Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury



Message

jjdenver -> Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/25/2011 6:16:29 AM)

It seems like Germany is free to seize the Baltic states but I think historically it was worked out that these were in the Soviet sphere of influence and they were seized by the SU.

Is this modeled at all in the game? Is there any consequence to Germany politically for taking Baltic States, or any restriction? There doesn't seem to be and this doesn't make sense for Barbarossa since it allows Germany to jump off with the Baltic states in their possession.



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/25/2011 3:09:58 PM)

On 1 March 1941, Bulgaria signed the Tripartite Pact and officially joined the Axis bloc.
Romania officially joined the Axis Powers on 23 November 1940.



gwgardner -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/25/2011 3:25:55 PM)

Funny Razz. Balkans, Baltics, who can tell the difference?!



jjdenver -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/25/2011 3:34:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
On 1 March 1941, Bulgaria signed the Tripartite Pact and officially joined the Axis bloc.
Romania officially joined the Axis Powers on 23 November 1940.


Better reread my original post.....I meant Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. :)



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/25/2011 4:16:50 PM)

aah... I was still sleepy from waking up.

There is a small chance the Baltics will reject Russia and go to war with them.



freeboy -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/25/2011 8:27:48 PM)

well the issue is the event fired in our server game.. Russia got Eastern Poland, but NOT the three baltic states that remained netral.. I had set up for no pact .. and was afraid he as USSR was overrunning Finnland.. so I pre emptively dow on all three baltic.. and now he is up poop creek as we are now at war in USSR, and I have a well armed and exp army in 1940.. did the early setup and went with france first option and now JJ is hurtin in USSR..
BUT, ifn he had baltic.. I would have had to attack him way back at the pol border .. big difference...
to pre emt me next time he wil need to dow on baltic states early[8|]



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 12:29:05 AM)

There's only about a 3% chance of it happening.

You did not have to DOW Russia in early 40, that was your choice and JJ will have to ask the Allies for help.



freeboy -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 12:36:28 AM)

yep.. but france is fallen, vichy established andEngland quaking in her shoes... .. the game ended with a red army failure and resignation.. England sues for peace and Germany rules Europe...



jjdenver -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 4:01:20 AM)

Let's not get off topic pls. Discussing strategy in our game is fine but this thread should be focused on the problem with Ribbentrop-Molotov pact implementation in the game. I don't want to lose the main problem here.

Talking about how to win the game if the Germans take the Baltics isn't the issue. The issue is the pact is not modeled in the game, and it was probably the most important diplomatic agreement of world war 2.

Thanks



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 3:33:24 PM)

No it is in the game and works fine.

The Baltic states going to war wouldn't happen if the the RM pact was not working.

Look through events and you will see the RM pact was signed. You will also see were the glorious Baltic counrty's refused to join Stalin. Your opponent did a DOW on you.

Just because you sign a pact doesn't mean you can not declare war.



freeboy -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 3:55:14 PM)

I think the issue is that the pact event firing should give USSR the Eastern Poland cities and Baltic states..



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 4:26:24 PM)

It does 97% of the time, but the people of the Baltic states like their independence and decided against Stalin.

There is no problem.

When the administration does something you don't like you can have fit's and tantrums like Hitler or go off killing your generals like Stalin.

Then when your finished, don't forget to send a bunch of citizens to prison camps just as Stalin and Hitler did.

This is no different than when the administration decides NOT to build a ship and you go off saying the game is broken it's not realistic. That ship was in the war.

There are choices in the game and the administration makes them. It's no different than single player. France can refuse Vichy.

When you play PBEM the administration makes all the decisions.

It's not something I like but that's how the Slitherine server works.

I still would like to have the option for the old fashion PBEM where you send the files back and forth.

The PBEM is being looked at and there will be some improvements but perhaps someday we can look forward to the old method of playing.



freeboy -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/26/2011 4:55:18 PM)

ok I thought it did not give the reds the baltic states every time..
and again.. I HATE not having events as part of the choices we make in multiplayer.. its my number one issue



Zovs -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 1:16:34 PM)

This game will never get improved, until the following types of post and the people that post them understand that these are marginalizing people, their ideas and suggestions and are driving away people whom want to see this game improve and have a clear understanding of what could make this game better.

"No it is in the game and works fine."

"There is no problem."

Seriously, WTF kind of answers are these? Stupid, self-defensive and non-understanding how people whom are making suggestions and ask for improvements either want a better game or to update the current flaws in the current game to make it a better game.

TOF is a fun game, but it has many flaws, that could be improved upon. But simply dismissing any suggestion or ideas is just going to kill this game off before it even has a chance to live.



doomtrader -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 1:44:03 PM)

dlazov66, as you have probably seen I'm following most of the threads.
I'm going to do my best to improve the game and make it better.



freeboy -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 3:37:36 PM)

we all appreciate your efforts AND you are super responsive
Thank
you and merry christmas (late)
and Happy new year( early)



waichou -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 5:16:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

This game will never get improved, until the following types of post and the people that post them understand that these are marginalizing people, their ideas and suggestions and are driving away people whom want to see this game improve and have a clear understanding of what could make this game better.

