daystrom
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by daystrom
-
-
WINE....the BEAST!!! I tried WINE (admittedly a few years ago) and I have never seen so many memory leaks. As such, I am skeptical of ever installing it again on my system. It is 80% there? They have been at it since, I believe, the first Bush administration.
Better solution. I know that ISE Eiffel makes a Linux version of their development studio. Maybe after Hubert makes his millions off SC1
he can hire guys to do a Linux port of SC2 and WINE will not be needed. 
regards,
Ray
-
I know that something similar was mentioned with regards to air fleet interceptions.
My idea is this; for one to have the ability to disable one's subs from operating against merchant marine vessels. I feel that it is entirely logical to assume that you should have the ability to have your subs not interdict British economic targets in the Atlantic. I feel that this would give the subs in the Atlantic a better chance at moving about without detection and perhaps extend their survival (and allow the Axis player to eventually get them safely into ports in France once it falls). What do you think?
regards,
Ray
-
Mr. EB. I feel that debating Soviet military impact on the war is fine. As with many others here in this form, we have an interest in World War 2 and military history in general. I do feel that this is no place for a pro-Soviet diatribe.
My grandfather emigrated to Canada from Poland following the war. Two of his brothers were killed within the first week of fighting against the Nazi invasion in Sept 39 while wearing the Polish uniform. The time of occupation that followed, as is well known, was a terrible hardship for the people of the country. My grandfather told me he developed an intense hatred for the Nazi invaders, and he carried it to his death. In 1944, the "liberation" of Poland began by the Red Army. The Soviets called for all Polish partisans (the Home Army) to rise up to fight the Germans where they could. The Soviets rewarded the Polish Home Army that aided in the ousting of the Germans with accomodations in Siberia, accusing them of "collaboration" with the Nazis. Mobs of Russian soldiers committed horrendous crimes upon the Polish citizenry - rape, looting, and pillaging was the order of the day. Many Poles felt betrayed by the Western Allies for leaving them to the tender mercies of their new "liberators". As a result, my grandfather also carried a deep hatred for the Soviets to his grave as well.
I asked him once what he felt was worse, German or Soviet occupation? He said they were very different and hard to compare. The German occupation was a systemic and orderly rape of the nations resources. But he said that most (Christian) civilians did not overly fear the German soldiers as they were disciplined and not prone to disorderly outbursts. The Russian "liberation" was different in that the Soviet soldiers conducted themselves like animals, raping women, stealing, murder - the complete lack of discipline was present throughout the Red Army as the officer corps did nothing to discourage it.
My point is this, both the Nazi and Soviet systems were terrible evils in world history. The world is poorer for having experienced them and in my opinion, the yanks should have let their General Patton have a go at the Soviets after the Nazi menace was defeated.
Ray
-
No, never.
regards,
Ray
-
Hey aaa,
See a thread I started on that here:
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001337
regards,
Ray
-
I think that the Turkish terrain will cause problems for an effective third front. In addition to this, the DOW on Turkey may have an undesirable side effect, namely that the German forces will be able to strategically redeploy forces into eastern Turkey to directly threaten the Caucasus region possibly causing the Soviets more problems than they initially had. Spain (after Portugal) may make a better choice for a DOW, but what about France?Originally posted by Amy Aemilius:Playing the Allied side, my consideration for invading Turkey is to open a third front and to relieve pressure on the Soviets. I am bogged down in Italy and my other options are to declare war against Greece or Spain.
-
Has anyone tried invading Turkey as the Axis pre-USSR extry? Is Russian entry greatly accelerated? Has anyone had any luck with this strategy?
regards,
Ray
-
No, the guys here were discussing existing fortification hexes in the game. No new fortifications can be built.Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:I just ordered the game, but I didn't notice a way to build fortifications in the demo. Is this possible in the full version?
-Thanks
regards
Ray
-
You mean you have given up on the HQ CvM?
