Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 10:27:40 AM   
kafka

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 6/11/2004
Status: offline
amazing how people tend to identify themselves with one of both sides. To me, it's just a gameplay issue: I'd like to have the same gameplay options for whichever side I choose to play. Not having them is the one of the reasons I stopped playing the game, additionally to not having the time to. Annoying, considerung it's not a low budget software :-)

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 31
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 3:31:13 PM   
Tophat1812

 

Posts: 1527
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Frankly if both the Axis and Soviet fanboys are complaining seems to me the devs are doing something right! 

This is an excellent game that continues to be tweaked and improved.

(in reply to kafka)
Post #: 32
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 3:43:07 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1853
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
Somehow I am bothered to ask one more time (just for the sake of my curiosity) -


Am I right or wrong? And if wrong, then where is flaw in my logic?

(in reply to Tophat1812)
Post #: 33
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 4:46:28 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Somehow I am bothered to ask one more time (just for the sake of my curiosity) -


Am I right or wrong? And if wrong, then where is flaw in my logic?


What was the question again? Oh...right. An alleged Command and Control disadvantage for the Axis. You're wrong.

The flaw in your logic is that with the Axis, you have 4 layers of C&C, which are only slightly overloaded, given a maximizing of forces assigned to lower tiers of command. Meanwhile, the Soviets are stuck with only 3 layers of C&C, with all of the layers subject to overloading, given anything close to a historical OOB. So, in short, the Axis are getting 4 chances at making thousands of hidden die rolls, which are generally not suffering too hard a drm, while the Soviets are getting 3 chances at making those die rolls and generally suffering a more drastic drm.

QED.

That said, it is possible for both the Axis and the Soviets to lessen the impact of overloading, by spending APs, and rotating troops. The Axis can, and should have the bulk of the regiments and several of the divisions used in garrison duty or partisan hunting. For example, the Static Divisions and Luftwaffe Regiments are ideally suited for breaking down and covering the Leningrad area. All rear area forces, and rebuilding, or refitting units can be assigned to OKH, relieving stress at the lower levels. Also, some of the forces could be assigned to Finnish HQs, which are led by relatively good commanders. Granted the Finnish Army is short on Corps HQs, so the forces will likely be assigned at the Army level, unless you assign a German Korps to one of the Finnish HQs.

The Soviets have the potential to work around their C&C limitations to some degree by buying more Army HQs, but they run into a severe shortage of APs to buy them, good generals to lead them, and higher level HQs to assign them to. At the current stage of development, STAVKA is severely overloaded, making it virtually useless. The Fronts, will be overloaded if you assign all of your forces to them, as well, leaving only a single layer of inept Army command to make the thousands of hidden die rolls. So, even though the Soviets can play around with the tools given in order to optimize their C&C, these optimizations are still far behind what the Axis can manage.

As far as high ROF elements skewing combat results, that is something that I simply don't worry about, since there is virtually nothing in my control as a player that I can affect, nor even as a beta tester, to encourage development of. Combat system changes are high-risk programming choices that the developers are not likely to take on, given a lack of a clear vision as to what is wrong, if anything, and the specific steps needed to address them that won't ripple through the rest of the engine and likely break something else.

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 34
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 4:57:04 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2507
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
What he said

I agree completely but I could never say it so well.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 35
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 5:48:18 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
James, you forgot to add that German leaders are much better on average.

But yeah, presently, the entire burden of C&C for the Sovs is at the army level. If they don't make the roll there, it's very unlikely they'll make it with their overloaded fronts, and STAVKA may as well not exist from 42 on. After mid 43 the Front situation improves, and you can start getting those somewhere near command capacity (but it's still tight.) So that gets them a second roll. But this is as good as it gets: 2 bites at the apple.

Look, this was demonstrated mathematically a while back. Somebody (I forget who and in what thread) ran the numbers here showing the chances of the Axis making their leadership rolls versus the Soviets. It's not even close.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 36
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 6:26:20 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1853
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
I apologise, but it is not that convincing for me - I still believe that German 2nd and 3rd level of command in '42 is too poor. But since so many people are disagreeing I can only accept my intellectual shortcomings

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 37
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 6:31:37 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
One wonders, if the amount of HQs for the Axis are historically in line, why were they willing to have a shortage of them?

