You mean none of them!? Sure!
14 Oct 2015, 19:29
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
1932Road to war Map: How difficult would it be to include Greater Romania as a Player?
It seems to me, that as the third largest Axis an later fourth largest Ally, Romania should be a playable country on this map. By 1944, Romania had 1.25 million men(more than 33 divisions) on the front lines serving. Yet for some strange reason they are omitted and Yugoslavia which ddn't even last past '41, is playable! Is it possible to rectify this? It would be insanely fun to play Romania in my opinion no matter how inept they are just to see how much better one could do with a big handicap, just say'in,
Sergeant Rock
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
59 Replies
14 Oct 2015, 19:30
No, I mean HAVING (being able to play) all three and Cuba.
The past is a foreign country.
14 Oct 2015, 19:33
Great, I agree too!Pablo22510 wrote:
No, I mean HAVING NO(not being able to play) option to play all three and Cuba.
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
14 Oct 2015, 19:41
Lol, thanks for misquoting.
The past is a foreign country.
14 Oct 2015, 19:43
I prefer the term "paraphrasing".
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
14 Oct 2015, 19:45
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha.
The past is a foreign country.
21 Oct 2015, 19:27
Before Pablo hijacked my thread wanting to play tiny countries, we were discussing the serious proposition of allowing Romania as a player in the 1939 map. I would like to re-iterate here that Romania was the THIRD largest AXIS and the FOURTH largest ALLY in the war. Having 1.25 million men on the Eastern Front, a full 33 divisions to Germany's 19 divisions is absolutely a MAJOR FACTOR. I get that Finland is not a player, but for some reason Yugoslavia is. Why is it that Yugoslavia is allowed and Romania is not!? Yugoslavia was a roadbump and not only that, It's surrounded by enemies with no where to go. I'm just saying that it has to be an oversight and someone should do something to rectify this GLARING MISTAKE! 
SergeantRock
21 Oct 2015, 20:03
It can go to Romania. Greece too.SergeantRock wrote:
It's surrounded by enemies with no where to go
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
21 Oct 2015, 20:46
First of all, I did not hijack your thread. I started talking about playing AI countries. Second, Germany had four million troops in the USSR at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, so please be accurate historically. Lastly, Romania is playable in the 22-player-map, which is why the map exists in the first place, to play small countries.SergeantRock wrote:
Before Pablo hijacked my thread wanting to play tiny countries, we were discussing the serious proposition of allowing Romania as a player in the 1939 map. I would like to re-iterate here that Romania was the THIRD largest AXIS and the FOURTH largest ALLY in the war. Having 1.25 million men on the Eastern Front, a full 33 divisions to Germany's 19 divisions is absolutely a MAJOR FACTOR. I get that Finland is not a player, but for some reason Yugoslavia is. Why is it that Yugoslavia is allowed and Romania is not!? Yugoslavia was a roadbump and not only that, It's surrounded by enemies with no where to go. I'm just saying that it has to be an oversight and someone should do something to rectify this GLARING MISTAKE!SergeantRock
The past is a foreign country.
23 Oct 2015, 17:49
Germany with her allies had 4 million. The problem with the 22 player map is that there are too many Russia's and too many American players and the colonies for the UK and France are split up into independent countries equal in resources to the mother countries. The 22 player map is a domination game where Historical alliances mean little. Just say'in.
SergeantRock
Do you Smell what the Rock's Cook'in!?
25 Oct 2015, 12:35
Why do you put sergeant rock at the end of every post? we can see your name already.
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
26 Oct 2015, 13:34
Well Comrade Dave,
Why do you have to have an avatar with your Name at the bottom of every post you make? Seems kind of redundant to me!
Comrade SergeantRock
PS Would Love to hear your thoughts on the topic of this thread. 
26 Oct 2015, 15:42
It's part of my signature. Lots of people have one. Ask queen Mafi if she hasn't died.
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
26 Oct 2015, 17:42
We don't write ours every time.SergeantRock wrote:
Why do you have to have an avatar with your Name at the bottom of every post you make?
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
26 Oct 2015, 18:01
We don't write ours at all.
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
26 Oct 2015, 18:05
We write them once. Anyway, this is just waffle now so let us get back on topic.
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
26 Oct 2015, 21:14
How once?
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
26 Oct 2015, 21:16
When we put them in originally...
Forum ArmyField Marshall
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
26 Oct 2015, 21:27
Oh, I thought you meant like
Comrade Dave.
British=best. Duh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
