Kuniworth
-
Posts
3,731 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kuniworth
-
-
The ease with how you can create new armies and tank corps creates an interesting problem for the german player. Above all speed is essential for him and to reinforce will mean that two weeks up to two month will be lost just trying to refit.
Instead most players buy new units to avoid makin the original units stop the advance and lose a turn or two, especially if there is a lot of empty space ahead. This is very common at the russian front.
This is very unrealistic and a big problem.
-
Iolo;
LMAO
-
Sogard; I believe you are right.
But I would also see some changed values for purchasing stuff. And it´s totally unrealistic that you can stamp up 2-3 new panzer corps when you plunder france. Thats a very doubtful production-system.
When it comes to the MMP produced so are the americans ridicilous low. Thew should at least produce 450-500 each turn. Brits as you mentioned should be higher. This way the germans must break down russia fast or else quickly go down in flames. As it historical also was.
-
Made by who? Where can I get it?
-
Hubert; There are two german 4th Pz groups strenght 12 on the eastern front at the start of the campaign. The one near Leningrad should of course be removed.
-
Anyone got the possibility of creating a scenario starting with Stalingrad pocket and operation Uranus october-november 1942? It would be fun to see if the germans can avoid the disasters at El Alamein and Stalingrad to remain the initiative.
For the US It will be time to go for operation torch, UK try to win africa and Russia fights for caucasus.
I would really love a historical accurate scenario in this theme.
-
The 1939 alternate history scenario was totally unbalanced. With all respect but what´s the fun about it?
You got any possibility of creating a scenario starting with Stalingrad pocket and operation Uranus october-november 1942? It would be fun to see if the germans can avoid the disasters at El Alamein and Stalingrad to remain the initiative.
For the US It will be time to go for operation torch, UK try to win africa and Russia fights for caucasus.
I would really love a historical accurate scenario in this theme.
-
Yea I played Storm acros Europe alot. The game was awful in many aspects but you could build atomic bombs so it was nice.
Hitlers War was an amazing game. Yep really armygroup size there, really abstract indeed. A bit to large scale for my taste...
-
What da hell is this for kind of discussion??? Please close this god damn thread for christ sake.
Stop your politician talkin debate please. :eek:
-
If the game works out just a bit realistic this should be impossible to get away with.
-
The problem is not the weakness of Finland but the trouble the game have of simulating the germans putting pressure on Russia.
My suggestion is to move Kiev one square east and Smolensk and Misnk west to make them easier to catch.
-
Is it just me or do Italy always seem to last longer than Germany? It seem that it´s to difficult snd takes to much time to launch an amphibious assault on Italy so instead most players choose france at once. Thereby first takin out Germany and end up with finishing off the italians?
-
I agree with the last post. Airpower maybe should be even more powerful. Yes the simplicity of simulating airpower is a problem but to remain having a playable game this is the way to go.
Give me stukas or give me death!!!
-
First; I really love this game. I do think it should be fast movin and fun but also in the same time historical accurate on the big scale.
I´ve studied the eastern front campaigns for around 10 years and I´m not very happy with the difficulty to capture cities.
For example; Minsk fell in late june 1941 and Smolensk on july 16, but that is impossible to simulate. On the other hand it´s way to easy to reach Kiev early.
I suggest movin Kiev 2 hexes to the east and move Smolensk and Minsk a little bit west.
-
Russ!
I think all of your remarks are valid and I certainly hope that Hubert will consider them.
-
Try buying the game...
-
Battle for France is surely one of the greatest and most important sequence of the war. A succesful allied campaign here can delay Barbarossa by valuable months.
I would like you to post your suggestions on how to create best possible defence.
What I do is the following;
PREPARATION for the invasion
Time is running very fast for the french. Poland stay alive barely 3 turns if you are lucky, so you must start building defence-line at once. The reason for this is that you must make your units entrench.
1. The first thing I do is to disband the fleet and the airforce. The airforce is useless anyway and will just drag you into an airwar forcing you to spend the british airunits in a futile attempt to gain air-supremacy. Save your british airfleets for the battle of Britain and use english ships instead of the french to pound Germans at the Belgium coast.
2. Build 2 corps in the first turn and place it outside Paris, ready to be rushed to form the 2nd layer in the defence-line in the next turn. Move your units to entrench along the belgian border. Let armies take position in and left of the ardennes. Let the british send the London corps to take your extrem left in the next turn.
3. The corps in algeria should be sent to the french southcoas by transport at once. Move your syrian troops to Alexandria for further transport or disband it and gain 30 MMP. If Italy joins early disband immediately. Let your canadian corps be part of the second layer. Ship themover at once embarking at Brest.
4. When the germans start pounding your troops to keep you occupied try not to reinforce your units to full strength in order to let them gain experience. Keep them alive but no luxuary!!!
5. Italy front can´t be afforded to be ignored. A breakthrough here and you are toast at least 3-4 turns earlier. Build a defenceline consisting of 3 french corps in a straight south running line in the mountains.
WEHRMACHT ATTACKS
Now you will have a very nasty time. Can you survive until the end of 1940 the chances are good that you will gain the initiative in 1943.
The whole idea is to slowly withdraw your front line and finally mass it around Paris. Avoid giving them 3-shot possibilty except on the army in the northen maginot line. This should be your anchor unit. This means you have to very carefully look at which units to reinforce. You just get at max 115 MMP every turn and that must be spent carefully. But if you can calculate what units you can keep exposed and sacrifice you will find that you even can buy some units now and then. Never buy armies, buy corps. Never buy anything else. HQ-units are useless because of the low leaderratings.
