Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Some feedback

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Road to Victory >> Some feedback Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some feedback - 8/3/2008 4:57:35 AM   
Rodwell


Posts: 22
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline 		First of all, nice game engine.

Unfortunately the scenarios and map need alot of work. So far I've only looked at the 1939 scenario. To be honest the setup seems rather arbitrary and almost as if the creator had little knowledge of WWII.

*Slovakia was not a country (delete it and merge the country with Germany. Arguments about the puppet regime are not valid and especially for game purposes better to remove it).
*Persia, Saudia Arabia and Iraq were not "countries" in this period, rather they were controlled by the British Empire. (Delete them, add the territories to the UK).
*Iceland was not an independent country, but part of Denmark. For WWII purposes, it can be part of the UK or the US if one prefers.

*Sub on sub warfare should be removed
*BBs should not fire on subs
(Do subs even serve a purpose, it seems impossible to run any sort of U-boat campaign)

*Ports! They are missing, and everywhere. This hinders amhibious assaults, supplies, etc. Add the following (at least): Trodnheim, Bergen, Harwich, Dover, Malta, Liverpool, Hull, Scapa Flow, Dunkirk, Cherbourg, Bizerte, Oran, Casablanca, Heraklion, Malta, Taranto(!), Malmo, Sundsvall, Cadiz, Palma. I'm sure there are several I missed.
*Add city: Kiruna (Iron Ore came from here, not middle Norway).
*Rename: Tarabulus -> Tripoli. And a whole lot of others.

I could add a whole lot more, but unless/until we get documentation on how to edit scenarios I'll halt there. Looking forward to the patch.
Post #: 1
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 8:53:23 AM   
Severian


Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Slovakia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_Republic_%281939%E2%80%931945%29
Yes. It was a puppet, but also a country.

Persia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq - you know that "puppet" Persia created in 1879 Cossak Brigade russian-depend? Read also about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Saudi Arabia wasn't even British puppet.
Iraq - part of country? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

Sub v. sub - have you ever read thah submarines fought to other subs?

Tarabulus = Tripolis - It's Arabic name of this city. We used original city names. Not Danzig, Gdańsk, not Warsau or Warschau, Warszawa. You can change it yourself if you want.

EDIT:
Sub v. sub - I've found a list of U-Boats sunk by Allied subs
http://www.uboat.net/fates/sub-sunk.htm

< Message edited by Severian -- 8/3/2008 10:18:31 AM >

_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to Rodwell)
Post #: 2
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 11:55:45 AM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		I  don't have the game, but will pass as long as the scenarios and map are that incomplete and error-ridden. I mostly agreewith Rodwell observations.
Slovakia and Middle East protectorates as independent country have no purpose, Crete without port doesn't permit its historical invasion, Malta is misplaced, sub war seems totally off (BB were totally unable to engage subs), there's work to make the game feel right, but there's no editor AFAIK...

(in reply to Severian)
Post #: 3
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 12:52:26 PM   
comrade

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline 		I see no reason why puppet countries should be removed. All these countries had a good deal of autonomy in real life, most of them fielded their own military units.

Battle of Crete would not be playable at this scale. It was an episode involving about 2 divisions on each side. The only reason it is so well-known is the fact that it was first major airborne operation. Other than that - it's yet another battle with ca. 30k troops on each side. It's just not so easy to re-create conditions for all such battles with division/corps scale (not to mention making the AI cope with it). In my very humble opinion Crete is a good topic for tactical game rather than grand strategy.

Malta is added in 1.20 (when controlled by allies it will disrupt axis supply in north africa through an event), together with many more new features, enchancements and fixes.

BBs engaging submarines is a simplification made on purpose. I didn't want to introduce destroyer units, because it would only add micromanagement without adding any extra fun factor. Consider each BB unit as a formation of flagship & some smaller units like DDs.

Designing such game is always a problem - you can really go down to the very low-level but at the end of the day you have to ask yourself about the proportions between realism (that inevitably leads to more and more micromanagement) and... fun. And you have to answer this question (taking into consideration the amount of time and resources you have to develop the game) and include the answer in the game design.

