|
|
|
I have just bought the game, playing single player campaign now.
Allies means "USSR, Great Britain, USA, Canada, Fighting France etc". But in this game I see ONLY american armed forces. No brits, no russians.
I'd like to see a russian campaign in an add-on. Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, Crimea, Rzhev, Kursk, Kharkov, Poland, Hungary, Berlin - a lot of historical background for the campaing.
You will see Canadian and Polish forces at some point, but they're all using US equipment as far as I could tell.
In that mission it said there were Polish and Canadian forces, but I only saw Canadians.
I'd like to see mentions of Britain in cutscenes and dialogues. But...
By the way, canadians in game wear american or british uniform?
I hope you're not expecting Relic to have uniforms for each Allied nation. That'd be pretty silly.
Russia wasnt ever considered part of the allies, they were allied to "The Allies (Poland, France, Britain, US, Canada)" only because they were both against Germany.
#7
Short answer: it'd be a lot of work, and we'd be getting the game next year instead of this year.
Equally you could argue that Axis implies a lot of nations too. I don't see any Finnish or Romanian soldiers. And I didn't expect to.
Let's Play Europa Universalis 3: Divine Wind
Let's Play Master of Magic: Abandoned
In the beginning there was nothing. Then Steam crashed.
Would be great seeing more armies full stop really. Its understandable why they only had time etc to fully implement US and German armies but I really hope patches/expansions give us British and Russian forces at least.
British forces would have some awesome units too, Royal Marine Commando units, SOE troops (SAS), Churchill tanks, and really powerful artillery.
The Russian side would naturally be tank heavy and it would just be awesome having IS-2's , KV-1,s on the field actually being more than a match for Tigers
I didn't expect to see UNITS in GAME. I talked about mentions in cutscenes, dialogues, briefings etc. It's not expensive!
Why there are no mentions of british army and navy?
That's because calling Finland part of the Axis is retarded.Originally Posted by n0z3k1ll3r
Jeansberg: why not?
1) Finland invaded USSR, violating '39 peace treaty
2) Finland moved beyong '39 borders into the Soviet territory
3) Finland along with Germany is responsible for the blocade of Leningrad and starving thousands of the civilians
but it's off-topic
Maybe they weren't IS-2s, KV-1s etc... but someone posted about a single Tiger decimating 22 of 50 opposing Russian armor. (The other 28 retreated.)The Russian side would naturally be tank heavy and it would just be awesome having IS-2's , KV-1,s on the field actually being more than a match for Tigers
BlueJackal: any details on this? Sounds like Pi-factor (all military claims should be divided by Pi to receive proper result)
Finland was not an actual ally of the Axis forces, but they did in a sense support them.
The logic of this is obvious "either you do what we tell you, or you get invaded" (Belgium is the prime example here, Hitler originally just wanted to pass through Belgium to get to France, when Belgium refused Hitler said screw it and invaded them anyway)
A term was invented after WWII called "Finlandization" which basicly refers to an outcast country, rather like some of the more extreme African nations today.
It's kind of a shame really I'm sure Finland was only interested in self preservation, but because they did not actively support the Allies, they were deemed outcasts for a very long time.
#15
I wouldn't want Relic to waste their time and effort trying to model each and every faction in WWII. I wouldn't expect to see anything beyond the Big Three for the Allies and Germany + Japan for CoH given the amount of time it must take to make and ballance each side. There's really no point in rendering the minor factions, they wouldn't be ballanced. How would the Romanians take down a Pershing? How would the Free French fight against a Tiger with their outdated tanks?
In Soviet Russia, forums moderate YOU!
Finland is an agressor, and was trialed for war crimes after the war.
1. Blocade/starvation of Leningrad
2. Sent jewish soviet POWs to Germany where they were killed
3. Moved the population of Karelia into concentrations camps
Not true. Finland entered to capture territory (not only territory lost in Winter War, but also Soviet Karelia)I'm sure Finland was only interested in self preservation
2 No Surrender:
I didn't expect to see UNITS in GAME. I talked about MENTIONS of other allies in cutscenes, dialogues, briefings etc. It's not expensive!
