xwormwood

BELGIEN NOCH NICHT EROBERT!? :eek::confused:

Download the patch. Double-click the file after the download. Follow the on-screen instructions. That should do the trick. The AI gets better with every patch. But it can't replace the play fun you will get from playing against a human opponent.

Vorwärts, Kameraden! Forward, comrades!

And here the missing link for the Entente AAR: http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24639 @geiserich: Bitte erkläre doch einmal, was es mit den aufgeführten Befehlshabern auf sich hat, bzw. wie diese in das Spiel eingreifen (eingreifen tun sie doch, oder?).

Watch the Google Logo today, and klick into it. There is a little, lovely adventure hidden, just to honor the Star Treck birthday.

Correct, both tactics look as if they were siblings.

This would probably change once AA would start to fire AFTER the fighters did their duties. Today it is either fighter OR anti-air gun. And even if 5 fighters are able to intercept, only one will do it, while the other 4 units stay on the ground, watching the bomber smash their targets....

1. You have to buy the tech advance for a unit which is able to get it. Once bought, it is a permanent enhancement. And yes, motorization enhance the move abilities. 2. Some planes can do recon flights. Strategic bombers have the best spotting range. 3. Put them where ever you need a unit, or where you expect tank attacks. There is no golden rule where to place them. 4. Yes, because it helps to reduce unit entrenchments and to lower supply values, which will affect units nearby. Btw.: strategic bombers can attack twice. 5. I'm not sure, but it might help to conquer Gibraltar. 6. Air supperiority is a good way to conquer north africa. Good supply and tanks won't hurt either. Naval bombardement. But it will alway be costly and difficult. For each side. 7. Not sure here either. But in general it is always a good thing to have long range planes (and with it the possibility for long range air drops).

Martin, the unadjusted prices are not helpful if you want to sell games with adjusted , reduced, advertised prices. Else rhj1971 wouldn't have asked. In case of "Theater of War" the bundle gets advertised as mail order only, while the game and the expansion can be bought solitary via download. That is hard to understand. Maybe battlefront could somewhere down the road renovate the shop? I myself wouldn't have known how much i would have had to pay for Theater of War. I actually had to search for infos, nearly complete the purchase, use the helpdesk, and even than i wasn't sure about the final price (with SH included). All i'm saying is that is that you should take an interest into messages like the one from rhj1971. Not everyone wants to search a helpdesk, or register to use the forum. Those who don't want to do it might simply decide not buy anything at all.

Well, who would have imagined that this would turn out to become such a special thread! I'm giving the compliments (the neat and volital just as the old and older, eh, eh) right back to you, CSS.

And my point is (and always will be) that if players chose to act differently than their historical counter parts, it is the game designers mission to calculate, research and find out what these changes might have changed in the campaigns world and timeline setting. If both the Central Powers attack Serbia in 1914 in a combined attack, than 1) what would have had to be done to allow such an early combined attack and 2) what would have been the consquences of this? As far as i know combined forces usually are less effective, because of the command struggle of who leads whome, the different comunications, , etc. etc. Overlapping HQ zones from HQ of different nations could reduce the readiness of all nearby friendly units (just an example). Low success in the west or the east just to win AHs war against Serbia could lower Germanies National Morale, maybe even AH National Morale when the people realize that their own army wasn't even strong enough to fight a minor army like the serbian army. The basic dilemma of any historical strategy game is that players want to see on the one side a historical 1:1 copy, while on the other hand they want to have the possibility to interfer in this world, to change historical decisions. If you want to create a believable world, you have to react (have the game engine react) on those decisions. You have to have tons of answers for player decisions. Answers on questions which weren't asked during the historical WW1. Who knows, maybe a quick serbian surrender might have united Russia? Could it have an impact on Rumania or Bulgaria? Would AH tried to exit the war after having achieved their most prominent war goal within weeks? Or would it have slowed AH war industry, as the need for a total war production would have been realized only later, with such a glorious victory gotten so fast? So yes, let us seek for different solutions, that is why we play the game, you're absolutly right. But let our solutions not happen in a lifeless world, shocked in awe about our brilliance, but in a world, which takes an interest about what is going on. The game engine has to be freed from the yoke of "follow the historical time line" once we, the players, started to change the timeline. It is our task to imagine what a players decision would have changed in culture, war production, diplomacy, National Morale goals, etc. etc. The game needs to offer a proper reaction to unhistorical decisions. And on the other side the game should set high incentives to follow the historical decisions. Not because they were the best decisions, but because they were seen as the best decisions in the world and timeline where the game has been set into. In your WW2 example that could mean (just an idea) that Italy needs to show up some victories or war declarations in 1940, or else it could either lose National Moral, or start to fall back into neutrality, maybe even join the Allied war camp. Both should have an impact on Germanies NM and industrial income. I hope that i could made my point a bit clearer. There are no isolated decisions. Attacking the UK, or Greece, just because "it did happen" is, well, not the best idea. But if the decison ""i don't attack anything with Italy" would damage your overall war goals (= winning the war, of course), well, than you would instantly think very hard about what might be an easy war fro Italy, or where it could get a fast and easy victory. At the very same time the game could give the Allied player decisions to weaken North Africe (this is already in SC GC, where you can decide to use the ANZACs in the Pacific campaigns instead in Europe), and bingo, there you go: an italian victory is not as unthinkable at it was seconds before.

rjh1971, In cases like this i would kindly suggest to rather use the helpdesk instead. quote: "Mailed products are shipped out of two warehouses: US and most international customers get their shipments from our main warehouse in Vermont, USA. NEW! European customers get their goods shipped from our warehouse in Germany (within the EU, therefore no duties or taxes!)" I don't believe that Battlefront would charge 45$ to send a one kg parcel from Germany to Spain. I presume that there might be a little error in the shop, because you CAN BUY THE DOWNLOAD ONLY if you order the game AND the mission pack SEPARATELY (both for 10$, so in the worst case you would have to pay 20$, not 60$).

Great idea, mcaryf1.

Yes, but they came only after AH failed to achieve a victory. I guess that is the whole difference, and that was the point in this discussion. In 1914 AH wasn't aware yet that its own military might turned out to be a toothless tiger. So AH might have been using the infrastructure for its own forces, and watched closely what their ally want into their very own backdoor yard, while the so much more important frontlines in the east and in the west were in flames.

Maybe it should upset Francos Spain and other Nations instead. OR it could ingnite uprisings in the UK and French med sea colonies.

Please link the other side of the AAR as well, please!

Great idea, Papafourtwo!

The only problem is that an early Italian war entry doens't create enough problems for the Allied player. In my opinion thats the key to this problem. Suggestions: - early italian war entry: NM moral shock for France / the UK / ... - early italian war entry: new (and helpful) descion evernts for the Italians - early italian war entry: a free industrial chit for Italy (they prepare harder and sooner for the upcoming war - early italian war entry: France feels threatened or interested, diplo values change accordingly Long story short: the Allied player should have a big interest in keeping Italy out of the war, at least during 1939 - 1940.

Hi milk1, and welcome to the Strategic Command Forum! You need to use amphibs if you want to land your units on a coastal tile. Attacks with transports are not possible. You can land amphibs only into friendly or enemy tiles, but not on neutral countries. You can't land into a tile which is defended by an enemy unit (at least not in SC2 blitz). If there are other situations where you can't land an amphib, it would be helpful to sea the map to understand why it isn't possible. Engineers can build fortifications (right click on unit, than you have to chose the fortify option from the menu). If you travel on roads (marching), than this will take less action (movement) points. So you will be able to move better. Rails are important for operational movement (OP Movement). This cost MPPs, but you can move the unit to a connected railway tile on the map. For OP movement your unit has to start its turn in good supply on a rail tile. More and better informations should be in the game manual.

This is a preparation for a decision event which will follow soon. Sending the HMS Invincible against this german naval thread or not.

I would instead give the USA a much improved income once China ended as breakfast for Japan. The USA never entered "total war" conditions in WW2. After Pearl Harbor AND a japanese vicotory over China AND Germany going mad in Europe should have been a very good incentive for the USA to take this war VERY serious. Serious enough to go all out for war production, just like the rest of the world. Germany produced most after it went into total war mode in 1944. What might have the USA been able to achieve if peactime production would have ended and turned with all might into full wartime production, 24/7? No need to play doctor in China. Just turn the USA on fire. For every major power which surrendered before the Axis the USA could get an additional and free industrial modifier. France gone? One up. UK gone? They got another. China lost? Here comes Uncle Sams next industrial point. Russia done? Here, Mr. Roosevelt, this are the last two free industrial points for you. Hey, look, now the USA has industrial tech level 10! Now only low NM values can end the war (or further terrible play from the allied player).

Nice, guys!

Kuniworth, i absolutly feel you. JerseyJohn, the funny topics, the smacking, and than the first, sometimes quite a bit to harsh reactions from Battlefronts very own M & M, yes, i miss that too. And i surely hope that we all are alive and kicking when Hubert finally take the big leap forward with SC3. But in the end i can sign your last two sentences. But i fear that the happy hunting times are gone, civilization took over. I guess you can't plan things like the SC1 forum culture. But when everything gets cut down to "on topic", well, those bautiful flowers, they won't grow anymore under these circumstances. The irony is, that SC 2 and SC WW1 / SC GC are so unbelievable much better than SC1, but the most fun in this forum took place while SC1 reigned (which was good as well, of course, else we wouldn't even had thought to come here in the first place). And so many great characters were only here during the SC1 period. Time and civilization took its toll. And even worse (to quote Savatage once more): i wasted my time till time wasted me. No need to get sad. It is about to appreciate what we do have. Great games. A game series which will very soon take the next step (i presume that SC WW1 Breakthrough! is more or less the last release for the SC2 based game engine). And while i wasted my time, Hubert and Bill didn't: their next breakthrough release will bring the whole game series once more several steps ahead. Do you still have contact to SirJersey? Buntaland is down for good, or is it still active? I lost track after he closed it, reopened it, closed it, reopened it. After the last sudden and (as always) un-announced closure i left and deleted the link from my browser. Sigh.

Gosh, we grew old. Strange that most of the cryptic lines actually did make sense to me. SC3, well, yes, that would be nice. But for the time being i like SC WW1 very much, and it gets better with the breakthrough! expansion. These little steps alone make it possible that there will be a SC3. Time to live, to listen, to think, to create, and to improve. And one day, when finally all puzzle piece come together, we will get the SC3 announcement. SC3 has to be a big step forward. This needs time. This deserves time. I'm willing to wait for a game even better than all other SC releases (which were already very good).

Wow, you pulled a german HQ, artillery unit and two corps out of the west to conquer Serbia? :eek: This should become very interesting now! At least if abukede uses this opportunity while neither your western nor eastern front is as strong as possible because of your serbian expedition. Will be extremly interesting to watch how this turns out, especially in East Prussia, Silesia and Galicia!