targul
-
Posts
332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by targul
-
-
SO: "Nope. I wanna see a system where each strength point equals something - a battalion or a brigade/regiment or some other "real world" unit."
That would really make many of us happy I think. You could play with the correct starting forces but allow the creation of your own TOE's
That is a game I would like to try out.
-
Baron may have the solution. Since this is a corp and up game armor makes to sense and maybe better patterned inside the corp/army.
Think this would cause a rout though cus we like seeing armour. Even though it would be there if we dont see it we will feel cheated.
With the new release coming out soon these arguments may soon be moot and we shall all be sitting in our beach chairs with our laptops say wow this is awesome.
-
Agree with "SO" here. That is diffently not an infrastruction thing.
That needs to be a unit or some sort of overall payment to accomadate those of us who want to spend our bucks wisely. Maybe an option that increases the cost of units from there conception.
-
If you look I was discussing balance of the units to allow them to operate historically without using ahistorical forces for balance. As I said it is my firm believe the game can be balanced while using the correct historical forces by adjusting there effiency not there numbers.
Sorry but TOE's for infantry, armor etc are there TOE's. Formal attachments even in WWII are rare. Was the infantry supported by armour of course but it was not attached nor was it added to the TOE. There are and were very specific rules for attachments. The American army infantry and armor divisions normally maintain there TOE's. Both are supported but not augemented by the others divisions units.
A corps might be made of up of 2 infantry divisions and 1 armour. The armor component will be placed where necessary but will normally remain in the chain of command of the armour HQ. This is the same with infantry. Actually placing alien units under the command of a unit commander that is not familiar with there use would be both uncomfortable for the men and result in poor useage.
Unit integratity is important to soldiers. You belong to a specific unit you are not a member of many at once. Example while I was an FO I was assigned to the B Btry 1/77th Artillery 1st Cav Div. I supported the C CO 5/7th Cav 1st Cav Div. This meant I took my orders from the battery commander of 1/77th while I actually called in artillery for the C Company 5/7th. I was not part of the TOE of 5/7 nor could the 5/7 commander rate me but I actually supported that unit. This is the same for armour or infantry they may support whomever but they belong to only one command.
Problem lies that corps are not really operational level unit but strategic level. To correctly display the units you need Division. Corps are too large a scale and will constantly cause the problem of which you speak.
The British attached and detached unit willy nilly. I have never understood how they maintained unit integrity but they seem to do it somehow.
I cannot comment how the Russians did there units. They are Russian so that alone makes them different.
-
If you tweak effectiveness so muchtthat Germany has a chance with "historical forces" then IMO you no longer have historical forces!!Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by targul:
I firmly believe you can have historical forces while still maintaining balance. You need to adjust the effectiveness of the units to accomplish this but it can be and should be done.
As for allied tank groups - well IMO this is showing the limitations of the simplistic 10-point single-type unit system that has been copied from PG.
Historical units were not all tank or infantry by hte time the allies came back to Europe. They were invariably a mix....but this system just doesn't let you do that - you just can't make an army with a mix of units and have it operate together with both.
And that's never going to change with this game. </font>
-
Nope my directx is up to date and graphics drivers. I play alot of MMORP games so those have to be kept up to date or you aint playing.
Yea I had the problem with Third Reich but someone told me where to place the files and it worked. I am sure I havent placed one of the files correctly but dont know which so this one may not be playable for me. Too bad sounded like it might have been a good mod.
-
True if you ignore what I said in my post. You need to make the effiency of the units accurate. If you just do numbers without making those units correct the result would be as you state arado234.
Germany was successful from 39-42. That indicates there units where in the beginning much more powerful then the Allies. 1942 German's still more powerful but beginning to wane. 43 German are feeling the overwhelming force of the allies but remained strong. 44 Germany army was collapsing. The overwhelming firepower along with troops becoming more and more war wary are taking there toll. 45 Germany troops are rabble and will certainly collapse soon.
Allies gained and lost with time also. 39 Poland was simply no match. Poor tactics along with lack of critical elements for a modern war. 40 France had the elements but lacked the will and leadership. etc etc etc
-
Of course that is why they use squares I know that I was an FO. My point is they are used in the military and not hexes. Do I like tiles hell no. But I need to justify these tiles somehow or I will complain forever.
BTW Hubert's point about rails may make much of the argument unnecessary. If supply can be controlled in a manner that is apporopriate instead of how it is now.
-
Both files listed verified but error msg is the same. Failed:(draw_sprite_on_map_surface) Segmentation Violation. Sure I hae messed something up but dont know what. Anyone can advise please?
-
I have no problem with the replication of the Russian winter from the results I have heard from Blashy sounds like it maybe correct.
