Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release date
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Battle for Korea

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  123 124 [125] 126 127   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 5:30:13 PM   
Feurer Krieg


Posts: 3070
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
Not sure about Joc, but I like it. Just as addictive as Civ2 and 3 were. I didn't much care for 4, but 5 is good. The religion aspect is a nice touch too. My son and I have been playing it quite a bit.

_____________________________


Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net and www.skybirdart.com, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 3721
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 6:16:29 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Pretty OK with the latest addon (brave new world). They added religion and espionage from the original game. Got the original and both addon for 25 Euro in a bundle. Pretty good deal IMO.

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 3722
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 6:40:30 PM   
EHansen


Posts: 250
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline
I'm still playing 3, never got 4.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3723
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 6:47:10 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 638
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline
I like 4 the best. (better than 3, which was better than 2, which hands down beat the crap out of 1, which was one of the best games ever at its release)

Civ5 just didn't do it for me.

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 3724
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 7:47:20 PM   
Feurer Krieg


Posts: 3070
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
The thing I miss from Civ 3 was the switch of government type. Timing when it was time to go through a revolution was an interesting game mechanic to me. Apparently I'm in the minority though, as that feature is gone now.

_____________________________


Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net and www.skybirdart.com, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 3725
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 8:08:26 PM   
JonReb


Posts: 713
Joined: 11/26/2006
From: Santa Cruz, California
Status: offline
Civilization 5 is excellent with all the expansions, I love going coop against the AI with a few friends.
There's a great deal on humble bundle right now for Civ. But this is Matrix's forum, so I will say no more

(in reply to Feurer Krieg)
Post #: 3726
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 8:16:41 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2362
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
I loved the Civs but never played them PBEM.

(in reply to JonReb)
Post #: 3727
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 9:02:38 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4559
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

I like 4 the best. (better than 3, which was better than 2, which hands down beat the crap out of 1, which was one of the best games ever at its release)

Civ5 just didn't do it for me.


This.

Played every Civ version, Civ4 with all expansions and realism mods was the king of the series.

Looked forward to Civ5 release, but sadly it felt like a dumbed down Civ4 stock version with some eyecandy to hide it. In comparision to a full blown Civ4 with mods it was more than a couple of steps back, lacked complexity, and suffered from half-backed ideas that were poorly implemented (e.g. the new combat system and the city states). Never got into it.

Might be better now, but I do not think it can match what was done for Civ4 over the years.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/17/2014 10:03:15 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 3728
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 5:46:33 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Just reached the industrial era 2-3 turns ahead of most but 2 turns behind Poland. Playing on Prince difficulty on this first playthrough and I messed some things up badly with social policies. So I´m pretty happy I can keep up. Its actually a very tense game. I´m barely keeping up on science but I´m way ahead in production, wealth and growth. Looks like a space race or world dominion victory will be best choice.

Whats really funny to see is how all the Civs are piling on whoever is looking to be in a tough spot. I declared on England a while back and after they lost 3 cities including London the other Civs started to declare war and picked up what was left.

I think its a good game overall. Trade and Religion seems to work better. Trade is VERY powerful and can generate insane amounts of money. The city state concept I´m not so sure about but it can be turned off. Probably going to do that for the next game. Can´t say much for spying yet as it wasn´t available until the renaissance. Combat is so-so. You can´t stack units any more and cities pack a punch and can bombard back making them very hard to capture early game.

I played a lot of CIV 4 but really didn´t like the vanilla game. Mods saved it for me. This one I´m having fun with without mods so thats a good sign. Han´t looked at the mod scene yet but probably will for my next play through.

Its well worth the money if you can get a good deal. (I hope I don´t break any matrix rules here) but I bought it from https://www.humblebundle.com/. You can chose to give all your money to charity which I did. I payed 20 Euro for it but you can get it for 10 if you are short on funds.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 3729
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 12:30:31 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8529
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
So, are you hitched or what?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3730
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 1:01:31 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So, are you hitched or what?


Pretty much yes! Last night I found myself stuck in a "just one more turn" loop that lasted well past my usual bed time. I think I got to bed 2 hours later then I should!

Will be interesting to see if it holds once I hit modern times. I usually lose interest around that time. Not being able to stack units makes things a bit tricky. Didn´t like it at first but it makes sense game wise I think.



(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3731
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 1:22:06 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 2867
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

So, are you hitched or what?


Pretty much yes! Last night I found myself stuck in a "just one more turn" loop that lasted well past my usual bed time. I think I got to bed 2 hours later then I should!

