England is mine

[Razz1]

Your basing your opinions on one game perhaps two.

I believe the results of early war with Russia is due to your actions.

Your belligerent actions keep increasing war entry of the Soviet Union

Your at war with 3 countries Poland France Britain, then Denmark, Norway, invasion of England and Influencing countries all in a very short time period.

[RandomAttack]

I own ToW and have been considering ToF. I loved the "ground game", could live with the "air game", and hated the "naval game" (which appears to be vastly improved in ToF). My REAL pet peeve was the gazillion events, many poorly explained, that had a big impact on the game. For many of the events I had no real idea how to weigh the benefits of one choice over another, short/long term implications, or even if the event actually worked as stated. Nor should I have to poke through a file to decipher them. Sounds like the same thing here, and I think this drives a lot of the "historical anomalies" that some people appear so frustrated with. Personally, I think the number of events in ToW could have been cut at least in half, and it sounds to me like a similar deal in ToF. Man, I REALLY want to like this game-- but think I will hold off and read a lot more comments.

[Numdydar]

Uh. No.

I attacked Poland and accepted the treaty with the Russians. I invaded Denmark on the historical schedule. I did NOT attack Norway at all. I did attack the Low Countries a few months early and that was it. Did not use ANY DP on any Balken country.

So are you saying that because I went to war a few months early with the low countries, Russia decides to break a vaild treaty with me even though I have more forces on the border than they do? AND they are still at war with the Fins!!!! I'm sorry but this makes absolutily no sense to me (and others).

[rodney727]

It's just a game....after all. There are some things that I love about this game, like 18 turns to build a corps sized Panzer unit. I am playing a game right now where Stalin declared war on me September 1940. No two games are ever the same. For $33 I accept this game for what it is. Try playing the axis on very hard and the allies on very easy, and let me know how sealion 1940 turns out, or take Stalingrad in 1941....

[Numdydar]

Hard or very hard would not matter with what I posted in this thread. It is the fact that the British navy is completely absent with German Amphs and AKs crossing the channel. Or when they do show up do not seem to effect my convoys or AKs at all. Difficulty level would not change the fact that I can teleport troops around either.

You are correct this is a game, but it claims to be a historical simulation, not what it actually is. Not sure what it is, but a historical simulation it is not.

I will keep saving this. I like the game and I am glad I bought it. Although I most likely will not play another GC after I finish this one until a patch or two comes out.

After all you will not see the British Union flag that often in other games, nor will you be at the gates of Moscow in May 41 [X(]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Razz

Your basing your opinions on one game perhaps two.

I believe the results of early war with Russia is due to your actions.

Your belligerent actions keep increasing war entry of the Soviet Union

Your at war with 3 countries Poland France Britain, then Denmark, Norway, invasion of England and Influencing countries all in a very short time period.

I agree it's early days to be finalising opinions on the game, but what is apparent is that the game can be modded to a high degree, which means that we should all have the opportunity to have the game we want.

I certainly wasn't belligerent when the USSR threatened Romania, I chose the 'ignore' option, all I did was move 2 divisions into Southern Poland as a precaution and the next turn (turn 4) the USSR is bombing my forces and invading Poland. I know that historically this was very unlikely, but it still has the promise of a good game. I wouldn't want it to happen every game, as that would lose the surprise effect, but I wouldn't want it taken out completely.

I don't think that Sea Lion was ever a viable operation, except in the event of a complete collapse by Britain, so it falls into the category of fantasy for me, but I would still enjoy playing that option.

So fantasy or not, as long as the forces and capabilities are historical, the strategic choices (who attacks who and when) could be as varied as you like. The problem is that some will want a game working as they expect and will not want to have work out mods, it can be daunting to have to mess with the innards of the game. If the devs can give tick box options for some of the variants (early Russian entry, Allies '39 attack), or even a slider control to select from variants with 'no chance', through % choices, into random chance, or is that too much to ask for. [:)]

[rodney727]

You seem to be such a debbie downer about this game, It's a WW2 game. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Hard or very hard would not matter with what I posted in this thread. It is the fact that the British navy is completely absent with German Amphs and AKs crossing the channel. Or when they do show up do not seem to effect my convoys or AKs at all. Difficulty level would not change the fact that I can teleport troops around either.