People have different preferences, some would just love to manage every single ship on the huge map covering whole ocean, other would hate this and would like to focus on land combat div/corps level. No game can satisfy everyone, there will always be this conflict between micro-management and high-level management. We tried to find the balance, and of course we realize that some players won't like parts of current design. What we can promise is that we'll constantly listen and consider all opinions, and work to make the game better in subsequent patches.


_____________________________


(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 4
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 2:29:58 PM   
JMass


Posts: 2364
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: comrade
People have different preferences, some would just love to manage every single ship on the huge map covering whole ocean, other would hate this and would like to focus on land combat div/corps level. No game can satisfy everyone, there will always be this conflict between micro-management and high-level management. We tried to find the balance, and of course we realize that some players won't like parts of current design. What we can promise is that we'll constantly listen and consider all opinions, and work to make the game better in subsequent patches.


I totally agree, I only hope to have the possibility to partially mod the game.

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

My boardgames collection: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/JMass?own=1&subtype=boardgame&ff=1

(in reply to comrade)
Post #: 5
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 3:41:47 PM   
winky51

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline 		I think with the simplicity of the game system you can make the naval down to 5-7 units

Either
BB, CA, DD, TR, TA

OR

Carrier group (CV), Battle group (BB+CA), Destroyer or Escort group (CL+DD+DE), TR, TA.

players can then decide to place a carrier group and escort group together.

I recreated sceanrios for CEAW and SC2 including DD groups and just scaled it up.

Here are 3 charts from Ellis's Databook (has every stat you can possibly find for WW2)
http://www.dndadventure.com/images/ww2/navies-1939.gif
http://www.dndadventure.com/images/ww2/naval-prod.gif
http://www.dndadventure.com/images/ww2/naval-losses.gif

If you scaled it 2 capital ships per unit.... we will take the US
2 CV, 2 BB, 4 CA, 16 DD per counter  
OR
2 CV, 2 BB + 4 CA (battle group, 16 DD per counter  

the 1939 US navy for ALL theatres would be like this...
8-9 battle group counters
11 escort groups
4 CV groups

The US only build 8 BBs, and 48 CA through the war... ~13 more counters
The US built 141 CVs but most were escort carriers, 22 big CVs, 9 CVLs... ~13 more CV counters world wide.
They did make ~900 DDs and DEs but this can be incorporated into technology add ons.  The allies OVER BUILD for convoy duty like it was going out of style.  ~56 counters.

And this was the most industrius nation in the war.  Its not much for a game of this scale and doesnt assume losses.  I detailed out a very simple system for naval use that can be used with this counter mix.

So at best without any losses the US navy WORLD WIDE would be
22 battle groups
22 carrier groups
67 escort groups (which most would be in convoy duties or to compensate for the large amount you could do it through ASW tech)

Also not all ships were on mission at the same time.  Some smaller vessals were kept home, or were in a state of repair.  You could just consider operational vessals.

Like the US and UK has, if I remember, about a 80% operability in front line A/C.  when you see stats like the US has 100,000 A/C really probably only 1/2 of that was front line combat a/c and 80% of that was operational.

Like the germans at best fielded 5,000 a/c at any one point in the war.  But they produced far more a/c that that?!?!?  40k in 1944 alone.  They has a 60% operational rate and pilots are costly.

So a lot goes into this.  I already offered my assistance on getting war information right for the game.  I hope you all take it.

(in reply to JMass)
Post #: 6
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 8:31:28 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		winky51,
another time you are describing great ideas

we will go trough all of them ASA we will release 1.20
ATM I'm not able to tell, is your proposition possible to implement, and how big impact it could have for the gameplay.


