Gavrok

Despite loving the game do think this is one area that has got worse in SC2 due to immediate landing. Do appreciate the aspect of immediate landing that stops a defending player just placing units on the coastline in question, but the cost and option of amphibious assault is just too easy. The fact that the RN and RAF cannot intercept just makes it even more unpalatable. The Germans in 1940 simply could not amphibiously assault with several armies. Look how long it took the allies to perform this with well thought out plans in 43 and 44, witrh operations cancelled in the med to facilitate Normandy. This was with specialised amphibious boats, complete sea supremacy and years of planning. Cannot think of any direct amphib assaults without air/ sea supremacy (small indirect Japanese landings in Guadalcanal) I would have preferred one of three options 1) cost of amphibious assault is 50% of cost of unit......make you think twice before putting that panzer on a boat.... 2) amphibious assault units are required to be bought to do this...with build restrictions....adjusted by higher cost over build values or tech advances. 3) Infantry only can amphib assault...with specialised tank or upgrades required to allow otherwise My one reservation re above is gameplay to allow for ahistorical possibilities Sorry for the negative thread as I do love everyting else.....just my hatred of the sc1 floating transporter has now being replaced with this.

sorry lards that wahat i thought.....researched long range as the brits but can then extend to the Canadians...no tech share

seems a little unnatural that you cant extend the range of these units even if they cant leave Canada/ Iceland.....the whole thing with them was that their range extended giving u-boats less non-air areas vulnerable as the war progressed

I'm assuming from the above dates we are all assuming 2006! Apart from that 29th Feb (Wouldn't want to wait till 2008 there)

Well cute Kuni Still bet that even though you got my vote by nefarious means SC2 will be released without retreat. Democracy is great ....but re SC2 the voters will number one and for valid reasons I'm sure HC will utter 'No Retreat' echoing a Charlie Chaplin impressionist in Winter 41

Please please please Dont introduce retreat rules (at least not yet as an option) 1) Would not want this to affect game release 2) Strategic games- prefer the idea of cheaper replacements as a steer towards retreating principle 3) Retreat would need to be automatic.......what about the luck factor 4) Distaces- units being attacked within its say 50km (hex/ square) range....how do units on an army level find the time to be attacked on an onslaught and be damaged enough to force retreat...and then find time to retreat more than 50km.....the idea of cheap replacements show how the c&c nucleus remained intact and this then helped to quickly bring new formations into the field...Germans done this to great effect in France & Russia 44 5) What if you didnt want to retreat? 6) Micromanagement overall- like the idea of retreat on tactical level games...and perhaps include as an update option for SC2 if played at lower levels on some scenarios and finally the 2 most important reasons 7) Luck as to where units will retreat and options this opens up for attacker/ defender 8) Affect time to release (Give HC a rest) Feel deja vu with points 7 and 8 but worth stressing again for this strategic non micro-management classic (hopefully!) Thanks G

Thanls for the help. The file i was looking for had a brief paragraph on each tank type along with a description of the role they were best suited for if at all......sure it even gave a suitable role for the T70 which involved more than wasting a round of the enemy's ammo

Thanks for the reply Hubert Hope the supply issue inclusion on amphibious gets those men off the boats pronto unless strictly needed.(Extreme motion sickness) Would have liked amphib cost even higher (eg 50% of base unit cost.....to stop players throwing away units here or there on speculative amphibious assaults. The aar has however really highlighted the great features which at times we all forget about when we are ranting on about some minor issue or request here or these. At least these all show the enthusiasm we have for your product and work. G

Just to confirm on the amphibious assault can the unit once it lands move a max of 1 more space......the idea of landing and then travelling some distance (beyond 1 space) sounds a bit ok..very...gamey. How much was the cost of the making the unit amphibious and did it therefore mean a net mpp loss for the allies (cost of unit plus amph versus lost city resources and damage incurred by units assaulting it) SC1s continualy floating amphibous craft were irritating...hope any such repeat is a very expensive mpp action. Should not be impossible but this sort of thing took the allies months and years to plan with huge resource requirements....and they didnt spend several weeks just floating off Normandy. I'm glad I wasn't one of those soldiers going to Essen / Dieppe/ wherever G

Thanks for the link....but wasn't the download I was looking for. There was a 20-30 page file giving German and Russina unit types along with a quick summary of their effectiveness etc . Was interesting for categorising the SU76 onwards and listing what they wer most appropriate for. Done the same with the German OOB Any further pointers welcome G

I remember a file listing the various tansk with threir strengths and weaknesses, time on theatre etc but I cant find now. Can anyone point me in the right direction. On another note looking for a medium battle with attacker / defender round 1943......no more than 7-8 tanks on offense. Any suggestions on scenarios. Thanks

only reason I mentioned SC3 was that I dont want anything to delay SC2 and my above suggestion would screw any existing mechanic. Still convinced Edwin has single handedly delayed SC2 with his ideas G

