Axis vs Allies

[x1mmx]

I'd like to see an option for any of the game types to have it Axis vs Allies, Allies vs Allies, Axis vs Axis. Reason is because I like to play UK. Alot of people I noticed dont care for it much. I see mostly Germany vs Soviet Union. I dont really care a whole lot to play either.

With an Axis or Allies option those that join the team will have a choice between a few different factions. Currently only free for all on combat gives you the option to play whatever nation you want to be. I think this would allow more diversity of nations in game and allow people to play who they want and not have to continually play nations they are getting bored with playing.

So basically the host of the game can set teams to Axis vs Allies which would be Germany/Japan vs Soviets/USA/UK. Or he can do individual nations vs an entire side such as Germany vs Allies. Or even Allies vs Allies if you wanted.

I know I've been on teams where someone wanted to play US and I wanted to play UK and a friend wanted to play Soviets. If there had been an Allies option we'd all 3 have played what we wanted on a Battle Zones map.

I just think this is a simple added feature that could make all the game types more fun.

[Alucard]

I'd like too see something like this too since I tire of the usual Ger vs USSR. It could add a little spice too the game having different selection of armys that players can choose. Of course this would have to be for a special Combat game mode and for Battle zones and VF.

[reciprocate]

I hope see this as well when Japanese finally come out. Otherwise it'd just be one of the 3 factions(UK/US/SU) vs Germany until that.

[sgt_steiner]

also the germans never fought alongside the japanese in WW2, but although im sure its been suggested before i do like this ideav of choosing your own nation in a team and think it would fit in game just now as most people want to go germany anyway!!! (i know i want to be german most games 8O )

[x1mmx]

Yeah that was my purpose behind it really. I do alot of Combat and Battle Zones with some Frontlines mixed in and often times I do want to play a game in the lobby that is preset, but I dont want to play the 2 nations they have selected.

A bit more option would be great. Even if they didnt do an Axis vs Allies feature, they could make the games sorta like the Total War games where you could choose whatever nation you wanted to play as on your team.

[alka]

I like the idea. A bigger variety of tactics is always a good thing.

[SS-Kommando]

Dangerous new idea I have to say... I personally want things to be as historical as possible, so I would rather have it as it is now. However, if this were to be implented, the current system should remain as default, with this one as an optional one for the host.

/SS-Kommando

[Alucard]

I can care less about realism some times I just want to have fun. So say you just feel like being US playing with GER vs UK and SU. So what if its not realistic its fun. No ones saying this should ultimately replace the default game modes just be extra select your army type.

I hate it when realism has to come first and fun last. (not saying it is just some people would rather that be how it is)

[SS-Kommando]

I can care less about realism some times I just want to have fun. So say you just feel like being US playing with GER vs UK and SU. So what if its not realistic its fun. No ones saying this should ultimately replace the default game modes just be extra select your army type.

I hate it when realism has to come first and fun last. (not saying it is just some people would rather that be how it is)

For many of us more realism equals more fun, so the "realism vs fun" argument is lacking.

/SS-Kommando

[Ludovsky]

For many of us more realism equals more fun, so the "realism vs fun" argument is lacking.

The problem is that your logic is flawed as realism already go out of whack when you could already have USvsUK or USvsUS or UKvsUK or GERvsGER matches by default.

All this would do right now is add the possibility to do team mixing and matching, and which could also add to realism by at least permitting to see british forces fighting alongside american soldiers against germany whereas the only setup we can have such factions all in a single game is a combat free for all where everybody including UK and US can slug at each others.

[Æðelfrid]

Wouldn't it still be unbalanced? 3 Allies versus 2 Axis? (once Japan comes out) Seeing as how it might be 3 Allies Verus all the Axis on a map. Sort of a mini world war, eh?

I know that Italy was a Axis force, but they didn't have much action and only won 1 or two major battles.

Maybe we could add a Axis Faction called Facists, or something. I know a lot of people supported the Axis, like the facist group in Denmark. Hungary, I think, also supported Germany.