Freek, Russia was part of the Allies. Ever heard of the Conference of Jalta in the Crimean? 1943. The US, UK officially made alliance with Russia. You could also argue then that the US and UK wasnt allies either just played in the same game on the same side: the US only signed the Atlantic Chart after the Wehrmacht overrun France and the British troops evacuated from the mainland. Russia by the way carried the weight of WW2 in ETO (European Theater of War) around in its shoulders til D-Day.
I know what you mean though: you are implying that politically or culturally Russia was the odd one out. Or something like that.
I just said what stated because I often hear the Americans saying (and no offence meant) they won WW2. Well, it is simply not true or if it is, then I must add that 25 million Russian soldiers just died of an epidemic appearently.
Sorry if I was out of line as far as the thread is concerned.
Also, millions of German soldiers, thousands of tanks and aircrafts also disappeared without any reason? :-)Well, it is simply not true or if it is, then I must add that 25 million Russian soldiers just died of an epidemic appearently.
the strength of the tiger was perfectly handable by the red army, its mostly a myth.. tiger myth
Why would it be silly? If they can't go to the time to have the correct uniforms for the nations that fought and died in the war then don't bother adding them at all. Just refer to the American Army, and not the 'Allies'. Likewise, the game only has Germany, and not the Axis Powers, which also included Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. It makes more sense just to say Germany rather than an alliance of nations when only one nation is actually represented.
Finland was never actually allied with Germany. Also Finland was invaded by the aggressor, the USSR, in 1939. If you are talking about the Continuation War, then you must realise the goal of Finland was to get back it's territories lost.
Shan: I'm not asking about my countryI'm asking for Britain.
Timo: Finland lost the right to talk about "getting territories back" when it invaded deeper in Karelia.
USSR-39 is an agressor. But Finland-41 is also an agressor. Winter war ended with the peace treaty.
It wasn't a peace treaty, it was an aggreement to cease hostilities and give in, or be overwelmed and annihilated. There's not much of a choice, really. Hell, even Ivan Zotov, the ambassador to Helsinki after the peace treay recommend to the USSR to finnish the job and annex Finland. In Finland it was known as Välirauha. People expected there to be another continuation of the first war. Finland did what it had to do to survive.
I don't know about other countries, but im sure Greece wasn't in because the engine wouldn't do them justice
Nah, id prefer to have the big countries only because they can be made more unique than the smaller forces can (not many (or any) guns, tanks etc). The smaller countries all did their part, but that shouldn't be an excuse to add them to this game. I think it would be enough if there was a page mentioning all the countries that fought in the war when you finish the game.
]
Also consider that if they added a large allied nation they would have to add a large axis nation seeing as how allied sides cant fight each other in multiplayer. So each side would get a new addition that would have to be balanced with the rest.
Llandaff it was sarcasm. I was talking about the 25 million dead on the fronts. This thread is really having its own evolution I guess.
Right about the Tigers. As a heavy tank it was obsolete before it hit the frontlines. No sloping armour, shitty transmission and lots of servicing and repair. The Russians simply ran around it and dodged the fight when on a hurry. When they fought it they just out numbered it ten to one and it was enough to damage it beyond repair instead of fighting it to death.
The Tiger was also thirsty and because the fuel depo was likely to be twenty klicks behind the lines it spent most of its time on the way to or from the fuel area. Even in ambush it had to run its engine every so often.
These monstress tanks (Tiger, Konigstiger, Sturmtiger, Jagdtiger) used too much of precious resources the Germans did not have: armour steel and fuel.
About the uniforms: I think a developer ought to have the right uniform for the right nation.
Calling the US army "The Allies" in the game is a poor and ignorant approach. The funny part is: isnt Relic a Canadian company by the way? They ought to know better.
