New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request

[Michael T]

We have around 100 respondents to each poll. There is a clear majority of people who would like the 1941-45 CG game length reduced to late May 1945 and the Auto VP reduced to 260-265.

Joel, can we please have an 'alt' scenario added to the game in the next patch that has the above changes included.

That way all concerned will be happy. People who want no changes can still play the original version and the other majority of players can play the 'alt' version.

Please can we have this. Surely this is a very simple and quite reasonable request that will not create a problem for any reasonably minded person.

[Schmart]

No arguments, just a suggestion that IDEALLY, there should be check box option setting, rather than two separate scenarios. Keeps things simple, especially for community moded scenarios in the future.

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

We have around 100 respondents to each poll. There is a clear majority of people who would like the 1941-45 CG game length reduced to late May 1945 and the Auto VP reduced to 260-265.

Joel, can we please have an 'alt' scenario added to the game in the next patch that has the above changes included.

That way all concerned will be happy. People who want no changes can still play the original version and the other majority of players can play the 'alt' version.

Please can we have this. Surely this is a very simple and quite reasonable request that will not create a problem for any reasonably minded person.

The best suggestion yet to come out of the two poll threads, and I think the only reasonable solution to keep everyone happy. I wonder which one would get played most. [;)]

[Oloren_MatrixForum]

I'm very much in favor of Michael T's request and also Schmart's revision.

Oloren

[Michael T]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

No arguments, just a suggestion that IDEALLY, there should be check box option setting, rather than two separate scenarios. Keeps things simple, especially for community moded scenarios in the future.

Yes this was our first approach a while back but Joel has since pointed out that with the current code optional rules are difficult to implement.

So I am hopeful this way may just be easier to do with the same result really.

[stone10]

less than 1/3 of the voters = "majority"?

So can we have new poll: give the red army to counter attack in early war.
If nearly 1/3 of the voters vote yes then we need a new alt. campaign in the extension.

[gradenko2k]

At least 67% of the respondents feel that the game should end sooner than Sept 1945, while 70% of the respondents feel that the amount of VP should be lowered from 290. I would say that that's a majority, albeit one that does not necessarily agree on the specifics just yet.

[Michael T]

Thanks for posting the numbers stone10. It clearly shows the majority are seeking a change. [&o]

[AFV]

My thanks also stone10! Hadn't realized it was that lopsided!

[Peltonx]

Rome was not built in a day.


Pelton

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Thanks for posting the numbers stone10. It clearly shows the majority are seeking a change. [&o]

But the majority doesn't want the change you want. You want 260-265. The majority doesn't.

So you'll be happy with 280 then?

[Michael T]

No one wants to change what you have already. We want a new alt scenario that best fits what the majortiy want. Clearly most people who responded are not happy with the stock scenarios conditions.
 
Around 50% want a change to May 45. 60% want 265 or less Auto VP.
 
I just don't get why some people want to shackle other players to their idea of whats best.
 
Its no different to those who like random weather and those who don't. They have a choice. Thats all that is being proposed.

[Aurelian]

So you'd be happy with 280 then.

[Michael T]

No. Its obvious from the poll that 260-265 would be a good middle ground.

I honestly don't know why 280 was even an option. Its still in the realm of the impossible.

[Gefreiter Wardstein]

I would be wary of making changes simply because 30+ people think its a good idea. I have no idea how many, but there must be a host of players who have bought the game but have never considered using the forums for whatever reason. When one compares these 30+ players (or even the total number of voters) to the total number of War in the east sales I would guess that it would hardly consitute a majority.

On a second point, changing either the victory conditions or the end date affects the balance of the game in favour of the German player which should be considered before making any amendments.

The existing parameters were obviously chosen for a reason & I would recommend that Matrix base its decision on other factors in addition to this selective poll

[janh]

ORIGINAL: stone10

less than 1/3 of the voters = "majority"?

So can we have new poll: give the red army to counter attack in early war.
If nearly 1/3 of the voters vote yes then we need a new alt. campaign in the extension.

