Jump to content

viper_ss

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About viper_ss

  • Birthday 12/12/1976

Converted

  • Location
    Alameda, CA

viper_ss's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. I actually don't mind the units reinforcing back. If you surround the unit then they can only reinforce back to a 5. Most other instances, the unit can only reinforce back to an 8 unless they are in their home country. Russia is really the only beneficiary of this. Russia should probably need to trace a line to the east side of the board and if not, units in a city should only receive a 5 supply. This would limit them to an 8 max. One benefit of units reinforcing is the attrition that you're winning. Sometimes I delibrately pound a city to a 1 and then have them rebuild up. You might lose a 1 or 2 which is only 10 MPP but they have to spend around 40 MPP. A cheesy tactic but it works in those no honor battles. I do agree though that the supply rules need a little tweaking for non-supplied units in the open. For one, I don't think they should be able to conquer a city behind the lines. You can't just drop in to a city, pop in to McDonald's and suddenly 50,000 men or sustained.
  2. They should just make the western allies (USA, UK) MPPs as one. This would alleviate the minor countries relying on the UK and the transferring of MPPs between the two (since this is not currently supported). Of course ideally they should eventually support the transferring of MPPs and the tracking of neutrals.
  3. I have the same question. It seems to me that they only draw from cities. They may draw from HQ's but only up to half supply. I had a German corp in Africa that was drawing a 5 supply from an Italian HQ.
  4. I like the suggestions but I think it is a question of historical vs. hypothetical. The US didn't have rockets but what if? I think maybe the research category could have an option like diplomacy where you could make it historical or the current method. One note, is it me or can you not transport rockets? Basically the US cannot buy rockets because they cannot get them anywhere. I just want clarification that it's not me.
  5. I think I'm just an average player but I have found the game pretty balanced. I admit I've only played 1 person and the AI the rest of the time but I have never lost as the Allies. In a matter of fact, I have never gotten past mid-44' with the Allies. I have yet to play +2 against the AI, so I'll try that later. I think in order to win with the Allies, you cannot follow the historical path. You need to invade Iraq, Portugal, etc. Side strategies help give you the base MPP boost needed to counter the Axis. I could be wrong, but maybe a lot of players are taking too passive a stance as the Allies (waiting for the US, ect.). I think if you play the Allies actively (I don't mean launching monster offensives in 41') with little probes here and there, you will be much more successful.
  6. kenfedoroff I like your idea of SAC disrupting operational movement (simulating the bombing of railroads, etc). Maybe any unit that is SAC bombed cannot operate the next turn. I'm not to sure about the air superiority ratio and it affecting movement. I think for one, it would be too difficult for players to track, having to calculate the ratio and its effect on movement. Also, if you really had 4 SAC to your opponent's 1 fighter, you pretty much could bomb the crap out of them especially if you added your operational movement and my supply reduction rule. Good idea though on the operation movement reduction.
  7. I think the air unit is good as is. It's decently balanced and fits into the game well except for the interception rules (I explain why in an earlier post in this topic). I just feel like the SAC needs to be improved in the tactical level like the ideas I suggested earlier. Also, if we wanted to be more historically accurate, the SAC should do minimal damage to navy vessels and the air unit (acting as a tactical bomber unit) should do the SAC's level of damage to navy units. Also, shouldn't air units be able to transfer locations double their range? :confused: If a air unit can fly a five hex mission (10 total hexes travel), shouldn't you be able to transfer bases up to 10. Just a thought.
  8. Thanks. That's the first reply to any of my ideas I've posted. I was starting to think that all my ideas were downright stupid. Completely agree with your SAC/AA tidbit.
  9. I think another possibility is to have strategic bombers cause alternate damage instead of just straight strength points. A strategic bomber could maybe reduce a unit's supply rating by 3 for the next turn. This could simulate the effects of softening targets when they defend, or slowing them down when they are on offense (taking cover, pinned by carpet bombing). For example, a unit in a city with a supply of 10 that is bombed would have a supply of 7 next turn. If you used three bombers you could reduce them to a 1 supply. This could also bring up some interesting strategies like Russia purchasing bombers to slow the German tanks. For example, reducing a fast moving German tank from a 7 to a 4 next turn would chop his APs in half. I think alternate damage would raise some cool strategic and tactical ideas. Finally, I don't think any land units should be able to cause any damage to strategic bombers. Only cities should. Land units didn't really carry sufficient AA or the kind to damage strategic bombers.
  10. I agree that bombers are a waste of money unless you raise their tech level. Another consideration is that you need to bomb the same location over and over again. You need at least two bomber squadrons to accomplish this. As the efficiency of your target decreases, the losses toward your bomber squadrons drop. Once you get the target down to 1 or 2, you can pretty much bomb the target without losses. The exception to this is if the enemy has fighters, then you're screwed. This raises another point, I think the interception rules need to be tweaked. The rules just don't seem balanced. Here are two situations that I hate. 1. I have a 11-fighter and 10-army. The AI attacks the army with a 10-fighter. My fighter unit intercepts and I lose 4 and he loses 2. On top of that he does 2 damage to my army and he loses 1. Overall, he has a 7-fighter left and I have a 7-fighter and 8-army. You should always have an advantage when intercepting a tactical bomber mission (all things being equal). 2. I have a 10-bomber and a 11-fighter. The AI has a 10-fighter. My escorts suffer 3 and he suffers 1. Next my bombers suffer 2 and he suffers 1. Next my bomber suffers 2 and does no strategic damage. The problem is that I find myself drawing out the enemy air using the above loop holes instead of just attacking it. I think the following rules need to be implemented. 1. The interception rules should be like 3R where a sortie is canceled when intercepted by equal or greater numbers. In example 1 above, the AI fighter attack should be repeled since I attacked it with a 11-fighter unit. In example 2 above, the AI interception should be repeled by the escorts. 2. You should be able to attack with a stack. If I have 3 10-fighters, I should be able to use all three for interception or escort duty on one mission. 3. You need to be able to select interception or escort units. I hate it when my carrier intercepts instead of my nice 12-fighter unit. It cost a lot more to replace the carrier! Thoughts...
  11. This ties in a little with the Allies DOW. I think the Allies should pay to DOW, example being the Low-Countries. I posted a topic on this. I think it is very unrealistic for the Allies to be able to DOW on Norway, Portugal, etc. This is also very helpful for them since it increases their production, gives them the MPP boost when they conquer the location, and gives them avenues to launch an assault. I think the Allies should still have the ability to do so since it adds flexibility but should come at cost of MPPs.
  12. I find it a little too easy for the Allies to declare was against minor countries in the game. It's also unrealistic. Why have D-Day when you can DOW against Portugal, take them, build up a nice starting point and go through Spain. Also, you acquire large chunks of MPPs when you conquer Portugal and Spain. Maybe the Allies should pay 100 MPPs to declare war. At least this still gives them the option and flexibility to do so, and penalizes them a little. Thoughts anyone...
  13. Right on Wagner. :cool: HOI is a colonization like game. Much like Civilization, Imperialism, etc. Not a wargame in the true sense. SC is a true wargame.
  14. Bill's idea is great. The HQ unit in a way already serves as a supply center and thus a beachhead. One thing I would like to add that I saw earlier is the ability to build fortifications on any hex and thus increase a units ability to entrench. Some possible rule ideas: 1. When overrun, they are destroyed. 2. Each 1 point increase cost 100 MPPs. 3. It takes an addition turn after the fortification is built to be entrenched. You don't have the ability to build it and expect your unit to be fortified for the opponents turn.
  15. Yohan, I disagree. The UK player can effectively destroy everything in the Atlantic and then shutdown the North Sea in the first few turns of the game. Once you've done that, you can just destroy subs as the Axis player builds them. I'll admit that I haven't played Germany yet so maybe once I'm them I'll figure out a way to make them very effective.
×
×
  • Create New...