Rolend
-
Posts
333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Rolend
-
-
Lars I think that is a bit over played, it was more the lack of supplies then the lack of a roof over their heads. Besides Napoleon thought that he could force the Russain army to 'come out and play' if he went after Moscow, he wanted to destory the Russian army more then take Moscow. This however is getting slighthly off subject, I only used it as an example to point out that the fall of Moscow would certenly not meant the fall of Russia.
-
Yes and besides many Americans believed that was how we were duped into being drug into WWI, they were not going to fall for that 'ploy' again in WWII. Americans knew that FDR was pushing neutrality with Germany by things like lend lease and US destroyer escorts actually attacking German U-boats. The sinking of US merchant ships or destroyer escorts was NOT going to convince a VERY isolationist nation to go to war in Europe. In fact even after Pearl Harbor there was a VERY strong feeling that "Europe has their war and we have ours." Yea FDR would of got us into the war in Europe one way or another but what did the trick so early was that genius Hitler when he declared war on the US.
-
Mud also played a part in why Moscow was not taken, there was weeks of bad mud before hard winter set in and that caused as much of a slow down as the winter did. Not to mention that the Germans could of taken Moscow without a fight had they not turned south 6 weeks earlier to surround and cutoff some half a million Russians, after which they restarted their push on Moscow, had they not delayed they would of easily had Moscow.
With that said I agree with those that say it would not of changed a thing. Moscow was just not that important a strategic target. Just ask Napoleon how taking Moscow helped his Russian campaign. It is mind boggling if you look at the total number of killed, wounded or captured Russian soldiers in the first year of the war, or the amount of land lost to the Germans, yet there seemed to be an endless supply of Russians and a never ending Russia. Just read some of the journals form German soldiers taken during the first year, and keep in mind this is when they were 'crushing' Russia. Could the Germans of caused the downfall of Stalin, possibly but I just don't think they had the man power or resources to beat Russia out right.
-
Well in other post about this subject I have stated my opinon but heck might as well again. Dive should be upped, when they lowered it in the patch I thought it was a mistake, it should of been upped not lowered. Also damage done to surface fleets (transports excluded) when attacked by U-Boats should be lowered, I just think it is so un-realistic to use U-boats as if they are serfuace fleets, I know some of you don't agree. Last U-boats should take damage when hitting convoys as the vast majority of U-Boats were sunk when envovled in convoy raiding.
-
Keep this on the front page tell HC says ok
-
Weedd I to am a big fan of the Panzer General series but I don't think you can really compare the two games. PG was a tatical based game, SC is a stratigic level game. I don't like the idea of having set Techs in a game like SC. I just wish there was a little less luck to it, and no I am not saying to elimante luck but the system needs tweaking and honestly I am not sure which of these ideas is best so I will just say lets keep the ideas coming.
-
I hate to see all the anti US and anti Euro trash slung around, there really is no point to it. After all this is a game and what we all really want is a fun game.
IMO if we made this game historical from a resource point of view, both man power and industry then there would be NO need to even play it as the Germans had ZERO chance of winning a war against England, America and Russia. Heck I have my doubts that they could of beaten the Russian even had the English and Americans stayed out of the war.
So to make this game fun to play you HAVE to over do the Axis and down play the Allies, does this make the game designer anti American or pro Nazi? Hardly it just means he has developed a GAME where either side has a chance to win.
I am all for as much historical accuracy as the next guy, just look at some of my posts in the Sealion thread, but you HAVE to compromise on some things or you just won't have a game worth playing.
I am a proud American Vet and so much of this anti American flaming is depressing and inflaming. On the same hand all this America rules, we are Gods and never do anything wrong crap, sad and embarrassing. I think if someone is truly objective they will find the truth some where between those extremes.
-
SeaMonkey you think i would tell you that and lose our edge, the earth will belong to 'us.' All your worlds belong to me
EDIT ADDED: I am a big fan of the old Twilte Zone series, and this reminded me of that. There was one show where everyone was sure there was this allien running around and they were all stranded in this coffie shop do to bad weather and a bridge being out. They kept trying to figure out who the allien was and were trying to get the dinner cook to help. Turned out there was actully 2 differant alliens and the dinner cook was one of them, he had a thirid eye under his cook hat LOL. ... Emmm no don't even think it, never mind I brought it up, I am not that dinner cook LOL
Shhhhhhh Don't tell anyone this is the real me
[ June 16, 2006, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ]
-
Who you calling human??? SeaMonkeys arn't the only allien life forms prowling the earth LOL
-
Humm very good point R.J. never looked at it that way. Weather should effect a air units abiltiy to carry out its mission but not the range.
