Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Sad Lack of Liberation

 
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] >> Time of Fury >> Sad Lack of Liberation Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sad Lack of Liberation - 10/13/2012 4:50:28 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
I'm dismayed that there is no Liberation feature in ToF. I was running through a 1.03 beta test as Switzerland to check for CTD's and I noticed that the USSR got into war with Germany in the winter of 1940-41. I take it that this bug has yet to be fixed though I did see the USSR and Finland go to peace with the USSR around that time. Looks like the USSR AI keeps declaring war on Romania too late, after Romania is an ally of Germany. Hope that gets fixed soon.

That brings me to the sad lack of Liberation from what I saw in Romania. After the Soviet AI swept deep into Romania I saw Germany and Hungary help "liberate" that Soviet controlled territory in Romania. It was sad to see those Romanian owned hexes turn into German or Hungarian controlled hexes instead of being returned back to Romanian control. This is extremely unrealistic and ahistorical.

I got through one game of the 1942 campaign playing as Switzerland to the point that I jumped in as the USA and forced Germany to surrender. I was chagrined that France was just split between the USA, Great Britain and the USSR rather than being reconstituted as a Liberated country. Same with every other country that got "Liberated" by either side. I've never liked the feature in any game that allows conquered countries to be absorbed as home country rather than being separate and just conquered. Plus it's unrealistic to expect that conquered peoples would be as productive as true home folks.

I saw this taken to an extreme craziness in the latest 1.04 Startegic War in Europe patch. As Switzerland just looking at the new patch I saw that the Axis were trading territory when they got into war with the USSR. Long before the USSR sent units into Romania I saw a German swath of controlled hexes and cities in Romania. There was a Hungarian unit in Vienna controlling it for Hungary. German units were surrounding it and the Hungarian unit at Budapest as if they were at war when they never were and were supposed to be allied. Needless to say the USSR AI came in and whipped the Axis for the first time that I ever saw. Thankfully I did not see this crazy allied hex control problem in the ToF 1.03 beta patch.

Considering that the campaigns all end at 31/12/48 I think you've missed the boat on setting up the NATO - Warsaw Pact historical confrontation after WW2 ended. I think that you should have done the historical campaigns with a historical ending to give Germany a chance at winning the game versus history. At a minimum there should be a Victory check in the second week of May 1945 to ascertain if the German player performed better than historically was done. Then there should be a check to allow for continuing the game. Sad there wasn't a Patton versus Zhukov 1946 scenario pitting early NATO versus early Warsaw Pact with Patton not getting into a fatal traffic accident.

I know it's too late to change this bad design decision but in the future if you do a sequel I sure hope you wise up and make Liberation a reality and make hex ownership more historically accurate and realistic.
Omnius
Post #: 1
RE: Sad Lack of Liberation - 10/13/2012 5:41:46 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius

I'm dismayed that there is no Liberation feature in ToF. I was running through a 1.03 beta test as Switzerland to check for CTD's and I noticed that the USSR got into war with Germany in the winter of 1940-41. I take it that this bug has yet to be fixed though I did see the USSR and Finland go to peace with the USSR around that time. Looks like the USSR AI keeps declaring war on Romania too late, after Romania is an ally of Germany. Hope that gets fixed soon.

That brings me to the sad lack of Liberation from what I saw in Romania. After the Soviet AI swept deep into Romania I saw Germany and Hungary help "liberate" that Soviet controlled territory in Romania. It was sad to see those Romanian owned hexes turn into German or Hungarian controlled hexes instead of being returned back to Romanian control. This is extremely unrealistic and ahistorical.



I'm not sure the 'Liberation' effect is so wrong, the French liberation of 1944 did not immediately give full control back to the French, with millions of US and UK military forces and equipment based on their territory and running the transport system, it's not hard to see who was really in charge, until at least 1945. If Rumanian territory has been recaptured from the Soviets by the Germans and Italians, it's not surprising who will be in control.

