries with nuclear weapons in the world, it's way too dangerous to actually use them first. The nuclear weapons that the US dropped on Japan killed 100,000 innocent people. On 9/11 3,000 inncocent people were killed. That kinda sums up exactly how devestating a nuclear attack is... All these countries have nuclear weapons : - France - UK - US - Russia - China All five of these countries have an undisclosed number of submarines with nuclear weapons on board. - India : a country that never signed the nuclear treay and thus is free to do whatever it wants. And the US now signed a treay with India to actually exchange nuclear information and agreed NOT to check a dozen military nuclear installations. The US is betting that India will become a power to stand against China. That's a dangerous strategy : they betted that Sadam Houssein would become a power against Iran and Osama Bin Laden against Russia. We all know how THAT turned out... - Israel : a country that is more and more becoming a political problem for the US. The Israelian actions are becoming impossible to defend : building nuclear weapons (how can the US say that they'll attack Iran because it is maybe building nuclear weapons, when they accept that Israel already has them ?), expanding the settlements dispite their agreement not to, building walls (sounds familiar ?), invading countries, using cluster bombs on civilian areas and assasinate members from a democraticly chosen parlement in a neibour country. And that's just in the last year ! - North Korea : enough said. I think the world is safer because of the fact that several countries have nuclear weapons. It would be even more safe when even more countries had them, like Iran, Taiwan, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Canada, South-Africa, Australia and Italy. Then even the most war-hunger leader wouldn't think of using them.

Great AAR ! It's always good to read about not-often used strategies, like the Egypt defence. He won't be able to slash his way through those fortifications, I think. But then again, neither will you be taking his. If your entire Royal Navy is there, are you the boss on the sea there ? And did you take Syria / Iraq / Iran with the UK ?

Apperently that's not enough... My paratroopers were now at supply 7 and couldn't prepare (in clear weather). But their strength was only 3, readiness and morale like 20-something. Apperently those have to be above a certain number too