vveedd

I have played some games with house rules, 3R for instance but only because this game was never made for PBEM. By default scenarios I meant scenarios made by game developers. If I must choose some options like you said then I will choose with my opponent of course. I don’t have good experience with MOD’s made by players or someone else. For instance, I have played also Napoleonic MOD for Medieval Total War and it was good, very good but it didn’t have square formation because square formation can implement only game developers. And because of that it was not it if you understand what I mean. Basic effect what I looking for is when units are without supply they should be destroyed (or at least can’t move). As I have said in some post not long ago with this effect players are forced much more to look out for flanks and front lines. With this rule game will not have some unbelievable situations like a few opponent units in middle of nowhere and they making damage. Only partisans should be enabling to do that. [ March 06, 2006, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

As I have said I don’t care much for editor (I’ll play default scenarios only) but I have one question about it. Actually, pzgndr putted this question to my mind with his post about Advanced Third Reich adaptation. Question is: Is it possible to change-adapt supply rules like 3R game have it?

Very interesting. Third Reich is still to my humble opinion the best grand strategy game ever made (we will see SC2, of course ). I don’t think that anyone can simulate 3R very well in any existing game so far but I would like to hear more about this.

Blashy I like your AAR but must agree with guys. Sneaking units? This is the most stupid thing I ever heard. If you don’t know history well better don’t talk about it. I didn’t see screenshots but to my opinion the main problem is supply rule. I have talked with Hubert about this when SC2 was in beginning stage but he didn’t share my opinion in this case. When units are without supply they should be automatically destroyed. This is, actually, rule from Third Reich game and it works absolutely great. Never seeing gamey situation with that rule. On contrary, never seeing better battle simulation (for instance, once I putted Italian units on flank and, of course, Russian player destroyed them and made a breakthrough. Look familiar?). Maybe applying this rule in SC2 will be too much but at least units without supply should not move. In that way players will have to watch about flanks and will not be enable to go deep in Russia with group of units.

I hope that this will not be the case. Every game which have to many luck factors is very suitable for cheating, especially in PBEM.

I hope that this will not be the case. Every game which have to many luck factors is very suitable for cheating, especially in PBEM.

Does SC2 have some limitations regarding UK units in France?

Does SC2 have some limitations regarding UK units in France?

I agree. And make armies from bigger neutral countries (Spain, Sweden, Turkey etc) stronger. After that player will think twice before attack.

Excellent. SC2 should be a great game. Looking forward to next AAR. Thanks for answers.

Glad to hear this. Accordingly to that I have 2 questions: 1. Did any play tester try in SC2 well know annoying tactics from SC1 with lots of air fleets (+ jet research) and is it possible at all to apply this tactic in SC2? 2. Is it profitable to buy tanks group in SC2 or anti-tanks research have the same negative effect like in SC1? Like it or not, this two things was main problem in SC1 (and a few more like we already said) and to this you should pay special attention. Ah, and one more question about amphibious assault – Is it possible to apply another annoying tactic from SC1 to put units in coastal tiles and with that prevent enemy units to land? I know that the map in SC2 is much more bigger but still? [ January 18, 2006, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Game sounds very, very interesting. Still, as much as I like surprises, this raid to Essen (or Berlin :eek: ) sounds too unbelievable. Maybe SC2 need beach tiles after all. Haven’t seen much about diplomacy. I hope that this option will not be like strategic bombardments in SC1 (useless). Actually, my proposal for all test players is that they should pay more attention to some stuff which didn’t work well in SC1 like strategic bombardments, tanks, antitank research, air fleet superiority. Maybe they should try some good old tactics from SC1 in SC2.

MPP values for plunder are always the same or it goes down by time? Does Paratroopers have to be in city to make a drop? Did Germany gets MPP from that paratroopers occupied mine if can’t trace free path to home territory? [ January 16, 2006, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Good AAR. Thanks pzgndr. Two questions: 1.What are the benefits for Allies when Poland surrender is delayed? 2.Did you use paratroopers so far? Impressions if you did?

I have been reading posts about Maginot line and one question came to my mind: I know that in SC2 we will have strategic bombardment on cities and ports with same effects like we had in SC1 (reducing MPP values) but are we be enable to destroy bunkers and fortifications completely? I mean, are we be enable to achieve same effects with air power like we had in SC1 when land enemy units entered in hex with fortification?

Relax Karl. SC2 will be released soon but if you expecting that SC2 will be like Third Reich I don’t think that this will happen. SC2 will be great I am sure but Third Reich is unique game. There is no game like it. By the way, did you try to play Third Reich by mail? I have tried and it was great. Now I have ordered 3R Gold. Many players says that with 3R Gold PBEM is much more better.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to everyone and happy gaming in 2006 (with SC2 of course) :cool: :eek:

Thanks J.J. I appreciate it, especially when it comes from such mind waste expert like you.

I have played this scenario many, many times in singleplayer and PBEM. Scenario is modified for WWII time period as much as it can be but still it is CIV scenario. For instance, you can buy swordsman if you want. It is stupid to do that, of course but there is possibility because of game concept.

Okay, okay both games have similar units and some other stuff but game concept is different. In CIV game concept is adjust for playing thru all time periods. SC is WWII time period game or I am wrong?

I am talking about playability. Of course they are two completely different games.

You don't know how I am happy to see that. Finally someone who shares my opinion about CIV 3 vs. CIV 4.Civilization 3 is a much, much better game but let's stick to the subject. I DON'T CARE about graphic, counters, tiles, hexes etc. I DO CARE only about playability. If playability will be like in SC1 or better, game will be great. There are good and bad points for every stuff. For instance, in Panzer General 2 graphic is similar like in SC2 and you can say that the unit look like obscure "giants", and "disturbing" the map view but playability is GREAT even today. Civilization (1,2,3) have tiles like fischkopf have said but playability is great. So, to my opinion every discussion about this is pointless until we try to play SC2. By the way, I have seen War in Europe game demo which have hexes and counters and I must admit that graphic looks to me a little obsolete.

Any plans for new AAR or maybe demo?

I want, of course. I am looking forward to that.

Thanks for all answers Blashy. I have only two more and we can close this AAR and start a new one. 1.)How many MPP you sent from US to UK and USSR via Land Lease? 2.)Does US entry to war is increased with each Axis sub attack to convoys? If not, it should be - Hubert? By the way, did you play AAR against yourself or against friend? I recommended Bill 101 as Allies. He beat me every time. Hi Bill 101. How are you?