"No it is in the game and works fine."

"There is no problem."

Seriously, WTF kind of answers are these? Stupid, self-defensive and non-understanding how people whom are making suggestions and ask for improvements either want a better game or to update the current flaws in the current game to make it a better game.

TOF is a fun game, but it has many flaws, that could be improved upon. But simply dismissing any suggestion or ideas is just going to kill this game off before it even has a chance to live.



I agree, Doomtrader follows most of the threads (Thanks !), I hope most of our suggestions will be included in the patch.
However, Razz attitude is sometime really annoying ! His answers are always the same, if it depended on him the game would just be perfect, nothing to add or change, we are totally wrong, etc... I am sorry Razz, I have nothing against you, but you are always on the defensive, we just try to give our feedback to improve the game, BECAUSE we think it can be a great game. If not, I would not participate to this forum... I understand you worked a lot of time on the game, but I think you should take in consideration our feedback, I am not criticizing the game, it is just normal to have some bugs in a new game, and surely some gameplay improvement to do. I think I am not the only one to think that...

One more time, I am not complaining, just want to be constructive ! Thanks for your work




Zovs -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 6:36:31 PM)

doomtrader,

It is because of you that I am keeping the hope alive. I really do like this game. I also picked up Strategic Command 2 World War Gold and it's on the same type of scale as this game. What I love about this game is the 'flat' map and counters. I'd just like to see some improvements without taking away the fun and I think your doing a great job, thank you.



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 7:26:59 PM)

He wasn't making a suggestion. jjdenver stated the RM was not in the game and not working. The RM pact was signed. His opponent decided to violate the aggreement and DOW him. Game works fine. The RM pact is WAD for the Baltic States. I explained it has a 3% chance.

Freeboy replied back that he thought it was that way.

Neither player said it wasn't logical or could never happen that way in WW2.

The Baltic State option is not a flaw in the game it is WAD.

dlazov66, please re-read the posts.







doomtrader -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/27/2011 7:47:55 PM)

I think that both sides are looking at the game from two completely different perspective.


Razz is a member of beta team and has got huge impact on the game development process. His help and efforts added a lot to the flavor in this game. And I don;t have to mention about his awesome Unit Photo Mod. Razz knows the game and all the mechanics very well.
People who are just starting the adventure with Time of Fury don't know much about the game mechanics and are not sure how does it works. If we will add to that their previous experience with other games, where many things are handled completely different way, it is not surprising they are confused and sometimes even irritated.

During the game development and implementing new features there are three major issues we have to remember about:
1. Gameplay
2. AI
3. Game engine limitations


Of course I'm still counting on your constructive feedback.



Numdydar -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/28/2011 1:44:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

There's only about a 3% chance of it happening.

You did not have to DOW Russia in early 40, that was your choice and JJ will have to ask the Allies for help.


In my game Russia delcared war on me in Feb/Mar 1940? due to the Romainian bug (that has since been fixed) and the RM event had fired. Russia did go to war with the Fins but not the Baltic states. The Baltic staes are still nuetural (in late 41) are are not at war with anyone.

So I suppect that due to the bug where Russia declared war on Germany in early '40, the Baltic event did not fire and/or was skipped.



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/28/2011 3:37:13 AM)

Correct. Soviet Union must NOT be at war.



jjdenver -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/29/2011 3:06:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
No it is in the game and works fine.
The Baltic states going to war wouldn't happen if the the RM pact was not working.

Look through events and you will see the RM pact was signed. You will also see were the glorious Baltic counrty's refused to join Stalin. Your opponent did a DOW on you.

Just because you sign a pact doesn't mean you can not declare war.


Hi Razz,

Actually that's not what happened. The Baltics didn't have any chance yet to join Stalin. Germany declared war before the events for Baltic to join SU fired. This was an unusual game.

Historically the RM pact divided europe into spheres of influence and the Baltics were in SU's sphere. This is what I'm saying is not implemented. If Germany DOW's Baltics they should have to DOW SU as well right then.

Instead in this game Germany DOW'ed Baltics before the Baltic events with SU fired then they were almost at the gates of Leningrad (Pskov/Narva) without being at war with SU. This way when they DOW SU they can very quickly get to Leningrad.

Also Razz it does feel like you refuse to ever think there is any bug in the game. I saw you say in one post that something has been playtested 100 times. While you may have played the game 100 times that doesn't mean you played a stable and unchanging version of the code base 100 times. I do software dev for a living and to argue that a bug doesn't exist because the app was tested 100 times is just fooling yourself. Code changes and new bugs are introduced by those changes so your tests 1 to 99 are invalid if code changed before you play test 100.

It's a new game just released. I will guarantee you there are bugs in it. Please open your mind a little.

Thanks



Razz1 -> RE: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact problem? (12/29/2011 5:29:49 PM)

Instead in this game Germany DOW'ed Baltics before the Baltic events with SU fired then they were almost at the gates of Leningrad (Pskov/Narva) without being at war with SU. This way when they DOW SU they can very quickly get to Leningrad.

That should be looked at.

Easy to fix. Add a cost of 125DP if before Baltic events, and/or, then if it happens other penalties and awards will happen.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7819824