Some things happened in a recent PBEM game that have killed this game for me:
Australia (or India or whatever remote place somewhere around the globe) invades Italy through a German occupied Suez. The Italian navy retreats to Vichy France, effectively destroyed as they are locked for the rest of the game. Chinese invade Russia. It is just laughable.
I am visiting my dad for the 4th, who was in the army in 1945, and when I told him about these things his quote was "that doesn't sound like the World War II I remember". 'Nuff said.
The single biggest problem is the invasion problem. There needs to be SOME limit to the ability to pull every single unit from all over the globe and invade wherever you want on a whim. Even Axis and Allies handles invasions better, and that's embarassing.
The Vichy thing is a bug plain and simple. Italians are as likely to retreat to Marseille as Brits are to retreat to Kiel. Bug.
The liberation rules need to be enforced no matter who owned the territory prior to the attack, or attacks amongst allies need to be prohibited. This one isn't that big a deal, it's just odd to see China invade Russia. If China has to give Russian territory back to Russia if it was Jap owned, why can they then take it if it's Russian owned? Bug.
The sub war also needs looked at. It just doesn't "feel" right. Most sub warfare should be defensive in nature (i.e. subs attack, destroyer escorts sink them), not offensive (i.e. destroyers sortie out, sink subs then return whence they came).
All in all, there are serious issues (especially the invasion problem) with this game that ruin it's tremendous potential.
Game killing problems
Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen
-
JanSorensen
- Posts: 2536
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:18 pm
- Location: Aalborg, Denmark
RE: Game killing problems
The liberation rules need to be enforced no matter who owned the territory prior to the attack, or attacks amongst allies need to be prohibited. This one isn't that big a deal, it's just odd to see China invade Russia. If China has to give Russian territory back to Russia if it was Jap owned, why can they then take it if it's Russian owned? Bug.
You are getting penalties for invading from afar. You still need to recall though that this is over a 3 month period. You dont exactly put the troops into the assault vessels down under. Rather you ferry them to somewhere close by and then make the invasion.
The Vichy retreat sounds annoying. Was it the last Italian controlled territory that was taken?
Chinese invade Russia. Sounds like a bug - could you elaborate a bit? Did the Chinese attack a Russian controlled territory? If so - how did you make that happen?
RE: Game killing problems
Have you upgraded to the 1.40 patch? This might help with some of the problems.
RE: Game killing problems
The incidents in question are all quite "gamey" in nature and happened as a result of you playing well!!
I have to agree with your points being "game killers" so to speak but a lesson in the fact that yes, like chess this is still a game.
The funny thing is the reason that these incidents occured was because you pulled of a successful spring invasion of Russia, catching them with their provibial research pants around their ankles [X(] with most of their production spent on research that was never going to be utilized.
Summer 41 and Japan has taken the east and now has 10 + units knocking on the Urals. Germany has the Russian north and has backed the Red Army to Moscow with enough units to smash through and virtually eliminate the Russians by Winter/Spring42.
In addition to this 6 new u-boats just parked of Eastern Canada made the Allies postion for Russian aid quite futile...
On my summer turn the first thing the Wallies do is consolidate their transports to escape the sub threat. 1 sub off Madagascar forces the Wallies to do the same in the Indian ocean. I had retreated my naval units 2 turns beforehand from Cairo (now German held) and still had the 2 BB 2 DD in the Indian ocean. I retreated from Egypt so I could reinforce Gibralter, which turns out to be the key to this whole kafufful. With the full court press about to consume Russia you positioned your entire med fleet in the west med and had a transport in central and east.
While moving my transports up away from the sub I reveal Cairo to hold only 2 militia. Ok then ...lets move a BB into the red sea and fly my tac bomber from Ethiopia and attack it....2 dead militia. I move up and lib Cairo, I move my second BB up and kill the transports in the east med.... its at this point FOW reveals that the only units in Italy are in the north (1 AA 1 Stuka) South Italy is guarded by an opel. So instead of taking my 2 DD's in the Indian trolling for sub, I move them into the central med with a couple transport and attack the opel with militia....Southern Italy captured.
At this point I look at all the transports I just moved off gibralter to escape the subs and I look at my 3 CAG's with 10 or so BB's/DD's. I look at the med again...I have the Italian navy (3BB/3DD/2 sub) surrounded, and remember I'm looking at the single AA/ Stuka defending Northern Italy. What to do? Russia is about to fall and with them the entire game, more subs than you can handle just broke free into the Atlantic. What to do?
I move all Wally ships to attack from Gibralter (15 or so ships/planes) and the analyser sez 86% chance of success. Italian navy retreats to you know where. Wallies now control the entire med. Northen Italian AA garrison is overwhelmed...Italy Falls.
Upon reflection an AA/Arty in Cairo and/or spaced out fleet in the med and you'd be proud as punch with a smashing WaW pbem victory. However, you smelt Russian blood and threw caution to the wind and moved every available unit to deal the death blow. That sort of does sound a little like the WWII i remember.... I know I can't sit on the fence but felt I needed to justify my less than historic unit movements. You've been buggered by limitations of game mechanics. Sorry to be responsible for blowing the illusion.
I have to agree with your points being "game killers" so to speak but a lesson in the fact that yes, like chess this is still a game.
The funny thing is the reason that these incidents occured was because you pulled of a successful spring invasion of Russia, catching them with their provibial research pants around their ankles [X(] with most of their production spent on research that was never going to be utilized.
Summer 41 and Japan has taken the east and now has 10 + units knocking on the Urals. Germany has the Russian north and has backed the Red Army to Moscow with enough units to smash through and virtually eliminate the Russians by Winter/Spring42.
In addition to this 6 new u-boats just parked of Eastern Canada made the Allies postion for Russian aid quite futile...
On my summer turn the first thing the Wallies do is consolidate their transports to escape the sub threat. 1 sub off Madagascar forces the Wallies to do the same in the Indian ocean. I had retreated my naval units 2 turns beforehand from Cairo (now German held) and still had the 2 BB 2 DD in the Indian ocean. I retreated from Egypt so I could reinforce Gibralter, which turns out to be the key to this whole kafufful. With the full court press about to consume Russia you positioned your entire med fleet in the west med and had a transport in central and east.
While moving my transports up away from the sub I reveal Cairo to hold only 2 militia. Ok then ...lets move a BB into the red sea and fly my tac bomber from Ethiopia and attack it....2 dead militia. I move up and lib Cairo, I move my second BB up and kill the transports in the east med.... its at this point FOW reveals that the only units in Italy are in the north (1 AA 1 Stuka) South Italy is guarded by an opel. So instead of taking my 2 DD's in the Indian trolling for sub, I move them into the central med with a couple transport and attack the opel with militia....Southern Italy captured.
At this point I look at all the transports I just moved off gibralter to escape the subs and I look at my 3 CAG's with 10 or so BB's/DD's. I look at the med again...I have the Italian navy (3BB/3DD/2 sub) surrounded, and remember I'm looking at the single AA/ Stuka defending Northern Italy. What to do? Russia is about to fall and with them the entire game, more subs than you can handle just broke free into the Atlantic. What to do?
I move all Wally ships to attack from Gibralter (15 or so ships/planes) and the analyser sez 86% chance of success. Italian navy retreats to you know where. Wallies now control the entire med. Northen Italian AA garrison is overwhelmed...Italy Falls.
Upon reflection an AA/Arty in Cairo and/or spaced out fleet in the med and you'd be proud as punch with a smashing WaW pbem victory. However, you smelt Russian blood and threw caution to the wind and moved every available unit to deal the death blow. That sort of does sound a little like the WWII i remember.... I know I can't sit on the fence but felt I needed to justify my less than historic unit movements. You've been buggered by limitations of game mechanics. Sorry to be responsible for blowing the illusion.
RE: Game killing problems
A side note on the Mongolia issue : The previous turn Chinese units attacked and retreated Japanese units from Mongolia. When asked if i wanted to occupy area I clicked no ( territory reverts to Russian controlled, Chinese units move away). On the next turn much to my surprise I was able to move Chinese units into Mongolia and again asked if I wanted to occupy, I clicked yes. Surprised the hell outta me too.
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: t3mplarKn1ght
There needs to be SOME limit to the ability to pull every single unit from all over the globe and invade wherever you want on a whim.
There is, you have to have enough shipping and a continueous link from invasion ports to invasion site.
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: Fazman
Upon reflection an AA/Arty in Cairo and/or spaced out fleet in the med and you'd be proud as punch with a smashing WaW pbem victory. However, you smelt Russian blood and threw caution to the wind and moved every available unit to deal the death blow. That sort of does sound a little like the WWII i remember.... I know I can't sit on the fence but felt I needed to justify my less than historic unit movements. You've been buggered by limitations of game mechanics. Sorry to be responsible for blowing the illusion.
Funny he failed to mention this aspects when he brought this supposed problem up. I wonder what his dad would have said if he had told him the Japanese invaded the USSR and Germany invaded in the Spring. "That doesn't sound like the WW2 I remember."
He made an unhistorical play and as you said, threw caution to the wind, and now complains about an unhistorical countermove. Not much sympathy here from me nor most of this crowd, I suspect
RE: Game killing problems
Aaaww!~ I have some sympathy!
There are indeed game mechanics that don't "make sense" but I do understand why they're there. And 2x3's addressed several issues already, so there's hope for this game to get even better!!
Thanks much to Fazman and TemplarKnight for this interesting account
I too keep complaining about invasions, but few seem concerned...
Many folks are complaining about the sub warfare problems, so perhaps that'll get looked at.
There are indeed game mechanics that don't "make sense" but I do understand why they're there. And 2x3's addressed several issues already, so there's hope for this game to get even better!!
Thanks much to Fazman and TemplarKnight for this interesting account
I too keep complaining about invasions, but few seem concerned...
Many folks are complaining about the sub warfare problems, so perhaps that'll get looked at.
No Will but Thy Will
No Law but the Laws You make
No Law but the Laws You make
-
t3mplarKn1ght
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:32 am
RE: Game killing problems
Yes, 1.40 patch.
I am not discussing any specifics of any game, so Faz can toss his comments right out the window. Our game is not worth discussing because I made some gaffes due to the fact I am on vacation, and was trying to get a turn in quickly late at night. I was as surprised as Faz was I forgot to replace the militia in Italy. Any further discussions of the specifics of our game are totally off topic (and poor debate tactics to redirect the point).
And I will ignore the Trolls in this thread, I have no sympathy for Trolls.
I am discussing specific game mechanics that I find sorely lacking.
The fact is the Brits have Chief Engineer Scotty and can teleport anywhere they want anytime they want. I have no interest in playing Star Trek WWII.
This game is a guaranteed win for any competent Allied player. I told Faz that I thought that was the case on turn 2 of our game. It was quickly obvious to me that the Axis has to defend EVERY area as if it was Calais. The British threat extends to all corners of the globe. Between carrier air and battleship bombardment, they can clear any lightly defended zone and just waltz in with an invasion from Timbuktu. The ability of carrier air and battleships to clear a zone of all defenders is BS. The ability to mass transports whereever you want instantly is BS. The ability to invade from halfway around the world is BS.
The game fails in this regard as both a simulation of WWII, and as a game design. The naval rules mean the Wallies will win every game, barring Axis AV tactics (ignore USA and Russia go for AV by neutrals), and barring any major mistakes by the Wally player. I can deal with bugs (Vichy Italians and Chinese invasions of Russia), but the core design flaws in the naval (and to a lesser extent tech) rules kill this game.
