1.03 Public Beta is now Available

[joe_canadian]

It was there i just couldnt find it

[greenlandj6]

[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]

I'm am putting this thread out there to ruin the game so that maybe I can get a fun game back.

There are too many problems with game balance that make it almost impossible to have a different game. All the games I play now become the same game time after time.

This is what happens:

First, the Battle for Britain is no longer fun for either side, Axis or Allies. The reason is because of the aircraft -1 rule. When aircraft are at maximum range they get a -1 penalty. Because aircraft are worthless for bombing British fleets all you have to do as the Allies is place a bunch of Heavy fleets in the Irish Sea. So what’s the result of this -1, no Battle for Britain. Maybe it's more realistic. Ok fine, but now the game is boring for both sides. As the Allies, I used to have to decide on putting a couple of Allied fighters out into the Irish Sea to protect ships, which in turn, meant I wasn't protecting England. The point is, I had decisions to make. No longer, just put heavy fleets into the Irish Sea. As the Axis player the result is also the same. No Battle for Britain. It's not even an option anymore.

Second, because there is no option for a Battle for Britain there is no longer an option to take the Middle East. Nope, none of that anymore. Here are the multiple problems with trying for the Middle East as the Axis. Since the Allied player doesn't have to worry about protecting British fleets from worthless German Bombers in the Irish Sea they can focus on protecting the Middle East and build artillery and maybe an Infantry. Since Italy no longer starts with 4 transports but with two, and a bunch of worthless militia, the Allied player has no worries and no options anymore. Don't need to protect Gibraltar for a while. Yup, that's right, because Italy has only two transports. So now for the sake of realism the game isn't fun as Axis or Allies. No decisions anymore since the Axis can't do anything with two transports.

I know it is possible to fight for the Middle East but it is a major undertaking now and you will lose as the Axis if you go for it. Why? Because Russia will be building and building and building even more artillery.

Third, and one word only, ARTILLERY. The biggest problem of all is artillery. Here's how you win as the Allies and Soviets every time. Just build artillery. Yup, sounds crazy right, you need armor, infantry, and bombers to get the combined arms bonus. Yes, that's right, combined arms used to matter. Oh buy the way in Global Glory 4.00 Heavy bombers no longer help with combined arms. Hey more realistic but now it's another BS rule I need to remember and it takes away more options. Gee, great idea. That sarcasm by the way.

So the Soviet Union builds 40 or 50 artillery and that's the game. The result is this. As the German player you have to build artillery too. That's the game now. They should just call it Gary Grigsby's artillery battle. It's boring. I find this artillery game BORING!

As the Germans, I can't build heavy bombers or tac bombers like I used too for the battle of Britain, or as option to take the Middle East, or even India. Yes I've done that! Taken India with the Germans. It used to be an option. No longer. In fact, it was possible to invest in an interesting and fun mix of units and take over India with Germany. It's a blast. It's fun. It's interesting for both sides. None of that anymore. Nope. Sorry. Sarcasm.

As Germany, I have no options anymore, because the only option is to build a bunch of artillery to counter Soviet artillery. That's the game. Try it, if you’re playing the Allies and Soviets. Just build artillery. Here's the deal. Artillery trump even combined arms. Why bother building anything other than artillery. With overwhelming artillery the combined arms bonus is worthless or doesn't even happen. Check out the combat report screen. No combined arms bonus. In the last game I played, the Germans had 8 armor and a bunch of Infantry, and artillery, and tactical bombers because heavy bombers can't be used for combined arms. Guess what, I did everything right and got no combined arms bonus. Instead, the combat report screen shows that the 20 artillery or so that the Soviets had blew the German army apart before they could even get within range.

So the Allied/Soviet player is now a genius because they know how to build artillery. No strategy, no decisions, no game. That's right, no fun. The reason why I used to like this game was because I had different possible strategies. That's gone, it's the same stupid game every time now.

Fourth, Japan is insignificant and can't do anything anymore. Here's what you do as the Allies. Since the Allies can put units on Malya, Java, and Sumatra before war is declared the Japanese can't take them anymore without major effort. Here's where that -1 comes in for bombers really hurts again. Here I was playing Japan and I'm about to start my attack on the Allies. Well the Allied player just puts a bunch of artillery on Malya, Java, and Sumatra. I can't threaten the Indian ocean anymore. I can't take them without wasting a huge number of supplies and resources and it's hard to bomb from French Indochina because of the -1 for max range. Opp fire makes it impossible to do amphibious assaults. So now the Japanese player has no options again. I couldn't do anything again.
So now your going to argue well Japan can attack China or even help the German's against the Soviets. Nope that just doesn't work. Going into China is always a losing strategy it never works and attacking the Soviets is no good because they have 50 artillery and will pick apart the Japanese army.

So what could Japan do? Well, build artillery of course, and help Germany attack the Soviets. That's about it. Yup that's the game. No war in the Pacific. Can't take India. Forget Australia. Remember this is Gary Grigsby's artillery battle after all.

I also hate the fact that Japan can't bomb Chinese factories without risking losing the resource gift from the USA. Why, because now the allies don't need to supply China anymore. That isn't even realistic. Think about it. China can just build it's own supplies willy-nilly and now the Germans have a harder time because the Allied player doesn't have to send any resources to China to repair factories. This also made it impossible to take out China without a major gaming losing effort. In the original game, it was a viable strategy to bomb Chinese factories and then take inland territories. The Chinese couldn't build units every turn because their factories where bombed out. Again this rule change took that aspect of the game away and favored the allies. Even if they removed this rule the -1 on the bombers would hurt again. I hate the -1 on maximum range for bombing it ruined so many aspects of the game. If bombers are less effective, then again, it is another reason to build even more artillery.

A competent Western Allied player should just focus on artillery too. Sure you need some fighters and infantry and AA guns, but build twenty or so artillery and you'll be just fine. No decisions to make. Just build artillery.

Fifth, the addition of signet/spys has in many ways ruined the game too. I used to think it was a neat innovation but it's ruined game balance. Here's why. The Allied player can now develop technology and steal from the Germans, and then indirectly help the Soviets with their technology and it costs the Soviets nothing for technology now. Think about it. Now the Soviets don't need to invest in tech anymore. Here's how you do it. I've noticed that you need to have at least one research point in the tech that your behind on. That means the research vial needs to have a little red in it or else you won't be stealing tech. So in the first turn the Soviets just allocate one factory point to research. Now the Soviets can steal research from the Allies. So now, only the Allies need to do research. The Soviets just build artillery again. They don't need to worry about research. Of course, for this to work the Allies never increase their security points and the Soviets increase the number of spies they have over the Western Allies security number. If you haven’t thought of this your probably thinking gee that sounds like cheating and it would ruin game balance. BINGO! Yes again it ruins the game because the Soviets don't have to make any choices anymore. Don't need to spend factory points on research. We'll leave that to the Western Allies. Again, the Soviets can just build artillery. Fun, Fun, Fun.

In addition, if you don't understand how signet works here it is in a nutshell. When there is a battle the signet number is checked against the security points number. If signet is bigger and wins, so to speak, the signet bonus is involved in the battle. The units in the battle for the signet winner get an extra die. That's right, one extra die! This can be huge but it doesn't really matter all that much anymore because artillery trumps it.

So there it is in a nutshell. The only thing that did make a lot of sense was making fighters more expensive, but that's about it. I think the political aspect of Global Glory is great and could create a fresh game every time, and I think that is the intent. I used to love this game. It was fun but it's been tweaked to death.

Here are my suggestions which may bring some balance and variety back to the game and make it fun again:

1. Take away the -1 for bombers at max range and let the Axis player bomb the hell out of British fleets again. It would help the Japanese too for bombing China back into the Stone Age.

2. Forget this idea that heavy bombers don't add to the combined arms bonus. What's the point? It makes them less valuable and again artillery more valuable. I mean think about it. Heavy bombers are expensive and they are fun to have. Yes, I said it, fun. They can bomb ships, factories, rail, and yes, even help in combined assaults. Well, before that is. This realism camp has ruined the GAME! STOP IT!

3. Let the Japanese bomb Chinese factories again and not worry about losing its resource gift. It forces the allies to help China, as it should be. For the realism Nazis out there isn't this more realistic anyway?

4. Remove the ability for the Soviets to willy-nilly get its tech from the Western Allies through the spy screen or eliminate tech stealing all together.

5. ARTILLERY. Something needs to be done about artillery. They are just too powerful and too cheap. Yes both too POWERFUL and too CHEAP. Just making them more expensive isn't the answer they are too powerful.

The reason for this post is to get my fun game back. Perhaps I'll just find someone who wants to play the good old total war scenario.

