RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue)

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 >> RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue)

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/17/2008 3:08:21 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

To be clear the allied counterattack should also be slower what goes around comes around

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 571

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/17/2008 6:52:06 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

To be clear the allied counterattack should also be slower what goes around comes around

Warning to Chez... you think I'm slow now, just you wait...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 572

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 2/17/2008 8:53:50 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Land Units and Support

Why does every land unit have less than it's required support?

To show, as in real life, that combat units were dependent on support from higher headquarters (represented in game as HQs and base forces).

A standard US Infantry Division, for example, only had enough trucks to carry 1/3 of its soldiers in a single lift. If the division needed more trucks, it was assigned truck companies from Corps and Army HQs.

Fuel and supplies were distributed through Army and Corps depots. Basic maintenance of equipment could be done at the company/battalion level. Some repairs could be done at division facilities. Heavy repairs were done at Army-level depots.

US planners thought in terms of "division slices" -- which included all of the support personnel outside of the division necessary to keep it functioning.

In WitP, and in AE, any unit below Corps level will require additional support (base forces, HQs) to operate at full strength.

Units deprived of outside support will degrade to 70%-90% of their optimal combat ability.

Agree, except for small units, US Marine Raider and other small units should have enough support to independent combat ops for short periods without losing 70-90% of it's ability!

Will there be more HQ for land units in AE?

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 573

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/17/2008 8:55:43 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

"scaled back Japanese OoB" ???

Please explain!!

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 574

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/17/2008 9:06:32 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

"scaled back Japanese OoB" ???

Please explain!!

Yes, please explain. I thought the idea was to have a historically accurate OOB.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 575

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/17/2008 9:19:44 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Many units in the WitP Stock OOB are duplcates and or triplicates of units that already existed....look at the Japanese Armored units as an example. Others would be the NLF's which are double represented in stock by including infantry components in some of the base forces... Other examples include the Independent Mixed brigades (IMB) in China which in real life later upgraded to divisions...in stock you get the IMB At Start and keep it even after you receive the Division that it upgraded too...

< Message edited by treespider -- 2/17/2008 9:21:17 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 576

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/17/2008 10:47:48 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Again for clarity the same thing happens to the allies i.e. the reduction in Australian Armour in 43, cannibalisation of the light horse to provide replacements for AIF, the withdrawal of 7th Armoured Bde, Malayan units disbanding, NZ units withdrawing to feed 2nd NZ Div in ME, 3rd NZ Div disbanding, Burma Corps HQ disbanding, etc etc.

Also a lot more allied units arrive understrength requiring time and supply to rebuild.

However this aspect is on balance probably more pronounced for the Japanese something that cause AI issues and we are working through it now.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 577

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/18/2008 4:42:49 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

"scaled back Japanese OoB" ???

Please explain!!

Yes, please explain. I thought the idea was to have a historically accurate OOB.

A very specific example is Kwajalein. In stock, the Kwajalein garrison is triple the historically accurate OOB. Scaling back was inappropriate language, historically accurate is sufficiently descriptive.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 578

RE: Soviet HQ (a structural issue) - 2/18/2008 5:09:37 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
(and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

Any chance these withdrawals are cancelled if Japan has attacked? Seems kind of silly to have half your armies vanish off the map if Japan has troops storming half your bases.

Jim

Unless of course the Nazi's are about to take Moscow....

The Soviet gamble for the Japanese will be but a whisp of a memory for JFB's when compared to the heady days of WitP Mk I. Between the beefed up Soviet OoB and the scaled back Japanese OoB....and the slowed pace of the game in general ...