-
Hey Vodka, I have never had occasion to see a Turkish entry. I have tried Sea Lion and non-Sea Lion approaches just to try and bring this about but with no luck. This probably belongs in another thread, but have you seen one and how (do you think) you brought this about?Originally posted by Vodka:Earlier entry of turkey will forces allies player to deffend caucasus from axis invasion directly from turkey.
regards,
Ray
-
The Finns did finally join the war effort, about a year after the Barbarossa commenced. I will clarify the circumstances of this a little better.
I did not perform a Sea Lion. I issued a DOW against the Soviets, albeit it a late one by historical standards (around August 41 if memory serves correct). In this particular game I did not invest heavily in German tech, instead opting for as many panzer groups (with HQs) as I could afford prior to the invasion. These purchases were financially supported by my capture of Norway and Sweden (in addition to France, Benelux countries, Denmark, and Yugo). I attacked across the Soviet border on two major axis; in the center dropping southward below the Prippet Marshes, and a smaller attack to the north (partly a demonstration attack, but later developing into a push (ultimately) towards Leningrad. I made excellent initial progress against the Soviet forces, rapidly destroying the majority of their initial front line defensive positions in the first two turns. Eventually the onslaught slowed due to supply problems and forced reorganizations on my part. Siberian transfer was triggered and my opponent made some nice tactical offensives forcing sections of my spearheads out of supply, which required me to shift some offensive focus to the rectification of these matters.
Eventually the Finns did declare, but I cannot see a pattern to their behavior. As you have read, in this game I was very aggressive against the Soviets, and they did not enter at the outset. There have been others where I also took to the offensive and had them enter right away (but I cannot remember if in these situations I was as aggressive in Scandanavia). Personally, were I Mannerheim, I would be much more inclined to attack the Soviets if the Germans were giving the Soviet armies "the business" hard and early, than if they (the Germans) were taking a defensive posture along the Eastern Front.
While I would like to be aware of the factors that contribute to minor entry, I don't think that I would want to eliminate all randomness to these events. It would be nice to know that my actions A, B, and C are "likely" to bring about the entry of nation X by increasing a probability for entry, but not for certain. I think an element of this equation must involve a call to rand() in this case to keep it interesting.
-
Strange, I have never seen the Finns completely opt out of the war. Good to know though. I agree that at times the Finns can be a liability, but late entry can be good, especially if the Allied player is hard pressed in defending Russia from the current German offensive. I have sent a HQ and a few units to a newly joined Finland with great effect on a few occasions.
regards,
Ray
-
Hey PzrCmdr,
I think on this scale, it might be tough to hide an entire army with any great effect. I see the aircraft spotting ranges as representing ongoing air recon missions within their area of operations. With this in mind, it may be possible to hide away a company of Panthers in the scrub, but not for long and not in any great numbers. Here is an idea; perhaps enemy air within operational range of spotting air could be made to interfere with said spotting and that this could be reflected in the game in some way. This would allow for shielding your troop movements by keeping friendly air in the area. Just a thought.
regards,
Ray
[ October 01, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: daystrom ]
-
I was wondering if anyone has compiled a list of factors that affect Finnish entry?
For example, in a current PBEM game (as Axis), I am about 8-9 months into Barbarossa and still no Finns. I did take Sweden and Norway, and my current PBEM partner suggested that this Scandanavian adventurism may have slowed (stopped?) Finnish entry.
That being said, has anyone identified the factors that affect Finnish entry?
regards,
Ray
-
Cars shmars, we make pretty darn good wargames!Originally posted by Doomsday1:I joke with my "canuk" friends from the Great White North that you can't trust a country that doesn't produce its own cars! (Although GM and Ford do have Canadian plants, that don't count). Heck, even French have the Citroen!
Well atleast Hubert does. We also came up with penicillin and Really Good Beer.
-
Are you crazy Sogard? We won that mother and saved your yankie hides.Originally posted by sogard:In a recent game, the "at start" forces for the Allies came up. I remarked to a friend that I found it interesting that the Brits started with a Corps in the United Kingdom; but, an Army and a Corps in Canada. Now, I know that the Canadian military involvement in the European theater eventually grew into a full Canadian Army in Europe; but, I do not recall that there were any substantial Canadian ground forces until 1941.
