Cueball said:
yeah it's a waste,for attack if allies are waiting behind belgium it's sept-october 39 or spring 40.
-
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.
yeah it's a waste,for attack if allies are waiting behind belgium it's sept-october 39 or spring 40.
I contemplated going into France on Danzig, but thought it was maybe too risky.
In hindsight, it was probablly a good idea.
In hindsight, it was probablly a good idea.
Nasr said:
U make a point here it's worth a shot if you can outnumber the allies there. But uk having his arms elsewhere in euro front doesn't mean that he can't ship them back quickly to france using it 10% speed minister to reach good defensive places.
Beside considering the forces you got I'm afraid that it would have great chances to not succeed.I'm not certain though since anything not expected can happen in game.
With a good IC base u could have fielded 250 total units for the french front in sept oct 39 while u got around 120 total units in spring 40 for that frontline.Though u got that early a nice armoured army and a decent number of fighters which I consider they are too many in regards to your current IC and land production needs for barbarrossa.But's that's my opinion since I consider mass air for germany useless until u got fighters III or tubojet ftrs.Time frame when your mp is too low to keep producing high amount of arms and mechs and swap to air production, surprising uk that is used to not see much the lufftwaffe on his theater.
The reason I pumped out fighters, was because the last time I played, I think in 1.3 (before the current patch), bombers used to maul land units.
But yeah, as I've said, my mistake was not expanding IC.
But my usual play has always been the same with Germany. Small amount of units for Poland, France, and then pumping out to over 250-300 units for a quick Barbarossa.
I've just never faced a UK player that's had the balls to waste his MP on masses of tanks to delay Germany in France for a bit.
But yeah, as I've said, my mistake was not expanding IC.
But my usual play has always been the same with Germany. Small amount of units for Poland, France, and then pumping out to over 250-300 units for a quick Barbarossa.
I've just never faced a UK player that's had the balls to waste his MP on masses of tanks to delay Germany in France for a bit.
Nasr said:
why a waste? and a bit? u attacked in feb 40 and in mid jully 40 u was still stuck in eindhoven with a long way still to get in paris.vichy would have fired in september.I don't think it was a waste.U mention my mp just because I'm not reinforcing anything at all just making new units for a while.reinforcements wil come in time when it wil require a real need.
Bombing my airfields when I got my air full org that I'm not using yet isn't worth it.My air can stay low strenght for a while it won't change anything and tanks can be restreghtned within 5 days..
Last edited:
Nasr said:
Good read the god dam posts you moron. Its stated a number of times its was a 38 scenario and I clearly remeber that game vs major ball as USSR. I sugest you read your own links and not just the first page which was edited by major ball to reflect a new game starting after the one, you goose. Good god how can I saw like and eagle when im surrounded by turkies.
Like I said, I was beaten in the 2nd game, but not by you. USSR was finished as you admitted in posts, allies did the hard work.
Nasr said:
For germany there is not much point building large numbers of fighters early unless you plan to do either Sea Lion or a large Naval war. In these situations you will require at least a good number of fighters.
With bombers nerfed vs land units there is little point building massed bombers for Russia, there for you dont need many fighters either to battle Russia unless you detech signs of a big red airforce. In my opinion they weakened bombers to much, or made land units too strong vs air units, they went to far in the other direction to make bombers near useless in land warefare now. A few tacs is good for bombing infra for sea invasions. You can still destroy units retreating but dont bomb units with AA even in retreat they will likely destroy your bombers. This does give Germany far more IC to focus on land units and a navy if it wants, forgoing a massive airforce.
Besides this like mentioned there is little need for lots of fighters early, often the UK has outnumbered me and out teched early in the war only to get smashed later on by large numbers of advanced units. However you need to ensure you have enough units to defend your IC and also to help Italy in its operations.
You can also pump out large numbers of advanced ships and planes once your manpower gets low due to your massive land army, which ensures victory in France and giving the USSR a big pounding. You can also catch the UK napping in france hiding yout true strength in armour until into the low countries. Use 30 odd armour to smash your way in, hidding the fact you have over 60 armour at this point. If the UK deploys an army even large amounts of armour he will not match 60 armour in 1939, and be not match for German panzers with there docs. You would have a good chance to destroy the UK army in france, which would practicaly end the UK for at least 2 years.
There are strategies and options around a UK which commits so much to mauling Germany early. The expensive armour units cannot be everywhere at once and for a long time many parts of the empire will be unportected until larger numbers of units are built. There is nothing stoping Italy and Japan joining the war in April 1940 to punish such a strategy or a combination of this.
Ofcourses masses of German armour which will always outclass UK armour of similar tech is a great option. Italy can also assist with a good number of amour itself. In the end how ever the war is not one by compeating with the UK in armour, the war is won by taking the war to the UK.
If the UK insists on building large amounts of armour and a limited airforce, strategic bombing of UK IC or the use of V1s from the low countries early on even befor france falls will massively hurt this kind of game play. If UK spamms tanks to try and stop Germany early, then spam V1s and put an end to much of the UKs IC, do with V1s what he did with tanks in northern Germany.
This combined with the loss of much of his empire when both Italy and Japan join the war in april 1940 will be a loss from which the UK will not recover, not with much of its IC depressed for long peroids.
If the UK wants to make your life hell, then make his game crap by spamming rockets and giving him a taste of his own medicine. Doing an early rush of tanks into northern germany is bad play just like mass rockets is on IC.
Alls fair in love and war though.
Last edited:
I Didn't ask you to change any values for me. I made a SUGGESTION! if you agree -fine, if not - not. I read an article an found information posted there quite interesting , read that and say your opinion.Rastius06 said:
alexgorik said:
I will, once you've been around a while and proven yourtself, sorry to break this to you but none here would have read it yet for that very reason.
Jopin a game so we get to know u.
mike8472 There is nothing stoping Italy and Japan joining the war in April 1940 to punish such a strategy If the UK wants to make your life hell said:
alexgorik said:
I guess this deserves an answer.
Well about mods and modding. Its not so easy. Kanitalan is perfectly welcome to create his own mod based on his ideas. So far he has not. The problem is that he is right, there are all kinds of problems with the combat system. His idea is just to do away with the "Hardness" factor in the game altogether, and then increase FP for tanks and make them of the same kind of unit as infantry. Its a pretty evolved concept, and not simply about increasing tank firepower, it is about a lot of things, and those thing all work together to create a certain effect. In vanilla this effect has been slowly evolved over time in order to balance the game, not perfectly, and not nearly as realistically as many people would like, but it is functional as a game platform.
For multiplayer players, they need mostly a functional and somewhate balanced game platform, first and foremost, and in modded games, even small adjustments can make major changes to the game , the way it plays and the balance of the scenario and these results are not always predictable. So it takes time and patience, and occassional errors and tweaking to balance this thing at all, and so people are very wary of even small adjustments, because those adjustements can me serious changes in a game, and people most of all want to play a good game, not spend 20 hours or so, only to find out that they are fucked because they made the wrong tweak.
We are actually experiencing some of this in the game I have modded in the Wednesday session where tanks are rocking way beyond how they should, and this is a pretty major distortion in a game, and does not necessarily make for good gaming, but annoying gaming, or at least not as enjoyable gaming, so people here are naturally wary of even small suggestions about things like game mechanics.
What has happened in this case is that my releatively small adjustment of GDE, has impacted the relative weight of infantry and tanks far more than I expected because it causes an exponential, as opposed linear additional increase in the effectiveness of "hardness" and "softness" factors. So the tanks are 4 times as strong as vanilla, while infantry is only twice as strong, even though I introduced the the adjustment to effective GDE globally to all units. That is just one example of what can happen, and that is far less a fundamental concept change than the one proposed by Kanitilan.
And Kanitilan's idea was not to increase the overall effectivness of tanks relative to infantry in the game, but to change the dynamic of how that effectivness was demonstrated in province by province combat. Simply increasing tank firepower, would just make the stronger, within the context of the "hardness/softness" weighting system which he considered to be fundamentally flawed.
This is not to say that Kanitilian's ideas are not servicable for a game concept, but to say that that game concept is nothing til it is proven by a long period of tweaking and testing, before it becomes a proper MP platform. And I am speaking as someone who has done thousands of hours of modding in this game platform.
Last edited:
Rastius06 said:
Italy can join the war after the vinchy event but not prioir to April 1st 1940. This means even if vinchy dosnt fire italy can join the war once this dates passes.
Rockets banned until 1943 is a new rule since ive left.
Rastius06 said:
I'll be happy to join your game playing any country. just let me know when you start new session.
mike8472 said:
mike8472 said:
a) Italy may enter when Paris is captured and it must be after March 1940.
Is That really how you interpret that!!! :rofl:
If thats the intent then that wording needs changing as its quite particular that you can only join after vichy with the added element that it must also be after 1 April 1940 (April 1 wtf, you a yankee now).
To mean what you say it should say:
Italy can join the war after the vichy event fires or after 1 April 1940
Rastius06 said:
Our rules have always had Italy can join the war after Paris has fallen? not the vinchy evnet or after April 1st 1940.
Meaning there are two options to join the war.
1. Either Paris falls or the vinchy even event dost really matter.
2. The time restriction of April 1940.
This is so Italy cannot join the war if vinchy happens in 1939 and gang bang the UK or France. But it also allows Italy to join the war if Germany gets stalemated in France long then April 1940.
The rules should be amened as this is how our rules have always been. Another oversite since your brought in Hiesens rules which are inferior to ours in most respects or though similar.
Mike,
Im tellin ya, as worded, thats not what it says, plain as day, if thats what the group wants it needs changin.
Im tellin ya, as worded, thats not what it says, plain as day, if thats what the group wants it needs changin.
If everyone can commit to playing tongiht by 4:20 AESt time I can put leaving off until tomorrow morning and play tonight.