I do believe the could have prepared for the winter in part however. There should be a tech option at a cost or something to allow the Axis player to not make as critical an error. Reason is the idea that the war would be over by winter was a little overboard and could have been brought down to a tamer level. But since that was the worst winter in there history it would still have some effect but not the disaster it was.
-
I firmly believe you can have historical forces while still maintaining balance. You need to adjust the effectiveness of the units to accomplish this but it can be and should be done.
Victory conditions should probably be worked on also but I have never come up with any that I really care for other then the obvious be alive at end of what was real war.
-
I downloaded and when I attempt to play I get an error msg about spirits. Could someone advise which files go to which folders so I can verify if I put them in the correct places.
Thanks for the trouble.
-
Not sure once someone has committed every atrocity known to man if one character or another would be worse.
Wouldnt they be the same? I sort of feel if you murder one person or 100 it is still murder.
If you hang him for the one or the hundred he is also no less dead.
-
I doubt there are really very many tile fans. Really unsure why this game decided to use them in lieu of hexes. It does harm the surrounding effect significantly and make supply near impossible to determine. Makes air a real bear to determine how far it will go also.
But there is one factor I had never considered which was mentioned on another board concering tiles. In the actual military there maps are basically tiles not hexes. This indicates if you are looking for realism tiles would be more accurate.
I have therefore determined I shall try and learn to use the archaic tile verses the modern hex. Doubt I will ever learn to like them but maybe I can learn to live with them.
As to surrender that is a tough one most troops surrounded in all armies have failed to surrender simply because of supply. It has always taken much more to convince them to do that. Only game I can remember that does that is Third Reich.
I assume the troops in most armies fail to surrender because of lack of supplies for reasons beyond food and ammo. Most men will fight for there country right or wrong. It is rare that armies are formed of all conscripts unwilling to fight but forced to do so. Those men I would suspect would surrender quickly but all others have more to lose. They are fighting for their homes, families and reputations. These things are significantly more important then bullets or food.
-
Maybe Terif is the luckiest man in the world? You know someone has to be the luckiest man alive and he just might be the one.
-
Reason you hear this is the pictures we get the map doesnt really look bigger and with all the stuff all over the map it looks crowded. Appears with all the roads railroads etc to be very busy. We wont know until we really get to look at the map and then place a few units on them.Originally posted by Normal Dude:In all my games with the expansion, I have never, ever had a crowding problem due to the new units. I keep hearing this being batted around and it's just not true. Anyways, the crowding would be a function of how many MPPs the countries are producing, not what units they can make.
(although a swap move would be nice anyways
) -
You say the SF unit has strong attack power vs both hard and soft target. Now I do not know about the training of rangers but specialized troops really do not do hard targets well. They do not have the equipment so maybe you should look at the hard target numbers.Originally posted by Blashy:1 = no
2 = no
3 = no
4 = big hitting power vs. soft and tank units, can amphibious transport from any coastal tile.
5- = it is not in and I do not know if he is considering it or not. In my testing I have not had any overcrowding issues and I have not read any tester making this remark
-
I bought that Civil War game they came out with and really didnt care for it much too complicated. Didnt buy Gus of August and have heard nothing but good things.
I just cant picture a good WWI game. Uhmmm, I may have to take a look but I dont want to get involved while I am awaiting WAW.
-
Computer War in Europe it is simply a porting of the Huge SPI War in Europe to computer. No AI just human play available.
-
The option to prepare for Russian winter is offered in CWIE. It works well. It is very expensive and I am always question its value but depending on my operation plan I sometimes do pay it and sometimes not.
-
Rockets were obviously an anti rookie weapon. I only played humans twice and each time those things just destroyed everything before I even got to move.
I stopped playing humans due to this desire to prove you can destroy someone new to the game.
I like the AI alot though it plays really well.
I know in other games I play I have always tried to be careful to teach new players so I will have a good opponent in the future and they will want to play again. So most of those I have played in other games we have been playing for years so that worked well for me.
I know in CWIE I am still playing many of the opponents I started playing with in 95 we have almost become a family.
-
Sounds like it was overboard but is now more accurately portrayed.
Goodie!!
-
Yea I agree with Colin. Might be to just make it a tech upgrade so you can have some units of different areas.
-
Each time I read an AAR it appears the rockets won the game or are winning the game. This seems a little strange. Am I just reading the wrong AAR's or are the rockets overpowered.
I feel the whole rocket concept is way overblown in this game but then I like historical games and rockets just didnt see much use in the war.
)
Allied Armor
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Certainly not on a 3rd Reich scale though. The supply is the key to that armour exploitation and our supply doesnt eliminated units.
Actually being OOS in the present game seems to do very little. I am hoping it has more effect in the new WAW though.