Seen the full game already at my friends house and I must say this game is good. The map “Belgrade” is like OMG!! Its huge as hell!! Makes the BF2 map “Strike at Karkand” look small by comparison.
Karkand is small. Wake Island 2007, however…or Dragon Valley.
I meant for Revised, which needs the new rules.
Demo crashes on my computer, but I like Battlefield 2 better.
Obviously this thread is about the difficult decisions in life.
I personally think that it is the most unrealistic part of the game. You have ten fighters sitting on Germany, yet a single B-17 can go bombing merrily away without fear after the anti-aircraft gun misses. If they made it so that fighter could intercept bombers hitting on a four, while the bombers shot back at a one, one would actually have an incentive to bring along escort fighters which would hit with a three, since they are attacking territorial defense fighters. The bombers are defending from an attack. Strategic Bombing raids would be more of a risk for the attacker, and the game would be much more realistic.
Edit: I think that only one round of combat would be sufficient.
I think the site makes loot for each click. This loot is used to maintain the site. We should probably all take a few minutes and click on a few now and then if this is the case. Is this the case?
Yes, this is how ads generate money for the site.
I was just thinking about the chance for bad dice to mess you up the next turn.
It seems a bit risky to me, but thanks.
Oh. I thought she meant Russia 1. I usually refer to the turns by the nations who take them, and I thought most people did too. Oh well.
Some are just cheap, though, like the Superfortresses. Since fighters can’t intecept SBR’s, you can bomb at will with America, while being perfectly content to lose nothing.
How do you do it with Russia?
I always attack West Russia, instead. My lines are more formidable that way.
Easy. Get ahead on tier 2 pieces, and just trade your way to victory.
Your discussion is futile. Red Orchestra pwns all.
Actually, I liked CoD a whole lot, best single player WW2 by far. I’ve not played the 2nd in multiplayer, but the first was very good, UO was good but sometimes not so fun…
I played a bunch of the original DoD, tried to get into the source version, but couldn’t
As far as Steam games go, I’ve been against it for sometime, but RO and Dark Messiah (check it out, freaking sweet!) have changed my mind. Team Fortress 2 should be nice as well.
Dark Messiah feels a lot like Half-Life 2 with the Dragon Crates.
About the motion sickness, I still get it from Half-Life 2 when you are in the buggy.
@Imperious:
Yes the key to do that would have been to invade the Soviet eastern territories before they were transfered. The reality of a japanese “northern” solution was often discounded due to the huge defeat they faced in the border clash with the Soviets in 1939. Its hard to go against experience. My feeling is Stalin could have ignored or buffered this huge area with a few troops playing for time until a decisive outcome could have been obtained against Germany. The japanese didnt posess enough troops at any point to even push even 500 miles into Soviet Territory. They had to commit too many in China in a war that could not have been decided for even another 10 years. Remember they fought them since 1931 with no decisive result.
The key was to keep bagging Stalins armies using proven tactics. But with the strategic outlook of true mobile army having the ability to retreat and reform for counterattacks once the Soviet offensive lost steam. This elastic approach was what Manstein favored, while Hitler kept his old WW1 ideas intact. Hitler allowing his generals to fight the war would have brought victory. That along with the extra month of time.
Yeah, that was the other thing.
He acquired all of Europe through a mobile army, then hunkered down in the worst place in the world at the worst time.
@Imperious:
Well it would have made the difference of taking Moscow or not taking Moscow. It would not have ended the war, but it would have led to the fall of Leningrad as well since the rail lines run north/south and the Germans could have easily isolated it from the bulk of Stalins remaining forces. But remember that he had some 560 divisions to be reckoned with. Hitler needed to keep Moscow and Leningrad and produce one last great encirclement battle like Kiev to have a good chance to finish off Stalin. I feel that was his plan with Moscow, but if he didn’t bag enough troops the war would continue until 1942 anyway.
They could have survived the winter better in Moscow, though.
Of course, telling the Japanese to invade Siberia would have done it too, as Stalin had 1 million men guarding the border there. they made the difference in the battle for Moscow.
@Imperious:
Yes Jennifer thats correct.
So the winter took advantage of poor leadership.
Thats a strange way of putting it. The “leadership” was proven to quick campaigns of a specific purpose and design. When “winning on the cheap” proved a failure in Barbarossa, Hitler had no way to deal with an extended campaign. The winter was not a designed stage of his concept. But when it came Hitler made the best decision in spite of his Generals to “hold at all costs” this was correct in 1941 but disastrous in 1942. The difference was his flank was not exposed and his forces were not surrounded in 1941 and could roll with the punches, while at Stalingrad Stalin had trapped some 22 divisions and they were expected to fight on w/o adequate supplies… as if an army no longer marches on its stomach…
I know, but the Russians use it as a weapon, so I think it could be said that way.