Retributar Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 This game has been re-enginnered to make it impossible for the allies to lose!. The Russian Air-Force is way too powerful from the outset of the game, and the Russian troops too strong & too numerous for their level of technology at that point in time!. The Italians in Afrika are way too underfunded to accomplish anything at all, and the British, too technologically advanced and over supplied in manpower & equipment to make any game of it possible!. Just my 2cents worth!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I played this game only two times against the AI until now (both sides), and both times i thought exact the opposite: When Axis, the Allied seemd too strong and my side too weak. Wenn Allied, i moaned about these endless german air masses. And so i thought to myself after the second game: Wow, Hubert has made this baby a very good thing, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 It's made it harder for the Axis, but as I'm currently winning a game against another good player I have to disagree. I think that the overall effect is to make it more realistic, because in the real war the Germans got close but not quite close enough to winning. As to Africa, the German and Italian bombers come in very handy at reducing allied supply and entrenchment in Egpyt. If you can also get Gibraltar then the supply effect from that will make a reasonably sized Axis offensive against Egypt have a very good chance of success. There are a lot of Russians but German artillery and Stukas become real killers as the game progresses, so while it is a bloody march east for the Axis they should be able to take out loads of Soviet units. Stukas and strategic bombers are also very useful at taking out Malta, and all those Panzers are worth their weight in gold. Give it a few more tries because there are ways to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I find the game similiar with the expansion. It distrubs me that the Italians can never afford a commmander or piece of armor but that is how it is. Balance seems good though but as I felt in the past this idea that commanders should cost 300+ just seems alien to me. I know they come with supply etc but regardless all powers should get commanders or at least make them where they are affordable without conquering ahistorically portions of the world. I would also like to see the Italians have the armor they actually had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted October 29, 2007 Author Share Posted October 29, 2007 Quote by targul!. "I would also like to see the Italians have the armor they actually had." "Right on John!". Yes!...the 'Italians' did have armour in North Africa, and this important item is 'NOT' being represented in the Game!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 With the new unit additions and separation of duties, I think there is just an increased possibility of lopsided games if you don't have appropriate counters (or use them effectively). Targul: In my current PvsP game I'll have an Italian HQ by Nov. 1940. I've just taken Greece as the Italians as well. Italy gets about 50 MPP a turn early on, so you only need to wait 6 turns before you can purchase an HQ. Same with armor if you want it early. It's just a matter of planning what you want and when, especially the Italians who have to manage their MPP income effectively. I was surprised to find out just now that you can sack/replace leaders on the field! I haven't RTFM yet, so this was a cool find and helps alleviate the 300 MPP cost for leaders. Now we can switch out those sad saps for some real leaders without having to pay full price and wait a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Originally posted by Timskorn: I was surprised to find out just now that you can sack/replace leaders on the field! I haven't RTFM yet, so this was a cool find and helps alleviate the 300 MPP cost for leaders. Now we can switch out those sad saps for some real leaders without having to pay full price and wait a long time. Haven`t yet read the manual as well, because I wait for the hardcopy... how is that function supposed to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bylandt Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Originally posted by Hyazinth von Strachwitz: Haven`t yet read the manual as well, because I wait for the hardcopy... how is that function supposed to work? Right-click on a general that hasn't moved yet. You'll see the option to "sack/replace". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Tvm!! Let us make an example... I have the italian HQ Balbo. What happens when I fire that bloke... who do I get a replacement? Does it cost me additional MPP? Can I change one of the german HQ into Manstein in the beginning of 1939? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bylandt Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Originally posted by Timskorn: Targul: In my current PvsP game I'll have an Italian HQ by Nov. 1940. I've just taken Greece as the Italians as well. Italy gets about 50 MPP a turn early on, so you only need to wait 6 turns before you can purchase an HQ. Same with armor if you want it early. I don't know. After purchasing you still have to wait several turns before it arrives. And then to get it to North Africa. This all assuming you haven't spent any MPP's to reinforce the air units or the (extremely important) sub. A HQ and/or tank at start would be nice. As it is, Italy is only useful fore its fleet and for building garrison troops for France and later Russia. I have tried to use Italians for invasions or offensive warfare, but that is more like roleplaying than being efficient and calculating, because the cost for bying HQ's, tanks (now more important than ever) and researching land doctrines are too high for poor little Italy. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a little roleplaying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottosmops Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 HvS, Yes, it costs you additional MPPs. I tried to replace O'Connor (Rating 6) with Auchinleck (Rating 7) and the confirmation dialog asked me, if I want to spend 88 MPPs. Btw, it is a little strange that O'Connor is also on the list of the HQs, from which to choose the replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Thx for the information... in that case it might make sense to change the russian HQ earlier in Operation Barbarossa... but it doesn`t seem to make sense for Germany. What do you guys think? Can someone pls enlighten me: what are the exact numbers behind the HQ rating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Ottosmops, That is actually an error where I believe I had tried to correct the spelling for O'Connor, i.e. O'Conner is wrong, and ended up with 2 similar names on the HQ list. Already corrected for the first patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Its easy to get the Italians into the game and be effective, you must plan accordingly as Tigerskorn has reflected upon. Now this won't happen early, plan for 42, this is when you'll need them the most anyway. Effective planning allows them to be viable into 44 and 45 for opposing any Allied NA incursions as a blocking force, buying time for the real warriors to appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider3/3 Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I have to agree with some of the issues here. The Italians should at least start with a Panzer unit. That would have been the expereinced "Ariete" Division, which I believe was given that name after 1940 early. The Italians had around 1400 AFV by early 1941, including SP guns, and artillery. They also had around 300+ Armored cars. Their Airforce was small, but equiped with some of the finest planes of WWII. So to edit Italy in the begining may due justice for Italy. Their small arms were crap, and their Armored forces never really matched up to the Allies, but they did have Tanks. Also their Regia Auronautica with the help of the Luftwaffe destroyed 200+ships in the Med, and the Italian Airforce shot down over 2500 aircraft. Just my 5 Cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Don't forget Trieste and Trento divisions. However ineffective the Italian AFVs are they did have numerous ones. Perhaps a starting 5 strength Tank Corps, but now let's have more US armor like 2 more Tank Corps. I saw the Poles and Canadians get an Armored Corps each, I'm wondering if this is the Free Poles and when they would see activation, anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 The one change I would make is to increase the default USA build limits, as the USA did not face the production and resource limits that affected the other powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konigs Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 The Ariete was an Italian armored division also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts