Megalomania

[dicedtomato]

Why are so many of you afraid that SC2 won't be fun unless Germany conquers the entire map? Now I understand why we have so many juvenile wargames. You feel a need for Germany to take over the world? Then play Hearts of Iron, which is to historical wargaming like Bugs Bunny is to Shakespeare.

Why do you fear that you will be "locked" into repeating history if Germany can't reach the Urals in 1941? When a game forces Germany to declare war on Russia in 1941, that's being locked. But a game that limits the Axis ability to conquer the Middle East or Siberia? That's the historical flavor that makes SC2 different than Risk or Commmand & Conquer.

If you want to change history, do Sealion instead of Barbarossa. Build subs instead of tanks. Invade Spain instead of Yugoslavia. A good historical wargame doesn't force you into a particular strategy, but it does make you suffer the consequences of your decisions. I think it's the latter part that some of you don't like.

Finally, there is no shame in Germany going on the defensive in the second half of the war. In fact, it's only fair, considering the Allies get pounded for the first half. It's also more fun. One of the most satisfying games I ever played was taking Germany in World in Flames. To win, the Allies needed to conquer every German city by August 1945. From 1943 on, Germany was pounded from East and West. I barely, barely managed to hang on to Dresden at the end of the game. It was enough to give me victory. And I assure you that it was more satisfying than if I had taken Moscow in 1941.

Diced Tomato

[SeaMonkey]

Agree DT, the final historical configurations should be the basis for the SC2 victory conditions.

You do better than historical Germans did in the allotted time you gain degrees of success. You cause the demise of Axis powers earlier than historical, Allied victory condition is met.

All that remains is the definition of marginal, moderate and decisive conditions for each side worth 1, 2, 3, points in ladder play.

[jon_j_rambo]

Agreed, too much Bunta worship! Glad you guys have seen the Light & have turned the corner to the Yanks!

[Timskorn]

I was guilty of this, in my first game online as Axis. I completely screwed up Barbarossa and DT wiped out a good 3/4 of my military by mid-42 outside of Moscow. With only, literally, a handful of viable units left the next best defensive line would have been eastern Poland.

So, my apologies. No more concessions from me, I'm fighting all the way back to Berlin next time!! Or Washington...

[Sombra]

DT what si exactly your problem? That people give up to early or that the axis is to strong in your opinion?

[dicedtomato]

It's two sides of the same problem, Sombra. Because of games like SC2 and especially Hearts of Iron, Axis players become discouraged and frustrated if there's a spot on the map that they can't blitz. They feel the game "limits" them if Russia doesn't collapse like a domino in 1941, or they can't invade Ecuador and Timbuktu. For the first half of the game, they expect to pound on the Allies, but heaven forbid if Russia still has a city or the Allies a navy to return the favor in the second half.

So the game either ends early because the Axis believe they've lost if they haven't conquered the North and South Poles, or the Allies lose heart at a German empire that stretches from London to the Urals.

Have you ever seen an Allied player complain that the game isn't fair because Poland falls in 1939?

Diced Tomato

Originally posted by Sombra:

DT what si exactly your problem? That people give up to early or that the axis is to strong in your opinion?

[Major Spinello]

As for me it is really no fun if as ONE side I can not win the game other than through victory conditions stating "you won" if I am still alive at 1945, while as the other side I am told I "lost" the game if I have not forced unconditional surrender until then.

And I ALWAYS switch sides after each game, so that´s really from both perspectives.

I have no problems however with the concept of one side´s chance of winning becoming smaller with time (because the other side gears up production). I agree that the most fun games I had playing the Axis (now thinking of wargames in general) were those where I didn´t make the cut and had to go on the defensive. Still I don´t like it if the concept of "historical" is used in the sense of "predetermined". Why should I not be able to take Moscow in 41? It´s not that I want to be at the Urals at that time or invade the US.

[Blashy]

No one is saying you can't take Moscow.

We're only saying that historically, with Hitler's docotrine of world conquest, he had no chance to "win".

Take Poland and France and send MASS MEDIA you wish for peace and make sure the message gets to the people of UK, USA and Russia. You probably would have managed to keep USA out and the people of UK saying "Hey, he does not want anymore killing and it is only the french and poles".

