gzav said:
And here I am missing all the fun stuff like our thread being closed!
Glad whatever it was is sorted out now. I need somewhere to post how I'll kick the Axis' butt single-handed in this game...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And here I am missing all the fun stuff like our thread being closed!
Glad whatever it was is sorted out now. I need somewhere to post how I'll kick the Axis' butt single-handed in this game...
I think, that for fairness' sake, the SU not be allowed to attack Japan until Germany has been defeated.
Japan cannot hope to stand up to the USSR no matter what it's techs, it just doesn't have enough peace time MP.
So I think that until Germany has been defeated, the USSR is not allowed to attack Japan.
Japan cannot hope to stand up to the USSR no matter what it's techs, it just doesn't have enough peace time MP.
So I think that until Germany has been defeated, the USSR is not allowed to attack Japan.
I have been looking at the countires economies in this game and the Genaral assumption i come to is that the USA and USSR economies are just too large when they enter the war. When they enter the war they should be gearing up for production. At the present they have their economies more or less at full capacity...ie 5 industry in nearly all possible provinces. Most games never get past 1942 because either the German player smashes the Soviets or visa versa. I would like to see no Industry upgrades for the USSR or the USA until they enter the war to bring the game into balance. At best the German economy might attain 800-1000, the Japs 600-800 the Italians tops 200.
At the time of war in any game the USA would expect to have 1200-1400, the soviets close to 800 and the uk at around 400. The USA enters the war with no threat from anyone. Its only a matter of time before they beat the japs too pulp. A lot sooner than they could have in reality. They are tech up way past what they could have attained so early in the war. The Russians tech up on infantry way past were the soviets were at the start of the war. Their troops were poor in the early months of the war but it is not reflected in the game. I having been looking at maybe limiting silver doctrine techs to once your country is at war. Gold doctrine techs as normal as they take a long time. The axis get the ones they get for free but that that should be it. Only an idea to try and balance the game a little.
Only a couple ideas i had what is the oponion of the mob?
At the time of war in any game the USA would expect to have 1200-1400, the soviets close to 800 and the uk at around 400. The USA enters the war with no threat from anyone. Its only a matter of time before they beat the japs too pulp. A lot sooner than they could have in reality. They are tech up way past what they could have attained so early in the war. The Russians tech up on infantry way past were the soviets were at the start of the war. Their troops were poor in the early months of the war but it is not reflected in the game. I having been looking at maybe limiting silver doctrine techs to once your country is at war. Gold doctrine techs as normal as they take a long time. The axis get the ones they get for free but that that should be it. Only an idea to try and balance the game a little.
Only a couple ideas i had what is the oponion of the mob
?I've mostly been playing the vanilla 39 scenario lately but it's much the same there. My favoured solution is that USA and SU should be left to the AI until they are at war. The AI can be relied upon to manage them badly and won't do anything too bizarre diplomatically. The human players who might have played these countries should instead be playing the countries that go to war sooner, e.g. Poland and France.major ball said:
Andrew
Ridiculous?
Just to hi lite a few things maybe we can pick a couple we like:
1/Core is a different game.
2/Resource shortages before the war should not affect axis. All the Allies can max out on resources before the war even though in reality they never knew a war was coming. They were not prepared. It is Ludicrous that at 3-1 trades before the war Munster could not get enough resources to even supply peacetime production. Same for the Italians. I propose that the Axis players can trade resources before the war. So what if they max out in resources? A few months at war and the resources are gone anyway.
3/The Russian should be forced a minimum garrison on the border with Poland and Rumania. I propose minimum 6 divisions each province with which 3 may be militia. The Germans attack and get nothing to attack till they get to the first river which is full of forts they have been digging since 1936. I dont remember reading anything about the Russians with extensive fortifications behind their rivers in 1941.
4/I still beleive if the Germans prepare from the start of the war Sealion is very hard to prevent. I keep getting told that the UK can stop it. Ok maybe so but if it succedes the Axis have a huge advantage. Sealion is pobably at little harder in core due to the cost of naval bombers.
5/In the previous post they guy came up with a good suggestion. Maybe instead of getting bored for the first 5 years of the war the Russian player can control China up to 1939 if it survives that long and the USA player can take France to at least the fall of mainland France or May 1940 which ever comes sooner. This way both Russia and USA are about the levels they should be for this stage of the game. Would make for an interesting game.
6/ Well before we have a swap of sides so you can prove me wrong I would like to see a game where the Axis do not have resource problems before the war. Let us see what they can really build and tech.
