Of Course Not, The Entire Game Is An Anti-German Design [8D] - Bread (Axis) vs Beethoven (Soviet)

[Beethoven1]

Losses so far.

[jubjub]

If you really want a more historical game, you should limit the supply priority of the Soviets to 1.

[Stamb]

oh those axis players moans!

[K62_]

For all Axis players who are worried about the Soviets abandoning the south I would highly recommend the scenario called "The Destruction of Southwestern Front". It has several advantages that I believe you will find very attractive:

• It has been recommended by very strong Axis players as the best of the non-campaign scenarios.

• The whole scenario takes place in the south. So, it's impossible for the Soviets to abandon the south.

• Kiev and Odessa are worth a lot of VPs, the Soviets will have to defend forward.

• The scenario ends in the fall, so you don't have to resign if you dislike fighting in the blizzard.

Generally I think that, if more people tried the scenarios, it would make for much better feedback for the development team than just various iterations of GC '41. Whether a problem exists in all scenarios or just one of them is a good indication if it needs to be fixed in the game mechanics or in the scenario editor.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

For all Axis players who are worried about the Soviets abandoning the south I would highly recommend the scenario called "The Destruction of Southwestern Front". It has several advantages that I believe you will find very attractive:

• It has been recommended by very strong Axis players as the best of the non-campaign scenarios.

• The whole scenario takes place in the south. So, it's impossible for the Soviets to abandon the south.

• Kiev and Odessa are worth a lot of VPs, the Soviets will have to defend forward.

• The scenario ends in the fall, so you don't have to resign if you dislike fighting in the blizzard.

Generally I think that, if more people tried the scenarios, it would make for much better feedback for the development team than just various iterations of GC '41. Whether a problem exists in all scenarios or just one of them is a good indication if it needs to be fixed in the game mechanics or in the scenario editor.

I don't know, the scenario to me is like have one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and making a theory based on just that one piece of the puzzle. Where the GC41 you have all the pieces of the puzzle and figuring out where all those pieces fit for the whole picture. /shrug It is just me and I am sure I am on the fence alone as always.

Anyway I call your 666 post K62

[jubjub]

For all Axis players who are worried about the Soviets abandoning the south I would highly recommend the scenario called "The Destruction of Southwestern Front". It has several advantages that I believe you will find very attractive:

• It has been recommended by very strong Axis players as the best of the non-campaign scenarios.

• The whole scenario takes place in the south. So, it's impossible for the Soviets to abandon the south.

• Kiev and Odessa are worth a lot of VPs, the Soviets will have to defend forward.

• The scenario ends in the fall, so you don't have to resign if you dislike fighting in the blizzard.

Generally I think that, if more people tried the scenarios, it would make for much better feedback for the development team than just various iterations of GC '41. Whether a problem exists in all scenarios or just one of them is a good indication if it needs to be fixed in the game mechanics or in the scenario editor.

I find the Destruction of the Southern Front an extremely challenging scenario for the Axis. Also, if your opponent knows about the 'surprise', they can just plan ahead for it and neuter that advantage.

IIRC, I played that scenario as the soviets in a PVP to learn soviets for the GC. I was absolutely stomping my opponent until the surprise turned the tables lol

[K62_]

I don't know, the scenario to me is like have one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and making a theory based on just that one piece of the puzzle. Where the GC41 you have all the pieces of the puzzle and figuring out where all those pieces fit for the whole picture. /shrug It is just me and I am sure I am on the fence alone as always.

Oh I wasn't trying to say the scenario is a substitute for the GC. It's just another perspective with the very different VP incentives and a (seemingly popular) Soviet strategy simply not available. Of course if the problem is with the game mechanics it won't make a difference. But I was hoping that people who find the GC unbalanced can also try the scenarios and see if they fare differently.

[Stamb]

There are things like Axis logistic system that is working pretty well in scenarios where there is basically a straight line of depots. And then in a GC you get full map. And only in a GC you can spot lack of control of a freight movement.
Personally I dont find scenarios attractive for a pvp games, and looking onto AARs - looks like i am not the only one.
But I played all of them, except of VtB and StB vs ai.

[Joel Billings]

Haven't had time to read the entire AAR, but I noticed the part about Sea of Azov ports getting a small amount of freight. Did they actually get freight via sea shipments, or were these just freight points received as units sent damaged equipment back to the pool? You'll see you're depots near units get a little bit of freight from this constant activity of dealing with damaged elements. If in fact ports were getting shipments by sea with the Kerch Straits being cut off, that should be reported as a bug. Thanks.