Yohan
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Yohan
-
-
-
In my Mod...Braak BraakOriginally posted by Blashy:Iron Ranger.
In my mod you can "win" as Axis, meaning an Axis victory is holding Berlin and Rome by Aug 31 1945.
Believe it or not, it is actually more FUN to play it and yet it is also more historical (the Axis just could not have "conquered all").
It is especially more fun in HvH games. Why? Because the Axis player does not say "I concede" the second he see's all is lost, there is incentive to fight to the end because that is when you "win" by surviving and achieving an armistice.
Even in my AI games, ALL of them I've gone to the end by date or until both Berlin and Rome were taken before the end date.
DT, One of their very serious plans was actually massing in Africa and go through Middle East onto the Caucausus, obviously they chose another plan.
But I do agree that taking Egypt is too easy in the default campaign, it is much better in what I've done but Minor units need to be able to have tech, when/IF that happens I think it will be just about right with what I have.
no need to go on
-
Very well saidOriginally posted by dicedtomato:Where do I start, Desert Dave? There are so many places where SC2 fails as an historical simulation. Here are a few:
* An abstract naval system where fleets gallop around like panzer divisions.
* A random tech system where you can go from WWI-era tankettes to medium battle tanks in a few months - or be stuck with 1939 tech in 1943.
* A strategic movement system where units zip Spain to Moscow in a week.
* A peculiar economic system where diplomacy and troops use the same currency (MMPs), so France buys chits instead of troops.
* A logistics system that allows the Axis to romp across the Middle East, Scandinavia and Russia - all within a couple of months.
* Diplomatic chits that turn diplomacy into a guessing game (Sweden goes pro-Axis by 40 percent, and you didn't have a clue the Axis were pressuring it. Surprise!).
* A morale feature that demoralizes or elates the Red Army because Tunisia has fallen.
* Ridiculously overblown air and naval bombardment.
* Generic force pools with little differentiation (which is why the Italian fleet can fight the Royal Navy on equal terms).
Many of these flaws are intrinsic to the game. Giving the U.S. a couple of extra armies, or toning down air bombardment, will help a little. But the game is basically strategic Panzer General and its "let's all pile on the bunny" tactics of swarming a target until it's destroyed. That's not going to change (maybe with SC3, but I doubt it). Adding realism band-aids will just complicate the game without tackling the underlying weaknesses. Better just to have fun and get our realism fix with another game.
Diced Tomato
-
He's not made one good comment about the game, I think his point is quite clear, he does not like it.Originally posted by Blashy:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:
I don't think that was quite Dice's point, Blashy.
He's just saying you can't make it something it was never meant to be.
Try my mod, you'll be surprised at how it is possible to increase this games historical accuracy quite significantly. </font>
-
Agreed, but I don't see why people are so closed minded they won't even think of trying some improved campaigns or like Dice they think it is impossible for the game to be improved via this way.Originally posted by Blashy:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yogi:
I see no reason we can't have both a great editor and a great game "out of the box".
Then again Dice likes nothing about the game so I have no clue what he is still doing here.
I look forward to futur patches but since I have some tools at my disposal to actually improve gameplay SIGNIFICANTLY and feels more historical (and have the time) I went ahead and did it, has anyone here complaining tried it? I doubt it considering it has less than 30 downloads which is probably 10-12 actual players. </font>
-
Umm, is the same fellow who has been whining the US gets no respect? Not enough troops? Glad you are not the skirt in charge of the USA.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:Too many skirts came out of the closet with SC2. Where are all the competitive smack talkers?
-
To quote your favorite US general "Rambutt". "Spank me" or I think that was what he said as his batman took the riding crop to him.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:Na-Na-Na-Na-Nah, Hey, Hey, Goodbye
Yo, Hans Boobie, CU. You always were a skirt. Fame & Fortune wasn't meant to be for you. Hit the bricks kid.
"Well, the world needs ditch diggers too" --- Judge in the classic comedy, Caddyshack.
[ July 09, 2006, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Yohan ]
-
I must admit I am quite disappointed to say this but I am done with SC2 even faster than I was done with SC1.
