hellraiser

guess who was playing the allies...yeah , me punkass corps with almost 400 morale hitting like there's no tommorrow...maybe this morale thingy should be reviewed - if the axis player times well the minor dows together with barbarossa, for several turns their units are nigh invulnerable. some other valid points in this thread - kudos to IR and Yoda for their commitment to beta..err bugs finding

also there are some cool AI scripts' improvements made by modders - check the mods forum, seems some of the attempts have a far more challenging AI.

Terif, dude, you got yourself quite a bunch of worshippers here To the other clowns, Yoda wannabees -> a simple nerd, who studies and learn by heart those scripts, won't ever be a great player. You need strategic thinking, common sense, patience and maybe some more qualities -> and Yoda has these qualities quite well represented, he takes his time to read the rules and scripts (available for anyone else, obviously) he practices various aspects, he refines his gameplay and it is adaptable to opponent's gameplay style. Guys, these traits do not come solely from playing games - these traits come from education and born intelligence (maybe this is what bother a lot of 'OMG, I wanna wax Yoda' guys ). Most probably the guy benefits from them in RL as well - nobody bothers to develop these features only for playing games. @Yoda - dude, I am back on tracks, had a few learning sessions with you to get my game rolling - expect soon some tough fights, once I grasp some more tricks Everyone here knows that I possess a unique ability: eventually I beat everyone @Rambo - dude, quit playing lazy-PBEM games, get back into the TCPIP world - save games are smaller, your dialup may be comfortable with it.

Got the same feeling.

@ Rambo -> as of 1.04, tcpip should be faster even for dialup-ers - maybe you should try a TCP, see how it works? on topic - so far i've never used the timer. Although it is a very good feature - you can always threaten your opponent to cancel and restart with the timer on, if he takes ages to move

errm...try to upgrade the cpu?

sc1 has provided years of enjoyment, sc2 continues the ideea - a good game, getting better with every patch (remember sc1 needed 7 patches to 'grow up') because we got a game designer that actually cares about what ppl are screaming for in the forums and implements a lot of the community ideeas -> rara avis these days ... and because of this excellent community developed around this game, with mature and smart people. I guess there are quite some incentive to stick around longer

With spain now almost sure Axis, it is impossible to hold gibraltar; spain axis means TOTAL Med control for Axis full stop. You can maybe inflict some losses or delay Axis in Egypt but the result should be the same in the end. Of course, it depends on diplo hits i.e. luck - the later spain joins, the better for the allies and it is up to the allied player to decide whether to counter Spain with chits or spend them on other targets. Common probabilistic sense nevertheless place Spain in Axis camp

Spain going Axis = total loss of the Med area; allies do not stand a chance down there, Gibraltar effect (when axsi controlled) is hampering supply big time, the same way malta ruin Axis' supply. If Axis bring a bomber unit in Africa, things are even worser. Strategically wise, the control of the British Home Isle is far more important for me than holding North Africa - the easiest way to invade Europe is via the british springboard. Now that the Sealion before Barby rule has fallen (I guess), the allied player has a crucial decision to make - hold the island or attempt to hold NAfrica, diverting a lot of resources for this purpose thus risking the loss of the british home isle. Now, with Spain being Axis almost 100% of the time, holding Africa is difficult and even counterproductive. Think that holding the isle bears greater benefits besides being the easiest route for invasion later on: constant nuissance to French occupied territories, possibility to invade Norway or to disrupt the convoys. In this scenario, Allies have to protect Ireland because even as of 1.04, Axis' invasion of Ireland has no effect in respect to majors' war readiness thus it is still an Axis freebie. The consequences are catastrophic - Axis air and Navy will obliterate everything on the british isle and you imagine the rest.

"If you conquer a ressource of a major nation, then the Industry Tech level of that nation applies when calculating the mpps." Bleah, so IT is still useless to research for Germany.

@Che Guevara Rambo I don't challenge you. Let us be fair here: from the two of us, you are the challenger Got your wire upgraded so we can do some tcpip? PBEM is for old&lazy guys PS I could do myself without buntas or metrics...but as far as EUR is concerned, I wouldn't be so un-receptive

Bring it on !!! Is it me or JJR is becoming more like Che Guevara? ...comandaaaante, generaaale...

Ideea: when a noncoop ally liberates a country, the player should be allowed to choose whether that country reverts back to its original parent or stays with the liberator. This could be seen as 'sphere of influence' negotiation between the members of the same coalition. If the original parent country is knocked out of the war, ownership and cash should definitely go to the liberating power.

So russia liberates only the oilfields of iraq...leave baghdad to the germans so the oilfields can produce for ussr Countries with 2 cities (capital + another one) - you should get only the other town to draw supply and/or operate troops, but not the capital. Hmmm... politics, politics ... what a biatch

It's not about mentality but about having alternatives. Politics does not equal fanaticism.

'taking Malta is in deed not worth the effort.' Maybe not but it is annoying - you gotta keep something to watch that corps so it can't amphib sneak to Rome or african cities. Cost wise is indeed worthless, you need to operate a lot of units to get the job done - but sometimes it is a matter of pride, right?

Axis bombers' strategy is money in the bank - think that you place a bomber in Brest and keep bashing Liverpool - port below 5 means bye bye convoy, welcome poverty to the UK - bomber provide good spotting as well so the US has to think before landing in Brest; and one bomber in Russia can work wonders as well - Leningrad or keeping caucasian resources at minimum. I also love building 2 xtra bombers for the US and coupled with the UK one - whoa! Whole France and western Germany in ruins Allies can use bombers to keep certain cities below 5 so axis cannot operate troops, thus allies can land without problems. Yeah, bombers are badass in SC2 compared to SC1 when maybe only Rambo used them to provide the 'entertainment factor'

'The Cold War was lost for the Soviets. We Won ' Wrong! With all that cash sunk in supporting the cold war, USA lost the chance to be even greater than it is today and USSR ruined its economy. 'We all lost' - seems more appropriate. Think that with all that cash and brilliant minds put to better use, humanity maybe would have reached Star Trek era or something or maybe a lot of other hot problems of today's world would have been solved to some extent... Ref. Patton - > I maintain my ideea - great general indeed, and a pioneer of the armoured warfare in the USA. Indeed he faced a depleted german army, unsupplied and not covered properly by its air force, but still he was a good field commander. Regarding the western allies facing rather weak german defenders - guys, the western allies faced 1/5 of the german wehrmacht's strength - the rest was caught in a desperate battle against the russians, the eastern front was the 'real' war. No way in hell the allies could have landed in Europe or anywhere else if the germans defeated or signed peace with the USSR. 80% of the damn war effort was beared by the soviets making them the most important member of the Allies. Whether we like it or not, it was the russians who defeated Germany in the first place. If you want to find true war heroes or brilliant generals, search them in the East - both sides had plenty of them.

@Bromley - WSA? Don't know what's that, sry. @JJR - indeed, the endowment of the Royal Army was overlooked during the interbellic period with, I may say, criminal negligence. Although 1938 for example saw Romania's economy at its historical peak. Corruption, politics, all that crap ate up all the cash and left the romanian army weak and underteched - indeed more like a WW1 era army. A few exceptions like the Royal Air Corps (with its well known aces), the crack troops 'Vinatori de Munte' (Mountain Jaegers) and the 2nd armoured division were good troops, respected both by the germans and the soviets. Obviously they were some sort of 'swan song' because the rest of the army was rather pathetic in respect to modern weaponry and leadership. One interesting note - at all times, Antonescu kept inside the country a sizeable force with rather modern equipment, ready, if the opportunity arose, to enter north-western Transylvania and reclaim the lost territory. This force was never committed to the eastern front, despite german requests for supplementing the contribution to the war. @Liam -> 'The Axis failed, the Minors were many unwilling partners.' Very true. Minors were used one against another,were promised the sun and the moon, just to keep a fragile status quo inside the alliance. Their armed forces were mocked by the germans on many ocassions, sometimes for nothing, if you judge that minor troops reached as far as Volga. They kept the italians, romanians responsible for the disaster at Stalingrad without willing to admit that with a 37mm PAK you can't even scratch the paint of a T34. Were Il Duce or Antonescu responsible of the decision to place weak troops on the flanks? Nope, the eastern war was coordinated 100% by the OKW. The examples could continue forever from throwing out of the trucks romanians, hungarians, italians when the army was retreating to the economical rip off the Reich 'gifted' its minors. Obviously the axis alliance was rotten from the inside mainly because the minors felt 'second hand' all the time. Big mistake, take for example the western democracies' alliance - built on completely different priciples - which eventually paid off.