You are correct this is a game, but it claims to be a historical simulation, not what it actually is. Not sure what it is, but a historical simulation it is not.

I will keep saving this. I like the game and I am glad I bought it. Although I most likely will not play another GC after I finish this one until a patch or two comes out.

After all you will not see the British Union flag that often in other games, nor will you be at the gates of Moscow in May 41 [X(]

[waichou]

ORIGINAL: Razz

Your basing your opinions on one game perhaps two.

I believe the results of early war with Russia is due to your actions.

Your belligerent actions keep increasing war entry of the Soviet Union

Your at war with 3 countries Poland France Britain, then Denmark, Norway, invasion of England and Influencing countries all in a very short time period.

No, sorry but I can't agree with you. First, Russia ALWAYS declars war whatever you do, to test it one more time I tried a game without declaring any war (Allied declared war on turn 2, I had no choice...), and didn't use any DP, nothing in Balkan, or Finland or Romania, but it is always the same, Russia declared war in june 1940. I don't know how you did to play a correct Barbarossa game. Sorry, but it is not normal, it seems impossible to wait until 1941 to declare war to Russia, and I don't even think what it should be if I wanted to fight in Balkans... The only way is to start the Barbarossa scenario, it is less interesting but I have no choice... I would also say that I tried many games, reloaded saves many time, etc. so I it not just to be lucky or not !

What I don't understand is how the Beta testers didn't see this bug (yes, I consider it like a bug), I know it not easy to test a game, but this one is obvious, I am curious to know if someone succeded to attack Russia before them...

I am disappointed because now I have to wait for a patch to corrige this (I really hope this will be corriged, as some persons are saying here that this is totally normal !!), and Doomtraders seems to say that it won't be before the end of the year... I would prefer a hotfix before.

Sorry it I am rude, I know you did lot of work in this game, but you should recognize when there is a bug, whatever you say in this topic, it is not a Fantasy game but a WW2 one, so I expect to be possible to play Barbarossa whithout starting directly this scenario. I am sure I will enjoy this game after the first patch will be released.

Thanks,

[waichou]

I just saw in Modding and Design that Doomtrader gave a hotfix for this bug, tm.asp?m=2987023 , so many thanks for this, Doomtrader ! I am sure that all other bugs reported will be fixed in future patchs.

[doomtrader]

@waichou,
This is my goal, to fix all the bugs which are found in the game.

There is no doubt that some things are easy to be fixed, some not. For sure all gamebreakers will be fixed as soon as possible. Sometimes we might skip something and move it to the next patch, just to not delay the release, or because we need more testing or improving some other parts of the game.

There are also some issues, (like historical accuracy), which I'm not able to repair, because it is working as intended so it is WAD, however as I already wrote, it will be a pleasure to lead any of you step by step and tell how to change everything what is possible to be changed in the game.

[waichou]

@Doomtrader,
I understand, and I know you will do your best for the next patch. I consider it is normal to have some bugs in a new game (wargame particulary), and if I bought the game the day it was released this is because I was sure I will enjoy it ! And my first impression is this is a very good game, and I don't mind for the minor bugs, but I considered this one as important, I think you will understand.

Thanks for your hotfix, I appreciate your efforts and the time you take to answer our questions, this is why I participate in this forum, I am sure you take our comments in consideration.

Thanks !

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: waichou

I am disappointed because now I have to wait for a patch to corrige this (I really hope this will be corriged, as some persons are saying here that this is totally normal !!), and Doomtraders seems to say that it won't be before the end of the year... I would prefer a hotfix before.

