Page 2 of 3
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:05 pm
by Erik Rutins
Michael,
ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
Ya'll notice that there is still no explanation of the totally non-historical house rules? I reiterate, for anyone thinking of buying this game, it is science fiction, not history.
And Doom, what you ARE responsible for is giving people what you told them you were selling! A "Grand Strategic" game about WWII in Europe that can't recreate half of the campaigns of that war is a fraud.
It's standard practice not to discuss the smallest details of an update before it's released. Doomtrader already mentioned that the events are being redone, he already mentioned that they're looking at some air and naval interaction. Did you read all that? If you're interested in more details, I'd suggest you channel that energy into becoming a member of the testing team and helping these guys develop the game in the direction you want.
Regards,
- Erik
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:54 pm
by iancarmichael
Michael,
Thanks for leading the charge on this. I too feel ripped off after paying $50.00 for this game. I found doomtraders comment "gwgardner, I won't say that focusing on land operations is a limitation and I think it's a "half empty half full glass" debate" ironic, in that, like a glass half full this is half a game.
Personally, I don't care much about the house rules, they may be a bit silly, but they are not show stoppers. THE show stopper is the inability for naval/air interaction. As you stated many times, this warps the game and turns it from a complete historical simulation to a half game, or science fiction.
Perhaps it would be better if the entier western theatre was abstracted and the game simply focused on the eastern front where air/naval air interaction was limited.
To paraphrase the polish airborne commander in the movie A Bridge to Far, I promise to be properly extatic if the other half of the game is added in subsequent updates. I mean when, of course.
Ian
Relax
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:58 pm
by balto
The game is brand new. Doomtrader is active and supportive. Just like any good game, it takes a few patches to smooth things out. So hang in there, it will get better.
RE: Relax
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:13 pm
by doomtrader
Hello Ian.
We are doing our best to make this game better.
I'm really hoping that you will like new changes in the game.
Next update will bring many new features. Also some air/naval interaction.
RE: Relax
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:43 pm
by sabre1
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:51 am
by balenami1291
ORIGINAL: iancarmichael
Perhaps it would be better if the entier western theatre was abstracted and the game simply focused on the eastern front where air/naval air interaction was limited.
I ever think this game could be the War in Russia successor.
But Develepers think different.
The strange thing, as WWII strategy game, they put their product in a crowed market segment when we (wargamer's comunity)awaiting for a WiR's succcessor more than 10 years....
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:57 am
by cpdeyoung
I think the two fronts are too closely linked to separate them. In my PBEM I am very pleased with the balance between my east and west fronts. The alternative might force the west front into a "historical" event time lock. Thus an "event" would trigger a withdrawal of N strength points durring Kursk because the "Operation Husky" event fired. I would much rather defend in the west than have Hitler do it for me. The German army in the East was handicapped by poor decisions in the West, think Tunis. In the PBEM Gary has taken Gibraltar which makes "Husky" much more difficult. I really have been playing "War in Russia" since 6/22/1941, but I do not have to play it under the pressure of the decisions and outcomes in the West. If you want conflict in the East I have had many turns of it.
Chuck
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:40 pm
by Michael the Pole
ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung
I think the two fronts are too closely linked to separate them. In my PBEM I am very pleased with the balance between my east and west fronts. The alternative might force the west front into a "historical" event time lock. Thus an "event" would trigger a withdrawal of N strength points durring Kursk because the "Operation Husky" event fired. I would much rather defend in the west than have Hitler do it for me. The German army in the East was handicapped by poor decisions in the West, think Tunis. In the PBEM Gary has taken Gibraltar which makes "Husky" much more difficult. I really have been playing "War in Russia" since 6/22/1941, but I do not have to play it under the pressure of the decisions and outcomes in the West. If you want conflict in the East I have had many turns of it.
Chuck
Chuck, I hate to repeat myself, but the entire war (from the German point of view) was a disaster, brought about solely by idiotic Fuhrerentscheidung. I will name just one, which would never have been made by ANY rational German leader, and which, if rejected, would have, unquestionably, won the war for the Germans.
And for those of you who maintain that the game is hopelessly unbalanced in the favor of the Allies, imagine the effect that making (or not making) this same choice would have on the game.
Imagine that Hitler stabs the Japs in the back and refuses to declare war on the United States in Dec, 1941. Churchill and Roosevelt were sick with fear that Hitler would do just that. The result for Hitler would have been some political complaint at home (oh dear!) for losing yet another ally. I'm sure it would have cost him about 15 seconds of concern. The results for the Allies would have been catastrophic. Admiral King and General MacArthur would have led the "Pacific Firsters" to victory over Roosevelt and General Marshal, and the American war effort would have concentrated 110% on Japan. It might even have led to the termination of Lend Lease, which Roosevelt had only been very narrowly allowed to implement because we got a number of extremely valuable base leases that we need to secure our
DEFENSIVE perimeter in the Atlantic. And believe me, thats exactly how they were sold to the Senate, as defensive bases. With our own war to fight, with Americans fighting and dying in Asia, Churchill would just have to fight his own war, and there wouldn't have been an old screwdriver surplus in the arsenal, much less the three hundred Shermans that Roosevelt literaly took out of the hands of the 2nd Armored Division to send to the British in North Africa to save the Suez Canal from Rommel![:-]
Americans have a hard time remembering how strongly isolationist the US Congress was on December 6, 1941. Without Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and Churchill werent going to get another DIME from people like Arthur Vandenburg, Charles Lindbergh and Robert McCormick. (To give you an idea of how wide spread the "America First" movement was, John Kennedy sent them a contribution along with a letter describing how vital their work was!) And once we were mugged by the Japanese Navy the whole country went nuts. (I love Halsey's comment that when he was finished, the only place Japanese would be spoken would be in hell![:D]) (This is the correct attitude to carry into a war. ed.)
Hitler didn't declare war until December 11. Churchill says that they were the four worst days of his life. If Hitler had kept his temper for just another 6 months (and remember that American ships and aircraft had been shooting at Germans in the Western Atlantic since September 1941) the United States would have been irrevokably commited to the destruction of Japan, and Churchill would have been stareing at the loss of Singapore, another failed campaign in the Middle East (possibly with the loss of Egypt and the Suez Canal -- remember those 300 Shermans!), the Australians and New Zealanders withdrawing their (very badly needed) divisions to defend their homelands while screaming for air, naval and troop reinforcement from the mother country. He would have been doomed and the vote of confidence that he passed in early 1942 would very easily have gone the other way.
And, remember that US aid to the Soviet Union was predicated on America being at war with Germany.
So, if your'e concerned about play balance, Doomtrader has already told us that there is going to be a change (although we dont yet know what change) in the automatic American declaration of war in December 1941.
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:26 pm
by James Ward
ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung
I think the two fronts are too closely linked to separate them. In my PBEM I am very pleased with the balance between my east and west fronts. The alternative might force the west front into a "historical" event time lock. Thus an "event" would trigger a withdrawal of N strength points durring Kursk because the "Operation Husky" event fired. I would much rather defend in the west than have Hitler do it for me. The German army in the East was handicapped by poor decisions in the West, think Tunis. In the PBEM Gary has taken Gibraltar which makes "Husky" much more difficult. I really have been playing "War in Russia" since 6/22/1941, but I do not have to play it under the pressure of the decisions and outcomes in the West. If you want conflict in the East I have had many turns of it.
Chuck
Chuck, I hate to repeat myself, but the entire war (from the German point of view) was a disaster, brought about solely by idiotic Fuhrerentscheidung. I will name just one, which would never have been made by ANY rational German leader, and which, if rejected, would have, unquestionably, won the war for the Germans.
And for those of you who maintain that the game is hopelessly unbalanced in the favor of the Allies, imagine the effect that making (or not making) this same choice would have on the game.
