Is this WAD?

[sPzAbt653]

With all due respect sPz, 5 days is essentially contemporaneous with the fall of the capital. Especially in terms of the length of a turn in the game. This is just a quibble in my view.

Yeah but I was trying to point out that Germany's surrender was based on other factors than Berlin falling.

[Leadwieght]

Have we lost the original point?

[sPzAbt653]

I thought the original point was already well handled, the cure to the original woe being not to move your capital to Egypt.

[Ironclad]

I wasn't given the option of moving it anywhere.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: vonik

Hitler not only intended to invade England but ordered to plan it in his Weisung 16 on 16.7.1940 .
What you apparently ignore is that the transport fleet was already gathered on the invasion ports (some 300 ships and 2 000 transport barges) .
The condition was to eliminate the RAF what almost happened when Hitler surprisingly ordered to Attack towns instead of air fields what basically saved the RAF and prevented Sealion .
He would do the same error later in Russia ordering a priority on economical targets instead on the destruction of the ennemy armed forces .

There is a difference between what the Army has plans to do and what Hitler really intended. Had Hitler really intended to invade England he would not have allowed the BEF to evacuate unmolested at Dunkirk. If you're planning on invading England then you go for kill with enemy's army in its most vulnerable position.

You would also not shift the focus of your air attack from military targets to terror bombing if planning to invade. Hitler wanted a political win against Britain, not a military campaign. Just as he believed would've happened in WWI had the Germans won in France then. Other than "keeping options open" and perhaps some deception with the gathering of transports, nothing Hitler did was consistent with launching an invasion.

[jgsIII]

This is NOT a historical simulation

I sure wish I had read this before my purchase. Sure, the game has great graphics and so many historic connections to give it great flavor. I appreciate the time effort put into those areas. But they are just icing on the cake and they can't compensate for Risk-like game engine. The "keep rolling until their dead" kills me in a game with so much historic promise. To see a battle unfold where the adject enemy unit attacks, withdraws, then the next enemy unit moves into position, attacks, withdraws, and a third unit, now remember we are dealing with at least division size units, move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I am glad there are so many people who enjoy the game and I wish Fury continuing success.

[sPzAbt653]

I wasn't given the option of moving it anywhere.

Ok, thanks for re-clarifying. I looked at the script and see that if Egypt has surrendered, the option is not given.

[sPzAbt653]

move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I had the same opinion initially, but thinking about it some, there is no stacking, so instead of having multiple stacks attacking, or multiple units in one stack attacking, we have the 'Dynamic Movement and Combat' feature. It seems like an equal trade off, I think.

[Sugar]

ORIGINAL: jgs

This is NOT a historical simulation

I sure wish I had read this before my purchase. Sure, the game has great graphics and so many historic connections to give it great flavor. I appreciate the time effort put into those areas. But they are just icing on the cake and they can't compensate for Risk-like game engine. The "keep rolling until their dead" kills me in a game with so much historic promise. To see a battle unfold where the adject enemy unit attacks, withdraws, then the next enemy unit moves into position, attacks, withdraws, and a third unit, now remember we are dealing with at least division size units, move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I am glad there are so many people who enjoy the game and I wish Fury continuing success.

Sorry to hear that, but your description of the gamemechanic has been changed for this game, in the predecessors one could not do what you described, the units could either march and attack, or attack and then march.

Although I see your point, I feel this to be necessary, since with the ectended numbers of forces, scale and limited damage by inf.-units it is not very easy to destroy enemy units. Usually it takes several attacks to destroy a unit, this presupposes a combined armed warfare strategy.

I guess without these changes in gamemechanics, it would be more of a WWI-style combat, with little gains and nearly equal losses. So for my part, I highly appreciate those changes.

Maybe it would help to give you some hints improving your ability to defend more efficiently?

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: Sugar


I guess without these changes in gamemechanics, it would be more of a WWI-style combat, with little gains and nearly equal losses. So for my part, I highly appreciate those changes.

I agree, IMO it would take a complete change in game philosophy in which units would retreat much more easily, everytime they are "defeated" instead of remaining in place to be destroyed, so that game will consist much more about gaining strategic graound and not destroying units. Then air units could be greatly reduced in their destruction power limiting them to hit morale and reduce entrenchment.

[Steely Glint]

Do not want.