Gameplay - Criticisms and Suggestions

[abertoli]

First, let me state that I love the gameplay. However, I'm somewhat critical of certain aspects of the game in the default campaign.

First, I agree with another gamer that it is historically innacurate for the Soviet Union to attack Germany. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to avoid a war with Hitler. Stalin was very feaful of a war with Nazi Germany. I was hoping that the game play would allow me to change history. For example, Germany could attempt to defeat the British in North Africa and Middle East before attacking Russia.

My other criticisms are of a more tactical nature.

Attacking cities - At times it seems that every city is a Stalingrad. I seem to have particular problems with Japanese forces. And I don't understand how an isolated city like Singapore can so easily rebuild its forces.

Artillery - Artillery is called the king of battle, however in this game it seems to be a weakling prince. It definitely could be made more effective.

Bombardment of units in cities - When trying to take a city, I'm not really concerned about causing a loss of mpp's, rather I'm trying to destroy the forces there. Sometimes battleships cause collateral damage, but perhaps there could be an option for strategic vs tactical bombardment for battleships and bombers.

HQ Units - Why do they cost so much?

That's pretty much it. I hope that I wasn't too critical. I'm open to all suggestions on how to improve my gameplay. I'll probably try the intelligence chit investment strategy suggested by one player. It looks intriguing and hopefully it will work. Thanks.

[huhr]

From the books I have read, their is some stock in the possibility of a attack on Germany from the USSR. I know its a controversial issue and a number of historians have researched this issue. We will never know for sure since Stalin didn't leave any notes from what I know on the subject. I did read a bio on Molotov years ago and he most likely didn't discuss this issue. I agree that in 1941, Stalin wasn't prepared to take on the German war machine. However, in 1942 and 43 it might have been a different story. An assassination on Hitler? Changes in the Allied structure and all of the other "What-ifs" I know we can't prove any of this so and we all have out historical opinions. It's always a good discussion and that's what wargames are all about, "What-ifs"

[PowerGmbH]

In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to avoid a war with Hitler.

to add a little flavour to this issue here is an interisting book on this subject:

"Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II" from Viktor Suvorov

See Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design-Jacket/dp/1591148383/ref=sr_1_2/182-4003703-5628428?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270573425&sr=1-2

Quite interisting Historical Details there... It's like Napoleon said one day: "History is the Lie commonly agreed upon"

[Big Al]

Remember abertoli that games are a balance of playability and history to make it fun. You start with history and adjust. History alone with hindsight doesnt make a fun game because the allies would not have made all the mistakes they did early in the war and neither would Germany.

[geofighter]

First, let me state that I love the gameplay. However, I'm somewhat critical of certain aspects of the game in the default campaign.

First, I agree with another gamer that it is historically innacurate for the Soviet Union to attack Germany. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to avoid a war with Hitler. Stalin was very feaful of a war with Nazi Germany. I was hoping that the game play would allow me to change history. For example, Germany could attempt to defeat the British in North Africa and Middle East before attacking Russia.

I agree but I also like the point that was commented in an previous reply that Stalin could have changed his mind. What I would like to see is a degree of randomness to Russian/American entry. Perhaps in one game the Russian's and American's sit out until attacked. Then in another game perhaps only one of them joins in, finally, in another game both join the war.

Anyways I have been becoming more familiar with the advanced scripts. I didn't like how the Italians with just a single corp on Greeces border would declare war on it. I new Mussolini to be an idiot but not that big of an idiot I'd think. Anyhow, by going to the scripts I found I could "uncheck" that option so that the Italians couldn't declare war on the Greeks. Gives me more control. Perhaps you can go and uncheck all the variables that effect Russian entry so that it would work more the way you would expect it to.

My other criticisms are of a more tactical nature.

Attacking cities - At times it seems that every city is a Stalingrad. I seem to have particular problems with Japanese forces. And I don't understand how an isolated city like Singapore can so easily rebuild its forces.

Artillery - Artillery is called the king of battle, however in this game it seems to be a weakling prince. It definitely could be made more effective.

I've found that using artillery before attacking with infantry/armor does a good job of softening the target and I cause greater casualties to the enemy than when I attack without artillery. See if you notice a difference when you play.

Bombardment of units in cities - When trying to take a city, I'm not really concerned about causing a loss of mpp's, rather I'm trying to destroy the forces there. Sometimes battleships cause collateral damage, but perhaps there could be an option for strategic vs tactical bombardment for battleships and bombers.

Same as with artillery I find it softens the target before ground assault. Also, Tactical bombers do the job on troops. High altitude bombers were not designed to destroy enemy units but to knock out industry and infrastructure. Tactical bombers were designed to get in closer and take out enemy units and targets.

HQ Units - Why do they cost so much?

I agree, I think a headquarters would be one of the cheapest units available. Yet, you can sack a commander for a better one at a fraction of the cost.

That's pretty much it. I hope that I wasn't too critical. I'm open to all suggestions on how to improve my gameplay. I'll probably try the intelligence chit investment strategy suggested by one player. It looks intriguing and hopefully it will work. Thanks.

[SeaMonkey]

So you think that the logistical supply dumps that HQs represent should be cheap? I won't mention the pool of army, corps combat assets, like combat engineers, anti-tank, artillery, anti-air, special assault, recon, etc., etc. units that are available with the HQ support parameter that "attachment" simulates.:confused:

Yeah...all that stuff should be cheap...and the government should provide me free housing, transportation, education, health care, food, and above all entertainment for my entire life, and my love ones too. Shouldn't cost me a dime.

After all...I'm entitled...to cheap HQs!

[Hubert Cater]

Regarding the USSR we've tried to make their possible declaration of war against Germany rather intuitive, i.e. leave your border undefended and move all your armies away from mainland Europe and she might get interested in your weaker position and declare war. This helps with game balance and attempts to keep things interesting but Geofighter is right, if you go into the Options->Advanced->Scripts section of the game you can turn off many of the Mobilization events that pique Soviet interest into going to war. That or simply turn off the BELLIGERENCE event for Soviet war with Germany.

Hope this helps,

Hubert