Is that the book you are talking about:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-II-Data-Book/dp/1854102540

_____________________________


(in reply to winky51)
Post #: 7
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 9:35:05 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		Thx comrade, I was a bit vocal...
Yet I really don't think Slovakia had any autonomy, and having puppet/very minor countries adds nothing to the game. Vatican is a state technically also ...
Regarding naval warfare, I think even more strongly you made debatable and unhistorical design choices : the Med war needs Crete and above all Malta to be important, even if battles fought on them are small (a couple div vs another, looks like it's the game scale anyway) , due to their strategic locations in the middle of the Med, allowing Axis to support operations in Africa (or Brits to disrupt them).
And really you NEED to separate naval assets in CV, BB,  CA/DD and subs, because each had a very different role. The Battle of the Atlantic didn't need any BB, the player should not have to build BB to fight subs, but instead choose to build BB to rule the surface or DD to fight subs, or subs to kill convoys, etc.


(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 8
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 9:44:41 PM   
Severian


Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Malta will by added in 1.20 version.
quote:

6. Malta added (Valetta as a port city conneted with Central and Eastern Medit. zones) with british division as garrison.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1881529


_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 9
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 11:23:11 PM   
jesperpehrson


Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rodwell
*Persia, Saudia Arabia and Iraq were not "countries" in this period, rather they were controlled by the British Empire. (Delete them, add the territories to the UK).
*Iceland was not an independent country, but part of Denmark. For WWII purposes, it can be part of the UK or the US if one prefers.
*Add city: Kiruna (Iron Ore came from here, not middle Norway).


Having these neutral "countries" is of course very important, as they each played important roles during the war, in one way or another. To suggest they were merely UK territories seems very ignorant for someone who claims to be a WWII expert, especially in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Persia, they were in almost all respects independent countries.. It would be great if the Iraqi uprising would be an event in the game.

Iceland can perhaps be added to the US after Denmark is conquered.

Narvik would be the natural place for the Swedish iron ore as most of it was shipped through Norweigan waters. At least for as long as the resourcesystem is as it is. Denying Germany the Swedish ore seems worse than the option of putting the PPs in Narvik

(in reply to Rodwell)
Post #: 10
RE: Some feedback - 8/3/2008 11:26:25 PM   
Rodwell


Posts: 22
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline 		It's great to see that the designers have strong thoughts on their own design. It would still be nice to be able to edit/create our own scenarios though.

quote:

It would be great if the Iraqi uprising would be an event in the game.


The Iraqi "uprising" was a WWII non-event. In this 1939 scenario Iraq has 3 infantry units! I'm sorry but my alternative is much much closer to history (a UK unit was stationed in Iraq, and Iraq had NO combat units).

(in reply to jesperpehrson)
Post #: 11
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 1:39:08 AM   
winky51

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline 		I know bugs are fixed 1st.  I was just giving some examples.

(in reply to Rodwell)
Post #: 12
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 3:53:44 AM   
Mickrocks201

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 8/2/2008
From: Santa Fe, NM
Status: offline 		The Naval battles seems very arbitrary and too abstact - perhaps some text describing the action could be displayed (like xxx was sunk) instead of just counters changing numbers.   It would be nice to have a summary of damage done to both sides - so I can have a better clue as to what ships the enemay lost.   

(in reply to winky51)
Post #: 13
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 9:07:09 AM   
Severian


Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

The Iraqi "uprising" was a WWII non-event. In this 1939 scenario Iraq has 3 infantry units! I'm sorry but my alternative is much much closer to history (a UK unit was stationed in Iraq, and Iraq had NO combat units).

Sorry, but it's not true. In 1941 Royal Iraqi Army consisted 4 independent divisions, 1 motorised brigade, river boats and aricrafts. Look up to Niehorster's web site, which is the best source of WW2 OdB in web I've ever found.
http://niehorster.orbat.com/051_iraq/41_04_army.html


_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to Mickrocks201)
Post #: 14
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 9:48:17 AM   
jesperpehrson


Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline 		The Iraqi Army
* The 1st Infantry Division based in Baghdad (3 infantry brigades, 1 artillery brigade and a cavalry squadron)
* The 2nd Infantry Division based in Mosul and Kirkuk (3 infantry brigades, 3 artillery brigades, 1 cavalry squadron and 1 infantry battalion in Erbil)
* The 3rd Infantry Division based in Baghdad (3 infantry brigades, 3 artillery brigades and a cavalry squadron)
* The 4th Infantry Division based in Diwaniya and Basra (3 Infantry brigades and 1 artillery brigade)
* A Mechanized force was based in Baghdad containing 2 mechanized battalions, 1 light tank company, 1 armored car company and 1 mechanized artillery brigade.