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 38
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 9:41:58 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

One wonders, if the amount of HQs for the Axis are historically in line, why were they willing to have a shortage of them?


They didn't. There's no practical material restraint to Corps KQ's or even Army HQ's. There's also no real world reason why Corps can't have f.e. 15 command points or why late war German HQ's can handle more units than 41 HQ's, if anything it should probably be the other way round.

It's a deterministic game design decision with little or no real world foundation, which is difficult to avoid since ingame HQ's have little in common with real world HQ's.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 39
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 10:06:14 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
I do agree there's a mismatch in how C&C is being represented ingame, but I don't think that is happening in the form of overload, but in how cooperation penalties are being applied. I don't see why the Soviets should have only penalties for Army level cooperation while the Germans already suffer for Corps level cooperation. Make cooperation penalties kick in at Army level for both.



quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Somehow I am bothered to ask one more time (just for the sake of my curiosity) -


Am I right or wrong? And if wrong, then where is flaw in my logic?


What was the question again? Oh...right. An alleged Command and Control disadvantage for the Axis. You're wrong.

The flaw in your logic is that with the Axis, you have 4 layers of C&C, which are only slightly overloaded, given a maximizing of forces assigned to lower tiers of command. Meanwhile, the Soviets are stuck with only 3 layers of C&C, with all of the layers subject to overloading, given anything close to a historical OOB. So, in short, the Axis are getting 4 chances at making thousands of hidden die rolls, which are generally not suffering too hard a drm, while the Soviets are getting 3 chances at making those die rolls and generally suffering a more drastic drm.

QED.

That said, it is possible for both the Axis and the Soviets to lessen the impact of overloading, by spending APs, and rotating troops. The Axis can, and should have the bulk of the regiments and several of the divisions used in garrison duty or partisan hunting. For example, the Static Divisions and Luftwaffe Regiments are ideally suited for breaking down and covering the Leningrad area. All rear area forces, and rebuilding, or refitting units can be assigned to OKH, relieving stress at the lower levels. Also, some of the forces could be assigned to Finnish HQs, which are led by relatively good commanders. Granted the Finnish Army is short on Corps HQs, so the forces will likely be assigned at the Army level, unless you assign a German Korps to one of the Finnish HQs.

The Soviets have the potential to work around their C&C limitations to some degree by buying more Army HQs, but they run into a severe shortage of APs to buy them, good generals to lead them, and higher level HQs to assign them to. At the current stage of development, STAVKA is severely overloaded, making it virtually useless. The Fronts, will be overloaded if you assign all of your forces to them, as well, leaving only a single layer of inept Army command to make the thousands of hidden die rolls. So, even though the Soviets can play around with the tools given in order to optimize their C&C, these optimizations are still far behind what the Axis can manage.


I see the point for the Command constraints on the Soviets, their C&C in the beginning was very bad, AP's are a big bottle neck for them since they need AP's for anything and everything, this makes the trade offs in how they are spent important.

However, I don't see the point of such artificial constraints for the Germans. What is it supposed to represent? Their C&C was fine from the beginning, AP's are not their bottleneck since they don't have the wide range of choice on how to spend them and the management methods you note are tedious player admin duties which don't add anything to the game.

Allow the Germans to buy additional Corps and Army HQ's for a few 100 AP's, there would then at least be some point to having them.


quote:


As far as high ROF elements skewing combat results, that is something that I simply don't worry about, since there is virtually nothing in my control as a player that I can affect, nor even as a beta tester, to encourage development of. Combat system changes are high-risk programming choices that the developers are not likely to take on, given a lack of a clear vision as to what is wrong, if anything, and the specific steps needed to address them that won't ripple through the rest of the engine and likely break something else.


