GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

After action reports for Commander Europe at War.

Moderators: rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:34 pm

Morris wrote:I am so happy to learn that I am not the only guy who was always refused by Borger !! :lol:
I don't play the finished game anymore. I only play to test new versions. Quite often my games stop before the end due to changes that gets implemented. So my only "opponents" are beta testers. I never have the same version as the rest of you so there is no point in playing against anyone. E. g. I run GS v3.01 now. There are only a few players having that version right now. My only game at this time is against Happycat. He has accepted to receive updates when I decide to make them. Like today when Kragdob found a bug in GS v3.01 I had to send out new file. Most players dislike having to install updates now and then.

I can't remember the last time I played the game till May 1945. Usually we stop when we have enough information to adjust game settings or knowing who will eventually win. I often follow a similar strategy to see the differences between the different game versions. That is the best way to learn about the impact of the changes.

Most players want a stable version that they can keep until the game is finished. It's not like I have never lost in GS. Joerock beat me some time ago. I played against several in the beta test and could have lost if we continued to the end. The only way people can play against me now is to become a beta tester accepting new versions quite often. There aren't many such players around.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by supermax » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:47 pm

supermax wrote:
Blathergut wrote:1. On historical accuracy, the game must be designed to follow the main historical strategies or you have a completely different game and a game balance nightmare. Look what a first turn Dyle maneuver caused, or all the other a-historical strategies we've seen. You can't balance a game to all of those. You can balance the game to the basic historical path, allowing for variations (invade Spain, don't invade Greece, heavy attacks to Leningrad). It seems to me that GS has added a tremendous amount of variation to the game and done a good job of still maintaining balance.

Why not allow for free placement at start? That would give you your variations. You wouldn't have a game that recreates the war in Europe.

2. I don't see what has changed so greatly in the latest version to warrant all the cries of terrible imbalance. Nobody as yet has actually pinpointed any particular feature(s) causing the imbalance. The Axis must have a hard time of it otherwise, if they can get the edge earlier on, the balance is thrown out.

Am hardly an expert on this game. I became very jaded with the community when I did the aar with rkr and all the voices out there criticized and questioned but never offered suggestions. But the game itself has always held my interest and enjoyment, primarily for the work done on GS. I think Stauff. has created something quite unique in the WWII games world.
you say we haven't pinpointed the reason for the imbalance. Let me give you a blatant example.

Since the rail conversion rule it is almost impossible to actually manoeuver and win the war in the east in 1941 like you used to be able to do. All the Russian player has to do is retreat and leave an empty field for the germans, concentrating its forces around Moscow or in the south ready for a counter-attack. While the rail rule is historical, that Russian strategy of not defensing an inch of ground before Rostov-Moscow line is not. I wonder what would have happened to Russian morale if they'd let ground go on that grand a scale???

What is does is over-extend the germans for no reason, and its now impossible to take Moscow in 41 against a moderatly capable player.

Historically the germans were very close to winning the war in the east in 1941 as we all know. Now, its just not doable.

So when I say the germans cant manoeuver anymore, that's a good example. You can go as fast as you can, there simply isn't any downside to the Russian retreat and concentrate strategy, since as german you cant rail stuff rapidly to the front anymore. I remember in the old days if a player didn't defend forward or on the river lines, I would just trash him all the way to Gorki in 41.

thus the appearance of parallel strategy like Fortress Europa, since you cant knock out the Russian bear in any normal game against a moderate player...

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:56 pm

supermax wrote:Historically the germans were very close to winning the war in the east in 1941 as we all know. Now, its just not doable.
I don't agree that the Germans were close to winning the war in 1941. Even if they had taken Moscow in Operation Typhoon the majority of the Russian territory would remain out of Germany's reach. To cripple the Russians they would have needed to get to the Urals at least. People believing that Russia was on the brink of collapse in October / November 1941 don't know the Russian mentality. It's not in the Russian mentality to surrender just like France or Britain. Russia would have fought back from where they were. During 1941 the Russians railed their factories from western Russia to Siberia and quite a lot of them made it to Siberia. So the fall of Moscow would be a temporary blow to the Russians, morale wise and losing their most important rail center. However, I'm sure that the Russians would have recovered from that. The Russians were about to evacuate the Government to Kuybychev in October 1941. So they believed Moscow was doomed and they would fight on from a new "capital" further east.

In GS the Russians get a big morale blow if they lose Moscow. It's certainly doable to get Moscow in 1941 if you really go for it. Then you have to send your panzers there instead of the Ukraine. Usually most players go for Moscow in 1942 since they want all the terrain in Ukraine in 1941.

If you attack in May 1941 as the Germans you can certainly get far into Russia in 1941 even with the current rail conversion rules. You just can't rail reinforcements from the rear all the way to the front.

I actually believe the biggest weakness of the earliest versions of GS was that you could just rush eastwards as fast as possible in 1941 and rail to any city you captured the turn after you captured the city. It's like you gave the units wings. It's probably fun for the Axis, but completely ahistorical.

If we were to change anything it would be to inflict morale losses on losing more cities than Moscow for the Russians. However, that doesn't fit the Russian mentality at all. They lost cities like Kiev and Kharkov in 1941. Leningrad was surrounded and had to endure a horrible 1000 day siege. Stalingrad was almost lost etc. They even lost their main naval base Sevastopol. We didn't see any drop in Russian morale from losing cities. You actually saw the opposite. The Russians became even more determined to kick the fascists out of their home territory.

There are quite a few battle situations where hindsight in the game avoids repeating the real game mistakes. One is Case Yellow and the Ardennes. The GS Allies know how the Germans attack and won't become surrounded by moving into Belgium. Instead you get a war of attrition. The GS Allies know about the big encirclements taking place in the real war in 1941 in Russia. So they retreat instead of fighting at the front. Stalin made a mistake in 1941 insisting on not giving ground, but he learnt from it and in 1942 the real Russians retreated in the south until the Germans reached Stalingrad.

The GS Axis player can also retreat without penalty in the game. We all know about Hitler's order to hold Stalingrad at any cost, thus dooming the 6th Army. That won't happen in GS. We can't force players to repeat historical mistakes.

I don't have a problem with the Russians retreating in 1941. I can easily take Leningrad and get to Moscov and Rostov in 1941. I often end up behind the Don or Donets. Since the Russians retreat I dig-in in September and get the morale up to max when the winter hits. That means the Russians won't get anywhere during the 1941 winter. So in 1942 you can attach from a very good position as the Axis. You simply need to adjust your goals as the Axis depending upon how the Russians defend.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by supermax » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:11 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:
supermax wrote:Historically the germans were very close to winning the war in the east in 1941 as we all know. Now, its just not doable.
I don't agree that the Germans were close to winning the war in 1941. Even if they had taken Moscow in Operation Typhoon the majority of the Russian territory would remain out of Germany's reach. To cripple the Russians they would have needed to get to the Urals at least. People believing that Russia was on the brink of collapse in October / November 1941 don't know the Russian mentality. It's not in the Russian mentality to surrender just like France or Britain. Russia would have fought back from where they were. During 1941 the Russians railed their factories from western Russia to Siberia and quite a lot of them made it to Siberia. So the fall of Moscow would be a temporary blow to the Russians, morale wise and losing their most important rail center. However, I'm sure that the Russians would have recovered from that. The Russians were about to evacuate the Government to Kuybychev in October 1941. So they believed Moscow was doomed and they would fight on from a new "capital" further east.

In GS the Russians get a big morale blow if they lose Moscow. It's certainly doable to get Moscow in 1941 if you really go for it. Then you have to send your panzers there instead of the Ukraine. Usually most players go for Moscow in 1942 since they want all the terrain in Ukraine in 1941.

If you attack in May 1941 as the Germans you can certainly get far into Russia in 1941 even with the current rail conversion rules. You just can't rail reinforcements from the rear all the way to the front.

I actually believe the biggest weakness of the earliest versions of GS was that you could just rush eastwards as fast as possible in 1941 and rail to any city you captured the turn after you captured the city. It's like you gave the units wings. It's probably fun for the Axis, but completely ahistorical.

If we were to change anything it would be to inflict morale losses on losing more cities than Moscow for the Russians. However, that doesn't fit the Russian mentality at all. They lost cities like Kiev and Kharkov in 1941. Leningrad was surrounded and had to endure a horrible 1000 day siege. Stalingrad was almost lost etc. They even lost their main naval base Sevastopol. We didn't see any drop in Russian morale from losing cities. You actually saw the opposite. The Russians became even more determined to kick the fascists out of their home territory.

There are quite a few battle situations where hindsight in the game avoids repeating the real game mistakes. One is Case Yellow and the Ardennes. The GS Allies know how the Germans attack and won't become surrounded by moving into Belgium. Instead you get a war of attrition. The GS Allies know about the big encirclements taking place in the real war in 1941 in Russia. So they retreat instead of fighting at the front. Stalin made a mistake in 1941 insisting on not giving ground, but he learnt from it and in 1942 the real Russians retreated in the south until the Germans reached Stalingrad.

The GS Axis player can also retreat without penalty in the game. We all know about Hitler's order to hold Stalingrad at any cost, thus dooming the 6th Army. That won't happen in GS. We can't force players to repeat historical mistakes.

I don't have a problem with the Russians retreating in 1941. I can easily take Leningrad and get to Moscov and Rostov in 1941. I often end up behind the Don or Donets. Since the Russians retreat I dig-in in September and get the morale up to max when the winter hits. That means the Russians won't get anywhere during the 1941 winter. So in 1942 you can attach from a very good position as the Axis. You simply need to adjust your goals as the Axis depending upon how the Russians defend.

Hopeless :)

you just don't understand my meaning and many player'S.

Its simple. You cannot win a war on the offensive as Germany. So its all good about GS being historical and all, but its not good just for playing. The Russian thing I talked about was just a good example. In most game in the past you couldn't get the Russians to surrender. The surrender situations were exceptional, but damn they were fun to play when it happened!!!

But in many of those games the germans were still on the offensive in 1943. Now its a very rare rare rare rarity.

Ive considered many times to go back to earlier, more flexible versions...But, then I asked myself who would actually play those versions... None

Your arguments make sense Borger and its all in the good historical logic I agree. I am just saying you need to reconsider giving room for manoeuver for the germans. You cannot do the things you could do before. The Russian offensive is just one example. The other one is the ridiculous situation were all faced with now in Belgium. Or the impossibility of doing a Sealion anymore. Or the near mountain you have to climb if you want to do the Casablanca takeover... The futility of the u-boat war... the fact that if you takeover England you almost help the allies by shortening their convoys route and also at the same time over-extend the germans to such an extent that you cant do a decent proper barbarossa in 1941... Need I continue?

Sure the options are there, but its only if your not interested in actually winning the game.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:53 am

Supermax, I don't agree with you on most you say. Sealion is still possible and many people still do it. You can still be offensive in Russia in 1943. I was in all Axis games I have played etc. I don't agree that the sub warfare is broken. I do very well with subs in GS v3.0 and think the subs are quite lethal indeed. They do more damage than before so 3-4 sub attacks can finish of even a 100 step convoy.

What people want out of a game is different. What I want from GS is different from you and since I can develop it then I can steer in in a way that *I* find fun (being quite historical etc.). I wouldn't like a game like you want where you can do a lot of ahistorical things and get away with it.

I don't think the Axis player should be able to do a stronmg 1941 Barbarossa if you do a sucesful Sealion. The Germans simply wouldn't have time to do both.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by supermax » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:34 am

Stauffenberg wrote:Supermax, I don't agree with you on most you say. Sealion is still possible and many people still do it. You can still be offensive in Russia in 1943. I was in all Axis games I have played etc. I don't agree that the sub warfare is broken. I do very well with subs in GS v3.0 and think the subs are quite lethal indeed. They do more damage than before so 3-4 sub attacks can finish of even a 100 step convoy.