I went to Normandy this summer to see where it all began. I can assure you the British and Canadians also had their job cut out for them as soon as the landed. It is also true that the Yanks did most of the work when they finally broke out from the Cotentin and the British were kinda lagging behind a little in effort and accomplishment. So the GIs did a tremendous job. I salute them all !
Interesting thread.
first of all, Finland was 'allied' to nazi germany, 'but' mostly to take back Russian occupied territory from the winter war. Sure they killed many Russkies, but hey.. the Soviets started it first.
Secondly, Russia was part of the total 'Alliance' but the term 'Allies' usually meant the 'Western powers, of France, UK and the commonwealth. USA joined the 'Allies' after Pearl harbor and 'after' Nazi Germany Declared War on USA first.
The Tiger Tank was not obsolete at the time of its operational introduction. It was probably the 'most' fearsome tank by virtue of it's heavy armor and its 88 main gun. The best tank arguably was the T-34 and not the Tiger. The Tiger had a more fearsome reputation in the west rather then in the east, due to the inferiority of the Sherman. The Tiger plus all the other German tanks were ahead of its time but were rendered relatively useless due to the lack of fuel. By 1944, soviet tanks, planes, guns and artillery outnumbered the Germans almost 3 to 1 and for infantry, almost 20 to 1.
Finally, getting back to topic, I was rather amused to see the 'allies' as just consisting of US troops. But i think it was done to allow for expansion sets. I'll love to see at least the principal powers of Japan, Russia and the UK at least. I don't think we'll see the French or any of the 'minor' allied or axis powers by virtue of the timeline of the game.
oh and Canadians wear british uniforms and use british made weapons (of course they also used US weapons due to the lend lease) since they are after all part of the commonwealth of nations and not the 51st state of the United states...
oh and Poland also used british weapons and also wore british uniforms.
I think it's about sales. Having the game being featuring americans, will help sales in the US. Having the game made around the eastern front, would be more interesting from a historical viewpoint - and perhaps even a gameplay one. But it is my impression, that there is a lot of anecdotal belief among american gameplayers at least, that the WWII European Theater is a theater that begins with D-Day, where "Americans saved the day" on the continent. Ignoring facts such as Americans making up less than half of the Overlord operation itself, and pretty much ignoring the whole Eastern front where the vast majority of land combat took place. Things like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers probably adds to this. Somehow, I just don't think that "Saving Private Ryzhko" or "Band of Comrades" would have had the same entertainment appeal...Calling the US army "The Allies" in the game is a poor and ignorant approach.
Not that it matters much though. CoH is just a game - and a good one, at that.
The British are mentioned in the run up to the last level.Why there are no mentions of british army and navy?
I imagine the reason that there isn't references is because it's consentrating on the efforts of the U.S. Army's Able company. Why would, no... why should we see other nations?
Yeah it would be nice to get a mention, but when it is not exactly needed for the story telling, then there isn't much point.
As for the "Dont call the US Allies" argument, I honestly don't understand the issue here. The US was part of the Allied forces, and the term is just acknowledgeing that. Just like when you see the British refered to as part of the allied forces, the polish, canadians... they can each be called an allied force by their own, as is done by soooooo many documantrys, books etc on the subject. It's makeing a big deal out of nothing.
I personaly think the reason we see get no other armies could be to open up the possibilty of expansions, or the time consumed to make them.
The Tiger wasnt obsolete in its armament (88mm gun and three mgs) but it was in its approach of solving a problem. Other then the African Theatre of War it was rendered near useless in the war effort.
It makes me wonder why the Germans so devoted to the idea of Blitzkrieg with its fast equipment and combined arms tactics (and such ingenius ideas like sturmartillery or using obsolete tank chassis to create self-propelled artillery) changed so early in the war to slow themselves down with mammoth tanks like the Tiger at all. From a tank design point of you it was all right I admit but to the outcome of the war...
I think the Americans are prone to believe they won the war because on the one hand they beat the Japs alone almost and on the other hand in both world wars they tipped the balance. Soon as the US entered either war it was as good as won.
In 1943 they were talking like ..."when we win the war..." instead of "if".
