Sombra Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Sometimes I wonder why I bother to play SC. I defend well as Allies until end of September no big looses kill a lot of axis units. But then bang. Minors join on fist opportunity. Barbarossa kicks of Jan 1942 and researchign with 5 chits in tech without any result. Kind of makes Sc frustrating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Yes I agree. [ June 23, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 ROFL, Try Poker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Come on Sombra, did your Mom and Dad not explain to you the character enhancement of striving through adversity. Ok then...I will .....Get Over it, its a stupid game for godsake...endeavor to persevere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 24, 2005 Author Share Posted June 24, 2005 I only had to rant . By the way barbarossa finally kicked of March 1942!!! Jan 1942 I estimated but nothing happened. Well I will see if I can still win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Why don't you people just play with no tech? The game is 10 times more fun and tactical that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 In PL we play with LR limit 2 and no AA tech this proved to be very playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korut Zelva Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Hubert should have considered linking time as a factor for scientific breakthru 3 chits invested for a year would have better chance getting a tech than 3 chits spent last month. Make that there's some 'accumulation of research and knowledge'. After spending so much time on finding a new design, you'd think they have a better chance at finding one than those that just started. If he could do that, the "no tech nada" syndrome would be greatly reduced. 1 turn breakthru would still be possible but less likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komninosm Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I too would have prefered an accumulative model for tech chances. Perhaps starting with 5% and acruing 1% more each turn until a breakthrough (for each chit) or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Condor Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 "Luck is not a factor" from the Abyss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Luck isn't a factor...well, everything comes down to definition. Destiny of technology is important then. Hellraiser has got to be the luckiest player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Luck isn't a factor...well, everything comes down to definition. Destiny of technology is important then. Hellraiser has got to be the luckiest player. Well i believe you everything but Hellraiser has even worse tech results than me and this is worth to mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Dude, playing HR, I've never had a Jet advantage, it's a joke. My favorite playing him as UK, never even got Jets+1. Sickening Jet tech against him. Then throw in LC failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I put in 9 chits with Yoda in a game for around a year game time, what 15 turns? Not sure all 5 where in Jets all at once, but definitely 4... I was hoping to give the man a game, I didn't manage to. I got very upset and posted my fighters up for wholesale slaughter outside of Essen peed my 5 chits didn't so much as give me 1 Jet tech or any tech for that matter... sad since he seemed to have 1 jet and 1 lr Tech is very tricky I am shocked half the time I get so much from 1 chit and zero from 5 chits. Plus Germany has to work for her chits, Russia, USA and UK just tag along Well not so much UK but still... Axis without Tech is like iceskating uphill... Now with Rambo, hehehehhe. I've gotten some damned luck, AA when I didn't deserve it back in the day. I remeber 1 chit gave me 5 hits LOL, more than 1 game... Several tames... AT hell all I have to do is breath on that Research area wrong and I get breakthroughs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Well, also keep in mind that battles--and wars--are often decided by luck rather than by superior armies. Making all of the right moves at the right times just increases your odds of winning--there are no guarantees in this business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 True but it is annoying when you play good games and get ****ty luck. And you see some smartass pretending he's so cool because his jets 1000+ assraped your zero tech planes Luck is luck, can't do jack about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Yes you can, just play no tech games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 Blashy, no tech games are a disadvantage for the Allies. (Well you can say HT1 for Rusai and JT1 for US are already enough advantage) Still no tech means => Germany has still 2500MP more to spend on armies. BUT and this is the disadvantage the allied CARRIERS will never be effective. The situation is typical at least that with the beginning of Barbarossa the Axis has an MP advantage. In the West they are suffering some attrition. Later on only with a really heavy investment the Axis can try to stall allied moves due to threat of the carriers, these moves have to be with all AF in if he don´t want to loose them. You simply take away this threat. For the axis now it is much easier to switch fronts and stall any serious move by the allied player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Not is is NOT, I keep saying that over and over. I've played them they are not. The carriers are usefull for getting cities withing reach, they are more than enough. And the allies can jump in the fight A LOT faster, because they spend everything on troops. AND when barbarosa starts USSR has tons of cash and no need for tech investing, which means within 2 turns you're fighting with HQs AND your planes with your only disadvantage being experience, no AT level 3 or HT or Jets from the Germans. It also keeps the Germans from seeing your troop movements miles away with no LR. I've played it and in the end it works out for both sides. The only difference is the game is all tactical and no lucky tech rolls. And when I say no tech I mean you put every country at level 0 in everything. Just play some no tech games vs. someone of your own level, you'll find out it is much more tactical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts