New Oz Game Started Sun 27 Apr 08 Usual Reprobates and Tonic

[Majorball]

Just pointing out the allies hyporacsy with all there complaints yet yous do as much if not worse.

Why were on the subject how realistic is it for the UK to abandon its entire empire and focus every division ship and plane into Europe. While the Axus defend all fronts as we know not where the allies will attack from the allies do not have the same disadvanatage in the early years due to fixed DOWs and artificaly control on minors. Others of our group have said its a good idea for all sides to abandon control of minors. This will hurt germany the most with anywhere up to 100 divisions from its minors making up the forces, let alone the extra forces required for the french coast line.

I think this rule would greatly help balance in the game. Removing artificaly DOW dates will also keep suprise on the side of the axis and force the allies to defend all fronts.

The game should be free flowing and human diplomacy play the major role. We will have arugments over diplomacy and so forth but thats half the fun and will restore some form of balance. At present we all know when the DOW dates are and it is to set in stone, the game has become boring and to preplanned.

The rules need adjustment and culling.

I have no problems on open DOW. As long as agreements by events are honored ie if Germans offer PACT to Soviets Germans must honor historical DOW dates & no one can break a NAP & DOW dates with a country if it shows up on the dimplomacy screen.

I cannot see how military control of minors can be an issue. In single player games maybe so. But an AI control France will be crushed in weeks. An AI controlled Poland will be annexed in 10 days. CW minors will suicide their ships and planes against human planes. The Canadians will all die crossing the Atlantic. The AI is dumb. Since when has military control of AI been a problem. I would like to see however if this would work or what EXP forces you receive guess we could try it.

UK has never been a problem for the Axis in this game no matter how many AI units they bring to the front. As long as the Germans dont build too many Subs or TAC bombers they should crush anything the UK can send to Europe. Perhaps some more fighters to have control of the skies.

I know of 10 divisions currently on POW camps on the Azores and Iceland which may have come in handy for France

 

[unmerged(62373)]

Add no polish warsaw blob to the list I posted earlier.

 

[unmerged(62373)]

Any chance of a game tonight???

 

[Majorball]

Any chance of a game tonight???

I think we have our other game tonight.

 

[unmerged(62373)]

I think we have our other game tonight.

Cut out your lying tongue!

 

[unmerged(59421)]

Let's keep it simple stupids. Control of AI minors should be allowed except for the UK control of Poland. I thought we were all past doing the dodgy Warsaw blob, Major you can argue against it. But as someone who has never played Germany in MP and a self confessed "I don't like playing Axis nations", there is no possible chance you could understand the frustration of the Warsaw blob. It is obvious that certain allied players can't tear themselves away from low down dodgy desperation tactics, so the only way to fix it is to out law allied military control of Poland. Everything else is a goer. My thoughts anyways. SE.

 

[unmerged(35801)]

SE....you are basically an axis blob!

 

[unmerged(50486)]

Let's keep it simple stupids. Control of AI minors should be allowed except for the UK control of Poland. I thought we were all past doing the dodgy Warsaw blob, Major you can argue against it. But as someone who has never played Germany in MP and a self confessed "I don't like playing Axis nations", there is no possible chance you could understand the frustration of the Warsaw blob. It is obvious that certain allied players can't tear themselves away from low down dodgy desperation tactics, so the only way to fix it is to out law allied military control of Poland. Everything else is a goer. My thoughts anyways. SE.

Ive never seen you not uber stack Warsaw Lomza..... If i recall your exact words to me last time i got frustrated at it when YOU DID IT TO ME were just take warsaw and not lomza so they cant uberstack retreat and stay in warsaw.

On that note it does seem like Germany invested heavily into air and Naval assest, 70+ planes and 150? ships. IT isnt so incredibly difficult to see what went wrong juts a small mis allocation of prewar buildup..... especially lvl 2 subs?

Both Axis and Allies are inevitable to whinge about something it is INEVITABLE in this group.

Either way seems like a fair trade off so far. Axis have a bloody nose and Allies lost any chance of USA getting resources or units to Europe indeffinantly.

Better put ya wellies on SE looks like ill be forced to deal with you 100% first.
:rofl:

 

[Majorball]

Let's keep it simple stupids. Control of AI minors should be allowed except for the UK control of Poland. I thought we were all past doing the dodgy Warsaw blob, Major you can argue against it. But as someone who has never played Germany in MP and a self confessed "I don't like playing Axis nations", there is no possible chance you could understand the frustration of the Warsaw blob. It is obvious that certain allied players can't tear themselves away from low down dodgy desperation tactics, so the only way to fix it is to out law allied military control of Poland. Everything else is a goer. My thoughts anyways. SE.

Warsaw fell easily anyway. The way you guys are carrying on it sounds like the warsaw blob is the cause of all your problems. Next you will want no armour or air blobs. Play the game and quit your moaning Tojo. Who voted you spokesman for the Axis?

 

[mike8472]

Situation Report January 1940.

After several setbacks due to the use of polish forces in a 75 division mass blob in warsaw German forces had slowly advanced against Allied forces in the west.

Due to disorganisation and forces arriving at different times from the east the offensives was stalled although inital success looked promising. However 4 lone beligum divisions cut of the fuel and supplies to the advancing panzers who had crushed the main french armies on the borders and paris lay open. However org losses due to no oil forced a halt and re-organisatio peroid.

During this time winter decended on the front lines. The allieh control of the although the best the could do is bomb infrastrucutre. Both sides suffered heavily in early battles. With every air division the allies oculd find from around the entire world against Germany, we were out numbered.

Hitler ordered a change in tactics. Winter clothing was issued to the troops with spealist training in winter operations.

The allies tried desperately to push the axis panzers out of france and back to beligum but failed despite massive bombing. German forces were busy reorganising for the looming offensive. The allied commanders panicked after there failure to push German forces back out of france and decided on a massive retreat to the river line in front of paris. In Hitler mind this was a big blunder by the Allied high command. German forces advanced slowly without much opposition except bombing.

German armour push south around paris to get an land bridge to attack paris from the south while the infantry held the river line. With winter preperations complete and near full org German forces unleshed there assult. The fight was long and hard but German forces prevailed and advanced to the outskirts of paris. Furious allied counter attacks failed to stop the German panzers. Paris itself came under sustained assult. The first of which failed but the 2nd succeeded asm ore forces arrived with the allies now in full retreat.

British forces were seen droping there guns, ammunition and there courage and fled for the Channel.

Hitler expects the surrender of the French government anyday.

What we failed to do in the summer was achieved in the harsh enviroment of winter. A true testament to the courage and fighting spirit of the German soldier. To defeat the combined might of both the french and uk armies in the middle of winter was a monumental victory. The allies could only stop the Germans in summer with underhanded gamey exploits to wich has no bee avenged to show just how incompetant the allied forces are to lose in the middle of winter with huge weather and terrain advantages.

In the atlantic minor battle occured with a few allied destroyers sunk along with a couple hundred convoys over the session from various nations mostly the UK.

As 1940 dawns Hitler is confident the house of cards that is the allies is about to come crushing down, as the full might of Germany can now be unleshed upon all fronts.

Heil Hitler.

 

[mike8472]

Warsaw fell easily anyway. The way you guys are carrying on it sounds like the warsaw blob is the cause of all your problems. Next you will want no armour or air blobs. Play the game and quit your moaning Tojo. Who voted you spokesman for the Axis?

It seems as though your the only peson who really disagrees with no controling your minors. You are normaly all for game balance but obviously only if it suits your side.

The control of minors in our games has been a big issue for awhile. Other MP groups do not allow control of minors as humans only exploit them.

How realistic is it to have all your minors devoid of all there forces and being used for another nations purpose?

Australia never sent all its forces, navy and airforces to Europe neither did New Zealand or Canada. All nations had there own defence needs as well and sent expeiditionary armies.

For some reason we have simply gone off track on our games, overlooking many of the inbuilt game features which deal with these issues.

The whole purpose the game incorporates expeditionary forces is to allow this function. The added benifit of expidtionary force be they land, air or naval is they take on your doctrines meaning greater performance in battle.

How realisitic is it for the entire CW to be drained of its forces all for Europe? How realistic is it for romanian, hungarian, bulgarian troops to garrision the french coast line and spainish. How realisitic is it for all these minor divisions to be used in Russian leaving 0 in the home nations.

In my opinion it is time for us to take a few steps backwards and get back to more basics and simply play our own naitons and control only the forces Exp to us. The exception would be france, the UK could control these for obvious reasons as along as no forces are move from france in some attempt to save them from vinchy. Another reason for this is also UK player exploiting moving say polish, beligum, nether lands, portugues, spainish and all the rest air units to the UK and gaining them as UK units upon annexing. Ive seen this happen countless times as soon as Germany DOWs you see the air units fly out straigt to the UK. Just another of the exploits the allies always over look.