-
Point taken Lars but the Axies can take Sweden back, the Allies will be hard pressed to do anything about the effects Spain will have long term. Sure Sweden is a pain but can be dealt with, and needs to be very quickly as you have stated the Russians are coming the Russians are coming
This is a very differant start to most AAR's posted here I can't wait to see how it turns out.[ June 16, 2006, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]
-
Rambo, don't over react here, yea I think tech is off and needs tweaking but it certinaly is not a game breaker. My biggest problem with it is it relys too much on luck, sure I don't mind some luck but when it has such a BIG impact on the over all game that bothers me.
-
Yea but having Spain this early will make N Africa a snap once Gibralter falls, Spain affects an entire region and even keeps the US from the Med once it enters the war. I think Spain is HUGE for the Axies and even more so when brought in early.
Plus Sweden can be invaded if need be where as at this point in the game the Allies have no counter to Spain. Well done Jolly.
-
You want some random in the tech and still keep it strategy? Why not have it so that it is automatc but can take a random period of time to be deployed? Make the chance dealy say a few weeks to say 10 and make techs more expensive and not allow more then one chit at a time.
EDIT ADDED:
Another thing that bugs me is the set cost of a tech. NO way you can know how much something is going to cost going into a project. For each week of dealy it would be reuqired for you to put more MPP to keep the resarch going. That way you have to make real decisions about what is more important, the tech or that new unit or unit upgrade.
[ June 15, 2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ]
-
Yes DT and to make matters worse reaching those levels is highly dependant on luck which for me compounds the problem even more.
-
Yep and historically that is exactly what they were. Heck had Romaina had a real fighting force Stalingrad would of most likly turned out completly differant then it did.Originally posted by Exel:...
What it would do is only to make the minor units effective and usable. At the moment they are of little use aside from garrison duty and cannon fodder. Level 0 infantry or fighters are simply no match against level 2 of the same.
...
If you are going to give techs to minors then I think 2 levels below is more realistic and giving CW troops exact same level as English.
-
Yep and historically that is exactly what they were. Heck had Romaina had a real fighting force Stalingrad would of most likly turned out completly differant then it did.Originally posted by Exel:...
What it would do is only to make the minor units effective and usable. At the moment they are of little use aside from garrison duty and cannon fodder. Level 0 infantry or fighters are simply no match against level 2 of the same.
...
If you are going to give techs to minors then I think 2 levels below is more realistic and giving CW troops exact same level as English.
-
Yogi yep and I can take N Africa with just Italy troops if I am carefull which to me is VERY unrealistic. The only reason Hitler even sent the AK was to bail out Italy, he really did not want any offensive ops, that was all Romels doing. I will say it again, I think if any city in Italy falls then they should surrender.
-
Ok Willy no problem and heck as far as negative post goes please don't stop doing that, I do a lot of that myself
The only way to make the game better is to post the negative things, they have to know what is broke if they are to fix it. So when you find strange things the AI might do jump on in here and let them know. -
Major I still don't think it should even if early. The people of Italy were not at all in favor of the war, the reason they fought so poorly in all thier battles was the vast majority of them just didn't want in the war in the first place. I still think had Sicily fell even early Itlay would of been out of the war.
-
Well I think there are some problems with the basic amphib opps as stated in the Sealion thread. However when a human player does something that I consider gamey to start with, like the Germans invading the Americas, even though it is possible with the current game engine, then don't be surprised by the results.
I think the AI does need some work but to expect ANY AI to play with the flexibility of a human is just expecting too much. Heck IBM took 10 years and millions of dollars to setup a dedicated computer to be able to beat a chess champion, and they really didn't even use 'AI' to do it, they just gave the computer the ability to look at enough possible moves in advance.
Lastly your brash and down right rude tone won't win you friends here and I dare say will get your concerns ignored by the developers and testers. You do have some valid complaints but I think you would get a lot more support and even changes to the game if you take a more civil approach to your post.
-
I just always take the Southern city first, it is always undefended and being a port makes taking Rome easy. As far as changing capitals if Rome falls I don't like the idea, histroically Italy surrendered long before the fall of Rome, it was up to Germany to either let it go or defend and of course they sent in more troops. Personally I would have Italy surrender at the lose of any of their cities to include Sicily.
-
I second that motion.
-
Water and crackers LOL better yet rum and coke, you can have some strange Risk games drunk
Suggestion - remove Sov & UK surrenders, change vic conditions
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
TJ that is true about Korea, no peace treaty was ever signed, just a cease fire. If N Korea goes ahead with the launching of that long range missle things could heat up again, after all Bush has N Korea on his list of 'evil' and we know how triger happy he is