xwormwood

Capitals could get a more generous value for unit placements. On the other hand, can anybody imagine a situation where the Germans would have been able to produce a new tank unit in 1945 Berlin, surrounded by the russians, and bombed into rubble from the Allied bombers? :confused:

Hi armadillo230. Welcome to the forum! The new features are right now only in AoC / AoD, but not in the standard GC / GC Gold.

They tried to burn the paddy fields.

Funny, i would consider factory cities more complex.

It would be a good thing if players could only place a limited amount of new units into cut off regions. The unrealistic part comes if you are able to place a dozen of units into a surrounded area. Allow the player to place one or two units next ot each city, but not units all around a once empty city. From my point of view it would be best if you could only place minor units (minor as in: the weaker units of your country) into a pocket. Even better would be if you would have to purchase the placing location too. Pay less if you will place your unit into a connected industrial area. Pay a little more if you want to place it into a remote but still connected area. Pay even more if you want to place it near a frontline. Pay much more if you want to be able to place it anywhere in your realm, pocket or not.

As long as the game engine needs to use these scripted events (and i hope that SC3 comes with more and enhanced ways to manage events) it might be a good idea to use pop ups to inform players every now and then about scrpts. Invest into a neutral, and the more the neutral is leaning toward your side, the higher is the chance to learns something from or about the neutral. Scripts ahead and in front of you, nearby enemy units, enemy diplomatic actions toward this neutral etc. Mexico might have warned the Axis side about Allied pressure on them to join the Allies. It might be nice to give players a refund (at least a partial refund) of their active diplomacy chits once a script decides to move a neutral into an enemy alliance. Even better would be if players wouldn't get scripted countries, but a price drop for diplomacy chits, or higher sucess chances for their chits. Germany wouldn't need to much diplomatic actions to force Austria into the Reich, while the USA would only have to cough to bring in Mexico, etc. etc. Away with the scripts, bring in enhanced ways to think, to play, to run the game (i'm talking about SC3, of course).

AoC / AoD are perfectly legid expansions. There are new units. Even the press awards both expansions good grades. To label AoC / AoD as "fraud "is simple and plain ridiculous. Everybody has the right to criticize, of course. I myself offered often criticism here. But when one start to spread lies like "fraud", than he has left criticism, and entered malicious mud-slinging. If the forum moderators need a reason to close this thread or to ban this user, i'm more than willing to take the blame for it. Do it, i'm all in favor. When i think back at the wild days, i'm pretty sure that Kuni and JJR were banned for less. At the very least they were always funny and trying to make the game better.

Well, the money drainage would hurt, of course. But in the end you can't use what you don't have. Not even for money. But if you would go this way, than Malta should only fall AFTER you spent all the required money, there is no invasion credit bank. And there should be a chance that the UK player get the option to counter this event.

Maybe the game designers could suggest several campaigns, and players could pre order them. Once a certain number of pre-orders got in, the designer could start his work and charge the pre-order crowd. Pre-orders should offer a benefit. Either a better price, or a beta-test invitation, or some other goodies. More or less a little brother of Kickstarter.

Tank techs wouldn't be such an issue if tank tech advances would affect only hard attack values, not soft attack values. If a German level 0 tank would be nearly as effective against infantry as a german level 3 tank, than it would be less interessting to upgrade each tank as soon as possible. And if there would be 10 tank upgrade instead of 3, or maybe even 15 possible levels, where only every 3rd or fourth would bring any real combat advance, than it would become less and less important to research permanently tank advances. Image a world, where the player who wants to take the lead in the tech race would have to research 3 blank levels, while the quick follower would have only to research 1 or 2 levels instead (as he can learn from captured tanks). The blanks between each real advance could melt away every x turns where both side play on the same tech level. I think that it is not so realistic that a nation which is leading in the tech races invest too much money into better weapons. But if it does, it has to pay more to develop the basics. I agree. Winter effect is the result of the german plan to blitz through Russia. It is not that Germany didn't had any winter clothing etc. They decided to leave these supplies in the back, gambling that they would have finished Russia first and could bring them in later. No Blitzkrieg gamble = no Russian winter effect. And that is true for this game as well. Bring in a HQ and enough fighter, a paratrooper or an amphib unit, and you can get it too, if you really want to. When Germany started Barbarossa, they withdrew most of their planes from Italy to Russia. They could have taken Malta instead, but than Barbarossa would have to be postponed, or the Germans would have faced much more resistance, as the USSR would have ruled the skies. A decision event would allow you both, a luxury the Axis didn't had. That is probably just bad luck. And maybe your opponent countered your diplomatic actions with his own chits. Who knows. I had games where i got a lucky diplo hits early on.

