AXIS vs ALLIES # 9 Game Invite

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

    • Hey there sir Lucky,
      Welcome back.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      I can build infantry in Istabul and Millita everywhere else... Okay. But how about arty, aa, at-gun or even vehicles (assuming if you 'somehow' got enough resources thanks to factions from both sides) I just wonder if everything else that i have in tech can be build?
      Well here's the thing. They didn't. It's like the Iraqi's or Afghanistan Army today today building tanks, artillery, planes, etc. They didn't. If they (& the Iraqis & so forth) could, they would (have). Of course these nations produced a paltry amount of very small ships,(bad) rifles & small mortars & such.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Are nations or factions allowed to give you higher tier tech weapons than mines, like destroyers, heavy tanks and bombers?
      Yes, Turkey got ALL it's tanks from Russia, France & England. If you could ever sucker these nations into giving you armor for example, gr8.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Am i allowed to attack non-faction nations?
      Here's the problem 99% of CoW players will fight other nations. Take them over. Use their resources & manpower, etc. However Turkey did not. Why is this? Their new leader at the time- not Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
      (he died in 1938, at the age of 57) had the sense not to stir up the pot. Kicking any of the hornets nests in the region could embroil the country in another WW1 type of war, and they had zero interest in that. If you're paying $15.oo for a glass of milk and can only make WW1 style infantry, why on earth would you get into WW2? There are TONS of politics in the region to reinforce & restrict these options. Bulgaria join the Tripartite pact in 1941 and Greece's neutrality was guarenteed by Britain. There are just no non-aligned nations nearby.
      Players in CoW want to fight. No sane Turkish leader would want his country to. If we allow Turkey to attack out, it is just 99% unrealistic.
      So there you are with Turkey. It's a very light commitment and only playable if the AXIS are doing very well. Are you sure you want to play them?
      Let me know :)
      Laterzzzzzzzzz

      The post was edited 1 time, last by James Hartmund ().

    • Master of Europe wrote:

      Hello. I'm fine with being isolationist. I have red the country rules and am good with everything. Looking forward to it.
      Yes sir 'Master,' if you're an active player, you're in as the U.S.A. Therefore we'll start today at 4:00 PM, CST (11 PM, GMT)
      Any questions, concerns or thoughts :?:

      :/ Btw sorry folks for the long time to respond. I spent a long weekend at the folks & outlaws for Easter weekend. I knew that this weekend would be busy for people.

    • Hey there sir Lucky,
      Welcome back.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      I can build infantry in Istabul and Millita everywhere else... Okay. But how about arty, aa, at-gun or even vehicles (assuming if you 'somehow' got enough resources thanks to factions from both sides) I just wonder if everything else that i have in tech can be build?

      Well here's the thing. They didn't. It's like the Iraqi's or Afghanistan Army today today building tanks, artillery, planes, etc. They didn't. If they (& the Iraqis & so forth) could, they would (have). Of course these nations produced a paltry amount of very small ships,(bad) rifles & small mortars & such.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Are nations or factions allowed to give you higher tier tech weapons than mines, like destroyers, heavy tanks and bombers?

      Yes, Turkey got ALL it's tanks from Russia, France & England. If you could ever sucker these nations into giving you armor for example, gr8.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Am i allowed to attack non-faction nations?

      Here's the problem 99% of CoW players will fight other nations. Take them over. Use their resources & manpower, etc. However Turkey did not. Why is this? Their new leader at the time- not Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
      (he died in 1938, at the age of 57) had the sense not to stir up the pot. Kicking any of the hornets nests in the region could embroil the country in another WW1 type of war, and they had zero interest in that. If you're paying $15.oo for a glass of milk and can only make WW1 style infantry, why on earth would you get into WW2? There are TONS of politics in the region to reinforce & restrict these options. Bulgaria join the Tripartite pact in 1941 and Greece's neutrality was guarenteed by Britain. There are just no non-aligned nations nearby.
      Players in CoW want to fight. No sane Turkish leader would want his country to. If we allow Turkey to attack out, it is just 99% unrealistic.
      So there you are with Turkey. It's a very light commitment and only playable if the AXIS are doing very well. Are you sure you want to play them?
      Let me know :)
      Laterzzzzzzzzz

    • AnonymusPerson wrote:

      Can I be the Soviets? I have experience in Roleplay on other games, so I will understand about the rules and what I will need to do.
      Welcome to the mix sir Anonymus, glad to have you. It seems that about 2/3rds of the time a player does not show up on time (within 12-16 hours of the game start). So if indeed you are an active player, are ok with the rules, and are willing to check out the 'Country Situations' post when the time comes for a player spot, there's about a 2/3rds chance that you'll be in :thumbup:
      Sorry, players snapped up the spots relatively quickly this time. It's a fun and much more realistic WW2 scenario :)

    • James Hartmund wrote:

      Hey there sir Lucky,
      Welcome back.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      I can build infantry in Istabul and Millita everywhere else... Okay. But how about arty, aa, at-gun or even vehicles (assuming if you 'somehow' got enough resources thanks to factions from both sides) I just wonder if everything else that i have in tech can be build?
      Well here's the thing. They didn't. It's like the Iraqi's or Afghanistan Army today today building tanks, artillery, planes, etc. They didn't. If they (& the Iraqis & so forth) could, they would (have). Of course these nations produced a paltry amount of very small ships,(bad) rifles & small mortars & such.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Are nations or factions allowed to give you higher tier tech weapons than mines, like destroyers, heavy tanks and bombers?
      Yes, Turkey got ALL it's tanks from Russia, France & England. If you could ever sucker these nations into giving you armor for example, gr8.


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Am i allowed to attack non-faction nations?
      Here's the problem 99% of CoW players will fight other nations. Take them over. Use their resources & manpower, etc. However Turkey did not. Why is this? Their new leader at the time- not Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
      (he died in 1938, at the age of 57) had the sense not to stir up the pot. Kicking any of the hornets nests in the region could embroil the country in another WW1 type of war, and they had zero interest in that. If you're paying $15.oo for a glass of milk and can only make WW1 style infantry, why on earth would you get into WW2? There are TONS of politics in the region to reinforce & restrict these options. Bulgaria join the Tripartite pact in 1941 and Greece's neutrality was guarenteed by Britain. There are just no non-aligned nations nearby.
      Players in CoW want to fight. No sane Turkish leader would want his country to. If we allow Turkey to attack out, it is just 99% unrealistic.
      So there you are with Turkey. It's a very light commitment and only playable if the AXIS are doing very well. Are you sure you want to play them?
      Let me know :)
      Laterzzzzzzzzz
      Im totally ok with it, ill join as Turkey.

      Tough i have one last question: Am i allowed to build commandos? (or at least with restriction)

    • So Mr. AnonymusPerson, the game just started; let's keep track of who shows & who does not, shall we? :thumbsup:

      In reply- Mr. LuckyX1


      LuckyX1 wrote:

      Tough i have one last question: Am i allowed to build commandos? (or at least with restriction)
      I may have missed the starting commando (alpine/ mountain units). It was in the actual divisions/ units they had somewhere in our post.
      I found it:
      3 Brigades of Mountain troops (probably = to 2 commandos)

      So yes, Turkey could build 2 commando units (Corps)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by James Hartmund ().

    • You know I think that, of course, using the 22 player absolutely the best potential for a 98% historical game. Here's the pros & cons of using that map (feel free to give counter points or just correct my thinking):
      PROS:
      1. Canada :)
      2. Finland
      3. ROMANIA!!! :thumbsup:
      4. Other correct WW2 game countries
      5. (Plenty of time to get the) correct starting units :!:
      6. Correct starting $ & resources
      7. France & it's colonial forces will be correct.

      CONS:
      1. The starting date 'pain in the butt' X/ factor is high. Starting in 1932, most players will have to wait like 14 turns to start. American will be about 21 turns. Honestly, who want's to wait that long.
      2. Most, but not all of the resources are messed up. Just look at 'Morocco' with those silly oil, steel, etc., values. Hey, at least Ploesti is correct if I remember.
      3. Getting Russia together will be very difficult <X to say the least. They'll be about 4 silly wars they have to do. It might be fun though :/ , dunno.
      4. There's so much to do to get the game going correctly; It's just a daunting task. Blah...
      5. There's more 'rules' to make for the game. How about the lack of convoy attack/ sub warfare that is ABSOLUTELY MISSING :protest: in the game.
      "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril." - Winston Churchill

      Convoy attacks/ resources warfare isn't even in the game. This is just totaly unacceptable! Again more 'rules' to implement. :ploed:

      IF we do this game, & we probably should... we'll have to just make several silly 'extra' accounts, go into the game and fix, repair, make, correct, do, fix some more... for many days. This is the 'pain in the butt' factor I'm talking about.
      AND...
      then there's the research to get all this going. I'm not exactly burnt out, but I'm not sure if I want to do the lotsNlots of research that is necessary to make the game right.
      Who else will help to do it right I wonder :welcome:

      You let me know when you're truly ready to tackle this. In my mind it would have to be done correctly brotha'

    • An option for the 22P game regarding bigger nations like Russia or the UK/Egypt partnership, is having multiple people control a 'country'. What I mean is, that one can think of various army groups with different generals. Still not picture perfect, but it disables the need for that early AI takeover stuff.

      And it adds more variety - people can have 1 small country, or a 'team' play as Russia or America.

      The biggest disadvantage I see with the 22p map is the starting resources/tech/units - which would greatly disadvantage the Axis team.

      Personally, I think the 'absolute' neutrals (Im looking at you Sweden, Spain and Turkey) should be hardlocked out of the match.

    • miech wrote:

      An option for the 22P game regarding bigger nations like Russia or the UK/Egypt partnership, is having multiple people control a 'country'. What I mean is, that one can think of various army groups with different generals. Still not picture perfect, but it disables the need for that early AI takeover stuff.

      And it adds more variety - people can have 1 small country, or a 'team' play as Russia or America.

      The biggest disadvantage I see with the 22p map is the starting resources/tech/units - which would greatly disadvantage the Axis team.

      Personally, I think the 'absolute' neutrals (Im looking at you Sweden, Spain and Turkey) should be hardlocked out of the match.
      Agree with most of the things. Having teamplay in in bigger nations like Russia can be either best idea ever or certain doom to country, just depends how well they communicate.

      I have mixed opinions of neutrals in this case. In one side hardlocking neutrals from match is best option since it would mean less players needed to roleplay = less problems. However, neutrals COULD make a impact to a game... And make it more intresting. Spain example tough not with a good millitary, would give Axis or Allies a advantage if he joins one of the factions. (Axis: Invasion of Africa or France would be harder| Allies: Easier to invade France and Africa... If Spain survives) Also its not totally historical, so Spain joining Axis wouldnt be insane. I leave others to decide whats better.

      Lack of tech and units would be problem, but lack of resrouces would actually make more impact and would even be somewhat historical. The main problem that Germany had is that they did not have materials to produce high quality ammunitions for tanks on theyr own, so they relied on Spain supplying them materials for ammunation, however as we know, Allies pushed Germans out form France, cutting the valuable resources. So lack of resources would make holding land with valuable resources and factories even more important than ever. After all, why you should worry in Blitzkrieg where is nearly ridiclous amount of resources, making conquered land less useful. Also i wouldbe perfect way to stop that goddamn building/unit spam.

    • Interesting.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.

    • LuckyX1 wrote:

      Erm... Is it still active???
      It's possible.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.