What people want out of a game is different. What I want from GS is different from you and since I can develop it then I can steer in in a way that *I* find fun (being quite historical etc.). I wouldn't like a game like you want where you can do a lot of ahistorical things and get away with it.

I don't think the Axis player should be able to do a stronmg 1941 Barbarossa if you do a sucesful Sealion. The Germans simply wouldn't have time to do both.
:)

you said it Borger, you wield total power on GS. I cant fault you for that. The player base, however, will inevitably diminish as time goes. That you wont be able to program or control. In a way this will also be historical. People do get tired of playing the same thing over and over again.

JimWC
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:25 am
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by JimWC » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:39 am

What people want out of a game is different. What I want from GS is different from you and since I can develop it then I can steer in in a way that *I* find fun (being quite historical etc.). I wouldn't like a game like you want where you can do a lot of ahistorical things and get away with it.
And there we have the nut of it. This is Stauffenburg's game and he doesn't much care what other folks want. In a sense that's fair since he's doing all the work. However, since I think most players agree with Supermax, it sounds like a market opportunity for somebody.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by supermax » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:57 am

JimC wrote:
What people want out of a game is different. What I want from GS is different from you and since I can develop it then I can steer in in a way that *I* find fun (being quite historical etc.). I wouldn't like a game like you want where you can do a lot of ahistorical things and get away with it.
And there we have the nut of it. This is Stauffenburg's game and he doesn't much care what other folks want. In a sense that's fair since he's doing all the work. However, since I think most players agree with Supermax, it sounds like a market opportunity for somebody.
Interesting isn't it?

Maybee we should do a poll on what people want (which version of the game they would like to play. Personnally I think the first version of GS was quite fine.

I believe it is possible to play different version, like play the Vanilla game for example, but is it possible to play an outdated version of GS on the computer? This would enable guys like us to have the serious games with the super historical version and the version with more... lets just say options?

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:49 am

JimC wrote:
What people want out of a game is different. What I want from GS is different from you and since I can develop it then I can steer in in a way that *I* find fun (being quite historical etc.). I wouldn't like a game like you want where you can do a lot of ahistorical things and get away with it.
And there we have the nut of it. This is Stauffenburg's game and he doesn't much care what other folks want. In a sense that's fair since he's doing all the work. However, since I think most players agree with Supermax, it sounds like a market opportunity for somebody.
I think you forget what GS actually is. It is the BJR mod that Jim, Ronnie and I made to the vanilla game to make it more like we wanted. It wasnt even intended for others.

Then Slitherine offered to host the mod so others could benefit from it. The mod is free so it`s not like anyone is obliged to get anything. Some like the mod changes and some dont. I dont make a single dollar on GS so it doesnt matter to me if it is played a lot or not. I have my friends who I play with when I want to.

Computer world in flames is now finally out so I will be spending quite a lot of time playing that. Players will inevitably lose interest in GS just like the vanilla CEAW. However, GS has kept interest in CEAW for much longer than expected. That is not a bad feat.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:13 am

supermax wrote:The player base, however, will inevitably diminish as time goes. That you wont be able to program or control. In a way this will also be historical. People do get tired of playing the same thing over and over again.
That happened already a long time ago. There are not many left playing GS. The game engine is outdated and people move to other games. GS is as its end of the life cycle. Still I am having fun playing with my friends until we move on to something else.

I got most of my fun from coding and learning Java. Just to see what was possible to do.

The older GS versions are gone and cant be recreated. If you have an old installer you can, of course, install it. The trick is to distribute this version to the ones you will play against. We no longer have these installers.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Cybvep » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:28 am

While the rail rule is historical, that Russian strategy of not defensing an inch of ground before Rostov-Moscow line is not.
I will say the same thing I always do in such discussions. Siberian industrial transfer. You give ground too quickly, you lose income semi-permanently (until you reconquer the cities, which usually means 2-3 years) and give the Germans more PPs. You stall the Germans long enough and these PPs get moved to Omsk and other cities. Omsk should start with 1-2 PPs, BTW. It wasn't an important industrial city before the WWII.

