Zeres Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Just got the game a week ago. I love war games and was excited because I used to play Storm Across Europe when I was a teenager. I know some of you have talked about some of these issues so take it easy on me guys...alright. 1) Lebannon should have a port....It stinks that any allied unit moving around the Middle East is out of supply and stuck there. Or alternatively Egypt could supply units in Middle East if you control both sides of the canal. And you could move across the canal if you controlled both sides it. This makes sense doesn't it? A) Brittian or axis would get extra Cash for controlling the canal. This is realistic. And would create a reason for more fighting down there. After all, that is why they we're fighting down there! England would have been in dire straits if they had ever lost control of the canal. It would be cool if that was reflected in the game. To get extra cash from the canal. England/ axis would have to have control of Gibralter and Malta as well ( or the 'supplies' don't get through). C) If England/axis Controls Gibralter, Malta and the Canal they should be able to build a limited amount of units ( One or Two a year?) in Alexandria. Again realistic because Australian and Indian units could, should and did pour through the Canal....The sense of the scale of the Brittish Empire would be reflected in this change. These changes would make the Early game before the U.S comes in more interesting. Hardly anything happens in that part of the game. England just sits at home and researches. It would force the axis to knock the Allies out of Africa. England would have to funnel at least some of the extra Cash into protecting Africa so it wouldn't affect balance too much. Even if it did I think there is a lot of consensus that the allies need some help. And to get the bonuses is a tall order: Control of gibraltor, Malta and bothe sides of the canal.. And for the Axis finally a reason to send Rommel to Africa!!! 2)If the allies take over Ireland there should be some minimal partisan activity. Again....It's realistic and cool. And gives the allies a reason to leave their trapped corps there. 3) Just because you achieve higher tech shouldn't mean you have to buy the higher tech unit. You should have the option to field a lower tech unit at a lower price.This would be Awesome. When the war was going bad for Germany or Russia they we're often forced to do this. This will make Crack, high tech units an option and valuable indeed. And high industrial tech would give you the option of fielding a huge low tech army or a smaller Crack force. 4) Many of you have talked about various Tech issues and I concur something must be done. Perhaps there should be a cap to how many turns can go by without an advance and that cap would go up or down depending on how much you invested. And the cap would slide a little higher with each tech level achieved. Hope this opens up some discussion. Looking forward to seeing your ideas and comments as well..I'm not knocking the game I love it some of these ideas could just be options...I just want to see real war in africa!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmenianBoy Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I like most of these suggestions. However, due to keeping the game within the grand level, I feel most of your wish list will fall on deaf ears. -but I hope this doesn't kill your spirit to offer suggestions as you see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 1) Move a HQ to the middle east, then you won't have any supply problems. If you are the Axis player you will have to find a way out though. 3) This is worth looking at for version 2 and would be a natural complement to adding an upgrade cost. [ October 09, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts