Jordy

I was also keeping an eye on hearts of iron. I decided to see if there was another game like it that was out or coming out. So, I typed in something like "strategy WW2 commander PC game" at the yahoo search engine and one of the sites had something about SC on it. I came to the site, followed the development through beta testing, and bought it immediately. Shortly after that, my job took me to Japan for an extended period so I was stuck playing only the AI while everybody perfected their moves against other people. So now I'm playing catch-up a little. The thing I like about this forum the best, besides the other people here obviously, is that the developer drops by to comment on our concerns and puts together patches that reflect the forums input. The loop around South Africa is a perfect example as it's not on the early versions of the game. [ October 03, 2003, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

Kurt88 just sent them to me. Its like a whole different game. I was already using the unit icons but the change in the map is great. Thanks

Yes, indeed it was Lucky. Lucky Zorba had no Luck at all when he Unluckily chose a name similar to Lucky Zebra and so close to the Lucky Elephant fiasco. If his luck holds, he will continue to have no luck but bad luck. Lucky him.

Dragonheart, Lucky Zorba posted on this thread yesterday at 11:45 am! :eek: He was not banned until very recently. Lucky Elephant was banned well before that. So, Lucky Elephant was not retaliating for Lucky Zorbas banning. I still think you are getting peoples names mixed up. :confused: [ October 03, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

I think your thinking of Lucky Elephant. Lucky Zorba was the person who was a victim of an unfortunate name. Lucky Zorba only had 4 threads locked because of him. It doesn't matter I guess.

Is this the pass to the East of Turkey? Anyway, Your General is out of Supply. He can't move until he recieves more supply. I am not sure how the HQ linking thing works but you can try that. Or conquer Spain, Gibralter, and Vichy or Turkey to get the supply up. I don't know if that will work though. Where is the HQ? Sorry I can't help more. Im sure someone will respond with more info. Its kinda like landing a unit in Ireland.

Well, Lucky Zorba was just banned. I was playing a game with him and he told me that he were banned from the forum. I asked if it was because he was Lucky Zebra or Lucky Elephant and he assured me he wasn't. Maybe, I am being lied to but I haven't seen anything that would lead to him being banned. He seemed like a nice person to me and I doubt Lucky Zebra would of played me in a game without making stupid comments after me saying "Jerk" got under his skin so much. Anyway, I'm off to read the last couple days worth of threads to see what may of caused this. I do sincerely hope that this does not result in some form of disciplinary action being taken against me, I just thought the news fit in with the subject matter at hand. [ October 03, 2003, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

I was wondering how long it was going to take CvM to comment. I do have to say, I expected more though. What about the level 4 Mannerheim HQ? :confused:

Kurt88, when I read the title of the topic, I was also going to sight that game. By far the longest game I've ever played and at several times I thought I had lost the war. I believe the battle in Africa went back and forth as well for about 1 1/2 years and until the landings in Spain it was following quite a historical path. Until the last 3 or 4 months of the war That game could of gone either way. Ahhhh, the memories

Very Interesting. So to recover moral, of lets say, an Army, you would have to move it out of combat and in supply and allow it to stay there, unmolested (No attacks, air or ground) and its moral would increase back to acceptable levels. The longer it stayed there, the higher the moral gets. With a maximum, on a 1-10 scale, of 7. To get to level 8, 9, or 10 moral, combat victories would be needed with an acceptable amount of losses. Another factor in moral, on an individual unit level, could be movement. If a unit is constantly on the move or in combat (for example, 3 months straight) with no rest (not moving for one turn) it would go down 1 level of moral. On a strategic level though, this moral concept could be catastophic for the USSR, with the amount of losses they sustain early. So, maybe the moral characteristics of each nation could be different, or newly built units start with a moral of 8 (signifying the zeal many of the green troops would have, not yet having experienced the rigors of combat) Moral levels above 7 would only stay that way if victories occured within a month of each other. Otherwise they would return to level 7. Its difficult for anybody to keep a high level of enthusiasm for too long. Weather and terrain could also have an effect on moral. The Russian winter and fighting in Jungles (SC2 - The Pacific Theatre) come to mind. Also, the longer a nation is at war, the more difficult it should be to reach/sustain the higher levels of moral. I think I've started to ramble and obviously these numbers could be adjusted but I think I got the idea of what I am trying to say across. [ October 02, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

I don't like the idea of adding the HQ's for the UK and USSR at the beginning. From the functions that HQ's perform, it seems to me that they also represent the supply and logistics needed to maintain an army as well as doctrine, not just the general himself. The UK was caught off gaurd. They did not have that infrastructure in place. And their doctrine for waging war was woefully outdated. The same for the Soviet Union. The Germans were prepared and had the doctrine in place. This is part of the reason they had so many early successes. I feel the HQ's do an excellent job of simulating this. Once the Allies were fully geared for war and had adjusted their own doctrines accordingly, they had a better chance of meeting the enemy and fighting them back. This change, IMHO, is represented by the purchase of the HQ's after the war has had time to unfold and the Allies have started to adjust their tactics. [ October 02, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

Oh, and Curry don't forget the change to the price of Armies and Rockets. [ October 01, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

No it doesn't, it should mean a minute or two less he has to eat or sleep. Nothing should take time away from the development of SCII. Well, maybe a patch.

I think this is a great idea. Its just a round-about way of putting limits on the number of units that can be built.

It is becoming disheartning isn't it. I've noticed it too. I'm trying to think of something to spark conversation that won't get me banned and won't get locked up because it doesn't pertain to SC. [ October 01, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

Nice to meet you. Welcome to the league.

