Slitherine

Kerensky wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:06 pm

adiekmann wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:57 pm
Or Nazi Zombies to make up for the manpower shortages! (Just kidding. That's stupid.)

You say it's stupid sarcastically... but how many video games of Nazi zombies has there been? There are more Nazi zombie games than there are Panzer General clones...

adiekmann wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:09 pm Yes, I am aware. That was what I was referencing. Castle Wolfenstein, Call of Duty. etc. But I am not a big FPS game player so I don't know them all.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:17 pm

adiekmann wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:09 pm Yes, I am aware. That was what I was referencing. Castle Wolfenstein, Call of Duty. etc. But I am not a big FPS game player so I don't know them all.

For what it's worth, I certainly have no plans nor desires to add a zombie mode to this game. Regardless of zombie genre popularity, there's plenty of those games out there. Now if you want to talk to me about getting some kind of mod or April Fool's content that will cover the Great Emu War of the 1930s... sigh me the hell up for that. Ain't nobody making the Emu War game.

kverdon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:31 pm I'd rather see more Balkans/Greece and then Afrika Corps than head back into Russian and once again into the Rubble of Stalingrad. North Afrika, Sicily, Italy and then Southern France might be an interesting change of pace from Normandy and Northern France. Do Nordwind instead of the Bulge etc. Tons of content there. [Ret: Yes!... These are good-idea's... yes... after or before the Balkans... the Campaign could be split to either go to 'Russia' or go to 'Afrika'... this should be seriously looked at.]

On a historical note, from what I've read, The Germans use of D20 (heavy water) was a dead end in terms of getting a nuclear reaction going. [Ret:???Exactly why and how is that the case?.] Even that plan was sunk (literally) when the Norwegians sent what had been produced into the bottom of one of the deepest Fjords. [Ret: the Germans were also using... besides 'Ships'... they were also using 'Submarines' and 'Large-Cargo-Seaplanes'(That could be re-fueled at sea by submarines) to transfer or send this heavy-water to their research facility in Argentina... I believe that the 'Research-Facility' was located on an island in southern Argentina... just across the bay... east of the city of 'Baralochi']

kverdon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:01 am Though it's possible Germany could have gotten a Nuclear reactor going with pressurized Heavy Water it was a long shot. They needed Tons of it and they really were not that far along. [Ret: It would be only proper to get some kind of authentication on that verdict!.] The only available source was a plant in Norway [Ret: To my knowledge... Norway was not the only main source... I don't even count Argentina for much heavy-water... I don't live in South America... so i'm not familiar with the countries there... there was another country in South America where the Germans before the war had built a huge hydro-electric dam... somewhere North-East of Argentina... and that is where they produced massive amounts of heavy-water. Check my old postings... I have the exact/precise details and Maps there!.] that was heavily bombed and pretty much knocked out. What had been produced was to be shipped to Germany but the ship was sunk in the bottom of a deep Fjord by the Norwegian resistance with some help from the British. Though a current leading producer of Heavy Water, Argentina did not start up production until after the war had ended. [Ret: Hitler planned on a 4th Reich... he was going to start-off by taking the War to the U.S.A. ... after Germany had officially lost the War. Maybe that's why or one of the reasons why Argentina started producing Heavy Water after the War... because the Germans originally still needed it?. Not only that, but... how and why did Argentina get into this Atomic/Nuclear vocation???... was it or where they introduced into it by the Germans???.]

Be interesting to see where Kerrensky goes with Axis Opps. I am hoping for a bit of the path less trodden with some highlights of the big actions thrown in.

adiekmann wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:58 am What will happen is a lot of people will be upset again if the AO41 (or later for that matter) has too many "side theater" battles that take away from Barbarossa or Case Blue. You know, the "Main Events."

Perhaps the real solution is to make a "Backwater" DLC [Ret: WWII Alternative-Decision: ] (someone can surely think of a better name for it than that). They could include all of the smaller operations and battles that otherwise would never make it into a DLC or WW2 game. They could be smaller maps, smaller core, and focus only on the minor theaters of conflict, partisan battles, and the like. [Ret: Depending on how its developed... maybe even an entire Campaign or Campaigns?] Focus an entire campaign on it. It needn't even cover just one year, but multiple years, like 1941-1944. Yugoslavia, French Resistance, Poland, deep behind the frontlines in Russia, Special operations in the Iraq, the rescue of Mussolini, and British Commando raids in France and Norway just to name few that come to mind off the top of my head. I would totally buy and play that! [Ret: Definitely!!!... so would i.]

Patrat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:59 pm

nexusno2000 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:57 pm Maybe we can have aliens invade in the middle of WW2?

Here you go.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F ... bl_vppi_i5

"In the Balance (Worldwar, Book One) (Worldwar Series 1)

Suppose Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, Hitler, and Hirohito had united to conquer an even greater foe?

No one could top their power—not the Germans, not the Japanese, not the Russians, not the United States.

From Pearl Harbor to panzers rolling through Paris to the Siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Midway, war seethed across the planet as flames of destruction rose higher and hotter.

And then, suddenly, the real enemy came.

The invaders seemed unstoppable, their technology far beyond human reach. And never before had men been more divided. For Jew to unite with Nazi, American with Japanese, and Russian with German was unthinkable.

But the alternative was even worse.

As the fate of the world hung in the balance, slowly, painfully, humankind took up the shocking challenge"



I know it sounds terrible, but its actually an extremely well written series of books.

Bogumil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:23 pm I played the new 1939 Campaign - the french part is boring and too big.

Bogumil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:23 pm Than the first battle in Fall White Battle at Bzura is mostly unhistorical - too much tanks, the german deployments arent right with real situation on 14th September 1939.
Finally I break up to play this campaign and wait for a more exactly modding polish campaign.

Bogumil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:23 pm The developers are not able to produce this !

kondi754 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:11 pm Ok, I just finished the last of the "French" scenarios.
I think I can attempt a more reliable assessment of AO1939 at least in this part.

1. The scenarios are interesting and engaging, it is very solid and innovative in many places design work. I get the impression that it is supposed to show at least some of the great possibilities that the game gives to a good and brave designer. And that is undoubtedly the main goal of this part. I think AOs are supposed to be like THAT in the developers' plans and that's why they hired a man like Kerensky to implement these plans
2. I stand by my opinion of the advantage of playability over historical reliability in AOs, because most of this events are fiction or heavily tuned reality, although one thing is true to the historical reality. This is the extreme ineptitude of the French army, a harbinger of a catastrophe that this country will experience in six months.
3. For this reason, I withdraw my words about the fact that the choice of such location was determined by sales considerations, because if I were French and saw a scenario like Forbach, I wouldn't be happy, unless someone is a masochist and likes to watch the embarrassment of his country and army
4. Unfortunately, I think the PzC 2 in AO 1939 is diluted like a beer at a country fair. There are too many French scenarios, all this could be concentrated on 2 maps (plus Forbach) - mine laying, slow removal of these mines and destruction of bunkers by the French, German raids on the supply depots and airfields, defense in the forest, defense on the river line, etc. I think someone decided where this part of the campaign must end and then stretched and multiplied missions to fulfill the prescribed map quota in AO 1939.
5. I still and invariably think that there should be 3-5 more missions in Poland at the expense of France and Finland, where, as it turns out, there will be no Finns...
6. Nevertheless, this part ultimately defends itself. I think even if I didn't have the FM edition I would buy it. However, while I rated SCW at 8.5/10, so AO 1939 at 7/10 at most. Of course, the assessment is only for Czechoslovakia (unexpectedly interesting map ) and France. Perhaps this rating will increase after the next maps, because I heard that the battle of Bzura is supposedly an outstanding scenario. Although I think again I don't count on the exact presentation of these events but rather on the Kerensky version of this battle
7. Last point, this part is definitely easier than SCW. I think the developers got scared by the complaints of players after the battle of Teruel and Ebro, so now they take the player by the hand and lead him through the world of PzC2

This is my most honest assessment of this game, without any emotions or unnecessary sarcasm.
Now I'm sorry, but tonight is the premiere of Wasteland 3 (pm LA time), so in September I won't be here anyway.

adiekmann wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:56 pm

kondi754 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:11 pm Ok, I just finished the last of the "French" scenarios.
I think I can attempt a more reliable assessment of AO1939 at least in this part.

