RE: Axis OP

RE: Axis OP (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan

Message

pzgndr -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 12:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa This is correct. The idea of the Axis is to gain as much as they can and hold it as long as they can. The Allies is hold onto as much as they can then take back what they lost as fast as they can. And here is where optional 'early victory' conditions would be exciting, to compel Axis and Allies to push hard to gain more than a certain number of objectives by end of 1943. [;)]

Flaviusx -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 9:09:28 AM)
The problem with sudden death conditions is that every game will turn into a sudden death match and the Germans will always resign early if they fail. This is boring for the allies. I like the fact that this game, unlike so many others, gives the Axis a real chance to win on VP and grind it out to the end...but this also gives the allies the opportunity to have their fun in the late game. Panzer pushers love sudden death conditions. I prefer the game being the kind of game it is now. Indeed, I think I am the only person so far in AAR to play it out to 1945 thus far. (As the Axis, even.) Because I like the long game, even as the Axis. One thing I have noticed in this forum: the Axis fanboys keep trying to push this game into a design to result in quick Axis wins. I hope the developer resists this. It is absolutely not necessary nor realistic. These Axis fanboys keep claiming the game is biased against the Axis because they want quick wins and don't realize that it is perfectly possible to win the game as a marathon playing the Axis thanks to VPs. (I have done this!) This rewards judicious play and an eye on your war economy and other things besides pushing panzers. It's more subtle, more interesting, more historical, and I'd hate seeing this game losing that and becoming like all the other WW2 games that go the other way on this.

PanzerMike -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 9:56:06 AM)
@Flaviusx: +1

Barthheart -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 10:24:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The problem with sudden death conditions is that every game will turn into a sudden death match and the Germans will always resign early if they fail. This is boring for the allies. I like the fact that this game, unlike so many others, gives the Axis a real chance to win on VP and grind it out to the end...but this also gives the allies the opportunity to have their fun in the late game. Panzer pushers love sudden death conditions. I prefer the game being the kind of game it is now. Indeed, I think I am the only person so far in AAR to play it out to 1945 thus far. (As the Axis, even.) Because I like the long game, even as the Axis. One thing I have noticed in this forum: the Axis fanboys keep trying to push this game into a design to result in quick Axis wins. I hope the developer resists this. It is absolutely not necessary nor realistic. These Axis fanboys keep claiming the game is biased against the Axis because they want quick wins and don't realize that it is perfectly possible to win the game as a marathon playing the Axis thanks to VPs. (I have done this!) This rewards judicious play and an eye on your war economy and other things besides pushing panzers. It's more subtle, more interesting, more historical, and I'd hate seeing this game losing that and becoming like all the other WW2 games that go the other way on this. QFT.

pzgndr -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 11:50:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The problem with sudden death conditions is that every game will turn into a sudden death match... Panzer pushers love sudden death conditions. I specifically suggested "optional" conditions. Some players don't have a problem with options. Sudden death conditions in Third Reich have worked fine for over 40 years. Just saying... [;)] I will add that even if optional sudden death victory conditions are implemented and selected by players, the game should allow players to continue on to the bitter end if they choose to do so.

battlevonwar -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 1:52:46 PM)
Flaviusx, I agree with the assessment that an early victory is boring for the Allies. The Axis unless inept should take France in Summer '40, arrange their economy and then Barbarossa. There are variants and the way she handles her economy and manpower is weighed to a perfect scale to handle when she is in '43-'45 now having to defend. The Allies must slowly bleed the Axis and remove as much manpower as they can early and hurt her economy. Not collapse(this is just boring to watch as the Axis) and then manage their own economy for the final Blitzkrieg they themselves now have mastered in '43-'45. Both sides have equal chance at attacking and both sides will be judged on not just the Military(tactical) achievements but also the management of resources and strategic decisions. Panzer rushes or Stalemates in France in 1940 prevalent in other games are 'boring'... Gamy tactics to win outright make me not want to play. As the Axis if I am not fighting into 1943-44 cause the Allied player is bored and not trying I would rather not play the game. Both sides need to be fair, there is offensives and defensive windows for them. This resembles CEAW, they made a very entertaining long game. CEAW replicated the long game well...and like Warplan rewarded defensive play for the Axis. With VP Victory rather than conquest.

tyronec -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 2:08:28 PM)
quote: I agree with the assessment that an early victory is boring for the Allies. The Axis unless inept should take France in Summer '40, arrange their economy and then Barbarossa. There are variants and the way she handles her economy and manpower is weighed to a perfect scale to handle when she is in '43-'45 now having to defend. The Allies must slowly bleed the Axis and remove as much manpower as they can early and hurt her economy. Not collapse(this is just boring to watch as the Axis) and then manage their own economy for the final Blitzkrieg they themselves now have mastered in '43-'45. Both sides have equal chance at attacking and both sides will be judged on not just the Military(tactical) achievements but also the management of resources and strategic decisions. Panzer rushes or Stalemates in France in 1940 prevalent in other games are 'boring'... Gamy tactics to win outright make me not want to play. As the Axis if I am not fighting into 1943-44 cause the Allied player is bored and not trying I would rather not play the game. Both sides need to be fair, there is offensives and defensive windows for them. This resembles CEAW, they made a very entertaining long game. CEAW replicated the long game well...and like Warplan rewarded defensive play for the Axis. With VP Victory rather than conquest. What gamy tactics are you referring to ? What do you mean by 'Both sides need to be fair' ?

