scrapking

This is not a flame...but... Are you high? Are all of you high? I'm not high now, but with luck I'll be in an hour or so. And even then I will be quite aware that this is a game, an enjoyable game, but still a game, not a simulation. Is this anti-tank issue the only detail about this game that seperates it from being a simulation? Come on people, this is a glorified game of checkers. I am new to the forums, but I have already seen quite a few people discussing this and that regarding issues such as this. My suggestion is to only consider things that make the game imbalanced, i.e. not fun to play. Questioning any degree of realism, breaking down unit strength estimates is superfluous. The Battlefront people made us a really fun, addictive game, but if you start comparing it to the real thing, you are going to come up short on most every detail, nevermind the obvious lack of mortal danger to yourself. Shaka, if this was just a curious line of thought on your part, I apologize if I overreacted. But, please, everyone else try and keep it in perspective. Game. Not simulation. Puff puff pass.

It's called the Tiger II, or Konigs Tiger, or King Tiger. I believe less than 300 were ever produced, but with 2 different turret styles, depending on whether Porsche or someone else (can't remember name) made them. Both utilized the 88L71 main gun and a beefed up Tiger chassis. Introduced in time for the Bulge campaign in December '44.

Macon: 2nd PLT C Co 2/58 "Mad Dogs" I think I was in bldg. 4 if I'm not mistaken. "Prepare to uncover" "Uncover" 5 4 3 2 1 "Freeze" hooah [ April 03, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: scrapking ]

If more variety, more strategic options are your aim, then I agree. Give me more game, more fun, more tech, more units, make every tech worth developing, and include parity amongst this. I'm an American, of course I want more. However, do you suggest that the game is unbalanced? Including the bid adjustment? My most recent perusal of the AAR's seem to indicate that the Allies win more often. (I don't have the numbers, but that was the feel) It would be nice if all the techs had the same degree of benefit to their development. How many people ever develop rockets? At least before you've maxed out jets, long range air, anti tank...you get the idea. Same for sonar. Pretty much the same for subs. It's fun to have these techs, but it just isn't economical to develop anything but the "better" ones. And 9/10 times if you've maxed all the better ones, you've won the game by then. Or have a very obstinate opponent. I question not the idea of having improvements to the game, but the idea of getting them. Did this game sell well? You certainly wouldn't gather that from this forum. Terif, world champion, is best amongst a community of fewer than 100, not to take anything away from his dominance. But we just don't represent enough of a profit to warrant further development. Or at least it seems that way to me. Maybe there's another 99,900 people out there who bought and love this game, but are afraid of Terif. Fixing specific imbalances or bugs is a patch. Adding functionality or features would appear to to an upgrade, expansion pack or sequel.

First let me say that I am a rookie at this game, so my opinion only counts for that much, but, that being said... Strat bombing is not supposed to be a zero sum game. Part of the logic is that it might cost the UK 10 to cost the Germans 5 (or whatever it actually amounts to). But if the Hun isn't attacking the UK aggresively at the time, i.e. Barbarossa before a proper Sea Lion, paying 10 to cost you 5, helps the Soviets out alot, and if there is a Sea Lion, you have no business bombing Germany anyhow. Not that I don't sympathize with your point, and in the case of anti-tank, agree. It is unbalanced that one tech helps 20 units while another helps 5. Then again, barring luck, if you pound 5 chits in antitank in an effort to reach 15 asap, you sacrifice some other tech. And if tanks don't progress past at least 11 or 12, they are utterly useless. Sacrificing their mobility carries a cost in itself. Zapp, please do not read this as a flame, because in spirit I agree with you. But as Immer Etwas stated, this is a game, and playability, balance, enjoyment, etc.., are all paramount to realism or historicity. Try to think of it as a fun game with WW2 window dressings, and purely as fan of the genre you can enjoy it. If realism and historicity are your desires, I'm not sure when it will be released (only one programmer is working on it for like 3 years now), but a game called "World in Flames" (a port of a 10000 chit board game) is under construcion, and betas are already quasi playable. If anyone's interested in it , I may still have weblinks to where you can download the beta.

My record is not 1W 4L, it is (as of 30 minutes ago) 1W 2L (win Bonanza, lose Destroyer and Iron Ranger).

I just accepted Bonanza's surrender (read he accused me of cheating and disconnected). His complaint prior to his paranoid accusation was how I had "15 when he had none". I assume he meant Italy's level 15 anti-tank weapons. Well, for one, it was roughly June 1943, the UK was conquered, and Italy not only never had any threats, but also only had 1HQ, 2 additional Armies, and perhaps 2 or 3 additional Corp to speak of besides at start forces. Baseless accusations do not accomplish much more than represent one's own baseness. I categorically deny any cheating on my part, and offer the saved game as evidence to any who would ask. I strongly suggest that any other players think twice before playing Bonanza, unless they intend on losing intentionally in an effort to avoid accusations. I will only presume that he will at least have the dignity to post his loss.

iron ranger (allies) defeats scrapking (axis) bid was 150. I had intended to continue this game, but after failing with a much better situation against destroyer, I realize that my situation here is beyond hope. It's still reasonably early, and I've inflicted some nice losses against him, but I don't have norway and sweden in my economy as I did with destroyer. By the way, again I have lost to the Belgian gambit. Iron Ranger, I would appreciate any advice that you can offer in exchange for not wasting "our" time continuing this mess.

destroyer (allies) defeats scrapking (axis) This being my second ladder game was my second harsh lesson about dealing with the belgian gambit. Coupled with a failed maginot assault, being out-teched by the brits (even though i aggressively pursued both jets and long range aircraft), france was alive and kicking in feb 1942 when the soviets declared on me. My only victories came in Poland (on turn 4), Denmark (turn 5), Norway (turn 8), and Sweden (turn 12). My sin was sloth. Destroyer is an honorable and skilled opponent who advised me of my errors and instructed me on methods to cope with the gambit in the future. Watch out future opponents, for my skills will improve faster than my loss columns!

player scrapking signs up to the ladder