mikwarleo
Posts: 70
Joined: 6/27/2006
Status: offline
|
mcaryf and others I agree with Heinz Guderian,
Clearly the main point here is that some people think it is too easy for Germany to invade England (Scotland or whatever). In the overall outlook of the game Germany is up against it right from the start. Everything needs to go perfectly and keep going that way, on time and with minimal losses or they're sunk. Why make it harder?
If you're going to look into issues like those raised in this thread I think there needs to be more consideration of the effects on game balance rather than on (what I find to be well misguided) appeals to reality. Either way, realistically or in game terms, I think previous posters are being somewhat one-eyed.
For example, apparently contrary to popular opinion in this thread, as WA player I find it easy (perhaps too easy) to defend England and/or Scotland from invasion. Simply station a few extra units there and walla. For those calling out "ahistorical" and pointing their finger at Scotland, well, why not consider how easy it is for the WA player to make any invasion of England/Scotland virtually impossible? It seems to be put forward here that Sealion was not a very real possibility and that is nonsense imho. "The Americans contacted Churchill and asked if the Royal Navy would be sent to Canada when — not if — England fell. 'We will survive, not surrender!' growled Churchill." [http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/britain_40.htm]
Heck, you 'historians' out there, why not consider the fact that German fighters cannot even reach England in this game until 1941 and then only if valuable resources are spent on research?! Or the horrible ineffectiveness of AIR against combat fleets? Ahistorical anyone? Germany is left to fight WA fighters with bombers and the Royal NAV (if deployed in groups) is almost immune to German AIR power. My point is the important thing is 'balance' not reality. This is a game and concessions have to be made. Our role in WaW, like our role in a game of chess, is to understand the rules, play the game, out manoeuvre and out smart our opponent and win. It is 'based' on WW2, it isn't WW2 and while it's a great technical game in some ways, it is a relatively simple game nonetheless and that's the beauty of it. An arcade-strategy game if you will.
Following the road of the 'keep-it-real' camp a little further leads to two things: 1. a history book not a game (as Heinz rightly pointed out) and 2. a more complex game like HOI or War in the Pacific.
I mean really, in WaW WA's only job is to hold out and/or delay/harass Germany's attack on Russia until the USA appears on the scene at which time you can annihilate the Axis. I play both sides in roughly equal numbers and I think the odds are already stacked high enough against Germany. Is there anyone out there who doesn't feel like the underdog playing Axis? Isn't that why we like it? Again, why upset the balance?
Finally, even if you lose England it's not the End. In a PBEM game I'm playing with an experienced player I lost Scotland after a massive air assault. London followed but I made Germany pay for the whole exercise it as any decent player will. This held off Barbarossa till 1942 and the Red Bear was a monster by then with iirc 15-20 tanks, 40-45 infantry, 20 ARTY and 15 AA and everything with decent levels of research (AA was air attack 8!). Russia was completely isolated well before 42 and still Germany barely stepped foot on Russian soil before they were being pushed back. Meanwhile I forgot to supply Pearl Harbour and lost almost everything stationed there (yes sunk not just damaged). Nevertheless the USA has smacked Japan all over the Pacific by redeploying the majority of the Allied navy and land based AIR to the region. Even with England lost victory seems impossible for the Axis unless I mess up somewhere and total victory for the allies is looking like a very real possibility already and it's only late 43. With Japan soon to be under wraps the transport train to Germany is already in place and waiting for troops.
In short, again, why make it any harder for Germany. Losing England sux but it's far from the end for the allies. Leaving England in place is almost certainly a death penalty for Germany much like it was in Reality.
If you want to appeal to reality then you have a seemingly unlimited number of things to look at in WaW. German fighter range and the effectiveness of air power against fleets are just two obvious likely complex examples that to my mind stand in contrast to the Scotland example. My point is these appeals to reality are the wrong way to go, they quickly become a slippery slope where WaW won’t look like WaW much before too long. So, not to say I don’t feel there are improvements that can be made (I’ve made some extensive posts on targeting for example) but here I disagree with any of the suggested changes especially reducing the transport capacity of German transports
... lol listen to all us wanna-be game designers. Happy gaming.
|
Printable Version
The real possibilities for Sealion - 
. So useing the logic employed above the eastern france zone should be coded impassable or at least get supermega fortress status because, well...thats what they thought it was so unlikely that anyone would ever attack thro it. -WaW allows every country the flexaibilily to controll R+D and resource allocation. If I (as virtual ruler of germany in WaW) order massive commitment to develop and build specialized Seaborne landing capabililties....why shouldnt we be allowed to use and deploy them any way we see fit. Just because the real germany suffured from (many) bad tactical and strategic decisions that cost them the war-doesnt mean the game should force me to repeat historys misttakes. 
and I agree with you, I did read your post. Probably should have been clearer about my agreement as I was talking in regard to the v1.202 patch (i.e. rough Scotland). 
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