Suggestions concerning neutrals and historicity.

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

    • Suggestions concerning neutrals and historicity.

      I want to preface this by stating that I realize that this game isn't an exact reenactment of history, but is only based on the history of WWII, and that the premise of this game isn't to retell history exactly, but to play in an historical time period, and to play out WWII with a lot of "what ifs" in mind.

      Having said that, however, I enjoy playing out historical scenarios, and tried to create a game with an historic theme, only to find my ideas dashed. So be it; this game isn't about my ideas, but about playing a game of strategy, in a PvP setting. Okay, I get that.

      But I do have a couple of suggestions which might make both history buffs like me happy, as well as the "what if" players. One concerns AI neutrals. I think, and i know i'm going to draw a lot of flack, but this is just my opinion, so don't everyone jump on me at once, and just keep an open mind, okay? Where was i? Oh, yeah; I think AIs should remain neutral unless provoked, and not (seemingly) arbitrarily declaring wither embargoes, or even war, especially if, in the real history of the war, they remained neutral.

      As an example, right now, Saudi Arabia and Greece are both at war with my nation, and others, without provocation. I admit i made mistakes early in the game, which provoked war with otherwise neutral nations, some of whom were player controlled, and others AI. That's my own fault, and not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about nations which are AI, and out of the blue, without cause, and who historically didn't get involved, suddenly, and without provocation, go nuts, and declare war on everyone. I get it that some players will do that, but AI should not behave like inexperienced war gamers, in my opinion. I may be wrong, but that's what i think.

      The other suggestion is this; in the 1939 Blitzkrieg scenario, like the game I created, there should be a way (maybe there is, but I'm not smart enough to know how to do this) to limit players to Axis or allies, with the core Axis players being Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, the Allies being France, The UK, The USA, Canada, and Russia, and the rest being AI neutrals.

      Also, instead of the historic games being winner take all, the goals should be different for each player; conquest of the board being the goal of Axis players, and liberation of Axis controlled territories by the Allies (with ownership returning to liberated countries.) Of course, the game rules only allow for a maximum of 3 players per coalition, if coalitions are allowed, so I propose the following modification; Axis players always have automatic Right of Way, and perhaps even automatic Shared Maps, with other Axis Players, and likewise for Allies. Liberated countries would be treated like occupied countries in this respect; Allies would be able to have Right of Way, but the liberated counties would have control over their own resources, military, etc.

      At any rate, victory conditions would depend on if goals are met; conquest of the map for the Axis, and liberation of the map, and the defeat of the Axis for the Allies. Just a few thoughts. I doubt if any of my ideas would work, but I thought i'd put them out there. Please, be open minded, and don't tear my ideas down, just because you don't agree. If you don't agree, that's fine, but don't put me down as stupid just because you don't like my suggestions. They're just thoughts, after all.
    • Dopey me; I forgot that the Soviets have their own doctrine, and conquest should be their goal, but they did stop historically, after the fall of Berlin, with the cold war beginning shortly afterward. Hmm. That presents a wrench in the works as far as my ideas are concerned. Any suggestions? I wanted to present a 5 vs 5 scenario, but the Soviets are a bit of a bother. Hmmm...
    • Conquerer74, I didn't mention Pan-Asian, because I don't play in games involving them, but you're right in regards to world wide games. I wonder if there are online games similar to the old Avalon Hill tabletop games, where you can play out real historical scenarios, like The D-Day landing, or Operation Market Garden.I'm open to any suggestions as to what games, if any of the sort, exist elsewhere. I loved playing those games, back in the 70s and 80s. Panzer Leader was my favorite.
    • PresidentStu1 wrote:

      At any rate, victory conditions would depend on if goals are met; conquest of the map for the Axis, and liberation of the map, and the defeat of the Axis for the Allies. Just a few thoughts. I doubt if any of my ideas would work, but I thought i'd put them out there. Please, be open minded, and don't tear my ideas down, just because you don't agree. If you don't agree, that's fine, but don't put me down as stupid just because you don't like my suggestions. They're just thoughts, after all.
      This would work in an RP (roleplay) or historical map setting, but in any open game, having same doctrines fight each other is very common, which would make this endgame goal kind of strange.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • PresidentStu1 wrote:

      I was talking strictly about an historical map setting.
      Ah, then in that case, it would be a pretty good idea.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • Unfortunately, the totally arbitrary behavior of AI nations, even on an historical map, has left me frustrated entirely.I was hoping that this game, being at least somewhat based on real history, even though one can change history, by doing things differently, would be less arbitrary than CON, but I find that i'm sorely disappointed.