Matrix Games Forums

G'day all, I know this only a game. A game I am enjoying, there are a few nigglely things in the game that can be overlooked, however, I find this issue beyond the realms of any possibility. I am playing the Germans and have Italians under my control as well so I can control the sea battles of the Mediterranean. I have control of Alexandria and in about mid 1941 the city come under air attack by US aircraft, who had declared war on the Axis a month or so earlier. This is not an issue, however the 17 battleships and 15 carriers are, all in the east Mediterranean, off the coast of Egypt. The thing that is really on the nose in this issue are I don't believe the US economy and industry would have the ability to build that many capital ships, and the Japanese threat in Asia obviously not modelled. If this is the case Germany is going to struggle more so than in real life. What compounds this issue is the inability of the German player to sail ships through the Straits of Gibraltar.
The game needs to place a ceiling on the number of aircraft troops and ships sent the European theatre, adjusted on a year to year basis. Have others experienced this serious imbalance?
Ron

Feedback with such informations is really much appreciated BASB.
This will help us to improve the game balance and make it more fun for you.
Thanks a lot.

There should rarely, if ever, be enough fuel for the RM to decide to all act in the same GT. Historically, what little fuel there was was supplied by Germany, and she was so miserly that the majority of the big ships had only enough bunkerage to keep their power plants on minimal levels to provide onboard power.

I doubt this is represented in the game, however.

Your point about the large USN presence, however, is not as valid as you might think.

FDR and Churchill agreed on a Germany First policy, historically, and expended 85% of US resources in/for the ETO. If the Germans and Italians had actually achieved what you have, then, however, I believe they would have been more proactive with their Navy and transferred many more vessels into the ETO.

So, in effect, I believe what you are experiencing is the game system WAD.

(Of course, I in no way whatsoever, speak for the designers!)

Phil

Sorry Phil may have to disagree with you there, I think the USN would not have had 17 battleships and 15 large carriers in 1941, at least not to spare in the ETO, especially with the knowledge of the Japanese military build up in Asia, and not after the bombing of PH.
The other thing you must keep in mind, if AI allows the US to send that many warships to the ETO then its going to send as many Divisions and Corps to the theatre as well, because there doesn't appear to a mechanism it place to cater for the drain of manpower due to needs of PTO.
Ron

Plese be aware that the small part of the US, represents only part of the potential output of American Factories, so the part of the US resources used for PTO, are just not in the game.

That's fair enough Doom, 15 carriers bombing the crapper out Alexandria is disproportionate to what should be available to the Med fleets. In 35 capital warships and associated escorts placed in the Atlantic would kill off the U boat threat there well and truly before historic date.
It's good to have flexibility in a war game like TOF, but there must be some creditability, in features such as OOB, industry and politics. There was a grand strategy war game released last year that lost all creditability when a Sth American countries stared declaring war on land locked European countries. I'm not suggesting TOF is anywhere that bad.
Ron

I'm hoping so, on the other hand, one of the common strategy in HoI2, when playing as Germans, was declaring a war against some locked country like Tibet, so you get war boost to industry.

From my personal experience all games at this scale have got some exploits. Some of them might be corrected without any harm to the gameplay, but some might just kill replayability or cripple the AI so much, that the game will be no longer fun.

Actually the game I was referring to, was Making History 2, in my opinion a waste of good money. I've never played HIO2. I really enjoy TOF, I like its simplicity, yet a game of reasonable depth. I am sure it will get a lot better as we go, certainly playable out the packet. I have no complaints, as i said earlier just little things that you make grit your teeth occasionally . Its good to chat with the developer of a game, and if one can offer some suggestions and see improvement through them, all is well and good, but if these things are not changed to one likings, I'm not one for picking up my bat and going home, I'll still likely hang around. 

May be there can the odd event that makes the US withdraw forces from ETO to meet the needs in the PTO or something like that, but I think the best is to cap the US forces colse to historic figures.

Yes, but the AI cheats in most games, so I am not surprised it does so in an over the top way in this one.

However, you have probably hit an important nail on the head. I think the production times for the various vessels is mostly OK, but there were historical constraints as to how many could be built at any given time.

(For example, it has been suggested many time on soc.history.what-if that if Germany cancelled pretty much everything bigger than a DD built after 1933 and built SSs instead, they would beat the RN handily in the Battle of the Atlantic ... only to be quashed each and every time by reference to the fact that the number of *military* slipways freed by such cancellation could only result in a very modest production increase ... and, of course, the rolling mills and ironworks that produced specialist armour plate for the big guys were useless when it comes to producing SSs, and a whole lot of things like that).

So, really, with cheating AIs and no build limits, it may not be entirely realistic, but it is WAD, more or less, I suspect.

What the designers should probably do, especially with naval vessels, is require a build up of capacity ... rather like Grigsby's WaW ... so, if you want to build 5 DDs this turn, you can't if you built none last turn ... you can only build one, then two the next turn, then three and so on. That sort of change, modified for the fact that you've got weekly instead of quarterly turns would be a good idea and, if forced on the AI, reduce the chance of weird happenings such as you have encountered.