Perhaps we could add the people who supported them into 1 faction. A mix of Danish, Hungarian, Finnish (I think Finland was Axis?) troops, and tanks.

[reciprocate]

It's not really the quantity but quality in this sense. Let's put this together.
6 players, 3v3 allies vs axis.
team1: 1 as UK, 2 as US
team2: 2 as german, 1 as japan

etc.

It's merely giving players the options to choose what nation they want to play. 1 team could be all of 1 country instead of everyone mixing it up.

[SS-Kommando]

For many of us more realism equals more fun, so the "realism vs fun" argument is lacking.

The problem is that your logic is flawed as realism already go out of whack when you could already have USvsUK or USvsUS or UKvsUK or GERvsGER matches by default.

There's no problem with my logic; I never claimed that the game was fully historically accurate to begin with. However, the fact that you are able to play mirror matches doesn't contribute much to the historically inaccuracy, seeing as how it is mostly Germany vs Russia, Germany vs America or Germany vs Great Britain.


Wouldn't it still be unbalanced? 3 Allies versus 2 Axis? (once Japan comes out) Seeing as how it might be 3 Allies Verus all the Axis on a map. Sort of a mini world war, eh?

I know that Italy was a Axis force, but they didn't have much action and only won 1 or two major battles.

Maybe we could add a Axis Faction called Facists, or something. I know a lot of people supported the Axis, like the facist group in Denmark. Hungary, I think, also supported Germany.

Perhaps we could add the people who supported them into 1 faction. A mix of Danish, Hungarian, Finnish (I think Finland was Axis?) troops, and tanks.

While I disagree with the topic starter's idea, I doubt it would unbalance the game to any considerable amount. The Germans are far superior over the Americans and British in this game I would say; only the Russians are on an equal level, alot thanks to the awesome self-propelled artillery that is the ISU-152.

/SS-Kommando

[Æðelfrid]

For many of us more realism equals more fun, so the "realism vs fun" argument is lacking.

The problem is that your logic is flawed as realism already go out of whack when you could already have USvsUK or USvsUS or UKvsUK or GERvsGER matches by default.

There's no problem with my logic; I never claimed that the game was fully historically accurate to begin with. However, the fact that you are able to play mirror matches doesn't contribute much to the historically inaccuracy, seeing as how it is mostly Germany vs Russia, Germany vs America or Germany vs Great Britain.


Wouldn't it still be unbalanced? 3 Allies versus 2 Axis? (once Japan comes out) Seeing as how it might be 3 Allies Verus all the Axis on a map. Sort of a mini world war, eh?

I know that Italy was a Axis force, but they didn't have much action and only won 1 or two major battles.

Maybe we could add a Axis Faction called Facists, or something. I know a lot of people supported the Axis, like the facist group in Denmark. Hungary, I think, also supported Germany.

Perhaps we could add the people who supported them into 1 faction. A mix of Danish, Hungarian, Finnish (I think Finland was Axis?) troops, and tanks.

While I disagree with the topic starter's idea, I doubt it would unbalance the game to any considerable amount. The Germans are far superior over the Americans and British in this game I would say; only the Russians are on an equal level, alot thanks to the awesome self-propelled artillery that is the ISU-152.

/SS-Kommando


I find it hard to believe that. You just need to know how to play with each of the factions.

The American strategy in World War 2 was mainly infantry, Germany's was Blitzkrieg tactics and heavy armor. Shermans were used as infantry support tanks. Seeing as how the Sherman was the main tank of the USA during World War 2, they used infantry to combat the much more powerful tanks of the Germans. The only tanks that could stand up to the German tanks were Pershings and maybe a few other that I forget. Even the Pershing was outmatched, and Pershings were not produced nearly as much as the Sherman. So instead of producing them Shermans and Pershings at mass, recruit a few, and get some bazooka infantry and AT grenades.

The British, I do not know much about. But in this game they seem to have high quality infantry, and tanks that I have had a pain trying to destroy. So, I can't really give anything on 'em.

The Russians, however, were naturally equal match for the Germans after the counter attacks began. After the Germans were pushed out of deep Soviet territory, they were forced to fight in fields, (battle of Kursk) which made the Russians need to manufacture better tanks and AT guns.

