Scook

Hmmm, I think I will partially pay this year's taxes with the rebate. Keepin' the nose to the grindstone.

Because you are German, you really would like to have accurate test results, it's in your blood! (well, ok, any scientist would really want to know). So, move those rockets to a place you can see what is happening: Malta. After firing a few thousand rockets at the island (and get to at least two bars of xp and pump them up to str 12)your teams will have valuable data to help ensure a more devastaing attack with rockets. By that time, you will want them in the Eastern Front to help slow the Red Tide. Blast some economic centers down to 0, find the HQs and *ahem* disrupt their supply capabilities. Game play, I find rockets, no matter what tech level, very useless until you get to 2 bars of xp, and overstrength them. I think the way combat is calcutated the multipliers from those two facets are what give the oomph to rockets.

Ok, so why are hexes so much more important to use than tiles? Please keep your answers to a paragraph or less, no reason to expound too much, just something concise. If you like tiles more that hexes, please feel free to express that too.

Yes, there are some things in the global scenario that the game engines of SC2 and WaW cannot handle. The biggest one to me is a spearate peace between Japan and USSR. In a HvH game, house rules can cover this, but HvComp, you are forced as Japan to stomp all over the Russian computer player. If SC3 includes a vast world scenario, this is one area that will have to be addressed, along with China/Burma and MPPs for China (USA should supply, not Britian). But this will give HC something to play with, along with all the ideas in the sticky thread for SC3.

Wow, thanks Hubert. I thought that would be a bug. Didn't think in terms that on amphib and landing = not moving from a tile and able to shoot. That gives me some more ideas for the Allies.

The Strategic Bombers in Canada and Iceland cannot be operated out of their home countries, think of them as sub watcher/hunters, that's their purpose. As long as USA is in the war, you should be able to operate your aircraft to any city of level 5 or higher that USA or Britian control, or adjacent to it.

The longer I play WaW, I think 3 is the right number of rockets, and the reduction for USSR is appropriate too. Now, for some theoretical stuff.... 1) The 1st prototype of the Panther was used in Norway in 1940, Hit concluded they didnt need something so big or costly, so they didnt manufacture any more for several years. Think of the impact if they adopted that design in 1940 and attempted to mass manufacter it... 2) From that idea, how far did they get in rocket technologyin the war? I would guess maybe tech level 2. So, for comparison, I would think rockets would be tech 2, with maybe 1 bar of experience. You will not do much damage with that. Sooo, in game with tech 4 and 5 bars of xp should do some damage. 3) Experience: Once the Germans observed Russian rocket attacks, they developed nebelwerfers (sp). After about 6 months of use, they developed the concept of stonking, or dropping all the rockets on an area at the same time, or as close to it as possible. This was very psychologicially and physically damaging to the areas hit. This concept didn't pop up overnight, but from lots of time in the field. Take the example of SCUD launchers from an above post. I would have to say that those would be tech 0 or 1, and no xp, and look at the effects it had. So, give the Axis more time and resources developing rocket technology, and I think many things that took 20 years to develop after WWII might occur a lot sooner. So, I feel WaW rockets are not so out there, and they do less damage to units compared to SC2. Once tech and xp are added to these units, they can do a fair amount of damage to units, but I feel that could be plausible in the context of our game. Since there are 3 units and not 5, used properly, they can be usfeul, but not necessarily dominant in a game, imo.

Well, everything is based on MPP limitations for transporting. If in game there is a hard cap for each country of how many amphib and transports are avaialble at any time this would curb the Sealion antics. Say, for example, Germany is to launch an invasion with 2 tanks, 4 armies and an HQ, that would not be feasible, even if the British lent Germany amphibs to invade. The naval cost can be very high, especially if the German uses invasion as a feignt to destroy the RN. But, everything in SC has a price.... To go on with Minty, and what Terif has said before, the logistic limitations of WaW really channel what the Axis can do. Barbarosa has to be a smash hit, or the Axis are in for a long game, no two ways about it. This may or may not be a bad thing, as many SC games are very ahistorical and Middle East is a hotbed of activity; that would have not occurred because of logistics. The few changes in WaW to limit logistics does limit the wide open games from SC2, and it becomes very clear why AH would invade the USSR. Pick your poison on this, maybe a better balance can be derived. So, I have not found a good reason in WaW to invade Britain, except to keep France and Germany free of Allied bombing. Weak, very weak, and there is no movement for Spain and Turkey in WaW for invasion of Britain.

Coming back to imbalance in game, which way do you say it tilts the game, to the Axis or Allies? All I see is Cairo vs. Ottowa for historical debate......... edit.... Ok, your last sentence. No, I tend to find the balance is still there. If you want to stop and invasion, you have work on it, and some ships (British, unfortunatly) will end up in the bottom of the channel. The addition from patch 1.2 of having combat vessels able to shoot at all transports moving by help tremendously. As for Africa vs. Canada, I think its a game mechanic. Canada ships her resources out, and I dont think there is a function to make it stop when that country does not change hands (ie: conquered). So by default, the only other territory on map for the British Empire is Africa. Yes, I do believe because the ocean crossing to Canada is shorter the govt. would move there. [ January 20, 2008, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Scook ]

Yep, it was a test to compare, Manstein out of the box = a well blooded Leeb. And there are no weaker jobs in Russia for Germans! Leeb shall be designated to fight the British in the desert to earn his pay.

