RE: Battle for Korea

RE: Battle for Korea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 5:30:13 PM)
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.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 6:16:29 PM)
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. [:)]

EHansen -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 6:40:30 PM)
I'm still playing 3, never got 4.

catwhoorg -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 6:47:10 PM)
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.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 7:47:20 PM)
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.

jonreb31 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 8:08:26 PM)
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

DOCUP -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 8:16:41 PM)
I loved the Civs but never played them PBEM.

LoBaron -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/17/2014 9:02:38 PM)
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.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 5:46:33 AM)
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. [:D] 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.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 12:30:31 PM)
So, are you hitched or what? [:)]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 1:01:31 PM)
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.

Lokasenna -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 1:22:06 PM)
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. [:D]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 1:41:43 PM)
Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married! [:D]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 2:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married! [:D] 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." [8D]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 2:37:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married! [:D] 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." [8D] 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". [:D] 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!

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 3:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married! [:D] 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." [8D] 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". [:D] 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! [:)]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 4:00:51 PM)
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! [:D] 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! [:D]

witpqs -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 5:08:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married! [:D] 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." [8D] 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". [:D] 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! [:D]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 5:16:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Oh! Haha, yes I´m now married! [:D] 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." [8D] 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". [:D] 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! [:D] Maybe there was pastry? [:)]

Grollub -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 5:41:46 PM)
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! [:D] 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! [:D] Hmmm ... so where and when are you planning on having you wedding party ... ? [sm=innocent0009.gif]

Encircled -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 8:58:05 PM)
Congratulations Wish you hadn't posted that Civ link. I'm tempted all over again now!

DOCUP -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/18/2014 11:29:13 PM)
Congrats Joc. In Civ who do you all like to play as?

princep01 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 12:10:15 AM)
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.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 2:32:36 AM)
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

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 6:40:34 AM)
Thanks guys! [&o] 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

Captain Cruft -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 12:10:19 PM)
Over-stacking is supposed to cause disruption. I can't see what the problem is frankly.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 12:12:49 PM)
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.

Kereguelen -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 12:59:19 PM)
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).

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 3:57:55 PM)
Thanks for the info guys. I doubt michealm will even look at this. Hopefully we can get started soon again!

witpqs -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/19/2014 4:19:18 PM)
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.

Page: << < prev 123 124 [125] 126 127 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875