Welshwill
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Welshwill
-
-
The Cold war is also part of history, and I agree, thank christ it didn't go hot. But as I mentioned, it is something that I would like to see in a game along the same lines as SC.Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:One subject is old history we like to game, that actually happened and might have gone many ways. And the other, is something I am glad never became anything more than a bad dream I was glad to wake up from.[/QB]
Just because the doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it a bad idea, I imagine that their a number of people that would enjoy a game of this type, think RED STORM RISING for the PC.
So I will except the fact that if it ever becomes available you won't be adding a copy to your collection, but I will.
On another point. Do you end an SC game when Spain & Turkey enter for the Axis after Sealion has started? Because the inclusion of both these countries in any SC game is no more fictious than a NATO/WarPac game.
[ October 14, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Welshwill ]
-
Originally posted by aleader:
[QB]I just got the game a few weeks ago, and I'm having a real struggle as the germans in the first campaign. I find that subs in the N. Atlantic are almost useless as 1 turn after you put them there, the brits and french show up and wipe them all out within a turn or two. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Allies virtually helpless against german subs in 1939??
Try using them to divert your opponents attention, force him to take as much time as possible to destroy them. It is inevitable that they are destroyed, I have only managed to keep them against the AI.
-
I am well aware that the Warsaw Pact became defunct in 1990. What I would like to see is a game where "what if" scenarios could be played out.Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:Hmmmm ok guess it's time for me to be me
Attention, there is no Warsaw Pact.
Hmm fighting a fictional battle that never happened in a time that had no fighting between two now no longer relevant entities is supposed to entertain us?
I don't mind postulating wars 20 years from now, or post WW2 fighting that actually happened ie even Grenada happened (as boring as it might be to model).
But nothing a game designer can make, will get me personally investing time and money in gaming Warsaw Pact vs Nato.
It was only interesting to me in the 70s because at that time it was real (not to mention I was in uniform, and it seemed relevant).
I am glad it never happened, and could care less for dredging up the ghosts of that time.
For one, even though I am new to gaming, many of the games on the market are based in fiction. Tell me in your oppoinion, what the difference is between a "what if" scenario in SC and a possible NATO v War Pact "what if" version based on SC?
-
This is slightly off topic, but I would like to see a WWIII NATO v War Pact game.Originally posted by Dunedain:I love SC but does anyone else find it a bit frustrating when you win that you can't the rest of the world. Wouldnt it be brilliant if someone made an SC for the whole world, with a bit more diplomacy so that you could have the US fighting the soviets or even being allies with the germans!
Not sure how you would cover the pacific, youd probably have to add a few more rules about marines and amphibious assaults. But wouldnt it be great? Id buy it.
-
I think the idea is that the placement of fortifications will be selective and follow a historical context.Originally posted by Flashblade:If the building of fortifications is to be allowed the whole fortification model has to be worked on. Because units don't retreat and you can't stack units for a large assaults taking out fortification is unrealisticly hard.
You need several air fleets to lower the entrenchment and some experienced armies to kill the occupying forces, and even then their are no guarantees. If the occupying force has even one strength point left they can reinforce back up to full strength the next turn.
A line of fortifcations along a river would be almost impossible to take. Leading to even more WW1 like (boring) trench warfare...
-
Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:
[QB]Although I have not received my full version yet, I find it hard to believe the game does not allow building of fortifications? Throughout WWII many countries built significant fortifications with varying results. How hard would it be to add the functionality to build a fortification level for a given MMP cost? They could be treated almost like static units for technical reasons(not to get into the stacking issue). Higher levels should probably cost more than the initial level? Not having the West Wall or Sigfreid line seems a bit odd, only to mention a few.
What do others think?
I agree, we should at least be able to construct fortified defences such as the West Wall (and the Mannerhiem line). It played a significant part in the Germans defence plans in the West. However I do feel that their should be a restriction on where they can be built, even in France. I would also like to see the opption of coastal artillery units in selected areas such as Cherbourg and Bergen.
