General Information
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ
Steam: 76561198013372249
Nationality: Australia
Game Name: Cadian Guardsman
Oh, ok, no worries!
Since the last couple of years, well since the conservatives got into power, Brits have been getting quite aggressive with the dead serious French bashing, their media, mayors, ministers and even the PM himself spam it as a way to cover up their inferiority complex which is allready covered up by displaying a superiority complex, so my sarcasm/irony/joke detector is quite scrambled
Fair enough, I've hear about stuff like that.
Anyway the US wouldn't need aircraft carriers for B-29's B-29's have 5200km range fully loaded iirc. That's London to Moscow minimum, Germany to Urals maximum.
But yeah, the US navy may help control the Coast and enable landings on said coast. But nothing more.
Don't take it personally, but it's a fact when you compare them with any other Warrior Nations. You need to grow a thicker skin. Frenchmen are used to smearing campaigns and stupid surrender jokes.
But well anglo-saxons are blindly jingoistic these days.
Yet when it comes to withstanding long deadly conflicts in our homelands, Russians, French, Germans and Eastern europeans have nothing to prove in that department, Anglo saxons don't know what it is to lose millions and keep fighting against overwhelming odds. The USA has never fought any respectable war on its soil besides their singular Civil War, but it's a lot different when you are getting invaded by foreigners (Often by coalitions)while your lands are razed and your population exposed to all sorts of cruelty. Neither has Australia nor New Zealand. The British are actually the ones that show the most grit as they have fought several civil wars and fended off a few invasions, but nowhere close to the grit of Eurasians (We lack islands and huge oceans to cower behind).
I mostly agree with you on the rest. But I don't see it ending on a resounding USA + Allies victory, it could be a pyrrhic one at best.
I wonder how would atomic bomber runs would fare against an enemy with an actual air force and good ground anti-air unlike the crippled and exhausted japanese of 1945? They would surely require a huge number fighter escorts squadrons, and those had terrible ferry range. A bomber on it's own is a sitting duck.
Sorry, I think you misinterpreted I meant to add a (i.e. It was a friendly Joke.)
Someone's probably gotta tone down the foreign hate/paranoia and have a few good laughs mate.
Anglo-saxons are notoriously wimpy when it comes to human losses on foreign battlefields.
See French mutinies in WW1 and French surrender in WW2 for guidance on how all true Frenchmen win their war!
The United States could of beat the Russians, but Frencho is correct. The US was sick and tired of fighting a European war which was cutting into their profits. What's more war time austerity was becoming a huge problem, from the position they were in, with such superiority over the soviets, they just thought "if they become a problem we'll deal with them later".
The Soviets knew they'd loose, the US wouldn't allow WW2 to be fought for nothing. The US would be able to strategically bomb Russia and the Soviet logistical lines from London with their bombers and if they believed they could, would deploy atomic weapons on Soviet strong points. The US would of won, the Soviets didn't have the strength, they needed to rebuild. That would be impossible with B-17/29's flying overhead. Especially when those bombers could reach the places where the Soviets moved their factories to.
What's more the West could of attacked from Iran, Siberia, the Baltic even Turkey who would definitely side with the west. The West would show on many occasions it preferred a flanking move on the Strategic scale to battling it out. The Soviets mould of either pushed into western Europe and starved to death or would of retreated into Russia once more. Whether the west would pursue into Russia is hard to tell. But it'd most likely end up with a status quo on the Russian border or atomic destruction of major Russian cities... or at least the rubble piles.
Off Topic: Also the notion that Soviet equipment is crap is rather hilarious. Soviet equipment isn't crap it's utilitarian, it get's the job done. The reason why we think of Soviet equipment as crap isn't western propaganda. Look at some US Army training films on the T-72, they were panicing over that tank. We think of soviet gear as crap because people still use it today, a testament to it's robust qualities. The West had a tendency to be re-active to Soviet measures. What's more the soviets constantly shifted their designs forwards having at least 12 different T series tanks to the US's 3 primary designs.
Until the late 80's NATO needed everything it had to stand up to the USSR. It was only in the late 80's that America's defence budget started to increase to meet the soviet one. The Soviets couldn't keep up mainly because of internal problems.
Wargame requier a lot of more experience than in coh 2 for be good in this game lol
Friend,
I've been playing Eugen System games since Act of War came out and while I was initially a fan I have to say that now I'm probably their biggest detractor. Infact I will humour you with my review of Act of Aggression taken straight from my practice script for a video I was going to to but turned into a 12 minute rant.
Act of Aggression is a RTS that claims to be a return to the classical style of RTS. Many games have attempted to return to this classic style of RTS with the biggest highlight being the spectacular mismanagement of C&C Generals 2 by EA.
Let me settle one thing first, Act of War and Wargame:European Escalation are some of my favourite games. Wargame was innovative and unique at the time of it release whereas Act of War was campy and fun. In these games we see the best that Eugen could do. Act of War, though fun was a C&C clone with all the failings and successes of C&C Generals. It had some interesting gimmicks that made it stand out from the group but on the whole it was a standard game backed up by solid voice acting and fun live action videos. I mention this because it is Act of Aggressions biggest failings, the voice acting in it is pathetic and dull. I've seen baby's first video game with more interesting voice acting that this. If this is what an Act of Aggression sounds like I don't want to know what an Act of Boredom sounds like. What's more the awesome Live Action movies are completely missing; replaced instead with dull, unimaginative CoD 4 style exposition clips with stock images and videos. For a company who has sold many copies of its game previously it doesn't seem to want to reinvest that dosh in to making a good game. The story is clichéd but not in the semi-entertainingly campy way Act of War's story was but in the "I'm stopping after 4 missions level of bad". But enough about story let's move on to the meat of the game.
The Game play is dull and uninspired. Units move slowly and always prefer to lock to roadways which leads to unintuitive and clunky combat. This would be a problem in a game like CoH 2 where cover is important or C&C were positioning is important but oh no, we are playing Act of Aggression where units die so quickly that all that matters are numbers and spamming OP units and the hard counters to said OP units. I stand by my statement in saying that comparing it to C&C Generals is an insult to C&C Generals. C&C Generals may be old and may have similar design philosophies, but those philosophies are much better implemented. Very rarely will you not have a chance to react in C&C, if you make a mistake you can at least try to respond. Don't bother here you'll just die tired. Harassment a key component to Classic style strategy games is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DISCOURAGED due to the interesting but flawed prisoner capture system. This leads to combat being always massive engagements that last only about 5 seconds.
The map design is terrible. The maps are so large that even if harassment was encouraged you wouldn't bother because the maps are huge. You may think that this encourages manoeuvre but you'd be wrong as people enter a gentlemen's agreement to not spend another 10 minutes flanking over the 10 spent building up. What this leads to is a boring game with massive amounts of downtime. It is much easier to defend than attack - a common theme in Eugen games that leads to some really boring games. In the beta I had a game last for 2 hours because neither of us was willing to attempt to push, when I did I got annihilated by base defences. The game lacks the nuance of C&C Generals command abilities and so game play stagnates to stalemate due to the size of the maps.
The UI is terrible - something you have to see to believe. I'll try n link my video about it in but seriously placing your resource bar at the top of the screen is one of the dumbest UI choices I've seen in a RTS in ages.
Finally it's economy. My god a more convoluted and unintuitive economy doesn't exist outside of Satan's hairy... you could call it a mini-game trying to figure out what unit does what and what is the ideal build order (it's spam tanks and AA tanks). Their are 3 resources you must collect however setting up the logistics train is boring and dull. You spend more time setting up for battle than fighting, but the setting up is CoH 2's minefield and killzone deployment or the careful positioning and dance of death that Generals has, no here you've got set up bloody resource buildings because macro is all that matters.
In my opinion Eugen doesn't have the talent to make a balanced game. CoH 2 and C&C Generals ain't perfect but if your thinking of replacing them with this game, keep looking. I would NOT recommend this game to anyone who has played a strategy game in the last 15 years because this game is stuck in the 90's without the fun of the campiness.
For those too lazy to read he's the same info dumped into a 12 rant on youtube:
Unless the game gets some really good post launch support I don't see this game becoming anywhere near as popular as the current major RTS games. /rant over
I just want to know, which member of the Relic design team thought that adding that large a suppression value to an arty gun was a good idea.
Every military tells it's soldiers to move out of the area as soon as artillery is starting to fall. There's an entire section of the current US field manual dictating that should you come under fire from indirect elements (i.e. artillery) that you should move out of the kill zone with due haste.
The only time Arty should be as reliable as the light guns are should be when the opfor units are suppressed.
Let's play a little game for fun. This is not intended as a suggestion thread but as a way of venting out awesome commanders. If you could make a commander what would it be?
I'll establish some ground rules just to be safe (from flame wars).
1) It has to be balanced. If it's strong it's cost should match.
2) Custom abilities are welcome provided they adhere to rule one
3) Try to justify what it would add to the faction
4) (Optional) As per Relic tradition; try to put one useless ability in!
I'll start;
United States Forces - Heavy Support Company
0cp -Forward Observers
Riflemen now see further while garrisoned or in cover.
2cp - Designated Marksman 60 Munitions
Each squad can now be upgraded with a marksman. This marksman has a 25% chance to instantly kill enemy infantry. -Takes up 2 inventory slots.
6cp - Reconnaissance Pass 60 Munitions
A P-47 flies overhead revealing a part of the map.
13cp - M4A3E2 76(w) "Jumbo" Sherman 600 Manpower 180 Fuel
A Jumbo Sherman is called in to break through enemy lines. It's similar in role to the Churchill in that it tanks damage. It only has the standard E8 abilities.
16cp - "Line breaker" Bombardment 400 Munitions
All available regimental guns are assigned to your sector. All enemy fortified positions and frontline sectors are shelled with a combination as follows. Flares initiate the barrage locating enemy forces this gives warning to enemy commanders. 3 seconds latter light 81mm Mortars begin shelling the edges of enemy front-line territories while 105mm Howitzers begin their barrage, creeping across the sector to the mortars. Any buildings (even ambient) are shelled with 155 and 240mm Shells. Only frontline territories are selected.
I feel that this doctrine would give the United States Forces a strong late game punch and ability to deal with Axis players who like to play statically or blob. I have a similar doctrine of the OKW who I feel are not as strong against the static Brits as Ostheer but I think I'll see what you guys can think of next.
Watched both replays first one was a bit meh because of the camera zoom changing constantly got me dizzy at some point.
2nd one was better but what is with the quality of the video? doesn't seem like 1080p although youtube puts that quality on default
It was recorded at 1080p, uploaded at 720p, my net was having issues though so it could have been downgraded, not sure though.
Sorry about making you dizzy, I'll try and remember to tone down the rapid movements of the camera.
Edit: Here's a video of me playing a game. It's not particularly exciting but it shows my interesting transition into 2v2 on recommendation from some community members.
It's closer to C&C Generals than it is to CoH 2. But saying that is insulting to C&C Generals. Where Generals has a straight forward and intuitive economy, Act of Aggression is a jumbled mess of a game. Where Generals has an interesting mix of units which require a solid combination and has (somewhat) solid balance, Act of Aggression is spam tanks to win. It has no micro in it, it has none of the dodging and weaving C&C has.
Australia
(i.e. It was a friendly Joke.)
Cadian Guardsman
insane_ivi
Relic Entertainment