Another thing. I often here from my students that "what if the Germans did this and that". Well D-Day was still planned from a conventional point of view but the war would have ended with the atomic bomb entering the arsemal no later then August, 1945. I am glad it wasnt dropped on Berlin and a few other German towns to make Nazi Germany surrender.
Coming to think of it the US did won the war after all for all of us.
I wonder if Relic will persue this direction it took with this game and add various theatres of war to this truly amazing RTS? I would be a buyer.
Last edited by LoranKorn; 3rd Oct 06 at 10:50 AM.
I think one of the gripes alot of europeans have (especially in France and the UK or so i heard) is that quite a few Americans 'won' the war single-handedly or 'saved' the day.
Also, the immense Hollywood factor by virtue of production capital versus anything the European movie industry can put out really affects our thinking of WW2.
Anyways, it's just a game and a very very very good one at that.
Though i think it's hard to put the history aside
Thats not true about americans Loke. We recognize that there was a European front long before we showed up, just D-Day is when we happened to jump into the war. I also do not believe using americans as the initial Allied force was a sales ploy. The game is based around Able Company and it would seem kind of...odd using british or russian forces to represent this 0_o. Honestly theres no point degrading any countries role in Overlord because all sides fought just as hard and they all also took casualties. Also think about it...would it be that improbable that they might be saving the eastern front for an expansion?
It is hard to put history aside when a game is about something we know as history. It is not that big of a deal at this level and the game tries to follow the actual events nicely.
Yeah, thats true: the game is about Able Company. As BoB was about one particular company or SPR was about one speciel person. Its not Hollywood's fault that they make all these movies. And they make it about Americans who else.
The movie Stalingrad is about Germans in the fight and its a German movie so it makes sence.
I love old Russian war movies from the seventies. Those are, no suprise, about the Russian troops in the war.
The US war effort in Europe always reminds me how the British looked at it.
"The problem with Americans is that they are over payed, over sexed and over here".
Since the game is really at the company level, the likelihood of mixing nationalities anything less then "army" level would have been unlikely.
The overall strategy on a front was blended, however different nationalities rarely fought side-by-side.
This game is about Able Company and the US Offensive, not a broad view of WW2 and everyone involed. It's a game.
What about Baker and Easy Company? Seriously, most WWII games do tend to feature US troops. Most of them seem to feature the paratroopers companies too. There are lots of other US companies that get left out quite often as well. All of them including the other nations need more focus somewhere, be it in movies or games as they all played an important role. But those paratroopers sure seem to be in the spotlight most times. Not that they didn't have a interesting role.
Speaking of WWII movies, when are the British going to come out with some good WWII movies again? Some of those oldies are my favorites.
Love'em too.
To me it seems that the fact that there's pretty much no other allied forces in the game is not very surprising, and it's weird everyone's wondering why there are none.
Just look at the name of the game, "Company of Heroes", and what it has to do with the game. It's basically about one company - the Able company - and its heroic deeds for the fight for Normandy. Not about the WWII as a world war as it was.
If the game took place in as large a scale as the WWII demanded, it would be a large scale strategy game, like many we've seen before, not a fast-paced squad controlling tactical RTS that centers around the acts of the Able company in Normandy. I think the game itself is fine as it is.
But of course I would like to see an expansion that isn't about the heroism of the American soldiers. It could be about the German invasion of Russia, from Russia's viewpoint since they won the war there. Or about another Allied nation fighting somewhere in Europe. The invasion of Berlin would rock as a mission don't you think?
Last edited by Cruc1al; 3rd Oct 06 at 12:07 PM. Reason: umm.. a few typos..
Of course its about Able company and thats fine but it would be nice if they added some other Armies perhaps in expansion packs.
We in Britain all now realise America won the war by singlehandedly overtaking Europe (as brilliantly documented by Saving Private Ryan + Band of Brothers)
I loved playing the Russian + British campaigns in Call of Duty as it was a breath of fresh air but its the only example I can think of.
I just want Malaysia or India or even China dam it. People fought and died there too you know.