What you should do is just keep withdrawing to Paris. When the front eventually collapses at the ardennes rush your Maginot-armies to plug the gap. And there after move your mobile corps on the italian front up to fill their gap. Form a Paris hedgehog.
So how do you do it?
-
What is the best soviet strategy to use? I find it very hard to defend against an well prepared axis onslaught, which chew up your units and very quickly reduces your income.
And should you just mass corps or should you go for quality units? I mean it´s almost impossible to gain anything out of purchasing corps except buying some time.
-
Danish monger; sure, go to the community forum at gamezone(?) and download verison 1.1 which works, no sound but hey it will work...'
Strategic command is much better though.
-
Yes but that should merely be seen as a proof that cos was a really good game.
-
Immer Etwas;
Your reply made me very happy
Cause despite our diffrent political landscapes we can agree that we need a society where not the most, BUT EVERYONE should have a right to a decent life and a fair chance. Can we agree on that we have come a long way, weather or not which political party we lay our vote on.
Willard;
Of course there are many aspects of US foreign politics that you can point on that helped to make not just UBL-guys but also regular people quite angry. And this of course is one of the reason that recruiting of the Al Qaida and other terrorist-groups are so sucessful. But it´s not the whole truth as you say.
What I think is the problem here is that most countries seem to think that the actions against terrorism is over while the USA consider themself in a war. And in war you act brutally. So the perspectives are very diffrent on how serious you see on whats going on.
-
Originally posted by Gunslingr3:
[QB]
Well that was a long reply, William
I don´t agree with you on many aspects. First of all I can´t recognize myself in your description of the welfare state. Good economic growth have always been an important factor in the swedish model, for almost 44 years the tradeunions and the employers worked tightly together. This is nothing new, I think your assumption about the welfare state is unjust. Looking at the total part of the economy you will see that the public sector for example is not higher than in other countries. Wealth-transfers indeed increases the public part of the total economy but it comes back to the state in form of taxes.
Secondly, I can´t understand your opinion that third way economies just focus on transfering wealth and not work for it. Nothing could be more wrong. Where did you get this from??? Full employment always been the MOST IMPORTANT goal for all socialdemocratic countries that enacts third way policies. And if you look at statistics you´ll find that never been done by putting the workers uncontrollingly in to the public sector. No growth and work has always been the most important(and is the reason that green partys have emerged as critics of this thinking) thats because all of the welfare is connected to your income. The downside with this third-way model is rather the problem to get full protection from the welfare state when you are out of a job.
One of the greatest projects of the swedish government has a massive education program to win the job of the future. Honestly don´t you think it´s more efficient for a country to let all it´s citizens get the right to study and educate them self instead of just the rich one as in the US? What a vast of talent!!!
Thirdly, the welfare state don´t just transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. This just would be very dangerous and only makes the wealthy classes wanna get out the system. Instead everyone gets something out of the system and therebye the rich dont create private alternatives in the same grade as we see in the US. At the same the tension between groups in the society decreases.
Fourthly;
Why would a system like this not enable good company-föresättningar? If you seen the latest reports Sweden
Fifthly;
Can you show me any kind of evidence that european welfare states are getting poorer? I wanna know because in my country the economic growth is priority one. How do you measure that we are getting poorer?
If you look at the latest statistics you will see that Sweden now got 0,5% HIGHER growth than the rest of the OECD-countries.
And you can also ask yourself if we should be retorical what we should be measuring with? Why not how many citizens that can read? How many newborn children that dies? How many citizens that are able to get an education at universities? How long people live? How many that can get a free knee-operation? How many percents of the citizens are in prison? Do the US citizens have the right to five paid weeks of vacations every year? We could go on and on...
SIXHTLY;
We in the northern countries been lucky in contrary to the southern europeans? Well did you notice the descritance in welfare-system? The social-insurance systems differs very much. Scandinavian countries have a system that all, not just the poorest benefits from.
Finally. The study you presented has been very much discussed in Sweden. Not to take anything away from you but you know as I that you should be very careful with measuring countries, as you also pointed at.
But do you honestly think that a country which got over 30 million people in absolut poverty, welfare just for the ones who can pay for it is the only way to go? I gladly pay fairly high taxes with if this makes my fellow countrymen have a fair chance in life and can avoid winding up in the gutter. In the end we only got eachother,
-
Mike: You´re right it´s not the same. But it is still a way to dominate in my opinion. That mean that the control-system differs from military-control but this way is much more effective and stabile.
Old Patch; For my part I´m not talkin about capitalism or not. I´m just pointin out the incredble breakthrough american culture have had in the world.
Oh forgot to tell you all, I´m active in the swedish socialdemocratic party
-
Well maybe your right, but I don´t have much sympathy for the bandit-capitalism that ruins Russia, and forces people to starve or young girls to go west for prostitution or garbage jobs.
The leadership of Russia is a disaster. But my respect for the russian people is immense. They saved the world, lost 20 million but never broke in the face of tyranny. Through hell and oppression they fought against horrible odds to win their right to excist. Their courage and determination is unmatched.
Let us never forget them.
Limiting Units in Strategic Command
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
I vote yes. Very good proposal Sogard. This rule is in COS and would greatly make the game more historical.
I suggest Hubert Carter starts with the help of us of course to discuss the limitation rules with regards to manpower reserves and industrial capability in each country.