Jeff
T3mplarKn1ght
I am not discussing any specifics of any game, so Faz can toss his comments right out the window. Our game is not worth discussing because I made some gaffes due to the fact I am on vacation, and was trying to get a turn in quickly late at night. I was as surprised as Faz was I forgot to replace the militia in Italy. Any further discussions of the specifics of our game are totally off topic (and poor debate tactics to redirect the point).
And I will ignore the Trolls in this thread, I have no sympathy for Trolls.
I am discussing specific game mechanics that I find sorely lacking.
The fact is the Brits have Chief Engineer Scotty and can teleport anywhere they want anytime they want. I have no interest in playing Star Trek WWII.
This game is a guaranteed win for any competent Allied player. I told Faz that I thought that was the case on turn 2 of our game. It was quickly obvious to me that the Axis has to defend EVERY area as if it was Calais. The British threat extends to all corners of the globe. Between carrier air and battleship bombardment, they can clear any lightly defended zone and just waltz in with an invasion from Timbuktu. The ability of carrier air and battleships to clear a zone of all defenders is BS. The ability to mass transports whereever you want instantly is BS. The ability to invade from halfway around the world is BS.
The game fails in this regard as both a simulation of WWII, and as a game design. The naval rules mean the Wallies will win every game, barring Axis AV tactics (ignore USA and Russia go for AV by neutrals), and barring any major mistakes by the Wally player. I can deal with bugs (Vichy Italians and Chinese invasions of Russia), but the core design flaws in the naval (and to a lesser extent tech) rules kill this game.
Jeff
T3mplarKn1ght
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: t3mplarKn1ght
The fact is the Brits have Chief Engineer Scotty and can teleport anywhere they want anytime they want. I have no interest in playing Star Trek WWII.
This, in my opinion, is an inaccurate characterization of the actual game mechanic. It requires trememdous resources (in the form of transport ships) to allow transportation of troops around the globe, with an increasing required transports for longer distances. These transports (and their cargo) are vunlerable to subs attacks, further complicating the ability to transport over longer distances. Finally, as previously mentioned, each turn currently represents 3 months of 'real time': this can hardly be likened to 'teleporting'.
In fact, the transport method is quite simliar to 'strategic moves' of land units that is CONVENTION in many strategic level WWII board games.
While I feel that the current method may 'feel' strange that troops are invading from so far away, the advantage of keeping the game play simple, with the premise that such invasions assume a three+ month planning period before the actual invasion, strikes a decent balance between 'feel' and 'practicality'. If this feels too artificial, one could suggest that actual invasions can only occur over 1 - 2 sea areas. This would have the advantage of alerting the defender where an invasion is likely to occur (since they would see a buildup on land first), but the disadvantage of slowing the Pacific War to something unrealistically too slow.
This game is a guaranteed win for any competent Allied player.
What is the basis for this? In many other posts, players bemoan the fact that (sub) research makes this game a guaranteed win for the Axis. My point is that there are many players (including my group) that are finding that despite the game issues you describe, are finding the game balanced, and more importantly, having a fun time playing it.
It was quickly obvious to me that the Axis has to defend EVERY area as if it was Calais.
Just a friendly piece of advice from an experienced war gamer: 'he who defends everything defends nothing.'
The game fails in this regard as both a simulation of WWII, and as a game design.
You are certainly entitled to this opinion, but this doesn't change the fact that this is, to my knowledge, the best strategic-level WWII simulation PC game at the current time. I've been waiting 20+ years, after playing my first games of 'World in Flames' (3rd edition), for a way of playing a game that simulated WWII, included both Europe AND Pacific theaters, and yet did not have the overbearing complexity that would scare away any of my friends from trying it. I've been disappointed by many other failed attempts (including HOI), and still holding up hope for the computer WiF that I've been following for the last 7 years. WaW, with all of its flaws, hits nearest the mark. And I post my responses not as any personal attack, but to present the 'other side of the argument' for potential buyers. I'm very happy with the work Matrix has done, and encourage those of you who are thinking of buying the game, to look at these 'Game ruined' posts in the apporpriate light.
