Need opponent or join a GD1938 game

[cpdeyoung]

No not at all, just struggling to understand why when the United Kingdom hands back Hong Kong to China some 57 years before the lease expires, That immediately causes all the Germans on the Russian front to throw down their arms and surrender

China possessed Hong Kong before the British agreed to hand it over. Since mere possession is what counts, with or without British approval, I guess said approval is a non issue. How China got possession of Korea is more pertinent. The threat of an antagonistic USA caused the Allies to play the China card.

Having country victory conditions is going to lead to problems in a simulation of what was basically a war of grand alliances. I think we must go to alliance victory conditions. Perhaps after one side beats the other an accounting of how much better, or worse, each nation did relative to the world of 1945. If Italy fulfills her VC but the Axis lose Italy cannot "win" as such. I do not think guiding the VCs toward Alliance conditions would hurt. I have played America against Great Britain and France and it felt horrible. The worst sort of alternative history.

China and France are not Great Powers, and any VC that lets them have a game victory will be a problem. France, unallied, against Germany loses. China, unallied, against Japan loses. The Soviet Union did not attack Japan till 1945, and if she fights as China's paladin the contest is tilted.

I think everyone feels better with a game that looks more like the actual conflict, but, perhaps, with a different ending. My suggestion would be to remove the victory conditions that lead the players away from "Axis and Allies" such as the anti-bolshevik VC for the USA. This is only my opinion, and the alliance VC option can be just that, an option.

[MrLongleg]

I thought the country specific conditions make the game especially interesting, but of course it opens the door for all kind of back stabbing...

[ernieschwitz]

I am not sure that removing the VC completely is wise either. Currently they serve as a guidance to how players are supposed to ally, if they want to win. At least the best of them do.

I have been debating with Alexandre the possibility of making an option at game start, to disable all VCs. The trouble is the would lead to the German-Soviet alliance again, that we were having problems with before we made the VCs...

Any and all solutions are of course welcome.

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I have played America against Great Britain and France and it felt horrible. The worst sort of alternative history.

I have been on the receiving end of the USA vs UK/France, and it REALLY felt horrible (watching the US sink the entire RN)! [:D]

I am still a bit wet behind the ears in GD1938, but as this is one of the best games I play, I would like to see the VCs work out to the agreement of the players. I put my 2 cents worth to go with some sort of alliance VCs, whether optional and agreed on prior to play, or as a part of the scenario rules.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

ORIGINAL: Bombur
Scenario file in the dropbox folder

Shouldn't the new file be 2.22v1? (we were on 2.21 previously).

The reason its v1 and not 2.22 is that its not a major revision that has been made. Smaller revisions only get a new letter.... so last we were on 2.21u, and it seems appropriate that this one is version 2.21v. It is 2.21v1 because prior to publishing it may go through more numbers than just 1, so it could be v2, or v3 before it hits the scenario bank. As this version is not "official" yet, it is still labeled v1. But I see where you are coming from. v however does not denote version.

[baloo7777]

Ahh. I did think the v was for version. I blame my middle age for these kind of misunderstandings. [8|]

[ernieschwitz]

I would love to accomodate you guys in creating alliance Victories. The trouble here is that what constitutes an alliance.

Say we have Germany and Italy, they are allied, that is easy enough. But then lets add a third country Japan. Only allied with Germany, not with Italy... so.... what's the alliance in this case. From the German point of view, ALL of it is one big alliance. From the Japanese point of view, Italy is not, and from the Italian point of view, Japan is not.

So clearly if an alliance victory is to be determined, it will either mean the limitation of which alliances can be made, and it would be something like, one player establishes the alliance, the others join that alliance, and ally with all countries in it.

So the Axis would be one alliance, that Germany could start, and the others could join...

But that would really leave one country in the cold, that is the Soviet Union. Clearly they cannot be in an alliance with the Axis, cause that would cause them to never be at war with Germany, or any other Axis country. Clearly they cannot be in an alliance with the Allies. That too would prevent them from being in cooperation with Germany from the start of the game.

