Jump to content

Machinov

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Machinov

  • Birthday 01/02/1972

Converted

  • Location
    London
  • Interests
    Chess, war games
  • Occupation
    Scientist

Machinov's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Pzgndr: No, I don't agree. Look, the "action points" system is as simple as what we've got. In fact, COS is even simpler than SC in many aspects. Now, it looks like SCII is going to implement back a system of movement and attack orders (that's what I understood from the FAQ and all the stuff about defining routes of advance, etc). Once again, that remains me all those "complicated" old games (War in Russia, etc). That's what is "complicated"!!. Actions points in COS are simple to understand and can be mastered in a few turns. They made the game as fast as SC...but with all the advantages I mentioned above. PG-style was perfect for...PG!, a tactical-level game. PG is ok because you move units that are batallion/regiment size at the most. Here, there is no "front". Units can be moved more or less freely in the battlefield until they encounter oponents to fight with. You just needed to move all the different units in a coordinated manner. For the defender, it was a matter of defending bridges, forming counter-attack kampsgruppe, etc. Again, in PG the front was intuitive rather than real. The problem is that it was copied for a grand strategy game. Here the fronts need to be real...but you need to make them dynamic! You cannot pretend to move your units as chess pieces. They cannot be used just once per turn and that's it. That leads you to stack situations as the ones everybody has felt in the Eastern Front in SC. In fact, the deployment and use of units is even less intuitive. Can you plan in advance how you are going to use them exactly? There's no room for that! I'm really looking forward to seeing how the tiles system performs in the new version. Maybe it's great and fully successful. I hope so. I just want to say that keep your mind open to any variation needed to accomplish the main goal of SCII: Simulation of WWII.
  2. Waltero: I'm not saying that SCII has to be COSII! I'm just saying that it's possible to make a game that simulates WWII! ...and SCI is not...and SCII might not be either. It can be good for you, but it is not what it's supposed to be. I think it's a good game though and I've enjoyed much playing it. Nevertheless, I also got frustrated. I was one of the first to try it out and...what can I say? Yes, I was dissapointed. I expected much more...because I have been playing plenty of hotseats since 1991 and I know what it's out there. All those all games you have not probably seen or heard of. I must say again that COS is one of the best (to me the best of all) and we need to be humble and learn of it. Nobody is gonna make a COSII. SCII is the most promising game which is about to be released...it only needs to make us feel we are playing WWII. That's it!
  3. SeaMonkey: Hope you are right. I know a lot of discussions about this have been around from the beginning. I just wanted to highlight once again the importance of this...people seem to get lost in things that appear to make the game more realistic (production, diplomacy, etc) and forget the central question that remains to be accomplish. Greetings.
  4. Waltero: I do not agree. This is not just criticism of SC. It's to improve the game. The armored warfare must be simulated. Fronts need to be more dynamic, with offensives and counteroffensives taking place more often. SC is too static. Play Clash of Steel for a while in the Easter Front (just yourself with both sides) and you will realize what I mean. JerseyJohn: I do agree HiCom had many interesting features. Nevertheless, I have not seen any game like COS in terms of real ground warfare (I would really like to be told otherwise!). Imagine you know nothing about WWII at all and start playing COS. You would end up using your units as they have to be used: 1) When attacking: try to achieve breakthroughs, with panzer acting actively in the rear followed by motorized corps. All the efforts concentrated on trapping as many enemy units as possible in large pockets. Then use your strong infantry armies to wipe them out for good. 2) When defending: Strategic retreats, avoiding the enemy pincer movements. Use tank units as a strategic reserve to local counterattacks to clog the breakthroughs…and even try a Manstein-style counterattack to isolate and destroy the attacking armies! Why do we have to say no to all this!? I think it is worth trying to get it Hubert! Imagine the possibilities of each side planning its major offensive…or a trap for the forthcoming one! Hubert, if you manage to accomplish this type of warfare, SCII would be the greatest of all WWII wargames…if not, it would be a new fiasco (and there are too many since 1993).
  5. I've just found it! ...let's see if we are lucky
  6. Thank Terif, I have used all the methods you mentioned without much luck (well, not luck at all). I'm only interested in TCP/IP at the moment. Where can I find that list of player's ICQ numbers?
  7. I've been trying for a while but not luck...and everybody seems to be playing right now! Help!!!!!
  8. Hi everyone (and especially Hubert) I’ve just been reading the FAQ for the new SCII and think that you (Hubert) must be doing a great effort to improve the game. Nevertheless, I think you should seriously take into account the following: To be honest, the main problem of SCI was, as many other wargames, the absence of real “simulation” of what WWII ground warfare was about. You can experience neither huge pincer movement nor entrapment of enemy armies nor panzer breakthroughs, etc. In fact, it could be a good simulation of…WWI!, and the frustration it brought to both sides. If you want to succeed this time you need to achieve this type of warfare. My ideas (actually taken from a game I think you must know well): 1) Forget “Panzer General”-sort-of-game interface: 1 movement & 1 attack. Go for “Clash of Steel” action points concept. The panzer units fighting at the front should have the chance to exploits their owns ruptures. “Actions points” can be employed for either combat engagements or advances. You wouldn’t need to