Sombra

Well I think the problem is simly that conquered countries are to worth way to much . Norway , Sweden etc rival Germany in its economic importance. Which kind of stupid because conquered countries usally don´t contribute to much to the war effort of the conquerer. simply think that conquered cities etc should be much less worth. Evn if Kiev is worth 20MP per round for Rusia it shoulb be worth only 5 MP for Germany . Certain strategic resources as oil could be more worth..

Thats clever Hubert keep up the good work!

QHellraiser : How do you know it is good ?

And the real date is.....?

And the real date is.....?

Well only a stupid Allied commander will defend Malta. In case of a corps defending Malta => train your fleet In case of an AF defending Malta. Move a HQ + 1-2 AF to Italy (you will need them anyway to take Vichy) attack the the port not the AF in Malta directly. The allied airfleet will intercept but take huge damage. As soon as the allied player doesn´t reinforce its airfleet anymore take it out with direct hits.

Well Rambo is clever. Plays where most of the best players of SC are still active. Keeps himself fresh. :cool: Alas, good SC players in the US are hard to find.

#Rambo, this game is a "what if " game. What if Germany had invested in the right areas of weapon development, not lost nearly all its trained troops in Rusia? Would the US still had such an easy victory? The results of the 2nd world war should be possible with the decisons the player will do (US player investing in weapon tech etc.) The situation at the end of the war was the result of the developments earlier in the war, not an inborn ability of the US troops. Though give the US a big production capacity? Yes, sure. Are the US troops superior to the German troops by default? No Speaking in the SC terms. sometimes due to a botched Barbarossa the Allies can walk over german troops in France without nearly any resistance. Are the units worse then their US counterparts? No ,simply the experienced troops are missing, the mps to replace looses are missing. The Allies gain usally air superiority etc. But you know what happens if the germans play Rusia right and the allied player botches his job there. The Allies have a very hard time in France or will never mount a succesful invasion in the west. D- Day was launched when Germany was nearly exhausted and in the West mostly was not well defended still the "D-day" was a huge risk and costly for the Allies. As soon as the Allies had their beachhead established it was all over for Germany. In SC terms I would like to see that a landing would be much more difficult

Well right now I would be happy, if the 2attack bonus" readiness wouldn´t be as high as in SC1 . As I said before 100% dropping of a boat readiness but if you are defending in Paris fully supplied ,entrenched your readiness is 67% for example???? If you want to support an invasion drop a HQ in the first turn to supply your troops for an attack in the 2nd. turn. Would although eliminate these cheesey conquests of Greece, Egypt and the benefit of mayor landing operations on rusian soil.

@Rambo , at the end of the war the US was vastly superior in numbers , material, equipment you name it. But this is not the point. The point is if there is one divison of soldiers entrenched on the beach I would like to to see a divison of "elite" fighters able to inflict more damage on the defenders while they are landing from their transports then the other way round. (Miltary doctrine of the US at this point called for a 10x superiority to guarantee sucess against a well entrenched enemy)

QSea monkey: My point is not that you are sending your best troops with all their equipment. Simply that during your landing everything is messed up. In SC1 you had better combat values when a unit came of a transport then a unit in a city with more or less full supply , logistics sorted out etc. A unit coming ashore should have IMHO a very limited combat ability. The turn afterwards with HQs etc in place the real fighting should be beginning. I think we will see the situation that fully entrenched unit will have less readiness then a unit which has to drop of transport and climb up the beaches. With limited units avaible for germany less combat readiness would reflect the vulnerability for direct counterattacks (the chance that Germany missed because they didn´t use the tank reserves to throw back the Allies)

Jersey John, Kuniworth I agree 100%. Even with the vast material superiority, Paratroopers etc. D-Day wasn´t a piece of cake. 01% is perhaps a little bit to mauch but I think really that 25/50% (couldbe even a random value: As J:J pointed out sometimes material is not in place , units get missing etc.) would be much better for the game to reflect how hard it is, to do a succesful landing. ALthoug would take out these gamey surprise landings in Rusia and Italy. A huge landing manoever should be the exception not the rule in this game.

Well, IMHO it is although because landing units had a much much to high readiness. Come on, you are coming from a troop transport and ahving 100% combat ability? 10% would be more accurate.

Hey it is the german distributor of the game.... He should have an idea when the game is finished... Well, he should .....

Hey it is the german distributor of the game.... He should have an idea when the game is finished... Well, he should .....

Thanks Edwin

Well Rambo please give it a rest. We all know how the WW2 ended but if you want you can loose every game as axis by default. Part of the fun in war simulations is for me to see what would have been possible with another leader who does not repeat the same mistakes.

Well we will see if the raiders are to strong. Simple solution would be that the units could land but not move the same turn. What I would like to know if you can load a unit onto a boat, ship it, unload, move and attack all in the same turn, espescially the amphibious landing transports. This would be a little to much for my taste.

Personally I am always for a game where the AI follows the same rules as the human player and plays the best it can. Well, I hope that the AI will be good and if its only to boost the sales of SC2. Still, I think the real competion will be the human vs. human game . Regarding GalCiv 2 /GalCiv1 this game had one of the best AIs in the market. But look at MOO2-MOO3, CIv2-Civ4 etc. Its like to play against an idiot child. worse units pop up suddenly (civ games) where it is impossible to build them. The computer is simply cheating.

Although looking forward to GlaCi2 (28. of Feb ) Still Glaciv 2 will be single player only. The chief developer Frogboy is a kind of specialist for AI behavior. (non cheating, providing a real challenge). Although he kind of fond of project mangement with clearly defined milestones. The timing of the development is kind of impressive. (The are very few late on their promises for a new beta, features included etc. ) I don´t think that Hubert alone has neither the resources nor the spealized knowledge to give us an AI who provides a real challenge. The best we can hope for is (IMHO) a AI which is not really stupid. I am looking more to the multiplayer experience :cool:

Well, after all this discussion it would be nice to see all these generals in action. Hubert how about an option to " buy blind" . You get one of the generals but you don´t know which one...?

There is a new rule in place for SC players. Before entering heaven you have to win against Terif 3x times in a row. You have got only one chance.

Regarding of balancing the game there is one mayor concern: Please make every unit useful. SC1 had at least 2 units which were quite useless / to expensive : bombers and rockets. It would be nice if we would see differnet strategies based on different "development concepts" opposed to SC1 where nearly every player used the same old mix: Carriers ;many many jets; some armies; sometimes tanks (sometimes many ), many corps.

If you want to play .... I am online now.....

Well, at least I want a mostly historical game. With other words try to rank the combat units regarding their fighting values as well as you can. Put in as many real historical restrictions as you can (Please no more cookie cutter na dall neutral nations sit on the sideline) On the other hands I don´t want default disadvantages as Edwin suggested: Manstein leadership disminished because the Axis wasn´t historical able to supply their units in Rusia in 1944.... I think such disadvantages should develop throughout the game. Interup supply lines, bomb cities to dust etc. with other words if the Allies are not able to mount succesful operations in the game I don´t see any reason why suddenly the axis gets disadvantages from nowhere. On the other hand put in strong handicaps for supplying units in winter put heavier penalties for supply if you are far of your home cities etc. The fun of such a game derives for me mainly for playing out what would have been possible from a realistical point of view.