Yogi

I guess so, so far I haven't had any luck getting this type of MPP ability that early. Still, if it does take luck, I would again say that the game does not reflect properly what the US was able to do. That doesn't make it a bad game, it would make it a poor simulation.

Thanks Sombra, I must have a different game or am missing something here, as I haven't been able to get anywhere near what you accomplished above by end of 42 with the U.S. At first I thought you must have ignored tech investment until you posted it. I simply haven't seen enough MPP's to get this much, but again, I must be missing something somewhere. What tech(s) are you concentrating on first to get the MPP's needed to produce the rest? Do you put all mpp's into tech before creating any units?

I have done an early D-Day as well with great success, but not with the same power and/or way as the historic D-Day. Of course the game is still young and maybe some circumstances and luck would provide the opportunity, but my questions would before your "D-Day" (specifically US units) 1) Were you also able to send troups to North Africa? 2) Were you also able to invade Sicily? 3) Were you also able to invade Italy? 4) Were you able to build air power to control the skies? 5) Did you have 3 or 4 headquaters? 6) How many paratroops, tanks and Infantry did you have total? 7) How much power and sustainability did your D-Day have, or would have had if the first 5 points were accomplished as well. I know that your answer could include, I did D-Day instead of the other things, but my experience so far with the game is that the U.S. hasn't been able to do all the historic things. (This was covered as well in a discussion about MPP strength and "free" units.)

They should go down in May of 1945 if both Axis and allies do the same thing as they actually did. If the historical actions are taken, there should be the historical result. On the other hand you are free to try different things (or just be better at it) and the results should change. That is what a good simulation does - it gives you the historical situation and you try to do better than your historical counter part. So if the game makes the allies weaker then they were historically, you don't proove anything if you win with the Axis. Now if the Allies are just as strong and you last until 1946 you can be proud of your great ability. And if your brilliant strategy results in an actual Axis win, you really do have something to brag about!

I'd buy both of those, great games. Of course, hopefully they will gome with a reasonable AI.

That's great Moon. It is all we are asking for. I'm a little tired of those who think AI should not be important to anyone. As an earlier remark made, without those who play solitare there would be little market for these games. SC2 is a great game. It needs a better AI. Once again I would suggest to any computer game company, when a company finally decides to take AI seriously, they will end up with a loyal following and much greater market than if they only worry about head to head game play. No one (at least very few) are suggesting that AI has to match HI (Human Intelligence). They are simply asking for a reasonably competent attack and defense. It should also be expected to be in the game without having to edit and program it yourself. Update patches are to be expected and needed to improve any game bugs and issues, including the AI if needed.

I hate to go off topic, but weren't you one of the ones complaining heavily about the shipping charge at pre-order time?

It's a great game that should and will be better. But it is as fair to gripe about the AI as it is to gripe about all the other things I have seen attacked in the forums. If AI isn't important to you, great, but don't condemn people who do find it important. To many players, solitare is the main use of all computer games. Perhaps they don't have and/or want to take the time for much head to head play. Perhaps they just enjoy playing at the times and speed that fits into their own schedule. Perhaps they just enjoy the experimenting that is easy without a live opponent. Further, no one (at least very few) expects the AI to be as good as a human. We do expect it to do a resaonably competent job of attack and defense. We naturally expect and want to beat it. This AI like many others was very poorly done. I've come to expect that. I am pleased that it has been acknowledged that it is poor and that they are working on it. I look forward to the patches. One more thought, a game company that puts a great deal of time and thought into AI, will probably find that they will attract a loyal base of customers from a group that is use to being ignored. [ May 17, 2006, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

Makes sense just looking at it as a game Lampcord which is perhaps as it should be. I just find it frustrating from an "historic" and American perspective that the US in this game usually can't come close to what the US actually did. The only way I can see correcting this would be to either put in a number of "free" units (air, ground & naval) for the US that appear in increasing numbers from 1942 through 1944 or build in large automatic mpp increases for the US during that same time span. Maybe it could even be set to a toggle on/off as an option for those who prefer not to have the allies get such power.

