they were the first ones to come up with the blizkrieg tactics the germans shamelessly copied the russian deep strike tactics
Well, up to a point. The theory of deep battle (as Tukhachevsky called it) had been independently worked out my multiple military thinkers, most people agree that the Germans mostly based their theory on the work of the British tankers Fuller and Liddell-Hart.
Furthermore the Russian's never successfully used their deep battle strategy until well after they'd had their arses spanked by blitzkrieg. Tukhachevsky was caught in the officer purges, plus the failure of poorly implemented deep battle strategy in the Spanish Civil war meant that it was massively and heavily out of favour and totally unpracticed by the Red Army, the Russian forces simply did not have the tank and mechanised infantry forces to implement blitzkrieg until years into the war. Even more so the lack of communication gear and training in the Russian forces meant that when Deep Battle was attempted it often pitifully failed.
Which is the best Europa Universalis game to start with?
Third one with In Nomine expansion. User interface is far more streamlined than in earlier games, and game is also far more balanced. In Nomine was originally only available as a digital download, but it was included in Europa Universalis 3: Complete retail release. It is budget release and typically goes for 20-25 euros. Be warned though, because although game isn't too overwhelming even for beginners, manual is downright horrible with lots of typos and factual errors.
(I wrote this for another place, but it seems appropriate here)
Let me introduce you to my favorite WW2 game. It's Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean (its predecessor in the series, Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich, is in a similar vein, but covers Operation Market-Garden).
Why is COTA a good WW2 game? It's not Hollywood-style, and it doesn't just implement the WW2 setting just for big explosions and drama. Instead, it uses the setting as a strength of the game, crafting historically accurate scenarios and putting you in the shoes of the general of a particular battle. It's of an operational scale (thus smaller than HoI2), which I think allows for tigher design. COTA covers the battles of Greece, Crete, and a hypothetical invasion of Malta.
It's an operational wargame. It's real-time with pause, but plays nothing like a RTS. It tries to be as accurate as possible, avoiding as much gaming conventions as it can - a pseudo-simulation of sorts. How does it do this? I'll present some points posted by someone else on another forum (MarkShot) who does it much better than me, and I absolutely agree with him.
In many so called "strategy" games, the player may formulate a strategy in pursuit of victory. However, when it comes to executing the strategy, it is largely incumbent on the player to execute each small detail in order to realize the strategy. So, the "strategy" is actually something the player imposes upon the gaming system, as opposed to the player actually interacting with the system at the strategic level. At worst, this leaves the player so mired with the details that the big picture is lost or at best, the player can track the big picture but finds much of their involvement happening at a lower level than the one for which they acquired the game for in the first place.
So, what is it that is different about Panther's engine that allows strategy to be both the main focus of the player and main interaction with the game?
(1) Panther has introduced a flexible multi-level chain of command structure into the game. The player may interact with units/sub-units at any level within the chain of command. Thus, it is very adaptable to individual style and needs. One can both micro/macro manage within even a single gaming session. A critical road block can be created by tasking individual companies while some place else an entire brigade can be given very open ended orders to make an attack.
Some games have a natural level at which the player should interact with the game. As long as scenarios and forces are constructed around that natural limit, they play very well. Panther's engine is much more open ended. The ability to command at any level makes the game highly scalable. In many games, if you double the forces, the complexity for the player will quadruple (exponential scaling). In Panther's engine, the scaling is more of a logarithmic function. So, doubling the forces may increase the complexity for the player by a factor of 1.2 or so.
(Okay, keep this scaling in mind as I will come back to it soon.)
(2) Along with this being able to take command at any level, Panther has provided a very powerful (or as they prefer to say "capable") AI. In most games, the AI is something that serves as your opponent. In the Combat Mission series, Battle Front identified two different AIs. First there is the Tactical AI, which resolved combat between individual elements (units) in the game system. Second, there is the Strategic AI which formulates a high-level plan for the battle against the player. If we look at Panther's engine, we will also find both of these AIs. However, in the Panther engine the Strategic AI also functions on behalf of the player to produce plans in the execution of orders given by the player. It is this which allows the player to command at any level. The player need not concern him or herself with a myriad of typical details like choosing the best route, coordinating the movement of many units with proper overwatch and security, developing a proper attack formation, deploying different type of assets to their maximum advantage, etc...
---
So, when we add the two above features together we get a highly scalable system that allows the player's main involvement to be with defining and monitoring strategy. In some games, you may be able to command large scale battles. However, this is often achieved by abstracting the forces involved in the battle. With Panther's engine, large scale doesn't mean highly abstracted. In fact, while playing HTTR you will find all the low level elemental units like infantry companies, anti-tank platoons, mortars platoons, ... individually represented and involved. So, even though you are directing a battle involving tens of thousands men and giving order to brigades, it is fought before your eyes at a much finer level of granularity. All the inherent messiness and give and take of battle is not abstracted away by some hidden numerical system. It is all there for your immersion and analysis despite your involvement at a much higher level.
