Night

Downloading now, looks great. I always seem to have a problem gettin mods to work, nethier the Honcho mod or the expanded europe mod! I have version 1.5 but the honcho mod says it should work with it, no clue whats going on.

I personally think this map is how SC2 should have been stock. It is one of the main reasons I really don't play it anymore, it can get redundant in Russia and North Africa and more of a chore then a game. This mod sounds like it adds a lot of dynamic to the maneuver aspect of the conflict. The designers of SC seemed to miss the boat on that both times sadly. If you look at Sc2 you will see more of a WWI style fight then WWII. You form long fronts and for the most part straight land breakthroughs are hard to come by, while historically all the major armies attempted to slip through un or underdefended regions and manuever behind the enemy, on a strategic level. In SC2 a Stalingrad type battle is gamey and doesn't have the feel that if you get out maneuvered you loose the battle, and more of a if you have less technology and strength, you loose. The best example I can give is France - 1940. The French Historically lost because they failed to counter the German manuever through the forest and lost. In SC2 France dies because the German troops are better and have more "HQs." With a larger map it will become a question of where is the best spot to deploy men, not let's build enough units to fill a line coast-to-coast.

I have version 1.05... im not trying to downgrade to play the mod although i am very interested

The CGN file is on the list with the rest.

I downloaded and put it in my campaign file, but it doesn't show up on my list.

All of a sudden the site is down and no mention of it on battlefront? Some kind of scam you guy's are running?

Why not add some German volunteer SS troops into the scripting after countries falls. Historicly many occupied nations had men who volunteered to join the SS and enough to form a few divisons. The main idea being to help keep balance while increasing the Allies historic advantage in production to its rightful place.

I read this entire forum and no one seems to have actually posted a finished mod! In addition, the link to CMMOD on the sticky thread brings you to a pw protected site and no one posted any PW! WHAT IS THE DEAL!

Supported 100%

I have to admit that I haven't even opened SC2 in about a month. Totally bored me out of my mind with its tedious problems and unrealistic representation of WWII. Where are these mods you speak of? I have seen a few but nothing really great. I really only even come back to this forum because I like the people and convos.

LOL. typical

thats what I thought, but with this game anything is possible.

Cary i'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here, you just come out randomly with snap-shots at America and praise for the soviets. This topic was about force numbers, not whos cock is bigger.

I played 1848, it is a good game definatly but confuzing with all the differnt sides or whatever. For Liberty looks good though.

Why don't we allow subs to be built at half strength for half the cost, thus doubling the number of actual units you can deploy? Prehaps Germany could also just be given more Subs already in production at the start of the game.

Repost from other thread but I think we need to start fresh here and really work on the problem. here is my idea: I think we need to come up with something to both better represent the U.S. historicly, and not unbalance the game. I think we are all overlooking something, just because we add to one side, doesnt mean it has to unbalance the game! why? WE CAN ADD TO THE OTHER SIDE TOO! Here is what I propose, allow each axis minor to build an extra corps then currently avalable, allow Germany to build an additional army. slightly lower the cost of subs AND give the Germans better startin sub tech. why you ask? simple, the U.S. still has to transport its troops, no matter how many, across the atlantic. Let us encourage the use of subs to slow/reduce the amount of troops getting across, as is historical. Right now you barley even think about it as a threat, in real life many people were scared out of their minds that the ship would be sunk by U-boats! I believe slightly increasing what the axis can build will allow you to increase the U.S. forces per historical, while taking the edge off of unbalancing issues. How is that for a comprimise

Listen, I think we need to come up with something to both better represent the U.S. historicly, and not unbalance the game. I think we are all overlooking something, just because we add to one side, doesnt mean it has to unbalance the game! why? WE CAN ADD TO THE OTHER SIDE TOO! Here is what I propose, allow each axis minor to build an extra corps then currently avalable, allow Germany to build an additional army. slightly lower the cost of subs AND give the Germans better startin sub tech. why you ask? simple, the U.S. still has to transport its troops, no matter how many, across the atlantic. Let us encourage the use of subs to slow/reduce the amount of troops getting across, as is historical. Right now you barley even think about it as a threat, in real life many people were scared out of their minds that the ship would be sunk by U-boats! I believe slightly increasing what the axis can build will allow you to increase the U.S. forces per historical, while taking the edge off of unbalancing issues. How is that for a comprimise

I NEVER understood why the AI was such a secondary issue to Hubert and a lot of you guy's. A lot of time I just want to sit down and play a game quickly, and I don't really want to go find a human person every single time. But in reality SC2 (and 1) are useless to play single player, you can have some fun if you use your imagination and actually go easy on the computer to extend the FN war, but other then that it is a turkey-shoot. The AI does such AMAZINGLY stupid thing's it is like it was programmed by someone who didn't even know what WWII was! TIME and TIME again we asked for this and that to be fixed on the AI, and TIME and TIME again nothing got done, the AI in SC2 is just as bad as SC1 but twice as disapointing. I don't even want to get into it since it is useless and i'm typing to the wall, but the computers complete lack of battlfield awareness and total focus on capturing/defending cities is sad and pisspoor, lazy programming. I paid my good money and I'll point out all the stupid things you have done with this game. Thanks for wasting hours of my time reading and writing feedback, $50 of my HARDEARNED money, and my aggravation. In short, thanks for nothing.

