Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Commander – Europe at War Gold is the first in a series of high level turn based strategy games. The first game spans WW2, allowing players to control the axis or allied forces through the entire war in the European Theatre.
User avatar
geozero
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by geozero »

Not just playability...but more importantly re-playability.
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Vale

I don't accept the argument that playing the game in a non-historic fashion is exploitation. CEOW is a strategic wargame, not a simulation. Regarding the Italian attack on the oilfields, prior to sending the force on its way I had no idea how easy it would be to seize the area, as I had fog of war enabled.

Edit: sending the Italians after the oil was actually a mistake, as I now realize. Had I been playing a human opponent, I would have made the same mistake. The reason the invasion was a mistake was due to the long supply lines and the difficulty of reinforcing troops in the region. Against a human player, the Italian invasion would have ended as a humiliating defeat. Against the computer, this stupid blunder turned into a crushing victory. The Italian invasion was not about exploiting the AI. The Italian invasion was about a mistake that turned into a victory due to passive AI.
I'm happy to see you understood my point and didn't get all defensive. Congratulations! I'm not so keyed up on you, as it may seem, it's just that you're actually the first one I have made that sort of complaint against, as I have just been biding my time all these years just waiting to go off on an AI critic (sounds dreadful doesn't it?) when they resort to exploitation to show a bad AI. The reason you said going to the oilfelds was a mistake, is very true, which was the foundation for me objecting to it. Now in the early war for Germany to do it, without taking everything up to Rostov or taking NAfrica would had been a joke, but we are talking about the Italians as well, somebody who couldn't even beat Ethiopia.

Oh sure alternate strategies are great, it's just that one has to draw the line when they get too far-fetched. You can't really expect an AI to accomodate for far-fetched strategies. I think part of the problem is that people expect a reactive AI, and in a good number of games it just doesn't react to illogic. The only sad thing, if I read you correctly, was that the AI didn't come and get you, despite how late that might had been once the oil was lost. Then again, there could be some way to deal with that. In the case of a game that isn't already made, you might make units that take cities in that fashion completely discentigrate in 3 months, in which case the city would revert back to the original owner. The problem with this game, however, is even with such a rule, From the sound of things I doubt the AI would move a unit there either as a counterattack or to make sure it wasn't taken again after the unit evaporated. Maybe the AI worries about that area starting in '42. Sad that it might be that neglectful, but at least it could make for a tougher more conventional opponent elsewhere.

If I also understood correctly, you had plowed right through NAfrica with those Italians meeting no opposition. There's simply no excuse for leaving "that" wide open, as it's too near to Italy.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: LRRP

I think a resolution to our concerns are easy to do, much easier than the company wants to admit.
1) Make subs defense go up after they are hit with an initial attack via a destroyer group by giving the player a choice to submerge and evade on contact (higher defense) or to stay on station (which means probably sacrificing your sub for a delaying action or another attack)
 2) Have England always put at least a destroyer group and a battleship stationed on the English channel side, which is very realistic during the actual war. This will make a player think twice about even doing an initial invasion.
3) England should have more partisan units show up early if their is an invasion by Germany. This is realistic as England had one of the best Civil Defense programs in the world at that time.

I will state that the games AI has surprised me and is better than my initial observations , but the above recommendations are easy to implement and would change the game play for the better.

You must not had seen some of the English civil defense films I seen [:D]. IRL the Germans wouldn't had much of an attack but then the English wouldn't have had much of a defense (apart from the RN and RAF). I recall one guy on one of the documentaries that said he had a friend whose job it was to defend one mile of beach with one WWI artillery piece. He said they had nothing and lost a great deal at Dunkirk. Then again, in the game, I guess the problem is that England is weak even though France was never attacked or that a Dunkirk didn't occur in any case. It takes a Dunkirk to make the ground forces of England weak, and the longer Gerry would take about doing it, the stronger the defense would get.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.
User avatar
Boar
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alabama, USA
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Boar »

I have to say, you will never find an AI any "good" at wargames -- at least this current decade. Maybe in the future our AI opponents will become a HAL 2000 and be able to distribute electric shocks to us when they win, but for now the only games a computer can win are at chess, with its relatively linear pathways.

