yesterday I bought the new computer game and I played the single player mode WW2 with automatic combat resolution (i.e. no RTS battles).
I first tried Germany obviously, if you took me only 6-8 rounds to conquer Moscow, than I ran over the whole eurasian continent. The "great" AI of my Japanese computer ally lost Japnan in round 12. I liberated it in round 15 and even controlled most of the Pacific & Afica by round 18. It took me not much intelleigence to moves forces to Gibraltar, French Coast & Scandinavia and whipe out Great Britain in a concentrated attack (in about round 21).
I thought it would be more difficult with the Japanese. But by round 7, I already controlled 96 IPC, which is about 40% of the whole world`s IPC-production. You just have to leave out the strond defencive armies in CHI, PHI & AUS anf move quickly forward via South-East Asia, Sumatra, India, Persia, Arabia & Ural with to one Army form East China. The 2 inf & 1 inf/air is just enough to conquer South America. I abanndonned the game as is was a given end.
Next try with Russia. You have to defend UK with some russian forces as the artificial intelligence is quite stupid and would loose UK. By turn 6 to 8, I conquered the too weakly defended Germany and in June 1943 (round 1) my Red Armee took Moscow.
The key is to move quickly forward. As opponent inf-armies never atack own single inf, you`re never in danger of loosing armies there. Actually, I almost never lost a battle unintentionally. Sometimes you may want to sacrifice a inf as a loss to protect more expensive air-armies of your allies. You`ll almost nerver loose an attack, if you just make attacks with 75% plus x- propability. You can check this prior to resolving combat. And what`s even worse is that in almost every round, the stupid computer opponent gives you the possibility to destroy a army. If you always destroy a army in every turn and (almost) never loose one, then this is very boring. Didn`t they ever hear of dead-zone-management? Were you not able to explain them this very easy strategic approach? What was you input in the game anyway?
The exemples show that from a strategic point of view, this game is a shame! Mr. Harris, you should really appologize for giving your name to such a disasterous game. Not to talk of my waste of €50 ($63) for the game.
Oh, I wanted to mention that as well, but in my anger about that trash game, I forgot that one. You`re not even able to remove the artificial (non-) intelligence by playing this game one to one. Why not play this stategic game via internet with a human opponent and let the combats be resolved by the computer? Btw, the numerous small battles, let`s say a huge army with a dozen units including air-support vs. a single inf-army. Who wants to play that batlle in RTS in only a wonder would help to win that single battle. Or who wants to conducht numerous consecutive batlles that are almost all the same? They just vary in the area they`re fought in.Imperious leader wrote:No Turn based multy player mode
Btw, I posted a simular game report in both german A&A play-by-mail-clubs and may be I´lleven take the time to translate that in engish and post it there. Well, it`s only some thousand members and A&A fanatic supporters and possible customers for that game. But noone seeded to be interested in well-ment hints before the laungh of the game and no it is like it is. I hope this will become at least a big economic failure for the creators!
- Imperious leader
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
- Location: Moving up to phase line red...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests