If you never built any armies, would you be justified in complaining about a military rout?
Iron and Blood - Game Thread
- Thread starter Tee Kay
- Start date
I'm pretty sure the CSA existing is a bit over the top, or the Germans/French controlling so much foreign land in Europe for so long is over the top.
I'm pretty sure the realism of IoT should not be questioned only when you're on the losing end of it, but either all the time or never.
I'm pretty sure the realism of IoT should not be questioned only when you're on the losing end of it, but either all the time or never.
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
The UNA/Asian Alliance winning instead of the Accord?
That totally should have happened anyway, if Spies weren't so overpowered in this game.
yeah, basically this.
I have the general idea, just no finished map.
At least if African Armies had taken over the peaceful region of Tibet or something, it would make some sense. Spies doing it... not so much.
There are some unrealistic things I can suspend my disbelief over, like pretty much every nation that existed in this game, how they all came to be after the Napoleonic Era, that sort of thing. It doesn't really make sense, but you need to have a story.
The spies, though, I can't suspend my disbelief over, because that makes way less logical sense.
The game mechanics are what they are. We did what we needed to to survive. If this were made into a much more realistic game (or NES), the French/Swazi's could easily have defeated the opposing coalition, simply because we would have the resources and industry to field powerful defensive armies in an era of trench warfare. Considering we easily had the naval power to at least control the Mediterranean, as well as the fact that our resource base would be virtually unlimited, and the fact that literally every single territory we had was industrialized, we would likely have been unbeatable.
My point? You lost a war because of a faulty game mechanic that acted unrealistically in our favor. However, virtually every other aspect of the game was in your favor, and there is simply no excuse for your poor performance in the war. Given the game mechanics, you should have knocked me out of the war in one turn, and despite your poor planning, you almost did that, except for one lucky RNG roll. However, had my naval warplans actually been represented in the calculations during the naval battle in the North Atlantic, you would have lost that battle and never even reached the shore of Portugal. Take a look at a map of Germany after the first update. We would have had almost all of Europe secured (due to me still holding Iberia then), and had I actually exploited the game mechanics to their fullest extent, I would have knocked out the Germans in Scandinavia. In fact, I think my warplans actually allocated additional troops to the invasion of Scandinavia in the event I prevented an invasion of Iberia, and if that's true, I would likely have destroyed Germany anyway.
My point? You lost a war because of a faulty game mechanic that acted unrealistically in our favor. However, virtually every other aspect of the game was in your favor, and there is simply no excuse for your poor performance in the war. Given the game mechanics, you should have knocked me out of the war in one turn, and despite your poor planning, you almost did that, except for one lucky RNG roll. However, had my naval warplans actually been represented in the calculations during the naval battle in the North Atlantic, you would have lost that battle and never even reached the shore of Portugal. Take a look at a map of Germany after the first update. We would have had almost all of Europe secured (due to me still holding Iberia then), and had I actually exploited the game mechanics to their fullest extent, I would have knocked out the Germans in Scandinavia. In fact, I think my warplans actually allocated additional troops to the invasion of Scandinavia in the event I prevented an invasion of Iberia, and if that's true, I would likely have destroyed Germany anyway.
Similar threads
