xwormwood

if I may add some suggestions for 1.04 as well: diplomatic effects: whenever a minor country leans toward one side with more than 50% it should generate their favorite coalition a little amount of income (trade, tributes etc.). This cashflow could be shown on the diplomatic status window. This would inspire players to use diplomatic chits even on not so worthy allies, just to collect their support / tribute. Opportunity to change the sides in games against the AI This would so very much enhance the games against the AI. If you think you game is won, well, just change the sides and see if you are able to turn the tide. This would add really some motivation to single player games. I wouldn't write this if i havent't already experienced this wonderful feature in clash of steel (SSI) a decade ago. Edwin P. Great idea! I would really appreciate this feature as well (russia human, aestern allies AI)

Sounds like an explanation, but is it really one? We are talking about firing across the ocean, not a river. Probably without any clear sight for the attacker. Real harbors aren't THAT big like they are displayed in the game map. In SC Armies are much more effective in sinking anchored ships than a massive carrier strike (Pearl Harbor!). The minute army shells are falling into a harbor basin all fleets starts to leave this harbor as soon as possible. No chance to do this when the sky is filled with several dozen planes, subs within or navy task forces in front of the harbor. Think about it. Maybe harbors should point into a specific direction (a land connection or bridge painted on the game map) from which they could only (and exclusive) be used as harbors or being attacked? Sorry about Riga (i stand corrected). But this sea and lake zone of control still doesn't work properly. If i can't control the square on the other lakeside than it shouldn't change sides if i reach the opposing side. But if it does change sides, than there shouldn't appear partisans because they formed under my damned zone of control, if i may say so. Back to Riga: there should be some kind of national forces. If Ireland, Portugal and Denmark are graced with some troops, the baltic states should get some as well.

Yes, and thank you, Retributar. Hopefully there will be a real good explanation or a change through patch 1.04

You can attack the harbor: but you can't use it as harbor Aye or nay, but please: not both! And this harbor you can attack as well with land troops: Simply absurd! There are many other more (Gibraltar etc.) Next thing: if this little country (or better: these little countries) get attacked by the allies, no national army appears (but we see a danish 3-strenght corps) . If the same country was consumed by the USSR, partisan units appear within the city or the forrest en masse in a russian-german conflict (if behind the german frontline & not secured by axis guards). This simply doesn't fit. At least a 1-strength corps should appear. After all the germans got lots of volunteers from these countries, even without an official war declaration from the allies in 1939. Another sea/lake-coastlines & zone of control issue: here the german player moves forward and through his zone of control the squares around his units change sides towards the axis. But even though his zone of control is mighty enough to change the ownership of the squares, it can't prevent birth of partisans (sorry for the scenario change, but i think you will understand my point): The finns north of the lake couldn't prevent the russian partisans. Is there a zone of control or not? This picture and the prior say yes and no, even though there should only be one possible answer. And at last (sorry, no pictures this time, but i think everyone have seen it more than enough): The unoccupied squares around a city are changing every turn automaticly toward the city-owning side. The question is: why? Rising of the dead? Workers coming home after a long day in the city-factories? And while i'm complaining: troop placement should be forbidden into the zone of control of an enemy. In SC2 you can place your units next to the enemy as long as you still occupy the city. Why? because the city changed the squares for you... [ August 27, 2006, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

When we can agree that it can be "NEVER ending", why is it so hard to offer customers at least a handful of the most possible ones?

I am thankful for your questions, JerseyJohn. If there wouldn't be questions like yours, why whoud be there any sense in playing games like SC & SC2? I would really love to see some more options (mostly pre-war options), because it would really be the salt in the wargaming-soup. How hard could it be to offer your decent customers some more IFs (everyone with the "use the editor"-hymn on his lips: get lost!). On the other hand i love to speculate about "what IFs" here in the forums as well. This is one of the most important reasons to check here regulary. One of you guys could have started another "what if"-thread without me. Keep on the good work, Sir Jersey, I can't get enough of it!

Hitler is the IF-stopper. With Hitler nearly no IF is possible. Without him, well, that is a good question. If moderate generals and politicans would have taken over after the war declaration against france, maybe there would have been an early european union with a strong german leadership after your described scenario? Probably no Barbarossa or prolonged warfare. But for this outcome Hitler and some of his nazi scum would have had to be arrested and / or executed right after the fist days of the french campaign, i presume.

@Blashy: depends on what you would call minor. If Poland, the Benelux, CSSR, Denmark and Norway would have allianced with germany, i wonder if the UK would have had any reason to fight in a franco-german war, followed by a struggle against the USSR. Not that this outcome is at least a bit near of an historical option, but - anyway: outproducing is not everything.

Numbers are not everything as history has teached us (because Leadership, moral, fighting spirit, tactic and strategic knowledge / doctrine, surprise elements, good or wrong descisions etc. can't be put in numbers).

"bet and win", gambling on sports results, in germany ...

I wasn't aware that spain is such an important country in this game, so i didn't care when the alliance-percents of spain droped and shifted toward the allies. Bad mistake, as i can see now, because when i spent some cash into subs to hunt down the Royal Navy and strangle the UK-income there wasn't enough money left to build an decent army wich could do an offensive in russia (Romania & Hungary didn't joined). September 1943 and germany is reduced to rubble, munich and some alpine mountain-huts, while italy gets beatings at the caucasian border.

Spain is a pain in the ass in this game. Win or loose WW2 because of some diplomats snoring talks with Franco? Second on my disgusting list are the partisans. I really think that the Zone of control of each unit should be doubled.

Is there any info when this nasty AI-Bug will be finaly fixed? (end of game screenshot from never invaded normandy beaches) I know that this was adressed about a thousand times here before, but i don't see any improvements in this case. Everyone who wants to tell me to use the editor is invited to go out in the sun, because i won't use the editor. I am a player, not an editor-nerd. And i don't care how easy it might be to change something. Back to this bug: if it is too complicated to offer a fix after already 12 weeks, than i suggest the following improvement: give AI-game players the opportunity to change playing side. A player can start overlord and than change back towards the axis side. Would be a great thing to change from the winning to the loosing side as well: try, if you can fix this mess up, which you self brought upon the loosing (former AI) side. This feature was really great fun, when it was introduced through SSI's Clash of Steel (several years ago), and a fantastic motivation to play games versa the AI to the end.

Errm, how to begin. I want a little help for multiplayer-games. In my first SC2-Multiplayergame i just made a mistake, when i saved an pbem-file into the hotseat-folder. i would be glad to see a little improvement: even though you can see what kind of game-file you are loading, i would be really thankful for a little warning if you load an email-file out of an hotseat-folder. And vice versa, something like: do you really want to change the multiplayer-game from email to hotseat? (yes / no) I realized my mistake only after i played my turn (suddenly the game asked for the allied player-password instead of saving the file and asking for the filename). First i thought about some kind of bug (after all there was only a short summarization of the last turn, and no replay), but when i checked where i saved the last save-file of my opponent i found out that I made the mistake, choosing simply the wrong savegame-folder. This left me in the uncomfortable situation to inform my opponent that i am to dumb to save email-games into an email-folder. :mad: After all it would have been a reload if i would have copied the file just into into the correct folder after i realized my mistake. And if you don't want to cheat the game is probably ended after you (or better: i) made such a mistake. So i beg: make SC2 xwormwood-secure, please!

Logical mistake. :cool: these people don't use kondoms because they know nothing about aids and how this desease spreads. Or they are simply to poor to buy some. if they REALLY would listen to the pope or even better the bible they wouldn't have sex with someone who is not married (husband or wife) to them in the first place. If they already ignore this fundamental message of the bible and the pope, why the hell would they give a rats ass about how the pope thinks about kondoms? But i agree with you about all this gold, trasures and hats. Sell them to help the poor, Herr Ratzinger, and change the world through this.

I don't compress them, but the file i got from my friend is suspicious small (665kb). Any chance that someone can tell whats wrong if i mail this file?

I tried to start a game with a friend who owns a german version of SC2 while i use the us-verson. Problem: we cant't read our email-savegames ("file read error"). When playing against another us-version owner this error does not show up. Aren't the german and the us version compatible? :confused: :confused: :confused: For any help many thanks in advance. btw.: as far as i know we both have the 1.02 patch installed.

Ok, allright, i know it is a mistake, but i ask anyway: My anti-USA rants? What a laugh. Just because i am always stupid enough to add replies to your posts is "anti-USA", or what? I am not at all against the USA. Instead it seems that you are against everything else on this planet. Granted, you are surely a tough nut to crack when it comes to these games. I am not so hot in SC-Multiplayerterms. Only appr. 5 games online and 10 hotseat against human players. A matter of too little freetime to spare. But of course i would play, if we would find a common time to play. I am no chicken.

do yourself a favour: think before you write. Germany paid their dues, with money, hardware or soldiers (Israel, Desert Storm, ISAF, OEF, KFOR, ...). And btw: Agassi is married to whom? And a SUV is a sin, because your big petrol-thirsty friend makes you buy oil from some real evil arab countries... [ June 29, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

The wave. [ June 29, 2006, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

The Wehrmacht was exhausted when they reached the outskirts of moscow (10 weeks of fighting, marching & heavy losses), and the supply lines were miserable. One good example could be the missing winter clothing, which was stored several hundred kilometers behind the frontlines but couldn't be delivered to the front (Hitler decided that the limited transport capacities should only be used to deliver the badly needed ammo.) On the other hand was Moscow heavily fortified. And Moscow is not Paris, there would have been heavy fightings in the streets, probably just like Stalingrad 1942 or Berlin 1945. This with the siberians coming in strength (from december until Februar the russians brought 117 new Divisions (and lots of T-34 - - - the germans used the 38t & Pz III ) to the front compared to the 9 new german divisions. I honestly don't think that it would have made a difference. More good weather would have probably only resulted in even more ideas from Hitler where and what to attack. The whole Barbarossa suffered from Hitlers "to many goals with too little forces" strategy. But then the whole bloody war was only started because of this maniac... [ June 21, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

Instead of a readiness gains the allied player should be given the opportunity to draw the convoy lines / route after his own likings. Maybe every turn 5 or 10 tiles to add or to remove, to push up, down, left or right. this would give the axis players something to think and search about, a nut to crack. Could be spiced with a ASW / Sub-tech. if the axis leads in the research race the allied player could loose some tiles to change and vice versa. Same to the amount of mmps lost by subs. if asw rises, the losses from subs should fall, even though there is no hunting group around. after all we are talking about convoys, not single steamers without a convoy system to protect the precious tonnage. better sub-tech on the other hand should only protect better against beeing spotted and improvements in diving / escaping.