I don't think original ownership changes back in all cases, for example the Soviets get ownership of the Baltic States and historically control worked on 'might is right'. Realistically there was not an immediate return to unrestricted home government in any of the liberated countries of Europe, until at least 1945, in the most favourable situations, and in some cases not until 1991.

The 'Liberation' experience meant different things in different countries, there were occupying forces (sometimes friendly, sometimes not) and either way, getting control, or even ownership back, was not always on offer.

The game does have control anomalies, the Channel Islands still under British control in '1944 Gotterdammerung', the Italians in control of islands in the Aegean before any combat in 'Fall Gelb'. I am sure there are other examples, but they can be dealt with using the editor, when it works.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 10/13/2012 7:21:50 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 2
Don't Downplay Liberation - 10/13/2012 8:43:28 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
Rasputitsa,
Just because there were lots of Allied troops and equipment running things in France after Liberation doesn't mean that France was producing for the USA, Great Britain or Canada. It's why the French people were so happy to see our Allied troops liberate them from German occupation. The liberated French people worked for France and the French Army fought alongside the Allies as a partner, something that's not modeled properly with this game. Even the Soviets returned control of the countries they conquered like Germany's allies, who then became Soviet allies. The Baltic States were an exception because the USSR considered them home country even before they owned them the first time.

Those excamples of I guess scenario setup decisions is not what I was talking about and their mention merely confuses the issue.

Another really lame thing I see is when the Allies declare war on Vichy France. All of a sudden all of North Africa becomes German home territory. All of a sudden the German AI is building infantry and panzer divisions/corps deployed in North Africa as if it's "home" country. Plus it delays the inevitable surrender of countries like Germany because even when I saw the Allied and Soviet AI's conquer every proper German home city Germany did not surrender because it had some VP cities in Norway. Yeah like the Norwegians were going to carry on Hitler's war after he and Germany surrendered. It's just delaying the inevitable surrender and is so looney tunes history. I saw the USSR fight on after it lost every VP original Soviet city in Strategic War in Europe and didn't surrender to Germany until Germany took the Finnish cities the Soviet AI controlled and "owned". Yeah like the Finns were going to carry on Stalin's and the Soviet's war after he and the USSR surrendered. How does such fake history modeling make the game better?

Still what really galled me was seeing Romania's Axis allies "liberate" Soviet-controlled Romanian-owned hexes for themselves instead of returning control to their ally Romania. With allies like that who needs enemies? Plus how unrealistic and ahistorical is that? Those "Liberated" hexes of Romania by Romania's Axis allies should have reverted control back to Romania. The design decision to allow for this is a bad thing, though it was probably easier to program.

I've played war games for over 40 years so I've seen many ways to interpret things like Liberation. I know what is good modeling and what isn't. You should bear in mind that it's better to fess up to a bad game design decision or just say nothing rather than try to BS someone with a lame excuse. Bear in mind the wise business adage that the customer is always right. Just because I'm new to your game and company please do not mistake me for some rube. A smart man takes an honest critique seriously for future reference as to how to improve his game making.
Omnius

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 3
RE: Don't Downplay Liberation - 10/14/2012 12:25:17 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Omnius,
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am part of the Wastelands development team, whereas my status is exactly the same as yours, a player of war games since the 1970s, merely expressing an opinion, this is, after all, an open forum.

I am agreeing with you, that there are 'control' and 'ownership' anomalies in the game, some of which can be fixed using the game editor and acknowledging that this is sometimes difficult to achieve (the editor hasn't been the easiest tool to use).

I was responding directly to the specific points you made on liberating allied territory, a valid point worthy of discussion, with a view that if the Germans and Italians recaptured Rumanian territory from the Soviets, it would not be surprising if they kept control of it, as the Germans took control of the rump of the Italian Fascist State when it collapsed, it's an opinion and open to discussion.

Liberation is a feature of WW2 and the game has hex settings for 'original ownership', 'ownership' and 'control', again adjustable in the editor (I'm just scratching the surface of editing and probably not ready to go too far down this route), but I expressed the opinion that liberation happened in different ways in different countries. I am not saying it shouldn't be addressed, but that it is not a straightforward issue. However, it looks like there could be ways to adjust for this.

