where is the joy in this game

[GaryChildress]

is it just 10 or 11 of u play this game,when i roll the dice it never works out as shown(big time with the figthers)whats the deal with winter(so for 30-40/100 turns sit and wait,) so u can only move in summer 6 or 7 turns no fun ,and the axis fuel looks like it can only have 3 tanks some mech and 4 or 5 air any more its bye bye fuel,the bomers are a waste(i wonder what i can see in ussr) {oh thank god i have a bomber for recon, oh dear 2 lines of men in ussr},just as u fight your way past the blob winter again counter attack from ussr . axis need more fuel 50 per go??.then ussr gets some tac bombers game over it like a nightmare over and over again, i have played alot of hot s. games to understand the game(please do not talk about North Africa) ,then i look at the fourms for for good players,but no one can beat ussr and no one can get berlin just dead end,soon players are going to just spam tanks around berlin and win.to sum up the first part of game is fair the french are hard to crack b4 july/aug, North Africa- waste of time,why go into ussr for the oil fields,by the time u get to oil fields it time to fall back so why go?(and only get half their value)from 1942 to late 43 (12 turns?) oil should be 60-70 per turn and after the end of 43 the oil returns to 53 per turn because of allies bombing.because of the low oil subs,tanks,ships and bombers are cut out of the game very fast.no one wants to play a game that only half work do u? it not going to kill the game by adding more oil,the allies still have winter on their side for counter attacks and north Africa is so easy for the allies take and thats the back door to ussr .after this was done i could tell my friends about this great balanced game and maybe other poeple could tell their friends and so on.i do not have the time to master this game as it is, not many do.

I love this game. I think the game is very well balanced for the Axis. Basically it is a matter of figuring out ways of conserving oil and manpower as you try to conquer Europe. Wouldn't it be boring if all you had to do was just spam tanks and technology and whoever spams the most wins? Besides, if you don't like being constrained by oil, just uncheck the box for it in preferences and you can spam tanks as much as you want.

[ncali]

REALLY man, how many people are playing this game on a regular basis? 10, 15? That should tell you something.

I'll keep playing until the end of time because i like strategy games and i think your mod is great. Its just that we dont get to do DIFFERENT games after 1943. Its almost always the same ina general sense.

The GS mod has been more popular than that, IMO. 22 people responded to soh's survey on oil in less than 24 hours and you can also see the number of hits for various threads. I'd say at least 25+ people have been active in the forums within the last couple months, and there are always people that don't post much and play a game off and on or occassionally. This isn't bad for a game of moderate original popularity that was released a few years ago! But even if it were less, I am still enjoying it and think the GS mod has really realized the original potential for this game. If not for the mod, I think the activity here would be about 0 at this point!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

LOL. Wow Borger, a little jalous or disgruntled that i can see holes in your perfect GS mod? I did it and even with all the things you mention, it was still near impossible to achieve. you didnt need to change the rules that game was exceptionnal in the sense that all went well for me and that the british fleet was oblitarated.

REALLY man, how many people are playing this game on a regular basis? 10, 15? That should tell you something.

I'll keep playing until the end of time because i like strategy games and i think your mod is great. Its just that we dont get to do DIFFERENT games after 1943. Its almost always the same ina general sense.

I have never said GS is perfect. That's why we constantly try to improve it. Removing silly exploits is just one of them. You didn't even bother to reply to the fact that USA in GS is represented with only 5% of the territory on the map. So it should actually have been offmap completely. You haven't conquered USA just because you land in a few hexes to the east.

How do you know how many people are playing GS on a regular basis? I can tell you that our beta group is bigger than the number you predicted and all of us are working with the game regularly. When Slitherine has had over 5000 downloads of GS it says something too. I wouldn't mind even IF you were right. I have several friends I can play against and that's enough for me. We're not making any money on GS so it doesn't matter to me how many people are playing GS.

If you don't like GS that much then that's fine. We're targeting a different type of players than you with GS. It's that simple. I would not play the kind of games you enjoy the most and fortunately for me I have a chance to mod a great game called CeaW into sometehing I like (GS). You have the chance to mod CeaW into a game YOU like and post it for others to play. It's quite moddable.