I have to agree the AI is rather passive. I've stirred up the hornet's nest in Russia, where I'm attacking and near capturing the second capital in Nov. '43,
but meanwhile back in France three fighters, a tactical and a strat. bomber, are holding off a massive buildup in England apparently aimed at my shores. Maybe they're just biding their time.

Anyway, the game needs an "undo" button, a non-Adobe based manual (yes, Adobe format sucks that badly), and now a better AI. There's always room for improvement. Meanwhile I'm playing this game for its addictive, "just one more turn" nature -- the same thing that had me playing Strategic Command for the past five years or so (and it has even less of an AI -- maybe I just like winning).
User avatar
Boar
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alabama, USA
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Boar »

ORIGINAL: geozero


IF, IF, IF... this is what makes playing WW2 interesting and fresh. We all know how it ended. Why would we handicap ourselves playing it again? You're better off watching a history channel re-run.

IF we can't make a difference in how events unfold, then there's no point in playing... HOI, for all it's micormanagement and other issues had it right to allow players to do nearly anything they wanted.


Eh ... I might phrase that, HOI, for all its unplayability ... allowed players to do anything they wanted.

I found HOI insufferably bad, simply because it was horrendously complex -- and in a bad way -- not in the way old board games used to be.
My classic "monster" wargame example is "Wellington's Victory" by SPI. It was not even designed to be a game, but a simulation. Similarly "Bloody April" was a classic monster wargame that made you keep track not only of even regiment's ammunition, but its fatigue status and morale. And these two games weren't the most complex! But my point is, I did not really care for these aspects of the games -- that is why computer gaming is so much fun. If I want to screw around endlessly with dials and spreadsheets and graphs ... am I playing a wargame or a spreadsheet manager? No, leave us a simple interface, uncluttered and clusterf*d with the garbage we don't need. There must be a way to a simply designed game that is not simple without forcing us to have 1001 things to mess with.

Personally I wish we had some "optional" rules interface, like in Strategic Command -- tweak a few things (a very few!) in order to see the outcome.

BTW this is not aimed at "you" in particular, but rather a reaction to the disappointment I felt in HOI. I think I am somewhat dyslexic, ADHD, or whatever, and get easily frustrated with games with overly-complex or cluttered-up interfaces ... which is why I like this game so much.
User avatar
geozero
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by geozero »

Areed.  HOI is bad in its micromangement...I only used it as an example as it is the only game I can remember in recent history that has a lot of options...albeit with the micromanagment.  There should be a way to find a common ground some day.
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by decaro »

HoI2/Doomsday is less micro and more user-friendly, but I think the old EU engine has reached the end of the line.

I still remember the 1st incarnation of HoI; you had to increase the sub technology one instrument at a time, i.e., brass periscopes! Now at least you can just research the next model/type of sub.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
IrishGuards
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:49 pm

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by IrishGuards »

SC .. What is this SC [&:]
IDG
User avatar
Boar
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alabama, USA
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Boar »

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

SC .. What is this SC [&:]
IDG

Strategic Command Look here

It's basically a similar game without as much complexity. I enjoyed the first one, but the
second one just wasn't my cup of tea.
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Warfare1 »

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
ORIGINAL: Warfare1
ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!

Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
SMK-at-work
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: New Zealand

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by SMK-at-work »

"If" functions are bollocks IMO.
 
spain and Turkey were not goign to enter the war short of beign invaded - both their leaders were completely opposed to it under any circumstances - in Turkey's case it was engrained in them by Attaturk - "peace at home, peace worldwide" so you have to assasinate Attaturk some time about 1918 to justify it........
 
but hey - you always have the option of invading them to bring them in - and it's realistic[:D][:D]
 
Wargamers who wonder what would have happened had Germany gotten Caucasian oil - well it did get it.  It got it at Maikop and other places.....and guess what....it took ages to come on line, and it was too far away with a too-fragile supply line to be of significant use!  But hen Germany wasn't actually SHORT of oil all that much until late 1944.....and then as a result of bombing and it had already lost the war!!
 
