The realms of realism stretched to the max!

[Zovs]

Sounds like a bug to me, even a fun strategy game should not have ships running around for 98 weeks (two years?) without stopping to refuel, let alone having that many Carriers about.

[goodwoodrw]

Maybe they share a Nuclear reactor between them [:D]

[Zovs]

Yeah no kidding...

[doomtrader]

I will take care the issue.

[Akmatov]

 I'm glad to hear this is being fixed.  As an almost purchaser this kind of science fiction/alt history is very disconcerting.  In 1941 the US didn't have 15 carriers, of any size.  Without getting up and checking, I suspect they had no more than 6 total.

[Razz1]

The USA had almost 50 carriers.

Most of them were Escort carriers.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Razz
The USA had almost 50 carriers.

But not in 1941 ...

[freeboy]

exactly.. razz, you are very much a dissagreeable poster..
If I said the door was white, I would expect you to say something contrary..
For instince.. the US had few carriers in 41... Could they have had 15 or 50? well, not in this reality, and that was the point...
They could and did build numerous fleet and cvl cve units.. along with more planes and merchents than could be used, seriously! The Issue at hand is what is fun and reasonable and can these work together, I and many believe yes, fun , simple and yet reasonable what ifs should be part of this game.. I am not attacking you, just want you to tone down the rhetoric

[Akmatov]

In 1941 the US Navy had these carriers in commission:
Lexington
Saratoga 
Ranger
Yorktown
Enterprise
Hornet - commissioned October 1941, so hardly ready for operations in 1941.
Wasp

That come to a total of seven, with one ship so recently commissioned they were still in the initial phases of working her up.  And although TOF doesn't include the Pacific, the USN could send very few carriers into the Atlantic until much later than 1941 given the balance of power in the Pacific.  The USN sending 50 carriers into the European theater in 1941 is as realistic as them sending several SSBNs.

[freeboy]

I have NEVER see nthis type of US build up.. fyi
But I have seen Tank Korps rolling through Ur\ban fortified hexes like so much Goose poop

[doomtrader]

It is because your Red Army is a goose poop

Check are those Panzers able to roll over the Yankees?

[JLPOWELL]

The AI is subject to different build rules for one thing it is clear that the AI can 'build' a unit instantly (nothing in the queue just onto the map) Perhaps thats ok but it tends to get a bit out of hand if the AI has LOTS of money. I have even seen (can't be absolutely certain but pretty sure) units appear and then move, or heal then attack.

At present the AI needs all the help it can get, but one hopes as the programing gets better it will need fewer giant fudge factors. I have just about finished a game with the Axis set to Very Easy and the Allies (and USSR) set to Hard (Germany is going down to defeat in late 41 or early 42 is how it is playing out) The Germans have total control of the sea (Berlin not so much...) I have not turned of FOW yet but estimate 30+ BB 100+ SS (I have killed LOTS) and something like 50+ CA plus 2 CV. I was attacked by STR bombers on the second turn so those must have been an early build. My other game Axis Hard vrs Allies and USSR easy went just the opposite way. UK and USSR were KO'd by 1941.

At present if you want a challenge you need a human. This makes some of the PBEM flaws more critical. (not picking events (or prepicking events) is a real problem. The UK can be 'bankupted' by events they would NOT pick at a critical time. IMO the events are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overdone in any case.

I have considered Very Hard vrs Very Easy but that would be pretty much like shoveling snow in a constant blizard, I expect the Axis could win that but don't know about the allied/USSR side, I doubt I will try it.... too much like work.

[freeboy]

doom, great game, just tone down the uber panzers
These guys are not "inline" with a
German army that can roll through urban and fortified at will.. look at kiev and minsk, surronded, look at Lenningrad.. surrounded and the strategy was used because it worked.. and it took time...
Minsk was a HUGE loss of live and material, EARLY war.. and Lenningrad again begain in 41..
and look at the Blizzrd effects..
and
I love this game, tons of fun.. lots of time in it.. BUT This is silly

[StellarRat]

You can't imagine that many carriers in the Med by HISTORICAL standards, but what if the US decided to concentrate on the navy instead of airpower or land units? Or what if they decided to not do anything but fight a delaying action in the Pacific instead of going on the offensive. What if they adopted a total carrier doctrine over surface war doctrine in the 30's? While I agree it's probably unrealistic to see that many in the Med in 41. It's pausible to see a bunch later in the war. The game shouldn't force someone to re-fight WWII exactly like it happened.

[freeboy]

well.. thats a huge stretch.. like.. the most pacifistic nation.. become a uber aggressivve one? Whts next?
German jets in 39? It would be much more realistic to say,Stalin did not Gut the Red army in the 30s... after all its one mans paronia.. so where do we draw the line..
I suggest playability..
Makes it hard for me to believe this was playtested>

[StellarRat]

Well, my opinion is that it should start with the historical TO&E for each nation then let the players choose what to build once the game starts. If the US player wants to build 50 aircraft carriers and no strategic bombers why not? If Germans actually want to build a surface navy why not? The whole point of the game is to allow you to explore various types of play within the 30's and 40's timeframe. An interesting scenario would be to start well before the war and let you build the military YOU want before war breaks out. HOI has this type of scenario and I find that one of the most interesting things about it (other than that I consider it too cumbersome to be enjoyable.)

[JLPOWELL]

StellarRat - I completely agree with your point. In this type of game you 'Take Over' at a point in time. Its a change in regime from history at that point (otherwise just read a book... or watch a movie) So if USSR wants to attack in 39 fine as approprate give a cost of some kind as approprate like a big hit in Social Unrest and or other factors like effectiveness and WE then let the chips fall. The 'event' drivers for the most part just try to make players 'keep to the script' Rather than an 'event' for everything I would have likeed to have seen 'cost' for actions. For example unrestricted submarine warfare would give some diplomatic cost related to possible early US entry and 'cost DP. Likewise if USSR attacks rather than 'is attacked' the 'motivation of the masses' would have been less which could be reflected as reduced effectiveness DP WE or (best) a combination of these factors.

Its just a game, and a certain amount of playability licence is needed for a balanced game. That said (excessive) attempts to keep history 'on track' adversely affect the game.

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

Well, my opinion is that it should start with the historical TO&E for each nation then let the players choose what to build once the game starts. If the US player wants to build 50 aircraft carriers and no strategic bombers why not? If Germans actually want to build a surface navy why not? The whole point of the game is to allow you to explore various types of play within the 30's and 40's timeframe. An interesting scenario would be to start well before the war and let you build the military YOU want before war breaks out. HOI has this type of scenario and I find that one of the most interesting things about it (other than that I consider it too cumbersome to be enjoyable.)

[doomtrader]

As you can see, the highest factor in the effectiveness is the warfare doctrine bonus.
Russkies are not able to get such monsters as their warfare doctrine is poor, so you can't really compare those two countries. Check how effective are the US armored divisions later in the game.

[aspqrz02]

Glantz's work shows that the old idea of "brute force and ignorance" for the USSR is simply wrong.

By 1943 they were pretty damn good, and by 1944 they were damn good.

The main problem, all along, was political interference ... Stalin in effect ... so, if you're assuming Not Hitler is in charge of the Germans then Not Stalin should be in charge of the Russians.

Or, if possible, allow for "Guards" Corps, which act as if they are of a higher Warfare level, which would also be accurate.

Phil