1. The scenarios are interesting and engaging, it is very solid and innovative in many places design work. I get the impression that it is supposed to show at least some of the great possibilities that the game gives to a good and brave designer. And that is undoubtedly the main goal of this part. I think AOs are supposed to be like THAT in the developers' plans and that's why they hired a man like Kerensky to implement these plans
2. I stand by my opinion of the advantage of playability over historical reliability in AOs, because most of this events are fiction or heavily tuned reality, although one thing is true to the historical reality. This is the extreme ineptitude of the French army, a harbinger of a catastrophe that this country will experience in six months.
3. For this reason, I withdraw my words about the fact that the choice of such location was determined by sales considerations, because if I were French and saw a scenario like Forbach, I wouldn't be happy, unless someone is a masochist and likes to watch the embarrassment of his country and army
4. Unfortunately, I think the PzC 2 in AO 1939 is diluted like a beer at a country fair. There are too many French scenarios, all this could be concentrated on 2 maps (plus Forbach) - mine laying, slow removal of these mines and destruction of bunkers by the French, German raids on the supply depots and airfields, defense in the forest, defense on the river line, etc. I think someone decided where this part of the campaign must end and then stretched and multiplied missions to fulfill the prescribed map quota in AO 1939.
5. I still and invariably think that there should be 3-5 more missions in Poland at the expense of France and Finland, where, as it turns out, there will be no Finns...
6. Nevertheless, this part ultimately defends itself. I think even if I didn't have the FM edition I would buy it. However, while I rated SCW at 8.5/10, so AO 1939 at 7/10 at most. Of course, the assessment is only for Czechoslovakia (unexpectedly interesting map ) and France. Perhaps this rating will increase after the next maps, because I heard that the battle of Bzura is supposedly an outstanding scenario. Although I think again I don't count on the exact presentation of these events but rather on the Kerensky version of this battle
7. Last point, this part is definitely easier than SCW. I think the developers got scared by the complaints of players after the battle of Teruel and Ebro, so now they take the player by the hand and lead him through the world of PzC2

This is my most honest assessment of this game, without any emotions or unnecessary sarcasm.
Now I'm sorry, but tonight is the premiere of Wasteland 3 (pm LA time), so in September I won't be here anyway.

Kondi, I think you'll like the Finish maps as well. I certainly did.

What needs to be said is this: whether you feel too many scenarios were re: Saarland offensive or not, whether Finland should be there or not, one can still evaluate all of these missions by way of how fun they were to play. After all, when you are in the middle of a good battle, you are not thinking, "Oh, I'm playing a recreation of Army Group North's advance into Poland," or whatever. It is mostly just a map and you're concentrating on the mission objectives, similar to a randomly generated one that isn't representing a particular real-world location or battle.

And then you ask, "Well, was it designed well? Was it fun/challenging to play?"

Where I have already agreed that from a certain point of view there could have/should have been less France and more Poland, I did enjoy playing AO'39. And that's what most important.

kondi754 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:17 pm

adiekmann wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:56 pm

kondi754 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:11 pm

Kondi, I think you'll like the Finish maps as well. I certainly did.

What needs to be said is this: whether you feel too many scenarios were re: Saarland offensive or not, whether Finland should be there or not, one can still evaluate all of these missions by way of how fun they were to play. After all, when you are in the middle of a good battle, you are not thinking, "Oh, I'm playing a recreation of Army Group North's advance into Poland," or whatever. It is mostly just a map and you're concentrating on the mission objectives, similar to a randomly generated one that isn't representing a particular real-world location or battle.

And then you ask, "Well, was it designed well? Was it fun/challenging to play?"

Where I have already agreed that from a certain point of view there could have/should have been less France and more Poland, I did enjoy playing AO'39. And that's what most important.

And I enjoy it but during the French scenarios, it's really fun for the first half of almost every mission, then when you sort out the units and organize the defense, the opponent isn't able to do anything, or rather the game creator has set it up so that the French don't pose a real threat.
Of course, you need to control the situation and try to neutralize the most dangerous units, i.e. overstrength French infantry or sometimes artillery. It is also fun for the seasoned player, but will it be attractive to action-hungry young wolves?
That is why I believe that French scenarios are watered down from real action and dramatic twists and are rather intended to showcase the great skills of the designer IMHO.
SCW was full of real action and dramatic twists but during AO 1939 I never felt that I could lose so far. Of course, I suppose that will change soon but Saar offensive looks like Saar offensive indeed
To answer your rethoric question: Yes, it is designed VERY well and yes, it is fun (not really challenging to play so far but I expect it will be challenging soon) and I would buy it anyway

Morrodar wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:46 am I just finished the AO 39' campaign and I must say that this dlc is confused.

Czechoslovakia felt more like a puzzle, was extremely short and not a great first mission, especially after the strong finish in SCW (I found Madrid to be really fun).

The Winter War (and later on continuation war) should have been left out to be it's own dlc in the future. But that dlc should be done with Finnish soldiers and not only German volunteers.

If a developer really wants to give a player some choice they should always have an alternate path for them to choose, so they don't skip on missions and content.

While the battle of the Ebro was extremely challenging and fun, I felt like none of the missions in this dlc except maybe the fort in Orenthal were particularly challenging. The ending scenario of the dlc should have been Warsawa and not Denmark.

I think if you had found a way to include not only the Saar Offensive but also all of the major offensives in Poland I would have given this dlc a 10/10.

As a player I don't really care if it doesn't make sense that we're in the west and suddenly in the east, all I want is some awesome scenarios. But if this is a point people don't share, then people should just take a look at all the excellent suggestions already mentioned in this thread for how the developers can consider making that possible.