While I agree that the combat engine per se isn't going to change, there's no reason not to tinker with the data.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 40
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/24/2012 11:07:49 PM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I apologise, but it is not that convincing for me - I still believe that German 2nd and 3rd level of command in '42 is too poor. But since so many people are disagreeing I can only accept my intellectual shortcomings



Your not wrong Kamil,but i'm afraid that the russian fanboys have won the day. Very few axis players will respond now as it's an exercise in futility.

As long as you have guys like Aurelian you will never have an impartial forum to actually improve the game. Sad but true.


< Message edited by Wild -- 1/24/2012 11:08:32 PM >

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 41
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 12:09:15 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I apologise, but it is not that convincing for me - I still believe that German 2nd and 3rd level of command in '42 is too poor. But since so many people are disagreeing I can only accept my intellectual shortcomings



Your not wrong Kamil,but i'm afraid that the russian fanboys have won the day. Very few axis players will respond now as it's an exercise in futility.

As long as you have guys like Aurelian you will never have an impartial forum to actually improve the game. Sad but true.



Yet another useless post. Want some cheese with your whine?

Oh, my dear boy, I know how upset you get when you don't like what you read, but I'll post it anyway.

I have nothing to do what-so-ever with the design or development of WiTE. Sorry to burst one of your pet beliefs. Actually, not really.

Shame that it escapes your "attention" that the majority of the whining is from Axis fanboys. Such as you.

So much for your "impartiality".

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/25/2012 12:14:01 AM >

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 42
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 12:14:50 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I actually would be fine with giving the Axis the ability to build corps and armies, btw. They need more AP sinks.

I also don't think this would make much difference in practice. Axis command capacity problems are marginal and fleeting. They can be managed even with existing assets. But if you want to buy more HQs, knock yourselves out.

Either way, Axis C&C is hugely better and far more reliable than Soviet C&C. The Soviet command structure is merely simpler, not better, and by simpler I mean: it's really a 1 level structure for most of the war. You do not want this kind of simplicity, folks. You also don't want the Soviet leaders, who are rather bad on average and unable to get much better due to in game caps. For the Germans, 7 points leaders are a dime a dozen, the Soviet only has a bare handful of these and no ability to increase their numbers.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 43
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 1:14:40 AM   
Tentpeg

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline
Kamil;

I think your arguement is a good one. BTW, I have always wondered why the Axis command capacity increased during the war instead of diminishing. OTOH,the quality of leadership is a non arguement. The effect the quality of leadership has on command capacity was graphed out in a very sterile controlled environment.

Wild;

It is amazing how someone can make a simple observation and be pounced upon. I have noticed the number of posts from "pro" axis players have significantly dropped over the last six weeks. Do not lose heart.

Flaviusx;

The voice of sanity and reason. I endorse the idea of being able to create the Corps/Army and Army Group HQ for the Axis. Imagine the manpower drain.


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 44
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 10:03:36 AM   
Kelblau


Posts: 91
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
As improbable as its realization may seem when one consider the design choices that were and are being made, I have the impression that the decision to give the Axis side some ability to build SUs and HQs for a serious AP cost would be welcomed by most gamers, whatever the side they personally prefer.





(in reply to Tentpeg)
Post #: 45
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 10:29:01 AM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I apologise, but it is not that convincing for me - I still believe that German 2nd and 3rd level of command in '42 is too poor. But since so many people are disagreeing I can only accept my intellectual shortcomings



Your not wrong Kamil,but i'm afraid that the russian fanboys have won the day. Very few axis players will respond now as it's an exercise in futility.

As long as you have guys like Aurelian you will never have an impartial forum to actually improve the game. Sad but true.



Yet another useless post. Want some cheese with your whine?

Oh, my dear boy, I know how upset you get when you don't like what you read, but I'll post it anyway.

I have nothing to do what-so-ever with the design or development of WiTE. Sorry to burst one of your pet beliefs. Actually, not really.

Shame that it escapes your "attention" that the majority of the whining is from Axis fanboys. Such as you.

So much for your "impartiality".