BTW, I have no commericial interests re: this game or any other Matrix game product.
Mot D
Mot Demonslayer
RE: Game killing problems
Excellent post CMSamson:
I would have to agree with every word you wrote. I find the game extremely balanced in 1.040 with the only exception being AV should be checked at the end of WA movement phase.
Defending GE against a competent Allied player is tough (as it should be). Keeping an eye on the Allies capability and countering it or making his attacks extremely expensive is the best way to defend in my oppinion.
Just because he gets ashore does not mean all is lost. If you can break his link home, then all units you damage in Europe are destroyed!
Just had to add my 2cents, as I do not see any game killing problems.
-MrQuiet
I would have to agree with every word you wrote. I find the game extremely balanced in 1.040 with the only exception being AV should be checked at the end of WA movement phase.
Defending GE against a competent Allied player is tough (as it should be). Keeping an eye on the Allies capability and countering it or making his attacks extremely expensive is the best way to defend in my oppinion.
Just because he gets ashore does not mean all is lost. If you can break his link home, then all units you damage in Europe are destroyed!
Just had to add my 2cents, as I do not see any game killing problems.
-MrQuiet
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: t3mplarKn1ght
I am discussing specific game mechanics that I find sorely lacking.
The fact is the Brits have Chief Engineer Scotty and can teleport anywhere they want anytime they want. I have no interest in playing Star Trek WWII.
This game is a guaranteed win for any competent Allied player.
I absolutly agree with this, when auto-victory is turned off. IMHO there is no argument with this statement.
That said, what settings do you folks believe make for an even match? Extra supply? Extra transport? [8|]
(Note: I'm reading the Game Balance thread now, as I had not previously. Sounds like Auto-Victory is a given win for the Axis, and a non-AV game is a given win for Allies... interesting)
Where is that smoke coming from?
-
t3mplarKn1ght
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:32 am
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: cmsamson
This, in my opinion, is an inaccurate characterization of the actual game mechanic. It requires trememdous resources (in the form of transport ships) to allow transportation of troops around the globe, with an increasing required transports for longer distances. These transports (and their cargo) are vunlerable to subs attacks, further complicating the ability to transport over longer distances. Finally, as previously mentioned, each turn currently represents 3 months of 'real time': this can hardly be likened to 'teleporting'.
Baloney. Take a look at the starting setup for the Wallies sometime and try it out. As far as I can tell with a brief scan, there is ONE region (Yakutsk) that the Wallies CAN'T reach to mass multiple transports on TURN ONE! Every other coastal region in the FREAKING WORLD can be massed with transports. The ability to get any 6 units from anywhere in the world to any other coastal region in the world in one turn sure seems like teleportation to me.
This game is a guaranteed win for any competent Allied player.
What is the basis for this? In many other posts, players bemoan the fact that (sub) research makes this game a guaranteed win for the Axis. My point is that there are many players (including my group) that are finding that despite the game issues you describe, are finding the game balanced, and more importantly, having a fun time playing it.
I said the sub war has issues. Anybody saying the sub research makes it a guaranteed win for the Axis have (a) not kept up ASW appropriately, and (b) have not demonstrated an Axis win. It may make things difficult for the Wallies and is unbalanced, but does not give a win to the Axis. The Axis can't win with subs, subs only serve to cause some pain to the Wallies.
My point is the resources to defend every beach in the world are excessive and guarantee the Germans can't defeat the Russians.
Just a friendly piece of advice from an experienced war gamer: 'he who defends everything defends nothing.'
Just a friendly piece of advise from another experienced wargamer: 'He who does not defend everything, gets his ass handed to him'. If you think you can't analyze defense everywhere you are vulnerable, you must lose a lot of wargames.
You are certainly entitled to this opinion, but this doesn't change the fact that this is, to my knowledge, the best strategic-level WWII simulation PC game at the current time. I've been waiting 20+ years, after playing my first games of 'World in Flames' (3rd edition),
That ain't saying much considering the lack of worthy competition. Only 20+ years of wargaming? Youngster... I too have been waiting, for more than 25 years. I have played first edition Third Reich (and 2nd and 3rd), multiple versions of World in Flames, and many others. Please don't lecture me on old school wargaming.
I did say this game had great potential. I think the ground combat and production systems are sound. The only thing I think is horrendous is certain aspects of the naval system (which kills the game for me), and there are some balance issues with the tech system. This game certainly comes closest to getting it right so far, but it still has issues.
-
t3mplarKn1ght
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:32 am
RE: Game killing problems
One other point:
Take a look at the after action reports posted here. In just about EVERY ONE, the British have invaded somewhere prior to American entry into the war. Norway, Denmark, France, Finland, Africa. It's a given.
If in most EVERY GAME this happens, but it did NOT happen historically, isn't there a problem? I don't want to start any pointless arguments about historical capability, I am just pointing out how frequently it happens in actual gameplay. That sends up warning flags...
I really want this game to fulfill it's potential. It can't in it's current incarnation. If I didn't want this game to work, I wouldn't be posting here.
Take a look at the after action reports posted here. In just about EVERY ONE, the British have invaded somewhere prior to American entry into the war. Norway, Denmark, France, Finland, Africa. It's a given.
If in most EVERY GAME this happens, but it did NOT happen historically, isn't there a problem? I don't want to start any pointless arguments about historical capability, I am just pointing out how frequently it happens in actual gameplay. That sends up warning flags...
I really want this game to fulfill it's potential. It can't in it's current incarnation. If I didn't want this game to work, I wouldn't be posting here.
-
t3mplarKn1ght
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:32 am
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: MrQuiet
Keeping an eye on the Allies capability and countering it or making his attacks extremely expensive is the best way to defend in my oppinion.
You can't keep an eye on his capability with FOW turned on. All he needs is a convoy link in place within 7 movement points of where he wants to invade and he can mass as many transports there as he has available. With the usual convoy setup this puts the Wallies in striking range of 90+% of the coastal regions in the world.
RE: Game killing problems
But once he does that his transports are stuck. If you have been attriting his trannys then the ones he pulled for the invasion are no longer linking his resources to his factorys. Break the invasion link and put a hurt on his forces that can not retreat.You can't keep an eye on his capability with FOW turned on. All he needs is a convoy link in place within 7 movement points of where he wants to invade and he can mass as many transports there as he has available. With the usual convoy setup this puts the Wallies in striking range of 90+% of the coastal regions in the world.
What I meant by keeping an eye on his capabilitys is that I usualy know what his ability will be to knock out arty via air. (subs are great for revealing FOW and no supply used)
If he can not take out arty (due to lots of flak and or fighter cover) then it is rediculously expensive for him to invade. Art will destroy many trannys/troops on opfire. This investment in shore art and air cover is critical, even more so then investing in sub evasion in my opinion.
RE: Game killing problems
Trolls? Templar sees trolls? lol!
I understand trolls to be fake or multiple personalities used by posters for various reasons. I haven't seen any trolls here, personally, nor would I expect to. Ah well, to each their own.