Coolness.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 579

Leaders - 2/24/2008 12:33:37 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Alright guys last chance if you have a favourite CW Leader to be put in speak now or forever hold your peace I am doing a last trawl through adding a few more Generals, TF Leaders and Air HQ Leaders (Air Comms/AVM and Air Marshalls) I am not to bothered about small LCU leaders its HQ level leaders, TF leaders and Divisional Level Generals

Cut off is tomorrow (Sunday)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 580

RE: Leaders - 2/24/2008 12:34:46 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

To avoid replication these are the Air Leaders I have added

Babington J GPCAP
Bishop A. G. GPCAP
Cobby A.H. GPCAP
D'Albiac J GPCAP
Pulford V. GPCAP
Staton W.E. GPCAP
Garing W. GPCAP
Pearce C.W. GPCAP
Dal Russel B.D. GPCAP
Vincent, S GPCAP
Baldwin, S ACOM
Bandon, Earl of ACOM
Brooke-Popham R ACOM
Garrod G. ACOM
Stevenson ACOM
Bladin A ACOM
Charlesworth A.M. ACOM
Scherger, F AVM
Coryton A AVM
Isitt L.M. AVM
Pierse R AVM
Stevenson L.F. AVM
Bostock W.D. AVM
Park, K. AVM
Brownall A.J AM

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 581

RE: Leaders - 2/24/2008 12:36:19 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Herring, E. MGEN
Savige, S.G. MGEN
Benett, H.G. MGEN
Morshead, L.J. MGEN
Vasey, G.A. MGEN
Alexander, R.O. MGEN
McLeod D.K. MGEN
Tuker, F.I.S. MGEN
Messervy, F.W. MGEN
Pearkes, G.R. MGEN
Allen, A.S. MGEN
Barrowclough, H.E. MGEN
Lloyd, H.W. MGEN
Clowes, C.A. MGEN
Milford, E.J. MGEN
Bridgeford, W. MGEN
Northcott, J. MGEN
Herring, E.F. MGEN
Ramsay, A.H. MGEN
Robertson, H.C.H. MGEN
Boase, A.J. MGEN
Tindale, R.V. MGEN
Davies H.L MGEN
Derham F. MGEN
Hugh Jones N. MGEN
Nicolson C.G.G. MGEN
Scott, J.B. MGEN
Wakely A.V.T. MGEN
Marindin P.C MGEN
Simmons, F.K. MGEN
Sitwell, H.D.W. MGEN
Skinner, F.H. MGEN
Inglis, G.H. MGEN
Smyth, J.G. MGEN
Stockwell, H.C. MGEN
Symes, G.W. MGEN
Tottenham, B. MGEN
Wade, D.A.L. MGEN
Witts, F.V.B. MGEN
Woolner, C.G. MGEN
Maltby C.M. MGEN
Mansergh, E.C.R. MGEN
Heywood, T.G.G. MGEN
Morris B. M. MGEN
Beckwith-Smith MGEN
Bell P. H. MGEN
Lloyd, W.L. MGEN
Loftus-Tottenham, F. MGEN
Lomax, C.E.N. MGEN
Witts, F.V.B. MGEN
Barstow, A.E. MGEN
Chappel, B.H. MGEN
Murray-Lyon, D.M. MGEN
Nicholson, C.G.G. MGEN
Corbett, T.W. MGEN
Cowan, D.T. MGEN
Davies, H.L. MGEN
Rees, P. MGEN
Dimoline, H.K. MGEN
Rees, T.W. MGEN
Briggs, H.R. MGEN
Bruce, G.M.S. MGEN
Rich, H.H. MGEN
Evans, G.C. MGEN
Festing, F.W. MGEN
Fowkes, C.C. MGEN
Glover, J.M.L. MGEN
Roberts, O.L. MGEN
Gracey, D.D. MGEN
Casson, R.E. MGEN
Dion, L.L. MGEN
Killens, R.N. MGEN
Needham, K.R. MGEN
Roberts, V.L. MGEN
Sampson, R.J. MGEN
Shruiff, G.M. MGEN
Stone, A.L. MGEN
Tomes, N.A. MGEN