But that was not Hitler's policy from the start, he was a madman with dellusions of the highest grandeur.

As for Russia, that was bound for a collision course in time.

[Sombra]

@ DT see some games and already you are frustrating the newbies.

Playing Axis is pointless much to weak

Fun is when you play the Axis and you are going

through the allied defenses. US is much to weak Axis has to much of a advantage.

Right now I think played right the Axis can have a advantage (lets say a small one) unfortunately most times the Axis player does mistakes . I guess 70-80% of the games should be decided for the Allies right now.

[Major Spinello]

After what DT explained to Sombra I think this discussion is a bit far-fetched. I have never seen anyone complain that he can´t "blitz every spot on the map". Also DT seems to think that there are just "Axis-only" and "Allies-only" players and that a large part of the first type is a bit juvenile, historically naive or biased.

I rather think that most wargamers regularily want to play both sides, and that therefore the different opinions regarding game design we encounter here have to be accounted for in a different (and maybe more empathic) way. BTW I also do not at all understand the dissing HOI gets in this context, but that is another story again.

[dicedtomato]

Sombra says fun is when the Axis go through the Allied defenses. Guess what? Fun is when the Allies go through the Axis defenses. You play the Allies hoping that by the middle of the game, you're strong enough to put Germany on the defensive. But some people seem horrified that Germany might have to take it on the chin just like the Allies do. Deal with it.

Forgive my lack of empathy, Major Spinello. But when I've explained that Axis logistics would have made it practically impossible for them to drive to Baghdad in 1941, or that U-boats didn't routinely sink battleships, I'm accused of strangling the game with an historical straitjacket.

And why do I diss HOI? Look at some of the AARs on the HOI Web site. Let's see, here's a game where Japan captured Syria and Iraq in 1941...

Diced Tomato

[jon_j_rambo]

Agree with DT. SC & SC2 need fixed! American power needs to put on the board!

[Mr.Dozer]

hi i was wondering were i could get some stats on which contry contributed what in WW2 since I cant find it (after trying to. Because I always hear USA did most of the work and Russia did alot of work. So just would like something to compare it to.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Mr.Dozer:

hi i was wondering were i could get some stats on which contry contributed what in WW2 since I cant find it (after trying to. Because I always hear USA did most of the work and Russia did alot of work. So just would like something to compare it to.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

See that and someone tell me how Germany had a chance to win?

[bloodstar]

Said it before, said it again, If the Axis isn't on the defensive by 43, and the Soviets Britain and US are up and running, then something is seriously wrong with the game. In fact The Allies outproduced the Axis at every point in the conflict.

That should be reflected, game balance be damned.

[Sombra]

You already have the means to win with Allieds in a historic way. DT is angry because people simply give up in 1941 with the Axis.

Besides Terif there are few players who are playing the axis perfect enough to smash the Allies. Besides if these players would play Allies against "normal" players the axis would be smashed...

My point is simply if you are able to stop the axis in 1942 in Stalingrad and Moscow you will see already what happened in reality. Axis is out produced and smashed latest in 1944. Though I think the game mechanics work quite well.

I think it funny if people think the Allies are entitled to win the war regardless how badly they do the job.

Now we can discuss if it is possible to stop the Axis in 1942. Up to now with version 1942 I didnt lose a game as Allies all were quite comfortable victories. As Axis in comparison I have to struggle to win against other human players. However, that’s my personal experience. If you want you can try your luck as Axis.

P::S I believe Terif if he says that he believes the Axis is stronger. If that is true we will se e in the near future more and more Axis victories.

[Blashy]

The Axis is stronger because of the air power issue.

Remove that and you can't steamroll through everything.

When Barbarossa starts Axis have 5 AFs at their disposal, buy another one (or two) and just watch cities fall "too" easily.

You don't even need tech, although LR really makes it lethal because you can continue your advances in the winter if you place them properly before winter arrives.

I've been trying to find a counter for some time but there is none, the reality is that the down in morale and readiness is too harsh to how it occured.

[Terif]

@Sombra:

Yep, sitution is similar to SC 1 - new players will go down with Axis pretty fast and Allies don´t need much effort to win.

