RE: Playing "historically"

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Playing "historically"

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> RE: Playing "historically"

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/16/2021 9:05:43 AM

boudi

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline

Thank you very much Bill for your answers, verifications and taking into account the comments of the players. The customer service

is really top notch. Thanks again.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 31

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/16/2021 5:51:09 PM

KlasE

Posts: 33
Joined: 3/13/2021
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

quote:

If it's ok to swap if you do the ordinary moves; move fighter 1 hex aside, move army to the original fighter hex, and then move the fighter to the original army hex. Then I can't see why swapping should not be allowed between air and ground units.

In real life they would have 2 weeks (one turn) to do the swapping ...

The issue is that players use air units to swap ground units into places they don't have enough MP to move into. This IMO is very gamey so probably house ruling to make that swap illegal would be best. In my experience, this is mostly abused by Japan to advance faster in China which really isn't needed given how fast Japan already advances.

Never seen this but got your point. But then swapping should never be allowed if one of the units don't have enough MP to move into the place. It doesn't matter if it's a ground or air unit.

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 32

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/16/2021 6:23:36 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

Never seen this but got your point. But then swapping should never be allowed if one of the units don't have enough MP to move into the place. It doesn't matter if it's a ground or air unit.

Agree having the swap check that both units have the MP to make the move would solve this issue.

(in reply to KlasE)

Post #: 33

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/17/2021 12:04:05 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

Maybe I could script an early self-nuke event for the offending regions...

Can never have too many good nuke events, I tell ya.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 34

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/17/2021 12:09:27 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boudi

The game is too permissive for the Axis. It allows the Japanese player to do anything. In March 1940 a player already invaded Singapore and Borneo, and then landed in Aden, May 1940. The US should have entered the war 3 times already, but nothing: just a few percent of belligerence. I closed the game because it was so nonsense.

I half agree. The game is permissive for Japan. It will downright punch Germany in the nuts if it goes ahistorical too much.

Personally, I have created some wider swings to stuff, so that it becomes more of a Russian Roulette for the Axis. Instead of a 3-5, I might go 0-7, or 1-6 (depending on the focus issue). I think it is hard when we KNOW what is going to always happen. This wasn't a historical thing then, not so sure it should be now. At least not so tight.

But in no way am I talking about goofy, unjustifiable stuff. I just think things need to be a bit riskier, that's all. At least in my own scripted games they are.

And then again, I could also rando a nuke event.

(in reply to boudi)

Post #: 35