Allies and Soviets should not be a single command

[EB.]

One thing better about Clash of Steel than Strategic Command is that you could play as the Allies WITHOUT also playing the Soviets, and vice versa. Actually, it is very unrealistic to let a single player control both because their interests were often contradictory and their plans were rarely coordinated. When playing the Allied side, I find myself having to force myself to think first "ok, I am Stalin now--kill Germans" and then a minute later "ok, now I am Churchill and FDR--please don't hurt me". It is like a song which switches its own tune back and forth throughout--not fun to listen to.

I say that the player should be able to play as either the Allies OR the Soviets but NOT BOTH. Let the computer play the other one as well as the Axis. If Clash of Steel could do it, then I would think that SC could to.

I would say the same for Germans and Italians--human player should be able to play one or the other but not both, and let the computer play the other one.

This was also one big failure with respect to High Command.

I am not trying to be unfair on this either. I a few years back made a magnificent grand strategic scenario called "World War Two" for Norm Koger's Operational Art of War game, and one of the major defects of this otherwise great scenario was the fact that the poor player was forced to control both Allied AND Soviet units instead of just one or the other. Same with Axis. Oh, well. I couldn't make it any better because of the game limitations.

Anyway, doesn't anybody agree with me on this?

(Please do not turn this post into an anti-Stalin rant!)

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

Actually, it is very unrealistic to let a single player control both because their interests were often contradictory and their plans were rarely coordinated.

Yes, the Westerners never did anything that really helped the Glorious Soviet People.

When playing the Allied side, I find myself having to force myself to think first "ok, I am Stalin now--kill Germans" and then a minute later "ok, now I am Churchill and FDR--please don't hurt me".

The cowardly Westerners wanted the Soviet People to be killed while their own soldiers languished in warm camps in the US and England. When they finally realized the Soviet Union was going to crush Germany on its own, then they quickly acted to gain territory in France and Germany that by rights should have gone to the Soviet Union.

Anyway, doesn't anybody agree with me on this?

Of course, Comrade.

(Please do not turn this post into an anti-Stalin rant!)

Why would anyone do that? You never provoke them, you only tell the absolutely proven truth.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Actually the unanimous complaint with friends is how the US ends a round and then it is the Russians in games of Axis and Allies where 5 full opponent slots are not available to be filled by people.

I have to agree, I would find the game a bit more real to the conditions of the time, if the Allies did not have defacto control of the Russian forces during the game.

In this way, the player would have to allow for the friction that truely existed.

[EB.]

See how it works:

I post a helpful suggestion to split the command.

Then the response is ranting which has nothing to do with my original suggestion. You don't even say whether you prefer to force the player to be both Allies and Soviets or not. Even if you rant, you should at least be able to formulate some opinion in purely game terms on the original suggestion.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by EB.:

See how it works:

I post a helpful suggestion to split the command.

Then the response is ranting which has nothing to do with my original suggestion. You don't even say whether you prefer to force the player to be both Allies and Soviets or not. Even if you rant, you should at least be able to formulate some opinion in purely game terms on the original suggestion.

Yes, I don't quite understand why anyone would want to rant at your post. You are only telling the absolutely proven truth about how Roosevelt wanted to sit back and not get hurt by the Germans while the Glorious Soviet People bore the burden of Hitler's armies.

[EB.]

There Les has the point exactly: "the friction that truly existed" between the Allies and Soviets.

I strongly agree with this wording.

Also agreed on your Axis and Allies point, by the way.

[Mike Oberly]

'When playing the Allied side, I find

myself having to force myself to think first "ok, I am Stalin now--kill Germans"'

Don't you mean,'I am Stalin now--kill Russians'?

But ignoring your loaded rhetoric,I would agree that it would be a nice feature to let the computer play as an Allied nation,whether Italy,Russia,Britain,whatever.

[Jeff Heidman]

I agree with EB. Whenever I play the 1939 scenario, for example, I have trouble remembering that when I play the Soviets, I should radnomly disband units to represent the unfortuante need to shoot "disidents" in the head.

Also, the game does do a good job of forcing the Soviet player to act historically, and ally with Germany to begin with, so that is good at least. I think a little cut scene with Hitler and Stalin cuddling in bed would be good right about October of '39...

Sadly, sometimes I forget I am playing the Russians, and I try to manuever and stuff, rather than just pound into the main line of defense over and over again, as I should know a Good Russian should do. None of that namby-pamby maneuver crap!

Jeff

[Hubert Cater]

Guys, let's keep it civilized and within the realm of SC or I will continue to move debates on personal politics to the General Forums.

Hubert

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Guys, let's keep it civilized and within the realm of SC or I will continue to move debates on personal politics to the General Forums.

Hubert

No offense Hubert, but this is far from personal.

EB has engaged in just about every misrepresentation its possible to make, justified the killing of millions of people, and contends that the West is full of people who made no efforts against Nazi Germany. These are terribly insulting to anyone interested in the truth, or anyone who has any respect for the sacrifices of that generation. Its hard to remain silent in the face of these kinds of assaults.

