Sudden Strike 3

The Imperators are now spanning the centuries from Ancient Rome, through the Medieval period, and now to World War II era! I was victorious in my first 1v1 in Sudden Strike 3. The battle developed as follows:

Lead elements of Patton's Third Army (4th Armored Division) engaged and defeated a large force of Communist Russian tanks and infantry in the opening battle of WWIII. Keys to this victory were the following elements:

1) Better mobility. Although the Russian Army has access to T-34 tanks, few were available to the opposing Russian commander. Although the Russian JS II tanks were heavier and carried a better gun, the U.S. tanks captalized on its superior speed. M-18 Hellcat tank destroyers, the fastest tank available to any army (in 1945), contributed greatly to the 4th Armored Division's victory.

M 18 Hellcat


2) Captured tanks. The mobility previously mentioned was supplemented with the firepower and armor of captured Tiger tanks.

Captured Tiger Tank



3) Airborne reinforcements. In response to the armored battle that developed, US high command reinforced the 3rd Army with the 82nd Airborne Division. This may have been decisive.

This game is a lot of fun. You guys should try it out. I have a couple of screens and will post them in a few. I dont have access to the comp they are on at the moment.

Go Imperators ! Give them hell Josephus.
I am a fan of the Tiger Tank, nice capture.

cool, so long as you win, which you no doubt will.
great in game shots by the way, looks just like the 40s

Here are my screens from the victory. One shows some of the action during the game. The other is my vic screen. I am not sure where my opponent is from but I would guess Canada





At the height of my Sudden Strike Forever and Sudden Strike 2 playing days, I would average a tank kill ratio of between 3:1 and 2:1. Considering I was up against superior armor and firepower, I did ok in this one.

Another set of vic screenies. Josephus: bringing victories to Imperators from across the centuries....

that one does look like it might be pretty cool.i might give it a shot.i havent tried a nrw game since med 2 came out

yeah, it is. They are working on a sequal already. So, SS3 is now about 20 or 25 bucks on gogamer. You can also find it at Best Buy but its $45 there.

is it like rome real time strategy or like warcraft real time strategy, because im great at romes battles, but suck at resource gathering and stuff like that.

The Sudden Strike series (Sudden Strike, Sudden Strike Forever, Sudden Strike 2, and Sudden Strike 3) are all very similar to Total War series. You do not build a base or gather resources. It is purely tactical. In my opinion, multiplayer sudden strike has more depth than total war. Capturing and controlling key points on the map gives you reinforcements. When you control all of them, you win the game.
Unlike total war, you do not build an army. Your army is built by whoever designed the map. This is both a strength and a weakness. Generally, it is a good point, as long as the map designer knew what he was doing. Your army enters the map from the edge, which I think is very realistic. This makes speed an important aspect of the early part of the game. You have to take key areas before the enemy does. Stonewall Jackson said "Getting there first is half the battle." After the intial rush, the game settles down into "fronts". This could turn into an arty dual or manuver. One tactic is stacking 2 player against one enemy player and turning a flank.
Other aspects of SS3 that give it more depth are, supply, repair, hidden movement (fog of war, which makes econ important), naval units, officers (using officers to direct fire), realistic/balanced artillery, laying land mines, paratroops, control of air bases (SS2), and bridging.
One area that total war has over sudden strike series is single player. The sudden strike single player is kind of weak. Generally, single player is so difficult that it is nearly impossible to win. Most people play sudden strike for the mp aspect. There is no grand campaign where you swith from strategic to tactical.

Overall, I prefer sudden strike to total war in mp. Maybe its because I was far more skilled at SSF and SS2 than I am at total war. I have been outnumbered 2 - 1 and still pulled off a victory... I haven't quite achieved the same degree of efficiency with SS3.

cool, i may try this out, but seeing that i rather influenced my brother to spend all his money on fallout 3, i doubt thats going to happen

How many players is it Joe?

That's a good question. You know, I am not sure for SS3. Its at least a 4v4. I am sure that all other versions supported a 6v6. Those who intensely fun.