SS Viking

When can we (all SC fans around the world) expect the next patch? What will it contain and so on ...

When?

No, panzers are worth every MMP Yes, airfleets are far to powerfully and it's quite irritating to ALWAYS see the AI build huge amounts of air units. This IS one of the most unrealistic and inbalanced thing in the game. I love the game, but it can be improved! /Erik

Hi all SC gamers! Now I'll start a new topic again. We last one Finland generated 60+ comments. Lets see if this topic is as important. I'm surprised that noone have addressed this problem before. First of all, Rockets CAN'T take out land units. They can lower entrenchment levels, morale, maybe supply and a smaller part of the strenght. I allready see all comments regarding Stalin orgels and so on. Forget it. Rockets should mainly be a strategic wapon. Now it's some kind of super artillery and that's wrong and "super" unrealistic. Just as little as airunits could take out whole armies. That's another topic thu. Hubert, pls change them and implement artillery. That should enhance the realis greatly. Best regards, Eric

Good point, there should be a delay after purshasing a unit. It should take different time for different types of units. Also you should be able to hurry up the process, but to the cost of lower quality units. Get my point? /Erik

There is no reason why these countries could not have a 5 or 4 point navy. This would be reasonable. It shows a navy that is not a huge threat but could mean something to transports.[/QB] Right, I was not clear enough. I was thinking of 4-6 point strengths of existing cruiser counters or even better a destroyer + small ship(like patrol boats) counter. They are a very little threat to warships but they make unescorted transports risky. That would enhance the realism. Then it comes to Swedish subs they played a far greater roll then history tells. My information comes from the commander of the Swe subs under WWII directly and is unofficial of many reasons. /Erik

Ok guys, it has been intressting to read all the posts in this topic I started. At least we can all agree this is a subject that many have ideas about. I still think that Finland should have a HQ, as well as Turkey should have a habor in Istanbul and a cruiser unit and Sweden should have a sub and a cruiser unit. But I change my oppinion regarding the strength/supply of the HQ. It could be reduced. I've no interest to lobby for a change from one imbalance to another. Finnaly I want to say that I've sometimes noticed a lack of history knowledge regarding WWII. Finland played a much greater roll then the history books tells. Never forget that the winners writes the history. Best Regards, Erik

Here's an excellent site describing the fortifications in great detail: http://www.winterwar.com/M-Line/M-Line2.htm#figures Gunslinger</font>

Although Turkey was not a significant naval power at this point, a port at Istambul would be important and historically accurate if Turkey enters the war. I fully agree. Turky should have a port in Istanbul as well as one cruiser unit, Finland should have a HQ (with limited supply) and Sweden should have a submarine and a cruiser unit. /Erik

... I've decided to remove the CD check from Strategic Command in all future patches. Thx Hubert. By the way, have you'd time to look into the Finnish issue. Pls look at the topic I started named Finland. Best regards, Erik

But in general (... and also very true of Russia) the AI greatly favors Air Fleets at the expense of ground forces.[/QB]

Hi! Be careful with that love thing ... they r already talking about marrige n stuff ... Seriously, it is an important issue. It's not just a question of being maybe the biggest historical miss in the game, it's more because it imbalance the east front. Together with the mutilated map it removes almost the whole north front and all it strategical options. Have u received any answer from Hubert yet? Let us keep up this fight for our good couse with finnish SISU! /Eric

Thx for your contribution! Mods r d no1 thing that keeps a good game run for years. /Eric

Hi! Good question, but hard to answer. The reason is that Sweden before the war exaggerated it's strength to scare of potential enemies. We did it so good that it is, in fact, hard even today to get reliable info. Anyway, we was just a paper tiger w/out strength to resist even a small invation. On the other hand, in the end of the war we had I mordern and strong army, navy and airforce with a lot of newly purchased equipment. I'll give you an answer but I first need you to tell me that year/time during WWII you mean. Because as I said, 1939 and 1945 was like to different navys. Also regarding operational moves. Germany did move its troops on our railways through Sweden during the war, despite the fact we was "neutral". They did this almost at will and it was mostly inf. transports to Finland. /Eric