Templar's point that defending every beach makes it impossible to beat Russia is a valid one, I think. I come across that problem time and again. Not enough troops for the Eastern Front because they're sitting in France/Italy & wherever on beach patrol. There ought to be a better Invasion system for GGWaW, to make it a better simulation. That said, it is still the best sim out there
Massing troops from diverse places for invasion isn't that bad (in a sim) but other things seem a-historical. Being able to PILE troops on the beach AFTER the invasion is silly! There is zero chance of counter-attacking them since you have to move troops up & then next turn fight. Where's the #1 danger of amphibious invasion ie: getting pushed back into the ocean? Also in WaW is the opposite, the hit & run! A huge force hits your coast, ravages your factories & resources then VANISHES before you can say boo!
Possible Solution: I'm not fond of people complaining without offering some alternative, so here's mine: have some units designated as 'reserves' that will react to invasions or attacks withing a certain range. That way you can protect beaches in a realistic way, IMO. Not with piles of troops on each and every beach, but with a sizeable counter-attack force which would drive the invaders into the sea! Also not damaging factories & resources unless troops remain behind would be good too.
I understand trolls to be fake or multiple personalities used by posters for various reasons. I haven't seen any trolls here, personally, nor would I expect to. Ah well, to each their own.
Templar's point that defending every beach makes it impossible to beat Russia is a valid one, I think. I come across that problem time and again. Not enough troops for the Eastern Front because they're sitting in France/Italy & wherever on beach patrol. There ought to be a better Invasion system for GGWaW, to make it a better simulation. That said, it is still the best sim out there
Massing troops from diverse places for invasion isn't that bad (in a sim) but other things seem a-historical. Being able to PILE troops on the beach AFTER the invasion is silly! There is zero chance of counter-attacking them since you have to move troops up & then next turn fight. Where's the #1 danger of amphibious invasion ie: getting pushed back into the ocean? Also in WaW is the opposite, the hit & run! A huge force hits your coast, ravages your factories & resources then VANISHES before you can say boo!
Possible Solution: I'm not fond of people complaining without offering some alternative, so here's mine: have some units designated as 'reserves' that will react to invasions or attacks withing a certain range. That way you can protect beaches in a realistic way, IMO. Not with piles of troops on each and every beach, but with a sizeable counter-attack force which would drive the invaders into the sea! Also not damaging factories & resources unless troops remain behind would be good too.
No Will but Thy Will
No Law but the Laws You make
No Law but the Laws You make
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: 5cats
There ought to be a better Invasion system for GGWaW, to make it a better simulation. That said, it is still the best sim out there
Well one improvement for me is that once a troop has taken an island is that it is DONE. If I have enough transports I can have a lone troop recover 4 or 5 islands in a single turn. The problem is that invasions are "strategic" movement to take the island. This gives me the right to continue moving. The taking of the territory should end the movement. This will also cut back on the hit and run problems.
ORIGINAL: 5cats
Also not damaging factories & resources unless troops remain behind would be good too.
This is something I would like to see. I have done to many suicide militia moves solely for the purpose of destroying resources and production. France, Netherlands, and Rumania have see this a lot when I play the WA.
RE: Game killing problems
There needs to be SOME limit to the ability to pull every single unit from all over the globe and invade wherever you want on a whim.
Not a WWII expert by any means, but my instincts all agree with this. Can anyone put their finger on the reasons the Allies could not mount a huge invasion in the early days? I would really like to understand what ideas people have for what the game is not taking into account.
My only thought is that large invasions, such a D-Day, are exponentially more complex than simpler ones. The game costs are simply linear. Perhaps "invasion planning" needs to go on the production track with a build time exponentially poportional to how many units allowed to participate.
Rex Lex or Lex Rex?
RE: Game killing problems
ORIGINAL: willgamer
There needs to be SOME limit to the ability to pull every single unit from all over the globe and invade wherever you want on a whim.
Not a WWII expert by any means, but my instincts all agree with this. Can anyone put their finger on the reasons the Allies could not mount a huge invasion in the early days?
The lack of landing craft. Transports were for moving troops supplies, but you required specialized landing crafts to hit the beachs. Even the "easy" island often saw a lot of damaged / destroyed landing crafts. This game merges LC and transports.