Whatever happened to a fair go? I've played all the mods (BJR, GS1.06 and 07), and can't believe the unfairness. Why play the Axis against a human opponent at all? You've got no hope unless the other bloke has to take off both shoes to count to four.
No full supply east of Moscow or Rostov for the Axis. Do you expect us to think that the Germans forgot how to lay train tracks? Honestly, they had the most functional rail system of all the nations before WWI.
No Iceland or Greenland for the Axis...or the Azores. You know that Churchill invaded Iceland just as sure as Hitler invade Poland? In a grand strategy situation, that really puts one side at a clear disadvantage.
No way to assault Malta with troops. The siege of Malta wasn't a siege at all. Just a long bombardment. The only reason Malta didn't fall was because nobody really tried to take it.
Are we Commonwealth citizens so pathetic that we have to build in failsafes for a game?
Grand-Strategy should mean that you can invade/attack anywhere.
Rubbish!
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
-
joerock22
- Captain - Heavy Cruiser
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:38 am
- Location: Connecticut, USA
I don't know if I've ever seen a post this long where every single point is misguided, if not dead wrong. With much exasperation I shall endeavor to respond to all of them. For the record, I would have been happy to use a more civil tone if the original post was more civil.
1. GS is the fairest version of CEAW. It's balanced so both sides have an equal chance at victory. Admittedly, that balance is not perfect. But you have to look at the victory conditions; the Axis don't have to force Russia to surrender (in fact, that's virtually impossible in normal circumstances). They only have to do better than the Axis did historically. If you want a game that forces the Axis to defeat Russia, then play the original ("vanilla") CEAW. Just don't expect to play for too long; once the Axis start getting pushed back, there's no point in continuing to play. GS gives players a reason to keep playing until the very end. The Axis can win the game even if they are defeated for the purposes of the "actual" war.
I can also tell you from experience and statistics that Axis players definitely have a chance against even excellet Allied players. The Axis side is more difficult, but they did lose the war historically, so maybe that's not such a bad thing.
2. Remember that the vanilla game also imposed a supply limit for the Axis toward the easter end of the map. GS did not alter this. The longer supply lines get, the more difficult it is to get supply to the troops. At some point, it makes sense that units would be unable to rail back to the west. It just forces the Axis player to be more cautious when entering Siberia, which isn't a bad thing. In GS, it doesn't matter too much because the Axis don't generally spend much time too far west of the supply line.
I think the rest of the points come down to a basic misunderstanding of GS. I’m going to quote from the manual here:
1. GS is the fairest version of CEAW. It's balanced so both sides have an equal chance at victory. Admittedly, that balance is not perfect. But you have to look at the victory conditions; the Axis don't have to force Russia to surrender (in fact, that's virtually impossible in normal circumstances). They only have to do better than the Axis did historically. If you want a game that forces the Axis to defeat Russia, then play the original ("vanilla") CEAW. Just don't expect to play for too long; once the Axis start getting pushed back, there's no point in continuing to play. GS gives players a reason to keep playing until the very end. The Axis can win the game even if they are defeated for the purposes of the "actual" war.
I can also tell you from experience and statistics that Axis players definitely have a chance against even excellet Allied players. The Axis side is more difficult, but they did lose the war historically, so maybe that's not such a bad thing.
2. Remember that the vanilla game also imposed a supply limit for the Axis toward the easter end of the map. GS did not alter this. The longer supply lines get, the more difficult it is to get supply to the troops. At some point, it makes sense that units would be unable to rail back to the west. It just forces the Axis player to be more cautious when entering Siberia, which isn't a bad thing. In GS, it doesn't matter too much because the Axis don't generally spend much time too far west of the supply line.
I think the rest of the points come down to a basic misunderstanding of GS. I’m going to quote from the manual here:
You seem to be looking for a game that lets you do whatever you want. That is not GS, which is a historically-based game. And it will never become that kind of game. Please try to gain a basic understanding of something before you blindly criticize it.The goal for this mod was to transform the standard game into the most accurate simulation of WW-II in Europe and North Africa while maximizing play balance, enjoyment and replayability. We didn’t want to create a mod that forces players into a historical timeline of events; but to create a mod that allows players to explore alternate timelines and events that are historically reasonable. Of course, what’s historically reasonable is a matter of opinion and subject to debate but the developers and the beta testers did the best job possible given the constraints of the CEaW game engine and the fact that we do this as a hobby and not a job.