[ October 08, 2002, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Welshwill ]
-
That is a fair point, but. I am now ten moves on and have only had one more advancement. I know that it is supposed to be random, with improved odds if you max out your points in that catergory, but what is happening in one of my current games is bordering on the ridiculous. I have to say, if this is how it is going to play out then I'm not going to bother with SC and I'm going to find a more well balanced game.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Actually, i have come across many ways of advancning against a technically superior foe, its called "Go for broke" create one small hole in their line, then send everything through that can balst that pesky airfleet on the ground. Then their forces will fall back and then you can begin your advance. I use this all the time when playing as the russians against germany in mid 1943-44
If the memebers who usually resort to insults don't like what I'm saying, tough. If it needs to be said then I'm going to say it. If you want to keep your collective heads in the sand, and in the past I might add, then so be it. You will only succeed in stiffling the development of this game. So to all those who wish to critisize, and their are many, my oppinion. UP YOU PIPE as they say in the UK. This is a democracy and if you don't like well.......I don't care.
-
Sorry to drag up this topic AGAIN! But. I'm currently involved in a PBEM where I had an excellent start. I have invested the full five points into industrial tech and in 35 turns have had just two advancements! In the mean time the Brits have had at least three, as I'm fighting L3 jets and the Russians, who are notouriously slow starters have had at least one in jets. How am I supposed to compete? Again the plea, THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE! It is getting to the point where the game will become boring as thier is a distinct inbalance and I for one enjoy the challenge of a well balanced game. It doesn't matter how well you perform and what strategy your using, if you are going up against greater numbers with higher tech development then at best you have static warfare. Where is the fun in that?
[ October 05, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Welshwill ]
-
Thanks Hubert. It should make for a better game in the East.Originally posted by Hubert Cater:This will be addressed in a future patch. The idea I am going with is to adjust the USSR with a *quasi three capital* system in terms of supply and production purposes. So Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Stalingrad will all act as *roots of the tree* similar to how a single capital works now. This should at least make it more interesting for the eastern front.
Hubert
-
Yes. We are both using the V1.04 patch. The only place that I can position a new unit is Moscow, which is surrounded.Originally posted by Yohan:Are you using the 1.04 patch? The original game had this issue.
-
The consequences of the Germans surrounding Moscow i.e. unable to purchase additional units or supply current units. Is this an intentional part of the game or an oversight in the design?
-
That's a possibilty. The only drawback is that it takes a good bit of the randomness out of the game. You know that you're going to have level 1 tanks in 1941, and that's that.Originally posted by Russ Bensing:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Welshwill:
I agree with your assessment on both of the above points. Your idea to restrict the research invest to one catergory makes alot of sense but I don't see that it would overcome the problem of the inbalance that occurs. If the Germans decide to pump all their booty into research then they will still have higher tech levels earlier in the game. In the past I have suggested that you restrict research by date i.e. you don't end up with King Tigers and Me262's in 42!
That's another possibility, although it might create some problems with gameplay. Gee, is this my level 1, level 2, or level 3 tank that I'm attacking with?</font>One other idea is that previous units purchased at a lower tech level don't get upgraded, true to the facts. I mean when the Germans deployed the Panther they weren't able to issue every unit with the new tank and they still had to rely on the Panzer III & IV.
-
I agree with your assessment on both of the above points. Your idea to restrict the research invest to one catergory makes alot of sense but I don't see that it would overcome the problem of the inbalance that occurs. If the Germans decide to pump all their booty into research then they will still have higher tech levels earlier in the game. In the past I have suggested that you restrict research by date i.e. you don't end up with King Tigers and Me262's in 42!
One other idea is that previous units purchased at a lower tech level don't get upgraded, true to the facts. I mean when the Germans deployed the Panther they weren't able to issue every unit with the new tank and they still had to rely on the Panzer III & IV.
-
In my current PBEM I'm playing the Axis. I have been very careful during my campaign in the West, trying not to provoke the USSR to early (Random setting). The only two countries that I invaded other than Poland & France were The Low Countries & Denmark. My question is; Is the USSR destined to come into the war before a given date regardless of what the Axis do? The war readiness just kept climbing regardless of what I did or didn't do!
-
I'm currently playing a PBEM in which my opponent has had maximum allocation in Ind Tech, for the Italians, we are now in late 1943 and he hasn't had one advancement! Not that I mind.
Will
-
I'm not saying that the US MPP should equal the Russians but, it should increase to simulate the massive increase in capacity and output that is a historical fact. Your right about getting the tactics right, but if you wait to long then the Germans are pulling in ~600MPP, with significant research development and the US have the choice of investing in research which is so random they might be lucky to achieve level 5 Ind Tech by the time the Axis have knocked out the Russians and are turning on the UK. Where is the fun if you are totally outclassed in all areas. Isn't it designed to simulate the European Theatre? US MPP isn't even close to simulating that FACT! if only because it remains static.
Will
-
I think a limit should be placed on Tanks & Jets, maybe restricted by date. It seem crazy having L5 jets in 1941 and it also gives an unfair advantage. My suggestion for jets would be L1/2 between 39 & 41, L3/4 between 41 & 43 and L5 after 43. I think this would follow the historical trend.
Will
-
As an aside this raised another point, the 'Japan attacks Siberia' switch that you can set to prevent Russia gaining the Siberian armies.Originally posted by husky65:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Welshwill:
No doubt this question has already been asked but.
The US production allocation during WWII was, I believe, 60/40 between Europe and the Pacific.
These figures mean that the total MPP allocation for the US throughout the war would equal 300MPP!!!! .
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.</font>
-
That is an extremely unfair comment. Have you ever thought that the reason it might be his first post is to warn his fellow members of a potential problem. I have only been a member for ~3 months and have posted very few messages, but they have all been of some relevance to the game. You owe this guy an apology for assuming he is out to make trouble. As it turns out he was right.Originally posted by Titan:I never Trust these people who have just recently registered and are making thier first post,of which is in this kinda nature which is obviously designed to disrupt.
WILL!
[ August 17, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Welshwill ]
-
That is a fair point but, the MPP allocation still doesn't represent the massive industrial advantage that the US brought to the Allied cause. The level of US manpower at the end of the war was huge and if you say that the MPP allocation represents the total men under arms in the equations, what about the manpower that the US mobilized to service there industrial needs.Originally posted by James Ott:I think you are looking at this from the economic side. Look at it from a personnel side. Estimates are that 10 million russian military died in the war compared to 300,000 to 400,000 for the US (including Pacific theatre). I can't easily find the amount of men committed to the war by each side, but the casualty differential I think shows the dramatic difference in manpower resources dedicated to combat--which is undoubtedly included in the MPP calculation.
Will
-
On the other, the Shadow Side, so to speak, I would add that the decision by The Raving Lunatic to commence his conquests in 1939 would be a major reason for the eventual defeat of Germany.
I totally agree and if their hadn't been so much infighting amongst the high ranking Nazi's then the war could have had a radically different outcome.
Will
-
The pips indicate what level of technology they have attained.
Will
-
In one of my current PBEM I had virtually no advancements in research even though I had the full allocation in Ind Tech! Can you imagine, I'm trying to hold the Germans, with level 5 jets, in Russia with only level 3 jets!!!
-
I will conceed the point on Lend Lease allocation to the Allies but, their is no increase in MPP throughout the war to represent the massive increase in US industrial production. Also, when the USSR is defeated shouldn't the US MPP increase to represent a return on the resources no longer being sent to Russia?Originally posted by Mike:Yes, it's been discussed a lot!!
You need to realise that a lot of American production is represented by British and Soviet MPP's.
The best idea I've seen to fix it was to take 50 MPP from Russia and give it to America, and then allow lend lease in some way shape or form.
However America does have a hugge advantage - it doesn't have a lot of front line units it has to feed replacements into.
This means it gets to build a lot of research points and can get it's industrial tech up reasonably quickly.
The US industrial might during WWII was one of the main factors in destroying the Axis, this is not being represented accurately within this game.
By 1944 the US MPP should be close to double even taking into account the Pacific allocation.
What in your collective oppinions were the main factors in destroying the Axis? Top five only, not in any order of significance.
1) Huge Soviet reserves in manpower and their disregard for losses.
2) The Russian winter.
3) Churchills uncompromising will to continue and the British people, of course.
4) Roosevelt.
5) US Industrial MIGHT!
World game
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
When Spain & Turkey join the Axis In SC they are combatant nations not neutrals, it didn't happen it is make believe, just like the game that I would like.
Their were a number of occasion when the Cold war it was a little more than cold, maybe luke warm?
Berlin blockade
Korea
Cuba
Yom Kippur