Issues:
1) Need too many house rules to make it playable
2) Luck of the draw on tech still too deciding a factor (yes, not as big an issue with Level 5 Fighters but still way too big an issue)
3) I thought Diplomacy was going to be an interesting enhancement but is really just a waste of MPPs.
4) I played SC1 mainly against 2 friends. Irish Guards played the SC2 demo and then told me not to buy the game, should have listened. My other buddy quit after 3 weeks.
5) Still got my entertainment dollar out of it but disappointed it did not even get me through the summer.
Yohan - signing off
-
The Bomber does not show up for many turns after Denmark surrenders.
-
OK, on patch 1.02
Spain is at Axis 78%, maxed on chits but figure the Allies have as well. Is there any attacks on minors etc. that will push Spain over the top?
-
Also, you were playing the computer. Does not count.
-
I found some free time this afternoon if anyone wants to start a TCP/IP game (Ladder game prefered).
email me at rob (dot) anderson (at) rogers.com
-
Just joined the ladder and looking for a game. email me @ robdotandersonat rogersdotcom
-
The ability of subs to take down capital ships in port has got to be pulled.
It just could not be done. Their were occassional small successes but not what is being allowed in SC2.
Also, I think there has to be a strong US trigger if the Axis navies approach the US shore as it would violate the Monroe Doctrine and would have given Roosevelt the excuse he was looking for.
-
I think Frank Hunter will be doing another ACW strategy game over at Matrix if he ever finishes the Napoleonic and WWI games he is developing now...
-
Umm, Rambot, any replys Mr. Legend...
-
The point is really "who cares" and I mean that from a military point of view not as a shot. Take the best Carrier for its time period during WWII and put it up against a land based air fleet (much larger number of planes) and it is toast.Originally posted by CPT Pete:Yes, they may become super carriers relative to what each side had historically. However, they aren't cheap, require a substantial investment in research, and take the longest to build. If historically the UK or Germany or Russia had made carriers a priority and thrown research, time and money at it, is it conceivable that they would have been able to develop something comparible to what the US had? I think so. So in the game, if I make it a priority, I should get my super carrier.
-
Guys, CVs were used in the Western theatre very sparingly. They had almost no punch versus land units and the main action they were involved in was the Med and not even that a ton as the British High Command did not want to risk them.
Why make them stronger than they really were?
-
CVs sans their planes are toast if caught, perhaps a review of Midway would be in order. They need to be very well protected and I think the current rules are good.
-
Really Blashy, give it a rest. Your strident support is actually hurting your credibility and more importantly that of the game. I sure hope you were open to more thoughts and ideas when you were playtesting.Originally posted by Blashy:I agree, but in this case, I don't. Diplomacy is exactly about keeping an eye on things YOURSELF, if you don't, you might be in for a surprise.
It just takes one turn of skipping this menial task to have a surprise next time you check.
Play anygame with a good diplomatic sytem and there is redundant work involved.
If everyone checks every turn you have just slowed the game down for no purpose. It is a complete waste. And counting on others to forget is a pretty iffy strategy and if you need it to win you will not be too successful.
-
LOL
Originally posted by Todd Treadway:Why even have pop-ups at all then? I'd suggest that we disable them altogether so that we have to guess as to what is happening in the game, especially in PBEM. And make sure to get rid of the pop-ups for our destroyed combat units and technology advances as well. Oh, and when the USSR and USA enter the war also. Take those pop-ups out. After all, I do enjoy spending my time (even 90 seconds) looking at the diplomacy screen every turn--and I would love to spend even more looking through all the screens and guessing if units are being destroyed or subs are disrupting convoys.
Umm, isn't this supposed to be a game of making high-level decisions? I think I might have a subordinate telling me about these things (i.e., a pop-up window). If there is any in-between, maybe give us the options to turn on/off these windows such as in Hearts of Iron.
-
Having to look each turn is a complete waste of the computer as a resource. Perhaps you should have to calculate the attack odds yourself and input them?
I look at the popup as a report from your spy master keeping you updated with pertinent information, not mind numbing review of a screen turn after turn.
-
-
Anyone up for a game?
1939, FOW, no undos.
Reply withyour email address and I will respond.
Once Britain falls...
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted