Why have the WA and Soviets as one player?

[sapper_astro]

I ask this because it seems not only silly and grossly innacurate, but also gives a massive advantage to a Human Allies player. This has put me off buying Strategic Command, and now this game.

I can live with, and understand, why the US get morphed with the British, and even the Germans and Italians (though they hardly did anything in concert) but the Western Allies and the Soviets? Two totally different systems, with their own agendas.

And the poor Axis AI versus a hiveminded, totally coordinated East/West front commanded by a human? Yes, it can be frustrating seeing an AI allie do idiotic things, but that has always been part of the challenge to me, and is even somewhat historical. Imagine the face palming (screaming more likely) that Hitler did when he heard that Japan had attacked the US when I am fairly certain he was wishing for an attack against the Soviets from them.

If the devs could just let me know what the design decision behind it is, I might see more clearly. As it stands, unless you cannot even take the thought of some control not being at your fingertips, the current decision in this matter makes little sense from just about any angle.

[Magpius]

Given your position, you would probably be better off looking at WW2 Road to Victory, (soon to be Time of Wrath).
given you can play any combination you wish.

[sapper_astro]

I will have to check it out then.

Have you played it yourself? How do you find it?

[Magpius]

Yep,
I've played 'em.
I'd rate 'em thus.
C.E.A.W.: 'bout 7/10. Pros: Great interface, clean, logical game play sequence, does convoys well, straightforward tech. tree. Cons. Doesn't play on my eeePC[:)], AI ignores North Africa, still getting rare crash to desktop. Can't stack units, can't combine units for single attack.
A little like Strategic Command 1. Fun to play
WW2 RTV: 'bout 8/10 Pros: Massive Map. Really daunting, makes some games feel simply claustrophobic, combine untis to attack, Play any country, swap sides mid game, simple tech tree. Cons: a more abstracted naval system than CEAW, has had plenty of criticism on the forum. AI had a tendency to cluster around cities when pressured. (in answer to your other question. Time of Wrath is a different game to WW2rtv. For people who bought WW2rtv before a certain date, they get a free upgrade. I'd recomend you wait till they release TOW, as it looks like it will be much improved over WW2rtv.) Check out the really good AAR's for a feel of the pbem play.
hope this helps.

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro

I ask this because it seems not only silly and grossly innacurate, but also gives a massive advantage to a Human Allies player. This has put me off buying Strategic Command, and now this game.

I can live with, and understand, why the US get morphed with the British, and even the Germans and Italians (though they hardly did anything in concert) but the Western Allies and the Soviets? Two totally different systems, with their own agendas.

And the poor Axis AI versus a hiveminded, totally coordinated East/West front commanded by a human? Yes, it can be frustrating seeing an AI allie do idiotic things, but that has always been part of the challenge to me, and is even somewhat historical. Imagine the face palming (screaming more likely) that Hitler did when he heard that Japan had attacked the US when I am fairly certain he was wishing for an attack against the Soviets from them.

If the devs could just let me know what the design decision behind it is, I might see more clearly. As it stands, unless you cannot even take the thought of some control not being at your fingertips, the current decision in this matter makes little sense from just about any angle.

Since game is designed for 2 players, that is why USSR was included into the Allied faction. A game for 3 players or more has to be desinged very differently so we had to choose this early on and make all rules adopting to that decision.

[sapper_astro]

Thank you to both of you for the answers you have supplied. I will think on these two games for a while and weigh up the pro's and con's.

[HansHafen]

Thanks for a really fun game guys! It's not perfect, but I haven't found a perfect one yet.

[miral]

Actually, when Hitler heard of Pearl Harbor he was overjoyed and hastened to declare war on US. He vastly overated the power of Japan ("now that we have an ally who has not been defeated in 3600 years we cannot lose" he proclaimed) and thought that Japan would divert most of America's strength to the Pacific. See Weinberg, A World at Arms.

But you are more generally right about allies. What set Hilter wild was Mussolini's attack on Greece. But the myth that Barbarossa was delayed a month or more and so failed because of the conquest of the Balkans has been disposed of many times over the years. Because of weather and a number of other factors the attack could not have launched before it was.

And I agree that the WA and the Soviets should not be lumped as one.

[PDiFolco]

I don't see the WA+Soviet under same player as a big problem. First they were obvious allies in that none of them could allow the other to go down vs Germany, second they were far enough to not really coordinate anything before end'44.
Same in the game : soviet sleeps until Barbarossa, then WA has to help USSR by Lend lease without spending too much, still has to fight in Africa and prepare for retaking W Europe. But each fights on his own, Soviets cannot send troops to the West and GB has not enough troops to do it usefully...