Winning depends on how you define it.
The Korean War for example, both sides won because North and South Korea still exist and both sides lost for exactly the same reason.
-
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
Winning depends on how you define it.
The Korean War for example, both sides won because North and South Korea still exist and both sides lost for exactly the same reason.
Great discussion guys! Please! Please! Keep it going.
I have been playing war games since 1960 (Tactics II by Avalon Hill). AOD-HOII is the best yet IMHO -- but it is still not perfect. A lot of the quirks of the game can be fixed with minor adjustments. In the old days -- the fog of war or lack thereof was perhaps the biggest obsticle. However, we are still blessed with 20/20 hindsite that those making the decisions at the time were not blessed with.
Take France for instance -- with proper training and leadership they should have held. Yet, going in to the war after the invasion of Poland, they had no clue what they were lacking. So the game limits their production and dooms them to be overrun 99+% of the time. It delivers the historical result but not for the historical reason. If they knew what was coming they could have prepared for it.
The BOMB thing -- how do you incorporate the real expectations of a new technology and weapons system into the game when we all know that it(the BOMB) works? What if it were nothing more than Cold Fusion, Poly Water, Global Warming, Alchemy, Fountain of Youth, and any of the other many frauds that the so-called men of science have proclaimed? You can't recreate the true unexpected result.
Historic USA production -- Gobels always called US pronouncements of production a lie, when it was in fact an understatement. Current AOD does the best job to date of forcing US to build IC first at the expense of unit production in the near term. But if Germany and Japan really knew what US could produce, no way they would have been brought into the war. How do you game that?
Biggest problem of the game is still the Pacific war. The complex nature of the war in the Pacific is still way too complicated for the computer to handle. It sort of reminds me of the old computer chess programs of 30 years ago that had mastered the tactical aspects of the game but had no clue what a doubled, isolated pawn was worth.
I have been playing war games since 1960 (Tactics II by Avalon Hill). AOD-HOII is the best yet IMHO -- but it is still not perfect. A lot of the quirks of the game can be fixed with minor adjustments. In the old days -- the fog of war or lack thereof was perhaps the biggest obsticle. However, we are still blessed with 20/20 hindsite that those making the decisions at the time were not blessed with.
Take France for instance -- with proper training and leadership they should have held. Yet, going in to the war after the invasion of Poland, they had no clue what they were lacking. So the game limits their production and dooms them to be overrun 99+% of the time. It delivers the historical result but not for the historical reason. If they knew what was coming they could have prepared for it.
The BOMB thing -- how do you incorporate the real expectations of a new technology and weapons system into the game when we all know that it(the BOMB) works? What if it were nothing more than Cold Fusion, Poly Water, Global Warming, Alchemy, Fountain of Youth, and any of the other many frauds that the so-called men of science have proclaimed? You can't recreate the true unexpected result.
Historic USA production -- Gobels always called US pronouncements of production a lie, when it was in fact an understatement. Current AOD does the best job to date of forcing US to build IC first at the expense of unit production in the near term. But if Germany and Japan really knew what US could produce, no way they would have been brought into the war. How do you game that?
Biggest problem of the game is still the Pacific war. The complex nature of the war in the Pacific is still way too complicated for the computer to handle. It sort of reminds me of the old computer chess programs of 30 years ago that had mastered the tactical aspects of the game but had no clue what a doubled, isolated pawn was worth.
defeating the UK and USSR however would make it impossible for the americans to ever conquer them tho. i mean, theyd hav like 200 divisions instead of 60 facing the americans...not to mention air partiarity
i agree
the best example would be if we would say that Hitler was playing Roulette.He always bet everything on little chance.
Just ask yourself:
-What if allies do something about the reocupping in 1936?
-Or if they send ultimatum to prevent Anschluss?
-Or if they wont agree at Münich?
-Or if they wont tolerate events in 1939 march?
-Or if they attack while Germany busy at Poland?
-And as you said,France leadership makes right decision
As you can see,Nazis and Hitler were very lucky.Or in other words they had the devil luck...
However they made the biggest mistakes attacking the SU,Hitler accepted the gamble,but his luck ran out....and lost everything.
Little strange the game enables Germany correct mistakes,but SU and France has disabled options to prevent them.....as it is now:allies always making the worst possible selection,on other hand Germany always making the best
This isnt right....
If SU and the UK/France had the possibility of correcting their mistakes during the years prior to the war, then the war would not happen or it would be very short indeed. Either way, the game would not be very enjoyable.
Actually, German defeat was seen by the German officers themselves as likely after Stalingrad.
Speer's book recounts that many level headed officers knew that, even Goering and Goebbels realized it at some level.
Battle of Moscow staggered Germany in 41, Stalingrad was the killing stab to the heart.
You forget that the success of the German attack was due to a brilliant plan by Manstein, a relatively junior officer, who only managed to get his plan seen and approved by Hitler due to a lucky combination of circumstances.
Without Manstein's plan, the Germans would have executed their original plan -- an uninspired repetition of the Schlieffen plan, which is what had been expected by the French all along. The battle would have degenerated into a slugging match in Flanders, and the French tanks would have had time to face the German tanks in battle. Are you aware that French had at least as many tanks as the Germans, and that the French tanks were actually qualitatively superior?
Even that is bit under questionmark due ergonomical differences. Firepower and armour were notably beter, but how about their one-man (or occasionally two-man) turrets with lack of dedicated commander and other ergonomical issues? When single person has to be both commander and the gunner it already makes situational awareness extremely low, mostly relying on what he can see through the gunsight and what the driver can see. Even with hatches open it doesn't help as you can't try to aim 'seriously' and keep your head up at the same time since the commander + gunner duty is assigned for just a single person.
And one big difference was , that all the german tanks had two way radios. They could coordinate their attacks better than the allies.
I know the stats, and I've heard all the arguments, but I still have trouble with this one. I doubt that material parity or even superiority on the French part is enough to suggest that without a lucky break the German's would have been halted.
As others have pointed out, French tanks may have been superior in a one on one slugging match, but that is (and was) almost irrelevant. The german tanks were used to much better effect, both strategically and tactically. Nowhere in the history of the German army from Poland to Stalingrad suggests they would have allowed themselves to get bogged down in Flanders, even if they faced French armour. Any delay would have been met with a concentration of armour and airpower; breakthrough and movement was the core of German doctrine, and one holdup wouldn't have changed that.
The French doctrine was based around solid lines of defense, the German around breaking through at weak points. The French army was not sufficiently mobile nor strategically flexible enough to counter a major breakthrough, and though the Ardennes came as a shock, the Germans would have found a way through eventually anyway. Poor organization and morale led to the rapid collapse of the French army after the breakthrough in the Ardennes, and I doubt that a month or two of stalemate in Flanders would have improved the situation sufficiently to prevent a similar collapse after different German breakthrough.
The problem with all world war 2 war games is that victory is about world domination. In this case, it's completely ahistorical. A real game would have germany try to attain the goals and then acheive world peace where their empire would be given legitamacy. I think there is some truth to the claim that once Barbarrossa was successful, the allies would eventually give up and reach a peace settlement. Even a superpower like the US and Britian in todays world, with all the technological capability of moving supplies and communication, can't keep up a war against 3rd world countries.
The scope of the game is too long to really be a real WW2 sim game. If Germany was to win it would be by the end of 1942. Any extension of this would require a peace treaty with Britain or the US not entering the war.
The scope of the game is too long to really be a real WW2 sim game. If Germany was to win it would be by the end of 1942. Any extension of this would require a peace treaty with Britain or the US not entering the war.
Last edited:
That one sounds strange. Nazi world peace ? How do you imagine that ? Nazi society was entirely built on 'scapegoats' which where slaughtered merciless. Such a predatory economy was doomed from the beginning. Even that it seems to cause them a lot of trouble, I can only support the US choice NOT trying to kill all iraquis...
I´m a "men of science" and i felt a little ofended by this afirmation, but i really understand why you, and others, look at science that way.
Just let me give a opinion about the examples you used for frauds.
Cold fusion is possible but not profitable, (and this term is not well used).
The work of scientists proved that Poly Water was the result of a experimental error. It´s existence was NEVER acepted in the scientific community.
Global Warming is a fact.The consequences that social comunication publish are just previsions. NO ONE knows for sure what will happen.
Alchemy was Chemistry not yet understood. (By the way it is possible to turn some metals into gold nowadays).
Fontain of youth was a legend in the Middle Age. It has nothing to do with experimental science!
Remember that what some called "science" magazines publish it´s not science, it´s almost fantasy.
The real scientific papers are almost only published in dedicated papers found in the libraries of universities (and in the Internet now).
An old professor of mine at University named Williamson Murray once wrote a book entitled something like "The Change in The European Balance of Power 1938-1941."
Basically the thesis of this extremely dry and statistics-based tome was that Britain and France were overwhelmingly superior to Germany in 1938 - militarily, economically, and politically.
But then Germany made a series of moves that all pretty much went 100% right (with the Allied responses going about 100% wrong.) So in June 1940 you had the Germans as almost accidental masters of Europe.
I agree with all of that. Any ONE thing goes slightly different and a Germany much weaker than in 1914 gets strangled to death in relatively short order.
But the drama of what has become the historical narrative is much better served by this myth of the ubermensch posing an existential threat to western civilization.
That's all poppycock. Germany in 1941 could not even have obtained final victory over the UK alone even had the US and USSR remained neutral. And the people who run out the tired argument about beating the USSR "IF Hitler was not so crazy" or IF the Nazis somehow became some sort of heroic Bolivarian liberation force for the subject Slavic populations of the east......
PLEASE. Postulating a counterfactual premised on Nazis not being Nazis is to reveal the inherent weakness of your argument.
The USSR CRUSHED Germany despite having almost its entire developed region overrun in the first year of the war. Economically, industrially, militarily, and in every other way. It was OVER by the time the first allied airborne put boots on the ground in Normandy.
Sorry for all the historical discussion - I just feel obligated to do battle with the Third Reich fanboys whenever I see this come up. As for the game, you really cannot HAVE one unless it more or less conforms to the "mythical" super-Reich narrative. You just cannot create an AI that will get as lucky as Germany from 1938-40 and be as stupid as the Allies for that period. You simply have to make Germany "overpowered" to enable it to push Britain and France off the continent.
"Super Reich" smashing Britain and France is okay. It happened in real life, albeit for different reasons. But this game needs to be tweaked a little bit to make to probable outcomes of the Barbarossa campaign a little more realistic. The AoD USSR should beat AoD German the overwhelming majority of the time. Because in real life it really was not that close-run of a thing. After all, at its absolute high tide the Wehmacht was not even able to replicate Napoleon's feat of occupying Moscow in time for winter. And we all know how that turned out.
Basically the thesis of this extremely dry and statistics-based tome was that Britain and France were overwhelmingly superior to Germany in 1938 - militarily, economically, and politically.
But then Germany made a series of moves that all pretty much went 100% right (with the Allied responses going about 100% wrong.) So in June 1940 you had the Germans as almost accidental masters of Europe.
I agree with all of that. Any ONE thing goes slightly different and a Germany much weaker than in 1914 gets strangled to death in relatively short order.
But the drama of what has become the historical narrative is much better served by this myth of the ubermensch posing an existential threat to western civilization.
That's all poppycock. Germany in 1941 could not even have obtained final victory over the UK alone even had the US and USSR remained neutral. And the people who run out the tired argument about beating the USSR "IF Hitler was not so crazy" or IF the Nazis somehow became some sort of heroic Bolivarian liberation force for the subject Slavic populations of the east......
PLEASE. Postulating a counterfactual premised on Nazis not being Nazis is to reveal the inherent weakness of your argument.
The USSR CRUSHED Germany despite having almost its entire developed region overrun in the first year of the war. Economically, industrially, militarily, and in every other way. It was OVER by the time the first allied airborne put boots on the ground in Normandy.
Sorry for all the historical discussion - I just feel obligated to do battle with the Third Reich fanboys whenever I see this come up. As for the game, you really cannot HAVE one unless it more or less conforms to the "mythical" super-Reich narrative. You just cannot create an AI that will get as lucky as Germany from 1938-40 and be as stupid as the Allies for that period. You simply have to make Germany "overpowered" to enable it to push Britain and France off the continent.