Fixed DOW dates have lead to huge imbalances in the game. UK stripes it entire empire to defend Europe leaving Asia and Africa bare for long peroids. Germany leaves nothing on the Russian front and can focus soley on the Allies. Russian dose not garrision its border with Japan and so and so on.

You see everything would be alot more balanced if we didnt do this. Yes UK would have less forces in Europe but Germany also could not move 100 divisions against Gibralter, or move all its armour to africa in fear of the Soviets taking advantage of it. At present with our fixed DOW and NAPs (which cant be broken) we are all to safe and know what will happen. This needs to stop. Germany shoul be fearful the Russians will stab them in the back NAP or not. The game is about lies, deceit, miscalculation. This is what happened in real life, player diplomacy should work itself out.

I propose the NAPs that players make should be via the diplomacy screen. Sign a No agression pact so its an actualy treaty, when it expires negioate a new one. Its all there in the game just we never use it.

I disagree with player agreements being set in stone. This is not a personel issue this is about playing a game. Your ment to bakstab other nations, try and decieve them into a false sense of secuirty to get an advantage and so on.

If we did just these two things the game would become alot more free flowing and exciting. The game would be totaly dicated by player actions. Germanies actions and aggression would dicate US war entry by ite beligerance in attacking to many nations, plus the US would be keeping a very close eye on the Japs who could jump them at any moment. UK would need to protects its entire empire and not just Europe, otherwise the Japs seeing the UKs weakness will jump them. Germany will have to keep strong forces in the east to defend against an early move by the soviets, the soviets in term build more military early and not so much IC.

This would all bring the game into all more balance and fun. Cant you see that. We only have limited rules to keep no major wars until danzig, no exploits. Bring what ever allies you want into your alliance except human players. At present we have no diplimacy going on at all due to our present silly rules on making allies pre-war.

In my opinion this would bring back so much fun, excitment, and wow suprise back into the game. Not this text book copy of each game one after the other ware we all know whats going to happen and when its going to happen. Instead you must be ready for war at all times. None of this building endless IC or hoearding yur armies into superblobs to save supplies. They will have to be deployed and ready for war at a moments notice.

This is how the game should have always been played.

 

[Majorball]

Mike...you should read what I post more clearly. I said I have no problems in giving it a go.

Most of the rules we made together because of people being raped by having no rules and players exploiting. I have no problem with your arguments in regards to minors but you should also have no problem with not deploying a fleet into a newly captured port from your build que. If we want to talk about what is realistic and what is not you have to agree with me on this issue.

Just becasue the game allows you to break NAP doesnt mean we should let players do this. If it says in the dimplomacy screen a NAP exists then players should honor this. Word of mouth agreements are different.

The game has chnaged and been modified so if we all want a game with restrictions gone I am more than happy to give it a go. I didnt invent all the rules we have. They had a purpose and if you propose future games why not lay down the rules you want. Keep the rules we need.

In the meantime dont moan about the current rules we have when we are all aware of them before we start the game.

Before the next game post up the rules and changes you want.

Start a new thread on proposed rules and guidelines for next game rather the clattering up our game thread with this.

I have no idea what the big deal is about minors its not like Germany has been raped by them in any game we have played. All of a sudden your worried about Human control of minor countries.

I suppose it suits your conquest plans as Germany cause you can simply roll over any minor country controlled by the AI.

 

[unmerged(62373)]

Ill be on tonight about 7:30 to see whats happening

 

[mike8472]

Mike...you should read what I post more clearly. I said I have no problems in giving it a go.

Most of the rules we made together because of people being raped by having no rules and players exploiting. I have no problem with your arguments in regards to minors but you should also have no problem with not deploying a fleet into a newly captured port from your build que. If we want to talk about what is realistic and what is not you have to agree with me on this issue.

Just becasue the game allows you to break NAP doesnt mean we should let players do this. If it says in the dimplomacy screen a NAP exists then players should honor this. Word of mouth agreements are different.

The game has chnaged and been modified so if we all want a game with restrictions gone I am more than happy to give it a go. I didnt invent all the rules we have. They had a purpose and if you propose future games why not lay down the rules you want. Keep the rules we need.

In the meantime dont moan about the current rules we have when we are all aware of them before we start the game.

Before the next game post up the rules and changes you want.

Start a new thread on proposed rules and guidelines for next game rather the clattering up our game thread with this.

I have no idea what the big deal is about minors its not like Germany has been raped by them in any game we have played. All of a sudden your worried about Human control of minor countries.

I suppose it suits your conquest plans as Germany cause you can simply roll over any minor country controlled by the AI.