Also there is the problem of Japan and Soviet Union never actually being in a war against each other... while the Axis was indeed at war with the Allies....

Alot of things to worry about... Just giving you a few thoughts here.

[ironduke1955]

Fairly straightforward the Victory conditions work fine if all powers act in their own self interest, clearly people do not always act in their own self interest sometimes the team mentality kicks in.

Team effort being to get one of your team to a winning position to win the game before your enemy does.

So clearly the Second World War was fought between nations who were joined in alliances with nations who had often opposite political systems.

The stated aims of these Alliances were the destruction of the Armies and the means of Production of their enemies and also the destruction of their enemies political systems once the first two objectives had been reached.

So Geography was secondary a means to a end, it was wherever the enemy were located, to seek them out and destroy them that was victory.

So if China is at war with Japan victory would be Chinese troops on the Japanese mainland in every city but if Japan is Allied to Germany and Italy then until all of their cities are taken and they are defeated, China cannot obtain victory as their possession of Japan may prove temporary.

So its Total War on a Global scale, world war II did not have regional winners only survivors, certain nations finished the second world war weaker for many reasons, most European countries were simply devastated, Germany France the UK etc

If the concern is a German Soviet Alliance then have a card along the lines of US neutrality a role is made for a war to break out between the Soviet Union and Germany once this war has started the option for peace is disabled and neither side can obtain victory in the game until they have totally defeated their nemesis.

This can be the only certainty in the game that the Soviet Union and Germany must fight sooner or later and to the death if either side is to win.

If you think about it the nemesis theory works well because it explains some of the inevitability of World War Two, the Germans were always going East,
the French the British not really a major objective but a means to a end to silence the west before the real target was attempted the Soviet Union.

The USA are a interesting power, I would not describe Japan as a nemesis of the USA and the US was as unhappy with the Soviet Union taking Berlin as Hitler taking Moscow,
the US wanted stable markets and trade and the Soviets and Germans were bad for business. So preventing a victory of either Germany or Soviet Union would be on their list of victory conditions. Also strengthening their global trading position against their main economic rival of the day the British. This they managed to extract from the British in exchange for weapons.

Japan the reason for war was to carve out a Japanese empire and secure resources and then make peace and hold them.

Italy the same as Japan pretty much

Great Britain was along the lines of US Trade and maintain the status quo to avoid flux or volatility, so they were on the winning side in the second world war but big losers. What would have been a win for the British to hold on to all of their possessions, as things turned out they lost just about all of their ill gotten gains around the world not long after the second world war.

[ernieschwitz]

I see where you are getting at. But seeing that alliances are in this game at least at the present time, free form, that makes programming such eventualities almost impossible.

There are 8 major nations, and they can all be allies or enemies. That is simply put, too many combinations to program individually. So some sort of system for that kind of programming would need to be developed. And at present I have no idea how I would do that.

So the only way I see this as a possible to do option, is to limit the countries you can ally with, thus making the game more restricted, and less open-ended. Meaning if there are only 3 alliances (say Axis, Communist, Allies) then it is possible to program it. But i think the system loses alot of its elegancy if put into a cookie form like that.

The 3 foreign capitols owned is also alittle too loose a restriction. Say China wants to win. It gets three other allied nations (France, Britain, USA) to all give it their capitols, and then DOW them. Victory to the Chinese...

I need something much less abusable.

[Bombur]

Ernie, an idea we could consider would be....
The winner is the country that owns 3 major capitols (its and and two more, or three foreign capitols if it losses own capitol, but it´s unlikely any country will win if pwn capitol is lost)
Allies of the winner nation share its victory

It needs two house rules to work
1-A country cannot occupy a capitol from an ally (call it liberation rule, if this country takes that capitol from a third country, says USA taking Paris from Germany, it must give the city immediately to its ally)
2-A country cannot give its capitol to an ally

This said, I like the victory conditions as they are set now
I´m against ideologic alliances, the western democracies will win almost every time, and China hardly can be included in these alliances.

[Bombur]

The trouble I see with these rules is that we are back to a Soviet-German alliance...

