Minty

totally going off seamonkeys's original question. In summary: historically Rambo right, nazi boys wouldn't didn't like it up 'em , espacially with their feet wet. Seamonkey didn't ask if Sealion was possible in 1940. It wasn;t , it didn't happen. He asked if the game was imbalanced cos he thought it was in favour of the Axis. It is bias but not in favour of axis. Allied tough to beat in Waw. read my previous poss if you want to know why. super. end of discussion.

Ludi, what are you concerned about anyway? In WaW the rockets have been newtered. IF the germans pile a huge amount of R&D in them they get two thinsg 1) Rockets that are quite good at blwoing up strategic targest but no use against tanks, ships etc 2) Russians marching in berlin in 44 cos they couldn't afford to build bigger tanks or guns.

Played quite a few WaW games now. In short the game is imbalanced slightly, and in favour of Allies. Yes if the Axis want to Sealion and are determined they can wipe out UK and then Eygpt too if they want. Result? A much weakened barborossa and in WaW the availability of cheap ,defensive specialist units like anti air, anti tank, artillery give a huge advantage to the soviets. Am slowly becoming disillsioned with WaW after a few months of play. Whilst lots of new things are possible, if you do them (against a good player) you'll lose. It becomes quite predictable and historical and frankly a little boring. In short I think blashy may have had too strong a hand in it's development (no offence, appreciate the work but his style is more to simulation side than open what if gaming) The new units smoother the creativity. I don't quite agree with Terif (yet, although I'm coming round to it) that it becomes trench warfare (too mobile for that) but it is tactically very restrictive. Two players of equal skill = allied victory in WaW at present. Main reason is disproprotiate MPP cost defence abilities available to the USSR.

Did you send an HQ? These are vital. they provide supply and exp to troops. without them you'll be donw to supply 0. With just a HQ close by you get supply 4 or less ( depending on distance) If you can capture a port or city then the HQ supply base can go up 8 or even 10 giving your units supply 7 or less. Naval bombardment reduces morale and does stratgic damage to cities or ports but doesn't always score a hit to reduce entrenchment. carriers do though Your priority should be to secure a port/ city to get the supply up.

hi,didn't get it or must have been blocked by spam filter. can you try again with WAW as subject? thanks !

Terif, whilst your concerns about super units and exploits are clear, I have to disagree. You referenced Sombra highlighting Tactical bombers and subs. Whilst the subs are much more potent in WaW, they are far from unbeatablenad if the Axis do invest so much in them that they are all powerfull then he's probably light in the east. Exactly the same for Tactical bombers, they are extremely vunerable to interceptors and air defence. You'll get your butt kicked by them if you don't defend and invest in appropriate counters but not if you do. I really feel WaW has a full range of rock , scissors and paper unlike SC2 where the airfleets are all powerful with less effective defence. As for superunits, yep my brandenbergers special forces and Decima marines fight like they are cyborgs from the 26th century IF I look after them and use them carefully. Same with other superunits, but this is nothing that has changed from SC2 with the arifleets or tanks there.

I can do it, PBEM , few turns a day? who you want to be? I have a slight preference for the nazi bashing but don't mind. minty at rocketmail.com

Is it possible that Terif has learnt all the SC2 exploits to perfection (witness in those screen shots the Italian and Romanian fighters that wipe out the russians) has less interest in Waw as the playtesters have done a much better job of not having so many exploits available. Put simply there aren't as many SC1 aircraft carrier type situations. The micromanagement argument is bunk, WaW has typically 10 to 20% more units in the theatre. Terif, you're the master of this, we miss you playing WaW, it's great. kick our butts on it so we can learn more.

still not got mine either, very glad I paid for the download version too!

Definetly want swordfish icons. And since motorised Antitank is the best bargain on the eastern front a tank destroyer icon would represent how good it really is.

I'm no expert but that plan didn't work too well did it?

