Sombra

Simply because many of us dont play against the computer. And as you see there are always different opinions. In the end the end only the official version of the game is accepted and not some mods.

If this would be a soccer game I think we should show some yellow and red cards now to some of the players. Regarding the topic. I played recently an excellent map / mod made by "Barcelona" . Essentially its a much bigger map of Europe and the middle east. Due to the size many of the problems of the standart scenario are no longer valid. The longer distances result in logistic problems to keep your troops supplied ( no quick vacations in Iraq and taking over Africa in 2 weeks) Germans are much harder pressed to cover the distances in Rusia. The essence is, I think SC2 has much of a potential . The problems can be adressed by mods or by the next patches. I would wish that certain player mods would receive some kind of official approval stamp and could be downloaded from the official battlefront servers. Without this kind of "official recognition" I fear the mods wont be widely used within the players community.

Talking about to powerful units... Tanks? Especially against fortresses , moving over mountains

Hmm you seem to be quite busy. Nevertheless if the legendary american coward is up to play a mirromatch . Here I am . AAR on Battlefront. Only condition no sealion before Barbarossa.

Blashy I disagree here. Af are not too strong . Only against cities and fortresses. Reduce the combat values of the airfleets over the board and they are useless. @ Fireball IF you played SC1 with airfleets first groundstrikes last you couldnt have won many games against humans. In SC1 this rules is NOT valid

I think DT has some very good points here. Yes its a game but things have to feel right and make sense for me too to make a war game enjoyable. Realism doesnt mean necessarily that you have to drown in details but as a commander of the axis and the allies you should have to face the same restricions as in the real world. One point which has been brought up by DT is that you are very flexible with your armies and can switch around the wolrd in few weeks. One day in afrika next week we are fighting in Rusia. Another topic is for me the "missing reaction" of minor nations if one after the other is conquered. Wouldnt they a least build up more trioops if they see a hungry empire is on the move? On the other hand I hate scripted events like the ghost amies in America showing up in case of invasion. Aehmm , though the reason why an invasion in the Us was "impossible" is not the small Atlantic and logistics but the fear an rebel army showing up out of nowhere. Ah, ok tansfer of american assets from the pacifi doest have any influence how the war in the pacific goes and Stalin had 3 million first rate troops in siberia and they can be transfered with in aweek and Jpan simply ignores that rusia is now wide open and still attacks the US etc. etc. As a game SC2 is much fun, unfortunately it fails to give the player realistic contrictions what is possible and what would be impossible. Siberian mass transfer to balance the game because the game

I like it as it is

Its not a silly question. Everybody wondered at first. Answer is no.

Wow thats a surprise. After we played about 4 games I thought you enjoyed SC2 . Yes Sc2 has issues (one of the biggest is for me the missing windows mode or at least doing something: scroll etc while your opponent is moving) Most of the topics have been adressed in the forum already: - dominance of tech (tech level to strong) - tech cap (makes bad luck worse) - Diplomacy Shame to see you go

Aehmmm if you are playing the allies and declare war look if the UDSSr is already in the war. You can move troops even without beeing in war but you vcannot invest in diplomacy or conduct aggressive moves. If not you have your explanation why you can´t enter the baltic states

And I dont like it. Already the partisans have quite an impact. Regarding the scale they are fighting aginst divisons of 10.000s ofarmed soldier and this for weeks in SC2. I think the partisans are strong enough and if you dont control them they have a big enough impact.

Is there already a tentative date for the next patch? Would be useful to know if you start many new games.

Everything to see at least sometimes rockets used is good. Even if you change it to artillery and apply the same rules as in Panzergeneral with supportuive fire etc.