battlevonwar -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 2:18:30 PM)
tyronec, quoting myself "gamy tactics prevalent in other games," I would play Strategic Command 2. A fellow I would play would use the Morale Boost from invading every Minor on the map Pre-Barbie to completely remove The USSR. The Morale boost was intended to be partial but he would time it perfectly. In Strategic Command 1, defending France to the death was possible and people would use it to win the game(this was at least entertaining) by bleeding the Germans dry before any other strategy or tactic was employed. Ceaw had several gamy tactics similar, Time of Fury did as well... I remember in TOF the Russians Declaring War in 1940 and it was just a houserule you either made or didn't. . . Are some of these realistic or possible in history? I'm sure... So far I'm yet to see if the Soviets can survive a Blitzkrieg rush in this game. I'm waiting on it... I wouldn't like to see them collapse in 1941 even if historically possible. The best Axis Players pitted against the best Allied players will have to prove it's viability for the Allies to keep fighting past an Axis Panzer Rush. That will take about 3 or 4 more games for me. I assume 6 months?

tyronec -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 3:16:59 PM)
quote: tyronec, quoting myself "gamy tactics prevalent in other games," I would play Strategic Command 2. A fellow I would play would use the Morale Boost from invading every Minor on the map Pre-Barbie to completely remove The USSR. The Morale boost was intended to be partial but he would time it perfectly. In Strategic Command 1, defending France to the death was possible and people would use it to win the game(this was at least entertaining) by bleeding the Germans dry before any other strategy or tactic was employed. Ceaw had several gamy tactics similar, Time of Fury did as well... I remember in TOF the Russians Declaring War in 1940 and it was just a houserule you either made or didn't. . . Are some of these realistic or possible in history? I'm sure... So far I'm yet to see if the Soviets can survive a Blitzkrieg rush in this game. I'm waiting on it... I wouldn't like to see them collapse in 1941 even if historically possible. The best Axis Players pitted against the best Allied players will have to prove it's viability for the Allies to keep fighting past an Axis Panzer Rush. That will take about 3 or 4 more games for me. I assume 6 months? It is an important question, some people throw out an accusation of 'Gamey tactics' without explaining what they mean. From your answer it looks like there is nothing you are objecting to in this game, which is good. If the game is well put together there shouldn't really be any tactics that a player can use that are not legitimate.

battlevonwar -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 3:43:43 PM)
Oh trust me Tyronec, there is a huge difference between a viable strategy and one that is gamebreaking and manipulates the game engine to win easy. I'm sure many could argue a great strategy that wins early is not gamey at all. Some could also argue the player that lost early lacked the foresight so another could of countered it?

Flaviusx -> RE: Axis OP (1/7/2020 3:56:13 PM)
As soon as the next patch is out I will be playing the Allies. The present beta is looking pretty stable and much has been fixed. I have some ideas of how to defend with the Soviets. It's kind of funny that despite all the Axis complaints, hardly anybody has succeeded driving Big Red yet.

LiquidSky -> RE: Axis OP (1/8/2020 2:02:23 PM)
Things I have noticed playing as the Axis against a good friend (and old wargaming buddy). He didn't disband a single Russian unit. He did build up a bunch of cavalry and used them in terrain. All his crap infantry he kept shoving in my face. This resulted in a some loss of movement (it costs movement to attack, but you can enter the combat hex for 1 mp) The end result is that it takes two turns to clear out the border crap. Which gives him enough time to shove his reinforcements in my face. There is a loss of efficiency every time you attack. This is compounded by a rapid forward movement and much lower supply levels when I surge forward to the next line. (usually behind a river) It takes a couple more turns to clear so that I can surge forward again. Only to be in lower levels of supply. I found I had to pull the panzers back and rest them two turns just to get back up to 70-80 efficiency. I tried using trucks, but moving from 10 to 20 efficiency burning them seemed rather wasteful. I ended up at the end of summer north of Moscow, but a bit behind south of it. Over all a rather historical advance. The winter seemed rather anemic for the Russians...he was unable to attack at all. But then I could only make very limited attacks. I put pretty much my entire army on HOLD as opposed to DEFEND to try and limit any retreats. It doesnt feel like either side is OP. Both of us are not shy about turning off convoy lines to save merchant marine, and I use my twin engine bombers as naval patrol, while he aggressively attacks my subs with his carriers. We just entered May 1942. I just cleared the line by Rostov and I am surging towards the Volga. (and his next line of Soviet armies.) I lost a Panzer corp though since the Soviet armour now has teeth, and he was able to gang up and shatter my poor panzers. I suspect that I will be able to take Stalingrad...but I am not sure where I will get the units to advance into the Caucasus. I've already split all my 3 step armies into 2 step corps. I may have to guard my flanks with Rumanians, what could go wrong?

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Axis OP (1/8/2020 4:14:25 PM)
Sounds like a fun game LiquidSky. It's been really interesting reading the different strategies the Soviet players are using. I know what mine is. I am quite pleased there are several ways to attack and defend in this game. It is exactly what I wanted players to be able to do. Approach each front with new and challenging strategies. If there are no disasters in the official patch release I will be playing a couple games myself to get a better feel for the overall situation.

pzgndr -> RE: Axis OP (1/9/2020 11:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiquidSky The winter seemed rather anemic for the Russians...he was unable to attack at all. Pretty good endorsement for play balance, I would say. For the Russians, perhaps the arriving Siberian reinforcements could be set to higher strength/efficiency or something. They should be able to arrive and make some good attacks against over-extended Germans.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375