Oh come on those last few posts have been the best things to come out of this thread so far!
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
I gotta admit that the quality of axis teamplay compared to allied teamplay in my experience has been pretty diabolically bad. The number of times I've been left to defend half the map or nobody's taken half the centre while I cover the other half (under constant attack from 1-2 players) has happened more times than I can count. I enjoy taking the infantry decks so other axis players can wait and use their heavy armour effectively, but it usually boils down to them leaving half the map open at deployment, me holding out in factory/villages and either getting surrounded and overrun or holding on by the skin of my teeth, and then come phase B/C we lose because they just don't have enough out on the map.
I do my best to cover half the open areas of the map, but often times when you're under constant attack in a town, or the enemy's push is strong into the breach left by my "allies", there's nothing you can do when your best armour are StuGs and your best infantry are bogstandard grenadiers. FFS, my job is to hold that town, it's that armoured division who should be doing what I'm doing!
It's a problem of course with allies as well, but its not to the extent that Axis seems to have it.
Too much kruppstahl, not enough working together?
I do my best to cover half the open areas of the map, but often times when you're under constant attack in a town, or the enemy's push is strong into the breach left by my "allies", there's nothing you can do when your best armour are StuGs and your best infantry are bogstandard grenadiers. FFS, my job is to hold that town, it's that armoured division who should be doing what I'm doing!
It's a problem of course with allies as well, but its not to the extent that Axis seems to have it.
Too much kruppstahl, not enough working together?
Can I just say that it is pretty unfair to blame all faction choices on historical fanboyism?
I played NATO in WG because Warsaw Pact members all used the same units and these units where mostly the same MBT/ATGM Allrounder vehicle in different colors and price ranges. In SD I play Axis because I prefer the design of german gear to what the Allies put out at the time . It has nothing to do with me being german, in fact I often play Allies in other games (like Americans in COD 1 because of the M1 Garand and Russians in RO2 because the german weapons there where unfun and overpowered).
It certainly has nothing to do with Axis apparently being overhyped in popculture. Idolizing Nazi Germany must be an american thing, because I've never seen that happen in Germany at least.
I played NATO in WG because Warsaw Pact members all used the same units and these units where mostly the same MBT/ATGM Allrounder vehicle in different colors and price ranges. In SD I play Axis because I prefer the design of german gear to what the Allies put out at the time . It has nothing to do with me being german, in fact I often play Allies in other games (like Americans in COD 1 because of the M1 Garand and Russians in RO2 because the german weapons there where unfun and overpowered).
It certainly has nothing to do with Axis apparently being overhyped in popculture. Idolizing Nazi Germany must be an american thing, because I've never seen that happen in Germany at least.
The maginot failed for the same reason German "Fortress europe" failed , certain parts of the border were superbly defended, others were not .
The enemy exploited weakness in certain sectors and unmasked the whole defense plan as a complete inflexible debacle.
The Germans also DID penetrate certain parts of the line, when needed.
At the end of the day, Maginot failed to defend France from the enemy as a part of their military planing...you are arguing semantics at best, case closed.
Last edited:
Only part in the Atlantic wall that actually did its purpose was on Omaha beach. Other than that, yep.
With Luftwaffe in such an awful state and a lacking number of decent reserves who can quickly react to the invasion in parts due to enemy total air superiority. With air and effective mobile reserves and without the other shortcomings in some critical areas fortifications could have worked. But they didn't
With Luftwaffe in such an awful state and a lacking number of decent reserves who can quickly react to the invasion in parts due to enemy total air superiority. With air and effective mobile reserves and without the other shortcomings in some critical areas fortifications could have worked. But they didn't
On the flip side, the Allies would not invade unless they have complete air superiority and the rail/road system in France had been obliterated.
This is true. But at the same time, without the British guaranteeing Poland and convincing them to not cede Danzig, which was rightfully a German territory anyways, the war between the Germans and the Allies would not have occurred. Though, likely, a war between Germany and Russia was inevitable.
Fault lies on all sides for WWII occurring in the first place. Unfortunately, history is written by the victors and people always wish to justify their own cause. I mean, what is the point of losing millions if the war was for naught? Of course, your point would hold more water if not for the fact that the British, French, and Americans had not done taken over nearly the entire world (along with the Spanish plus some 'minors' such as the Dutch and the Belgians) just a century before. I always find it funny when someone converts their beliefs and then shortly thereafter, condemns others. Let me give you a smaller sample of that point.
Last year, the R&A determined that Muirfield would not be allowed to host another Open Championship because they voted against allowing women as members. Now, you would think "well, that is what they get for their discrimination so it's rightfully deserved." Rory McIlroy even went on to condemn Muirfield for their actions. One major problem. The R&A did NOT admit women members until 2014 themselves. Rory McIlroy never condemned them for those actions. So, because the R&A finally saw the light and the error in their ways, they were suddenly self-righteous enough to impose their will on anyone else that held the same exact view they just dropped themselves?
Just imagine today if the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, Dutch, etc. had kept their hands on their own side of the f'ing border. Technology would be 100s of years behind what it is today. And even further if the precursor to all these peoples also 'kept their hands on their own side of the f'ing border.'
ah, Nazi apologia with a generous helping of whataboutism.
Everyone always says that "history is written by the victors" , but one only needs to read these forums to know that that isn't completely true. Indeed the loser's perspective seems to be quite over represented in these threads.
Everyone always says that "history is written by the victors" , but one only needs to read these forums to know that that isn't completely true. Indeed the loser's perspective seems to be quite over represented in these threads.
Good point, except oh wait Danzig was legally and rightfully Polish under the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler's insistence on annexing it flew in the face of agreements made in good faith with the Allied powers. Pat Buchanan's delusions notwithstanding, Britain's irredeemable disgrace of the interwar period was failing to back the free nations of Europe sooner, not their decision to finally guarantee Poland against German aggression.
Yes, other countries also fought wars of aggression at various points in history, but it's breathtakingly ridiculous to claim Germany was merely following a long-standing European norm when wars of continental conquest had ceased for nearly 100 years ("""just""" a century before - you know, separated only by minor events like the industrial revolution, the rise of nationalism, the spread of republican ideology and the rise of free trade) after the defeat of Napoleon. There was already a firmly established international order in Europe founded upon the rule of law and norms of self-determination. Hitler, like Kaiser Wilhelm before him, took a shit on it.
I don't really know why you're drawing an equivalency between golfing women and European imperialism. I am already half asleep from just googling "Muirfield" so I hope you will forgive me if i let that part drop.
Yes, other countries also fought wars of aggression at various points in history, but it's breathtakingly ridiculous to claim Germany was merely following a long-standing European norm when wars of continental conquest had ceased for nearly 100 years ("""just""" a century before - you know, separated only by minor events like the industrial revolution, the rise of nationalism, the spread of republican ideology and the rise of free trade) after the defeat of Napoleon. There was already a firmly established international order in Europe founded upon the rule of law and norms of self-determination. Hitler, like Kaiser Wilhelm before him, took a shit on it.
I don't really know why you're drawing an equivalency between golfing women and European imperialism. I am already half asleep from just googling "Muirfield" so I hope you will forgive me if i let that part drop.
The brilliant part of lost cause mythology and other historical theoreticals is that you can project whatever fanciful outcome onto the road-not-taken that you want.
Says the guy whining that contemporary world leaders and history books haven't been kind to Adolf Hitler.
Funny, I had to look at the OP to try and figure out what this thread was about after purging many a post that isn't allowed and handing infractions out like candy on Halloween...
Closed
Closed
- Status