Slitherine

Come on boys and girl, do some game theory read some armchair general,
Strategy and Tactics both magazines.
The USA been at war with Afghanistan for 12 years make something of that surely.
All your making is chess game without the boring pieces.
Battle of Verdun France killed almost if not million people now that's a battle.
Work with it.

I'm sorry I really don't understand your point?

What has game theory got to do with the setting of a game and how is BA like Chess?

metalstorm wrote:Come on boys and girl, do some game theory read some armchair general,
Strategy and Tactics both magazines.
The USA been at war with Afghanistan for 12 years make something of that surely.
All your making is chess game without the boring pieces.
Battle of Verdun France killed almost if not million people now that's a battle.
Work with it.

First, this game is based on WW2, and not modern warfare. While I agree with you concerning the chess game theory, isn't all warfare based on this? Pin your enemy, outflank them then hit them hard (checkmate!). This game is not highly detailed with lots of orders. It's a very basic game (as someone pointed out) so you can't really use detailed plans of attack.
The battle of Verdun was a bloody slaughterhouse and certainly not a 'classic ' battle. A lot of good Frenchmen lost their lives holding the line.
If I were you, I would explore Slitherine's other games and pick one which suits your style of tactics.

love the statement 'do not understand' or 'whats the point' sound like one of the many US presidents what do you mean 'no'.
Why pound on BA the IPAD is great. do not need a mouse, do not need a keyboard, take it any where. look mom NO WIRES. just my finger and i love to give the finger.
As I said am a tech from Mainframe to the big multiprocessor enterprise systems.
When i play a turn sometimes hook it up to my TV biggest computer screen i ever seen.

Really Battle Academy just ww2 I doubt that.

cardiffian wrote: First, this game is based on WW2, and not modern warfare. While I agree with you concerning the chess game theory, isn't all warfare based on this? Pin your enemy, outflank them then hit them hard (checkmate!). This game is not highly detailed with lots of orders. It's a very basic game (as someone pointed out) so you can't really use detailed plans of attack.
The battle of Verdun was a bloody slaughterhouse and certainly not a 'classic ' battle. A lot of good Frenchmen lost their lives holding the line.
If I were you, I would explore Slitherine's other games and pick one which suits your style of tactics.

cardiffian: You gave an intelligent answer to someone that won't understand. From some of his other posts, it seems he has an axe to grind.

If this was Matrix Games, I might suggest metalstorm was just one of their annoyingly seemingly human sounding spam bots

He mentions game theory, does not to establish he knows any himself, and then wanders off making what seem like generic jabs. Chess is basically war simulation in it's purest form. It's also not very WW2 looking. Hence why BA is a better fit if you want historical flair.

I personally couldn't care less if he works on or with a mainframe computer anywhere at all. I'm also not likely to be impressed if he's an electrical engineer. Not relevant to computer wargame design. I also wouldn't want him working on my teeth.

Beating on the move to tablet wins him no praise from me. If he wants he can sit and die off in the PC realm if he insists I guess. I'm all for exploiting newer technology (I thought he understood technology?).

Anyone that knows squat about wargaming knows no AI games might be harder to sell but likely would be easier to make too, case in point Anglo German war, the designer couldn't care less about AI design. Playing wargames on a device solo seems to make sense to him. And there are other methods of playing wargames electronically but not requiring a dumb ass AI case in point VASSAL, needs a board game and a PC interface and two humans.

Computer gaming has trouble with the naval game. Must be a code problem. Computer wargaming doesn't need real time to be fun though nor does it need fancy graphics. It merely needs wargamers wanting to play wargames the way we did it in the 70s. And those CAN play just fine on even something as modest as a Nintendo DSi XL, I know, Commander Europe at War does this just fine (regardless of the games design points, the program still can operate in that environment).
But one thing that transcends device played on, it setting. WW2 is simply not the same as 2012. The technology of war was substantially different. In 1940 the combatants couldn't report on the battlefield via their cell phones. Nuclear weapons only appear when the war was all but over, and modern hardware was still new ie tanks jets and helicopters.

Anyway until he proves otherwise, metalstorm is either a bot or merely an idiot trying to look like a troll, or a troll looking to be mistaken as an idiot.

I weep for whoever has him doing their mainframe service.

What is holding back IPAD sales is the lack of an office suit like ms office.
Sorry it is not Slitherine. Am getting used to pages app. Doing this stuff it is ok.
Email the guys at microsoft tell'em to get a move on.
Yes, text bots have been around about thirty yrs. keep it fun....

Back to game theory operation sea lion an't ever going to happen and never would
happen. To quote a great general 'I am an elephant, you are a whale' and same to the
Nazis never ruled the seas. The scenario I would like to see is Patton's third army go up
Russian keister. With out lend lease the Russian would be hurting.

Thanks

Hmm first off I was not aware the iPad was suffering in any way vis a vis sales. I don't like the iPad, but it does appear to have sold quite well either way.

Yes Sea Lion was never going to happen in our real world. That is the challenge of wargaming though.

Patton going into Russia likely would be the same as Patton going into the Pas de Calais (a friggin disaster). It's good he was never in charge of more than an army. He needed an army group boss for his own safety.

Russia without lend lease would likely just mean they took heavier losses and beat up Germany in 46.
The Allies without Russia would likely mean a grim future.

Metalstorm I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so can't even attempt to answer any of your comments. Please feel free to reword them and maybe we can help.

Iain, under the circumstances, I'm blown away with your role model professionalism and politesse. Just another example of Slitherine, in particular you & Pip, going way beyond the call of duty to support the, ahem, broadest of elements in the gaming community PS. It's definitely a random sentence generator, isn't it? Gotta be?