7/I would also like to see no silver Doctrine techs developed until general war. At the moment most countires have all these war doctines even though they never sent troops to a war zone or Spain or fired a shot in anger. Where did they gain all this advice and policies from?
8/The biggest problem for all countries is they can concentrate on a tech stream they want. The AI would tend to spread it around a bit. What we end up with is superhuman tanks,infantry and planes(even out teching the Germans) before the war even starts. I got know idea how to fix that.
9/A lot of these things I am writing about might all change if the German player did not have resource problems
Just to hi lite a few things maybe we can pick a couple we like:
1/Core is a different game.
2/Resource shortages before the war should not affect axis. All the Allies can max out on resources before the war even though in reality they never knew a war was coming. They were not prepared. It is Ludicrous that at 3-1 trades before the war Munster could not get enough resources to even supply peacetime production. Same for the Italians. I propose that the Axis players can trade resources before the war. So what if they max out in resources? A few months at war and the resources are gone anyway.
3/The Russian should be forced a minimum garrison on the border with Poland and Rumania. I propose minimum 6 divisions each province with which 3 may be militia. The Germans attack and get nothing to attack till they get to the first river which is full of forts they have been digging since 1936. I dont remember reading anything about the Russians with extensive fortifications behind their rivers in 1941.
4/I still beleive if the Germans prepare from the start of the war Sealion is very hard to prevent. I keep getting told that the UK can stop it. Ok maybe so but if it succedes the Axis have a huge advantage. Sealion is pobably at little harder in core due to the cost of naval bombers.
5/In the previous post they guy came up with a good suggestion. Maybe instead of getting bored for the first 5 years of the war the Russian player can control China up to 1939 if it survives that long and the USA player can take France to at least the fall of mainland France or May 1940 which ever comes sooner. This way both Russia and USA are about the levels they should be for this stage of the game. Would make for an interesting game.
6/ Well before we have a swap of sides so you can prove me wrong I would like to see a game where the Axis do not have resource problems before the war. Let us see what they can really build and tech.
7/I would also like to see no silver Doctrine techs developed until general war. At the moment most countires have all these war doctines even though they never sent troops to a war zone or Spain or fired a shot in anger. Where did they gain all this advice and policies from?
8/The biggest problem for all countries is they can concentrate on a tech stream they want. The AI would tend to spread it around a bit. What we end up with is superhuman tanks,infantry and planes(even out teching the Germans) before the war even starts. I got know idea how to fix that.
9/A lot of these things I am writing about might all change if the German player did not have resource problems
major ball said:Just to hi lite a few things maybe we can pick a couple we like:
1/Core is a different game.
2/Resource shortages before the war should not affect axis. All the Allies can max out on resources before the war even though in reality they never knew a war was coming. They were not prepared. It is Ludicrous that at 3-1 trades before the war Munster could not get enough resources to even supply peacetime production. Same for the Italians. I propose that the Axis players can trade resources before the war. So what if they max out in resources? A few months at war and the resources are gone anyway.
3/The Russian should be forced a minimum garrison on the border with Poland and Rumania. I propose minimum 6 divisions each province with which 3 may be militia. The Germans attack and get nothing to attack till they get to the first river which is full of forts they have been digging since 1936. I dont remember reading anything about the Russians with extensive fortifications behind their rivers in 1941.
4/I still beleive if the Germans prepare from the start of the war Sealion is very hard to prevent. I keep getting told that the UK can stop it. Ok maybe so but if it succedes the Axis have a huge advantage. Sealion is pobably at little harder in core due to the cost of naval bombers.
5/In the previous post they guy came up with a good suggestion. Maybe instead of getting bored for the first 5 years of the war the Russian player can control China up to 1939 if it survives that long and the USA player can take France to at least the fall of mainland France or May 1940 which ever comes sooner. This way both Russia and USA are about the levels they should be for this stage of the game. Would make for an interesting game.
6/ Well before we have a swap of sides so you can prove me wrong I would like to see a game where the Axis do not have resource problems before the war. Let us see what they can really build and tech.
7/I would also like to see no silver Doctrine techs developed until general war. At the moment most countires have all these war doctines even though they never sent troops to a war zone or Spain or fired a shot in anger. Where did they gain all this advice and policies from?
8/The biggest problem for all countries is they can concentrate on a tech stream they want. The AI would tend to spread it around a bit. What we end up with is superhuman tanks,infantry and planes(even out teching the Germans) before the war even starts. I got know idea how to fix that.