Phil

Making History, both 1 and 2, though touted as being accurate representations of Historical reality are both really fantasy games with counters that look like WW2 soldiers, tanks and planes, and a somewhat accurate map of the world, where nothing works in any way even vaguely resembling reality.

HoI3 was so broken at release that it was actually impossible to play for a month or more and, even after the two patches that are all Paradox ever put, regardless of how broken the game is, it is still no more than a fantasy game on a map that vaguely resembles reality. The release of its successor, blowed if I remember the name, allegedly fixed all the bugs that were never fixed in HoI3, but, since Paradox fanboys have limited understanding of reality, I didn't bother buying it. In fact, I haven't bought another Paradox game since, except for Pride of Nations, which is really an AGEOD game, anyway ... and the only "Paradox" games that I'll buy in future will actually be AGEOD games, assuming they don't get forced into the same broken mould that Paradox developers seem to operate out of.

Really, Matrix games is the only marketer of decent computer wargames, and Time of Fury epitomises the difference, despite relatively minor, and probably moddable, shortcomings ... it actually seems to have the capacity to ...

a) work out of the box

and

b) represent something reasonably broadly resembling historical reality

Money well spent, compared to wasted money on MH/1-2 and HOI3!

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Phil

A cap sounds like the way to go. For the US to have 15 large carriers anywhere in the ETO in 1941 is just unthinkable. Wow, that would be kind of rough-- going to all the trouble to take N. Africa and then a "super fleet" rises from the mists to to pound you. I think I've read a few SciFi stories along those lines... [:)]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

HoI3 was so broken at release that it was actually impossible to play for a month or more and, even after the two patches that are all Paradox ever put, regardless of how broken the game is, it is still no more than a fantasy game on a map that vaguely resembles reality. The release of its successor, blowed if I remember the name, allegedly fixed all the bugs that were never fixed in HoI3, but, since Paradox fanboys have limited understanding of reality, I didn't bother buying it.

Money well spent, compared to wasted money on MH/1-2 and HOI3!

True about HOI3 on release but all issues have been fixed,but you cant realley compare ToF to HOI3.One covers in detail the entire globe,as for price HOI3 with all exspansions is selling for $10 usd right now compared to ToF price of $52.ToF is "light" in scope and detail more "beer and pretzels" but when I want something with a lot of micro managment I prefer HOI3 or even AoD.Cant realley compare them,totally different and unfair and non sensical to make a comparison at all.It would be like comparing SoP to WitPAE.Non sense.

I think a cap on naval units is necessary

for both sides.

I am playing a test game as Allies, and have sunk massive numbers of German and Italian BB's & CA's. In real life, if the Germans had built as many ships as I have sunk, there would have been no steel available for tanks.

I think you should begin to impose some build limits on all the powers. This means air, naval, tank and infantry.

Are you sure they are all american carriers? Some could be British.

Can you post a saved game here?

I'd like to check to see if a past bug reoccurred.

Also, if you are relying on the information in the sea zone box... It is notorious inaccurate on purpose. A reconnoiter will reveal something closer to the truth.

However, a successful reconnoiter in a sea zone with a few AC's is very difficult to achieve.

The sea zone box misinformation is WAD. Why? Because in WW2 correct information was hard to get.

It just may be only 3 USA carriers in the Med.

the numbers dont sound right for 41, possibly for 43 44, but that is a lot of fleet carriers.. now smaller carreirs perhaps.

ORIGINAL: BASB

...... however the 17 battleships and 15 carriers are......

Warspite1

[X(]

I'm keeping a close eye on this game as a potential purchase, but that sort of feedback is a tad concerning. What carriers are these? Did the Essex-class get speedied up or what?

Don't worry.

I was noticing the same thing and was about to check it when this thread popped up.

The Gremlin is fixed. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Razz

Don't worry.

I was noticing the same thing and was about to check it when this thread popped up.

The Gremlin is fixed. [:D]

Razz u don't a need a save anymore, can send one if you like. Just to clarify a point here, this info wasn't gathered from the sea zone boxes, it all started when I was in the naval battle phase, when the series of battles, CVs kept on popping up. I saved the game on Turn 98 and restarted it having the Brits and yanks on human control. I went the Unit management and gathered the following info.
1. The Brits had 8 carriers which one was a fleet carrier four of them stationed just inside the Mediterranean, close to the straits.
2. The USN have 15 carriers, which one is a fleet carrier. All fifteen are stationed in the south east Mediterranean sea box.
3. An interesting point about the carriers are, all but one has been at sea 98 turns, as it was suggested ships should return to port after about 10 turns for refuelling or suffer servere penalties. Again two things these ships should be very empty fuel wise, and suffering massive penalties in attack, something they don't appear to do. (haven't confirmed this as yet as I don't how to). Something isn't NQR

bug ?