Ah - but lack of Mid-east oil would cripple the RN, nd lack of Caucasian oil would cripple hte USSR.......nope.  USA is producign enough oil for the entire war effort of BOTH sides.......unless you have Germany taking out Texas there's no effect on the allied war effort at all!
 
Oil changes the war?  Nope....note one bit.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Warfare1 »

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"If" functions are bollocks IMO.

spain and Turkey were not goign to enter the war short of beign invaded - both their leaders were completely opposed to it under any circumstances - in Turkey's case it was engrained in them by Attaturk - "peace at home, peace worldwide" so you have to assasinate Attaturk some time about 1918 to justify it........

but hey - you always have the option of invading them to bring them in - and it's realistic[:D][:D]

Wargamers who wonder what would have happened had Germany gotten Caucasian oil - well it did get it. It got it at Maikop and other places.....and guess what....it took ages to come on line, and it was too far away with a too-fragile supply line to be of significant use! But hen Germany wasn't actually SHORT of oil all that much until late 1944.....and then as a result of bombing and it had already lost the war!!

Ah - but lack of Mid-east oil would cripple the RN, nd lack of Caucasian oil would cripple hte USSR.......nope. USA is producign enough oil for the entire war effort of BOTH sides.......unless you have Germany taking out Texas there's no effect on the allied war effort at all!

Oil changes the war? Nope....note one bit.

Hi:)

I can appreciate that everyone's tastes can differ. That's what makes the world go around. [:)]

So I would assume from what you have said that you must NEVER play variant scenarios that are included with most wargames, because they are different from the historical version.

I guess the Japanese were always destined to go south, even though bombing/attacking the Soviet Port of Valdivostock would have crippled a lot of Lend Lease going to the Soviets.

I guess Hitler would never attack Dunkirk under any circumstances and that the Allies were just always going to escape.

I guess Hitler giving Rommel more troops was an impossibility, and that capturing Middle East oil and closing the Suez would never, ever happen.

In Strategic WWII games, there has to be opportunity costs (or political costs if you will) for one nation attacking another nation. If the Axis attacks Poland, war footing must increase; alliances will shift; leaders will get edgy.

If the Axis takes over a large number of countries, then political costs must also shift accordingly.

While Hitler was busy in the west, Stalin figured he could grab some territory as well, so he invaded Finland and seized other territory.

Whether Spain or Turkey joins the Axis will/should depend on how well the Axis are doing. If they seize Moscow, then on a % basis it would be interesting to see these two nations, or one of them, get closer to the Axis (again it should be a toggle option).

There is a reason why all historical scenarios also offer variants of the same scenario. Why? Because it increases re-playability without sacrificing historical sensibilities.

Without plausible "What Ifs" every wargame would play out exactly the same way in every game.

Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
geozero
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by geozero »

Hey warfare, check your PM. [:)]
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
SMK-at-work
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: New Zealand

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by SMK-at-work »

So I would assume from what you have said that you must NEVER play variant scenarios that are included with most wargames, because they are different from the historical version.

Making assumptions is generally a silly thing to do - especially about people and events you know nothing about.

I enjoy variants - as long as they are based in reality.  "Ralistic" what-if's make games more interesting for sure.

Fantasy ones such as those being suggested on here are boring IMO - they're typically based on simplistic assumptions which, as I said, are silly.

By all means have Spain enter the war - Franco gave hitler a price tag - "all" he had to do was meet it.  If you have a game where Hitler is given that choice then fine.  But if all he has to do is spend a few points on "diplomatic" intervention then forget it.

by all means have Sea Lion - as long as the RN can base its destroyers outside fighter escort range and has 3 days to attack the transports anchored of the South English coast and you're prepared to take the hit on the continental economy from losing all that shipping and on German prestige from losing those 300,000 of it's best veterans........

by all means have Germany not invade Poland....oops....except then we dont' actually have WW2....damn.........[8|][:D][:D]
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Warfare1 »

I did - thanks buddy [:)]
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Warfare1 »

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
So I would assume from what you have said that you must NEVER play variant scenarios that are included with most wargames, because they are different from the historical version.

