husky65
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by husky65
-
-
Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
"I did not play the game but my friend made these notes:"
Then perhaps it would be best if your friend had posted this?
"There are some serious flaws in this game , it gets boring very quickly."
Its a time limited Beta demo, you pillock - its not meant to entertain you forever.
"If someone spent the time and effort on a World in Flames computer version it would be the greatest."
You mean like the computer version of WiF that has been in the works for about 3-4 years and is only at the "no AI but has some potential" stage?
"Flaws .. computer has no intellegence factor at all in Fog of War"
You mean like the way you have a range at which you can detect units, but not know their strength until you are closer?
"...as the German I have conquered USA and Britain and have been in Moscow
all prior to May 1941
... as the allied I have sunk the entire German navy with French ships, and
been adjacent to Berlin by May '41"
That would be the beta part of the demo - its not finished, I also note that your friend doesn't give any details as to the game settings used.
"1. must include Japan"
If there is one thing I've always said its, 'European Theater WW2 games should include Japan...' - I always felt Battle of Britain flights sims really needed Zekes too.
"2. Italy can not be activated prior to German proximity to Paris ( allows
allied free hand )
( they should be wide open and their actions reflected in neutrality shifts
in USA and Russia )"
Statements without supporting evidence do not constitute proof - why should they be wide open etc?
"3. The allies can strip their entire world of all units and simply dump
them into France,
this combined with the French fleet sailing into the Baltic and sinking the
German navy means that Germany
will be stalemated on the Western front in attempts to take Paris"
Beta status demo, remember.
"its an ok time waster .."
as are you.
-
If I order 1 copy of SC the shipping will cost $10 USD(shipped to Australia).
If I order 2 copies of SC shipped to the same address together, what will the shipping be?
$10 or $20
-
Its worth noting that the French lacked any sort of mobile offensive doctrine and were mostly trained to sit in bunkers, their morale was shot before the kick off (they expected another WW1 style bloodbath).Originally posted by DevilDog:IIRC germany had all of 7 divisions on the western front during the Fall of '40; just a speed bump to the French.
I doubt a French offensive would have been effective.
-
Originally posted by Aloid:
"Learn something new every darn day!"
http://www.markwell.btinternet.co.uk/webmon/
its free.
"Thank you Husky!"
No problem
-
You do know that you can download web monitor and set it to check a webpage every X minutes for changes, when the page changes (as long as you are online) it will tell you, don't you?Originally posted by Aloid:It's getting tiring, sitting here refreshing the "order" page, hoping to see a phone number of credit card input screen...
-
The demo you are currently playing is beta demo released some time ago, that reflected the state of the game at that time, since then feedback from the testers plus the people just playing the demo has resulted in improvements that will be implemented in the full game on release.Originally posted by Jon Patrick:Okay, guess who's the newbie here!!
What is the 'gold' demo I've seen listed? Is it different than the regular demo I've been playing?
The gold demo will release at the same time and will incorporate those improvements too, thus you can check the state of the actual shipping product prior to purchase.
To get back to the topic of the thread a bit, I guess the question I'd like addressed is are we looking at a wait of hours, days or weeks for the release?
-
Originally posted by Aloid:
"Hmmm... your being very defensive about this, "
Defensive? I'm stating facts.
"and quite a stick in the mud...
I was trying to come up with a hypothetical scenario..."Hypothetical does not = credible and I don't see a point to making absurd scenarios.
"If I understand correctly, the Japanese really did want to expand in this direction,"
I really want to sleep with supermodels, that doesn't make it a credible proposition (damn).
" and YES they had their heads handed to them... 61,000 dead to 7,000 russian dead... but it would be different, and potentially interesting..."
Different, possibly - interesting, how?
Scenario description follows-
As the USSR you must supply 1 x corp to the east (Jap) front and keep it up to strength for one year, at which time Japan will run out of fuel and their economy and military ops will collapse.
Sounds like a hoot, knock yourself out hitting the reinforce/max button for that corp.
"hmmm... maybe that's your point all along, eh? Not really feasible, so possibly not fun or interesting... all in the eye of the beholder, I guess... "
The above pretty much covers it, you would have to be able to go back decades and change the Japanese culture and industrial base to have any chance and that still doesn't change the lack of Oil that was Japans biggest (but certainly not only) resource problem.
-
No, I'm not forgetting them, I just used tanks as an example, US production had to be ramped up in all of the areas you quote.Originally posted by aesop:Yes, but you are forgetting ships, planes, ammo, supply, etc.