But axis players only need to learn the basic things and with some experience Axis have no real problems to steamroll Allies.

So just give the players some time, and they will also figure out how to play Axis. As it is now in version 1.02 where defence is not possible, if I play Axis I am already 100% sure to win the game since an experienced Axis player is clearly in the advantage against Allies .

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

The Axis is stronger because of the air power issue.

I've been trying to find a counter for some time but there is none, the reality is that the down in morale and readiness is too harsh to how it occured.

Agrred the attacks of airfleets should be adjusted regarding Morale and readiness lost in fortifications and cities.

[dicedtomato]

Fixing air fleets will be the biggest improvement. The only question is how this will affect the Allies in the second half of the war. If they don't have a lot of ground units, and airpower is scaled back, can they take out the entrenched defenders of Brest. or will D-Day flounder for lack of a port? We'll see. But it's a step in the right direction.

Sombra is correct that my comments are based on playing against the German General Staff. But where else should I base my comments? On people who don't know how to play the game? Whatever Terif does will be copied by everyone else, so I might as well go to the source.

In six months, most of the newbies will have disappeared. Those are who still playing will mostly be the professionals. If the pros can exploit flaws in the game, we should deal with it now.

Diced Tomato

[Scook]

The flaws in SC2 seem very similar to SC1. SC1, build lots of infantry and air units for the win.

Limited force pools solved part of the problem, along with tank upgrades applying to infantry attack go quite a ways, but tweeking around the air force problem without swaying too much balance is the rub. Maybe aircraft should have two different attack values, one for air to air combat (allies and Germans get the same value), and one for ground attacks (the Germans started it, the Allies mastered it), where the Germans have a maximum value of 3, and the Allies max out at a 5.

[Blashy]

AFs HAVE two different combat values in SC2. More actually.

Jet Tech is only upgrades Fighter vs. Fighter attack/defense.

So ground attack always remains the same.

Their power is in the moral and readiness loss they incur on troops.

[Scook]

Oops, yes, you're right. It must be the feel they do more damage to ground units whenever I upgrade. I knew that, but didn't think it out.

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

mr diced tomato have you ever played hearts of iron? Because than you will know that it is first far more realistic than SC2 and second much more strategy involving it more options great diplomacy and all the country's in the world. So next time you write something find out by yourself

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Terif:

@Sombra:

Yep, sitution is similar to SC 1 - new players will go down with Axis pretty fast and Allies don´t need much effort to win.

But axis players only need to learn the basic things and with some experience Axis have no real problems to steamroll Allies.

So just give the players some time, and they will also figure out how to play Axis. As it is now in version 1.02 where defence is not possible, if I play Axis I am already 100% sure to win the game since an experienced Axis player is clearly in the advantage against Allies .

Yep, if you know what you are doing I can see the problem with Axis simply steamrolloing the Allies.

Still I think the long term balance regarding the MP income between Axis and Allies is right. Problem is when the US is really ready for war in 1943 (I think this date is right for the US!!) the war in the east is already over.

Main issues here are for me:

- Airfleets as fortification and citybuster

- French armies are very weak in defense (Already the french have a tech disadvantage why are there armies weaker in defense?)

-amphib tansport range at 6 I would like to see 3-4 (to easy to start a sealion still)

- No incentives to conquer neutrals (US and Rusian KB stays low).

-Spreading out the techs . IW3 vs. IW 0 should not be phasors aginst frontloaders.

- In general the game is favored to attacking . Defense is very difficult

- Consequences of "late " cookie cutter are very weak . Steamrolling neutrals after the US and UDSSR have nearly no consequences . Here I would liek to see more consequences for both sides. (allies and Axis attacking neutrals!)

On the other hand as Axis player I am quite "mad" with the siberian transfer already in Jan .1941. I know it is to balance of the game but still it feels like the "2nd ghost army " arriving through space and time. It takes away the real possibility the germans had to postpone the attack on the UDSSR to 1942. I think the siberians would be represented in a better way if the reinforements would arrive in 1 or 2 units over the time. The trigger that the siberians appear "on masse" if you get to close to Moscow can stay the same but should have the possibilty for negative consequences ( event script that Japan takes part of Rusia in the east)

[ June 26, 2006, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]