I don't think anyone has said that early Soviet entry is totally normal, for me I think that the possibility of an early Soviet entry has created a more interesting game, which I am having right now in the Fall Gelb scenario. Playing Axis v AI, I am committed to the attack on France and the USSR attacked in turn 3, I have just managed to create an encirclement in Northern France and having to judge how may units to send East. Air recon shows large Soviet forces heading my way, I've managed to cut off the first armoured spearheads, slowing them down, whilst Romania, left under AI control is fighting many more Soviet units, but how long can they hold out. Now on turn 8, Italy has joined the Axis and the British are attacking in North Africa.

I know this is not an historical outcome, but it's a great game, obviously if there is an early Soviet attack every time, then it's not a surprise any more and will ruin the game and am very pleased to see that a hotfix has been provided, but when the devs have had time work on a proper update, I hope they will consider, rather than just cutting things out, that they could be retained as an adjustable option. [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

@waichou,
This is my goal, to fix all the bugs which are found in the game.

There is no doubt that some things are easy to be fixed, some not. For sure all gamebreakers will be fixed as soon as possible. Sometimes we might skip something and move it to the next patch, just to not delay the release, or because we need more testing or improving some other parts of the game.

There are also some issues, (like historical accuracy), which I'm not able to repair, because it is working as intended so it is WAD, however as I already wrote, it will be a pleasure to lead any of you step by step and tell how to change everything what is possible to be changed in the game.

None of us want an exact replay of WWII. Most of us (including me) like these games because it does give us the chance to try different options and see what effect this has over the course of the war.

This issues I have with the game, is that the devs seemed to take any and all options are equally possible. Sea Lion, no British Home fleet, etc.Agian this is fine imho. Just do not say that the game is an historiacl simulation of WWII, because it is not (as you freely admit above). As long as that is clear to people that purchase the game, then you have been upfront and people know what they are getting.

However, there are some items that I consider that cause the game to fail in regards to realism (i.e. impossible to happen) and do not have anything to do with history (that list is much longer [:D])

- When a country surrenders, all units in that territory go into the deployment pool. They can them be placed ANYWHERE on the map regardless of sea areas and/or distance within 1 WEEK - Patch would need to fix this.
- Amphs/AKs can be built instantly - Totally not possible even today - Patch needs to add time for these units
- Supply - Units that are cut off need to get weaker and weaker and eventually die/surrender no matter where they are. Not regenerate at all. Otherwise the way the system works now, Germans could captrue Moscow, put their strongest corps in the ciy hexes, and even if the Russians capture Berlin, these unit would never die [&:] if left alone. This again has nothing to do with historical flavor, just reality. - Patch would need to address this as well.
- Naval routines - While the naval system seems to be well thought out, somehow surface ships do not seem to attack Amphs/AKs/Convoys which is how this thread got started [:)]). Subs do attack Convoys so that does work. - Patch would need to address this issue.

Until these items get fixed (I have no interest in modiing, even if I could, to address these) I will go back to other games that do not have such a disregard for the limitations of how systems in the real world actually work. Which is a shame as the game does many things that are well done and work as expected. Which of course makes these issues to be so glaring imho.

I REALLY want to stress, that none of the above has anything to do with historical timelines/events/etc. These are issues that fly in the face of how the world really works, today and then. Hopefully they will get the attention they deserve as I think a lot of people will not be happy with these as 'features' or have to mod the game to bring it back to the way this world actually works. I know I will not be.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

However, there are some items that I consider that cause the game to fail in regards to realism (i.e. impossible to happen) and do not have anything to do with history (that list is much longer [:D])

- When a country surrenders, all units in that territory go into the deployment pool. They can them be placed ANYWHERE on the map regardless of sea areas and/or distance within 1 WEEK - Patch would need to fix this.
- Amphs/AKs can be built instantly - Totally not possible even today - Patch needs to add time for these units
- Supply - Units that are cut off need to get weaker and weaker and eventually die/surrender no matter where they are. Not regenerate at all. Otherwise the way the system works now, Germans could captrue Moscow, put their strongest corps in the ciy hexes, and even if the Russians capture Berlin, these unit would never die [&:] if left alone. This again has nothing to do with historical flavor, just reality. - Patch would need to address this as well.
- Naval routines - While the naval system seems to be well thought out, somehow surface ships do not seem to attack Amphs/AKs/Convoys which is how this thread got started [:)]). Subs do attack Convoys so that does work. - Patch would need to address this issue.
I REALLY want to stress, that none of the above has anything to do with historical timelines/events/etc. These are issues that fly in the face of how the world really works, today and then. Hopefully they will get the attention they deserve as I think a lot of people will not be happy with these as 'features' or have to mod the game to bring it back to the way this world actually works. I know I will not be.

I'm totally support the surrender issue and the Amphs/AK issue; I'm fairly sure I also support that there is a problem with fleet engagements (in my game, fleets rarely meet and when they do, hits are rare as well). These issues seem like quick fixes. [:)]

I'm completely unconvinced on the supply issue. It's true that if one side gets far enough ahead in tech and PPs, they can produce units that are hard to boot out of cities. However, as long as things are close, the current siege and supply system provide the tools (i.e. aircraft, supply level limits to reinforcements, strat bmr attacks to reduce city supply, etc.) to eliminate any sort of pocketed troops fairly quickly. I fear trying to adjust the current system could put the AI and balance issues at great risk. [:-]

[Numdydar]

A simple? fix to the units that are cut off without a friendly land line to a supply source would just to have them take 20% losses a turn until around 10-20% of their initial value and then have them be eliminated. This would not require any changes to how the overall supply system worked. So this would address both the issue about out of supply units not dying and the play balance concern you raise.

Or an even simpler? fix would be that aftex x turns of being out of supply they die. Either of these would address the problem and force player (or the AI) to do something in order to prevent what happens now in the game.

[cherryfunk]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Hard or very hard would not matter with what I posted in this thread. It is the fact that the British navy is completely absent with German Amphs and AKs crossing the channel. Or when they do show up do not seem to effect my convoys or AKs at all.

This is a serious problem, and not one that modding should have to address. In the event of a German invasion, the British fleet would have steamed at top speed for the Channel to destroy the transports. That's not a historical possibility, it's a certainty, and the game AI must model this.

[Razz1]

How many times do we have to tell you?

The units posted are supplied from the city. That is the supply source.

Naval combat is correct. It is WAD.

We decided that Amphibious units and transports would run and zig zag while the fleet would do every thing in its power to protect them.

Hence, you need to sink the fleet first.

You can cry now, but when the shoe is on the other foot.. You would be crying the AI targeted your AK's and transports and sank them.

Use air power or sink the enemy fleet.

Will, your problem with fleets is in the strategy guide or manual.

You need to detect the fleet.

The AI fleet that is set to evade is hard to detect.

There are many ways to detect a fleet . Look at the manual.

[rodney727]

If you want a real historical feeling, play USA, very Easy, UK normal, USSR very easy, then set all Axis to very hard and just play the Germans. I can tell you this, there won't be any Sea Lion, and the fight for Russia will be hard. I can play on normal and very easy too and take the UK in 1940 and Moscow in 1941, but where is the fun in that?

[rodney727]

Let's say bf you invaded, you used your Tac Bomber army and took out most of UK's Navy? What then?

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Hard or very hard would not matter with what I posted in this thread. It is the fact that the British navy is completely absent with German Amphs and AKs crossing the channel. Or when they do show up do not seem to effect my convoys or AKs at all.

This is a serious problem, and not one that modding should have to address. In the event of a German invasion, the British fleet would have steamed at top speed for the Channel to destroy the transports. That's not a historical possibility, it's a certainty, and the game AI must model this.

[rodney727]

This is a good idea!

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

A simple? fix to the units that are cut off without a friendly land line to a supply source would just to have them take 20% losses a turn until around 10-20% of their initial value and then have them be eliminated. This would not require any changes to how the overall supply system worked. So this would address both the issue about out of supply units not dying and the play balance concern you raise.

Or an even simpler? fix would be that aftex x turns of being out of supply they die. Either of these would address the problem and force player (or the AI) to do something in order to prevent what happens now in the game.