Night

What kind of tasks can they preform? Will we be able to build defensive lines such as the atlantic wall or the gothic line?

Hmmm I wonder who wouldnt be?

The U.S. can't have it's full power in-game because then it would be to unbalanced. Although the real war was far from balanced, let's remember this is a game, and it's no fun if you KNOW that you are going to lose no matter what pretty much. I think they def. should get a smaller sized MPP boost. 180 is really really bad considering the cost of replacments when heavily engaged and the cost of bombers and ships. As for General Patton, I think he was a great general, and if someone had him killed or indirectly killed It's one of the greatest unjustices ever. We must also remember as it has been pointed out that the U.S. was fighting Japan also at the same time, and not only that but were pulling the vast majority of the load agaisnt Japan once they entered the war.

Edwin, I don't think anyone knows much about SC2 at all so it's really hard to answer... But if you want to simulate axis AI attackin nordic countries you can do what I do and declare war on them as the allies so that basicly they are taken over by the axis, and in place of plunder they get the military units home to that country

yea same here liam

Well that's good enough for me.

I see a handful of posts about how SC2 is ethier confirmed or in beta or something along those lines... yet no one explained how they know this? someone fill me in I missed something

Here's an idea I think is the best. The axis player can decide how much MPPs he/she wants to invest in sub operations. The allied player can do the same but with anti-sub operations, all carried out more in calculation then in actually moves on the board. Who ever invests more gets a better chance of "winning" turns in the battle of the atlantic, for example, early in the game, the Germans have more MPPs to play with then the allies, so they will usally be winning more of these turns, and the effect is the Allies lose MPPs, preferably more then one would invest in sub operations making it cost effective. If the Allies win the game of chance, Germany should lose a certain amount of MPPs they have invested in subs, thus they would have the option of investing more the bring themselves back up to level, or play at a reduced chance from there until they invest more. Obviously at any time, the axis can pull their subs from the atlantic just like they did in real life, and have to spend no MPPs and the game of chance will not be played, however of course the Allies will no longer be losing MPPs/Convoys. just like in real life It's ethier this or make the map much bigger :-p

Ok I don't know how else to explain that I don't care, so i'll take another step. CvM i'd like to apoligize to saying you stole the idea, looking back it was to strong a word, and it seems it is more a case of us both thinking the same thing, or nearly the same thing. Also, I have enjoyed all of the campaigns you have made that I have played and have no doubt I will like this one too.

The A.I in SC1 is fundementaly flawed, not at the fault of the designers because it was simply impossible to predict all the problems before the game was even in working order. I think the real problem with the A.I is that it is too narrow minded. It only really seems to care about capturing cities/resources and defending them. Any good SC player knows that it would be more important in most cases to destroy the enemies forces first and foremost. As an example, the A.I. will never set up the kind of large traps that we saw at Stalingrad and what the Germans tried at Kurst, insted they just go forward and backward toward cities with no real regard for units in the area, and only attacking them when they are in the way. Almost always in my game, I trap large groups of AI forces in Russia and elsewhere since they go blindly at a target city and leave themselves open for destruction, not only do they fail to properly protect themselves, but they never try to regain the advantage by destroying large numbers of my forces. The result is once you have delt the A.I player a severe blow, which is extremely easy, he can never really recover, and the game is just overly easy.

Like I said... I don't really care. I was just pointing out the fact.

I always play with it on... Why would you not? it's terribly unrealistic

LOL you stole that idea from me. If I had the time I would track down my thread where I talked about the one I made, but never put up for download. oh well whatever, I dont really care

WoW strange to see this after all this time ;0) Thanks JJ

Yes this I like, it reminds me PTO where events in Europe would increase or decrease the amount of forces and resources you got in certain months, but in that you had no real control of it and it was all historical. great idea.

Scenerios like this always seem fun, but turn out that Germany has an even stronger position then in RL and thus it is even easier for them.