There is scripting you can do to make things occur in a game, which compares 2 values and makes something happen. Would be very interesting if you could use a minor country entry % as a variable to make things happen. For example, Spain could send an army to germany once they hit 60%, or using the above, Sweden is 50% and Finland has joined the Axis, then a corps from Sweden appears in Finland. You can look at the computer scripts in WaW, the Norway script for German troops, and the minor country units for Great Britain as great examples. Honch's mod makes a lot of use for scripting, and Kuniworthski has a lot of flavor text and Allied bombing in his Eastern front scenario. Gads, I need to make time again for playing around with the editor.

I did a test game for Germany where I bought the level 6 HQs (Leeb, Von XXXXX, etc) to save a few MPPs and to test how much difference the quality is. I had supply, but Manstien vs Leeb is no contest. I couldn't kill as fast, and I took more losses. The break line I found in testing are the quality 7 generals, maybe from rounding. Just don't skimp on quality for generals.

It is hard to balance these, SC2 games can be dominated much more than WaW, mainly because Germany gets 5 instead of 3. One of my current favorite tactics, and using them in the correct sense it to bombard Kharkov, Rostov, and Voroshilov down to 0, thus giving my Germans the complete Donetz basin with very little fight. One thing I do find interesting in both SC2 and WaW is rockets rip up tanks as compared to armies at a damage level of 2:1. I suppose it might as there are quite a few soft targets in a mech unit, but I think there is something in there that is not quite right.

Yes, I just had this happen in a me vs. computer game, landed and fired 2 tiles over after landing. I will see if I have it saved right there.

No difference, unless you are using the French or Italian tank in SC2WaW, where they have one (1) strike only. Liam is spot on, study the charts in the back of the manual, and read the section on how combat losses are calculated. You too can be the next Yodl!

It's 5% per unit in a minor country, and 3% per unit in a major power to resist surrender. In V1.0 it was 5% for both major and minors I do believe, and that caused some real problems.

Make that the Nationalist Socialist party, sorry. Only 298 days until the next election here in USA, and I am getting my parites mixed.

For slowing down Russian entry: 1) 1 unit in Konigsberg and Warsaw from 1940 on. 2) 1 unit east of Warsaw from 1941 on. Russian entry rises every turn for: 1) Having more that 4 units next to Konigsberg at the of the turn. 2) Having more than 5 units next to Warsaw at the end of the turn. 3) Declaring War on Yugoslavia (this will incendentally in most games cause USA to hit 40 on war entry triggering Lend Lease to UK). 4) 1941 onwards If you are pretty pacifist for a Socialst Democrat, you can keep USSR out of the war until 1942 vs. another human, or late 1941 vs. the computer.

When you say "getting around it" are you meaning a way to counter the effects, or not have them happen at all? If you dont want it, I do believe it's a script you can turn off. If you want to limit the effects, sometime in October or November, don't spend money for one turn. For me, it takes me about 600 MPP to replace the losses from the Soviet Winter, if you have about 400, you can replace the essential front line losses and slowly build up your rear echelon the next few turns.

Well, Attila, that makes a big difference.... If you start in '41, you will need your surafce fleet with your subs, as the Brits do have the supierior tech at that time. Probably need to drop 2 (or more) chits into your sub tech. If you can a) whittle away the destroyers, get some sub tech increases, and c) have the money to do a and b, then you will be ok.... Bleda says "Hi"

Thanks Jim, it's a good fair side by side assessment of the games. The only discrepancy I see is the implication that you cannot move the Italians in SC2WW before they are at war (note: implied, but not said, it would be in the interpratation). It is nice to see features in both, and it gives HC a chance to look at what he would like to add in the "Franchise" of SC. I do like a scroll wheel zoom map feature, both closer and further away. For me SC2WaW is my pick of poison. I don't need resources broken down into categories, and I have X I can spend, and I can pick my own failings . I feel I am playing the game more with SC2 and worrying about things like strategy, than say, playing Resources at War .

I need to reread this one book, I was thinking Sledgehammer gave way to Overlord once the Stalingrad Fiasco happpened (or the tremendous victory in the Patriotic War).

I need to reread this one book, I was thinking Sledgehammer gave way to Overlord once the Stalingrad Fiasco happpened (or the tremendous victory in the Patriotic War).

Are you referring to SC2 v1.08, or SC2WaW, v1.01? I am playing WaW and watching for reduced xp when I use elite replacements, and I am not having that problem......

Operation Overlord? Or the older title pre- 1943, Sledgehammer (I think)?