[Hubert Cater]

OK fair enough, my choice of words may not have been the most appropriate, but let's be clear that for obvious reasons discussions should remain within the realm of SC and that heated debates beyond this realm should move to the General Forums.

Hubert

[Jollyguy]

EB adds spice.

I have a friend whose pretty strait-laced. But every once in awhile he'll join in with a good ol' dockside type expletive. He told me once swear words are like seasoning: To much and you ruin the dish, but in the proper amount it adds spice and zest.

I've read some of EBs posts, and I'll tell you, he slathers it on so thick I wonder if he isn't just having fun with everybody. If he's the real thing, let him speak. The replies by the rest of you are the best reading though.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Mike Oberly:

'When playing the Allied side, I find

myself having to force myself to think first "ok, I am Stalin now--kill Germans"'

Don't you mean,'I am Stalin now--kill Russians'?

LOL!!!

or, "I am Stalin now, kill everyone who opposes me!!!"

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

OK fair enough, my choice of words may not have been the most appropriate, but let's be clear that for obvious reasons discussions should remain within the realm of SC and that heated debates beyond this realm should move to the General Forums.

Hubert

Hubert : I totally agree that the discussion should be within the context of SC. Its unfortunate that some posters throw in provocations like "those Polish kulak landlords had to be physically eliminated to remove the threat they posed to the state . . . the mistake was trying to cover it up, not in the doing of it". That's like a Nazi / Skinhead coming in to this forum and saying that the mistake in the Holocaust was that it wasn't done openly.

I'll be the last person to suggest banning anyone, and that's not what I'm going to suggest, even in EB's offensive case. However, you are the forum moderator and if you are going to let EB make such statements, then you have to let everyone chime in with their views too.

Personally, for me, debating EB has been like a visit to the Stalin Mausoleum. It has been like time-travelling back to the 4th Party Congress and listening to person after person extol the virtues of the infallible Stalin. Often when I have read biographies of the Purge and the Gulag and the history of the Soviet Union I've often wondered how such a mass of people could fall for such insane lies as were perpetrated by Stalin's regime. I can now honestly say I'm a better historian for visiting the Living Museum of the Purge that is EB on this forum.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I agree with EB. Whenever I play the 1939 scenario, for example, I have trouble remembering that when I play the Soviets, I should radnomly disband units to represent the unfortuante need to shoot "disidents" in the head.

Also, the game does do a good job of forcing the Soviet player to act historically, and ally with Germany to begin with, so that is good at least. I think a little cut scene with Hitler and Stalin cuddling in bed would be good right about October of '39...

Sadly, sometimes I forget I am playing the Russians, and I try to manuever and stuff, rather than just pound into the main line of defense over and over again, as I should know a Good Russian should do. None of that namby-pamby maneuver crap!

Jeff

Jeff, ole buddy, I am rolling on the floor!!!!

[Hubert Cater]

However, you are the forum moderator and if you are going to let EB make such statements, then you have to let everyone chime in with their views too.

Please believe me that I am not picking sides here or even seriously interested in these debates, my only interest right now is the game and discussions with respect to the game.

Common practice is to use historical context to make a point with the game and I have no problem with that, but often one person's historical context may be a bit controversial, and in some of the recent cases as witnessed by this thread and others they are/can be controversial in the extreme. In this case, and this is directed at EVERYONE, topic starters, responders etc., all I ask is that these discussions be voluntarily moved to the General Forums or I will move them there myself.

I am not saying that views and counter views cannot be expressed, just please move the heated debates there as I am sure everyone can agree that the result of some of the recent threads have not been appropriate to this forum.

Let's get back to the game

Hubert

[Melchett]

Just my two cents:

Ancient Truism: If I use a "helpful suggestion" as a container for a snide inflammatory remark, I shouldn't play the wounded innocent when I get nailed.

Example of helpful: "Let my troops go first Francois, they're fully rested."

Example of prepare to get nailed: "Let my troops go first Francois. They're fully rested and besides it's a genetic fact that you Frenchmen are spineless cowards."

That said, I agree with EB that it would great (albeit programmatically difficult) to split commands among individual nations. Inter-team friction and tangled command structures add realistic zest and shouting to any simulation.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> However, you are the forum moderator and if you are going to let EB make such statements, then you have to let everyone chime in with their views too.

Please believe me that I am not picking sides here or even seriously interested in these debates, my only interest right now is the game and discussions with respect to the game.

In this case, and this is directed at EVERYONE, topic starters, responders etc., all I ask is that these discussions be voluntarily moved to the General Forums or I will move them there myself.

Let's get back to the game

Hubert</font>

[Hubert Cater]

All recently moved threads end up automatically locked here but will appear unlocked in the General Discussion Forums. Infact some responses to these recently moved threads have already taken place over there.

Hubert

[Norse]

Guys, please stop this ranting. EB has his own opinion that Germany was defeated without much help from the west. His opinion cannot really hurt anyone, so let's just leave that be, and discuss his idea's to improve the game instead.