Imagine that Hitler stabs the Japs in the back and refuses to declare war on the United States in Dec, 1941. Churchill and Roosevelt were sick with fear that Hitler would do just that. The result for Hitler would have been some political complaint at home (oh dear!) for losing yet another ally. I'm sure it would have cost him about 15 seconds of concern. The results for the Allies would have been catastrophic. Admiral King and General MacArthur would have led the "Pacific Firsters" to victory over Roosevelt and General Marshal, and the American war effort would have concentrated 110% on Japan. It might even have led to the termination of Lend Lease, which Roosevelt had only been very narrowly allowed to implement because we got a number of extremely valuable base leases that we need to secure our
DEFENSIVE perimeter in the Atlantic. And believe me, thats exactly how they were sold to the Senate, as defensive bases. With our own war to fight, with Americans fighting and dying in Asia, Churchill would just have to fight his own war, and there wouldn't have been an old screwdriver surplus in the arsenal, much less the three hundred Shermans that Roosevelt literaly took out of the hands of the 2nd Armored Division to send to the British in North Africa to save the Suez Canal from Rommel![:-]
Americans have a hard time remembering how strongly isolationist the US Congress was on December 6, 1941. Without Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and Churchill werent going to get another DIME from people like Arthur Vandenburg, Charles Lindbergh and Robert McCormick. (To give you an idea of how wide spread the "America First" movement was, John Kennedy sent them a contribution along with a letter describing how vital their work was!) And once we were mugged by the Japanese Navy the whole country went nuts. (I love Halsey's comment that when he was finished, the only place Japanese would be spoken would be in hell![:D]) (This is the correct attitude to carry into a war. ed.)
Hitler didn't declare war until December 11. Churchill says that they were the four worst days of his life. If Hitler had kept his temper for just another 6 months (and remember that American ships and aircraft had been shooting at Germans in the Western Atlantic since September 1941) the United States would have been irrevokably commited to the destruction of Japan, and Churchill would have been stareing at the loss of Singapore, another failed campaign in the Middle East (possibly with the loss of Egypt and the Suez Canal -- remember those 300 Shermans!), the Australians and New Zealanders withdrawing their (very badly needed) divisions to defend their homelands while screaming for air, naval and troop reinforcement from the mother country. He would have been doomed and the vote of confidence that he passed in early 1942 would very easily have gone the other way.
And, remember that US aid to the Soviet Union was predicated on America being at war with Germany.
So, if your'e concerned about play balance, Doomtrader has already told us that there is going to be a change (although we dont yet know what change) in the automatic American declaration of war in December 1941.
I don't have a problem with the timing of US entry, it's the strength of the USA at entry that is unbelievable. Slow down the USA juggernaught and you solve a big balance problem. Make the entry variable, perhaps tied to successes or failures of certain nations to keep everyone guessing but WWII without the USA just isn't! [:)]
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:09 pm
by Michael the Pole
I don't have a problem with the timing of US entry, it's the strength of the USA at entry that is unbelievable. Slow down the USA juggernaught and you solve a big balance problem. Make the entry variable, perhaps tied to successes or failures of certain nations to keep everyone guessing but WWII without the USA just isn't! [:)]
Marty, you may be aware that Glenn and I are PBEM a 1939 campaign with the "Uxbridge Variation," (USA starts with -1350 PP.) Its late April 1940 now, and I expect that the USA will break even sometime in May and become a real country again. We're going to maintain the 50pp lend/lease limit, but that will just result in higher US tech levels and unit numbers. Its a zero sum game, after all. You shove on one end of the equasion and the other end just goes up!
The thing to remember about American entry into the war is that it's a
German decision. If we had a realistic political/social unrest system, it'd be easy enough to give the Germans a unrest penalty for every turn after Pearl Harbor. But as it is now, hell, I don't even know how to find out what my countries unrest number is now, much less know what effect it has if it declines (or is it increased?)
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:59 pm
by James Ward
ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
I don't have a problem with the timing of US entry, it's the strength of the USA at entry that is unbelievable. Slow down the USA juggernaught and you solve a big balance problem. Make the entry variable, perhaps tied to successes or failures of certain nations to keep everyone guessing but WWII without the USA just isn't! [:)]
Marty, you may be aware that Glenn and I are PBEM a 1939 campaign with the "Uxbridge Variation," (USA starts with -1350 PP.) Its late April 1940 now, and I expect that the USA will break even sometime in May and become a real country again. We're going to maintain the 50pp lend/lease limit, but that will just result in higher US tech levels and unit numbers. Its a zero sum game, after all. You shove on one end of the equasion and the other end just goes up!
The thing to remember about American entry into the war is that it's a
German decision. If we had a realistic political/social unrest system, it'd be easy enough to give the Germans a unrest penalty for every turn after Pearl Harbor. But as it is now, hell, I don't even know how to find out what my countries unrest number is now, much less know what effect it has if it declines (or is it increased?)
It could also be an Allied decision with an unrest penalty.
I don't think you can take the stupid 'hitler' decisions out of the game and still have a game about WWII. You can certainly test a game without the USA. Just don't do anything with it after 12/41.
Good idea, with tweeks
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:18 pm
by balto
James, the idea to take USA out until 12/41 is a great idea. But let me add this tweek. Uxbridge fix gives the USA negative PP and converts that 1300 in to USA Research. So it prevents USA from just saving up the 1300 and shipping it off to Britain or whatever. Mike and I are finding that 1300 is not enough. The 1300 will be used up by about May 1941. So your idea could be incorporated mechanically in the game by giving USA a -2000 and converting that into USA Research. And when USA enters, the limit to allies would be 50PP. Sure, that would not solve the play balance because you will have USA supermen landing in Europe my mid 1943, but it is better then what we have now which is Allied dominance by the end of 1941 (when a non-sadistic Allied stategy is used). Until the next patch, we all need to wing it on how we deal with the super powerful USA juggernaut. What do you think about this? I know you have great thoughts.
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:28 pm
by Michael the Pole
ORIGINAL: James Ward
It could also be an Allied decision with an unrest penalty.
I don't think you can take the stupid 'hitler' decisions out of the game and still have a game about WWII. You can certainly test a game without the USA. Just don't do anything with it after 12/41.
Marty, I gaurantee you, with every bit of political and historical experience at my disposal that any purely American decision to declare war on Germany without a prior declaration or attack by Germany would have had only one possible result --
Roosevelts immediate impeachment! Memories of Woodrow Wilson's (The Original Progressive) lying song and dance -- "He kept us out of War" in November, 1916 to declaration of war 4 months after the election! were too strongly resented to allow a repeat a year after Roosevelt won re-election on a direct promise that he would send no American boy to die in a foreign war.
RE: Good idea, with tweeks
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:33 pm
by James Ward
ORIGINAL: balto
James, the idea to take USA out until 12/41 is a great idea. But let me add this tweek. Uxbridge fix gives the USA negative PP and converts that 1300 in to USA Research. So it prevents USA from just saving up the 1300 and shipping it off to Britain or whatever. Mike and I are finding that 1300 is not enough. The 1300 will be used up by about May 1941. So your idea could be incorporated mechanically in the game by giving USA a -2000 and converting that into USA Research. And when USA enters, the limit to allies would be 50PP. Sure, that would not solve the play balance because you will have USA supermen landing in Europe my mid 1943, but it is better then what we have now which is Allied dominance by the end of 1941 (when a non-sadistic Allied stategy is used). Until the next patch, we all need to wing it on how we deal with the super powerful USA juggernaut. What do you think about this? I know you have great thoughts.
What I suggest be done to slow the "Super units in 42 syndrome" is to start nations at lower levels (I mean level 3 artillery for the USA at start?) and make 3 bulbs take longer to complete, say 16-18 months instead of 8. So for example if the USA started at level 1 infantry at best it could be level 2 and part way to level 3 when it entered and it would have had to spend 900 pp's to get there. The best Russia could be is level 2 at the historical start of Barbarossa. This coupled with a lower war economy (25% in 39-40, 50% in 41) for both the USA and Russia might be enough to allow for a better balance game early and not screw it up to much later on. I mean Russia can get more PP's than Germany while it is at peace, at least until France falls! Say what!!!!
I like that
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:41 pm
by balto
I think that is a great move. I think if we all work together, we can iron out some quick fixes until the patch comes out. It seems that Uxbridge knows how to do big brain computer stuff. I wonder if Uxbridge could post and let us know how to change that stuff you stated above.
RE: Good idea, with tweeks
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:41 pm
by Michael the Pole
ORIGINAL: James Ward
ORIGINAL: balto
James, the idea to take USA out until 12/41 is a great idea. But let me add this tweek. Uxbridge fix gives the USA negative PP and converts that 1300 in to USA Research. So it prevents USA from just saving up the 1300 and shipping it off to Britain or whatever. Mike and I are finding that 1300 is not enough. The 1300 will be used up by about May 1941. So your idea could be incorporated mechanically in the game by giving USA a -2000 and converting that into USA Research. And when USA enters, the limit to allies would be 50PP. Sure, that would not solve the play balance because you will have USA supermen landing in Europe my mid 1943, but it is better then what we have now which is Allied dominance by the end of 1941 (when a non-sadistic Allied stategy is used). Until the next patch, we all need to wing it on how we deal with the super powerful USA juggernaut. What do you think about this? I know you have great thoughts.
What I suggest be done to slow the "Super units in 42 syndrome" is to start nations at lower levels (I mean level 3 artillery for the USA at start?) and make 3 bulbs take longer to complete, say 16-18 months instead of 8. So for example if the USA started at level 1 infantry at best it could be level 2 and part way to level 3 when it entered and it would have had to spend 900 pp's to get there. The best Russia could be is level 2 at the historical start of Barbarossa. This coupled with a lower war economy (25% in 39-40, 50% in 41) for both the USA and Russia might be enough to allow for a better balance game early and not screw it up to much later on. I mean Russia can get more PP's than Germany while it is at peace, at least until France falls! Say what!!!!
Interesting! We need to quantify this stuff. I believe that Chuck has done some interesting analysis along these lines as well.
huh
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:45 pm
by balto
Mike, are you joking. Chuck says the game is good as is.
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:52 pm
by henri51
ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
Imagine that Hitler stabs the Japs in the back and refuses to declare war on the United States in Dec, 1941.
Sorry, but did you ever wonder WHY Hitler declared war on the USA, considering that he considered treaties as scraps of paper?
He did so because he knew that Roosevelt would go to any length to get the US into the war against Germany (whci was already the case in practice given Lend-lease and the sub war in the Atlantic). Roosevelt would have continued to increase aid to Britain and it would have been only a matter of time before some event such as the sinking of a US ship would have given the excuse to go to war.
Farfetched? Consider that the US used such events (invented when required) to get into the 1812 War, the Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War,and the war in Irak, to mention only a few. Roosevelt was going to get the US into the war by hook or by crook, and Hitler knew it.
Henri
BTW, I don't have this game, but how does it compare to Advanced Tactics (also sold by Matrix)? AT is he closest thing I have seen to War in Russia, and the developers are making another one that they say will be even closer...
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:30 pm
by gwgardner
Too simplistic, henri51. The blame America argument doesn't hack it.
Weinberg, for instance, in A World At Arms, lays out a convincing explanation of much broader reasons why Hitler declared war on the US.
1) He was a firm believer in the 'stab in the back' view of why Germany lost WWI - socialist treason. He discounted the power of the US in WWI. Thought the US was riven with turmoil, and was a paper tiger. So war with US was no big deal.
2) He and his naval leaders were itching to swat down the US anti-sub activities. They believed that once they were at war, the US anti-sub effort could be dealt with properly.
3) Hitler several times pushed for and approved of a major naval building program, with the specific aim of taking on the US down the road. Circumstances always forced a postponement of that building program, but his intent remained. Ergo, his encouragement of Japan to strike the US. With Japan as an ally, he had his 'big navy.' One way to get the Japanese to go ahead with war against the US was to promise to join in. Again, it was no big deal as far as he was concerned.
He was eager to declare war on the US.
I'm not discounting America's role leading to the war, but please, don't make it out like it was that evil Roosevelt against the innocent Hitler.
RE: Frankly, I'm fed up to the point of nausea
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:50 pm
by henri51
ORIGINAL: gwgardner
Too simplistic, henri51. The blame America argument doesn't hack it.
I'm not discounting America's role leading to the war, but please, don't make it out like it was that evil Roosevelt against the innocent Hitler.
I'm not blaming Roosevelt, I fully approve what he did and consider that he had no choice.He knew that war was inevitable and would have acted in consequence had not the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Henri