Making assumptions is generally a silly thing to do - especially about people and events you know nothing about.

I enjoy variants - as long as they are based in reality. "Ralistic" what-if's make games more interesting for sure.

Fantasy ones such as those being suggested on here are boring IMO - they're typically based on simplistic assumptions which, as I said, are silly.

By all means have Spain enter the war - Franco gave hitler a price tag - "all" he had to do was meet it. If you have a game where Hitler is given that choice then fine. But if all he has to do is spend a few points on "diplomatic" intervention then forget it.

by all means have Sea Lion - as long as the RN can base its destroyers outside fighter escort range and has 3 days to attack the transports anchored of the South English coast and you're prepared to take the hit on the continental economy from losing all that shipping and on German prestige from losing those 300,000 of it's best veterans........

by all means have Germany not invade Poland....oops....except then we dont' actually have WW2....damn.........[8|][:D][:D]

Sorry, I did not mean to assume.

On the other hand, you are also "assuming". And now you are bringing up ideas that have nothing to do with what I am looking for in this game.

Clearly, you have misunderstood what I am looking for.

I want only plausible, historical possibilities.

You, yourself state that you want historic possibilities provided they are grounded in reality. We are of one mind in this idea.

Sealion was never going to happen. This is historical fantasy. Hitler never intended to invade England. It was all a bluff. He had lots of barges but that's about it. To have Sealion happen in any game is fantasy - and I don't want to see it.

Invading Poland HAS to happen because this is what Hitler intended to do. It's what sparked WWII.

I am talking about including alternatives that do not change the game from its historical ties. For example, Hitler DID woe Franco; Hitler DID want Japan to attack the USSR; and Hitler chose NOT to give Rommel more military equipment.

Within the context of a WWII game, toggle options of slight variants or possibilities for some of the above actions fits in to the game without altering its historical nature.

I don't want a HoI; minor nations should remain minor, and only the larger nations should be factors as they were historically.

For example, whether Japan opts to attack the USSR in this game should be represented by a toggle option to allow the player to have either Siberian reinforcements enter the game or not to enter. It's an option that is historical and allows for re-playability.

Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
ORIGINAL: Warfare1



I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!


Alright, I understand your point, but my point was that if you were thinking that historically nations geared up for war just because Hitler invaded a country or two, that proved incorrect, at least in the case of the USA. Normally what you said was correct, but the USA was a major contradiction to that general wargame ruleset we have seen before, and being that the USA was one of the more powerful nations if one is resorting to being more historical with something so very basic like that, then it is important to realize just what an exception to the rule the USA was.
Dave Ferguson
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Kent, United Kingdom

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Dave Ferguson »

Whatever you do don't touch the convoy values. Adding a 'isolationist USA' option is pointless. Anyway didn't the UK have to pay for everything they got from the USA? Its what bankrupted the UK and I think we are still paying off the dept?
 
Also beware of a Japan first option. Roosevelt knew who the most dangerous enemy was, Germany!
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

Whatever you do don't touch the convoy values. Adding a 'isolationist USA' option is pointless. Anyway didn't the UK have to pay for everything they got from the USA? Its what bankrupted the UK and I think we are still paying off the dept?

Also beware of a Japan first option. Roosevelt knew who the most dangerous enemy was, Germany!

You can still be isolationist, though not strictly, and give some supplies to the UK. The US Army sure wasn't getting any bigger, and that probably lasted all the way till Pearl. Basically, like always, they couldn't become a miltary threat anywhere until they were given funds that allowed that (the government), and certainly it being coined as an isolationist nation wasn't without reason. Probably a neutral nation would be more an apt description, but as many of us know, loaning supplies and equipment to one of the warring nations certainly wasn't really neutral. They did what they could until they found a way to sway public opinion, and while opinion was getting more for being involved with the war, Pearl made that absolute.
Post Reply

Return to “Commander - Europe at War Gold”