I agree with upping the strength of the Russians a bit (besides tuning down the supply situation in general for both-- it can't be real to fully supply an Army group on a single double-track railline from the outset). But the firsts part should be possible with the editor, i.e. at least for the first wave of Russian units in 1941? I was thinking of upping the EXP and moral of Infantry Divisions a bit for my next GC, maybe 5 or 10 points each?

Btw, is there any way to modify the NM trend for the Soviets in the editor, so I can also up the 42 NM a bit? I would prefer that solution over a general moral increase via the difficulty levels, since as it stand the immediate change to blizzard rules already quite discontinuous. I would like to mod it so that force-ratios and initiatives change a little slower, the German offensive in 41 slowly trickling out, while the Soviets by that time should already have slowly but markedly improved.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Thanks for posting the numbers stone10. It clearly shows the majority are seeking a change. [&o]

I am afraid, you are stretching the argument a little. The results are quite spread out, and all it really comes down to is that even within this community there is plenty of wishes.

Reading the first poll in the fashion you do, you could arrive at opposite conclusion: 52% of the voters would want an end no earlier than late June, and preferably by late September as it is. Thus, especially for May there is no majority. Perhaps late June could be the compromise, but even here only 1/3 of the players would be truly happy with that. As for VP, the compromise might indeed be somewhere between 260 and 270VP, but again hardly 1/3 of the players really want that. Besides, as Wardstein already pointed out, what fraction of WiTE owners is represented by this tiny number of voters? The turn-out really doesn't seem impressive, rather as if most people don't care for any changes?

Somehow I have the feeling that this whole VP discussion is a placeholder discussion. Lower VP levels or other end dates in a PBEM could be easily kept track of by the players. Does it need to be forced on to all players? Why? Because otherwise it will be hard to find two players that would agree to play by the alternative VP conditions? What happened with the "Sudden death" rules formulated by a group of players a while ago? Is there really no game or AAR come from that?

The best thing to ask Joel and the GG team for does seem to be opening the VP conditions in the editor, even if it is not a trivial task. Then players can modifiy the campaign to their liking. And G&G wouldn't be continually critized for it.

[Tarhunnas]

What is wrong with having an alternate version of the campaign that fits some players better? And how would that "force" people to do something? If there are two varieties, then players can chose whatever version they want. I think Michael Ts suggestion was good.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
What is wrong with having an alternate version of the campaign that fits some players better? And how would that "force" people to do something? If there are two varieties, then players can chose whatever version they want. I think Michael Ts suggestion was good.

I'm guessing it's what Joel Billings said about having to leap some technical hurdles in order to allow victory levels and end dates to become user-editable. Our options would seem to be limited to:

* Hope that the devs can and are willing to leap that hurdle and port the victory levels and end dates to the editor
* Track alternative victory levels manually via gentleman's agreement
* Create a Hakko-Ichiu type scenario where the victory levels are the same, but Germany is artificially and ahistorically stronger, allowing an "easier" win even with the original victory levels

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
What is wrong with having an alternate version of the campaign that fits some players better? And how would that "force" people to do something? If there are two varieties, then players can chose whatever version they want. I think Michael Ts suggestion was good.

No, that's not what I meant. I wanted to raise the question why nobody seems to care for houserules, that are apparently not difficult to track in this case. And some people did set up "sudden death rules", simple and complicated ones. And yet I can't recall an AAR that used/s such rules? Is there any PBEM game going on with auto-victory houserules?

There is nothing wrong with it, more variety can only add to the game! Something like an Axis production enhanced "scenario 2" a la "Iron Man" would also be nice.

What I meant was that to suit everyones taste, Joel would have to come up with 10 new alternative scenarios. It might be easier to try to open up the VP conds in the editor instead.

[Ron]

I don't understand why the same trolls are allowed to continually derail threads here?

I also don't understand why anyone would be opposed to an alternate campaign with a different end date and VPs. No one is forcing them to play that alternate version. We currently have different scenarios and campaigns included in the game - where is the outcry to remove those because so and so doesn't like them??

The devs put up two polls, any rationale person can see people want a change to what's offered currently. If the devs are responsive to the community, then they will provide one based on that feedback, end of story and everyone is happy.