Rommel being my favourite commander in history and one of his divisions being featured in the game, makes it an easy choice for me.
I also prefer the German aesthetics.
I also prefer the German aesthetics.
Allies vs Axis (playerbase)
- Thread starter anarkai
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Hi!
So since the beta started i've noticed something that i feel could be a problem.
If you see a lobby with lets say 3 out of 6 spots filled, you can almost guarantee that those spots are 3 axis players with zero allies, with people coming in and then leaving since there is no axis spots availiable..
Think i've got to play axis 2-3 times in total in about 20-25 games or so, sure i got no problem picking allies but it seems alot of the playerbase does. Had just been fun trying on axis in more then ai games.
So am i complety mistaken or is that something more people noticed?
I play allies mostly, but Axis are just more fun to me. I like going offensively, and after Scots nerfs I don't really find the units i need with the allies. The 21. Panzer has every single offensive unit that i'd like, heavy rocket artillery, autocannons, good infantry, long range artillery, decent medium tanks and a heavy tank to take the damage.
I grew a raging neckbeard from reading this conversation. Do people really just stick to one faction? It's a videogame ffs.
You dont have to be a euphoric historian to play allies or a nazi to play the germans.
M'ladys
You dont have to be a euphoric historian to play allies or a nazi to play the germans.
M'ladys
Best trigger inducing piece of trolling epicness ive seen in a while, that first line "practicing the Heer manual of arms just to play some generic ronson division full of globalist patsies." LMAO
Last edited:
To me, I prefer the dynamics of aggressive mech play.
However, you cant do that playstyle as Werh/SS. The allies simply have too many tools to deal with it in the form of infantry AT, Halftrack .50 cal, Stuarts, Daimlers, light vehicles in general. That and the German divisions havent got a points advantage in A or B to push. Panzer IVs are outclassed the moment they show and are expensive as well.
I however think that this has nothing to do with the allies being OP, its simply because infantry divisions are far better than armored divisions. With the exception of the french phase A stuart+M10, which is seems a quite a bit OP.
But I really like playing infantry also, simply because its so good. The scotts are my favorite division because they do everything so well. Better medium tanks, Rounded income, better recon, better infantry, better AT-guns, better planes, better AA. Sure they dont have high AP tanks to deal with panthers, but the rest is great. Only the arty isnt particularly stunning, its still very decent though. Also, they have better availability of everything.
Overall the impression I have is that the germans are much weaker than the allies overall. As I saidm its likely because infantry divisions (apart from the french) are better than armor divisions. Although luftlande is a joke outside of 1v1.
However, you cant do that playstyle as Werh/SS. The allies simply have too many tools to deal with it in the form of infantry AT, Halftrack .50 cal, Stuarts, Daimlers, light vehicles in general. That and the German divisions havent got a points advantage in A or B to push. Panzer IVs are outclassed the moment they show and are expensive as well.
I however think that this has nothing to do with the allies being OP, its simply because infantry divisions are far better than armored divisions. With the exception of the french phase A stuart+M10, which is seems a quite a bit OP.
But I really like playing infantry also, simply because its so good. The scotts are my favorite division because they do everything so well. Better medium tanks, Rounded income, better recon, better infantry, better AT-guns, better planes, better AA. Sure they dont have high AP tanks to deal with panthers, but the rest is great. Only the arty isnt particularly stunning, its still very decent though. Also, they have better availability of everything.
Overall the impression I have is that the germans are much weaker than the allies overall. As I saidm its likely because infantry divisions (apart from the french) are better than armor divisions. Although luftlande is a joke outside of 1v1.
Last edited:
2e Blindée is the right Division for you its really fun to play. If there would be any serious opposition that is and it didn't get boring so fast.
Also you should have listened closer to your history teacher then you would have known that fast mechanized warfare was traditionally what the French invented and perfected in WW2. Ever heard the words "éclair guerre"? Its used all over in popular media although it wasn't used at the time it was created later by arthouse cinema. No idea why you want to play with WW1 static Panzers. Their doctrine always was to wait in the trenches instead of attacking hoping that sometimes in a later phase their saviour Mr. K.T. Panther would arrive which was traditionally their only unit which actually performed well.
EDIT: jokes aside I really love the french division so don't take this the wrong way
also there will be Windhund which will probably be slightly similar styleThat said I don't care I often played 12th as a light cavalry Div too just not using Beute and having to do it with SdKfz and such
I remember that they build a huge defense line that proved to be utterly useless and that they were outmanouvered through the ardennes and then forced to surrender. Then the brits and americans came to the rescue and beat what was left of the wehrmacht for them. But yeah, that sounds totally like fast mechanized warfare.
" Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion. "
Norman Schwarzkopf
Overall, I think it principly should be the overall mechanic that Mech has advantage over inf, who in turn has advantage over armor, who then has advantage over mech.
But I mean, the current infantry focus has largely to do with the maps also.
The hedgerows means you cant manouvre so it just becomes a grind, which infantry win.
Except the godlike french armor which plays like armor divisions should with a strong phase A.
But I mean, the current infantry focus has largely to do with the maps also.
The hedgerows means you cant manouvre so it just becomes a grind, which infantry win.