One concern I always had in SC was the fact that a unit could move 200 miles and attack at full strength. Wear and tear of equipment would cause more losses than enemy action generally so I reckon a unit should attack at a (temporarily) reduced strength the further it travels before launching an attack.. perhaps a % reduction to the combat calculation based upon distance travelled, nearest HQ as well as supply levels and even weather. This could also be seen to take an element of the time for the turn involved ie if you have to travel 200 miles to launch an attack not only have you left half your tanks in the highway/ mud but you have much less time after your travel to coordinate and plan the subsequent attack. With reduced strength the unit would be more likely to incur real damage as well. Could even arge that this temporary % reduction carries on into the opponents phase to show the increased vulnerability of any such unit. This would give a flavour of campaigns grinding to a halt and add to the risk of an all or nothing pursuit into the eneny heartland. Would also show the position where Russian offensives simply ran out of steam. Would be a difficult proposal to implement and play test (hence the SC3 thought!) and may delve into too much detail (hate micromanagement) G

reminds me that i must reread that Panzer leader book in light of all the discussions re divergent plans and Hitler continually changing objectives in 41

John Di Fool brings up a great point re logistics and why getting much beyond Moscow, mind to the Urals in 41 was not very feasible. Aside from the logistics/ supply side more Axis tanks actually broke down than were knocked out due to the time, conditions and distances involved. 1940s engineering was not up to todays reliability standards especially when we're talking about a 20 tonne piece of metal. Guderians Panzer leader book highlights this continual attrition brought about by weather, distance and continual campaigning. Remember reading about axis supply conditions in North Africa whereby it stated that for getting fuel to the front line there was a 1:14 plus relationship (ie more than 14 times as much fuel needed to actually get the fuel forward) One consideration in SC type games would be declining combat strength the further a unit travels in a turn to indicate this factor...much easier to launch an offensive right next to you than 100 miles down the road.....options here could include actually reducing strength permanently or preferably including a reduction % for any combat incurred based upon distance travelled in that turn alongside distance from hq and supply status as currently used. This could also convey the shorter time to attack as the first part of the period involves travel before preparation for an attack at the end of the turn. Seemed wierd that a unit could attack at same strength at end of its move if supply conditions were ok! The above would not hinder huge advances but would mean a greater likelihood of taking combat losses and attrition therefore building up towards the actual losses suffered. This would also affect Russia when it went onto the offensive as logistics inexperience seemed a key point of offensives grounding to a halt. Hope the weather rules may give some of the effects as above, as it is a bit late for any of the above......well until SC3! G

2 issuess here 1) Do we want the game balanced so both sides have 50/50 chance of winning the GAME. Think most people are in agreement here although definition of victory may be a little more elusive.... (I would be equally happy with an axis victory that involved non-conquered enemies but lots of resources still being held...auction before the game anyone?) ..everyone wants to explore the 'What If I made the better decision here!' 2) What chance did Axis really have. There's a whole industry dedicated to this and we all have different perspectives here. I belive that despite their disgusting leader the Axis done well considering their resources and the allies made as many mistakes as the axis. Others believe that an intelligent leader would have given them a feasible shot.....my counter there is that an intelligent leader who would have made the correct strategic decisions during the war would not have made the worst strategic choice of starting one in the first place (look at size of Axis nations and resources compared to Allies!) G

Edwin Another fine idea and one that I'd love to see in the game....sure that you are singlehandedly delaying the game release if Hubert is reading your posts so not certain if I wish this or not. Should turn the arguement around and ask why not an Allied AI with a Russian player. More than 85% of German land foreces were active against Russia so this was the main theatre and severely doubt any allied (non-atomic) success in the west if the Bear was neutral or the east front finished for whatever reason.....reminds me of a quote along the lines of Britain buying the time, America the resources and Russia the blood for victory For that reason if i was the allies would like to play the Russians with an AI western allied option. However this is more difficult with far more variables (ie ships). Ultimately though the AI will (eventually) be easily beatable regardless of which sides it covers without huge artificial aid. The best games will all be against other people, and the AI although required for most players will be cast aside by the diehards around this forum. G

Believe Kuniworth and self were on the same wavelength here . Both acknowledge German superiority in a qualitative manner at war commencement and had the initiative to dictate action ie Barbarossa/ Sealion/ Med....with Balkans diluting any of the above......but not all 3 successfully. German capabilities for their resources were phenomanal to 43 but they did suffer large losses in France, early Russia and even Poland which are hard to reflect. Luftwaffe never regained its strength again after battle of britain as training resources diverted else where and german economic mistakes re not gearing up for Total War had bigger impact than any misguided campaign decisions that we always debate. Germany should therefore have a huge shot and initiative from their early operational/ tactical experience to deal a damaging blow before material numbers and allies tech advantage (yes allies were more advanced tech wise by late war) take effect. As mentioned previously it is an edge...not a blank cheque that the Germans have at the start. Sorry Beginner luch and JJ when I mentioned not wanting the 50/50 chance. I mean that there should be a 50/50 chance for each side to win but bulk of the German wins should be by holding onto much of their gains through 45.....not by totally wiping out Russians/ Brits which should be JUST possible if all decisions have been aimed that way. I would love to win a memorable but rare game by knocking out one of these 2 and if i failed I would like the pleasure of seeing how much of my ill begotten gain I could hold onto. A huge but not decisive blow in these theatres early on would help my Axis success. It is a game and I want to see the effect of my 'what ifs' but without all my 'better' decisions guaranteeing something I believe to be totally unfeasible....unless I play a stormer of course. Good to see all the focus on game balance and the discussions being heated only re the What Ifs. Bye G

Agree with you on that Kuniworth 55%!! think JJ has been smoking too much Dont generally agree with Rambo but the Germans had little chance........would reccommend a book called Brute Force for anyone thinking Hitler threw it away.....he just threw it away quicker than a competent German leader considering the resources deployed against him......wait a sec....a competent leader might not have kicked this off in the first place and learnt from history.....2 fronts and Russian winter....wasn't that in our history classes prior to 39! G

My 3rd cent would be to add that Axis preparation prior to Barbarossa should not be enough for an effective knock out blow in one season...ie taking Turkey, Iraq Finland etc by political/ other means meaning that Russia could be knocked out in one season before it can influence the decision. SC had a steamroller effect whereby these countries would build up your mpp to an irresistable level and there were few casulaties due to tech/ exp etc against a new (Russia) opponent. Likewise a late (42) Barbarossa should still give Russians enough time to reorg and counterattack after the initial onslaught. Heres hoping that Russian winter, limited units and partisans will help this. Yours (thinking fondly of AH The Russian Campaign...was the first strike good enough.....oh well lets have the 2nd weaker strike.........oh here comes the turning point....deflect the steamroller with fast defensive counterattacks to slow down.....and pray) Gavrok

Agree with the 50/50 but would like to see the flavour of it altered as my thread above ie total victory on either side being rare....but 50/50 chancwe winning with majority of wins being what/ how long you jold on to as Axis. First and foremost loved SC as a game and not a historical simulator. Non-micro management combined with open ended strategies was only offset by the ease with which the bear rolled over.

I appear to be at odds with everyone on this but believe it shoul be extremely difficult for axis to get a total victory. Reasons as follos A) gamey: if 50/50 then the allies are at the whims of the Axis play. Good axis player will make it difficult for the allies to get initiative back in time Russia should be extremely difficult to take. Moscow in 41 would have been Stalingrad a year earlier, and unlike SC the Axis did take huge casualties in 40 and 41. True that Russians offensively would still take years to gain advantage C) Again Egypt woul be difficult due to logistics. Believe that HQ unit support and range should be very limited through desert with such units supplied having a lower level D) Sealion....come on...how long did it take the naval powers of usa and uk for overlord...and they had to move lcs from med. E) limited axis manpower...holding all of Russia....maybe if local manpower was used only..eg Ukraine At the end of the day it is a game to enjoy but as Axis I would prefer very rare chance of total victory but be aiming for a decisive victory through holding onto a large number of areas that would include some of Poland, France,Italy and even Russia by end of 45. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but should not be used to bring about the near impossible....or a very warm coat for German soldiers in Winter 41

ah....the long wait seems to be ending soon. Got a little worried when the testers did not mention an AI in their testing.....and so the AARs were a little frustrating as they showed a great looking game but hinted at far more work being required. Sure you'll have a long list of pre-orders. Hope there will be the facility immediately for everyone in Europe to also join in the rush for a new copy. One thought on the CD release. Can any protection allow for head to head LAN play ..with one copy being a cloned 'lite' version as per Starcraft/ T Annilation. This would allow people to play multiplayer at home with 2 computers....perhaps have CD check on one machine? Used this fully on both the above games........would not want this function on-line for obvious reasons

then we could stop extreme scenarios about invading USA,.....if Normandy was touch and go with US and Brit fleets...and other ops had to be cancelled then Axis invasion over such a distance was a complete no goer..especially with resources available even with all Europe

Think I've rattled on about this one before but.... lets make landing craft be able to only land within 1 movement of a friendly or friendly major port if they want to invade. Have to work out some exception for Torch....although could use Gibralter to count