(3) I think there is one other aspect of Panther's engine that significantly contributes to the strategic nature of the game. This is order delays. Anyone who is serving or has served will tell you that no plans/orders are immediately executed. They require time to plan, communicate, organize, and execute. You will also be told that command and control delays during WWII were much greater than they are today. There were no GPS satellites, computers, integrated battle management, etc... Panther has implemented such command and control delays into the gaming engine. While playing, you are free to issue orders and reissue orders at any point in time. However, if you choose to play with order delays (this is optional, but is selected by most players), then you will not be issuing orders and revising them every simulated hour. You are going to analyze and then, formulate a plan. Then, you will issue orders. Then, you are going to, with as much patience as you can muster, sit back and let things run their course. Even when things are not going well, you will not immediately jump in and tweak this or that. You will make a commitment as the commander to stand by your decisions until a major overhaul is needed.
Believe me, this all feels very real life. The requirement to create the best plan on incomplete/inaccurate information and then sit back and let things just happen, adds a lot to the fact that this is about strategy. You will work out a strategy and then set it in motion. You are not going to keep nudging things in the right direction based on some tables published by players who have reverse engineered the gaming system. I have never served in the military, but I have managed large scale software projects and this game truely captures the feel and challenges of leadership/management.
Summary:
1) The Order of Battle actually matters. Multi-level chain of command means you can macro- or micro-manage as much as you want. The beauty of it is that the more you micro, the more HQ becomes overwhelmed, learning to longer order delays, so you quickly learn to deleguate.
2) AI is very capable of carrying out your macro orders. In setting your orders, you set out different parameters, and the AI carries them out competently. There are a general view of what order settings you can have available on the left:
3) Order delays means that this CAN'T be a twitch fest, even if you wanted it to be. Every order you implement (because you control battalions and regiments and above, and not single squads or units) takes TIME to be carried out. It takes time for your units to organize themselves and prepare. What this means is that you have to plan out ahead, and anticipate the enemy's plan as well, taking into account various possibilities as well. You can't overcome setbacks by clicking wildly. From a gameplay perspective, that makes it very challenging.
Why does no one play this around here? Well, you basically play on a 2D map and manipulate little squares around. You don't see lots of bells and whistles. Despite that, the look is clean, the interface itself is ace and very functional, and it performs really well. It's a big shame, really.
I dug the games so much, I went out and bought some books on Market-Garden and the Greece/Crete operations to read more on them. That's what WW2 games should do - stimulate the player to learn more about the conflict.
In any case, the upcoming game in the (renamed) series is Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. It'll actually have a demo, so maybe people will finally try it out.
Any absolute definition will fall short, so I'll just say that I generally consider wargames to have that wargamey feel. No, I have no idea how to describe that.
By this definition, I don't think I'd consider Darwinia to be a wargame, more of an RTS. I think I'd consider Defcon a very light wargame, though.
Those Airborne Assault games look pretty neat, too. Do you have a recommendation between HttR or CotA?
I forgot close combat 2-5, i havent played it to much but it was pretty fun vs my cousin when i visited 'fritz is going berzerk!' they charged the building my mg42 with scottish troops and they killed the gunner and loader but fritz the spare man pulled that MG around all by himself and hosed down 16 allied troops charging him across the room.
Those Airborne Assault games look pretty neat, too. Do you have a recommendation between HttR or CotA?
Depends on your preferences for the setting.
HTTR = Market-Garden
COTA = Greece/Crete/Malta.
Other than that, COTA has a bunch of interface upgrades/tools. None are majorly groundbreaking, but you'll miss them if you play through the games in the opposite order.
Battles from the Bulge is expected early 2009, and there are apparently plans for a demo too.
There is a demo you can find for an older iteration of the series, Red Devils over Arnhem. While it does convey a good sense of what the core gameplay mechanics are like (you really need to read the tutorial/manual to learn how to play, just messing around with buttons without actually trying to understand the system won't be very fruitful), it is also very archaic compared to the newer titles. It'll give you a general idea, bearing in mind that the two mentioned here are much better games. It has a few scenarios, so there's a decent amount of gameplay to be had. Also, you can get an idea of how awesome time delays are for an operational/strategy game when it comes to making your plan.
CoTA is one of the best wargames ever. I had fun playing that with a friend for quite a while.
ATM, I'm trying to learn Advanced Tactics: WWII since matrixgames is having a holiday sale. I'm liking the change of pace where I can pick research and what units to build.
Man, HoI2 is insane, in a bad way. Five hundred things going on everywhere! I end up staring at the map for a few minutes and closing the game, since there's no indication of what I should be doing.
Man, HoI2 is insane, in a bad way. Five hundred things going on everywhere! I end up staring at the map for a few minutes and closing the game, since there's no indication of what I should be doing.
You just have to focus on what's around your nation and set your own goals. Start off with a smaller nation that can hold it's own against the ones around it and go from there.
Since people already mentioned HOI2, I feel I should mention the world in flames mod for it. The mod greatly enhances the ai-- you will see amphibious invasions on a large scale, encirclements, etc. It also improves the graphics and interface (most pictures are now in color and the icons are outstanding) as well as making air support absolutely necessary.
Ohh man, this thread got me to reinstall doomsday. I feel like I'm better than I was before, but I still suck horribly. Was playing as nationalist spain, quickly destroyed republican spain(couple months from start at 1938). Spent time upgrading my dudes, building some decent tanks, and then when germany invaded france, allied with them and went to grab me some land.
Actually was doing well, ended up taking most of what would become vichy france, until britain led a naval assault on my barely-defended homeland(shouldn't you guys be helping defend france?). When all was said and done, I held four territories that were french(none of them worthwhile really), and had half of spain proper occupied, barely able to take back my territories.
i love the paradox games. took some time to read some "lets play" type threads on some other forums and some general strategy guides. definitely helped ease into it some.
i picked up the game Making History: The Calm & The Storm over a year ago - but i never got around to playing it (i do this a lot..). anyone know if its worth trying?
But for some reason, no matter how well i do in other scenarios i just can't stop the Germans when I'm playing as Russia.
Heh. You really can't lose with Soviet Union if you know what you are doing. Here is few tips for ya:
1) In the beginning remove national dissent by creating so much consumer goods as possible
2) From year 1936 to april 1939, you should be only focusing doing more factories. Don't upgrade or reinforce units. Do at least 14 3 factory runs, and when first wave of them is ready, start additional 2 factory waves with new industrial capacity.
3) In 1937, switch your security officer to Uritskij who gives -10 percent to consumer goods spending. Also switch Boris Shaposhnikov to your army commander. This way you have A LOT of manpower by 1941.
4) Focus on industry, infantry, artillery, and land tactics. Tanks aren't that important for soviets.
5) On year 1936, push politics slider towards Hawk Lobby. In following years, push slider towards standing army to get better organisation. Hawk Lobby will grow automatically to its max by various events, and Interventionism isn't so important as standing army.
6) Purge the leaders. Its not like Soviets lack leaders, but not going with purge will push you towards dove lobby by two steps. Not to mention insane amount of dissent. Notice that your security officer will be switched thanks to the purge event, so you must put Uritskij back manually.
7) Boris Shaposhnikov should be researching different Large Front tactics until 1940. From 1940 forwards, research all tactics with Alexander Vasilevsky.
8) It is pointless to attack into Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania because of dissent. If you wait to middle 1940, you can demand their territories, and have 20 percent chance of succeeding.
9) After factories have been built, built at least 12 headquarters in two waves.
10) Start to build standard infantry with (mobile, if possible) artillery as attachments. Furthermore, build some militia.
11) Merge your divisions of groups of 12. Each division should have 8 infantries, 3 militias* and one headquarter.
12) By october 1940, you should have roughly 400 divisions worth of army, and 24 divisions in each region bordering Poland.
13) Use your massive industry to upgrade infantry. Every infantry should be 1941 model before war.
14) Try to attack so soon as possible. If everything went well, you should be ready to attack by march 1941. You will get heavy losses, but it doesn't matter, as Soviet Union has so much manpower, and attrition done by groups is so much that axis units will be swiped out completely without change of recovery. Just beware encircling. By end of year 1941, war should be over.
* Militias are extremely useful for any country that has lots of manpower. They are weak, but in the combat, they are first to suffer losses. By adding few militias to group, you have perfect meat shield that enables your normal infantry fight efficiently so long as possible. Just remember that having groups that are only made of militia are completely pointless, weak and suffer insane amount of losses. For countries that don't have large pool of manpower, militia is only useful in defense, and even then, you need to be careful to not to use them too much.
Damn, i've been doing what you said for the most part, except i didn't have any militias and was trying to out-tank the germans.
You can't out-tank germany in most cases, so it isn't worth it. But remember, partisan effect starts to be nearly intolerable for germany after they advance far enough into Soviet Union. When that happens, their units crawl with only 40 percent of their base speed, and are pretty easy to encircle and cut out of supply.
anyone else have a problem with EU3 (mine is In Nomine 3.1) or any paradox games crashing randomly? it seemed like at first the game needed to crash once, then it would run fine. but i recently reinstalled EU3 and i'm getting random crashes when it loads a level (like a tutorial). i have a very current system with the latest video drivers etc. any known dual-core issues?
on a EU3 strategy note, whats a good smallish country to play just to get the hang of things? i mostly want to just become a prosperous nation, not a huge spanning empire (yet). i played mostly Crusader Kings and some HoI2 (only a little bit of this). so i'm pretty fresh to EU3, but i get the interface etc of the game.
edit: nevermind, seems that the crashing is a bug with the tutorials not the main game.
