I think this game can accommodate both views. I'm just begining to see the flexibility of it.
For those that like broadbrush history and want to airbrush the bits they don't like then play the game as vanilla.
For those that like to include the parts they feel were key points in the war then the game will (eventually) allow us to mod things that way. We can add the important port for Crete. Plus if we think that Crete is that important I believe the game will allow us to make that port a VP hex/city? If I've followed most of the posts in the other threads then this will mean that Greece won't capitulate until the port in Crete is taken?
Maybe Comrade can come in here and say whether this is possible.
Some feedback
-
doomtrader
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
RE: Some feedback
We can add the important port for Crete.
yes
Plus if we think that Crete is that important I believe the game will allow us to make that port a VP hex/city?
yes
yes, but you can handle it trough eventsIf I've followed most of the posts in the other threads then this will mean that Greece won't capitulate until the port in Crete is taken?
RE: Some feedback
I don't want events to resolve the battles, the game should be about the battles!
Note that if you consider that you need 20+ divs to make a theatre playable, the whole med can be dropped off, the whole Afrika Korps was 5 divs or so
So Crete and Malta should be there, with ports, air facilities (and fortress for Malta).
From all I've seen, the game really needs a scenario editor, is that planned ?
Note that if you consider that you need 20+ divs to make a theatre playable, the whole med can be dropped off, the whole Afrika Korps was 5 divs or so
So Crete and Malta should be there, with ports, air facilities (and fortress for Malta).
From all I've seen, the game really needs a scenario editor, is that planned ?
PDF
-
doomtrader
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
RE: Some feedback
I don't want events to resolve the battles, the game should be about the battles!
I was thinking about giving Crete to England after conquering continental Greece
Not at the moment. We have exported as many as possible to external files to ease life of the modders.From all I've seen, the game really needs a scenario editor, is that planned ?
RE: Some feedback
ORIGINAL: doomtrader
I was thinking about giving Crete to England after conquering continental Greece
[:D] Prince Philip would love that idea!
Realistically though do you think you could write an event to cater for all possibilities? I'm not even sure what event it is that you think is needed?
Event- Op Mecury - nearest German Para Div is removed from map/destroyed - any Greek divs on Crete are removed/destroyed - any non Greek Allied Divs are moved to ? and lose ? points. Triggered after last VP city in greece taken? If no Paras then any German Inf unit is used?
I still think that the game engine you have will actually cope with a Crete 41 situation better than a D Day 44 one. Elite German Paras supported by air must beat weak Greek/Allied force and capture port in one turn....or else...sounds historical! [;)]
Now that I've convinced you on this, how about changing the order that Germany plays from first to last and also add in DD units and stop BB's chasing subs.[8|]
-
doomtrader
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
RE: Some feedback
not all, I'm only a humanRealistically though do you think you could write an event to cater for all possibilities?
I was only talking about possibilities, how it could be handled. Now I'll note it in my notepad and come back to the issue after 1.20 will be released [;)]
You really think that I'm a person of little faith? [:'(]Now that I've convinced you on this, how about changing the order that Germany plays from first to last and also add in DD units and stop BB's chasing subs.
RE: Some feedback
Crete should remain as is, if germany conquers greece and there is no british unit in crete too fooking bad. If the british want it put a unit in it.
RE: Some feedback
ORIGINAL: winky51
Crete should remain as is, if germany conquers greece and there is no british unit in crete too fooking bad. If the british want it put a unit in it.
I'm not sure why you are so hostile to changes? If there is no port then there is no supply according to what I've read. So why would the British send a unit to Crete?
Just give us the freaking port is all most people are saying. In fact maybe two so we can evacuate the island from the south, thats what happened historically.
RE: Some feedback
Didnt say NOT to put the island on the map. I was just saying making a special event for this only serves history not wargaming and not all things historical or plausable should be placed in a game, only what is reasonable and makes the game playable without overcomplicating it.
Here is an example.
If you want to follow history then you would/should play the Luftwaffe as as a mediocre airforce with tons of crappy pilots and a handful of good pilots late in the war. Built crap planes, that simulates reality doesnt it?