Your missing the point. Its not about this game. We have talked about this a number of times, how boring and scripted our games have become becuase we all know exactly when events will transpire.

Its about bring them game back to a level how it was ment to be played, how it was built to be played. At the moment we raped every country just to use as our own forces, me included.

I agree about ships being deployed, but only if we also agree on these other issues. Make it easy you can only deploy into national provinces.

As for NAPs wether player agreed or not. They should not be set in stone as real life leaders broke them all the time. Thats how the world works pal, nations srewing over other nations. If a player breaks a NAP in the game there are penalities for that like increased dissent.

The only thing set in stone are what rules we agree to. All treaties and diplomacy is always open to interpation. You can always break an agreement, its been done through history and totaly relevant to this game. Germany did it to the USSR to start Barbarrossa.

 

[unmerged(62373)]

As for NAPs wether player agreed or not. They should not be set in stone as real life leaders broke them all the time. Thats how the world works pal, nations srewing over other nations. If a player breaks a NAP in the game there are penalities for that like increased dissent.

In other words dont ever make a nap with Mike and invade as soon as he is busy elsewhere

 

[Majorball]

Your missing the point. Its not about this game. We have talked about this a number of times, how boring and scripted our games have become becuase we all know exactly when events will transpire.

Its about bring them game back to a level how it was ment to be played, how it was built to be played. At the moment we raped every country just to use as our own forces, me included.

I agree about ships being deployed, but only if we also agree on these other issues. Make it easy you can only deploy into national provinces.

As for NAPs wether player agreed or not. They should not be set in stone as real life leaders broke them all the time. Thats how the world works pal, nations srewing over other nations. If a player breaks a NAP in the game there are penalities for that like increased dissent.

The only thing set in stone are what rules we agree to. All treaties and diplomacy is always open to interpation. You can always break an agreement, its been done through history and totaly relevant to this game. Germany did it to the USSR to start Barbarrossa.

I do not agree with breaking NAP's which are shown up in the dimplomacy screens. All other points I agree with. Otherwise after the Jap vs Russia confrontation the Russians can just cancel the NAP made by the event and 1 week later go to war against Japs. NAP's which have been set by events or made by players which show up in the dimplomacy screen must be honored. If you not going to honor it dont accept the event.

We must have some honor in playing our games. If you want to break a verbal agreement thats your choice and you will get that reputation.

 

[mike8472]

I do not agree with breaking NAP's which are shown up in the dimplomacy screens. All other points I agree with. Otherwise after the Jap vs Russia confrontation the Russians can just cancel the NAP made by the event and 1 week later go to war against Japs. NAP's which have been set by events or made by players which show up in the dimplomacy screen must be honored. If you not going to honor it dont accept the event.

We must have some honor in playing our games. If you want to break a verbal agreement thats your choice and you will get that reputation.

You broke our NAP last night.

I got the pop up after you selected to bring Finland socialism. In real life this never happened and was a breach of the MR pact, hence why i got the pop up. So you broke the in game NAP that is via the event.

These Non aggression pacts can be broken just you suffer a big dissent penalty for doing it and more beligerance.

Hey if you want to jump the Japs thats fine, will teach the Japs to defend there frontier.

This is what the game is all about and why we are able to mass so many forces on one enemy at a time as we dont defend other fronts due to NAPs. Which the turns out to be a bad time for the UK or who ever is brunt of it.

Ofcourse we may need a few guidelines as we call them. Along the lines of we generaly try to play historical but actions will dictate reactions. Such as if the Bermuda was invaded, well the US would have cuase for war, same if the UK was invaded or japan jumping into tibet.

Its all player diplimacy related. You can warn that player, tell him to remove him self from that province or its war. Most problems can be avoided, but if it comes to war so be it. That is how the game is played.

I think this style of game will bring about a much fairer for all sides, and open style play ware all of us do not know exactly when or where the hammer stroke will fall.

 

[unmerged(62373)]

You broke our NAP last night.

I got the pop up after you selected to bring Finland socialism. In real life this never happened and was a breach of the MR pact, hence why i got the pop up. So you broke the in game NAP that is via the event.

These Non aggression pacts can be broken just you suffer a big dissent penalty for doing it and more beligerance.

Hey if you want to jump the Japs thats fine, will teach the Japs to defend there frontier.

This is what the game is all about and why we are able to mass so many forces on one enemy at a time as we dont defend other fronts due to NAPs. Which the turns out to be a bad time for the UK or who ever is brunt of it.