9/A lot of these things I am writing about might all change if the German player did not have resource problems
You make some good points major. The big difference here is Germany, normaly Germany would lead in a least 1 possibly two areas of tech. This game is alittle unusal due to the resources issue. But this being our first big game in CORE put i down to a learning experience. I know you've learnt alot about planes this game, which we all have done in the past the hard way.
Ok i will try to answer your points 1 by 1 with my view (since ive have played Germany the most out of our group)
1. Yes CORE is different and where all still learning little things here and there.
2. I propose this for resources shortages. If a player cannot get enough resources on the WM with 3-1 trades then there allies or future allies can send them enough resources to keep there IC running at 100% in pre-war years only. Once at war only fully fledged allies can send you resources/supplies as in the rules. Now this does not mean you send Germany heaps of resources to get 99k you send them just enough to keep the IC running, no more no less. Part of the fun i had with Germany is trying to get more reosurces, that was Germanies ambition for an empire. Low resources also dictate which country you will next attack to secure resources (ie France to get there stockpiles to keep your economy going, or maybe the low countries as they also have a bit, maybe you need alot more steel so sweden is first). I think this will be more balanced and still keep Germany striving to secure more resources. Often as Germany even with 6 players it is possible for Germany to max out on everything maybe with the exception of steel.
If we still have probs we can always get the Uk player to put a bit of rubber on the market if it is going to be a game issue.
3. Well i dont like to dictate how you can defend your own country. As Russia it can be very hard to stop the German in a normal game hence the fort lines. The same thing can be said of the UK building forts in the UK, ME or on islands, same with US building up its islands in the pacific, what about Germany building forts in eastern europe or eleswhere. The point is this is a game, and people should be able to do different things other then what the history books says. If people cant defend where and how they see fit then the game becomes unfun. Another point is that we are all planning our own stratagies from 1936 to attack who ever in certain ways, there for it is only realistic that the player would be planning a defence in a certain way. You cant say a defence is unrealistic when the attacker has been planning there attack from 1936.
I have bourn much of the brunt of the Russian fort lines, as i played Germany the most. No much how much i hate them, if they wernt there in the games i played it is possible that i would have overun much of the USSR and won. But i like a lot longer challenge and if russia needs forts to help the defence then so be it. No offence to Jh but in a recent game as Germany i defeated the USSR with 24 improved fighters, (12 ground attack and 12 escourt fighters) These forces in two stacks attacked Red army forces before my tanks arrived and i was unbeatable, nothing the Russians could do to stop me. Why becuase my stratagy in that game was to have Airpower make up the difference in numbers that the russians had and apply that in a focused way to each battle so i would win. Luckily for me the Russians only had the basic fighters and where no match, there for my stratagy worked.
Any country is easily beaten with the right strategy if the opposing players does not have an equal defence. That is the nature of war who is best prepared wins.
4. Sealion is always hard to prevent. But that is the fun of the game trying to stay alive. If the germans invade and they win good its part of the game to lose and be kicked out. If you cant accept that then dont play. If the Uk aleast as equal airpower wihch it can do, and keeps its navy in good shaped no attack will ever get through. As germany can simply not build enough ships to seriosuly challenge the Royal navy. Airpower is the key, if you lise that and Germany has naval bombers then yes German might be able to land in the UK. Thats why the Battle of Britain was so important. So the Uk/German situation is very realistic in that who ever has dommion over the skies above the UK will win.
5. I am opposed to this idea as the USA is already weak at the start of the war in Dec 1941 in terms of units deployed, japan can overun much of the pacific if done correctly. Munster has done it recently he even took Hawaii and has invaded the US on many occassions as the Japs and pushed as far as central US. So no for USA they need all the time they can get. And i dont think russia needs to be another country either, its unfair to expect some one to play them and not be able to do so from the begging of the game. If that was the rule i would never want to play either of those countries. I am not opposed to those countries taking miliatry control of USA-France and USSR-China to help make it a bit more of a challange, but this opens up other unrealistics options espically in china. In china a human players can stop the Japs for the whole game easily, and i think the game is better with the Japs getting china.
6. Imagine if the Germans didnt have resource problems, you would be alot stronger with a super japan in the east waiting to pounce. The axis would be pushing to win and the allies staring defeat in the eye. But thats they way it should be from 1939-42-43? Then the tired turns as USSR manpower and USA industry start to bight. Then the allies gain the upperhand if we have managed to hold. So yes Axis would be stronger with no resource problem but thats is something we could not predict at the start of the game. Should be better next game.
7. Well i for one havnt done that many, but once again it is to limiting that is like saying no nuclear research until 1942 when the US started. You have to leave it open to be a fun game. Once again this is a game to be played along historical lines not a repeat or history lesson each games needs to be alitte differnt and players should be free to pursue differnt options. What if the USSR wanted to build a huge navy and get an empire, unrealsitic but it should have the option open to it.
8. There is no way to fix it. I seem to be getting a common thread here. You seem to want an exact repeat of history with each nation at the same tech areas as around the historical time. Well that wont happen has players want to try different things and build different things. If everyone had to be the same as history every game it is very boring and not worth playing. The fun of HOI is that there are so many differnt options and that you can pick totaly different goals to what happend in real life. Once again this is a game not a history lesson. We play with a general historical dates and rules but to many rules runins the game.
9. If germany was stronger then yes alot would be differnt.
Well the game has been historical in Africa with ethiopia falling, and the British only just holding egpyt. Italy is historicaly weak as it should be. Germany and the axis have over run much of Europe. Spain was tacken which is unrealistic and Gibralter fallen unrealistic but still fun. You dont hear me complaining about these things as there all valid options and should not be ruled out because its unhistorical. I have alot of fun fighting for my life in the med. I hope i have as much fun against the Japs in Asia and Jh does as well.
When i played italy it was always tough. Where i think you went wrong is you didnt play to your strenghts. You tried to keep up in air tech which is good but not your strength. The strength the italians have is in numbers very early in the game, if you spend more ic on building infantry and a little tech to improve them. You then use your numbers to quickly try and beat the allies which is very possible. I could only manage around 10-15 infantry divisions at the most when you DOW on me in Egypt which were poorly organised. If you had attacked straight away i doubt we would be having this conversation. If in conjunction you have the german player looking like hes going to invade the UK then that will force the Uk to keep his airpower and naval power around the UK. You dont have to invade the UK just look like your going to with lots of Transports built by Germany, assemble airpower near the Uk and fleets, with lots of infantry and armour ready to cross the channel. This is the way to keep maxium preasure on the UK. Had you and munster done this the entrie ME would be yours, no doubt about that. I think that is very realistic as it was a real problem for the UK. I wouldnt complain would be great fun and i would look forward to taking it back with some help from my Amierican friends. As for your planes well i think you've learnt that lesson never put short range planes on islands. But like i said above you would still have your plans had you the right stratagy, as i would have never moved some planes from the Uk had Germany put the preasure on me to look like he was going to invade.
It all comes down to options you make and how well you work with your allie.
Wow what a post, huge.
When you boys start a new one, Ill be there as long as it is soon ... '
Thats becasue they came up against the might of the AUSTRALIAN ARMY !!! We sent them back to Mussolini's fat ass !!!
(this refering to Joel's post) .
Yopur post reminds me of something very similar a little while back Husayn but in the case I am thinking about Japan and SU had a NON-Aggression TREATY and they were still attacked .
Now who supports me .
edited by gzav - Please read the Double posts sticky.
'Thats becasue they came up against the might of the AUSTRALIAN ARMY !!! We sent them back to Mussolini's fat ass !!!
(this refering to Joel's post) .
Yopur post reminds me of something very similar a little while back Husayn
but in the case I am thinking about Japan and SU had a NON-Aggression TREATY and they were still attacked .Now who supports me
.edited by gzav - Please read the Double posts sticky.
Last edited by a moderator:
Be good to have you back in, and Nolan as well - would give us 8 players which would make for a slower, but more interesting game.
In regards to Majors post, and Mike's reply, I think it's important not to lose perspective after 1 game where I happen to think the Axis are doing ok. As for the doctrines idea, I don't like it one bit. We have had as many games end in Axis victories as Allied ones, and always with the same rules regarding this.
The simple fact is, some of us have played certain nations so many times we are very familiar with good strategies as to how to play them. I am very hesitant to implement any of the suggestions made without us switching roles, and seeing things from the other side. On one hand, yes, the Axis suffer from resource shortages. On the other hand, they have limited manpower concerns compared to the US and UK. The Soviet Union meanwhile, has been played by competant players in our group, and still defeated numerous times. For my 2 cents, I think our current game has a good balance - had Germany in particular invested less in naval techs, and more in land and air techs, they may very well have steamrolled me. This is a player decision issue, not a game balance one.