Default 1939 campaign - noticed that the axis player can upgrade the air defence of the finnish fortification - russians for example cannot improve their own built fortifications, germans cannot upgrade the Siegfried Line. Note - I loaded the 1944 campaign just to check if this appears again - nope, finnish fortification cannot be upgraded in 1944 campaign. Hubert, can you check this out please?

I think it is ok that minors don't benefit from parent's tech. As of 1.03, at least their armies can kick some corps' butts Romanians were involved indeed, as Rambo said. The vast majority of the population and army were supporters of the western allied powers though. The initial stage of the war was heavily supported by the population and army because it was aimed at bringing back the eastern territories lost to the communist Russia in 1940. One step past the old boundary and the war lost its civilian and even military support. Some generals even resigned when the decision to push past Dnestr was taken. Did the romanians have a choice? I don't think so. Hitler used our rivalry with the hungarians to force both countries to obey its will. In his diplomatic game played vs Romanians Hitler enjoyed 2 trumps: 1. In august 1940, the nothern part of Transylvania was taken from Romania and given to Hungary 'as to prevent a war between the 2 countries'. Basically this piece of land was used by the Fuehrer to force the 2 countries to raise the level of support to the Reich - 'The history of Transylvania hasn't been written yet'- Hitler ; 'I hope so'- General Antonescu'. Probably the Hungarians received a reply like 'keep sending troops to the front and that real estate will stay yours'. 2. In 1940, the Iron guard government was sacked by Antonescu and the army, with the consent of the Fuehrer who realized that not the mystical - fascist Iron Guard would help him defeat Russia but a strong romanian army. But, the members of the Iron Guard govt. were secretly transferred to Germany and used afterwards as a mean of pressurizing Antonescu - 'You don't do as we want, we do have the other alternative...'. So,as you can imagine, ruling Romania was not an easy task back then. Should have we resisted Germany? I don't know - we would have ended communists anyway - Russia is way too close ... Regarding the romanian casualties ... some 160k + were lost against Germany alone. Against Russia...I can't remember exactly but it must have been pretty close. To my knowledge the royal army suffered cca 360,000 casualties during ww2 (dead, wounded, MIA) [ September 03, 2006, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: hellraiser ]

Competence and popularity - 2 great assets that may not keep you alive for too long indeed ...

game vs AI, patch 1.03 - encountered red tank near tbilisi with lvl 0 icon but at tech HT3. Unfortunately i won't be able to provide the save game until tuesday

Axis dow on ireland ain't impressing no major power. That's bad, because Allies do not enjoy the same advantage and Axis capture of Ireland is just too good to miss. This equals a dead UK with massed AFs in Ireland. I think it should be a penalty for Axis as well or no penalty for the allies.

absolutely no chance Hubert; it was a default campaign vs AI, patch 1.02 (i think 1940 campaign) by the way, today while playing axis vs Allied AI (blashy's mod), I encountered the same problem - a russian tank at lvl 2 but shown as a lvl 0 tank. I am sorry I don't have the save