General
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:59 pm
I was more than a little discouraged and disappointed this morning as I read the new threads, posts and replies. I know many people are working hard to resolve these issues.
I can’t help but wonder if many of the issues are related to historical accuracy over actual game play.
The community seems quite active on these issues.
My experience has taught me that many of the systems are quite playable and engaging. A few experiences have led me to believe that improvements are both available and necessary.
Air/Naval
I’ve found that if one examines the Air/Naval system of combat in all of its aspects, then a general strategy can be achieved. This strategy includes acceptable losses in both naval and air strength factors. How can it not? Given the actual system of deployment and combat between these units the operational scale appears adequate.
...the only exception to this system that I have is the interception range and capabilities of fleet units to invasion hexes. Currently the full movement capabilities of fleets are used, which is 2. Interception appears to be automatic.
This creates wildly unbalanced interceptions of invasion attempts. First of all, with a movement allowance of 2, why should a fleet based in the Egyptian port of Alexandria in the East Mediterranean be allowed automatic interception of an invading force of Libya in the Central Mediterranean, or any other invasion within the 2 MP naval allowances?...
Interception combat should be limited to actual opposing Fleets in the Sea Zone exhibiting invasion.
This would increase the operational playability of naval units as well as the strategic deployment playability of Air units.
Reinforcements
...I am at a loss to determine why event based non naval reinforcements are even an issue. It seems clear to me that this is designed to represent historical reinforcements based on availability....
If any issue is at hand, it is the one that determines what events lead to these reinforcements becoming available.
...static or otherwise, if one knows these reinforcements become available, regardless of faction, then it becomes another system within the game that is playable. Simply plan for it...
Artificial Intelligence
AI not perfect. Surprised? Hardly. The difficulty settings will allow for comparing yourself to the AI. These are highly manipulative and one should experiment extensively before rendering an absolute opinon on the AI.
...that being said, there are several issues of the AI doing things ahistorically or "out of whack". This based wholly on the assuming players knowledge of the course of historical events. Simply because my knowledge tells me that historically the Germans didn't attack Russia until late July 1941 doesn't preclude the AI from prohibiting the Russians from any overt action towards Germany. Likewise, the German may determine that the time is never right for Barbarossa.
The point is that it is our own perceptions of history that handicap the AI, not the game systems. Simply knowing that the AI is going to do what it perceives in its own best interest based on the information it has is all that one can ask....
Repetition alone should be enough to make this playable.
Multiplay PBEM
I will sum up the multiplayer PBEM system in a single statement.
Any game with a requirement that players actively manipulate the game files in order to complete a game turn is…by definition…..broken!
The PBEM systems need to be fixed...ASAP. Multiplay is where this game will shine.
........
I've found several of the mods quite helpful. I currently use Carnimods units with Uxbridge's map and ETO scenario. I am especially taken with the unique functionality of the Trade Port box and its ramifications. The restricted economy in ETO is also quite playable. Keep it up.
I understand that many of you have played this game extensivley and found several issues not quite up to your "groggy" tastes. Taking steps to change these is what will eventually bring us to the uptopian mod. (LOL)
That's absolutely cool with me.
In the interim there is plenty of game to be played. Solo play is solo play. Worrying about when those Siberian reinforcements are arriving is part of the Axis doctrine. If it isn't.......I guess we can expect to see a post about an "ahistorical" reinforcement that somehow upsets the "balance" of someones game, multiplay or solo.
The same can be said for the Kriegsmarine rushing into the North Sea and the Atlantic Zones in 1939. If that's what the game is.......game on.
There is no reason to not play simply because one doesn't agree with the historical accuracy of the game. Using the existing systems and information, however you might aquire it, is part of the playing experience.
[/b]It's a game![/b]
...notice I made no reference to historically accurate capabilities, only game play capabilities based on existing systems....
comments welcome
I can’t help but wonder if many of the issues are related to historical accuracy over actual game play.
The community seems quite active on these issues.
My experience has taught me that many of the systems are quite playable and engaging. A few experiences have led me to believe that improvements are both available and necessary.
Air/Naval
I’ve found that if one examines the Air/Naval system of combat in all of its aspects, then a general strategy can be achieved. This strategy includes acceptable losses in both naval and air strength factors. How can it not? Given the actual system of deployment and combat between these units the operational scale appears adequate.
...the only exception to this system that I have is the interception range and capabilities of fleet units to invasion hexes. Currently the full movement capabilities of fleets are used, which is 2. Interception appears to be automatic.
This creates wildly unbalanced interceptions of invasion attempts. First of all, with a movement allowance of 2, why should a fleet based in the Egyptian port of Alexandria in the East Mediterranean be allowed automatic interception of an invading force of Libya in the Central Mediterranean, or any other invasion within the 2 MP naval allowances?...
Interception combat should be limited to actual opposing Fleets in the Sea Zone exhibiting invasion.
This would increase the operational playability of naval units as well as the strategic deployment playability of Air units.
Reinforcements
...I am at a loss to determine why event based non naval reinforcements are even an issue. It seems clear to me that this is designed to represent historical reinforcements based on availability....
If any issue is at hand, it is the one that determines what events lead to these reinforcements becoming available.
...static or otherwise, if one knows these reinforcements become available, regardless of faction, then it becomes another system within the game that is playable. Simply plan for it...
Artificial Intelligence
AI not perfect. Surprised? Hardly. The difficulty settings will allow for comparing yourself to the AI. These are highly manipulative and one should experiment extensively before rendering an absolute opinon on the AI.
...that being said, there are several issues of the AI doing things ahistorically or "out of whack". This based wholly on the assuming players knowledge of the course of historical events. Simply because my knowledge tells me that historically the Germans didn't attack Russia until late July 1941 doesn't preclude the AI from prohibiting the Russians from any overt action towards Germany. Likewise, the German may determine that the time is never right for Barbarossa.
The point is that it is our own perceptions of history that handicap the AI, not the game systems. Simply knowing that the AI is going to do what it perceives in its own best interest based on the information it has is all that one can ask....
Repetition alone should be enough to make this playable.
Multiplay PBEM
I will sum up the multiplayer PBEM system in a single statement.
Any game with a requirement that players actively manipulate the game files in order to complete a game turn is…by definition…..broken!
The PBEM systems need to be fixed...ASAP. Multiplay is where this game will shine.
........
I've found several of the mods quite helpful. I currently use Carnimods units with Uxbridge's map and ETO scenario. I am especially taken with the unique functionality of the Trade Port box and its ramifications. The restricted economy in ETO is also quite playable. Keep it up.
I understand that many of you have played this game extensivley and found several issues not quite up to your "groggy" tastes. Taking steps to change these is what will eventually bring us to the uptopian mod. (LOL)
That's absolutely cool with me.
In the interim there is plenty of game to be played. Solo play is solo play. Worrying about when those Siberian reinforcements are arriving is part of the Axis doctrine. If it isn't.......I guess we can expect to see a post about an "ahistorical" reinforcement that somehow upsets the "balance" of someones game, multiplay or solo.
The same can be said for the Kriegsmarine rushing into the North Sea and the Atlantic Zones in 1939. If that's what the game is.......game on.
There is no reason to not play simply because one doesn't agree with the historical accuracy of the game. Using the existing systems and information, however you might aquire it, is part of the playing experience.
[/b]It's a game![/b]
...notice I made no reference to historically accurate capabilities, only game play capabilities based on existing systems....
comments welcome