Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Well on the tabletop, "my" system is Chain of Command for WW2 platoon level. Bolt Action is popular everywhere, including here, and Flames of War for company scale, but I care less about them but will play if a scenario for these is organized. I am yet to find the higher command level game of my choice for WW2 but am thinking about something based on the Black Powder horse & musket set! The Battlegroup series (BG Normandy etc.) look very nice too. Maybe I'll take you up on your forum invitstion when I'm back at the desktop! My favou
  2. Yes, I'm interested in this, and will pay money to see a universal operation app on my devices. This will enable campaigns on both digital AND tabletop games, and I play and want to see campaigns on both. Don't forget to market the tabletop side of it!
  3. Good to hear about the improvements. I feel it's a bit of shame that what I thought was a bit of thinking outside the box with East First (without rail) turned out to be a gamey strategy. I just thought that if the Schlieffen plan was made in the belief that France can be knocked out of the war quickly, if that actually can't realistically be done, why even try it?
  4. Yeah, but it's weird...you say you have to commit to an offensive which does more harm than good. Won't that just lead to half-hearted, conservative "attacks"? Why is it necessary? Is there some sort of obligatory guideline to follow when going through the motions to attack (ie. can't stop before the Meuse, can't retreat back to the Belgian border)? Also, is it feasible now to invade Italy? The mountain defense drop enables the Germans and A-H to actually make headway? My standard choice is to keep the Italians out. Well, in any case, glad it's going to be history.
  5. Really? No-one used it? Had I not dropped out before the quarterfinals due to burn-out with the game, I for sure would've used it had nobody told me otherwise. Has anyone actually beaten France and won early using Schlieffen (against a human who knows how to play)? Anyway, as long as the changes are backed by history, there should be no problem strengthening Russia.
  6. As a player yet undefeated using the East First strategy, it's interesting to see how the Russians will have to be strengthened in order to withstand an immediate assault from the Germans as opposed to one where I force march the troops from the west to the east, and what ramifications that will have on a war that starts in the west.
  7. Alas, my experience in the tournament was not so great. I burned out during the prelims (didn't really enjoy the multiple games and scenarios vs. playing one big game), then when the semis came I was simultaneously having less playing time and more real life stuff going on, and having two of my most anticipated titles (Old Republic and Mass Effect 3) come out, which totally sucked me in. After several failed attempts I was able to get the turn sent a month late, but never received a reply from Walter, which I guess would have been at least nice. So, unfortunately I'll have to retire with n
  8. It's curious about that "slow reactions" thing as SC2 is the ONLY 2d wargame I've ever seen where you literally have to wait for seconds for anything to happen after clicking on a unit / submenu etc. It makes playing the game much, much more of a chore than it really should be. But I'm sure this will be taken care of in the next iteration, that goes without saying. Somehow the SC2 engine is just borked (disclaimer: at least on a great variety of computers)
  9. I'm a bit confused. Just to be sure, are you being sarcastic or praising me? Because if that was sarcasm, then you misread my post. The tone of your text suggests that.
  10. It's all a question of adding as many meaningful improvements and upgrades without overly increasing playtime. Naturally, the aforementioned simplicity is something that the developer needs to take into account (at least marketing wise) for the strategy game-buying semi-casual crowd that never shows up on the forums, but I'm not too worried about that myself, as I don't belong into that crowd. I'm just saying that I don't think SC3 will ever become even a third as complicated as GGWIR or even TOAW, so we should be safe even if a lot of cool stuff is implemented which gives us a better simul
  11. But Finland already got its independence from Lenin before there ever was a civil war, and the German intervention really did not do anything for the outcome of that war by the stage it arrived...I suppose as a gameplay choice it works, though.
  12. That certainly is a much needed major boost to the allied industrial capacity. Now, I wonder how on earth we're going to go about updating those to our mod - or was I correct and basically we have to start over? Because that's what it seems like.
  13. With or without stacking implemented, I would also suggest some form of combined attacking / outflanking attempts being possible. As it is, poorer quality units cannot effectively attack higher quality units in even conditions, even with a numerical superiority. This is demonstrable in the Near East in every game - the Turks cannot attack, not really.
  14. Actually there is no treaty since the Brest-Litovsk DE only appears if you send Lenin, but in either case, you lose all your conquered territories except Poland. The Ukraine does send 50-ish MPP to you at least (not sure if that happens if you sign the treaty), and Bill said you are supposed to get the Baltic Countries automatically in the next patch too (not that you can't just go and capture them again). We've talked about this before, and I can understand that Germany couldn't conquer Russia proper in WW1, but however, I think that if you don't sign the treaty and Russia surrenders (d
  • Create New...