I have to agree with Kuni also, It has become apparant to me that Battlefront doesn't care all that much about SC anymore. If it does, it has an odd way of showing it. Pretty much all other games I play have updated websites with news on devolpment, posts on the forum's by devolpers, etc. For a long time, SC has nothing. As a matter of fact, the last thing we did hear was that there will be no more patchs for SC. There was hope for a while that SC2 would come about, but why no offical announment or updates at the very least? Seems they might have scraped the project

I like this new system very much, simply because I don't think someone should be able to invest in a tech, and have it the next turn. While others, can take years. It needs to be in a more controled boundry.

I consider the AI in this game horrendous. It does not complete simple task's like Using HQ's when launching amphip. Invasions. 95% of the games I play as the Axis, the Allies will land in France on D-day, but not bring an HQ on the first turn, or even the second and third! and most of the time it is an HQ from 1 country, and not both the UK and US. This makes it so ridiculously easy to defeat the armies that have zero supply that they might as well have not landed. All it does is give my unit's Exp. It seems the AI is fixed on taking Brest on the first turn using Air/Navel/Landings to concentrate and capture the port. However, I am able to hold the city with ease and if I do, they don't bring over HQs within reasonable time. Anyone who know's anything about SC knows you basicly need HQs when attacking enemy terrority more then anything. Plain and Simple, no armies can make it without Supply, and HQ = Supply. The AI does not grasp this, and it ruins my games time and time again. Also, the AI focus' more on taking cities and objectives more then destroying field armies. For example, given the chance to surround over extended German units in Russia, the Allied AI never takes it. Meanwhile, any chance I get, I surround and destroy whole massive groups of enemies, making victory impossible.

I like this Idea a lot, however there have to be some changes. Currently, during the height of fighting, Who can afford to both spend 250 on the research point, THEN tons upon tons of MPPs to upgrade units? No one. Esp. not Russia and Germany, who spend almost everything replacing losses to unit's in the feild and/or creating new unit's to defend positions. No economies currently will have enough MPPs to upgrade enough unit's to be effective. You have to ethier change the amount of money that a research point costs down to 150 prehaps, or reduce the cost of the upgrade. Anyone who has played a hard fought game know's that it is such an extreme strain just to replace losses to strength on unit's in the field, that few new unit's can be created during major fighting, esp. in Russia, Early France, Late France, and Italy. I think this system would give a serious unbalanced advantage to the Western Allies, since England and the U.S. don't participate in as much major fighting as Russia Germany and Italy, They can sit and upgrade as many unit's as they want given enough time, and become invincable to out-dated Axis forces. I very much like this idea, but it needs to be scaled down a bit. Even though it wouldn't be very expensive to upgrade units, it would still become very hard for a struggling Germany toward the end of the war, like in real-life, where they HAD the technology, just not the means to build enough of them. Specificly Jet fighters, which would play over to the game well since Fighters have a large base cost to begin with, so Germany will have a tough time affording the new jets if they receive the tech in-game.

Another great idea, there have been many of them of course. However I would still have to see confirmation from HC that SC2 if a def. and if at all possible, some clue as to what we will be looking at. It has been numerous months now, don't you think we deserve atleast SOMETHING?

The AI def. needs major improvments. When attacking on a D-day for example, it never brings it's HQs over in the first turn, or even two turns! this leaves it's armies easy to destroy and often cost's the game for the A.I. Also, it doesn't do enough to launch planed attack's to destroy large number of forces, and concentrates solely on taking/defending cities, no matter what the cost it seems.

blah a year is a really long time esp. since it has already been so long

How about the rest of North Africa and the U.S./Atlantic? That would be a real "expansion" Not to mention anything else you want to add in terms of units, techs, etc. Possibly some kind of Naval HQ? Could be purchased and attached to any naval unit (except a transport) and acts the same as a land HQ. Also, HQs spec. for Air units wouldn't be a bad idea.

I have to agree with rambo, I think he was only toying with the idea to keep people around the forums and game hoping to boost sales and possibly make an SC2. I don't think they could have sold that many games, but more then 500 I think.