So I've been playing Highway to the Reich, and it's pretty great. It's great to be able to delegate tasks to a competent AI. If anyone else has it, I'd be glad to get destroyed sometime.
I picked up EU3, too. I just have vanilla, though. Can I get by with that, or are the expansions pretty much mandatory?
So I've been playing Highway to the Reich, and it's pretty great. It's great to be able to delegate tasks to a competent AI. If anyone else has it, I'd be glad to get destroyed sometime.
I picked up EU3, too. I just have vanilla, though. Can I get by with that, or are the expansions pretty much mandatory?
Apparently In Nomine is greatly recommended. I am sure you will be having fun without it, but it will not be as balanced.
So, I'm considering picking up one of Korsun Pocket, Flashpoint: Germany or The Operational Art of War III Anyone want to sway me either way.
I don't have anyone I could play these against so I'm especially looking for one which has a good AI player, even in custom designed scenarios.
Out of the three you mentioned I think the most recommended from my reading is TOAW. It's a little hardcore for me so I haven't really played it a whole lot yet. TOAW is known for having huge replayability due to an enourmous amount of scenarios and mod support from an active community.
The Korsun Pocket and following games in that series are also well thought of, but the community is much much smaller.
I really think outside the box a lot of people could get into advanced tactics, and I'm liking it as a person trying to break into the idea of wargaming (which is complex compared to my usualy games). It's got a flexible command structure where you subformations (e.g. riflemen, trucks, tanks, artillery, staff officers) to units and then assign them an HQ and so forth until you create your own hierarchy of battle that influences supply, training, and effectiveness of your troops. I'm especially fond of it's idea of a random map generate which you can set to identical sides if you want so there is infinite replay value single or multiplayer.
Anyone else ever play Civil War Generals 2? Because that's an awesome game.
I have Europa Universalis II around here somewhere, but when I tried to play it before I could not figure out what I was supposed to be doing like at all. I think I was Ukraine or something like that and I pretty much spread out over all of Europe and conquered some barabarian states or something and... basically ran out of things to do. I also could not figure out if there was a way to cross water.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Does Heart of Iron's any country gig include out of the way places like, say, South Africa?
It would be very interesting to see the game handle direct involvement from countries in other continents.
ANY country. I'm serious. You can be Ethiopia if you want to be. It will have accurate data on the government officials, their generals (if any), and their research teams.
All I know is that I just picked up Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday the other day, and I'm hooked like a crack head with a rock the size of a car. There's something glorious about taking out Germany in 1940, then going on to fuck up the entire Axis as the USSR. I haven't gotten around to trying the Tannu Tavu yet, but I hear that's the real challenge. You really do have to read through the manual before you play. I can't imagine even knowing how to play it otherwise.
So was Armageddon worthwhile or was it just a time expander like it sounds?
So I started play EU3:Complete and I am Castille(sp?). Everything was going good until I got in a spot trying to unite the iberian peninsula where both Portugal and that country on the right side of Iberia got into an alliance forcing me to try and handle them both at the same time or else get one of them to sign a peace treaty right after I declare war <laughs>.
i love the paradox games. took some time to read some "lets play" type threads on some other forums and some general strategy guides. definitely helped ease into it some.
i picked up the game Making History: The Calm & The Storm over a year ago - but i never got around to playing it (i do this a lot..). anyone know if its worth trying?
I quite like it. I'd recommend trying it out, especially if you already have it.
Theater of War is a very nice wargame. It fixed the one flaw I found in the combat mission series, that infantry squads of 8-10 men were displayed as three people. Annoyed me to no end. ToW has, however, the same problem a lot of games that go for ultra realism have: They aren't fun or rather, they can easily be frustrating as fuck. Going up against T34s with short barreled Panzer IVs and Peashooter Panzer IIIs during the winter of '41 is realistic - and the game portrays very well what happens if you do it - but its just frustrating to be told to go take a rail station (its always a rail station) and encounter the T34s - and have literally no way except for lucky hits with very limited ammo (6 per tank, which have to stay at range and therefore realisticaly don't hit to often) to take them out. Of course, part of that problem is that someone thought it a good idea to make a WWII game without the 88, the one thing the germans had that could stop a T34 cold in a pinch.