The conflict with Britain started with the Iraqis demanding to have the airbase in Habbaniya released from British control in May 1941. The British refused and a siege ensued with Vichy French forces in Syria aiding the Iraqis. Together with extensive air-power from Egypt the British managed to defeat the besiegers and together with a landing force of Indians in Basra plus the newly formed Arab legion in Jordan they quickly defeated the ill-equipped Iraqi forces.

Therefore it would be a very interesting event to be handled in a game like this, if the UK-player cannot or won´t dispatch the necessary forces, the Iraqi forces can become a major nuissance for their wareffort. It is all about choices in a game like this.


(in reply to Severian)
Post #: 15
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 12:15:23 PM   
Phatguy

 

Posts: 1348
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Buffalo,ny
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Thx comrade, I was a bit vocal...
Yet I really don't think Slovakia had any autonomy, and having puppet/very minor countries adds nothing to the game. Vatican is a state technically also ...
Regarding naval warfare, I think even more strongly you made debatable and unhistorical design choices : the Med war needs Crete and above all Malta to be important, even if battles fought on them are small (a couple div vs another, looks like it's the game scale anyway) , due to their strategic locations in the middle of the Med, allowing Axis to support operations in Africa (or Brits to disrupt them).
And really you NEED to separate naval assets in CV, BB,  CA/DD and subs, because each had a very different role. The Battle of the Atlantic didn't need any BB, the player should not have to build BB to fight subs, but instead choose to build BB to rule the surface or DD to fight subs, or subs to kill convoys, etc.




So by that right you would not want Vichy France included? Even though it(Slovakia) was a minor entity in the grander scope of events, chrome like this makes me appreciate the programmers more and more than willing to beg the ole battleaxe to let me get it.

I agree with your take on Malta..That is a must. But Crete? Whats the point in a grand strategy game as this is? Yes, historically it was important but in-game it is not especially with the unit sizes as they are.

While I would like destroyers included, the idea that BB's actually represent squadrons/fleets/ whatnot works for me. Its all about scale.

< Message edited by apathetic lurker -- 8/4/2008 12:17:26 PM >

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 16
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 2:52:20 PM   
Mickrocks201

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 8/2/2008
From: Santa Fe, NM
Status: offline 		Two additional suggested improvements:

1) Rebasing air units: instead of just having nothing happen when you try to rebase an air unit more than 40 hexs how about either showing the "edge" of the 40 hex range or changing the cursor color if it is outside the 40 hex range. Right now it is a bit annoying trying to get an air unit from Russia to France as quickly as possible -
a) select the air unit
b) select the rebase icon
c) click where you want to move to
d) if you picked a hex more than 40 hexes away nothing happens and everything is cleared and you must restart process again, forcing you to either count 40 hexes away or keep doing steps a thru c until you get within 40 hex limit.

2) in options have a "confirm attack" preference - as opposed to just attacking when focus is on one of your units and you left click an enemy unit, if the option is set then display the battle stats and ask for confirm before attacking. I can't tell you how many times I attacked a unit when all I really wanted to do was change focus in order to set up a combined attack. It can get annoying.

(in reply to Rodwell)
Post #: 17
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 3:19:30 PM   
Severian


Posts: 111
Joined: 7/27/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Second suggestion - it's resolved in 1.20 version  

_____________________________

War, war never changes... but are you sure? Bitter Glory

Put an apple in your mouth, we'll play Wilhelm Tell - "Hawkeye" Pierce to Frank Burns

(in reply to Mickrocks201)
Post #: 18
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 3:31:29 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Crete was a very important airbase. It was used by the Germans to attack convoys traveling through the mediterranean. Had the British held on to it they could've used it to bomb Ploesti and other targets in the balkans.