Ludi, i agree that fast passengers ships were considered safe from sub attacks (even though this might have changed if the war would have taken one or two years longer). My point is that i consider these naval jumps unfair. They cost nothing and they are single sided. Even worse, they rob me of my surprise engagements. Operational movement costs at least mpps. That would have been something i would have felt much better about, if naval troop movements would have been able via naval operational movement (from port ot port). Or warship operational movement, from naval tile to naval tile. One could surely think of some additional operational movement limititations, some kind of basic rules under which circumstances the OP move is allowed, or how far it might take. The good thing is that OP movement cost MONEY. So if you want to move fast and far, you have to pay for it. For the excessive use of fuel and engines, for the preparations to provide it and to keep the move as secret as possible. The next good thing would be that players would suddenly start to invest into the more or less dead tech of infrastructure, as this tech lowers the OP movement costs. I know that it is much easier to simply place the arrows on the map. But this doesn't mean that it is a solution which offers the better realism (sic) or play fun.

Loops and realism will never fit together. The new loops of AoD have killed my interest to play this expansion. Sad but true. I agree that there is a need for fast naval movement. But i disagree that the loops are the right way to achieve this goal. If we want to play on a large map, we need a solid solution to play on the map. Are there any loops for the warfare on land? No! There we use OP movement. Wouldn't it have been much better to use OP movement for naval movement as well? Yes, of course, you're right, OP movement is unrealistic too. But at least you have to pay for it. And you can't OP through enemy held tiles or nations. I'm pretty sure that a little bit more brainpower into this direction might have ended in a WAY BETTER solution than loops, where a unit jumps into the earth orbit, only to be placed back on mother earth some turns later. In the meantime the unit is gone, safe for enemy attacks, no matter if one alliance rules the oceans or not.

Wouldn't work for me, i would always doubt my eyesight. But i agree nevertheless, it would be very nice if the appearance could be a unique one. I suggested something like this during the beta phase as well. But there was, is and will be always so much to do, so little time, and the next project just around the corner. If i could, i would offer for all unit types unique pictures. Even if i would have to use SC2, SC Pacific and / or SC WW1 bitmaps. And i wouldn't stop there, i would try to give each unit a new picture for every purchased tech upgrade. Granted, that would take much time, but it would be a nice farewell present for the SC 2 game engine. I even started to doodle some bitmaps on my own. They didn't looked as good as the standard bitmaps, but a) it was fun to do it and i can live with a lesser perfect alternative picture roster, if it would be a complete one (pictures for every new upgrade for every major country). Maybe we (the users) should create a new thread, asking the other players which unit they would like to see improved, which tech advance they want to see with a different picture effect etc. Once the list is complete, we could start a second thread asking for new pictures. Those players who like to get creative could upload there pictures. And after a couple of pictures have been uploaded, we could ask or look for an enthusiast, wo is a) able to put the new units into the unit bitmap roster and to adapt them so long until they look like they have to (correcting shadows and all other probably nescessary adjustment). Ah, i have to stop dreaming. Unless, of course, i'm not the only silly guy around.

The problem is the scripted effect. SC has better solutions to offer. A convoy line from Italy to North Africa. This convoy line would have to move next to Malta. If the Allied players places a naval unit with "raid" enabled (or a sub) the convoy would take losses. If the convoy takes losses, the Axis supply in North Africa should suffer. If the Allied player places a air unit on malta (with "raid" enabled) the convoys should lose as well, with the same effect. Axis counter actions should be to fight of the naval raider or to destroy the air unit. If both Air AND Naval unit are active, there should be grave consequences for the Axis supply in North africa. Once Egyp has fallen to the Axis, the Axis players should get an event to build a second or third convoy line (not for free, of course). These new convoy lines should lower the effect of the Malta raiders, but offer a new raid chance for the Allied player as well.

Hi sanderz. Artillery - not sure if they are too strong. Like you said: there are not so many on the map. And they should offer something in return, else it would make no sense to use them at all. I can imagine a scenario where a nation builds artillery strongpoint for major offensives. And when several hundred or thousand artillery units fire on a single tile, that has to have some effect. Units from event: Agreed, a special section in the production menu would be nice. Maybe something for SC3. Operational Movement: Bill already said all there is to say about this topic. Submarines: Well, they were pretty usefull in GC / GC GOld. But with the newly introduced jump arrows i tend to agree. Only that i would enlarge this point to all naval combat units. I do understand why the red arrows were installed, but for my taste they kill the naval warfare. Garrison units: Wouldn't agree here, but in such kind of questions everyone has probably a different taste. Reinforcements: same as Garrisons Experience loss on reinforcing: same as Garrisons Diplomacy: once you start to optimize your gameplay you will find enough money to spend. Or once you have tried several different approaches to win the game you will find a way to use diplomacy for your favor. But i would agree that it would be a nice addition to the gameplay if every diplo chit could trigger decision events with these countries, or if minor advance would create single income events or trade line or convoy route or if you could deliver weapons to strengthen a minor country etc. SC3, hopefully. ZOC See Strategiclayabouts answer Besieging enemy cities Hmhm. Well. War is hell. Vichy Event Agreed. It would be nice if the player could decide once the "do you want to create Vichy" event pops up where to place his german or italian units placed (setting a flagg to France, Italy or Germany).

I can comfirm this error, as I got the same mistake, even though i had to scoll some time before it happened, it didn't popped up instantly (Win7 64bit).

Happened too all of us more than once.

Huhr, you did read that Moon offered a coupon? With this offer i see no reason for hurt feelings. Look at the bright side here: you got AoC before those who waited for AoD AND you get the price reduction. Sounds reasonable and fair enough to me.

Hi sanderz. Sorry for asking, but did you declare war against Norway? Not declaring war could be one reason why you can't unload. Another one could be bad weather. How is the weather in Norway?

Dear readers, please excuse my crappy english. I should have done (at the very least) a thorough check to remove mistakes like "no/now" or accidently mistakes like doubled words ("to to" ) etc. Sorry for that. Hubert, please feel free to remove the most blatant spelling mistakes, it hurts so much to read them. :eek: PS: it wasn't my intention to write an "official" translation, but i had no problems at all to say yes when Hubert asked me if he could use it for the forum.

I completly agree with your point that the game is about to change history, not to replay it 1:1. But on the other hand we can't ignore historical facts. Even IF i would had become the ultimate power to command all Allied Forces in 1939, i would have to face the public opinion of the press, the parliaments, the generall staff, the soldiers, the citizens. I would still have to change all military and political doctrines, i still would have to replace ignorant leaders (both civilian and military). This all takes time. The game starts with the outbreak of the war. There is no way to change everything within a few month, you would have to make everywhere compromises, you would have to wait for reforms, rebuilds, retraining programms. What you suggest is a complete brain wash of all the people and soldiers of your alliance once you have become ultimate ruler. That is a scenario which is no fun at all to play. That is what i ment to let the game start a decade sooner. Look at Nazi Germany. It took the Germans from 1933 - 1939 to build up the Wehrmacht, and even after the Fall of Poland Germany wouldn't have survived an Allied attack in the West, with all the German ammo used up in Poland. That is why i suggested to introduce decision events, offering the player to start a complete change. For a prize. This would have been a very dangerous thing to do in 1939 (at least for the Allies). The Germans could have hit them sitting duck during the process.

Do you have the latest patch (Breakthrough) installed?

From my point of view the game would have to start in 1919 if it should follow your thought. With decision to build the Maginot Line or not, to occupy German Rhineland or not, to build and train better armed forces, to develop a fighting morale (instead of appeasment) etc. In game which starts with the German attack on Poland there are many thing already set in motion. And than the problem with the "Operation Sichelschnitt", Mannsteins plan to attack through the Ardennes, to cut of the allied forces in Belgium. This was a decisive manoveur. Without it, the war might have taken longer. But now where we all know about the Manstein Plan, how can this be brought into a game? The designer has to think of ways to allow the game to take its historical course, more or less. You can stop the germans in France, or at least stall them, if you want to. But it comes with a high price. I agree that it feels unfair to suffer for mistake you never did (if you play the Allies). That is why I would let the game start a bit sooner, and why I would fire a dozen of decision events in the months before the outbreak of the european war. Through the decision events i would let the player chose to make the mistakes the Allies once did. Offering only decision between the plague or cholera. In SC Global Conflict there are these kind of decisions: the allied player gets to decide if he sends Anzac reinforcements to Egypt (where he really needs them) or the Pacific Theater of operations (where they would be very helpful to prepare the upcoming Japanese attacks. Or the Allied player can reinforce (and activate) Singapoore, or spend the money to defend the British Isles (where the danger is iminent). Both decisions are more or less no brainers. You need the Anzacs in Egypt, and you need cash to survive or prevent an Operation Sealion (german invasion of the UK). The beauty is this: when Japan attacks in the Pacific and the Allies get hammered, the player can accept this, because it was HIS VERY OWN DECISION which took the money and units elsewhere. He don't feel handled unfair, after all he had a chance to decide different. That is something i would do (if i could design campaigns, and if i had the time and peace to learn the editor) with France as well. I would make the player responsible for the lower unit morale of the French, for the Maginot line, for the tank forces etc. And when the germans would attack, and conduct a successful Operation Sichelschnitt, than my Allied player would know exactly why this did happen. Because of his decision, where the choice was either the plague (historical set up), or cholera (a not historical set up, but with grave consequences to pay for it).

Both attacks would probably had caused an outcry from the USA. My suggestion would be to penalize these attacks with a lowered US war readiness. And while the USA is already at war, neutral countries should shift away from the Allies (Ireland: Sweden / Switzerland / Vichy, French Indo-China: Tibet, Mongolia).

Hi MTTODD37. The answer can be found in the well written special thread "Information for new players":