Resinstalled EU2. Decided to play France in the Grand Campaign. Started out right in a war with a bunch of people. :P
Took some early losses but eventually things swung around and I was able to force a number of territorial concessions from England and her allies. I have slowly been expanding since, annexing Orleans, Provence, Lorraine, and Auvergne. I also beat the crap out of Brittany and made them give me all of their provinces except for their capitol. I am now plannig a grand campaign to take what's left of England's holdings on the main-land, conquer Burgandy, and retake the provinces I lost to Aragon in the beginning of the game.
So yeah, pretty fun so far.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
Does anyone know which of the bigger new wargames have demos? My wargame bug is biting, but I'm poor and indecisive.
God, Hearts of Iron 2 is such a good sand box. I remember one game I had where I was invading the islands off Alaska with a fleet of Nazi air craft carriers while prepping an invasion of South America that would use my newly invented helicopters. So awesome. I had another game, playing as Argentina, where I united all of South America in an Alliance I controlled and then the US invaded and beat my ass in a brutal jungle war because they never got around to joining WWII.
Whoever suggested that World In Flames mod for Hearts of Iron 2, thank you, man. I downloaded it along with the Armageddon patches, and Jesus Christ it is now infinitely harder for the Japanese to do anything non-historical. In vanilla HoI, Japan was running green on steel, oil, and rare material income, which was weird since the fact that they lacked these materials was (one of the) reasons they went into war in the first place.
World In Flames makes it right and puts you into the red in these resources. Perhaps some clever trading with Burma and the Netherlands could fund any ventures into Soviet Russia or the United States, but otherwise, the difficulty of procuring resources will really lead you to China. It makes a nice case for determinism, at the very least :P.
Hearts of Iron 2 confuses me. If I click on, say, an infantry unit, and right click on any other province, the unit should start travelling to that province. Sometimes, however, the unit will completely disappear off the map and re-appear in the Deployment window, and it seems to take them longer to get there than if they were visually "walking" on the map. Also, when it comes to naval units, why will they refuse to move into the next map block and tell me it's too far for them to go to, but if I tell them to rebase at one of my ports half the world over they have no problem doing so? I first found this out when I was playing as France in the 1936 campaign. My northern fleet of 17 ships was lost to a German fleet, so I merged all the fleets in the Mediterranean and tried to bring them up to the English Channel to replace the one I had lost. No go. Rebase at Cherbourg, though? No problem. The hell? Another thing that bothers me is that I can't declare war/attack on my whim. My understanding is that this is because I'm playing in a scenario, so is there some freeform campaign I can load, or even create?
Otherwise, loving it. In my first playthrough, I went the historical route and defended the Maginot Line, with merged armies in the provinces surrounding the German units, and reserve forces in the traditional fortified province of Metz. Bastards did what happened in real life and blitzkrieged Belgium before going on to conquer all of France. Loaded an earlier save and brought every single military unit in the country up to Paris, which they defended successfully for three months before succumbing. Awesome.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
Hearts of Iron 2 confuses me. If I click on, say, an infantry unit, and right click on any other province, the unit should start travelling to that province. Sometimes, however, the unit will completely disappear off the map and re-appear in the Deployment window, and it seems to take them longer to get there than if they were visually "walking" on the map.
The only units that do this that I know of are Garrison divisions. Garrison divisions represent special divisions that absolutely suck at fighting but are more of a peacekeeping force to keep dissenting foreign provinces in check. Incidentally, they perform much better with a MP brigade attachment. Anyway, they can only move by performing a "Strategic Redeployment". Strategic Redeployments refer to a coordinated mechanized move by your entire division to the target point. While this is slower than a march, it does not leave your troops vulnerable to attack, and this eliminates any attrition effects on them (such as snow or supply problems) while marching. For a Garrison unit however, this is the only way they can move. Remember that performing a Strategic Redeployment eats up 2 of your Transport Capacity, representing the mechanized nature and supply burden of your division's movement.
Also, when it comes to naval units, why will they refuse to move into the next map block and tell me it's too far for them to go to, but if I tell them to rebase at one of my ports half the world over they have no problem doing so?
Naval units always operate from a port that you have assigned them. When sending a fleet or flotilla out on a mission, it is from this port that convoys will deliver supplies and fuel to your ships (these are real convoys that you can build, and be attacked and pirated, by the way). It is perhaps obvious that the province that the port is located in must be receiving supplies from a steady supply line, otherwise your ships are moored and become nothing more than coastal batteries. This supply problem creates an operational range for your ships, and your fleet will only perform missions at the range of the lowest range flotilla in your fleet. When rebasing your fleets, this operational range is ignored, but if you rebase at a port that is double your fleet's/flotilla's operational range, you will suffer a huge organization penalty even while in transit. As you can imagine, if your ships are attacked this way, the results are disastrous.
Another thing that bothers me is that I can't declare war/attack on my whim. My understanding is that this is because I'm playing in a scenario, so is there some freeform campaign I can load, or even create?
Some different government types require some things before getting to declare war. Political left/democratic leaning types cannot declare war on a nation unless it has a "cassus belli" on that nation (a just cause, meaning either provocation or something equally damning), the target nation has a high belligerence value (meaning the nation is obviously a warmonger and a threat; belligerence values can be checked just by clicking on a nation's province), or unless your country is itself a promoter of interventionism (check your foreign and domestic policy sliders). More right leaning nations do not have this restriction. For any nation, declaring war without cassus belli results in a tremendous amount of civil unrest, which has many detrimental effects (troops less effective in combat, less manpower growth, etc.)
Posts
Well, up to a point. The theory of deep battle (as Tukhachevsky called it) had been independently worked out my multiple military thinkers, most people agree that the Germans mostly based their theory on the work of the British tankers Fuller and Liddell-Hart.
Furthermore the Russian's never successfully used their deep battle strategy until well after they'd had their arses spanked by blitzkrieg. Tukhachevsky was caught in the officer purges, plus the failure of poorly implemented deep battle strategy in the Spanish Civil war meant that it was massively and heavily out of favour and totally unpracticed by the Red Army, the Russian forces simply did not have the tank and mechanised infantry forces to implement blitzkrieg until years into the war. Even more so the lack of communication gear and training in the Russian forces meant that when Deep Battle was attempted it often pitifully failed.
EDIT: Gosh I'm slow.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Third one with In Nomine expansion. User interface is far more streamlined than in earlier games, and game is also far more balanced. In Nomine was originally only available as a digital download, but it was included in Europa Universalis 3: Complete retail release. It is budget release and typically goes for 20-25 euros. Be warned though, because although game isn't too overwhelming even for beginners, manual is downright horrible with lots of typos and factual errors.
Let me introduce you to my favorite WW2 game. It's Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean (its predecessor in the series, Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich, is in a similar vein, but covers Operation Market-Garden).
Why is COTA a good WW2 game? It's not Hollywood-style, and it doesn't just implement the WW2 setting just for big explosions and drama. Instead, it uses the setting as a strength of the game, crafting historically accurate scenarios and putting you in the shoes of the general of a particular battle. It's of an operational scale (thus smaller than HoI2), which I think allows for tigher design. COTA covers the battles of Greece, Crete, and a hypothetical invasion of Malta.
It's an operational wargame. It's real-time with pause, but plays nothing like a RTS. It tries to be as accurate as possible, avoiding as much gaming conventions as it can - a pseudo-simulation of sorts. How does it do this? I'll present some points posted by someone else on another forum (MarkShot) who does it much better than me, and I absolutely agree with him.
Summary:
1) The Order of Battle actually matters. Multi-level chain of command means you can macro- or micro-manage as much as you want. The beauty of it is that the more you micro, the more HQ becomes overwhelmed, learning to longer order delays, so you quickly learn to deleguate.
2) AI is very capable of carrying out your macro orders. In setting your orders, you set out different parameters, and the AI carries them out competently. There are a general view of what order settings you can have available on the left:
3) Order delays means that this CAN'T be a twitch fest, even if you wanted it to be. Every order you implement (because you control battalions and regiments and above, and not single squads or units) takes TIME to be carried out. It takes time for your units to organize themselves and prepare. What this means is that you have to plan out ahead, and anticipate the enemy's plan as well, taking into account various possibilities as well. You can't overcome setbacks by clicking wildly. From a gameplay perspective, that makes it very challenging.
Why does no one play this around here? Well, you basically play on a 2D map and manipulate little squares around. You don't see lots of bells and whistles. Despite that, the look is clean, the interface itself is ace and very functional, and it performs really well. It's a big shame, really.
I dug the games so much, I went out and bought some books on Market-Garden and the Greece/Crete operations to read more on them. That's what WW2 games should do - stimulate the player to learn more about the conflict.
In any case, the upcoming game in the (renamed) series is Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. It'll actually have a demo, so maybe people will finally try it out.
And you're in luck, both HTTR and COTA are on sale right now, among other games published by Matrix http://matrixgames.com/news/545/Matrix.Games.Announces.the.2008.Holiday.Sale!
I probably wrote too much.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
By this definition, I don't think I'd consider Darwinia to be a wargame, more of an RTS. I think I'd consider Defcon a very light wargame, though.
Those Airborne Assault games look pretty neat, too. Do you have a recommendation between HttR or CotA?
Depends on your preferences for the setting.
HTTR = Market-Garden
COTA = Greece/Crete/Malta.
Other than that, COTA has a bunch of interface upgrades/tools. None are majorly groundbreaking, but you'll miss them if you play through the games in the opposite order.
Battles from the Bulge is expected early 2009, and there are apparently plans for a demo too.