(in reply to Severian)
Post #: 19
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 4:15:32 PM   
JMass


Posts: 2364
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Crete was a very important airbase.



Perhaps Battle of Crete and strategical conseguences could be simulated by an event.

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

My boardgames collection: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/JMass?own=1&subtype=boardgame&ff=1

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 20
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 5:36:47 PM   
Plainian

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 9/22/2006
From: Dundee in Scotland
Status: offline 		I think this game can accommodate both views. I'm just begining to see the flexibility of it.

For those that like broadbrush history and want to airbrush the bits they don't like then play the game as vanilla.

For those that like to include the parts they feel were key points in the war then the game will (eventually) allow us to mod things that way. We can add the important port for Crete. Plus if we think that Crete is that important I believe the game will allow us to make that port a VP hex/city? If I've followed most of the posts in the other threads then this will mean that Greece won't capitulate until the port in Crete is taken?

Maybe Comrade can come in here and say whether this is possible.

(in reply to JMass)
Post #: 21
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 6:27:53 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

We can add the important port for Crete.

yes

quote:

Plus if we think that Crete is that important I believe the game will allow us to make that port a VP hex/city?

yes

quote:

If I've followed most of the posts in the other threads then this will mean that Greece won't capitulate until the port in Crete is taken?

yes, but you can handle it trough events ;)

_____________________________


(in reply to Plainian)
Post #: 22
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 8:40:29 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		I don't want events to resolve the battles, the game should be about the battles!
Note that if you consider that you need 20+ divs to make a theatre playable, the whole med can be dropped off, the whole Afrika Korps was 5 divs or so

So Crete and Malta should be there, with ports, air facilities (and fortress for Malta).

From all I've seen, the game really needs a scenario editor, is that planned ?

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 23
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 8:57:38 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

I don't want events to resolve the battles, the game should be about the battles!


I was thinking about giving Crete to England after conquering continental Greece :)

quote:

From all I've seen, the game really needs a scenario editor, is that planned ?

Not at the moment. We have exported as many as possible to external files to ease life of the modders.

_____________________________


(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 24
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 9:21:03 PM   
Plainian

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 9/22/2006
From: Dundee in Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I was thinking about giving Crete to England after conquering continental Greece :)



Prince Philip would love that idea!

Realistically though do you think you could write an event to cater for all possibilities? I'm not even sure what event it is that you think is needed?

Event- Op Mecury - nearest German Para Div is removed from map/destroyed - any Greek divs on Crete are removed/destroyed - any non Greek Allied Divs are moved to ? and lose ? points. Triggered after last VP city in greece taken? If no Paras then any German Inf unit is used?

I still think that the game engine you have will actually cope with a Crete 41 situation better than a D Day 44 one. Elite German Paras supported by air must beat weak Greek/Allied force and capture port in one turn....or else...sounds historical!

Now that I've convinced you on this, how about changing the order that Germany plays from first to last and also add in DD units and stop BB's chasing subs.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 25
RE: Some feedback - 8/4/2008 9:46:17 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

Realistically though do you think you could write an event to cater for all possibilities?

not all, I'm only a human

I was only talking about possibilities, how it could be handled. Now I'll note it in my notepad and come back to the issue after 1.20 will be released

quote:

Now that I've convinced you on this, how about changing the order that Germany plays from first to last and also add in DD units and stop BB's chasing subs.

You really think that I'm a person of little faith?

_____________________________


(in reply to Plainian)
Post #: 26
RE: Some feedback - 8/5/2008 4:46:13 AM   
winky51

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline 		Crete should remain as is, if germany conquers greece and there is no british unit in crete too fooking bad.  If the british want it put a unit in it.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 27
RE: Some feedback - 8/5/2008 11:29:16 PM   
Plainian

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 9/22/2006
From: Dundee in Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: winky51

Crete should remain as is, if germany conquers greece and there is no british unit in crete too fooking bad. If the british want it put a unit in it.


I'm not sure why you are so hostile to changes? If there is no port then there is no supply according to what I've read. So why would the British send a unit to Crete?

