Achiles

Sorry for the late reply. I had lost hope that anyone would respond. Thanks for agreeing to test it for me again. I know it may seem a bit excessive but I'm just trying to do the best job I can. Cya, bye!

Come on. Will someone please test it. I'm almost done I just need to test it a bit more. My last to testers liked it alot. Cya, bye!

I finally finished this scenario i have been working on for a while now. Atleast i think I'm done. It's about some poles and frenchies who seize the town of Drakwald behind german lines. It's fictional. If you wanna try it out just email me at achiles1_2000@yahoo.com. I'll send it to you right away to test out. Hope you enjoy. Cya, bye!

"I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Is there someone else up there we can talk to? No! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Oh yeah. Cya, bye!

Please stopping typing with caps lock on. It makes people think your yelling all the time. This has been a paid annoucment by Hey That's Really Annoying.com. Cya, bye! [ June 23, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

The way Egypt was set up does perplex me. Most of he troops that faught in Egypt were indeed indian, anzac, and south african. I don't think any of those troops were sent by way of the med. Most of the supply went around the cape until near the end of the north african campiagn. Why don't you just allow units to be operationally moved to Egypt. You can allready do that with air units. You could increase the operational movement cost by like 50-100% to reflect the big time increase incured by travelling around the cape. Leaving this as is will IMHO seriouly degrade the quality of the game. The whole of the north african and middle eastern theater is already poorly represented. Sticking the british with this unrelistic limitation of only being able to get troops to Egypt by way of the med hurts the british unrealistically and uneccesarily. An Axis player of decent skill and experiance can easily eliminate the british fleeet at Alexandria. Malta isn't much of a challenge either. With strong german air support you can bring the little island to her knees pretty easily. The only reall trade is that you will likely have to postpone your russian invasion by a couple months. On a side note. To all those wondering, not all fortifications are autimatically destroyed on capture. When I landed an italian corps on malta the fortification stayed perfectly intact. I assume Gibraltar and Sevastapol work the same way. Back to the topic at hand. with Malta and the east med fleet out of action britain has no almost no hope of reinforcing Egypt. If the italians get Gibraltar then Egypt is completely cut off. This means that the italians only need defeat the british east med fleet and take Malta and then they can grind the one british corps in Egypt down to nothing at their leasure. Cya, bye!

Everyone needs to keep in mind another little aspect of fortifications. They produce 5 MPPs no matter wether they have a direct land connection to the capital or not. This probably played a role in the decision of wether or not to include the Siegfried Line. As the adition of that fortification would have added 30-35 MPPs to Germany's starting production depending on wether it was 6 or 7 hexes long. Cya, bye!

I have a few points I would like to make as well. 1) I've noticed that allied air units won't run interdiction for each other or each other's ground units. Example, When I played the allies the british air fleets I had stationed in France would only intercept german air fleets if they attacked british or minor allies units. If the german air units attacked french units then the british air fleets would just sit by and do nothing. This is obviously quite unreallistic. 2) The player should be allowed to construct units for the minor allies. Example, When I was planning for my invasion of Russia I wanted to have army group south consist of 3 romanian armies, 1 hungarian army, and 1 hungarian TG. I only had 2 romanian armies and 1 hungarian army. I couln't build the other units except as german units. I suggest a simple solution. Have all units built with in the radius of a minor allies city or port belong to that minor ally. However HQs should be excluded as you couldn't really have a romanian Rommel. Which brings me to my third and final point. 3) Allow HQs from the major powers to command units belonging to subordinate minor powers. Example, When I was planning my invasion of Russia I had planned to intitially have 3 army groups. 2 german and 1 mixed. I built an extra HQ(Kesselring) and put Rundstedt in charge of army group north, Kesselring in charge of army group center and Bock in charge of army group south. Unfortunately Bock couldn't command army group south since it was a mixed force of hungarians and romanians. IMHO this is unrealistic and unhistorical. Army group south historically was made up of german, romanian, hungarian, and italian units as well as units from other nations. But it was commanded by a german. However I don't think this should translate over to major powers. French should only command french, italians should only command italians, americans should only command americans, etc. There are historiacal example of this happenning many times, but IMO it should be left out for gameplay purposes. Thats about it for now. Cya, bye! [ May 28, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