In general terms, the game has some really good points and some significant problems, yes it would be nice if the developers could deliver a great game, working just as you want, but the next best thing, is a game that can be adjusted to fit what we each want.

How far that can be achieved is a journey of discovery, learning what is possible and what is not and whether any of us will get the perfect game from it, who knows, but it's a long way from the early days, when you were stuck with whatever the game had, no choices.

On a more general point, fake history, I am as interested in an historically accurate game as I assume you are, but then there is the feeling that if games are too tightly scripted into what was possible and what was not, you end up with a sterile predicable progress through the game to May 1945. The commanders in WW2 hadn't read the script, what is now clear to us, had huge uncertainty for them.

Reading Eisenhower's own report on Torch, noting the need to keep forces in the Western areas of the lodgement, in case the Germans moved into Spain and threatened the rear of the advance into Tunisia. That action reduced the power of the advance on Tunis, probably lost the chance of an early victory and condemned the Allies to a six month campaign. Justified, or not, Eisenhower had that uncertainty, with hindsight was the precaution really necessary ? Will the Soviets attack, while the Germans are fighting in France in 1940, historically probably not, but it makes for a hell of a game if they do (but you don't want it every time, uncertainty is lost). It may be fake history, but it brings uncertainty into the game, which has its own realism and puts you more into the position of the commanders of the time.

Obviously, if it gets too stupid the game becomes pointless, there is a balance to be struck, but ToF has the ability to step out of the box, which can sometimes be very good.



< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 10/14/2012 12:35:13 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 4
RE: Don't Downplay Liberation - 10/14/2012 4:24:02 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3469
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: online
On the time scale of this game, hex ownership for liberated or conquered areas indicates occupation, not some hard and fast politically established ownership.

So when Romania is liberated by primarily German troops, for instance, those troops are in control/ownership till the war is over. When the war is done, then the politicos will have their say.

I think this game mechanism works very well, a reflects historical practices.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 5
RE: Don't Downplay Liberation - 10/15/2012 10:56:53 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
Still what really galled me was seeing Romania's Axis allies "liberate" Soviet-controlled Romanian-owned hexes for themselves instead of returning control to their ally Romania. With allies like that who needs enemies? Plus how unrealistic and ahistorical is that? Those "Liberated" hexes of Romania by Romania's Axis allies should have reverted control back to Romania. The design decision to allow for this is a bad thing, though it was probably easier to program.


Game is probably very realistic and historical in this case, as after the Soviet Union, or the Third Reich, has rolled over a territory, the first action is to remove anyone seen as capable of organising, apart from the new regime's cronies and they, in turn, will either flee, or be liquidated when the other side 'liberates' the territory. Action on retreat is to destroy everything that can't be moved, remove anything useful, leaving minimal possibilities for a territory to function normally after 'liberation'.

What independent military production (the game is only concerned with military production) did France have after liberation, French forces had been reconstituted and supplied from US and UK production. The 100,000s of French workers sent to Germany, would have to wait until 1945 for liberation, whilst lost to the French economy. The Dutch were staving and facing famine prior to liberation (allied air forces were air dropping food into Holland, even while the Germans were still in control of most of the country). In Norway, North of a certain line there are no buildings surviving from before 1945, as the Soviets liberated the country from the North, the Germans retreated destroying everything as they went. When the Soviets occupied Eastern Poland in 1939 they immediately began to remove people perceived as a threat (that could be anyone with a position of responsibility) to the new regime, including their families, up to 900,000 people, the Germans continued the process in their turn, the Soviets then had a second go, leaving Warsaw little better then a brick yard and the country socially decapitated.

Had Romania been recaptured from the Soviets by the Germans, what would they have found, not much.

The point is that on liberation most countries were initially totally dependent on the liberating forces and it is not surprising at all, that the liberating nations should have control of liberated territory.





< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 10/15/2012 11:29:59 AM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 6
RE: Don't Downplay Liberation - 10/15/2012 8:35:02 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5320
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
I think that Poland and couple of other countries waited for liberation till 1989

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 7
RE: Don't Downplay Liberation - 10/25/2012 3:28:08 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I think that Poland and couple of other countries waited for liberation till 1989


doomtrader,
Check your history, Poland was "liberated" by the USSR and functioned as a separate country in 1945. Poland was a separate member of the Warsaw Pact and yes the Soviet Union kept a tight rein on Poland's government but Poland was a separate government.

Amazing how many lame excuses are being made here. Allowing for countries to be liberated would make the game more historically accurate. It is just too fake the way countries like France are just absorbed as if they were Germany and that those conquered Frenchmen would apply themselves to production for the German war effort the way real Germans did.
Omnius

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 8
More Lame Excuses? - 10/25/2012 4:02:23 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Game is probably very realistic and historical in this case, as after the Soviet Union, or the Third Reich, has rolled over a territory, the first action is to remove anyone seen as capable of organising, apart from the new regime's cronies and they, in turn, will either flee, or be liquidated when the other side 'liberates' the territory. Action on retreat is to destroy everything that can't be moved, remove anything useful, leaving minimal possibilities for a territory to function normally after 'liberation'.

Had Romania been recaptured from the Soviets by the Germans, what would they have found, not much.

The point is that on liberation most countries were initially totally dependent on the liberating forces and it is not surprising at all, that the liberating nations should have control of liberated territory.[:)


Rasputitsa,
The game is not very realistic in the way countries are conquered as if they now become the conquering countries new home folks who produce for the conqeror the way the true home folks did. France is the perfect example of how ludicrous it is to consider that conquered Frenchmen would produce for Germany as if they were now true Germans. You spew a bunch of completely irrelevant nonsense trying to protect an idea that is wrong.

As for Romania you're totally wrong, the Soviets did not "liberate" Romania they conquered it. Yes they found not much worth having and their newfound ally Romania wasn't much of a military help. That isn't modeled in the game unfortunately and that looney tunes history nonsense of how countries are conquered is way wrong. Romania and the other Warsaw Pact countries were forced to switch sides after being conquered as a means of survival.

While "liberated" countries were very dependent upon their liberating allies that does not mean they weren't able to field military forces. France is the perfect example since it's "home country" of France was conquered and they ended up with Vichy France as their self governiong remnant. The way the game handles the Allies attacking the North African remnant of Vichy France is looney tunes history to the maximum as it all of a sudden turns into German home country as if all those people just became "Germans" as dedicated to defeating the Allies as Germany itself. Allowing Germany to produce units in Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia is as ludicrous as a screen door on a submarine. How much better the game could be if the game handled the Allies attacking Vichy France properly by allowing Vichy France to surrender after the first turn to the Allies and making it part of "France" as an ally of the USA and GB. As the Allies I would never attack Vichy France because of this nonsensical game mistreatment.

I have been playing the 1941 Barbarossa scenario as the Axis. I was a tad worried about how capturing territory in the USSR would work. I did see that Romanian units taking hexes from along the Romanian broder with the USSR would turn those newly captured USSR hexes Romanian instead of German. I knew that German units coming out of Romania would turn the hexes to German control which I liked. So by being smart I was able to capture all the border hexes of Germany's allies who border the USSR German. I also discovered to my relief that once in German controlled hexes of the USSR the German allies could capture hexes and turn them German instead of their nationality. Same with hexes in Egypt, even if German units captured hexes of Egypt they all turned to Italian control.

Slovakia? Why? Why not just part of greater Germany? If the game started earlier like in 1936 the game mechanics would have treated a German conquered Slovakia as just part of Germany. So why be inconsistent when being consistent would actually be better? Slovakia is just another rump state that's basically worthless.