Yes, i know you have contributed nothing of any kind of significance, Your style is to brown nose to the devs who may acctually want to try and balance things a bit, and try to convincie them otherwise, and then threaten a ban stick for those suggesting to some improvments for the axis. Real nice guy and great help to the game you are! And may i suggest the next time you suggest the ban stick comes out you use it on yourself. In my experiance a brown noser is rarely missed.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 46
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 3:39:28 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg



Wild;

It is amazing how someone can make a simple observation and be pounced upon. I have noticed the number of posts from "pro" axis players have significantly dropped over the last six weeks. Do not lose heart.






It can. Especially when the above gets upset and goes on a rant on being told that what he claims needs to be fixed isn't broken.

The pro Axis players are more than likely spending the time playing the game.

For example: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2999622&mpage=1&key=

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/25/2012 3:57:36 PM >

(in reply to Tentpeg)
Post #: 47
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 3:51:36 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2507
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg



Wild;

It is amazing how someone can make a simple observation and be pounced upon. I have noticed the number of posts from "pro" axis players have significantly dropped over the last six weeks. Do not lose heart.






It can. Especially when the above gets upset on being told that what he claims needs to be fixed isn't broken.


And it's quite possible, if a bit tiresome, to run through the numbers to demonstrate by example the extreme difference in expected values of the die-roll results between the typical German C&C loop (corps, army, army group, OKH) and the typical Russian loop (army, front, STAVKA) all with typical loads. The results are lopsided enough to satisfy the most extreme GFB who bothers to run the numbers and who has a basic (minimal poker skills or perhaps high school level math ) understanding of probability theory.

And for the record, I really am a GFB

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 48
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 4:21:11 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2021
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg



Wild;

It is amazing how someone can make a simple observation and be pounced upon. I have noticed the number of posts from "pro" axis players have significantly dropped over the last six weeks. Do not lose heart.






It can. Especially when the above gets upset on being told that what he claims needs to be fixed isn't broken.


And it's quite possible, if a bit tiresome, to run through the numbers to demonstrate by example the extreme difference in expected values of the die-roll results between the typical German C&C loop (corps, army, army group, OKH) and the typical Russian loop (army, front, STAVKA) all with typical loads. The results are lopsided enough to satisfy the most extreme GFB who bothers to run the numbers and who has a basic (minimal poker skills or perhaps high school level math ) understanding of probability theory.

And for the record, I really am a GFB




I'll let you in on a little secret. I always preferred playing the Axis. Russian Campaign, Russian Front, SPI's WiTE, War in Russia and it's predecessor. Whatever. Sight unseen, I wanted to play Russia with this one. Playing defense was never my cup of tea, but I thought of giving it a try.




< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/25/2012 4:26:23 PM >

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 49
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 4:27:14 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
German C and C is a problem, but a manageable one. Here are some ways you can manage it:

1. Convert one of the Panzer Army HQs to an Infantry Army: You Don't need 4 Panzer Army HQs in 1942. You need more HQs for Infantry. You also have an excess of Panzer Corps command capacity, but I fill that with Infantry to go with Panzers.

2. Finnish Army: Finns only have 3 Corps HQs, but north of the no-move line is typically a very quiet sector anyway. Use Finnish Army commands for German units north of that line, and a couple hexes south as well. Finns have excess capacity at Army HQ level, especially if you rotate units back to Finland (which you should be doing). Plus, Finnish leaders are very good.

3. Axis Allies: Romanians and Hungarians can defend chunks of line, with a little help. Give them a few lower-end German divisions to help out. Hungarians and Romanians have plenty of excess HQ capacity.

4. Move all Romanian units OUT of German command structures

By these expedients, you should be able to move 12-ish German divisions to Axis Allied structure, and fill a Panzer Army with Infantry.

At that point, your 1942 army should be under command limits in almost all HQs

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 50
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/25/2012 10:43:42 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4591
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

German C and C is a problem, but a manageable one. Here are some ways you can manage it:

1. Convert one of the Panzer Army HQs to an Infantry Army: You Don't need 4 Panzer Army HQs in 1942. You need more HQs for Infantry. You also have an excess of Panzer Corps command capacity, but I fill that with Infantry to go with Panzers.

