Jump to content

bob.

Members
  • Posts

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob.

  1. Refreshing to hear that the license software not only causes problems for the consumers but the developers as well.
  2. If that was directed towards me: frankly, yes, I would LOVE a turn based HOI3! But in that case, I merely meant that every nation should be independent like Germany/Italy/USA/USSR etc. are in SC2 already, not that they should all be controlled independently.
  3. I mean the concept of minor nations that are dependent on a "mother nation". I want all nations to be independent, get their own production and have their own IC gain/tech/production, their own national morale if used in SC3 and their own diplomatic statuses. I do understand that this would be a lot of additional work - but I have to say, I do expect a lot of new concepts for SC3 and not just the same old game with new coat!
  4. What I am looking forward the most is finally a (more or less) modern engine. The engine for Commander: The Great War is great - fluent turn processing, great performance. Of course the game itself is not as good as SC. So if SC3 uses something similar while improving the already great gameplay I'll be very happy. I hope there will be a "real" diplomacy system this time around. And, I really hope the game will not have minor nations anymore. I hate them! I understand their use in SC2 but I don't think it's a good concept in general. That's one thing that I actually liked about C:TGW.
  5. If I understand you correctly Bill, that means trenches are basically a modifier to the maximum entrenchment at the location?
  6. I get that, and propably you are right and that is the reason why we will never see a SC of a time before at least 19th century. The earlier wars are just too different. But I don't think it's impossible to do, low troop count on a big map will force bunching up to take one location, which will then again lead to the decisive battles - instead of a continous front. At least that's how I imagine it to work. Maybe one day there will be a game like SC for earlier wars... one can dream, no?
  7. I agree, WW1 SC is my favourite game of the series so far - I think that the WW1 gameplay is actually more fun than the WW2 gameplay! And the new scenarios in Breakthrough are awesome as well. And I was also thinking that going even more back in time might actually work out very nicely. For example: 7 years war game! It would need some change of game mechanics, though.
  8. I like the comparatively low troop numbers in this war! I got to say that the WW1 divisional level campaigns always put me off a bit because of the sheer amount of units. I don't know much about the Franco-Prussian war, so just judging from the screenshots here it seems that in this conflict there are mostly supposed to be "pitched battles" and not a continous front like in WW1? Simply because of the way smaller amount of units. AAR is very interesting to read, more please!
  9. I really wish Battlefront would stop with those stupid activations... it seems they believe that it reduces piracy, but since it is no problem to "fix" an illegally downloaded copy in a few seconds I don't see how it helps in any way. What it does though is annoy the customers who bought it legitimately. If they want to prevent that users just copy the files and send it to their buddies - fine, I can understand that. But Matrix/Slitherine manage to prevent that with their installers too, without that retarded 4 activation limit and without requiring internet access.
  10. I did not know that you meant SC Gold expansion + AoD as "the two expansion". DrunkenLuftwaffe wrote And you replied with So I thought "the two expansions" referred to AoD and AoC. Either way, thanks for your offer! I take back feeling cheated in that case:D
  11. I completely understand that, steel32. What annoys me here is that I explicitely read that there will be NO package deal for AOC+AOD, said by the Administrator of this forum. I can't see how you could misunderstand the sentence either. Moon didn't write "it's definitive, the two expansions won't be available as a bundle together with SC Gold". If that was meant, it should have been made clear... I have bought AoC early on the promise that there will be no package deal, so waiting would not make any sense. And now it turns out that there is a package deal and I could have saved 10 $ if I had waited. I feel a bit cheated here.
  12. I have to agree, and also in the thread that was linked by you Hubert: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109101 The 14th post by the ADMINISTRATOR: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1436407&postcount=14 I am not a native English speaker, but I do not know how this sentence could possibly mean "the two expansions will be available as a bundle". I would be lying if I said I won't buy it, because I will, but I still think it would be very fair if AoC customers got a coupon.
  13. Well, fact is that no player would make the same mistakes as the French again... so for a game there is only two possibilities: - force the player to do the same as happened in reality in the beginning of the campaign (for example the game Decisive Campaigns did this, there you are forced to deploy by the Dyle plan) - make the French weaker than they were, this is how SC did it. No solution is ideal, but I think there's not much else that can be done... if France can stall Germany, then there is no way Germany will ever win the war.
  14. I too am missing such a scenario a bit! The question is of course when it would end... I think the goal of such a scenario should be to hold the Reds off long enough for the Western Allies to take Berlin:D Also, just as an idea, I think an alternate history campaign where the Ardennes Offensive is scrapped and instead an offensive in Russia is started would be very great too!
  15. Were there really many Panzers that had these swastika flags on top of them? I only saw them on pictures of captured tanks. Seems like a pretty nice "shoot here" marker for aircraft...
  16. I'm actually quite fine with the fact that it's really only the Eastern front you can influence. Makes me feel like just being "the guy" who gets his job - defeat Soviets - and has to make do with what he has
  17. I have the same "problem" with alt-tabbing but there is a very simple solution: pressing escape closes the menu and then it works again
  18. There seems to be only Turkey (no diplomacy in the Japanese scenario) and you have to pay 100 MPP for a chance of 1 (ONE) %. So with 5 Chits for 500 MPP you have a maximum of 5 % chance every turn. I think it's safe to say that it is not worth it at all. If you want to move through Turkey, you need war!
  19. Do you notice any AI improvements compared to the Gold version? Since apparently the Assault on Communism AI is very sophisticated (didn't play it yet myself), is it the same here?
  20. Maybe this is because of my limited English knowledge, but where did SeaMonkey get agressive in that post? I think he actually makes a good point.
  21. The SC team is certainly very determined and there's a reason why these games are right now my favourite strategic war games! And by all means, don't misunderstand me and think the Pacific War game is bad! I did enjoy it! Mostly, I just don't think the model works so great for naval conflicts first because of the 0-10 strength system and secondly because it just feels weird that you need months to move from Korea to India in game. Both things that are not really fixable by scenario design but just how the game is designed.
  22. I never really felt like the Pacific Theater fits very well with the SC "formula". SC Pacific was certainly not bad and still fun to play but I didn't enjoy it as much as the other titles in the series - and I definitely don't think that this is due to weak scenario design, I just think that a theater where the naval part is more important than the land part is just not such a good fit.
  23. Patton Drives East still has some of my favourite SC scenarios simply for the fact that I love these more or less crazy what-if scenarios. Are there any plans or at least have you ever taken into consideration a similar expansion for SCWW1? There's many interesting scenarios that would in my imagination be RATHER easy to make (compared to completely new wars/theatres) as the map and the basic forces are already there. I'm thinking for example - Italy joins Centrals (was already in base game, just reworked, I really liked this variant for Entente play and I miss it a bit in Breakthrough) - Germany feels like war isn't in her interest in 1914 and Austria-Hungary starts fighting alone against Russia and Serbia - France won the 1870 Franco-Prussian war and prevented German unification, now a restrengthened German confederation tries to defeat France again, but will the once-defeated Austrians use the opportunity? - Central Powers win the war, Russian civil war is over faster than in reality, a few years after the end of WW1 the Soviets are back with a vengeance and to bring communism to the rest of Europe... and lots more, but you get the idea:p
  24. Hello everyone, note that I am only playing against the AI (with large bonuses) and not against humans for now! Am I the only one who thinks that the Ostaufmarsch setup is vastly better for the Central Powers than the regular start? If you leave Belgium out of the war then there's only a small well-defendable front in the West and by the time the French manage to make a little progress I have usually already defeated the Russians so much that I can just rail the units to France. When France attacks Belgium (was really surprising for me to see the AI do that!) it might be a little disturbance but it is not so bad because YOU get the Belgian army then instead of the Entente which obviously shifts balance a lot in your favor again! Are others of the same opinion? Is this just because I play against the AI and not people that can use the French a lot better? Makes me wonder why the Germans decided to send nearly all troops on the Western front in reality in the first place... propably because of the rivalry between those two which wasn't as strong with Russia? Or did they think the Russians were a lot stronger than they actually were and thus wanted to stay on the defensive?
  25. Why no Cuba? Not that it matters, just wondering as to me it looks like they are on the map.
×
×
  • Create New...