Will be interesting to see if it holds once I hit modern times. I usually lose interest around that time. Not being able to stack units makes things a bit tricky. Didn´t like it at first but it makes sense game wise I think.





I don't think that's what he was asking, which makes this really funny.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3732
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 1:41:43 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married!

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3733
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 2:19:41 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8529
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married!


Well, first, congrats!!!

Second, history will record that the ceremony did not cause even a minor bump in Ye Olde AAR. As we say here in the States, "Yes, Sweden really IS different."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3734
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 2:37:16 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married!


Well, first, congrats!!!

Second, history will record that the ceremony did not cause even a minor bump in Ye Olde AAR. As we say here in the States, "Yes, Sweden really IS different."


It was actually a 3 minute deal (the long ceremony)! We had a state(?) wedding so we were wedded by a city official in the council hall. Parked the car at 15:15 and was back in the car 20 minutes later. We only brought Marias sister with us to take care of Ida and take some photos.

Ida of course made a mess of the whole 3 minute "ceremony".

I did put on a suit though! But we mainly married because of legal reasons so no reason to make a big deal of it!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3735
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 3:11:32 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8529
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married!


Well, first, congrats!!!

Second, history will record that the ceremony did not cause even a minor bump in Ye Olde AAR. As we say here in the States, "Yes, Sweden really IS different."


It was actually a 3 minute deal (the long ceremony)! We had a state(?) wedding so we were wedded by a city official in the council hall. Parked the car at 15:15 and was back in the car 20 minutes later. We only brought Marias sister with us to take care of Ida and take some photos.

Ida of course made a mess of the whole 3 minute "ceremony".

I did put on a suit though! But we mainly married because of legal reasons so no reason to make a big deal of it!


My second wedding was by a judge in his courtroom. Took, as you say, just a few minutes. Here there must be two witnesses as well. We had my B-I-L and my stepdaughter, but people sometimes forget and they pull in bystanders from the hallway.

Just because the ceremony was short didn't mean the party was though!

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/18/2014 4:12:18 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3736
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 4:00:51 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

My second wedding was by a judge in his courtroom. Took, as you say, just a few minutes. Here there must be two witnesses as well. We had my B-I-L and my stepdaughter, but people sometimes forget and they pull in bystanders from the hallway.

Just because the ceremony was short didn't mean the party was though!


We have to have 2 witnesses as well but the city hall provided them. Very convenient!

Good point about the party! But since Maria is 7,5 months pregnant and Ida is...well Ida we decided to postpone the party until the summer!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3737
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 5:08:29 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14737
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married!


Well, first, congrats!!!

Second, history will record that the ceremony did not cause even a minor bump in Ye Olde AAR. As we say here in the States, "Yes, Sweden really IS different."


It was actually a 3 minute deal (the long ceremony)! We had a state(?) wedding so we were wedded by a city official in the council hall. Parked the car at 15:15 and was back in the car 20 minutes later. We only brought Marias sister with us to take care of Ida and take some photos.

Ida of course made a mess of the whole 3 minute "ceremony".

I did put on a suit though! But we mainly married because of legal reasons so no reason to make a big deal of it!

I'll jump in with 2nd congrats!!

But really - the honeymoon was in the car? And only 3 minutes? What a cheapskate!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3738
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 5:16:45 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8529
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married!


Well, first, congrats!!!

Second, history will record that the ceremony did not cause even a minor bump in Ye Olde AAR. As we say here in the States, "Yes, Sweden really IS different."


It was actually a 3 minute deal (the long ceremony)! We had a state(?) wedding so we were wedded by a city official in the council hall. Parked the car at 15:15 and was back in the car 20 minutes later. We only brought Marias sister with us to take care of Ida and take some photos.

Ida of course made a mess of the whole 3 minute "ceremony".

I did put on a suit though! But we mainly married because of legal reasons so no reason to make a big deal of it!

I'll jump in with 2nd congrats!!

But really - the honeymoon was in the car? And only 3 minutes? What a cheapskate!


Maybe there was pastry?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3739
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 5:41:46 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6549
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

My second wedding was by a judge in his courtroom. Took, as you say, just a few minutes. Here there must be two witnesses as well. We had my B-I-L and my stepdaughter, but people sometimes forget and they pull in bystanders from the hallway.

Just because the ceremony was short didn't mean the party was though!


We have to have 2 witnesses as well but the city hall provided them. Very convenient!

Good point about the party! But since Maria is 7,5 months pregnant and Ida is...well Ida we decided to postpone the party until the summer!


Hmmm ... so where and when are you planning on having you wedding party ... ?

_____________________________

“Pay attention to where you are going because without meaning you might get nowhere.”

