aesopo

That is not a sound business model as this genre appeals to a specific market - not to the general public. He was probably smoking a joint while he wrote it.

Yes SC wins in comparison -no question- but a nice feature of commander is the manpower and how depleting your manpower can affect your industrial output. The AI is very competent and on high levels you will be soundly defeated.

I like playing the reds and I generally go into a defensive mode except being active against the baltics until I have teched up and fully mobilized against the white factions. The reds have several fronts to contend with but if he does not play recklessly - his mpps, troops and tech will overwhelm the whites. I fight to the south just to extricate from the sevastopol area and may involve declaring early against the ukraine - fighting withdrawal from stavropol and eliminating the cav in elista. Hold at Tyaritsyn. I op out the art to the baltics as they are the easiest faction to overcome and ga

You should look at the minimum specs required to run it at the web store page of the product.

SC3 would need the ability to use parallel processing so big scenarios won't drag.

Yep, the war of attrition in the west without overwhelming odds for the kaiser is kaput. Meanwhile, Russia is left on the hook and is still kicking and starting to jab back.

In my desk jockey general position, I think the CP time table had been disrupted by Russia's hanging on. The mid-east incursion is also pin-pricking. 1917 is around the corner where the USA's resources is going to bear. I would have preferred an all out assault on Russia in 1914 and it should be done by 1915 then sweep west- a CP player would enough resources to batter entente forces both on the mid-east and west. I would have kept a narrow west front and not attack Belgium. Not unless the CP has tremendous overwhelming force in the west by now.

As with the manpower pool, it should also increase incrementally according to your demographics and conquered territory. Policies should be feasible to increase your recruitment pool but at the same time affect other aspects of your country (unrest, lowered morale, reduced industrial capacity, etc.).

Also, the AH navy could be saved combined with the Otto's in conjunction with the Kaiser's, to later leap into later action to challenge the RN. Ideally, Italy would have been knocked out before this happens.

Agree 100%. Rolling the whole Eastern front gives an impetus for the Allies to break on the Western front as the Eastern front could not be held. So, the Eastern front strategy also has it's disadvantages. But from the long term view point, the East would provide additional resources and forces to steam roll the Mid-East, Africa, India and still hold the Western front while this is going on. Due to a shorter front on the West, it can be defended. The Allies are really stretched to hold far flung positions and the Axis forces would have a shorter line of supply and ability to amass forces quick

I wholeheartedly agree with you - the Russians can be rolled up in order and the Balkans secured and the Western Front is a short defensive line for Germany. Supply isolation of garrisons is a most welcome change, added to the HQ damage and reduced logistical support.

We should really allow manpower pools and replacing losses also depletes the manpower pool. Allow veteran replacements of losses- it would just take longer for replacement to reflect the needed training and integration of the new troops. This will bring more realism to this already fantastic game - also allow limited foreign manpower pools (historical) to be available. Allow units and leaders to develop special combat attributes. Allow supply priorities/levels given to HQs. Supply should be limited as in real life.

Look at the event scripts for this and you would know for sure.

It is still the same story with the island hopping- Japan stretches and then gets overstretched without acting in coordination with it's strategic partners- focus neeeds to be on China as just holding the islands and waiting for the American might to eventually come down is a slow death. Japan needs to strain the USSR/Brits as Germany and Italy are rolling in- without Russia the war is finished. Go ahead and take Japan in Russia's stead. The mideast/India/Africa would also be in full play.

This is what i have mentioned before- the slight MPP gain in taking far flung distant islands does not pan out (naval investment, costly amphib mpps) versus on concentrating on the Chinese mainland and then making in-roads to India and the USSR- let the US spend the naval investment and amphib mpps to try to take Japan. Japan needs to work in coordination with German and Italian forces as a comprehensive strategy, concentration of force, and effective cost ratio utilization of force.