RE: More feedback on 1.05

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: More feedback on 1.05

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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: More feedback on 1.05

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 4:00:05 PM

amandkm

Posts: 279
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Actually Hubert I prefer to send my turns through email and not use the server as I'm not concerned with cheating and the Matrix server can be a bit "quirky" at times.

I and three others tried a few turns like that last fall. There were some problems with decisions not being available (e.g. couldn't deploy the BEF or declare war on Finland, etc)

(in reply to James Taylor)

Post #: 61

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 5:12:40 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

This should be all corrected now, and if not then at worst with the next update.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to amandkm)

Post #: 62

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/24/2020 6:51:04 PM

taffjones

Posts: 346
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: offline

See, that's a problem. We just don't know going in, how we 'stack up' against one another. Six months ago, I thought I was pretty good at this game. Then I started getting myself whipped like a rented mule.

So, am I a bad player who happened to have several weak opponents at first? Or a good player who stumbled into murderer's row?

I still don't know!

Hi amandkm

That's what I mean, If we post our results in the rankings, we can then see players of a similar ranking in playing the enemy side and PM each other to arrange games.

Sorry I don't know how to "quote" someone else's post, so if any one can tell me that would be great

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 63

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 1/25/2020 2:54:22 PM

EarlyDoors

Posts: 548
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline

So I found it interesting that an opponent invaded Indochina as China before the Japanese did

I assumed that this was to re-inforce or re-establish the trade link from hanoi

However when i tried it myself against the AI after the Henry-Matsuoko Act, the trade has not been re-established.

So i see no strategic value in China invading Indo-China

(in reply to lwarmonger)

Post #: 64

China invading Indochina - 1/25/2020 8:16:25 PM

smckechnie

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/12/2018
Status: offline

EarlyDoors,

Here are the advantages of China invading Indochina.

1. Japan now has to take every hex in the country, including those strategic ports in South.
2. Japan has to now fight to take the resources vs just walking in to capital. Can be done, but takes away resources from elsewhere.
3. Due to railway, China can strategic reinforce from Kumming down.
4. Japan now has to send forces to defend Thailand.
5. China national morale goes up.

This move mostly depends on how good your opponent is.

(in reply to EarlyDoors)

Post #: 65

RE: China invading Indochina - 1/29/2020 4:12:37 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

What, if any, are the disadvantages of China invading Indochina?

C

_____________________________

�Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.�

-Aristotle-

(in reply to smckechnie)

Post #: 66

RE: China invading Indochina - 1/29/2020 4:51:03 PM

HamburgerMeat

Posts: 361
Joined: 7/22/2017
Status: offline

Not sure if there are diplomatic penalties, but the chinese player likely moves their corp out of range for HQ bonuses, and the Japanese probably get a liberation bonus for retaking Indochina

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 67

RE: China invading Indochina - 1/29/2020 5:15:12 PM

EarlyDoors

Posts: 548
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline

In most cases your opponent will have applied too much Southern pressure for this to be an option.

If it is, then China can probably bear diverting key resources into Indochina and an early alignment of Thailand with Japan. It looks like the Thai convoys are only worth around 5mpp per turn.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 68

RE: China invading Indochina - 2/5/2020 2:53:43 AM

smckechnie

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/12/2018
Status: offline

Against a great opponent taking Indochina with China is probably not advised.

There seems to be no diplomatic hits for China taking Indochina.

If the Japs are smart they will send forces right away to Thailand though that will help with their conquest of Malaysia and Burma.

(in reply to EarlyDoors)

Post #: 69

RE: China invading Indochina - 2/7/2020 4:34:12 PM

boudi

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline

One of the main problem is the snowball effect. Due to national moral mechanic, More you loose, and more you loose. It's impossible to come back.

(in reply to smckechnie)

Post #: 70

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/10/2020 12:31:26 PM

Kaukopartio

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/9/2020
Status: offline

Here's some feedback on the AI.

In my most recent game I've been playing as China & Russia to test out some things. Otherwise all seems to go rather smoothly, but the UK AI is absolutely bonkers. For example, the moment Germany declared war on Benelux countries and invaded France, UK withdrew is expeditionary force to northern ports. The next turn they evacuated them to Britain without firing a shot. A turn after that, Lord Gort and the whole expeditionary army set sail again. By the time France capitulated, the BEF with all its components were around the Cape of Good Hope.