DSWargamer wrote:Hmm first off I was not aware the iPad was suffering in any way vis a vis sales. I don't like the iPad, but it does appear to have sold quite well either way.

Yes Sea Lion was never going to happen in our real world. That is the challenge of wargaming though.

Patton going into Russia likely would be the same as Patton going into the Pas de Calais (a friggin disaster). It's good he was never in charge of more than an army. He needed an army group boss for his own safety.

Russia without lend lease would likely just mean they took heavier losses and beat up Germany in 46.
The Allies without Russia would likely mean a grim future.

+1, Spot on. The western allies needed the Soviet Union to win, the Soviet Union didn't need the west. As I understand it, the most important lend-lease materials to the USSR was trucks and boots (not to minimize the importance of either of those).

Yeah apple sales slumping. If you do not like the IPAD why are you here this an IPAD game on an IPAD forum thread. weird
Armchair General did a poll if US attacked Russia after WW2 and everyone agreed Russia would lose within a year, so what army would use the Fiinnish?
Knowing C++ or IOS does not make someone an historian. Allot of world war 2 battles were close.

metalstorm wrote: Armchair General did a poll if US attacked Russia after WW2 and everyone agreed Russia would lose within a year

A pole of whom? Kindergarteners?

A U.S. invasion of the Soviet Union on the heels of WW2 would fail for so many reasons it's hard to count them all. For starters, the Soviet Army dwarfed the western armies. More, the U.S. soldier was led to believe that the end of the war was the fall of Berlin; Soviet soldiers were trained that the western allied armies were enemy. It's unlikely the U.S. would have used an atomic bomb in Europe, even if they had one left. In every way, the Soviet army was superior to the U.S. except perhaps in the air. I'd speculate that a U.S. invasion of the USSR at that time would have led to France being on the other side of the Iron Curtain for 50+ years.

-Mark R.

This is a PC/Mac & iPad game and all players are welcome though what that has to do with anything I'm not sure. Please read your posts back before sending them as you're not making a lot of sense. If you have links to the poll I'd be interested to see as its clearly ridiculous that the US could defeat the Soviet Union - with or without the rest of the Western Allies.

The forum posters here are some of the most knowledgeable people in the world on this subject and you're going to have to back up any claims with good evidence and arguments not just some posturing.

One word sums up Patton attacking Russia.

Broke.

The US barely ended the war in the Pacific thanks to being broke. They were out of gas, out of cash and that is something that doesn't get a lot of press because they won and people rarely have a lot of time for things like paying for something like a won war.

But the truth is, a war ending in 46 would have gotten fairly ugly. The British were on the ropes even before the end in Europe.

The Russians on the other hand, well being a communist country does has some advantages when fighting for your life, as the lives of the average people aren't really overly important to the people 'assisting' them in winning.

I agree, until such time as he acknowledges some otherwise obvious comments, he is just a bot, a clever bot, but being not organic does tend to make him a waste of time.

DSWargamer wrote:One word sums up Patton attacking Russia.

Broke.

Indeed...
I suppose it all depends on whether you consider it in terms of cash or investment capital, though.


“the U.S. government issued considerable debt during the war at nominal interest rates ranging between 0.375 and 2.5 percent, and the debt-GNP ratio at the end of the war was at a record 1.2 percent.” (Ohanian, p. 23)

The government did purchase and owned a pile of capital assets, however - so while they had debt they also had a lot of non-liquid assets.

An interesting piece on this topic, for those interested, is here:
http://wiki.dickinson.edu/index.php?tit ... uring_WWII

This book, by Mark Harrison, is also a good read:
The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison

-Mark R.

The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, but first saw combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That episode indicated that, on the battlefield at least, the only thing that could destroy an Abrams was another Abrams; only seven of the tanks deployed in the operation were destroyed, all by friendly fire. recent article from msnbc.
Are you guy's communist? Lend Lease was just a bucket of spit. You do know the allies sent the spit to Russia, not the other way around. As far as the bomb this would be what would happen, the first kiloton air burst in europe after thousands flee v2 rocket launch, and a b29 would not make it. The communist paid dearly to take Berlin.
And you are right the US did not want any more war after ww2 in dept or out. Just suggust a better scenario then operation sea lion.

metalstorm wrote: Just suggust a better scenario then operation sea lion.

10-4, I agree - there could be some cool hypotheticals there.

Regarding being communist the only issue I have with communism is that it is exactly wrong for baser human-nature. Otherwise, it would be utopian system. It's a big problem though and it's why true communism can never work - the period of tutelage will never end...

-Mark R.

metalstorm wrote:The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, but first saw combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That episode indicated that, on the battlefield at least, the only thing that could destroy an Abrams was another Abrams; only seven of the tanks deployed in the operation were destroyed, all by friendly fire. recent article from msnbc.
Are you guy's communist? Lend Lease was just a bucket of spit. You do know the allies sent the spit to Russia, not the other way around. As far as the bomb this would be what would happen, the first kiloton air burst in europe after thousands flee v2 rocket launch, and a b29 would not make it. The communist paid dearly to take Berlin.
And you are right the US did not want any more war after ww2 in dept or out. Just suggust a better scenario then operation sea lion.

What in the world are you talking about???
What does a M1 Abrams have to do with WW2? What's your point?
You certainly are not winning any friends here by:
a. Putting down all US Presidents (in a prior post)
b. Asking if we're all communists

As gottalove88s pointed out, Ian and the BA team, as well as everyone here has been extremely patient with your nonsense.
But there is a limit,...and you've surpassed it in my opinion.

Guys, I've held back on commenting on some of your interesting discussion regarding WW2, Patton, Russia,....I could not bring myself to continue this misguided person's thread. I'd love to participate and would hope someone start a new one so we discuss further.