The map is really nice. Feels a little bit intimidating playing it. Very good work

Vveed here we disagree. I think knowing what your enemy can do or not do on it turn is a much bigger advantage than you think. What is the real problem, sometimes you have bad weather and you see your eenmy has bad luck . Still you know already what the weather will be most likely. For example in France you can go the high risk winter campaign(My prefered way to play ) or play the slow Terif attack in spring (exactly to prevent weather problems). Point is you are taking calculated chances. Sometimes you are lucky sometimes you win. Thats war. Even if I get angry many times with my luck I think the system works Regarding the fixes: Randomly chose who starts a turn or based on initative . This IMHO an even bigger mistake. Imagine yourswelf two turn axis beginning of Barbarossa nd the Germans are already with MT2 in Moscow even before the Allies can react. b

you could start at http://www.icq.com or look in google for ICQ download

Dont you think that propaganda and sucess give you a moral booyt. If you hear that your forces are winning all over the places?

First you are playing against the AI from your comments. 2nd. You are changing history = therefore your argument there wasn´t any unit at this level is not really valid. If you would lose in the game your moral ans readineess would be at historic levels. AKA Supply is bad because iof the english you are losing units because the enemy destroys them. On the other hand right now the onyl messagae your troops receive another country fallen and another and another . NO wonder they feel invincible

I think you forget 2 very important details in the discussion: 1. You already know the % chance for weather for each zone in the game (You can plan ahead) 2. Imagine your fix is implemented. This gives either the german player or the allied player a huge advantage. How so? Lets say Axis is the first in the round he knows exactly how the weather will be for the allied player and can plan ahead accordingly. Gee mud allied player will be paralyzed can take this city without risk and allied players AF will be grounded. The allied player doesnt know if his advances in mud will be suddenly countered by clear weather´next turn for the axis. Therefore the person who stasrts the turn has the advantage. Yes weather plays a huge factor in the game but right now you know it will most likely rain in October November. good time to reinforce and go to your winter quarters don´t you think?

Airfleets are not anymore the "all deciding" force in Sc2. Ground troops rule. Still they are very very powerful as bunkerbuster and citykiller. + combine it with the general direction of sC2 , attack is the best defense and its nearly impossible to hold a position even for 1 turn. I see two ways to adress this issue: - Either reduce moral and rewadiness loss due to air attacks in cities and fortresses - and or apply AA tech aginst fighters in cities and fortresses

Taking Leningrad quickly ? :confused:

@Maverick. For me as Axis Malta is a problem. Investing a couple of airfleets and ships to reduce entrechnment is like a mayor investment for the Axis. I need these troops in Egypt. Reducing Tobruk and its port is a problem for the Axis. Besides its not soooo easy to bomb the Allies out of Malta. But if it was changed from version 1.00 I would like to see turn in back like it was in 1.00 . A bomber should have more effect then a corps in Malta.

@ MAverick you already can install a bomber on Malta and bomb the ports. Reducing the supply be default feels wrong to me. How about then limiting MPS from convoys by default to without subs on the convoy lanes? Malta is important is an annoyance already and a good "spying point for the allies. Italy cannot leave any psoition undefended or move its fleet without being spooted by a Malta bomber. For this reason alone I like to take out Malta.

Psst Malta already works that way. Having a bomber there and iincrease its tech levle and you can bom Tobruk to dust make it very hard to suply the German forces in Egypt. Usally when Spain joins the Eypt campaign is already decided one way or the other anyway. Having Gibraltar gives you nice soft underbelly into Europe forcing the axis to spare some of its scare units to protect Italy etc.

Besides the direct benefits of MPs I would like to see other strategic incentives to take ceratin neutral countries. -For example if bombers and surface ships could raid to some degree convoy routes. Taking Norway could be important to cut the artic convoy route giving an incentive for both sides to take it. -Taking neutrals countries could increase the force pool of the invader. -Greece could secretly helping supply the english foces in Egypt . As long as Greece is neutral or allied supply in Alexandria could be eight instead of 5. - Taking Greece could increase the activation of Turkey towards the allies (random event) - Neutral countires could supply from a certain activation point on (60%) MPS to one side. (Symbol to good relations and trade agreements) - Random chances that neutral countires change their activation status randomly even without direct diplomatic influences. - From 60 % activation point on player could move country forces and use MPS to increase strengh of garrisons( but can´t attack the country anymore) Perhaps we can come up with more simple ideas to give real benefits to take countires like Greece, Norway etc. Why it si important: Right now Axis simply will wait because they dont want to increase rusian and american war readiness.