Straha
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Straha
-
-
There should be no partisans in the baltic states.
Straha
-
If we make the Allies still stronger, there's zero point anymore in playing them against the AI. Even at this point, it is only fun if the Axis gets experience +1.
Straha
-
You mean Frankfurt an der Oder? Though the last major battle on the eastern front was there, it is simply not important enough.
Of course, I would never object to making the editor more powerful.
At the moment I feel it is too restrictive. I especially think we should be able to change the setup of forces for nations not at war at the beginning of a scenario. Strahah
-
It's generally not a good idea to take *options* away from a game. If you want a historical entry of the US, you always can choose the historical settings.
Straha
-
The interesting thing is that the AI does not only get through more often with higher experience- and/"booty"-level, it also somehow seems to "know" that it has an advantage and plays more aggressively. Or is this just an illusion?Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:See, this ai isnt lame...
Straha
-
I fully agree, Axis+1 was the way to go in the demo, and I'm sure it is the same in the full game.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:u know, i think the "default" setting should be the germans +1, after all they were better trained.
However, +2 is too much and makes for a frustrating game.
Also, I would choose no scorched earth, and maybe also +1 difficulty level to let them get a bit more booty from plundering. I let the Russians have the Siberian forces,though.
Naturally, all this applies only if the human plays the Allies.
Btw did anyone set Russia on neutral yet when playing the Allies? I would be interested to hear in how that works out.
Straha
-
Yeah, that's true. I always tend to forget the deserved praise.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:SNIP
Just yankin' ur chain norse , looks good.
SNIP
Straha
-
Considered that the game punishes attacks *from* a river hex, shouldn't the Germans make their last stand *behind* the Rhine instead of *on* it? And I don't think that the Maginot line was still of use in 44, too.
Straha
[ August 03, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
That sounds good. In my opinion the game in the demo was heavily biased in favor of the Axis (starting from that point with 2 equal players and assuming the game kept going, I think the Axis would win a vast majority of the time).Originally posted by Ancient One:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Old&Slow:
Looks much harder for the Axis then the Demo IMO.
SNIP</font>
-
I think it would probably be difficult to program them so to respect the borders of their country. So other measures might be better:
1) Making them weaker.
2) Making them slower.
3) Make less of them.
1) and 3) is to not have to devote ridiculous amounts of troops to them, and 2) is to prevent them crossing Europe with lightning speed before one can react.
In principle, partisan units are a great addition to the game - they just should stay partisans and not become elite corps.
Straha
-
I (of course) regret now that I didn't have the gutts to preorder, but I thought the game could maybe arrive while I'm already gone to Europe. So a question: could anyone who ordered from the SF bay area tell me how long it took from ordering to delivery?
Straha
-
Actually, the problem with Hitler already showed in the Barbarossa campaign in 41. Against the opinion of all his generals he insisted on wasting time in the South because he did not recognize the importance of taking Moscow until it was too late (I do not mean the political issue and the railway junctions. I mean he missed the opportunity of enveloping the bulk of the Russian forces which had concentrated there).Originally posted by Straha:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sol Invictus:
There is no doubt that the Germans made many mistakes along with the Allies and when Hitler took a greater hand in strategy after '41, the Germans made some real woppers. The winner in war is usually the side that makes the fewest mistakes; overwhelming industrial capacity never hurts either.
Though it's true that the real ugly bunglings were made in 42. Not only the catastrophic stand-and-die orders for Stalingrad (when an outbreak was easily possible): already the moronic back and forth of the Panzer divisions between Stalingrad and the Caucasus prevented the Germans from getting Stalingrad earlier and easily when it was undefended. (At the same time the vaccillation of orders also prevented the Germans from geting the Caucasus objectives in the end.) I don't even mention the missed opportunities in Malta and Africa and the misconceptions of Zitadelle and the 100/1 gamble in the Ardennes in 44 which only delayed the Western Allies, but destroyed all remaining offensive power reserves of the German army (and in the end only helped the Russians to get to Berlin first, a situation everyone wanted to *avoid*).
In a way, with respect to thwarting OKW, Hitler more than once proved to be the best ally of the Allies ...
Straha</font>
-
Actually, the problem with Hitler already showed in the Barbarossa campaign in 41. Against the opinion of all his generals he insisted on wasting time in the South because he did not recognize the importance of taking Moscow until it was too late (I do not mean the political issue and the railway junctions. I mean he missed the opportunity of enveloping the bulk of the Russian forces which had concentrated there).Originally posted by Sol Invictus:There is no doubt that the Germans made many mistakes along with the Allies and when Hitler took a greater hand in strategy after '41, the Germans made some real woppers. The winner in war is usually the side that makes the fewest mistakes; overwhelming industrial capacity never hurts either.
Though it's true that the real ugly bunglings were made in 42. Not only the catastrophic stand-and-die orders for Stalingrad (when an outbreak was easily possible): already the moronic back and forth of the Panzer divisions between Stalingrad and the Caucasus prevented the Germans from getting Stalingrad earlier and easily when it was undefended. (At the same time the vaccillation of orders also prevented the Germans from geting the Caucasus objectives in the end.) I don't even mention the missed opportunities in Malta and Africa, Zitadelle, and the 100/1 gamble in the Ardennes in 44 which only delayed the Western Allies, but destroyed all remaining offensive power reserves of the German army (and in the end only helped the Russians to get to Berlin first, a situation everyone wanted to *avoid*).
In a way, with respect to thwarting OKW, Hitler more than once proved to be the best ally of the Allies ...
Straha
-
Pure wife?
Straha
-
Yes, in fact I do. Uncommon Valor by Matrixgames also shipped a few days earlier than announced.Originally posted by husky65:Just out of curiosity, can anyone remember another game that shipped prior to its predicted official release date?
Straha
-
Someone please delete the post above - fast.
Straha
-
I have never seen Spain join without Sealion, but maybe this also has to do with the limited scope of the demo. I suspect that Franco is a real cautious guy.
Hmm, I think it would be sensible for him to join after a successful Barbarossa, too. Straha
-
I think that going on the defense early makes you loose the game. A two front war should be avoided, but if you do not declare war on Russia yourself, you will have this very two front war later anyway, and at a time when it already is too late because the enemy is too strong. So Russia must be knocked out of the picture early, quick and hard before the UK/US are strong enough to pose a threat on the other front. There should be more efforts than historically to get Malta and Egypt, but if in doubt, Barbarossa must have absolute priority.
Straha
-
Me, too. But I'll give the Axis +1 exp. Maybe I'll also make Russia neutral, for it seems to me that else it would probably still be too easy.Originally posted by BloodyBucket:Mine will probably be against the AI as the allies, starting in 1939 SNIP
Straha
-
That would be cool, but you can't.
Straha
-
You can't make the UK neutral. (Or did I really overlook something here?)
Straha
-
Straha,Originally posted by SuperTed:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
...betatesting should be a bit less frenetic by now...
If this was true, then I would be all over the AAR. I have been doing little bits of it when I get chances, but Hubert and I are digging up (and squashing) bugs. Once we're through that, the world will be mine...
</font> -
Straha,Originally posted by SuperTed:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
...betatesting should be a bit less frenetic by now...
If this was true, then I would be all over the AAR. I have been doing little bits of it when I get chances, but Hubert and I are digging up (and squashing) bugs. Once we're through that, the world will be mine...
</font> -
Well, at the critical time I'm going to Europe, too, and won't have much time to play for quite a while. But I *will* order the game from Ireland.
Straha
At the moment I feel it is too restrictive. I especially think we should be able to change the setup of forces for nations not at war at the beginning of a scenario. 
Frankfurt am main (that better straha?)
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Well, as placing cities means changing features of the map, what this really amounts to is to integrate a map editor. Sure would be cool.
Unfortunately, we will not get one. Hubert already stated quite some time ago that we will not get accessibility to the map (and that most probably even future games will not go into that direction).
The only thing we can do is to mod the sprites for the cities.
Straha