The real truth is that the pilot is the real skill in an aircraft not the plane itself. In 1940 the person in charge of the air training school told Georing "if we can build the proper facilities we can have 4000 trained pilots for the airforce each month". In reply Georing said "why do I need so many pilots? We don't even have that many planes!"
Germany and Japan kept their best pilots in the air for as long as they survived. They never sent them back to bring their experience to new pilots thus their airforces suffered with worse pilots as casualties mounted. The USA kept their pilots in the field for a certain amount of time. Not sure if it was actual time or when they achieved the status of ace. But they sent them back to train new pilots. The USA didn't have the best pilots in the world but overall their pilots were better trained than the axis pilots.
Case in point the ace Finnish pilot destroyed a large number of Russian planes while only flying in his bi-plane.
So my point here is would you repeat history with Germany's airforce and purposely create few good planes and lots of crappy ones to get slaughtered in the sky? Or would hindsight prevail and we can assume each nation will build their airforce the right way.
Another example, strategic bombing. If the allies solely focused on power plants they literally could have wiped out the german economy in 1944. Everything nees power. Or if they solely focused on oil. But they didn't. Hindsight shows us their mistake. In fact when the 1st power plant was bombed, I think by accident, Albert Speer thought the war was over from then on because the allies realized what he did. Their power plant industry was unbelievably vulnerable. But we cant allow bombing on that scale because it would ruin the game.
Like its also hard to immitate Operation Fortitude, I think that was the name. The plan to decive the Germans the attack was coming at Calias instead of Normandy.
Some things like Iraq and Yugoslavia are harder to do. Really you don't want to make them an absolute but on the other hand you don't want to exclude them because both are important. So you have to balance them. Germany actually had an exiled Iraq unit in their army after their fall. Not sure the details though.
A situation like Vichy can be made optional like it is in World in Flames.
Hopefully you get my point. And yes crete should have a port, minor port though but this game doesnt have that.
Here is an example.
If you want to follow history then you would/should play the Luftwaffe as as a mediocre airforce with tons of crappy pilots and a handful of good pilots late in the war. Built crap planes, that simulates reality doesnt it?
The real truth is that the pilot is the real skill in an aircraft not the plane itself. In 1940 the person in charge of the air training school told Georing "if we can build the proper facilities we can have 4000 trained pilots for the airforce each month". In reply Georing said "why do I need so many pilots? We don't even have that many planes!"
Germany and Japan kept their best pilots in the air for as long as they survived. They never sent them back to bring their experience to new pilots thus their airforces suffered with worse pilots as casualties mounted. The USA kept their pilots in the field for a certain amount of time. Not sure if it was actual time or when they achieved the status of ace. But they sent them back to train new pilots. The USA didn't have the best pilots in the world but overall their pilots were better trained than the axis pilots.
Case in point the ace Finnish pilot destroyed a large number of Russian planes while only flying in his bi-plane.
So my point here is would you repeat history with Germany's airforce and purposely create few good planes and lots of crappy ones to get slaughtered in the sky? Or would hindsight prevail and we can assume each nation will build their airforce the right way.
Another example, strategic bombing. If the allies solely focused on power plants they literally could have wiped out the german economy in 1944. Everything nees power. Or if they solely focused on oil. But they didn't. Hindsight shows us their mistake. In fact when the 1st power plant was bombed, I think by accident, Albert Speer thought the war was over from then on because the allies realized what he did. Their power plant industry was unbelievably vulnerable. But we cant allow bombing on that scale because it would ruin the game.
Like its also hard to immitate Operation Fortitude, I think that was the name. The plan to decive the Germans the attack was coming at Calias instead of Normandy.
Some things like Iraq and Yugoslavia are harder to do. Really you don't want to make them an absolute but on the other hand you don't want to exclude them because both are important. So you have to balance them. Germany actually had an exiled Iraq unit in their army after their fall. Not sure the details though.
A situation like Vichy can be made optional like it is in World in Flames.
Hopefully you get my point. And yes crete should have a port, minor port though but this game doesnt have that.
RE: Some feedback
Iceland was not part of Danmark in 1939. It had the same relationship with Denmark as Australia, Canada and South Africa to UK. That is the two countries had the same king.
It was after the British invaded Iceland in 1940 (and broke the neutrality of the country) that the Icelandic government dumped the king and voted for president instead.
So its more realistic that the country doesnt "go to" USA or UK after germany invades Denmark.
Simply because UK had to invade Iceland to get it. Otherwise Iceland would have stayed neutral. It was actually one of the few countries in Europe (with Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) that didnt declear war on Germany. Despite being pressured to do so by the USA and UK.
So it was occupied by the Allies during the war and DID NOT willingly "go to" them. Think the game represent that well by making the country fully independent and not connected to Denmark even though it was in some sense.
However in many WWII games the importance of iceland is often forgotten as it is usually not required to invade or have army there. In fact it was an important strategy asset for the allies. It allowed them to station air squadrons in the middle of the atlantic to defend convoys against U-boat attacks. It was also a stop over for convoys on their way to Murmansk and in some cases England. Had the Germans taken the country early in the war they propably would have gone far in stopping convoys all together.
It was after the British invaded Iceland in 1940 (and broke the neutrality of the country) that the Icelandic government dumped the king and voted for president instead.
So its more realistic that the country doesnt "go to" USA or UK after germany invades Denmark.
Simply because UK had to invade Iceland to get it. Otherwise Iceland would have stayed neutral. It was actually one of the few countries in Europe (with Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) that didnt declear war on Germany. Despite being pressured to do so by the USA and UK.
So it was occupied by the Allies during the war and DID NOT willingly "go to" them. Think the game represent that well by making the country fully independent and not connected to Denmark even though it was in some sense.
However in many WWII games the importance of iceland is often forgotten as it is usually not required to invade or have army there. In fact it was an important strategy asset for the allies. It allowed them to station air squadrons in the middle of the atlantic to defend convoys against U-boat attacks. It was also a stop over for convoys on their way to Murmansk and in some cases England. Had the Germans taken the country early in the war they propably would have gone far in stopping convoys all together.
-
Mickrocks201
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:23 pm
- Location: Santa Fe, NM
RE: Some feedback
[font="Arial"]True - Iceland did totally severed ties with Denmark in May '41, but had been occupied by the Brits since May '40 and by US Marines in May '41. Whether or not the occupiers were "invited" or not really doesn't matter - it was too important to Britain's survival. Technically it should automatically revert to Allied control as soon as Denmark is invaded, or at least force Britain to spend a few dip points ( make Iceland start the game 15/95 pro-allied). Also it would have been nice to have Iceland be within 40 hexes of US so it could be used as a northern "air bridge" to move air units from US to Britain.[/font]
RE: Some feedback
Iceland gained independence in 1918.
historically it remained neutral during WWII - even after the allied occupation - which was not by invitation
after the british invaded the:
"the government of Iceland issued a protest, charging that the neutrality of Iceland had been "flagrantly violated" and "its independence infringed"
So it should remain neutral in the game even if Denmark conquered by Germany. if the game is to be historical at all.
RE: Some feedback
yea but simplicity either they should be 95% toward allied or neutral with no forces to be invaded.
RE: Some feedback
I think this thread has degenerated, but the Iclandic government protests were for show only (i.e. for German ears). Iceland very much welcomed the UK and US).
Summary: please document as well as possible the creation of scenarios so that different people with different views can create their own scenarios.
Summary: please document as well as possible the creation of scenarios so that different people with different views can create their own scenarios.
RE: Some feedback
ORIGINAL: Rodwell
*Iceland was not an independent country, but part of Denmark. For WWII purposes, it can be part of the UK or the US if one prefers.
My point was (and still is) that this statement of Rodwell is wrong.
RE: Some feedback
My recommendation is that Iceland and Greenland become Allied (if the US is at war with the Axis) or US (if US is still out of the war) once Denmark surrender to Germany. One can discuss if this event is a 100% event, or a 99% event... I know this is not a correct description of the actual historical event, but for the purpose of allowing the game to illustrate the strategic impact of the German occupation of Denmark and the subsequent impact of giving US and the Allies access to bases on Greenland and Iceland, it's good enough, and will also not create a lot of detailed management of Iceland as a minor state, and Greenland caught in "ownership limbo" when/if Denmark is occupied.