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!

Well in both my games as the Axis I had planned to invade Sweden with german troops and take Yugoslavia and Greece with italian troops and then invade Russia. However I was unable to get enough italians in place before the game ended to take both Greece and Yugoslavia. When it came to Sweden I just moved much slower than I really needed to. I was hoping Yugoslavia and Greece would be enough to make Italy selfsuficient and with the addition and all of her resources, save those going to the air defense of France, Germany and her Minor Axis allies would be able to tackle the Russian Bear. I'm thinking of trying it again. However I may not redownload the demo again. I've already made up my mind to buy the game assuming they enlarge the map a bit, a mac version is released or I can get it to work with Virtual PC, and the price is no more the $40 not including shipping and handling. Cya, bye!

I would like to add my voice to the call for a Mac version of this great game. Everyone who would buy a Mac version of this game please post in this thread. Maybe if we get enough people Battlefront will consider working out some kind of a deal for a port. Cya, bye!

First off let me start off by saying I love this game. i would pay $30-40 for this game if it came out for the Mac or I am able to get it to work reasonably well on my computer using a PC emulator. However there is one thing that really bothers me. The map. It's too small. Now I'm not talking about stretching it to Japan or any thing. Or even to the position of the real US east coast. However in IMHO the map is to small. Mainly in the west, north, and south in order of severity. In the west the Atlantic is just to small and to crowded. Performing raiding operations with subs is near impossible. In order to do it without your subs being obliterated you have to basically defeat the entire british surface fleet which kinda defeats the point of using subs in the first place. Stretching the map out to the west by about 20-30 hexes should largely alleviate this problem. The other thing about the western part of the map really has to do with the shape of the USA. This isn't really a "dealbreaker" so to speak for me but more of a pet peeve. When I first saw the map and I saw Russia one thought went through my head. What a bear of a country. It is VERY big. Then I saw America. I was unimpressed to say the least. Though the US is cramed full of cities, mines, oil, and lots of other goodies she is pitifully small and mishapen. I also thought that if I could slip about 8-12 armies and TGs(tank groups) by their fleet I could, with a some luck and daring, take all that wealth for myself fairly easily. I was never actually able to do this as I still had many pressing affairs in Europe I was unable to take care of before the demo ended. You see all those things are cramed so close together that a rapid surpise invasion could theoretically overwhelm the americans by taking most of their cities and such in one fell swoop. In addition to their stategic vulnerabilities the blob that is America just isn't all the impressive. It's only about the size of mainland France. If you stretched it out along almost the entire western edge of the map and thickened it, it would be less vulnerable to invasion. Except of course a direct strike on the capital which would still be very close to the sea. This however is a somewhat historical weakness. It should also hopefully be much more impressive. Which would hopefully help it to weigh more heavily upon the axis players mind like unto the USSR. Anyway on to the northern edge of the map. The problem with the north ties directly into the problem with the Atlantic. It's darn near impossible to slip subs along the Norwegian coast and then either south or north of Iceland into the Atlantic like it was done historically. Right now the only way to get subs into the atlantic is by building them at Brest or Bordeaux which is IIRC rather unhistorical. Most subs were built in Germany and either made it into the Atlantic through the channel or by going around Iceland. The latter is obviously impossible because there are only 2 hexes of water north of Scotland and these are right next to a major allied naval base. personally I would like to see the map stretched north to about 6-10 hexes north of the far northern coast of scandinavia. However just 6 additional hexes should rectify the problem. The last area of contention would be North Africa. The area is just to thin. There is a thread allready started about this particular subject . In some places it is only 1 hex wide. this obviously precludes any form of maneuver warfare and is very ahistorical. In fact the whole mideast is malformed. The thing I noticed the most was the complete adsence of the Cyrenaican Bulge. IMO you need to completely redo the mideast and north africa before release or it's probably going to look real bad if you don't. I also think you should stretch the map east a bit to include the western third of Persia up to Tehran. It would be real cool to have Iraq and Persia join the axis later on. It would be near impossible to actually defend them against the british and russians but it would be fun to try. Anyway that pretty much covers it. Cya, bye! [ May 23, 2002, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

thnx, I didn't know I had to do it before i moved or attacked. The other question is really critical. I can't figure out how to build transport units. Unless you don't build transport but it is instead autimatically generated at a cost when need. Hmmm, I believe I may have just answered my own question. Cya, bye!

I can't figure out how to reinforce a unit back up to full strength and I can't find transports in the purchase screen. Help plz!

Still looking for a couple more playtesters. The more imput I get before I start working on version 1,02 the less time it will take me to refine the scenario to completion. Cya, bye!

Well in a way it's a good thing the link didn't work. I was planning on modifying the scenario a bit more. So I won't be able to get it out to you until early tomorrow morning. though I'm not sure I wanna test your operation. I'll outline exactly why in the email but if you still want me to test it I will be glad to. Be forewarned though that I may take my time so it could take a while to get back to you.Cya, bye! [ April 29, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Achiles ]

Come on. It's my first attempt at a scenario. I allready know what to expect plus I'm not very good at CM. I'd really appreciate it if some one would give me a objective opinion. Cya, bye!

I need some paytesters to test a scenario I made. I haven't typed up any briefing yet. The scenario is completely fictional. It basically involves a small group of poles seizing a bridge just within german lines. German reinforcements trickle in slowly whereas the allies get three big reinforcements. 1 polish around turn 7 and two french around turns 16 & 19. The battle is 30 turns in duration. I've posted a link that should allow you to download it. Plz post your reviews here or email them to me at Achiles1_2000@yahoo.com. Cya, bye! http://www.geocities.com/achiles1_2000/rumblingriver.zip