The game could be improved by allowing for liberated countries being returned to self running. Yeah they might need some resource shipments to build units but that's what happened with France and the Allies. Plus conquered countries should still be separate but conquered, not part of the conquering country's home country. Watching Germany or the USSR proper get conquered and then be treated as if they were now part of the conquering country's home country producing at the same rate as home citizens is just plain wrong.
Omnius

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 9
RE: More Lame Excuses? - 10/25/2012 5:24:33 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
As for Romania you're totally wrong, the Soviets did not "liberate" Romania they conquered it. Yes they found not much worth having and their newfound ally Romania wasn't much of a military help. That isn't modeled in the game unfortunately and that looney tunes history nonsense of how countries are conquered is way wrong. Romania and the other Warsaw Pact countries were forced to switch sides after being conquered as a means of survival.
Omnius


The point about Romania was that if it had been captured by the Soviets and then recaptured by the Axis, I would not be surprised if the Germans and Italians retained control, as there would not be much left in Romania to be able to control itself. This is not history, looney tunes, or otherwise, because it never happened, it's merely a view.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 10
RE: More Lame Excuses? - 10/25/2012 5:54:37 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Game is probably very realistic and historical in this case, as after the Soviet Union, or the Third Reich, has rolled over a territory, the first action is to remove anyone seen as capable of organising, apart from the new regime's cronies and they, in turn, will either flee, or be liquidated when the other side 'liberates' the territory. Action on retreat is to destroy everything that can't be moved, remove anything useful, leaving minimal possibilities for a territory to function normally after 'liberation'.

Had Romania been recaptured from the Soviets by the Germans, what would they have found, not much.

The point is that on liberation most countries were initially totally dependent on the liberating forces and it is not surprising at all, that the liberating nations should have control of liberated territory.[:)


Rasputitsa,
The game is not very realistic in the way countries are conquered as if they now become the conquering countries new home folks who produce for the conqeror the way the true home folks did. France is the perfect example of how ludicrous it is to consider that conquered Frenchmen would produce for Germany as if they were now true Germans. You spew a bunch of completely irrelevant nonsense trying to protect an idea that is wrong.

The game could be improved by allowing for liberated countries being returned to self running. Yeah they might need some resource shipments to build units but that's what happened with France and the Allies. Plus conquered countries should still be separate but conquered, not part of the conquering country's home country. Watching Germany or the USSR proper get conquered and then be treated as if they were now part of the conquering country's home country producing at the same rate as home citizens is just plain wrong.
Omnius


My point about how historical the game is, was referring to the capture and recapture of Romania only (see :in this case), I have not contested some of your other points, where you make the valid point that NA should not become home territory and a production centre, which it could never be.

France did produce war material for the Axis, but not necessarily at the rate that they would have done for themselves and I still question how much control the French had after liberation in the functions that count, those that the game covers, namely production, equipment and transport, which was all in the hands of the Allies

What happened with respect to occupied countries and the Warsaw Pact is irrelevant as that happened after the war and is outside the scope of the game, my point was that whilst the War was still in progress (the only part of history the game covers) it is not surprising to see occupied countries under the control of their liberators.

As I have to keep repeating it's a view, forums are for expressing views, isn't that what WW2 was fought for.




_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 11
RE: More Lame Excuses? - 10/26/2012 3:42:39 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
What happened with respect to occupied countries and the Warsaw Pact is irrelevant as that happened after the war and is outside the scope of the game, my point was that whilst the War was still in progress (the only part of history the game covers) it is not surprising to see occupied countries under the control of their liberators.

As I have to keep repeating it's a view, forums are for expressing views, isn't that what WW2 was fought for.


Rasputitsa,
Since the game ends on 31/12/1948 that's also way outside the bounds of historical WW2. Personally that's another bad design decision, making it virtually impossible for a German player to win. Why don't these scenarios end on the second week of May 1945 so that a German player who does better than history has a chance of gaining a historical victory? Too bad there wasn't a historical victory call on the second week of May 1945 with the option to conitnue? That would have been the best of both worlds. The game has an extended end date which seems like it was allowing for a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation with nukes. I keep thinking Patton versus Zhukov when I see that kind of unrealistic end of war date.

