Randell Daigre

Or just pop up there on some kind of event-dictated schedule. Something along the lines of the Russian "Siberian Army Transfer", but fewer units and happening more than once.

You can grab Venice, too, if you set it up right.

Sounds like an HQ issue. Are your combat units adequately supported?

You would probably need a smaller-scale game engine in order to do the Winter War justice. Too bad, it would be interesting.

Favorite "Gamey Tactic": Invading Portugal/Spain with the US. Attitude towards "Gamey Tactics": Live and let live. Gamey tactics can sometimes be ahistorical, but they can also be a very interesting intellectual exercise. If they are egregiously ahistorical, then they can (hopefully) be corrected for. In the meantime, its fun to try to counter them. Gamey tactics, by their very nature, take a certain amount of cleverness to come up with. I'm all for rewarding cleverness. It *is* just a game.

Maybe lower plunder and an MPP cap of "5" instead of the usual "8" for cities and resource hexes would address the "consequences" issue. On the other hand, I've always found Portugal and Spain to be a handy remedy to the anemic US MPP production. On the third hand (bear with me here), Spain was a fascist "neutral" with strong pro-axis sympathies. Portugal was also a fascist country. In fact, Portugal had the first fascist government in Europe. I seriously doubt that moral considerations were the deciding factor in the Allies' refusal to invade neutral countries. It probably had more to do with the fact that there just weren't any neutral countries "in the way". It's a lot further from Britain to Spain than it is from Britain to Normandy. It's also a lot further to Berlin (and Paris) from Spain than it is to Berlin (or Paris) from Normandy. P.S.- Also, since both Spain and Portugal were fascist countries as well as neutral ones, I don't think that the Allied leadership would have had *too* much trouble villifying them for their respective publics. [ September 25, 2002, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

Try this on for size. Most of the Allied (and Axis) countries were working, simultaneously, on most (if not all) of the research catagories that are available in the game throughout the entire war. To simulate this type of effort in a game would mean putting a maximum of *one* point in any given catagory. I seriously doubt that anyone will be flying around in level 5 jets in 1941-1942 at that level of research. In fact, I would be astounded to see a level 5 even at the end of the game in a catagory with only one research point devoted to it. I could, of course be completely wrong. I've never had the patience to leave anything on just one point. I usually throw 3-5 points in to a couple of areas and just leave everything else alone. To my way of thinking 5 research points in one area (*Half* the total research resources available to you at any given time!!) represents a cocentration on a single technology that is on a level with the Manhattan (sp?) Project. Who's to say that an operational jet fighter aircraft couldn't have been devloped by 1942 with such a level of concentration and priority. Both fighter aircraft and jet engines were already around before Hitler's troops fired their first shot. Niether was actually *invented* during the war, they were merely put together into a workable combination. Just my two cents.

Junior Member < 30 Posts < Member. [ August 31, 2002, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

O.K., I'm an idiot. I downloaded the DOS boot disk, but I have never been able to get it to work. If I try to start up (or restart) my computer with anything in the three-and-a-half inch drive, XP won't let me. I have a seperate issue with a game I downloaded from underdogs.org. The copy of Pacific General I got from there crashes incessantly, but only during certain scenairios. Anyone with any solutions or comments would be appreciated (except comments about the fact that I'm an idiot - I've already stipulated that).

The U.S. Army's MLRS system can do a 1-battery (6 launchers) fire mission which will essentially eliminate everything in a 1x1 kilometer square. Now, obviously, WWII rocket systems were not as advanced as the MLRS. However, the tech research function is set up to provide you with the ability to go beyond the capabilities developed in WWII. Remember, also, that many things in this game are meant to be abstract. A "rocket unit" does not necessarily represent a specific set of rockets or launchers, but rather a level of potential to conduct a certain kind of operation. Another thing to mention about the use of rockets to cause damage to units is that "damage" is also somewhat abstract. Even in modern warfare, it is very difficult to actually destroy ground units in detail with aircraft. Most of what is done by air forces is to destroy the enemies infrastructure (C3 abilities, supply, airfields, bridges, roads) and to interdict its movement. The same was true in WWII. In the game, the effects of this activity is represented as reduction of entrenchment levels and damage to the unit in question. You may not have killed a lot of people and vehicles, but you have "damaged" that unit's ability to conduct combat operations and destroyed some of its cohesion. Technically advanced rocket forces (if you choose to make the investment) can perform similar functions. (Edit) Another good example (don't know why I didn't think of it before) is to look at the eefect of cruise missiles. The V-1, athough crude, is the direct-line ancestor of *all* modern cruise missiles. [ August 22, 2002, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

A port has to have a value of at least "5" in order to be used for transport purposes.