"Super Reich" smashing Britain and France is okay. It happened in real life, albeit for different reasons. But this game needs to be tweaked a little bit to make to probable outcomes of the Barbarossa campaign a little more realistic. The AoD USSR should beat AoD German the overwhelming majority of the time. Because in real life it really was not that close-run of a thing. After all, at its absolute high tide the Wehmacht was not even able to replicate Napoleon's feat of occupying Moscow in time for winter. And we all know how that turned out.
im absolutely against everything you said. first of all, the devs made germany more powerful because if they didnt then the game reverts to HOI2 standards, where the germans dont defend france, get bogged down or lose against Soviet Union, or simply do nothing significant, as well as the mandatory italians losing italy, which was thankfully fixed, as now you actually have to fight for those provinces. it made it harder and by contrast more fun. if you start, for example, as the US and take an isolationist policy, i can almost assure you that Russia will run out of resources for its factories, and germany will steamroll them afterwards, though they suffer from rares deficiencies themselves. as France, there are many ways you can defend. as soon as the germans declare war move north and stop them in the forest areas of belgium and on luxembourg. though yes, its really really hard to defend. but realistic anyway. i also love how now resources seem to have meaning rather than as things you can trade oil for. all resources have been dramatically reduced in quantity, and that was a problem for all beligerents in WW2. japan took over most of the world's rubber produce and a lot of oil rich regions as well, and this meant similar loses for the allied powers.
russia is indeed a bit OP. if you spam 5 industry lines at start with all your IC, by 1940 you will have about 490 IC available against germany's usually 410 ic, which is reduced to 360ish when the americans begin bombing campaign (see how it all relates?) and you can declare war onto them if they cower up too much.it is hard however. germany has more tanks and aircraft than you, and are usually somewhat aggressive. you have to grind them in each province if you want to win. maybe giving them a form of ORG decrease at war declaration to show their lack of leadership during the first months of the war?
tanks are not killing machines. a good Close Air Support can blow tanks apart and TAC's reduce Org really fast (not that fast lol). they are good, and fast, but by no means indestructible. their main weakness are other tanks and high hard attack values. so anti tank or artillery is the way to go. infantry are vital to winning. however, they need to have any sort of brigade to make them effective. most battles are either quick wins or grinding battles, and in those cases what matters is not who sends the most men to the slaughter, but who has more firepower. as a rule i arm all my infantry with artillery always. they may be slow but they win wars. also i give my arm and mot and mec all self propelled arty. fuel sucks but thats easily fixed by capturing baku and puppeting them XD. if you think tanks are powerful or that you will be facing them consider buying some Anti Tank brigades or even tank destroyers (they still have them in AoD right? lol i cant remember!). tank speed is fine. what i really dislike is the hideous penalties to speed that armored troops suffer. in every theatre in WW2 once the ground froze up it allowed armored units to quickly mobilize through the territory, but infantry was the real failure there, walking on foot through snow that could cover you completely.
finally, germany does not have a surplus of resources. it also doesnt need a buff. it just needs to stack some rares pronto before the war starts as well as oil, as those are his imediate concerns.
Agree with your general statement except for the claim that the Normandy landings meant the war against Germany was "OVER." The Normandy landings were relevant to preventing a post-WWII Soviet Western Europe, but the war was over for Germany by 1942.
Another interesting statistic is that in the 1941, the Soviet Union, the UK and the US combined controlled one-third of the resources of the entire world.
ONE-THIRD.
I still believe the Axis powers could have beaten the allies - but they would have had to fight an almost perfect war from start to finish. Of course the moment their luck ran out the Allies' overwhelming superiority took over.
You make good points that are certainly food for thought. Some histories have related that German tactical decision-making took place in time-frames of minutes and hours, whereas Gamelin and his staff thought in WWI terms of days and weeks.
The rather decentralized structure of the Wehrmacth regarding some things and MTT (Mission-Type Tactics, which is a leadership method despite the name) would have their own advatanges, as you would have X amount of resources, Y as your objective and Z as deadling, off we go marsch marsch. Adding the fact it was quite common for higher officers to lead directly on the front and have their own iniative (as ironically MTT does favour situations where you're not following orders as long as the objective achieved to some degree), it does have notable effect even on some larger operations.
Interestingly it could also explain why germans (IIRC) had probably the highest casualty rate for CO's throughout the entire war compared to other major nations.
What? The US produced 167 aircraft carriers. The Japanese produced 16. Even if Japan had had 15 Battles of Midway go their way, it would have left the odds at 107 - 1. And Japan would still be out of fuel and pilots.
- Status