I'm just expressing my views here on this forum that I find the way occupied countries is handled is way wrong. I know that it's too late to change this for this version, but if there is to be a version 2.0 makeover then I'm wanting to express a desire to see the politics cleaned up so that the game better portrays history. The game would be much improved if Vichy France works the way it did in history, right now it's a shameful farce that forces an Allied player to not invade French North Africa.

I would have had historical scenarios ending at the historical time and a few hypothetical scenarios ending later. I would have even gone with a hypothetical Patton versus Zhukov scenario starting in 1946 and ending maybe in 1950.
Omnius

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 12
RE: More Lame Excuses? - 10/26/2012 5:09:55 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
What happened with respect to occupied countries and the Warsaw Pact is irrelevant as that happened after the war and is outside the scope of the game, my point was that whilst the War was still in progress (the only part of history the game covers) it is not surprising to see occupied countries under the control of their liberators.

As I have to keep repeating it's a view, forums are for expressing views, isn't that what WW2 was fought for.


Rasputitsa,
Since the game ends on 31/12/1948 that's also way outside the bounds of historical WW2. Personally that's another bad design decision, making it virtually impossible for a German player to win. Why don't these scenarios end on the second week of May 1945 so that a German player who does better than history has a chance of gaining a historical victory? Too bad there wasn't a historical victory call on the second week of May 1945 with the option to conitnue? That would have been the best of both worlds. The game has an extended end date which seems like it was allowing for a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation with nukes. I keep thinking Patton versus Zhukov when I see that kind of unrealistic end of war date.

I'm just expressing my views here on this forum that I find the way occupied countries is handled is way wrong. I know that it's too late to change this for this version, but if there is to be a version 2.0 makeover then I'm wanting to express a desire to see the politics cleaned up so that the game better portrays history. The game would be much improved if Vichy France works the way it did in history, right now it's a shameful farce that forces an Allied player to not invade French North Africa.

I would have had historical scenarios ending at the historical time and a few hypothetical scenarios ending later. I would have even gone with a hypothetical Patton versus Zhukov scenario starting in 1946 and ending maybe in 1950.
Omnius


Personally, one of the things I like about this game is that it isn't constrained into a fixed timeline, but either way, this can be handled in the scenarios, with choices for various start dates and end dates (May 1945 if you want). Hopefully, as the game matures and the scenario modders get to work (although we may have to wait for improvements to the editor), we can all get what we want. The good thing is that the game should be flexible enough to deliver it.

A game system that covers WW2 from out in the Atlantic to the Urals, from Norway to the Sahara, whilst trying to handle political aspects from 1939 to 194whatever, is bound to creak and there is a lot that is questionable, it would be surprising if a game system could handle all of that perfectly. There is also a lot that works quite well and much enjoyment is to be had. I don't have the skills, but I am sure those that can, will come up with hypothetical scenarios as you describe. For me the fact that you can have original ownership, current ownership and actual control of territory, gives options for great flexibly in setting up scenarios.

My view on liberated territory is not the same as yours, but it probably makes little difference, because either it can be modded and we will all be happy, or as with other features, nothing much can be done, so you have take what you get.

I find the other points you have made, convoy routing, supply, etc., much more important. I have adjusted some of the figures in the scenario 'const' file, to supply numbers that I thought were more realistic, but only play testing will prove it. At least some of this things can be changed by the user, if you want to get into the guts of the game, which is a bonus.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 10/26/2012 5:46:34 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 13
Lack of Liberation a Problem - 10/26/2012 9:24:20 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
Rasputitsa,
The sad lack of liberation of countries or to properly model Vichy France is a weakness that can't be excused away. While the game covers a vast area that is no excuse that it can't have good rules regarding conquest and liberation. While it is nice to have hex ownership and control the system totally misses the historical reality of liberation like the case with France in 1944. Nothing is more idiotic than seeing the Allies attack Vichy France thus handing Germany the Vichy fleet and giving Germany cities where it can deploy built units in North Africa which is totally loony tunes history. That means as an Allied player I would never attack Vichy France, nor would I as a German. That's what makes me peeved that I can't follow a historical path taken by the Allies.