Puttick, E. LGEN
Alexander, H.R.L. LGEN
Christison, F.P. LGEN
Hutton, T.J. LGEN
Broad C. LGEN
Barrowclough H. E. LGEN
Percival, A.E. LGEN
Leese, O.W.H. LGEN
Heath, L. LGEN
Scoones, G.A.P. LGEN
Slim, W.J. LGEN
Stopford, M.G.N. LGEN
Auchinleck, C.G. LGEN
Giffard, G.J. LGEN
Mackay, I.G. LGEN
Rowell, S.F. LGEN
Lavarack, J.D. LGEN
Sturdee, V.A.H. LGEN
Irwin, N.M.S. LGEN
Wetherall, H.E. LGEN
Pownall, H.R. LGEN
Becwith-Smith, M.B. LGEN
Beresford-Peirse, N. LGEN

Blamey, T.A. GEN
Freyberg B GEN
Wavell, A.P. GEN
Haig, A.B. GEN

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 582

RE: Leaders - 2/24/2008 12:37:18 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Mollard, S.A.
NAVAL CAPT

Turner, W.N.
NAVAL CAPT

Burcham, D.P.
NAVAL CAPT

Shaffran, C.
NAVAL CAPT

Gill, L.G.
NAVAL CAPT

Malik, J.
NAVAL CAPT

Collinson, A.C.
NAVAL CAPT

Crace, J.
RADM

Crutchely, V.
RADM

Piper, D.V.
RADM

Ponsford, R.T.
RADM

Seaton, R.P.
RADM

Tearne, T.E.
RADM

Warby, K.J.
RADM

Campbell-Tait W.E.
RADM

McGrigor, R.
RADM

Boyd, D.W.
RADM

Brind, E.J.P.
RADM

Daniel, C.S.
RADM

Edelson, J.H.
RADM

Harcourt, C.H.J.
RADM

Martin, B.C.S.
RADM

Moody, C.
RADM

Oliver, G.N.
RADM

Patterson, W.R.
RADM

Reid, N.
RADM

Palliser, A.F.E.
RADM

Rawlings, H.B.
RADM

Servaes, R.M.
RADM

Spooner, P.
RADM

Utterson-Kelso, D.D.
RADM

Venning, J.D.
RADM

Verney, A.I.
RADM

Vian, P.
RADM

Warren, B.E.
RADM

Western, E.K.
RADM

Whitty, E.B.
RADM

Willans, C.B.
RADM

Wingrove, G.O.
RADM

Wootten, M.L.
RADM

Younger, C.
RADM

Younger, L.E.
RADM

Muirhead-Gould, G.C.
RADM

Syfret N.
RADM

Tennant W.G.
RADM

Arbuthnot, G.S.
VICE ADMIRAL

Layton, G.
VICE ADMIRAL

Burroughs H.M.
VICE ADMIRAL

Power, A.J.
VICE ADMIRAL

Phillips, T.S.V.
VICE ADMIRAL

Somerville, J.
VICE ADMIRAL

Walker, H.T.C.
VICE ADMIRAL

Willis, A.N.
VICE ADMIRAL

Mountbatten, L.F.
ADMIRAL

Fraser, B.
ADMIRAL

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 583

RE: Leaders - 2/24/2008 1:31:54 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

p.s. a lot of the air leader sa re a rank down on where they should be its a known issue I am dealing with

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 584

RE: Leaders - 2/26/2008 10:58:36 AM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

question on land combat
in my pbem i faced problems with fights off base hex
in hex 2:1 ended fights
off base it was hundreds :1 and many weeks often

with massive troop sizes it was impossible to kill surounded enemy if not in base

was it changed ???
it was a main reason for me to quit excellent pbem game once
i'd like to know if this was solved
it was my most hated problem once

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 585

RE: Leaders - 2/26/2008 6:43:30 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Not sure is the honest answer it was never a huge issue for me as the troops usually surrender eventually.

The new ZOC rules make it more difficult to pin units down anyway so you will get more retreats unless you physically sourround units (hex owenership is no longer permanent therefore stopping an army retreating will require more force therefore more units will be more damaged and destroyed by additional retreats.