The "battle" for the Atlantic seems rather odd as well. Germany had a cluster of submarines spotted at Skagerak, but the Commonwealth destroyer force has been sitting idle in a nice queue of 8 destroyers in the Atlantic west of France for over half a year. They're slowly getting withered away by storms while the U-boats are sinking merchant shipping.

Also, curiously, the United States suddenly stopped sending supplies to China at the end of September 1940. China didn't lose Nanking, or anything else for the matter, but has in fact pushed back the Japanese in the south. Should this be even possible? I don't remember having the option to suddenly stop sending supplies or lend-lease when it has started.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to amandkm)

Post #: 71

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/10/2020 12:34:10 PM

lwarmonger

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

If I recall the assistance China receives stops after the fall of France cuts of aid through indochina, and doesnt resume until a decision the US makes to open the Burma road.

(in reply to Kaukopartio)

Post #: 72

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/10/2020 12:37:15 PM

Kaukopartio

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

If I recall the assistance China receives stops after the fall of France cuts of aid through indochina, and doesnt resume until a decision the US makes to open the Burma road.

The thing is that China owns Indochina, as well as Thailand.. But I think you are right - China didn't invade Indochina until the turn after France fell.

< Message edited by Kaukopartio -- 2/10/2020 12:38:36 PM >

(in reply to lwarmonger)

Post #: 73

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/11/2020 6:22:19 PM

boudi

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline

Somebody know that if Chinese cut the road between Pekin and south china, all the japanese supply in south China collapse ? In the 1st turn i did'nt understood why the allies player pushed its corps to east, never mind his casualties, but i understood at the opening of the second turn. 2/3 of japanese army is around out of supply. Bug or WAD ?

(in reply to Kaukopartio)

Post #: 74

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/11/2020 8:31:22 PM

Kaukopartio

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaukopartio

quote:

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

If I recall the assistance China receives stops after the fall of France cuts of aid through indochina, and doesnt resume until a decision the US makes to open the Burma road.

The thing is that China owns Indochina, as well as Thailand.. But I think you are right - China didn't invade Indochina until the turn after France fell.

Do you happen to remember when the Burma road decision should kick in? It's November 1942 and China is still on her own. Perhaps Roosevelt decided China was doing well enough on her own? They did send the Flying Tigers and Gen. Stillwel though.

(in reply to Kaukopartio)

Post #: 75

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/11/2020 11:55:38 PM

ThunderLizard11

Posts: 573
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaukopartio

Here's some feedback on the AI.

In my most recent game I've been playing as China & Russia to test out some things. Otherwise all seems to go rather smoothly, but the UK AI is absolutely bonkers. For example, the moment Germany declared war on Benelux countries and invaded France, UK withdrew is expeditionary force to northern ports. The next turn they evacuated them to Britain without firing a shot. A turn after that, Lord Gort and the whole expeditionary army set sail again. By the time France capitulated, the BEF with all its components were around the Cape of Good Hope.

The "battle" for the Atlantic seems rather odd as well. Germany had a cluster of submarines spotted at Skagerak, but the Commonwealth destroyer force has been sitting idle in a nice queue of 8 destroyers in the Atlantic west of France for over half a year. They're slowly getting withered away by storms while the U-boats are sinking merchant shipping.

Also, curiously, the United States suddenly stopped sending supplies to China at the end of September 1940. China didn't lose Nanking, or anything else for the matter, but has in fact pushed back the Japanese in the south. Should this be even possible? I don't remember having the option to suddenly stop sending supplies or lend-lease when it has started.

How do you view attachment. Click and said it downloaded it but where to?

(in reply to Kaukopartio)

Post #: 76

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/12/2020 1:22:58 AM

lwarmonger

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boudi

Somebody know that if Chinese cut the road between Pekin and south china, all the japanese supply in south China collapse ? In the 1st turn i did'nt understood why the allies player pushed its corps to east, never mind his casualties, but i understood at the opening of the second turn. 2/3 of japanese army is around out of supply. Bug or WAD ?

So that is a high risk/high reward strategy for a Chinese player. As the Japanese, you can crush a Chinese player who does that though with a combination of army units maneuvered by sea, air and naval airpower.

And once you do smash those Chinese units, there shouldnt be much left to stop your push into the Chinese interior.

The reason supply is so low is because Japan has only a few 5 strength ports in mainland China... no hong kong... no indochina... so the bulk of their supply at the start of the game comes from Korea/manchuria. If the Chinese player makes an effort to cut that line you have the power to stop them. It just isnt overwhelming.

(in reply to boudi)

Post #: 77

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 2/12/2020 4:10:42 AM

Kaukopartio

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThunderLizard2

How do you view attachment. Click and said it downloaded it but where to?

When I click on the attachment, it opens a pop-up window. In the pop-up I click filename.jpg and it opens up the attached image. Not perfect, but apparently the forum software doesn't allow embedding images before "a week after your tenth post".

< Message edited by Kaukopartio -- 2/12/2020 4:11:46 AM >

(in reply to ThunderLizard11)

Post #: 78

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 8/9/2020 4:02:00 PM

EarlyDoors

Posts: 548
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

December 1945. My epic PBEM++ game against TaffJones(axis) is drawing to a close. He will graciously say its still in the balance and it may take another 8 months, but in reality it will be another Allied defeat.
He's a good player and he deserves it.

This game has been closer than our last but I'd put that down to my prioritising Infantry Weapons and Warfare for most nations. I remain unconvinced that limiting some of the techs to a single step prevented the Axis from taking a commanding tech advantage. In fact as another poster commented it just leaves the Allies with no opportunity to overtake late game. I like the idea of guessing which tech your opponent may prioritise and would like to see that taken further whereby leads in S&I and SOE / Ultra / Gestapo Decision Events could reveal opponent tech trees.

As for this game, I made very few mistakes but am just ground down, particularly by Axis air Power. It seems to me that if the Axis Player prioritises Air Power then they cannot lose and most tellingly of all time is irrelevant. They can have a late Barbarossa and not suffer. Clearly the USSR needs more resources to place some time pressure on to the Axis.

I would suggest, one of:-
~ an extra 20mpp mine East of the Urals (either from day 1 or the move industry east DE)
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1 being researched
~ USSR land units are 5% cheaper

So, our latest game has finished, and, yes, it really does take 8 months to play a game.
I no longer agree with my earlier comments above.
The game (at 1.6.02) is perfectly balanced and requires no further tinkering.

For anyone who struggles to win as the Allies, all I can offer is that its a longer learning curve than as the Axis. I advise Patience and always a bit of William Slim
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/192408-in-battle-nothing-is-ever-as-good-or-as-bad

Still an awesome game

(in reply to EarlyDoors)

Post #: 79

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 8/9/2020 4:27:27 PM

ElvisJJonesRambo

Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

December 1945. My epic PBEM++ game against TaffJones(axis) is drawing to a close. He will graciously say its still in the balance and it may take another 8 months, but in reality it will be another Allied defeat.
He's a good player and he deserves it.

This game has been closer than our last but I'd put that down to my prioritising Infantry Weapons and Warfare for most nations. I remain unconvinced that limiting some of the techs to a single step prevented the Axis from taking a commanding tech advantage. In fact as another poster commented it just leaves the Allies with no opportunity to overtake late game. I like the idea of guessing which tech your opponent may prioritise and would like to see that taken further whereby leads in S&I and SOE / Ultra / Gestapo Decision Events could reveal opponent tech trees.

As for this game, I made very few mistakes but am just ground down, particularly by Axis air Power. It seems to me that if the Axis Player prioritises Air Power then they cannot lose and most tellingly of all time is irrelevant. They can have a late Barbarossa and not suffer. Clearly the USSR needs more resources to place some time pressure on to the Axis.

I would suggest, one of:-
~ an extra 20mpp mine East of the Urals (either from day 1 or the move industry east DE)
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1
~ USSR start with Production Technology level 1 being researched
~ USSR land units are 5% cheaper

So, our latest game has finished, and, yes, it really does take 8 months to play a game.
I no longer agree with my earlier comments above.
The game (at 1.6.02) is perfectly balanced and requires no further tinkering.

For anyone who struggles to win as the Allies, all I can offer is that its a longer learning curve than as the Axis. I advise Patience and always a bit of William Slim
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/192408-in-battle-nothing-is-ever-as-good-or-as-bad

Still an awesome game

William Slim has been accused of some bad stuff. If you're gonna quote the good, you gotta take the bad.

_____________________________

Without Him, I could do nothing
Without Him, I'd surely fail
Without Him, I would be drifting
Like a ship without a sail

(in reply to EarlyDoors)

Post #: 80

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 8/13/2020 8:22:56 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

It really depends on if you want this to be a historical game or not.

HOI 4 was designed for a balanced game game regardless of the differences between the powers in real life. As an example a LV 2 fighter in HOI 4 has the same stats whether it's a US, German, etc. plane. Which is really stupid. But I still think it is a good game as long as you can accept the fact that it is a sandbox in a WWII like setting. But an historical game, definitely not.

So to fix Russia's Far East problem historically, if Japan signs the non-aggression pact with Russia, then Vladivostok should be off limits to Japan to do anything. If they do then it automatic war against the Russians at least. It should only have a minor impact on US entry or even no effect as the US did not care much about the troubles of Russia.

If Japan does NOT sign the non-aggression pact, then Russia should get some automatic boost to its MMPs every turn as Russia would have had to increase their military production knowing that Japan could go to war with them. Maybe even provide some additional troops in the Far East for X amount of MMPs per turn for Russia.

For the record, the lend lease through Vladivostok only started in Oct '41. But 50% of all lend lease came through there. So there should be some trigger to have this start up. Germany at war with Russia and capturing certain cities in Russia, maybe Rostov? Or some others? Regardless it should not start up as soon as Russia is at war with Germany.

As far as Japan invading HI, it is absurd. A 'simple?' way to fix this is to prevent any invasion from occurring if the invasion hex is NOT within a friendly aircraft range. I.E. an actual on map land based air unit has to be within range of an invasion hex. OR neither side has land based air units in range of the invasion hex. So battles like Norway, Guadalcanal, etc can still occur.

China has been a design problem in almost every PTO game I have ever played. Due to hindsight. Because the Japanese player KNOWS how weak the Allied forces are in the PTO, which they were not that sure of in RL, they can spend more resources in China than the Japanese really did. And still do well in the rest of the Pacific.

One way to counter this is for every city that the Japanese player takes that Japan did not take in RL, there is a MMP drain of X/turn to reflect the additional Garrison needs for moving deeper into China than historical. This drain could even decrease over time to reflect better control over the population as time went on under Japanese control.

Just some ideas that may be impossible to implement in the game, but would certainly make things a little more balanced in the PTO

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 8/13/2020 8:25:22 AM >

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 81

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/1/2021 2:20:15 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
China has been a design problem in almost every PTO game I have ever played. Due to hindsight.

I think the real problem is how designers have chosen to model the massive Chinese armies. Most games reduce the huge armies to corp or even division equivalents. So China's historically huge 4-5 million strong army fights like there are only a quarter of those men on the field. A better solution would be to give Chinese units the defensive equivalent of 4-5 million men but sharply curtail its offensive punch due to how few large caliber support weapons and artillery tubes China had.

If you study the battles fought in the years leading up to 1941, Japan won most engagements for the first couple of years, but in the 39-41 period China had learned how to fight on the defense with what it had pretty well and actually won most engagements in those years. Even the massive battles fought around Changsha that saw over 500,000 participants and massive Japanese artillery support were Chinses victories.

But all of the victories were defensive victories, China still could not attack. But they had stalemated Japans offensives and that's why Japan was faced with either conceding defeat due to the embargos or widening the war to try and feed even more raw resources into the attempt to overcome the Chinese.

This game and most others make China far too weak on the defense. I'd up their defense stats or make their units 15 strength by default and reduce their offensive stats. Simulating their mass numbers and the difficulties Japan had in overcoming those numbers without also making them an offensive threat is what's needed.

In Russia their numbers are also lacking from historical numbers as well, I think they had something like 5-6 million men under arms compared to Germany's 3-4 (counting axis minors) when Barbarossa launched (by December Russia had grown to 6-8 million in the field even after HUGE losses), yet Germany has almost twice the number of units on the field as the Russians in most AAR's I've read. I'd give them a much larger number of starting corps, but cap their strength at 8 for 1941 and up it to 9 in 1942. 1943 would see them become normal units like any other powers units.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 9/1/2021 4:07:51 PM >

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 82

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/1/2021 7:37:04 PM

firsteds

Posts: 52
Joined: 3/24/2021
Status: offline

quote:

This game and most others make China far too weak on the defense. I'd up their defense stats or make their units 15 strength by default and reduce their offensive stats. Simulating their mass numbers and the difficulties Japan had in overcoming those numbers without also making them an offensive threat is what's needed.

I am not sure it is so clear cut in WAW. When China loses a major city their troops 'reform', spawning at full strength (sometimes double strength) safely behind the lines. I think this replicates real life pretty well. No other nations have this bonus. I think the designers have done a pretty good job on balance and the result in China depends a lot on the experience of your opponent.

One small change I might support is letting China start with a research chit in Infantry Warfare Research. Most players buy this anyway (sacrificing something else) and China had been at war much longer than any of the other Allies, so they deserve to start with this chit. They are not starting from scratch like the other nations.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 83

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/1/2021 8:47:07 PM

DrZom

Posts: 137
Joined: 1/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I'd up their defense stats or make their units 15 strength by default and reduce their offensive stats. Simulating their mass numbers and the difficulties Japan had in overcoming those numbers without also making them an offensive threat is what's needed.

Perhaps limit China to Infantry Weapons 1 and make the units larger?

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 84

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/2/2021 3:37:48 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firsteds

quote:

This game and most others make China far too weak on the defense. I'd up their defense stats or make their units 15 strength by default and reduce their offensive stats. Simulating their mass numbers and the difficulties Japan had in overcoming those numbers without also making them an offensive threat is what's needed.

I am not sure it is so clear cut in WAW. When China loses a major city their troops 'reform', spawning at full strength (sometimes double strength) safely behind the lines. I think this replicates real life pretty well. No other nations have this bonus. I think the designers have done a pretty good job on balance and the result in China depends a lot on the experience of your opponent.

One small change I might support is letting China start with a research chit in Infantry Warfare Research. Most players buy this anyway (sacrificing something else) and China had been at war much longer than any of the other Allies, so they deserve to start with this chit. They are not starting from scratch like the other nations.

This is exactly what WITPAE does...

_____________________________

(in reply to firsteds)

Post #: 85

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/2/2021 1:52:29 PM

wobbleguts

Posts: 358
Joined: 5/31/2020
Status: offline

A bit confused.

My game is v 1.11.01, but this active thread is about v 1.05. Is it still relevant?

Happy to be flamed if there is an explanation.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 86

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/2/2021 8:16:31 PM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firsteds

One small change I might support is letting China start with a research chit in Infantry Warfare Research. Most players buy this anyway (sacrificing something else) and China had been at war much longer than any of the other Allies, so they deserve to start with this chit. They are not starting from scratch like the other nations.

I personally like this proposal. China is a bit too weak imo.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to firsteds)

Post #: 87

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/3/2021 2:24:50 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: firsteds

One small change I might support is letting China start with a research chit in Infantry Warfare Research. Most players buy this anyway (sacrificing something else) and China had been at war much longer than any of the other Allies, so they deserve to start with this chit. They are not starting from scratch like the other nations.

I personally like this proposal. China is a bit too weak imo.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5068673

Lol

_____________________________

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 88

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/3/2021 5:53:28 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: firsteds

One small change I might support is letting China start with a research chit in Infantry Warfare Research. Most players buy this anyway (sacrificing something else) and China had been at war much longer than any of the other Allies, so they deserve to start with this chit. They are not starting from scratch like the other nations.

I personally like this proposal. China is a bit too weak imo.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5068673

Lol

That's no argument, Tanaka.
That's a SP anomaly with no data to support what the hell happened there....though I would like to see how it came about.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 89

RE: More feedback on 1.05 - 9/3/2021 11:44:29 PM

DrZom

Posts: 137
Joined: 1/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

That's a SP anomaly with no data to support what the hell happened there....though I would like to see how it came about.

If it is an anomaly, I have seen it happen, too. I have a screen save from China driving the invaders into the sea, but it is too large to upload here. I can only tell you that it came about by patiently holding on and researching infantry techs in a SP game on Vet setting but computer bonuses at zero.

I did not continue the game once the invaders were driven out of China.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 90