-
NotaPacifist
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:48 am
I understand how it works. And I see how few people are actually playing it, responding to requests for opponents, etc. Why is Axis and Allies so popular despite it's huge simplicity? Because it's fun to have an even chance.
As far as your historical simulation reason, that doesn't hold water.
Churchill's reason for invading Iceland was because he feared that the Germans would do it. Here, they can't. But it can still be used as a very convenient airbase for the Allies. Britain nor the US has to go to the bother of stationing between 25,000 to 40,000 men as they did historically. If they did, that would be historical simulation.
The US seizing the Azores before they entered the war because Germany might get lucky enough to take it doesn't seem very likely either. Roosevelt couldn't get the American people into the war despite Churchill's best efforts. They had to be bombed into action against one foe and DOW'ed by the other. What's being simulated here?
I don't mind Malta having fortress walls. I wouldn't have it any other way. But it would also have a beach for landing on. I'm certain there is no unscalable wall surrounding the island.
How are those points misguided?
And the eastern supply problem just isn't right. Even with the loss of Leningrad and Moscow, the Russians can still bring huge forces to bear. Did the Germans have trouble advancing east of Rostov in 1942? What's being simulated here?
As far as your historical simulation reason, that doesn't hold water.
Churchill's reason for invading Iceland was because he feared that the Germans would do it. Here, they can't. But it can still be used as a very convenient airbase for the Allies. Britain nor the US has to go to the bother of stationing between 25,000 to 40,000 men as they did historically. If they did, that would be historical simulation.
The US seizing the Azores before they entered the war because Germany might get lucky enough to take it doesn't seem very likely either. Roosevelt couldn't get the American people into the war despite Churchill's best efforts. They had to be bombed into action against one foe and DOW'ed by the other. What's being simulated here?
I don't mind Malta having fortress walls. I wouldn't have it any other way. But it would also have a beach for landing on. I'm certain there is no unscalable wall surrounding the island.
How are those points misguided?
And the eastern supply problem just isn't right. Even with the loss of Leningrad and Moscow, the Russians can still bring huge forces to bear. Did the Germans have trouble advancing east of Rostov in 1942? What's being simulated here?
You may have an argument with these, as in fact it is a little bit unrealistic that the Axis cannot take these air fields. Nevertheless, I'm sure that if the Axis could take Iceland and the Azores, it would very rarely happen.NotaPacifist wrote: Churchill's reason for invading Iceland was because he feared that the Germans would do it. Here, they can't. But it can still be used as a very convenient airbase for the Allies. Britain nor the US has to go to the bother of stationing between 25,000 to 40,000 men as they did historically. If they did, that would be historical simulation.
The US seizing the Azores before they entered the war because Germany might get lucky enough to take it doesn't seem very likely either. Roosevelt couldn't get the American people into the war despite Churchill's best efforts. They had to be bombed into action against one foe and DOW'ed by the other. What's being simulated here?
In GS 2.00 it will be possible to do amphibious invasions, i.e. you will be able to attack from a transport loaded with an INF, MECH or ARM and if the defending unit is destroyed or retreats (the latter is not possible with the GAR in Malta) then you can land. Furthermore, it will be possible to land a Para-Unit on the airfield near Malta. This will make an invasion of Malta easier. Please note that taking Malta was not seen as a cakewalk after the British reinforced the Island. In fact the Operation was cancelled, because the Germans feared the high losses.I don't mind Malta having fortress walls. I wouldn't have it any other way. But it would also have a beach for landing on. I'm certain there is no unscalable wall surrounding the island.
Concerning this point I have to disagree completely. It is a fact that the Axis were bad concerning logistics in the Soviet Union and North Africa. Many historians point out that the lack of good logistics and airfields in the Soviet Union was one of the main reasons that the Axis lost. Furthermore, in GS the rail system is greatly in favour of the Axis as it makes it very easy to quickly rail units deep into the Soviet Union. In fact the rail system in GS is much better then the logistics the Germans had in the real war on the eastern front.And the eastern supply problem just isn't right. Even with the loss of Leningrad and Moscow, the Russians can still bring huge forces to bear. Did the Germans have trouble advancing east of Rostov in 1942? What's being simulated here?