GD1938 Game 22 (Experimental One)

[Twotribes]

I noticed not all minors got extra troops.

[ernieschwitz]

Actually they did, just some got a lot less than others.

[cpdeyoung]

Here are some (requested) thoughts, which reflect only my own feelings, and I know others will see it differently.

The biggest problem I see is the changes in strategic level motivation in GD1938. In my opinion the game works much better if Germany is strong and has the goal of destroying the Soviets. Please note that I did not say that this is desirable because it happened, but rather that the dynamics of the game work better. Germany, Italy and Japan should be aggressors, not because they were, but because the engine of the game works better that way.

If larger OOBs for minors, and coups, hamper the Germans and Italians then the game will be less enjoyable. In games where France holds out against Germany we have seen stagnation, and long wars of production. I am not saying the French should be doomed, but it should take superior play to hold out.

Some really problematic games come about when Germany(/Italy) and the Soviets are really allied and working together. All the "world holds its breath" drama leaves the game. Two(3, 4) really big powers get together and take the world. In my opinion this alliance, with good players in both Axis and Soviet roles will win against all comers. I think the victory conditions or a house rule should make this alliance very unattractive.

I know that I have engineered just such a four vs four alliance in this game. USSR-Germany-Italy-Japan vs USA-China-France-GB, given equal play, should always result in a victory for the Axis-Soviet side. I suspect the game isn't even fun for the other side.

I know the Nazi-Soviet pact happened, and I am sure there will be some co-operation, but a true "big boys rule" alliance till game's end may well be a boring game. We have played many games of GD1938 between us. We want to try new combinations and I understand that, but the Axis-Soviet alliance idea may work just too well. I am delighted with the fresh thought going into Game 19! We have never seen that combo before.

I think the best way to address these issues will be in victory conditions manipulation, and it will be really tricky. We do have a top grade group however, and I think it can be done. One idea might be to have alliance VCs as well as individual national ones, as has been suggested before. I also think the VCs should be mutable within limits. The decision for "unconditional surrender" was not made at the beginning of the war. A nation should be able to react to developments.

I throw these thoughts out for discussion. What do you all think?

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

Victory may be better if it stays simple, the reason Germany Italy and Japan went to war was they wanted control of raw materials, Oil Rubber Tungsten Manganese and a whole list of raw materials available to the UK USA and the USSR. they wanted what the these powers had. The populations and cities in these countries were not really the reason they took the country, this explains their barbaric treatment of indigenous populations, reducing them to the level of slaves or worse, the Axis wanted empire and the benefits of empire. What makes a war between Germany and the USSR inevitable is the oil wheat timber gas and all the other raw materials that the USSR possesses and the Germans/Italians/Japanese want. The winner of the game could be the one sitting above these raw materials at the end.

[Bombur]

A few comments:

cpdeyoung is right, an alliance between USSR and the Axis is almost invincible, as it can easily take cotrol over the Eurasia land mass. Of course, if the USA breaks neutrality early, then this alliance could be stopped. In fact, if such an alliance existed, then it would have won WWII. However, this alliance, in GD1938, is very difficult to be kept both in real world and GD1938. In real life, it wasn´t implemented due to conflicting ideologies and geopolitical objectives. In GD1938, this instability can only be achieved by the victory conditions we implemented. That´s why I´m against changing them, if we were to change them, I would have made them random to add even more unpredictability to the game. The big trouble is that we are no Hitlers and Stalins, as gamers, we can follow a much more rational path. This usually involves a German-Soviet alliance. We are not worried abut Lebensrau and other stupidities, so it´s only a matter of who will win the game. However, when we add to this a lot of victory conditions and keep players blind on what are the conditions for their potential foes (or allies), then any alliance becomes inherently unstable. In other words, we are able to simulate real word constrainsts for all players. If the Germans are, from start, oriented towards conquest of WWII, then any alliance with USSR will last only a few years. Otherwise, they can achieve long term cooperation, but the Soviet will be never sure of the intentions of his ally. If we have a 8 player game, things are even more complex, because there is nothing to make sure an alliance between France and GB or Germany and Italy. This adds complexity. It´s possible to have France allied to Germany in a crusade against a USSR supported by USA, just to give you an example. On our game, I vote for a restart as soon ernie fixes the bug.

[Bombur]

I vote for a restart with v221 (the one from the community site). This also valid for the second game.

[ernieschwitz]

Ok, Guys, I made a new version of the mod, in which Intimidation is fixed, but not changed (yet). So the bug we experienced is not present.

I suggest we make an overview of who is willing to try it out, and then rechoose sides, and start over.

[RufusTFirefly]

Count me in for the restart, please.

[LJBurstyn]

okay, still willing to try it out.
Japan?

[davebob]

Seems this scenario has run smack dab into Halford Macinders' "Heartland/World Island" theory of geopolitics. Briefly, he who controls the Heartland, roughly, Berlin/Moscow/Palestine, would control the World Island. Who controls the world island, Europe/Asia/Africa, dominates the world. Generally, peripheral states will play spoiler to attempts to the consolidation of the Heartland. Nobody was fooled by the Nazi/Soviet pact in its drunken one nite stand. It was never going to be a marriage.
In game terms, all politics and alignments were underscored by this theory,(still are today).Tho alternative historys are fun, if the German/Russian nation were possible, the state maps and placements wouldn't look anything like what is presented historically.
Course, now if there were a Confederate States of America, aligned with the Axis......

[ernieschwitz]

Actually, the victory conditions of Germany and the Soviet Union in most every case should prevent an alliance from happening. It´s because people don´t care about the victory conditions they seem to end up in the state of a German/Soviet alliance.

[ironduke1955]

Just supposing that the Soviet Union attacks Japan with the intention of stopping Japan from becoming to powerful, and posing a threat in the East.

But the USA for reasons of their own join Japan in a war against the Soviet Union and China.

How is it then not in the Soviets interest to a have alliance with Germany, knowing that a two front war with the USA Japan and possibly the UK a ally of the USA plus Germany and Italy. Would be catastrophic for the Soviet Union.

Germany in this instance have not subdued the French and British to a level where they could undertake a Eastern Front against the Soviets, so it works out well for both the Germans and Soviets.

Victory conditions could come into play later as we have many years of potential war to unfold.

[ernieschwitz]

True.

In the long run an alliance between the soviets and the germans should be an impossibility.

[ironduke1955]

It remains a possibility for as long as the conditions that brought the alliance in to being remain in place. And to be honest having trusted the Axis as the Soviets, and found that they have acted honorably, on a purely human level it is then difficult to stab them in the back, though I dare say to achieve victory a Hitler or a Stalin could certainly have overcome any qualms they had, I am just not sure if I could that's just human nature, or my personal nature. Also it would mean that I would also be acting in the interest of USA and the UK, the USA having only recently been involved in war against the Soviet Union, they will definitely will be on the Soviets not to be trusted list.

[Twotribes]

Remind us how you allowed China to win?

[ironduke1955]

LOL The Soviets are aware of the Chinese victory conditions, the Soviets are sitting on the cities that China needs for victory, the Soviets have told China that at some later stage once their military have recovered they are welcome to try and take those cities but they will have to go through the Red Army first.

[ernieschwitz]

This discussion went from "in theory" to "in practice"... very fast!

[ernieschwitz]

Ok, guys,

We seem to be only 4 people interested in restarting.

RufusTFirefly
LJBurstyn
Bombur
Ernieschwitz

Are there any more interested?