murks

Files sent!. Thanks for speedy reply. You don't get that kind of reaction from EA!

Hello! WaW crashes on me with error message: FAILED(animate_destroyer_unit_combat): Segmentation violation I'm playing as germans against AI. Error occurs on allied move. Tech info: running downloaded SC2+WaW package Graphics card: ATI 1950pro, newest driver (7.10)

The Autobahn was more of a joke you know. However I am not aware of either a german or allied advance in France/Italy/Germany/LC that got stuck in mud in WW2. And yes, I think troops moved on roads 90% of the time in western Europe. And when they didn't have to fight, it was 100%. Therefore, I don't see why movement should be limited the way i is now. When fighting, ok, there may have been slight disadvantages.

Rain and mud may occur in central Europe as late as may. However, given the excellent road system that the countries in question posessed in WW2 I don'T see how it could hinder military activities the way it does in SC2. I think only air power should be really affected by weather outside Russia and maybe northern Scandinavia. I usually can drive on the Autobahn at 180kmh even when the weather sucks. And German tanks had no problem rolling over Belgiums roads even when the fields there may have been muddy.

Interesting thread. I always thought that as axis I needed to buy some armies early on, to have a strike force, and Corps later, just to garrison and fight partisans. Relying more on corps may make my game stronger. I wasn't even aware that there is no difference in defence value.

the rule would be: "german troops cannot land in Britain as long as the combined strength(definition up to debate) of the RN and RAF is ABOVE a certain threshold" of course

Not that there is really a lack of contributors to this thread, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anway: In reality, there are 3 ways of stopping an invasion: 1.) Hit them while they're on their boats 2.) Hit them the moment they set foot on the shore 3.) Let them get ashore and then strike back in force. It is hard to adequately represent all three possibilities with their ups and downs in a TURN-BASED game. 1.) was obviously what the British would have done with an attempted Sealion. In SC1 this defence was was possible because of the 1 turn wait before going ashore. In SC2 it is currently impossible. 2.) was what Rommel intended to do to D-day. Unfortunately, the SC1 solution to 1.), the wait, made 2.) unrealistically easy, as you could man he shores when the invasion was under way. As Rambo has pointed out on one or two occasions, if you want to stop an invasion on the beaches, you have to be there way before they are coming. SC2 represents this kind of defence against an invasion well. If you want to do it that way, you have to man the beaches, period. 3.) is the Rundstedt solution to D-Day. There is no major difference in the feasibility of this approach between SC1 and SC2. For the british, it wasn't the preferred solution against Sealion in reality and it is in neither SC1 nor SC2. I think few people want the problem with solution 2.) that SC1 had due to the 1 turn wait back. Some people have focused on solving No. 1.) while others are looking for ways to make invasions more difficult in general. Now No1 is a real problem almost exclusively in the one case of Sealion. Therefore, we shouldn't look for a solution that requires major changes in the basics of the game. The most simple suggestion that have been made are the reduction of ranges and/or the removal of the possibility of immediate movement after landing. While they would make invasions more difficult in general, they don't address the specific problem of sealion in a specific way. We don't really want to insult Rambo by making invasions more difficult for the US, do we? Therefore, I am asking myself if the solution to issue No 1.) in the sealion case couldn't be the hard implementation of a rule: german troops cannot land in Britain as long as the combined strength(definition up to debate) of the RN and RAF is below a certain threshold. This rule would make it unnecessary to find a way to give the defenders the time/move rights to use their ships and air force while at the same time not giving them the time to move their ground forces and block. Would such a rule be hard to implement for Hubert? The solution with intercepting air/naval units would also do the trick, but it's implementation seems to be unrealistic to me.

No wonder the Finns are giving SC2 a good review, considering that Finnland is much more useful in SC2 than it was in SC1. I guess spanish game mags will rate SC2 high, too, provided the reviewer understands the diplomacy element well enough to make Spain join.

Merry Christmas from Germany to all SC enthusiasts, except the ones that beat me in multiplayer. Those may rot in hell

Hitler wanted to occupy Russia to the line Astrachan-Archangelsk (south to north), easy to defend along the Volga and another river in the north. The Urals are a bit further east.

I believe the main problem the allies have is experience. The polish can't do much harm to the germans, so german units gain quite a lot of experience early on. This in turn leads to high french losses and low german losses in the battle for france. Even the bit of experience the french may gain will be lost with the eventual destruction of the army and the fall of france. In short: the experience gap keeps widening till very late in the war, because inexperienced units can gain experience almost only against other inexperienced units. When attacking an experienced unit, their losses will be so high that after reinforcing they will be back at zero while the experienced unit has gained even more experience. At the point where the allies can start to attack something themselves, however, there will hardly be any inexperienced german units around to "train on". The only solution is to attack neutrals first to build up a core force with some experience that can dare to face the germans, or maybe the italians who usually aren't very experienced either.