As for the rail conversion rules, I like them. They make sense and increase the importance of mobile units. That's good.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Morris » Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:56 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:
Morris wrote:I am so happy to learn that I am not the only guy who was always refused by Borger !! :lol:
I don't play the finished game anymore. I only play to test new versions. Quite often my games stop before the end due to changes that gets implemented. So my only "opponents" are beta testers. I never have the same version as the rest of you so there is no point in playing against anyone. E. g. I run GS v3.01 now. There are only a few players having that version right now. My only game at this time is against Happycat. He has accepted to receive updates when I decide to make them. Like today when Kragdob found a bug in GS v3.01 I had to send out new file. Most players dislike having to install updates now and then.

I can't remember the last time I played the game till May 1945. Usually we stop when we have enough information to adjust game settings or knowing who will eventually win. I often follow a similar strategy to see the differences between the different game versions. That is the best way to learn about the impact of the changes.

Most players want a stable version that they can keep until the game is finished. It's not like I have never lost in GS. Joerock beat me some time ago. I played against several in the beta test and could have lost if we continued to the end. The only way people can play against me now is to become a beta tester accepting new versions quite often. There aren't many such players around.
Sorry , Borger ,I have to ask you that Was I a beta tester after Mar 2010 ? I still remembered I was a beta tester after Mar 15th 2010 who was invited by Mr Ronnie . & I had asked for a pbem with you for more than 10 times before 2013 . I can play the latest version sothat to test game balance . I did remember that I had played with Mr Neil to test how to deal with my Axis arm blob for seven times during one pbem ( play ,stop , restart .stop. restart.........). So please just provide another more reasonable excuse if you feel you have to response !

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:00 pm

Morris, I can't remember you being a beta tester in the closed beta we had for GS. I played against a few of the beta testers, but no games got to an end. It's only a handful of the beta testers I played, mostly the people that I started the BJR mod with. Jim and Ronnie the most.

The main reason I don't play against you is that you want to play to see who is best, i. e. like a competition. I play to see how the game flows and can stop when we have enough data to make adjustments to the beta version we play. I learnt the hard way in the beta phase that most players do NOT want to participate in that. Therefore I have to ask people up front if they want to become a guinea pig and try the latest version. Most people would like to start a game hoping it will finish without changes to the playing rules.

That aside I have seen how much "noise" there has been in AAR games you have played against e. g. Hü, Supermax and Joerock. It's like winning the game is so important for both sides it's worth becoming upset with each other. These games often ended prematurely with some kind of arguments about who to blame for that. I don't say it's just your fault the games ended like that. However, I think the instinct to win at any cost means it's more likely such situations will happen. I don't want to end up in situations where people get upset with me for this or that. E. g. like if I introduce rule changes to try out and my opponents would say I did that just to improve my chances in my games with them. I don't say you will do that, but I'm sure SOME would. So I'm better off with players I know well and trust will play against me regardless.

I am a casual player who plays for fun. I don't care if I win or lose as long as I have fun playing. I like players with a playing style similar to me (not necessarily game strategy, but how you approach each turn you make). I rarely spend more than 10 minutes on each turn. I'm not a tournament kind of player and would not participate if a tournament was made.

This year I have played just 1 game and it didn't even get to the end. I know for sure there are better players out there than me. Joerock, Supermax and you would probably beat me in a tournament. I have played a few others in the beta phase that could beat me too (Ronnie, Duncan). I just don't play anybody at the moment, except one friend from the original BJR team (Jim, aka Happycat). So I'm not open for game invitations from anybody.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by supermax » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:31 pm

Guys i suggest, since im the instigator of these "heavy talks" that we tone it down.

Borger its nothing personnal, i am not mad or feel like you are doing something wrong.

I would just like to have my germans back :)

So, leys move on, i have an aar going on and probably another one will be posted soon as well.