In regards to Majors post, and Mike's reply, I think it's important not to lose perspective after 1 game where I happen to think the Axis are doing ok. As for the doctrines idea, I don't like it one bit. We have had as many games end in Axis victories as Allied ones, and always with the same rules regarding this.
The simple fact is, some of us have played certain nations so many times we are very familiar with good strategies as to how to play them. I am very hesitant to implement any of the suggestions made without us switching roles, and seeing things from the other side. On one hand, yes, the Axis suffer from resource shortages. On the other hand, they have limited manpower concerns compared to the US and UK. The Soviet Union meanwhile, has been played by competant players in our group, and still defeated numerous times. For my 2 cents, I think our current game has a good balance - had Germany in particular invested less in naval techs, and more in land and air techs, they may very well have steamrolled me. This is a player decision issue, not a game balance one.
If russians are to build forts lets make it along their borders...not behind rivers waiting for a war they are not suppose to know is coming..at least forts on the border can be regarded as guarding the homeland.The ideas i had were things to throw around.
BTW mike I made mistakes as italians by trying to upgrade ships. This is a waste of time as the UK has super ships that the Italains got no chance of matching. I only upgraded to basic fighters. I may or may not build paras. But if i had the 21 air units i lost thru the retreat bug things could be a little different. The only reason you havnt advance anymore in africa is your taking it easy on me but i dont mind. Also the Germans Annexing yugoslavia hurt a little i was hoping to extend my empire
BTW mike I made mistakes as italians by trying to upgrade ships. This is a waste of time as the UK has super ships that the Italains got no chance of matching. I only upgraded to basic fighters. I may or may not build paras. But if i had the 21 air units i lost thru the retreat bug things could be a little different. The only reason you havnt advance anymore in africa is your taking it easy on me but i dont mind. Also the Germans Annexing yugoslavia hurt a little i was hoping to extend my empire
Im not taking it easy on you Major, i dont have the forces to mount a counter offensive. The Trick to the UK (i played them the most befor i started playing germany alot so there one of my best countries) is to be patient dont launched stupid counter offensives everywhere, becuase you cant win the war. You play defensive until the US gets into the WAR. Me and JH set out a strategy from day one of this game and have stuck to it the whole way. I have not lost a single division to enemy action or anyother way. I lost one fighter, and a few ships prior to the US in the WAR. This enabled me to build up and not worry about replacing lossess that so many othere players do as the UK. They rush of on some holy counter offensive when they know they dont have the forces to complete it.
I didnt do much tech for the army Major so you cant say i have super troopers. Munster was even telling me he thought i was stuffed due to my low org, but my troops held becuase i had numbers on the ground and also some decent tanks to strengthen the spine. Plus every defensive commander i could find and all the best ministers. And now i have enough forces to protect all my empire nearly, still not enough to counter attack, but with some US units yes i can even counter the Japs in the future.
The Trick is before you go to war or you know war is comming is not some tech, its boots on the ground you need numbers to overwhelm your enemy befor he his ready in the case of the UK. The UK does have a few good BBs, but hey rember your going up against the largest navy in the world for the last 300 years. Britania rules the waves, god save the king. Plus i invested in naval tech and lots of naval doctrines to fight of any German invasion.
I didnt do much tech for the army Major so you cant say i have super troopers. Munster was even telling me he thought i was stuffed due to my low org, but my troops held becuase i had numbers on the ground and also some decent tanks to strengthen the spine. Plus every defensive commander i could find and all the best ministers. And now i have enough forces to protect all my empire nearly, still not enough to counter attack, but with some US units yes i can even counter the Japs in the future.
The Trick is before you go to war or you know war is comming is not some tech, its boots on the ground you need numbers to overwhelm your enemy befor he his ready in the case of the UK. The UK does have a few good BBs, but hey rember your going up against the largest navy in the world for the last 300 years. Britania rules the waves, god save the king. Plus i invested in naval tech and lots of naval doctrines to fight of any German invasion.
Just a point here re the forts issue. I built no forts at all until 1939, when I think Uncle Joe probably had a good idea of what was coming. Anyway, level 2 and 3 forts really are just a speedbump against enemy armour as everyone knows. A few hours of combat and they melt away.
In our current game, all the battles (yes - each and every single last one) that Munster and I have fought have taken place west of these forts. The only battles where forts have played a role has been in eastern Poland, where Munster constructed his own line.
The Soviet army stayed back by and large until December 1941, but even from day 1, I had around 60 divisions fighting and manoeuvering west of the rivers/forts.
