Rolend

No doubt Retributar, I would think national production output would be higher in a country if they willing joined you vs you invading their country. Not to mention the destruction of infursturcture that goes along with an invasion.

Oh I understand that limiting range is the 'easy' way to go. However I think a more accurate historical way to go is along the lines of my suggestion. As for Germany not being able to do any Amphib landings with this type of system is wrong. Most of the time I take Denmark I have 2 aircraft nearby and the Denmark unit is destroyed before my troops ever arrive. The couple games where I took Norway I moved 2 air units up to Demark, declared war on Norway, bombed the unit in the capital, destroying it then landed my amphib unit directly into the city, end of Norway. By the way that is how they pretty much did it, with sea and air pounding the defense then the troops came ashore in the port. I contest that Germany had very POOR amphib ability and would of lost the war right there had they tried Sealion, even if they had some how managed to defeat the RAF. It would of taken them weeks to unload enough forces to mount any kind of operation and you think that during that time the RN and what remained of the RAF would of just sat around having tea?????? It is historical that low amphib tech meant that it took weeks to unload onto shore enough troops and equipment to able to fight a large army. With higher amphib you could do that same chore in hours and days. All I am asking for is a bit more historical accuracy. If it is not possible because of the current engine I understand programming constraints, but I can ask and who knows maybe with SC 3 it will be there

LOL @Lars yea I would be rich But I do understand Rambos point and tend to agree with him. I think a population pool makes more since then a unit number resrtriction. This would also give us a little more flexability in how we want our army to be, heavy in armor, or infintry or air etc. When you run out of people you run out of 'new' armys. Have each nation start the game with a base population then add in more each year to reflect population growth.

I still think lowering the range is not the way to go. Now that a Amphib tec has been added it should go something like this. Level 1. Units must wait one turn next to land before unloading. No movement allowed after unloading. Level 2. Units can unload on same turn. No movement allowed after landing. Level 3. Units can unload on same turn. Units may move if enough AP's after landing. With those added, Sealion will become very hard to pull off early in the game, as it was in real life.

I have only played one game against the AI since the patch and that was as the Axies player. It was a much better game as I had to keep troops in France to avoide getting rolled by a D-Day and then had to rush troops to N Africa when the US invaded there. I hope to try using the Allies this evening but I have this feeling that it swung the other way, the changes seem to be all plus side Allies and negative side Axies so I think an easy Allie win pre patch will be even easier post patch.

Blashy yep and after playing for weeks with the US doing nothing it was fun for a change However the AI does not use it's overwhelming air power very well when they make the landings in France. If they focused their entire air attacks against one of the port cities that port city could easlly be taken. However after the landings they spread their air attacks out over several areas and all the ports held, thus dooming the landings.

Well if they learn to buy back then the Germans are in DEEP trouble as one or two more units could of easlly tipped the balance. In fact I had to totally focus on Stalingrad as I was losing ground and not making it up near as fast as Russia was. Had the war in Russia gone on much longer I think Russia would of turned the tide. Once Stalingrad fell Russia gave up and a good 10 units around Stalingrad vanished. I love the bug fixes but I think the AI still needs some tweaking. I will say this, it was the toughest fight I have had with the AI since I started playing. The US getting involved forces you to keep a lot more units in the West, just as it was in real life, thus making Russia a lot harder to crack. I would think that human vs human it will be very tough for the Axies to win. I never did think the Axies edge was that great to begin with, now they are in real toruble. EDIT ADDED: One other note, taking that one German HQ in France away really hurts the Germans as even with that HQ by the start of the war in Russia they were already short 2 HQ, now make that 3.

Ok Blashy just a run of bad luck, thanks for the info. Now I know not to report it as a bug.

Ok before the patch I played a good 6+ games as Axies and in all of them I used diplo chits to bring Spain into the war on the side of the Axies. I had never had any problems with it. I played a game Saturday night, after I installed the patch, and started to put Chits into Spain in early 41. I got one bump in mid 41 and by end of 41 I had 5 full chits from both Germany and Italy. According to the display that gave me %25 chance from Germany and %15 chance from Italy each turn to bump Spain. I did NOT get another bump for the rest of the game that ended in 45. Now either I had a really bad run of luck, would not suprise me I am very unlucky, or something got FUBARed. Has anyone else seen this problem pre or post patch?

What was strange about Vichy Algeria was that they took Casablanca, which was undefended on turn one, but failed to take the other city. What I don't understand is with Casablanca being a port city there was NO reason for them to not land a HQ and more units and crush that 2nd city before I had time to respond. The inital invasion took me by total suprise only to be botched, that part was very disapointing. As far as AI not buying back units, well I am not sure if they do or don't but it sure seemed to me that Russia was getting units back in huge numbers and very quickly, even after I had them down to just Stalingrad. If they weren't buying back units then I would like to know where they got all those MPP's to buy new units with.

Alex that is another good point. I don't run into it offten but sometimes I will move one uint thinking that another can fill that spot only after I do I can't This is a good suggestion to highlight all possible spots a unit can move to inculde those already occupied.

8:30 PM West coast(PDT) now so looks like next week. Siggggghhhhhhhhhhh

Major I sure hope you are right

I am not so sure I like the idea of multiple attacks but losing action points before or after an attack just beacuse you want to check something out or by mistake just does not make any since to me. As for having more 'must have' techs, well personally I think they should all be must have, that way you have to make hard choices and tailor each game around those choices. By only having one or two 'must haves' then of course every game and every player will have those techs.