One thing I just recently noticed is that allied air units won't protect each other. What i mean is that a british air fleet will only intercept anemy fighters if they attack a british untit. If they attack a French unit then they won't intervene. This cost me the Battle of France each time I've played the allies. My predominatley british air units wouldn't help protect the french armies. One more thing. I would once again like top raise the question about minor allies. Why can't you produce units for the minor allies. Like when the Dutch Corp gets destroyed. You can never replace it. I suggest a simple solution. All purchased units placed within the radius of a facility controlled by a minor ally become units of the minor ally. However i wouldn't apply this rule to HQs as they are very nation specific and it really wouldn't feel right having a romanian Kesselring. Cya, bye! [ May 26, 2002, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

Well I have a suggestion in regards to ones allies. Allow the player to specifiy which nation the unit is going to be produced for. Ex. Germany builds a new army in Romania. Instead of being german this army should be romanian. Cya, bye! [ May 24, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

My personal best. I had taken Sweden, the Low Countries, France(left Vichy alone)and had picked up Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary as german allies. Italy had conquered Greece in about two turns with the aid of german air units. It was closing the net on Yugoslavia when the USSR decided to join the brawl. I had two german HQs(brought in Rommel as #3 a little later) and one italian HQ, Balbo. It was one hell of a mess. My 7 armies and 4 TGs easily stopped the russian advance into poland at the border without any air support, not that russia had much in the way of airpower, and even managed a little counter-attack. The romanian border was another story. Most of my romanian and hungarian troops were truned towards Yugoslavia in case the serbs tried anything. Bulgaria hadn't even joined my alliance yet. The red tide just poured into Romania. Only the mountains, a romanian corp and the russian bungling saved Ploesti. I was just about to finish off Yugoslavia and turn Balbo and his 3 armies and 1 TG against the russians when the game ended. Damn I love this game. Cya, bye!

After reading this I have developed a new found respect for Hubert. I love this game. Now if he could only work out a Mac port I would start a cult to worship him as a God. All bow before Hubert the Allmighty! Sing your praise unto him for his genius covereth us all and his code washes us clean. Praise be to Hubert! Cya, bye! :cool: [ May 24, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

Oka this is really starting to get on my nerves. For a bunch of self-proclaimed history buffs your geography is atrocious. That "North Peninsula" you guys keeping talking about actually has a proper name. It's called Denmark. Say it with me D-E-N-M-A-R-K. Good. Now PLEASE try to remember that next time. P.S. Galatine this was not directeted at you specifically. Although you have made this mistake on numerous occasions. You were just the closest when the gun went off, so to speak. Cya, bye!

I was just sifting through the forums when I found a thread telling why the map couldn't be enlarged. What a major bummer. Oh well. Assuming I can get the game to work using Virtual PC or they release a Mac version I am defianately going to buy it. Even if it doesn;t work out i may still buy it although the chances are slim. Anyway I'm going to drop this whole map subject. I've got one last suggestion. Allow people to build fortifications. You could have them place them like units except they don't move and they take 2 turns to complete. On the first turn they could offer only maybe 50% of their normal defence bonus. You may have already added these things in or were planning to. I just thought I might mention them just in case. Cya, bye!

My previous post may have come off to strong. I wasn't trying to demand anything or issue an ultimatum or a threat. I was simply trying to offer some advice on something I felt was a major fault in the game. I was simply trying to offer some friendly advice. Obviously it is completely up to Battlefront wether or not to heed this advice. I hope they will atleast consider it. Now if I'm getting the "cold shoulder" so to speak, because Battlefront has already announced at some previous point that the map has been finalized then I would appreciate it if someone would chime in and fill me in on this as I have missed such an anouncement, if there ever was one. Anyway I'm just trying to do my part to contribute to an already great game. P.S. I just recently noticed that the northern coast of France is mishapen. 1) Normandy and the Cherbourg Peninsula are complety, and noticeably, absent. 2) Brittany really should angle down instead of up, or atleast point straight out. Although map distortions could be playing a roll in the Brittany thing but they appear largely absent elsewhere. However I don't really see how they could play a role in the disappearing act of Normandy and most particularly the Cherbourg Peninsula. Just a few more friendly observations. Cya, bye!