I have no real objection to not building forts because I know how limited their impact really is, particularly against armour.
In our current game, all the battles (yes - each and every single last one) that Munster and I have fought have taken place west of these forts. The only battles where forts have played a role has been in eastern Poland, where Munster constructed his own line.
The Soviet army stayed back by and large until December 1941, but even from day 1, I had around 60 divisions fighting and manoeuvering west of the rivers/forts.
I have no real objection to not building forts because I know how limited their impact really is, particularly against armour.
Game
I would like to contiune current game please as I have invested much time and effort. However if that is just too much for everyone the I will probably take a break for a while.
I am free Tuesday and wednesdayand thur and Fri night at 9pm.
Please post times if we continue.
I would like to contiune current game please as I have invested much time and effort. However if that is just too much for everyone the I will probably take a break for a while.
I am free Tuesday and wednesdayand thur and Fri night at 9pm.
Please post times if we continue.
I can play anytime as well. JH i know you have invested a lot of time and the rest of us have too but the Germans are really screwed. If Joel is Serious he can take Berlin very soon. If he stops attacking that is a bit artificial. I understand how you feel but we really need the guys in positions that they are familiar with. We really need an experienced German player for a good game. They setup the game. I know Munster is not that experienced player the Germans in CORE. I would like another crack at Italy because I havnt played them much. I have a better idea next time. Munster said anyone can have a look at the save but is playing 2 more months going to help. At the current rate with war all over the world could take hours. I vote we take what experience we have learnt from this into the next game hopefully come up with something that will see us thru to 1944 at least. I know you have invested a lot of time and we have been very patient with you because you have been afk a lot if you play the usa again you only have to spend minimum time at the controls till we get to war. With Nolan and Anus willing to play and available we can start and 8 player and fill all the countries. Never done it before could be interesting.
What do you reckon?
What do you reckon?
game
i will be in at 8pm to start a new game BUT i have guests so will just start up and leave ton auto.
I will play usa again.
I suggest u have Joel or mike as germ.
i will be in at 8pm to start a new game BUT i have guests so will just start up and leave ton auto.
I will play usa again.
I suggest u have Joel or mike as germ.
Seems the short notice meant we couldn't all make it tonight (Sunday).
If everyone can make it for Tuesday 9pm, we can start a new game then.
I would like to take Germany for a change, and Mike has stated he'd like Italy. I imagine JH is probably keen to play USA again.
Anyway, post your preference - hopefully we'll get Anus and Nolan back for this game as well.
If everyone can make it for Tuesday 9pm, we can start a new game then.
I would like to take Germany for a change, and Mike has stated he'd like Italy. I imagine JH is probably keen to play USA again.
Anyway, post your preference - hopefully we'll get Anus and Nolan back for this game as well.
Rather than pick a new country and balls it up for everyone I prefer to take Italy and see if I can do better now I know whats going on. If I take any of the other powers I would be the weakest link
Mike is better as UK than anyone and if Joel is going to take Germany we need a strong UK player not a begginner.
Munster and Omni can have choice of the Russians or Japs I suppose. Maybe Nolan and Anus can pick up China and France if they decide to play.
Whats your verdict?
Mike is better as UK than anyone and if Joel is going to take Germany we need a strong UK player not a begginner.
Munster and Omni can have choice of the Russians or Japs I suppose. Maybe Nolan and Anus can pick up China and France if they decide to play.
Whats your verdict?
Well, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of sitting in the sidelines for 6 years, so I'll pass on Japan.
Gimmi Russia.
PS Damnit, was I the only one not their at 8?
Gimmi Russia.
PS Damnit, was I the only one not their at 8?
CORE 0.85 is out, i suggest we update to this as for our new game. As this is now two upgrades above what were playing at the moment. It it cludes fixes for CAGs, and some game balance issues. Also 0.84 was the Platiun edition of core so it had alot of good fixes including bug fixes. So update to 0.85 when you can download it. You have to update to 0.84 then install 0.85 on top of that. Easy yous fresh install of HOI or it wont work.
Make an install of both 0.83 and 0.85, so you can have both.
Also, has anyone played 1.06c? I hear the air changes are big- ie, very hard to get used to in 1 day. Don't want to have to learn MORE things about this game, I'd rather we played 0.83.
Also, has anyone played 1.06c? I hear the air changes are big- ie, very hard to get used to in 1 day. Don't want to have to learn MORE things about this game, I'd rather we played 0.83.