[Ludovsky]

While I disagree with the topic starter's idea, I doubt it would unbalance the game to any considerable amount. The Germans are far superior over the Americans and British in this game I would say;

That's because you seem to have forgotten the game is balanced in terms of strong and weak phases.

The german's strong phase might indeed be in it's endgame tanks...
but they have a weak early game where their heaviest vehicle basically is an armored car or a Panzer 3.

Americans, in comparison, starts out strong, but only weaken until later. And used as a more mobile AT gun, their M36 Slugger can still give them with the tool to match the heavy german armor better.

Don't forget this is a game where reinforcement can be made to be ultimately limited. A faction that starts out strong but finishes weak can still be balanced if it inflicts enough losses on the enemy to prevent it from ever bringing the units of it's "strong" endgame phase.

Much like with the germans, if you can survive your early phase relatively unscathed, you can later bring out your tiger tanks.

Brits are often underestimated, but that's partly because their strong phase isn't the early or even end game, but the mid game, something which often go unoticed even though this phase, when they begin getting access to their stronger AT gun and artillery, can be a dangerous tool used well. There's something to be said when you win using the british against the soviets even after those later have brought IS tanks out.
I only find it amusing we didn't even need the Tortoise or Centurion to win that one game.

.... Though I disgress from the subject.

Ultimately, if people dislike the idea of axis vs allies(because there are 3 allies factions and only 2 axis), there's always the idea of letting teams fully be free. Like I said, the game already leaves the choice to play Germany against Germany.

If players prefers to play mirror or unrealistic matches, or prefer to play realistic matches... that should be their choices. Not some guideline imposed by someone because their personal preferrence is to disallow such matches... which they could always disallow in the games their personally host.

[Demo639]

We need this a.s.a.p.

[Rebs]

We dont need this A.S.A.P maybe not ever, really brits and US didnt figth so much hand in hand, and japs and gerries... meh... And also thanks for digging up a dead thread

[Demo639]

I dont care if they have fought or not, a option for mutiple countrys ingame could be more fun, not only always 1and1 like right now, And the mix could bring some variety of strategy and tactics, and some possibility to get ride of monotonous matchs in some future. Dont you see the point bro?

[reciprocate]

I dont care if they have fought or not, a option for mutiple countrys ingame could be more fun, not only always 1and1 like right now, And the mix could bring some variety of strategy and tactics, and some possibility to get ride of monotonous matchs in some future. Dont you see the point bro?

No he didn't, that's why he posted what he did. I like referring to my sig when these moronic discussions come up about people crying about historical accuracy vs. gameplay/balance.

[Demo639]

Yes..... and i think people confuse historical events with realism, and they are not exactly the same for me. I think we are talking about historial events in this case, not realism at all, one fact is that Germs and Japs have not fought in the same battleground, what happens if we make them fight together? , woulnt be historical accurate but it could have happened since they were in the same side , thats doesnt sound unrealistic for me or a crazy idea, dont you think?

[medbrat]

We don't desperately need this at all. As often before, people here lack a perspective when they demand features like this. Don't get the wrong idea: I do not object to this one being implemented. I don't mind people playing mixed matches to their heart's content. However, one should keep in mind that all features (and their proper play-testing etc.) requires the developers' time. I'd rather that they added the possibility to set unequal starting budgets to allow better balancing when 2 a priori unequal teams have a match. And/or the transfer of remaining resource and units from a team member who got accidentally disconnected in game. And/or pure resource transfers instead of unit transfers. All these will add more replayability than the possiblity to mix, say, the Americans and the Germans, which, if you think a bit, will lead to a more predictable gameplay. If anyone finds even the current gameplay monotonous, I say you have not played yet against worthy opponents.

[Ludovsky]

It depends. Though it is indeed not an urgency, it still leads to much diversity.