There is a demo you can find for an older iteration of the series, Red Devils over Arnhem. While it does convey a good sense of what the core gameplay mechanics are like (you really need to read the tutorial/manual to learn how to play, just messing around with buttons without actually trying to understand the system won't be very fruitful), it is also very archaic compared to the newer titles. It'll give you a general idea, bearing in mind that the two mentioned here are much better games. It has a few scenarios, so there's a decent amount of gameplay to be had. Also, you can get an idea of how awesome time delays are for an operational/strategy game when it comes to making your plan.
ATM, I'm trying to learn Advanced Tactics: WWII since matrixgames is having a holiday sale. I'm liking the change of pace where I can pick research and what units to build.
You just have to focus on what's around your nation and set your own goals. Start off with a smaller nation that can hold it's own against the ones around it and go from there.
Download:
http://www.stonyroad.de/forum/showthread.php?t=8029
A British AAR of the mod:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334445
Here is a screenshot of the Germans figthing the british in Belgium.
Actually was doing well, ended up taking most of what would become vichy france, until britain led a naval assault on my barely-defended homeland(shouldn't you guys be helping defend france?). When all was said and done, I held four territories that were french(none of them worthwhile really), and had half of spain proper occupied, barely able to take back my territories.
This is on easy, by the by.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
i picked up the game Making History: The Calm & The Storm over a year ago - but i never got around to playing it (i do this a lot..). anyone know if its worth trying?
But for some reason, no matter how well i do in other scenarios i just can't stop the Germans when I'm playing as Russia.
Maybe i should lower the difficulty.
Heh. You really can't lose with Soviet Union if you know what you are doing. Here is few tips for ya:
1) In the beginning remove national dissent by creating so much consumer goods as possible
2) From year 1936 to april 1939, you should be only focusing doing more factories. Don't upgrade or reinforce units. Do at least 14 3 factory runs, and when first wave of them is ready, start additional 2 factory waves with new industrial capacity.
3) In 1937, switch your security officer to Uritskij who gives -10 percent to consumer goods spending. Also switch Boris Shaposhnikov to your army commander. This way you have A LOT of manpower by 1941.
4) Focus on industry, infantry, artillery, and land tactics. Tanks aren't that important for soviets.
5) On year 1936, push politics slider towards Hawk Lobby. In following years, push slider towards standing army to get better organisation. Hawk Lobby will grow automatically to its max by various events, and Interventionism isn't so important as standing army.
6) Purge the leaders. Its not like Soviets lack leaders, but not going with purge will push you towards dove lobby by two steps. Not to mention insane amount of dissent. Notice that your security officer will be switched thanks to the purge event, so you must put Uritskij back manually.
7) Boris Shaposhnikov should be researching different Large Front tactics until 1940. From 1940 forwards, research all tactics with Alexander Vasilevsky.
8) It is pointless to attack into Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania because of dissent. If you wait to middle 1940, you can demand their territories, and have 20 percent chance of succeeding.
9) After factories have been built, built at least 12 headquarters in two waves.
10) Start to build standard infantry with (mobile, if possible) artillery as attachments. Furthermore, build some militia.
11) Merge your divisions of groups of 12. Each division should have 8 infantries, 3 militias* and one headquarter.
12) By october 1940, you should have roughly 400 divisions worth of army, and 24 divisions in each region bordering Poland.
13) Use your massive industry to upgrade infantry. Every infantry should be 1941 model before war.
14) Try to attack so soon as possible. If everything went well, you should be ready to attack by march 1941. You will get heavy losses, but it doesn't matter, as Soviet Union has so much manpower, and attrition done by groups is so much that axis units will be swiped out completely without change of recovery. Just beware encircling. By end of year 1941, war should be over.
* Militias are extremely useful for any country that has lots of manpower. They are weak, but in the combat, they are first to suffer losses. By adding few militias to group, you have perfect meat shield that enables your normal infantry fight efficiently so long as possible. Just remember that having groups that are only made of militia are completely pointless, weak and suffer insane amount of losses. For countries that don't have large pool of manpower, militia is only useful in defense, and even then, you need to be careful to not to use them too much.
:oops:
You can't out-tank germany in most cases, so it isn't worth it. But remember, partisan effect starts to be nearly intolerable for germany after they advance far enough into Soviet Union. When that happens, their units crawl with only 40 percent of their base speed, and are pretty easy to encircle and cut out of supply.
on a EU3 strategy note, whats a good smallish country to play just to get the hang of things? i mostly want to just become a prosperous nation, not a huge spanning empire (yet). i played mostly Crusader Kings and some HoI2 (only a little bit of this). so i'm pretty fresh to EU3, but i get the interface etc of the game.
edit: nevermind, seems that the crashing is a bug with the tutorials not the main game.
I picked up EU3, too. I just have vanilla, though. Can I get by with that, or are the expansions pretty much mandatory?
Apparently In Nomine is greatly recommended. I am sure you will be having fun without it, but it will not be as balanced.