[soh]

Guy's

GS is a simulation of WWII, with some latitude, not a fantasy.

cheers

Simulation is the imitation of some real thing,

Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena (none of that in this game)

i would like this Simulation to have some extra oil which inturn will beef up axis and makes the allies player must re-learn how to play with the same problems that axis have as in 1 or 2 mistakes and it will cost u so in the end both sides are 50/50 which now they are NOT

[supermax]

LOL. Wow Borger, a little jalous or disgruntled that i can see holes in your perfect GS mod? I did it and even with all the things you mention, it was still near impossible to achieve. you didnt need to change the rules that game was exceptionnal in the sense that all went well for me and that the british fleet was oblitarated.

REALLY man, how many people are playing this game on a regular basis? 10, 15? That should tell you something.

I'll keep playing until the end of time because i like strategy games and i think your mod is great. Its just that we dont get to do DIFFERENT games after 1943. Its almost always the same ina general sense.

I have never said GS is perfect. That's why we constantly try to improve it. Removing silly exploits is just one of them. You didn't even bother to reply to the fact that USA in GS is represented with only 5% of the territory on the map. So it should actually have been offmap completely. You haven't conquered USA just because you land in a few hexes to the east.

How do you know how many people are playing GS on a regular basis? I can tell you that our beta group is bigger than the number you predicted and all of us are working with the game regularly. When Slitherine has had over 5000 downloads of GS it says something too. I wouldn't mind even IF you were right. I have several friends I can play against and that's enough for me. We're not making any money on GS so it doesn't matter to me how many people are playing GS.

If you don't like GS that much then that's fine. We're targeting a different type of players than you with GS. It's that simple. I would not play the kind of games you enjoy the most and fortunately for me I have a chance to mod a great game called CeaW into sometehing I like (GS). You have the chance to mod CeaW into a game YOU like and post it for others to play. It's quite moddable.

Different type of players than me? LOL. Do i really have to comment on this? I am one of the players with most games played in your MOD. I'll play recklessly, boldly, defensivly, depending on the game, just to make it different.

USA? Well, you have the power to change things for them to become impossible in YOUR mod. Just make the US dissapear if that makes you happy. Since when did you ever listen to a guy with something to say that has silly exploits . Just do what you want. You say GS its an historical simulation, but either be an invasion of the USa or the fall of Moscow, both events are non-historical. So i say it remains a game.

Oh, and i tought i was clear enough in my last post, i love your MOD, its just that its always the same.

[Blathergut]

Thanks for the comments, Stauffenberg...they were very interesting to read. Am looking forward to the newest version when Slitherine releases it. Keep up the amazing effort. It is appreciated out here!

[richardsd]

i would like this Simulation to have some extra oil which inturn will beef up axis and makes the allies player must re-learn how to play with the same problems that axis have as in 1 or 2 mistakes and it will cost u so in the end both sides are 50/50 which now they are NOT

there are two ways to look at this:

1. historically, the Axis had massive oil and manpower issues and lost, the Allies made lost of mistakes and won - the problem is?

2. choice, if you want to make changes - do it, you can call it the soh mod

I quite like the game, its a nice blend of scale/time and historical accuracy - perfect no, but what is? I asked and was very kindly granted access to the beta team to add my 2c worth, which with $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee. I am a great example of the elegance of this game, I didn't have much experience at the game but quickly progressed to 'competant' which is exactly what I wanted from the effort I put in (I play most games UI). I regularly play new players to introduce them to playing a 'Human' and I make an effort not to 'destroy' them without them getting a 'game', at the same time I play the good players and get a kicking - all good fun. Easy to learn, hard to master.

the choices are all yours

[soh]

i would like this Simulation to have some extra oil which inturn will beef up axis and makes the allies player must re-learn how to play with the same problems that axis have as in 1 or 2 mistakes and it will cost u so in the end both sides are 50/50 which now they are NOT

there are two ways to look at this:

1. historically, the Axis had massive oil and manpower issues and lost, the Allies made lost of mistakes and won - the problem is?

2. choice, if you want to make changes - do it, you can call it the soh mod

I quite like the game, its a nice blend of scale/time and historical accuracy - perfect no, but what is? I asked and was very kindly granted access to the beta team to add my 2c worth, which with $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee. I am a great example of the elegance of this game, I didn't have much experience at the game but quickly progressed to 'competant' which is exactly what I wanted from the effort I put in (I play most games UI). I regularly play new players to introduce them to playing a 'Human' and I make an effort not to 'destroy' them without them getting a 'game', at the same time I play the good players and get a kicking - all good fun. Easy to learn, hard to master.

the choices are all yours

i look forward to seen how the poll turns out alot of poeple have yet to vote thank you

[rkr1958]

...add my 2c worth, which with $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Wow, that's some expensive coffee. I bought myself one of those Keurig single cup coffee makers that use the "k-cups". In bulk these cost me 50c each, which I though was expensive! But I really do enjoy the convenience, no mess and really like the coffee it makes.

By the way, if coffee costs you $3.50 a cup what does a pint of beer run you?

[richardsd]

good beer or bad beer?

in a Pub a bad beer will cost you $5 or $6 a good beer $7 to $9 in a supermarket its $2

of course this is funny money New Zealand $'s!

[rkr1958]

good beer or bad beer?

in a Pub a bad beer will cost you $5 or $6 a good beer $7 to $9 in a supermarket its $2

of course this is funny money New Zealand $'s!

Here a good beer would cost $7.50 and an average beer around 3 or $4 in a pub. I don't know if I've ever had a bad beer.

I also own one of those 5L Heineken beer keg coolers. A 5L keg costs around $20 and, if I've done my metric to English conversions correctly, that averages out to less than $2 a pint for Heineken draft. Not bad.

[supermax]

good beer or bad beer?

in a Pub a bad beer will cost you $5 or $6 a good beer $7 to $9 in a supermarket its $2

of course this is funny money New Zealand $'s!

Here a good beer would cost $7.50 and an average beer around 3 or $4 in a pub. I don't know if I've ever had a bad beer.

I also own one of those 5L Heineken beer keg coolers. A 5L keg costs around $20 and, if I've done my metric to English conversions correctly, that averages out to less than $2 a pint for Heineken draft. Not bad.

Way that go Ronnie. Good way to get a bad conversation into a funny one. by the way 3.50 is not expensive coffe if you go at Starbuck.

I want to apologize if i have been a little to "hard-hitting" on this one. I only want playability to be better for the Axis, and like Richards says, it be nice if the Russian player could REALLY be afraid of messing things up instead of having the game fix things uop for him.

[rkr1958]

good beer or bad beer?

in a Pub a bad beer will cost you $5 or $6 a good beer $7 to $9 in a supermarket its $2

of course this is funny money New Zealand $'s!

Here a good beer would cost $7.50 and an average beer around 3 or $4 in a pub. I don't know if I've ever had a bad beer.

I also own one of those 5L Heineken beer keg coolers. A 5L keg costs around $20 and, if I've done my metric to English conversions correctly, that averages out to less than $2 a pint for Heineken draft. Not bad.

Way that go Ronnie. Good way to get a bad conversation into a funny one. by the way 3.50 is not expensive coffe if you go at Starbuck.

I want to apologize if i have been a little to "hard-hitting" on this one. I only want playability to be better for the Axis, and like Richards says, it be nice if the Russian player could REALLY be afraid of messing things up instead of having the game fix things uop for him.

Max, Thanks. No need for you to apologize. You've definitely earned the mantle of one of the elites and in the class with Borger, Joe, Neil and others. From personal experience I've never come close to winning against any one of you and I have no doubt that whatever rules are in place you will continue to dominate your games.

You're right about $3.50 for Starbucks coffee, of course. Though I really don't fancy the fancy coffees.

[Plaid]

I think russian resilence is 150% historical. In 1941 they lost all they had 2 times at least, and still they stopped germans in front of Moscow, and had sparkling new army by 1942. So why this should not happen in a game? Production, manpower and resources of USSR and Germany are uncompareable (half of it is still off-map, remember) and you have no chance to win here in attriction war as axis. I think thats okay.

And since you speak about prices there - here in Russia common beer in a shop costs slightly more then 1$, in a pub it will be 3-5$, elite one can be more expencive, up to 20$ i guess. Starbucks coffee will cost 3.5$ like elsewhere, while common quality vodka costs same. Who needs this coffee?

[rkr1958]

Starbucks coffee will cost 3.5$ like elsewhere, while common quality vodka costs same. Who needs this coffee?

That reminds of the Alan Jackson & Jimmy Buffet song, "It's Five O'Clock Somewhere".

[harrybanana]

The real issue here, IMHO, is between playablity and realism. Playability equates with how enjoyable the game is to play. For many players the more options available to the Axis and Allies (invading the US, building many tanks and aircraft, sea invasions with large armies early in the game, etc.) the more variety there will be in the game and therefore the more fun it will be to play as all games will be different. However, there are many other players (and I count myself in this group) who want the game to be as realistic as possible even if this means sacrificing playabilty. This does not mean I want every game to be the same, in fact far from it. What I do want is a game that simulates the actual circumstances faced by each of the combatants by giving to each of them the material and resources they had available to them historically and then letting the players decide how to use those resources in a realistic manner. For example, if someone designed a game where your goal is to be the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic in the Spirit of St. Louis (ie Lindbergh) I think it would be a good simulation if my plane modelled the performance capabilities of the plane as accurately as possible. However, I could choose my own route (including departure and destination cities) and the weather encountered would be randomly determined. Now the game might be a lot more fun if I had unlimited fuel, or I could do Mach 2, or was attacked by ufos on route that I had to shoot down; but I personally wouldn't care for it as a simulation.

If Soh and others believe that historically the Axis fuel shortage was not as severe as "simulated" in the game, then I agree with them that the game should be changed to make it more historical in this regard. But keep in mind that there was a very good reason why the Axis struck for the Caucus oil fields in 42 and not Moscow and I would not like to see this reason dissappear entirely from the game. For myself I think one of the more unrealistic features of the game that hurts the Axis is to allow the same aircraft that attack subs so effectively also be so effective at strategic bombing. They were actually different aircraft. Also why are Strategic bombers less expensive than TAC? But now I'm on a different rant.

[rkr1958]

For myself I think one of the more unrealistic features of the game that hurts the Axis is to allow the same aircraft that attack subs so effectively also be so effective at strategic bombing. They were actually different aircraft. Also why are Strategic bombers less expensive than TAC? But now I'm on a different rant.

This fact has not gone unnoticed and has been a subject of discussion lately. I think that you'll see a significant reduction in how effective SAC's are in the early war against subs and that the Brits will be forced to invest more in DD's if they want to get their convoys through. It won't be until later in the war and with higher Tech that SAC's will gain significant ASW capabilities.

[Hill621]

Making both sides equally challenging to play would be great, but I don't think one achieves that with just giving the axis more oil. Forcing the allied player also to attack and commit to operations throughout the war will. Then both sides will have to take risks and carefully plan the logistics etc. How to achieve this? I don't know really!
Maybe (from the top of my head) holding the Dnepr in '43 earns the axis a bonus victory point, or not attacking Algiers results in axis annexing the north of Africa through diplomacy (this may trigger some more 'historical' allied operations!).
Not sure if any of this has enough historic validation, but maybe this line of thought will result a set of rules forcing allies not to sit and wait until it's their 'finest hour', making both sides risk-prone and preserving the philosophy of the mod.

[StevenCarleton]

For myself I think one of the more unrealistic features of the game that hurts the Axis is to allow the same aircraft that attack subs so effectively also be so effective at strategic bombing. They were actually different aircraft.

Not entirely true. B-24 Liberators were used in large numbers as ASW and maritime patrol aircraft in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Of course the crews would have different training and different weapons would be carried.