Fireball Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I think this was the "rule" in SC1 and it should still be valid. Morale Loss through air strikes make it easier for the ground forces to strike, or is there a formular that i miss? Fireball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I don't know what you are getting at. This is what occurs in SC2 as well, the only issue is that AFs are still too powerfull in that they reduce morale and readiness too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireball Posted July 9, 2006 Author Share Posted July 9, 2006 I just wanted to know if there is also a good reason why you should first attack with ground and after that with air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Blashy I disagree here. Af are not too strong . Only against cities and fortresses. Reduce the combat values of the airfleets over the board and they are useless. @ Fireball IF you played SC1 with airfleets first groundstrikes last you couldnt have won many games against humans. In SC1 this rules is NOT valid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Kuni in our game uses air to pick off damaged units that didn't quite die vs. the ground pounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Originally posted by Sombra: Blashy I disagree here. Af are not too strong . Only against cities and fortresses. Reduce the combat values of the airfleets over the board and they are useless. @ Fireball IF you played SC1 with airfleets first groundstrikes last you couldnt have won many games against humans. In SC1 this rules is NOT valid AFs are too powerfull, they reduce morale and readiness WAY too much, it should be less. Axis run the board because of AFs. It is unrealistic, AFs don't reduce morale and readiness that much, especially on cities, forests, mountains, fortifications, forresses and ports where it is easy to hide from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Got to agree with Sombra here. We've got to be careful with presumptions of AF prowess. Let's not forget they should be a force to be reckoned with, history dictates and the present still supports their dominance. In fact I think they should be provided with increasing ground attack capability as advanced aircraft tech levels climb. The counter....AAA tech of course, that can be applied to all units, except maybe subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Talking about to powerful units... Tanks? Especially against fortresses , moving over mountains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agamemnon Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 AF's were huge in WII. The western Allies had air superiority. At the Battle of the Bulge the Germans had the UK, and US forces on their heels. When the weather cleared, it was open season on the German ground units. Air had a big effect on the outcome. Especially in the west where they didn't have waves of human cannon fodder. The US tanks were pitiful compared the Germans. Air power made all the difference in the world. Air is not too powerful in SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Correct, Air was very decisive on the Western Front, on a small front where everything was pretty much on the Plain, a few isolated forests and some bad weather about the only rest. The War of the Atlantic was also tough because of Air! However on the Eastern Front, where it was a massive front, and there weren't enough aircraft, the weather was more often than not poor. If not Mud then Ice, which Ice was better. The Germans for a majority of the War had the advantage on that front but didn't manage to win, some say due to the Battle of Britian, too depleted to inflict the neccessary damage, few of pilots/aircraft. I'd say that in SC2 Air is Powerful and neccessary as an Operational piece of equipment to do certian jobs, and in certian cases an Ace so to speak. Originally posted by Agamemnon: AF's were huge in WII. The western Allies had air superiority. At the Battle of the Bulge the Germans had the UK, and US forces on their heels. When the weather cleared, it was open season on the German ground units. Air had a big effect on the outcome. Especially in the west where they didn't have waves of human cannon fodder. The US tanks were pitiful compared the Germans. Air power made all the difference in the world. Air is not too powerful in SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 The easiest way to decrease the effectiveness of AFs is dilute their sorties to going after more high priority targets. And what unit would that be.........but of course....... Artillery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyguy Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I agree with Sombra, IMO air is NOT too powerful in SC 2. Yes, at times they’re a great help especially when the opponent can’t field interceptors, but on balance they do their part of combined about right in this game. Tanks are the monsters, but I’m okay with that as they add an important element of ground offense. And infantry at level 3 AT can exact a toll on tanks, especially on the attack, as Blashy is demonstrating against my level 4 German armor in the game we have going. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: I don't know what you are getting at. This is what occurs in SC2 as well, the only issue is that AFs are still too powerfull in that they reduce morale and readiness too much. I can't understand why people are sour when they got a whole game engine at their disposle. Just use the editor to get the game you want!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Gosh - maybe it's because people think that they shouldn't HAVE to use the editor to make the game "realistic"? An editor is a nice piece of kit to have, but it is not WHY I cbought the game - I bought the game because I wanted a strategic level game of WW2, not a wargame construction kit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KG Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 30 minutes of your time is all the editor requires. You can increase air defense values of units or cities, make it cheaper for the AI to purchase units, do research, Diplo, etc. It takes less than 30 minutes. Thats it. Very straight forward. Less time than many players take to do one or two turns. Forget all those other construction kits that took days to make something you like. This is high speed internet, not a 56K modem. 30 minutes. Try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 It would take less than 30 minutes to decrease/incerase AF attack. Minutes. Why wait around for Hubert to feed you when you can do it yourself? He's working on a another patch, do something in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Originally posted by KG: 30 minutes of your time is all the editor requires. You just dont' get it do you? It doesn't matter how long it takes - the point is that a lot of people think it shold not be required in the first place. I have made a couple of small mods, to scripts, which I've put on here and some ppl have picked up. but that's not the point. I want a game to play, not to customise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Originally posted by Timskorn: It would take less than 30 minutes to decrease/incerase AF attack. Minutes. Why wait around for Hubert to feed you when you can do it yourself? He's working on a another patch, do something in the meantime. Simply because many of us dont play against the computer. And as you see there are always different opinions. In the end the end only the official version of the game is accepted and not some mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 True, but the official version needs fixing so there isn't much logic behind "I only play the official version." Look at JJR, he's always up for a game, official version or not. This isn't the NFL and HC isn't Paul Tabliabue. No need to wait for the commish to tell us what's official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Still the game as it is, is the accepted standart. I will have a total different idea then you what needs to be fixed. Therefore the discussion and the push of the ideas for a patch. It seems that Hubert, Blashy , Desert Dave etc. are quite open for suggentions. Sometimes I simply disagree with simple statements as airfleets are to strong. I dont think that SC2 needs fixing because its broken but more careful tweaking to further improve results. There are many examples where I would have liekd to see different approaches to some problems in game mechanics. For example US invasion by the axis. Instead of activating some ghost armies . I would have liked to see a reduction of the range of amphib transports and an increase in US KB similar to the effect what happens when US ships sniff around before the war. Why ? Simply to keep the possibility open that a german player pulls a very dangerous stunt and prevent that the US player alwyas simply puts all his effort in research. Turkey option for the axis. Instead of knee jerk reactions (siberians arrive ) I would have liked to see tanks reduced to a crawl in mountains and more infuence of dessert on supply. Instead of limiting research spending, spreading out the tech levels.. etc. etc. My vison of the perfect SC2 seems to be very different from blashys Version [ July 12, 2006, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Many issues covered by the patch could have been eliminated with simple houserules. Apart from some bugs there was really no need for a patch, i dont understand why ppl always cry for a patch then for another patch and another patch. Hubert is not in the positon to say that but i would say...."This is the game take it or leave it" You all discussed months before about the game in the SC 2 Forum....hubert worked many ideas and wishes into the game.....to make the crowd love it. I m sick of all the whiners ....limit that, change that, this could be done.....etc....note that a patch is to eliminate serious bugs which cause a crash or make the game "really" unplayable. For all other issues change your gameplay, use the editor or make simple houserules. Isnt that difficult isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Drahonheart, to many houserules kill a game and take away options. Most people dont bother with mods . They play the vanilla original version. IF there is an agreed standart for mods people to use HVH why not integrate this consens into a patch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sombra, amphibious invasion of USA is simply and impossibility, it never could have occured, simple as that. 500 000 Axis troops landing in a country vs. 100 million, you really think they could have captured ALL of Washington DC, Boston or NY? Not even Canada, Halifx was LOADED with Military personel and 20 million Canadians. That army that appears simply makes that an impossibility. My preference would simply have been to make it impossible to land troops in USA and Canada. Turkey, that was not a knee jerk reaction. I suggested that if the caucausus would have been threatened, the Soviet command would have transfered troops sooner. Turkey is fixed now, It has a more realistic force and the troops are deployed properly... in my mod that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Oh and house rules suck, I dispise house rules. A game should not require house rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 @ Blashy you are right that invasions in the Us would have been logistically impossible but let me dream of my german tanks tearing down Rambos house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts