Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic

MButtazoni · Post by **MButtazoni** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:58 pm

Well, to me the success of that kind of strategy - all out vs the US - shows a couple problems with the game system :

1/ It's way too easy to make a full ocean crossing invasion - something that NEVER was made in history. There should be a limit to the number of zones an invasion crosses -2 for example. This will make island hopping a sensible strategy and prevent a ridiculous, 10,000 km long invasion route
2/ Once invaded the US should be much meaner, the current militia rise is way too feeble. Historically the US went to war at a slow pace *because* they were not invaded, but should certainly have put a better defense that they give in the game if someone was sailing to New York !

You're basing your opinion on a uncontrolled test case. What is to say he did not set the game on the lowest difficulty setting and go into the game settings and "Adjust" the supply help and transport help in his favour? He is also not running a legit copy of the game, it has been pirated and i can not even confirm he has the retail release; it could be a beta that does not have the retail OOB.

Way too many variables to take this as valid input.

PDiFolco · Post by **PDiFolco** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:27 pm

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

Well, to me the success of that kind of strategy - all out vs the US - shows a couple problems with the game system :

1/ It's way too easy to make a full ocean crossing invasion - something that NEVER was made in history. There should be a limit to the number of zones an invasion crosses -2 for example. This will make island hopping a sensible strategy and prevent a ridiculous, 10,000 km long invasion route
2/ Once invaded the US should be much meaner, the current militia rise is way too feeble. Historically the US went to war at a slow pace *because* they were not invaded, but should certainly have put a better defense that they give in the game if someone was sailing to New York !

You're basing your opinion on a uncontrolled test case. What is to say he did not set the game on the lowest difficulty setting and go into the game settings and "Adjust" the supply help and transport help in his favour? He is also not running a legit copy of the game, it has been pirated and i can not even confirm he has the retail release; it could be a beta that does not have the retail OOB.

Way too many variables to take this as valid input.

Granted, I didn't challenge his sayings, and was not aware of the piracy issue at that time (but I don't think it could change anything..). Surely my views on US invasion was biased by the poster's story...
Yet after reading this it just seemed wrong to me to be able to mount 10,000 km long amphib invasion, where in the game it *is* perfectly possible. This looks like a valid point isn't it ?[;)]

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:40 pm

Game penalizes long amphib invasions BTW. I forgot which rule is that, and on what page in the manual, but there is a rule that discourages long amphib invasions.

Having said that, long amphib invasions were not totally unheard of. Torch was basically a cross-Atlantic invasion.

Schury should try his strategies vs. human opponent, but his problem is he would have to do it with legal, patched version of the game [>:]

BTW I think Matrix and moderatores are being exceptionally "liberal" to the guy, since he admitted using the pirated version of the game. On other boards I frequent, posts like schury's are immediatelly deleted, with poster being banned. Erik in his very moderate and politically correct post basically offered schury to buy the game now and legalize his version with no "penalties" which is very very... hm... nice, perhaps too nice [8|]

O.

MButtazoni · Post by **MButtazoni** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:49 pm

The biggest deterent to a Long Amphibious invasion is that you will NEVER sustain it. (caveat: advanced supply is in use, and your playing a human opponent)

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:52 pm

Absolutely, but there's more. I found the rule I was looking for, page 53:

Penalty during amphibious invasion: Whenever a land unit conducts an amphibious invasion, for every region
moved over 2, the unit subtracts one die from the total attack dice it rolls (i.e. 1 or 2 regions moved no penalty, 3
regions -1 attack die, 4 regions -2 attack dice, etc.).

Oleg

hakon · Post by **hakon** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:00 pm

Granted, I didn't challenge his sayings, and was not aware of the piracy issue at that time (but I don't think it could change anything..). Surely my views on US invasion was biased by the poster's story...
Yet after reading this it just seemed wrong to me to be able to mount 10,000 km long amphib invasion, where in the game it *is* perfectly possible. This looks like a valid point isn't it ?

I dont have too much of an issue with the ability to invade over long distances. If you look at the actual war, i am sure that you will see some examples of pretty long-distance invasions in real life.

If there _is_ a problem, it is the follow-up strategic capacity that you can achive by just one chain of transports, reinforcing the invasion. With a conservative estimate that each unit representing 5 divisions (the original OOB would imply that to about 10), one could send 40 divisions around the globe in just 3 months, and before the enemy was able to counter-attack. If this was reduced to 1/4th, it would be a lot more realistic. Of course, this would require the allies to keep more transports in the atlantic when preparing for D-day, which i think is ok.

Of course, the huge transport capacity does keep the game fast moving, and it may well be a concious design decision, sacrifising some realism for fun factor and playability.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:09 pm

ORIGINAL: hakon

If there _is_ a problem, it is the follow-up strategic capacity that you can achive by just one chain of transports, reinforcing the invasion. With a conservative estimate that each unit representing 5 divisions (the original OOB would imply that to about 10), one could send 40 divisions around the globe in just 3 months, and before the enemy was able to counter-attack. If this was reduced to 1/4th, it would be a lot more realistic. Of course, this would require the allies to keep more transports in the atlantic when preparing for D-day, which i think is ok.

One unit represents "corps sized unit", not really "5 divisions". Historically, corps could have been made up from 1 single div (+ supporting stuff) to 4-5 divs max, and it's like that in this game too. I'd say, 2-3 divs per unit would be more accurate.

One unit takes up 5 transport points (armor 10 points) so with one "chain" of transports, and immense effort it represents, you can send, say, one armored corps and 4 infantry corps "around the world" in three months period. That's 2 tank, and around 10 infantry divs.

Don't forget enemy has navy too, and naval aviation, and subs, and... [8D]

O.

mavraamides · Post by **mavraamides** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:17 pm

FYI, the original plan to invade Japan should the A-Bomb fail consisted of part of the invasion force coming directly from Pearl and another big chunk coming directly from San Francisco!

So at least the US believed that an invasion was possible all the way accross the Pacific.

The plan was 3 simultaneous landings on the southern island followed by months of strategic bombing and then another amphibious assault from the southern island to the main island.

hakon · Post by **hakon** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:31 pm

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

FYI, the original plan to invade Japan should the A-Bomb fail consisted of part of the invasion force coming directly from Pearl and another big chunk coming directly from San Francisco!

So at least the US believed that an invasion was possible all the way accross the Pacific.

The plan was 3 simultaneous landings on the southern island followed by months of strategic bombing and then another amphibious assault from the southern island to the main island.

I agree that with the transport capacity that the US had in 1945, invading Japan directly should be possible. Something completely else would be for the japanse to attack the US with enough froce in 1941 or 42.

mavraamides · Post by **mavraamides** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:38 pm

ORIGINAL: hakon

I agree that with the transport capacity that the US had in 1945, invading Japan directly should be possible. Something completely else would be for the japanse to attack the US with enough froce in 1941 or 42.

Good point. Not to mention the fact that the US had absolute control of the seas and skies in 1945. Even though the Japs would have caught the US off guard, the Americans would have been able to launch a vicious counterattack by air and sea against Japan's navy and the American forces in Pearl which would have likely been untouched would have cut off supplies to the Japs. So they may have invaded, but they would have been cut off and slaughtered soon after.

IMHO.

schury · Post by **schury** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:40 pm

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Game penalizes long amphib invasions BTW. I forgot which rule is that, and on what page in the manual, but there is a rule that discourages long amphib invasions.

Having said that, long amphib invasions were not totally unheard of. Torch was basically a cross-Atlantic invasion.

Schury should try his strategies vs. human opponent, but his problem is he would have to do it with legal, patched version of the game [>:]

BTW I think Matrix and moderatores are being exceptionally "liberal" to the guy, since he admitted using the pirated version of the game. On other boards I frequent, posts like schury's are immediatelly deleted, with poster being banned. Erik in his very moderate and politically correct post basically offered schury to buy the game now and legalize his version with no "penalties" which is very very... hm... nice, perhaps too nice [8|]

O.

i have to admit that i get it from the net,and i acknowledged that.i am sorry for that.i think i'll right delete the game.
but one thing is clear i try to give more datas to the staff to improve this game as they want to.if there isn't my post,maybe the long-distance invasion problem would not pop up that soon.
but you should talk more about the strategy,right?as a over 2000poster,you look so......maybe others will tell

anyhow i wanna say thank you for the liberal treat.thank you for just letting me play this game as a demo.
finally,something about strategy
when facing human player,this kind of strategy maybe tough but not impossible,espacially when two axis try this at the same time.and you can't stop them because the invasion from england to canada can be done in one turn.and to japan,america is frozen.what can stop them?if you really wanna stop this kind of invasion but a flavor incident,i think maybe reducing the transport capacity of the very trun you get the coastal province could help.that doesn't affect the balance that much i think and can prevent taking the whole USA that easy before it get armed.and USA can cut the way before they send massive troops to the main land.

MButtazoni · Post by **MButtazoni** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:15 pm

i try to give more datas to the staff to improve this game as they want to.

I have numerous questions on your game outcome; none of which will be asked till you have a legal copy of the game.

schury · Post by **schury** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:15 pm

[/quote]

Good point. Not to mention the fact that the US had absolute control of the seas and skies in 1945. Even though the Japs would have caught the US off guard, the Americans would have been able to launch a vicious counterattack by air and sea against Japan's navy and the American forces in Pearl which would have likely been untouched would have cut off supplies to the Japs. So they may have invaded, but they would have been cut off and slaughtered soon after.

IMHO.
[/quote]
ok,when facing human players this strategy may not help you to contorl the world becasue you can't make sure that it will work under any circumstances,that depends on your opponents, too.but you can delay them.it's really tough for USA to take you out of the land right after your arrival.you can do the bushfighting or go back to canada to wait for other chance.your purpose is changed to havoc their infrastructures.it should cost the USA at least about a year to take you out i think.the consumption for repairing the factories and resources can gain you lots of time to catch your breath and relieve the pressure of WA's fleet.after they gather again to take you out,a year or two passes,can they stop you from getting a decisive or marginal victory?is it a more decent way to win the war compare with just defanding and being attacked by the USA?and you still got a chance to win a total victory if you two axis together continuing attacking the WA thoughout the game by this strategy.so think of it.

schury · Post by **schury** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:28 pm

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

i try to give more datas to the staff to improve this game as they want to.

I have numerous questions on your game outcome; none of which will be asked till you have a legal copy of the game.

RE: Axis game result: conquer the world but marginal vic
Logged in as: schury

to this point i would say sorry,but i promise you that my version is the same like others.i have several PBEM games with other guys here.and i don't modify anything.why not you try it?just follow my advice.with some luck you'll make it,too.and if you think this is a bug,i will give you more detailed information about it.improving the game is more important than the reality that my using an downloaded game,right?

Marc von Martial · Post by **Marc von Martial** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:13 pm

Go and finally buy a legal copy.

IDrinkBeer · Post by **IDrinkBeer** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:24 pm

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Go and finally buy a legal copy.

and then give me a shout on this forum. I will play you and your "schury stream"....

You might have found an exploit against the AI but what you are suggesting, I think, will never work against a human. Please prove me wrong.

schury · Post by **schury** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:15 am

ORIGINAL: IDrinkBeer

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Go and finally buy a legal copy.

and then give me a shout on this forum. I will play you and your "schury stream"....

You might have found an exploit against the AI but what you are suggesting, I think, will never work against a human. Please prove me wrong.

you know the war is dynamic,you can't promise anything.i'll write soemthing like aar and mabe you'll find the drawbacks.i don't count on it to take the whole world but it do make sence.you can't stop japanese attact no matter how good you are,and the germans' attact is also tough.

schury · Post by **schury** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:28 am

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Go and finally buy a legal copy.

ok,i can't afford a legel copy now.can you grant me one?i can be a tester like those beta testers.my outcomes do proved my qualified to it,right?[:D]

Maginot · Post by **Maginot** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:36 am

Maybe your not familar with copyright laws. What your doing right now is illegal. Its bad enough you admitited it, but now your trying to get a free copy? I belive the Beta Testers had to buy a copy as well. At least thats how it was in every other game I've played. Nothing's free in life except Herpes.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:50 am

I can't phuckeeng believe the nerve this guy has. Coming from country (indeed, part of the world) with relatively high piracy rate I thought I 've seen everything regarding software piracy, but this is something else altogether...

Schury, please go buy the game! Are you aware you're discussing with guys from Matrix that you effectivelly robbed of their money? And you're making jokes of their being totally honest with you? What message does this thread send to other potential buyers of the game?

Being a computer journalist in high-piracy area I wrote many articles for my magazine trying to educate people to BUY the GAME they love and play. Not force them, educate them. It is the only moral thing to do. And then this. Perhaps I am even more sensitive to this kind of totally irresponsible behavior than most of you.

Schury, please don't tell me you don't have 40 USD to buy the game you (obviously) play so much, and (I guess) enjoy, and yet you can, like, pay all this time you spend on the internet, or, say, clothes you wear or something?? How old are you? What do you do for a living? You, or your parents gotta be doing something...

Geez.... please moderators ban this guy from the board, and delete this thread. He might come back anyway, but I think we'll recognise his specific writing style [:@]

O.