[MrLongleg]

So then the rest of the world has to gang up on the German Soviet alliance, right?

[ironduke1955]

Then the current Victory conditions can be retained but they are secondary victory conditions, if you like a MINOR VICTORY.

MAJOR VICTORY is just this the complete destruction of all your enemies their armies their cities.

So a game does not end with a minor victory but if the game reaches say 1947 and Major Victory has not been obtained then certainly a Minor Victory would have some value.

This would mean the game would progress until a major victory was achieved and the minor victory would be achieved in 1947, so if China retakes every city on its minor victory objectives list,
it would need to be holding them in 1947 to gain a minor victory.

Obviously I am saying 1947 for the end of the game that could be 1945 or 1946 or beyond 1947 that could be decided by players before the game starts.

Regards Nuclear Weapons there could be a R&D line that leads to a nuclear weapon it would not be something you used just obtained.

So

Major Victory (primary) means total victory capturing all cities destroying all armies. And this would mean that in a Alliance all nations in that Alliance would win a Major victory.

Nuclear Victory (Secondary) I would argue that this victory ends the game but give the victory to the nation that develops the Nuclear Bomb. May be a idea for the known developers of the Nuclear Bomb Germany and the USA to have a card played from say 1944/45 with a percentage chance of developing a Nuclear Bomb improved by the expenditure of PP.

Minor Victory (Tertiary) reaching the objective laid out in the regional and geographic card option.

[baloo7777]

If a nuclear option is to be used, whether by card play or PP expenditure etc., then what about a card for the US breaks the Japanese code and knows general troop or naval movements of Japan? And what about a card for the British break the German code (Ultra) and know where most of the German submarines are from a specific date forward?
I guess what I am really saying is, unless you want to make this into a simulation of WW2, a fairly elegant game is becoming more complex than it needs to be.

[cpdeyoung]

I have played a game (the "Road to Victory" series) that had nuclear weapons. When used, the game is no fun at all for any player. I am not liking where this is going.

The play is the thing. GD1938 is fun to play. Good play lasts, victory is ephemeral, and we have good play now.

Let's not mess up a good game.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

The suggested changes are to make the current victory conditions Minor Victories as they must be.

And to make a Major Victory just that the complete destruction of your enemy as actually happened.

Nuclear is a way of bringing the war to a close if ground warfare has not brought a resolution as it would have done, however its optional just a idea.

Two simple changes nothing ground breaking to prevent lawyers victories. That are frankly ridiculous. to invest months of gameplay, just to watch your opponents swap a couple of cities and call it victory, is hardly elegant quite the opposite.

Not to much is required, some alterations to notifications for a minor victory they are only shown at the end of the game, the Major Victory will be easy to spot.

[ernieschwitz]

Bombur made a suggestion to me, that I could combine with one Vic made as well.

The idea is:

A Victory status message each turn (or maybe start year). This Victory status is compiled using the VPs of the nation, added together each round. Perhaps the allies VPs as well, modified by a few things, that I won't come into. The VCs are kept, but offer a big bonus in aggregated VPs.

Something along those lines, anyway.

[ironduke1955]

Sounds Great Claus Victory Points are something I am used to dealing with. When will this be implemented ? in time for this game ?

[ernieschwitz]

Honestly, I don't know.

I have a few things going on at the moment that I am trying to balance with everything else. I will get to it though, no promises on when. Sorry.

[Bombur]

I think we must give Claus enough time to change the game objectives. I´m personally a big fan of the objectives system, and, as cpdeyoung, I think gameplay is more important than victory conditions. We could even eliminate all victory conditions and play until a country or coalition achieves total victory. The purpose of victory conditions was to create some diplomatic chaos, in order to allow different coalitions each game. From my POV it´s working well, unless when we have a very unexperienced player (that´s what happened with game 22). So I suggest we could go on with the game, with 5 players (GB+France/USA+China/Germany+Italy/Japan/USSR) or 6 if IronDuke changes his mind. Meanwhile, ernie will consider the victory conditions.