BioWizard Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I read all the changes coming in 1.03 and they all seem to improve the gameplay. But still, I would like some changes still to be made if possible. -When I play versus a German player, I keep receiving messages in German. Most off them I can understand but some I just can't. I know it refers to his german campaign Fall WeiB folder's script but, at least with the "standard" scenario, could it be made bilingual? -Attacking with air a target reduces a lot its morale and makes the kill easier. But, I once was attacking a Bomber in Malta with 4 aircrafts (high supply, HQ right beside) and it's morale never went down, even when it had no entrenchment (I had an italian ship right beside to see its stats). Grounded bombers in WWII were very susceptible to air attack, Pearl Harbor is a good example. So, is there something I don't understand or Bombers are immune to morale loss in SC2? -Minor error with no consequence: A Battleship in the French force pool is called "Richielieu" while it should be called "Richelieu", the name of well known Cardinal Richelieu, a stewart in the beginning of Louis XIV's reign, the bad guy in Alexandre Dumas's "Three Muskateers"! I don't think i am a very bad player but... During a game I had as allies, the axis player declared no war to any minor and, after taking an abandonned Egypt, put all his military efforts in air superiority and harrassed England. The House rule "No Sealion before Barby was on", but he still took London the same turn he declared war on Russia in November 1941. Even if i diploed USA and got 3 hits before that date, they were still in the 80% and i don't think any player could have kept England with 3 air in Ireland + bomber and no convoy money. I think I won't give up yet that game as i guess he is bad on ground forces. So, here are changes I would like be done... -As HellRaiser pointed out, there are no diplomatic consequences for Axis taking Ireland. That is plainly illogic! There are a lots of irish people in america and USA would care more if axis plundered Syria, Irak, Tunisia or else? Illogic! And mostly a game-breaker i think if axis adopts this stratedy... -So, in my game in which i have lost England but still have Russia and USA both with industrial Level 5, I see Canada at 100% readiness (connected to Washington) but doing nothing with all that cash. In version 1.03, they now send that money to Egypt if England falls, which is good. But what in my case? Once again, there is no way in WWII that Canada would have surrendered to Axis if England had fell, just like in the game. But there is also no way they would have stopped their war effort either, on the contrary. I therefore propose two things, Canada becomes a minor to USA or, I prefer this one, Ottawa becomes the fourth alternative capital to England. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 BioWizard What do you guys think? 'I think, you think, good!.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scook Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I like the idea of Canada having the capitol if Britain falls, don't know how the convoy thing works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaoJah Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Moving the capital to Canada is IMHO too nice towards the Allied. That would mean that the British navy keeps on fighting after you took the British main land and Egypt, which isn't very realistic. The move to Egypt was already debatable, moving it to Canada after that is too much. I would however like to see that Malta becomes independant after the UK surrenders. And perhaps even make Gibraltar independant too. Canada's points should go to the US then. And yes, there should be some sanction for the Axis taking Ireland and the morale of that Bomber should indeed made go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Originally posted by TaoJah: Moving the capital to Canada is IMHO too nice towards the Allied. That would mean that the British navy keeps on fighting after you took the British main land and Egypt, which isn't very realistic. The move to Egypt was already debatable, moving it to Canada after that is too much. I would however like to see that Malta becomes independant after the UK surrenders. And perhaps even make Gibraltar independant too. Canada's points should go to the US then. And yes, there should be some sanction for the Axis taking Ireland and the morale of that Bomber should indeed made go down. I think the Brit navy would have continued on fighting from Canada if the UK was conquered. It is more realistic to have the UK Govt move to Canada than Egypt. The UK had already moved it's gold reserves to Canada and Canada had a better industrial complex and was far safer from the advancing Axis forces. For game purposes the capital is moved to Cairo to be near the oil but in reality what weapons were produced in Egypt to support an army. As for Malta and Gibralter, if Germany does force a complete surrender of the UK I can't see why either one would have fought on with no support. Germany would probably use them as pay offs to Spain and Italy. I agree that Ireland should provoke some sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 TJ you have a skewed sense of history. Too nice? Isn't very realistic? Have you not listened to Prime Minister Churchill's declaration that "We Shall Never Surrender"? That if they lost the Island, the British would continue to fight from the far reaches of the Empire. You doubt their resolve? The Nazis made the same mistake...you do know what happened to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Bio, I agree that bombers should not be immune to morale loss but IMHO I don't think they should be sitting targets to strikes on them. Because of the scale of the game it is not like a single raid which would wreak havoc on the grounded planes. In this case the bombers represent a large spread out formation with it's own integral AA and some ground defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioWizard Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 So, if i resume well what most people think, -There should be some morale loss for bombers attacked by aircrafts. -Ireland should at least give a 10-15% boost to USA. -Canada's money should be put to some use once England and Egypt are no more: either a minor for USA, or an alternative capital after London and Manchester and not Cairo anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I think bombers should lose efficiency as well. Consider them strikes on the air fields where some damage is done to the infrastructure and personnel. They would be less ready to carry out offensive strikes when they have to repair and reorg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 In the light that Canada becomes the center of UK defense, her supply would go up instantly, she is impossible to conquor, perhaps HC is avoiding this.. I mean it's possible to conquor her if the US wouldn't mobilize due to Canada being invaded the limitation on ampibs should lessen the danger that and the mobilization of the US defense forces, an attack on Canada would be a threat to the US mainland Bombers are easy targets, generally out of range of fighters, they should have some fighters attached that scramble, along with AA defense I've visited an original B-17 Base in East Anglia used to Bomb the Reich, I saw the hangars still used some till this day, 1 500 lbs bomb would've destroyed several bombers quite easily, they were made of glass and barely armored, not flammable looking but vulnerable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Have to agree with Liam.....again, those bombers won't last long if caught by AFs. I've eradicated them before after I've got some LR and they made a run at one of my resources, one intercept, two airstrikes......adios vatos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I think we all agree that bombers on the ground are easy targets but in the scale of SC2 killing an entire strategic bomber fleet in a strike is not realistic. It can be ground down and made ineffective through strikes. Interceptions would account for most losses although an army moving through thier location would be unhealthy. Of course this is a game and you have to employ certain rules to make it fun not just functional realistic. If we wanted pure history we could debate whether strategic bombing was even useful in WW2. I generally like the way it is used in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scook Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 In the game currently, if you lose Britain, and can retake the island, Britian actually is much more powerful with the capital in Egypt, as all cities you take in Africa can achieve level 8 or 10 status. Moving the capital to Canada would have the same effect on production as USA entering the war, and would be more realistic. In the current game, except for trying to drag Sea Lion out so the Axis cannot knock you out of Africa, there is little drawback to losing Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts