This game is too balanced.

[Copper]

When I head in to a WWII game as the axis, I expect the fight of my life. However, when I head into commander, some skillful management skills, and I can conquer the world with ease, even against a human opponent.

I think they need to take the war in the pacific route, and make it so that the Axis can win the game, just as easily as the allies, but not the war.

[targul]

There skill as programers seem below those needed for the Japanese theater.  Let them figure out how to make Europe work first then maybe with some hard hitting AI fixes. Basic game problem fixes they will be able to move on. 
 
This maybe the company who can do it but you need to walk before you start to run.

[Copper]

hmm, what i intended to say was that they should go the route of Gary Grigsbys War in the Pacific, and make it so the game is realistic, but the underdog still has a shot to win.

[gmothes]

Don't speak too soon Copper, we just started our game [;)]

Gerry....

[SMK-at-work]

Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany?  Try to do that in the game!!
 
It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception.  any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against.
 
In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany?  Try to do that in the game!!

It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception.  any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against.

In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

I believe that they produced more from 1940-44. However, depending on data sources, sometimes this includes Lend Lease aircraft from the U.S. Also, the British had an entire "empire" to defend, and some of these aircraft figures were in other theaters including middle east, India, Burma, and other Pacific areas.

The production outputs were almost equal, with the British putting out 5-10% more each year. The Brits also send The Soviets some of these planes.

Generally speaking the German aircraft tended to be superior (FW190's for example), although the Spitfire was truly an amazing machine.

The Soviets production was also greatly higher than the Germans from 1941-44. Also amazingly is that German production increased nearly 400% during the war years even though they were being pummeled by U.S. and British bombing.

So all these facts and figures tell us that clearly Germany was on the losing end of "production" and always would be. But with skilled pilots and good aircraft the German Luftwaffe did an amazing job.

Hitler never planned for a long term war. That was perhaps the biggest blunder of all. He thought that no one would oppose him in Poland and after the fall of France he thought that Britain would sue for peace... he didn't figure that Churchill would come to power...

So you are correct in that Germany should win by diplomacy and how long it holds out. But this game has no diplomacy...

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany?  Try to do that in the game!!

It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception.  any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against.

In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

Several people have expressed this kind of view in the forums in the past, and usually I have the good sense to keep my mouth shut. But I have to say that this ignores how close things were - even with all the German "mistakes." In 1941, the Germans were at the gates of Moscow even after sending a good bit of the army south to deal with Russian resistance there. And the winter of '41 was especially brutal. And then in '42, the Germans elected to advance in the South and again achieved huge success until Stalingrad. Even in '43, the Germans were not in a terrible position until the disastrous attack on Kursk. I just don't think the outcome was inevitable at the start, despite the evidence of the end result.

[targul]

I have to say numbers certainly dont make or break the Axis. It was commander and unit skill.  Tactics of the allies were poor and it cost them.  Hard to demonstrate that in a game.

[SMK-at-work]

In 1941 when the Germans weer at he gates of Moscow they were completely at he end of their tether - they had run out of supplies, and there was nothing more they could do - they outnumbered the Soviet defenders, they still had hte advantage in tactics and leadership that they had at the outset, and they were stopped.  Dead.

Even if there had been half as many Soviet defenders they would still not have lost Moscow - the Germans literally couldn't advance any further - they had no supplies, their equipment was worn out, their men were exhausted.  It was the high-water mark of the 3rd Reich in exactly the same way that Cemetary ridge was the high water mark of the Confederacy.

The idea that capturing Moscow would have made the USSR surrender is also highly questionable.  the Soviets were massing reserves behind the city and if the Axis had captured it (impossible in the first place) they may well have found themselves surrounded in it - Moscow would have been an early Stalingrad.