Is it possible that Hubert's Canadian bias is showing?
regards,
Ray
-
No FOW Hubert? That removes the "sneaky factor".
regards,
Ray
-
IMHO it is sheer madness.
-
Some good points zapp re ground unit defense against carrier air but CVs of the period would have no means of attacking ground units with shore bombardment...no cruise missiles in the 40s.Originally posted by zappsweden:I can understand that cruisers and battleships can bombard coastal ground units from the sea without taking casulaties. What i don't understand is the logic that carriers can attack ground units that are 3-8 hexes from the coast without taking any casulaties.
Carriers use planes so ground units defending should be able to use atleist a modified air defence value when attacked from longer range than 1 hex.
Only when carriers attack an adjacent (coastal) ground unit they should be able to use the regular riskfree naval bombardment like Battleships and Carriers do.
regards,
Ray
-
I think that Hubert said he was busy with TCP/IP support at the moment and that it may be ready by mid to late September.Originally posted by SS Viking:When can we (all SC fans around the world) expect the next patch? What will it contain and so on ...
-
Originally posted by Immer Etwas:
I agree, although admittedly I am only playing Inter +1 v1.03The Western Allied landings (usually in summer of 42) are a nuisance at best.
re Russia; On one occasion I did get into a real piss fight in the Caucasus region after doing a southern spearhead through Russia. I think that the good number of units and a HQ that were there (including 3 air fleets) got cut off from access to Moscow. Needless to say they put up a stout defense in the mountainous region.
regards,
Ray
-
Where do you get these figures?Originally posted by Norse:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daystrom:
US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...
You say German produced 24,050 tanks during the entire war, when they chunked out 27,300 tanks during 1944 alone, and 19,800 tanks in 1943.
~Norse~</font>
-
Where do you get these figures?Originally posted by Norse:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daystrom:
US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...
You say German produced 24,050 tanks during the entire war, when they chunked out 27,300 tanks during 1944 alone, and 19,800 tanks in 1943.
~Norse~</font>
-
I agree.Originally posted by George40:I have been enjoying the game. I am curious about other peoples' thoughts on 2 issues:
1. Would it improve the game to add a delay for production of new units? Even if they are not hisotically accurate, they could add the sense that producing a Carrier takes longer than an infantry corps.
Again I agree. I must begin by stating that I am not an American (not that there's *anything* wrong with that...).Originally posted by George40:2. Does it seem odd to anyone that the USA's production is so modest compared to Germany and USSR at the point of entry? The great aresnal of democracy's production seems rather weak in the context of the game. Greater play balance might be achieved by shifting some production from USSR to USA.
US production during WW2 was insane. Take this one fact for example; in 1943, the US produced 29,500 tanks. Germany produced 24,050 throughout the entire war and the limeys churned out 24,800. Aircraft??? US - 303,717 for the entire war period (40-45). As I said, insane...
As has been pointed out before, however, the MPP's must take into account the "blood factor". Let's not forget that 20 million Russian souls were lost fighting the Axis powers. I think that the SC MPP's take this fact into account.
All told, a very good game. Hubert could make the yanks an economic superpower, but I think that this would seriously upset the current balance of the game. I think he found the sweet spot as it is. The US deficiency could be explained as;
A) "The Blood Factor"
and
The difficulty (i.e. logistical nightmare) posed by sending you tanks, guns and material against an enemy half a globe away.All in all, I am happy with SC the way it is.
<b>Disclaimer</b>
I am after consuming a fair number of beers at a family function this evening, therefore any or all of what I have said may be complete nonsense.
he can hire guys to do a Linux port of SC2 and WINE will not be needed. 
The difficulty (i.e. logistical nightmare) posed by sending you tanks, guns and material against an enemy half a globe away.
How-To play Strategic Command in Linux ;-)
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
regards,
Ray