For example, you could see players trying to combine germans with americans to exploit the strong american early game and the strong german endgame, but you could also see an american british team to exploit the strong american early game with a continued strong british player's midgame for a greater emphasis on a major push and offensive maneuvers during the first half of a game. All in all, it would probably falls to players prefference and I sure would like chosing my own side when possible, when all that seems available sometimes seems to be russians vs germans.

Yes, maybe we could still see teams made in majority of, say, germans and americans(for strong early and late games) stacking in a single team and possibly with a similar opposition on the other side(or whichever other combo ends up being popular), but at least I could still be able to -personally- chose the british that I like to play but have a hard time finding games that uses them unless I expressedly asks or host a game myself.

Though, true, there are other priority right now. Like the japanese, ranked matches and replays.
I'd like if it could be left at least as a sidenote for the patches after.

[medbrat]

it still leads to much diversity.

For example, you could see players trying to combine germans with americans to exploit the strong american early game and the strong german endgame, but you could also see an american british team to exploit the strong american early game with a continued strong british player's midgame <...>

Yes, maybe we could still see teams made in majority of, say, germans and americans(for strong early and late games) stacking in a single team and possibly with a similar opposition on the other side

Your first sentence contradicts the rest you wrote. Indeed, after a little while people will figure out the optimum combination of units from all sides and all matches will become mirror matches with identical unit lists seen in game and the same limited tactics. All diversity will be gone.


I sure would like chosing my own side when possible, when all that seems available sometimes seems to be russians vs germans.
<...>
but at least I could still be able to -personally- chose the british that I like to play but have a hard time finding games that uses them unless I expressedly asks or host a game myself.

What's so difficult about asking the host to set a particular nation? What's so difficult about hosting your desired game? After you team up with a few newly-made friends you'll be able to play any nation whenever your team wants, like I do.

FINAL NOTE. I just figured why this feature won't ever be introduced by the developers and why we should not care. Anyone with the most basic modding knowledge is perfectly able right now to create new nations, say, "Allies", by combining unit lists of the existing nations. You supporters of mixed factions, make this makeshift mod and play to your heart's content.

[TeaSeeOh]

What's so difficult about asking the host to set a particular nation? What's so difficult about hosting your desired game? After you team up with a few newly-made friends you'll be able to play any nation whenever your team wants, like I do.

I'm happy that you're the most charismatic guy online, and can get any host to play what faction you want, but not every host is willing to do so, and not every player is willing to play the faction you want. Ask the host, and if the host doesn't want to change make your own? What happens when someone in your newly hosted game doesn't want to play said faction? Then it just creates an endless cycle with that logic.

I really don't see why you're so against this idea. "It requires the developers time." I always hate these responses. Do you work for DMS? No? What would you have them do with that time, since you're so concerned about it? Adding a feature that would help diversify and freshen gameplay, while opening up all kinds of new strategies isn't exactly a waste of that time. If it was, they shouldn't be bothering with the addition of the Japanese. And if it's so easy, as you yourself said, then it wouldn't be wasting much, if at all of that time.

[medbrat]

My gosh, can you read? you have managed to misinterpret most of my statements.



play any nation whenever your team wants

I'm happy that you <...> can get any host to play what faction you want, but not every host is willing to do so, and not every player is willing to play the faction you want.

Read this:
After you team up with a few newly-made friends you'll be able to play any nation whenever your team wants, like I do.
Reread until you get the meaning of this. When you are a team, it's easy to convince the host to set the nation you want, especially because teams trade favours, and alternate playing all nations.



I really don't see why you're so against this idea. "It requires the developers time."

Reread this now:

Anyone with the most basic modding knowledge is perfectly able right now to create new nations, say, "Allies", by combining unit lists of the existing nations.
It requires 15 minutes of modders' time, that's why. Developers don't need to bother


Adding a feature that would help diversify and freshen gameplay, while opening up all kinds of new strategies isn't exactly a waste of that time.
I already wrote my argument (if you fail to find it, I will happily quote for you) why this won't diversify, and on the contrary, will make all games alike. Without at least trying to counterargue, why repeating the same controversial statement? I have not yet seen a single argument how this could "freshen" gameplay.