The Germany first policy did not mean that all resources were immediately devoted to destroying Germany, a lot of resources went to defending the USA, then to containing the Japanese advance, then to attacking Germany.
-
The USSR routed the Japanese in that case, simply compare Soviet tanks and Arty to Japanese and it is pretty clear that the Japanese were not a credible threat to the USSR that would have required a major diversion of forces.Originally posted by Aloid:Husky, I'm thinking of Japan's attack on Russia (or where ever it was the clashed) in, what 1937? If that had gone well, then it would be an interesting scenario to have Russia with two hostile boarders.
All of your points are valid... this is just hypothetical, based on a real occurance...
What say?
Aloid
-
Its hard to translate US capacity into MPPs (not knowing what Hubert based his figures on), but in 1940 the US produced only 331 Tanks/SP guns (not light tanks or tankettes).Originally posted by aesop:I think the US should get an initial MPP of 1500 in reserves to reflect the industrial strength of the US.
Yes the US was not prepared for war in 1941 but gez, it had the industrial capacity that surpassed Russia during WW2.
Any thoughts or corrections on this?
1941 4,052
1942 24,997
1943 29,497
(Total US Tank prod = 88,410 - Total USSR Tank prod = 105,251).
In 1940, all that industrial might was not devoted to war, the USA had to convert it to building weapons rather than cars and fridges.
-
Japan had no ability to invade Russia, they also had no motivation to invade Russia.Originally posted by Aloid:No-one has mentioned a scenario where the invasion of Russia by Japan, actually went better than it did historically. To mimic this, possibly give some portion of Eastern Russia to the Axis. (minor Axis, called Japan? Or perhaps make it German, but that sounds too strong).
Thoughts?
Aloid
Japan needed oil, taking Siberia would not give them oil (the vast Siberian deposits were not discoverd until well after the war).
Japan lacked the Mech forces to do it, lacked the industry to build such forces, and lacked the motivation to build such forces.
The IJN and IJA did not co-operate well, the IJN diverting 'their' industrial muscle in support of a campaign that would have no place for their forces is simply unthinkable.
The IJA and IJN were not above assasinating each others officers.
-
In 1941 the ConUS had a similar number of frontline combat a/c as the UK (I don't have figures for 1940) - the US doesn't need to be made stronger, they were not ready for war.Originally posted by gorski:Give USA 2 fighters and 2 strat bombers that cant be moved or disbanded. You could place them at the edge of the map in the ocean.
Gorski
-
Probably because if they deny that date, they will instantly be asked 'what is the actual date then' and they don't want to give one until the actually know (ie the game is finished).Originally posted by Kodiakwdj:Speaking of stunning revelations, I notice no one has denied the 7/31 release date from the gamespot review.
-
You do know what Grognard translates as, don't you?Originally posted by Hubert Cater:Hi Everyone,
Just wanted to apologize for the extended delays on the Gold announcement.
-
Originally posted by Welshwill:
"Mighty nation built the world's largest and most powerful mountain defence system
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
ST. MAURICE, SWITZERLAND -- "
A fair bit of pro Swiss revisionism there, as noted the forts could hold for 6 months.
Hitler had way more than 6 months to crush them, it wasn't that he couldn't, it was very much to Germanys benefit to keep Switzerland helping.
Switzerland survived because Switzerland was doing the nazis a great banking service and selling them masses of ball bearings, Switzerland also let the nazis run trainloads of Jews, Italian slave laborers and partisans through on the way to the concentration camps.
-
Originally posted by Canuck_para:
"would I move the Brits from the UK, surely there were transports that could have brought men over, if not the equipment."
You seem to forget that the Brits would be under extreme pressure if they were even thinking about surrender, the priority would be to unload transports and get them out of the way, not load troops that were needed at the front line holding back the Germans, you are looking at a dunkirk where the troops don't want out, there are way less ships, little air cover and all the ships are bigger targets for the luftwaffe.
"As for the RN, Canada had some pretty big ports that could have dealt with most ships. As for them using different eqpt from the US, this does not make them useless. Refits could have occured."
The need for massive refits takes them out of the war for years, the need to rely on US supplies means that they go where they are told and do as they are told by the US.
"As to the arms factoried in Australia and India, maybe you can fill me in on these. I admit to knowing nothing and wonder what the production capacity was, particularly compared to Canada. I would like some facts if you have them."