The new disrupted status also weakens the ability to resist after you get down higher levels of disruption

But the mix is now so different that until we get the testing further along I cannot honestly say.

The main area it tends to happen is in China where both sides have big stacks - I suspect it will be better but not totally solved - but that is an educated guess for now.

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 586

RE: Leaders - 2/27/2008 4:16:57 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Sneer, this bugged me too at first - but after I got used to it - I didn't mind. Two further comments:

(1) Use them for training!

(2) They disappear eventually. Once I trapped 31 Chinese Units in a hex and boy was I happy. I thought I could use them for fighter training for the rest of the game. I reployed all sorts of folks, engineers to build up airbases, air support units, fighter units etc. I was really excited!!! But in a few days, the whole darned stack disappeared!!! I was devastated!!!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 587

RE: Leaders - 2/27/2008 11:04:56 AM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

is it official answer?

if they disappear after 1-2 years i'm not satified
i had few unpleasent events
when i cut enemy off rangoon once
3 weeks and constant 20:1 atacks were needed to finish it
but if i had decided to let them move to base i would have kill them in 1st attack
it is obvious bug in land combat

i dropped pbem once as it destroyed all my plans
when i 1st lost 6 month on undersupplied and understrenght chungking garrison / units did not draw proper amounts of supply and were heavily penalized /
and when i finally finish that case i had another such group off base without any single chance to kill it / after china campaign my troops were already 90+ exp /
go to 10 last pages of my old AAR - it is described well

i'm happy to see AE project but if all that things that broke my earlier PBEM game will still be inside ..... there will be little sense to bother

p.s. i always thought that during campaign securing objectives on scheadule is most important not providing opportunity to raise exp for troops
maybe i'm wrong

< Message edited by Sneer -- 2/27/2008 11:15:31 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 588

RE: Leaders - 2/27/2008 12:57:06 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

OK I understand sorry to hear thats your view but I am not going to promise somethign I cannot deliver and I am not sure if this issue will be totally corrected.

Re Supplies you will struggle even more to supply large troop concentrations away from ports and railheads - its going to be more tricky despite more control of forward dumping - so massive stacks against places like Chungking are going to be almost if anything more difficult to keep supplied. Although forts will be far harder to build.

Andy

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 589

RE: Leaders - 2/27/2008 1:53:07 PM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

if there will be large stacking penalty - good
if there will be more focus on penalty for lack of supply - even better
i'd like to see bigger effect of having total superiority in guns and armor in fight
only thing i'd like to see is solving this totally silly behaviour of surrounded / not supplied land units on hex that is not a base
either capturing bases is too easy / maybe it is as usually without retreat path defenders surrender on same day
or it needs serious reworking
few days defence out of supply and without retreat is ok
but as long as we talk about weeks or months and odds at 20+ / not counting when it is 100+ / levels .....
this game is way too good to have such bugs

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 590

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 2/29/2008 1:59:25 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Agree, except for small units, US Marine Raider and other small units should have enough support to independent combat ops for short periods without losing 70-90% of it's ability!

Will there be more HQ for land units in AE?

A few more Land HQs; substantially more Air HQs and Base Forces. There are three types of US Base Forces, including an "Army" Base Force which has enough available support to maintain an Infantry Division, a single plane squadron, and no naval support.

Even Marine Raiders will degrade over time if they are away from friendly HQs or base forces. Note carefully, they degrade *to* 70-90% of their maximum strength (i.e. they lose 10-30% of their fighting strength over time).

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 591

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 2/29/2008 2:12:25 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Agree, except for small units, US Marine Raider and other small units should have enough support to independent combat ops for short periods without losing 70-90% of it's ability!

Will there be more HQ for land units in AE?

A few more Land HQs; substantially more Air HQs and Base Forces. There are three types of US Base Forces, including an "Army" Base Force which has enough available support to maintain an Infantry Division, a single plane squadron, and no naval support.

Even Marine Raiders will degrade over time if they are away from friendly HQs or base forces. Note carefully, they degrade *to* 70-90% of their maximum strength (i.e. they lose 10-30% of their fighting strength over time).

In reality, there were a number of levels of independence. Static units were totally dependent on logistical resources provided by higher echelons. Line infantry units were heavily dependent on nearby corps (UK, USMC) or army (Germany, US) assets. Mobile or light units could operate at some distance using their own pack or truck assets, and independent units are self-supporting. Interestingly, USMC and US Army parachute units lacked logistical tails. This gave them a high degree of tactical or battlefield mobility, at the cost of poor operational mobility and long-term sustainability. YMMV.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 592

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 2/29/2008 10:57:03 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

OK a few questions I am trying to find out when the Khan brothers were promoted General I think it was during WW2 and therefore they deserve to be in EP anyone know any details ?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 593

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/1/2008 10:42:24 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Something I'd like to see is the ability to land a small force (recon) without trigging an assault. Too many times I've reconed an island only to get "The is only a base unit there", yet when I invade I've found a parts of 14 different enemy units.

Air Recon only doesn't always work.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 594

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/2/2008 2:04:30 AM

Rainer

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline

I second your suggestion.
Air Recce usually doesn't reveil much. However, when sending planes to Ground Attack the base in question the units at that base are suddenly visible. That really doesn't make much sense to me.

Best is to implement both suggestions:
1. The ability to land a small "LCU Recce Force" to just check out the place without attacking (pad152's suggestion)
2. Make Air Recce just a bit more usefull

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 595

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/2/2008 8:03:11 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

I second your suggestion.
Air Recce usually doesn't reveil much. However, when sending planes to Ground Attack the base in question the units at that base are suddenly visible. That really doesn't make much sense to me.

Best is to implement both suggestions:
1. The ability to land a small "LCU Recce Force" to just check out the place without attacking (pad152's suggestion)
2. Make Air Recce just a bit more usefull

Air attack shouldn't be able to hit anything (ground units, airbase, etc.) without having it spotted first! How do you hit things that you didn't know were there. Fog of War should remain in effect until you recon it by land & air to find out what is there! A player shouldn't know the size of ports or airbase only with some recon first.

(in reply to Rainer)

Post #: 596

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/3/2008 11:06:35 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

I second your suggestion.
Air Recce usually doesn't reveil much. However, when sending planes to Ground Attack the base in question the units at that base are suddenly visible. That really doesn't make much sense to me.

Best is to implement both suggestions:
1. The ability to land a small "LCU Recce Force" to just check out the place without attacking (pad152's suggestion)
2. Make Air Recce just a bit more usefull

Air attack shouldn't be able to hit anything (ground units, airbase, etc.) without having it spotted first! How do you hit things that you didn't know were there. Fog of War should remain in effect until you recon it by land & air to find out what is there! A player shouldn't know the size of ports or airbase only with some recon first.

The German armed forces didn't know about developments in the Soviet rear areas during 1942 until they got within recon range. Case Blau was planned on the assumption that the Soviet Union lacked the rail/pipeline infrastructure behind the lower Volga and along the Caspian Sea shoreline needed to keep troops in those areas in supply. Hence in August 1942, when the Luftwaffe finally was able to check those areas, the construction that the Soviet Union had begun in 1941 came as a shock. At that point, Halder wrote in his war diary that Case Blau was a failure.

_____________________________

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 597

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/21/2008 3:13:21 PM

heenanc

Posts: 412
Joined: 2/25/2007
Status: offline

"i dropped pbem once as it destroyed all my plans" This is quite bad.

After all the effort opponent put into a game you drop it because it didn't go to plan.... Doh!!

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 598

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/21/2008 9:39:07 PM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

Will there be a stacking linit regarding atolls?

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to heenanc)

Post #: 599

RE: A couple of new screenshots - 3/22/2008 7:33:35 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Will there be a stacking linit regarding atolls?

Yes

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to sven6345789)

Post #: 600