Human vs Human Play

[targul]

I am presently in my first game of human vs human and I find it really horrible. It is so ahistorical it feels like a fantasy game.

Do most games with human players end up with the players attempting to take every country in some race to capture the world. Or do some players play quasi historical and not attack Sweden, Switzerland, Vichy France, Algeria and every single place they can reach.

I have pretty much decided to stick with AI play because it does play historically and I really enjoy playing against what happen.

Please let me know because I like the AI game but as it stands I never intend to play another human because if I want fantasy I play Civ.

[Liam]

Originally posted by targul:

I am presently in my first game of human vs human and I find it really horrible. It is so ahistorical it feels like a fantasy game.

Do most games with human players end up with the players attempting to take every country in some race to capture the world. Or do some players play quasi historical and not attack Sweden, Switzerland, Vichy France, Algeria and every single place they can reach.

I have pretty much decided to stick with AI play because it does play historically and I really enjoy playing against what happen.

Please let me know because I like the AI game but as it stands I never intend to play another human because if I want fantasy I play Civ.

Historically I agree Sweden & Switzerland weren't prime targets for the Axis or the Allies. Would've been really really bad to invade either... dire consequences

as for Vichy Algeria or Vichy France, both were Invaded. V.France was occuppied by Germany in 1942 and V.Algeria in 1942 by the Allies... One to protect German interests the other to help Operation Torch...

Turkey-Switzerland-Sweden-Spain-Portugal-Ireland are the only neutrals on the map that were adjacent to another European Power not seized in WW2 that I know of... the MiddleEast was in Allied Hands.

Spain might've joined the Axis, Hitler and Franco met for that, never worked out. Ireland should cost the UK the war, the USA has a close relationship with Ireland, like Isreal. Switzerland was very important Nation that had the Geneva Convention and Dreadful Mountains slops.. Not worth the Axis Pain of invasion I imagine or the political backfire, of course there is only a European Theatre Map, so worldwide disgust cannot be shared Sweden was fair game, she had 200,000 man army or so.. And she way up there, along with Switzerland she supplied the Axis with much needed war supplies so I don't think she was worth invading.. Portugal is a nonfactor, like Albania which was occuppied by Italy. Remeber before WW1 much of Europe was part of Empires......that was only disolved after the Great War, that Mentality, Glory, Nationalism still was strong in the Old Guard of Leadership...

not so Ahistorical as you might think... They just are great for Cannonfodder, extra MPPs and there is no consequence in gameterms

[targul]

That is my problem no consequences in game terms for invading.

I know there was a plan to invade Switzerland but it was solved by agreement prior to the actual attack by Germany. The French colonies do not bother me.

Sweden I really do not see the Axis invading but your allies would certainly question an invasion. It would have given thought to Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria I suspect.

Ireland I really doubt would have been invaded by either side but no consequences.

There is a diplomactic part to the game but nothing changes any opionions except diplomacy points? Churchill can attack Norway, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and whatever and the other nations would consider that okay. Not sure that much fantasy is where I want to be.

I have stuck with games that where normally historical. War in Europe, Campaign for North Africa, War in the Pacific, Third Reich and Advanced. Each time I played a computer game without what I consider real limits on diplomacy I have backed off play.

Luckily with this game I can play historically against the AI but I will have to really consider if I want to play a fantasy game against humans using WWII as the backdrop.

[Liam]

targul, you can place your own limitations on these nations, HouseRules. competitive play will never that many as advanced players look for more and more exploits... Good Luck and I hope your not put off, I have pushed for more historical accuracy with this point myself...

Originally posted by targul:

That is my problem no consequences in game terms for invading.

I know there was a plan to invade Switzerland but it was solved by agreement prior to the actual attack by Germany. The French colonies do not bother me.

Sweden I really do not see the Axis invading but your allies would certainly question an invasion. It would have given thought to Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria I suspect.

Ireland I really doubt would have been invaded by either side but no consequences.

There is a diplomactic part to the game but nothing changes any opionions except diplomacy points? Churchill can attack Norway, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and whatever and the other nations would consider that okay. Not sure that much fantasy is where I want to be.