Ofcourse we may need a few guidelines as we call them. Along the lines of we generaly try to play historical but actions will dictate reactions. Such as if the Bermuda was invaded, well the US would have cuase for war, same if the UK was invaded or japan jumping into tibet.

Its all player diplimacy related. You can warn that player, tell him to remove him self from that province or its war. Most problems can be avoided, but if it comes to war so be it. That is how the game is played.

I think this style of game will bring about a much fairer for all sides, and open style play ware all of us do not know exactly when or where the hammer stroke will fall.

It'll certainly make it more open for the fascists and communists but will be a real pain for the democracies who are inherently reactive.

 

[unmerged(71266)]

my response

It seems as though your the only peson who really disagrees with no controling your minors. You are normaly all for game balance but obviously only if it suits your side.

The control of minors in our games has been a big issue for awhile. Other MP groups do not allow control of minors as humans only exploit them.

How realistic is it to have all your minors devoid of all there forces and being used for another nations purpose?

Australia never sent all its forces, navy and airforces to Europe neither did New Zealand or Canada. All nations had there own defence needs as well and sent expeiditionary armies.

For some reason we have simply gone off track on our games, overlooking many of the inbuilt game features which deal with these issues.

The whole purpose the game incorporates expeditionary forces is to allow this function. The added benifit of expidtionary force be they land, air or naval is they take on your doctrines meaning greater performance in battle.

How realisitic is it for the entire CW to be drained of its forces all for Europe? How realistic is it for romanian, hungarian, bulgarian troops to garrision the french coast line and spainish. How realisitic is it for all these minor divisions to be used in Russian leaving 0 in the home nations.

In my opinion it is time for us to take a few steps backwards and get back to more basics and simply play our own naitons and control only the forces Exp to us. The exception would be france, the UK could control these for obvious reasons as along as no forces are move from france in some attempt to save them from vinchy. Another reason for this is also UK player exploiting moving say polish, beligum, nether lands, portugues, spainish and all the rest air units to the UK and gaining them as UK units upon annexing. Ive seen this happen countless times as soon as Germany DOWs you see the air units fly out straigt to the UK. Just another of the exploits the allies always over look.

Fixed DOW dates have lead to huge imbalances in the game. UK stripes it entire empire to defend Europe leaving Asia and Africa bare for long peroids. Germany leaves nothing on the Russian front and can focus soley on the Allies. Russian dose not garrision its border with Japan and so and so on.

You see everything would be alot more balanced if we didnt do this. Yes UK would have less forces in Europe but Germany also could not move 100 divisions against Gibralter, or move all its armour to africa in fear of the Soviets taking advantage of it. At present with our fixed DOW and NAPs (which cant be broken) we are all to safe and know what will happen. This needs to stop. Germany shoul be fearful the Russians will stab them in the back NAP or not. The game is about lies, deceit, miscalculation. This is what happened in real life, player diplomacy should work itself out.

I propose the NAPs that players make should be via the diplomacy screen. Sign a No agression pact so its an actualy treaty, when it expires negioate a new one. Its all there in the game just we never use it.

I disagree with player agreements being set in stone. This is not a personel issue this is about playing a game. Your ment to bakstab other nations, try and decieve them into a false sense of secuirty to get an advantage and so on.

If we did just these two things the game would become alot more free flowing and exciting. The game would be totaly dicated by player actions. Germanies actions and aggression would dicate US war entry by ite beligerance in attacking to many nations, plus the US would be keeping a very close eye on the Japs who could jump them at any moment. UK would need to protects its entire empire and not just Europe, otherwise the Japs seeing the UKs weakness will jump them. Germany will have to keep strong forces in the east to defend against an early move by the soviets, the soviets in term build more military early and not so much IC.

This would all bring the game into all more balance and fun. Cant you see that. We only have limited rules to keep no major wars until danzig, no exploits. Bring what ever allies you want into your alliance except human players. At present we have no diplimacy going on at all due to our present silly rules on making allies pre-war.

In my opinion this would bring back so much fun, excitment, and wow suprise back into the game. Not this text book copy of each game one after the other ware we all know whats going to happen and when its going to happen. Instead you must be ready for war at all times. None of this building endless IC or hoearding yur armies into superblobs to save supplies. They will have to be deployed and ready for war at a moments notice.

This is how the game should have always been played.

seems reasonable the only problem is the game severly hampers the CW player by treating the CW nations as too independant wrt a cohesive strategy. For example it is quite ridiculous that RAN an RN ships cant join together.

 

[mike8472]

Due to Mighty being AWOL next session in Wednesday 7pm.