I doubt the AI cheats in this game when it comes to battle results. Sure there is a random element in each battle, but I have been playing the AI quite a lot and not observed any systematic advantage for the AI in battles. Just ask Hubert to make sure. He will know. The Luftwaffe is usually quite experienced after Poland and of course the german headquarters are very good and also quite experienced already. Do you ever look at the predicted losses at the top of the screen? When you have spotted the german planes before attacking, the prediction should include the effect of the interception, I believe. COmpare those predictions, not your own hopes, to the results, before claiming the AI cheats

I doubt that it works. A good german player will let you take italy while crushing France really fast with his 6 experienced airfleets. After France has fallen, retaking italy can be done with a fraction of the german troops. This leaves the allied player with a weakened Britain and, if you declared war on italy, no prospect for a US or Russian entry any time soon. Sealion will likely follow at the same time as the recapture of Italy with the Royal Navy still on it's way home.

I disagree on french partisans. There never was a partisan army in France like in Russia and Yugoslavia, where units of several 10 000 men attacked the germans. The resistance should only result in the germans getting less resources from France than the french did.

Industrial tech determines the efficiency of the production of war materials. In 1939 the US was producing very little war materials while the USSR was already making as many tanks as the rest of Europe together. Also, when a large part of it's industrial and resource base had fallen into the enemies hands, the USSR still outproduced germany. They were very efficient at producing what they did produce and they material was good if simple (as you all know). It took the US two years to shift to war production. Depending on when they enter, they should also start with a rather high value for industrial tech, I agree.

I have been playing the Blitzkrieg custom campaign which starts in 1939 and gives Iraq to Britain initially. In four games I have played, each time the USSR was absolutely reluctant to join the war, in spite of the axis taking Norway, Sweden, Greece and in one case Iraq. We are talking about a war readiness of 13% in mid 1941. I suspect that the game treats the fact that Iraq is British as if Britain had conquered Iraq and thus greately reduced the USSR's willingness to join them. COuld this be correct or do you have another explanation, Hubert? The Blitzkrieg campaign tries to strengthen the Allies by giving them Iraq, but without the USSR as a threat, germany has lots of time to weaken Britain and plunder all the minors. In the end, the campaign seems to favour the axis more than the stock campaign

rambo, that's why I like to play with "disable undo" disabled. YOu still can't undo when you discover a new enemy unit, so it doesn't allow too much cheating. Of yourse, you CAN move your ships around and undo until you have found those subs.

Zapp, if you want more research advances/points for the allies when entering take a look at some of the moded campaigns, escpecially Blitzkrieg at headquarters. the axis' sub strength in the atlantic can also easily be adjusted by players.

I think this analysis is correct. The example I found was the following. I set up a trap for the Malta airfleet by moving an italian ship into it's vision which was covered by a very experienced german strength 10 airfleet. The Malta airfleet (strength 5)promptly attacked the ship and was intercepted by the german airfleet, loosing 0 points in the process. The only logical explanation to me is that the interceptor attacked the Malta airfleet in it's bunker on the island.

ev, don't forget that attacking minors does not only upset America and Russia, it also makes other minors be more inclined to join you. Even Spain and Turkey may join you if they feel the axis is unstoppable. When playing the AI, there is usually enough time to take all of Scandinavia (remember Norwegian resources count more when you own spain) and maybe greece before the USSR enters the war. It doesn't matter if they are at 60% or 90% when you start Barbarossa, so I'd say you are in most cases making it harder for yourself by not taking as many minors as possible. Of course, you should never attack the minors that are axis-friendly anyway (Spain, Turkey). Take the others and hope you are lucky and they will join you. Also, I am not sure if operating your infantry to the west is worthwile the cost. You'll probably face an army (and maybe a corps) less than when walking and the money spent is consumed, not invested. I prefer to invest in tech and air fleets before attacking france.

The US is almost as big as the USSR? That's news to me. I think the USSR was 3-4 times the size of the US. Or did you mean to say: almost as big as the portion of the USSR that is shown on the map?

Hi there! Most of what you posted is correct and all of the regular players know these things. I disagree on 3) though: If you hit with your green units first, they will suffer higher losses and inflict lower losses and when receiving replacements they willl loose what little experience they gained. The opposite strategy should be applied: Hit with your experienced units FIRST (when you get a decent loss ratio) and THEN with the green units so they, too, can get a favourable loss ratio. Experience is only gained when you inflict high losses and suffer low losses!!

In the end, germany was increasingly loosing the war of men, too, having to rely on the very old and the very young and "volunteers" from occupied eastern european countries. A quote from a german general: "If we are expecting Russians to fight for Germany in France against America, we are asking rather a lot". As a result, allied soldiers outfought their german opponents on several occasions, D-day being the most important case.

Would anyone like to play a multiplayer game with me? I am in Europe, but I am pretty flexible about the time of the day we play, as I am currently unemployed Just drop me a mail if you're interested: 123murks@gmx.de

Panzer leader? I've read the book and I must say it was quite boring. Pages and pages of "...at 10 a.m. I met colonel suchandsuch in the village of dunnowhat and discussed something with him. Then I drove to the neighboring village of xxxx to check the state of the elements of the XXVI.th blah who had been fighting there...". I have read much more interesting books on the subject.