I'm not arguing that hte Germans were a beaten army in 42 or 43 - clearly they were not.  But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning.

there are any number of "what if"'s from WW2 - but they can only ever be speculation.  Germany knew what it's real enemy was - the "Ural bomber" of the early 1930's was the "Amerika bomber" of 1938-39.  The UK outproduced Germany in the first half of the war, the USA out-produced any 2 other combatants of both sides combined for the rest of it!

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning.

It's not that I think it was the more likely outcome - it's just the historical inevitability "no chance" that gets me. As for Moscow, I think there was a possibility they could have taken it - particularly if weather hadn't been a logistical nightmare. And I think there was also a chance of a knockout blow in '42 - particularly if the Germans had different objectives in mind. There is a point where battlefield failures leads people to start looking for how they best they can survive. For example, if Moscow fell - it would not necessarily mean Soviet surrender - but there is a point where the "soviet" people would have no stomach for the war at all because they felt it lost. Germany in World War I is a good example - the Allies were not even on German soil at the time of surrender.

[Ancient One]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany?  Try to do that in the game!!

Perfectly doable if the Axis focus on other things, as they did in the real war.

In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

Isn't that mostly how it is in this game? At least between two competent players.

[Dave Ferguson]

ORIGINAL: Zagys

In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

Isn't that mostly how it is in this game? At least between two competent players.

If the allies can hold out the players who know how to thwart the Axis juggernaught are keeping the secret to themselves.

Plus the developers say the normal setting is unbalanced in favour of the axis ????

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I'm not arguing that hte Germans were a beaten army in 42 or 43 - clearly they were not. But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning.

...- but they can only ever be speculation

It's exactly this statement that makes me rue playing any games that are "historically" accurate with the same outcome...especially the bold part....the fact that there is speculation makes the possibility of a German victory in WWII a viable possibility and if there is a viable possibility, then it should be catered for in gaming.

Sure, if the German player sticks to historical play, then the outcome should/would be the same....but "what if" Germany hadn't attacked Russia? Does that mean they lost the war? Would Russia have come in on the side of the Allies? Would the allies have been strong enough to push a more concentrated German defense out of France? Germany wasted a large amount of their resources going after the sleeping bear. The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia?

There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war"....

[Dave Ferguson]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia?

There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war"....

I suppose the game sort of takes care of this as Russia eventually joins in. In the game it is November 1941 IIRC.

You could argue that if germany had waited until 1942 to attack russia the russians would have been a LOT stronger. eventually i suppose the ideologies would have clashed.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia?

There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war"....

I suppose the game sort of takes care of this as Russia eventually joins in. In the game it is November 1941 IIRC.

You could argue that if germany had waited until 1942 to attack russia the russians would have been a LOT stronger. eventually i suppose the ideologies would have clashed.

Yes, but that's another what if.....what if their ideologies clashed? But hat if they didn't? What if they actually just left each other alone? What if Germany, with a more competent leader who was less of an egotist, was to be content with sitting on Northern Europe? Or even with his expanse into North Africa? Would the Allies have had enough resources to deal with it? It's well known by 1944 support was drastically waining in the US...the people had enough of corpses coming home. If Germany had stayed concentrated in Europe and even North Africa the war would've gone on for longer....

But then there was the Atom bomb...

[bbmike]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!!

It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception. any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against.

In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

Sad necessity? Why would I play the game if I knew the Germans would lose every time? I think there should be an option for the historical settings, but also options for 'what-if?' scenarios as well. Replayability is key in ANY type of game.[:)]

[Dave Ferguson]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Yes, but that's another what if.....what if their ideologies clashed? But hat if they didn't? What if they actually just left each other alone? What if Germany, with a more competent leader who was less of an egotist, was to be content with sitting on Northern Europe? Or even with his expanse into North Africa? Would the Allies have had enough resources to deal with it? It's well known by 1944 support was drastically waining in the US...the people had enough of corpses coming home. If Germany had stayed concentrated in Europe and even North Africa the war would've gone on for longer....

But then there was the Atom bomb...

The simple answer is no, the allies would not have been able to deal with germany alone, without russia fighting the bulk of the german army there is no way back for the allies. The germans would have been able to seal up France etc easily with a couple of dozen extra divisions, meanwhile the germans build lots of u-boats and fighters.

A game without russian involvement is not going to be worth playing. The Atom bomb is irelevant as a allied player would have to be a masochist to sit there for hundreds of turns hoping to have a bomb or so.

Lets face it, WW2 in europe was mostly about the titanic struggle between germany and russia.

What the game does need is the activation of those political rules that must have been playtested or at least discussed?

Apparently someone took Spain as part of his rampage through europe. Where is the political fallout from this? Spain was a 'pro' german neutral so what do the other axis leaning nations make of it? The game needs the interlocking network of cause and effect that politics brings. There are spare tick boxes in the option menu and the developers should make use of them.

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany?  Try to do that in the game!!

It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception.  any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against.

In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

Several people have expressed this kind of view in the forums in the past, and usually I have the good sense to keep my mouth shut. But I have to say that this ignores how close things were - even with all the German "mistakes." In 1941, the Germans were at the gates of Moscow even after sending a good bit of the army south to deal with Russian resistance there. And the winter of '41 was especially brutal. And then in '42, the Germans elected to advance in the South and again achieved huge success until Stalingrad. Even in '43, the Germans were not in a terrible position until the disastrous attack on Kursk. I just don't think the outcome was inevitable at the start, despite the evidence of the end result.

The Bundeswehr staff studies of the 1970s concluded that the chances of the Wehrmacht defeating Russia in 1941 or 1942 were very low. By 1943, the best the Germans could hope for was a stalemate. There really was no long-term strategy worked out by the Nazi Regime and the "opportunistic" invasion of Russia in 1941 was not a very good idea.
For example, some studies have suggested that the Wehrmacht had about 10% of the truck tires it needed to actually keep supplied in 1941. A 90% shortfall in basic gear is not going to win you any wars.

[targul]

Wars are not won or lost simply based on tech or numbers.  They are won by men being willing to fight.  Leaders motivate men to fight.  Leaders direct that effort and properly directed with a sincere need to win will prevail. 
 
But you must remember both sides have leaders and both sides have men who believe in their cause.  The early part of WWII the German's where equal to France and Britian in force with many considering the French equipement superior but the German won due to superior tactics (leadership) and well trained and determined soldiers.  The French just didnt have the will to win.  Not even sure if the English did at that point.
 
While Poland was still there German's were outnumber and gunned with there Allies.  They lost because there allies which could have turned the tide did not have the will to fight.
 
The Axis was finally defeated because they simply were tired.  The leadership lost faith and this trickled down to the soldiers. 

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: targul

Wars are not won or lost simply based on tech or numbers.  They are won by men being willing to fight.  Leaders motivate men to fight.  Leaders direct that effort and properly directed with a sincere need to win will prevail. 

But you must remember both sides have leaders and both sides have men who believe in their cause.  The early part of WWII the German's where equal to France and Britian in force with many considering the French equipement superior but the German won due to superior tactics (leadership) and well trained and determined soldiers.  The French just didnt have the will to win.  Not even sure if the English did at that point.

While Poland was still there German's were outnumber and gunned with there Allies.  They lost because there allies which could have turned the tide did not have the will to fight.

The Axis was finally defeated because they simply were tired.  The leadership lost faith and this trickled down to the soldiers. 

Sure, but, all things being equal, the side that bothers to check its tires and the viscosity of its lubricants is going to win. Why did the Axis get defeated? Was it because they started out believing that the only thing that mattered was motivating people to fight and soon discovered that motivation alone will only get you so far? You may have the bravest sailors in the world, but if the other side has radar and carriers and is reading all your signals, your fleet is going to get sunk most of the time...and then you will feel defeated because in fact you are defeated: no boats, no fuel, no winning the war.