Actually this discussion fits in with an earlier discussion about US MPP's. It seems quite difficult to refelect the historical air power situation in the game. It is hard for the US/UK to build bombers and/or fighters while at the same time keeping up with tech or getting any reasonable sized ground force together. This may mean more MPP growth or the need for additional "free" air units. I have found attempting "strategic bombing" with only two units difficult. One or two Axis fighter units in the west (especially if higher tech) can wreak havoc on the allied bombers and escourts. If the Allies try to keep the air units at strength (or create more units) they may find themselves with little left to take care of everything else.

Yes, if you're out of supply and in a Marsh it makes sense to stay there no matter how long it may take. Most games would always allow you at least one square/hex of movement. But marshes can be pretty, why try to leave just to eat.

So are you suggesting that the problem was rampant yeast infections in the French Army? </font>

So are you suggesting that the problem was rampant yeast infections in the French Army?

Well, it sounds like some feel the line should be stronger in the game, but others feel that the line was overrated and is displayed properly. Maybe if the Germans had known that they would have planned a different offemsive. Either way, I did enjoy the remarks and discussion. I wonder if some of the playtesters or Hubert could enlighten me as to if this was an intentional decision to have the line be portrayed as it is in the game, or if perhaps a future update will strengthen it?

In my last game against the AI Germany surtrendered, Italy and Spain were still fighting, and there sat Russia and US/UK eying each other in the middle of Germany. It may have been the Patton in me, but I tried to have the US/UK declare war on Russia. Just got the message that they were on my side. (We all know better now don't we) Anyway, I have no problem, except it would be a neat option to have for a little fun.

Has that worked for you TaoJah? I figured the Russian and/or Yugoslav partisans would move into the cities if left undefended. Then again, I haven't left them undefended to find out.

TaoJah, that has been the usual for me too, but it has hapened on the west end too. Of course the river may have an affect as well, but it seems the Maginot line should be stronger. It also seems unfortunate that it must be manned so heavily and the units reinforced each turn to keep it up to strength just to see it fall apart anyway in the end. As the need to defend Paris increases & reinforcements can't be spared, I have seen the line end up no different than any other square. In games I have played the AI usually starts attacking it head on from turn one. Then after they attack Benelux they start from the "side" as well. I know that we want to alter historic events, but this one may be a little bit beyond that toward unrealistic. Perhaps others have good arguments to defend why it is correct as is.

Entrenchment certainly might help. Other games may handle by just giving an automatic defensive value to the square or doubling, tripling etc of defensive value. Some games just leave them as not passable.

Lets see; You apologize to Taojah. Others ask why? Taojah accepts your apolgy. Some others do not and think you're wrong for issuing it. Is it time to apologize for giving an apology with a side note that the apology in no way was a reflection of negative feelings to any other forum members nor a retraction of your personal apology to Taojah? Am I following this at all? What were we talking about anyway?

In virtually all other games covering WWII France the Maginot line is virtually inpenitrable. In fact in many games it is not even attackable at all. In SC2 the Axis can be quite succesful in attacking the line and the AI does so regularly. I've been a bit surprised how weak the line is. My question is; Is this a "flaw" in the game and not realistic or is this the way it should be?

I got mine yesterday (5/4/06)

Hey, how about the classic "Guns of Naverone" (Sp?)

Near the end of an Axis win against the AI, I have maximum allowed Rockets (and all my air power) in France pounding the UK. This was possible of course after Russia surrendered, so all my mpp's could go to research and maximum unit production. The rockets are great & they along with my tech maxed air force have cleared the sounthern three tiles of UK. destroyed all their air power and land units with the exception of london itself. My max fleet of sub level 4 also took on the allied fleets with great success as well. So anyway, rockets are great, but it did take Axis success and about until 1946 before they had any effect. In a tough game for the axis, I think that putting the time and effort into the rocket program would be difficult. You could develope the power just in time to see Berlin fall.

The diagrams had me wondering until I noted the 1947 date. I certainly haven't come close so far to the US or UK being able to do anything like that much power by the historical time of invasions. So far, by 1947 the game has also already been won or lost by the Russians. If there is D-Day it is a side show to see if the U.S might possibly be able to take Paris before all of Germany is run over by the Russians.