Edwin P. Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I like the changes re: Loss of Capital city and the loss of units in production. That said, I also don't think that the UK is too weak at the start. Historically they were weak at the start until their build up their forces and received ships from the USA. The weakness in air units could be countered if the UK player purchased AA units, which they don't and which in my mind represent short range fighters dedicated to protecting a specific ragion of the country. That said, I think that it would improve the UKs ability to wage a naval war if; a. USA (only USA and Germany) could transfer destroyers (or subs) to allied nations at a cost of a slight loss in combat strength (i.e. 1 to 3 points). Thus the USA could build destroyers and transfer them to the UK as they are produced. This would recreate the lend lease situation of WWII. Mechanically, you would right click on a unit select Transfer and then select one of the list cooperative allied nations listed (you could not transfer units to a non-cooperative ally). [ November 02, 2007, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 HvS, I am a robot... I never sleep. This ends today's transmission. Hubert P.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I like Hubert's idea of adding a tank and Hq for Italy and the 3 units to Britian. That would give it a more realistic feel. The lack of a commander and the tank unit in Libya is both ahistorical and unbalancing for the Italians. As to Britian I cant say how well off they are but given the opinions I have read hear many seem to feel they are also lacking so those units would not seem to spoil the game balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Sorry on a simplier note, does anyone know the answer to this? Just a quick question. Anti air increases a city's defence against bombers but not against Air Attack. Does this include Tactical bombers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Italy doesn´t start with tanks, HQ etc. but has the mpps to build them during 1940. Same as UK. If and where the mpps get invested is up to the player and he can choose if he wants to build the historical forces or prefer different alternatives Sealion in SC2 is very good balanced and if the allied player is too aggressive he will pay with his UK surrendering to Axis. Sealion is only then seldomly a good idea when playing against an experienced player who knows this and protects England against Sealion . In SC2 it is no problem to conquer Egypt if necessary and if Axis is willing to spend the necessary mpps. In WaW this changed - which has its pros and cons and the future will show which way players prefer it @Minty: Anti-Air research if applied to cities/ressources only is useful against (strategic-) bombers. Not against all other air (including tactical bombers). But Anti-Air is now more valuable cause applied to anti-air units it increases their attack and defence values against all air unit types. [ November 02, 2007, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Terif ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Minty, Anti-air increases for cities will only help against Strategic Bomber attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Awesome support thanks, wasn't sure if they counted as bombers or not. thank you both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Agreed with Terif that more units does not necessarily make the game better. For example, Italy, historically, had a 10-1 man advantage when it first marched on Egypt in 1940. With the current setup and with those extra Italian units, any adept Italian player, would take Egypt each and every game. Alternatively if Italian units were weakened via the CTV tables then you would simply have many weak and useless Italian units on the board and I am not sure that is really all that desirable either. As mentioned before it is always a careful balance between what happened in history and playability and with the current setup, while not perfect, I would argue that for the most part you get the romance of what happened in the North African Theatre, i.e. the Italians need a little finesse to be effective, they need a little help from the Germans as happened historically, and the Brits need to hang on for dear life just to keep the Axis at bay until more Allies come on line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foko Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Another topic Germany has 1 HQ too less. Due the new units there many units more to supply. Especial for the airforce (compared to SC2) so it is not possible that germany has engough HQ It needs at leeast 4-5 HQ at the ostfront. So it has max 1-2 HQ for the Westfront or something else. So at the longterm the allies have to win, because they have many more HQs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebitt Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Due the new units there many units more to supply. Especial for the airforce (compared to SC2) Good point! I have tried increasing the number of units a HQ can control, but I'm afraid that this is a game breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts