Ancient One
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Ancient One
-
-
I'd like it if the effects of experience would be reduced. A five star unit should be excellent, but not unstoppable.
-
It's gamey because it's using a game feature in a way that does not reflect the realities of war.Originally posted by santabear:I also think that these aren't really 'gamey' tactics (if that's supposed to be a negative term). The object of war is to win--not to 'play fair.'
-
Why? What happened?
-
I'll have to say it all depends on whether SC 2 represents the European theatre or the Pacific theatre.
If European, no patch.
If Pacific, both.
-
I agree with Zappsweden except on 6.
I'd also like to point out the vast difference in the profitability and plunder of the occupied territories in the game compared to reality. Also, the value of some areas compared to others is completely out of whack.
-
I agree with JJ about Vichy. The only alternative to such a peace agreement was total occupation, the war was unwinnable at that point.
Anyway, add Vichy and Turkey to the countries that supplied the Germans with resources.
-
I disagree. If the Germans turn down Vichy, the colonies should always remain in the war.Originally posted by Canuck_para:Yes, what I mean is if the Germans turn down Vichy then then the French fight on. When all of France is taken the Colonies have a random roll which mean some become Free French while others become Neutral.
-
What's the problem? I like the way Vichy is handled.
-
It's probably handled about the same way as the Baltic states, in early 1940 a pop up box appears saying that there was a Winter War and the Finnish/Russian borders are changed accordingly.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:So Hubert, if i am reading this correctly there is a Russo Finnish Winter War.
Can you elaborate on that?
CvM
-
A while ago I decided not to get this game because it was too gamey and unbalanced. However, this recent patch is making me reconsider. Most of the biggest flaws (especially the way research was handled) have been corrected. Very impressive.
-
It's always better for Germany to take everything.
-
My, such a rude child you are.Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:Ok, how about you just try thinking first before such a remark? Better yet lets play and you can show me how subs the most efficient naval unit. Email me please, I love to play an axis player who builds and researches subs. Because while your doing that, Russia will be handing you your ass on the east front. So maybe if you go all out on subs you can 'shut the US down' when they enter the war and have killed all the allied naval units. The problem will be that in 1942 Russian units will be occupying Berlin!
So tell me, if subs are not the most cost efficient naval unit, what is? Sorry, but I have trouble believing that subs are overpriced and underpowered compared to carriers, battleships, or cruisers.
For the record, I think it would be great if the subs had a greater dive % and were more difficult to spot. However, the subs then MUST have their naval attack rating reduced *substantially* to maintain any sort of balance. Hubert is going to have to decide what role he wants subs to play in SC. They should either be purely offensive naval attack ships (which they already are), or extremely elusive commerce raiding stealth ships, but NOT both.
Does that sound reasonable to you? If not, I'm sorry you had to sit through another one of my insane rants.
-
Looks like you guys have thought this through...NOT. Try thinking outside of the box. Subs are currently the most cost efficient naval unit for the damage they can do to the enemy fleet. Any halfway competent Axis player can destroy the Allied fleet with subs. Do we really need another change to make battleships and cruisers even more useless?
-
I've never heard anyone say that they want to repeat history close to exact. I have however heard this point presented as a straw man argument by people who want to do away with historical limitations.Originally posted by windstarz:But of course repeating history close to exact is boring. So that argument wont ever change.
-
I agree with Sarge. I've been looking forward to SC for a long time, and I still wish great success for the game. I've however decided not to get the game simply because, based on my extensive experience with the demo and the testimony of other players, I just don't see it holding my interest for long.
SC is a good game, but not quite the WW2 experience I'm looking for.
-
Say what you will about Stalin, but it was his 5 year plans that made the USSR powerful. In spite of the severe hardship his people suffered, they were probably better off in the long run than they would be under German occupation, which is what would have happened if Stalin chose gentler methods to encourage modernization.
-
You should add Switzerland to that list. In 1940, Mussolini was originally planning to invade Switzerland, Yugoslavia, and Greece simultaneously; before finally settling on just Greece after he was told he didn't have enough manpower to invade all 3 countries at once.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Mussolini saw himself as conducting a seperate war from Germany in which Italy took the Riviera, Yugoslavia, Greece, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and the Sudan.
Given the historical Italian performance in Greece, it's amusing to imagine what would have happened if Mussolini went with his original plan.
-
So you've never thought of combining the US and UK into one player in a 4 player game?Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:In Axis and Allies the consensus of friends, is defaulting the Russian player to the US player in a 4 person game is not only stupid, but makes a shambles of portraying the real world friction of the time (then again, you can't let the Brit run them eh).
Trouble is, with only 4 players, you are stuck putting the Axis as one player (oh well, so one side is an over worked player, next time find a 5th player
). -
I think that's a very good review sogard.
-
You can say that again, it's basically unplayable as is.Originally posted by Yohan:Hey Hicom,
You must be kidding speaking in reverence about High Command. It was one of the poorest wargames ever seen. Great map and it ends there.
-
No, I meant the later Windows 3.1 version.Originally posted by dgaad:Big Three was published in 1989 and is available for free at http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?name=Big+Three%2C+The I didn't really "miss" it. Its not really a serious wargame, it more in the Axis and Allies genre. The AI is even worse than High Command's AI.
-
Does anyone know where I can get Big 3 (the Windows 3.1 version)? I used to have it, and really want to play it again.Originally posted by Kuniworth:You missed to list Big 3. A computer game of ww2 in europe
-
Ah, I've read this document a long time ago, it's quite interesting. I'd love to see a remake of CoS.
-
Tell me why the Germans should be able to afford to buy all 10 research points early in the game, and possibly max out industrial technology, before the USSR or US even enters play.Originally posted by arby:Not to do that and invest in research, too.
Who says it needs to be replaced? Look, the game is currently unbalanced in favor of the Axis. This is largely caused by their research advantage and rich economy even after US entry. Don't tell me pillage isn't a huge factor in this.Originally posted by arby:How are you going to replace that?
So you want to be a Beta Tester? SC v1.07 Beta Released!
in Strategic Command 1
Posted