Thanks for the good laugh. "...in december 1941, when we were surprised by the russian winter..." Yeah, sure, all out of the sudden there was snow and bitter cold. Who really could have imagined that in russia.

Would you please stop pouring this bull**** all over me? i am really fed up with you and your behaviour, honestly. i believe in jesus christ, i am a reborn christian and a member of a baptist church. If it makes you happy: i am a german. if this alone is enough to enrage your hatred or your "don't you ever dare to post here anymore-attitude", than fine, make my day. Writing and confessing this, all i can say towards you (knowing that i am far away from perfection as well), is that you, dear brother in christ, should really spare some time looking into your own dark heart, and start listing to what our lord has said. you are aggressive, insulting towards nearly everyone and self-loving to the upmost. before spreading rumors try at least to take a closer look onto what was written before starting to agitate. You never heard of Sebastian Haffner? Well, this is obvious, and your loss. But please believe me: if there is something on this planet what you have never heard of / from, than it doesn't have to be nescessarily another gospel or the pure evil at all. I suggest that you should try to read once in a time instead of playing computer games. Go on with your witch hunt, and my next whining, complaining and action demanding mail goes towards a moderator here.

The map needs some more corrections. Just looked into it after i always felt that the distances between german cities in the west and the east on the SC2-map seemed a bit faulty. With wikipedia i looked for the coordinate of the following cities: Berlin: 52°31N - 13°24E Essen: 51°27N - 07°01E Königsberg: 54°44N - 20°29E Warsaw: 52°13N - 21°02E Paris: 48°51N - 02°20E Moscow: 55°46N - 37°40E Oslo: 59°54N - 10°45E Stockholm: 59°19N - 18°4E Lisbon: 38°43N - 9°10W Valencia: 39°28N - 0°22W Than i took a little freeware-tool to calculate linear-distances between two points on the map (which considered the terrestrial-bending as well): Berlin-Essen: 443 km Berlin-Königsberg: 524 km Berlin-Warsaw: 530 km Königsberg-Warsaw: 261 km Königsberg-Essen: 956 km Königsberg-Moscow: 1095 km Paris-Essen: 461 km Oslo-Stockholm: 431 km Lisbon-Valencia: 774 km After this i used my old school-ruler to read how many centimeters (yeah-yeah, i know, i know) SC2 used between these two points (granted: not the best way, but a start) in 1600x1200: Berlin-Essen: approx. 12 cm Berlin-Königsberg: approx. 17 cm Berlin-Warsaw: approx. 17 cm Königsberg-Warsaw: approx. 5,5 cm Königsberg-Essen: approx. 23 cm Königsberg-Moscow: approx. 28 cm Paris-Essen: approx. 12 cm Oslo-Stockholm: approx. 11 cm Lisbon-Valencia: approx. 16 cm If the eastern europan map with Berlin-Königsberg (524 km / 12 cm) and Berlin-Warsaw (530 km / 12 cm) would be correct (and it is not!), than one cm on the screen would represent approx. 31 km. Taking this ratio for the other distances the map would need to be much bigger: If Berlin-Warsaw = Berlin-Königsberg we would need the following corrections: Berlin-Warsaw: no correction nescessary Berlin-Königsberg: no correction nescessary Oslo-Stockholm: approx. +1 cm Berlin-Essen: approx. + 2 cm Paris-Essen: approx. + 2 cm Königsberg-Warsaw: approx. +3 cm Königsberg-Essen: approx. +7 cm Königsberg-Moscow: approx. +7 cm Lisbon-Valencia: approx. +8 cm If on the other hand Paris-Essen (1 cm = approx. 38,5 km) would be correct (and this seems quite a bit more realistic) than we would need these corrections Paris-Essen: no correction nescessary Berlin-Essen: no correction nescessary Königsberg-Moscow: no correction nescessary Oslo-Stockholm: approx. -1 cm Königsberg-Warsaw: approx. +1,5 cm Königsberg-Essen: approx. + 2 cm Berlin-Königsberg: approx. -3 cm Berlin-Warsaw: approx. -3 cm Lisbon-Valencia: approx. +4 cm Looking at the probably nescessary changes the more appropriate cm/km-rate seems to be Paris-Essen. Sorry for the bad english, any miscalculations and the amateurish way to calculate the in-game distances. But these eastgerman distances are wrong, and this is annoying enough to bring such a nitwit like me to waste his sunday afternoon producing scribblings like this.