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: greenlandj6

2. Forget this idea that heavy bombers don't add to the combined arms bonus. What's the point? It makes them less valuable and again artillery more valuable. I mean think about it. Heavy bombers are expensive and they are fun to have. Yes, I said it, fun. They can bomb ships, factories, rail, and yes, even help in combined assaults. Well, before that is. This realism camp has ruined the GAME! STOP IT!
.................
The reason for this post is to get my fun game back. Perhaps I'll just find someone who wants to play the good old total war scenario.

I'm on 1.02 and have never played GG. Am I right in thinking that most but not all your criticisms apply to GG? For instance, as far as I can tell from the start of the thread by Greg Wilcox, heavy bombers do not contribute to combined assaults in any game in 1.03, not just GG. So playing total war scenario in 1.03 won't help you, at least in this regard.

Do your criticisms of artillery apply to total war scenario in 1.02 or has something changed dramatically in GG 1.03? Sorry for my lack on knowledge of GG.

[Lucky1]

Thanks to Mr. Freeze for his feedback. I agree with some of the five suggestions he makes and would provide some more feedback myself.

1) Re: the -1 penalty at long range. Initially, I found the penalty to be intriguing. But, in practice, it has had consequences such as those mentioned by Mr. Freeze. This does not mean that an air war is not possible. Rather, it means that it is delayed (must invest in tech to increase range). However, the impact on the early war is noticeable, certainly and the effectiveness of bombers is much reduced (at least until they develop their attack valuese etc).

2) Although others might disagree, I am NOT for bombers contributing to CAM. Otherwise tac bombers are useless (why invest in them, with their limited range). Too, this would make bombers the new (or old again) 'artillery' that Mr. Freeze has come to despise. That said, there is plenty of 'fun' that can be had by heavy bombers if they are left out of the CAM equation (for example attacking tac bombers and other units on the ground etc., rail attacks, industry/resource attacks, paratroops, and naval attacks).

3) This is a tricky one and I am not sure where I stand. I am not for a degree of realism that forces stock re-enactments again and again. But, I also find it problematic that Japan would walk willy-nilly over China (where I think it had several MILLION troops throughout the war). I agree that bombing and other forms of increased aggression should result in the possible loss of the gift. So, in this sense, I might disagree with the point raised by Mr. Freeze. However, I find the increases in the US war levels in response to Japanese attacks in China to be a very strong stick. Effectively, there are powerful incentives to deal minimally with China so as to receive the gift etc and not bump US war readiness. So, I think the problem might be a matter of degree. While I see that the US might stop the gift etc. due to the war in China, it was not a foregone conclusion that she would go to war for it.  Perhaps bumps to US war readiness might be lessened in their severity or implemented only for land attacks on factory regions. After all, Chinese garrison requirements and supply requirements are already big disincentives to a China strategy. I don't know what others might think, but perhaps it might also be worthwhile adding a few un-developed resources in China (these can represent more than oil, after all).

4) I don't mind bombing causing a loss of the gift. You can always bomb resources to achieve the same effect, anyhow.... Keep in mind that the gift in GG 4.0 has been increased in its size and duration. This provides the Japanese player with more choices, after all.  But, I do think the -1 max range penalty is problematic in this situation (as well as others).

5) I heartily agree that artillery are too powerful. I don't mind that they are cheap, per se, but when this is combined with power, it becomes problematic. I have raised the issue of their power in another post. Although I initially thought it more balanced to reduce their starting values and world standard, I am coming around to the idea that these should be left as is and that the production time be increased by 50% (one turn).

Errata: Mr. Freeze raises the garisonning of borneo etc. This can only occur if Japan really delays an attack against the WA. Take away some of the air penalties, and it is more easy to deal with the artillery that is invariably placed on these islands if the game is delayed too long. Of course, there is no problem with early attacks.

Spying. Generally, I think that spying is flawed. I think it is crazy that I can see that tech steals are occurring. But, as for the concerns raised by Mr. Freeze, the WA have to invest absurdly to get regular steals from Germany if Germany invests reasonably in counter-intelligence. As for Russia, she simply can steal tech from the WA easily. I don't see this as a huge problem, as it is only a tech point per turn.... But others such as Mr. Freeze can disagree. Japan can also steal from the WA if Russia does it, so the WA have a decision to make if they are willing to contemplate allowing Soviet tech steals.... One tweak might be to give Japan a few extra spies against the WA to put this decision into play more obviously.

Anyhow, I look forward to dialogue on the issue and would be willing to play test if needed.

Cheers,

Sean