Actually, the Pacific Theatre might be a good guess at an early expansion too. While I would personally prefer the Eastern Front, I could see the fun in playing with Japanese squads - with no retreat option!
Just want to make clear (since it seems to be getting blurred): Easy company was a real company (part of the 101st Airborne) and the depictions of them in BoB were kept mostly historically accurate from what information could be obtained. Able company is fictional in this games design.
In WW2 Russia would be more looked apon as an AXIS team, since they had conflict with ALLIED teams. However they did fight Nazi Germany so it's a bit mixed there.
#43
No, Russia was clearly Allied.
Remember: you're a blogger. Pretense is your co-pilot.
To Llandaff:
I found this:But that doesn't tell how many tanks were on the German side...Perhaps the most famous Tiger battle occurred at Villers Bocage under the command of world war 2 top tank ace, SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittman. An entire column of 25 tanks, 14 half-tracks and 14 bren-gun carriers were destroyed in a single engagement. Decorated with the prestigious Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords, it was the second highest decoration awarded by the German armed forces for valor in combat.
Found it here: http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/
Time for class!
Is this REALLY bugging people? Come on guys, undo the knot in your collective panties.
Personally, my first thought was that calling the sides "Allies" and "Axis" meant that there will be other nations in expansions. When other counties are added they would have had to add the Allies and Axis tags anyway (always Allies vs Axis, makes it easier), so why not just plan ahead and implement it early?
I know there is a witty retort to that, but, for the life of me, I can't remember what it is."The problem with Americans is that they are over payed, over sexed and over here".
Yes, that's what they were about. Saving Private Ryan wasn't a fictional story about a small group of soldiers walking around Europe to find another solider and Band of Brothers was not the TRUE FUCKING STORY of an Airborne Company. They were stories of America single-handedly freeing Europe from Germany.We in Britain all now realise America won the war by singlehandedly overtaking Europe (as brilliantly documented by Saving Private Ryan + Band of Brothers)
Come on now, use that brain please.
The question was answered, quit crying about it already.
It's called Company of Heroes. And the company it's about is Able Company.
TheDeadlyShoe During the time Russia teamed with the Allies to kill Nazi Germany was something any country would do, if everyone didn't team up to fend off Nazi Germany, I believe they would of tooken over all of Europe. Now if you look at the Soviet Union which was clearly an AXIS team at the time, it proves that Russia was indeed part of the AXIS side, untell Nazi Germany started invadeing Europe.
Look at the Cold War for example, if Russia was an ALLIED team why would they be trying to battle the U.S.A which was clearly an ALLIED team? Well it was because they needed to team up against Nazi Germany, and the fact that Germany did attack Russia. Now you have Nazi Germany attacking all of these nations so regaurdless if they are AXIS or ALLIED Nazi Germany was a hudge problem during that time, so reguardless they all had to take out Nazi Germany and stop them.
"Now if you look at the Soviet Union which was clearly an AXIS team at the time"
What is an axis team? I think your getting your definitions mixed up here. Axis does not mean 'evil' states, it refers to countries allied to, and including, Nazi Germany during WW2.
The Soviet Union did have a non-aggresion treaty before Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. But it was just that, a non-aggression treaty and not an alliance.
"Look at the Cold War for example, if Russia was an ALLIED team why would they be trying to battle the U.S.A which was clearly an ALLIED team?"
Again, the terms Axis and Allies mean nothing after WW2. After WW2 there were no axis or allies, only the conflict between the united states and its allies and the USSR and its allies.
Indeed. But they acted in alliance taking Poland. While not formally on Axis side, they fought together united with a pact.The Soviet Union did have a non-aggresion treaty before Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. But it was just that, a non-aggression treaty and not an alliance.
- sincerely, the Sign Painter
from Anwsers.com:
"
- Allies
- The nations allied against the Central Powers of Europe during World War I. They were Russia, France, Great Britain, and later many others, including the United States.
- The nations, primarily Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, allied against the Axis during World War II."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
