kenfedoroff
-
Posts
452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kenfedoroff
-
-
Archibald
Most likely a spy checking out your game before the big tournament.
Sincerely,
"Paranoid in Plymouth"
-
My opponent sent me a pbem file attachment to continue our tcp/ip game. When I try to save the attachment, I get a message "OE(Outlook Express?) will not allow access to this unsafe file".
Does anybody have any ideas with what's going on here. It's just a pbem file.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Great ideas people. At least Hubert might consider these for SC2.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
I think Axis has to get within 2-3 hex of Moscow or (maybe Stalingrad) for Siberian trigger.
Ken
-
Thanks for sharing your concerns on this issue. I was beginning to wonder if there are other factors involved.Originally posted by Bill Macon:The whole random number generation thing is another issue. I'm still not 100% convinced that this is working the way it should....
Sincerely,
"Paranoid in Plymouth"
-
Does this Gambit still work with v1.06?
Ken
-
There you go. Where do we sign up?Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:Jolly --- Here's how to fix all the crying about play balance in SC:YOU BID FOR SIDES.
Ken
-
Could this be a patch/fix for our present SC?Originally posted by Jollyguy:For SC 2 I would propose the Allies cannot attack the Low Countries, period, and the cost to operate land units is three times what it is now, air units twice..........
Hubert, what do you think?
Sincerely,
Ken
-
What do you guys think of an increased cost for Axis transport/operate?
Double the cost, or more!
Has anybody playtested this?
Maybe Hubert can explain.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Jollyguy:
What do you think would happen to the Axis bias if the Axis cost of transport/operate was doubled or more? Has anybody playtested this?
Maybe that is all the game needs to even things out.
Maybe Hubert could enlighten us on this.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
I had the honor of playing against Rambo today. He kicked my newbie ass from "sea to shining sea". We played more than 34 minutes but I think the game was over before that.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
I would pay money to watch you two battle it out. Thanks for the Battleline.
Ken
-
wlweir:
Thanks for a great game. That was my first Sea Lion experience from either side. I thought you were going to pull it off too.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Hueristic:
You are right about the difficulty of deciding which air fleet is assigned for interception or interdiction. But since it's my understanding that air fleets contain a mixture of fighters and light bombers,(at least in the present form of SC) for simplicities sake my example would include all air fleets in good supply.
If SC2 has separate squadrons of fighters, then yes, it would be a problem of selecting different missions.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Jollyguy:
Many thanks for sharing the Allied Dutch Gambit Counter.
I am a newbie as far as human opponents and would not want to get blindsided by this one.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
It's not so much that strategic bombing has no meaning, but that the interdiction factor is missing that would give it's due. That and the fact a garrisoned city can't be damaged.Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:Strategic Bombing in this game has no meaning.
I am reading a book called "JG 26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald L. Caldwell (Thanx Santa)
It describes how the Axis could not ignore the bomb capacity of the B-17 and the war of attrition that took place in the air in the West.
That it takes a lot of tech. points/advances to recreate this effect in SC, I agree. I have just started playing SC vs. Humans so I don't know if the air war of attrition occurs very often.
I know I scribble too much in your forum about interdiction, but it would have a big effect on the Axis playing fast and loose on the Eastern Front. (how many Axis players station a panzer corp in the West when they know they can operate one from Kharkov to France or Sicily in one turn?)
Also, a local interdiction effect on unit supply by air fleets might force players to focus more on local air superiority in certain sectors where they anticipate offensive operations.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Furthermore:
For SC2 I would like to see an interdiction factor calculated for each land hex, the results of which would effect land movement.
(Example): For each land hex the the total strength point number of Allied air fleets with range to that hex, would be compared to the Axis air fleet strength points. (Consider Stategic bombers NOT being used in this calculation if you incorporated ability of said strat. bombers to hit garrisoned cities).
Through playtesting a factor of the difference between Allied and Axis air fleet strength points would be determined to effect interdiction of land movement.
(Example): Forty allied air fleet strength points can reach a land hex that can also be reached by ten Axis air fleet strength points.
40-10= 30 and any land hex dominated by 30 air fleet strength points adds +1 to movement cost of land unit to enter -or- leave that hex.
This calculation might be used to effect supply as well.
The whole point of this interdiction rule would be to stop the "dance of the corps" that you see used to stop amphib. assualts.
This would recreate the Normandy situation in June of 1944. (Would also recreate situation Axis desired for pre-condition of Sea-Lion).
My wife tells me I will find a job soon and that I will not be able to clutter up your forum anymore.
Lucky you!
Sincerely'
Ken
-
I would like to see Srategic bombers hit cities even if they are garrisoned by a corps. This would allow disruption of operational movement when opponents city is below strength #5. Interdiction is just as important as damaging supply. This would make Strategic bombers even more useful.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Just a follow up since the Windows Me update...Originally posted by kenfedoroff:I tried the Windows ME update trick and it still locks up when I hit the "Quit" game button .... for what it's worth.
Sincerely,
Ken
Since the update the lock-up frequency rate is down. Still random when I hit the "Quit" button.
Ken
-
I would like to see an option in the Rules/Variations called, for lack of a better term, "Historical Tech."
Except for Industrial Tech.,(which would be more of a mobilization factor), Tech. advances would be limited to what year it is. (Example), Level #1 no earlier than year 1941, Level #4 no earlier than 1944 etc.
This would eliminate lucky tech advances that could dominate a game.
I know this has been proposed before, and could be incorpoated as a "house rule". It should be an option just like FoW, Free French, etc...
The other penalty for the Axis, should the war continue into 1946, would be the atomic bomb. How this penalty would be patched into the game, I have no idea. Perhaps the Allies would be given a set number of strategic bomber attacks that would eliminate a city with no chance for rebuild.
Perhaps the above options would force the Axis to take risks for an earlier victory than 1947.
I have just started to play human opponents and it is most fun. I have yet to face the incredible Tech. advances, (or the lack thereof) describe in this forum, but I did experience this against the AI. I hope we can continue to make contributions towards making SC even more fun.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:
[QB]
Brilliant Strategist
Will keep as many units in France for as long as possible. With the AF in Northern France so it can fly to the UK on short notice..............
________________________________________________
I am playing a fellow by the name of AxisGeneral1 who defended France until Dec. '40 using a variation of this strategy. It threw all my plans for Norway, Greece and Sweden in the dumpster. Watch out for this guy, he knows how to pull it off.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Maybe some of their strength is related to their ability to move through the opponents zone of control?
Ken
-
Only troop transports are allowed for Suez movement.
-
Only troop transports are allowed for Suez movement.
PBEM problem
in Strategic Command Tech Support Forum
Posted
Sincerely,
Ken