WW2 Map

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • WW2 Map

    I would suggest a map where the technology stays true to WW2 history. No nukes on the eastern front or rockets that kill entire stacks of units. A lot of players want to play WW2 games without the 1950s and 1960s upgrades.

    The response of "play with the existing maps" and "agree not to upgrade" is an automatic fail as no one will agree to do that once in game. It'd be much easier to just have a map that is pure WW2.

    I am not interested in responses regarding the game being good as is etc. No need to troll either. Simply making a suggestion as requested by the devs in a beta game. If you don't care for someone else's opinion then there is no need to comment an insult. Just don't post anything.

    No need to respond about rockets and nukes being historically accurate either as that has been a weak argument. WW2 players came to this game looking for a game with a real WW2 feel. Tanks, Planes, Foot Troops and even Warships. Those units are awesome! Love the artillery and other units of that caliber as well. The added upgrades with nukes, nuclear ships and rockets take away from that feel.

    There are plenty of other units to add other then futuristic units that still add to the flavor of the game. Coastal Batteries, Paratroopers, Engineers, higher end mobile artillery and AA such as the Wespe and Nashorn. Even Aircraft Carriers and the Carrier Planes they would carry would be great and welcome additions to a WW2 game. No need to go all Jetsons in the research tree to make it a fun game.

  • This isn't much of a topic if its going to be a one sided discussion. I love to hear how nukes and rockets are not historically accurate. Instead of discussing removing the nukes/rockets you should be discussing ways to make it more difficult to acquire them. That would seem to be a more realistic thread.

  • Herr Hoffman wrote:

    Butter Ball Bill wrote:

    No can do. Everyone likes units being added but no one(except you) likes them being taken away.
    No can do? You aren't a dev Billy. Why do you continue to stalk my every post? You are also not "everyone" so if you want to post your opinion that;s fine but you are talking just for yourself kid.
    BBB stalks everyone's posts, you should know that by now.
    Forum Gang Premier

    you are a balls

  • Herr Hoffman, you kind of accused Squiggles. Don't get mad at someone else posting their opinion on a discussion where you openly posted your opinion from the very start! Actually, there was no discussion. You posted your opinion. Did you expect to get a different response? Most people on the forums- which accounts for much of the game's population- likes the 50's and 60's stuff - which means you will get the same response.

    So please do not be mad at us for posting our opinion on a forum where we are supposed to post our opinions, and don't lash out. It will cost you later on.
    It's been a while

  • If you want to play a game that is "true to history," you can post the idea in the RP threads. If anybody agrees with you, you shouldn't have any trouble starting a game. But I know you didn't want to hear that, so I'll take a different approach.

    This is an alternate history game. If you knew every time you played that Germany would take over Europe, then the US, UK and USSR would defeat Germany and Italy, there would be no point in playing. To give everyone an equal chance of winning, and to make the game fun, you need to allow countries like the USSR that did not historically use rockets to have rockets (the Germans DID frequently use rockets in WW2) Whether these weapons are too powerful or not is just a matter of small tweaks. Nukes were also used in WW2, if only in the final days. Nukes are only available in very late game, so as to stay historically acurate in some ways. The reason why countries other than the US have access to nukes is to make the game balanced. If you dislike the game because it's historically inaccurate, just remember: at least it's not 30k.


    Also, the game is WW2 and POST WW2. I think the technology goes as far as the 60's, which, by the way, is not until VERY LATE GAME, so you have the chance to play plenty of WW2 tech.
    Forum Gang Premier

    you are a balls

  • Herr Hoffman wrote:

    I would suggest a map where the technology stays true to WW2 history. No nukes on the eastern front or rockets that kill entire stacks of units. A lot of players want to play WW2 games without the 1950s and 1960s upgrades.

    The response of "play with the existing maps" and "agree not to upgrade" is an automatic fail as no one will agree to do that once in game. It'd be much easier to just have a map that is pure WW2.

    I am not interested in responses regarding the game being good as is etc. No need to troll either. Simply making a suggestion as requested by the devs in a beta game. If you don't care for someone else's opinion then there is no need to comment an insult. Just don't post anything.

    No need to respond about rockets and nukes being historically accurate either as that has been a weak argument. WW2 players came to this game looking for a game with a real WW2 feel. Tanks, Planes, Foot Troops and even Warships. Those units are awesome! Love the artillery and other units of that caliber as well. The added upgrades with nukes, nuclear ships and rockets take away from that feel.

    There are plenty of other units to add other then futuristic units that still add to the flavor of the game. Coastal Batteries, Paratroopers, Engineers, higher end mobile artillery and AA such as the Wespe and Nashorn. Even Aircraft Carriers and the Carrier Planes they would carry would be great and welcome additions to a WW2 game. No need to go all Jetsons in the research tree to make it a fun game.
    Might want to reread my post

  • Sir McSquiggles wrote:

    This isn't much of a topic if its going to be a one sided discussion. I love to hear how nukes and rockets are not historically accurate. Instead of discussing removing the nukes/rockets you should be discussing ways to make it more difficult to acquire them. That would seem to be a more realistic thread.
    Then perhaps making a thread about something you want to talk about is in order. This is a thread about the topic in the OP. Stick to it please.