@Hellrasier the problem with waiting to attack Russia was that Russia was only getting stronger. The longer the Germans waited to attack Russia the worse the chance of final victory. I am a ferm beleiver that even had England made peace with Germany in say mid 41 and America stayed out of the war that an attack on Russia would of still meant the end of Germany. Yea it would of taken longer and been even more bloody for Russia but in the end Russia just had too many human resources and way to much land mass for the Germans to be able to win. The only way for the Germans to win WWII was not to include Russia in that war and as we all know that was Hitlers real focus.

I will say that losing the rest of a units action points after you have attacked or moved by accidentally declicking is a pain. I don't understand the reasoning behind taking away the rest of a units action points once it has been deselected. I think it is one of the only turn based games that does this and it can be annoying at times.

Well if we are talking SC 3 and 'big' why not turn SC into a strategic/tactical game. Have a similar strategic game as SC 2 but for each battle switch to a tactical map to resolve each battle tactically. Once the battle is done then back to the main strategic map. Yea I know it would take forever to play a game but then it would allow for more realistic naval, air and ground combat. Not really asking for this just an idea I thought I would toss out there.

Yep Yogi having the forces to invade all those minors and having the logistics to be able to pull it off are two entirely different things. Maybe the Infrastructure tech should have a bigger impact on the ability to 'Operate' troops around. Have the number of Operates per year limited based on your level of Infrastructure. If you have limited number of Operates per year you are going to have to seriously limit how many places you are at war. Seems a bit more realistic to me.

Were there no Russian troops in the Caucasus Pre German invasion? Couldn't you just give Russia a few more troops and tie them to the Caucasus? I hate the idea of no Turkey invasion by Germans because I think it would of been a valid aproach for Germany. Put a bunch of resources into finishng off the Middle East, push up into Iraq, Iran then DOW Turkey in 41 all the while keeping enough forces in Poland to keep the Russians 'honest' Once Germany had the Middle East and Turkey they could DOW on Russia and make the 'big' push through the Caucasus while driving East out of Poland. Once the Caucasus and Stalingrad fell( if they did) and large portions of Western Russian had fallen, even if Moscow and Leningrad still held the Germans might of been able to force a peace on Russia. Yea I know a long strecth but more doable I think then what they really did.

Yep even after Pearl Harbor there were very STRONG anti-war in Europe feelings. Most Americans thought that the Euros have their war and now we have ours in the Pacific. Without a Pearl Harbor I don't think there could of been much of anything to get America into the war in Europe. Hitler made a HUGE mistake by declaring war on America, although I do beleive he thought he had a deal with Japan that would have Japan declaring war on Russia if he did against America. But of course after Pearl Harbor there was no way Japan was going to take on China, America, the British Empire and Russia.

DD I understand where you are coming from, I can get too wrapped up in personal crap when what we are really here for is GAMING. Take your time away and clear your head but please, even though you and I have not seen eye to eye alot I hope you come back, you are a vaulable part of this community.

I would like to ask this, are political, relegious or socail views off limit in this forum? If so then I think a lot of us, to include myself need to be warned and then banned if we continue. If those types of views are allowed within the frame work of the subject then I think banning any one for their views, no matter how wrong they might be, should not happen. Look if we start banning ideas then someone has to be the judge of which ideas those are. Who is to decide which views are ok to discuss and which are not? You Kuniworht, JJ or DT? Sorry but I have never nor will I ever be for censorship, book burning(which is EXACTLY the same thing) or any type of queling of ideas. ALL ideas have a place and how can we truly decide which are best if we can't hear them all??? Personally I KNOW the Holocust happened and beleive that anyone who says other wise is either stupid, politicaly motivated or both. It is much better for me to know WHO the person that thinks that way is, so I can be aware of the type of person I am dealing with. Start banning ideas you don't like or agree with, no matter how offensive those ideas might be and you start down a very slippery slope and will only end with no ideas being allowed.

Ahhh good to know so don't load it until you re done with current games. By the way, the million dollar question, when?

I have to agree with JJ I think it would of been insane for America to go after Russia in 45. First Europe was done with war, after all they had been at it 2 years longer and most of the fighting, destruction and dieing had been done in Europe. Who would of fought with us? The English, maybe but even if they had they were shot, nothing left so they would not of been much of a help except as a jumping off point for our troops. The French, pffffft thanks but no thanks, "I surrender France" would just get in the way. The Germans LOL a few of the fanatical ones but not enough to count. As for all those supplies we were sending to Russia, well you think all of it had been used up? Think again Uncle Joe had been stock piling a LOT of it in the last 6 months of the war, great we get to fight an enemy with far greater numbers fighting with stuff we supplied them. Don't forget the Japanese, if they saw us going to war with Russia do you think they would of surrendered even after we dropped a couple of bombs, not a chance. I am sorry but I think this idea is loony we would of fared worse then the Germans in Russia and that is if you could even convince the American people to go along, the same people that never even wanted in the war in Europe. I am as proud and patriotic American as any one but this idea that Americans are some how super warriors and can beat anyone any time is just arrogant and dangerous to boot, not to mention just plain wrong. It is that same attitude that got us into trouble in Nam and now in Iraq and frankly I am getting tired of being the worlds policemen while being scorned by the rest of the world as the center for all the worlds problems. I think the Americans pre-WWII view had it right, isolationist, let others clean up their own problems. **** Gets off soap box*******

Lars I love choices, and this game with the editor you have lots of choices but mines might be a bit tricky to add with the editor so put them in the game, but please give us the option to turn them off