2. Finnish Army: Finns only have 3 Corps HQs, but north of the no-move line is typically a very quiet sector anyway. Use Finnish Army commands for German units north of that line, and a couple hexes south as well. Finns have excess capacity at Army HQ level, especially if you rotate units back to Finland (which you should be doing). Plus, Finnish leaders are very good.

3. Axis Allies: Romanians and Hungarians can defend chunks of line, with a little help. Give them a few lower-end German divisions to help out. Hungarians and Romanians have plenty of excess HQ capacity.

4. Move all Romanian units OUT of German command structures

By these expedients, you should be able to move 12-ish German divisions to Axis Allied structure, and fill a Panzer Army with Infantry.

At that point, your 1942 army should be under command limits in almost all HQs


That is helpful Q-Ball, thanks.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 51
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 1:48:07 AM   
RCH


Posts: 180
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
The C&C in this game works as designed.  The design is bad.  If the Soviets are the worse off, that doesn't matter to me.  The Soviet C&C is bad to. This is just another example of bad game design that runs throughout this game.  Again, what we have is structuring and planning and movements that can not be reconciled to the realities that were found on the eastern front.

What this is is a game and a game only.  Only superficially does this reflect war on the eastern front. 




< Message edited by RCH -- 1/26/2012 4:46:26 AM >

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 52
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 2:01:50 AM   
Tentpeg

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline
One of the reasons I keep coming back to this forum is to gain insight provided by others. Q-Ball; I (and I suspect manay others) used several of the C&C capaciity work arounds you pointed out. But (and I feel a bit foolish) I never considered using Panzer HQ's for anything but Panzer and Panzer Grenadier. Sometimes the most obvious solution is the one you miss. Thank you.

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 53
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 2:10:06 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 668
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

German C and C is a problem, but a manageable one. Here are some ways you can manage it:

1. Convert one of the Panzer Army HQs to an Infantry Army: You Don't need 4 Panzer Army HQs in 1942. You need more HQs for Infantry. You also have an excess of Panzer Corps command capacity, but I fill that with Infantry to go with Panzers.

2. Finnish Army: Finns only have 3 Corps HQs, but north of the no-move line is typically a very quiet sector anyway. Use Finnish Army commands for German units north of that line, and a couple hexes south as well. Finns have excess capacity at Army HQ level, especially if you rotate units back to Finland (which you should be doing). Plus, Finnish leaders are very good.

3. Axis Allies: Romanians and Hungarians can defend chunks of line, with a little help. Give them a few lower-end German divisions to help out. Hungarians and Romanians have plenty of excess HQ capacity.

4. Move all Romanian units OUT of German command structures

By these expedients, you should be able to move 12-ish German divisions to Axis Allied structure, and fill a Panzer Army with Infantry.

At that point, your 1942 army should be under command limits in almost all HQs



Do you have access to my Axis games ? :)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 54
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 2:48:17 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

One of the reasons I keep coming back to this forum is to gain insight provided by others. Q-Ball; I (and I suspect manay others) used several of the C&C capaciity work arounds you pointed out. But (and I feel a bit foolish) I never considered using Panzer HQ's for anything but Panzer and Panzer Grenadier. Sometimes the most obvious solution is the one you miss. Thank you.


It gets even stranger. I'll be soon advocating non tank tank armies.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Tentpeg)
Post #: 55
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 3:35:04 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

One of the reasons I keep coming back to this forum is to gain insight provided by others. Q-Ball; I (and I suspect manay others) used several of the C&C capaciity work arounds you pointed out. But (and I feel a bit foolish) I never considered using Panzer HQ's for anything but Panzer and Panzer Grenadier. Sometimes the most obvious solution is the one you miss. Thank you.


It gets even stranger. I'll be soon advocating non tank tank armies.


No
Don't
Ask

It'll be revealed soon enough...

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 56
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 4:10:23 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I'm not telling, just showing a little garter here.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 57
RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment - 1/26/2012 4:44:24 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm not telling, just showing a little garter here.



You know, Flavio, you'd be a much better tease, if you'd just shave those damned, hairy legs of yours...

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 58
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094