Well, since the forum seems to of stagnated, here we go with an attempt to get some discussion going. Everybody has seen the problem with the Axis being to powerful when playing against another player. So, I’m just going to list some of the solutions that I can think of to remedy this issue or just to make game play more interesting. Sorry if I did not give somebody credit for their ideas. If you want me to, just email me and I’ll edit the message to give credit to the person responsible. None of these ideas were mine, I’m just putting them in one place. Here they are in no particular order: Bidding: 1:4, 1:8 system. There are a couple variations on this but the two most used are: 1. A bid of 100 MPP’s under the 1:8 system would give UK 100 extra MPP’s and the USSR 800 extra MPP’s 2. A bid of 100 MPP’s under the 1:8 system would give UK 100 extra MPP’s, the US 100 extra MPP’s and the USSR 800 extra MPP’s The Historically Responsible ’39 Campaign (Shaka of Carthage): Unit Limits Nation ......... Air* ..... Ground** Germany ....... 4 .......... 35 Italy ............. 2 .......... 08 British ........... 2 ......... 12 French ........... 2 ......... 14 US ................ 2 ......... 16 Russia .......... 3 .......... 41 * Air units are only Air Fleets, not Strategic Bombers. ** Ground units are only Armies and Corps. Standard Options except Free French option OFF UK 8th Army must be sent to Egypt on first Allied turn. Weather September to November (Fall, 7 turns) December to February (Winter, 3 turns) March to May (Spring, 7 turns) June to August (Summer, 12 turns) Air cannot be used during Winter. No Amphib movement in Atlantic or Baltic during Winter or Fall. Amphibious Movement Corps unit only, range of four (4) from Port. Note that normal transport movement is allowed, just from Port to Port. DiploChits Beginning of each year, Axis and Allied each gain one (1) chit. DoW on Spain, Sweden or Turkey requires one (1) unopposed chit (simply notify your opponent and give them the chance to counter). Forcing a DoW on one of those three requires three (3) unopposed chits. Allied DoW on Ireland, Portugal or Low Countries gives the Axis one (1) chit. Axis DoW on Vichy France or Switzerland gives the Allies one (1) chit. Lend-Lease: In this variation the UK gets control of 1 US City, 1US Port, and 1 US Oil Refinery. This will give the UK a little boost at the beginning of the game and allow them to invest in tech and/or build/maintain units. When the US enters the war, the US city, port and oil refinery automatically return to the US’s control. This can only be used in the 1939 scenario. Tech Limit: In this variation a limit on the maximum level of technology would be set. Such as level 3 for jets and long-range air. This would allow the allies to keep up with tech advances later in the game and allow different avenues of advancement to be pursued, since investing all of ones chits into those two techs would probably not happen and the freed-up chits would go somewhere else. I know there are other variations out there, so please add them. I think this will give people a way to try different ways to play the same game. [ October 01, 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

I noticed that the AI would sometimes get a rocket detachment. I guess I never thought of why. Very interesting. Good job.

The problem with the self imposed discipline is that the other player may continue to try and advance that tech, and the next thing you know they have level 4 jets and you only have level 2. Then you have to re-invest those chits to keep-up. Its a great idea but really would only work with the players agreeing to limit the level(s) of advancement before the game starts. Maybe in a later version (SC2?) the editor would allow the players to set the maximum level for each or all techs. Just a thought.

I played a game where we set the maximum for Jet and LR at 3. It made the game alot more interesting. The allies were able to keep/catch up and you got to see some other tech advances that are usually not seen.

Great news!!!

I know its been discussed but something interesting happened. I was the axis. I invaded and conquered England. BEFORE England fell the following happened, in this order: 1. Hungary Joins Axis 2. Romania Joins Axis 3. Spain Joins Axis 4. USA Joins Allies 5. USSR Joins Allies Now the interesting part. After fighting in the East for a while (5 turns at least, probably closer to 10) and barely holding the line with Germany, guess what.... Bulgaria Joins! :eek: :confused: So, maybe there remains a chance (obviously I guess) that the axis minors will join AFTER Spain enters the war. Maybe this was already known. Just thought Id post it to let everyone know.

Considered operational and actually being operational may be two different things. While the Natter was considered operational, it never flew any combat missions. Apparently no allied bombers came close enough for them to attack before the base was over run. Who knows how well they would of done. It also had a limited range so once the location of the base was found, allied aircraft could just fly around it. Its armament was also very interesting, once within range, the pilot would lose the nose cone of the aircraft, and shoot 24 Henschel Hs 217 Föhn unguided rockets all at once, at the bomber formation. Then after the that was over the pilot would have to get to an acceptable altitude, release his harness, blow off the entire nose section of the aircraft. At the time the nose section blew off, a parachut would deploy from the rear fo the aircraft and the pilot would literally be flug out of the front of the rocket. The pilot would then deploy his own parachute after clearing any debris. The rocket would crash and only the engine (rocket motor) would try and be recovered. The frame, obviously, would be destroyed. Either way, IMHO it was a complete failure and a waste of resources. It could only fly once, it had a limited range, and in order for the pilot to land safely, it seems to me that everything must go perfect.

At the very end of the war the germans stationed ten of the Natters (Viper)at Kircheim (near Stuttgart). They were operational but saw no action before the site was overrun by the U.S. Seventh Army. The Germans destroyed all ten Natters and their launchers. They did have a very interesting "landing" procedure for the pilot though :eek: . In addition, there are only two known surviving today. One at The Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany, and the other at the National Air and Space Museum. [ August 22, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

Curry, is this where those free french are going to go in our game?