Just give us the freaking port is all most people are saying. In fact maybe two so we can evacuate the island from the south, thats what happened historically.

(in reply to winky51)
Post #: 28
RE: Some feedback - 8/5/2008 11:53:33 PM   
winky51

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline 		Didnt say NOT to put the island on the map.  I was just saying making a special event for this only serves history not wargaming and not all things historical or plausable should be placed in a game, only what is reasonable and makes the game playable without overcomplicating it.

Here is an example.

If you want to follow history then you would/should play the Luftwaffe as as a mediocre airforce with tons of crappy pilots and a handful of good pilots late in the war.  Built crap planes, that simulates reality doesnt it?

The real truth is that the pilot is the real skill in an aircraft not the plane itself.  In 1940 the person in charge of the air training school told Georing "if we can build the proper facilities we can have 4000 trained pilots for the airforce each month".  In reply Georing said "why do I need so many pilots?  We don't even have that many planes!"

Germany and Japan kept their best pilots in the air for as long as they survived.  They never sent them back to bring their experience to new pilots thus their airforces suffered with worse pilots as casualties mounted.  The USA kept their pilots in the field for a certain amount of time.  Not sure if it was actual time or when they achieved the status of ace.  But they sent them back to train new pilots.  The USA didn't have the best pilots in the world but overall their pilots were better trained than the axis pilots.

Case in point the ace Finnish pilot destroyed a large number of Russian planes while only flying in his bi-plane.

So my point here is would you repeat history with Germany's airforce and purposely create few good planes and lots of crappy ones to get slaughtered in the sky?  Or would hindsight prevail and we can assume each nation will build their airforce the right way.

Another example, strategic bombing.  If the allies solely focused on power plants they literally could have wiped out the german economy in 1944.  Everything nees power.  Or if they solely focused on oil.  But they didn't.  Hindsight shows us their mistake.  In fact when the 1st power plant was bombed, I think by accident, Albert Speer thought the war was over from then on because the allies realized what he did.  Their power plant industry was unbelievably vulnerable.  But we cant allow bombing on that scale because it would ruin the game.

Like its also hard to immitate Operation Fortitude, I think that was the name.  The plan to decive the Germans the attack was coming at Calias instead of Normandy.

Some things like Iraq and Yugoslavia are harder to do.  Really you don't want to make them an absolute but on the other hand you don't want to exclude them because both are important.  So you have to balance them.  Germany actually had an exiled Iraq unit in their army after their fall.  Not sure the details though.

A situation like Vichy can be made optional like it is in World in Flames.

Hopefully you get my point.  And yes crete should have a port, minor port though but this game doesnt have that.

(in reply to Plainian)
Post #: 29
RE: Some feedback - 8/6/2008 2:44:09 PM   
haki10

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline 		Iceland was not part of Danmark in 1939. It had the same relationship with Denmark as Australia, Canada and South Africa to UK. That is the two countries had the same king.

It was after the British invaded Iceland in 1940 (and broke the neutrality of the country) that the Icelandic government dumped the king and voted for president instead.

So its more realistic that the country doesnt "go to" USA or UK after germany invades Denmark.

Simply because UK had to invade Iceland to get it. Otherwise Iceland would have stayed neutral. It was actually one of the few countries in Europe (with Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) that didnt declear war on Germany. Despite being pressured to do so by the USA and UK.

So it was occupied by the Allies during the war and DID NOT willingly "go to" them. Think the game represent that well by making the country fully independent and not connected to Denmark even though it was in some sense.

However in many WWII games the importance of iceland is often forgotten as it is usually not required to invade or have army there. In fact it was an important strategy asset for the allies. It allowed them to station air squadrons in the middle of the atlantic to defend convoys against U-boat attacks. It was also a stop over for convoys on their way to Murmansk and in some cases England. Had the Germans taken the country early in the war they propably would have gone far in stopping convoys all together.


< Message edited by haki10 -- 8/6/2008 3:08:17 PM >

(in reply to Rodwell)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Road to Victory >> Some feedback Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.063