I have stuck with games that where normally historical. War in Europe, Campaign for North Africa, War in the Pacific, Third Reich and Advanced. Each time I played a computer game without what I consider real limits on diplomacy I have backed off play.

Luckily with this game I can play historically against the AI but I will have to really consider if I want to play a fantasy game against humans using WWII as the backdrop.

[arado234]

Yes targul what you say has alot of merrit & like liam said you can set your own house rules.Trust me human vs human is alot of fun.There are other things that should and shouldnt be allowed if you want to be really historically accurate but its fun to try and change history by doing things that werenot done and wouldnt be done during the war.Keeps you on your toes and opens new possibilties.

[ChrisND]

Historical accuracy should not be a straight-jacket. If we were allowed to play only historically with minor variations, the game would have gotten old long ago. That's where huse rules come in.

That said, more diplomatic consequences for invading certain minors do need to be added.

[Yogi]

Well, at the risk of bringing up old wounds and discussions relating to games vs simulations:

I agree with the feelings and comments of targul's initial post. Once again I wish we could at least have a "historical option" to activate if we can't get an actual simulation. All one has to do is read the AAR's, strategy tips etc. to see that this game often (perhaps usually) ends up looking nothing like the real thing. The realism of running around declaring war on anyone (whether you're axis or allies) does cast a tone of fantasy on the game. While I sure to appreciate the skill and knowledge of the great SC2 players and how they have found great ways to win the game - I long for a better simulation. Many of those strategies used to "win the game" would have "lost the war".

Now that said - I think it's a great game with a lot to offer and it looks like even more great things are yet to come.

Added in edit: Also as discussed before, it is not just the declarations of war, it is many other little issue's that can greatly effect points, bonus, growth, research or whatever that can be learned (and have been by the great ones) to win the game over poor unsuspecting (new or otherwise) victims who base their play on strategy and/or realism instead of tricks of the game. To some degree that is a problem for many computer games, but denying it is part of SC2 would be denying the truth. When in a game logic, reality, strategy & tactics are no more or perhaps even less important then knowing game tricks or programing equations and values, it becomes less of a wargame and more of computer programing study. Fun for some perhaps, but not for those who actually enjoy historical simulation wargames.

[ May 22, 2007, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

[targul]

Thanks for your opinions seems that many agree with my ideas here.

I really enjoy the AI game it plays historically and I find alot of fun but I am doubtful I will play again verses a human unless I am sure we are going to have some history involved.

I dont mind people invading something different but there should be reasons behind it not just random slaughter.

Have fun catch you all after my rafting vacation.

[TaoJah]

Personally, I don't agree on the historical point of view. If you play that way, Germany loses, never even gets to Moscow.

You might as well watch a documentary then !

[Yogi]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Personally, I don't agree on the historical point of view. If you play that way, Germany loses, never even gets to Moscow.

You might as well watch a documentary then !

No, that's not true at all. The idea is to take the same situation as history and see how well you do. Germany can win, allies can lose, but it's strategy, tactics and some luck of war that decides. You have the power to change the plans, tactcis, timing etc.

Doesn't matter if your playing WWII, Gettysburg, Waterloo, Market Garden etc. etc. You are in command now and you may do better or worse then the historical counter parts. Levels of victory from out right domination, to lasting longer then in real life.

Taking your example: Germany can and probably should be able to get to Moscow. Depends on how well of a battle plan you made. Getting to Moscow because of game tricks, too strong an Axis, or unrealistic actions is no accompishment. Getting there with basically the same forces and factors of the real life situation is a victory in itself.

[Lars]

All depends on where you like to draw the line on your "historical simulations".

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Lars:

All depends on where you like to draw the line on your "historical simulations".

True, but I actually would like to think that "both sides" can have it there way. As I remember, I recall some old and tense discussions on this topic on this forum and others. Many game players are unhapopy when a game falls short of being a reasonable historical simulation, but on the other hand, many game players are unhappy when the game does not give the ability to dramtically alter everything. It seems that with the proper use of scenarios an/or options, we may be able to have both and jeep all of us happy.

