xwormwood

Always a good side to read

Agreed 100% Maybe buildingtime and price should rise according to the distance between the desired dockyard and your home dockyard.

Amen, Brother. Maybe our good Hubert could contact Ted Raicer so they could together create a computer-version of "The Great War in Europe" (with included expansion "The Great War in the Near East" ). A crusade game would be fun as well. Something simple like "Crusader Rex" would be wonderful. [ February 27, 2007, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

This is so funny, Sir Jersey, thank you so much!

Thanks, but uhm, unfortunatly i still don't get it

Uhm, which hexes needed to be occupied in Greece? Athens alone is not enough. :confused:

Clash of Steel allowed this as well (and before 3rd Reich) Dear Mr. Carter, this is feature i missed already in SC 1, please, have a heart for us AI-players, do enable the option to change sides in a game against the ai. Just like in Star Wars, let us be Darth Vader fighting for the good side, repaying all the evil we did for the Nazi-Germany, let us be the new hope for the allied side (and vice versa).

-withdrawal (one tile after, as combat result) -landing into enemy occupied tiles ("the german human wall prevented our operation overlord, sorry, Monty, that was bad luck, eh?"), for which we would need the ability of automatic withdrawal as seen befor in Clash of Steel / SSI

Well, i don't know. In SC / SC2 you are fighting sub-fleets. This just seems not right. Subs were more like a cancer of the seas, and the only cure should be to improve asw-tech, install airzone and send in more escorts to keep this plague away. This situation and the overall approach toward subwar was done better in both Clash and Storm. In SC / SC2 you suddenly stumble onto THE one sub-counter, and when this is gone, subs are gone. THE subfleet is nothing but a crutch in game mechanics, because (as i wrote above) there was never ONE subfleet. If at all subs formed a fleet (wolfpack or whatever) at the high seas, but never on the way towards the target or back to harbor. As long as the naval system is not spltted down towards a Panzer General-like level (more or less single ships or counters which representing a much smaler amount of ships) it is just not the best solution to recreate WW2-subwar. Another two things: with all these fleet units i do miss the ability to do some special ambushes with them, just like something à la Pearl Harbor, Tarent, Operation Menace, Skapa Flow etc. AND i don't understand why there are plenty of damages for seaships through bad weather (i still think these damages are somewhat questionable when they hit submarines) but none through seamines. The coastlines and harbor entrances where infested with mines, and hundreds of ships sunk or get badly damaged through them. Mines should cover at least fortified coastlines, so that an Atlantikwall would be a worthy building to create. I do admit that neither Clash or storm had seamines as well, but compared to SC2 they are dinosaurs, 10 or 20 years older.

Have you ever played Storm or Clash? I think it is important to know both games and their approach to a naval system. Even though both had their own problems, i think they had both the better solution.

I think "real" fleets shouldn't trigger anything. Amphibious transports i could understand, but fleets in international waters? If you stop them in front of a harbor entrance, well, allright, trigger go. But anything else: ir really don't think so.

I think the whole subwar system needs a different approach. Example; There has never been something like a sub-taskforce to fight fleets. Wolfpacks formed because of radio informations about convoys, and they never ever formed in harbors, they never ever traveld together to a specifiv coordinate. Subfleets leaving any harbor together are absurd. Knowing this, lets move on to the convoys. Which convoys? would be the right question if you are playing the 1939 campaign, because they weren't formed on september 1st 1939 or formed effectily anytime near this date. Where is the happy hunting time for the subs? Until a real convoy system has been researched, there should be plenty of single ships floating on the high seas, being easy prey for any sub or warfleet (which did have an impact on convoys, but unfortunalty not in SC2 1.05a). And while we are talking about convoys: where are the malta & med convoys? Those convoys were crucial for the UK north-african campaigns. Still no sight of them in SC2 anymore. I strongly recommand to take a look into the classical wargame "storm accross europe" (SSI). The whole naval actions was handled there abstract, but in my opinion more realistic. Don't understand me wrong: as much fun it is to move your fleets around (yes, i do like indeed the morbid way you can roam through the oceans with your way to strong axis fleets), so wrong is this micromanaging in a game of the scale à la SC2. A last word about fleets: italian (when neutral) fleets shouldn't be allowed to divide the eastern from the western med sea (build a fleet tower above tobruk), forcing the english fleet to use the long way aroung africa ot to wait until italy enters the war and being able to fight a way through. Any differents thoughts or comments? Lets hear them. [ February 17, 2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

But what make you think that p.e. christians don't use their own brains? As far as i know they do believe the brain was made by a creator how gave it his creature just for one reason: to use it There is no rule such as "don't think, just obey" but p.e. 1 Thessalonians 5, 21: "Test everything. Hold on to the good"

Reading this in a forum about a WW2-game is kind of funny. Reaaally funny. There was a austrian born man with a funny moustache who did exactly what you are recommending your readers. Again. Most intersting to read here, where we playing a timeline which saw Hitler, Stalin & Mao alive...

Since when can a gay partnership give a government, a nation or the tax-payer the same bonus like a partnership between a woman & a man (yes, kids, the next generations tax-payers, police-officers, nurses, etc.)? And if the one partnerships is so important for a gaovernment, why shouldn't the government protect this partnership more than a partnership where the chance for this little precious gift of nature is not to be expected? Because they are the same? Are they the same? And if not, why do we need to treat them both the same? Don't tell me the gay community is not trying to impose their views. They do. They try. I have no problem with that. But i have a problem with the denial.

Sorry, but gay people try to impose their view of the world as well, and of course they are lobbying for laws, too. They have their own "religion", and i would be happy if they would keep it in their houses and clubs as well. After all, i don't see any differences. Sorry.

Maybe the USA would have had a different approach to Japan if the UK would have conquered neutrals in 1939 / 1940? Wouldn't this have been a reason to settle down with japans demands for a better place at the sun? Germany without minors & the UK with conquered neutrals would have been a balanced fight, probably some kind of a stalemate. If so, maybe there would have been some kind of arrangement between the USA & Japan (take minors, guard communist russia, fight Mao, help Kiang-Tshaishingfangwellisaiditeventhoughiforgothiscompletenameohthesedifficultchinesenames?

Roosevelt won his reelection in 1940 with the promise to keep the USA out of the war. wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Deleno_Roosevelt" target="_blank">Third term, 1941-1945 In his campaign against Republican Wendell Willkie, Roosevelt stressed both his proven leadership experience and his intention to do everything possible to keep the United States out of war. </a> In my opinion the USA should really going this "out ot the war" path if the allied player starts to many conflicts on his own while the axis isn't doing too much on the war path (= very few declarations of war).

Yes, very nice idea!

my dear wormwood, ... :cool:

We are Pilgrims in a strange land, we are so far from our homeland with each passing day it seems so clear this world will never want us here , we're not welcome in this world of wrong, we are Foreigners who don't belong Chorus: We are Strangers, we are Aliens, We are not of this world We are envoys who must tarry with this message we must carry, there's so much to do before we leave with so many more who may believe Our mission here can never fail & the gates of Hell will not prevail (CHROUS x2) Jesus told us men would hate us, but we must Be of good cheer, He has overcome this world of darkness, soon we will depart from here (CHROUS x2 lyrics: Not of this world, Petra, 1983

I would like to hear some thoughts about what would be needed (in game terms) to push the USA into neutrality. I think there are some loose ends regarding the US war readiness. Shouldn't there be some kind of "never cross this line until you really want to play your allied game without the USA"? Whenever the USA changed sympathy toward the axis side (after several allied declarations of war against neutrals while the axis keeps quite "peaceful"), shouldn't be this something like an EARTHQUAKE in game terms? Actual this afflects the time the WHEN the USA starts lend-lease towards the UK, but i think because of the strong US isolationism tendency it is not enough. I think a reaction like "this settles it, play your colonial war without us!" should be following very soon after the sympathiy for the allied cause has vanished. Any ideas, arguments, thoughts?

I am still hopeful that at some point in the future this will cease to be true... utopia may still yet come to pass </font>

Panzer General / Peoples General from SSI invented these medal-improvements. Every now and than a unit got a medal which could bring some benefits, just depending from the unit type. This way there could be a very few specialist units, which would lose the ability when they get destroyed. Could be the bonus once you get three or four stars experience. Would be nice to see something like this in the next SC or update / scenario-disk

Even the old SC-Ancestor Clash of Steel (SSI) had a nice replay-function. AND I LOVED IT! Next missing part of SC what Clash of Steel already had is the ability to switch the playing side if you go against the AI. Both very cool features which i am missing so much. Sob, sob.