Some of the replies in here are disqusting. Some of the replies are not only bothering to attack EB as a person, but the entire Russian people.

All this ranting is really bad and already we are seeing people leaving this game and it's community because it's too much. This is nothing but counter-productive. After all this game is a niche product, and we don't want to keep it only to some kind of small "elitist" group of grognards. Perhaps Hubert would move on and use his skills for more rewarding projects then....

Remember that EB is just 1 guy, and trust me, most of the people of the former Sovjet Union are very thankful to the US for the lend-lease.

Don't let EB ruin your opinion on Russians in general. They are just other ordinary people who are trying to make a living, and most of them are very nice.

So let's discuss the purposal instead. Should SC be a threeplayer game? One player is UK+USA, another is France+USSR, and the third is the Axis.

~Norse~

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

My post was mangled at best (hey it's going to happen eventually heheh).

In looking at my post perhaps I stated it poorly.

In Axis and Allies the consensus of friends, is defaulting the Russian player to the US player in a 4 person game is not only stupid, but makes a shambles of portraying the real world friction of the time (then again, you can't let the Brit run them eh).

Trouble is, with only 4 players, you are stuck putting the Axis as one player (oh well, so one side is an over worked player, next time find a 5th player ).

My comment in regards to SC though. Because it is a computer game, the issue with players just doesn't exist.

The Allies should not be simultaneously Britain US and Russia (yes France is there too, but in most games like A3R they just assume France goes toast in 1940 eh).

Like it or not, but the Russians trusted the Western Allies no more than the Western Allies trusted Russia.

Russia was still the nation that only a short while earlier was guilty of sleeping with the enemy.

Label it any way you wish. But the 3 were not "close friends".

Any game, that makes the Russians, just another allied nation, might as well just ignore politics entirely.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Norse:

EB has his own opinion that Germany was defeated without much help from the west. His opinion cannot really hurt anyone, so let's just leave that be, and discuss his idea's to improve the game instead.

EB also has the opinion that Stalins killing of millions of Russian people, and the killing of the Polish officers in Katyn wood, was a totally correct and moral decision.

All this ranting is really bad and already we are seeing people leaving this game and it's community because it's too much. This is nothing but counter-productive. After all this game is a niche product, and we don't want to keep it only to some kind of small "elitist" group of grognards. Perhaps Hubert would move on and use his skills for more rewarding projects then....

I want Hubert to succeed, and I'd like to see this forum focus on discussions that give the greatest probability of that.

I will not allow a person such as EB to pollute this forum with what amounts to a position in support of and justifying Genocide, and other crimes against Humanity.

I disagree with the notion that opinions are harmless.

Remember that EB is just 1 guy, and trust me, most of the people of the former Sovjet Union are very thankful to the US for the lend-lease.

Don't let EB ruin your opinion on Russians in general. They are just other ordinary people who are trying to make a living, and most of them are very nice.

I've met dozens of Russians in an academic and personal setting. They are regular people with opinions that are largely moral and just. I don't confuse these people with the twisted philosophies that have been espoused here.

[ October 17, 2002, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Norse]

Dgaad, noone is asking you to agree with EB's opinions.

But you are being asked to behave.

If you think that what EB writes is poisioning this forum, then you should write an email to the forum administrators about it and let them decide.

~Norse~

[ October 18, 2002, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Anyone that would stalk off and not play a game simply because one other person that was involved in the same game, or even a same discussion, acted in a hostile manner (in the opinion of the person that intended to stalk off), is in my opinion not really all that concerned if they play the game or not in the first place.

I mean, I have seen outrageous assertions in my time. I have seen them here there and everywhere, on Battlefront outside of Battlefront, it really doesn't matter.

But if I like SC I am not going to suddenly get moody and stop playing it if one person says something I consider outrageous.

I turfed the ASL mailing list because I found the people on it offensive in the extreme. But I have no interest in stopping playing ASL.

I also dumped an A3R mailing list for much the same reason. I thought there were to many persons connected with it, that I would never share a beer with willingly. But I still say A3R is the top game in Grand Strategy.

Giving up on a forum is always a choice a person might make based on the enjoyment level.

But to dump a game based on its fans behaviour in one location. Nope, that is the choice of someone that could care less about the game.

I won't lose sleep over people that don't like our hobby and its current products, and can jump ship that whimsically.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

Anyone that would stalk off and not play a game simply because one other person that was involved in the same game, or even a same discussion, acted in a hostile manner (in the opinion of the person that intended to stalk off), is in my opinion not really all that concerned if they play the game or not in the first place.

Who was talking about stalking off?

As for the rest of your post, the wargaming community does contain its share of Nazis and Fascists, the guys who always like to play the Germans and secretly believe that if they had been in charge the Germans would have won, and the world would be a better place. I actually like playing these guys not because they are easy to beat (they are) but because I hope in the process of losing they are learning the lesson that using purely fear, terror, hate, and violence to gain political power is a losing proposition.