-- Winnie the Pooh

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3740
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 8:58:05 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1008
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Congratulations

Wish you hadn't posted that Civ link. I'm tempted all over again now!

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 3741
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/18/2014 11:29:13 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2362
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Congrats Joc. In Civ who do you all like to play as?

< Message edited by DOCUP -- 2/19/2014 12:29:38 AM >

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 3742
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 12:10:15 AM   
princep01

 

Posts: 937
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Encircled, I am laughed out loud at your post. I am in the very same boat with you. All the CIV talk really made me look at those prized games again. For those of you voting CIV 4 w/ mods as the best of the lot....I agree.

Joc, congrats regarding tying the knot. I wish you the happiness and fulfilment of family life for many, many years to come. Your family and professional advances have been quite significant this year. Perhaps we should all declare it the Year of the Joc. Live long and prosper as I heard a sage, if vaguely alien, man once say.

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 3743
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 2:32:36 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
Further congratulations on making if official! Also, Matrix seems pretty cool with talk of other games. They know we have to do something else once in a while and that we always come back.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to princep01)
Post #: 3744
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 6:40:34 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Thanks guys!

Good thing CIV5 got me hooked. My other game is on hold as well. I thought I ask here if anyone can shed any light on this:

Its 1/43. My opponent has HEAVILY overstacked with almost 100.000 troops in the hex prior to the attack. So almost 4x over the SL limit. This is subject to FOW obviously. Terrain is mountain (x3), my troops were just under the 25.000 limit and had about 50% supply. All Corps had level 2 forts except one that had only level 1.

My opponent doesn´t like the (-) disruption and is afraid it has something unforeseen consequence of using Stacking Limits. Personally I think he took a beating trying to bring the forts down and that caused the negative modifier. I´ve seen that a lot in this game fighting in Burma. The combat engineers take a tremendous beating trying to bring down the fort in heavy terrain. And if there are no combat engineers...

This attack matches my experience when fighting in Burma in x3 terrain against dug in troops. And I was doing that with allied 43/44 squads backed up by 1000 4Es, heavy armor and loads of combat engineers.

Anyone else finding something odd in the CR that I´m missing?

quote:

Ground combat at 70,48 (near Kunming)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 64044 troops, 628 guns, 195 vehicles, Assault Value = 2237

Defending force 20826 troops, 85 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 737

Japanese adjusted assault: 655

Allied adjusted defense: 565

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
4223 casualties reported
Squads: 239 destroyed, 232 disabled
Non Combat: 29 destroyed, 24 disabled
Engineers: 24 destroyed, 23 disabled
Guns lost 84 (46 destroyed, 38 disabled)
Vehicles lost 7 (4 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
384 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 105 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 6 (2 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Assaulting units:
22nd Division
6th Division
15th Division
34th Division
104th Division
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
4th Mortar Battalion
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
23rd Army
11th Army
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion

Defending units:
50th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
54th Chinese Corps
7th Group Army
7th War Area
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment





< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/19/2014 9:26:23 AM >

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 3745
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 12:10:19 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3648
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
Over-stacking is supposed to cause disruption. I can't see what the problem is frankly.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3746
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 12:12:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8529
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
I believe it was said somewhere in the forum this week, and I think it is true, that only one LCU has to be disrupted (or out of supply, etc.) to get the (-) sign. Not the whole stack.

I wouldn't find these results remarkable at all given the terrain, that you are in at least partial supply, and the forts, coupled with his lack of dedicated engineers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3747
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 12:59:19 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
Nothing odd. As far as I can tell, this is no unforeseen consequence of Stacking Limits but the way they are intended to work. Disruption is ostensibly simply too high for attacker which led to the negative disruption modifier. I have seen similar results in atoll combats since AE came out. The problem for the attacker is that he cannot reduce the disruption of his troops while having massively overstacked (I assume that he has been in the hex for some time and disruptions adds 1-5 point for every unit every turn).

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3748
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 3:57:55 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Thanks for the info guys. I doubt michealm will even look at this. Hopefully we can get started soon again!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 3749
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/19/2014 4:19:18 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14737
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Peek back at the query in tech support, it was answered by JWE with a manual section reference. It seems that the earlier understanding had missed the fact that WAD for all stacking includes a minor disruption and minor fatigue penalty. The operative notion is that the optional, all-hex stacking limits work the same as the original atoll/island stacking. It's just that 99% of us overlooked the paragraph in the manual where it notes the small disruption and fatigue effects.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3750
Page:   <<   < prev  123 124 [125] 126 127   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  123 124 [125] 126 127   next >   >>
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

0.172