The biggest problem is how conquered countries become part of the conquering country's home territory which is extrmely false except where the USSR conquered and assimilated the Baltic states. I would hope that if there is a sequel to the game that it would rectify this glaring weakness in the game. There are some good things in how hex ownership is handled and I can only hope that the team wants to improve on their first foray.
Omnius

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 14
RE: Lack of Liberation a Problem - 10/28/2012 9:12:42 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1692
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius

Rasputitsa,
The sad lack of liberation of countries or to properly model Vichy France is a weakness that can't be excused away. While the game covers a vast area that is no excuse that it can't have good rules regarding conquest and liberation. While it is nice to have hex ownership and control the system totally misses the historical reality of liberation like the case with France in 1944. Nothing is more idiotic than seeing the Allies attack Vichy France thus handing Germany the Vichy fleet and giving Germany cities where it can deploy built units in North Africa which is totally loony tunes history. That means as an Allied player I would never attack Vichy France, nor would I as a German. That's what makes me peeved that I can't follow a historical path taken by the Allies.

The biggest problem is how conquered countries become part of the conquering country's home territory which is extrmely false except where the USSR conquered and assimilated the Baltic states. I would hope that if there is a sequel to the game that it would rectify this glaring weakness in the game. There are some good things in how hex ownership is handled and I can only hope that the team wants to improve on their first foray.
Omnius


This is an extract form the 'const' file of the Fall Gelb scenario, other scenarios are similar, showing production from occupied cities as 50%, if you don't like that figure it can easily be changed.

[ProductionPointsModifiers]
PPFromOccupiedCity = 0.5
PPFromAnnexedCity = 0.8
PPDistributedFromAnnexedCity = 0.2


It is obvious that North Africa should not be a production centre, but the Allies did attack Vichy in North Africa and Syria, although that should trigger an event to scuttle the French fleet. Mainland Vichy France should be occupied by the Axis as soon as Allied landings occur in Europe, but in occupied France, German units were being rested and re-equipped, almost as if they were on home territory.

Throughout the occupied territories there was large scale exploitation of food, raw material, oil and transport stocks (PPs in game terms). French factories were producing war materials for the Axis, albeit at a reduced level of production, 50% seems a good enough figure, but is adjustable. Parts of Poland were effectively absorbed into the Reich, as the 'Government General'. The 'German Generalplan Ost' called for areas in the East to be colonised by German settlers, the original 30-40 million inhabitants being removed, if the Germans had been able to achieve and hold a line on the Volga, who knows ? History does not give us a simple model for occupation and liberation.

Occupation and liberation had different effects in different countries, the historical record of what actually happened and the assessment of what might have happened, if the Axis had achieved greater, or lesser, military success (as is possible in the game), is a patchwork, which it would be hard to simulate accurately in any game. That's not to say it shouldn't be as good as the game system will allow and we would all hope for improvements. Occupied territory should not behave as Home Territory, but it can give some of the benefits at a reduced level, which I think the game can and does simulate.

'Time of Fury' is not a first foray, that was 'Time of Wrath', with 'Storm over the Pacific' developing the system in the Pacific Theatre, before ToF. So this is a journey, which I expect has some way to run yet.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 15
Factoring Production - 11/2/2012 4:01:33 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 500
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
Rasputitsa,
As I play I'm learning more about the game. It is starting to look like production in conquered countries is being factored downwards after it lamely becomes part of the home country of the conquering nation. It's not so easy to figure it out.

I have been seeing lots of events and see that there are some interesting ones. As to Vichy France there does need to be an event that does the real history of how Vichy France reacted more historical, rather than the current hysterical interpretation. The event should make Vichy France in Africa and Syria/Lebanon become France once again, an Allied ally. The Vichy France in actual France should go German. The French Navy should be somehow scuttled or frozen in place for a while.

Still the game would be much improved if a major country like France gets liberated instead of being divided up between liberating conquerors. Once Paris is liberated France should be reconstituted from the area the Allies liberated plus Vichy France that's not German.
Omnius

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Sad Lack of Liberation Page: [1]
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

0.094