I ordered mine in October and it still hasn't arrived in the UK.

stalin's organist. I was wrong about the engines , they are more powerful than (and heavier than) later engines. However your choice of comparision is poor or deliberattely misleading. You compare the Hood class with another WW1 battleship class QE to say that Hood was also a battleship by havig the same armour. The Hood was nearly 20,000 tonnnes bigger than the QE battleships ( a class that was all sunk or put out of front line action in WW2). As a proportion of her weight she did sacrifice armour for speed. If you compare her with armour RN battleships of the same weight (KGV) class as you do the engines ( a more fair comparision although the Hood was still heavier) then the armour is massively sacrificed to keep that big engine in there. You are absolutely right that the threat had changed. I'm not sure the RN desigsn were much of an improevement over the interwar years, the N3s fro 1918 design would have been the equal of the bismarck. It's just that we stuck to the naval agreements, and the Germans didn't. Hence the Tirpitz and Bismarck were so far ahead of their contemporaries

Dgold07, it sounds like your forces are still quite advanced. Supply is a critical in SC2 and west of Kharkov German supply is too strong. He'll make mincemeat out of you. Pull back, delay him but be prepared to lose at least 4 or 5 cities without wiping out your whole forces. Then make a stand in 42/43 from deeper in Russia. Even losing Moscow is not a big deal, russia is a big place.

Sea Monkey, you're thinking Destination Tokyo where confusingly Cary Grant has the role of a maverick one of a kind US sub captain off the coast of Japan playing cat and mouse with the Japanese Navy, as opposed to Run Silent , Run Deep, where Cary Grant has the role of a maverick one of a kind US sub captain off the coast of Japan playing cat and mouse with the Japanese Navy.

But he didn't sink the sub, he sank the destroyer, he goes back when he realises that the crafty japs collected the garbage he threw out and knew his boat number. cracking film

saudi only has to be above 30% right? 2, maybe 3 diplomacy hits. cost of 150 to 225mpp. probably take a year. Say start in jan 41 means you get it jan 42. then 2 years of 20 MMP a turn = 40 X 20 = 800MPP.start earlier with the british and you get a lot more. Seems a bargain to me

I love the new railroads in WaW. but a railyard ( no MPP value like the new towns ) would be great. say take 180 days to build). also being able to build railways would be an interestinnbg feature. again say 180 days per tile. Could be done by engineers not POWs (I'm thinking Burma) I suppose if we want to go crazy how about a script " German engineers complete Eurotunnel and invade England"

Didn't Cary Grant die in that film though? and it was a destroyer he sank not a Japanese Sub. I know my bungo straights

Yes it is like this at present. Treadhead writes "It only makes since that the longer you research something the greater the odds are that you will get it. " This is what happens at present. the earlier you invest in something the more likely you are to get it. the percentage stays the same but you keep rolling the dice. I've never played a game where I don't get at least some of the tech advances I want, maybe not as soon as I'd like them but eventually. I think patience and concentrating 2 or more chits on a couple of techs that you need quickly (ie ASW or IF) are the best.

already happens, cost effectiveness increases as percantage of subsequent chances reduces but cost stays the same

Hood wasn't a battleship, It was the ultimate in Fisher's Battlecruiser idea. It was laid down during WW1. It was obsolete by the time it was built but it looked pretty, was fast, big and had big gun. But it massively sacrificed armour for speed. By WW2 engines were such that this sacrififce wasn't needed, Bismarck class and King George V could achieve similar speeds but really fight. If HMS Hood was in the game it should be a cruiser. Scharnhorst class cruisers were classed as battleships by the germans but as cruisers by the british as they were undergunned.

and complaining that germany can't win from 41 is like saying they can't win if you start in March 45. Too many bad decisions by that time. although you do benefit from massive underinvestment in the USSR if you start in 41. Weiss 39 is well balanced, even 40, but any later and yes it's tough for International Facists R Us to win.

Comrade workers building for a better future to protect their families against fascists vs slave labour from nazi death camps or Polish POWs. Now who do you want to build your house? I think Axis should have a special feature where there's a 1% chance a turn that the engines of the Me109s seize up and expode in mid flight because some Czech mechanics "forgot" to tighten the screws at the Skoda factory.

If you want to help the UK then the ASW for the Strat bombers is a fun option. fits the whole multi layered combined arms feel of WaW. UK has enough ships.