[Ludovsky]

this would freshen up the gameplay for me because as it stands online, 90% of the game I join, unless -I- personally hosts them(in which case, unless they're my personal friends who are not always available at the same time than I am for me, most of the players won't be interested by the nations choices) well.... all of those games are always the same combination:

Germany vs Soviet Union.

We already have a thread on gamereplay where more than a few people complained about this almost eternal combination.

You say this would make gameplay stale because people would always find the same team combination.

I say this could freshen it up because if people always find the same team combinations, then others will develop their -own- combination to match that combination until someone else find a way to break this combination and so on.

But right now we're stuck with the same nations that are set by the hosts. Which, like I said, eeringly seems to be Soviets VS Germany 90% of the time, which forces me 90% of the time to only practices myself meeting russian or germany's tactics with whichever of the two is currently there. That is, unless I stick only to private games and thus forget about joining other people's game at all even if I then must always restrict myself to playing with my small group of friends, trying myself to their schedules and barring the possibility of -any- large scale games because we have troubles ever being more than 4 online at the same time.

A game where -I- individually could choose my faction to contribute to the team, is a game that I could choose to break this mold and go brits, as I wishes to, to practices my uses of cruiser tanks combined with a tank hunter or some other similar tactic.

Someone could then try to find a way to break this with their own factions combination. Maybe it'll work. Maybe it won't. But if it does, then someone else will find a way to break their combination, like I said. And once this is done, then someone -else- will try to find a combination to break that one, until their combination is broken in return.

What I like is exactly how much diversity of tactics this game permits.

I'd really like a way for myself to do so outside of the Germany VS Soviet Union mold, though.

You say this could be fixed by making a smorgasbord mod of factions merging. But then you could have a single player calling both a Hellcat and an Elefant, or a T-34s accompanied with stormtrooper infantry. That's not what I want.

What I want is for players to have to plan, pre-game, their -individual nation choices so that they can start mashing strategy before the game even begins. What I want is to see some guy saying "John, you'll pick the americans so you'll be able to get Jumbos to distract the enemy, whilst I'll pick the british myself, and support your jumbos with cromwell to hit the enemy on his flanks before he knows it" and so on. By doing so, every players could then start hashing out their own overarching strategy before the game begins, conscious of the risks of tying themselves to a single faction with all the weakness this faction could have, including how much this could wreck the team's strategy if they go down and thus are unable to tap their individual faction's strenght.

This is not something you would get with a "done in 15 minutes merged faction" since you're still stuck in a Team A and Team B structure where everybody in the same team gets assigned the same faction.... thus, where everybody would be able to call the units of all the factions that make their "merged faction". Then you can be sure everybody would pick only the best units for a given roles, rather than discussing pre-game, which factions they would individually take to tackle individual roles.

Why do you think team games such as team fortress are so popular? Because everybody has to make a conscious choice of which role they will have to fill... and thus everybody has to be conscious they must not fail or else the whole team might as well fail.

In a game mode* that would permit individual faction choice, yes you could "common combination" such as a few players of a team going to get US to benifit from a strong early game whilst their ally might very well go for germany for the great endgame.

But what happens if the early game US players falter(ideally to a strategy and team choice on the other side that predicted what was coming) and that their german allies with a weak early game then find themselves the one forced to fill in their US allies' shoes?

What happens when the players on a team of German and US players find their combo breaken by a new combo of a British/Russian players team?

They find way to meet this new combo. They inovate. They make experiments themselves. And they find the "reply" to it.... until someone finds a new "reply" to their new set of strategies and factions

*And considering the resistance many seems to have regarding the mere -idea- of letting individual players choose their faction to bring into the team, a new gamemode, separate from the current Team A vs Team B setup might be the answer.

Players who abhor the ideas of patchwork teams where players can individually chose their factions could thus stick to the Team A VS Team B factions setup.
Players who'd like more individual non-set-by-host choice could then start playing that new gameplay mode, which would leave them the option to chose their faction of choice themselves after joining one side or another.

And then those who wants to argue about which gamemode is more fun would only have to see which ends up being more popular and how they both separately evolves in players' perception.