  • Herr Hoffman wrote:

    Then perhaps making a thread about something you want to talk about is in order. This is a thread about the topic in the OP. Stick to it please.
    I want to talk about this, that is why I am here. If you would like to further explain your main points in this discussion that would be nice.

  • What I was trying to say was the reason why countries that did not use rockets or nukes in WW2 have them in game is for balance. Other than that, I have nothing to say. You do not like post WW2 tech, and that's fine, your allowed to have your own opinion. If the mods want to do something about it, that's fine, too. It won't effect me. However, I don't think there are enough players who agree with you to justify the mods making a new map without post WW2 tech. You can continue to push this idea, but just remember, you are in the minority here, so you will have a hard time making anything happen, if ever.


    Maybe the "I have nothing to say," part was a lie. I'll stick around.
    Forum Gang Premier

    you are a balls

  • *says saying something to justify rockets being historically accurate is a weak argument* *argues weakly for "ww2 only" units*
    Seriously though, Thousands upon thousands of rockets were fired in the Second World War, with thousands of casualties. You think it's 10 rockets being fired to kill an entire stack, but really it's probably about 50-100 (in proportions) per unit of them. Which is again, what happened in history, as much as you for some reason go against that. Hundreds per day were fired by Germany, like the above posters have said:
    You are a minority here, shooting down literally everything you throw at you only works if you have some people to support you. Let other ideas feed into what you've said, try them out first, then see if people like it and then shift toward your side, a good start would be the RP scenario where you can get a following who agree that it's a great idea, or by simply increasing difficulty to obtain, and they will slowly die out anyway
    "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

    "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

    "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"

  • GreatbigHippo wrote:

    What I was trying to say was the reason why countries that did not use rockets or nukes in WW2 have them in game is for balance. Other than that, I have nothing to say. You do not like post WW2 tech, and that's fine, your allowed to have your own opinion. If the mods want to do something about it, that's fine, too. It won't effect me. However, I don't think there are enough players who agree with you to justify the mods making a new map without post WW2 tech. You can continue to push this idea, but just remember, you are in the minority here, so you will have a hard time making anything happen, if ever.


    Maybe the "I have nothing to say," part was a lie. I'll stick around.
    You make a LOT of assumptions. There are perhaps a dozen or so active posters I have seen over the last week, that's it. I am rather certain anyone googling WW2 games located this game, realized it wasn't an actual WW2 game, like myself but, when they tried to ask questions they ran in to the troll gang. If someone has an opinion other then yours it's no excuse to act like a child and stalk them with posted nonsense. Get a life for F's sake. The rockets and nukes are NOT in the game for balance. That is just plain silly to even say. You put no thought into your reply.

  • aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:

    *says saying something to justify rockets being historically accurate is a weak argument* *argues weakly for "ww2 only" units*
    Seriously though, Thousands upon thousands of rockets were fired in the Second World War, with thousands of casualties. You think it's 10 rockets being fired to kill an entire stack, but really it's probably about 50-100 (in proportions) per unit of them. Which is again, what happened in history, as much as you for some reason go against that. Hundreds per day were fired by Germany, like the above posters have said:
    You are a minority here, shooting down literally everything you throw at you only works if you have some people to support you. Let other ideas feed into what you've said, try them out first, then see if people like it and then shift toward your side, a good start would be the RP scenario where you can get a following who agree that it's a great idea, or by simply increasing difficulty to obtain, and they will slowly die out anyway
    Again with the "you are a minority here" is completely inaccurate. Being as Bill has chased off anyone not agreeing with him this forum is all but dead. All that are left are his followers. I post for the occasional wander who is looking for the same and for the Devs to read.
    Rockets in WW 2 were a non-factor. Period. In the game one rocket kills a stack which is beyond lame. I understand some less intelligent and less strategic players need an easy mode but real players want a real WW 2.
    No need for a RP scenario when a map without all the extra garbage is easily created. The Devs can drop it in and see how often it is played to see how well it is received. I would normally say that would be done in the forums but this one is dead due to being over run by trolls.

  • Don't mean to rain on your parade Alfred but a single v1 killed 200 Belgian civilians and British soldiers in Antwerp, so I think entire stacks being decimated stands to reason as logical, a "intelligent and Strategic" player as yourself should know that 1 unit in this game counts for 100 or 100 or 10. So with all that in mind, it isn't too unrealistic much more leaning on realism to see small stacks of stuff killed by rockets.
    British=best. Duh!


  • If you really think an unit of rockets here is one rocket, isn't safe to presume that a infantry unit is consistenting of one man? there are scales and proportions done here, so "one rocket" does not in fact kill your army, sorry m8
    "A knight cannot save the world. They call certain methods of fighting good and others evil, acting as if there were some nobility to the battlefield."

    "Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."

    "It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"