husky65

Actually the USA was running short on infantry towards the end. However, the first point I'd like to make is that if the choice is play balance V historical accuracy, I'll take play balance. I haven't even looked at the editor, but it might be possible there (or in a further patch) to give the USA access to Tech levels above 5 or to simply unlock an extra 100MPPS a turn every year.

Possible, but extremely unlikely.

Originally posted by watchdog: OK, Matt & Moon, etc... your 2nd grade order form in the purchase section of your site is typical of the type of attention to detail you paid to the game in question. The topics don't even match up with the lines on the order form, check it out. They are as out of sync as Lance Bass & his new Cosmonaut Band. I tried to order the game 3 times with 3 diferent Ccards (all perfectly good cards...don't even go there) and all responses from your site came back, "declined". OK, I'll tell the emperor that he's 'tackle out' - The website works properly, we've used it to order ours and I just took it as far as the point of no return and all the fields matched up on every page. The problem is at your end. Perhaps you should address your second grade computer config? Re your financial situation, I don't know and dont care. OK then, so that means you blacklisted me for some of the comments I made on the forum which you so eagerly locked my threads out for merely speaking my peace (no foul language used). Well, your game sucks (oh my, will THIS thread be locked???). I've paid more for worse games than this, and probably will again, but the highbrow arrogance of the people working on this joint will never be topped. OK all you suck ups, let me have it, full barrels blasting. And then you move on into some self justifying whining which is of little interest to me. BTW, since the game sucks - why are you whimpering with such stridency about the world setting out to prevent you buying it? Can you spell 'attention seeking hypocrite'? [ August 17, 2002, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

As an aside this raised another point, the 'Japan attacks Siberia' switch that you can set to prevent Russia gaining the Siberian armies. IMO, if that is set to on (ie Japan attacks Siberia), the USA should roughly double its available MPPs, the C'wealth (UK in game) should pick up another 20% - 30% (India, Aust and NZ production and forces mostly) because Japan could not have attacked Siberia AND gone south for the oil, so the Pac war would never have happened.

Just as you can get a good quality IDE CD burner for about $50 USD plus a decent blank CD for .50 US cents and defeat 'the CD must be in' code, or download the latest 'No CD patches' from the net. I don't know what the answer to casual piracy is, but it isn't 'the CD must be in the drive to play', thats just annoying.

The above shows why many computer gamers need to be kicked to death by enraged mules (purely as a service to mankind), you give them a huge, intricate and detailed program and they whine about bloatware - you give them small, elegant and abstracted and they moan about simplistic. Would you have been happier if Battlefront had put in a 2 gig FMV intro requiring a DVD or several CDs to install? - the funny thing is, I suspect you would, and you don't see why we all think that's funny! I could do a point by point refutation, but its already been done, I'd just be putting the boot into a moron when he's down (however I do enjoy that sort of thing so I won't entirely rule out doing it later..)

The above is a good idea, its hard to give any suggestions as to sensible ideas for SC2 without knowing the scope, scale and setting of the next development. Unit size, hex size, which theater and map boundaries as a starting point would allow people to give much better feedback. No hurry, I have a spot of Lebensraum in the east to aquire in the near future anyway.

Its made it to Tasmania too, the package is marked 'opened by customs' - I suspect that if it had not been, it would have been here Friday

We'll see if we can get you one then...

Hmm, let me think ... IIRC, the paraunit itself in the system of COS was vulnerable enough. The terrain bonus of the defender was negated with respect to attacks by *other* forces (which had to be there because the paras could not attack on their lonesome). I guess the paraunit was supposed to distract/surprise/disorganize the defender just enough to allow the other attacking forces to make up for the terrain disadvantages. I think there was also only a certain chance that the terrain bonus for the defender was negated when the paras were involved, but I'm not sure. Paras don't 'distract/surprise/disorganize', they seize objectives (that do not exist on this scale). The mission orders for Paras, traditionally, are not 'just mill about blazing away at stuff - that should disorganise them' Practically, in that game one used the paraunit in combined attacks on fortified positions - especially fortresses which were further sheltered by rivers (Leningrad), or sea (Malta) were difficult to knock out without them. Difficult to justify historically - Paras were seldom used against fortresses and certainly not on the massive scale that a Corp drop in this game would imply.

This too, is a bad idea - historically Paras are very vulnerable to bad terrain (see the drops in Normandy as one example) and do little to negate enemy terrain (see Market Garden as a classic example). Nobody has given an example where they would work (that makes sense), yet suggestions for increasingly complex ways to implement Paras keep coming. One of the big strengths of SC is its simplicity, why try to change that when you can't even justify the changes?

The problem is that his chit system adds complexity but nothing to the actual gameplay - how much will you spend to get a (realistic attack bonus) of about .2? At this scale airborne ops are already abxtracted into the attacks.

I won't even deny that. But then, do our naval units really cover a 50 miles hex? </font>

I pointed out that the US produced more warships (however the vast majority of them went to the pacific where they would have no impact on this game). The point was made that in 1944 the USA made more armaments than the axis, plus all the other allies - it is not correct. The total a/c production for the axis (whole war) was 114,763 - USSR 146,445 - UK 119,876 The USA produced 283,230 (I can extract the a/c figures for 44, they show the same sort of thing).

About the only area that this is true is in warships (not an area easily converted IRL to making other weapons). In Field Arty and AT guns in 1944 the axis plus all the other allies made almost as much as the USA did in the entire war. In 1944 they made more a/c than the USA. In 1944 the USSR alone made more tanks/AFVs than the USA. If you have figures for other classes of weapons it might be interesting if you post them.

At the 50 mile a hex, 1 week to 1 month a turn scale Paras do not make sense, this has been covered, repeatedly, in considerable depth. So far nobody has given a historical example where Paras siezed a 50 mile area, nor have they given any credible way to provide the enemy with a way to strike the first waves of troops and the ongoing airlifts. There seems to simply be a 'its cool and I want it' factor at work in spite of the fact that this is the wrong scale for such operations.

Based on the demo, one thing I'd like to see is the 'Yes' and 'No' confirmation button locations swapped only in the 'Quit' menu. That way, if you accidentally hit 'quit' rather than 'done' and are operating on mental autopilot, you will instinctively click 'no' in the confirmation dialogue box (because it is where the 'yes' key is in every other menu). In this case, if you accidentally click 'no' (you really intend to quit), there is no harm done. It should take an actual intention to quit a game rather than be something you can do by accident and inattention.

Crete only used around 13000 airborne (inc gliders) troops, the rest were airlanded or went up the beach (the 13000 did not go in one lift). Market Garden used around 35,000 airborne (inc gliders) and did not go in one lift. In neither case (at this scale) could you use a corps to represent them.