Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
0 
Report this post
I agree with some of your criticism about the gameplay but I don't think the game developers are totally ignorant of the historical situation for the second world war and have allowed for 'what if' decisions for the player to make to vary gameplay. In general terms it seems to follow the events of the time well enough and gives hours of fun.
However, I must admit that certain decision making by the AI against me as the player too, such as Spain's activation as an Axis ally or the expelling of Soviet forces from Poland after it's surrender have given me reason for complaint playing as the Allies, especially when I have to go out of my way to save the game and switch sides so as to stop an AI decision from happening. Then to me it becomes ridiculous as I shouldn't have to do that. There is no other alternative given to the player which is more than frustrating to say the least.
Apart from that I have no criticism to make and thank the developers for their understanding and time and effort.
1)
Perhaps, but I think in reverse, i.e. if playing as the USSR, most would likely would prefer to have Germany declare war on the USSR rather than not.
Generally speaking though, the game scripts have been designed to react and respond to player actions, and in that vein, if there is a situation that might pique Soviet interest in joining the war, then they are likely to do so.
Because the following did not happen historically, it is difficult to say how the USSR or even the US may have reacted, but every attempt has been made to either possibly delay or accelerate their entries depending on the in game situation.
For example each of the following examples (these are just some) may act to accelerate USSR entry:
- successful Sealion
- success in Egypt for the Axis forces that then threatens the Middle East
- excessive declarations of war by the Axis side
- slow historical progress by the Axis side in Poland, the Low Countries and France
- lack of Axis forces on the Eastern Front near the Soviet border, i.e. no show of strength at all there
- excessive number of Axis units on the Eastern Front near the Soviet border
etc.
2)
Difficult to say why you had a lack of success with your attacks without knowing more detail. For example, what was the morale of your units versus that of the defender? Was the defender entrenched? Was it in a Fortress? Was it behind a river? Did your attackers have good or poor supply? Were they attached to an HQ? What units were used in the attack?
Hope this helps,
Hubert
Much of what you've described is not necessarily AI specific, but rather game events that would apply in Multiplayer as well.
For example, as the Axis you can invest, through several DECISIONS and expense, or through Diplomacy, in trying to have Spain join your side, or it can also possibly join from a successful Sealion and under the right conditions and so on. Just like a human player can take advantage of these opportunities, so too can the AI.
As you've mentioned, these are just some areas of the "what if" mechanisms employed into the game script engine for a variety of game play from game to game.
For the USSR units being expelled from Poland, I admit I'm a little confused as Soviets units should not be allowed to enter Poland prior to the Axis conquest.
Is this possibly from something else such as one of the DECISION and TERRITORY events that occur post Polish surrender? If so, these are generally historically based on the possible diplomatic actions and agreements of the time.
I would recommend the 1939 Storm over Europe Strategy Guide PDF file found in the installation folder Manuals folder for more details.
Hubert
Hope this helps,
Hubert
Not so much an expulsion from within the territory itself as troop movement as you rightly say is not allowed by the Soviets prior to the surrender of Poland. But rather the decision for the Axis taking over all of Poland and no alternative given for the Player other than having the inconvenience of having to save the game beforehand and switch sides so as to stop that decision been made by the AI.
How can the AI build up enough diplomatic points for an activation of Spain when Germany is being invaded by the Soviets and the USA and Britain are with full diplomatic intervention for Spain? Please explain as I do not understand the game mechanics for this scenario.
Is there any possible way that you can write into the script an alternative prior decision for the player to make and derail any major decision for an AI decision? I like the option for both outcomes to be made by the player.
Thanks for your reply and i want to apologize for my initial harshness caused by my frustration with the game mechanics.
2 infantry units + 1 tank unit. I was having a hard time getting through France because it was basically WW1 attritional warfare. By the time i got half way through France, the Communists were attacking me in the East. Very frustrating.
Part of the problem, as you note, is the scripting which leaves little room for alternative player-driven scenarios. the other part of the problem is the pace of the game. Given how long it takes to slog through France, it is too slow. In North Africa, the allies are so powerful that resistance there is basically a waste of time.
Some game decisions are either primarily Axis or Allied decisions to be made. This was just a design implementation and the dividing of Poland via honoring the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact was simply implemented to be an Axis decision to make as they have been more or less recognized as the official conquerors of Poland historically.
But again, if desired this DECISION event can easily be disabled via the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS screen as desired.
Another idea is to play through the game as the Axis to see what DECISIONS they are presented with, and a list can be made if there are any other decisions you'd rather not see in game and these too can also be disabled.
Hard to say without seeing the actual game as it could have been earlier diplomatic investments finally bearing fruit, and/or a combination of some previous DECISIONS made to try and bring Franco over to the Axis side. As mentioned above a quick look at the DECISION EVENTS section in the 1939 Storm Over Europe Strategy Guide PDF file will likely paint a better picture.
There are some DECISIONS that are based on the outcomes of other DECISIONS and events, such as the Winter War and so on, but most are pretty one sided only such as the Axis decision to create Vichy France or not, i.e. only one side can realistically make that decision.
I can appreciate what you are after, but it really would come down to demand for such an implementation and having that balanced versus time and effort. For example, the cause and effect of a lot of decisions have to be carefully balanced out not only for AI play but also for Multiplayer and it requires a lot of testing and game play to get a handle on whether such changes would ultimately work or not.
Easiest for now, and considering how well the current game is balanced for AI and Multiplayer games, is to simply disable those few DECISIONS that you really don't want to see in the games you play versus the AI.
No problem at all and I suspect that a few more cracks at the game and much of what you've been frustrated will become issues of the past.
I'd still suggest taking a look at that Strategy Guide I've mentioned above as well as perhaps a few 'Let's Play' videos on Youtube that cover some of the game mechanics and strategies in more detail.
For example, I haven't had a chance to watch this one yet, but this player is poised to invade France near May 1940 and this video as well as some of his subsequent videos seem to highlight his quickness through the Low Countries and France quite well.
https://youtu.be/OOxPPWN14hw?list=PLPwNnI3seu0uS3UuhZR8vf1h4Dr2nyXGM&t=512
I am criticising your implementation of the order DE600 that fundementally changes a second world war game into a first world war game and all the static gameplay as a consequence. You can tell me to go and turn off the offending script because I don't like it sure, but what you are ultimately doing is driving me away from a game I want to see improved and am reasoning for.
What lead up to the decision for the order DE600 to be implemented 25% of the time and what apart from deleting the script can I do to avoid the decision been made as the player within the game?
Maybe I can as the Soviet player placate the Axis with the offer of giving up the area around Warsaw in advance so as to avoid the total occupation of Poland by the AI through order DE600? Or maybe I have a favourable trade agreement that they will go for instead? Options can be made available if there is a will to do so. I am only looking for options for the player to enjoy.
Thanks for the feedback and could you provide a little more insight as to why you feel DE600 changes the game into a WWI game?
Don't get me wrong as I only ask as this is the first such criticism I've heard of this particular DE, which is also a popular one in Multiplayer, as it gives the Axis player the choice of either honoring the pact, or if they don't honor the pact, a better jumping off position for Barbarossa at the cost of increased Soviet mobilization which in turn can lead to either an earlier entry of the Soviets or increased unit purchases for the Soviets as their income increases due to increased mobilization. Or both.
Essentially we've tried our best to have a fair amount of pros and cons for each decision so that no decision, as much as possible, is an automatic no brainer. Players will have to weigh each decision accordingly.
Decisions can be changed of course, but again we have to weigh any changes with demand and also against those that would also not want particular decisions changed either. For each player that might dislike a particular decision, there might be 10 that like it, and this is something we have to balance out as well. It is our best attempt at respecting all players etc.
One nice thing, and hopefully an option for you here in the meantime, is that the game is fully customizable and editable and perhaps for this one decision, if you don't like the chance that the AI may not honor the pact 25% of the time, is to change the percentage for the AI when making this decision.
The easiest thing to do is to open the campaign in the Editor and then select 'Save As' which will make an exact copy of the campaign in your Windows USER folder. Then once it has been saved:
1) go to Campaign->Edit Event Scripts
2) then select the DECISION scripts and click on Open/Edit
3) scroll down to DE 600 and change the following line to #AI_RESPONSE= 100
4) close the script file
5) click on the Update* button and then Ok
6) save the campaign
This will guarantee that the AI will always accept the Pact and you now have a customized version of your campaign that you can play.
Hope this helps,
Hubert
Thanks for your reply and honestly I was thinking of the repercussions on the eastern front for the Axis as well as the Allies. Here are my further thoughts and do appreciate your pointing out that I can specifically edit the event scripts myself.
Order DE600 is automatically a position of negative diplomacy between the Axis and Soviets for the possession of Poland. No visit to appease Stalin by Hitler's ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop and therefore a decision made right at the beginning of the campaign before the invasion of Poland in 1939. Or, if instead it comes after the visit then surely a war is immediate with the Soviets and they would be fortifying their borders without delay? The leopard has shown it's true nature to the bear and has been spotted with it's claws extended. All previous agreements are off and let the battle commence. Accordingly, surely Soviet military output would have been increased and the winter war against Finland seriously put into question? A rapid reformation of the Soviet armed forces would have happened earlier albeit technically unadvanced and a two front war for the Germans again so early on? Where are the lessons learnt for the Germans from the first world war? Frederick also described the sluggishness that can occur in gameplay and that brings to mind a more static war emulating the first world war.
Taking out Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands will assist the defeat of the French because doing so will trigger losses to Allied unit morale, so in the turn following the conquest of these countries the French units will be more fragile when attacked.
In terms of DE 600, if the Germans fail to honour the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact then Soviet income will rise as their mobilization level will immediately increase 20-30%.
I suspect that the best solution for you will be to create an amended version of the campaign as per Hubert's suggestion, where the AI will always honour the Pact. I had thought of making this the default, but I know that others like the variability so that wouldn't please everyone.
Bill
Yes, but what about the repercussions for order DE 600? What about the immediate war with the Soviets as a consequence? How can the Axis have pushed out the Soviets from Poland and not be at war with them from then on and in effect already be performing Barbarossa in advance? There is no representation of the conflict involved in pushing the Soviet troops out of Poland and is simply a decree that that has happened.
Game fails when Stalin gets kicked out of Poland! Where are my free engineer units for fortifying my borders and the rescheduling of the future reinforcements as the Soviet player? There is no representation of the conflict involved in.
In response he would have increased military spending, allowing him to build more units sooner, and this is enabled by the increase in mobilization.
The Soviet mobilization jump will also significantly cut down the time the Axis will have to conquer other countries while preparing for war in the east later on, and it will make Sea Lion less of a viable option.
I think the problem is sitting in front of your screen. The key in this game is the supply system, and you need to understand it to 100%. As a new player to this strategic command series, it took me few hours to find and read the supply - relevant stuff in the forums. After that, its quite easy to progress in ares with low supply like in north-africa and in the udssr.
fallow this thread here, everything you need to know and understand about supply:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4363373
I really like this game with a historic background and most things are logic.
Invading England in 1940/41 should not be that easy and there are a few minor bugs, I conquered Crete and a while after the AI does it again, once the Italian capital moved quickly to 4 other places for no reason and after I conquered Persia, one single Russian unit take back Teheran and instant the whole country is back in control of the Allies.
kudos to the game developers.