Teheran and Jalta

[Ivio]

Is there going to be these two conferencies in game.

I think that they are important, bcs before Teheran allies havent
decide common strategy against Axis like uncoditional surrender.
Also on that conferenc they decide that Germany should be frist to knock out of war and after that Japan (whit Soviet help).

Maybe some option like that shoild be available, or that such events pop-up like events in EU2. Where you can choose betwen few options.

There must be some kinde of dialog betwen allies.Any idea how to solve that in a game?

 

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Ivio
I think that they are important, bcs before Teheran allies havent
decide common strategy against Axis like uncoditional surrender.
Also on that conferenc they decide that Germany should be frist to knock out of war and after that Japan (whit Soviet help).

'Germany First' wasn't decided at Tehran. It was agreed at the Newfoundland conference between Roosevelt and Churchill in August 1941. (The United States and Japan were still neutral at the time, but their eventual entry into the war was becoming more and more apparent by summer '41).

 

[L G]

how would they portray communication between 2 AI or 1 human and 1 AI player? i doubt u could probably pull something off with like Operation Overlord with an AI player...

 

[Ivio]

Originally posted by L G
how would they portray communication between 2 AI or 1 human and 1 AI player? i doubt u could probably pull something off with like Operation Overlord with an AI player...

Maybe to make human player as supreme comander of allied forces on one front.

For example: Human is leader of France front, A.I lets say G.B is leader of Italian front and Russian is leader of east front.

Or to make two blocks Axis and Allied block and neutral countrys can join later.And when they do, you as commander of aliance has control over their forces, but not over their economy and politics.
But then there is to many things to do for real time game (jumping from Europe to Asia and other things)
Thats going to be a little messy

 

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by Ivio


Maybe to make human player as supreme comander of allied forces on one front.

For example: Human is leader of France front, A.I lets say G.B is leader of Italian front and Russian is leader of east front.

I think that's the best way to handle US- Commonwealth cooperation. Russia doesn't need to cooperate with the Western Allies, so that's not aproblem.

The alternative is to have the US and CW become one power when the US enters. Presumably the game will be able to assign control of this power to the human player.

But we still need some way for a human US-CW to coordinate with the Russians to some extent; and we especially need a mechanism that makes the Russians capable of demanding a Second Front.

 

[L G]

i would b surprised if they let the human player control all of the allied players on the western front. heck, i know when i am advancing on moscow as germany the italian player who will b ai will and runnin all over france somehow tryin 2 get 2 russia (knowing my bad luK)

 

[Ivio]

Originally posted by L G
i would b surprised if they let the human player control all of the allied players on the western front. heck, i know when i am advancing on moscow as germany the italian player who will b ai will and runnin all over france somehow tryin 2 get 2 russia (knowing my bad luK)

Without coordination between allies that is only possible soulution.
Or there is going to be a lot of funny things on the map.

Italy decleare war on Spain while Germans plann an ofenssive on El Alamein and something like that...

 

[unmerged(7024)]

Originally posted by AlanC9


But we still need some way for a human US-CW to coordinate with the Russians to some extent; and we especially need a mechanism that makes the Russians capable of demanding a Second Front.

They can demand until the cows come home; no human player would be silly enough to believe that there can be a separate peace on the Eastern Front. Besides, historically Stalin got bugger all for his demands; one Canadian division was sacrificed (and that only because Mountbatten was incompetent and desperate to justify his job). Not exactly major help.

 

[Ivio]

Originally posted by yuri


They can demand until the cows come home; no human player would be silly enough to believe that there can be a separate peace on the Eastern Front. Besides, historically Stalin got bugger all for his demands;

And what would happen if Hitler conquer Moscow in 1941, I think that there is a great chance that Staljin would seek for separate peace if that happend.
same is whit Staljingrad in 1942, maybe smaller chances whit Kursk but still real option.

one Canadian division was sacrificed (and that only because Mountbatten was incompetent and desperate to justify his job). Not exactly major help.

If you think on invasion of Dieppe, that was only Churchill suicid mission to show Staljin that seconde front is impossible in that time. But thats other thing. Churchill never wanted seconde front in france.
He want to invade underbelly of Europe (Italy and Balkan). Tahts his political game bcs he was affraid of Soviet influence on that part of Europe (later it become reallity).
I think that seconde front could be sucsesufully establish in france in summer of 1942, whit more causulties. It would help soviets greatly.

 

[Marcelo]

Without coordination between allies that is only possible soulution.

That will be indeed a hard nut to crack. Coordination was key in WWII and that should be reflected in the game, otherwise things could bet really nasty for the allies (i.e. imagine that you play as England. You will probably not be strong enough to do things for yourself unless at sea - will you just follow the US AI around the map?). Italy, Japan and Germany fought almost separate wars anyway so this won't be as bad for them.

On the other hand, I believe that if things were different during the Battle of Britain, it would/should be possible for Germany to negotiate a separate peace with England and focus on Russia. So, coordination at the army level while keeping certain independence at the country level would be closer to reality.

 

[unmerged(9167)]

Yeah, that is true. That Britian could make with Nazis, if they suffered severe defeat and beside, they are naval nation not land nation like Nazis are.

 

[Ivio]

Originally posted by Zhai
Yeah, that is true. That Britian could make with Nazis, if they suffered severe defeat and beside, they are naval nation not land nation like Nazis are.

I think that deppend upon premier of Britania at that time.
Churchil would never acepted peace whit nazzi, escpeslly after fall of France.
Somone other hard to belive, but maybe...

 

[unmerged(6657)]

It would be a problem to have an event in '42. for example, if the US agreed to unconditional surrender and the UK and USSR didn't, there would be a major problem. It would be a similar to the Pragmatic Sanction event in EU2. If you go one way, and your allies go the other way, your relations dip by -150. The only way the events could work is if it was programmed that if one of the three partners disagreed on the war plans, then none of the allies would have to follow the plans.

 

[Ivio]

Designers said that coordination would not be a problem while players coumunicate betwen each other.
Do they think on multiplayer, or they mean that in diplomacy screen you get option for coordination whit A.I.

If they think on A.I then this game is going to be revolutionary