Except the godlike french armor which plays like armor divisions should with a strong phase A.
World War II myth #6,325
The Maginot line served its purpose completely. The Germans didn't attack it and had to go around, thus greatly shortening the amount of frontage the French had to worry about. The problem is they expected an attack through the north of Belgium like WW1 but got one through the south of Belgium after a large diversionary attack in the north to convince them of the former.
Did you just say the Scots don't have any high AP tanks? 17 isn't high enough AP for you?
Thats one way of seeing it
. To me its like spending a couple of thousands for a very secure door while leaving the window at the back of the house wide open. The door might be great, no one came through it, its purpose is entirly fulfilled yet still all of my stuff got stolen. But hey, at least they didn't get through the front entry!
I believe that the generals wanted to extend the Maginot line, but politics (Belgian fear of being left undefended as well as the incentive to force the Germans to invade Belgium (thereby forcing the Brits to join in defense of France)) prevented them from extending it further.
Finally got a chance to play the 21st in a 10v10, man is it a slog in the beginning (and usually I enjoy the beginning most!)
Also tried out the 17th in city fighting. Not that bad... but putting down the hammer of god with the Nebelwerfer 42s is evil. setting it up so the whole enemy held section of the town is completely obliterated is hilarious (when it's me doing the obliterating).
Also tried out the 17th in city fighting. Not that bad... but putting down the hammer of god with the Nebelwerfer 42s is evil. setting it up so the whole enemy held section of the town is completely obliterated is hilarious (when it's me doing the obliterating
).
Thats one way of seeing it
So, the French basically anticipated the attack through the 'window', so to speak- they committed the cream of their army including the motorized forces to defending Belgium. The Maginot line allowed them to use third-line troops on the German frontier. What the Germans did was launch their attack in the Ardennes, an area between the maginot line and the French army in Belgium. They also launched diversions in Belgium itself to keep the French army uncertain. It worked. The maginot line worked, too.
Okay, that thing was built in order to deter a german invasion, right? So they built a defensive line longer than thousand kilometers that also costed a fortune with the sole purpose to keep the germans from entering france. I'd like to quote wikipedia here because now comes the good part:
"... French military experts extolled the Line as a work of genius that would deter German aggression, because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilize and counterattack through Belgium..."
Now where exactly did the maginot line, a work of genius, a) detered the german agression and b) slowed the german invasion down?
That thing failed its purpose by a huge margin if you ask me. Sure, you can call foul play by saing that the evil germans did something unexpected and how dare they attack that line at its weakest spot, but that doesn't count in my opinion, since the sole purpose of the maginot line was to prevent the exactly same thing that unfortunately happened.
Edit: I read a bit more and it gets even better. Apparently the maginot line was built in order to draw the germans into a long, exhausting war (failed) and it should bind german troops (also failed, france deployed 36 divisions along it, germany only 19). Because it needed so much personal they also didn't completly build it until the north sea (double fail)
Last edited:
Fortifications are not designed to stop an attacker, they are to slow the attacker down/reduce momentum by sitting in the bypassing force's rear area across their logisitcal lines, inducing the enemy to invest them with follow-on forces rather than them echeloning through to continue the attack.
Plus, it was Manstein's Sichelschnitt (Sickle Cut) plan that undid the French, not the "uselessness" of the Maginot Line. Sichelschnitt did this by using Army Group B to rush to the river Dyle, encouraging the Allies to employ the Dyle Plan to its furthest extent (arguably owing to the overconfidence of the Allies as the victors of the last war with Germany). This created a revolving door type situation where the harder the Allies pushed, the faster the 'door' would swing around and hit them in the rear (the forces coming through the Ardennes). The Maginot Line actually far exceeded the role of fortifications as it did actually stop the Germans even trying to go through it, rather than the more limited capability fortifications normally provide, as detailed in the first paragraph.
Plus, it was Manstein's Sichelschnitt (Sickle Cut) plan that undid the French, not the "uselessness" of the Maginot Line. Sichelschnitt did this by using Army Group B to rush to the river Dyle, encouraging the Allies to employ the Dyle Plan to its furthest extent (arguably owing to the overconfidence of the Allies as the victors of the last war with Germany). This created a revolving door type situation where the harder the Allies pushed, the faster the 'door' would swing around and hit them in the rear (the forces coming through the Ardennes). The Maginot Line actually far exceeded the role of fortifications as it did actually stop the Germans even trying to go through it, rather than the more limited capability fortifications normally provide, as detailed in the first paragraph.
The Maginot Line was built because it was politically impossible for France to do anything else. Britain in the 1920s adamantly refused to enforce punishment on Germany and Paris realized that, if France looked in any way like the aggressor, Britain would not honor the alliance a second time. So they assumed the most defensive possible posture to make sure Britain could under no circumstances accuse France of provoking Germany.
They also could not have extended it along the Belgian border even if they had the money because then Belgium would assume France was no longer guaranteeing their neutrality. Moreover, the Belgian forts like Eben Emael were supposed to do that part.
They also could not have extended it along the Belgian border even if they had the money because then Belgium would assume France was no longer guaranteeing their neutrality. Moreover, the Belgian forts like Eben Emael were supposed to do that part.
- Status