Why don't we allow the U.S. to have overstrength units eariler and cheaper? Maybe if you made each army say 12-13 Str it would more accuratley simulate what dicedtomato is talking about? One thing is for certain, the U.S. had a lot more men the SC2 represents. I even think the bombers are under represented since it is such a task to get just 2 bomber fleets with 1 nation, and without atleast 2 you really can't do much damage to anything. In reality we had so many damn planes germany was bombed day and night in coordination with the British. I simply believe a lot of people in Europe are so ignorant that they would rather the U.S. didn't build an army at all as long as it meant America wouldn't have so much pride in itself. 1 word, eurotrash.

The U.S. has to be unrepresented or else the game would be far to in the allies favor. Germany was COMPLETELY trounced in WWII. They really did not even come close to winning. Yes, they nearly captured Moscow and possibly could have saved the 6th Army in Stalingrad, but even that did not mean the SU would have been defeated, and more over even if the SU would have been defeated it still would have taken too long with the western allies breathing down Germany's neck. If we really see the kind of numbers that the U.S. and western allies tossed at the Germans in SC2 it would be game set and match every single time. Germany is a relativly small country compared to Russia and America. add England, Canada, etc. and you can plainly see the German's were outnumbered like 10 to 1. Try putting 10 armies for every one of your German ones in the editor and see how long you last. On top of that, I honestly do believe a lot of people in europe and canada let their dislike of the U.S. transfer into these things. A solid number of people in europe have to much pride to admit how much America really helped out. Moreover many simply say the U.S. was ultimatly useless since Russia would have won anyway. These kind of ideals and anti-american sentiment are felt even on this board. People will be a lot quicker to point out Kasserin Pass then to mention any other successful operation. Just like in the reverse everyone talks about Stalingrad and the glorious Russians, but never mentions early Kiev where 3/4 of a million russians were ethier killed or captured, or the entire first year of the war were Soveit forces were beaten so badly that even Stalin was not so sure thing's would turn out ok. As for the U.S. naval comment. I believe without destroyers in the game the U.S. can be nothing but under-represented. Most of the large capital ships, esp. carriers and battleships, were in the Pacific. Converse of popular belief that the U.S. navy was "destroyed" at Pearl harbor, in reality we really didn't lose an enourmous amount of combat strength. Yes we had very few battleships left immediatly following the attack, but we had all our carriers, cruiser, destroyers, and subs. Battleships ironicly were rendered obsolete WITH the attack on Pearl, so even if we had lost every single one in the entire fleet, it wouldn't have mattered.If the U.S. navy had really been crippled as is the popular belief, we would not have been able to do so well at Coral sea, Guadalcanal, or Midway. Not to mention fend off the U-Boats. So don't kid yourself, pearl harbor really did not mean a whole lot in terms of the military capability of the U.S. navy. [ June 07, 2006, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Night ]

I thought originally that 6 players was how SC2 was going to be. You could just set it as player 1 controling all allies and player 2 controling all axis if you just wanted a classic style 1v1 game. I was sad to see that it was not so

Originally I thought SC2 was going to have all 5 player slot's like in Axis and Allies, where England, U.S., S.U., Germany, and Italy would all be individual players. I was disapointed when I found that it was not so. I for one was really looking forward to some teamwork in PBEM and TCP games.

The bombers that bombed Romania did NOT fly from England, they took off from Lybia in North Africa. Anti Aircraft tech should apply to ALL resources and units, german flakpanzers were effective close support against dive-bombers and such, and this should be represented in-game. Also, the Germans very pretty dam good at shooting down allied bombers, both with fighters and flak/AA. It is slightly unrealistic the way the allies can start a huge and effective bombing campaign so early just doesn't make sense. For much of the early years, the bombers cost the allies more resources then they damaged, they really kept flying to keep as much pressure off Russia as possible. It was not really until 43' that the Luftwaffe began to really give ground... or air I guess... to the western allies, and it wasn't until 44' that the allies had a dominant control of the sky. This should be reflected in SC2 by giving more german resources anti-air tech off the bat and having interceptors do more damage to bombers, even when escorted. Higher bomber techs should provide the bombers with better capability to deal with interceptors. This would make it more of a challenge for the allies to shut down supply in France or anywhere for that matter. After all it is slightly gamey for anyone to be able to shut down an entire country like France so that no supplies or commerce can move. If we had railroad tiles or roads that could be bombed it would be more realistic, it would provide the allies with softer targets, however it would not allow them to shut down everything so fast.

Im pretty disapointed in this so far... I mean how could this not have been fixed before release? I know everyone, including myself, was putting pressure for the game release but this is such a simple and fundamental part of any WWII game that it being mishandled so badly is very disheartening.

Engineers do take a long time to build, but we dont want the situation where every tile you attack is fortified, and it will happen if it is overly easy to build. Field fortifications would be nice, they could be less effective but faster to build. I think hellraiser has it right, think about the historical Italian campaign, it did not take the Germans that long to build the multiple lines of defence in front of Rome and in Northern Italy, in SC2 after the Allies invade Sicily you would never have 1 fortification in place, let alone a system of them, before the allies get into central Italy. Very Ahistorical.