JimR
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JimR
-
-
I don't see this as a bug -- for the Allies, it is useful intelligence (and we know that the Allies need all of the breaks that they can get!)
-
Sounds to me like the Allied player was asleep at the wheel and didn't keep Paris garrisoned. It served him right! (It was me.)
-
I like the old-fashioned boardgame look. At the same time I think the map (in SC2?) could do a better job of portraying features to scale.
-
The beauty of SC is that there is a lot going on under the hood -- the staid (but functional) interface is attached to an intelligent and highly replayable game of real substance.
I bought the game when it first came out, so haven't dealt with the demo since. But I would add that the full game (unlike the demo) allows you to watch the tech advances unfold in all of their glory, which adds additional elements of randomness and replayability.
-
When Russia is a belligerent, the Allies' seizure of Iraq opens a supply route from Egypt to an Allied capital (Moscow). So the yield of Egyptian MPPs goes up! Moreover, it then becomes easy to transfer Allied air and land units from the Middle East to Russia, helping to save Stalingrad from the evil forces of the Reich and its Axis clients.
-
SC2? My checkbook is ready, Hubert.
-
A great game just got greater. This is how developers and distributors get a loyal clientele!
Thanks a million, guys.
-
SC is well worth your time and money. The developers have been extraordinarily responsive to players' concerns, and an already good game has been steadily improving.
-
Well, it is the Allied player (not France particularly) that declares war against the Low Countries in the scenario that you have just described. France does not have a "foreign policy" independent of the other active Allies in SC.
And there is a penalty to the Allied player for declaring war on the Low Countries. Based on my experience, U.S. war readiness goes into the negative, pushing back American entry and giving a big political boost to the Axis.
-
Three cheers (again!) for a fantastically responsive game designer & team.
-
Allowing anti-aircraft technology to help units defend against air attack would be a big incentive to invest in AA. Also it would help to blunt the "massed air fleets" strategy that, at the moment, so easily tears to pieces carefully constructed defensive lines.
-
The manual is an electronic PDF file on the CD.
-
The next patch will tweak the research rules and make the results less arbitrary. Chance will still be there (which is good for replay value), but randomness will not be quite as great as currently.
Or so a little bird tells me.
-
The game has good replay value, and the developer(s) have been extraordinarily responsive to user feedback. Well worth your money.
-
The responsiveness of the game's designer and developers is truly remarkable. Soon (next patch) it appears we will have sea travel around the Cape; a less arbitrary tech system; and a new port at Suez. And now, in this thread, Hubert has said he will look at optional air interception sometime too.
Great game, great attitude, great team.
-
"Pro-Allied coup in Yugoslavia" -- it usually happens around April 1941 and gives the Germans an excuse to harvest more MPP plunder.
-
-
Still, do anti-tank advances (or armored advances) improve a unit's air defense capability?
-
Yoo hoo, SC gods! While ducking the latest overwhelming Axis air attack, the poor Soviets are waiting to know if AA tech will benefit their units in the field.... :confused:Originally posted by Zeres:[sC GODS!!! Answer this question definatively for us. Does anti-aircraft tech benefit only cities and ports? I thought it helped all units.[/QB]
-
When the capital (Moscow) is surrounded and cut off from the other Russian cities and forces, what are the effects? Can Russia reinforce existing units or build new ones?
-
Oops, this message was supposed to go under the Zeres quote about anti-aircraft.
My understanding is that the anti-aircraft tech only assists the defense of cities and ports. Units in the field do not benefit from advances in anti-aircraft tech. Is my understanding correct?
If units in the field do not benefit from advances in anti-aircraft tech, does the anti-tank tech (or the tank tech for armored units) help them better to withstand aerial bombardments?
-
Originally posted by Zeres:
(JimR) ... invest in some anti-aircraft.
-
Back to this question of how the Russians can withstand German airpower -- do infantry (anti-tank) tech advances improve the ability of armies to defend against attack from the air?
-
In a current game my poor Russians are getting clobbered by six or more veteran German air fleets. This has made it impossible to stabilize the line even though I withdrew fairly deeply into Russia (I thought). Have advocates of the "cluster" strategy found a way to keep German air superiority from devastating the Red Army? :confused:
Mac version?
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
I played (and enjoyed) the original SC on a Mac using Virtual PC. It would be great to have the chance to play SC2 without the hassle of using a Windows emulator. If a Mac version is produced I promise to buy it and to recommend it!