Australia produced Small arms, AT guns, Arty, Mortars (ammunition for all of them), Armoured Carriers, Armoured Recce Veh, Med Tanks, Mines, Bombs, Torpedoes, Depth Charges, aircraft, [oops Corvettes, not Frigates - edit], radars, AA guns - the list is extensive.
I don't have the time to reproduce the quote but Truman, in his post war report on Lend Lease to congress pointed out that Australia supplied the same value of goods to the USA as the USA supplied to Aust.
[ July 12, 2002, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: husky65 ]
-
Originally posted by Canuck_para:
"What do you think the Brits would have done if the US was in the war when the UK fell. Surely the Brits would have gone to Canada and been armed by the US and Canada."
How would you move them? all you get is the RN and the US doesn't use the same kit as the RN + Canada is busy building their own navy, so they have little excess to cater for the RN.
"You talk about the troops going to India and Australia but there were no great arms factories there that could have kept the units supplied for long."
Would you like to bet on it?
-
Enigma decrypts were not that effective for ASW, Huff Duff was and is probably already covered in ASW tech.Originally posted by matra:Hi!
I'm playing with the demo version of Strategic Command and i think that it is a
good war game but i think that there are some important things not implemented .
I'm speaking about things like Enigma,spies and nuclear research .
It is known that the U-boats were defeated after the breaking of the Enigma code
and that UK and Germany were involved in spies' wars.
I think that the game will be better if it implements this things .
There are some humble suugestions :
Enigma :
The Axis can do research on it and he can use the Enigma to hide the positions
of his subs . The subs will be undetected until the Allies cracks the Enigma.After
the Enigma was broken there is no fog of war for the Axis subs .
Enigma decrypts (in the ASW sense) were used mostly to route convoys away from subs, not to vector attackers to them.
Spies, no thanks, if you are going to have them remove FOW (for reality reasons) you need to also have them report masses of spurious units, make masses of mistakes and frequently get turned by the enemy.
It wouldn't add much to the game IMO.
-
the majority of the above can probably be explained as an attempt to keep the game system simple, once you allow stacking of air and land you will immediately get asked why not 'land/land' stacking, and why cant I move/attack/defend my units as a stack? etc.Originally posted by Jean Lafitte:I think that the ground units that start adjacent to enemy units and then attack should be allowed some movement, just as a unit that is not adjacent may move and then attack.
I also don't understand why an air fleet cannot occupy the same hex as a ground unit (not even a measly corps).
My friends and I hope that we can get an explanation.
The game is meant to be simple and playable, it does this brilliantly so far.
-
The Brits should just move their govt to Canada. Then they can still fight in Egypt as well as other locations, as I think they would have done if The Brtitish Isles fell. I really doubt if the Brit navy would have just packed it in.Originally posted by Canuck_para: -
PB as the Germans with FOW on, in the demo, at default settings (soviets neutral) - I've won the war.
[ July 08, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]
-
That was my original thought - the problem with it is that it adds the same expense to shipping an army from port to port as it does in moving from port to landing across a beach.Originally posted by Lars:Perhaps a better and easier fix would be to raise the cost of transport and then add another tech for amphibious assault/shipping to help reduce it.
IRL port to port is easy, going up a beach much harder.
-
Its too late to implement in the release of SC (I don't want to be the person suggesting a delay), but either in a patch or SC2 you could implement in the 'declare war' process an 'Amphib landings' Yes/No box, tick yes and your transports can unload across a beach, click no and they can only do so at a harbour.
As a starting point this could cost about 450 MPPs (to click yes) simulating the construction of landing craft - a bit of testing will tell you if its too low or too high.
-
Give it a rest, you have been posting nonsense, then saying "I won't argue any more" at the end as an attempt to get the last word in.Originally posted by Delta:[QB]Bah I am not going to respond to your harsh comments, I will just let you win.
I like how you kept on saying harsh and hurtful things but then said ok to stop the argueing. lol, your a silly guy.
[QB]
Your post above is just a continuation of that trend.
re 'harsh and hurtful' if you don't want your comments discussed, don't make them.
When I reply to a long post, I start at the top and work my way down, if you suggest letting the argument end at the bottom of the post that is where I will reply to it, but I won't change my replies to earlier parts of the post - you won't get a free shot.
I was trying to come up with a hypothetical scenario..."
screws up my desktop
in Strategic Command 1
Posted