Jump to content

USA IS ALLOWED TO BUY ONLY 4 ARMIES????


Recommended Posts

I estimate the average turn is about seven minutes per side, or about 15 minutes for the whole turn. In a PBEM, by the time you watch the replay and e-mail the file, it's about the same. If there's about 150 turns in a campaign game, then we're looking at close to 40 hours to complete a game of SC2. Add in a 140-page manual with lots of formualae, and we're not talking Panzer General here.

For 40 hours - the same amount of time as standard full-time work week - I am going to have higher expectations than for Panzer General or some goofy RTS. Most RTS and FPS players wouldn't touch SC2 with a 10-foot pole. The people playing it are wargamers, and it's going to be judged by wargame standards.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FWIW, without the name-calling, we did take a look a force pool limits. In comparison, the USA gets 15 corps in Advanced Third Reich and 20 corps in A World at War. Assuming an Army in SC2 is about 2 Corps, one recommendation was for USA to get 9 Corps and 4 Armies. Hubert adjusted that a little and made it 4 Corps and 6 Armies. That's fine, and provides a little more concentrated offensive punch. And it's still consistent with some other games. Should it be more? With the soft build limit option you can build more USA Armies if you want to, so I don't see what the issue is here. Is there a problem maxing out the entire USA force pool of corps, armies and tank groups in SC2??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pzgndr, the game may be correct in terms of the number of U.S. armies. The problem is that a U.S. army should have more firepower, supplies and mobility than a German or Soviet army. SC2 tries to model this through tech, but Germany is likely to have the same or better IW and HT than the U.S.

I never got into Third Reich, but I have played a lot of World in Flames and War in Europe. Those games give the U.S. a lot of aircraft, plus WiF has offensive chits (which give extra combat power). The U.S. may not have a huge ground force, but it can build lots of O-chits which magnify its ground strength.

All those U.S. MPPs don't do any good if there's nothing to spend them on.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Bill you forgot to mention the most adequate air forces the USA can deploy also.

Talk about an enhancement of firepower, use those babies before attacking with ground troops and who's going to stick around long.

Rommel noticed those Eagles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rclawson007:

But if you do, US and Russian activation increase.

In my Game versus AxisGeneral, when it said US and USSR whatever to axis agression in Egypt, they only rose by 8%. Prior to the 1.02 patch, it rose by like 20. I remember USSR jumped from like 48 to 74.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

3R sux. Was at best, okay, back in its day.

@Bill --- Dude, the firepower & supply just isn't there for G.I. Joe.

Your allied play must be very very VERY bad Rambo. Get yourself a decent internet connection and I will gladly teach you the basics tongue.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Alt-Tab out of TCP/IP game all the time. As long as you wait until the "turn has started" message flashes, you should be okay. The problem is Alt-Tabbing back into the game. At least on my machine, I watch a black screen for about 30 seconds until SC2 appears.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DT while I play with other people with the US Version of the game it works.

Funny is tried it with somebody who has the german version and wow you get an direct x failures faster than you can say amen. Really annoying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of you are missing the point. If you make it realistic, you break it, because the balance would be way out. I assume Hubert did this intentionally, with input from playtesters, to balance the game. Thank you.

Also, re the inference that the US came in when all was decided and hence were "yellow", that's very unfair. That's just being cautious with your mens' lives. The war probably had already been decided, but D Day hadn't and that isn't something you would gamble on, at least after Dieppe. You would wait until you were sure. As it was, Omaha was touch and go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we're not missing the point. The game has no point. When we complain that the Allies are too weak and the Germans can conquer everything, we're told that's historical. When we demonstrate that the game isn't historical, then we're told that it's meant to be fun. The designer and playtesters can't make up their minds, so neither can we.

DT

Originally posted by markpoll:

I think most of you are missing the point. If you make it realistic, you break it, because the balance would be way out. I assume Hubert did this intentionally, with input from playtesters, to balance the game. Thank you.

Also, re the inference that the US came in when all was decided and hence were "yellow", that's very unfair. That's just being cautious with your mens' lives. The war probably had already been decided, but D Day hadn't and that isn't something you would gamble on, at least after Dieppe. You would wait until you were sure. As it was, Omaha was touch and go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused: Ok before the patch the Allies needed some help but now? Most player in multiplayer want to play the Allies and soon it seems you have to start bidding to get the Allies from time to time.

[ June 18, 2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently playing 5 games as Allies, trying different strategies in each one, the life of testing, hehe.

Anyways, in 3 of them I'm winning and it is 1943. I have not even done a major landing with the Allies yet, this occurs in summer of 1944.

The other 2 games are early and I'm trying some really weird strategies, I have a hunch they'll both fail in the long run. I might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[dispalor]

You speak about a game... A game has to be balanced...

Of course, the Germans are superhumans. If not, how could they stand a chance to win this game? Remember, Germany has lost and for good reasons. UdSSR had sooo much more manpower, the US too and even more, they had so damn many ressources and yes, the British controlled a large part of the world. How could the Germans have won with such a big part of the mightiest powers in the world on the other side?

How could Germany have possibly won against the combined superiority of Poland, France, and the UK?

I don't believe that the Germans could have beaten the Russians, even without a second front.
It is speculation, but had the German's invaded Russia in early May as opposed to late June (giving them another couple months of good weather); and had the Japanese attacked the SU instead of the US, preventing transfer of the Siberian troop, it is quite possible the Germans would have taken Moscow and Leningrad, and additional strategic objectives in '41, and Russia might have capitulated.

I think most people, whether they critizize the US or not, do definitly know what the US engagement in ww2 meant: freedom from Hitler.
Or freedom from Stalin, more likely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...