Just started playing SR2010 again and I need some advice

[kyros]

OK, I found that there has been some HUE add-ons and fixes to the game since I last played it. I now have the latest and greatest patch/update (4.6) - I believe thats it.

OK, anyways....I want to know what the major differences are between game campaigns and scenarios.

Here is my goal. I want to start off with a country or a part of a country (like WI for example). And then I want to then expand my territories by war, ect. However, I have noticed that there has been an add-on scenario called WWIII but it doesn't use the World Market. So I am not sure where or what I should be using to achieve my best playability experience. Here's what I want;

*Nukes
*Diplomacy (so that I can have allies & then finally turn on them....hehehehehehehe)
*The ability to conquer the world - even if it means starting off in a small broken up state or region.
*The ability to have a war that can (in real-life) take a month or two or three to actually win. Assuming I only play for an hour or two a day.
*The ability to build up mass armies on borders.
*The ability to become a strong economic nation.

I know that if you start off in a campaign (a state or region) that you win that certain campaign and then you get to a larger map and then by then other nations have too been united, ect. And then from there you can go after other nations across the ocean.

So again, what are the differences and advantages between game campaigns and scenarios? Does either one of these give me what I want? I know that the world war III scenario doesn't allow for the world market but does the world scenario allow for it? If not, what campaigns and scenarios would allow for what I want to play - as noted above with bullet points?

Sorry if I sound a bit confusing.

Thanks for any tips and such.

Oh and by the way are there any unit mods that I should look for or did the last update add lots more? Thanks again!!!!!

[ainsworth74]

After looking at your list I would suggest the WW3 senario, it is a map with most regions as they are today, so europe is devided like europe and so on. THis allows for world domonation, long wars and general supreme rulernessessesesseses....

The original world map on has a few superblocks, so while the wars take some time, there are few regions and every one is big...

THe point of the campaign is to take a small region and slowly make your way to the top of the food chain. For example, the france map includes, north +south france, a madrid region, portugal and a barcelona region. When you win here you then move to a new map and lead france and spain to dominance in europe, then change to the world map and lead euorpe. So you start small and get big.

but if you want as I suspect to play a small region in the world map scale then WW3 is the way to go...

[Lightbringer]

I am currently playing Greece in WWII, and the only bullet point of yours that hasn't been fulfilled so far is the Nukes, and only because I haven't bothered to research them yet.

Nukes: see above

Diplomacy: WWIII sets the AI hatred bar too high for true allies, but I have been very active in diplomatically slowing down (or speeding up) which countries get angry enough to declare war on me.

Conquer the World and Taking months of real-time daily play: I've been playing this WWIII scenario for a few months and only own Europe. (admittedly there have been weeks where 2010 was not in my schedule)

Massed forces: I currently have over 600 mech infantry 250 tank units, and hundreds of Naval, Airforce, Arty, Supply, and AA units, and most of them are on my border with Russia from the Arctic to Arabia.

Economic power: Greece is the largest exporter of Oil, and I export almost every commodity possible on a daily basis. I have not conquered anything in the middle east or Africa aside from Turkey. I have hundreds of billions of dollars and spend it like water. (see the unit list and the diplomatic activity )

While I'm not recommending Greece in particular, I would have to throw my vote behind a medium weak region in the WWIII Scenario. The only drawback would be not getting to backstab fullblown Allies.

[kyros]

But w/o a world market doesn't it make the game less fun or realistic? I mean, w/o the world market what happends - as far as stocks, ect?

[ainsworth74]

The World Market doesn't really work that way, they are ment to be more like a beefed up UN, originaly it was inteded that they would attack a player that was running around nukeing everybody, but that didn't make it into the final cut.

Instead they act as a safety net, if you don't have a certain resource, and no one else will sell, then you can buy it from them, they will also sell you (often c*ap) military units, and if you are in the WM then diplomacy is often easier with other nations than if you get kicked out. The stock market per se doesn't exist, but you can buy and sell resources through diplomacy...

So infact, not having the World Market is in fact more realistic than having it, as it provides things that the UN doesn't...

[Il Duce]

See article on wiki re wm - it's a bit dated, but it will help.