completely change it to the way “Clash of Steel” did it (this would take much time if your movement interface is already implemented)…although it would be ideal from my point of view. It would be enough if you at least allow panzer units to strike twice (even more!) per turn (in fact Panzer General II allows this); and they are free to do it whether they have been moved or not. As for the other units, it would be necessary to free them from the “first movement and then attack concept”. Movement and attack must be completely interchangeable in sequence. The “action points” concept is very useful because it allows units at the front to be engaged in combat until they manage a breakthrough, and also exploit it! (in order to sustain a prolonged attack and advance you need both strength and lots of action points = panzers) . With the current system, this is impossible, because one always needs to rely on many different units that have to be moved to the attack point…and can only attack once!. Even if you manage to achieve a breakthrough and move panzers (in the rear) into it, you can’t go deep inside the enemy front (first of all because you don’t want to miss the only chance to attack that the tank unit has per turn; and secondly, and most importantly, because the gap can be so easily close by the enemy that is worthless). At the best, you could manage to get a very transient single breakthrough per turn…and to start a pincer movement you need two! 2) Differentiate between units shattered at the front (and no longer ready for combat but that can be “reconstructed” in rear areas and eventually send back to the front) from those first surrounded and then destroy (irreparable losses). The way it is now, even with the “morale” idea of the new version, is completely wrong. Units can be easily destroy at the front, so why to bother in a costly (and ineffective with the current interface) pincer movements strategy. 3) Air fleets must not be able to destroy entire units! This is unrealistic. Air unit must have effects in units transient combat readiness. Once again, have a look at “Clash of Steel”. 4) Limited units is a must!...with allies having an advantage in manpower, therefore more units. Axis would have the advantage of initial readiness, technology and gain of experience but must achieve its goals soon, otherwise it should start playing a defensive war from 1944 onwards, with more productions for the allies and more units available to be purchased. I reckon that the balance in a “asymmetric” type of game is the trickiest of all the problems the programmer has to face. I hope you take all this into account. It would definitely make the game much stronger. Remember, what players like me want is to “feel” the WWII when we play, not just see a European map with Nazi symbols and known general’s names. Remember, WWII was a massive series of Kessel battles or attempts (Kutno, Dunkirk, Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma, Izyum, Stalingrad, Kharkov, Kursk, Korzun, Kamenets-Podolsk, Falaise, Ardennes, Bupapest, etc). All the major WWII operations had in mind either the quick achievements of political goals (i.e. quick surrender of a country by taking its capital) or the destruction of the enemy’s army (Barbarrosa, Bagration, etc). The former implied lighting operations to disrupt the will of the enemy to fight and the latter huge entrapment plans. Of course, both of them were somehow co-ordinated and took place at the same time or as part of the same goal in many occasions. Please, have a look at “Clash of Steel” and learn from it. It’s clear that you have already taken many ideas for SC from it, but none for the ground warfare I’m afraid... I know that many people have not paid attention to that game because of its poor AI and its numerous bugs; but the ones that have had the fortune to play “hotseats” WWII games for many years now recognise it as the best of the best WWII grand strategy wargames…make SCII the best of all!!!
  9. Yeah, I meant "corps"...but "corpses" is not a bad word to call them actually...because that is what they will be after your Luftwaffe wants to "play" with them...
  10. Hi Norse, Well I have always launched my particular “Eagle’s days” before attacking Russia. I always use my best and experienced Generals and my best air fleets to do so. Nevertheless, after you destroy everything on England, the opponent will tend to be reluctant to put something else. This is even better because you can now transfer most of your air fleets to deal with Russia. I normally leave 2-3 air fleets in France and just 2 in Norway, along with 2 army groups. The two following movements in this strategy are often mistaken by your opponent. 1) He thinks that as soon as the Operation Barbarrosa takes place, he gets rid of the threat…just to find out that your planes are still there when he puts something on England (I often wait until he buys either an army group/air fleet or bring carriers to harbour…doing nothing if he just purchases cheap corpses…it’s like a game, you can see whatever he does, give him confidence that the threat is over and then…strike hard again!!) 2) What he never expects is that your Kriegmarine is going to have an important role in this siege. When you start placing subs near Liverpool, he thinks that it’s a little bother…then when you’ve got 5-7 over there and Britain is losing more than a half of its production… This is the time to bring back part of your Luftwaffe which is fighting (and gaining experience) on the Eastern front (of course you can also buy new units, but I prefer to place them in the East where they will gain experience quickly). Sooner or later he will send his Navy against your subs and…probably he will surrender afterward (it happened to me three times).
  11. Hi everybody, Greetings from Spain. I would like to say I have had a lot of fun playing this game; so, congratulation to Fury software and its designer. I must also say that it’s a good game but not the best one from my point of view (sorry Hubert), since it has lots of problems to simulate the actual WWII ground warfare and give both sides a balanced match. I would like to comment on both deficiencies sometime in the future but I should read your posts first since I’m new in this forum. Anyway, let me focus on the topic of this post. I just wonder if someone has used the following strategy as Axis. I have called it “the siege of England” strategy because, unlike “the battle of England”, the main aim is not to conquer the island but to neutralize it as a potential enemy for later stages of the war. I have employed it from my very early matches as Axis and I think it’s infallible (although to be honest, many different strategies seem “infallible” for the Axis in this game). Ok, let’s go into details. The strategy is very simple and can be divided in different stages: 1st stage. Mounting a strategy which goes far beyond the France collapse. As soon as possible and at the same time that operations against Poland, Denmark, Low Countries and France take place: - Purchase air fleets. - Invest in “long air range”. Give extreme priority to this, even higher than “Ind tech”. During the France campaign you will start realizing that the purchase of air fleets instead of investing on “Ind tech” has been a right decision since it will speed up its collapse dramatically. If you already have advances on your secret weapon (“Long air range” technology), do not show the enemy this by bombing from far hexes. 2nd stage: Conquering new bases for your air supremacy on England. As soon as France surrenders move the core of your army to Denmark, leaving an army group and a couple of air fleets to deal with any attempt against Brest. These air fleets (plus others) will be later used to control Southern England and Wales. The key of this second stage is to take Norway and use it as a base to control Northern England and Scotland. After you manage this you probably have L2-3 in your secret weapon but the time to use it has not come yet if you are a bit patience. While you wait for L4-5 for the long air range you can attack and conquer Sweden. This is important not only because it is an important source of MPPs but also, and most importantly in this strategy, because this is what your opponent expects from you to do. In doing so, the allies think that the real aim of taking Norway is to give Germany a base for attacking Sweden and then all its armies will turn to the East…Nevertheless, part of your army (an army group and 3-4 air fleets) will turn to the Mountainous region near the Norwegian coast, and there they will wait. 3rd stage: The Eagle’s day. With your air fleets spread throughout the Northern France and Norwegian coast and a bit of luck (say at least up to L4 in long air range), you will see a view that you wouldn’t have dreamt ever. Probably 2-3 English air fleets, Montgomery and a large number of ships at ports. Of course it depends on the Allies strategy, but it’s likely you will find units to bomb enough. What is funny is to see all your enemies and think that he doesn’t know what it’s going to happen soon. Then, I launch a massive air attack on his air fleets and then the rest (starting for the carriers). After the enemy air power is over, I focus on his naval power (and on Montgomery that will be looking for a harbour to escape from the slaughter). A surprising Eagle’s day has just taken place and there is nothing that the weak England (now even weaker) can do against. 4th stage: Doenitz gets into the battle. The beginning of the long siege. After a couple of turns if not immediately, England is forced to withdraw all his ships far from the motherland. Then I start buying and placing subs near Liverpool. I have been able to put there up to 7 subs which “sink” up to half of the British production. If England sends his fleet to deal with them, you’ve got a good chance to annihilate the whole Navy with your planes. If England starts saving MPPs for the future (when Russia is already at war normally), and you don’t have nothing to bomb with your 3-4 air fleets (you don’t need more at this stage), then simulate an invasion sending a flotilla near London (do not be worried by his fleet, it will be far away). Then, an anxious player will buy corps/armies and, here you go, your pilots will have work for a couple of turns. With huge and long-ranged air supremacy plus you subs (and the rest of your fleet of course) there is no chance for England to recover from the siege and neither by itself nor with the help of USA it will be a strong enemy any more. Surprisingly and in spite of being used from my first game as Axis, I haven’t been able to find anyone who use this strategy when I play the Allies. Most of the players just turn to the East (and Scandinavia) after taking France. Has anyone ever tried this? Advises and tips: 1. Long air range is high priority. You don’t need Jets technology to beat Allies air fleets even at a higher level. The experience that your air fleets have gained throughout the previous battles is by far enough. 2. Delay both USA and Russia to enter the war is very important. Attack only what you need to carry it out: Low Countries, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Do not attack on the Balkans. I usually wait until the pro-allied coup in Yugoslavia to conquer it (be ready to do so before by having units nearby). It’s likely that your “Eagle’s day” comes before Russian preparation for war, but you need time to transfer all your power to the East after knocking England out. 3. You are not committed to wait for an “Eagle’s day”. I often attack English air fleets from Northern France as soon as they are within the range to do so. What it’s funny is that only a few players realise what your strategy is about and they just move their armies northward…to be caught by your Norwegian bases afterward. 4. The border between the “siege of England” operation and a proper Sealion operation is a thin line. After England is strongly weakened, is very easy to launch a proper invasion. The reasons I normally avoid that is because the premature Russian and American tendency to enter the war. 5. At later stages the siege operation can be extended to the Mediterranean sea too. Thank you very much and enjoy. Apologies for my poor English.
  12. I'm having the same problem and it's very annoying. I have tried to rename the files, move them to other folders and so on; and nothing seems to be good enough. None of my PBEMs are working from the first turn!!
×
×
  • Create New...