[arado234]

I think the problem with this and everyother ww2 game is that the western allies are supposed to be the good guys.Not going around attacking everyone.That would be historically more accurate BUT this game is only BASED on ww2 and set up so we CAN alter history.Maybe tweek it so if one side(germany)goes to far off the historical path as far as attacking countries that werenot really attacked or sympathetic neutrals something bad happens.What i dont know.This is a tough one people.If you make it to restrictive then like normal dude says it becomes to predictable.

[Colin I]

Exactly Arado. This is a game where we are free to choose a non-historical path. The Allies actually did violate neutrals but tended to do it on a small scale. However, UK involvement in middle east, even outside Egypt wasn't always consensual. I presume plans did exist for the invasion of Sweden or Spain or Eire even if unlikey to be implemented.

I'm fine with invasion of minors by the West but would suggest greater diplomatic penalties for the Allies. If this is unbalancing then simply up the Allied MPP which would also be historical. I'd also like to see penalties that work through the game. Both sides hit minors indescriminately after all the major nations are in the war as the worst penalties (eg induction of US into war) no longer apply. But I'd like to see a free diplomatic chit go to the other side too in some cases, which can be spent to represent the effect on minors with less scripting that can be manipulated.

[Desert Dave]

Targul the Wise:

I am presently in my first game of human vs human and I find it really horrible. It is so ahistorical it feels like a fantasy game.

Do most games with human players end up with the players attempting to take every country in some race to capture the world. Or do some players play quasi historical and not attack Sweden, Switzerland, Vichy France, Algeria and every single place they can reach.

I have pretty much decided to stick with AI play because it does play historically and I really enjoy playing against what happen.

Please let me know because I like the AI game but as it stands I never intend to play another human because if I want fantasy I play Civ.

And,

That is my problem no consequences in game terms for invading.

I know there was a plan to invade Switzerland but it was solved by agreement prior to the actual attack by Germany. The French colonies do not bother me.

Sweden I really do not see the Axis invading but your allies would certainly question an invasion. It would have given thought to Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria I suspect.

Ireland I really doubt would have been invaded by either side but no consequences.

There is a diplomactic part to the game but nothing changes any opionions except diplomacy points? Churchill can attack Norway, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and whatever and the other nations would consider that okay. Not sure that much fantasy is where I want to be.

I have stuck with games that where normally historical. War in Europe, Campaign for North Africa, War in the Pacific, Third Reich and Advanced. Each time I played a computer game without what I consider real limits on diplomacy I have backed off play.

Luckily with this game I can play historically against the AI but I will have to really consider if I want to play a fantasy game against humans using WWII as the backdrop.

And,

Thanks for your opinions seems that many agree with my ideas here.

I really enjoy the AI game it plays historically and I find alot of fun but I am doubtful I will play again verses a human unless I am sure we are going to have some history involved.

I dont mind people invading something different but there should be reasons behind it not just random slaughter.

Have fun catch you all after my rafting vacation.

1,2,3 - bang, bang, bang,

Just like Buffalo Bill Cody shootin'

The eyes right outta the bull (...sh*t).

I want this repeated,

So everyone can see now & anew

HOW the superior WW-2 GS game should be.

From the apex of BF,

To the nadir which is me,

A fine reminder.

Could NOT have said it any better

So I desist, and let this be a lesson.

If this thread dwindles

Into wisps of forgotten cobweb,

I'll bump it, and again, and again,

Then I get back.

[Blashy]

Don't worry about it, hopefully in the futur these invasions without consequences for BOTH sides gets fixed.

If you wish to play vs. a human along a more historical scenario send me an email blashy@gmail.com and I will play either side and promise to follow a much more historical path.

Call it Ontario vs. Quebec if you wish

[ May 23, 2007, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Moonslayer]

Originally posted by Blashy:

If you wish to play vs. a human along a more historical scenario send me an email blashy@gmail.com and I will play either side and promise to follow a much more historical path.

I second this... as a bonus it would be my first hvh game with SC2 if you accept