I am still trying to beat this thing, and i will find a way to put the germans in a offensive stance to win the game. Well see if i can make that happen, since i did notice a Major weakness for the russians that hasnt been exploited before.

JimWC
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:25 am
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by JimWC » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:37 pm

I think you forget what GS actually is. It is the BJR mod that Jim, Ronnie and I made to the vanilla game to make it more like we wanted. It wasnt even intended for others.

Then Slitherine offered to host the mod so others could benefit from it. The mod is free so it`s not like anyone is obliged to get anything. Some like the mod changes and some dont. I dont make a single dollar on GS so it doesnt matter to me if it is played a lot or not. I have my friends who I play with when I want to.
I didn't know the specifics of this, but it really doesn't change my point. It is fair for you, who are doing all the work uncompensated, to build the game that you want to build. The problem is that you have created something that people really like and is economically valuable. Old games don't have to die. Great games in the nondigital world never die. Those with the handicap of being on the computer have to evolve to continue living, and they can. Consider the EA sports video game franchises. A wargame will never be a moneyspinner like those, but there is no reason it can't go on for 10, 20, 30 years, as long as people are willing to pay money for it.

If I were running Slitherine, I'd get the rights to start with GS 3.0, make a few cosmetic changes, add in the replay and server-based gaming from the WWI game, improve the AI so it can deal with the game modifications, fix the playbalance, and launch CAEW II at substantially less cost than for a brand new title. There would be a built-in market of people who think CAEW is great, and the risk of it being a bomb would be low. I would not complain about having to pay for it again.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:55 pm

Lordz have plans with Slitherine and Matrixgames to make CEAW 2 using the same game engine used for their WW1 game. I think that is a much better solution. GS has reached the end of the rope when it comes to development.

What we really need is the ability for higher resolution and the addition of diplomatic rules. That would be possible in CEAW 2. GS doesn't have the graphics space to add more buttons, commands etc.

I'm sure some people from the GS team will be invited to the CEAW 2 beta. However, I have no idea about the status of CEAW 2.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Morris » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:03 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:Morris, I can't remember you being a beta tester in the closed beta we had for GS. .
The following is a post by Mr Ronnie on Nov 6th 2011 :



Morris,

You are a very valuable beta tester. I am impressed by your ability and the depth to which you go to analyze a game. You definitely have a talent for playing the game is ways we haven't expected and helping us find flaws and bugs with that. Thanks for your help.

In regards to Max, your last AAR with him and any potential rematch I say let's just all move from that and continue to play the game. Let's have some fun.


For everyone of this forum:

1. Anyone for any reason, which they are under no obligation to state, may accept or decline an offer of a game from any player.

2. Personal attacks are not allowed! This includes attacking someone because of their playing style or strategy. You may criticize, and post on the forum, such play from the perspective of game balance or the historical record. But, you are NOT allowed to post negative comments on the person.

3. Positive comments and praise on a player's ability are always welcomed.





Is this still valid ?

JimWC
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:25 am
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by JimWC » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:13 pm

Lordz have plans with Slitherine and Matrixgames to make CEAW 2 using the same game engine used for their WW1 game.
Glad to hear it. I hope they put in all the good ideas from the GS versions.

trulster
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: London

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by trulster » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:04 pm

JimC wrote:
Lordz have plans with Slitherine and Matrixgames to make CEAW 2 using the same game engine used for their WW1 game.
Glad to hear it. I hope they put in all the good ideas from the GS versions.
That would be great, but most likely it will be more generic and mass market, so the mod team will have to venture once more unto the breach.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4706
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: GS 3.0 Plaid Axis vs Morris Allies

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:12 am

There are no beta testers at the moment since GS v3.0 is released.

For GS v2.1 and GS v3.0 only a few testers appeared again to help. We asked for help from beta testers and those who responded got invited to the closed beta. Those were only a few of the big beta group we had for the earlier GS versions.

Ronnie kept track of the beta group in the earlier versions. I was not involved in that. For GS v2.1 and GS v3.0 Paul organized the beta participants. I was more involved in the closed beta group.

Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : AAR's”