[TeaSeeOh]

Medbrat,I have no idea what perfect internet community you're a part of, but the host could give two ****s about what I want to play as, especially when he's on the team I'm asking to change the faction of. Let's not mention the fact that 90% of all hosts don't speak English. Like I said, you must be really charismatic, or you're encountering the friendliest guys to host....that also happen to speak English.

No one likes playing UK, because as Lud said earlier in the thread, they're underestimated and seen as the most disadvantageous to go against Germany with. Hardly anyone plays USA, except in a few rare cases. What we're usually stuck with, is Russian vs. German every other game.

How will giving the option to put different flavors into the batch not make a different taste? Imagine a USA & Russia vs. Germany game. Since USA cannot buy AT rifles, right there it opens up a new strat/team synergy. I can also imagine how much synergy would be in the German & Japanese team, considering Japan has no real heavy tank of their own. A USA/UK combo would be ideal as well, since USA lacks good AT guns mid game to deal with heavier German armour. Ludovsky covered a lot of it. This opens up new strategies, due to different units being available to your team. Without even the option to mix and match the Allied factions side, it makes all games alike right now.

You should really just quit the elitist attitude as well, with the constant quoting of "reread." Yes, I read your post. My reading comprehension isn't too bad to my knowledge, so I understood you. Infact, most of what you quoted of mine is directly relevant to what you're telling me to read. Modding this into the game, and it officially being a part of the product is completely different. If I make a mod, only those who have the mod will be able to take part in those games. Regardless, like you said, a mod where people are able to choose Axis teams vs. Allied teams is easy, so it shouldn't be that hard for the devs to implement. Quit arguing for the sake of it, it gets tiresome. There really is no reason to not implement this. If it's a priority or not is not up to us, as we don't work for DMS, so don't dictate what is or isn't worth their time.

[Ludovsky]

Regardless, like you said, a mod where people are able to choose Axis teams vs. Allied teams

Actually, I had once asked Instinct about this(I think on the gamereplays forums) and the current way team/factions selection works is hard coded thus unmoddable.

The only "work around" possible is the one Medbrat suggested, that is to make a new "allies" merged faction that would see all of the US and UK units in a single faction that could be set for a whole team, but I've already mentionned why I thought this would not be that good for the intended goal, which I feel could only be done through "true" individual faction selection for all players of a team.

However, the later can only be done on the developper side(ideally through some later patch, or as part of a minor expansion pack, as a new introduced gamemode for either possibilities) due to the hard-coded nature of things that pertain to how factions are selectionned in team games(as opposed to Free for All games).

Unless someone finds a way to literally creates new gamemodes(which I doubt as I expect gamemodes and such to be hardcoded), this can't be done via modding.

[zerochrome]

Medbrat,I have no idea what perfect internet community you're a part of, but the host could give two ****s about what I want to play as, especially when he's on the team I'm asking to change the faction of. Let's not mention the fact that 90% of all hosts don't speak English. Like I said, you must be really charismatic, or you're encountering the friendliest guys to host....that also happen to speak English.

No one likes playing UK, because as Lud said earlier in the thread, they're underestimated and seen as the most disadvantageous to go against Germany with. Hardly anyone plays USA, except in a few rare cases. What we're usually stuck with, is Russian vs. German every other game.

Yeah I don't really care what faction I play as, if I join a game I'll play whatever. If I want to play as a certain faction I just host it.

Also the reason nobody likes UK and US even though they are equally powerful to SU and GER is becuase they don't have heavies to match, even though infantry>tanks any day of the week.

I'd love to see mixed teams introduced. To hell with realism, I'd rather play a fun game and be able to strategize much more than have it be realistic. It will prevent the game from going stale for a lot longer.

[Walderschmidt]

I believe this would be a good idea. Sure it's not realistic, but I'm more worried about realistic ballistics, uniforms, and other goodies that make this game's gameplay the bomb.

My favorite faction is Germany, yet I do enjoy playing allies. My favorite faction in Free-For-All is Britain. It's armoured car is great when handled well.

I also really like Britain's SAS commando (scout).

Regards, Thomas