markpoll

Why does amphib tech effect the movement range of the transported troops, instead of (what seems more obvious to me) the number of troops that can be transported? Eg, if you have amphib tech 2, you can have say 2 units loaded on transports at any one time. That way, if you want to do an invasion, you need to prepare.

This game was beta tested and released with relatively few bugs. The patch content has largely been game enhancements. You're complaining?

Yes. The Germans in their DOW on the US on 11/12/41 (an interesting read) cited the US decision to attack German warships on sight despite strict German compliance with international law!!! Clearly though, it was the price for Japanese entry into the war. An interesting point though, the US did not declare war, except after the Germans and Japanese had, despite all the provocations.

I think most of you are missing the point. If you make it realistic, you break it, because the balance would be way out. I assume Hubert did this intentionally, with input from playtesters, to balance the game. Thank you. Also, re the inference that the US came in when all was decided and hence were "yellow", that's very unfair. That's just being cautious with your mens' lives. The war probably had already been decided, but D Day hadn't and that isn't something you would gamble on, at least after Dieppe. You would wait until you were sure. As it was, Omaha was touch and go.

It's as per real life, except that it should increase US readiness. In fact, if you take the risk of intercepting US convoys (which the Germans did), there should be a % chance of a Luisitania type incident and a big spike in US readiness.

If you'll play it MP, you should enjoy it. I don't play MP, but it seems from other's posts that it is a superb MP game. If you will be using it SP only, don't bother until the AI is improved. I'm yet to win a game later than Sept 42 as either side. As allies, I had a game where Poland held out to mid 41 and games where France did not fall at all. My copy is now on the shelf gathering dust, where it will stay until the AI improves or I figure out a way (given time zone and work commitment issues) to play it MP. Don't worry about the squares vs hexes issue. It plays just fine on that level.

I understood the French units being at 5 as being to do with readiness, not numbers.

I don't think that was the experience of say the marines at Tarawa or say the US at Omaha, despite laying down some of the heaviest air and sea bombardmentspossible with the technology of the time. I think it's fair to say that naval bombardment in WWII could at best be expected to cause some casualties and reduce entrenchment and supply. Also, the bombarding unit should not take casualties, just have it's supply level reduced for ammo consumption. [ June 06, 2006, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: markpoll ]

Squad Leader would be sensational. I'm more active at Matrix than here and have a number of their games and virtually all the Talonsoft games, but have to agree with the comments above. They spread themselves too thin working on too much at once. Also, although it's their right to cater to whatever market they want, a lot of their games are too involved for my tastes, though it was pleasure for me to see Gary Grigsby move from say Pacific War to World at War, which I really like (you can't compare it to SC2 of course as it's an entirely different game, but until the AI in SC2 improves, its the better SP experience). I played Pacific War once, as allies. It consumed my evenings for several months. By the end, I was amazed how well it recreated the WWII experience, from the CIC's point of view - months of endless tedium, repetition, frustration and casualties, endless rotation of non performing TF commanders, incredible weariness and desperation for it to end. As soon as I had the option to drop the bomb, I didn't hesitate (actually giving me a new insight into that decision). I'll never play it again, but I often wish someone would do something similar but playable, maybe like SC2 if the map was Pacific theatre only and smaller scale, eg individual divisions, capital ships & squadrons. You'd also need amphibious assaults and task forces. So that's my wish for the next HC project. [ June 03, 2006, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: markpoll ]

What I'd also like to see is: 1. (already in game) defending ground units can't be assaulted from a sea hex, but 2. (partially new) amphib units can't land on an undefended hex without successfully assaulting it. What I mean by undefended is that there is no unit there, but some sort of assumed defence, especially if fortified. What I mean by assaulted is that there is a roll made to see if you land successfully and if so with what casualties. You could increase the odds by shore and air bombardment in preparation. I realise that landing casualties sort of does this already, but it makes a landing a given (albeit with casualties) unless the defender puts units along the shore, which he's unlikely to be able to do (with the smallest unit being a corps). The practical effect I'd be after is that you couldn't land amphibiously outside air cover, without prior air and sea bombardment to reduce the defendersand a success roll based on that, even where there is no unit in the hex. Perhaps it should be limited to where the defender used an engineer to build a fort.

You are not "oozing around" or "bending a little" guidelines with comments to myself and other new members like: "It's always wonderful when someone with six posts comes along and uses his seventh to define all the problems with his infinite wisdom" "Please, if you have equally boring suggestions keep them to yourself." "Meanwhile you've only got twelve posts .....Your words would have much greater validity..." "What a jackass" "you're only presumptuous and, it turns out, also nasty, obnoxious and as bad as a troll yourself" "you don't have the credentials mister dozen or so posts know-it-all" And you're calling it personal abuse to point out that those comments are arrogant and ignorant. If you want to move on, fine, but if you don't want these sort of counterproductive discussions, don't start them. This began when you made personal insults to THREE new members (in the one post) who had made reasonable comments. [ May 28, 2006, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: markpoll ]

Jersey John Complain away, but you might want to read the forum rules and reread your posts before you do.

Jersey John You are arrogant and ignorant. You are telling me based on relative post numbers whatI may or may not say. I am not setting guidelines for moderators. I am reminding them of their own, eg: Moon Administrator Member # 386 posted 26-08-2003 11:32 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We would like to remind everybody that this forum is for discussion about game-related issues only, for forum regulars as well as for new players. As much as we like to see a community around the game, personal messages have no place here, as do any off-topic posts. As a reminder to everybody: - game related posts, questions and discussions, AARs and, if you want, league standings belong here. Discussion about WWII strategic and/or historical topics are allowed, as long as they relate to the game somehow. - game challenges (general or to individuals) belong in the Opponent finder forum - support and tech questions belong in the SC Tech support forum - everything else goes into the General Forum or doesn't belong here at all; if you need to exchange private messages, use email, ICQ or what not. - posting pictures is tolerated as long as it's on topic and within limits - posting profanity will result in an immediate ban For the time being, the admins will enforce the forum rules strictly. Anybody not conforming to those rules will be banned without warning. Email one of the moderators if you are not sure about posting certain content. This forum is a place for *everybody* to exchange their thoughts and opinions about the game, and this set of simple rules are in place to ensure that the general atmosphere here allows old and new members to do this in a mature, friendly and comfortable surrounding. Battlefront.com and Moon Administrator Member # 386 posted 23-12-2004 06:03 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Free speech" doesn't mean that *everything* is allowed. People often forget that. There always have to be some rules, and some people that enforce them, in order to keep a forum open for everybody to participate. Moderation and administration are a necessary evil. Everyone at Battlefront would prefer to do something else instead, believe me that, like for example make good games. Oh, and I am locking this. Not censorship, but locking a discussion because it's not going to lead anywhere except down. Just like a thread will get locked when it gets too personal or abusive. Martin [ May 28, 2006, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: markpoll ]

Jersey John What planet are you from? "messianic remarks", "we don't need any more chiefs...."? You do have a high opinion of yourself don't you. I'm guessing you're one of those "I have 6000 posts so I own the site" kind of guys. Moderators Some of the comments made recently are not only offensive, they are illegal, at least where I'm viewing the site. Not that this should be a prerequisite, but I am an older German (now living in Australia), who lost family in the camps. Surely, it's reasonable for me to come here for information about a computer game I've just bought from you without being exposed to a debate about the camps,let alone Chris G's David Irving type rantings or Jersey John's "who gave you permission to speak Mr 12 posts" nonsense. [ May 28, 2006, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: markpoll ]

@JerseyJohn. You're arrogant and ignorant if you base the worth of a person's opinion on how many posts they've made. Not that I need to account to you, but I'll be around while I'm playing BF games (SC2 is #5). I won't be around (or buying BF games) if it's an unpleasant or offensive experience to come to the site when I need info.