I don't have anyone I could play these against so I'm especially looking for one which has a good AI player, even in custom designed scenarios.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Out of the three you mentioned I think the most recommended from my reading is TOAW. It's a little hardcore for me so I haven't really played it a whole lot yet. TOAW is known for having huge replayability due to an enourmous amount of scenarios and mod support from an active community.
The Korsun Pocket and following games in that series are also well thought of, but the community is much much smaller.
I really think outside the box a lot of people could get into advanced tactics, and I'm liking it as a person trying to break into the idea of wargaming (which is complex compared to my usualy games). It's got a flexible command structure where you subformations (e.g. riflemen, trucks, tanks, artillery, staff officers) to units and then assign them an HQ and so forth until you create your own hierarchy of battle that influences supply, training, and effectiveness of your troops. I'm especially fond of it's idea of a random map generate which you can set to identical sides if you want so there is infinite replay value single or multiplayer.
I have Europa Universalis II around here somewhere, but when I tried to play it before I could not figure out what I was supposed to be doing like at all. I think I was Ukraine or something like that and I pretty much spread out over all of Europe and conquered some barabarian states or something and... basically ran out of things to do. I also could not figure out if there was a way to cross water.
It would be very interesting to see the game handle direct involvement from countries in other continents.
ANY country. I'm serious. You can be Ethiopia if you want to be. It will have accurate data on the government officials, their generals (if any), and their research teams.
I haven't played it though. I figured I'll get around to it someday or wait for a sequel (I think they're making #2 right now).
So was Armageddon worthwhile or was it just a time expander like it sounds?
I quite like it. I'd recommend trying it out, especially if you already have it.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Took some early losses but eventually things swung around and I was able to force a number of territorial concessions from England and her allies. I have slowly been expanding since, annexing Orleans, Provence, Lorraine, and Auvergne. I also beat the crap out of Brittany and made them give me all of their provinces except for their capitol. I am now plannig a grand campaign to take what's left of England's holdings on the main-land, conquer Burgandy, and retake the provinces I lost to Aragon in the beginning of the game.
So yeah, pretty fun so far.
World In Flames makes it right and puts you into the red in these resources. Perhaps some clever trading with Burma and the Netherlands could fund any ventures into Soviet Russia or the United States, but otherwise, the difficulty of procuring resources will really lead you to China. It makes a nice case for determinism, at the very least :P.
Otherwise, loving it. In my first playthrough, I went the historical route and defended the Maginot Line, with merged armies in the provinces surrounding the German units, and reserve forces in the traditional fortified province of Metz. Bastards did what happened in real life and blitzkrieged Belgium before going on to conquer all of France. Loaded an earlier save and brought every single military unit in the country up to Paris, which they defended successfully for three months before succumbing. Awesome.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
The only units that do this that I know of are Garrison divisions. Garrison divisions represent special divisions that absolutely suck at fighting but are more of a peacekeeping force to keep dissenting foreign provinces in check. Incidentally, they perform much better with a MP brigade attachment. Anyway, they can only move by performing a "Strategic Redeployment". Strategic Redeployments refer to a coordinated mechanized move by your entire division to the target point. While this is slower than a march, it does not leave your troops vulnerable to attack, and this eliminates any attrition effects on them (such as snow or supply problems) while marching. For a Garrison unit however, this is the only way they can move. Remember that performing a Strategic Redeployment eats up 2 of your Transport Capacity, representing the mechanized nature and supply burden of your division's movement.
Naval units always operate from a port that you have assigned them. When sending a fleet or flotilla out on a mission, it is from this port that convoys will deliver supplies and fuel to your ships (these are real convoys that you can build, and be attacked and pirated, by the way). It is perhaps obvious that the province that the port is located in must be receiving supplies from a steady supply line, otherwise your ships are moored and become nothing more than coastal batteries. This supply problem creates an operational range for your ships, and your fleet will only perform missions at the range of the lowest range flotilla in your fleet. When rebasing your fleets, this operational range is ignored, but if you rebase at a port that is double your fleet's/flotilla's operational range, you will suffer a huge organization penalty even while in transit. As you can imagine, if your ships are attacked this way, the results are disastrous.
Some different government types require some things before getting to declare war. Political left/democratic leaning types cannot declare war on a nation unless it has a "cassus belli" on that nation (a just cause, meaning either provocation or something equally damning), the target nation has a high belligerence value (meaning the nation is obviously a warmonger and a threat; belligerence values can be checked just by clicking on a nation's province), or unless your country is itself a promoter of interventionism (check your foreign and domestic policy sliders). More right leaning nations do not have this restriction. For any nation, declaring war without cassus belli results in a tremendous amount of civil unrest, which has many detrimental effects (troops less effective in combat, less manpower growth, etc.)