Posted by SS Viking: Uh oh! Maybe the beginning strength of the Swedish military shouldn't have been increased from its original levels, after all. Norse: From everything that has been said here, it would seem that the only thing that should prevent you from operating troops from Norway to Finland is an *enemy* Sweden.

Were there good railway lines running from Norway/Sweden to Finland at the time? IRRC the terrain along that route is pretty bad. I suppose such railways could be considered to have been built after the start of the war if the Axis were to capture both Sweden and Norway. They almost certainly would have done so if they could have. Would such a thing have been feasible, though? Thinking about this reminds me of similar wartime efforts that did take place. The Allied supply route into China from India and the Japanese railway through Burma come to mind. Both of these efforts met with only marginal success. I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper (and easier) to clear the Baltic Sea of enemies (or at least keep them at arm's length with escorts) and just send the troops by ship.

The difference comes from whether you are "liberating" or "conquering" a country. A minor country which is conquered by (for example) the Axis and then later liberated by the Allies sends its MPP's to the U.K. A minor country which is taken over by the Allies without ever having been in Axis possesion, however, sends its MPP's (and its plunder) to whichever allied country is in possesion its capital at the time of its surrender. A major enemy country is always treated as a conquest, sending its treasure to the enemy who occupies its capital when it surrenders. A "liberated" major country, of course, retakes control of its own MPP production. I assume that minors "liberated" by the Axis send their MPP's to Germany, but I don't know that for sure.

Soooo... Guard-rabbits or llama-mounted cavalry?(Let's face it, we'll never be able to decide whether the Holy Hand-Grenade comes in at tech level three or five.)

Posted by Killmore: Nope. Sink their fleet, kill their grunts, and take all their cities: Vichy France will *not* surrender to the Allies under any circumstances that I have seen and they will *not* rejoin France when you liberate it.

You're right, you should be able to tranport them. I was going to suggest that you just build them overseas to begin with, as the U.S. can do with aircraft units, but I just ran an experiment and found out that you can't do that, either. Hopefully Hubert or someone will see this and address the issue in a patch (or at least explain the rationale behind it).

Only if the Germans are required to give up those cities with only token resistence, as the real German commanders did.

Yeah, but they're bigger, and all your stuff has camo.

Because: A)People are getting very worked up about it. And: Any questions/comments/complaints you have about it will probably be addressed in the official post. They are asking for our patience long enough to give them time to respond officially.

Posted by gunslinger3: I never noticed an effect on supply levels in Finland from this (I'll have to keep an eye open for it). However, I do know that taking Sweden brings the cities and mines in Norway up to a value of 8. The reasoning behind this is that the water supply route from Sweden to Denmark is much shorter than the Norway-Denmark route. Perhaps the same reasoning would apply to Finland. (Edit) P.S.- To add to Wolfe's list: *An invasion of Britain which is making progress will bring Spain in on the Axis side *Supposedly there is a way to get Turkey in on the Axis side, but I've never heard exactly what it is. *As far as I know there is *no* way to get Switzerland, Ireland, Iraq, Portugal, or Sweden to join either side voluntarily. [ August 19, 2002, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

Just a word about the future. Anyone who refuses to download this patch for that one reason will probably be stuck with v1.02 indefinitely, as it is a feature that will probably be included on all future patches as well. On another note, this is an issue of respect. Hubert has always dealt openly and honestly with us all. He is making an attempt to protect his intellectual property. He has been open and honest about this as well. It's really not that much of an inconvenience. Shame on you all for a bunch of whiners.

Posted by Jeff Heidman: What kind of home training is that? What you said is probably true, but this is hardly an appropriate place to discuss it.

Posted by Wolfe: Yes. If you don't take the second capital in the Urals before taking Moscow (or quickly enough after taking Moscow) then the USSR gets a third capital in Stalingrad.

Sssshhhhh! If you put all the crazy ideas out in the open, then the sane people know what to expect.